Man-caused global warming is a myth because the scientists who claim to prove it have to fake their data and/or rearrange it after the fact to prove it.

We were warming from 1906 to 1940, we were cooling from 1945 to 1970, we were warming from 1975 to 1998, and we are entering a small cooling trend now.

Before 1906 we had too few thermometers to measure temperatures so we measure it with other data like crop yields, ice cores, tree rings and so forth, and these measurements. The error on these measurements is too large to determine the changes they claim - the noise is much louder than the signal they claim to see.

So they are lying.

Luagha @ 1:

Man-caused global warming is a myth because the scientists who claim to prove it have to fake their data and/or rearrange it after the fact to prove it.

Wow, dude. I actually think you believe the nonsense you just wrote. Therefore, for the moment, since it's not knowing disinformation (which would violate our our very few rules for commenting here at The BRAD BLOG), I wouldn't put you on moderate.

That said, there are something like 3 different independent studies which all looked at the claim you just made (as based on stolen emails from climate scientists), who found there is ZERO evidence to substantiate that claim.

So, since I'm a very fair fellow, I'll allow you to go fetch and/or link us to the evidence to prove your libelous claim. If you're unable to do so, and then make the claim again, you will not find yourself commenting here much longer.

For the record, here's a link to the latest data demonstrating that you haven't a clue what you're talking about...

See that tiny little part before the astonishing upswing in temperatures? Yes, that's the old "Hockey Stick" graph which you are (incorrectly) claiming to be "fake". We now have 10,000 more years of temperatures extrapolated out by completely different scientists. And whaddaya know? They both confirm the Hockey Stick graph, and now, appropriately enough, turn it into a Scythe.

Yes, that's right. The globe is now warmer than its been in 10,000 years, and is warming at an unprecedented, unheard of rate.

But you run along and keep re-posting long-ago debunked fossil fuel propaganda now, dear. Just don't do it here. Thanks!

Really, if we were a sane society there would be certain statements that would immediately ban you from public office. There just isn't time to be as ignorant as that congressman. Unfortunately, as we have seen in the comment section, he is not alone.

Privatization has been a Republican fetish for decades now. If President Obama is not going to personally profit from "pushing Green Energy", it just doesn't make sense to them.
The money motivation behind climate change denial is obvious.

This graph that you present is misleading. It makes absolutely no sense to use a graph which does not show the temperature changes that occurs naturally. (medieval warm period, small ice age, etc.) To make a prognosis up to more than 100 years is just stupid, because we cannot predict parameters for a such long time frame at all. May you look at the present data, which shows no global warming in the last 16 years. No kg of CO2 has been saved so far, the ammount of emission of CO2 increases still every year. Get back and make the homework before you start to insult anybody for expressing his meanings.

this article including graph and quotes should help with some additional perspective http://www.dailymail.co....illions-WRONG-along.html

Klaus,
I don't know where you live but on my planet(Earth)the scientific predictions of weather changes likely to occur due to man-made climate change are coming true even faster than predicted. They are alarming and catastrophic. Maybe you should stick your head out the window now and again?

By Scalise's brand of logic, if I voted against him, then he lost the election. Assigning meaning to one data point or one criterion leads one to conclude that he knows nothing about science.

Klaus and luagha,

There is a climate change cycle dominated by axial precession.

The Mayans may have been aware of it, because it is a 26,000 year cycle like their long count calendar.

During that time climate changes take place in a regular, repetitious fashion, returning regularly to and fro depending on the current axial tilt.

But that cycle has also been subverted by current civilization's perverted used of fossil fuels.

Human civilization chose the wrong source of energy, misled by a gung-ho oil industry (Oil-Qaeda) experiencing "puberty" --- around the time internal combusion engines were developing.

Human civilization is responsible for global warming induced climate change, which will ruin the natural 26,000 year axial precession cycle as well as the other natural cycles.

Stop selling fear, uncertainty, and doubt, lest you become a member of Oil-Qaeda, the greatest mass murderers in human history.

Oh, science deniers are so tiresome. More fact-free, science-free, delusional conspiracy theory crap from "Luagha", "Kraus", and "Waicool", who clearly have forgotten the basics of science --- the very basic concepts of physics and chemistry, and the actual science behind climate change impacts and projections. Just because you guys and Steve Scalise don't understand it doesn't mean no one else does --- you guys are barking up the wrong tree here, as BRAD BLOG readers are a sophisticated, well-informed bunch who value facts supported by evidence.

Please inform yourselves first by going to SkepticalScience.com, where they explain very clearly just how wrong you guys are on the scientific facts, using ACTUAL SCIENCE! SkepticalScience.com has already posted an excellent debunker on that criminally stupid Daily Mail article that Waicool has been snookered by.

But be careful! You might actually learn something real. Do us all a favor - stop wasting our time and pre-bunk yourself first.

Don't just blog, vote! And especially, vote in the off-year elections.

Hops

Sadly, the number of thoroughly deceived individuals, like, Luagha @1, are likely to increase in the future.

Three states have adopted the Koch-funded, ALEC model “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act,” courtesy of the Heartland Institute, which, like Christian assaults on evolutionary science that entail mandating so-called “intelligent design” as a counter balance evolutionary science, mandates that grades K-12 be provided a “balanced” approach to environmental science by mandating that climate skeptics, no matter how discredited, be given equal footing in school science curricula.

With the Koch brothers now looking to purchase the Tribune Co., which not only owns numerous major newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times and multiple radio and television stations, one can anticipate climate science denial propaganda to exponentially expand.

I can play link-games and I have, but it is generally just discounted here without reference.

So I'll ask: In your chart, how are the reconstructed temperatures calculated? What is the estimated standard error of that calculation?

By what means are the projected temperatures projected?

This is basic science, as some people have referred. Without that, your chart is meaningless.

Hunting up that chart online, I see two main things. One, that the standard error is over three degrees which means that little wave around the zero point is meaningless - the real temperature could be jumping up and down three degrees plus or minus and we wouldn't know - the chart would be the same.

Two, the projected temperature is based on thermometer data which is comparing apples and oranges to the reconstructed data. It's very different and indeed it's even very different from 1906 when the first mass-produced thermometers became available in the US to the 1980s+ when we began to be able to use IR imaging from satellites for temperature.

So as impressive a chart as it is, it's a made-up, unreal guess which doesn't connect to anything.

If it were true, why have temperatures backed off from the high of 1998?

If it were true, why would the NOAA go back through their temperature data of 1906-2000 and rejigger the numbers - within standard error - to change the apparent trends? It's easy to do that when the noise is louder than the signal.

http://stevengoddard.wor...re-fraud-expands-part-1/

is the link on that.

Really, Luagha? So you've said it's "a myth" and accuse the actual scientists of "fak[ing] their data and/or rearrange it after the fact to prove it" and "They're lying". So where's your proof? Where's your peer-reviewed work demonstrating that the body of scientific evidence, using widely accepted proxies and other measurements used by actual scientists, is fabricated ("made up")?

There's a link above demonstrating how they rearrange their values within the margin of error to demonstrate different results - proving that their results are worthless.

And there are thousands of others along that line. All you have to do is google.

Learn some statistics, and you will understand what's going on. I have a degree in statistics, though really this is first-semester stuff.

ClimateGate 3.0

http://noconsensus.wordp...limategate-3-0/#comments

Okey-dokey, "Blissful Ignorance", you've done a nice job of spamming all the comment threads. Your anonymous handle is exceedingly well-chosen.

For example, so-called "climategate" has been debunked numerous times by independent panels of actual scientists. You are clearly not familiar with --- or not interested in --- actual scientific evidence.

For anyone interested in the actual science of climate change, including the actual uncertainties (instead of the propaganda of the climate change denial industry and their bamboozled-and-ideologically-blinded useful fools), educate yourself with unbiased scientific evidence and analysis at SkepticalScience.com.