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

[ElectricFetus]

That wasn't my point at all. Think about it once more.

A statement like that will make me do the opposite.

Just because the treehuggers are behind global warming because of their neo-religionists beliefs, does not change the facts behind global warming, any more then just because the deniers are driven by ideology makes them wrong, the facts speak for them selves and don't care about the asinine beliefs of people.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

No ones asking to do that, simply to bring it back to pre-industrial levels.

Which pre industrial levels, the ones that were higher than they are today?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

One "side" has been feeding you a steady diet of factual information, which has checked out if you have bothered to check.

The other "side" has been feeding you a series of deceptions and soon-debunked crapola, married to a political ideology and employed for partisan electoral leverage.

Take your pick.

Well, you sound fairly non-partisan.
I'll agree with you, then.
Which side are you on by the way?

 

[James R]

Is no-one else just a little suspicious about this?

Yeah, because 2005 was the hottest year on record. That's been known since... er ... 2005.

 

[James R]

I hereby challenge anybody to argue in a Formal Debate that global warming is not occurring.

[thread=98153]Formal Debate Proposal thread[/thread]

 

[mike47]

Al Gore is out for Al gore if he was truly environmental he would stop flying all over the place and then driving to the meeting he would Sail and walk there would be nothing more environmental then using a wooden Sail boat to cross the ocean and then to walk from town to town talking about the climate. Until he as well as all the other tree huggers start to do that then and only then will I ever consider what they are saying until then they are Hippocrates and environmental bullies.

Al Gore is neither a scientist nor an honest person in my opinion . He was very close to Horny Bill and stood by him when he was lying to America and the world . As far as science is concerned global warming is a reality . China and the US are the biggest polluters on earth. This Copenhagen environment meeting has representatives from all countries . Who on earth thinks that poor iriteria or weak Somalia or near dead Malta are to be blamed for what the biggest industrial nations are doing for our environment ?.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Why doesn't Phil Jones want anyone to tell that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?page=1&pp=25&kw=cover up

Original Filename: 1109021312.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>


Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don't realise that Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn't bother
with that. Also ignored Francis' comment about all the other series looking similar
to MBH.
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 !

 

[ElectricFetus]

Which pre industrial levels, the ones that were higher than they are today?

And were do you come up with that? About 300 ppm is that so hard?

 

[James R]

[thread=98160]Time for climate change deniers to get real[/thread]

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Don't go to James's thread. go to mine.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=98163

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

That's awkward...denying that global warming is occurring, and denying that humanity is the causation are two different things.
Though, both seem quite apologetic. Even if we're not the cause of global warming, even if there is no global warming occurring, how does that justify that we proceed with polluting the air, destroying forests, and natural habitats of the fauna, and flora?

Who here denies that global warming is occurring? :bugeye:

Where I am at it's pretty warm..which is not normal. And it's been like this for quite a few years, and it's getting gradually worse.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

And were do you come up with that? About 300 ppm is that so hard?

So by the accepted back ground levels for Co2 of approx, 270 ppm, so we are talking 30 ppm difference.


Dr Timothy Ball

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS Pre-industrial CO2.pdf

“Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2” Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski March 19, 2004 Available at
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen5/JawoCO2-Eng.html

Of equal importance Jaworowski states,

The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor
knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming
models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of
CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average
concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values
show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century
atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency
in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400
years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348
ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until
the advent of industrial revolution [13].

I take issue with Jaworowski’s claim the modelers ignored the 19th century
readings. I recall the significant paper at the time published by T.R.Wigley
introduced information about the 19th century readings to the climate science
community. (Wigley, T.M.L., 1983 “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level.”
Climatic Change 5, 315-320). It did what many others have done in taking a wide
range of readings, eliminating only high readings and claiming the pre-industrial
level was approximately 270 ppm. I suggest this is what influenced the modelers
because Wigley was working with them through the Climatic Research Unit
(CRU) at East Anglia.

Yet again we see the influences of the CRU at East Anglia


Again, you realize that Co2 is vital and necessary for life on this planet? with out Co2, plants die, plants can't grow with out Co2.

 

[ElectricFetus]

So by the accepted back ground levels for Co2 of approx, 270 ppm, so we are talking 30 ppm difference.

I implied around 300, not exactly.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS Pre-industrial CO2.pdf

“Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2” Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski March 19, 2004 Available at
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen5/JawoCO2-Eng.html

Of equal importance Jaworowski states,

Time to learn something about science: when a study comes out that runs counter to others its not accepted as fact until it replicated by others repeatedly. For example evolution was not accepted as fact until it was verified repeatedly, planetary orbits were not accepted as heliocentric and elliptical until it was verified repeatably, etc,

More so during the ice age the vast amount of snow would counter some increase CO2 via increasing earths albedo, in fact some theories about snow ball earth 500-600 million years ago suggest the CO2 levels in the atmosphere got as high as 10% before the ice melted through, without exposed water and a biosphere to sequester it just kept going up and up, until it got concentrated enough to counter the effect of a snow white earth reflecting all the heat.

Again, you realize that Co2 is vital and necessary for life on this planet? with out Co2, plants die, plants can't grow with out Co2.

So plants were not growing when CO2 was at 270ppm?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

That's awkward...denying that global warming is occurring, and denying that humanity is the causation are two different things.
Though, both seem quite apologetic. Even if we're not the cause of global warming, even if there is no global warming occurring, how does that justify that we proceed with polluting the air, destroying forests, and natural habitats of the fauna, and flora?

Who here denies that global warming is occurring? :bugeye:

Where I am at it's pretty warm..which is not normal. And it's been like this for quite a few years, and it's getting gradually worse.

And just how much of a abnormality is your supposed locally observed (10 years) warming against the scale of Geological time, or even the Holocene epoch? 117,000 years, or even the last 500 years? emphasis on your personnel subjective observation.

Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." -

And again who is arguing for pollution.

Dr. Ian Plimer

http://www.agoravox.com/comment/article/climate-change-and-pollution-are-10794

Climate Change and Pollution are Two Separate Things

"Carbon dioxide is a plant food, is necessary for life, and without CO2 there would be no complex life on earth. Car exhaust consist of [both] harmless gases (CO2, nitrogen, H2O vapor) [and] pollutants (carbon monoxide...nitric oxide...sulfur dioxide [etc.]

Heaven and Earth, page 12

"At present, China emits more sulfur dioxide than any other country in the world, and this chokes people, causes acid rain, damages life, and destroys buildings. The "Asian Brown Cloud" covers an area as large as Australia, obscuring the sun in some polluted Asian cities. It has a profound effect on human health. At times it...covers the Northern Hemisphere. Darker soot falling on snow and ice allows it to absorb more solar energy and may contribute to more rapid melting of snow and ice.

Heaven and Earth, page 13

Here is where the problem lies with pollution, just do a google trip of China, and you can see (The "Asian Brown Cloud" covers an area as large as Australia, obscuring the sun in some polluted Asian cities. It has a profound effect on human health.) and then tell me that we are the problem, China and its pollution covers and affects the whole northern hemisphere.

 

[countezero]

One "side" has been feeding you a steady diet of factual information, which has checked out if you have bothered to check.

The other "side" has been feeding you a series of deceptions and soon-debunked crapola, married to a political ideology and employed for partisan electoral leverage.

Take your pick.

Would that be the side that is colluding and constantly altering its models so that results remain constant?

 

[ElectricFetus]

Would that be the side that is colluding and constantly altering its models so that results remain constant?

I have repeatedly link results that have no sign or suspicion of collusion or alteration, but somehow to you people one suspect data set makes them all suspect even though the others are form completely different researchers using different analytical techniques

 

[joepistole]

I have repeatedly link results that have no sign or suspicion of collusion or alteration, but somehow to you people one suspect data set makes them all suspect even though the others are form completely different researchers using different analytical techniques

They, Buffalo Roam, and others know their sources are specious. They know they have no basis to support their claims. That is one reason Buffalo Roam refuses to debate James on the issue.

It is a mistake to think that Buffalo Roam want to engage in honest discourse. They are pushing an agenda of which global warming is a small part. To them goblal warming is more about inflluencing the minds of people. Convincing them to believe that there is a vast global conspiracy of elites, educated folk. This is similar to what the Nazi's were pushing. They want people to emotionally bind to their cause so that they in the future and on other issues will be oblivious to the truth.

Basically I think this is more about recruiting dittoheads than it is about climate change. Because as everyone has pointed out the facts are overwhelming - even in the case of the hacked emails.

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

And just how much of a abnormality is your supposed locally observed (10 years) warming against the scale of Geological time, or even the Holocene epoch? 117,000 years, or even the last 500 years? emphasis on your personnel subjective observation.

Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University



And again who is arguing for pollution.

Dr. Ian Plimer

http://www.agoravox.com/comment/article/climate-change-and-pollution-are-10794

Climate Change and Pollution are Two Separate Things

"Carbon dioxide is a plant food, is necessary for life, and without CO2 there would be no complex life on earth. Car exhaust consist of [both] harmless gases (CO2, nitrogen, H2O vapor) [and] pollutants (carbon monoxide...nitric oxide...sulfur dioxide [etc.]

Heaven and Earth, page 12

"At present, China emits more sulfur dioxide than any other country in the world, and this chokes people, causes acid rain, damages life, and destroys buildings. The "Asian Brown Cloud" covers an area as large as Australia, obscuring the sun in some polluted Asian cities. It has a profound effect on human health. At times it...covers the Northern Hemisphere. Darker soot falling on snow and ice allows it to absorb more solar energy and may contribute to more rapid melting of snow and ice.

Heaven and Earth, page 13

Here is where the problem lies with pollution, just do a google trip of China, and you can see (The "Asian Brown Cloud" covers an area as large as Australia, obscuring the sun in some polluted Asian cities. It has a profound effect on human health.) and then tell me that we are the problem, China and its pollution covers and affects the whole northern hemisphere.

And who here doesn't understand the post at hand? You. Where did I claim that CO2 is a pollutant in that sense? Nobody here is saying that CO2 is inherently a pollutant, but it can become harmful if it's present in excessive amounts just like some medications are prosperous for someone's health, but if taken in excessive amount can become harmful.
Like you just quoted yourself, cars do not produce just CO2, but also 'real' pollutants, just like most of our industries do.

Ehm..what kind of logic is that? So it's only a warming worthy of noting if it would reach the same level as it did thousands of years ago? Hey, look at that, my average life expectancy is around 70 if I'm lucky, I'm now in my twenties, and summer is not the same as it was 10 years ago, just like winter, and I honestly don't care what kind of temperature they had in the Holocene epoch, I don't see how this is relevant to the current GLOBAL warming, it's like trying to tell me that because people used to be a lot more primitive and brutal hundreds of years ago people of today who commit 'brutal' and 'primitive' acts after today's standards are not to be considered as brutal and primitive any more because they do not match with the brutality and primitiveness that reigned a few centuries ago.

 

[mordea]

[thread=98160]Time for climate change deniers to get real[/thread]

Stagnating Temperatures
Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html


BTW, perhaps deniers wouldn't be so skeptical if scientists didn't sex up their data for political reasons.

 

[mordea]

Would that be the side that is colluding and constantly altering its models so that results remain constant?

Yeah, it boggles the mind that individuals still stereotype global warming deniers as nuts, and global warming proponents as warriors for the truth, after what was discovered at the Hadley Climate Research Unit. Instead of honest enquiry, global warming proponents respond with knee-jerk defensiveness, irrelevancies, and attacks on deniers.

These are the people we are supposed to trust to instruct us plebians on reality?