No. I dont believe its as simple as fraud.
Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
No. I dont believe its as simple as fraud.
I do. It's as simple as understanding human nature.
Fraud: "A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury...Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage.
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements:
(1) a false statement of a material fact,
(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,
(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,
(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement,
(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result." --http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud
Information is readily available/accessible demonstrating all five wtr to IPCC and the larger economic agenda of the 'league of shadows" perpetrating their hoax on the ignorant/malleable masses.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
But you dont refute their claims. I dont care who funds who if their conclusions are correct.
Really?
Link below said:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/29/hide-the-decline/#more-94871
Is the above True or False?
I am neither a fundamentalist nor a Republican. But I am not afraid to read what they have to say.
The ice has shrunk before. See link below.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110804141706.htm
See first link.
See first link. Increasing co2. Decreasing temps.
Cynical based on evidence. What the IPCC is attempting affects ME. They damned well better prove it beyond a doubt.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/14/fabricating-climate-doom-part-1-parmesans-butterfly-effect/
The above is an interesting read. This paper isnt peer reviewed.
Quote from link below-- Furthermore, the Silver-spotted Skipper had yet to expand further northward than its previous 1920s boundary. Yet that was Parmesan’s best example of a “coherent fingerprint of global warming” disruption! It was bad science, but the consensus flocked to it in agreement.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/...rvation-success-in-the-uk-to-build-consensus/
The above article intrigued me, as the Silver spotted skipper is one of the species I had documented in a county where it had never been reported. I dont kid myself about this butterfly. Its now in this county because people have added its host plant to the landscape. And the Blue they speak of is in the same family as the Karner blue (fed endangered). I help count these for the Wisc DNR.
NOTE: the above two links are guest posts. Critique the content.
And funds get cut all the time. You have been watching the news lately right? Obamacare funding.
No they werent. See link #1 The trend was cooling until 1979. Hansen is like 70. Jones is in his late 50s. Gore was in Nam.
No. The glacier has retreated 3 times in the last 2300 years. Retreated long enough for forests to grow each time.
2010 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...c-found-glacier-climate-change_n_2932431.html
2013 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...c-found-glacier-climate-change_n_2932431.html
2005 - http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/
The 2005 link gives much more detail. Such as:
equipment dated from the Late Stone Age and the epoch between 2800 and 2500 BC.
A second group of finds originate from the Bronze Age between 2000 and 1750 BC
From Roman times, a Wollguertel, numerous shoe nails were held together and a booklet from the 1st or early 2nd century AD were found with the dresses. The youngest find is part of a shoe dated to the 14/15th Century.
2005 link:Afterwards the pass over the Schnidejoch was locked in again by ice and snow until 2003. "These finds are so important, because they reflect the on and starting from the Vergletscherung in the past 10,000 years that we also know from other sources", stressed Peter Suter. For instance from the drill cores of the Greenland glaciers, which serve as climatic archives. For the times from which the finds originate from the Schnidejoch, these drill cores show clear references to warm periods.
How much warmer?
2005 link:From climatic research, it is well-known that in Europe between the 3rd Millenium and 1750 BC, a mild climate prevailed. The average summer temperatures might have been at that time for 0.5 to two degrees than today. As consequence the pass was passable over the 2756 meters high Schnidejoch in the summer and represented together with that 2000 meters high Simplonpass the shortest connection between north Italy and the Bernese upper country. The large number of finds is for the Bernese experts evidence of traffic movement at that time.
It (temp increase) really isnt unprecedented and its likely not connected to co2. Glacial retreats and advances are documented.
All you have to do is download the data and decide for yourself what it means.
It's a ridiculous abuse of statistics in that it is the product of methodological cherry picking and those that advance it as a fair look at the data are either functionally innumerate and ignorant of the paucity of the claim or outright promoters of an engineered falsehood. Using such methods it is possible to tell a story about the noise when the point of the exercise is to speak about the signal.
There is a large amount of instrumental noise in this data, along with non-systematic events like Eyjafjallajökull, and mechanisms like El Niño that shuttle heat energy back and forth between the atmosphere and ocean so that air temperature is just a proxy for the actual heat content of the climate system. So science goes with the most parsimonious description, the simplest understanding that is consistent with all the data. And that totality of data points in one direction.
Up against the totality of this data, the denialists invent dozens of reasons to doubt which take seed in minds which are ideologically ready to embrace doubt, delay and distrust. They present them in floods now named after famous denialist Duane Gish. The honest discussion is still ongoing but these ideologues are now self-censored from participating because they have been poisoned against facts and honesty.
It doesn't matter what they claim since they're junk science dealers. It only matters what the data says. The data speaks for itself.
But that hypothesis fails. They aren't qualified to tell you what is correct, which was my purpose in disqualifying their patriarch, Singer.
Yes, really.
The data is true. The rest is styrofoam.
Then why support their position?
You want anti-science politicians, evangelists and corporate lobbies to feed you your science?
This trend correlates with the rise of CO[sub]2[/sub].
The data speaks for itself.
Only competent evidence though -- raw data and expert testimony. The rest is styrofoam.
How so? And what does "attempting" mean?
The data speaks for itself.
It's just an essay. And it says nothing about the data.
That has nothing to do with the data.
Now imagine a bunch of cranks have claimed that you fabricated your counts. That appears to be your default position toward NOAA.
OK: While I’m not a degreed climate scientist, I’ll point out that neither is Al Gore, and his specialty is presentation also. And since so far I've been talking about competent science agencies - NOAA and NASA, I assume you'd agree that the above statement disqualifies this guy.
That hasn't affected operations at NOAA or NASA, and it has nothing to do with a lifetime of legacy data that's already been collected. It has nothing to do with the sea ice and glacier melt imagery already collected by NASA. Again, the data speaks for itself.
Your baseline is wrong. NOAA was established in 1970 when Jones was a kid. Gore was 22, Hansen was 31. As you see the oldest was still a juvenile when CO[sub]2[/sub] data collected by the predecessor agency began predicting our present concentrations. Or, if that's hasn't established my point (this is not about them; the evidence is much older than they are) we can trace the logging of Earth temperatures to the era when their grandparents were kids.
Last edited:
Again you dont critque the content, resorting instead to ad hominem.
I dont support their position. I came to my own position along a different road.
No I expect the science to stand on its own regardless of politics/religion. The IPCC does not meet that criteria.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/
The climate has warmed multiple times in the last 3 thousand years. The IPCC and its followers have not produced evidence that co2 is the cause of this current climate phase. It wasnt before.
The links to the butterfly issue is relevant. Parmesan was on the IPCC and it took an essay to destroy her conclusions. She also shows the same contrary-to-the-scientific-method psychology/group think of the 'consensus' scientists with her refusal to release the data for review. Her papers are bad science.
You post as though only religious people and republicans can exhibit Bias/group think. You imply only the religious and republicans have an agenda/philosophy. This simply is not true and the IPCC via the climate gate release show exactly that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
The cooling trend of the last 12 years casts much doubt on the power of co2 in climate. The 28 year cooling trend prior to 1980 casts doubt on the power of co2 to raise temps; co2 was rising then also.
You make a leap from the stations were reporting rising temps (they werent)
Me said:
to suddenly I dispute NOAA.your response said:
As happenstance would have it, Jim Steele has posted another essay. It is relevant to your claim 'doesnt change the data'. Again his quest for information on wildlife lead him to this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ted-call-for-intellectual-tyranny/#more-94616
Lindzen's objections are based on a faulty understanding. The global warming isn't hiding in the oceans, rather the global warming is meaningless unless it changes the temperature of the oceans and the models don't fail to predict that effect but rather that effect corroborates the models. Why Lindzen has consistently maintained a faulty understanding on any number of climate topic for years is a question.
This is not the issue. One's understanding--regardless of the 'side' you're on (and I'm on neither)--is based on faulty understanding by definition. IPCC has been exposed as unethical and manipulative, fueled by Statist greed masquerading as philanthropy to deceive/coerce/TAX the populace. That's fraud on a grand scale.
The LOVE of money is the ROOT of ALL evil...Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit...Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
It is patently obvious IPCC is bearing BAD FRUIT, ergo...
That is your assertion, not what has been demonstrated.
The IPCC is not in a position to tax anyone. The IPCC's only interest is to communicate the consensus of climate research.
You might as well blame Newton, himself Warden (1696-1699) and latter Master (1699-death) of the British Royal Mint, for seeking to promote the interests of the utility monopolies because his physics is used to describe a type of conversation of energy which supports the utility companies argument that you should have to pay for the electricity you take.
So you think the prospect of a carbon tax is more corrupting than the BILLIONS of dollars to be made from continuing the status quo which heats the Earth? That's absurd. If anything, it's industry that has everything to lose here.
Fossil fuel companies must be really, really evil then.
You may not like the fruit, but the IPCC's stock in trade is science, not fruit.
Not sure why you're saying that. I've given you samples of the data for CO[sub]2[/sub], sea ice, glacier flow, average global temperatures, regional surface temperatures, irradiance, ocean levels, and with several sets graphed to show the historical trends, plus links to sites where you can download the raw data yourself. It really works the other way around. These are the facts. The critics are welcome to take their pot-shots, but they need to speak to the data.
Their leader (Singer) has failed peer review since 1980. He was a beneficiary of proceeds from tobacco and oil when he began representing himself as a scientific authority advocating against the health risks of second hand smoke, and against the contribution of fossil fuels to carbon loading and/or the risks of carbon loading. These aren't ad-homs, they're grounds for rejecting his remarks as tainted and incompetent.
There's more than one road leading to Republican social conservatism/evangelism/deregulation ?
The science stands on the data. IPCC has saved you the trouble of taking a few relevant science courses (I would recommend Probability and Statistics if you haven't taken it) plus the very tedious work of plowing through the data yourself. It's not so bad once you figure out how it was collected, what kinds of sensors were involved, what the units mean, that sort of thing. But obviously you'd have to have some clue about how to do graphing and how to interpret mean and variance, moving averages, least-squares approximation, curve fitting and correlation. You may not like IPCC or their style of communicating, but I'd challenge you to read the interpretation of your last chest X-ray for comparison and come back and tell us which one is worse, the one that concluded you should stop burning things, or suffer the consequences, or the one that says you should stop puffing on burning things, or suffer the consequences.
In this case anthropogenic carbon is in play. Hence the warnings.
It's the other way around. The IPCC is the follower. It follows the late Reagan era UN resolution to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.
Do you mean to say the rise in carbon loading is not correlated with the rise in temperature, or that they are correlated but the correlation should be ignored?
To my knowledge, that's speculation. I don't think Paleoclimatologists can yet tell us one way or the other.
It's not clear what you mean. Do you mean your source has invalidated the IPCC assessments that there is high confidence that climate change will result in extinction of many species and reduction in the diversity of ecosystems and there is very high confidence that regional temperature trends are already affecting species and ecosystems around the world ?
You mean these papers don't actually exist?
I thought they didn't exist /*erases board*/ OK, now they exist. Sooo... the many peer reviews she passed were . . . rigged?
One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is its insistence that scientists are all Manchurian candidates. Sounds like Republicans go to the movies a lot.
And their cohorts, the industrial lobbies (the key players in many respects)
Take 'only' out of that statement and I'll agree with you. But the agenda of IPCC was established by the UN (see above).
I went back through this thread looking for an earlier discussion I'd participated in regarding this. It must have been a related thread. I'll table this for now and go find the earlier research which contributors here have already produced. Climategate is manufactured controversy, one of countless scams brought to you by Republicans since before the Swift Boat and Birther sagas were first staged.
No, it just reflects a failure to comprehend basic data analysis, coupled with a desire to misrepresent what the data actually says.
That's a conclusion arrived at by dismissing most of climate science.
Look again.
Your statement above agrees with NOAA's graph ?
Sure, happenstance.
That's not a claim. It's a statement that raw data is on public record. It's collected daily and not subject to loss or alteration. The rest of what you're getting at continues below.
This is a rehash of an old Republican-evangelist-industrialist (and now we can add 'ornithologist') complaint that NOAA is doctoring data--and all to feather Al Gore's cap. It's dressed up in classic pseudoscience, with poor innocent Mr. Steele accidentally stumbling onto the dastardly deed in connection with his noble pursuit of protecting wild birds. We are dragged through a scenario in which he "suddenly" is confronted by "adjustments" to the data. Incensed by this "unwarranted" act, and leaving him unable to understand the consequences for the birds (remember the birds?) -- forget that we have no clue what any of this has to do with the birds -- we just sense his outrage, compounded by case after case of datasets in which he "uncovers" the same "secret" "diabolical" "perversion of science". And the smoking gun is an air-conditioner generating some heat at a considerable distance from one of the stations.
I don't know about you, but I think it's about time for a trip to the lobby for some of that hot buttered popcorn.
And I don't know if you really need an explanation of how this manufactured controversy works or not, or whether you've been aware of it all along. I guess that's up for you to say. You can Google just as well as anyone and come back and tell us what you found out, I guess. Or if you really need me to explain it for you, I suppose I could help walk you through it.
Last edited:
It is a horrible breach of responsible civil dialogue to attempt to discredit the arguments via the genetic fallacy (e.g. "Irishmen are never right about Bayesian statistics") or by ad hominem attacks (e.g. "Satan sodomized my tiger and therefore his syllogism is wrong") but you don't present arguments but rather naked claims from purported authorities which opens the gate to completely fair criticism of their alleged qualifications to issue authoritative proclamations.
I have posted links to the archeological evidence. The claim is Now. Suddenly. Its changing because of co2. They have not proven that. Not by a long shot.
You still have not addressed the content of the article.
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
See above link. That is the IPCC role quoted directly from the IPCC website. The mandate has nothing to do with climate, its focus is about human. No disernable human fingerprint, no IPCC.
No. Correlation is not causation. We have evidence of past warming/cooling in the not so distant past and that cannot be explained by co2. Until they determine the cause of all of it, they cannot proclaim this is different. But the Political mandate (role assigned) prevents an objective look at the climate. Simply put, its not their job to assess the climate. The job is to find a human fingerprint. And there is more co2 now than in 99, in 88, in 77 but the warming isnt happening. For a decade+ (depending on starting point).
So now your not so sure co2 is at its highest level? Keep in mind that was in reference to this interglacial with my earliest reference being only 5K years ago.
No, not invalidated IPCC assessments, rather it is the poor quality of the science she uses and she brought that with her to the IPCC.
Species adapt quite well to their environment. From Parmesan's own paper:
http://www.biosci.utexas.edu/ib/faculty/parmesan/pubs/Parm_BAMS_00.pdf
You see? She knows full well species and systems are resilient to Rapid Climate Change. Human domination of the land leaves her with questions on the ability to adapt. Not because of climate change, rather it is because of land use.
See final two links below.
Again you do not dispute the content. The graphs were there showing you how the data has been manipulated. You do not explain why the well situated data was altered to come online with the poorly situated station. The station in question does not meet the standards of CRN instead you resort to a Red_herring
Justify the station adjustments. Your the one with the confidence in the temp data.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf
From IPCC released friday and today:
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
...This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/
A much more fun read. The "if its warming its human caused... if its cooling its natural" LOL:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ip...use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/
Is that you in your science and math classes, and you've come back to snipe at the folks who were paying attention?