[Jolly (OP)]

So we have seen in the news recently that scientist have been faking the tempreture data make it look like the planet was getting hotter.

Yet it is possible that actually the planet is about to or has started to under go a long period of global cooling.

If all true- could this have been an Malthusian agenda to prevent the populations of the earth from preparing?

NASA Scientist John L. Casey Warns of the Coming Cold Crisis 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQanWtkSDHEhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html "The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever"

[RD]

...Yet it is possible that actually the planet is about to or has started to under go a long period of global cooling.

Try telling that to the Aussies ...

"It's so hot in Australia that they've had to use purple on their weather maps"

[Bored chemist]

So we have seen in the news recently that scientist have been faking the tempreture data make it look like the planet was getting hotter.

Yet it is possible that actually the planet is about to or has started to under go a long period of global cooling.

If all true- could this have been an Malthusian agenda to prevent the populations of the earth from preparing?

NASA Scientist John L. Casey Warns of the Coming Cold Crisis 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQanWtkSDHEhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html "The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever"

It doesn't make any sense to assume that one bloke (especially writing to the Torygraph) is right and all the other scientists are wrong.
So why are you even asking the question?

[alancalverd]

Science advances by scepticism and revolution, not  consensus. When people "adjust" other people's data to fit their hypotheses, it may be called fraud, deception, politics, propaganda....anything except science. One day, anthropogenic global warming may be cast onto the same intellectual midden as caloric, aether and phlogiston.  Meanwhile, if it is going to survive even the teensiest test of scientific plausibility, it will have to start making some accurate predictions and stop fiddling with the facts. But even before that, someone is going to have to define global mean temperature and explain how it is and will be measured, by an absolutely consistent method. 

Failing that, I will have to publish my groundbreaking and politically convenient hypothesis. Hair loss causes ageing.  There is a clear correlation between male pattern baldness and age. This has been demonstrated with masses of (adjusted) historic data and the consensus is 110%. Cutting hair reduces the amount on your head. This is known as anthropogenic hair loss and is clearly responsible for premature death.  We must take action now.  I propose a barber tax.

[Jolly (OP)]

Science advances by scepticism and revolution, not  consensus.

Yeah I have seen this repeatdly stated by scientists that do not agree with the claims made about Global warming, Ofcourse by making those Claims the scientific consensus community attack them.

When people "adjust" other people's data to fit their hypotheses, it may be called fraud, deception, politics, propaganda....anything except science. One day, anthropogenic global warming may be cast onto the same intellectual midden as caloric, aether and phlogiston.  Meanwhile, if it is going to survive even the teensiest test of scientific plausibility, it will have to start making some accurate predictions and stop fiddling with the facts.

Well apparently they have not simply been fiddling with the tempreture data, they have also been fiddling with the models to garentee they project highier tempretures.  Discussed here ans stated by Lord Monckton:-

But even before that, someone is going to have to define global mean temperature and explain how it is and will be measured, by an absolutely consistent method. 

Is that even possible?

Failing that, I will have to publish my groundbreaking and politically convenient hypothesis. Hair loss causes ageing.  There is a clear correlation between male pattern baldness and age. This has been demonstrated with masses of (adjusted) historic data and the consensus is 110%. Cutting hair reduces the amount on your head. This is known as anthropogenic hair loss and is clearly responsible for premature death.  We must take action now.  I propose a barber tax.

That´s an interesting theory. How are the Barder tax monies to be spent? And could the whole idea just cause a hairy population explosion.   

[Jolly (OP)]

So we have seen in the news recently that scientist have been faking the tempreture data make it look like the planet was getting hotter.

Yet it is possible that actually the planet is about to or has started to under go a long period of global cooling.

If all true- could this have been an Malthusian agenda to prevent the populations of the earth from preparing?

NASA Scientist John L. Casey Warns of the Coming Cold Crisis 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQanWtkSDHEhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html "The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever"

It doesn't make any sense to assume that one bloke (especially writing to the Torygraph) is right and all the other scientists are wrong.

Well it´s not one bloke writing for a news paper against every other scientist thats a consenus lie- there are Scientists that do not agree.

Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax

Global Warming Debunked | William Happer and Stefan Molyneux

Maunder Minimum:Earth heading for 'mini ice age' in 2030, scientists warns

So why are you even asking the question?

I am asking the question becuase if Global warming is a farse and scientists have been faking the data- yet a mini Ice age is on the way, surely we have been acting incorrectly in preporation for that, circumstance.

So its a question about wether that has been done on purpose, if we come into a mini Ice age crops are going to fail. Currently the main stream are panicing about Warming, when its possible the planet is going in the other direction- So I ponder and ask if people think that might be a conspiracy- there has clearly been an conspiracy about Warming, I just ponder if it´s a bigger conspiracy then simply people looking for funds.

[Jolly (OP)]

...Yet it is possible that actually the planet is about to or has started to under go a long period of global cooling.

Try telling that to the Aussies ...

"It's so hot in Australia that they've had to use purple on their weather maps"

The independent- really? It´s like the most Fake news newspaper I know of.

[Bored chemist]

The independent- really? It´s like the most Fake news newspaper I know of.

No it isn't- because you clearly know of the Telegraph- you cited it earlier- and that's much more fake than the independent.

[Bored chemist]

Well it´s not one bloke writing for a news paper against every other scientist thats a consenus lie- there are Scientists that do not agree.

Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax

Global Warming Debunked | William Happer and Stefan Molyneux

Maunder Minimum:Earth heading for 'mini ice age' in 2030, scientists warns

So why are you even asking the question?

I am asking the question becuase if Global warming is a farse and scientists have been faking the data- yet a mini Ice age is on the way, surely we have been acting incorrectly in preporation for that, circumstance.

So its a question about wether that has been done on purpose, if we come into a mini Ice age crops are going to fail. Currently the main stream are panicing about Warming, when its possible the planet is going in the other direction- So I ponder and ask if people think that might be a conspiracy- there has clearly been an conspiracy about Warming, I just ponder if it´s a bigger conspiracy then simply people looking for funds.

"Well it´s not one bloke writing for a news paper against every other scientist thats a consenus lie- there are Scientists that do not agree."
No, it seems that it's 3 blokes
On the other hand, something like 97 %  of scientists are on the other side
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jun/23/97-global-warming-consensus-paper-surpasses-half-a-million-downloads

"I am asking the question becuase if Global warming is a farse"
There's no evidence for that.
 "and scientists have been faking the data-"
There's no evidence for that.
" yet a mini Ice age is on the way, surely we have been acting incorrectly in preporation for that, circumstance. "

http://greenmonk.net/2010/01/07/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/

[alancalverd]

Time was that 100% of scientists believed in a geocentric universe, and you could be burned at the stake for thinking otherwise. Within my lifetime the consensus has swung from an impending ice age to an impending thermal runaway. Beware of consensus: it is at best naive and frequently shortsighted.

[Jolly (OP)]

Well it´s not one bloke writing for a news paper against every other scientist thats a consenus lie- there are Scientists that do not agree.

Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

Global Warming Debunked | William Happer and Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

Maunder Minimum:Earth heading for 'mini ice age' in 2030, scientists warns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMuvaEpdaqQ

So why are you even asking the question?

I am asking the question becuase if Global warming is a farse and scientists have been faking the data- yet a mini Ice age is on the way, surely we have been acting incorrectly in preporation for that, circumstance.

So its a question about wether that has been done on purpose, if we come into a mini Ice age crops are going to fail. Currently the main stream are panicing about Warming, when its possible the planet is going in the other direction- So I ponder and ask if people think that might be a conspiracy- there has clearly been an conspiracy about Warming, I just ponder if it´s a bigger conspiracy then simply people looking for funds.

"Well it´s not one bloke writing for a news paper against every other scientist thats a consenus lie- there are Scientists that do not agree."
No, it seems that it's 3 blokes
On the other hand, something like 97 %  of scientists are on the other side

O.K Chemists, ecologists if you wanna call them scientists, Botantists, Just becuase lots of Scientists say they believe in the theory. I mean William Happer makes the point that most scientists he knows Quote:- "most of my academic Colleagues do not know that much(about Global warming theory)"

So wow 97% of scientist apparetly believe in global warming- I debate if that is a true statement- sounds more like consenus propoganda to me- too little skepticism- For science.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jun/23/97-global-warming-consensus-paper-surpasses-half-a-million-downloads

The guardian really?
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/24942-biggest-fake-news-story-global-warming-and-phony-consensus
"The New American has repeatedly reported on the fraudulent methodology used by Oreskes and Cook to arrive at their ludicrous near-unanimous consensus claims. Prof. Richard S. J. Tol and Dr. Benny Peiser are but two of the experts who have called out Oreskes and Cook, showing that only one percent of climate research papers — not 97 percent — support the “consensus” view claimed by the AGW alarmists."
 

"I am asking the question becuase if Global warming is a farse"
There's no evidence for that.
 "and scientists have been faking the data-"
There's no evidence for that.

Yes there is some evidence for that you just choose to ignore it.

" yet a mini Ice age is on the way, surely we have been acting incorrectly in preporation for that, circumstance. "

http://greenmonk.net/2010/01/07/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/

Sound more like a utopian dream, then a science project. You wanna better enviroment, fight for the rain forest to not get cut down by farmers who want to grow soya and graze cattle so we can eat beef and drink milk- Habitat distruction, and water use and pollution from farming is a far bigger problem then CO2. 

[alancalverd]

Nobody has any idea what 97% of scientists believe. Quite a few are regular churchgoers and the like, so their beliefs are not necessarily based on evidence anyway. But it is clear that over 90% of "climate scientsts" need you to believe in AGW, or their funding will cease.

Nothing new here. A previous Archbishop of York said he didn't necessarily believe in god, at least not in the same way as his flock. Now there's an appropriate word.

In fact it was a previous co-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who made me a skeptic by opening his lecture on the first IPCC report with "I am a committed christian..." Anyone who says he knows the answer before studying the question is not to be trusted, and that is exactly what CO2-based climate change modellers do. Later in  the same lecture he admitted "we know that water is the most important parameter, but as we can't measure it, we have ignored it - see the footnote on page 21"  so I'll give him a point for honesty.

[Bored chemist]

Time was that 100% of scientists believed in a geocentric universe, and you could be burned at the stake for thinking otherwise. Within my lifetime the consensus has swung from an impending ice age to an impending thermal runaway. Beware of consensus: it is at best naive and frequently shortsighted.

No that's simply not true.
At the time when geocentrism was in fashion , science- the idea of testing theories to see if they worked properly- hadn't been invented.

Why did you say something that's clearly not true?

[Bored chemist]

So wow 97% of scientist apparetly believe in global warming- I debate if that is a true statement- sounds more like consenus propoganda to me- too little skepticism- For science.

You doubt it- in spite of the fact that it is well documentedly supported by evidence.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm


OK
So you are not dong science.
If you are not doing science you are on the wrong web page- we can simply ignore everything you say.

[PhysBang]

Look, global warming deniers are either cuddling  idiots or cuddling  liars or both. If it weren't such an important issue, and if the lies and idiocy weren't so transparent, I wouldn't swear.

They say, "it's not about consensus," as a means to ignore the actual science. They say, "correlation isn't causation," to distract from the arguments in favor of causation.

[Jolly (OP)]

Nobody has any idea what 97% of scientists believe.

Isnt that the point the 97% stat is comming from those scientist invloved in a survey- and not all scientists.

Quite a few are regular churchgoers and the like, so their beliefs are not necessarily based on evidence anyway. But it is clear that over 90% of "climate scientsts" need you to believe in AGW, or their funding will cease.

Nothing new here. A previous Archbishop of York said he didn't necessarily believe in god, at least not in the same way as his flock. Now there's an appropriate word.

In fact it was a previous co-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who made me a skeptic by opening his lecture on the first IPCC report with "I am a committed christian..." Anyone who says he knows the answer before studying the question is not to be trusted, and that is exactly what CO2-based climate change modellers do. Later in  the same lecture he admitted "we know that water is the most important parameter, but as we can't measure it, we have ignored it - see the footnote on page 21"  so I'll give him a point for honesty.

Yeah its clear some have an interest in maintaining certain ideas fro grants and funding.

[Jolly (OP)]

So wow 97% of scientist apparetly believe in global warming- I debate if that is a true statement- sounds more like consenus propoganda to me- too little skepticism- For science.

You doubt it- in spite of the fact that it is well documentedly supported by evidence.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm


OK
So you are not dong science.
If you are not doing science you are on the wrong web page- we can simply ignore everything you say.

Bored- "Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing."

So then there is no Consensus William Happer disagrees, as does Ivar Giaever. And Tol

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked
"Tol lists around 50 of those researchers who were “dropped.” These, of course, represent only a small sampling of the thousands of scientists who have expressed various levels of disagreement with the hysterical climate pronouncements of the IPCC, Al Gore, and John Cook."

1000s- if Thousand of Scientists are disagreeing then there is definately no consenus.

What do you say to Ivar Giaever statement 8,45 to 10.22

  "for the last 19 years the tempreture has not gone up.... So what did the people that measure temp do with that? Well here is the latest temp they have now measured- it goes up.  How can that be? When I have just showed you that there has not been a rise in tempreture?.... Well the reason for that, is that they now include the Ocean, but for a hundread years the ocean has not been included"

[alancalverd]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

    1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

    2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

No surprise there then. I think you will find that there is a 97% consensus among published writers on Jesus that Jesus was the son of god, and the greater the doctrinal expertise among those surveyed, the stronger the consensus. But I'm not sure how you measure expertise, or how the authors  distinguished it from compliance with a consensus.

To my simple mind an expert is someone who can look at the data and make a prediction that turns out to be more accurate than a guess. So far, none seem to have published in this field.

[PhysBang]

[MOD EDIT]

[Bored chemist]

To my simple mind an expert is someone who can look at the data and make a prediction that turns out to be more accurate than a guess. So far, none seem to have published in this field.

There's a very simple prediction.
Because we have added more CO2 to the air, it will get warmer.
And there's a fairly simple measurement:
It has got warmer.

Which aspect were you unaware of?