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'
If you can't see how these graphs aren't misinforming readers, then that isn't my problem.
If you want me to be "worth" more your time, then I will consider giving you the time of day. You claim that because temperature has historically risen before CO2 has risen, then CO2 doesn't cause temperature to rise. This is completely false based on poor reasoning.
Here is an article that you should read:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
If you don't have the time for me or the article, then here is a summary for you:
What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth’s wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the “carbon pump” (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.
In the meantime, I suggest instead of insulting people, you start posting creditible information that doesn't try to mislead readers by posting graphs that don't have comparable data in them.
Of course you have. Your apparent sole source is the site of all the climatologist now being investigated for fraud and doctoring of evidence (real climate). And most of your sources are in the same boat because of a compatriot: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/
All you proved is you dont like opposing views because they are opposing views. Nice try.
BTW: the biggest benefactor of Exxon/Mobile? Michael mann!
Finally you admit that telling halftruths is fine with you. Because that is what Gore did. I wonder when exagerrating and misleading became right thing to do.
And just keep ignore the most classic example of conflict of interest.
Hey, I've been noticing that most of you seem to think that "Green" energy is the new kid on the block; it isn't. Biomass fuel and fuel from biological waste has been around for much longer than petrol based fuel sources. Just look up Ford Hempcar or Biofuel or whatever. Take a history class.
Clonmac, did you take lessons to get this fucked in the head? There's nothing misleading about that graph, it's the standard for displaying temperature history.
For people smart enough to read a temperature graph,(which should have been anyone older than say... five?) it's quite obvious that the temperature change Antarctica is going through now isn't even half as severe as the one it went through just a few hundred years ago when it dropped three degrees inside a century.
That's why the hockey-stick graphs only go back a century, if they go further, the scientists look like utter fucktards for trying to claim we're the cause. The temperature climb predates both industrialization and the rise in CO2, while being the opposite of severe.
That article you linked to is wrong by the way. That's your near history right there for Antarctica that you posted, clearly showing zero driving force from CO2 required for thrice the severity in shifts. The records for Greenland are even worse for the cause. They've got seventy years of cooling there.
what i meant was, is the comparison fair? the sheer size of losses recently dwarfs the losses in the 80s, yes?
cool, was just checking. my experience with people that use the term offer a fundamentally different definition of the term, so i wasn't sure.
The root cause of the issue that is referenced is the recession. You are talking about a component, I just expaned it to generalize about the overall market. And you best check the constitution. The president has no purse strings, Congress does, and we know who was in charge of them when TARP was created.
well, this site states that 91 republicans voted in favour of 1424. not a vast majority or anything, but still enough imo to claim it was more than just democrats controlling the purse strings. not to mention there was no opposition/objections from bush; surely the president has to take responsibility for legislation he signs??
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml
the only resource ive been able to find is wiki, but id prefer not to use it with regards to the comparison. could you provide a brief comparison between the amount of dollars lost and the number of banks that collapsed? because my understanding is that both numbers are stubstantially bigger recently than in the 80s. and yes, by "banks" i include brokerage houses and insurance companies caught up in the risk (that some people dont believe existed).
The critical word here is "required". Since there is no proof it was required by BOA or CITI, it is all an exercise in linguistics. They paid it back quickly, because they did not require it. It helped them to be sure, but some banks still failed (too far gone) and others just pocketed the money (as evidenced by the rebound of the profits so quickly - has GM and Chrysler made billions since their bailout?). The refutation is not in saying they have not paid back the money, but in that they needed the money to begin with. They clearly did not. BOA was buying companies right, left and center up to the bailout! Companies going belly up are not buying other companies during their swan song.
oh for sure, several institutions did not require funds, and it was effectively forced down their throat. im certainly not defending that.
well i have to ask (and please don't be offended) but are you are REAL economist, or just an "economist" of the austrian school dressed in monetarist clothing? i mean, williams has links to mises on his site? really?
well, ignoring the fact that a chairman of the federal reserve is inherently and inevitably a market intervener, i have read nothing from bernanke that would suggest he was anything but a monetarist in the long shadow of friedman. indeed most of his work on the depression echoed friedman and shwartz fairly closely. he certainly favours leaving markets alone to do their thing, except in exceptional circumstances.
im not sure how paulson could be described any other way though, being a rabid free marketeer is how he made his mark (well until the crisis obviously). i mean, im sure you saw his haunted visage when explaining the necessities of effective nationalisation during the peak of the crisis? not a happy chappy. gutted even. until the crisis i am unaware of paulson's economic opinions being anything but unwaveringly free-market orientated. if you have some, id love to read it.
Because you cannot connect the dots. And they are not many to connect. You only have to ask yourself where the money for BOTH comes from. And then ask what the hell the government is doing on either in the first place. The answer is pure politics. That is why. You can deny it, but that does not make your denial valid. And the proof is in the pudding. You only have to look at where the stimulus money went to AND what conditions - pre and post facto - were placed on the TARP and porkulus money. Whether the conditions are put on pre or post payoff does not matter. They are both there in the end.
you're right, i do deny this (re TARP that is). all i saw in TARP was a bunch of scared politicians doing what most economists said they should be doing, to prevent escalation of an already serious situation. before TARP, before most elected government officials even became aware of seriousness, bernanke and paulson were in the backrooms hammering out deals to prevent implosion. i see TARP as the political manifestation of such initial dealings, and call me hopelessly naive but i do not consider the fed's responses, opinions and suggestions during the crisis to be political. i certainly don't see paulson taking his bitter medicine (over and over) to be political either- i would argue "politics" would have engendered him ignoring the crisis entirely, in favour of his long-standing faith in minimal government and free markets, as well as his level of detest for moral hazard and government intervention. of course, ANY legislation will end up being political, that being the nature of the beast.
oh yeah, don't get me started on how the banks behaved post bailout. all i can really respond with here is to echo clonmac from the previous page, in pointing out that the majority of subprime defaults, which started the entire ball rolling, came from institutions not subject to the regulations of the CRA. im not denying responsibility on behalf of government by any stretch of the imagination, i happen to subscribe to the 'perfect storm' analogy, but a big part of that perfect storm was unrelated to the community reinvestment act.
Dude, you're just a plain jerk, that's all I have to say. Not once did I insult you personally.
OK, so clearly you aren't understanding what I am pointing out. The point the website you linked to was trying to make was that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. So what do they do?They post specfic timeframes "zoomed" in to short periods that don't show trends, (the true relationship between CO2 and temperature) like the one I posted above. The scale of those are way off. They deliberately plot the points of the temperature graph on a detailed scale and with a deviation (as opposed to raw degrees) to make the graph jump all over the place. Then they place the CO2 graph on a low detailed scale to show that is has been relatively the same and then all of a sudden, bam! Hockey stick at the end! My oh my! Why don't the temperatures reflect the same as the CO2?! No one is disputing the numbers. I am disputing the purpose of the site (to dispute the claim that CO2 causes temperature to rise) that uses poor graphs to make poor conclusions. For a site that is disputing the relation between the two, they certainly picked the right graphs to support their claim.
The graphs don't do anything to explain or prove anything. They are just a misrepresentation of numbers with a disregard for the science behind those numbers.
If you don't understand what I am saying, I suggest you read this article (or at least a portion) from NASA. About a quarter of the way down they talk about how graphing incorrectly can lead to incorrect conclusions (The US temperature graphs). That is similiar to what your website is doing. Hopefully you feel NASA is a somewhat credible source.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2a.html
You are really bad at this. The least you could do is spout that nonsense before pasting the two thousand year stretch invalidating your claim. You can't cherry pick time periods by showing the entire timeline, it's a preposterous claim.
No, NASA isn't a credible source. They're using the same numbers everyone else is, ignoring the satellite data and running with the manipulated surface station data instead. It's how they duplicate the hockeystick curve for CO2 in the temperature graphs. They use tree rings leading up to it, and then the temperature stations for the uptick, knowing full well that those same trees are in disagreement with them. I know, you're too stupid to actually think about this and will barf up another wrong response.
I am not a plain jerk either, I'm an entertaining jerk.
How about you back up your claims with actual reasons as opposed to just calling me stupid? Me being stupid is hardly an argument. And no, you haven't already backed your statements up.In your first paragraph, how does the 2,000 year stretch invalid my claim? Please, spell it out for me. I am stupid remember? That 2,000 year graph backs up my claim perfectly, but apparently you don't see the blatant distortion of data to support my claim, so allow me (the dumb one) to spell it out for you using no more than the knowledge I learned back when I was in 5th grade.
A graph has two axes. Each one containing a range data. Let's use the 2,000 year timeline graph that I posted earlier as an example (since you decided to point that one out). The whole big picture of data is 400,000 years, but they "zoom" in with several graphs for detail. This is fine to do. However, the way in which they do it is to blatantly misinform readers (like you). How do they do this? Graphs have an X and Y axis. When they "zoom" into a particular time period, they change the X axis of each graph to correspond to each time period they want to show. So instead of going from present-400,000 yrs ago, the X axis now goes from present-2,000 years ago.
This is totally fine so far. Now when they go to adjust the Y axis on each, they can't adjust the Y axis on the CO2 graph because of the "Hockey stick" because you would cut out data. They then proceed to "zoom" in on the Y axis for the temperature graph to show "detail". So instead of ranging from -15C degrees to 5C degrees(like the 400,000 year graph), it now ranges from -2C-1.5C. There are two problems with this. The first being, when comparing two graphs and zooming in for scale, you MUST use the same scale for ALL axes!!! That is very important. Because what they did was adjusted 3 of the 4 axes and left the Y axis on the CO2 graph to avoid cutting out data. If you couldn't adjust the Y axis on the CO2 graph because of data, then you CAN'T touch the Y axis on the temperature graph.
The second problem with it is the fact that temperature graph is a deviation. A deviation is a relative number. Meaning, if you don't know what it is relative to, then you don't know what the actual values are. Deviations are fine, but not in this context when they are changing the timelines like they are. Because the temperatures are relative and they scale the Y axis according to what is relative for that time period, they lose all credibility for making claims as far as a 400,000 year time period goes. Because if you zoomed back out to the 400,000 year time period, you'd see that temperatures on earth actually varied much higher and lower than what the scale on the 2000 year period showed. (Ahhh, hopefully something is starting to be realized in some heads here about why these graphs are misleading people). If you went ahead and changed the scale of the Y axis on the temperature graph to what it is on the 400,000 yr graph, then you'd have a range of -15C-5C degrees. If you plotted the points using that scale instead, you'd see that temperatures were actually fairly consistant over the last 2,000 years...
....wait for it.....
WHICH MESHES WITH WHAT THE CO2 GRAPH SHOWS WHEN CO2 LEVELS WERE ALSO CONSISTANT AND LEVEL OVER THE LAST 2000 YEARS!!!!
...except when....oh ya...that hockey stick at the end...better watch out for that!
Thanks for calling me stupid though.
Graphs can be manipulated and so can people with those graphs. They manipulated those graphs to make it look like temperatures were all over the place even though CO2 levels were not. When in reality they were both pretty level (again, except for the sky-rocketing CO2 levels).
You being stupid is definitely a valid argument.
If a temperature swing of 3 degrees doesn't matter because it's barely movement on the 400k year plot, niether is a .5 degree shift over the last century. So, you've just been manipulated by all those graphs that show temperatures rising over the last century...
After all this information, I still can't think dumb enough to see how you've gotten here.
Wow, but it is! See, all you do is look at numbers and don't look at the why or the reasoning behind any of it! Let's go back and look at the graphs with the skewed Y axis. The graphs that I posted earlier (the 2000 year ones). If you look at the temperatures there, there is no pattern at all. They jump all over the place without any pattern to it at all and that is with fairly consistant CO2 levels. Now, since the industrial revolution, CO2 levels are sky-rocketing. Even though temperatures haven't gone up a lot (relatively when looking at the 400,000 year "big picture), there IS all of a sudden a pattern to it. A pattern that isn't NATURAL when looking at the "big picture".
From the "Physicist's Summary" in the last article I linked to:
The language is a little kludgy due to translation from the original German I suspect.
I should just kill myself and get it over with, this planet is populated by morons...
Clonmac, have fun convincing yourself.
This right here disqualifies you from any further discussion. The entire point of using a deviation scale rather than an absolute temperature scale is that where you draw zero doesn't matter. You could plot the scale in degrees C, and the y axis would be labeled from 22 - 25 C (pulling numbers out of my ass, as the point is they don't matter). Or you could use Kelvin, which would put the temp readings in the 300 range. It doesn't matter. All we are looking at is the trend, and whether the trend line starts at -1, or 23, or 300 is irrelevant, all three scales would show a change of y degrees over x number of years - the absolute value of the change is important, not the numerical value assigned for each temperature. The real value of using a deviation scale rather than an absolute scale is to increase the perceived relevance of the change.
To put this in perspective, consider using the same type of scales to describe the velocity of a car. On a deviation scale, going from 65 to 70 mph over a 5 minute period is exactly the same as going from 10 to 15 mph, or from 300 to 305 mph. Graphing against a deviation scale allows you to show fine adjustments to large numbers without having a huge blank white space at the bottom of your graph, that is all.
I know that. If you quoted me entirely, you would've read this...
But, instead you decided to misquote me and take things out of context. It's ok, no hard feelings.
Deviations are OK and usually the preferred way to graph things. Especially when, like in one of your examples, you have a large quantity between the focal point and where the actual data gets plotted.
However, the whole point of deviations is, exactly as you say, to show relativity. The relativity being that of the 400,000 year long time line.
I like how people are always like "This right here disqualifies you from any further discussion.", yet they don't even take the time to understand anyone's point. Like they are the forum police that give out licenses to people to authorize commenting or something. Good luck with that.
I tire of the argument that "nothing has been published in the credible peer-reviewed literature that disputes AGW" - limiting that literature to "climatology" literature, of course.
Homeopathy has literature, too - it's total crap, but it's "peer-reviewed". And I assure you nothing, absolutely nothing, has been published in the "peer-reviewed homeopathy literature" which casts doubt on homeopathic "theory".
(Edited for minor bug fixes)
No, he didn't misquote you. You have crap for brains and somehow think reality isn't really there because the graph isn't using a particular scale. You have completely blown away all the other farsical arguments in this thread with such a preposterous position. It's truly impressive.
I agree there. I do read articles from a lot of sources. I'm very open-minded and like to read no matter what the source. I think science needs to be open. Some of the comments released from "climategate" are pretty sickening when you take it at face value (which is all you can do really since it is written in plain text). Science that isn't peer-reviewed (openly and by everyone) isn't science.However, until it is shown to me that what happened at CRU is much more widespread, then I'd like to believe that science is still alive and scientists are still working together in a peer-reviewed structure. Maybe that is naive of me, but I don't care. It would have to be a pretty major (and international) conspiracy otherwise. I know scientists like to debate, so I'm in good belief to feel that scientists welcome a little opposition among their peers.
No, actually he did misquote me. It is pretty clear that he did. I also never said that the graphs weren't real. You can go back and quote on the statement too. I said was that the data was accurate and never in contention. What I did say, though, was that they were extremely misleading. Especially coming from a site that claims there is no relationship between CO2 causing temperature rise. It is too bad you can only insult.
It's ok, there's a sucker born every minute, so you have lots and lots of company.
Y'all like graphs, so perhaps you would like to take a look at this one.
It is just half-way down the page:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/
You can zoom in an out. as well.
It shows the temperature variation for the past 400,000 years - from the Vostok, Antarctica ice core.
What I find most interesting is that we are currently in a fairly warm period, relative to the overall cycle, but by no means are we all that close to the warmest periods of the past - and even seem to be in a slight (long-term) cooling trend.
There are 4 previous 'warm' periods that surpass our current 'warming trend' by as much as 2C. (I am fairly certain they were not caused by too many cars or heat exchangers or industry, or farting cows)
Surprisingly, or not, all the warming periods seem to be fairly regular periodic changes - judging by the spacing on the graph. Our current warming trend seems much in line with what has happened in the past half million years (and in sync with it).
This panic about a little warmer temperature, when the long term records show that the planet (while usually much cooler) does go through cyclic periods of much warmer temperatures, is simply stupid. If anything, we should be pumping more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere just to keep the temps at a comfortable range.
You know, if the past trends continue we will be going into our next ice age in the near future (at least, judging from the Vostok data). Shouldn't we be more thinking about that, than how we are at fault for becoming industrialized at the same time the earth is experiencing a natural warming cycle? (which should only to be considered as a natural occurrance, since we can develop more in a more inviting environment...)
And, by the way, this latest 'warming trend' began ~17,000 years ago!!!! - from -8 C. I really doubt that we want our climate to go back to that. Half the earth would be covered year round in snow and ice.
And, please also notice...
When a warming trend begins - it is a very sharp upswing. It happens FAST! Much faster than the cooling trends...
...Why?
Fear not - science is still alive. AGW momentum doesn't require any sort of orchestrated wide-spread conspiracy, either. It's not surprising to me at all that the overwhelming majority of climatologists believe that their work is sound. However, the foundations of climate science are shaky at best.
On the other hand...
That ice core record provides evidence of Atlantis, and other advanced (and long past, highly evolved) civilizations.
They were all destroyed after they reached a certain industrial capacity, thereby pumping so much CO2 into the air that the earth went nova and drowned them all because all the ice melted.
Get real.
Foundation shmoundation! The temperature is going up at the same time CO2 is, it's proven!
Only to a feeble mind, since in the past one has lagged behind the other.
C'mon, really.
The current warming trend has let us go from getting by, to getting with.
It has let us relax a little, to get on with research and development - instead of simply trying to kill our next meal to stay alive for another day.
The ice core records show that the earth has been a very cold place in the past. It has been in a warm cycle for longer than usual, which has given us an advantage. Are we to try and reverse the advantage simply for political (and/or capitalist) gain?
What if...?
What if all the ice melted? What would be the outcome?
Some current coastal areas would be flooded. Other lands would be freed from water and ice.
Relocation...
But, the freed lands might outweigh the flooded - so we may have more dry land to develop on.
What if the entire Antarctica were to be free of ice? Would that offset the flooded 'lowerlands' in terms of space?
And not just space. That is land that has not been used in known history. What of its agricultural potential, or its mineral resources?
A warmer planet does not necessarily mean a deader planet.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
