http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/032714-694914-lack-of-honesty-in-government-could-mean-end-of-america.htm?p=full

Politicians lie for a living.

I've yet to see evidence that scientists lie for a living.

Where are the court cases for misappropriation of public funds? Where are the tribunals and congress hearings? Where are the journalists with the scoop that blows the conspiracy wide open? Where are the tape records, email hackings, phone logs, the sting operations, the investigations of scientific fraud, the tracings of bank transfers, the formation of independent panels, etc?

No, in 30 years of global warming models, theory and observation, all skeptics can do is point to some emails that about 11 separate groups agreed showed no scientific dishonesty. They'll call it a whitewash but please ... offer something more substantial than wild speculation and character assassination.

This has been located in climate adjustments in New Zealand. The Russians accused Hadley Center of doing the same with their data. Adjustments were made to seize back the US temperature record away from 1934, after Steve McIntyre found an error in their first data. Then they try to adjust for the Urban Heat Island effect by smearing rural thermometers with urban temperatures instead of the other way around. When Anthony Watts was running his surface stations project, they did a preemptive attack that was filled with basic errors. I'll get to one in a separate question.

Uh-huh. In terms of climate change, the only dishonest governments would be those denying its reality.

The reality of AGW is science based. It has nothing to do governments or conspiracy theories.

Governments need to get their act together - we need to be at at least 50% renewables by 2030, or this is going to start costing, big time.

What has been claimed as "Global Warming" occurs like clockwork every 100,000 years according to every

available (accurate) climate record, as do opposing ice ages (Milankovich, Tschumi-Stauffer), . This natural climate cycle has been going on for several million years. The fact that we are currently emerging from an Ice age (they taught us that in grade school, remember?) indicates we are most assuredly on the temperature upswing. Q & A time for Liberals: (1) How many ways can we blame this on other political ideologies, and (2) how can we use that knowledge to make money to publicize our socialist agenda?

Not to the science, AGW is a fact. (CO2 is a greenhouse gas and since the start of the industrial revolution we humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% and are still increasing it further. If nothing else changes, this will increase the heat retention capacity of the earth.

Climate Realist.

Fact is that I can come up with very good reasons to do adjustments. I can make everything look great to the untrained observer and even most scientists. Luckily, the FDA would catch it. I can guarantee that peer-review would not. Here is why I don't trust you.

BIAS. You are extremely biased. Look at the "climate scientist" Gary F, who stated that any corrections that led to less AGW would be an "incorrection". You didn't even find fault with his statement. If I would have made that statement, I would be laugh out of the pharma community.

Every time you warmer "climate scientists" make a "correction" there is more warming than there was before the "correction". But in this you are at least bound by something. You have to make the changes believable.

When you are making models, however, bias plays an even greater role, because you are not as bound by the constraints of data manipulation.

So this is what I see, because this is what is occurring.

1.) Every correction made increases global warming, when I would expect it to be 50-50.

2.) 95% of your models have been overestimating.

These are not debatable. This is not a discussion. THIS IS FACT!!!

Now I could believe it was an honest mistake if you all actually treated it as such. You don't. You act as if the people pointing out these things are the devil incarnate. Guess what that makes me??? More skeptical.

Edit @ Graphic.

Oooh oooh pick me. Is it because the when the data does not conform to theory, you change the data???

Thomas K,

If you are really trained in anything then you would know that a rank test, which is what you are using, only tells that some warming is occurring. In fact, talking about death is stupid unless you have also accounted for the number of people changing, something any engineer should know. And while you want to talk about heat-related deaths, cold is even more of a killer than heat. Want to talk about the drop in cold-related deaths???

You don't see the bias in the reporting??? We are talking about a 0.8 degree difference. Sure you are going to see more "record breakers". Assuming no warming you see record-breaking when you look at the entire world. What I want to know is the level of warming that is going to occur and the effect. Isn't that what you want to know??

So if the warmers are modeling the past 60-100 year with LINEAR models, why are their future models exponential??? If they beleive the warming is exponential, then why are they not modeling the past data with exponentials?

BTW, when you say global warming causes drought and floods, you are full of CRAP. You are no better than a psychic. I am going to make a prediction. Somewhere in the world it is going to rain tonight. Now give me a trillion dollars.

Jeff M,

You need to look at the red and blue lines. They are the same time period lines. It is jsut like the US NASA data from 1999 that showed next to no warming as compared with the same time periods now that do show warming. Every correction made to the data shows more warming. Coincidence or Bias?

I agree with Mike. There are plenty of examples from Hansen rewriting history to Himalayan glaciers to Australia, New Zealand to Russia. Look at Obamacare. They say they have 7 million people sign up but they hide the number of people who pay and they hide the number of people who were forced out of their previous plan. Government bureaucrats typically lie to push their agendas yet their are people out there that defend them either because they are sheep, useful idiots, or believe in central government over individual liberties.

Thomas, I doubt you are a trained engineer. As an actual engineer, I like to believe that it requires some ability to analyze facts instead of parroting propaganda like a trained monkey. You don't even have the desire to write original answers and simply paste the same garbage over and over again.

Clearly what we have are cultist who believe what they want. When data gets in their way, they ignore it, attack it, or change it. That has been their pattern. The cultists simply cheer on the other cultist who do it. Raisin believes Gary F is a "climate scientist". That is news to me and I find it hard to believe but then again the bar has been set pretty low by other supposed climate scientists.

James, are you really dumb enough to believe that stuff? You're like the perfect dupe.

EDIT for Raisin Caine: You are supposed to be a statistician, but it seems to me like you're just parroting denial blogs. If you think that there is something fishy going on, why do you sit on the sidelines and do nothing to prove organizations like NASA GISS wrong? I'm sure you could get funding from the Koch Brothers--oops, maybe not, since the last time they did that things did not turn out like they planned--well, from SOMEBODY. Why does it seem like all you do is impugn scientists with nothing of substance to back it up. Since you have the Ph.D. in statistics, that makes you even worse than your uneducated brethren.

What people like James seem blissfully unaware of (since they get their information from blogs) is that the raw data IS out there, just waiting for someone clever at statistics to use the data and show that all of the global temperature metrics so far have been dishonest. What? You're not interested? The rest of the statistics denial crowd ALSO seems uninterested in giving us an "honest" measure of global temperature.

Could it be that if you sit on the sidelines and sling mud you never have to defend what you claim, unlike people that do actual science?

GraphicConception: They haven't changed. The time period has been extended. They tell me that since mid-1970s temperatures have skyrocketed.

Forget about showing me a graph from a dubious source. Most of the people who try to show me “math” are readily identifiable as ex-students who never counted math as a friend. One graph tells me nothing.

Here is what you can SEE with your own eyes about Climate Change. This is, by no means, a complete list.

In the Southern Hemisphere, they are just finishing their summer. Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and Argentina have all posted record breaking heat. The death toll continues to climb from heat related illness Again. Just Google it

The State of Washington just finished the wettest March on record. Pity the poor people in that mud slide caused by that record rain.

California and much of the Southwest U.S. is in the midst of a record breaking drought.

Last year, the severe heat caused thousands of deaths in Europe. Record breaking heat.

Last summer they ran out of air conditioners in Alaska. Record heat

This winter broke all kinds of records in the U.S. When have you ever heard the term “Polar Vortex” before this winter?

These are just a few. I posted no-links for brevity sake - a quick Google of "record heat Australia" (or any other mentioned above) will give you thousands of hits from credible sources.

If we broke one or 2 records, I wouldn’t worry. When we are breaking weather records everywhere on the globe, I sit up and take notice. And so should you.

It’s time to take the politics out of science and just use your eyes. AGW is right in your face

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/032714-694914-lack-of-honesty-in-government-could-mean-end-of-america.htm?p=full

Gary F seems to offer nothing but insults and denials. climate records are altered and original data sets are destroyed. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009...

What is widely accepted is no global warming for 17 years and fewer extreme weather related events, not more.

Also widely known is 31,000 scientists signed petitions opposing AGW theory essentially claiming it utter BS.

Iraqis think invading Iraq and removing saddam was the right thing to do. Complaining about that proves nothing about global warming

The last sentence says it all, "If the people increasingly believe that bureaucrats try to alter realty to reflect preconceived ideologies or the goals of the particular regime in power, then America as we know it is finished."

http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...

We not only believe, we know! Ha! Ha!

Peggy, are you really dumb enough to believe that stuff? You display your ignorance and are apparently proud of it.

In terms of climate change, the only dishonest governments would be those denying its reality.

The reality of AGW is science based. It has nothing to do governments or conspiracy theories.

Governments need to get their act together - we need to be at at least 50% renewables by 2030, or this is going to start costing, big time.

Once again – name one original data record from one climate station anywhere in the world ever used by a climate scientist that does not exist or that has had even one number fraudulently and irreversibly changed. Name one analytical method applied to any climate data by any climate scientist that is not well-understood, widely-accepted, and time-tested by thousands of mathematicians and scientists in numerous fields of study.

The only danger is a voting public with enough people who are too stupid to know what data are and how to determine if they are valid, relevant, and properly used. And that means climate and biological science-Deniers are the danger – not bad data.

Also, the article provides no evidence of anything. The only thing we know for certain is that the author is a fruitcake who not only thinks invading Iraq was the right thing to do, but that it was a successful campaign,

=====

Jmaes --

>>Gary F seems to offer nothing but insults and denials. climate records are altered and original data sets are destroyed. <<http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009...

Name one - just one number. Your lying article doesn't - because it cannot. You can lie all day long, but you cannot produce any evidence either - because there is no evidence - because it never happened.

But one thing is true - you are a worthless lying sack of sh-t - too stupid to learn and too lazy to care.

You don't even know what continent Iraq is on

For all their/your howling about "dishonest" this and "conspiracy" that deniers have after a decade of trying found just a couple of mistakes in relative small data set, like the one Steve Goddard found in a small subset of the U.S. climate data and he has been dinning out at deniers expense for years now.

Given the volume of data involved in AGW I'm frankly surprised this is all you have been able to find, there are bound to be mistakes and in fact a number deniers have tried to claim over the years, errors, that had already been spotted before deniers found them.

The stupidity of these sorts of denier claims is that AGW is probably one of the most studied data sets in history, as you have thousands of scientists going over it and probably hundreds of denier paid 'experts?" trying to find any mistake they can. I think the desperation of this search can be seen in the sad attempts deniers made to attack AR5, attacks that in a number of cases boiled down to trying to correct grammar.

Or the equally sad 2 or 3 attempts at creating a conspiracy with the stolen emails deniers rather unfortunately decided to call climategate, although if they studied their history it was the ones who actually tried to do the stealing that ended up in trouble.

Deniers did actually get some air time in the media but lost it when the inquiry found there was nothing to the stolen emails, and whatever they gained in media sympathy they promptly lost when they tried to claim they had suddenly found new things in the same emails almost 2 years later, the media this time saw what deniers game was and pretty much ignored them.

There is not doubt that temperatures are rising, sea level is rising, the Arctic is shrinking or that is keyed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, deniers who tell you other wise are delusional.

Deniers have had a lot to say about just the U.S. Central and East coast weather over the Northern Winter, they have concentrated on this region because much of the rest of the world has not been playing the denier game and has been quite warm, 2013 wast the 4th warmest year in the modern record.

The Arctic (also in the Northern hemisphere) didn't gain much from that cool U.S. winter as it is still well below even the 2012 record low

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image...

and still denier try to claim we are cooling or about to cool or about to have a new iceage, etc etc etc.

If deniers want to play the U.S. sized weather landmass game then Australia is about the same size and it has had tow consecutive years of very warm weather, 2013 was actually it's warmest year on record.

Deniers have chanted dishonesty and discredited for years in relation to things like the hockeystick graph, they have chanted it so often some may even really believe it is true, but it quite simply isn't, which is why when you ask deniers to post any real proof you get blogs, insults or silence.

Your link has nothing about science, it is about government and in a number of cases national security, fields that have always been built on lying and keeping secrets. Written by an expert in military history.

Science has never been based on that and if governments where lying about AGW scientists would be at the front of the queue telling everyone that governments where lying, scientists have a proven track record, pushing by scientists, got action on tobacco, which governments dragged their heels on for years.

Can anyone here tell me why these temperatures changed over the years?