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'
you missed my point. those that so often "control" (i use the term loosely) the decisions are the ones that have the most to lose through measures aimed at combatting global warming. virtually the entire capitalist machine is used to thoroughly environmentally-irresponsible practices. everyone is going to hurt in one form or another, from things like carbon trading. the few (supposed) beneficiaries simply do not possess the power to hijack the GW debate, much less the science.
the argument that GW measures are being brought about by the elite in business ignores the much more powerful and numerous business elites who have the most to lose. its a ridiculous argument.
Uh, so why are the wealthy, elite nations pushing for industrial reform, while the developing nations, such as India, are resisting such efforts?
Hm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden
im not talking about the elite in western versus poor nations. im talking about the elite in western nations versus each other. big business on the whole has far more to lose from things like carbon trading ("tax grabs") than they have to gain. it is not economical to be environmentally friendly. one of the whole reasons there's been so much disinformation over the last 2 or 3 decades with regards to climate research is because big business has been flexing its big muscles and muddying the debate. the carbon trading system under debate in my own country has been watered down several times due to energy and mining lobbying. they have far more influence than any of within the green movement i can promise you.
i simply dont understand this conspiratorial mindset from people. as if big business want to impose a big tax on themselves. you guys dont make any sense.
Well, it's not that simple. Some groups will obviously profit from climate reform, and they are among the largest proponents of these changes (example: Al Gore's investments in "green" companies). There are indeed powerful and wealthy groups (be they businesses, investors, bureaucrats, or career politicians) backing climate reform. They seek to use reform as a means of increasing their wealth and power. Thus, it is justifiable to believe that motives for climate reform are more complex than a simple desire to save the planet.
thats fine and all, but the problem you guys have in advocating that argument is that such people or organisations do not compare to the power and influence held by groups that have much to lose from the greening of commerce and industry.
Then take BP as an example. It's one of the biggest oil companies in the world, and AFAIK the only one to explicitly endorse the AGW view. Yes, they still get huge profits from oil (and indeed are considered one of the worst companies in the world for both environmental impact and human rights violations), but they now produce 20% of the world's solar panels and own a sizable fraction of the wind farms too. They've positioned themselves to profit either way, so c&t won't hurt them nearly as much as their not-as-diversified competition. They profit both directly from increased sales of solar and wind power and indirectly from damaging their competition.
GE is another big supporter, as they supply all the wind turbines people are building like crazy. And the engines for Boeing's new eco-friendlier jet. And more efficient train engines. And probably a bunch of other crap, too.
While these companies are exceptions, they do illustrate that the balance of power is not totally one sided.
Because those nations have all they could want and want reform to help everything get 'cleaner' they suffer from Not in my backyard syndrome.
India is resisting because they know that industry and MAKING things leads to a sustainable GDP. Making making things more expensive with 'environmental concerns' is counter productive to them making money.
http://itsrainmakingtime.com/2009/climate-part2/
And thanks. At least if you're going to post links to crap it's self debunking crap.
Well, for one thing it starts with the word "Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008" which is frankly a dead giveaway - that 'no global warming' uses the 1998 record temps that were set off by a El Nino to ignore the fact that the next ten years *were* hotter than the previous ten before '98 - it's like saying our gas is getting cheap now because it *was* $4.00 a gallon, ignoring that it has still doubled in a short amount of time, then dropped back to merely much more expensive than it was.
Here's the actual record - here's the 'cooling' they're talking about. That humongous spike before the year 2000 is the '97-'98 'major' (over 5 months) El Nino 'episode' - weve had three of those in the last 40 years and the one before that was 1925-'26. Note that we have actually matched and exceeded that spike twice now (It's 'cooling' because that 1998 record high is compared to the five year average, and apple/oranges comparison, and deliberate as hell.), *without* a major El Nino. Now imagine what the *next* major El Nino is going to be like.
So that's what gave it away for me - when they can't get past the first sentence without a known, debunked, intended to deceive comparison? So, yeah.
Jonnan
And what about this graph? It tells something different, but i am sure it was already "debunked". Now only why should i believe those who debunked it and not this Easterbrook guy? They are all scientists after all...
What is this temperature anomaly?
I have seen this in several graphs with no clear definition of the term. Wikipedia offers that it is the deviation from the average global temperature of 1961-1990 without citation. Actually I have seen it in lots more than several graphs, so many to the point that it seems that it is information that a reader of the graph is assumed to have. The graph at the bottom of Jonnan's post - which is also on the wikipedia page linked above - shows that the earth was 'anomalously' colder for at least 60 years leading to 1940 and that it anomalously cooled again right through most of the index years (1961 to 1990).
Flame on.
ps.
Why read something as execrable as this:
The plot really does thicken as we continue our inquiry into climate and weather. If addressed improperly and not by an open mind, this incredibly complex up-and-coming piece of inquiry could lead humanity to shocking and chilling new discoveries about climate that will overshadow global politics and outweigh any ideology.
That is not rainmaking. It bollocks the mind to suggest that something IMPROPERLY addressed could lead to chilling discoveries. It discredits itself in the second sentence.
pps:
This is a nice graphic of the temperature anomaly with some explanation.
Yup. About India, two words: Union Carbide. Enough said. We have 600 million people, who cares if we throw away 2,000 in some environmental disaster.
What you linked to is not the anomaly you think it is. In the context of a temperature graph like Jonnan posted, "anomaly" is defined to be the difference between the individual data point and the mean of those data points over the time scale of the graph.
It's a common way of making a small increase on a large base more apparent. The same graph wouldn't have nearly the same impact if they were giving the absolute temperatures in Kelvin over the same time scale, where an increase from 320.0 to 320.4 (numbers out of my ass) could be overlooked.
Ummm - because that's the temperature in Central Greenland, not, say, a Global Record? I mean, it's an important data point, but it's going to be affected by a dozen local issues - the 'little Ice Age' listed there was *not* a global phenomena for example, but a result in the slowdown in the Atlantic Conveyor (And God help us all if *that* shuts down, which it actually shows signs of doing. Global Warming doesn't imply local warming, the atlantic conveyor shuts down the south will get *very* hot, the north *very* cold. And people wonder why they started using the term 'Climate Change').
I mean, out of context 'debunked' isn't an issue - to debunk something it has to make a prediction and this is so out of context no prediction is even implied?
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/easterbrook-and-the-coming-global-cooling/
As to why you should believe one over the other, if you have an open mind then read both articles, weigh the arguments in your own mind and make your own decision. If you don't have an open mind then believe what you want to because no one can change your mind anyway.
Additionally Don Easterbrook makes the oft cited argument that the planet has actually cooled since 1998 which has been debunked so often as to be redundant, but here is yet another.
AP/Independent Statisticians Debunk Climate Change Deniers Using Their Own Data
The fact that Don Easterbrook makes this scientifically untenable claim is yet another reason to doubt his other claims.
Strangely enough the graph Timmaigh posted is not in temperature anomaly with respect to the 1961 to 1990 baseline, it's in actual degrees centigrade!!
That's because it's not a graph of global mean temperature at all. It's a graph of actual temperatures in central greenland based on GISP2 (Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2) data. The first thing to point out is that as such this merely represents the temperature record from a single region and so while it is a contribution to the global record it is by no means reflective of the totality of global mean temperature. In other words this is a graph of local *weather*, not a graph of global *climate*.
You can tell this at a glance anytime anyone posts a graph where there is any noticeable variation due to the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA). Anything that shows this is pretty much limited to areas whose weather is significantly affected by the North Atlantic ocean. On any kind of global record the MWP and LIA show up as little more than a random squiggle on an otherwise squiggly line.
The second thing to point out is that the caption mentions that this graph is "modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997". This is hardly a reference that is sufficient to be able to locate the original graph but after a significant amount of effort I did in fact locate the source study in the archives of the Journal of Geophysical Research. If I didn't know better it was almost as if Dr. Eastbrook didn't want anyone to verify his source.
Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet elevation in central Greenland through the last deglacial transition
I believe that the following graph from page 8 of the above study is the source of Dr. Eastbrook's graph.
So Ok nothing too dramatic going on here. For one the time axis has been reflected and the scale altered from 10,000 year increments covering a 50,000 year time span to 1,000 year increments covering a 17,000 year timespan. I do get very suspicious of altered axes in graphs but all in all this is not all that bad although I do think that it does stretch incredulity somewhat to be able to point out events from the graph in such detail.
But whatever. The point is that this is still a graph of local weather, not a graph of global climate. Also note that this data has been "smoothed" using a 250 year filter which is again something that seems to me to preclude precise dating of specific events, particularly of recent history within the last 50 years or so.
The other thing that is a bit mystifing is that Don Easterbrook (not to be confused with Gregg Easterbrook) is no stranger to the peer reviewed publishing process having published close to 70 such articles in the past.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/pubs.htm#global
With such a history don't you find it strange that an article with such a dramtic conclusion as predicting global cooling for the next three decades would not be published in a respectable peer reviewed journal?
It's like why do dogs lick their genitals? Because they can.
Why don't global warming deniers publish in peer reviewed journals? Because they can't.
So i read the rebuttal of Easterbrook´s work and still same question comes to mind....how do i know whom to believe? For example the part about ocean cycles - PDO...Easterbrook says they are important regarding climate change, this guy - Chris - says it is not true....
My whole point is there are both arguments pro and contra AGW....i really do not know what the truth is and i am not going to make decision about this myself...and because it is the pro-AGW side, who is crying for actions before its too late (cap CO2 - slow down economy), i think it is up to them to convince people like me to support them. I ask for bulletproof evidence (int he mould of "Earth is not flat" evidence), until then i am against any actions.
Do not really need that, i am 3 hundred meters above sea level
There is actually -17 Celsius degrees outside and i am not at Siberia, so right now i am more inclined to believe him hehe.
But seriously i have no problem to admit he is wrong, as i said i do not know what to believe.
Re why are people skeptical: Ignorance? Ideological?
As a skeptic, I think I am in a good position to speak to this.
AGW has very little scientific basis for it.
Boiled down to its core hypothesis, it states that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly since the industrial revolution and is caused by man (which I agree with) and for the past 20 or so years there's been an increase in temperatures and therefore this is the cause of it (this I am skeptical about).
I'm skeptical because having dealt with statistics my entire career I know how sloppy a lot of this stuff is. I used to work on GIS back when I was a student assisting the department and I remember just how poor the data reading was.
I would not be surprised to find that the reason the temperatures have allegedly not continued their upward slope since 1998 has to do with people paying a lot more attention to the issue and thus the data collection being a lot more carefully done.
Being a skeptic doesn't mean that I've ruled out that man is causing climate change. It just means that the data so far hasn't been remotely convincing.
All AGW advocates need to do is start making more public predictions. So far, every prediction they have made has been wrong. I don't have time to dig up the links but in 1998, there were predictions of what the temperature would be in 2008 and we're no where near that.
Re: My hobby being history and thus seeing how often such movements historically have been wrong.
LOL. I mean, seriously: Laugh. Out. Loud.
There are thousands of Astrologists who claim that astrology is "proven" too. Should we say that we shouldn't thumb our nose at astrology too?
The only difference between Astrology and Climatology so far is that the astrologists have a better track record for accurate predictions.
We're "ill-equipped" to understand AGW? Please. Maybe you are. Don't speak for me though please. Its guys like me who write the modeling software for this stuff and thus have a pretty good idea of how much personal bias and assumptions are part of any sort of modeling.
AGW's CO2 hypothesis is pretty straight forward. It doesn't take a degree in climatology or what have you to understand it.
I'm game. What happens if 2010 isn't the warmest year on record?
And if it is, for the sake of argument, then what?
Let's say 2010 ends up being the warmest year in modern history and even skeptics like myself are persuaded that humans may be a material driving factor.
What's next? What, specifically, should be done that will actually do something? Or should we simply adapt?
Frogboy, you don't deny global warming right? Only Man-made?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
