[RonPaulalways]

The institution that provides the climate data that most of the other climate change scientists rely on has had its credibility destroyed.

[Huntster]

We're talking Dan Brown sized conspiracies here, if not bigger.

And a Dan Brown quality conspiracy, as well. This global warming bullshit was clear and obvious from the start.

Again, as I pointed out in the article I posted, you'd need evidence of a vast, centuries-spanning conspiracy to prove man-made climate change a myth.

No, we don't. Like in a courtroom, just a shadow of a doubt is enough to destroy it politically.

There are aspects of fundamental physics and chemistry that support this theory and dismissing them would be dismissing vast quantities of modern science, all in the name of... what?

Common sense.

[ThereBeDragons]

The institution that provides the climate data that most of the other climate change scientists rely on has had its credibility destroyed.

citation please

Common sense.

"Common sense" really can't invalidate an entire field of science. Common sense would tell you relativity and quantum physics is bullshit too (what do you mean the faster you go the slower time goes) which as we know, despite contradicting everything common sense would tell you, seems to hold pretty true.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Common sense.

Common sense says computers don't work. If we all ran off common sense then society and technology would be back in the pre-renaissance middle ages. For fuck's sake, at least try reading a bit of Popper, Kuhn, Quine, Lakatos, etc before making useless claims.

This global warming bullshit was clear and obvious from the start.

Yes, clear from the fundamental laws of physics that accurately predict a lot of the other things that happen in the universe. You have no right or value to your opinion on this.

[RonPaulalways]

TBD, I provided a Register article that mentions that the CRU's data is relied upon by a large segment of the climate change community.

The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of "the science".

And these are the people creating the data that the rest of the climate change scientists rely on:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Fortunately, there is plenty of other data out there to use, all of it agreeing, though not so exaggeratedly as the CRU data, that industrialisation correlates with global warming.

[RonPaulalways]

What are you basing this on? The CRU was one of two most importance sources of data for the climate change community.

[The Clockwork Rat]

You think there are just two thermometers in the world? No, many countries will have independent instruments and data gathering. This just means that CRU's individual reputation is in tatters.

[RonPaulalways]

Two main thermometers. A lot of scientists rely/relied on the CRU data, meaning its discrediting has a huge impact on the current state of climate change theory.

[dp_132]

Global warming is real. But huge mankind influence on global warming is the fraud.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Two main thermometers. A lot of scientists rely/relied on the CRU data, meaning its discrediting has a huge impact on the current state of climate change theory.

Wrong. The theory still stands, it's just that the dates are possibly a bit wonky, by weeks, months or years, we can't tell until we run the data analysis again. In some sense we could see it as a blessing that we may not be as likely to end up with the runaway warming. We should still however, keep working as hard as before to make sure that it does not happen.

dp... go away.

[RonPaulalways]

You're not providing any evidence to substantiate your certitude in the validity of the theories. If you're going to abandon objectivity and make ridiculous unsupported claims like the CRU scientists to advance your agenda, then we can end our discussion now.

[Douglas]

The institution that provides the climate data that most of the other climate change scientists rely on has had its credibility destroyed.

It's surplus to requirements anyway.

Common sense.

Common sense > proven physical laws of science?

TBD, I provided a Register article that mentions that the CRU's data is relied upon by a large segment of the climate change community.

It isn't, it isn't needed at all.

Two main thermometers. A lot of scientists rely/relied on the CRU data, meaning its discrediting has a huge impact on the current state of climate change theory.

No they didn't rely on it. The idea of global warming has existed for over a hundred years, we didn't need big thermometers then and we still don't need them.

But huge mankind influence on global warming is the fraud.

Yes because our understand of chemistry and physics is that wrong......

You're not providing any evidence to substantiate your certitude in the validity of the theories.

Do you want me to lay out the maths for you?

[RonPaulalways]

No they didn't rely on it.

Yes they did. Learn a little about the topic at hand instead of making ignorant comments.

[Douglas]

Yes they did. Learn a little about the topic at hand instead of making ignorant comments.

No..... because it is surplus to requirements, there is no need for there to be current warming and no need therefore for any of this data. It is not relied on at all. It's meaningless.

[ThereBeDragons]

But you have not shown evidence that the CRU data has been discredited.

And these are the people creating the data that the rest of the climate change scientists rely on:

Actually, it's one person's email. So one climate scientist, in a fit if pique, made an unethical or possibly illegal statement regarding deletion of email which were only tangentially related to the CRU Global Climate Dataset, and that is evidence that the CRU data sets are fraudulent? That is quite a stretch at best. One would imagine that a hacker with access to the entire email database of CRU could find something that was actually proof of scientific dishonesty, if they were actually engaging in widespread and massive fraud.

[Huntster]

Common sense.

Common sense > proven physical laws of science?

Common sense > claims of proven physical laws of science, especially when it is suspected that the claimants are frauds, and then after the claimants are shown to be frauds.

[ThereBeDragons]

after the claimants are shown to be frauds.

Link, please. By "claimants," do you mean 99% of climate scientists?

[Douglas]

Oh this has very little to do with climate science. The scientific backing for global warming comes from a far deeper field.

[The Clockwork Rat]

then after a tiny, tiny few of the claimants are shown to be frauds.