http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/corruption/climate-corruption.pdf
Dr. Evans has, yet again, summarized the glaring inconsistencies in climate 'science': bad data collection, selective elimination of inconvenient data, 'adjustments' to the data which, magically, always manage to either warm the present or cool the past, or both; failure of the climate change establishment to obtain repetition of their 'adjustments' by others outside their (tightly knit) group (and, thus, impeaching any claim to scientific credibility); cherry picking (or, in this case, bristlecone picking) the data; the Great Dying of Thermometers; refusal to share raw data (in the case of Briffa, of the CRU, for 9 years). The list goes on ad nauseam.
It seems we are left with two possibilities: either warmists are enormously incompetent with respect to the scientific method (for any number of reasons, which may be purely emotional), or they are lying.
I find it difficult to believe they are this incompetent, but, to use the common phrase "It *could* happen!"
In either case, the peer-review process has failed miserably.
There is corruption--people like Fred Singer and Joanne Nova are corrupt.
As for the siting of thermometers, that can be a problem, but as many analyses have shown, that is not the reason for the warming that has been seen. This used to be a favorite topic of Anthony Watts, but after people took Watts' approved sites and found the same warming (or greater), I think even he's given up on this argument.
The funny thing is, if a site needs to be moved or dropped because of the encroachment of buildings, etc., then deniers complain about that, too--saying that it was just done to increase the warming.
Nice try, now explain why most of the warming is in the arctic away from urban areas and dr spencers's satelittes also measure warming.
Oh yeah... it's all a conspiracy, even melting glaciers are in on it.
So much for your 'critical' thinking.
EDIT: Kano, your link blamed warming on placements of thermometres. Clearly that does not explain arctic warming and satlelitte measurements which are consistent with most glaciers ice volumes decreasing over time.
your fixation on discrediting co2 is explained in amothrr question.
I only have to take one look at the link to see that it is all ad hominem arguments.
Character is irrelevant in science. Only evidence matters. In science, a saint can be wrong and an ax murderer could make the next big discovery.
What do you think the word "corruption" is?
There is a reason that most Deniers abandoned this particular category of lies years ago.
Not only have numerous studies (wasted time addressing nonsense like this) shown this to be a worthless argument - but it was the same climate scientists who discovered AGW that first identified these questions - and who solved them.
Deniers are arguing about things they believe are current - but that are really decades-old non-issues.
You may also look at this.
http://rps3.com/Files/Ochkosh_2010_talks...
It parallels your article.
Also here is Jimmy Hansen caught red handed cooking the books.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
Plus the fact the proponents admit there is lying.
Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
When a person, such as Al Gore, comes right out ans tells you that he is lying, only a complete ignoramus would not believe him.
Of course there is corruption!
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
It's all political, conservative scientists say that it is a myth, liberal scientists say it's seriously a problem. I don't believe either of these crooked parties.
dont need to read it.all fake.gov is trying to control people into buying whatever
Yes!!
Please read this
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/corruption/climate-corruption.pdf
