All Climate Data That Sopports "Global Warming" Is Missing
 

All the data that was compiled to prove "global warming" is gone so it cannot be checked or verified. How can anyone at this point believe that the whole affair has been anything but a fraud? :disgust


This is the group that provided the entire statistical basis for the theory of "global warming". Now that they have been exposed they claim that the data has all been "lost". Only an idiot would fail to see what an obvious fraud this is. :2 cents:

Scientists at University of East Anglia threw away data. That's a problem.

Location: EUSSR, cykoe6 - I guess you speak Russian? I do.

I think someones post bot has malfunctioned. :1orglaugh

The evidence of climate change can be seen in today's bizarre weather patterns. Increased hurricanes and typhoons, increased floods, increased droughts, increased brush fires, disappearing ice in the arctic. We don't need to see temperature data for 100 years to tell us there is a problem. There are naysayers who claim this is a natural cycle, many of these people have a lot to lose if we use less oil. Who wants to take the risk and do nothing? What if climate change is confirmed by temperatures going up 5 C? By the time that happens it's too late to do anything.

There is no question that we are in a warming trend. There is a ton of evidence to prove this. The question is: are the thing we humans doing to the planet causing the warming trend to be worse than it would have been without us? That is something we just don't know. There is not enough evidence to know that we for sure are and there is not enough to say that we are not.

We have two choices.

1. We can do nothing and assume we are not harming the planet or causing an increase in warming. Maybe nothing will happen. Maybe something catastrophic will happen.

2. We can work to clean up our emissions, lower green houses gases and generally clean up the world. Maybe it won't help one bit. Maybe nothing will happen and we didn't need to do it to begin with, but in the end we have a cleaner, healthier planet to live on.

In reality we will probably all be dead before we find out the final outcome of all this anyway.

The evidence for the warming trend was based on the missing data which no longer exists and cannot be independently verified. You have become so conditioned to repeating unsupported theories as fact that you do not even question the basis for your statements.

i can tell u something has changed it's warm here and its winter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ure_Record.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sa...mperatures.png

Seems to me like the trend is that the earth is warming. This is nothing new. We got through warming and cooling cycles. As I said before, the question is are the actions of humans effecting these cycles.

Even if a lot of data is lost that isn't the only data. Here is another story from that same source http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5683655.ece

It points out that the polar ice caps are melting so fast that ocean levels are rising twice as fast as they did in the 1970's. Now I'm not a scientist, but last time checked if you want to melt ice you have to warm it up.

Yeah, if your behind on the news. :1orglaugh

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html

Bring back aerosol deodorant!


.

I'm sure they aren't the only people studying it...

and whose theories have you been conditioned to repeat over and over on the internet?
What a retarded argument.

how convenient..

Your story is from APR of this year. Here are a few more recent ones

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/cli...han-we-thought

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNMM19R00D.DTL

Both of these are from September of this year and both say that satellite photos are showing that the ice is melting faster than we had previously thought it was.

Here are a few others

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123903143093793167.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...able_than_ever

They can't all be right so someone here is wrong.

didn't they say it was "lost" because they ran out of storage space? Or am I confusing that with something else?

When I read the story they made it sound like they dumped it to save storage space and that this is something they normally do. If that is the case, it seems pretty crazy, data storage space is pretty cheap these days.

We're not talking about these days, though. According to the article, this happened in the '80s - back when storing data wasn't nearly as cheap and easy.

You are correct. I re-read it and it does say it was tossed out in the 80's.

Yeah it's something they normally do. They had 150 years of data but once they came up with a way to manipulate the data to suit their needs they destroy the actual hard copy data and apparently (even though they are scientists) didn't think of make digital copies of the hard copies. Give me a damn break. I'm sure the shredders and admins have been getting in plenty of overtime lately many places.

Actually, tossing out old raw data is something that is indeed often done. Even today.

You see, research departments in universities tend to be underfunded, and data storage costs a fair amount of money. So in many cases, departments are faced with the choice to either spend the money on things like data storage, or to use that money for a few grad or postgrad spots.

Back when I was studying philosophy I was in the faculty council. At one point, one of our professors got a research grant of about a hundred thousand dollars. That was HUGE - it opened up several postgrad spots for the department.

Later on, the department was moved into another building. Since the new building had less library space, lots of old books and journals were tossed out. There simply wasn't any room for them, and there was no money to store them.

Right now I'm in med school, which is positively flush with money compared to most other university departments. Yet the project I'm (very slightly) involved in at the moment already had one researcher work without pay for over a month - he had exceeded his budget, so there simply wasn't any money left. Now, if they had a bit of spare money, where do you think it would go... data storage or another postgrad position or two?

The fact of the matter is that most research is done for pennies on the dollar. In an ideal world, no data would ever get dumped. But this isn't an ideal world, so researchers often dump data they believe aren't needed anymore simply because saving it all would be too expensive.

Sorry, it made it 150 years. Survived wars and depressions. I don't buy the couldn't afford it bit. Especially when Al Gore is so obviously flushed with new "green."

If that's the way the game is going to be played then, Oops, I just dumped all my income data.. Sorry.. Couldn't afford to keep it during this recession.. Get out of jail free card for me?

Al Gore? We're talking about the '80s. He was still busy inventing the internet back then.

And keep in mind that once the data is considered properly processed (removing obviously incorrect outliers, adjusting for measurement bias, etc), it suddenly loses much of its value - all the while the total amount of data will have doubled.

Is there anything in this world that is not a conspiracy to you?

Give me a damn break man. All of this shit ties in together. It's all the same fucking people.

So just to make sure we are 100% clear. This research group found through the raw data that global warming really doesn't exist. However, "The Masters" or whatever you want to call the group running everything, needs global warming so they can better control society. So they force these guys to destroy all the data and then they . . . what?. . .take a huge hair dryer to the north pole and melt a bunch of it off so that it shrinks and the shrinkage will show on the satellite pictures? Or do they just doctor the pictures to make it appear that the satellite photos are showing the north polar ice cap melting? This allows them to keep global warming something that we the sheep think is happening and they get to cash in on it.

And they do this because there is no easier way to make money in this world. There is no simpler way to separate use from our cash.

Correct?

You don't have to take a hair dryer anywhere. You just manipulate the data and control the information. That's it. Yes this is about control and profiting from everything fucking thing you do. It's more about CONTROL than it is money. Well you can also toss in that every single one of these people have at least once written or said in their own words that they want reduce the Worlds population. They are the people who need fucking help because they are genocidal control freaks.

And global warming helps them control the population how? It costs people money, that is about it. It might adjust how some people live because they might buy different more environmentally friendly products, but it doesn't control people. If it is about then getting money, there are a million ways they could make a lot more money. If it is about control there are a million ways that are better to control people than telling them their actions are causing the earth to warm.

Are you suggesting that the are going to stage some kind of a mass genocide and then blame the environment for it?

Control? It's already been said but in another thread. There will be climate police that will come in and inspect and fine you in your home. If you want to open a business you have to meet many requirements. Turning it all into a political ordeal. Those with connections will get the hookup. Those who are against (insert party at the time here) can be targeted. Just a few examples.

How does it affect people mentally? I makes them think they are a problem and they should be dead.. Teaching a child that he is a burden on the World? You think that's sane?

How could this kill people? Well for one CO2 is an element of life.. So by reducing it you reduce it's effects on life itself. But in reality it's about breaking down the societies of the developed nations. Making things such as growing crops, raising cattle more expensive thereby making consumers cost more expensive. Which also makes the cost of those more expensive for those in undeveloped nations. Look at what regulations are doing to the price of rice and such for those countries now. You have the US in a serious recession . Consider adding on a rising costs of food and energy on top of that. How is that going to help those countries? Or anyone for that matter?

I'll believe the part about the climate police when I see it. Let's not forget back in early October you claimed first that we were only 6 months or less away from living in a full on locked down police state, yet so far, there is no sign of this and all the chaos surrounding the G20 went away when it left town (as it does in every town it is held in). But of course we still have about 4 months left so time will tell.

You also claimed that in December at the Copenhagen convention there would be a treaty of sorts signed that would give control of the US government over to the UN (or some other group) and, well, guess what . . . it isn't going to happen. They have already said the treaty is dead because the governments of the groups involved can't seem to come to an agreement. I suppose they could just be saying that in public, but will sign it anyway. But didn't you just say yesterday that the US government isn't actually a country that we are actually still part of England and that our taxes go to the Queen Mum? So if we are already part of the British empire why do we need to sign anything? And isn't the UN controlled by this "shadow group" so why would they need this? Every step they take to consolidate is one more chance of them getting found out and exposed and it opens them up to risks. Why not just let every country operate on its own and just allow the people of those country think all is well? The could drop the hammer any time they wanted to. Then again it might not have been you who said that.

You don't think that it is possible that raising cattle and pigs and chickens and other livestock in mass like we do is bad for the environment? Maybe all the pollution we put off really is not good and maybe after all these years of doing nothing it is starting to bite us in the ass. Maybe we are just realizing that if we do nothing now, it will only get worse and get worse a lot faster.

I know that isn't as sexy of an idea as a group of rich Rockefellers and Rothchilds sitting around a table with their skull and bones burn marks dividing up the globe and deciding how to kill us all off, but it doesn't sound too far fetched to me.

Expanding on this a bit further. If you are a small time farmer you would have to pay say $80 a head of cattle. But the large corporations don;t have to pay this. They pay a one time fee for all which would be much less on average. All of this shit is designed by and for large corporate interests. Home garden? Forget about it. You might be growing something illegal. If you want one you'll have to pay a fee so the green police can stop by and make sure you're not growing weed rather than tomato plants.. People here told me Arnold wouldn't get his 40" TV screen deal done. What did he do? Executive order. These people don't give a shit what the public thinks.

You missed the part where hackers exposed 10 years and 10,000 emails and not one of them was from George Soros because he and the UN have black internet accounts that leave no trace of their orders.

Towards the end even the Bush administration stepped back from its claims that there was no such thing as global warming to the new right wing talking points that we don't know what causes it.

2 days after the emails were leaked Obama announced he IS going to Copenhagen. It does create a World government. And how much you want to bet Obama signs it giving everyone the finger?

I guess we will see. He has never said he wasn't going to go, but it has been announced that there will be no treaty. They will meet and talk, but there will be no treaty. He can't sign something that won't exist.

He did announce he wasn't going to go. I believe it was you that posted the link to an article quoting him saying that.. 2 days after the emails he's all of a sudden going. There is a treaty.. Lord Monckton is the one who found it buried on their site. I'll post a link to it when I locate it..

This is an older PDF I think there's a new one..
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...hagen-2009.pdf

I never said anything about Obama. I posted links to news stories that said the peole organizing this event had said the treaty was dead in the water. I just did another search and it seems Obama is going to give a speach there where he will lay out a plan for the US to reduce their emissions and the Chinese leader will do the same. So it sounds like individual countries are going to commit to doing things on their own, not under and blanket treaty.

You talk about profit and control. Interesting.

Have you ever heard of the oil industry? It's a fairly big and rather powerful industry, with the top 100 oil companies worldwide having yearly revenues that combined exceed 4 trillion dollars - the industry's revenues actually exceed the entire GDP of China.

As it happens, a number of oil companies have been funding the institutes that have been working to cast doubt on global warming.

Chief among those oil companies is ExxonMobil, which has nearly half a trillion in yearly revenue - which would make it the world's 24th largest economy had it been a country instead of a company. Of course, since it only has around 80,000 employees, if it were a country it would have the highest GDP per capita in the world by far.

Now, let's take a quick look at the George C. Marshall Institute, one of the institutes responsible for many of the publications disputing the existence of global warming.

It was founded by Frederick Seitz, a scientist who spent his earlier years doing research on health - for the tobacco industry. It got many of its funds from ExxonMobil and other oil companies. Its current director is William O'Keefe, a former executive at the American Petroleum Institute. Former executive director Matthew B. Crawford left the institute, claiming it distorted facts and science to reflect the views of the oil industry.

Or look at the Heartland Institute, another one of those independent foundations. Largely funded by the oil industry and the tobacco industry, it disputes claims about global warming and about the harmful effects of smoking. Just a coincidence, of course.

Or the Discovery Institute, which doesn't believe in global warming or evolution. Its vice-president happens to be a former ARCO guy. On evolution, its campaign slogan used to be "Teach the controversy". Does that sound familiar?

That might be because in the past, it was used by the tobacco industry:

It should sound vaguely familiar for another reason, too. That reason being that it has also been used by the oil industry in the global warming debate.

One would think that someone looking for conspiracies might at least want to take a look at one of the most powerful industries in the world. An industry that, as it happens, has obvious stakes in the matter.

Then again, the same could be said for the coal industry, the car industry, the airplane industry, the shipping industry, the steel industry - we should be nearing a quarter of the world's total GDP by now.

But let's play a game! Spot the companies that have nothing to lose from restrictions on carbon emissions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ies_by_revenue

Now, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but if I wanted to go looking for a conspiracy, I'm pretty sure looking at that list would be more productive than looking at Al Gore - who, incidentally, lost an election against George W. Bush under rather shady circumstances. And Dubya, as we all know, was an oil guy - just like quite a few people in his administration.

But hey, it's not like Dubya would ever hide evidence of global warming. Well, not more than once, anyway. Eh... let's move on to another subject.

Of course, no matter how much fun conspiracy theories might be, they're not actually true. The rich and powerful do not need conspiracies to stay rich and powerful. Their connections and money are more than enough for them to keep their positions.

Sure, companies and governments might try to protect their interests at times by trying to influence research and the media, but in the end the big things just can't be kept under wraps no matter what they do.

With global warming, we'll find out the exact details of what's going on soon enough. Not because conspiracies will be revealed, but because more data will come in and the research will settle.

On a more serious note. Is is a conspiracy that town I live in has no good Chinese food places. "The Man" is holding me down by not letting me get good egg foo young when I am in the mood for it.

I'm not trying to give the oil companies any credit but since when did the oil companies knock on your door for a home inspection and give you a bill for said inspection? Since when did they tell you what size TV you were going to buy? Are they billing you $80 a head for your cattle? Did they require you to have a garden permit? Do they have oil police?

Why would they need to? They control billions of dollars worth of a resource that is at present fundamental to the functioning of society. Why focus on micromanagement when you can control the big picture?

Consider what the average American household spends on oil, gas, energy, etc. Now add to that the percentage of the cost of all other purchases that comes from those things. Like the fertilizer and farm machines used to grow corn, the transportation of that corn to factory farms, the energy spending in those factory farms, the energy used to get the animals to the slaughterhouse, the energy used to get the meat to the stores... etc.

Why bother with insignificant little inspections when you can simply make money from everything that is done anywhere by anyone, and then use that money to buy power? It's much less messy, and you can't get voted out of office.

For the extremely rich ones it's not really about money. They just want to continue being the one's at the top. They could give a shit less about what the others do as long as they don't get screwed. The others are weird fucking control freaks who think they know whats best for everyone else. So they want to manage everyone's lives. In addition to having a sick fetish of wanting to reduce the population of the World by any means necessary. Making people think they are the problem just helps them in their objective.

All you have to do is look at what they are already doing. We have genetically modified foods which actually alter our DNA. They don't seem to care anything about that.. All sorts of toxic shit gets approved through the FDA but healthy stuff doesn't. Hell with all of this other shit going on nobody is even discussing a treaty which they have already signed us up for which can ban or require us to get a prescription for vitamins and all sorts of other health related stuff.