A Note: Global Warming Threads

[kmguru]

To understand global warming and solutions, you have to have a strong education and experience in science and engineering. Most politicians are Lawyers. They would not understand anything let alone make decisions.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Did you actually read the article?

I ask this because the article clearly states that satellite data was used in the study as well as (generally more accurate) ground temperature data.

Yes, I did,

,but I have also read information that show's the “hockey stick” climate fraud, massive forcing of ground temperature data because of improper insturment placement, Dr. James Hansen who violated NASA's official position on climate forecasting without sufficient evidence and embarrassed the agency by airing his claims before Congress in 1988, and a who list of other bad data incdents from those who worship at the alter of AGW.

Or how about this supposed screw up by NASA...

Jared Sichel

NASA published a report claiming that November 2008 was the warmest November in recorded history. Skeptical scientists immediately challenged NASA’s data, and NASA came out and apologized, claiming that they accidentally copied the October 2008 temperatures recorded in Russia.
NASA, which is oft-quoted by global warming advocates, has been adding 0.15 degrees Celsius to its U.S. temperature reports since 2000, according to well-known global warming skeptic and statistician Steve McIntyre.

 

[Trippy]

Yes, I did,

,but I have also read information that show's the “hockey stick” climate fraud, massive forcing of ground temperature data because of improper insturment placement, Dr. James Hansen who violated NASA's official position on climate forecasting without sufficient evidence and embarrassed the agency by airing his claims before Congress in 1988, and a who list of other bad data incdents from those who worship at the alter of AGW.

Or how about this supposed screw up by NASA...

Jared Sichel

You understand that nobody ever relied exclusively on the hocky stick right?

And again, we come right back to the point that your opinion of the ground temperature data is irrelevant, because the satelite data was also provided, and the same trends were noted in the satelite data.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

You understand that nobody ever relied exclusively on the hocky stick right?

And again, we come right back to the point that your opinion of the ground temperature data is irrelevant, because the satelite data was also provided, and the same trends were noted in the satelite data.

Never said that the ground data was irrelevant, what I am questioning is the source and accuracy of the data in the single blind study.

Again there is a great amount of information now available that there was a large bias, (some of it was accidental, a lot of it intentional, and a lot of it was dogmatic), that the data was skewed.

 

[Trippy]

Never said that the ground data was irrelevant, what I am questioning is the source and accuracy of the data in the single blind study.

Again there is a great amount of information now available that there was a large bias, (some of it was accidental, a lot of it intentional, and a lot of it was dogmatic), that the data was skewed.

No offense man, but I can't help but feel you're missing the point i'm trying to make regarding the data used in the single blind study (you [appeared to] state that the ground temp data was subject to selection bias through site location, my point was that the study also used the satelite data, and the same trends/statements were observed/made regarding that).

Over and above anything else, regarding the study, you have access to the same information regarding it that I do.

It is what it is, take it or leave it. If you want to use data bias as a reason to disregard it, go ahead.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

To understand global warming and solutions, you have to have a strong education and experience in science and engineering.

To think mankind understands the climate systems at all, much less has solutions for them, is astoundingly naive.

 

[Billy T]

Does this mean we can not do anything in our ignorance, such as make reduction in GHG's contribution to global warming?

To think mankind understands the climate systems {problems} at all, much less has solutions for them, is astoundingly naive.

That is astoundingly simple minded and distructive POV. Let me illustrate:

To think mankind understands the endocrine system {problems} at all, much less has solutions for them, is astoundingly naive.

Does this mean we can not do anything in our ignorance, such as make birth control bills?

 

[Dredd]

Scanning and perusing many "man made global climate change is a hoax" websites one can discern a parochial approach. What is required to fathom it is a global approach, a global outlook because the subject is not parochial climate change, instead it is global climate change.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

Does this mean we can not do anything in our ignorance, such as make reduction in GHG's contribution to global warming?That is astoundingly simple minded and distructive POV. Let me illustrate:

To think mankind understands the endocrine system {problems} at all, much less has solutions for them, is astoundingly naive.

Does this mean we can not do anything in our ignorance, such as make birth control bills?

A decent point there.

My point was the old adage that you should watch carefully anyone who claims to understand something. It' almost always self-delusion or a deliberate ruse.

All I'm saying in this thread is stay to the science, and watch it work it out.

The stuff of CAGW is more a religion, a cult, than a body who is in any interested in hearing from anyone who isn't lock-step with them at this point.

I've seen photographs showing the steady decline of the glaciers in 'Glacier National Park in Montana.I'm aware of that stuff. something is going on.

The first thing I ruled out as a group working towards actual impartial science examining this stuff was the CAGW/IPCC crowd. It's hard to take them as anything more than a junk science clearinghouse that has politics at it's core issue. They will throw out most any junk and grab the headline, knowing the later withdrawal won't lesson the impact of the initial statement.

The science people who aren't ideological that are pursuing this are methodically disproving or opening serious questions about the 'facts' that are thrown around so freely by the CAGW group.

It'll take time but science will get root out and get rid of this manufactured ideological 'belief system'.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

Some of the outright fraud and lying by the CAGW comes to light.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009

352 Comments Comment on this article

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

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.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

The Death Blow to Climate Science
By Dr. Tim Ball Saturday, November 21, 2009

Global Warming is often called a hoax. I disagree because a hoax has a humorous intent to puncture pomposity. In science, such as with the Piltdown Man hoax, it was done to expose those with fervent but blind belief. The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.

Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia. A very large file (61 mb) was downloaded and posted to the web. Phil Jones Director of the CRU has acknowledged the files are theirs. They contain papers, documents letters and emails. The latter are the most damaging and contain blunt information about the degree of manipulation of climate science in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular.

Climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists

Dominant names involved are ones I have followed throughout my career including, Phil Jones, Benjamin Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Jonathan Overpeck, Ken Briffa and Tom Wigley. I have watched climate science hijacked and corrupted by this small group of scientists. This small, elite, community was named by Professor Wegman in his report to the National Academy of Science (NAS).

I had the pleasure of meeting the founder of CRU Professor Hubert Lamb, considered the Father of Modern Climatology, on a couple of occasions. He also peer reviewed one of my early publications. I know he would be mortified with what was disclosed in the last couple of days.

Jones claims the files were obtained illegally as if that absolves the content. It doesn’t and it is enough to destroy all their careers. Jones gave a foretaste of his behavior in 2005. Warwick Hughes asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6°C temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” He has stonewalled ever since. The main reason was because it was used as a key argument in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports to convince the world humans caused rapid warming in the 20th century. The emails obtained are a frightening record of arrogance, and deception far beyond his 2005 effort.

Another glimpse into what the files and emails reveal was the report by Professor Deming. He wrote, “ With publication of an article in Science (in 1995) I gained sufficient credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The person in question was Jonathan Overpeck and his even more revealing emails are part of those exposed by the hacker. It is now very clear that Deming’s charge was precise. They have perverted science in the service of social and political causes.

Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.

Total Control

These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game.

CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.”

Of course there is a lot more. I knew it was bullshit, I'm a tad surprised to know the IPCC/CAGW knew it was bullshit too, and conspired to keep it a secret.

Now here's what going to be most hilarious. The mindless sheep who have been following and bleating out this nonsense will STILL continue to believe there is CAGW.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

More info:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked

As more of this comes out: some of the email showing a deliberate altering and falsification of data and the like. I think finally this CAGW nonsense will have been shot down and real science can begin.

And Al Gore will finally be revealed to be the PT Barnum I've known him to be all along.

 

[iceaura]

Some of the outright fraud and lying by the CAGW comes to light.

No. Some inside baseball in the scientific community, where the actual opinions of the real scientists involved are recorded - and the shills from the "sceptic" community are described, together with their positions, in unflattering terms, and strategies for dealing with their media manipulations (such as their spamming of all these forums with this crap) are bluntly considered.

Suck it up, guys. You've been talking like that in public, yourselves, for years now.

And Al Gore will finally be revealed to be the PT Barnum I've known him to be all along.

Anyone who takes off after Al Gore has abandoned the scientific argument - for some reason.

 

[milkweed]

No. Some inside baseball in the scientific community, where the actual opinions of the real scientists involved are recorded - and the shills from the "sceptic" community are described, together with their positions, in unflattering terms, and strategies for dealing with their media manipulations (such as their spamming of all these forums with this crap) are bluntly considered.

Suck it up, guys. You've been talking like that in public, yourselves, for years now.
Anyone who takes off after Al Gore has abandoned the scientific argument - for some reason.

Heres a link to the files if you want to review them yourself.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94

another link if above doesnt work:

http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009

I am waiting for more info before deciding. So far some of whats been made available is damming.

**NOTICE** I cannot guarentee 100% whether any issues of malware/viri/etc are contained in the downloads and people should be wary before opening these files. It is At Your Own Risk.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

More info:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked

As more of this comes out: some of the email showing a deliberate altering and falsification of data and the like. I think finally this CAGW nonsense will have been shot down and real science can begin.

And Al Gore will finally be revealed to be the PT Barnum I've known him to be all along.

Unfortunately no-one can attest to the authenticity of these supposed emails - I smell a desperate fraud.

Which is a shame - there is still considerable debate and scepticism in the scientific community over the cause, the extent, and the effects of climate change - stuff like this just muddies the waters.

 

[iceaura]

I am waiting for more info before deciding. So far some of whats been made available is damming.

Nothing that I've seen even begins to challenge the conventional wisdom (which is described well by patel above).

Out of context quotes of attempts at PR dogfighting in the data presentation, accounts of mistaken arguments settled between various researchers, derisive descriptions of the "sceptic" crowd, I haven't seen any actual meat in this stuff.

 

[milkweed]

Unfortunately no-one can attest to the authenticity of these supposed emails - I smell a desperate fraud.

Which is a shame - there is still considerable debate and scepticism in the scientific community over the cause, the extent, and the effects of climate change - stuff like this just muddies the waters.

They admit to this email (with explanation) and they only deny the accuracy because of the volume of released material. Steve McIntire (spelling?) has verified portions of his exchanges (regardless of whether you agree with his position or not).

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRU-update

Its real. I dont blame them for wanting to do damage control.

Google it, theres lots of websites posting material. You can download it yourself if you want to verify accuracy but whats being reported is manipulation of data, efforts to remove skeptics (blacklisting), efforts to deny information via FOI, etc.

Some of the quotes reported:
From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide dissent):

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

From Nick McKay (modifying data):

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

Some of the emails go back to like 1996? so its 10+ years these things have been going on.

Several of the websites give the exact txt doc number so you can look it up for yourself. Everyone says its a LOT of data to go through, (the zipped file is 60+MB) so I expect more to be revealed and discussed openly.

I expect more from science than this, especially when they are trying to influence world governments.

 

[milkweed]

Nothing that I've seen even begins to challenge the conventional wisdom (which is described well by patel above).

Out of context quotes of attempts at PR dogfighting in the data presentation, accounts of mistaken arguments settled between various researchers, derisive descriptions of the "sceptic" crowd, I haven't seen any actual meat in this stuff.

I know you believes. I gave you several links to do your own research if you want to. It would be difficult for ALL these reports to be inaccurate with so many people having copies of the data. However, I am sitting on my download to see if something is hidden that checkers/scanners cant pick up yet.

 

[iceaura]

I know you believes. I gave you several links to do your own research if you want to. It would be difficult for ALL these reports to be inaccurate with so many people having copies of the data.

I'm accepting all the reports as accurate, and the emails as genuine until further notice. (The people releasing this have invented before, lie often, and misrepresent routinely, so that's actually an issue, but a separate one from the argument).

PR crap, irrelevant to the issues asserted as addressed.

(Are we supposed to be shocked that researchers make mistakes, and correct them?)

 

[Trippy]

A different take on the stolen data.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10611142

Context is everything.

 

[CheskiChips]

To understand global warming and solutions, you have to have a strong education and experience in science and engineering. Most politicians are Lawyers. They would not understand anything let alone make decisions.

Not climatologists? Why is it that the IPCC is full of Atmospheric Chemists, physicists, engineers, mathematicians...but not climatologists or meteorologists?

Nothing that I've seen even begins to challenge the conventional wisdom (which is described well by patel above).

And nothing that I've seen shows me C02 particle responses to radiation frequencies with associated albedo content. If they're this damned worried about the world ending...why don't they public source all of their findings like many international projects?