Huge Bombshell !!! - Global Warming Exposed As Scam

[Cap-Z-ro]

Marc Morano
Climate Depot
Saturday, Nov 28th, 2009

A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues “should be barred from the IPCC process.” In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.”

Short answer: “Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/un-scientists-turn-on-each-other-un-scientist-declares-climategate-colleagues-mann-jones-and-rahmstorf-should-be-barred-from-the-ipcc-process-they-are-not-credible-any-more.html


Regards...

[PaulLowrance]

(Quote)  " I personally know James Inhofe, and I interviewed Dr. John Christy, lead author of the 2001 IPCC report, one of the country's leading climatologists, who told me - and I have all this on film - that he was one of the ones who put together data of the global temperatures and said, "We didn't see any warming" The IPCC doctored his report to say there was warming, and then was given the Nobel Peace Prize next to Gore in 2007."     (Quoted from director  Shayne Edwards- "An Inconsistent Truth")

Hi Bill,

What's dangerous about that, scientifically speaking, is that this scientist can't just say there was no global warming found in the data. A scientist presents *data* to back up his or her claim. So this scientist needs to present data to back up his claim.

Furthermore, if this scientist did say that, then we don't know what data he was talking about. It could have been recent data for the past few years, which alone is meaningless. Remember, there will always be temperature fluctuations from year to year. The global temperature is not going to increase at some fixed temperature every year. The problem at hand is that the fluctuations are far greater than the steady rise in temperature each year. So we *cannot* consider a few years. We must consider long term measurements -->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

I would advice people to take a look at that plot, and take special notice to the fluctuations, please. It's really bad science to even suggest that it means something if global warming is down even for 5 years in a row. Take a look at that graph again, and you'll see relatively long streaks of global cooling, but then take a look at the entire graph going back 35 years and the pattern begins to become clear. Any scientist who has the nerve to suggest there's no global warming because of the past two years is not being objective.

As you can see in the graph, it takes decades to see the global warming pattern.

So I'll side with the NASA guy on this. The email hacks offer no proof what so ever that global warming is not real.

Regards,
Paul

[Cap-Z-ro]

Now the smell of raw date being cooked is also wafting from 'kiwiland'.

Yep...sure looks like its global alright.


' The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century.

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result. '

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/


Regards...

[Pirate88179]

There has been no increase in yearly temperatures in the short term, or the long term studies done by the legitimate climatologists, in fact, just the opposite.  The credible scientists still believe, as they did in the 70's, that we are headed for another naturally occurring ice age, sometime in the next 50 years or so.

This is what the data from around the world shows.  Now yes, the doctored data shows a temperature increase that is not and has not been there.

The planet does not "have a fever" to quote that idiot Al Gore.

It is sad that millions of people had to die from this scam before it was exposed.  And now some, go on as if it  has not been exposed for the fraud it has been.

This hacker story is only the recent event.  This scam was being exposed, or attempted to anyway, back in the early 90's.  The hackers just caused a tipping point is all.



Oh, and PS  for those that think we will "run out of water" because of nuke cooling towers, check your science and you will see water does not go anywhere.  You can't use up water, only convert it.

Bill

[happyfunball]

WATER CONSUMPTION--CONVENTIONAL POWER PLANTS
Technology    

gallons/kWh
   

liters/kWh
Nuclear    0.62    2.30
Coal    0.49    1.90
Oil    0.43    1.60
Combined Cycle    0.25    0.95

Small amounts of water are used to clean wind turbine rotor blades in arid climates (where rainfall does not keep the blades clean). The purpose of blade cleaning is to eliminate dust and insect buildup, which otherwise deforms the shape of the airfoil and degrades performance.

Similarly, small amounts of water are used to clean photovoltaics panels.

Water use numbers for these two technologies are as follows:

WATER CONSUMPTION--WIND AND SOLAR
Technology    

gallons/kWh
   

liters/kWh
Wind [1]    0.001    0.004
PV [2]    0.030    0.110

=============================


From Wikipedia:

"In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming."

Cheers