Global Warming Science, or Pure Advocacy? Hadley Climate Research Unit Hacked

[noodler]

There you go.
50% of people who "know" about climate science don't believe it. What they believe instead is the science is a fraud (it must be, they know all about it).

This is because, you only need to look up at the sky to be an expert. The debate is between the people who don't care enough, and the people who care about being accurate with details. The people who don't care keep telling everyone how much they don't, the people who care about accuracy and experiments keep telling everyone how much they should care about the future.

The ones who don't care about this are all experts at finding inconsistencies in the other's arguments; it's unfortunate that they don't care about their own inconsistencies, but that's because they don't care about them.

 

[John99]

Its the weather, its suppoded to change. Seriously though, i said this was going to happen years ago. The system needs to be changed.

One way to accomplish this is to have an area where scientists live and work in a predesignated area. Paid a minimal amount for spending money but then not have to pay for anything at all.

 

[countezero]

I confess I don't know what the SOP is, but this seems rather "inconvenient" for the rest of us, if you will pardon the pun.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

 

[madanthonywayne]

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity. ​

So all the original data was thrown away "to save space". All we have is the "adjusted data".

Timesonline​

 

[noodler]

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected.

Holy shit! So the U of East Anglia was the only institute that collected data from around the world?
So the only copy in the world has disappeared... unbelievable (seriously)!

 

[countezero]

A lot of this goes over my head, but some of it is relevant to the points I and other have already made about the mentality of these scientists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

 

[ElectricFetus]

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity. ​

So all the original data was thrown away "to save space". All we have is the "adjusted data".

Timesonline​

So this means the data was falsified? Worse so to assume global warming is fake it would mean all the other data collected by others like the melting ice caps, sea level rise, biodiversity changes, weather pattern changes, etc, etc are also falsified?

 

[countezero]

I don't think that's what it means. It's obvious the Icecaps are melting. What the dispute here means, from what I gather, deals more with the claim that the Earth is hotter now than it ever has been.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I don't think that's what it means. It's obvious the Icecaps are melting. What the dispute here means, from what I gather, deals more with the claim that the Earth is hotter now than it ever has been.

Who the fuck is saying it "hotter now than it ever has been"? that a BS claim:

it pretty cold now compared to the average over the last 600 million years! Of course back then there was no ice caps, global weather was totally different and oxygen content was highly variable!

 

[countezero]

I think the claim, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that temperatures have been increasing in tandem with industrialization and that the recent spikes in temperatures, in some parts of the world, are attributable to that industrialization. Much of that claim rests on the measurement methodology and on the sequence of events climatologists have established through their modeling. The problem is, as we now see, the methodology may be suspect and the raw data behind it is gone.

From my link:

"Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement."

 

[ElectricFetus]

I think the claim, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that temperatures have been increasing in tandem with industrialization and that the recent spikes in temperatures, in some parts of the world, are attributable to that industrialization. Much of that claim rests on the measurement methodology and on the sequence of events climatologists have established through their modeling. The problem is, as we now see, the methodology may be suspect and the raw data behind it is gone.

The raw data used for one out of many variables used to validate this theory you mean, the other variables are untouched. So basically your saying the sky is not blue because the filters used for a camera are suspect, fuck what your eyes and spectrometers see, that one camera is suspect so it throws the whole claim that the sky is blue into suspicion.

 

[iceaura]

A lot of this goes over my head, but some of it is relevant to the points I and other have already made about the mentality of these scientists.
- - - -
What the dispute here means, from what I gather, deals more with the claim that the Earth is hotter now than it ever has been.
- - - - -
I think the claim, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that temperatures have been increasing in tandem with industrialization and that the recent spikes in temperatures, in some parts of the world, are attributable to that industrialization.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement."

If anyone has an explanation for the persistence of this kind of stuff, twenty years and more into the public discussion, that does not involve a coordinated effort at filling the media bandwidth with garbage, what is it?

 

[quadraphonics]

If anyone has an explanation for the persistence of this kind of stuff, twenty years and more into the public discussion, that does not involve a coordinated effort at filling the media bandwidth with garbage, what is it?

Supposing I wanted to avoid anything that looked like a conspiracy theory, I'd hazard that a certain segment of the population just doesn't want to deal, and the "science reporting" media obliges.

 

[Pasta]

The mere fact that CO2 makes up < 1% of the Earth's atmosphere, and only a fraction of that is produced by humans should have been a wake-up call to anyone that something was fishy about the "human caused" CO2 global warming theories...

Then when they started calling it "climate change" instead of "global warming", that should have been another wake-up call. By instead calling it "climate change", they could blame anything in weather on humans, even when their contrived predictions were off.

I think there are other major factors involved in Earth's continuous ups and downs in atmospheric temperatures that have a lot to do with nature, and little if anything to do with humans.

 

[iceaura]

The mere fact that CO2 makes up < 1% of the Earth's atmosphere, and only a fraction of that is produced by humans

If the CO2 were in a layer, it would be about 18 feet thick. A hundred years ago it was about 12 feet thick. The extra six feet was added by burning fossil fuel - it's a combustion product. It 's still accumulating - at ever faster rates.

 

[Trippy]

And Ozone makes up what percentage of the atmosphere?

IMO, for what it's worth, the "It's such a small proportion of the atmosphere" and "We're contributing so little, and the atmosphere is so big" arguments don't hold any water. If you want an object lesson of just how fallicous this argument can be, simply look at what happened with the Ozone layer and CFC's.

 

[James R]

The mere fact that CO2 makes up < 1% of the Earth's atmosphere, and only a fraction of that is produced by humans should have been a wake-up call to anyone that something was fishy about the "human caused" CO2 global warming theories...

Why do you assume that a small fraction will have no effect?

Take another example: the ozone layer. How much of the atmosphere is ozone? You might want to look that up and tell us all. Also please let us know if the very small fraction makes ozone irrelevant to protecting us from the Sun's UV rays.

Another point regarding carbon dioxide: increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere also leads to more water vapour in the atmosphere. What's the number one greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?

 

[GeoffP]

We also have the actual published stuff, over years now, in public, and can compare it with the published criticism of it and the arguments made by its critics over those same years.

The vast left-wing conspiracy interpretation of this stuff requires at least some evidence of its having had some effect, don't you think?

Yeeees, but if - as the accusation goes - the principal investigators and proponents of climate change theory aren't letting critics a look at their data....

Personally I think climate change is occurring, but the cites being offered up here sound like data fishing. First question: are they real?

 

[GeoffP]

Sure there's evidence of collusion - collusion to present the collected data and findings in the best and most accurate way possible. Which is true whenever scientists collaborate to write papers or reports.

Actually one email purports to ask the recipients how to ditch a temperature blip in the 1940s, asking (as I recall) how they can get the global mean .15 degrees lower so that their test statistic will pass the (I assume) 0.05 alpha level.

(Frankly, if it's close enough to tickle 0.05, it's a pretty reasonable conclusion, and one would expect the PIs to simply handle it that way. Smells like a=0.05 hysteria all over again.)

 

[ElectricFetus]

Why do you assume that a small fraction will have no effect?

Take another example: the ozone layer. How much of the atmosphere is ozone? You might want to look that up and tell us all. Also please let us know if the very small fraction makes ozone irrelevant to protecting us from the Sun's UV rays.

Another point regarding carbon dioxide: increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere also leads to more water vapour in the atmosphere. What's the number one greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?

A better argument to show off how fallacious that "small fraction has no effect" argument is is to say "If I spit/piss in a bucket of water would you drink from it, hey my spit is just a tiny fraction so take a swig."