Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
Because they sat on the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and informed government policy on Climate Change. No doubt future data was never doctored either. These guys learned their lesson - don't send e-mails or chat texts. Discuss in person or not at all. I guess if gravity works now, future data might suggest it won't in the future - we might not have the theory down pat yet. They had the tech back then to show the correlation between CO2 and local temperature - future data won't change that and neither will fraudsters.
Government has done relatively little. This is why I only post stuff that is currently going on. As some point it'll be apparent.

I do believe you are right in that IPCC have a strong incentive to not be straight-forward about all funded studies. For non-selfish reasons which are almost never comparable to other scientific fraud but you can basically use this argument for all science. Some scientists lied therefore all subsequent research can't be trusted. So I guess you work from the default point that science is false? What is the burden of counter evidence needed? How do you segregate scientists to trust vs those who you can't?

The original alarmists worked for oil companies. You think that was the right approach for guys who wanted continued funding? Or did they see the potential for money from future grants not coming from oil companies? Did they know oil companies would pay them off if they just shut-up and retired?

From this perspective you can't trust oil companies anymore than climate scientists. Exact same thing. Hide inconvenient studies.

If you remove the oil companies out of the equation for lying, then you're only left with pretty much conspiracy theorists.

When the loons who are leading the denial stuff decide there is no more money in their grifts, it will be beyond too late.

It is a bit like Pascal's wager but meant for the global and future global populations.
I already wrote that the tech to make the determinations was advanced enough to reach definitive, accurate conclusions in this regard, but you ignored that point. Tree ring sampling was already a well-established, mature science when the fraudsters decided to withhold critical information regarding the informing of climate policy. In this case that tree ring data showed that there was a rapid heating event 1000 years ago that matched the present industrial age. Feel free to continue to conflate this well-developed tech with less developed technology followed by the usage of such conflation to make the garbage non-points you make above. No one can stop you from doing it.
Good answer for me backing you into a hole with your bullshit rationalizations. I'm impressed.

The fact is this has been measured many times over but you think we should have a global instrastructure put into place from what I gather. As if that is going to make a difference. It will just be a new conspiracy theory. Total fucking lock.

Because the authors of the Science paper averaged their data over 40 years to smooth out year-to-year fluctuations, their temperature curve does not reflect the most recent warming.

''They've kind of smoothed out of the record,'' Dr. Mann said. ''It doesn't support the conclusion that the medieval warmth was comparable to the latter 20th century warmth.''

Rather, the peak temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period are similar to those seen in the first half of the 20th century, and that warming, most scientists agree, was induced naturally, by a brightening of the sun.
Not sure if this has been studied in the past 20 years or not as this info comes from 2002.