So, the truth has finially come out...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
Man created global warming has been politicized to the point that scientists have been rigging the results of tests to get the desired result. This is not science, and all those "scientists" should lose their grants, teaching licenses, and be barred from ever touching a beaker
Seriously, has science died? What has the world come to that the nations of the world were getting close to passing greatly limiting, taxing and controling treaties all based on false information? What should be done with the whole "green" agenda that has now been proven to be based on lies?
Thoughts?
--- Over 1000 replies makes this a very hot topic ---
Therefore I will continue to update with the unraveling of the IPCC and politicized science. (new articles will be placed first)
Please keep the topics a little more on point from here on out, thanks.
- Glacer calculation show to be false, and scientist refuses to apologize...
- More errors in report?
- Opinion paper - Rigging climate 'consensus'
Sounds good to me. I'd probably put the first biomass power plant in Washington D.C.--they produce more bulls*** than West Texas.
rofl, if only it worked that way...
Although it's not West Texas you might consider, The Heart of Hypocrisy, Tarrant County, Texas.
Woah! Armed UN Security Silences Journalists ClimateGate Questions At Copenhagen on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlwVviE7o74
So it appears when questioned about the matter they decided to sick UN thugs on the reporter. The UN obviously needs to be humbly reformed or worst case dismantled. Strong emphasis on worst case.
That shows 3 things about you, none of the them good. 1 - you dont know science. 2 - you dont know the difference between skeptics and deniers (or apparently care to find out), 3 - you are a faithful of the religious, not knowing anything other than what your creed teaches you, ignoring all else since it does not fit into your faith (forget about science, you are not even there yet).
Again, it is science not religion. Get that part straight to begin with, or anything you have to say further is just dogma, not debate.
Second, worry more about why you cannot even test (much less successfully) the hypothesis of AGW. So far, there has been no model created that has even come within a planet of working, and that has to be done before a legitimate test can be created.
Third, GIGO. As long as you have high priests controlling the raw data, there will be no way for scientists to perform the testing necessary to advance this hypothesis.
I will not accept that it is proven the earth is warming because the data that says so is questionable.
The tree rings have proven less than conclusive in that they do not show the growth changes they were thought to have. Either that record is wrong, or our measurements are wrong. Programmer notes in the software indicate the records have been intentionally manipulated to agree with the surface stations.
The places where we've taken the deep ice core samples, our truly long term temperature record, still haven't warmed up. The obviousness of this should have been apparent from the outset. The locations were chosen because they don't warm up enough to melt after all.
The surface stations show, if nothing unethical or just erroneous has happened, a horribly incomplete picture covering a very small percentage of the planet. Check them out and turn the smoothing down. It's not even the same temperature over a ten mile stretch, it fluctuates greatly. Most of the land mass doesn't even have a station within a hundred miles.
The lie that CO2 will be in the atmosphere for hundreds of years has always been false. The half-life is around five to ten years depending on where it circulates. There can be no build, there is no sustained effect. The amount there is the amount being produced that isn't be absorbed before it decays.
At this point, I no longer accept the possibility that man-made CO2 has any runaway effect, will not lead to any negative effects, is not a major factor to begin with, and only changes the distribution of absorbtion in the atmosphere by a hundred meters or so and only on the way back out. It does not detract from plant life because it's all blocked coming in regardless, and it does not have any harmful effects because it's all blocked going out. It's a crock of shit. It is however possible that the earth is warming, though unlikely in an abnormal way.
Save yourself the keystrokes. We got it long ago.
Got it like yo mamma. Sorry, I had to. hehe, you said stroke.
Apparently the Russians are crying foul now, too. It's not one of the leading scientific organizations putting this out, but an economic statistics orgainization - presumably someone who knows a bit about statistics. But I'm sure that won't matter to anyone who refuses to doubt the official line of the CRU.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
It's important to note that they aren't saying there is no warming, but that the degree of warming has been exaggerated to the point where all the data needs to be reassessed from step one to find out exactly what's going on. Pretty much what Brad has said, and pretty much my opinion as well.
I do have to admit that at least Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit had the decency to provide a link to a related article from RealClimate dealing with the validity of the CRU data although it appears this response was more directed at the "smoking gun at darwin zero" article discussed earlier in the thread. In any case this article made no reference to the IEA claim.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/#more-2351
This article also included a link to an independent validation of the CRU data.
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data
The conclusion is that there is no problem with the CRU data.
However here's an article that made direct reference to the IEA claim and points out that the IEA report does not support the claims made in the news story. What? You mean they lied again? What a surprise.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php
Look, if all of this crap was so good and scientifically sound why "publish" via right wing blogs. Where are the peer reviewed articles in credible journals? And you can cut the crap about a handful of scientists having a strangle hold on the peer review process.
Regardless, until anything like this is credibly reviewed and published it means absolutely nothing except to give everyone in the skeptic camp a woody, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
A peer review process fo' yo' mama!
Fo' yo' mama!
Yo mama floats my boat. Boat floatin' fo yo mama!
wow, this is really fun. Now I know how Rush feels... I wonder if he has cookies.
While this all sounds very noble, the effect is ruined by the links to a site that can only be assessed as pro-AGW theory, the blog of a biologist and the blog of a computer scientist. So the measured response to your statement would be ... if all of this crap was so good and scientifically sound why "publish" via left wing blogs?
I paraphrase so excuse me if I get an adjective wrong but earlier Brad asked that if no noticeable upward trend in temperatures occured from the present to 2018 if that would be sufficient for proponents to admit they were wrong. In response I would have to say that I would have to do so.
However, one thing that I've already pointed out a half dozen times already is that the assertion that temperatures have been flat since 1998 is a fallacy that exists only by cherry picking of the warmest year on record as the starting point for the comparison. I'll grant that the increase has temporarily slowed down and will in all likelihood begin to speed up rather quickly (2010 is expected to be the new warmest year on record but if not then it will be soon enough).
As a scientist I can't answer what could prove AGW right in the mind of a denier, but would suggest the evidential requirement would be of the same order of magnitude as required to convince an AGW "true believer" that AGW is false.
If the question is rephrased to ask what level of evidence would be required to sway a neutral observer to accepting the AGW hypothesis the answer is actually fairly clear and most of the requirements have already been posted.1) Create a model for the hypothesis, outlining the driving variables to account for AGW and the predicted outcome, preferably at controlled sites that remove the need for potentially obfuscating correction factors. Over the course of, say 3-5 years of data, show that the model correctly predicts the outcome within preestablished statistical bounds. Extrapolate the model using the predicted change in the driving variables and show warming and you are now at the point where GW becomes a theory. Demonstrate the dependance of at least one driving variable on anthropogenic sources and you have a credible AGW theory.
Now in an ideal scenario, change the driving variable in the opposite direction and show that your model holds and you have a highly credible theory.
Obviously current AGW hypotheses have your complete confidence with statements like "the increase ... will in all likelihood begin to speed up" and "2010 is expected to be the warmest year on record but if not then it will be soon enough". But as these statements are essentially not refutable they serve only to show the lack of predictive power of the model.
2) The model obviously would have to predict, and the data would have to support, the warming term in the theory.
Please tell me this is sarcasm! On second thought, if you actually believe that politics reflects sober reasoned thought rather then pandering to the lowest common denominator, don't tell me.
The only thing real climate scientists "publish" in left wing blogs are responses to crap posted in right wing blogs. From http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/.
"RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum."
Tim Lambert is admittedly not a climate scientist although he has provided much useful information in regard to debunking drivel that has in fact later been validated by real climate scientists.
Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F. The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ºF/decade or 2.9°F/century. The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005.
Also the predictive power of the model is not in fact predictive of many other variations of regional weather which are superimposed on the gradual but ever increasing norm. Therefore *climate models* certainly can not predict yearly or monthly fluctuations in *regional weather*. As mentioned earlier no rational person requires that every single year be demonstrably hotter than the previous year for AGW to be true.
Sobriety
Politics must contain sober reasoned thought. It does not mean that the thought is correct. When secretary of starte Colin Powell appeared before UN to state the case that Iraq was developing WoMD he acted with sober thought. Sober thought is not an indicator of correctness, it merely lessens the proclivity to make mistakes.
This thread suprises me. The provactive position of the op is that the stolen emails - and other files - clearly show that global warming is a hoax. Then the op asked for thoughts. Presumably all thoughts posted have been sober (except for a couple or wacky ones) yet there there is no consensus on GW being a hoax, if anything there seems a consensus that the climate does change, and that it currently may be changing due to human activity although for many the evidence is not compelling.
I think Michael Crichton is still relevant.
There was no sarcasm. It is dificult to decipher communication even in real life.
Yes you can totally ignore things like "Conceal the tempurature decrease, over the last ten years" and go on blissfully thinking this is real or that we have anything whatsoever to do with it.
So ill repeat kestrel wise words:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/Going back a few pages just because we need some new material and I've been away for a bit:
This is NASA, guys. You really think they are being blinded by a liberal pinko bias? How does that happen, exactly? We just went through eight years of politically motivated attempts to control what these people were saying, and it didn't work. You really trying to say Obama is succeeding here where Bush failed? What about the Science Council of Japan? You think they give two figs either way about small government or the erosion of conservative American values? They are doing simple science, and they don't care about my biases, or yours, for that matter. I'm sure they have their own, uniquely Japanese biases which no doubt involve tentacles. My point is that when you look at the scientific 'consensus' on a global level it's nigh on impossible to reduce it to political ideology. The work speaks for itself, and it's too widely distributed to chalk up to worldview alone, or even to self-interest (climate scientists made a living before AGW, you know?)
Goodness - gone for months and it's the same group of people claiming to be 'skeptics' that are never skeptical about anything the Free Republic/Fox/AEI/Cheney crowd says, no matter how many times it's proven untrue in the past.
I suppose the fact that this was a few emails cherry picked out of supppsedly gigs of data hacked has been bought up already.
I suppose the fact that nothing in here actually points to any 'conspiracy' past the point of "It turns out scientists are people who say bad things in private too" has been pointed our already.
I suppose that the whole "Sure things have cooled since 1998 - THERE WAS AN EL NINO IN '98!" has been pointed out already.
I suppose the fact that all the 'raw data' that 'disappeared' was mostly redundant copies of already public raw data has been pointed out.
I suppose the fact that the 'Conspiracy' of these 'green companies' manipulating the data is founded on the theory that an industrial sector worth a few hundred millions in total can outbid companies that are worth billions apiece has been pointed out (And BTW - why *is* it exactly that Right Wing Conspiracy theories always involve these left-wing groups beating up on people with tens to hundreds of times the resources? It's always the equivalent of me 'conspiring' to mug the president, in broad daylight, in the middle of his protection detail, with a plastic spork, while knowing full well the man doesn't carry cash. Cuz I could totally take them . . . err, with better odds than the green industry could bribe 99.9% of climate scientists to back them dishonestly when all the big money in the debate is sitting on the other side of the table.)
All that been covered? I suppose so.
Sigh - Jonnan
Yeah. Because Statistical Tools have no place in Science - if only them damn liberals would get it through their head that all Science is easy to understand and has no need to use them mathemagical 'statistics', and certainly doesn't need 'special training'.
All those agreeing that real men don't need statistics are welcome trade in their computers to me for devices that work in a simple, newtonian framework - although the framerate on GC II *Does* slow down a bit doing the processing by hand on an abacus.
Jonnan
Reinforcements have joined the battlefield.
Yeah, right - Mumblefratz needs me as a reinforcement like they need snow in Greenla . . . err . . . dammit, not only are they screwing up the climate, now the deniers are shooting all the metaphors to hell too!
Here's somthing of interest.
Jim Inhofe gets cool reception in Denmark
COPENHAGEN — Sen. Jim Inhofe flew across the Atlantic and — on little sleep — braved the snow, the cold and the dark to deliver his skeptical message at the international climate conference.
What he found when he got here: a few aides and a single reporter.
“I think he’s going to be a little disappointed,” one of his aides remarked.
Inhofe was at least impatient.
The ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hoped to spread two messages in Copenhagen: Global warming is a hoax, and there’s no way the Senate is going to pass a cap-and-trade bill.
But it was early morning when he arrived at the Bella Center, and the halls were still half-deserted. He walked quickly, brushing off an aide who suggested that he slow down and take a breath.
“I don’t want to breathe — I want to get something done,” he said.
The senator didn’t have any meetings scheduled in Copenhagen, and he did not see chief U.S. negotiator Todd Stern or the members of the House delegation, who were not scheduled to fly in until later in the afternoon.
But Inhofe’s aides eventually rustled up a group of reporters, and the Oklahoman — wearing black snakeskin cowboy boots — held forth from the top of a flight of stairs in the conference media center.
“We in the United States owe it to the 191 countries to be well-informed and know what the intentions of the United States are. The United States is not going to pass a cap and trade,” he said. “It’s just not going to happen.”
A reporter asked: “If there’s a hoax, then who’s putting on this hoax, and what’s the motive?”
“It started in the United Nations,” Inhofe said, “and the ones in the United States who really grab ahold of this is the Hollywood elite.”
One reporter asked Inhofe if he was referring to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another reporter — this one from Der Spiegel — told the senator: “You’re ridiculous.”
Inhofe ignored the jab, fielded a few more questions, then raced to the airport for the nine-hour flight back to Washington.
After Inhofe left, some reporters were still a bit confused about what had happened and who he was.
“His name is Inhofe,” a German journalist told a Japanese reporter, “but I don’t know if it’s one or two f’s.”
For what it's worth, today in my hometown of Sheffield, UK, the maximum temperature was -0.4°C - the coldest maximum for twelve years.
Global warming indeed
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
