KrishnaK wrote:
The same gent was arguing about perpetual motion machine on another thread. Waste of time trying to convince him.
Ad-hominem attack! I haven't come across many of your posts on this thread about the topic itself. It seems you don't have anything to say about the topic itself so you find it more convenient to discuss the posters. Anyway, I beg your pardon for not placing blind faith in GOTUS. I am sorry, but I don't worship GOTUS.
Gus wrote:Please don't insult the forum by posting glen beck. On that note, Don't get trapped in the republican democrat nonsensical talking points on this issue.
Saar,
it seems this Glen beck guy is pretty famous. I don't know who is, so I have no idea what he did or didn't. And I am not even interested in learning about every pressitude. Anyway, the video I posted seemed pretty straightforward. He was simply summarizing the climate-gate. Anyway, attacking the messengers is ad-hominem. If the message is wrong, please point out the flaws in the message. If its a wrong message, its wrong message. If its right, its right. It doesn't matter who the messenger is.
Bade wrote:Saar, you are chasing the wrong end here....
Most ideas (which show up in paper) gets verified not by the peer-reviewers themselves, but others who try to verify your claim independently.
You cannot do fraud 99% of the time by fixing data. Rest of the peers are not idiots to fall for it.
If temperature data is suspect (hypothetically) one can look elsewhere in tree-rings, ice-cores, plankton growth, coral reef health etc etc. So it is not based on one data type, though some may be easier to measure than others.....try to understand the process by talking to NIO folks, if you are in Hydbad talk to people in INCOIS...or if in Pune go visit IITM and talk to Atmospheric folks. In A'bad talk to folks at PRL or SAC/ISRO. If in Tvm go to SPL/VSSC....Now are you willing to claim that they are all on pay by USG ?
Saar,
I feel like posting a facepalm. I think you are missing many points.
- Its wrong for you to assume that all these scientists are supporting your theory. If they have written something in support of the theory, then post it to corroborate your assumption. But don't assume that all scientists support your theory by default. There is no need for such prejudice.
- Anyway, its not about what the esteemed scientists believe in. They can believe whatever they want. But, their belief does not make it a fact or logical. Facts and logic must be independent of personal beliefs. Science is not religion to be based on faith and belief. Science is supposed to be based on logic and facts.
- Raw data on global temperature is not supporting the global warming theory. So, the global warmers put Data into a computer model to adjust it. And when people ask for the code(i.e. the formula they are using to adjust the Data), they refuse to give the code or even to reveal the raw Data. Why would they want to hide it unless it does not support their theory, hain?
Ok, there was a climate-gate which revealed all the naughty things they do. Then, there was a committee and as committees do, they declared that nothing wrong happened. But, heres, the relevant part to your point:
wiki wrote:The committee chairman Phil Willis said that the "standard practice" in climate science generally of not routinely releasing all raw data and computer codes "needs to change and it needs to change quickly".
Wiki Link
You see the raw data and the code are not released. You have to believe it on faith.
panduranghari wrote:The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
Link to post