scientistsandengineersforchange.org

Creatard
Creatard

A scientifically …
A scientifically trained politician! We need many more just like him to look into this scam!

After initializing …
After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown factors,inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results,which we then averaged. We utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust prediction (95% probability) that we are totally screwing all of you

thank you!
thank you!

where are the …
where are the findings and what did they state?

I still believe in …
I still believe in global warming is getting worse due to human error because anyone who does not believe is stubborn

.
The fuss about ” …
.
The fuss about “Climategate” was much-a-do-about-nothing. The emails have been reviewed many times by qualified professionals. Did you really think that those out-of-context emails that were spoken in a “language” few understand debunked over 30 years of global research and study? Come on! The vested interests used the opportinity to spread doubt where no credible doubt exists.
.
Google: Climategate’s death rattle | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

.
You make two …
.
You make two mistakes with that link.
First of all, john coleman studied Journalism in college. He’s all talking head and no scientific substance.
Second, the 30k scientists he refers to comes from the Petition Project also known as the Oregon Petition. It was corporate propaganda to keep the Kyoto Treaty from passing. Here one of many links that debunks it.
.
Google: What if the Oregon Petition names were real?
.
I recommend credible sources like NAS or AAAS instead.

.
Wrong. You can …
.
Wrong. You can learn about the “Hockey Stick” graph from many sources. Try avoiding the less credible ones. Wiki has a good description of it.
Google: Hockey stick controversy Wikipedia
.
Among those that actively study climate change (including EVERY scientific body) there is no credible doubt over the core issue; we humans are warming the planet. If you believe you’ve found reliable, respected evidence to the contrary, send me a link.

This is bad science …
This is bad science being used to make bad political decisions. Look at Melbourne. These scientists said the drought was because of climate change so we needed a desal plant. Then the drought broke and the dams filled again. Now we’re stuck with a desal plant that’s going to cause water prices to rise by fivefold. The irony is that the desal plant’s construction has been delayed by all the rainfall. Sombody’s going to make a lot of money from this and we’re all going to pay for it

.
Sorry, but he …
.
Sorry, but he Hockey Stick is a temperature record of the past 1000 years. It is not a theory. It is a factual representation. Try researching it.
I do recommend that playing scientist is NOT a good idea without the necessary tools. It takes many years of education and training to begin to grasp the many related sciences. Until then, we layman must rely on credible experts. Read what our respected scientific institutions say about climate change. Try NAS, AAAS, AGU, …

The hockey stick …
The hockey stick theory is based only on statistics. And statistics aren’t a scientific method. Cherry pick data and have a small sample. The only difference between your GW Scientist and Marketing director is the data source. A 4% error in a McDonald’s poll would still be scientifically valid if it showed a correlation between age groups and McNuggets. By statistics everyone is a scientist if he/she has an Excel spreadsheet. Science can predict something, GW predicts nothing.