{pagination_links}
55 of {total_pages}
There Is NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!  Global warming Scientists Lied, Hid Info, Lost Data, say hacked e-mails!!!
Posted: 06 December 2009 07:54 AM
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

LOTS of links and corroboration at the link:


News link

Britain

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 07:56 AM   [ # 56 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

continued….

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

  If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

If the emails and documents are a forgery, it would be an extremely large one that would likely have taken months to setup. No doubt much more will be coming out about these emails and their possible authenticity. Stay tuned to the Climate Change Examiner for updates as more information becomes available.

Update, 10:30am

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 07:58 AM   [ # 57 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

Continued….

From Mick Kelly (modifying data to hide cooling):

  Yeah, it wasn

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 08:51 AM   [ # 58 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

Lots of good data has been gathered from scientists not associated with this group too which point in very different directions. 

Who should you believe?  Well, I believe in the Wooly Bear Worm!  This past October I found one and brought it in to show Erik.  It had NO brown band showing which is a rarity for this area, so I just knew we would get an early snow and probably a snowing winter this year (which we usually do not get).  We had our first Weather alert yesterday and it began to snow and continued into late evening.  HAHAHAHA! 

http://www.allaboutworms.com/woolly-worm-festival-aka-wooly-worm-festival

All About The Woolly Worm Festival (a/k/a Wooly Worm Festival)
Published by head worm,
Anne P. Mitchell

Summary:  The Woolly Worm festival (sometimes spelled as “Wooly Worm” festival) draws 25,000 Woolly Worm enthusiasts annually to Banner Elk, North Carolina to see these fuzzy, woolly worms (actually caterpillars) race.

Every October, more than 25,000 enthusiasts, and hundreds of vendors and entertainers gather in Banner Elk in Avery County, North Carolina, to see a worm race. According to local folklore, the multi-colored woolly worm (actually a fuzzy caterpillar) , [color=red]can predict the weather through the coloring of its fur

 Signature 

SilentTone:// hulitoons blog of just plain silliness
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 09:03 AM   [ # 59 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

I love it , Huli! :lol:

Use ‘em to fish with, use ‘em to tell the weather too!  A very useful little bugger. 😉

I’m still going with the whole “Minor ice Age” theory myself. :coolgrin:
(Longer nights….nothing to do….pretty girlfriend…..) :cheese: :cheese:

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 10:23 AM   [ # 60 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9111
Joined  2008-03-02
daveprime - 06 December 2009 02:03 PM

(....pretty girlfriend…..)

😕

 Signature 

“What fools these mortals be…”—Smaug (according to Robert Asprin)

Visit here to help my dragons grow! Thanks!

Dum vivimus, vivamus!

And oh, yeah—my blog.

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 11:33 AM   [ # 61 ]
Senior Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  356
Joined  2004-11-10

It would appear at this point that there is little doubt that the emails are authentic.  If they were not, the principle players would certainly have said so by now…

I’ll say now what many have been saying for some time: Global warming relies on BAD SCIENCE. The facts just don’t add up.  It is the “in” thing right now, but it is mainly political and serves the radical evironmental causes so well that it was accepted without question. Now that BILLIONS has been spent, I bet a few will be asked now.... 😕

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this whole thing has been taken out of context. Yes the emails are authentic but the people who stole them didn’t understand what they were reading.

Dr. Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer gives a rational explanation here and here.

snippet:

These files are not evidence of fraud. I am a scientist myself, and I

 Signature 

Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.
-Robert Park

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 12:01 PM   [ # 62 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

That’s the problem… it NOT out of context!  Take a look HERE for a basic understanding of how and why the numbers were “fudged”.

(After much graphing and common sense explanation the author concludes thusly:)

As you can see, the post-LIA warming that began around 1850 is neither unprecedented nor spectacular.  And certainly not worth rewiring the economic circuitry of the planet over.

And the CRU/IPCC reconstructions have been counterfeited for the express purpose of hiding that very fact.

After all, the stakes are enormous

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 12:20 PM   [ # 63 ]
Senior Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  356
Joined  2004-11-10
daveprime - 06 December 2009 05:01 PM

That’s the problem… it NOT out of context!  Take a look HERE for a basic understanding of how and why the numbers were “fudged”.

So we are supposed to reject the consensus of an entire worldwide community of professional scientists because of the comments of a ...  TV weatherman?

 Signature 

Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.
-Robert Park

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 12:33 PM   [ # 64 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

These things are really beyond our purview here other than make the ragged discussions relatively easy to drown in.  When I look at JUST this single statement: 

conversations that allude to potentially manipulating climate data to

 Signature 

SilentTone:// hulitoons blog of just plain silliness
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 03:55 PM   [ # 65 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6943
Joined  2005-10-21

The funny part, from what I understand, is the poor IT guys who had to try and make sense of the data they were being given. Apparently, the collection and collation database is an extraordinarily bad mess.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsibility to disprove your claims, but rather your responsibility to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 04:57 PM   [ # 66 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

Surely it is a mad mess and one that skeptic blogs do exploit. 

And other articles, including wiki, indicate that the ‘hacking’ of the material took place over the courst of about 13 years and there is a suggestion it may be from an inside source.  Someone has or had an agenda:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents—posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center—that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.

The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.

Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.

“This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn’t certain, but the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine.

“The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,” the university said.

Most climate scientists today argue that the earth’s temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute one or both of those views.

A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view.

In the emails, which date to 1996, researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. repeatedly take issue with climate research at odds with their own findings. In some cases, they discuss ways to rebut what they call “disinformation” using new articles in scientific journals or popular Web sites.

article continues at the above link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which some have dubbed Climategate,[1][2] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England, in the United Kingdom. An unknown individual or individuals stole and anonymously disseminated over a thousand e-mails and other documents made over the course of 13 years.[3][4][5][6] The university confirmed that a criminal breach of their security systems took place,[3] and expressed concern “that personal information about individuals may have been compromised.”[7] Details of the incident have been reported to the police, who are investigating.[4] Professor Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, confirmed that the leaked e-mails that had provoked heated debate appeared to be genuine.[8]
Critics have asserted that the e-mails show collusion[9] by climate scientists to withhold scientific information.[10] Other prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign.[11] Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December.[12

more at the above link

 Signature 

SilentTone:// hulitoons blog of just plain silliness
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 05:26 PM   [ # 67 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1167
Joined  2005-06-15

Dave are you saying we should not be careful of what we do? A big problem in Kentucky is people just dumping stuff on the sides of the road and using hillsides as household dump sites. I’m talking about people dumping fridges washers and dryers and other big stuff. I’m not perfect in green living but we need to be concious in what we do

 Signature 

Beerrun all we need is a 10 and a fiver a car, keys, and a sober driver

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 05:56 PM   [ # 68 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Okay, looking at some of these e-mails with my own background in science research, I can see that some of them are quite clearly not what the author of the article has labeled them as being.  Others have lots of room for ambiguity.  I’ll have to sit down some time and see if I can read more of these, rather than just the little snippets given here (you can be pretty sure that whomever edited the e-mails for this article only included the bits that he felt supported his own theme).

On global warming overall, I think that humans have indeed had some effect, though the extent of that effect is nowhere near being actually measured or understood.  But I also think that whether people keep on as they are or cut back on emissions and whatnot is irrelevant overall in the long term.  The planet has undergone all sorts of wild variations in climate without human assistance many, many times.  There’s no reason to think that it has suddenly decided to be static and stable from now on just for our benefit.  We might very well be changing global temperature averages, but they’re going to be changing anyway.  Our contribution is like spraying a firehose into the middle of the Johnstown Flood:  sure, it’s probably better that you don’t do it, but whether you refrain from it or not isn’t going to change whether the flood keeps happening or save the town from the floodwaters.

Is it a good idea to cut back on various forms of pollution and suchlike?  Sure; at the very least, it will make the planet a cleaner and healthier place to live.  Will our doing so magically make the world return to a normal stable climate forevermore?  No.  There is no such thing as a normal stable climate.  The climate will change, no matter what we do.  It’s just too big of a thing for us to control.  Cutting back on greenhouse gases and the like isn’t going to save all that beachfront property from getting flooded.  The ocean levels will rise no matter what we do with our own pollution.  And they’ll fall, too, at some point.  We need to start planning for that, rather than worrying about how we can stop it.  Thinking that the normal condition of the planet is for it to be convenient for us and that if it wasn’t for us everything would remain nice and stable is simple vanity.  We need to realise that the climate is going to change, and we need to start planning for it.

Besides, it’s not as though a warmer planet would be worse overall.  It would be bad for some people and some animal populations and even for some entire species, yes.  But it would be beneficial for others.  Whether climate change is good or bad is purely a matter of opinion.  Our current climate with its current sea levels and current weather patterns is “good” to our way of thinking, but at one time it was the new climate that the old one was shifting into, and while it might seem ideal to us it sure wasn’t for a lot of the critters who were living in the old climate.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 06:00 PM   [ # 69 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21
hulitoons - 06 December 2009 05:33 PM

These things are really beyond our purview here other than make the ragged discussions relatively easy to drown in.  When I look at JUST this single statement: 

conversations that allude to potentially manipulating climate data to

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 06:12 PM   [ # 70 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21
I am an ex associate - 06 December 2009 10:26 PM

Dave are you saying we should not be careful of what we do? A big problem in Kentucky is people just dumping stuff on the sides of the road and using hillsides as household dump sites. I’m talking about people dumping fridges washers and dryers and other big stuff. I’m not perfect in green living but we need to be concious in what we do

    I agree wholeheartedly, Ex!  But dealing with pollution isn’t really what this is about.  This is about making every citizen of the world pay a fine for basically breathing, tax eating meat from animals that breathe, tax products that make carbon dioxide, tax products that are made using CO2, tax vehicles that use CO2, and take the world’s production of CO2 back to 1910 levels.  It would also greatly restrict which technologies could be developed and heavily tax any they found to be offensive to their goals. (Which had NO WAY of being decided other than by some vague or arbitrary notion that only these people had a say in….)
    This restrictive atmosphere would greatly increase the cost of energy production, and therefore everything across the board, but only for the most developed countries!  Countries like China, South Africa and Brazil would be almost exempt.  This means that they would be able to produce virtually ANYTHING for much less than their first world competitors. (Who would then be taxed for buying the products they could not get made in their own countries.)

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 06 December 2009 08:26 PM   [ # 71 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

Well, if that’s true Dave, and I also read the area where America would have to pay for their ‘deeds’ or ‘misdeeds’ toward fouling the air, water and ground, then it might be easier just to nuke us.  Beavers don’t concern themselves with the repercussions of changing the flow paths of rivers when they build dams, but we also realize that building them is their nature.  It is both fortunate and unfortunate that technology is also human nature and it’s been the path toward that technology that has presented a change or flux as well. 

Americans are not the only humans on this globe who have burdened the planet.  The very fact that our global population continues to grow by leaps and bounds even though the human animal gives birth to typically only one infant at a time and is not confined to ‘heat’ periods resulting in litters amazes me.  It’s that we are so prolific that specific needs have overwhelmed our planet and caused a number of problems. 

However, to point fingers at this time is senseless and nonconstructive. 

As Acci points out above, whether or not any animal has had a hand in making minor variations is moot since climate patterns have always been in flux since this planet churned into existence.  Some new patterns will benefit some areas and animals while others will have to adapt. 

I shudder to think that eventually groups will take a tally and present senseless blame and perhaps even suggest taxing the air that we breathe.

 Signature 

SilentTone:// hulitoons blog of just plain silliness
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 01:20 AM   [ # 72 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06

My own opinions on global warming are quite in line with Accipiter’s above. People have an unreasonable expectation and wish that things stay “stable” and preserve a status quo. But as Acci pointed out, climate never has been stable (nor has ecology - a thing lost on many people active in ecology conservation).

With regard to this specific leaking of e-mails, I remain very cautious. A lot of it is out of context and could basically mean anything. Some of it is simply (deliberately or not) misinterpreted science lingo. Some of it could indicate questionable data massage.

Personally, I am on a real straddle between being a “climate sceptic” and a non-sceptic. I think there is little doubt that our climate over the past century has been trending towards getting warmer (even without the “hockey-stick” analysis now under fire). I think it is well possible that human CO2 overproduction plays a role in this. I think models on the effects of CO2 and greenhouse warming urge for CO2 emission reductions, as they point to the clear potential of large scale CO2 emmisions to alter climate.

At the same time, I think at least part of the trend we observe is very likely natural and part of the temperature resurge from the dip of the “small ice age”, the 15th century dip in temperatures.

With regard to the argument that it has been “proven” that the trend is “un-natural”, I have always been very sceptic. The datasets used to “corroborate” this simply cover too little of a full interglacial cycle to make such strong statements. And we lack detailed data of previous interglacials to take into consideration.

Put it simply: we do not have enough grasp on what are realistic climate variations over a long duration interglacial such as our Holocene: the dataset used so far is employed in a way too incomplete (Holocene data) and other potential datasets not suitable as they lack the resolution (Eem data). An assessment from several hundred years of data out of a 10 000 yr duration interglacial is simply a too inadequate set of data. Certainly when it comes to actual temperature measurements. Our Dutch data set, which is the oldest semi-continuous dataset in the world starting in AD 1706, barely covers 3% of the current interglacial. That is like assessing temperature variation over a full year, based on just the last 11 days of temperature measurements. Even extending that to 1000 years (as the IPCC report did) with proxy data is still inadequate in my opinion, as that still covers only 10% (and moreover, it is a set of which we know it largely concerns a temperature downswing, the 15th century dip known as the “little ice age”. It is therefore a dataset that certainly is not representative of the ‘baseline’ Holocene temperature range, if such exists at all: a considerable part of it can be expected to be situated below that baseline). It has always worried me that this has been glossed over so easily. In my opinion, many researchers involved in the curent debate lack a proper and necessary perspective on and appreciation of the timescales involved (which, frankly, is a bit amazing).

As regard to a “macro” view on climate anomalies: the current temperatures are not unusually high when we consider other past interglacials. Both during the peak of the Eem, and at least one of the Saale interglacials (OIS 7), it was warmer (with e.g. the European pond tortoise Emys orbicularis being present in the Netherlands during one of the Saale complex interglacials, where it is absent now as it is too cold for its eggs to hatch)

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 01:30 AM   [ # 73 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2501
Joined  2008-03-23

So…. Who doesn’t believe in Climate Change and who does?

 Signature 

Why does spellcheck hate me?
GO HERE
Those who wish to fight, must now about eternal might. The blue skies turn red, Maybe it’s time you fled? Why wait for the army to strike when you know you don’t need to fight? Aren’t I right? The flower will bloom, and after the blue skies turn red, out comes your doom.
GO HERE….or else…My pets wont grow

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 04:35 AM   [ # 74 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5155
Joined  2005-01-27

Some sanity.

Global warming emails: followup

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 06:07 AM   [ # 75 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2904
Joined  2005-06-15
Silver Caliber, The Illuminatus, Legionaire - 07 December 2009 06:30 AM

So…. Who doesn’t believe in Climate Change and who does?

I do believe in climate change. I agree climate change is a natural cycle but I also believe human activity does have some affect.

I believe we have unwittingly been involved in an experiment on a global scale since the birth of the Industrial Revolution. The “experiment” being hows does pollution affect our environment?The outcome of this is debatable but do we really want to let pollution to keep going on unchecked? If there is a chance Human activity does have a real affect on climate then do we really want to continue with this “global experiment”?

 Signature 

I’m not some ordinary moron.
I’m an Oxy-Moron!

Mental Giant: A very tall person who is more than slightly confused.

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 08:06 AM   [ # 76 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2501
Joined  2008-03-23

I believe….
Global warming can or may not be a natural thing.

The unnatural things are the C02 and gasses. These normally come out in large quantities from volcanic eruptions, disasters and forest fires. But, it is sometimes kept in check. The world hasn’t met up with a disaster that nature couldn’t cope with.

The unnatural is we ourselves interrupt this balance and do more harm for everything than good. Naturally, the world can shift and change. WE have no control over that, BUT we can also be a factor for these. We speed up this process of natural CC than the planet normally handles, AND we also diminish it’s chances of healing back normally.

I believe that we are parasites. Life was simpler before the first civilizations and when money replaced trading. When shame was introduced and people started to have rulers.

If only we had a civilization were we could become more advanced, but keep a good sense of morality and trust. I have similar ideas to those terrorists in Rainbow six first novel. And also i have similar ideas to a city of people in this story i read, about a city of people who survived a disaster and rebuilt the world in a huge city carved into a mountain range. Ruled solely by everyone’s morality, the city fluorished for thousands of years as the world healed. And after 10,000 years, the population of a mere 2,100 left and made homes in plain to live off the land as their ancestors once did.

 Signature 

Why does spellcheck hate me?
GO HERE
Those who wish to fight, must now about eternal might. The blue skies turn red, Maybe it’s time you fled? Why wait for the army to strike when you know you don’t need to fight? Aren’t I right? The flower will bloom, and after the blue skies turn red, out comes your doom.
GO HERE….or else…My pets wont grow

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 09:04 AM   [ # 77 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21
Unfairly Balanced - 07 December 2009 09:35 AM

Some sanity.

I’ll let sme of the comments from that article answer it:

#  8.  dcurt Says:
November 30th, 2009 at 7:57 am

Cherrypicking. There

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 09:33 AM   [ # 78 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

Silver humans have also been compared to cockroaches because we multiply so rapidly, but surely we have behaved like parasites, but I think it’s important to remember that not parasitic activity is negative either, some activities are beneficial and provide symbiotic relationships with their hosts.  There are many things that humans do that fall into this category.  We’ve been able through technology, to repair areas of land that had been hostile and dry.  We’ve been able to erect saft nesting platforms to encourage some of our larger and endangered birds to raise families even in areas where humans now live.  We’ve been able to protect some areas of the oceans where over-fishing has been occurring. 

You have to remember too that humans strive to survive just like any other animal and in doing this they have innocently caused some problems but we are learning how to monitor ourselves and survive without being so exploitative and that’s a hard thing to do when there are so many of us. 

The stories you’ve read fairly common too when only a handful of people survive some kind of cataclismic event.  They can start over again without having to compete with billions of other humans and that will always make a difference to the land.  Unfortunately, unless we pursue space travel and can eventually colonize other planets, we can’t remove any excess human animal from Earth unless we completely annihilate them. 

——————————————————
Dave, I know where you’re coming from but I do know that we have some pretty learned folks here on the forum and especially LaMa in his current field is a good one.  Even reading what he and Acci (our prodigy in a number of interconnecting fields…this one included) it’s easy to admit that unless we well versed in the field being discussed, any bias we may project is based on what we can or think we can understand from short news articles and selected inserts. 

Software programs used to tally information is fairly new and any software is affected and subjected to human input, trial and error. 

Certainly science and politics should never go hand in hand either and it seems that this is a grand part of what is happening here with this event.  The second is a game that cleverly fouls its area of targeted interest.

 Signature 

SilentTone:// hulitoons blog of just plain silliness
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 09:47 AM   [ # 79 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

Related news this morning:

if it warms up who’s going to pay

Are large dams altering extreme weather patterns

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/12/06/international/i022621S45.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0YyLxSMJ6
UN Says Climate Finale May Have Happy Ending

 Signature 

SilentTone:// hulitoons blog of just plain silliness
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 11:25 AM   [ # 80 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

And for a reasoned response to the whole “There’s nothing to the e-mails” camp:

There’s Nothing To See Here! Move Along!

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 12:12 PM   [ # 81 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

From Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-respond-to-climategate-controversy&SID=mail&sc=emailfriend

Scientists Respond to “Climategate” E-Mail Controversy
Stolen e-mails and computer code do nothing to change average temperature trends, but they could damage climate researchers’ credibility just when polls are showing public belief that greenhouse gases are warming the planet is ebbing

With all the “hot air” surrounding climate change discussions, none has been hotter in recent weeks than that spewed over a trove of stolen e-mails and computer code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England. Longstanding contrarians, such as Sen. James Inhofe (R

 Signature 

SilentTone:// hulitoons blog of just plain silliness
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 12:13 PM   [ # 82 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

cont. from previous post

In fact, an independent effort to dispel global warming findings by using the NASA data and discarding certain parts of it ultimately also revealed an increase in average temperatures over time. And scientists have become more open as well over the course of the past decade. (Many of the e-mails are from the 1990s.) “We published a paper in Science last week where we uploaded 30 megabytes of supplementary information to the Web site,” Mann said. “So anyone who read the paper had access to every piece of raw data and every piece of code we used to do the analysis.”

The stolen e-mails may ultimately provide a sociological window into the workings of the scientific community. “This is a record of how science is actually done,” Schmidt noted. “They’ll see that scientists are human and how science progresses despite human failings. They’ll see why science as an enterprise works despite the fact that scientists aren’t perfect.”

The one piece of stolen information that all agreed showed at least a “lapse in judgment” was CRU Director Phil Jones’s e-mail asking Mann specifically to delete any correspondence related to “AR4,” otherwise known as the report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Frankly, the sending of that e-mail demonstrated unfortunate judgment on the part of the scientist who sent it,” Mann said. “To my knowledge, no one acted on that request. I did not delete any e-mails.” The continuing existence of the e-mail itself would seem to support Mann’s contention, although his response at the time was to agree to contact a fellow scientist “Gene,” as requested by Jones.

Minimal impact is expected from the stolen e-mails at the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference, although a negotiator from Saudi Arabia has already pledged to use them to complicate the process of negotiating an international agreement to combat climate change. But they could play a role in pending U.S. legislation, particularly in the Senate where a climate bill is likely to be debated next spring. “Those opposing action will throw everything including the kitchen sink into the debate,” Oppenheimer said. “Do I think it will have a significant effect on the judgment of lawmakers or public opinion? No, I don’t, but you never know with these things.”

And it might be that the recent polls are simply uncovering a hardening partisan divide: 73 percent of Democrats accepted that greenhouse gases lead to global warming whereas only 28 percent of Republicans agreed, in a poll conducted by Harris Interactive that matches similar findings from The Pew Research Center. A decline among Independents sharing that view of anthropogenic climate change seems to be largely driven by those who “lean Republican,” according to Harris.

As always, weather might also be playing a role: This past October was among the coolest on record in the continental U.S., which shows that when it comes to public understanding of global climate change, the local weather might be skewing the results. And just as glacier levels are raising sea levels around the globe, scandals like this continue to raise confusion.

 Signature 

SilentTone:// hulitoons blog of just plain silliness
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 12:25 PM   [ # 83 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any way the scientific consensus

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 12:42 PM   [ # 84 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  95
Joined  2009-03-13

I agree with Accipiter.  We simply do not have the means of analyzing long term patterns.  Our 100 years or so of good data are piddly in comparison with millions (billions?) of years.  I have always thought this outcry was a lot of human ego.  I DO feel we need to be more responsible with our pollutants, but that is just common sense.  Maybe this is the way things are supposed to progress…......

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 12:59 PM   [ # 85 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

And the last link I posted responds quite well to that very article. 😉

In my own opinion, I would agree that the Earth is warming slightly. But I believe that this is due to rebounding from the last mini ice age that ended in the late 1800’s.

It’s almost as if the enviro-nazi’s have a platform (ANY platform) and are going to try and use it to “punish” us for being what we are.  things change. Change is good. Get used to it.

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 01:02 PM   [ # 86 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

Erik just sent this along from NPR.  I think I’ll wait to see what the leaders decide in Copenhagen.  How the climate shift has occurred, who is responsible (like others here I really believe that it’s a combination of natural and human habit) and how we’re going to adapt is something we have to face anyway. 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121105095

For Public, Climate Change Not A Priority Issue
December 7, 2009

Nearly 100 world leaders are expected to appear at the global warming talks that open Monday in Copenhagen. This is an unprecedented showing of leadership for the issue. Yet at the same time, public opinion of climate change is souring

 Signature 

SilentTone:// hulitoons blog of just plain silliness
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 01:12 PM   [ # 87 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

I wonder how the general public would react if they understood just how expensive the current proposed solution to the problem is going to be?  After all, We are talking about somewhere ABOVE $2000 per person per year in perpetuity!! (And that is just the carbon taxes, the cost of MUCH higher fuel, transportation, food, housing and heating costs aren’t figured in.) If this thing passes, $4 a gallon for gas will look like a fire sale bargain. 😉

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 01:50 PM   [ # 88 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
daveprime - 07 December 2009 06:12 PM

I wonder how the general public would react if they understood just how expensive the current proposed solution to the problem is going to be?  After all, We are talking about somewhere ABOVE $2000 per person per year in perpetuity!! (And that is just the carbon taxes, the cost of MUCH higher fuel, transportation, food, housing and heating costs aren’t figured in.) If this thing passes, $4 a gallon for gas will look like a fire sale bargain. 😉

On the other hand, when the climate does change—which it will, from one cause or another—then it will really mess up the economy in all sorts of ways and will probably cost us all much, much more than that.  Agriculture and fishing will be changed, land use and values will change, beachfront property will end up underwater or miles from water, regions will start facing drought or deluge, power required for heating or cooling will change, and so on.  Which is why we need to start looking more seriously at how to most readily adjust our economy (and way of life in general) to whatever upcoming changes could occur.  In this need, whether we are significantly contributing to climate change or whether it is all just a natural process is irrelevant.

The same goes for oil use.  We have more and more people using more oil, and oil is being used in more and more ways, while at the same time we’re left with less and less oil still being in the ground.  We probably won’t run out any time soon, but it will happen if we keep on as we are.  What with our use of oil being such a fundamental part of our lifestyle, the time to start making a change in things and shifting over to some other power sources is well before oil grows scarce, not after we start running low.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 02:18 PM   [ # 89 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  22747
Joined  2006-03-29

I just wonder if the earth was “cooling” instead of “warming” would we be advised to drive bigger trucks and turn the AC down to 50 to burn more fossil fuels to cause warming…

 Signature 

Remember, remember… I am the ONE.

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 02:29 PM   [ # 90 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

Wouldn’t it be better to wait and see, and then spend the funds to counter what is actually happening, rather than levying huge taxes and fines on only one of many possible outcomes?  After all, the market has a built in corrective function which automatically responds to environmental as well as financial stimuli.  (It gives the people what they want, or think they want. Period. If that means other sources of ‘greener’ energy, then so be it.)

Acting now would be like dictating that no one could use iron or steel at the beginning of the industrial revolution because it had been determined that rust was an environmental hazard. (And YES, the things they are recommending are at least that drastic….)

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 02:35 PM   [ # 91 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

Hey NEO, that’s at least one way we do have of terra-forming planets otherwise seemingly inhospitable!

But back to what we’ll ALL have to do…  I am more concerned about how we’ll keep ourselves warm.  There are only so many trees to burn in wood stoves.  When oil and coal are eliminated the only other options are solar and that works well only if there are enough sunny days.  If we live in neighborhood developments our options are further hindered so far as windmills too which are only effective when there is wind or at least some breeze. 

Many of the things we rely upon are generated and fueled by sources far beyond that are culprits including even electricity which could curtail not only usage in general but things like telephones, television, internet etc. for the general citizen would be curtailed.  Hospitals use generous amounts of fuel and electricity so I’m assuming the cost for an average stay will catapult.

Dave, if they levy fines (taxes) beyond the ability of any country, including the U.S. to pay, we’re looking at what happens to people who can’t…..you can’t get blood from a turnip so it becomes almost a moot issue.  Of course you can evict I guess…..................

 Signature 

SilentTone:// hulitoons blog of just plain silliness
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 03:30 PM   [ # 92 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

Or occupy and force compliance. 🐛

But that’s a thread for another day…. 😉

There is a small, but vocal group of humans that hate their own species and would prefer that we would simply disappear.  They also feel that the US is inherently evil and should be punished for having been so successful.  I have a mental picture of them currently dancing with glee around a campfire, celebrating the summit…... :shut:

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 04:26 PM   [ # 93 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

There is no human innocent and without fault.  You might say that the poor would fall away from that label, however, since all this began long before any of us were ever born really, the poor would have to prove that their ancestry lineage was also fault.

Obviously the more densely populated an area is the more resources are exploited.  That’s a bit like faulting an elephant for eating more food than a mouse. 

‘Occupy’?  I do not think any country would step aside and simply let another force come in, occupy and force compliance Dave.  Would you open your door and just let someone into your home to ‘rule’ you? 

Already we’ve seen laws and regulations filter into our lives so gradually that they have become not only acceptable but honored.  Back in the 70’s we recognized that car emissions were unhealthy and changes were made to cars and testing became mandatory. 

We learned that aerosols were cutting into the ozone layer during the 70s as well so many chemicals were questioned and over time mostly eliminated under certain conditions.

We also began to learn the dangers of certain air conditioning methods and pressed to correct these as well. 

As we learned about things we were doing, we have made gallant attempts for the most part to make remedies or stop such use.  There are ancient methods that humans used without thought that were dangerous too particularly to the immediate areas.  Toilet pots were emptied by throwing the entire lot out the window and where it landed….oh well!  When people got sick it was common practice to ‘bleed’ them.  Because bathing was considered an open door to illness, it was common that nearly everyone had lice, and venereal diseases were rampant. 

The point is that humans have made many mistakes from their first birth on this planet, but they continue to learn and correct their mistakes.  They are now in very good positions to do great things for the planet they abused as ‘children’.  We have made advances in technology that allow us to make conditions for other earth animals better.  We are in a position now to prevent some extinctions from every happening. 

Every human being on this planet is equally responsible because we all went to the same kindergarten, the same grade school, and we are finally becoming adults…..at least some of us; there are obviously some children who will still point fingers.

 Signature 

SilentTone:// hulitoons blog of just plain silliness
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 04:27 PM   [ # 94 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

Ooh! A really good article from the The globe and mail dot com!

If you think that calling global warming an irrational mania is a bit harsh, consider this: Say that a pharmaceutical company’s researchers were caught fudging their tests to make their drug look effective; then, when found out, conveniently lost the non-fudged data. If a doctor prescribed for your child the fraudsters’ drug, would you let her take it? If you said yes, would we not be justified in saying you are acting irrationally?
This, in effect, is what’s happening now: global warming has become a near-religious test of civic virtue, just as being invested in Internet stocks became a test of investment savvy in 2000. Which is why many investors dazedly held on to Nortel all the way down to zero, even after its accounting issues had been revealed. And now, even though you can’t trust the climate change data, the Copenhagen conference still goes on and promoters including Al Gore are out begging the public to give the scientists the benefit of the doubt. This is the same Mr. Gore who is profiting from tax credit-based environmental investments.

You can find the rest HERE.

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 05:48 PM   [ # 95 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

I have found conclusive proof in those hacked e-mails!  Just read what Tom Wigley wrote to a number of people on July 1, 2004:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAmBAAAJwQAANAEAADWBgAA1wYAAOMLAADkCwAA5QwAAOYM

AACqDgAAqw4AAMEQAADHEAAAPRIAAD4SAADy6+Hr2evZ69nr2evh6wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Clearly, this is proof that these scientists have all gone totally mad and are not to be trusted!

😉

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 07:56 PM   [ # 96 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2501
Joined  2008-03-23

Seeing your posts, i can guess some of you don’t believe in this climate change? I would believe it, but i’m not so entirely sure about this kinds of things. I’ve read that the poles have melted away before, but not at an fast as rate as this.

And if it is natural, then what effect does our green house emissions have on the Ozone? Is it really thinning or becoming bigger? Is the Climate change really natural? Then what phenomenons CHANGE the climate? There has to be at least one thing to trigger it. It just can’t happen all of a sudden.

And i for one don’t give a damn to whatever climategate or others say, if this thing we are doing will stop major disasters, like the back-to-back storms we had. Some, or even MOST of the PAGASA believe that this kind of crap doesn’t just appear. These were huge storms coming back and forth; they must have had some kind of trigger.

 Signature 

Why does spellcheck hate me?
GO HERE
Those who wish to fight, must now about eternal might. The blue skies turn red, Maybe it’s time you fled? Why wait for the army to strike when you know you don’t need to fight? Aren’t I right? The flower will bloom, and after the blue skies turn red, out comes your doom.
GO HERE….or else…My pets wont grow

Profile
 
Posted: 07 December 2009 08:54 PM   [ # 97 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2065
Joined  2005-12-05

I just don’t trust anybody.  This writer just reinforced some thoughts I’d had for years.  Those of us over 40 remember when they told us we were “coming out of an ice age” in grade school.  Many of us of a certain age wonder how come they are so certain of temperature changes that they were uncertain about 40 years ago. 

I remember summers as a young girl being horridly hot, yet because we didn’t have air-conditioning, we went outside and sat under a tree when the house became unbearable. 

I have to wonder if people in today’s times are unable to tolerate outdoor temperatures becaue they are used to spending so much time in climate contolled indoor conditons.  What seemed warm 40 years ago is damned unbearably hot today.

 Signature 

Space…..it seems to go on and on forever, but then you get to the end and the gorrilla starts throwing barrels at you. - Phlip J. Fry

Profile
 
Posted: 08 December 2009 01:42 AM   [ # 98 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06

To visualize what I said earlier in this thread, I have created a diagram that shows:

a) the full extend of the current 10 000 years of interglacial;
b) GISP proxy data over that full extend (delta 18O);
c) the extend of the proxy data considered in the ICCP report;
d) the extend of available direct temperature measurements.

(c) is indicated by

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 08 December 2009 04:52 PM   [ # 99 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

Well said and a VERY cool graph, Lama. Thanks.

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 08 December 2009 05:52 PM   [ # 100 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Well, I’ve gone through the first two years’ worth of those e-mails (a little over 5% of the total, about a hundred and fifty pages so far).  Not the slightest whiff of anything dubious so far.  Some insights into the various interplays of different groups, about funding needs, about how to make models and simulations more accurate or fit together, and about various policies such as the Kyoto Accords, plus some interesting information on dendrochronology.  There was a bit about some computer programs that I have no clue what they’re going on about, but it didn’t seem at all shady or anything like that.  And there were a few cases of people withholding their findings until they could get their work finished and published, but that’s hardly a rare thing in any field of science.  Or even outside of science.

All in all, the science discussed so far in the e-mails looks to be quite good and well set up.  That doesn’t mean that the results are all correct, of course, but if it is wrong then it doesn’t appear to be due to any sort of intentional manipulation.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 08 December 2009 07:52 PM   [ # 101 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  95
Joined  2009-03-13

Thanks, LaMa.  That graph is excellent!

Profile
 
Posted: 09 December 2009 12:53 AM   [ # 102 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Okay, so far I’ve found two of those e-mails mentioned in the article at the start of this thread.  It’s really helpful the way in which all of these sources quoting the e-mails have very carefully stripped away all context, dates, and suchlike so that the only way to find the e-mails in question is to look, one at a time, through each of 1078 different e-mails.  These people complain about the scientists hiding information, but they’re doing the exact same thing. . .

Anyway, here’s the first one, in full with the part quoted in the article bolded:

From: Phil Jones
[*** I’ve edited out the e-mail addresses here ***]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

So, what does this mean?  Well, having read other e-mails and seen some of the problems the dendrochronologists were facing, it’s rather clear.  One of the ways in which scientists have been extrapolating past climate conditions has been by means of looking at tree rings.  By looking at the size and density of tree rings, you can work out a formula to tell what the temperature was when the tree ring formed.

For the most part, they’ve been able to use this formula to read the tree rings and to get results that match with actual thermometer readings taken in the time and place where the trees grew.  Except in one case.  One small group of trees tested in one place started doing something weird from about 1961 onwards, and their tree rings since then haven’t matched up with the actual temperatures when measured through the formula.  So the tree ring formula has been shown to work and be accurate in most cases.

The problem is that if you take the data from the trees after they went weird and add it in with the data from the trees that didn’t, it throws the whole average off.  Consider this example, with a series of imaginary annual temperature readings (which I just made up) from four different sample groups wherein the last group (D) represents the trees that went weird:

Group A:  54, 58, 60, 61, 62, 65, 67, 69, 73, 73, 75, 78
Group B:  53, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 67, 69, 72, 73, 75, 79
Group C:  54, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 70, 72, 73, 74, 78
Group D:  54, 58, 59, 60, 62, 54, 52, 49, 47, 45, 40, 37

With the one anomalous set of data left as it is, we get the following annual averages of all four groups:

53.75, 58.25, 59.5, 60.5, 62.25, 61.75, 63, 64.25, 66, 66, 66, 68

You can see how the one set of bad data messes up all the rest.  The last seven averages are not at all representative of the data as a whole.  “Mike’s Nature trick” wasn’t some deep dark secret.  It was something that Michael Mann published in the very famous and well-read journal Nature, hence why it was called “Mike’s Nature trick”.  What it did was to basically cut out all of the numbers from that one sample after they started doing strange things that obviously didn’t match the measured reality.  Without those bits of bad data, the other sets of data were able to more accurately match reality.

This “trick” wasn’t to hide an actual decline in temperatures.  It was to cut out the one bit of obviously bad data so that the results match the actual readings taken by thermometer.  It’s a “trick” as in “the trick to seeing if a number is divisible by nine is to add the digits and see if they equal nine”, not a “trick” as in “let’s trick those silly tourists and con them out of their money”.

Here’s an earlier e-mail from somebody else, complaining of the same problem with the bad data from that one group of trees messing things up:

From: Tim Osborn
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Briffa et al. series for IPCC figure
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:18:29 +0100

Dear Mike and Ian

Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have.  The data are
attached to this e-mail.  They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. . .

. . .As such, the
mean of our reconstruction over 1881-1960 matches the mean of the observed
target series over the same period.  Since the observed series consists of
degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90, we say that the reconstructed series
also represents degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90.  One could, of course,
shift the mean of our reconstruction so that it matched the observed series
over a different period - say 1931-60 - but I don’t see that this improves
things.  Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might
yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period.

So, it’s hardly a case of diabolical data manipulation to give false results.  It is a case of whomever wrote the original article that Dave linked to manipulating the e-mails to give a false impression, and stripping the e-mail of all context and most information to make it exceedingly difficult and time-consuming to tell what the reality is.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 09 December 2009 01:01 AM   [ # 103 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Here is the second of the two e-mails that I have so far found.  It is actually a series of replies nested within each other, so I’ve gone ahead and separated them and shown the three connected e-mails in the order in which they occurred.  The bit that the article on this thread quoted is in bold again.

INITIAL E-MAIL:
Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Phil and Gabi,

I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc.  Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

In the process of trying to clean it up, I realized I had something a bit odd, not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference. It seems that I used the ‘long’ NH instrumental series back to 1753 that we calculated in the following paper:

* Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., [1]Optimal
Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003.

(based on the sparse available long instrumental records) to set the scale for the decadal standard deviation of the proxy composite. Not sure why I used this, rather than using the CRU NH record back to 1856 for this purpose. It looks like I had two similarly named series floating around in the code, and used perhaps the less preferable one for setting the scale.

Turns it, this has the net effect of decreasing the amplitude of the NH reconstruction by a factor of 0.11/0.14 = 1.29.

This may explain part of what perplexed Gabi when she was comparing w/ the instrumental series. I’ve attached the version of the reconstruction where the NH is scaled by the CRU NH record instead, as well as the Matlab code which you’re welcome to try to use yourself and play around with. Basically, this increases the amplitude of the reconstruction everywhere by the factor 1.29. Perhaps this is more in line w/ what Gabi was estimating (Gabi?)

Anyway, doesn’t make a major difference, but you might want to take this into account in any further use of the Mann and Jones series…

Phil: is this worth a followup note to GRL, w/ a link to the Matlab code?

Mike

p.s. Gabi: when do you and Tom plan to publish your NH reconstruction that now goes back about 1500 years or so? It would be nice to have more independent reconstructions published in the near future! Maybe I missed this? Thanks…


**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************
FIRST REPLY:

At 10:36 10/08/2004 -0400, Gabi Hegerl wrote:

Hi Mike and Phil,

Thanks! Yes, factor 1.29 will get me closer to my best guess scaling (factor 1.6 to same-size signals).

The scaling is a tough issue, and I think there are lots of possibilities to do it depending on what one wants to do. For comparing underlying forced signals, I think tls is best. To get a conservative size paleo reconstruction (like what part of instrumental do we reconstruct with paleo), the traditional scaling is best.

I’ll write up what Myles and I have been thinking and send it.

Phil, if there is a second attempt at that with the Hadley Centre, let me know, I don’t like racing anybody!

Gabi

**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************
SECOND REPLY:

From: Phil Jones
To: Gabi Hegerl, “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: Re: Mann and Jones (2003)
Date: Tue Aug 10 15:47:04 2004
Cc: Tom Crowley

Gabi,

No second attempt - don’t know what the first was?  We’ll be doing a new instrumental data
set (surprisingly called HadCRUT3), but that’s it at the moment. Attached is a good review of corals - just out.

Cheers
Phil

[*** followed by about ten pages of computer code, which I’m not including here due to character limits per post on this Forum ***]

So, what do we have in the above e-mail and replies?  Somebody who is debugging some computer code, and who is not wanting it to be leaked before it is all ready.  Woohoo.  The sheer Machiavellian cunning of it all.  He even acknowledges in the bolded part, the part that the original article on this thread quoted, that it will soon be released to the public.

Where’s the dastardly conspiracy in that e-mail, exactly?

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 09 December 2009 01:17 AM   [ # 104 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

That’s two of the sixteen e-mails, e-mails that have been described as showing clear signs of some vast conspiracy, showing no sign of anything suspicious.  Nor have any of the four hundred and something out of a thousand that I’ve read in full (in fact, so far they’ve shown the exact opposite of any concerted attempt to hide data, separate computer models from reality, or other such things).  I’m really starting to think that these sixteen that have been quoted all over the place are the only ones out of 1078 e-mails where the people who are raising a fuss have seen “evidence”.  If so, then regardless of whether or not these global warming scientists are right, then there really doesn’t seem to be any real case for them to be actively engaged in some big plot to deceive us all.  People can be innocently wrong, after all.

I’ll wait until I’ve finished the rest of the e-mails before I make a definitive statement, but from almost halfway through them it looks as though this whole “Climategate” scandal is an artificial fuss.  And the way in which people such as the guy who wrote the original article here are reporting and (mis)handling the information doesn’t give me a very warm glow of trust.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 09 December 2009 01:29 AM   [ # 105 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6943
Joined  2005-10-21

I do wonder if this should wander over to Conspiracies, though…

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsibility to disprove your claims, but rather your responsibility to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
Posted: 09 December 2009 04:48 AM   [ # 106 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

Acci, MOST interesting and time consuming piece of research you’re doing!  Most people would never bother and simply believe what they’d been told at the onset.  Which is pretty much what was counted upon.

 Signature 

SilentTone:// hulitoons blog of just plain silliness
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
Posted: 09 December 2009 10:51 AM   [ # 107 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
hulitoons - 09 December 2009 09:48 AM

Most people would never bother and simply believe what they’d been told at the onset.  Which is pretty much what was counted upon.

That’s what it’s really looking like.  So far, it’s all been about getting funding, trying to figure out how to combine different sets of data or different computer models, getting papers published, complaints about other peoples’ papers, requests for and transfers of information, plans for upcoming meetings, critiques of peoples’ work, and plans for new studies.  All just what you’d expect from any group of scientists scattered around the world.

The closest to any “conspiracy” has been a few people hoping to keep their work from being released until it was all finished and polished up, and the occasional complaint this this or that science journal’s standards must be slipping because they allowed so-and-so’s paper to be published.

On the other hand, we see them going totally frantic trying to be sure that their models get as much accurate and up-to-date information as they can and give the most realistic predictions, complaining that politicians might use their work to impose too strict regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, going to great lengths to try to obtain funding for other scientists to perform their own research in places that haven’t been thoroughly examined, and chastising their own people whenever they think that they’ve been working on assumptions rather than actual science.  Hardly the atmosphere of cynical suppression and falsification that some people have been claiming.  If it does end up becoming that, then it must have been after 1999.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 09 December 2009 07:39 PM   [ # 108 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

We’ll wait and see what you find Acci.

While we wait, Here’s a neat little article I found on the web.  It references a report that argues the conclusions given about climate science are not what they seem…..

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 09 December 2009 10:42 PM   [ # 109 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

Here is that report.

Also, here is an open letter from 140 scientist in the field asking the Copenhagen Summit NOT to make any precipitous decisions based on a report that has not been subject to OBSERVED real world data. (Not computer simulations based upn unknown and questionable models…)

And
Here is a link on the ongoing scandal… (lots of interesting links)

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 01:02 AM   [ # 110 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6943
Joined  2005-10-21

“Do not ascribe to malice, that which can be ascribed to incompetance”

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsibility to disprove your claims, but rather your responsibility to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 02:16 AM   [ # 111 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06
hulitoons - 07 December 2009 01:26 AM

Americans are not the only humans on this globe who have burdened the planet.

True, but they are by far the biggest polluters, and have done so for a very long time. In terms of energy consumption per household, CO2 production per capita, the USA is a very big contributor on this planet.

And they are for a century now, so not only in terms of current output, but also of cumulative past output, the USA is de facto this worlds biggest polluter.

The USA currently produces 20%, that is 1/5th, of this worlds CO2 emmissions. Only China produces (slightly) more (21.5%), but they are a much larger country with a much larger population (a quarter of the world population). Seen per capita, the USA’s contribution is much worse than China’s. And this is not counting the fact that the USA’s industrial history goes much deeper than that of China (in other words, the USA has been polluting for a much longer time already).

So yes, objectively seen the USA is the leading source of pollution on this planet.

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 02:34 AM   [ # 112 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2501
Joined  2008-03-23

Seriously, though. You all feel like most of you haven’t ever believed in Climate change. So if it’s not much to ask, really, is the planet on a natural or man-made course. I can’t really make up my mind. I still believe it’s a human course.

 Signature 

Why does spellcheck hate me?
GO HERE
Those who wish to fight, must now about eternal might. The blue skies turn red, Maybe it’s time you fled? Why wait for the army to strike when you know you don’t need to fight? Aren’t I right? The flower will bloom, and after the blue skies turn red, out comes your doom.
GO HERE….or else…My pets wont grow

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 03:09 AM   [ # 113 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

Silver. I believe that the planet is warming. It is why it is warming which is what is at issue.  The science (contrary to what some might have you believe) is far from settled on that matter.  Does the US produce CO2? Yes.  Is CO2 the toxic gas it has been portrayed as being? Doubtful.  After all, every living creature and plant on the planet either produces or metabolizes CO2.

I was thinking about the problem while driving today, and I had an idea.  Because most of the planet lives in cities, I think they see the world as something like a larger Central Park.  They think every tree and bush must be planned for and regulated.  They have no real grasp of how truly massive and self-correcting the biosphere is.  While CO2 may be a “greenhouse” gas, there are studies out there that show that there is a maximum heat threshold it will retain and other studies that show there are many mitigating factors (like water vapor/cloud cover) that regulate how much CO2 affects the planet.  Earth is a mighty and robust biosphere.  It is nowhere NEAR as fragile as some believe.  Trying to effect the weather will merely bankrupt the world, and won’t accomplish much anyway. 

Many proponents of the current fix seem to want everyone to live on a little plot of land, grow their own food, and have a standard of living just above that of a medieval surf.  They rabidly spout off about how evil capitalism is and would like nothing better than to try and redistribute the world’s wealth from those that have, to those they deem more deserving somehow.  It’s truly ridiculous.  Unfortunately, it seems that these type of people are the major driving force and mouthpieces for the AGW camp.  That fails to lend credibility to their view…..

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 03:41 AM   [ # 114 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
daveprime - 10 December 2009 08:09 AM

I was thinking about the problem while driving today, and I had an idea.  Because most of the planet lives in cities, I think they see the world as something like a larger Central Park.  They think every tree and bush must be planned for and regulated. . . .Many proponents of the current fix seem to want everyone to live on a little plot of land, grow their own food, and have a standard of living just above that of a medieval surf.  They rabidly spout off about how evil capitalism is and would like nothing better than to try and redistribute the world’s wealth from those that have, to those they deem more deserving somehow.  It’s truly ridiculous.  Unfortunately, it seems that these type of people are the major driving force and mouthpieces for the AGW camp.  That fails to lend credibility to their view…..

Interestingly enough, in the e-mails the scientists (including some of the ones named in the article on this page) actually complain about these sorts of people, and several times scold other groups for catering to them.  Some of the reason why the scientists are “hiding” their work is because they don’t want the rabid “green-friendly” activists getting hold of the incomplete work and misusing it.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 04:33 AM   [ # 115 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

I had noticed some of that sentiment.  in fact, many of the scientists that sent that letter seem to feel that is what is going on at large.  In some ways, much of what is happening is the gov’ts going after the carte blanche such restrictions would give them and the power it would entail.  Scary stuff.

*Stupid missing o key!  I had to add something like ten of the little buggers to that when I was done typing!* :lol:

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 10:09 AM   [ # 116 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06
Silver Caliber, The Illuminatus, Legionaire - 10 December 2009 07:34 AM

Seriously, though. You all feel like most of you haven’t ever believed in Climate change. So if it’s not much to ask, really, is the planet on a natural or man-made course. I can’t really make up my mind. I still believe it’s a human course.


Silver,

There is no doubt that the climate is changing. It always has been changing. That is a natural phenomena.

Whether the trend we now see has a strong human induced component? My opinion: perhaps, but not necessarily so.

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 11:33 AM   [ # 117 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06

In addition to my earlier post with diagram, hereby a second one. It relates to my argument why the stretch of direct and proxy data used by the ICCP report on global warming, is in my opinion wholy inadequate to prove that the current warming trend is “unnatural” and prove it is due to human influence on climate.

Below is again a diagram showing delta 18O values (thick line is running average), which are a proxy for the amount of water locked in ice caps. The lower the curve, the more water is locked in icecaps. This is a proxy for climate: ice caps grow when climate gets colder.

The red line is a linear fit to the (running average of) the delta 18O data from 6500 BC to 900 AD: hence a considerable part of the Holocene, this interglacial. This fit actually describes the trend of most of the Holocene delta 18O curve quite well. It shows a very slight cooling trend after the initial change of glacial to interglacial, with delta 18O values fluctuating about this “benchmark” for what should be considered something of an average Holocene climate trend.

Now, take a look. The diagram shows that in the 1900 years from 1000 BC to 900 AD (and in fact the 5500 years before that, not shown here), values indeed neatly fluctuate around the red benchmark line. For the 1000 BC to 900 AD period, 56% of the running average of the curve is below the benchmark, 44% above. In other words: fluctuation around the benchmark is quite even (56/44, near 50/50).

This is wholy different for the 1100 years between 900 AD and now however. As much as 85% of the curve is below the benchmark (85/15). For the 750-year period between 1150 AD and 1900 AD period, this is even 100%. You can see for yourself in the diagram, that the curve for quite a long time (compared to the previous fluctuations) drops below the red trend line. There is no similarly long period between 6500 BC and 900 AD!

What this shows, is that the period of 900 AD to 1900 AD, the period considered in the ICCP report, has been anomalously cold with respect to the rest of the Holocene. This is the period of the “Little Ice Age”.

In other words: the period investigated by the ICCP report to establish whether the current warming of the climate is “unusual” is not suited at all for that purpose, as it is almost completely occupied by an anomalously cold climatic period, a period where our climate behaved differently from the rest of the Holocene, our current interglacial. In the light of that, how can it be uphold that the current warming trend is not a natural process, like for example our climate finally recovering from this anomalously cold period? In my opinion, it therefore isn’t proven yet that what we currently see with rising temperatures, is warming caused by human activities. In that sense, I am a “climate sceptic” (or a “denialist” according to some…). But I base my scepticism on quite straightforward scientific data and an appropriate long term vision on past climate.

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 12:03 PM   [ # 118 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06

Anyway, those are my views. Oh: and not necessarily that of my employer…

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 12:56 PM   [ # 119 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

Wow, Lama. That’s extremely helpful.  It’s nice to know the data shows that.

Thanks.

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 02:50 PM   [ # 120 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Unfortunately, the whole future climate change question is all probably one of those things that we can only really tell for sure by looking back at it from many years in the future.  Which is a bit too late, as far as making decisions on policy and whatnot are concerned.  It could be that we’re near the peak in the latest rise in temperatures.  It could be that we’re past the peak.  It could be that the real peak is still a hundred years in the future.  The best we can do is to make an educated guess, which is incredibly hard to do given the vast quantity of information that needs to be considered.  The worst we can do. . .well, I dunno, but we probably don’t want to do it.  😉


(On a side note:  LaMa, “extend” is the verb, “extent” is the noun)

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 03:39 PM   [ # 121 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06
Accipiter - 10 December 2009 07:50 PM

Unfortunately, the whole future climate change question is all probably one of those things that we can only really tell for sure by looking back at it from many years in the future.  Which is a bit too late, as far as making decisions on policy and whatnot are concerned.  It could be that we’re near the peak in the latest rise in temperatures.  It could be that we’re past the peak.  It could be that the real peak is still a hundred years in the future.  The best we can do is to make an educated guess, which is incredibly hard to do given the vast quantity of information that needs to be considered.  The worst we can do. . .well, I dunno, but we probably don’t want to do it.  😉


That is the whole problem with this. This is why, even though I feel it is not proven to be behind the current climate trend, I feel it is wise to curb CO2 emissions as much as possible.

And thanks for the editing comments, Acci 😉

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 03:55 PM   [ # 122 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Yeah, as far as the climate and ecology and whatnot goes, cutting back on emissions and pollution can at worst make the planet a bit cleaner and nicer to live on, while at best keep climate changes from being too extreme.  So just from that standpoint, it would be silly to resist cutting back on emissions.  I doubt that there are many people who are arguing against the notion of a cleaner planet.

Unfortunately, there’s also the economic angle that has to be considered, and that’s where the whole sticking point is.  We humans always have to complicate matters. . .

What we need, then, is a means of cutting back emissions that either doesn’t throw the economy into the completely unknown or else that doesn’t simply hurt the economy to an unacceptable degree.

If we could establish beyond doubt that human-caused global warming really was going to result in global disaster and drought and super-hurricanes and famine, then I’d expect that our definition of “hurt the economy to an unacceptable degree” would change.  We’d be willing to accept greater cuts in oil use and higher prices from factories and whatnot if we knew that the alternative was to turn the planet into a scene from one of those post-apocalyptic movies.  And I think that many activists are trying to make the human effects on the climate much more certain than they are just for that very reason.  And there simply doesn’t seem to be enough of an agreement on the certainty of that threat for them to push through their ideas easily.  Too many people currently see the risk of damaging the economy as the more certain and the more major of the risks.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 05:55 PM   [ # 123 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06

While I am making diagrams anyway, hereby two that show that the proxy data from delta 18O values in the GISP ice cores are in agreement with other data - both proxy and direct - for the last 150-300 years.

First, a diagram which compares the delta 18O curve to the ICCP global surface temperature reconstruction for 1850 to 2005 - partly based on the study that was recently under fire. These are temperatures largely based on a proxy record themselves: an amalgamation of tree ring and direct temperature measurements:

The red line is the ICCP data. The black line is the GISP delta 18O curve. The trends are clearly similar. There is some suggestion of a lag between temperature changes and ice volume changes, which in itself is not illogical.

A second diagram below shows the GISP delta 18O data compared to the longest direct temperature measurement series in existence: our Dutch series (here shown: yearly averages plus an 11 year sliding mean) which start AD 1706. Again, the trend is very similar:

It is for this reason that I feel that the recent fuzz about the CRU temperature reconstructions (part of the first diagram) is overdone. I feel the CRU data are basically correct. The problems are not in the reconstruction, but in it’s interpretation in the ICCP report.

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
Posted: 10 December 2009 07:00 PM   [ # 124 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

Indeed, there isn’t really that much doubt that temperatures have been rising overall in the last couple of centuries.  The questions are:  is it abnormal, how far will they go up, and what (if anything) ought we do about it?

I’m not seeing any definitive evidence anywhere showing whether it is abnormal or not.  To know that, we’d need to know what the climate would be doing without our influence, and that’s quite the question to try to answer.

How far temperatures might go up is also something that we can’t really know.  We can make all sorts of educated and uneducated guesses, but any one of those can be fairly easily torn to shreds.  There’s just too much of our knowledge about the world that is too new, and too much that we simply don’t know.  It’s really something that we’ll have to wait and see for ourselves, and of course that leaves the possibility of us waiting until it’s too late to do something (if there even is anything we can do).

And what we should do about it is of course the question that is causing all the political fuss.  I suspect that all of the lobbying back and forth in various government offices has contributed more to global heating than has any other human cause. . .

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 11 December 2009 08:28 PM   [ # 125 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

Story at the Telegraph UK:

HERE

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 11 December 2009 10:09 PM   [ # 126 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

And Ooh!  Cool op/ed piece on the CBC!

Here.

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 12 December 2009 01:47 AM   [ # 127 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2501
Joined  2008-03-23
Accipiter - 10 December 2009 08:55 PM

Yeah, as far as the climate and ecology and whatnot goes, cutting back on emissions and pollution can at worst make the planet a bit cleaner and nicer to live on, while at best keep climate changes from being too extreme.  So just from that standpoint, it would be silly to resist cutting back on emissions.  I doubt that there are many people who are arguing against the notion of a cleaner planet.

Unfortunately, there’s also the economic angle that has to be considered, and that’s where the whole sticking point is.  We humans always have to complicate matters. . .

What we need, then, is a means of cutting back emissions that either doesn’t throw the economy into the completely unknown or else that doesn’t simply hurt the economy to an unacceptable degree.

If we could establish beyond doubt that human-caused global warming really was going to result in global disaster and drought and super-hurricanes and famine, then I’d expect that our definition of “hurt the economy to an unacceptable degree” would change.  We’d be willing to accept greater cuts in oil use and higher prices from factories and whatnot if we knew that the alternative was to turn the planet into a scene from one of those post-apocalyptic movies.  And I think that many activists are trying to make the human effects on the climate much more certain than they are just for that very reason.  And there simply doesn’t seem to be enough of an agreement on the certainty of that threat for them to push through their ideas easily.  Too many people currently see the risk of damaging the economy as the more certain and the more major of the risks.

I agree.

If what we’re doing will lessen storms like Ondoy, bring new changes to our world, and better maintenance of the environment, i’m all for it. Who wouldn’t want a better earth? Seriously though, CO2 emissions are bad enough alone even if they didn’t do bad things to the Ozone, deforestation is a horrible thing, and renewable energy is great. Climate change enlightened us a little bit more to green tech and our world’s problems.

Who wouldn’t want a greener place? I would. In the longshot, these things would open up better worlds for us. Who cares if the climate isn’t changing abnormally? We got great advances in tech because of it. So i say, let’s not mind it.

 Signature 

Why does spellcheck hate me?
GO HERE
Those who wish to fight, must now about eternal might. The blue skies turn red, Maybe it’s time you fled? Why wait for the army to strike when you know you don’t need to fight? Aren’t I right? The flower will bloom, and after the blue skies turn red, out comes your doom.
GO HERE….or else…My pets wont grow

Profile
 
Posted: 12 December 2009 02:32 AM   [ # 128 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

The problem, as I see it Silver, is that there is a group of folks out there that want to use the extremist forecast to basically “take from the rich and give to the poor”.  I have no problem with greener tech. I’m all for it. But NOT at the expense of every citizen of the Earth falling under the rule of some despotic body and the total destruction of the world economy….


And in brighter news:

[url=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/would-you-like-your-temperature-data-homogenized-or-pasteurized/#more-14026]  Headline

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 12 December 2009 08:37 AM   [ # 129 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8385
Joined  2005-04-17

First and foremost, exactly who is Basil L. Copeland and what does he have to gain:

http://www.dora.state.co.us/puc/docketsdecisions/DocketFilings/05S-264G/05S-264G_OCC11-10-05XAnswer.pdf

Inflation, Interest Rates and Equity Risk Premia- Basil Copeland is Economic Consultant at Hess & Lim, Inc., ...

[url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V7S-45JWV3S-J/2/1aa6375874b920d724982ed85fb49049]Estimates of the cost of equity for public utilities, 1961

 Signature 

SilentTone:// hulitoons blog of just plain silliness
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
Posted: 12 December 2009 06:24 PM   [ # 130 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

I agree that who funds something is a fact that must go into considering a person’s message.  The thing that rarely gets discussed is that the oil companies stand to make HUMONGOUS amounts of money from the Cap and Trade thing.  Obscene amounts of money are being discussed. (Something like 15-20% of the WORLD’S GDP!!)

When one looks at the billions that have been thrown at AGW, it makes me wonder just how invested the people at the apex are in the profits, rather than the science. 😕

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 15 December 2009 11:43 AM   [ # 131 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

Looks like the blood is in the water….. Do a google search on this topic:

December 14, 2009

DOE Litigation Hold Notice

DOE-SR has received a

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 15 December 2009 02:00 PM   [ # 132 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

And just to confirm:

From the comments section:

Anthony Watts (12:37:26) :

I called SRS Legal office just now and spoke with Madeline Screven, who is listed as a paralegal in the letter I posted. I found her telephone number via the DOE phonebook.

http://phonebook.doe.gov/

When I called, she fully identified herself in her greeting to me, I explained who I was, giving my full name. She asked if I was

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 16 December 2009 05:55 AM   [ # 133 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21

In the “Oops” department:
(emphasis mine)


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm

Himalayan glaciers melting deadline ‘a mistake’
By Pallava Bagla in Delhi

The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

Interesting…..
Someone said something about the glaciers disappearing? 😕

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 16 December 2009 09:13 AM   [ # 134 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
daveprime - 16 December 2009 10:55 AM

Someone said something about the glaciers disappearing? 😕

Well, they are.  There’s absolutely no doubt on that.  You can look at photographs taken over the years and see that for yourself.  It’s just that they seem to have overstated just how much faster it will happen.

On the other hand, how do we know that the 2350 document isn’t the one with the typo?

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 17 December 2009 12:03 AM   [ # 135 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  10732
Joined  2008-02-21
Accipiter - 16 December 2009 02:13 PM
daveprime - 16 December 2009 10:55 AM

Someone said something about the glaciers disappearing? 😕

Well, they are.  There’s absolutely no doubt on that.  You can look at photographs taken over the years and see that for yourself.  It’s just that they seem to have overstated just how much faster it will happen.

On the other hand, how do we know that the 2350 document isn’t the one with the typo?

Good Point. :lol:  Never underestimate the possibility for typos in the worst possible place…. 😉

And in the same vein:

James Randi puts his two cents in over at the JREF:
(A pretty good Op/Ed piece, actually.)


AGW Revisited

 Signature 

“Always, I Do What Is Necessary” - Rissa Kerguelen
Go to my Blog. It’s lonely.

I Am Still The Black Swan Of Trespass On Alien Waters
To the believer no proof is required; to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

Profile
 
Posted: 07 July 2010 01:46 PM   [ # 136 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10538198.stm

CRU climate scientists ‘did not withold data’

Climate scientists at a top UK research unit have emerged from an inquiry with their reputations for honesty intact but with a lack of openness criticised.

The Independent Climate Change Email Review was set up by the University of East Anglia (UEA) after more than 1,000 e-mails were hacked from its servers.

Climate “sceptics” claimed the e-mails showed that UEA scientists manipulated and suppressed key climate data.

But these accusations are largely dismissed by the report.

The review found nothing in the e-mails to undermine Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

The review, chaired by former civil servant Sir Muir Russell, has spent months reading submissions sent in by climate scientists and their critics and interviewing key players, notably scientists within the university’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

It concludes that “their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”.

However, it says “there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness”, notable over complying with Freedom of Information (FoI) requests.

CRU scientists were too quick to dismiss critics from outside their own circles, it says.

Sir Muir said the methods the inquiry team used ought to allay fears that this was a whitewash.

“It’s inevitable that people who’ve made up their minds (beforehand) have made up their minds,” he said.

“But we haven’t ducked the issues… we’ve gone to the heart of the issues to resolve them as best we can.”

Edward Acton, UEA vice-chancellor, said the review should “finally lay to rest the conspiracy theories, untruths and misunderstandings that have circulated.

“We hope this exoneration of UEA climate scientists and their research collabroators around the world, some of whom have suffered considerably during this experience, will be widely reported.”

He said the university accepted the inquiry’s criticisms on lack of openness and compliance with FoI legislation, and that he had written to all staff at the university reminding them of their responsibilities.

Meanwhile Professor Phil Jones, the former CRU director at the centre of many of the allegations, has taken up the new post of director of research within the unit.

Professor Acton said this would allow him to continue his research while others shouldered more of the administrative burden, including taking primary responsibility for FoI requests.

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, an influential sceptical think-tank, said that the report was a “damning indictment of the university’s handling of freedom of information requests”.

He told BBC News: “There is clearly strong evidence of mishandling of the requests [by the CRU] and strong criticism of its failure to provide legitimate information.

“I don’t think the university can just claim that this is a vindication.”

Dr Peiser added that that the issue would “not go away with this report”.

“We (the Global Warming Policy Foundation) have now commissioned our own inquiry into the way these three inquiries have been set up and run,” he said. “I don’t know anyone among the critics who has been swayed by the first two.”

But Gabi Hegerl from the University of Edinburgh, a researcher who has regularly worked with the CRU team, told BBC News she was delighted that the “nightmare” was over for Phil Jones and his colleagues.

“I am also very pleased that the report concluded it found nothing to undermine the IPCC reports.

“The IPCC has worked hard to represent the scientific findings about climate change as clearly as possible and to treat uncertainties rigorously,” she said.

*** continued below ***

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 07 July 2010 01:53 PM   [ # 137 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

*** continued from above ***

‘Unfounded allegations’

The e-mails released last November amounted to about 0.3% of the material on the hacked UEA server, the panel said.

They explained that the remainder was in the hands of police investigating the breach. However, conditions imposed by the police had made it impossible for the team to go through all the rest of the material.

The e-mails, along with other documents, cover a period dating back to 1997 and were released into the public domain just before the Copenhagen climate summit last year, with some seeing it as a political act designed to destabilise the summit.

CRU produces one of the four most widely used records of global temperature.

These have been key to the IPCC’s conclusions that the planet’s surface is warming and that humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are very likely to be responsible.

Critics have alleged that the unit’s scientists withheld temperature data from weather stations and also kept secret the computer algorithms needed to process the data into a record of global temperature.

The review concludes these allegations are unfounded.

“We find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it,” it says.

“We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis”.

Writing computer code to process the data “took less than two days and produced results similar to other independent analyses. No information from CRU was needed to do this”.

Sir Muir commented: “So we conclude that the argument that CRU has something to hide does not stand up”.

Asked whether it would be reasonable to conclude that anyone claiming instrumental records were unavailable or vital code missing was incompetent, another panel member, Professor Peter Clarke from Edinburgh University, said: “It’s very clear that anyone who’d be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it.

“It’s also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance.”

The university also did not withhold temperature data derived from tree rings, the inquiry concluded.

But access to the data “was not simple until it was archived in 2009”.

On one occasion, when presenting a graph combining tree-ring and instrumental data to the World Meteorological Organization, it should have made clearer the way in which the data was combined.

The inquiry found no evidence that CRU researchers distorted the peer review process employed by scientific journals, or unduly influenced IPCC reports by ignoring research papers that contradicted their own findings.

This is the third and most comprehensive review into the CRU issue, and has reached similar conclusions to the previous two.

At the end of March, a report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said the unit should be more open and transparent and must comply with Freedom of Information laws.

And in April, a second inquiry criticised sometimes “messy” practices within the unit and suggested closer liaison with professional statisticians.

But neither found any evidence of malpractice.

Both reviews were criticised in “sceptical” circles as superficial and lacking in balance.

On Monday, a review commissioned by the Dutch government into the IPCC’s projections of climate impacts found “no errors that would undermine the main conclusions” - that man-made climate change poses a significant threat in many regions of the world.

Policy change

Lord Lawson, the former UK chancellor and now chairman of the GWPF, said that if scientists wanted to have the respect of politicians, they should be “very open”.

“And these people were not open,” he told BBC News. “It’s quite inexcusable, when governments are being asked to make policy decisions that will affect everybody - hugely expensive policy decisions, if the science on which they are based is covered up.”

Climate researcher Dr Chris Huntingford from the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, said that he was “quietly confident” that the research community would rise to the challenge ever increasing levels of scrutiny.

“The last 20 years has seen a shift, from research in to the global environment being an intellectual curiosity to one of utmost importance,” he said.

“For those working in the field, this is rewarding but it also brings new responsibilities.”

And here is CNN’s report on the same thing, while the full text of the findings is in PDF form here, for those of you who like a nice 160-page exciting read before bed.

Basically, the report seems to have come to the same basic conclusions that I did when I first started going through the hacked e-mails back before my computer crashed and I lost all of those files.  The scientists did their work as well and as honestly as they could, with the main problem being an unwillingness to reveal all of the details before they have finished their studies.  And that sort of unwillingness is far from unusual in any branch of science, or even outside of science; people don’t want their work stolen, or to be misquoted and made to look silly before they have a proper report to make.  It’s not really a good thing in a lot of ways, but it’s an understandable and normal thing.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 23 October 2011 08:28 PM   [ # 138 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

And more fun!  😉

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

Global warming ‘confirmed’ by independent study

The Earth’s surface really is getting warmer, a new analysis by a US scientific group set up in the wake of the “Climategate” affair has concluded.

The Berkeley Earth Project has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa.

The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.

“Climategate”, in 2009, involved claims global warming had been exaggerated.

Emails of University of East Anglia (UEA) climate scientists were hacked, posted online and used by critics to allege manipulation of climate change data.

Fresh start

The Berkeley group says it has also found evidence that changing sea temperatures in the north Atlantic may be a major reason why the Earth’s average temperature varies globally from year to year.

The project was established by University of California physics professor Richard Muller, who was concerned by claims that established teams of climate researchers had not been entirely open with their data.

He gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including such luminaries as Saul Perlmutter, winner of this year’s Nobel Physics Prize for research showing the Universe’s expansion is accelerating.

Funding came from a number of sources, including charitable foundations maintained by the Koch brothers, the billionaire US industrialists, who have also donated large sums to organisations lobbying against acceptance of man-made global warming.

“I was deeply concerned that the group [at UEA] had concealed discordant data,” Prof Muller told BBC News.

“Science is best done when the problems with the analysis are candidly shared.”

The group’s work also examined claims from “sceptical” bloggers that temperature data from weather stations did not show a true global warming trend.

The claim was that many stations have registered warming because they are located in or near cities, and those cities have been growing - the urban heat island effect.

The Berkeley group found about 40,000 weather stations around the world whose output has been recorded and stored in digital form.

It developed a new way of analysing the data to plot the global temperature trend over land since 1800.

What came out was a graph remarkably similar to those produced by the world’s three most important and established groups, whose work had been decried as unreliable and shoddy in climate sceptic circles.

Two of those three records are maintained in the US, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa).

The third is a collaboration between the UK Met Office and UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), from which the e-mails that formed the basis of the “Climategate” furore were hacked two years ago.

“Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK,” said Prof Muller.

“This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.”

Since the 1950s, the average temperature over land has increased by 1C, the group found.

They also report that although the urban heat island effect is real - which is well-established - it is not behind the warming registered by the majority of weather stations around the world.

They also showed that in the US, weather stations rated as “high quality” by Noaa showed the same warming trend as those rated as “low quality”.

*** continued below ***

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 23 October 2011 08:29 PM   [ # 139 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

*** continued from above ***

‘Time for apology’

Prof Phil Jones, the CRU scientist who came in for the most personal criticism during “Climategate”, was cautious about interpreting the Berkeley results because they have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

“I look forward to reading the finalised paper once it has been reviewed and published,” he said.

“These initial findings are very encouraging, and echo our own results and our conclusion that the impact of urban heat islands on the overall global temperature is minimal.”

The Berkeley team has chosen to release the findings initially on its own website.

They are asking for comments and feedback before preparing the manuscripts for formal scientific publication.

In part, this counters the accusation made during “Climategate” that climate scientists formed a tight clique who peer-reviewed each other’s papers and made sure their own global warming narrative was the only one making it into print.

But for Richard Muller, this free circulation also marks a return to how science should be done.

“That is the way I practised science for decades; it was the way everyone practised it until some magazines - particularly Science and Nature - forbade it,” he said.

“That was not a good change, and still many fields such as string theory practice the traditional method wholeheartedly.”

This open “wiki” method of review is regularly employed in physics, the home field for seven of the 10 Berkeley team.

Bob Ward, policy and communications director for the Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change and the Environment in London, said the warming of the Earth’s surface was unequivocal.

“So-called ‘sceptics’ should now drop their thoroughly discredited claims that the increase in global average temperature could be attributed to the impact of growing cities,” he said.

“More broadly, this study also proves once again how false it was for ‘sceptics’ to allege that the e-mails hacked from UEA proved that the CRU land temperature record had been doctored.

“It is now time for an apology from all those, including US presidential hopeful Rick Perry, who have made false claims that the evidence for global warming has been faked by climate scientists.”

Ocean currents

The Berkeley group does depart from the “orthodox” picture of climate science in its depiction of short-term variability in the global temperature.

The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is generally thought to be the main reason for inter-annual warming or cooling.

But by the Berkeley team’s analysis, the global temperature correlates more closely with the state of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index - a measure of sea surface temperature in the north Atlantic.

There are theories suggesting that the AMO index is in turn driven by fluctuations in the north Atlantic current commonly called the Gulf Stream.

The team suggests it is worth investigating whether the long-term AMO cycles, which are thought to last 65-70 years, may play a part in the temperature rise, fall and rise again seen during the 20th Century.

But they emphasise that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) driven by greenhouse gas emissions is very much in their picture.

“Had we found no global warming, then that would have ruled out AGW,” said Prof Muller.

“Had we found half as much, it would have suggested that prior estimates [of AGW] were too large; if we had found more warming, it would have raised the question of whether prior estimates were too low.

“But we didn’t; we found that the prior rise was confirmed. That means that we do not directly affect prior estimates.”

The team next plans to look at ocean temperatures, in order to construct a truly global dataset.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 01:20 AM   [ # 140 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5155
Joined  2005-01-27

See also what the The Bad Astronomer has to say.

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 06:09 PM   [ # 141 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5555
Joined  2007-03-14

Climate change, in one form or another,  has been happening since the dawn of civilization.  The real problem now is accurately determining how much is due to human activites and how much is actually a natural phenomenon.

 Signature 

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes.

Seen on a tshirt - “If life gives you melons you may be dyslexic”

When life hands you lemons make apple juice. Then laugh while life tries to figure out how you did it.

My blog
My Website

Profile
 
Posted: 25 October 2011 04:41 AM   [ # 142 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8167
Joined  2005-02-06
gray - 24 October 2011 06:09 PM

Climate change, in one form or another,  has been happening since the dawn of civilization.  The real problem now is accurately determining how much is due to human activites and how much is actually a natural phenomenon.

Exactly.

And the sad part of the current polarized debate, is that on *both* sides in the debate people without any real knowledge of paleoclimate and/or climate science are screaming highly debatable and often moronic statements as “facts”.

Note that I write *both* sides here. Not just the climate “denialist” side that sees it all as a big scientific conspiracy to further careers and grant money (which is simply a moronic view): also on the other side of the debate very questionable, highly simplistic statements are sometimes made (with a -misplaced-  air of “we have scientific truth on our side”) that betray very little real insight in and knowledge of climate science and paleoclimate. Sorry to say it, but the “Bad Astronomer” mentioned above (that I otherwise hold in high esteem) sometimes aligns himself to that side too (and I cringe everytime that happens). He should stick to astronomy.

The result is, that a balanced discussion has become neigh impossible.

I am rather agnostic on the matter. It is my viewpoint that, while a considerable human factor in the current temperature trend is *very well possible*, it is equally true that much of it in the end *could very well turn out to be natural variation*. Any notion that we know what a “natural” pace of climate change is and hence can establish that what we see now *must be not*, is delusional and overestimates our scientific insight in these matters. And it keeps nagging me that some aspects of the documented climate change over the past 1000 years look unconfortably much alike to a Dansgaard-Oescher cycle - which is a natural cycle. It also keeps nagging me that the ICPP report uses a period that represents an acknowledged temperature anomaly (AD 500 to AD 1800 - an unusually cold period compared to the rest of the Holocene, with glacier and sea ice advances counter to the general trend over the Holocene) as a “normal baseline” for Holocene climate.

Anyone purporting that there is no warming and researchers just made it up, is however simply wrong. From scientific data, it is very clear that it *is* getting warmer since a century or so. And no, these data are not “cooked” - they are fact. That whole notion that the warming “is all made up” by scientists with a personal agenda, has been moronic from the start.

 

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
{pagination_links}
55 of {total_pages}