Climate Change

[Spoon 11th]

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490

[AVGWarhawk]

Watch this spot for a Skybird 6 page dissertation as to why this article is all bunk! :D:O: :up:

J/K Skybird. Have fun!

[antikristuseke]

I'm going to take the lazy mans route.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc

The daily fail rocks!

[Schroeder]

@Antikristuseke

Thanks for that video. I'm still totally amazed how people can still think "It's cold outside my house, therefore there can't be global warming...".:doh:

[CaptainHaplo]

I haven't said there can't be global warming - but what I, and many skeptics have said - is that there is no irrefutable proof of global warming. What there is - is manipulated data, lies and hyperbole about what amounts to a weather forecast for the next 50-100 years, and beyond.

They can't tell me for sure if its going to rain next week or not - but because it is a method to manipulate society, they want to claim they KNOW beyond a doubt what is going to happen to the weather in 100 years or more.

Sorry - not buying that.

Follow the money - and you will see how Global Warming is a political agenda, and little else.

[Stealth Hunter]

I'm still totally amazed how people can still think "It's cold outside my house, therefore there can't be global warming...".

The simple answer: they're dumbasses.

[Skybird]

Watch this spot for a Skybird 6 page dissertation as to why this article is all bunk! :D:O: :up:

J/K Skybird. Have fun!

I have, first: it's my birthday today and thus I am in a generous mood, second: I have pointed at the >undisputed< temperature data for the past decade and the difference between "weather" and "climate" repeatedly and thus feel free to skip this round. As long as you cannot prove that all out weather satellites in at least said decade have been malfunctioning, this story now is not really anything that costs me any sleep.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well in that case - happy bday skybird :up:

[krashkart]

Hrm, you know I never did see a hole in the sky some years ago.... did I need to be living in Antarctica at the time, or could only science people see it? I jest. :D

And with that, I'll just wait until there is irrefutable evidence one way or another before I panic. Will say though that the wind farms here were spectacular at first sight... at least global warming has helped bring us some eye candy.

Oh, and Happy Birthday there, Skybird. :woot:

[Skybird]

;) Thanks. I had a good day. Parents, a very close friend and her husband came for lunch - which was a Raclette. Great invention, this Raclette. :DL

[Schroeder]

Especially when you have to clean the pans of the dried cheese afterwards.:D

Happy Birthday btw.:woot:

[Fish]

It's my birthday today

Congratulations Skybird! :woot:

[Skybird]

Especially when you have to clean the pans of the dried cheese afterwards.:D

Happy Birthday btw.:woot:

Emaille pans. Let the cheese dry, then knock it off with a Zewa. Cleaning is easy. :)

Again: Schroeder, Fish, and others: thanks for the cheers! :salute:

[Onkel Neal]

Climate change! :haha:

[Castout]

:woot:many long years to come

[NeonSamurai]

Ironic a thread on global cooling has become Sky's birthday thread. But then most of us are not going to comment on an article from the daily mail.


Happy belated birthday Skybird and many more :DL

[Skybird]

Ironic a thread on global cooling has become Sky's birthday thread.
Nobody hijacks threads like I do...! :D In the Chinese calender it is the year of the buccaneer!

[SteamWake]

Happy bday sky...

Now heres something from a 'little' bit more reputable source than the daily mail.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/


But political fraud and scientific swindle can be measured by collapsing "science." The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Britain was regarded as the leader in climate research and the fount of raw data on which the science was based until leaked e-mails between researchers revealed evidence of doctoring of data and manipulation of evidence.


Dont see much mention of the current weather conditions there.

[August]

I like this part:

The global-warming hysteria, on which the Obama administration wants to base enormous new tax burdens, is just about as reliable as the weather hysteria presented nightly on your favorite television channel. Man is driven by his ego and finds it impossible to think even the weather is not all about him.

[SteamWake]

This guy takes it seriously !

http://www.viddler.com/explore/failblog/videos/454/17/

[mookiemookie]

I like this part:

Because it's laughable to think that man can change the environment. Just ask the herds of buffalo on the Great Plains, the Dodo birds and the passenger pigeons.

[August]

Because it's laughable to think that man can change the environment. Just ask the herds of buffalo on the Great Plains, the Dodo birds and the passenger pigeons.

And what effect exactly did the extinction of a couple species of birds have on the worlds climate?

Oh and I had extinct buffalo steaks this weekend. hmmm hmmm good!

[Hitman]

Late congratulations from me too Skybird :woot:

Emaille pans. Let the cheese dry, then knock it off with a Zewa. Cleaning is easy. :)


Typichal Skybird reply: Don't use sheer force little grashopper, use his force against him and let his attack bleed his force, then strike back :haha:

[krashkart]

Oh and I had extinct buffalo steaks this weekend. hmmm hmmm good!

For shame! Were they any good?? :D

[Schroeder]

For shame! Were they any good?? :D
What part of
hmmm hmmm good! didn't you understand?:o
;)

[AVGWarhawk]

My brother in law is eating buffalo burgers now. He said the meat is fantastic. Not sure if I can try it myself. :hmmm:

[Ducimus]

IMO most of the anti global warming articles/posts/research/etc, is all politicaly inspired BS from industrial special interest groups who have a vested interest in keeping things status quo. Going green cuts into the profit margins and CEO's golden parachutes. Not to mention peoples natural resistance to change. There's alot that is so much engrained in our society we can't imagine the world differently.

The green movment, IMO was inspired by a bunch of tree hugging hippes. That said, i think they have something resembeling a point, or at the least, cleaning our act up couldn't hurt. As much as i hate the California smog gestapo, i remember how the LA basin looked before they really cracked down and got rid of leaded gasoline. (kinda looked like pictures of Bejing smog back then)

In any event, who's right or wrong doesn't matter to any of us personally and won't effect our lives, because none of us will be around to suffer the consequences if they are indeed real and valid. Your decendants might, but you won't, if thats any comfort.

[Reece]

I had completely missed this thread till now!!:yep:
A bit late but I hope you had a happy birthday Skybird, Cheers!:yeah:

[OneToughHerring]

What part of
didn't you understand?:o
;)

Hmmm hmmm hmmm. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q91_kcx3no):O:

Edit. This thread is totally derailed. :D

[Skybird]

Late congratulations from me too Skybird :woot:

I had completely missed this thread till now!!:yep:
A bit late but I hope you had a happy birthday Skybird, Cheers!:yeah:
I had. Thanks to both of you! :salute:


Happy bday sky...

:salute:

Now heres something from a 'little' bit more reputable source than the daily mail.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/


Hardly.

There has been a discrediting of climate science in the past weeks, no denial. the email "scandal" however, claimed to have been the first step in this, still lacks the substance for quaolifying that - no matter how often you repeat to refer to it.

However, the reputation of the IPCC has been damaged in later reveleation following the - pretty much fabricated - email row. But one has to look closer here. The material in chapter 1 of the IPCC reports is the volume which is the important part that is used for political decisions. the basic statements in it are not opposed until today. there is global warming taking place, that is beyond doubt, and it also is pretty much beyond doubt that the major cause of it is man-made.

However, it seems there has been done a lot of dramatisation of effects in order to increase chances for wanted political agendas for greener policies being accepted - by spreading fear. This seems to have been possible by science heavily being corruoted by politxal lobbyists or scientists who at the same time served in a politcal and/or private-economy-related function, which is a sin for any science that tries to avoid getting corrupted. the most obvious signal for this is the controversy about the head of the IPCC board himself. But many scientists point out that this problem, that corrupts science by accepting to let science be influenced by classic interest conflicts of several of it'S influential actors, is not just about this single man. There is a self-made crisis of trustqworthiness of sciences, therefore, and that is where sceptics get their current fuel from. However, as much as the green propagandists pull the manipulative rope at their end of the spectrum, sceptics pull at their own end of the same rope. Many claims beihng raised by them, still lack ground and informational basis, or are in ignoration of data that until today is beyond doubt. the current winter this year, is shorttermed weather only. the January still has been the warmest January sinc eth ebeginning of satellite weather obsrvation, and the past ten years still have been the warmest decade since the beginning of weatehr recoridngs. A current discussion about american ground temperature measurements eventually delivering misleading data, means nothing here. Their is pretty much a cionsensus, that temperature measurements of satellites are far more reliable anyway.

As already said, the problem in trustworthiness of climate sciences is home-modade, but the scale of the substantial fraud that took place in several aspects, by far gets blown up in importance by sceptics, who see the chance to change the course of public discussion even if many of their own claims still are not suppported. It is a propaganda war going on, with massive financial interests at stake. And the green lobby allowed to get caught in this without need. Seen that way, they deserve the crisis they are in. but that does not really matter. Becasue the climate still is getting warmer, and this inevitably will have consequences. Maybe not that drastic consequences the fearmongers predict, nevertheless the changes will be massive, and global, and they will reach us - sooner or later.

And only acceopting that this developement in principle still is true can be seen as a reasonable basis for action and decision on our side. the rest is fruitless, self-destryojng conflict of ours,f ought on behalf of the ideoliogiuc or short-termed material profit of some lobby groups. We must not be so stupid to let them have their way - both the green fearmongers, and the sceptics.

[artao]

I can see that with Skybird on the scene (happy belated birthday, btw) I really don't need to add much if anything, but ...
The whole "follow the money" argument is, to me, laughable at best. Follow the money indeed!! And where will you end up? Staring dead-eyed at the polluting industries that ultimately got us where we are in the first place. They stand to lose HUGE swaths of money, and will do anything (not 'just about' anything, but ANYTHING period) to discredit climate change so their pockets stay packed.
All I really need is my own senses to see and feel that climate change IS happening, right now. Winter in Wisconsin is NOT what it used to be, even 15 years ago. It used to be late October thru early March, now it's become December to mid-February ... I can already smell spring in the air ...
I like to say that it's not worth risking our planet for a few bucks, even if there's only a small chance climate change is real .... and IMO there's no denying, realistically, that is IS INDEED real ...

[August]

My brother in law is eating buffalo burgers now. He said the meat is fantastic. Not sure if I can try it myself. :hmmm:

You should. The brand we use, Great Range, tastes better than top grade hamburger and only has 2 grams of saturated fat per 1/4lb.

[Reece]

Well eventually the carbon fuel supplies will run out and the world will breath a sigh of relief!!:yep: Now, how to fix the ozone layer so I can get a good sun tan and not sun burnt!!!!:cool::hmmm:

[Skybird]

I can see that with Skybird on the scene (happy belated birthday, btw) I really don't need to add much if anything, but ...
The whole "follow the money" argument is, to me, laughable at best. Follow the money indeed!! And where will you end up? Staring dead-eyed at the polluting industries that ultimately got us where we are in the first place. They stand to lose HUGE swaths of money, and will do anything (not 'just about' anything, but ANYTHING period) to discredit climate change so their pockets stay packed.

All I really need is my own senses to see and feel that climate change IS happening, right now. Winter in Wisconsin is NOT what it used to be, even 15 years ago. It used to be late October thru early March, now it's become December to mid-February ... I can already smell spring in the air ...
I like to say that it's not worth risking our planet for a few bucks, even if there's only a small chance climate change is real .... and IMO there's no denying, realistically, that is IS INDEED real ...

I agree, but even I have to admit that climate science did not do itself a good service to allow getting political itself. That is something quite some scientists complain about the IPCC report, even those forming the huge majority thinking GW is real and man-made - they point out that the IPCC not only presented scientific data and conclusions, but tried to push it's own agenda of what it thinks politically should be done. But this is not a scientist's job. Doing so is a basic sin for every science, damaging objectivity, precision, and trustworthiness. It massively increases the probability for interest conflicts in science.

Like you, I think the current winter means not much, and I compare the seasons 30 years ago during my schooldays with the present, as well as comparing on ancient photos the conditions of given landscapes and glaciers 60, 80, 100 years ago, with images from the present, and then I do not need any scientific debate wether or not a massive warming has taken place or not - it is as clear and undeniable as the sky is blue and the sun is bright. also undeiable is that chnage in plant'S yearly growth cycles (their "spirng clock ticks around 2 weeks earlier now), or the spreading patterns of given species species, especially insects, as well as infectous pathogenes. If a given life form depends on a certain minimum temperature to surive, and after 40 years if being found 1000 miles north of the area where it was located before becasue more north to it it could not survive back then, tahn that area north obviously has chnaged and has become warmer.

But the need to examine observations scientifically and produce data in order to give politicians a basis on which to form educated decisions, remains. And this effort has been damaged in a very stupid and unneeded way. In a project of the size of the IPCC reports you cannot expect to totally wipe out human error that may find manifestation in simple typos aor exchanging two numbers behind the decimal. The scandal lies in the obvious attempts to manipulate and dramatise (like the Himalaya glacier "thesis"), or the very sloppy work being done when just copying from a student'S years old diploma thesis, or copying over an article from an advertisement booklet of the WWF without checking the claims in it scientifically by themselves. This is not human error, but in case of the first: intention, in case of the latter: sloppy work that easily could have been avoided. And unfortunately, there have more such problems become known in the past weeks. these things do not reverse the tone of the scientific debate nor do they completely nullify the consent in arguments, but they do an irrationally big damage to repuation and credibility, increasing it beyond the matter-of-fact damage the events itself really mean. Currently, all this together means a feast for sceptics. Not becasue they suddenly have better arguments (they have not), but because the crowd in the streets is not ticking rationally and thus can be influenced by the kind of propaganda sceptics have been spread since years, with hundreds of millions being spend into it every year by organised lobbies whose only inention is not to find scientific truth, but to discredit the GW science and it'S current conclusions, no matter how.

It is highly questionable to me, if scientific projects of the size of the IPCC board make any sense at all., and can ever fulfill the expectations that are put into them.

[Snestorm]

Global Warming?
Bring it on, baby!

[OneToughHerring]

http://www.jeffcraven.com/images/BirthdayCat.jpg

Skybird, happy b-day! :woot:

What's with the cigarettes? Are they a gift? That's not right, especially for a b-day present.

[Safe-Keeper]

In other news, there were five less traffic accidents this month than last month. This means that in a year, there will be no traffic accidents whatsoever.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/poster39378854.jpg

( :nope: )

[Safe-Keeper]

Oh, and DRM!

[Reece]

Oh, and DRM!Yes that is a HOT topic, but I'm not going there or I will burn up!!:nope: The debate on global warming is heated enough!!:yep:

[AngusJS]

A good take on the Daily Mail article. Not exactly a shining example of journalistic integrity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag

[SteamWake]

In other news, there were five less traffic accidents this month than last month. This means that in a year, there will be no traffic accidents whatsoever.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/poster39378854.jpg

( :nope: )

See... only 30 years :woot:

[Onkel Neal]

And what effect exactly did the extinction of a couple species of birds have on the worlds climate?

Oh and I had extinct buffalo steaks this weekend. hmmm hmmm good!


I think his point is that man can make sweeping changes to nature. And it is a valid point, imo. I bet there were arguements over shooting buffaloes... "You keep shooting them, they will all be gone." "Pft, there's too many, that could never happen."

I see that point, but it may not necessarily mean that man is changing the climate. That's still unproven.

PS: Happy birthday, Marc :woot:

[NeonSamurai]

I see that point, but it may not necessarily mean that man is changing the climate. That's still unproven.

Not according to most of the scientific community, and virtually all of the relevant scientific community. Its about as conclusively proven as it ever is possible in science. We don't know what exactly is going on to the minute detail in perfect clarity, but we know something is going on and have a pretty good idea of the mechanics behind it.

Anyhow I recommend the series of videos potholer54 is doing on Climate Change. It is very well done and solidly based on the actual research from the scientific community. He also does an excellent job systematically debunking all the counter arguments against it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#grid/user/A4F0994AFB057BB8

[Lionclaw]

It's a bit frustrating when it's going back and forth with "there's global warming", "there's no global warming" by so called "experts", my skepticism for the whole thing grows as time goes.

And in the end I only feel like: F**k 'em, let those people battle it out while I try to live my life.


I usually stay out of these kind of discussions but I felt I had to get it out. I'm sure others feel the same as I do, or not... Doesn't matter, as everyone's different... In their own ways.



Lemon curry?! :O:

[August]

I think his point is that man can make sweeping changes to nature. And it is a valid point, imo. I bet there were arguements over shooting buffaloes... "You keep shooting them, they will all be gone." "Pft, there's too many, that could never happen."

But you know it didn't happen. Buffaloes continue to abide (and they remain quite tasty!).

I see that point, but it may not necessarily mean that man is changing the climate. That's still unproven.Well yeah, but his point was in mocking reference to a quote that I had posted:

"Man is driven by his ego and finds it impossible to think even the weather is not all about him."

Now I don't really see how that statement has anything to do with the worlds Dodo, buffalo or passenger pigeon populations or nature in general, do you? Am I not understanding something here? :hmmm:

[NeonSamurai]

That's why you should ignore the so called experts such as Al Gore, other mouthpieces, and outlier scientists. Certain interest groups are trying hard to throw mud all over the issue to obscure and diffuse it so people don't care, or come to faulty conclusions based on biased (or false) sources.

What matters most is what the general scientific community thinks on the issue, and the science and data itself.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) does a pretty good job of offering all the evidence, best of all it has a 126 item reference list with all the research and papers that went into the wiki entry if you want to look over the research yourself (its only a small fraction of the total body of evidence though). It also has a lot for further reading, and many links too.

Skepticism is very important in science, a good scientist should always retain a degree of skepticism about any topic or theory, but that skepticism needs to be followed by investigation to verify if the skepticism is valid or not. Just saying you are skeptical is not enough, it needs to be backed up.

[August]

It's a bit frustrating when it's going back and forth with "there's global warming", "there's no global warming" by so called "experts", my skepticism for the whole thing grows as time goes.

That's not exactly the debate though. Neither side questions that there is climate change. The world constantly warms and cools, get's wetter, dryer and always has. The debate is whether the recent changes are:

A. Abnormal
B. Caused by man (and how)

...and most importantly:

C. What can and should we do about it, if anything.

And in the end I only feel like: F**k 'em, let those people battle it out while I try to live my life.Quite understandable and you certainly wouldn't be alone in doing just that, but just remember that you still have a stake in the argument as your cost of living that life will be directly and majorly affected by which ever side ultimately prevails.

[Schroeder]

Quite understandable and you certainly wouldn't be alone in doing just that, but just remember that you still have a stake in the argument as your cost of living that life will be directly and majorly affected by which ever side ultimately prevails.
The side that prevails isn't that important. Fact is there will be costs no matter who "wins" in the end (I don't think that any side will win, simply because the members of the other simply will ignore all the evidence presented to them). In the end you might end up spending for "saving the planet" in advance (now) or you will end up spending for cleaning up the mess of pollution later (not just because of global warming but because of pollution in general and excessive fossil energy consumption throughout the world).

So either way we will have to change something and it will cost us. There simply is no keeping status quo, at least not unless someone finds a way to power our cars and planes with an endlessly available, clean and cheap fuel.
We will have to adopt to new technology to get away from oil before it gets unaffordable no matter whether you believe in Global Warming or not. It will also make us more independent from some rather unstable regions in the world that are making fortunes in delivering oil to us right now.

[Lionclaw]

That's not exactly the debate though. Neither side questions that there is climate change. The world constantly warms and cools, get's wetter, dryer and always has. The debate is whether the recent changes are:

A. Abnormal
B. Caused by man (and how)

...and most importantly:

C. What can and should we do about it, if anything.

Ah yes, sorry about that. In my frustration of the subject, I failed see the whole picture. :oops:

It's quite difficult to comprehend really about the impact we humans make on the climate. As long as the earth has existed, mankind has only existed for a very brief moment. But in that brief moment we have done quite much. But whether we're to blame for the change of climate, I have no idea.

That's all for me, I'll try to stay clear from debates since I'm not very good at it. I'll continue reading though as I usually do. :)

[NeonSamurai]

Its not actually that hard to understand.

The basic science goes like this. We (and nature) produce massive amounts of CO2 gas. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means that it lets light in, but reflects heat (this is a scientific fact). So the light comes in, hits the planet, some of it gets turned into heat (depending on the color of the surface, dark colors = more heat) and the rest of the light gets reflected back into space. Heat also radiates out from the planet, the problem though is when there is more CO2 it reflects more heat back towards the planet, which increases the temperature.

This has other side effects such as melting the ice on the planet (north and south poles in particular) which increases the surface area of liquid water on the planet, which being dark and semi transparent converts a lot of light into heat energy, which starts a snowball effect, because as the oceans warm up they tend to release even more CO2, which warms up the planet even more, melting more ice, etc.

This is the very basic science behind global warming. Obviously it doesn't cover all the finer details. As for how much CO2 we as a species are releasing into the environment, many estimates put it on par or exceeding the amount nature is estimated to produce on its own (before it is converted back by plants). Add to that the rapid deforestation of the planet by man (forests are a key part in reabsorbing and trapping CO2), and we have a big problem.

So to me I don't possibly see how we are not largely responsible for what is happening (beyond the usual fluctuations of nature). If some scientific predictions are right, we are heading towards very big trouble indeed (and I mean mass extinction on a global scale), which might even cause our own extinction (or near extinction).

[Skybird]

Skepticism is very important in science, a good scientist should always retain a degree of skepticism about any topic or theory, but that skepticism needs to be followed by investigation to verify if the skepticism is valid or not. Just saying you are skeptical is not enough, it needs to be backed up.
Bravo! :yeah:

[krashkart]

^^ Yes I second that. :up:

[Lionclaw]

D'oh... I've managed make a fool of myself again. :damn:

I hate making mistakes... I shouldn't have posted in this thread at all. :nope:
Self confidence takes another hit.


Sorry, I usually only read these discussions you people have, if participating as you've witnessed I forget about other things, make myself look dumber (don't know if that's the right word I'm looking for) than I am. I'm not really comfortable with social interaction with people I don't know, I get insecure. But I guess it's good to practice.

I should've stuck to "not getting into debates", it only goes bad. :dead:

Sorry, I'll stay clear in the future.

[August]

In the end you might end up spending for "saving the planet" in advance (now) or you will end up spending for cleaning up the mess of pollution later (not just because of global warming but because of pollution in general and excessive fossil energy consumption throughout the world).

Well tell you the truth Schroeder i'd rather pay to clean up the mess later than throw a bunch of money away now on schemes that will not solve the problem, which is basically what the human caused global warming believers are asking everyone to do. Let Algore and his kind make their money some other way.

So either way we will have to change something and it will cost us. There simply is no keeping status quo, at least not unless someone finds a way to power our cars and planes with an endlessly available, clean and cheap fuel.
We will have to adopt to new technology to get away from oil before it gets unaffordable no matter whether you believe in Global Warming or not. It will also make us more independent from some rather unstable regions in the world that are making fortunes in delivering oil to us right now.

I see your point but i'd say that a much, much higher priority would to get world human populations stabilized at sustainable levels or which fuel we use to power our cars will not matter at all.

[krashkart]

D'oh... I've managed make a fool of myself again. :damn:

I hate making mistakes... I shouldn't have posted in this thread at all. :nope:
Self confidence takes another hit.


Sorry, I usually only read these discussions you people have, if participating as you've witnessed I forget about other things, make myself look dumber (don't know if that's the right word I'm looking for) than I am. I'm not really comfortable with social interaction with people I don't know, I get insecure. But I guess it's good to practice.

I should've stuck to "not getting into debates", it only goes bad. :dead:

Sorry, I'll stay clear in the future.

Hang out, get on the soapbox, preach my son! You'll get the hang of things. :)

......

I'm not too good at debates either. :hmmm:

[krashkart]

I see your point but i'd say that a much, much higher priority would to get world human populations stabilized at sustainable levels or which fuel we use to power our cars will not matter at all.

I'd have to agree with August there. Our population is growing rather quickly.


EDIT:

Sorry for the back-to-back post. I could have just edited my previous one.

[Schroeder]

@August

I agree that population control would be required to succeed in fighting pollution and shortage of resources. Unfortunately not everyone thinks so...India anyone?

However on the rest of your post we will just have to agree to disagree.
I've seen what acid rain has done to our forests and even years later still 3/4 of our trees are sick and weakened. I think we have come to a point where we already have to clean up and the longer we wait the costlier and more difficult it'll get.
I won't deny that there are idiots who are just preaching for the fast buck but when I compare my current environment with pictures of the 70ies or my personal experience with the environment of the DDR when it still existed, then I'm very glad that Germany has decided to get more or less green while still having heavy industry that can compete with the rest of the world (mostly....).

[krashkart]

My mother was able to see the Sawtooth Mountains from where she lived as a kid (maybe a good 200 miles or so). When I was a kid we could barely see them through the haze on a good day.

[August]

However on the rest of your post we will just have to agree to disagree.

Don't get me wrong Schroeder. I fully support pro-environmental efforts that produce tangible results but things like trading carbon credits is going to do nothing but make some people rich and the rest of us poorer.

[Aramike]

Winter in Wisconsin is NOT what it used to be, even 15 years ago. It used to be late October thru early March, now it's become December to mid-February ... I can already smell spring in the air ...Whoa, now, I've lived in Wisconsin nearly 40 years and it seems to me that winter is still the same unpredictable mess that it was when I was a child. We've had tough ones and we've had easy ones. Nothing's really changed.

In any case, it's very difficult for me to understand the line of reasoning that man could not possible change the conditions which directly effect our climate. It's not my ego that presents me that thought - it's mere observation.

Has anyone ever been to L.A.? I'm pretty sure that ever-present smog didn't come about naturally. Or look at a photo of the night side of Earth from space. That man can have an effect on the planet becomes obvious.

Yes, in a lot of cases (if not most), such adverse conditions tend to remain localized. But it only takes a brief glimpse at a map of jetstreams to know that pollutants are going SOMEWHERE (they don't just disappear).

And finally, through observation I've learned that mixing different substances, or changing the ratio of the way said substances are mixed, alters the observable properties of those substances. Meaning, if you put of bunch of junk into the air, it's going to change the way that air "behaves".

But see, here's the thing: while man may be fundamentally altering nature (although I don't think it's nearly to the extent that the alarmists claim), we don't really know WHAT is happening. So-called global warming science has been nothing more than "bad things are gonna happen man, and any bad thing that happens is caused by global warming". Too little snow? Global warming. Too much snow? Global warming.

In the end, the Earth's climate has been changing for millions of years. Hell, if the dinosaurs bitched enough and were able to prevent climate change, man likely would have never evolved. Yet, for some reason, we've decided that this particular climate is THE climate our planet needs to maintain.

Now THAT is ego, friends.

[SteamWake]

More withdrawn 'claims'...

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

[NeonSamurai]

D'oh... I've managed make a fool of myself again. :damn:

I hate making mistakes... I shouldn't have posted in this thread at all. :nope:
Self confidence takes another hit.


Sorry, I usually only read these discussions you people have, if participating as you've witnessed I forget about other things, make myself look dumber (don't know if that's the right word I'm looking for) than I am. I'm not really comfortable with social interaction with people I don't know, I get insecure. But I guess it's good to practice.

I should've stuck to "not getting into debates", it only goes bad. :dead:

Sorry, I'll stay clear in the future.

Apologies for not responding sooner, been sick the last week or so.

I do not feel you have made a fool of yourself at all. I can certainly understand why people in general can get confused over the issue. Most do not have a scientific background and cannot fully grasp the science involved or understand the scientific papers properly. It is not their fault, you do need training to be able to follow it well. The issue is so clouded as people try then to get their information from spokesmen and media outlets they trust. The problem is these outlets often do not understand the issues any better either and yet are trying to put their own opinions on the subject out, often due to political or financial interests which biases everything they say.

Anyhow I almost always welcome different opinions. If I disagree with them then I will challenge the person to either back them up, or consider altering their opinion. My own opinions are usually pretty flexible and will change if enough compelling evidence is presented to show that my current opinion is faulty.

I see your point but i'd say that a much, much higher priority would to get world human populations stabilized at sustainable levels or which fuel we use to power our cars will not matter at all.

You have my total agreement on that point. Though I think our population needs to drop by a couple billion to end up with true sustainability without putting undue pressure on the rest of the planet and species therein.

Yet, for some reason, we've decided that this particular climate is THE climate our planet needs to maintain.

I certainly agree that there is way too much nonsense, fear mongering, and 3rd party crap in the whole debate. But we do have a vested interest to maintain our current global environment, financially and otherwise. If the ice melts the oceans will rise flooding large sections of densely inhabited areas. The damage will be in the trillions if allowed, and cost many billions to build dikes to protect all the vulnerable cities.

Then of course there is the ecological concerns which could have a dire impact on our own species. When I talk about the potential for mass extinction, I am being quite serious as the potential is very real. Other mass extinctions have happened in the past under similar circumstances to what we seem to be heading toward. Nature itself is highly interconnected, and loosing one or more species can have a trickle down effect taking out other species which can trigger a domino effect wiping out all but the most flexible and independent species. Depending on what happens, and which theories prove to be most correct, the consequences could well be very bad. My own worries are very well founded in my opinion based on the research I have done into it.


More withdrawn 'claims'...

Did you read the article fully? Scientific papers get withdrawn all the time which is perfectly normal. This one got pulled as a few errors were discovered which rendered those calculations invalid. A new paper with corrections will probably get submitted sometime in the future.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."
All that shows is their own estimates are faulty. It doesn't throw off the rest of the research, or disprove anything. Just that the numbers are off as they didn't properly account for a variable, and made a calculation error.


I have to say I am getting rather tired of seeing this stuff in the media, with them drawing all kinds of completely false conclusions, then having people hold it up and say "look see I told you its all a lie and this proves it". It doesn't prove <censored> all.

[antikristuseke]

Sensationalist media + science = fail

Sensationalist media + information = fail

[Lionclaw]

Apologies for not responding sooner, been sick the last week or so.

I do not feel you have made a fool of yourself at all. I can certainly understand why people in general can get confused over the issue. Most do not have a scientific background and cannot fully grasp the science involved or understand the scientific papers properly. It is not their fault, you do need training to be able to follow it well. The issue is so clouded as people try then to get their information from spokesmen and media outlets they trust. The problem is these outlets often do not understand the issues any better either and yet are trying to put their own opinions on the subject out, often due to political or financial interests which biases everything they say.

Anyhow I almost always welcome different opinions. If I disagree with them then I will challenge the person to either back them up, or consider altering their opinion. My own opinions are usually pretty flexible and will change if enough compelling evidence is presented to show that my current opinion is faulty.

I should have thought out my 2nd post more carefully, I had written more but I thought it was unnecessary fluff. But it may have been good to have kept it.

And the reason I felt like a fool is because I already knew about the CO2 bits, deforestation, melting ice at the poles in your reply to my 2nd post.

But I felt that I cannot add that I know about all that already, I felt like it could be portrayed that I would be seen as a kind of person who would just say: "Well yes of course I knew about that." (When in reality such a person doesn't know).

I don't know why i continously make the mistake: "They know what I already know." Well of course you don't know if I don't mention it, it's not like you could come crashing through my monitor to look into my brain and say: "Ah yes, he knows."

I remember in school when we got some assignment that we should write about ourselves. I would mention that I like this and that.
But I didn't write why.

I guess it's the same here, I fail to elaborate on the original statement.

I keep making the same mistake over and over.

And for some reason for me, a mistake means failure.

[Skybird]

Sensationalist media + science = fail

Sensationalist media + information = fail

Information + science = media fail

[CaptainHaplo]

Political agenda + environmental zealotry + manipulated data = Lie

[Skybird]

Selective awareness + scientific naivety = GW scepticism

[Schroeder]

Political agenda + environmental zealotry + manipulated data = Lie
Political agenda + capitalistic zealotry + manipulated data + bought scientists = Lie

You see, that game works very well for the other side too.;)

[NeonSamurai]

I should have thought out my 2nd post more carefully, I had written more but I thought it was unnecessary fluff. But it may have been good to have kept it.

And the reason I felt like a fool is because I already knew about the CO2 bits, deforestation, melting ice at the poles in your reply to my 2nd post.

But I felt that I cannot add that I know about all that already, I felt like it could be portrayed that I would be seen as a kind of person who would just say: "Well yes of course I knew about that." (When in reality such a person doesn't know).

I don't know why i continously make the mistake: "They know what I already know." Well of course you don't know if I don't mention it, it's not like you could come crashing through my monitor to look into my brain and say: "Ah yes, he knows."

I remember in school when we got some assignment that we should write about ourselves. I would mention that I like this and that.
But I didn't write why.

I guess it's the same here, I fail to elaborate on the original statement.

I keep making the same mistake over and over.

And for some reason for me, a mistake means failure.

Honestly, you are being too hard on yourself, trust me when I say no one is judging you with such severity as you are yourself. If you knew what I said in advance well then good (and I figure you probably did), some people do not, which is why I said it (and in case you didn't too as I wasn't sure at the time).

Anyhow I do kind of understand where you are coming from; I can be rather harsh with myself when I make a blunder, more harsh then I should be or is good for me. I place high expectations on myself, sometimes unrealistically high. I would suggest that you just try to relax a little more and try to force yourself not to worry about such things as much. Most of the people here are quite good natured and friendly. Participate and you may find the experience rewarding more often then not.

I should also add that I am an academic with scientific and statistical training (though more in the social sciences). I am quite accustomed to writing in general, and putting forth strong compelling arguments and backing them up with data as required. That makes it harder to debate against me, as then the person has to do the same as I do to have similar success. That said though I am a very friendly and helpful person by nature, and I always welcome comment or questioning which am happy to answer to the best of my abilities. So by all means make comments or question anything I say, your participation is quite welcome, and if you think I am wrong, take me on. :DL


Political agenda + environmental zealotry + manipulated data = Lie
I keep hearing that one (manipulated data), and keep asking for some solid evidence, and have yet to get any from anyone. So I'll say it again, give proof please or it isn't true. Oh and fringe 'scientists' and mouthpieces (particularly gore gaffs) don't count.

[Lionclaw]

Honestly, you are being too hard on yourself, trust me when I say no one is judging you with such severity as you are yourself. If you knew what I said in advance well then good (and I figure you probably did), some people do not, which is why I said it (and in case you didn't too as I wasn't sure at the time).

Anyhow I do kind of understand where you are coming from; I can be rather harsh with myself when I make a blunder, more harsh then I should be or is good for me. I place high expectations on myself, sometimes unrealistically high. I would suggest that you just try to relax a little more and try to force yourself not to worry about such things as much. Most of the people here are quite good natured and friendly. Participate and you may find the experience rewarding more often then not.

I should also add that I am an academic with scientific and statistical training (though more in the social sciences). I am quite accustomed to writing in general, and putting forth strong compelling arguments and backing them up with data as required. That makes it harder to debate against me, as then the person has to do the same as I do to have similar success. That said though I am a very friendly and helpful person by nature, and I always welcome comment or questioning which am happy to answer to the best of my abilities. So by all means make comments or question anything I say, your participation is quite welcome, and if you think I am wrong, take me on. :DL

Yes I did read your post on page 4, but I missed it at first, it wasn't until after your reply to my 2nd post that I saw it.

Politicians, don't really know what to say about them, usually nothing in nice words. :O:

- - - - -

There's that bit if the sea temperature rises enough, methane (CH4) in the sea floor and in the arctic is released into the atmosphere making matters worse.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/methane-0902.html

It seems a bit worrying about the risk of the Gulf Stream collapsing due to the water from melting ice that's caused by warmer temperatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/climate-change-gulf-stream-hollywood


- - - - -
Sorry for OT

I only have a post-gymnasium education in "System Technics (<-?) specialized in Hydraulics".
The education form is called "KY-utbildning" or "Kvalificerad Yrkesutbildning", translated to English, it's Qualified Profession education. There's probably a more proper English term for that.

It consisted of electronics, hydraulics, technology ( mechanics and "strength of materials" ), applied mathematics and automation (Programmable Logic Controller, binary system, logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate)

But I've been thinking a little of getting higher education but my poor grades from my time in the gymnasium puts a stop to that. I read Science there, in retrospect it was the wrong choice.
It was very difficult with all the mathematics in physics and chemistry. And all the formulas you have to remember! :o

But most of the mathematical stuff you learn there has no use what so ever for everyday life. :O:

[SteamWake]

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.


http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/

[Tribesman]

Senator James Inhofe
Is that the senator who has oil companies as his biggest contributors with electricity generating companies coming close behind?

[Aramike]

I certainly agree that there is way too much nonsense, fear mongering, and 3rd party crap in the whole debate. But we do have a vested interest to maintain our current global environment, financially and otherwise. If the ice melts the oceans will rise flooding large sections of densely inhabited areas. The damage will be in the trillions if allowed, and cost many billions to build dikes to protect all the vulnerable cities.

Then of course there is the ecological concerns which could have a dire impact on our own species. When I talk about the potential for mass extinction, I am being quite serious as the potential is very real. Other mass extinctions have happened in the past under similar circumstances to what we seem to be heading toward. Nature itself is highly interconnected, and loosing one or more species can have a trickle down effect taking out other species which can trigger a domino effect wiping out all but the most flexible and independent species. Depending on what happens, and which theories prove to be most correct, the consequences could well be very bad. My own worries are very well founded in my opinion based on the research I have done into it.I don't disagree with you. Hell, even if the icecaps don't melt completely, the change in the ocean's salination could have devasting impacts on weather systems and even hurt the world's supply of seafood.

But see, the thing is that we really DON'T KNOW much at this point, but many in the scientific community won't admit to not knowing what they don't know. As such, we have intense alarmism based upon inaccurate or even falsified data which has gone on to do nothing but diminish the cause of environmentalism.

The fact is that, say, Yellowstone could erupt tomorrow and change the Earth's climate practically overnight. In fact any significant volcanic activity could reduce global temperatures. Most large-scale, destructive natural events throughout history have involved the ejection of a far larger mass of ash into the atmosphere that all of human history ... combined.

The point is that the planet is a constantly evolving mechanism, and its systems are far too complex for us to have developed an ability of perfect predictability. However, some in the scientific community want us to make drastic changes and spend enormous sums based upon what amounts to science that is contradictory at best.

If there's a problem, and this problem does indeed need to be corrected, we need to know as much about it as possible before we try to fix it. And if, per chance, that a SIGNIFICANTLY long term warming period is underway (which I question) we need to search for solutions other than economically singling out the nations who are willing to play ball.

We need no more half-assed data and speculation, no more Al Gore's sensationalizing the problem for their own benefit, no more sweeping aside contradictory data rather than attempting to understand it.

In other words, the politicization of climatological science needs to cease. Both sides of the scientific discussion need to be heard, and the machinations of the issue warrant further study, WITHOUT predispositions.

[CaptainHaplo]

You mean something moving toward the following?

"At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists in the quiet Turkish seaside resort of Antalya, representatives of the weather office (known in Britain as the Met Office) quietly proposed that the world's climate scientists start all over again on a "grand challenge" to produce a new, common trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and "rigorous" peer review."

How about this?

The new effort, the proposal says, would provide:
• "verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data"
• "methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;"
• "a set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent groups using independent methods,"
• "comprehensive audit trails to deliver confidence in the results;"
• "robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and geographical in homogeneities."

The article can be found here:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/23/britains-weather-office-proposes-climategate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Te xt+-+SciTech%2529 (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/23/britains-weather-office-proposes-climategate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Te xt+-+SciTech%2529)[/URL]

The actual Met office proposal can be found here:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022410_metproposal.pdf"]http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022410_metproposal.pdf (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/23/britains-weather-office-proposes-climategate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Te xt+-+SciTech%2529)

How much you want to bet that the "Climate Change" proponents do all they can to fight opening up the research and data?

[Skybird]

Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sachs163/English
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-sceptics-science


The fact is that the critics — who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks — are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/15/climate-science-ipcc-sceptics


Influential sceptical commentators can afford to just throw mud and see what sticks, because they have what former PM Stanley Baldwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Baldwin) famously attacked back in 1931 as "power without responsibility." It's the same dynamic that allowed Sarah Palin to make up "death panel" myths (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2009/aug/10/sarah-palin-healthcare-town-halls) to distort the US healthcare debate and get away with it— those in opposition just don't face the same scrutiny as those holding the incumbent establishment position. That's why inside newsrooms the balance of legitimacy has been allowed to tilt so considerably that the climate science controversy that was largely resolved is now live once again, despite the rock solid nature of the core facts.


Prolific climate deniers such as Ian Plimer, James Delingpole and Christopher Booker who deliberately spread untruths on climate change can be wrong 99% of the time and right for less than 1% of the time and still win the argument because the playing field simply isn't level. Equally, the IPCC can be right 99% of the time and wrong less than 1% of the time, and they still lose.

[NeonSamurai]

I am afraid my replies will have to wait till the end of the week. I do not have time right now to devote to properly answering everyone. So my apologies in advance.

[NeonSamurai]

There's that bit if the sea temperature rises enough, methane (CH4) in the sea floor and in the arctic is released into the atmosphere making matters worse.

It seems a bit worrying about the risk of the Gulf Stream collapsing due to the water from melting ice that's caused by warmer temperatures.

Oh ya there are a pile of things that could happen. Many scientists based on past events believe it operates kind of like a seesaw with a weight in the center, a few little tips one way or other don't matter, but go to far and the changes will start getting very big and happening very fast, spiraling out of control until hitting a fixed point. The Ice ages are an example of this.

Sorry for OT

I only have a post-gymnasium education in "System Technics (<-?) specialized in Hydraulics".
The education form is called "KY-utbildning" or "Kvalificerad Yrkesutbildning", translated to English, it's Qualified Profession education. There's probably a more proper English term for that.

It consisted of electronics, hydraulics, technology ( mechanics and "strength of materials" ), applied mathematics and automation (Programmable Logic Controller, binary system, logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate)

But I've been thinking a little of getting higher education but my poor grades from my time in the gymnasium puts a stop to that. I read Science there, in retrospect it was the wrong choice.
It was very difficult with all the mathematics in physics and chemistry. And all the formulas you have to remember! :o

But most of the mathematical stuff you learn there has no use what so ever for everyday life. :O:Education level does not prove intelligence or intellectual capacity. There is a relationship at the higher levels (graduate studies for example). There are plenty of morons who made it into university, and plenty of bright people that never did.

Anyhow I would certainly encourage you to pursue a higher education. Can you retake a couple of classes to boost your marks? I don't know about there but here in Canada we have mature student status at universities which give people (like myself) a second chance at it.

I don't disagree with you. Hell, even if the icecaps don't melt completely, the change in the ocean's salination could have devasting impacts on weather systems and even hurt the world's supply of seafood.

But see, the thing is that we really DON'T KNOW much at this point, but many in the scientific community won't admit to not knowing what they don't know. As such, we have intense alarmism based upon inaccurate or even falsified data which has gone on to do nothing but diminish the cause of environmentalism.

We know a lot more then you suggest from what I know personally about the science. The models are not perfect and we don't know everything (nor will we ever), but they are good enough to give us a pretty good picture of things. I do agree though that there is a lot of sensationalism going on too. Notice all the catastrophe based programing on tv now?

The fact is that, say, Yellowstone could erupt tomorrow and change the Earth's climate practically overnight. In fact any significant volcanic activity could reduce global temperatures. Most large-scale, destructive natural events throughout history have involved the ejection of a far larger mass of ash into the atmosphere that all of human history ... combined.Yep that is true, so could an asteroid smack us. But in our case its not ash that is the problem it is co2 and other greenhouse gasses.

The point is that the planet is a constantly evolving mechanism, and its systems are far too complex for us to have developed an ability of perfect predictability. However, some in the scientific community want us to make drastic changes and spend enormous sums based upon what amounts to science that is contradictory at best.

If there's a problem, and this problem does indeed need to be corrected, we need to know as much about it as possible before we try to fix it. And if, per chance, that a SIGNIFICANTLY long term warming period is underway (which I question) we need to search for solutions other than economically singling out the nations who are willing to play ball.As I said in a previous post, the basic science is very simple and easily confirmed. We are pumping out vast amounts of co2, co2 is a greenhouse gas, we are also destroying what takes co2 out of the air (forests and other stuff). co2 levels are on the rise across the globe, and accordingly so is the temperature, particularly in the poles where co2 tends to accumulate due to air currents. This is rock solid absolute science. We need to do something that either reduces our emissions drastically, or create something that sucks out the vast amounts of co2 in the air. We as a species all need to do something, and fast or we will pay dearly for it.

We need no more half-assed data and speculation, no more Al Gore's sensationalizing the problem for their own benefit, no more sweeping aside contradictory data rather than attempting to understand it.

In other words, the politicization of climatological science needs to cease. Both sides of the scientific discussion need to be heard, and the machinations of the issue warrant further study, WITHOUT predispositions.Oh I agree totally, I don't like Gore either (do a search on me and the word gore if you like), I also hate how the topic has been split along democratic/republican lines. This is not a political decision, never has been.

As for sweeping aside contradictory data, well a lot of it is pure junk and is discarded for very good reason. Because the data is questionable, because the source and funding suggest a very strong bias (which almost always comes out in the sponsored research, just look at the tobacco lobby and all their studies). Of the scientific community, almost all reputable scientists are on the side of man made climate change. Those that are not are for the most part either bought and owned scientists by certain interest groups, or outliers (crackpots pretty much). There are a few respected scientists who disagree and those may be worth listening to.

Thing is though is if we wait too long, the seesaw effect will happen and it will be nigh impossible to divert it by then.

You mean something moving toward the following?

"At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists in the quiet Turkish seaside resort of Antalya, representatives of the weather office (known in Britain as the Met Office) quietly proposed that the world's climate scientists start all over again on a "grand challenge" to produce a new, common trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and "rigorous" peer review."

Ok I read it. I find it interesting that I could only find the document referenced on 'climate gate' sites, and the document itself on fox's website. That article from fox itself is biased garbage and full of speculation, assumption, misquotes, half truths, and claims that have already been thoroughly debunked. I could very easily rip apart the entire article, but I won't waste my time as media sources count for zip in a scientific debate. If you want to debate science, you need counter with proper science and scientific sources of your own.


Anyhow on to the only thing worth looking at, the Met document itself. I am curious, did you take the time to read it in full, or did you just go by what fox news said? I get the feeling that you probably did not (I know the person who wrote the article didn't, they just skimmed and cherry picked to quote out of context).

So what is the article about? Well its about..


improving the tools of measurement to allow for more precise results (particularly to better asses the risks of changes in extremes of climate).
there are some problems with the CRU (climate research unit) land surface dataset due to large IPR (intellectual property rights) issues. They want to make that data publicly available, but it is owned data so they can't.
cleaning up and recalculating the available data so that it is more reliable (and to verify the findings once again)

Basically they want to modernize the available data, increase the strength of data gathering, and move away from IPR data, so that the data itself can be made fully public. This is a good thing, not a cover-up or scientific fraud or anything. It is also perfectly normal and reasonable.

How about this?

The new effort, the proposal says, would provide:
• "verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data"
• "methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;"
• "a set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent groups using independent methods,"
• "comprehensive audit trails to deliver confidence in the results;"
• "robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and geographical in homogeneities."Here is the full quote

Consequently we have been considering how the datasets can be brought up to modern standards and made fit for the purpose of addressing 21st century needs. We feel that it is timely to propose an international effort to reanalyze surface temperature data in collaboration with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which has the responsibility for global observing and monitoring systems for weather and climate

the proposed activity would provide:


Verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data at both monthly and finer temporal resolutions (daily and perhaps even sub-daily);
Methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;
A set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent groups using independent methods;
Robust benchmarking of performance and comprehensive audit trails to deliver confidence in the results;
Robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and geographical in homogeneities.

It is important to emphasize that we do not anticipate any substantial changes in the resulting global and continental-scale multi-decadal trends. This effort will ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all methods are transparent.

So what does that all mean? Simple, they want to make everything public and open to eliminate all accusations of fraud and cover-up. They want to set up a public database with independently verified data from multiple sources. They want it to follow the peer reviewed system (the gold standard for all scientific discourse), and open to be examined for faults. They want to make sure the data is conclusive and as error free as possible.

They are pretty much trying to shut down the other side (the deniers) by eliminating all the valid points of contention. So what is the problem?

How much you want to bet that the "Climate Change" proponents do all they can to fight opening up the research and data?They won't. All of the completed research is available to anyone with university or research affiliations, or is willing to subscribe to the databases which store the articles. The papers have the data used in the research contained within as well (though not the raw data, just calculated data). This is the way it works and is nothing new. So its already wide open for those that have access to the databases. The problem is the databases are private companies and want people to pay to be able to view this stuff (so it is still available to the public, they just gotta pay).

[Skybird]

Good God in heaven, now they start to link whaling to carbon pollution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8538033.stm

I'm against whaling. And I am against mindlessly polluting the environment, and mindlessly wasting fossil fuels.

And sure as hell I am also against sciences loosing all sanity and all scruples.

[Aramike]

We know a lot more then you suggest from what I know personally about the science. The models are not perfect and we don't know everything (nor will we ever), but they are good enough to give us a pretty good picture of things. I do agree though that there is a lot of sensationalism going on too. Notice all the catastrophe based programing on tv now?I'm quite a follower of science, and from a data standpoint, we do know quite a bit about the RAW data. However, we are still quite ignorant with regards to how that data impacts world climate as a whole. Saying that our models are not perfect doesn't do justice to the reality that our models are completely theoretical and have, to this point, accurately predicted NOTHING with certainty.

We're not even talking about an accuracy RATE ... at this point, our models are so far across the board that science can claim to have predicted ANY event, despite such events contradicting other events.

Snows a ton? Climate change. Snows a little? Climate change.

Considering that averages merely mean out the extremes, this isn't reassuring.Yep that is true, so could an asteroid smack us. But in our case its not ash that is the problem it is co2 and other greenhouse gasses.I have to stop you there. Volcanos emit VAST amounts of greenhouse gasses, including CO2. Indeed, ash is a primary factory in dimming sunlight, yet volcanic activity produces large quantities of greenhouse gasses.

Yes, humans emit quite a magnitude of gasses over volcanos collectively, but generally speaking climate change throughout history has been brought upon by massive events. In some circles, this suggests that the Earth reacts more regarding the extreme events and has been able to adapt more readily regarding more steady changes.

In fact, that is one of the most controversial topics in the scientific community. The suggestion that a slow-but-steady outpouring of greenhouse gasses would have the same effect as an instaneous deluge of the same is fundamentally flawed. However, many of our models base the 1-1 impact of the same gasses simarly, which is fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, many of our models exclude other factors ... for instance, the claims that X amount of CO2 has shown to be Y amount of climate change has not necessarily accounted for the other factors that may have contributed to Y.

This is the primary reason for the minority dissent of the scientific community. They believe the majority is rushing to judgement. I happen to agree.As I said in a previous post, the basic science is very simple and easily confirmed. We are pumping out vast amounts of co2, co2 is a greenhouse gas, we are also destroying what takes co2 out of the air (forests and other stuff). co2 levels are on the rise across the globe, and accordingly so is the temperature, particularly in the poles where co2 tends to accumulate due to air currents. Al Gore would make you think such science is simple and easily confirmed, but it is not. What you say, at face value, is true. However, the IMPACTS that we've attempted to historically draw from such increases is still unclear, due to most models not including other factors.

But also quite intriguing, over long term models, is the decreasing energy gained from the sun. Ultimately, over the long term (speaking in terms of eons), the Earth NEEDS to increase its greenhouse effect in order to pace the decreasing solar energy. Because our models have not contemplated evolutionary aspects as well as solar energy changes, we still don't have quite an idea as to the effect of increased CO2. Furthermore, I submit that we haven't even bothered to calculate the evolutionary difference occurring in flora faced with rising CO2 levels. Some scientists have suggested simply that plants may ultimately "breath faster", helping to offset some of the increase in CO2 levels.

By and large, however, as you have stated the system which provides life on Earth is quite interconnected. There are so many factors, many offsetting, which assist in sustaining life as we know it, that most climate models are wrong due to merely excluding that very concept.

Like I said, we really don't know squat.We need to do something that either reduces our emissions drastically, or create something that sucks out the vast amounts of co2 in the air. We as a species all need to do something, and fast or we will pay dearly for it.In my opinion, that conclusion is premature and that sense of urgency that you display is a reason as to why our science has rushed to judgement rather than making sure they have it right.

I agree that, likely, carbon emissions need to decrease. However, due to other factors, I believe that we don't really know the science behind it. So instead of making sensational yet unfounded predictions claiming that the end is nigh, we may as well simply encourage people to live as responsibly as they can, without the rhetoric.

Indeed, after awhile of making broad claims and the public seeing them not come true, people start thinking of such "science" as no more valuable than the guy on the corner wearing a sandwich sign screaming "THE END IS NEAR!!!!".Oh I agree totally, I don't like Gore either (do a search on me and the word gore if you like), I also hate how the topic has been split along democratic/republican lines. This is not a political decision, never has been.Now damn, if this isn't one of the smartest things (although it should be obvious) I've ever read on here. Kudos.As for sweeping aside contradictory data, well a lot of it is pure junk and is discarded for very good reason. Because the data is questionable, because the source and funding suggest a very strong bias (which almost always comes out in the sponsored research, just look at the tobacco lobby and all their studies). Of the scientific community, almost all reputable scientists are on the side of man made climate change. Those that are not are for the most part either bought and owned scientists by certain interest groups, or outliers (crackpots pretty much). There are a few respected scientists who disagree and those may be worth listening to.See, I disagree with that concept and find it irrelevent in any case. There are plenty of well-reputed scientists who have data suggesting other than what the alarmists claim. Sure, there are people on both sides that are bought and paid for, yet ultimately science isn't democratic.

Heh, there was a time in which the Earth was the center of the universe, according to scientific consensus. The fact is that we still don't know what the hell to think, and we've rushed to judgement. And, historically, the record of the predictions stemming from the models of that rushed judgement are not very good.Thing is though is if we wait too long, the seesaw effect will happen and it will be nigh impossible to divert it by then.See, here's my angle: there are so many things that are likely to happen during human civilization that will be nigh impossible to divert, we had better be DAMNED SURE that this particular issue is spot-on before the public gets truly interested.

Think rationally, for a moment: say Yellowstone erupts and causes mass death and destruction. Okay, fine, the ash becomes the problem, and not so much the greenhouse gasses. Well, when you wipe out say, 25% of the Earth's population, CO2 emmissions are bound to decrease anyway.

People should naturally just turn off their lights when not in use. Most environmentally friendly concepts are economically advisable as well. We need to focus on that, rather than an alarmism based merely upon clearly incomplete models.

[August]

Most environmentally friendly concepts are economically advisable as well. We need to focus on that, rather than an alarmism based merely upon clearly incomplete models.

You're right but I'd like to see them pushed because they're economically advisable reasons not make people think they're saving the earth from climate change. The only thing that is going to do that is actually reducing the worlds human population.

[NeonSamurai]

I'm quite a follower of science, and from a data standpoint, we do know quite a bit about the RAW data. However, we are still quite ignorant with regards to how that data impacts world climate as a whole. Saying that our models are not perfect doesn't do justice to the reality that our models are completely theoretical and have, to this point, accurately predicted NOTHING with certainty.

We're not even talking about an accuracy RATE ... at this point, our models are so far across the board that science can claim to have predicted ANY event, despite such events contradicting other events.

Snows a ton? Climate change. Snows a little? Climate change.

Do you honestly think we will ever have a perfectly accurate model of weather or even close? There are so very many variables that can potentially influence weather and interact with each other in a myriad of ways.

The models we have are more designed to predict averaged behavior over a long period of time and over large geography, not predict individual events. Those models also do cover the more extremes of weather, but rare events like that don't matter much.

The problem I have though is people use single events such as an unusual weather event (like a lot of snow in an area that usually gets very little) and try to use it as anecdotal evidence for or against the theory. The thing is though is that individual events don't matter, it's the overall trend that does.

Also the theoretical framework does cover large changes in weather patterns, as one thing global temperature change does is screw with the water and air currents (which are major factors in weather produced). This is in part due to the uneveness of temperature change across the globe (the poles for example have been warming up much faster then the rest of the world as co2 levels tend to concentrate there).

Considering that averages merely mean out the extremes, this isn't reassuring.I have to stop you there. Volcanos emit VAST amounts of greenhouse gasses, including CO2. Indeed, ash is a primary factory in dimming sunlight, yet volcanic activity produces large quantities of greenhouse gasses.

Yes, humans emit quite a magnitude of gasses over volcanos collectively, but generally speaking climate change throughout history has been brought upon by massive events. In some circles, this suggests that the Earth reacts more regarding the extreme events and has been able to adapt more readily regarding more steady changes.

In fact, that is one of the most controversial topics in the scientific community. The suggestion that a slow-but-steady outpouring of greenhouse gasses would have the same effect as an instaneous deluge of the same is fundamentally flawed. However, many of our models base the 1-1 impact of the same gasses simarly, which is fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, many of our models exclude other factors ... for instance, the claims that X amount of CO2 has shown to be Y amount of climate change has not necessarily accounted for the other factors that may have contributed to Y.

This is the primary reason for the minority dissent of the scientific community. They believe the majority is rushing to judgement. I happen to agree.

Well there isn't much we can do about volcanoes and the gases they emit. But we can do something about what we are doing.

Yes many mass extinction events happened very rapidly, but not all of them. There is evidence for example that the K-T extinction did not happen anywhere near as fast as people think (there are dino bones found 40,000 years after the event for example). From a geological perspective these events happen in the blink of an eye, yet from a human perspective they can take hundreds of years or longer before the full effect is felt.

However we also have several examples of gradual changes in the environment such as the ice ages, and that is where the comparisons are being made, not in the sudden events. I have never read a single paper from a reputable source where such comparisons you speak of have been made. Nor would any make such a claim as x co2 = y change as it is not that simple.

If you can link such papers (and they have to be reputable sources), I would be interested to see them.


Al Gore would make you think such science is simple and easily confirmed, but it is not. What you say, at face value, is true. However, the IMPACTS that we've attempted to historically draw from such increases is still unclear, due to most models not including other factors.

But also quite intriguing, over long term models, is the decreasing energy gained from the sun. Ultimately, over the long term (speaking in terms of eons), the Earth NEEDS to increase its greenhouse effect in order to pace the decreasing solar energy. Because our models have not contemplated evolutionary aspects as well as solar energy changes, we still don't have quite an idea as to the effect of increased CO2. Furthermore, I submit that we haven't even bothered to calculate the evolutionary difference occurring in flora faced with rising CO2 levels. Some scientists have suggested simply that plants may ultimately "breath faster", helping to offset some of the increase in CO2 levels.

By and large, however, as you have stated the system which provides life on Earth is quite interconnected. There are so many factors, many offsetting, which assist in sustaining life as we know it, that most climate models are wrong due to merely excluding that very concept.

Like I said, we really don't know squat.In my opinion, that conclusion is premature and that sense of urgency that you display is a reason as to why our science has rushed to judgement rather than making sure they have it right.

The very basics are that simple though, higher co2 levels in the air = more trapped heat pretty much, just as lower co2 levels = less trapped heat. The degree that it happens is where it becomes more questionable and much more variable due to all the possible variables for temperature.

As for the sun's output, I am not aware of any overall decreases in the last while. It does go through phases of activity where it releases more and less energy, and accordingly grows and shrinks. We also have a very good idea of the effect of co2 on temperature from ice core data.

I have never heard of any reputable scientist postulating that plants will start to breath faster. For one thing if you understand how photosynthesis works such an idea makes little sense. For plants to photosynthesize faster, they would need more light (and the ability to absorb it) and water in addition to co2. They already do it at pretty close to optimal levels as it is, and are evolved to do it as efficiently as possible for their environment

Anyhow I disagree with your assertion based on what I know. The sense of urgency comes from the fact that it will take a very long time for us to do something about it, and it may already be too late before we even do. Even if we halt the rate of co2 increase the temperature will still continue to climb for quite a while after that as the system has not reached the stabilizing point yet for the amount of co2 in the air.

I agree that, likely, carbon emissions need to decrease. However, due to other factors, I believe that we don't really know the science behind it. So instead of making sensational yet unfounded predictions claiming that the end is nigh, we may as well simply encourage people to live as responsibly as they can, without the rhetoric.

Indeed, after awhile of making broad claims and the public seeing them not come true, people start thinking of such "science" as no more valuable than the guy on the corner wearing a sandwich sign screaming "THE END IS NEAR!!!!".

Well I disagree. We don't know it all (nor ever will) but we know enough to see the trends and warning signs, and be very concerned about it. Living "responsibly" isn't going to cut it either, as what exactly is living responsibly? That can have many possible definitions and none of them would do enough.

As for the public, well most of them barely understand the first thing about science or how it works. They constantly misinterpret it and try to apply it incorrectly and then when it doesn't work they will claim its false. Also most of these predictions are still several decades away at minimum.

Now damn, if this isn't one of the smartest things (although it should be obvious) I've ever read on here. Kudos.

Oh I've never been a fan of Gore. He was useful at first in raising awareness, but mostly he is a liability as he doesn't understand the science much better then your average lay person, and as a result frequently says things which are not true. People love to wait for him to mess up and then say "ahah! see I told you it's all a lie! That proves it." as if what he says proves or disproves anything at all. I have already torn him apart and discarded him a few times in other threads.

See, I disagree with that concept and find it irrelevent in any case. There are plenty of well-reputed scientists who have data suggesting other than what the alarmists claim. Sure, there are people on both sides that are bought and paid for, yet ultimately science isn't democratic.

Oh? I know of a handful of reputable scientists that have peer reviewed articles on the subject. On the academic databases there are not very many such articles. There is however a landslide of peer reviewed articles in support of man made climate change. But I would be interested in seeing some examples (links to peer reviewed articles) of what you say.

Also the method I use to discard research is pretty much the standard method used in science (which by the way is fairly democratic in how consensus is reached). If it is not peer reviewed from a reputable source with sufficient references, it didn't happen and doesn't exist. This is the case with most of the counter 'evidence' offered from public sources.

Heh, there was a time in which the Earth was the center of the universe, according to scientific consensus. The fact is that we still don't know what the hell to think, and we've rushed to judgement. And, historically, the record of the predictions stemming from the models of that rushed judgement are not very good.

Umm.. no. That was never the scientific consensus, that was a religious ruling based off of a few verses in the bible. Modern science started with Heliocentric theory, which claimed the opposite (and was proven mostly true). Even the ancients knew otherwise from astronomical observation.

I also do not think the judgment is at all rushed or is the science behind it. Science has been aware of this problem and has been researching it for well over 40 years now (some say well over 100 years depending on which article is considered the start). The science behind it will never be perfect, it can't ever be as it is a human creation and thus will always be flawed. This doesn't mean though we should not listen. Heck we have wildly gone ahead with risky science all the time. Like the atom bomb for example, its a good thing that certain scientists were wrong, otherwise we would have burn off the atmosphere.

See, here's my angle: there are so many things that are likely to happen during human civilization that will be nigh impossible to divert, we had better be DAMNED SURE that this particular issue is spot-on before the public gets truly interested.

We are about as sure as we are ever likely to get given the nature of the beast and science itself. People like to wait until the roof is caving in, that is the problem. I can point to many many different civilizations that went extinct exactly because they refused to see the problems and warning signs. This is one of the few things we are very responsible for and can change, unlike storms, comets, volcanoes, etc. Humanity is now almost a global civilization, if it collapses, it will collapse everywhere.

Think rationally, for a moment: say Yellowstone erupts and causes mass death and destruction. Okay, fine, the ash becomes the problem, and not so much the greenhouse gasses. Well, when you wipe out say, 25% of the Earth's population, CO2 emmissions are bound to decrease anyway.

Hmm funny, all I have been doing this entire time is thinking rationally (I am a scientist, its what I do for a living). Anyhow as for Yellowstone super erupting, not much we can do about that either way. If it happens we are seriously screwed (and way more then 25% of the population will die if it super erupts in the long term).

People should naturally just turn off their lights when not in use. Most environmentally friendly concepts are economically advisable as well. We need to focus on that, rather than an alarmism based merely upon clearly incomplete models.

If you wait for complete models you will wait for eternity as they will never exist. Turning off the lights, car pooling, and all the other grass roots stuff is not going to change things. There are way to many people producing way to much carbon and other pollution in the world. The problem as I see it is the changes that need to be made are massive baring some miracle technology. There are way to many humans on this planet, sucking up way to many resources. That desperately needs to change, but I don't see it happening as at least 5 billion need to go away if we want real sustainability. I figure nature will in the end make the choice for us.


I do not consider myself to be an alarmist. The conclusions, as I said, I have come to are well grounded in science and history. Global warming is just one of many things we are facing. Many of these things are interconnected, and one will amplify the effect of others. Such as global warming working on the global ecosystem which is being strained to the breaking point as it is. I am very worried by all that I see.

[Aramike]

Do you honestly think we will ever have a perfectly accurate model of weather or even close? There are so very many variables that can potentially influence weather and interact with each other in a myriad of ways.Yes, actually. We may never attain perfect models, but I think we'd be able to get quite close.

Our models and data are always improving. The very idea that we're already at or close to the pinnacle of climatic modeling doesn't ring true to me at all.The models we have are more designed to predict averaged behavior over a long period of time and over large geography, not predict individual events. Those models also do cover the more extremes of weather, but rare events like that don't matter much.Indeed. However, I remember that after hurricane Katrina, scientists predicted a swelling in Atlantic storm activity the following year, using those models. Furthermore, they attributed their prediction on global warming.

It didn't come true.

Those models are indeed predictions of long term AVERAGES. Why, then, is much of the scientific community dead set upon using that data for more immediate alarmism?Well there isn't much we can do about volcanoes and the gases they emit. But we can do something about what we are doing.Man, how right you are in this, but how wrong your interpretation of this is, in my opinion.

Yes, we need to control what we can control. But what doesn't make sense is that many people on your side of the debate actually believe that it is possible to control the human condition overall.

We have a burgeoning global population, developed nations with no interest in pollution control but a vested interest in economic and industrial development (China), and an increasing global energy demand. You believe that, while we cannot control, say, volcanos, WE can control human energy consumption and the resulting CO2 emmissions. I submit to you that you're wrong - we can hardly control human energy consumption any more than we can control a volcano.

What we CAN do is avoid absurd policies which shift industry from countries with decent environmental policies to those without. Say, if it's too expensive to build something in demand in the US due to environmental policies, then it will simply be built in China, with lax controls. Well there isn't much we can do about volcanoes and the gases they emit. But we can do something about what we are doing.

Yes many mass extinction events happened very rapidly, but not all of them. There is evidence for example that the K-T extinction did not happen anywhere near as fast as people think (there are dino bones found 40,000 years after the event for example). From a geological perspective these events happen in the blink of an eye, yet from a human perspective they can take hundreds of years or longer before the full effect is felt.Most extinctions happen in a geological blink but really occur over a period of many years. Should a large enough asteroid collide with the Earth today, we'd see massive loss of life initially but human civilization would likely prattle on for thousands of years. The environmental changes may or may not eventually catch up to humans, and either we would become extinct or we'd survive.

However, in any case, the event itself which would cause the eventual extinction would have happened in an instant. That is essentially what theoretically happened regarding the K-T extinction.

Pollution, on the other hand, is a much slower process. The Earth is far more likely to be able to adapt to gradual CO2 emmissions than, say, the Chicxulub event.

Ultimately, my point is we really don't know.However we also have several examples of gradual changes in the environment such as the ice ages, and that is where the comparisons are being made, not in the sudden events. I have never read a single paper from a reputable source where such comparisons you speak of have been made. Nor would any make such a claim as x co2 = y change as it is not that simple.

If you can link such papers (and they have to be reputable sources), I would be interested to see them.Oh? I know of a handful of reputable scientists that have peer reviewed articles on the subject. On the academic databases there are not very many such articles. There is however a landslide of peer reviewed articles in support of man made climate change. But I would be interested in seeing some examples (links to peer reviewed articles) of what you say.

Also the method I use to discard research is pretty much the standard method used in science (which by the way is fairly democratic in how consensus is reached). If it is not peer reviewed from a reputable source with sufficient references, it didn't happen and doesn't exist. This is the case with most of the counter 'evidence' offered from public sources.For full disclosure, I only follow climatology with passing interest. Physics are far more interesting to me. As such, I don't read papers but simply follow the highlights. If something seems interesting, I look briefly at it and at counter-proposals without predisposition. I found that, in science, it's pretty easy to identify what makes sense.

That being said, science is NOT A DEMOCRACY! There have been many instances of failed scientific consensus. I'll link to a great list a lilttle bit later on.

In any case, that's besides my point. I have little doubt that CO2 levels are rising, my issue is that the effects of this are little understood. Umm.. no. That was never the scientific consensus, that was a religious ruling based off of a few verses in the bible. Modern science started with Heliocentric theory, which claimed the opposite (and was proven mostly true). Even the ancients knew otherwise from astronomical observation.Umm...yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Ever heard of Aristotle? Or Ptolemy? Both believed in the geocentric model of the universe where the Earth was at the center, and not for religious purposes. The latter was a mathematician, the former devised one of the first theories on physics.

BOTH proposed a geocentric universe independantly of anything Biblical (I'm pretty sure Aristotle had no idea what the Bible even was), which mathematical reasoning behind it. The science behind it will never be perfect, it can't ever be as it is a human creation and thus will always be flawed. This doesn't mean though we should not listen. Heck we have wildly gone ahead with risky science all the time. Like the atom bomb for example, its a good thing that certain scientists were wrong, otherwise we would have burn off the atmosphere.I'm not saying we shouldn't listen. I'm merely saying the data is incomplete. And finally, I'm saying that we should attempt to make drastic, short-sighted economic policy based upon such data.We are about as sure as we are ever likely to get given the nature of the beast and science itself. People like to wait until the roof is caving in, that is the problem. I can point to many many different civilizations that went extinct exactly because they refused to see the problems and warning signs. This is one of the few things we are very responsible for and can change, unlike storms, comets, volcanoes, etc. Humanity is now almost a global civilization, if it collapses, it will collapse everywhere.Perhaps the global civilization will collapse, but personally I don't think humanity benefits greatly from being a global civilization anyway.

In all honesty though, I don't see any collapse as necessarily being global, and I don't see why one should except in perhaps an anecdotal sense. Should civilization change, there will be haves and have-nots. The haves will move on, and mankind will endure. In fact, preventing such a collapse is partly why I'm so opposed to socialism, but that's another topic for another time.Hmm funny, all I have been doing this entire time is thinking rationally (I am a scientist, its what I do for a living). Anyhow as for Yellowstone super erupting, not much we can do about that either way. If it happens we are seriously screwed (and way more then 25% of the population will die if it super erupts in the long term).Okay, so my point was wrong, how?

Also, what kind of science do you do?If you wait for complete models you will wait for eternity as they will never exist. Turning off the lights, car pooling, and all the other grass roots stuff is not going to change things. There are way to many people producing way to much carbon and other pollution in the world. The problem as I see it is the changes that need to be made are massive baring some miracle technology. There are way to many humans on this planet, sucking up way to many resources. That desperately needs to change, but I don't see it happening as at least 5 billion need to go away if we want real sustainability. I figure nature will in the end make the choice for us.I pretty much agree with all of that (although I think you're idea that the earth could only sustain around 1 to 2 billion people is, well, off).

In the end, my point is this: we really don't know what's going to happen, we need to NOT screw with economics in an attempt to engineer a decrease in energy use as it could likely backfire, and we need to search for an artificial way of stabilizing the climate SHOULD it become necessary.I do not consider myself to be an alarmist. The conclusions, as I said, I have come to are well grounded in science and history. Global warming is just one of many things we are facing. Many of these things are interconnected, and one will amplify the effect of others. Such as global warming working on the global ecosystem which is being strained to the breaking point as it is. I am very worried by all that I see. I don't agree completely.

I mentioned in my last post about the sun's impact on terrestrial climate. The sun's output is continually decreasing (over long term periods) at it decreases in overall mass. However, there have been recent theories that a long term solar cycle may be a primary cause of the Earth's past ice ages. An ice age would be detrimental to humanity as well, wouldn't it?

Furthermore, over the long term geological period known as the Cenozoic, we have been experiencing a rather steady period of global COOLING. Increased CO2 and other greenhouse gasses could have perhaps a stabilizing effect long term. Or, should an ice age loom (due perhaps to solar causes), an enhanced greenhouse effect could be somewhat mitigating.

Again, we really don't know what the long term effects of all this is. And that's my point.

[Aramike]

You're right but I'd like to see them pushed because they're economically advisable reasons not make people think they're saving the earth from climate change. The only thing that is going to do that is actually reducing the worlds human population.That I agree with. But that leaves us with a problem: either we institute population control measures so draconian as to make the Chinese look like saints, or we simply allow the population to continue its explosive growth. The latter is more likely considering that any sort of population control measures are likely to offend the sensibilities of western civilization.

Ultimately, once the earth can no longer sustain the human population, it will stop doing so. In the meantime, however, I believe our scientific endeavors should focus not on alarmism but rather practical solutions. Arcologies, artificial climate control, etc., should be our goals.

[August]

Ultimately, once the earth can no longer sustain the human population, it will stop doing so.

That would be the most painful way of solving the problem. We've used our technology to stave that day off for so long that when it finally fails it may drop us right into extinction.

[Aramike]

That would be the most painful way of solving the problem. We've used our technology to stave that day off for so long that when it finally fails it may drop us right into extinction.For sure, but what's the alternative?

[Schroeder]

For sure, but what's the alternative?
To f*ck political correctness and install birth control wherever possible or isolate from areas where this is not possible.
I'm afraid that would be the only way, but people will ignore that and preach about human rights and stuff....how many rights will they still have when they have to fight to death for water, food, oil, wood etc. ?:nope:

[August]

For sure, but what's the alternative?

I don't pretend to have all the answers but whatever is done will have to be done world wide.

[August]

To f*ck political correctness and install birth control wherever possible or isolate from areas where this is not possible.
I'm afraid that would be the only way, but people will ignore that and preach about human rights and stuff....how many rights will they still have when they have to fight to death for water, food, oil, wood etc. ?:nope:

What do you mean by isolate?

[Skybird]

More and more I tend to think that if there is truth in that everything has it'S right time, has a rise, a climax, and a decline, then it is unreasonable to assume that human civilisation as we know it is the exception from the rule.

As I pointed out some weeks ago, man has the ability to reject survival for very reasonable, very logical reasons that make a lot of sense.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159065 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159065)

To f*ck political correctness and install birth control wherever possible or isolate from areas where this is not possible.
I'm afraid that would be the only way, but people will ignore that and preach about human rights and stuff....how many rights will they still have when they have to fight to death for water, food, oil, wood etc. ?:nope:

How to come from 7+ billion to 1 billion in a reasonable ammount of time...? Let nature handle it? Or lend her a hand ourselves? There is a massive moral dilemma.

[CaptainHaplo]

Man has a tendency to get to a point where either nature steps in - or we do it for nature. Massive epidemics, war, etc.

Ultimately, its not a question of IF nature or man will prune the tree of humanity - its a question of WHEN. Only by expansion off this rock can humanity avoid such an outcome.

Damned unpleasant - but facts usually are.

Edit - isn't it odd how far we have come from the OP - and the reality that one of the "leading" climatologists behind the global warming hoax has admitted that there has been no real change in 60 years..... EDIT - that should be 15 years..... my fault - had 1950 on the brain at the moment.

[antikristuseke]

Edit - isn't it odd how far we have come from the OP - and the reality that one of the "leading" climatologists behind the global warming hoax has admitted that there has been no real change in 60 years.....

Where the hell did this happen, how did I miss this?

[Tribesman]

Where the hell did this happen, how did I miss this?
Its easy to miss, what you did was fail to take the word "significant" and change it to "real" and then take "15" and quadruple it.
So you really made the simple mistake of missing something because it wasn't there.
Learn to use your imagination more and then you won't miss out on so many fantabulous statements.

[Schroeder]

What do you mean by isolate?
Blocking the boarders. Don't let people of those places "invade" countries that do have birth control. Not really perfect, I know, but I don't know how else to protect a country with birth control from beeing "flooded" by people from countries that are still celebrating growing populations.


How to come from 7+ billion to 1 billion in a reasonable ammount of time...? Let nature handle it? Or lend her a hand ourselves? There is a massive moral dilemma.

Well, with world wide birth control (yes, I know it is impossible and plenty of countries don't want / can't do it...) the population would shrink by 50% within the next 80 years.
The big question is, what is a reasonable time?

Actually there is pretty much no way to save the planet (and ourselves) with mild therapies any more. But as long as we are ignorant of this and continue to be proud of growing populations (not so much in the west, but in some other places...) it's controlled, wanted suicide.

[Skybird]

The big question is, what is a reasonable time?


A timeframe that leaves us still enough time to to throw around the helm and save our future once a lower population level has been reached. I doubt that much time is left. So nature will have her ways of settling the question of humanity's fate.

Demographic control is something EU policies is strictly against. Not only is there an irrational fear of lower population sizes in Europe (as a matter of fact after the end of the heavy industry era we do not need as many workers anymore as before), there is also a dedicated social-engineering experiment going on in Europe, for reasons that qualify as suicidal self-deception.

The following link is not due to the Islam-related content itself, but the deep corruption and treason of the EU, which has a major impacts on birth policies and population levels. You may need to dig a bit into it, it is a long document. But you should get the content quite easily, and see how this is against anything like "birth control".

published 2006
http://vladtepesblog.com/?page_id=289
http://vladtepesblog.com/?page_id=1131

2008-update
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3590

Do not shoot the messenger - the sites hosting the documents - for the message, give the message a chance to speak for itself. Also note that the documents can be found at many different sites indeed. Some are more leaning than others, and certainly none of them is left, islamophile or pro-EU.

A German translation of the complete chapters you can find here:
http://www.pi-news.net/wp/uploads/2010/02/Defeating_Eurabia_German_Book1.pdf (http://www.pi-news.net/wp/uploads/2010/02/Defeating_Eurabia_German_Book1.pdf)

It reads "Book1", but it is all 5 chapters nevertheless.

I do not say Fjordman'S blog entries and essays are the 100% exact representation of reality - but I think he points at some where obvious and very worrying facts that explain plenty of the otherwise apparently bigot or unreasonable decisions in EU policies. And so far I have not learned any better explanations for the dicatorship the EU has turned into - the biggest coup d'état in the history of mankind. If you look at it from his perspective, many things suddenly fall into place and actually make sense.

[Schroeder]

This will probably take me days to read as I'm a bit short of time at the moment.:o

[CaptainHaplo]

Where the hell did this happen, how did I miss this?

Antikristuseke - that should be 15 years - I have edited it to be correct(but left the mistatement since its been quoted). I had 1950 on the brain when I typed that. My screw up.

[Tribesman]

Do not shoot the messenger - the sites hosting the documents - for the message, give the message a chance to speak for itself.
The message speaks for itself, the people speaking the message speak for themselves, it says a lot about the message and those who say it.

I do not say Fjordman'S blog entries and essays are the 100% exact representation of reality
Wow a notorious ignorant bigots writings are not exactly accurate to reality, what a shocking revelation, who would have thought it:rotfl2:

Also note that the documents can be found at many different sites indeed.
Also note that many sites no longer use the documents as the author is a nutcase with links to racist extremists

[August]

..."flooded" by people from countries that are still celebrating growing populations.

:DL Is that like me "celebrating" my expanding waist line? [/QUOTE]

[Skybird]

Edit - isn't it odd how far we have come from the OP - and the reality that one of the "leading" climatologists behind the global warming hoax has admitted that there has been no real change in 60 years..... EDIT - that should be 15 years..... my fault - had 1950 on the brain at the moment.

http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0222-hance_conviction.html


---


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/23/true-climate-sceptics

http://rawstory.com/2009/2009/12/climate-skeptic-group-nipcc-extensive-ties-exxonmobil/

[SteamWake]

Someone should really put a stop to this. This could impact the climate drramatically !!!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLAUn4Gy92ss

[Schroeder]

:DL Is that like me "celebrating" my expanding waist line?

I meant that there have been celebrations for the one billionth guy in India and things like that. But actually you are quiet close. An expanding waist line is about as much reason to celebrate as growing population.:woot:

[NeonSamurai]

Yes, actually. We may never attain perfect models, but I think we'd be able to get quite close.

Our models and data are always improving. The very idea that we're already at or close to the pinnacle of climatic modeling doesn't ring true to me at all.Indeed. However, I remember that after hurricane Katrina, scientists predicted a swelling in Atlantic storm activity the following year, using those models. Furthermore, they attributed their prediction on global warming.

It didn't come true.

There were reasons why those predictions didn't occur which were contained in the model. Also fluctuations always happen, even large ones can generally be accounted for, which is why we look at longer term trends.

Those models are indeed predictions of long term AVERAGES. Why, then, is much of the scientific community dead set upon using that data for more immediate alarmism?Man, how right you are in this, but how wrong your interpretation of this is, in my opinion.Frankly I think most of it comes from outside of the scientific community and is influencing it.

Yes, we need to control what we can control. But what doesn't make sense is that many people on your side of the debate actually believe that it is possible to control the human condition overall.There in is the problem with out solution, human nature. But does that excuse us from throwing our hands up in the air and doing nothing? Also I should state that my position on the topic is flexible, all I care about is where bulk of the evidence lies. Right now most of it weighs in on man made climate change.

We have a burgeoning global population, developed nations with no interest in pollution control but a vested interest in economic and industrial development (China), and an increasing global energy demand. You believe that, while we cannot control, say, volcanos, WE can control human energy consumption and the resulting CO2 emmissions. I submit to you that you're wrong - we can hardly control human energy consumption any more than we can control a volcano.I never said we could control it, I said we should. Unless humanity wakes the hell up and looks beyond its own individual selfish interests, our species is doomed to eventual extinction. I don't think its very far off myself.

What we CAN do is avoid absurd policies which shift industry from countries with decent environmental policies to those without. Say, if it's too expensive to build something in demand in the US due to environmental policies, then it will simply be built in China, with lax controls. Most extinctions happen in a geological blink but really occur over a period of many years. Should a large enough asteroid collide with the Earth today, we'd see massive loss of life initially but human civilization would likely prattle on for thousands of years. The environmental changes may or may not eventually catch up to humans, and either we would become extinct or we'd survive.I don't believe that will be anywhere near enough (though I agree with it). As for extinction yep that is usually the way it works (super bugs though can do it very fast).

However, in any case, the event itself which would cause the eventual extinction would have happened in an instant. That is essentially what theoretically happened regarding the K-T extinction.It depends on which theory you are working with as there are several variations and types of K-T extinction theories. Not all of them were fast processes at all.

Pollution, on the other hand, is a much slower process. The Earth is far more likely to be able to adapt to gradual CO2 emmissions than, say, the Chicxulub event.Well if the data is right the co2 increases are hardly gradual (in comparison to ice core samples, current levels are spiking at an unprecedented level). It is also very possible that things will suddenly speed up. I am also uncertain that life will adapt so easily due to the tremendous pressure most ecosystems around the world are under due to humanity (we are already in a period of mass extinction as it is). It could push things completely over the edge and wipe out most existing life forms if the web gets disrupted.

Ultimately, my point is we really don't know.For full disclosure, I only follow climatology with passing interest. Physics are far more interesting to me. As such, I don't read papers but simply follow the highlights. If something seems interesting, I look briefly at it and at counter-proposals without predisposition. I found that, in science, it's pretty easy to identify what makes sense.I do similar, though I have scanned many different papers on the subject. I also try look at it with out bias towards the subject, and examine the arguments critically. I don't though pay any attention to the media, spokesmen, or public opinion or the political aspects of things (I don't believe in politics).

That being said, science is NOT A DEMOCRACY! There have been many instances of failed scientific consensus. I'll link to a great list a lilttle bit later on.Sure there have been plenty of failed theories. Some got improved or superseded, some were proven false and dropped entirely. Scientific consensus is similar to a democracy though no votes are taken. The important thing is only those who know about the subject have any real say in the matter, rather then any idiot off the street.

In any case, that's besides my point. I have little doubt that CO2 levels are rising, my issue is that the effects of this are little understood.To which I disagree saying that they are better understood then you think, though of course not perfect or all encompassing (which will never happen)

Umm...yes.

Ever heard of Aristotle? Or Ptolemy? Both believed in the geocentric model of the universe where the Earth was at the center, and not for religious purposes. The latter was a mathematician, the former devised one of the first theories on physics.

BOTH proposed a geocentric universe independantly of anything Biblical (I'm pretty sure Aristotle had no idea what the Bible even was), which mathematical reasoning behind it.Neither are or were true scientific theory, they were philosophic theory (as was Aristotle's theory on Physica) based mostly anecdotal evidence and supposition (Ptolemy based his mathematical modeling on Aristotle's philosophic theories). They didn't follow scientific methodology and can't be considered scientific theory as a result. As for the bible and geocentric theory, the Greek theories were merged with christian theology (and biblical references), which became religious dogma and subject to heresy laws, which the early scientists behind heliocentric theory were persecuted by. I am not saying those 2 did not contribute to science in the end, but their theories were not scientific in nature.

The Egyptians and some other cultures developed their own heliocentric models (some of which were very very accurate), and in many ways were closer to true scientific theory as those models were based on very careful and precise observation.

I'm not saying we shouldn't listen. I'm merely saying the data is incomplete. And finally, I'm saying that we should attempt to make drastic, short-sighted economic policy based upon such data.Perhaps the global civilization will collapse, but personally I don't think humanity benefits greatly from being a global civilization anyway.And I am saying that the data and theories will forever be incomplete as that is the nature of science and humanity. I also suspect that if global civilization collapses there is a good chance it may take us out with us (or cut our numbers way way back). We are totally dependent on it.

In all honesty though, I don't see any collapse as necessarily being global, and I don't see why one should except in perhaps an anecdotal sense. Should civilization change, there will be haves and have-nots. The haves will move on, and mankind will endure. In fact, preventing such a collapse is partly why I'm so opposed to socialism, but that's another topic for another time.Given the level of inter-connectivity of our civilizations (we are more like one civilization really) and our use of an interconnected token economic system. If there is a major failure in a good chunk of one area, it is reasonably likely to drag the rest down with it (and is shown in history where problems in one region brought down the entire civilization).

Okay, so my point was wrong, how?

Also, what kind of science do you do?Your point seemed to be that I was not looking at this rationally, which is not true. My opinions and thoughts are fairly well backed up by research and other evidence. I usually only engage in such discussions if I feel I can back up my opinions well.

The social sciences (Psychology specifically) is my area of expertise, though I also have a background in the natural sciences as well.

I pretty much agree with all of that (although I think you're idea that the earth could only sustain around 1 to 2 billion people is, well, off).1-2 billion isn't my idea; there are several figures being batted around depending on level of resource usage and number of haves vs have nots. 500m is a common number for everyone in the world to live by middle class standards with out putting pressure on the ecosystem and generating pollution beyond what the earth can deal with. 1-2b is where there is still an economic divide not as bad as we have now (but similar proportions).

In the end, my point is this: we really don't know what's going to happen, we need to NOT screw with economics in an attempt to engineer a decrease in energy use as it could likely backfire, and we need to search for an artificial way of stabilizing the climate SHOULD it become necessary.I think it is necessary now and that the evidence is strong enough to put significant resources into research. But we have to be careful as artificial solutions may backfire as well. But I do think acting in an environmentally friendly way is also a very wise move too. I don't agree with concepts such as carbon taxes and the like (though it could be used to fund research).


I don't agree completely.That is fine, though perhaps your picture of the situation isn't broad enough

I mentioned in my last post about the sun's impact on terrestrial climate. The sun's output is continually decreasing (over long term periods) at it decreases in overall mass. However, there have been recent theories that a long term solar cycle may be a primary cause of the Earth's past ice ages. An ice age would be detrimental to humanity as well, wouldn't it?Both are bad for us either way. Anyhow you might want to recheck your information on the sun. The rate that the sun looses mass compared to its total volume is almost insignificant. Odds are we will be long extinct before there is any noticeable decrease in energy output (some theories suggest there will be no decrease and the sun will expand as it runs out of fuel to maintain equilibrium for fusion). That said the output does run on a cycle, which explains much of the fluctuations in temperature data. Solar theories relating to the ice ages have a fundamental flaw in that the available data is almost non existent.

Furthermore, over the long term geological period known as the Cenozoic, we have been experiencing a rather steady period of global COOLING. Increased CO2 and other greenhouse gasses could have perhaps a stabilizing effect long term. Or, should an ice age loom (due perhaps to solar causes), an enhanced greenhouse effect could be somewhat mitigating.Other than recently where there has been a warming trend which isn't explained by solar output. The increases have only dropped off over the last bit due to the sun being in a low point in its output cycle. As for an ice age, we have no idea when the next one will be, and the earth going the other way into a hot(?) age will be rather bad too.

Again, we really don't know what the long term effects of all this is. And that's my point.We have a pretty good idea from several different scientific areas of study. But we can never predict things absolutely, and never know what may come next which will change things. But pretending it doesn't exist will not help either. Is it possible the theories are wrong, sure it is always possible, question is how probable it is if if they are wrong, and if they are how wrong are they?



http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0222-h...onviction.html (http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0222-hance_conviction.html)

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...imate-sceptics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/23/true-climate-sceptics)

http://rawstory.com/2009/2009/12/cli...es-exxonmobil/ (http://rawstory.com/2009/2009/12/climate-skeptic-group-nipcc-extensive-ties-exxonmobil/)


No real surprises in those links. I certainly agree that real scientific skeptics on climate change should stay far away from the media and other sources of pollution and interference. Science is best left to the scientists, not the genera public. Also well known that certain interest groups are trying to swamp people with bogus science and research. And I am not surprised that consensus has not changed at all, there is no reason for it to change given that there is no new evidence disproving anything


As a general comment I don't see us as species ever implementing effective population control that will actually reduce our population. We are to selfish as individuals for that to ever happen, plus all the ethical considerations. I do have to say though that I personally want to smack those people who have lots of kids in this day and age. Talk about egotistical self centered behavior.


Anyhow I grow weary of this topic and think I shall withdraw at this point. I don't think it's worth the energy for me to debate this topic further here. Plus ça change, plus ça reste la même chose.

[Aramike]

I've read your response, and ultimately find that we are not too far apart in our recognition of the current science of climate change. Ultimately the difference in opinion is simple: you place far more faith in the current scientific analysis than I do.

While I could do a tedious point-by-point breakdown for my agreements and disagreements with your post, in the interest of time, I'm going to skip them unless you point out a specific point you wish me to address. All except for this:Neither are or were true scientific theory, they were philosophic theory (as was Aristotle's theory on Physica) based mostly anecdotal evidence and supposition (Ptolemy based his mathematical modeling on Aristotle's philosophic theories). They didn't follow scientific methodology and can't be considered scientific theory as a result. As for the bible and geocentric theory, the Greek theories were merged with christian theology (and biblical references), which became religious dogma and subject to heresy laws, which the early scientists behind heliocentric theory were persecuted by. I am not saying those 2 did not contribute to science in the end, but their theories were not scientific in nature.

The Egyptians and some other cultures developed their own heliocentric models (some of which were very very accurate), and in many ways were closer to true scientific theory as those models were based on very careful and precise observation.This point you made was remarkably full of spin. You specifically stated that the geocentric universal view was Biblical. It in fact was NO SUCH THING, as it predated the Bible. Now, in order to haphazardly support that statement you went on to attempt to invalidate that view as though it was not science, which is oddly discriminating. To me it seems to be bad form to invalidate the science of old (or even, antiquity) upon the basis that we know more now. I have never met a scientist or historian (and I know quite a few) who had ever even suggested such a concept. Simply because a concept doesn't fit modern scientific models does NOT MAKE IT NOT SCIENCE.

The reason I point this out is mere basic intellectualism. You suggest essentially that our climate models will never be substantially improved (and thusly different) and yet you imply that our scientific methods are airtight and therefore not subject to improvement (by extension claiming that such methods are too impervious to change that, at some point, a future scientist would then be able to claim that our current methods are not, indeed, "science").

I'm fairly sure that Ptolemy may have viewed things similarly (and would therefore have been similarly wrong).

My point is simple and has been consistant: we don't know enough to make accurate predictions which require such drastic changes to our economies. The science is simply too incomplete and HAS NOT been proven. While I have made it quite clear that I agree with most of the principles of the climate science, I believe that the picture is still far too incomplete.

And, I think that many scientists have been distorting said picture in order to reach their predetermined conclusions (this has been well-documented).

Your post dismissing early human scientific endeavors as not being scientific is very reminiscent of such a distortion. Perhaps, more well put, you used spin to redefine an understood concept...

...which is specfically was I accuse many climatologists of doing.

[Fish]

Actually there is pretty much no way to save the planet (and ourselves) with mild therapies any more. But as long as we are ignorant of this and continue to be proud of growing populations (not so much in the west, but in some other places...) it's controlled, wanted suicide.

The quay will turn the boat, is an old saying here.
And it will probable turn the hard way. :down:

[CaptainHaplo]

Neon,

I have to take issue with one statement in your response. While we do disagree on some climate issues, I will agree that man has some level of impact on the environment.

However - you stated:

The important thing is only those who know about the subject have any real say in the matter, rather then any idiot off the street.

I know that was not meant as an insult to those who don't have a scientific background, but thats a rather dangerous opinion to have in my view, because the "idiot" on the street is often the one impacted the most by the decisions of those who "know about the subject". For example, a scientific consensus that has real say in the matter may decide that the only way to stabilize the environment is to remove certain CO2 sources - such as internal combustion engines. Now if they are the only ones with "real say" - then they just decided to kill the economic infrastructure of most of humanity.

Perhaps you meant this only in the role of having say in what the scientific conclusions were - which would limit science to a purely "theoretical" advisor type role? This also has dangers, since it would keep scientists from being able to work toward and support (outside of advisement) solutions.

Speaking of solutions - Sometimes its the "idiot" on the street that comes up with solutions that work. Edison started working on light bulbs because he - as well as everyone else - was getting reamed by gas companies (as lighting at the time was primarily gas). His background at the time was in the telegraph industry, among other things - but was NOT in lighting at all. He was, in a sense - an "idiot on the street" since he had no real knowledge. Yet over time and with help (as well as purchased patents) - a modern incandescent bulb was born. To discount the contribution that those who may not "know stuff" is a real failure, as many scientific breakthroughs come from entirely unrelated projects and "non-subject matter experts" people.

As for worrying about climate change - I think everyone is worried about something that doesn't matter. The ecosystem will not fail - though it may at some point fail US - that is not a failure by the system. It is rather a correction, and a natural one. When that happens - and resources become so scarce that survival is questionable, mankind will cull itself - not into extinction, but into managable numbers. It will do so through war and violence, sickness and disease, as our history has shown we always do, in a fight for the resources to survive. Unpleasant, damned uncomfortable for those involved, but ultimately unavoidable as this is simply the natural cycle of growth, collapse and rebirth. Our known history shows the cycle repeatedly, and for those that study "pre-history" and the possible civilizations that are suspected to exist at the time - it would seem that the cycle was present then if you believe such a period existed.

I know it sounds somewhat cold to speak on those terms and lay it out so starkly, but it is reality - barring an outside event that exterminates us. However, to me, I see it as simply another stage of existence, so its part of the road, not the whole journey, and thus can see it like a roller coaster ride - every part has its ups and down.

[Tribesman]

Speaking of solutions - Sometimes its the "idiot" on the street that comes up with solutions that work. Edison started working on light bulbs because he - as well as everyone else - was getting reamed by gas companies (as lighting at the time was primarily gas). His background at the time was in the telegraph industry, among other things - but was NOT in lighting at all. He was, in a sense - an "idiot on the street" since he had no real knowledge. Yet over time and with help (as well as purchased patents) - a modern incandescent bulb was born. To discount the contribution that those who may not "know stuff" is a real failure, as many scientific breakthroughs come from entirely unrelated projects and "non-subject matter experts" people.

So someone with a backround in electricity who had been working in the electrical business for years and had invented some electrical items was not in the electrical field at all when he developed a comercially succesful version of an electrical item which people in the same field of expertise had been working on for decades.
If however Edison had been a Lumberjack and spent most of his time swinging an axe before he suddenly developed a supersonic aircraft with assistance from other lumberjacks work then Haplos "issue" might be a valid one

[Fish]

Skeptical Science.


About Skeptical Science

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy), a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm) neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming (http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm). Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage (http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm). Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm). This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.

More at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

[Aramike]

The ecosystem will not fail - though it may at some point fail US - that is not a failure by the system. It is rather a correction, and a natural one. When that happens - and resources become so scarce that survival is questionable, mankind will cull itself - not into extinction, but into managable numbers. It will do so through war and violence, sickness and disease, as our history has shown we always do, in a fight for the resources to survive. Unpleasant, damned uncomfortable for those involved, but ultimately unavoidable as this is simply the natural cycle of growth, collapse and rebirth. Our known history shows the cycle repeatedly, and for those that study "pre-history" and the possible civilizations that are suspected to exist at the time - it would seem that the cycle was present then if you believe such a period existed. Precisely. Such is exactly my point, and what I've been saying for quite some time on here. I agree 100%

Indeed, there are conditions that could cause extinction for humanity. But, even the complete melting of the polar icecaps would simply cut down our numbers.

Purely speaking, the idea of climate change prevention is rooted in this somewhat foolish belief that somehow we can and should attempt to maintain the Earth precisely as it is, in a role that supports a biological system that behaves nearly precisely as it currently does. While perhaps that idea makes sense in some human-centric ideological sense, I believe its foolishness lies in the concept that, throughout its history, the planet has naturally avoided any sort of steady and stagnant state, and why we believe we should begin now makes no sense.

[Aramike]

Skeptical Science.



More at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtmlUsing the quote you provided, it is very difficult to believe such a site is truly attempting to remove the political dimension, when such an introduction is completely politically one-sided in its nature.

To anyone who cares to be honest, it reads "conservatives nuts; global warming science correct". While I tend to agree with most of the science of climate change, and that humans have made an impact, I still deplore those who attempt to disguise a political statement by way of simply making such a statement than claiming that they're not.

I mean, not to be political, but everyone should vote Democrat.

Yeah, that didn't make sense to you either, did it?

PS: The concept of "peer review" as validation is ludicrous. Science is not a democracy.

[Skybird]

Not so selfless, gentleman. The ecosystem may indeed survive in a changed format, like it has done for a long time - whether or not that formnat allows the further survival of a human civilisation: that is the part mankind must be interested in. The planet does not have a problem, scene that way. WE have a problem.

I often said that we are too many. However, you just cannot simply sit and watch 6 billion people getting wiped out by disease, war, starvation, disaster. Evemn if fruitless, we need to try to help. That is the moral dilemma we are in. Our moral and philosophical seld-descriptions collide with reality.

I also give a prirority to the other species on earth. It is not just about us, it is about many other wonderful animals as well, many of them with a high level os intelligence and even self-awareness. To say "the ecosystem never gets killed, it only chnages", is the same like saying to a the microcosmos a that human body is "this Ebola will not mean ultimate destruction, it only changes the mixtures of your body's cellular life components". Biologically that is correct. ethically it is a heartless offence - and if it is being turned into the basis of medical treatement and research - meaning no treatement at all - then it is being turned into a crime.

You focus much on the few exceptions on the fields of climate arguments, Aramike. You do ignore the vast consensus there is, the majority agreeing on things. By doing so, you distort the proportions, and manipulate the numerical relation between both.

Also, you do not understand that science almost never produces "ultimate understanding" of things. If that is what man is waiting for then I wonder why we do not still sit in a cave and both assemble around but also fear the little campfire. Acting we must, even in the face of an always remaining rest of uncertainty. we must decide oin the baiss of indications. The stronger these indications, the higher the reliability that they point at the right thing. The indications for global climate warming, and it being caused by humans to a very prominent degree, is overwhelming. And that is the huge majority's consensus.

In the end, what you acchieve with your arguing is, that nothing will get done, will get tried, no chnage will be aimed at, no need to adapt our beloved old ways of living to a chnaging world, and no economic procedures must be chnaged, and thus no profit interests are threatened in the short run.

I do not know whether or not trying to make things difference will point us at a "better future". Obviously there is also plenty of lobby interests on the left side, like there is on the right side, but on the right side, the full weight of the huge majorty of economy interests become effective, with amounts of money being invested into campaigning against GW that minimises the monetarian budgets of environmental lobbies. I do not trust green policies blidnly. I think we need to cut energy consummation levels massively, also ressourc e consummation in general, and pollution. I see the conflict with global population size. And I do not think that energy saving lightbulbs and chnaging showerheads and ongoing bureaucratic regulation is the effective tool to tackle the threats of the future, but are just "activism" to keep the crowds pleased and in the belief that things get done that will save us.

A chance that we will not make it if trying to chnage ourselves, remains. The probability for that is high, due to global population size, and the time running out. But I now for sure that the probability of failure turns into a 100% certainty, if we do like you recommend, and waste more time to verify once again those data we already have, and do not do anything to tackle our ways of going.

This is what it comes down to:

Trying different, unknown ways, and maybe failing nevertheless. Doing the same old ways, unchanged, and fail for sure.

Our choice. Our fate, self-made.

[CaptainHaplo]

However, you just cannot simply sit and watch 6 billion people getting wiped out by disease, war, starvation, disaster. Evemn if fruitless, we need to try to help. That is the moral dilemma we are in. Our moral and philosophical seld-descriptions collide with reality.

Herein lies the biggest issue Skybird. Morals and ethics and philosophy are great - but they don't survive a head on collision with reality most of the time.

While I have issues with climate change science, lets play devil's advocate here. Let us move forward in this discussion assuming its true. So what do we do about it? Limit global emissions? Doesn't solve the problem and causes economies to suffer. Get rid of internal combustion engines? Still doesn't sove the problem - and causes economies to FAIL. How about do away with industrialization entirely? Ok - that makes real progress on CO2 production - but also is not realistic for humanity - and still would not "save the planet".

No "half" measures are going to solve humanities climate issues. Because if climate change is truly man-made - then man has gone too far down the road to reverse course. Add in that climate is - when looking at the issue of human survival - not real high on the list of things to worry about - it makes things real clear for people like me.

Even IF climate change is real - those who advocate for humanity to address it are doing so for political power - because none of the changes they have put forth are realistic in having any true impact on the supposed problem - nor are they adressing the bigger and more pressing problems that humanity faces. Want me to think its not purely about politics? Show me any solution that has been realistically offered that can halt man's suspected damage and reverse it. There hasn't been one. Because with 6+ Billion people on earth - there isn't a solution. Yet with no solution - there sure are alot of POLITICAL agenda's out there trying to put their hooks in the lives of people......

That is why its political - because its about telling people how to live and what to do - when in the end - it will make no difference anyway.

Your right when you say "we are too many". Morally and ethically we cannot just kill off 6 Billion people. So what do we do? Reality says that either we do - or the Earth will make us or do it for us. Are we morally and ethically right in trying to fight against that natural occurance? By fighting against it - we are creating more of a problem - so we basically work to hold off disaster until the Earth has to kill 9 Billion people instead? How is being responsible for 3 Billion more people having to die morally or ethically correct? At some point the system WILL fail us - and all fighting that failure does is make more people suffer down the road.

Humanity is likely to survive such a correction - albiet at grossly reduced numbers. The key is - can a correction be prevented PERMANENTLY? Yes - but only if the number of people on Earth is reduced. This is why the exploration and expansion into space is so critical - because only there can Humanity expand without the Earth acting as nature dictates it must. However, space has been neglected for too long.

The answer is simply - there must cease to be "too many of us" - and thus to solve the real issues facing humanity, we have to accept that either nature will fix that for us (or force us to do so ourselves) - or we must find ways to move the greatest portion of humanity off the earth.

Lastly I have to say that one reason I take issue with the environmental movement is the whole "save the earth" bullcrap. The earth doesn't need saving - humanity needs saving from its own superior intellect - and superior stupidity. Environmentalism is political control expressed as touchy feely "I am doing something good" idiocy that accomplishes.......nothing.

[Skybird]

A dilemma (Greek δί-λημμα "double proposition (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Lemma_(logic))") is a problem (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Problem) offering at least two solutions or possibilities, of which none are practically acceptable. One in this position has been traditionally described as "being on the horns of a dilemma (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/be_on_the_horns_of_a_dilemma)", neither horn being comfortable, "between Scylla and Charybdis (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Scylla_and_Charybdis)"; or "being between a rock and a hard place", since both objects or metaphorical choices are rough.

...

[NeonSamurai]

I've read your response, and ultimately find that we are not too far apart in our recognition of the current science of climate change. Ultimately the difference in opinion is simple: you place far more faith in the current scientific analysis than I do.

Pretty much yes

This point you made was remarkably full of spin. You specifically stated that the geocentric universal view was Biblical. It in fact was NO SUCH THING, as it predated the Bible. Now, in order to haphazardly support that statement you went on to attempt to invalidate that view as though it was not science, which is oddly discriminating. To me it seems to be bad form to invalidate the science of old (or even, antiquity) upon the basis that we know more now. I have never met a scientist or historian (and I know quite a few) who had ever even suggested such a concept. Simply because a concept doesn't fit modern scientific models does NOT MAKE IT NOT SCIENCE.No what I said was that such references were in the Bible and before the scientific revolution the Church made the position religious law and charged people such as Galileo with Heresy for claiming otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism#Biblical_references
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo

It is not science as those theories were not developed by following scientific method. Sure philosophy is part of what started science, but those theories you presented were not scientific in nature to begin with. Which is why I labeled them as being philosophical in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_method

Aristotle's theory was based on very rough observation (I would say mostly anecdotal) and he failed to notice that his theory didn't work. Ptolemy put the cart before the horse and tried to fix the original theory using mathematics to better match the observations. Ptolemy was closer to scientific method, but he didn't do things in the right order among other things.

The reason I point this out is mere basic intellectualism. You suggest essentially that our climate models will never be substantially improved (and thusly different) and yet you imply that our scientific methods are airtight and therefore not subject to improvement (by extension claiming that such methods are too impervious to change that, at some point, a future scientist would then be able to claim that our current methods are not, indeed, "science").That is incorrect. I never said that the climate models cannot be substantially improved, or that they are air tight and impervious, far from it. I said several times that they are fundamentally flawed due humans being flawed beings, that they would never be perfect or 100% accurate. I however think that the models are not likely to get a whole lot better any time soon, barring a paradigm shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift). In the mean time the theories are telling us stuff that we should probably pay attention to.

My point is simple and has been consistant: we don't know enough to make accurate predictions which require such drastic changes to our economies. The science is simply too incomplete and HAS NOT been proven. While I have made it quite clear that I agree with most of the principles of the climate science, I believe that the picture is still far too incomplete.And my point was we are never likely to get a perfectly accurate model of climate change, or very close due to the incredible complexity of the subject. We will always have flawed theories and flawed models which will fail some of the time but work most of the time. Most of the scientific community (particularly experts in the field) however is against you, and believe it has been sufficiently proven and the science is complete enough to make such a judgment. Our picture will always be incomplete, it is impossible to encompass everything, even in the most simple and basic theories there are little flaws.

And, I think that many scientists have been distorting said picture in order to reach their predetermined conclusions (this has been well-documented).

Your post dismissing early human scientific endeavors as not being scientific is very reminiscent of such a distortion. Perhaps, more well put, you used spin to redefine an understood concept...

...which is specfically was I accuse many climatologists of doing.Well documented? Well claimed maybe. I keep hearing this yet still have not gotten any strong evidence of such. Yet it is often ignored when coming from the other side of the table where the bias is often blatantly obvious (like oil companies funding counter research).

You accuse me of spinning things, yet you are distorting and failing to understand what I am writing. I did not dismiss those endeavors, I put them in their correct category. For something to be called "science" it has to follow scientific method and principles. If it walks and quacks like a duck its a duck, otherwise it is not a duck.


I know that was not meant as an insult to those who don't have a scientific background, but thats a rather dangerous opinion to have in my view, because the "idiot" on the street is often the one impacted the most by the decisions of those who "know about the subject". For example, a scientific consensus that has real say in the matter may decide that the only way to stabilize the environment is to remove certain CO2 sources - such as internal combustion engines. Now if they are the only ones with "real say" - then they just decided to kill the economic infrastructure of most of humanity.

You are quite correct my friend I do not mean that as an insult to those that do not know. I just get frustrated when lay people throw around terms they do not understand, or make claims that are not supported by the literature. The idiot on the street refers to those you see on TV all the time getting interviewed on the street where they express all kinds of opinions and make it painfully obvious they have zero knowledge to back any of those opinions up. They are the same people who vote for someone because they like the way they dress.

Now before we drift off in the wrong direction, let me clarify what I had said. I mean that only scientists have any say in scientific matters (theory) and consensus as they are the only ones capable of judging such stuff by having the necessary background and education. This does not mean that I think only scientists should dictate real world policy. I will come back to this though.

Perhaps you meant this only in the role of having say in what the scientific conclusions were - which would limit science to a purely "theoretical" advisor type role? This also has dangers, since it would keep scientists from being able to work toward and support (outside of advisement) solutions.Yes and no. I think we should listen to the scientific community directly and not the sources most people use, ie the media. The media is useless as a source of scientific information, as it is usually presented wrong (they don't generally understand things much better then your average lay person) and is heavily warped by political/financial bias. I honestly don't even watch the news any more, as it is full of so much garbage, nonsense and distortions that it is not even worth trying to untangle the mess.

Speaking of solutions - Sometimes its the "idiot" on the street that comes up with solutions that work. Edison started working on light bulbs because he - as well as everyone else - was getting reamed by gas companies (as lighting at the time was primarily gas). His background at the time was in the telegraph industry, among other things - but was NOT in lighting at all. He was, in a sense - an "idiot on the street" since he had no real knowledge. Yet over time and with help (as well as purchased patents) - a modern incandescent bulb was born. To discount the contribution that those who may not "know stuff" is a real failure, as many scientific breakthroughs come from entirely unrelated projects and "non-subject matter experts" people.Sure, though he is the extremely rare case. Also he did have a limited background in electricity from the telegraph industry. But in this case I am looking at theory itself, not necessarily solutions. Theory comes from the scientific community, solutions tend to come from outside of it (often based on scientific theory). This is the difference between theoretical science and practical or applied science.

As for worrying about climate change - I think everyone is worried about something that doesn't matter. The ecosystem will not fail - though it may at some point fail US - that is not a failure by the system. It is rather a correction, and a natural one. When that happens - and resources become so scarce that survival is questionable, mankind will cull itself - not into extinction, but into managable numbers. It will do so through war and violence, sickness and disease, as our history has shown we always do, in a fight for the resources to survive. Unpleasant, damned uncomfortable for those involved, but ultimately unavoidable as this is simply the natural cycle of growth, collapse and rebirth. Our known history shows the cycle repeatedly, and for those that study "pre-history" and the possible civilizations that are suspected to exist at the time - it would seem that the cycle was present then if you believe such a period existed.

I know it sounds somewhat cold to speak on those terms and lay it out so starkly, but it is reality - barring an outside event that exterminates us. However, to me, I see it as simply another stage of existence, so its part of the road, not the whole journey, and thus can see it like a roller coaster ride - every part has its ups and down.I do not doubt that life would continue, with or without us. I think though that the chances for our extinction are quite plausible. My point though is that wouldn't it be better to try to avoid it to begin with? Maybe its just the idealist in me but I think it would be nice if we could find a way to break that cycle, and not wreck the planet in the process.


Anyhow my main point was that I get very annoyed when people present strongly held beliefs on a scientific topic, but do not seem to know the first thing about the scientific topic, or have any evidence beyond media sources to back it up. This does not mean that I think lay people should not have opinions on it, just I wish that they would do some real investigation of their own into it first before forming an opinion. My experience has shown me that most people do not do this, and that their opinions have no validity as they have no base. This is where they start becoming the "idiot on the street" blathering on about something they know absolutely nothing about.

I do think we should listen more to the scientific community, and base our decisions on what they tell us. Though we should always be cautious too, science is not perfect, and they do make mistakes. Ultimately I think we should decide based on the greater good for everything with science (and ethics) suggesting the way forward.


PS If I haven't said it enough yet... don't trust the media :DL

[Tribesman]

Its funny that there is talk of morality and ethics when it come to what scientists say we may be facing in terms of climate and population.
These "scientific" myths must be treated in the same way as the myth of "evolution" is treated.
It is all gods work as spelt out from literal interpretations of apocolyptic scripture which brings with the ending of "civilisation" and the solving of overpopulation a nice close the story which ran from the start of the earth and humans.
Global warming is just god stoking the furnace getting ready for recieving the billions of people who are not numbered the chosen few.
After all if people want to reject science in favour of a literal interpretation of scripture they should at least be consistant.

[Aramike]

Total, and complete spin. You said, QUOTE:Umm.. no. That was never the scientific consensus, that was a religious ruling based off of a few verses in the bible.Geocentric theories and consensus PREDATE the Bible. Flat out, you were wrong.

You're attempting to suggest that a paradigm shift means that previous scientific methodologies were not scientific. If that were the case, any future paradigm shift would invalidate what we currently call "science", and I find that concept about as absurd as the other clear implication that you're making: modern science is impervious to another paradigm shift.

In any case, I think its pointless to continue discussing things with anyone who cannot own up to a simple (and obvious) proven error. That indicates that you have no intentions upon even CONSIDERING the other point of view, but rather merely attempting to invalidate it immediately.

[antikristuseke]

Aramike, go into politics, you would fit right in.

[Aramike]

Aramike, go into politics, you would fit right in.LOL, I hate politics, I'm too independant.

[NeonSamurai]

Total, and complete spin. You said, QUOTE:Geocentric theories and consensus PREDATE the Bible. Flat out, you were wrong.

You're attempting to suggest that a paradigm shift means that previous scientific methodologies were not scientific. If that were the case, any future paradigm shift would invalidate what we currently call "science", and I find that concept about as absurd as the other clear implication that you're making: modern science is impervious to another paradigm shift.

My statement was correct; during that time period the belief was based on statements in the bible, and enforced by religious law under heresy. There was no scientific consensus at the time on anything as science itself didn't exist (at least in the west), only what the Catholic church dictated was true (for that specific period of time). I never once said that the theories did not predate the church. But there was no scientific consensus back then either.

And like I said, science didn't truly exist at the time; all 'scientific' theories were philosophic or theological theory in nature (though mathematics is another topic). To be considered "science" it needs to follow scientific methodology and practice, otherwise it is not science plain and simple. This has nothing to do with spin, these are basic concepts and definitions. I am not saying that what the ancients did was crap, just that it cannot be called science due to what it is and how it was created. This is why I refer to it as philosophic theory.

I never said that modern science is immune to another paradigm shift (I was the one that suggested that possibility in fact). But I do not think one is imminent at the moment for those fields. Paradigm shifts usually do invalidate the theories that came before it, but they do not invalidate scientific methodology unless it is shown that there is a major flaw in the methodology, in which case the paradigm shift would occur there. Even still I think that the basics would likely still remain as they are so fundamental to what makes science, science.

In any case, I think its pointless to continue discussing things with anyone who cannot own up to a simple (and obvious) proven error. That indicates that you have no intentions upon even CONSIDERING the other point of view, but rather merely attempting to invalidate it immediately.At this juncture I would agree, though obviously for different reasons. You accuse me of all this, yet you have consistently misread and misinterpreted nearly everything I have written and tried to turn it in directions I never took. You also seem to be using a different set of definitions. I have considered the other side of this debate and I have read some of the more meritorious papers against the subject. I try to invalidate many of your arguments because I either consider them to be flawed, or not valid to begin with. If you want to change my mind you will have to provide hard evidence that supports your argument and invalidates most of the counter evidence available (of which there is a heck of a lot of), not rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims.

[Aramike]

My statement was correct; during that time period the belief was based on statements in the bible, and enforced by religious law under heresy. But that statement was a direct response to my point, which means that *I* set the context, and said context had NOTHING to do with any time period...

Furthermore, your concept that "science didn't really exist then" is inaccurate. The term is "paradigm".

In any case, you pointed to Wiki pages as validations in a previous post, so therefore surely you'll agree with Wiki here under a page entitled "Superceded SCIENTIFIC theories", which SPECIFICALLY lists the geocentric universe model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Again, I find it interesting how someone such as yourself, who supposedly follows writ scientific as gospel, won't own up to the fact that you were clearly mistaken is something. You're obviously a very bright individual. Yet, I find it quite TELLING and fascinating that, when faced with the obviousness of a mistake, you refuse to simply acknowledge it and move on, instead expecting the rest of us to buy into a clear example of spin.

There's a reason I'm harping this point: this is a PERFECT example of what I consider the arrogance of much of today's scientific community, and there are many, EASILY RESEARCHED examples of this. However, much like you dismiss the science of antiquity and a previous paradigm as not being "science", when faced with the inaccuracies of the observable effects of climate change stacked up against the predictions, you simply make excuses/divert the discussion into the long term/etc.

Essentially, this one minor point has demonstrated so clearly what I find problematic with the scientific community regarding the Earth's climate.

There are two things in life that I'm extraordinarily proud of: the first is being able to admit being wrong when faced with a mistake, and to not follow the knee-jerk reaction of justification. The second is my ability to not be wavered by those who attempt such justifications.

This has become a crystal clear microcosm of my entire point. You are quite guilty of SPECIFICALLY what I find the scientific community-at-large to be guilty of: the belief that, no matter what, you MUST be right.

If you've ACTUALLY been reading my points, on other than the historical information I've really never completely disagreed on anything. Rather, I've merely stated other possibilities which I believe should be explored. In fact, I have STATED, on SEVERAL OCCASSIONS that I generally believe and agree with modern climate science (although I believe your predictions to be SOMEWHAT wrong based upon having incomplete data - and YOU are the one continuously pointing out that our predictive models are flawd). And yet, DESPITE that agreement, you've attempted to dismiss EVERY SINGLE POINT I've made out-of-hand, under the premise that you've read some papers, I haven't, and therefore you must be right, and I should trust that fact.

Furthermore, you've attempted to illustrate that scientific concensus is Holy Writ, and have ignored my links to demonstrate otherwise.

This is what I have a problem with. Not just with you, but the scientific community-at-large.

You have demonstrated this absurd concept that the scientific community should operate on the ad-hominem ideal that, if you're not a scientist, you should simply listen to us and not vice-versa. That's an institutional arrogance, in my opinion. And that is specifically why there is a large measure of distrust.

And yet, to counter that distrust, instead of abandoning the concept of thinking that they are simply more astute than everyone else, those in the climate sciences have made DOCUMENTED EFFORTS to fudge the data in order to moreso illustrate their views. There have been MANY, EASILY found documented cases of neglect and automatic acceptance of any claim made regarding adverse effects of climate change.

I don't have a problem with the science. I DO have a problem with the idea that its somehow "as complete as it will ever get" and we should regard it as the "final analysis", and not even consider that it may be wrong.

That's been my consistant position. Your position has been consistantly otherwise. And the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge an obvious and simple mistake concerns me, and goes far in demonstrating my point: more research, more study, less CONCLUSIONS are needed.

[Skybird]

Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

Everyone wanting to discuss the term "paradigm" and it's meaning in modern science, cannot get around this work. It is most basic and essential. It is pretty much the explicit and/or implicit fundament of how "scientific paradigm" is being understood today in science.

To claim what somebody says must be taken serious in a scientific context, equalling scientific argument, needs that claim being concluded on the basis of scientific methodology. It needs to be proven. Just claiming something, is not enough. That'S what separates science from political propaganda, and religion, and random private "opinion". People can have opinion. But yet, their opinion can be worth crap if they are unable to well-found it. Just having a precious opinion - means nothing and is nothing that deserves respect in itself. The way that opinion got formed up and is well-founded (or not) is what makes it deserving respect - or not.

Take note of the quantitative relations in data and theories and opinion consensus amongst scientists, Aramike. You focus a lot on exceptions and small minorities - I repeat: exceptions and small minorities - and make so much noise around them that finally you conclude they represent any mainstream group inside the debate. They do not.

It is possible that there are some honest scientists in that minority -I am even sure there are some - who eventually in the future will be able to prove the reasonability of their differing views by academic, scientific standards. And even then it may take another long time before their views get widely accepted and become the new paradigm in sicnece, eventually. Paradigm chnage does not happen often, and frequently, it is not every day practice in science, since the term relates to a meta-level of scientific work and theory-building.

Science does not produce ultimate certainty in data and theories. Responsible scientists also do not claim they could do that. Claiming such certainties is the branch of religion, not science. Sciences thus produces probability-statements, that help us to decide whether we chose this or that option. Certain we never are - we just try to optimise our chances.

The opinion consensus amongst climate scientists is telltaling. At current information level it is a reasonable choice to assume they have a higher probability to point at the right direction, than "sceptics" have. Also, many sceptics are just throwing mud, are no scientists themselves, are not familiar with academic and scientific methodologic procedures, and do no found their objections scientifically solid at all, they often even distort scientific data and conclusions and rip them out of greater contexts and misquote them in order to form the illusion of a scientific argument, but what these people are about is not scientific truth finding, but pushing a political agenda: giving GW a bad name, and discrediting the data basis it is founded upon. They are political strategists, marketing experts, media anchormen, PR specialists. All that stuff - should have no place in science. You complain a lot about data manipulation in GW science, Aramike, but you seem to be very blind towards the massive manipulation among the politically and economically motivated climate sceptics.

However, as I said some time ago, somewhere earlier in this thread, the sloppy work among GW scientists have produced some problems that allowed scpetics to blow these failures and few intentional manipulation ver ymuch beyond their real proportion, alloing a great propaganda coup for "sceptics". But if oyu look at it, you still see that the main section of the IPCC nevertheless remains uneffected by these criticisms, and that the consensus on the report'S data basis is almost completely untouched and undisputed. That also is true for data won separately to the IPCC project and not ecplicitly recognised by the IPCC.

One swallow does not make a summer. One year of weather does not make a climate trend. Some sets of questionable data do not put into question tens of thousands of other data sets.

[Tribesman]

which means that *I* set the context
Context:rotfl2:
Aramikes signature is a demonstration of the difficulty he has understanding that word:up:

In any case, you pointed to Wiki pages as validations in a previous post, so therefore surely you'll agree with Wiki here under a page entitled "Superceded SCIENTIFIC theories", which SPECIFICALLY lists the geocentric universe model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superse...tific_theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories)

Thats wierd, if you follow the link and go to the bits dealing with the specificsin question about geocentric views it links to the pages where it says its a philospohical thing not a scientific one, its philisophical methodology not scientific, its also philosophical theories not scientific theories and describes the people as philosophers not scientists.
Though I do suppose that is just an example of examining the context of the material under the quote.

Still, time for another theory.
Does the observable increasing occurance of the use of "CAPS LOCK" in a persons post on a specific subject indicate a greater unreliablility in the contents of the posts they are writing on that topic?

Or as an observation, isn't it great that a topic following an opener can get to 8 pages when the opening post is so factually incorrect and would be best described as deliberately misleading and misrepresentative.

[Aramike]

You complain a lot about data manipulation in GW science, Aramike, but you seem to be very blind towards the massive manipulation among the politically and economically motivated climate sceptics. Actually, I've complained very little about it, and in fact, I've said time and time again I agree with most of the science regarding climate change.

I do understand that there is a political dimension involved. My problem is this: politicians are politicians, and will do what politicians do. Scientists are scientists, and should do what THEY do (work within the ACTUAL data).

Unfortunately, many in the scientific community have fed the skeptics by engaging in political chicanary. Thusly, they have damaged their credibility to the point that, even I who tends to believe that most of the work is accurate, wonders what data and models represent accurate work, and which ones don't.

Thusly, that extends towards my main point: that blind faith in the science is foolish.

[NeonSamurai]

Thusly, that extends towards my main point: that blind faith in the science is foolish.

Blind faith in anything is foolish. My own belief in the theory has little to do with faith and everything to do with weight (not volume) of evidence. As for the rest those are hollow claims unless you can point to concrete (nigh irrefutable) evidence of chicanery in the research, which you have yet to do.


Now on to your comments on wiki and using them as references. No reputable place of academic study will ever accept them. They are flatly rejected as they are unreliable and often erroneous. The link you keep referring to of superseded scientific theory is faulty and directly contradicted by the sub references on their own site. If you look up their references to Aristotelian theory and Greek geocentric theory they are all classified as philosophic theory, not scientific.

The reason why his theory of a geocentric model is not scientific is because he used casual observation and thought experiments to derive the theory, not careful measured observation (and the rest). If he had used scientific methodology, he never could have put the theory forward as it would have been untenable when compared to measured observation. This goes for all of his theories. Ptolemy on the other hand came closer to scientific practice, but he did it backwards by trying to cram the data in to fit the general theory by coming up with a complex mathematical model to make it almost work, but he used as his base a philosophic theory. His model also failed because it did not match with measured observation.


As for my own use of wiki in this discussion, I only referenced pages where I was reasonably confident they had it correct (based on more reliable knowledge I already possessed) and was fairly basic in its nature. This does not mean that I think everything on wiki is valid, as i don't and I would never touch it academically. This is exactly why I asked you earlier for links to peer reviewed material to back up what you said.

Now as for me owning up to a mistake made, I do not believe I made any errors in this case. If I say something and later discover I made a mistake, I am the first to publicly recant it when it is pointed out to me (do a search of my post history and you will find some examples). You seem very determined to pigeon-hole me into a specific stereotype, and refer to things I do not think are at all represented in my words. I never view science as an absolute, I have said several times that it is flawed on different levels and will never be perfect. I also do not think scientific consensus is a "holy writ", only that it is often telling on how much power a theory currently has. The perfect theory will never exist, it can't possibly exist and come from us. All I care about is coming close to the 'truth' of a matter as is possible.

I am also aware of your opinion and have not forgotten it, my attempt was to highlight what I believe to be certain flaws in your thinking. In other areas I agreed with what you said, or tried to refine it so that I could agree with it. I also do not waver in my convictions as long as I can back them up (which is what I have done from the start). Like I said, you want to change my opinion, scientific or otherwise, you will have to offer stronger evidence then what is already available that counters it.


You have demonstrated this absurd concept that the scientific community should operate on the ad-hominem ideal that, if you're not a scientist, you should simply listen to us and not vice-versa. That's an institutional arrogance, in my opinion. And that is specifically why there is a large measure of distrust.

If you do not have the appropriate training you cannot possibly add anything to the scientific discussion. Most people cannot even understand scientific papers with out at least some training in the field in question. It may well be elitist, but it is absolutely necessary otherwise people inevitably misunderstand what they read and draw completely false conclusions from the material (and then spread it around). This is blatantly obvious when following the so called email scandal in the news. People with no research background were trying to interpret research based communication in which they were drawing patently false conclusions, mistakes in understanding that obvious to just about anyone with a research background.

This doesn't mean scientists are better then non scientists, its the exact same thing when dealing with a car mechanic who is an expert in their field. Why do everyday people think its perfectly ok to dispute with experts in a field of science, yet hardly bat an eye when dealing with a mechanic or plumber. They don't understand how a car works much better than the theories of climate change, yet they seem to think they are more capable of rending judgment on the latter compared to the former.

I don't have a problem with lay people trying to inform themselves, I applaud such efforts. Just make darn sure you are reading things correctly and not drawing the wrong conclusions because you do not understand the lingo, theoretical framework, etc.


As for the allusions to doccumented evidence and "DOCUMENTED EFFORTS" of scientific fraud, you still have not provided any solid evidence of such misbehavior. As they like to say on the net "Pics or it didn't happen".

[Skybird]

Thusly, that extends towards my main point: that blind faith in the science is foolish.

Nobody talks blind faith in science. religion demands blind faith. Politicians want your blind faith. Science - demands evidence, and sceptical open-mindedness. Have you missed the paragraph I wrote about probabilities? Are you aware of the importence of that concept in for example scientific experimental design? You hardly will ever find a thorough study project basing on an Alpha of 0.00%. And that is for a reason.

The alternative to adressing things on the basis of an empirical approach, is to base on wishful imagination and/or unchecked hear-say. With the exception of religious and politic fanatics, people all the time form decisions in their everyday life on the basis of empirical experiences, and probability projections concluded from those experiences. Not in numbers, maybe, but in principle. I can assure you that even that medical drug you eventually need to take and that decides whether you live or die, has been certified on the basis not of penultimate total certainties, but probability calculations. If I would take you by your word that we should not act on climate issues as long as we do not "know it all", I would demand you now to stop taking your medication until we really know all about it.

You can't attack scientific methodology for politics abusing science's conclusions. If you have a problem with politics, attack politics for being politics.

I would recommend, very strongly, you again start reading on page one, all replies by Neon Samurai, and the few I gave, and try to see them in their full width of content. I don't have the impression you do.

Anyway, I'm moving on. I don't think this leads anywhere.

[Aramike]

As for the allusions to doccumented evidence and "DOCUMENTED EFFORTS" of scientific fraud, you still have not provided any solid evidence of such misbehavior. As they like to say on the net "Pics or it didn't happen". So the so-called "Climategate" emails were just a trick?

I'm pretty sure they were well-documented.

[Aramike]

You can't attack scientific methodology for politics abusing science's conclusions. If you have a problem with politics, attack politics for being politics. That's not what I'm doing. I'm attacking the scientists themselves for using politics to advance extreme policies in response to predictions which I believe to be based upon incomplete research.I would recommend, very strongly, you again start reading on page one, all replies by Neon Samurai, and the few I gave, and try to see them in their full width of content. I don't have the impression you do.I don't need to. The discussion has surely evolved since then. Furthermore, I not someone who denies the existance of climate change (or even that humans have an impact on it).

And, like I said, I don't think that we're that far apart. I just don't believe that the models are solid enough to make major alterations to economic policy, and I believe that many in the scientifc community have been skewing or hyping data to do just that.

PS: One person who I think has an interesting take on it is Dr. Tim Ball. Here's a very interesting article of his: http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/5641-the-death-blow-to-climate-science

[Morts]

So the so-called "Climategate" emails were just a trick?

I'm pretty sure they were well-documented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
the ones that are talked about here ?

[Skybird]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
the ones that are talked about here ?

Yep. Always good to see that lil' film again.

Note it is one part in a series.

That email-scandal - has been fabricated. I said that weeks ago. I still think so today. And chances are I will not need to change my mind on that story tomorrow or in the months to come.

[Aramike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
the ones that are talked about here ?Just watched it and it seemed as much propaganda as Rush Limbaugh's comments, at least until the point in which it actually covers the facts.

Unlike the Limbaugh's of the world, I don't believe that the scandal has anything to do with whether or not the science of climate change is true (how many times must I say that I believe that there *IS* man-made climate change???).

However, as was my point, the emails appear to demonstrate a willingness to "fudge" information in order to perpetuate the public perception of the political dimension, and THAT I take extreme exception to.

[NeonSamurai]

So the so-called "Climategate" emails were just a trick?

I'm pretty sure they were well-documented.

Those claims have been torn six ways to Sunday by anyone who knows climate research and research terminology (I've already tackled that one a few times myself here), even psychology research uses the term 'trick' in the same way they do. There is neither smoke nor fire nor any hard evidence of any wrong doing.

Now if you could supply evidence that the data they used was faked or tampered with, or intentional miscalculations, then maybe you might have a point. But fuss made by those emails is a bunch of nonsense coming mainly from the media.


PS: One person who I think has an interesting take on it is Dr. Tim Ball. Here's a very interesting article of his: http://www.climatechangefraud.com/cl...limate-science (http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/5641-the-death-blow-to-climate-science)

I'll read it when I have some time though it looked like an opinion article (which doesn't count for anything). Also I looked into his background, he isn't a scientist that I can see. He has the various stages of arts degrees in geography from BA (honors) to PhD. No real research background at all that I could find.

http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-the-first-canadian-phd-in-climatology
http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die
http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

Of course that blog could be full of it too. I'll know for sure when I do an academic search on him this weekend, but needless to say I am suspicious from what I have found so far.

[yubba]

they do http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amqsyPQgVTA&feature=related

[yubba]

Here's a little experiment that you can do at home,too prove that co2 emissions are harmful , close the garage door and start the car and let it run for 10 min that ougth to equal all the emissions for the last 100 years, get back with me about the results .Of course all results vary on the size of garage .

[Skybird]

the emails appear to demonstrate

Some play "Email scandal". Others play "Chinese whispers"

[Skybird]

And on Tim Ball's background, some research finds.

He is roundtable speaker of the George C. Marshal Institute that claims to examine the effects of national policies on national security and environmental issues, usually favouring the first at the cost of the latter, resulting in anti-environmental, pro-industrial recommendations (what a surprise). It is financially funded by Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies.

Source-investigating websites accuse the institutue of pro-industry lobbying and allowing Exxon and other companies to dominate their PR work. Former members of the institute staff spoke of a wanted policy of encouraging biased opinion forming. Greenpeace lists the institute in it's yearly Exxonsecrets-list of money receivers.

Tim Ball appears at conferences and PR events like the Heartland Institute Conference, which again is massively financed and given organisational support by Exxon and other industry companies as well as political organisation of the right-winged spectrum, both American and internationally.

[CaptainHaplo]

I have to laugh at the lot of ya...

Climate-gate IS real. Don't think so? Why is it that the director was forced to resign? Regardless of "manipulated" data - NeonSamurai wants to discount and dismiss the facts that the emails not only detail "getting rid of the middle warm period" - but also specifically discuss the intentional destruction of data and information so that it could not be reviewed by any outside party - a violation of FoIA laws.

There is only one reason a scientist destroys data yet comes out with a specific and "unchallengable" result - and that is because the data destroyed did not conform to his INTENDED and DESIRED outcome.

Then we have "well if your not a scientist - you wouldn't understand - if you don't have the education - you can't get it"....

OK - how bout the Director of the Delaware Environmental Observing System at the University of Delaware, whoserves as the Delaware State Climatologist? Think he might now something about it? His name is David Legates,

Or how about the Director Emeritus, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies - Florida State University? James J. O'Brien is who that is BTW.

Maybe you think the Chairman of the Board of Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Dr. Craig Idso - is qualified under those terms?

Or perhaps you would rather listen to a Research Professor at James Cook University, Dr. Robert M. Carter.....

What do these folks all have in common? They are all members of the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Now I am sure skybird is going to start on who funds them - and that is a valid question. Yes - they do end up getting some funds that originate with big business. However - if your going to say "follow the money" - then folks like skybird have to address how groups who take corporate money are somehow LESS clean that those that take GOVERNMENT money - when every indication shows that governmental policy makers have as much of a vested interest in a specific outcome as corporations. Whether you like it or not - both sides are dirty to some extent - because its not about science - its about politics.

Global warming pro studies have gotten alot more funding than naysaying groups - so if you want to follow the money - ask yourself - if this were to turn into "not a problem" - what would happen to all those grants and research jobs? Thus - climate change - regardless of the science, manipulated, destroyed - or fully accurage - becomes a self sustaining entity based purely on its hypothetical outcomes - regardless of their accuracy. Think anti-global warming scientists don't have reasons to find flaws in the science? Sure they do. Just as pro-climate change scientists have billions of reasons (and dollars) to find ways to make the "science" fit the desired outcome.

This is what makes climategate such a issues - its not the science itself - because that can be put into the open and debated (except for what has been destroyed) - but it is the POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL aspects of the entire question that shows how "science" has been perverted.

What is funny - is you all spend your time debating it - and not really that since everyone above seems to agree there is some form of change - when the scientific minds choose to ignore the obvious and much more detrimental issue of overpopulation. Its like that whole "look over there - a spider on the wall" - divert attention - while someone steals your wallet. Which is more dangerous - and which deserves scientific attentiont to find solutions?

[Morts]

haplo, before you start going on about how the emails proove anything
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

[August]

Here's a little experiment that you can do at home,too prove that co2 emissions are harmful , close the garage door and start the car and let it run for 10 min that ougth to equal all the emissions for the last 100 years, get back with me about the results .Of course all results vary on the size of garage .

Some scientist you are. Car exhaust produces Co1. Carbon monoxide. You have breathed Carbon dioxide in with every breath since birth and it hasn't killed you yet.

[August]

I have to laugh at the lot of ya...

Climate-gate IS real. Don't think so? Why is it that the director was forced to resign? Regardless of "manipulated" data - NeonSamurai wants to discount and dismiss the facts that the emails not only detail "getting rid of the middle warm period" - but also specifically discuss the intentional destruction of data and information so that it could not be reviewed by any outside party - a violation of FoIA laws.

There is only one reason a scientist destroys data yet comes out with a specific and "unchallengable" result - and that is because the data destroyed did not conform to his INTENDED and DESIRED outcome.

Then we have "well if your not a scientist - you wouldn't understand - if you don't have the education - you can't get it"....

OK - how bout the Director of the Delaware Environmental Observing System at the University of Delaware, whoserves as the Delaware State Climatologist? Think he might now something about it? His name is David Legates,

Or how about the Director Emeritus, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies - Florida State University? James J. O'Brien is who that is BTW.

Maybe you think the Chairman of the Board of Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Dr. Craig Idso - is qualified under those terms?

Or perhaps you would rather listen to a Research Professor at James Cook University, Dr. Robert M. Carter.....

What do these folks all have in common? They are all members of the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Now I am sure skybird is going to start on who funds them - and that is a valid question. Yes - they do end up getting some funds that originate with big business. However - if your going to say "follow the money" - then folks like skybird have to address how groups who take corporate money are somehow LESS clean that those that take GOVERNMENT money - when every indication shows that governmental policy makers have as much of a vested interest in a specific outcome as corporations. Whether you like it or not - both sides are dirty to some extent - because its not about science - its about politics.

Global warming pro studies have gotten alot more funding than naysaying groups - so if you want to follow the money - ask yourself - if this were to turn into "not a problem" - what would happen to all those grants and research jobs? Thus - climate change - regardless of the science, manipulated, destroyed - or fully accurage - becomes a self sustaining entity based purely on its hypothetical outcomes - regardless of their accuracy. Think anti-global warming scientists don't have reasons to find flaws in the science? Sure they do. Just as pro-climate change scientists have billions of reasons (and dollars) to find ways to make the "science" fit the desired outcome.

This is what makes climategate such a issues - its not the science itself - because that can be put into the open and debated (except for what has been destroyed) - but it is the POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL aspects of the entire question that shows how "science" has been perverted.

What is funny - is you all spend your time debating it - and not really that since everyone above seems to agree there is some form of change - when the scientific minds choose to ignore the obvious and much more detrimental issue of overpopulation. Its like that whole "look over there - a spider on the wall" - divert attention - while someone steals your wallet. Which is more dangerous - and which deserves scientific attentiont to find solutions?

Well said.

[NeonSamurai]

I have to laugh at the lot of ya...

Climate-gate IS real. Don't think so? Why is it that the director was forced to resign? Regardless of "manipulated" data - NeonSamurai wants to discount and dismiss the facts that the emails not only detail "getting rid of the middle warm period" - but also specifically discuss the intentional destruction of data and information so that it could not be reviewed by any outside party - a violation of FoIA laws.

He wasn't forced to resign he stepped down pending an investigation to clear him and his group of any wrong doing. This is proper behavior in such a situation, not an indication of guilt.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20091202/british-climate-scientist-hacked-email-controversy-step-down-hacked-emails.htm
http://www.desmogblog.com/cru-director-phil-jones-step-down-pending-investigation-hacked-emails.

Now I assume you are referring to the medieval warm period (I could not find any reference to a "middle warm period"). Problem with that period is if it did happen it was very localized and does not represent the global average. There is very limited data on that to begin with, as it does not show up in the ice core samples.

http://novascience.wordpress.com/category/climate-change/temperature-climate-change/medieval-warm-period/

Here is an explanation of the tree ring stuff
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/hacked_emails_tree-ring_proxie.php

General Article on the topic
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html


There is only one reason a scientist destroys data yet comes out with a specific and "unchallengable" result - and that is because the data destroyed did not conform to his INTENDED and DESIRED outcome.Point to some actual evidence data was destroyed please.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?p=8961

Anyhow I find it interesting that out of 14 years of emails, only this small handful of threads was found that even hint at all at any wrong doing.

Then we have "well if your not a scientist - you wouldn't understand - if you don't have the education - you can't get it"....

OK - how bout the Director of the Delaware Environmental Observing System at the University of Delaware, whoserves as the Delaware State Climatologist? Think he might now something about it? His name is David Legates,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Legates
http://www.desmogblog.com/david-legates
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/people/profile.aspx?legates

Hmm gee another geography professor. Not a scientist either I am afraid. And he looks to be biased given he is being funded by Exxon.

Or how about the Director Emeritus, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies - Florida State University? James J. O'Brien is who that is BTW.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1133
http://en.scientificcommons.org/james_j_o%27brien

The good news is this one seems to actually have a degree in the right area. I will have to look into his work more before I comment further, but he is a member of a group known for its receiving funding from good ol Exxon which instantly makes me suspicious of his work.

Maybe you think the Chairman of the Board of Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Dr. Craig Idso - is qualified under those terms?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Idso
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=15
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dio xide_and_Global_Change

Wow yet another Geography professor.. this is almost becoming comical.

Or perhaps you would rather listen to a Research Professor at James Cook University, Dr. Robert M. Carter.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter
http://www.desmogblog.com/rm-bob-carter

Well at least his degree is in science, though geology is a bit off the beaten path when it comes to environmental sciences. Looks like he is also being funded by surprise surprise the fossil fuel industry.

What do these folks all have in common? They are all members of the Science and Public Policy Institute.They also seem to be comprised mostly of non scientists (only 2 had a a true science degree and 1 that actually was in the right area of science). Worst of all, every single one of them has connections with the oil industry and has been receiving funding from them.

Now I am sure skybird is going to start on who funds them - and that is a valid question. Yes - they do end up getting some funds that originate with big business. However - if your going to say "follow the money" - then folks like skybird have to address how groups who take corporate money are somehow LESS clean that those that take GOVERNMENT money - when every indication shows that governmental policy makers have as much of a vested interest in a specific outcome as corporations. Whether you like it or not - both sides are dirty to some extent - because its not about science - its about politics.He didn't need to as I did. Also I think your information on research funding is a bit faulty. Generally government grant money only covers a bit of the research costs, most of it is funded via universities or different foundations such as the Ford Foundation, most of which have no economic or political interests in the topic unlike the oil companies who have direct and very clear conflicts of interest.

I agree that there is plenty of muck on both sides thanks to the politicizing of the issue. This is why I choose to ignore the politics and look directly at the science itself and only the science.

Global warming pro studies have gotten alot more funding than naysaying groups - so if you want to follow the money - ask yourself - if this were to turn into "not a problem" - what would happen to all those grants and research jobs? Thus - climate change - regardless of the science, manipulated, destroyed - or fully accurage - becomes a self sustaining entity based purely on its hypothetical outcomes - regardless of their accuracy. Think anti-global warming scientists don't have reasons to find flaws in the science? Sure they do. Just as pro-climate change scientists have billions of reasons (and dollars) to find ways to make the "science" fit the desired outcome. Really? Do you have any proof of what you say? As for your what if statement, well it happens in science, and when a theory gets discredited, most of the scientists move on to the next area of research, and a few oldies who based their careers on it will hang around and try to push their theory back into the limelight. Also I would point out that the more genuine researchers who do not support global warming, also get their funding from the same sources as the groups that support the theory.

Also I very much doubt that the research money 'pro global warming' (I don't really believe this statement, if they are good scientists, they go where the data leads them) research teams receive is in the billions (and I mean actual temperature change research, not industrial research into green technology). It probably isn't beyond a few million a year excluding equipment costs. Its not like the scientists are laughing it up driving around in expensive cars living the high life. Your typical research scientist makes diddly unless they are researching something of direct economic interest, even then its the people who fund the research who profit from it.

This is what makes climategate such a issues - its not the science itself - because that can be put into the open and debated (except for what has been destroyed) - but it is the POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL aspects of the entire question that shows how "science" has been perverted.I still think 'Climategate' is a fraud in of itself. A lot of smoke and mirrors and no solid evidence anywhere of any wrong doing. All the political and financial aspects of how science has been perverted as you put it, seems to be coming almost entirely from the anti warming spectrum. They have been pumping out piles of bogus and quickly refuted papers over the last while trying to muddy up the pool to the best they can, and drumming up support for their cause by appealing to certain political factions by claiming that the opposing faction is behind it all.

What is funny - is you all spend your time debating it - and not really that since everyone above seems to agree there is some form of change - when the scientific minds choose to ignore the obvious and much more detrimental issue of overpopulation. Its like that whole "look over there - a spider on the wall" - divert attention - while someone steals your wallet. Which is more dangerous - and which deserves scientific attentiont to find solutions?The scientists are not ignoring the problems of overpopulation. They know full well they can't do anything for that, as that is a political/ethical problem more then a scientific one. How exactly would science solve the problem? We have different forms of cheep birth control, and many ways of killing vast numbers of people. The numbers need to go down, but we are unwilling to do it. So how would science fix that problem?


Anyhow as others have done, I will also refer to Potholer54's videos on the subject. They are not spin but quite accurate; if you take the time to do the research on what he says, you will find out that everything he says can be independently verified (I did it myself) if you dig in the scientific journals and literature.

About the hacked emails video 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

About the hacked emails video 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo

[August]

Point to some actual evidence data was destroyed please.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

[Tribesman]

Wel done August , you provide a story that says some data was thrown out 30 years ago, before Jones took the job.
So that scuppers Haplos nonsense about Jones throwing out data because he didn't like it.
Then again once you see the "CAPS LOCK" come out like with......and that is because the data destroyed did not conform to his INTENDED and DESIRED outcome. ....its a pretty good indication that what is written is bollox.
I suppose that should have been obvious as in his first claim in the last post he did big letters and followed it straight away with something that was clearly false.

[TarJak]

The scientists are not ignoring the problems of overpopulation. They know full well they can't do anything for that, as that is a political/ethical problem more then a scientific one. How exactly would science solve the problem? We have different forms of cheep birth control, and many ways of killing vast numbers of people. The numbers need to go down, but we are unwilling to do it. So how would science fix that problem?Not wanting to derail this thread but even the overpopulation myth is a huge source of debate in both political and scientific circles: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/27/taking-on-the-overpopulation-myth/

Fact: The entire current world population can fit into an area the size of Texas giving each person a 33' x 33' plot of land. Admittedly it would be one huge subdivision if you were to do that, but physically the world is far from over populated and we are nowhere near the levels where this sort of drastic subdivision would be necessary.

Largely the problem stems from the lack of agricultural technology and medical programmes being made available to 3rd world countries. I won't go into the debate about the reasons for this as that is the core of the debate, but I'd say both CH and NS are on shaky ground using this debate as an analogy.

[August]

Fact: The entire current world population can fit into an area the size of Texas giving each person a 33' x 33' plot of land.

Then what is your definition of overpopulated? When those tiny 33'x33' plots cover the entire land mass of the earth? Personally if you tried to stick me in such a small area i'd go buggy pretty quickly.

[Skybird]

Not wanting to derail this thread but even the overpopulation myth is a huge source of debate in both political and scientific circles: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/27/taking-on-the-overpopulation-myth/

Fact: The entire current world population can fit into an area the size of Texas giving each person a 33' x 33' plot of land. Admittedly it would be one huge subdivision if you were to do that, but physically the world is far from over populated and we are nowhere near the levels where this sort of drastic subdivision would be necessary.

Largely the problem stems from the lack of agricultural technology and medical programmes being made available to 3rd world countries. I won't go into the debate about the reasons for this as that is the core of the debate, but I'd say both CH and NS are on shaky ground using this debate as an analogy.

No, they are not.

Read Jared Diamond: "Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed". The book is a real eye-opener. It should become mandatory reading for politicians, business leaders, and school classes. After reading it, it should be self-explaantory why a global population of several billions is nothing else but collective suicide in rates. the planet seem to be able to support such population levels only if you focus on unsufficiently short time periods.

There is much more to it then just "one meadow for every family".

[NeonSamurai]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Here is the source information
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/
Anyhow they didn't destroy the raw data, they just don't have it on record themselves. Undoubtedly the sources used still have the raw data though. Plus this was done in the 1980's which as they said "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues." is why they don't have the raw data.


Not wanting to derail this thread but even the overpopulation myth is a huge source of debate in both political and scientific circles: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/27/taking-on-the-overpopulation-myth/


Not so much in scientific circles. Even that article admits such with lines like "Unlike almost all other American scholars of the subject, Steven Mosher, president of Population Research Institute and a China expert, does not consider population control to be a worthy goal."

I also have major issues with most of what is said in that article such as "The world's population growth rate maxed out in 1965 and has been in sharp decline."The unprecedented fall in fertility rates that began in postwar Europe has, in the decades since, spread to every corner of the globe, affecting China, India, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America," says Mr. Mosher." That completely falls in the face of available data which says the exact opposite, that human growth is still growing at an exponential rate.

Fact: The entire current world population can fit into an area the size of Texas giving each person a 33' x 33' plot of land. Admittedly it would be one huge subdivision if you were to do that, but physically the world is far from over populated and we are nowhere near the levels where this sort of drastic subdivision would be necessary.I am going to check those figures. <edit> Well the math is right anyways. But I am not sure what the point is. Do you honestly think it would be possible for us to continue to survive anywhere near levels like that. A person couldn't provide enough food and energy to live in a space that small, or anywhere near it, not to mention what about the rest of life on this planet, which we need to survive as well. As an apex species if we trash our environment, we will be among the first species to die off due to our reliance on everything else.

Largely the problem stems from the lack of agricultural technology and medical programmes being made available to 3rd world countries. I won't go into the debate about the reasons for this as that is the core of the debate, but I'd say both CH and NS are on shaky ground using this debate as an analogy.Problem is most of the world is poor for our forms of farming. Also very water intensive (another big problem). Then of course there are the energy demands we put on our environment, food needs including our insistence on eating a meat/fish rich diet, pollution and waste problems etc.

It is not a question if there is enough room for everyone, but can the ecosystem sustain us with out being destroyed in the process. I would say the answer is definatly no given all that is going on in the world.

[Aramike]

Wow yet another Geography professor.. this is almost becoming comical.Why so hard on professors in geography? Does that not include the study of earth sciences? Doesn't physiography fall under the term geography?

And finally, isn't climatology itself considered a field of physical geography?

[Tribesman]

Why so hard on professors in geography?

A cartographer could be a Geography professor, he could even be involved in drawing maps about climate, it doesn't make him an expert in the field of climatology though.

[NeonSamurai]

Why so hard on professors in geography? Does that not include the study of earth sciences? Doesn't physiography fall under the term geography?

And finally, isn't climatology itself considered a field of physical geography?

Well these guys have arts degrees in geography (think one had a science degree though), I also did not see any record of them having degrees in climatology, oceanography, environmental geography, or other relevant degrees. But perhaps I am being too hasty in this case. I would have to look into their academic records more closely to be sure.

[CaptainHaplo]

ok - do you REALLY want to get into this... Fine by me. Its called go read the emails...

The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added):

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

Hiding data - and stating he would VIOLATE the law and DELETE data rather than provide it... not hiding a thing is he Neon?

In 1212063122.txt, Jones urges another colleague, Michael Mann, to join in the deleting
From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008 </MANN@XXX.EDU></P.JONES@XXXX.UK>
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

The date here is important - as it is 24 days AFTER the first FoIA request, which the CRU acknowledged on May 6th.... This is the intentional deletion of data - data being destroyed - so that it may NOT be reviewed.

From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxx.edu
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes” </MHUGHES@XXX.EDU></RBRADLEY@XXX.EDU></P.JONES@XXXX.UK>
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignore Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

Wouldn't be deleting other model results that don't give the desired result now would he Neon? Can't actually release the data out can we?

And when Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data

Options appear to be:
Send them the data
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
But Jones figures a way out:
At 04:53 AM 5/9/2008, you wrote:
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things – don’t pass on either…
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this…
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones

How impartial a scientist is Phil Jones? How open to evidence that he may be wrong? Gather from this confession to John Christy:

…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers, Phil

No way the "science" - that he has overseen being modified - could be false huh....

As for the data being "lost" - as CRU claims - its funny that above Jones specifically states as an option the sending of the raw data - or "reconstructing" it .... He had it up until he had to show it to anyone - then it became "lost" - or as his own words show - DELETED....

Oh and as for "well there is a scientific concensus" - check the attempts to stop the publication of papers by sceptics such as Chris de Freitas and Roger Pielk. This is how the image of consensus was forged – in both senses of the word: From Phil Jones to Michael Mann, dated July 8, 2004:
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Note no comment about the science itself in the papers being demonstratably false - oh no. Instead - we will change the rules if need be to only the right people heard - and those people are the ones that agree with the doomsayers... And so someone like you Neon - going out to research the data yourself - still don't get to review all the data - because that which is unfavorable - is kept away from EVERYONE. You get to see only what those with a specific desire as to the outcome decide to make available.

You can spout all this mess you want - but to claim that no data was deleted - when the director of the CRU states as an option to release it - then it suddenly comes up "lost" - give me a break.

And your right - he did "resign" - but do you really think he had any choice? He was booted - the boot just had not hit his A$$ yet..

Don't take my word for it - you like to research - go to http://www.climate-gate.org/ (http://www.climate-gate.org/) and read every blasted one of them if you want.

Oh wow - some youtube fella had a linguistic answer for 2 emails...... I never had a problem with the "trick" word since I as an engineer understood it. But somehow that explanation makes the whole thing some blown out of proportion, right wing, anti climate change conspiracy... Gimme a break.

Neon - I know your smarter than that. No respectable scientist - or group of scientists - is going to act like the CRU has. Can you tell me honestly that - knowing that the vast majority of climate views and papers out there - are based off of the data provided - "reconstructed" by these same "scientists" at the CRU - should still be considered gospel when the data they are based on is admittedly modified and the original, raw data now "lost"? I know a few scientists in a number of fields - and not a one worth his or her salt would put such faith in research and papers that are based on such questionable foundational data..... An objective scientist wouldn't - because whether on the research side or the applied side - every scientist knows - garbage in = garbage out.

As for the issue of overpopulation - there are a number of things science could be doing about it. How about spending the efforts currently devoted to "OMG the SKY IS falling (figuratively) because of climate change" to things like how can we use the majority of landmass that is currently covered with water to our advantage. How can we find ways to lessen the population load on the planet long term through migration off planet. Yes it might take 25 or 50 years of research. Best to start now huh? Sure parts of this runs into applied science - but it goes back to the MONEY and POLTICS..... because some would rather spend the next 2 decades trying to say "see this or that will happen" instead of finding ways to fix the real problems that affect the earth.

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok - as for the funding matter -OMG big oil...

Exxon Mobile has spent $23 Million over the last 10 years to research institutes concerned with climate research. That averages less than $2 Million a year.

The US government has spent in that same 10 year period an average of over 2 BILLION dollars a year - going to groups like the CRU....

Oh but BIG OIL!!!! How about BIG GOVERNMENT??? Lets look at JUST the recovery act of 2009

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration received $170 million for climate modeling, and $660 million that includes support for maintenance and construction of research vessels and facilities.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/spec.pdf

Gee - 2 Million to $170 Million in STIMULUS - and thats just ONE dip from the government.... Lets not forget that 2 million also goes to the "support and maintenance" - so really its 2 Million to substantially more than 170 Million.... In one shot. And you know full well that the this was stimulus - not what they already get in the budget. So calling it 2 Million to 840 Million is no stretch at all (adding the 170 and 660).

You tell me - who is funded better there????

Ok... you know - the climate doomsayers must be right. There is no wrongdoing in knowingly violating FoIA laws and intentionaling deleting data - or telling others to do it. There is nothing wrong with making sure no one with a differeing view doesn't get heard. There is nothing wrong with pointing at Big Oil as the evil demon spending Big Money when the government spends anywhere from 85 to 420 times more at the drop of a hat...

It is documentable facts like the above - that makes this whole subject like watching the wizard of oz.... people standing there going "don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain!".

[NeonSamurai]

I will look into your allegations this weekend when I have some time. In the mean time I'll state the obvious problem with these emails you are highlighting, that they are take wholly with out any context. We do not know what any of these emails are referring to at all. Thus with out context they are in of themselves meaningless.

I know some of what is going on there is due to certain data being IP which can't be publicly released with out the consent of the owners of the IP data.

More later when I have some time to do the necessary researching to properly tackle what you have presented.

[Stealth Hunter]

ok - do you REALLY want to get into this... Fine by me. Its called go read the emails...

The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added):

. . . .

Hiding data - and stating he would VIOLATE the law and DELETE data rather than provide it... not hiding a thing is he Neon?

No, not really. I mean, like you said (and like he said), the data would be deleted, not hidden. The reason mentioned in the beginning. As it stands, though, you do not have evidence that through deleting the data he was attempting to conceal anything in the first place, so any assertion that he was is merely a baseless claim. It also states in his email that he sent the information from research stations already acquired to Scott:

"Just sent loads of station data to Scott."

As a rule of thumb within the scientific research community, information stored on computers is passed along through the chain of command. And eventually, it's archived for use in the field. The data Scott was given was lost after his laptop's hard drive crashed; the only thing really wrong with it that the skeptics have been able to complain about are "typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing" (according to the Wall Street Journal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/14/AR2010021404283.html). Typos in the dates and sloppiness in sourcing hardly disprove the entire field of global climate change science, let alone the particular sect the University of East Anglia specifically researches. The thoughts held by some of the skeptics (mentioned by the WSJ) that are exactly like this are, to put it bluntly, ignorant- trying to strengthen their position by attempting to pass off the notion that these minuscule problems are in fact gigantic. They're as bad as the people who, in the middle of a debate on the losing side, bring attention to the winning side's bad grammar or spelling, when and if it does exist.

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

What is citing this quote supposed to prove? Because it doesn't confirm anything. Again, you're using something so vague that if you presented it in front of a court, the judge would laugh his ass off and dismiss it.

"We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
"He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that."

The same above applies to these quotes. They're vague, and consequently meaningless and useless when it comes to trying to confirm that this is all some kind of conspiracy they've conjured up and are now trying to obliterate all proof of.

. . . .

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

As I have said, and will say for the third time, what exactly does this confirm? And I shall reiterate: nothing, because they're way too vague to be basing any skepticism which you hold on, let alone submit to us as "evidence" for this all being some kind of conspiracy.

The date here is important - as it is 24 days AFTER the first FoIA request, which the CRU acknowledged on May 6th.... This is the intentional deletion of data - data being destroyed - so that it may NOT be reviewed.

But you still haven't concretely established that it was deleted for the reasons you and your lot say it was. As I previously mentioned, the first email quote you posted on here stated that the information had already been passed along to Scott, who is a colleague of Dr. Jones' in studying climate change. Furthermore, the claim that the deletion of the data was intentional "so that it may not be reviewed" shows the lack of familiarity you have with how the scientific archiving process works (previously mentioned), let alone logic riddled with holes. If he was trying to destroy all evidence of contradictory scientific findings about climate change, why would he pass the results from the research stations along to Scott, his colleague? The point is to eliminate all of it, and not allow any of it to be available. That is, of course, assuming that he did/does have some kind of malicious motives compelling him to take these actions.Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !

Apparently, you in addition to the bimbos they're referring to have no idea what he's talking about here. I suggest you do some Googling.He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that.

Dr. Jones is well aware that the hockey stick graphs (three of them circulated, anyway) were contaminated by flaws in the methodology by researchers. At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The Third Assessment Report was dominated by the hockey sticks story, but the IPCC has fully acknowledged the flaws with the three circulated models. Still, skeptics of climate change ignore this and continue to claim it proves the IPCC is lying and that this is all a conspiracy.

Also ignore Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.

Because any comment Dr. Francis could make about the data looking similiar to the Mann-Bradley-Hughes model would be irrelevant. Why? Because we the MBH model does nothing but confirm the data the University of East Anglia has produced.

See the graphs for comparison.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/recon/WEB_figure5.jpg

What these bits of graphical data show is simple: the temperatures are steadily rising, and have been for centuries; but what it also shows is that around the beginning of the Industrial Age and Second Industrial Revolution when coal-burning factories were producing billions of tons of pollution and CO2 and CFCs into the atmosphere. The sudden climb in temperature around this period is evidence that the industrial side of civilization can easily influence the climate. In short: it's showing that man does have a large impact on the environment. Did... and does.

The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !

You are aware that Dr. Jones never has gotten along well with the IPCC, because of their previous flaws in methodology (the hockey stick situation that was their fault in the first place), yes?PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

Wouldn't be deleting other model results that don't give the desired result now would he Neon? Can't actually release the data out can we?

Hey- you said it, Neon never did. Neither did I. Nor did the scientists.

And when Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data

Options appear to be:
Send them the data
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

You have no idea what a subset removing station's job is in this field of science, do you? Well that's not new. This discussion has shown me that much. I suggest you get to Googling again. Anyway, as far as his beef with the nations mentioned are concerned, they're all part of the United Nations and affiliated with the IPCC. We've already covered that Jones is not to be noted for his fondness of them.

The early stations he's referring to are part of the University of East Anglia's satellite research project. NASA uses thousands of these same types of stations around the world. The university has a few hundred, many of which are in the same general localities. It would be repetitive and clotting to use the same data in the same report- clotting as in a waste of space. Again, this is standard procedure. Basically, all the stations they were using (as far as the end is concerned) were outdated in terms of the coding processes (which is an issue he addressed earlier in the email). Moving to raw data to other, more recently added stations would provide for more modern results (hence the reference to raw data; you see, Hap, raw data is a very good thing in scientific research, because it is the latest available, meaning that you can make near immediate comparisons to past data), whilst these newer stations would at the same time have older records archived.

Here is a chart showing the distribution of stations they have on planet Earth (current and historical):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png

The GHCN would be annoyed. After all, he would be "stealing" their data since he's also using their stations. At least, that's how they view it.

But Jones figures a way out:
At 04:53 AM 5/9/2008, you wrote:
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things – don’t pass on either…
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this…
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones

What does this prove? Nobody has a copy of the Ch6. AR4 document he's referring to. More mindless speculation and accusations made by the skeptical community.:nope:

How impartial a scientist is Phil Jones? How open to evidence that he may be wrong? Gather from this confession to John Christy:

…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers, Phil

How is that a confession? It's not. A confession would be: "Yeah, we've been forging and creating all this data for decades as part of a global conspiracy to perpetuate the charaderated pseudoscientific topic that is global warming/climate change; and furthermore, that man has any responsibility for it." Your mind has a strange way of thinking when it comes to verbiage subjects.

No way the "science" - that he has overseen being modified - could be false huh....

Anything could be. But speaking from the standpoint of facts and evidence, the way a court would view it, it's not fake. The way the majority of the scientific community views it: it's not fake. And that's how simple it is.

As for the data being "lost" - as CRU claims - its funny that above Jones specifically states as an option the sending of the raw data - or "reconstructing" it .... He had it up until he had to show it to anyone - then it became "lost" - or as his own words show - DELETED....

Correction: the CRU stated that the data was lost, true, but it's not Jones' data they're referring to; it's the copies Scott had been given by Jones that he was supposed to archive. As I talked about earlier, the hard drive the files were on crashed. The data was unrecoverable.

Oh and as for "well there is a scientific concensus" - check the attempts to stop the publication of papers by sceptics such as Chris de Freitas and Roger Pielk.

What attempts? Dr. Freitas is a well-known and respected member of the scientific community. He has his rivals, but the man is free to express his opinion. He himself though has not headed any research projects into the subject of climate change or global warming. All the jobs he's held in the scientific community have been social in nature. He writes columns now for magazines and papers, he is the Vice President of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand (even though his P.h.D.s extend primarily in technology and he holds not one pertaining to meteorology), and he created the Australia-New Zealand Climate Forum. But as far as research goes, he's done very little on this subject.

Pielke is not a skeptic of climate change. That's a very common misconception by your lot. He has stated, and I quote, that the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers. (source: http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf)

Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

"Redefine" does not mean "forge", as you claimed, in the dictionary, mon ami.

Note no comment about the science itself in the papers being demonstratably false - oh no. Instead - we will change the rules if need be to only the right people heard - and those people are the ones that agree with the doomsayers...

This conclusion, of course, being entirely centered around the skeptical interpretation of the emails, and not the proper manner: to look at it as a court would, on a factual level. And the facts are showing more and more than through misinterpretation, misappropriation, bias, unprofessionalism, ignorance, and so much more.

And so someone like you Neon - going out to research the data yourself - still don't get to review all the data - because that which is unfavorable - is kept away from EVERYONE. You get to see only what those with a specific desire as to the outcome decide to make available.

Tell you what, because you *obviously* have all the knowledge and skills and a *titanic* amount of experience in scientific research, why don't you do this: do your own scientific research on this matter. By that I mean conduct an experiment for yourself. You can buy the equipment to do it (it's not too expensive), set it up yourself and record your findings (because of your massive amount of experience, this should be easy), and then watch for a few years how the climate in the country is behaving. It's really very easy. Plenty of amateur scientists and researchers do it. I myself study it daily. I've bought some monitors to check humidity, temperature, cloud cover and the lot, been able to openly access live satellite data from literally hundreds of organizations the world over that study the climate professionally, and I've got the patience to do it. Computing power won't be a problem for you. Even a chap running a computer from 1995 with an Internet connection could do it.

You can spout all this mess you want -

Likewise.

but to claim that no data was deleted - when the director of the CRU states as an option to release it - then it suddenly comes up "lost" - give me a break.

We've covered this already.

And your right - he did "resign" - but do you really think he had any choice? He was booted - the boot just had not hit his A$$ yet..

Well there's nothing you've presented to even remotely suggest that he didn't have a choice. The latter statement by you is just one of many baseless claims I've read on here today.

Don't take my word for it - you like to research - go to http://www.climate-gate.org/ (http://www.climate-gate.org/) and read every blasted one of them if you want.

Lol, "Climate-Gate". It's amusing and yet a sad reflection on society today about how people have such difficulty realizing how this propaganda game works. Do you really think they're even going to concede one inch of ground in this debate to the people who know that climate change is occurring? Of course not. Because it would damn their position in all this. Of course you'll then get the claim that the scientific community is no better- that they would do the exact same thing. So again, if you really think that, go out and conduct research on the climate for yourself. It's really not that difficult. But I already know what's going to happen. You're going to create an excuse for why you can't. Aside from your ignorance on science as a whole, you know very little if anything significant about this debate. You copy & paste all your "facts" from other peoples' posts from various sites around the Internet. Your emails section of your post had parts taken directly from Sweetness & Light:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/emails-that-damn-cru-head-jones

"The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added):"
"For years Jones has made clear his determination to keep crucial data from the eyes of sceptics:"
"And when Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data, he considers ways to may checking it more difficult or annoying:"

You had those exact same sentences in your post, when they were not by you. They originated from the website I posted a link to. That's called infringement and it's very illegal.

Oh wow - some youtube fella had a linguistic answer for 2 emails...... I never had a problem with the "trick" word since I as an engineer understood it. But somehow that explanation makes the whole thing some blown out of proportion, right wing, anti climate change conspiracy... Gimme a break.

We're not the ones claiming its a conspiracy by "right-wing, anti-climate change" groups/people/whatever, or for that matter coming up with kooky names like "Climate-Gate" to describe what we've found. We're simply saying that the skeptics are misled from incorrect and inaccurate data that's scientifically valid in nature. That's all. We have no problem with questioning the results (in fact, we encourage it), but when it gets this ridiculous, it's time to stop. Any idiot with a web connection and a thermometer could see on the most basic level possible that the atmosphere and as a consequence temperate are being influenced by man in some fashion, aiding to the problem that is global warming. But that's exactly the problem: nobody ever does this. The critics always stick to fighting the actual papers and words with more papers and words, never actually going out and conducting experiments to confirm or refute their hypotheses (in this case, that global warming aided by man is a hoax). That's nothing but sheer laziness. No excuse for it whatsoever.

Neon - I know your smarter than that. No respectable scientist - or group of scientists - is going to act like the CRU has.

And yet statistically, surveys show that the overwhelming consensus amongst the scientific community stands by/with the CRU's conclusion that global warming is at least partially caused by man.

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

Can you tell me honestly that - knowing that the vast majority of climate views and papers out there - are based off of the data provided - "reconstructed" by these same "scientists" at the CRU - should still be considered gospel when the data they are based on is admittedly modified and the original, raw data now "lost"?

What's your citation for "the vast majority of climate views and papers out there - are based off the data provided - 'reconstructed' by these same 'scientists' at the CRU" (and I stress the climate views and papers part)?

WHO IN THE NAME OF GOD EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TAKING THE PAPERS AS "GOSPEL"? Jesus, man... you've got a long ways to go on the field of science.:nope:

I know a few scientists in a number of fields - and not a one worth his or her salt would put such faith in research and papers that are based on such questionable foundational data.....

Ah yes, the old "I know/have this friend" argument; almost a perfect replica of the "My grandfather/father/grandmother/mother/uncle/aunt/cousin" argument. People that try to drag in personal parts of life related just to them fail. Hard. The reason being we have no way to confirm/refute your stories. Which is exactly why it's not used in professional debates; only facts and logic are used...

An objective scientist wouldn't - because whether on the research side or the applied side - every scientist knows - garbage in = garbage out.

An objective scientist also wouldn't take research papers as "gospel", as you previously stated...

As for the issue of overpopulation - there are a number of things science could be doing about it.

You're right. Just like there's a number of things religion could be doing about it... like stop saying condoms are against the will of the invisible man in the sky and abortions are nothing but concentrated evil rituals... damn Catholics. For that matter, stop complaining about sex education being taught in schools. Maybe stop bitching about rights and let us implement a population control system like China used to use. (If you're going to bash science, then I'm going to take the opportunity to take it out on religion- which continues to be the archenemy of science to this day. Just thought I'd throw that out there for sh**s and giggles).

How about spending the efforts currently devoted to "OMG the SKY IS falling (figuratively) because of climate change" to things like how can we use the majority of landmass that is currently covered with water to our advantage.

First, we'll have bigger problems if the climate goes to hell. Chiefly: witnessing the extinction of our entire species and knowing Earth will become the half-extreme brother of Venus in terms of atmospheric conditions. Second, what are you talking about- "how we can use the majority of landmass that is currently covered with water to our advantage"? Third, it's obvious you're still very naive when it comes to science; don't try to pass yourself off as this benign intelligence on it.

How can we find ways to lessen the population load on the planet long term through migration off planet.

Before we talk about colonizing space, which is going to be a VERY long ways off in the future, why don't we focus on more currently feasible, down-to-earth ideas? Like birth control, population control, sex education in school, etc.

Yes it might take 25 or 50 years of research.

Try a few hundred. I will be very lucky if I live to see man walk on Mars by the time I'm 253-years-old. It's not as easy as you make it sound. Really, it isn't.

Best to start now huh?

With the way the economy has been for the past four years? Yeah, that's a great idea... blow our money away on space colonization- which may just as well be a matter of science fiction because of how difficult it is at the moment and the amount of time it will take. We'd be better off managing the climate first, then attempting to find a backup world we could inhabit. Which is going to take quite some time.

Sure parts of this runs into applied science -

A lot of it comes down to applied sciences.

but it goes back to the MONEY and POLTICS..... because some would rather spend the next 2 decades trying to say "see this or that will happen" instead of finding ways to fix the real problems that affect the earth.

And it's apparent that you have no idea what the real problems are that are affecting Earth, or, for that matter, how to approach solving them in the first place.

Ok - as for the funding matter -OMG big oil...

Exxon Mobile has spent $23 Million over the last 10 years to research institutes concerned with climate research. That averages less than $2 Million a year.

The US government has spent in that same 10 year period an average of over 2 BILLION dollars a year - going to groups like the CRU....

Oh but BIG OIL!!!! How about BIG GOVERNMENT??? Lets look at JUST the recovery act of 2009

Put your soapbox up and go find somewhere else to preach your political shenanigans. Climate change is a scientific issue, not one for politics. Politics can intrude into it when discussing conspiracy theories (that it's all some kind of movement by the left/right to profit/control-the-masses; you know how it goes), but we're arguing over whether or not the RESEARCH is valid and accurate and whether or not the scientists conducting it are trustworthy.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration received $170 million for climate modeling, and $660 million that includes support for maintenance and construction of research vessels and facilities.


Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...ssets/spec.pdf (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/spec.pdf)


Page Not Found

The page you requested wasn't found at this location.

:shifty:


Ok... you know - the climate doomsayers must be right. There is no wrongdoing in knowingly violating FoIA laws and intentionaling deleting data - or telling others to do it.


Hey man- you said it. We the "climate doomsayers" didn't. But this is an issue we've already addressed.


There is nothing wrong with making sure no one with a differeing view doesn't get heard. There is nothing wrong with pointing at Big Oil as the evil demon spending Big Money when the government spends anywhere from 85 to 420 times more at the drop of a hat...



That's hardly the case and you know it. We're not the ones playing the victim card here. It's your lot who frequently says it's being oppressed, it's your lot (or at least you, anyway) that's been misrepresenting the facts here (and I've already addressed that issue), and it's your lot that's doing nothing scientific to invalidate current climate change theories and "expose" it as some big conspiracy/hoax- even when it's perfectly capable of doing it.


IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO SPEND MONEY. At least, it's in the job description. Asides from using it to improve on national areas (a variety of which I cannot even begin to touch upon in a single post), do you not understand that it's because they spend this money that we have what we have around us- that we have the country we have today and will hopefully continue to have in the future? Has it been all good? No. But it hasn't been all bad either. Anybody who thinks it has been... well, they're a bit rusty when it comes to US history.



It is documentable facts like the above - that makes this whole subject like watching the wizard of oz....


And it's our documented facts that are always there to remind people of the truth, and assure them that, "Don't worry, the Wizard of Oz is just a fictional story."



people standing there going "don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain!".


You mean the same way the "Climate-Gate" conspiracy theorists/wannabe hoax "debunkers" stand around going, "Ignore the scientists and the information/resources you can find all over the world that can confirm what they're saying! Everything is fine! Don't waste your time investigating the matter for yourselves! Listen to us! We've got all the answers! Just like the guys over on 911Truth.com!"? Which is all any of you do practically. You yourself obviously haven't bothered to do any real research in the matter (and by that, I mean you haven't made a dedicated effort to understanding this topic- let alone attempted to become a part of the scientific community to understand how it works). Thank Odin, however, that people like your lot are not the ones heading the major scientific organizations researching climate change. And may it remain that way for as long as human civilization endures.:up:

[Tribesman]

WHO IN THE NAME OF GOD EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TAKING THE PAPERS AS "GOSPEL"? Jesus, man... you've got a long ways to go on the field of science.
That must be just about the funniest thing ever written here.

[Skybird]

Wowh Stealth Hunter that may be a length record at least for this year so far. :DL I got a cramp in my finger when scratching on that mouse wheel.

[Catfish]

Hello,
all i can say as a geologist is that CO2 values are indeed rising on an alarming level. They have before, but not in such a short time. If you want to know what the world looks like after global warming you can look at the Perm time interval. It did not extinct all life, but it was bad enough. And it took some hundred-thousand years to develop this climate, after volcanic mass eruptions and the following glasshouse effects.

There are also a lot of chemicals eating away excessive CO2 for a certain time, but as scientific results have also shown those buffers are currently running full, or better said they are becoming saturated. Another buffer are plants, who actually like CO2 and will grow big and fast - but with the eroding forests all over the world, this buffer is made physically smaller.

The current rise of this climate-changing gas is indeed being held back, and buffered, also e.g. by calcium-carbonate in the oceans, and large gas hydrate deposits in Siberia, and the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

The problem is that with rising temperatures, those reservoirs acting as buffers will release their accumulated CO2 again, since they can only hold back its buffers under certain climate conditions (read moderate temperature). Simple chemical reaction due to temperature changes. So rising temperature which will pose an even bigger problem, because it will speed up things badly.
Fact is we ARE screwing up our tiny little world, but people just do not want to hear it. As Stealth Hunter said, the evidence is everywhere, just inform yourself.

I still wonder why the people are so angry at Al Gore - i mean he did not become president, he was/is right, and that he makes some money with it - hey the people at least listen to him - what obviously does NOT happen when scientists speak the truth.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

P.S. b.t.w Stealth Hunter - very good diagrams.

[CaptainHaplo]

Stealth Hunter....

Attacking me with claims of "you stole this from another website illegally" won't help you - since your source is incorrect and your point flawed.
My source was not the link you provided - but THIS one:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_dam n_professor_jones#63704 (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_dam n_professor_jones#63704)

Which note is an article not copyrighted and in the public domain - so it does not REQUIRE sourcing - though I don't mind showing the source. As you can see - its from the Australian Herald Sun.... News groups that post articles or blogs put them in the public with no copyright. Nice attempt at "attack the person" standard leftist tactic though. Not sayiing you are leftists - but your attempt to use the strategy - and failing - is at least public. Kindly don't call me a thief when the facts show that I am not one.

Now - as for your "these emails prove nothing" and "a judge would laugh you out of his courtroom" - how much have you practiced law? While I am no attorney - I HAVE represented myself in court (and won BTW) - and I can speak to the use of emails specificaly because I DID use emails from another person. The emails are admissable under the rules establishing INTENT and as evidence of a person's willingness to act in a stated way. This applies to US courts, I can't speak to non-US ones. In a US court - the emails regarding deletion would stand showing Jones' INTENT to insure such data could never be viewed by outside sources.

So - what does the first email prove? At the least - an ethical violation - KNOWING that a law exists, and stating that he (Jones) will act in violation to that law should an FoIA request be made. But look closer. Check the timeline... CRU acknowledged an FoIA request regarding AR4 on May 6th (request made dated May 5). On May 9th, Jones emails his co-workers and discusses OPTIONS on what to release in regards to that FoIA request. On May 26, he emails the parties involved and requests they DELETE the emails regarding AR4 that have been requested under the FoIA. Thus - he KNOWINGLY REQUESTED THE DELETION OF DATA THAT WAS PROTECTED UNDER FoIA LAW. That is more than an "ethical violation" - it is a criminal act. But hey, in Stealth Hunter world, there was nothing done wrong....

:doh:

On a total side note - the FoIA laws do not allow Jones or anyone else to "reconstruct" or alter in any way the data from its original form. The FoIA is there so that what is requested is provided in an untampered with state. His discussed "options" - the two regarding subsets and reconstructed data - would also have violated FoIA law had they been done. The fact is he wanted to, and attempted to, avoid compliance with the law as shown by his own emails.


As for climate-gate.org - you didn't even look at it obviously. Had you done so you would have noted that the site simply compiled and made searchable the raw emails themselves - without commentary pro or con. They even went so far as to make the point that the emails are "alleged" - though the parties involved have not denied the veracity of them. Yet by looking at the "name" of the site you dismiss it. Showing your own highly advanced objectivity and willingness to look at the facts again eh? :hmmm:

For the whitehouse link - try it again. I did it this morning and it opened right up. The full link is http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/spec.pdf and opens a PDF file. Perhaps someone else can try it and confirm it since you seem to not be able to reach the data.... To help you out, the part I quoted was at the beginning of page 28 (its a 430 page doc). The report is labelled:

Analytical Perspectives
Budget of the U.S. Government
Fiscal Year 2010

And your right - it is the job of the government to spend money. However, what I put out there was the comparison that was being made between "big oil" money going to "skeptic" groups and the money that is thrown at "believers" - like NOAA. It was in response to the point that Neon made regarding who is funded better.

But again, you knew that - yet you tried to divert it into something else. The whole wizard of oz all over again - and yes, you can assure people the story is make believe, all the while you try and hide behind the curtain and play "mr wizard" to get those who question to just shut up.

As for all the "you have a long way to go" and such.... I would submit that true scientists - as compared to those at the CRU - are interested in accuracy vs specific results. Good scientists don't have problems with people looking at the data and finding flaws, because that makes the SCIENCE stronger long term. If you read the emails, multiple CRU members specifically stated that they did not want to be reviewed by any "outsider" who was skeptical because "all they wanted to do was find something wrong with the science" - as if that was a bad thing to move the science itself forward.

It is the holier than thou, attack the messenger and violate the rules of ethics, law and good science attitude that gives every skeptic and laypersion pause, and a darned good right - to question this mess.

Except for in Stealth Hunter world, where knowingly violating law isn't really wrong... Maybe the SH5 flying unicorn people are there in that world too?

[Tribesman]

My source was not the link you provided - but THIS one:

So a political blogger who works for murdoch and has a history of misrepresenting things and simply making up "facts".
It just gets better and better.:har:

[Catfish]

Hello,
always believe the mineral oil industry. They often say the same as politicians who come from there - enough proof that this is the truth. :O:

"Just live, don't think for yourselves, spend money and be happy - we will deal with the rest." :rotfl2:

Greetings,
Catfish

[Skybird]

Birds shrink:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8560000/8560694.stm

[CaptainHaplo]

Catfish - neither I nor anyone else that I know of in this thread have said "just believe big oil over the scientists". I simply have pointed out that the data - from the CRU - which has been the leading authority on climate data - is highly suspect, and that environmental science research into continuing the climate change emergency is BIG MONEY.

The data - which is foundational to most of the papers concerning climate change, is suspect - since the actions and motivations of those who make the data available (and note that they only do so to those who will agree that global warming is real for the most part) are demonstratably, in their own words and deeds - show a non-objective approach to the "science".

The facts regarding how much money is spent on research simply shows how, if the whole thing went away tommorow - those involved in putting forth the enhanced greenhouse effect would stand to lose a LOT of money - so there are reasons outside of good science (which their actions have thrown away already) for the veracity of the data to be questioned.

Nobody said "Just live and dont worry about it" - in fact - cleaning up the SCIENCE of it might just solve the majority of the debate. But until the science is clean, it is unconscienable for one side to castigate the other for daring to QUESTION.

[Catfish]

Hello,
first i know you did not say that. But it is crystal clear that some Mr. A. Gore is being hated for speaking the truth, not alone by the oil industry. I guess you know in which business Bush senior was and where Bush junior came from, along with a lot of other presidents.
It is always best to think about who profits most by denying scientific facts, aka climate change or global warming ?
It is not only about CRU, there are hundreds of records worldwide, only a tiny little one of it in Goettingen, but all tell you the same. The creationist's opinion may vary since there are only 7000+ years to be studied ahem.

You wrote:
" ... that environmental science research into continuing the climate change emergency is BIG MONEY ..."

In fact it does not cost too much money to have this studied including causes and effects, by students and universities - from independent universities, that is. Indeed it already has been done, and still is, at least in Europe and especially Scandinavia. This is most basic research, and getting the data is nor the problem and neither expensive. Interpreting the values is not a problem either, the causes are well known - the question is how much will change and in which scale.
That there is evidence of drastic greenhouse gas changes in the atmosphere can indeed be read by anyone who is interested, you do not need (and should not believe) a full blown-up and heavily payed-for "expertise" on that matter from Exxon-Mobil, or some Bush government. The magic word is independent studies.

You do not have a glimpse what it meant money-wise to the oil industry, if some politician ever acted according to the facts - he will be most probably shot before this, or just not being elected. The US system of elections will seldomly let someone rise to power who is not somehow connected with big business like oil or weapons - and since this "glitch" in the succession of the throne happening, Obama is hated just because he's not exactly one of the clan. Insider relationships and "good contacts" to a certain kind of industry will still prevent a real change.
I think Obama is unrealistic about succeeding in convincing the people, but he is one idealistic president, and i envy you for him. To say what he said, in this mire of corruption, lobbies and sheer brute force is really something one has to admire. I only fear something will stop him, soon.
The succession and development of global temperatures, graphs and the perception of something changing is not made up, it is rather the old trick of mankind to put the head in the sand, not think about it and hope for the best.

Regarding those mails it is indeed to be highly appreciated that scientists doubt everything they see, it is a well-learned method to fend off unbased opinions later, and testing theories. The state of science and thus public knowledge only persists, until a better theory based on facts destroys it.
Whether a well-educated non-corrupt US president will ever be able to persist and "win" against the industy and lobbies is an academic question, global warming is not - from a geologist's point of view.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[Stealth Hunter]

Attacking me with claims of "you stole this from another website illegally" won't help you - since your source is incorrect and your point flawed. My source was not the link you provided - but THIS one:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_dam n_professor_jones#63704 (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_dam n_professor_jones#63704).

You can discredit my sources, can you? Well then, have at it. By all means. That's what we're here for in this thread, after all. And thank you for finally posting a link to your source, even though you never bothered to give original credit to the respective authors.


Which note is an article not copyrighted and in the public domain - so it does not REQUIRE sourcing -

As far as copyright sourcing goes, true. But in a debate, as a rule of thumb, you ALWAYS cite where you gathered your information from. Regardless of copyright.

though I don't mind showing the source. As you can see - its from the Australian Herald Sun.... News groups that post articles or blogs put them in the public with no copyright.

And in this case, it's Andrew Bolt's self-published blog. As far as academic research is concerned, blogs are not acceptable sources to use. For a prime example, see Wikipedia's stance on the admissibility of blogs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_rel iable_sources.3F

Are weblogs reliable sources?

In many cases, no. Most private weblogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weblog) ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogger_%28service%29), are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a privately-owned blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of the verifiability policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFPUB). Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Log), which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowclone), Drudge Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drudge_Report)). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available.


Unfortunately for you, Mr. Bolt is not a professional researcher on the subject of climate change, nor is he a scientist, nor a professional journalist. His integrity as a columnist is questionable at best. There's a great deal of controversy swarming around him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt#Controversy_and_criticism

He amounts to little more than the Australian version of a small-time Glenn Beck.

Nice attempt at "attack the person" standard leftist tactic though.

Nice use of the Red Herring fallacy by changing the subject to politics in a double post. But on, the integrity of the poster is just as important to the valid integrity of their post and point. "Attack the person"? Hardly. Just drawing legitimate questions to your posts.

Not sayiing you are leftists - but your attempt to use the strategy - and failing - is at least public. Kindly don't call me a thief when the facts show that I am not one.

Then kindly show your sources once you post information they hold ahead of time rather than being negligent and omitting them, so we don't have to drum on about the issue of copyright infringement like this.

Now - as for your "these emails prove nothing" and "a judge would laugh you out of his courtroom" - how much have you practiced law?

I have been on a jury three (almost made it to four) times and have only had to take one case to court after my van was struck by another driver and he ran from the scene. With that said, how exactly are personal stories relevant to debate? Feel free to disregard this paragraph as a consequence, BTW.

While I am no attorney - I HAVE represented myself in court (and won BTW) - and I can speak to the use of emails specificaly because I DID use emails from another person.

You may be telling the truth, and then again you may be lying to try and make yourself appear more of an expert on the subject. Which is exactly why I said that we should stick to logic and facts alone and avoid the personal stories, and furthermore why you may feel free to disregard the previous paragraph.

The emails are admissable under the rules establishing INTENT and as evidence of a person's willingness to act in a stated way.

Admissibility is not what's in question, merely the validity of their admissibility. Because, given the facts behind the story and the vagueness of the sections of the emails being used to promote the idea that this whole issue of climate change is some kind of big hoax, it would be very easy for even an amateur lawyer to convince a judge that they cannot be used because the reasons cited by the plantiff were/are flawed, inaccurate, and incorrect to begin with; and if he is indeed a well-respected man of the law, he would overrule their use. But I clearly made my point that we're going about this in the manner that a debate should be carried through in, but that I also feel we should conduct it with the spirit and methodology (at least partially so) of a courtroom.

This applies to US courts, I can't speak to non-US ones. In a US court - the emails regarding deletion would stand showing Jones' INTENT to insure such data could never be viewed by outside sources.

Yes. And unfortunately, with that said, Dr. Jones is not living in the United States. He's a citizen of the United Kingdom. But on.

So - what does the first email prove? At the least - an ethical violation - KNOWING that a law exists, and stating that he (Jones) will act in violation to that law should an FoIA request be made.

The FoIA must make the request first, however, before he's in violation. And then it must be passed along to him. Not that he was violating anything, because, while he was deleting the data from his computer, he was not really deleting it. Because, as you will recall, he sent copies of it to Scott. Scott's hard drive crashing and the data being lost were the results of an unfortunate incident within the laptop's hardware, not deletion. And we have not yet established when he received the FoIA's message... for some strange reason on your part.

But look closer. Check the timeline... CRU acknowledged an FoIA request regarding AR4 on May 6th (request made dated May 5).

Ok... so when was the request sent to Dr. Jones' office?

On May 9th, Jones emails his co-workers and discusses OPTIONS on what to release in regards to that FoIA request.

The post I replied to by you did not contain any emails from May 9th... so... what's the deal here?

On May 26, he emails the parties involved and requests they DELETE the emails regarding AR4 that have been requested under the FoIA.

Again, the only email you included from May was from the 29th.

Thus - he KNOWINGLY REQUESTED THE DELETION OF DATA THAT WAS PROTECTED UNDER FoIA LAW.

Not quite. Again, copies of the same data he deleted were sent to Scott, who was supposed to archive them so they could be openly viewed by the FoIA. Standard procedure amongst scientists in all fields. Your statement earlier that the data was "being destroyed - so that it may NOT be reviewed" still remains nothing but a baseless claim and an assumption from your opinions.

That is more than an "ethical violation" - it is a criminal act. But hey, in Stealth Hunter world, there was nothing done wrong....

Allow me to reiterate, "The FoIA must make the request first, however, before he's in violation. And then it must be passed along to him. Not that he was violating anything, because, while he was deleting the data from his computer, he was not really deleting it. Because, as you will recall, he sent copies of it to Scott. Scott's hard drive crashing and the data being lost were the results of an unfortunate incident within the laptop's hardware, not deletion. And we have not yet established when he received the FoIA's message... for some strange reason on your part."

On a total side note - the FoIA laws do not allow Jones or anyone else to "reconstruct" or alter in any way the data from its original form.

That's not in the Act's clauses. I spent 45 minutes searching for a part where it says that he's not allowed (nor is anybody else) to "reconstruct or alter in any way the data from its original form".

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_1

The FoIA is there so that what is requested is provided in an untampered with state. His discussed "options" - the two regarding subsets and reconstructed data - would also have violated FoIA law had they been done. The fact is he wanted to, and attempted to, avoid compliance with the law as shown by his own emails.

As for climate-gate.org - you didn't even look at it obviously.

On the contrary, I'm forced to look at it weekly when people dish it out as "proof" that it's all a conspiracy by the evil governments of the world.

Had you done so you would have noted that the site simply compiled and made searchable the raw emails themselves - without commentary pro or con.

Unfortunately, the case is not as simple as this. They only present a fraction of the number of papers out there on climate change, most of which are cited by outsiders as evidence of it all being an elaborate and massive hoax, like the Phil Jones emails we've been discussing, the "hockey stick" graphs, etc. The website itself is a subsidiary of Pajamas Media. Apparently, you don't bother doing much investigation into the people behind these websites (or websites in general).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajamas_Media

Pajamas Media is an American-based media company that uses the Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) to present and comment on the news.

Founded in 2004 by a network primarily, but not exclusively, made up of conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States) and libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarians) led by mystery writer, screenwriter, and blogger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog) Roger L. Simon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_L._Simon), and until 2007, Charles Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Johnson_%28blogger%29) of Little Green Footballs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Green_Footballs), it was originally intended as a forum to present blogs and blog advertising "with the intention of... aggregating blogs to increase corporate advertising and creating our own professional news service."

So tell me, asides from restating information already available on scientific websites like NASA's Goddard Institute of Research, the CRU, and IPCC that we've read already, what exactly makes them so impressive, better, and different from the science organizations listed- disregarding the fact that they're not even remotely connected to the scientific community in terms of published content and writers/members?

They even went so far as to make the point that the emails are "alleged" - though the parties involved have not denied the veracity of them. Yet by looking at the "name" of the site you dismiss it.

The latter of course being based upon the assumption that I have done no other investigation on them. And, as evidenced above, I have. A lot more than you have apparently. I reiterate, what exactly makes them so impressive, better, and different from the science organizations I listed above- disregarding the fact that they're not even remotely connected to the scientific community in terms of published content and writers/members?:hmmm:

Showing your own highly advanced objectivity and willingness to look at the facts again eh?

Why I'm flattered. Thank you very much for the compliments.

For the whitehouse link - try it again. I did it this morning and it opened right up. The full link is http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/spec.pdf and opens a PDF file. Perhaps someone else can try it and confirm it since you seem to not be able to reach the data.... To help you out, the part I quoted was at the beginning of page 28 (its a 430 page doc). The report is labelled:

Analytical Perspectives
Budget of the U.S. Government
Fiscal Year 2010


I got in this time. I also see that the U.S. Geological Survey received $140 million for facility renovations and construction projects and for seismic and volcanic activity monitoring systems, $580 million was received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology for standards research, development advanced measurement equipment, and construction of more research facilities. What exactly is the problem with all this?


And your right - it is the job of the government to spend money. However, what I put out there was the comparison that was being made between "big oil" money going to "skeptic" groups and the money that is thrown at "believers" - like NOAA. It was in response to the point that Neon made regarding who is funded better.

Scientific organizations are generally funded better because they have very few external income sources, unlike the oil companies (the reason being the business structure each side uses, and what their functions are in the world). We should rightfully be investing more in science and taking more from the large corporations and companies out there. Quarterly, it's they who draw more profits than the science institutes do (even though its probably not necessary to make this point, I might as well; just to those who don't know how science organizations keep themselves alive in terms of financing).

But again, you knew that - yet you tried to divert it into something else.

Hang on a minute. Who was it that started this whole discussion of the "big, evil oil companies" and science research centers and the money that flows behind them? That's right, it was you. Not me. I'll only divert as much as you choose to, because I'm only following the post courses you take- adding in additional information, pointing out inaccuracies and truths, and producing sources when necessary.

The whole wizard of oz all over again - and yes, you can assure people the story is make believe, all the while you try and hide behind the curtain and play "mr wizard" to get those who question to just shut up.

There again with the preaching and speeches. Pretty words that amount to nothing because of their lack of substance. Cutesy little analogies, personifications, the list goes on. But whatever. I'm starting to have fun with this.

As for all the "you have a long way to go" and such.... I would submit that true scientists - as compared to those at the CRU - are interested in accuracy vs specific results.

Both, actually, are important. The results can show the accuracy during the experiments to have been flawed, the accuracy correlates by determining the results from the experiments. Simple logic and methodology really.

Good scientists don't have problems with people looking at the data and finding flaws, because that makes the SCIENCE stronger long term.

Redundancy: Because Someone Has To State The Obvious.

You CAN look at the results, that's what I've been trying to tell you the ENTIRE TIME we've been having this discussion. If you would invest more of your time looking at organizations like NASA's Goddard Institute, NCAR, UCAR, WCRP, the IRICS, CLIVAR, etc. and less on second-hand websites like Climate-Gate.org that do nothing but repeat some of the information these organizations have posted out there- and I stress the some part. Get the full story from the source, not a bunch of parrots.

If you read the emails, multiple CRU members specifically stated that they did not want to be reviewed by any "outsider" who was skeptical because "all they wanted to do was find something wrong with the science" - as if that was a bad thing to move the science itself forward.

How is science going to move forward by having a bunch of random, anonymous people (who, statistically speaking, are going to be outsiders to the scientific community) running around "reviewing" the data? Not that you can't, because you can access all the information on their websites (an approach you haven't tried yet...). Unless they're qualified or have at least a basic understanding of what they're going to be looking at and commenting on, what business is it of theirs? Furthermore, how good do you really think their skills and judgment would be as a whole? That's my view on the matter. Because you WOULD get people that just wanted to find something wrong with the science. You always do. If it's not climate change, it's evolution, radiometric and carbon dating, aliens, UFOS, the list goes on endlessly.

It is the holier than thou, attack the messenger and violate the rules of ethics, law and good science attitude that gives every skeptic and laypersion pause, and a darned good right - to question this mess.

Then question the methodology, because that's what most of the controversies about climate change are revolving around. For some strange reason, your minority amongst your demographic group believes that it's all a hoax, and that it's all about government control and money. Of course that's a gross oversimplification, but that's the gist of what you and your lot are saying.

Except for in Stealth Hunter world, where knowingly violating law isn't really wrong... Maybe the SH5 flying unicorn people are there in that world too?


Kind of like Haplo World, where he makes the laws and interprets them as he sees fit and promotes them as he pleases. Take a bit of advice, to avoid being humiliated in these kinds of debates, take time to first familiarize yourself with what the main thing your arguing over is about, how it works, what's behind it, etc. For starters, review Chapter 1 of your Physical Science textbook, the thing they were supposed to be using to educate you freshman year in high school.:up:

Furthermore, I suggest you look into the websites and organizations you're fighting against to see for yourself that they're not withholding information to propagate this supposed conspiracy. To name a few:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php
http://www.noaa.gov/index.html
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcrp/wcrp-index.html
http://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html

Cheers.

[Morts]

. Showing your own highly advanced objectivity and willingness to look at the facts again eh? :hmmm:

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:this comming from a YEC is just ********** hilarious

[Stealth Hunter]

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:this comming from a YEC is just ********** hilarious

Well it certainly can't help his reputation any.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=158450&

I will be presenting the side of scientific creationism. This means that I will bring forward evidence of a "young" earth, rebut as best I can challenges to such evidence with logic and fact, as well as demonstrate how evolution is a flawed theory lacking credible evidence.

How old is the earth? No one was alive to see its beginning, so there is no direct testamony to that beginning. However, a "Young Earth" - aka a planetary age somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old is demonstrated by a number of scientific facts.

#1 Let us look to the sky in the night and see our celestial neighbor - the Moon. The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth’s oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earth’s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon. This tidal friction also causes the Earth’s rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth. The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981, however, according to Physicist Donald B. DeYoung:"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year.
Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system theorized by evolution.

#2 Oil Wells - When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. In other words, as time goes by the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't.

#3 Our Friend the Sun - Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth.

#4 The Air We Breathe - Carbon-14 is produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere. The earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14. This means that the amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to N14. It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years. Thus, it appears that the earth's atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old. In fact, the evidence suggests it is less than 10,000 years old.

#5 "Mother" Eve's DNA - In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago.This story was widely reported in the press. A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported. This means that "Eve" did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000.

#6 Look at all the People - Today the earth's population doubles about every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population.

#7 The Dead Sea - The Dead Sea is in Israel. It is receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content. Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these it is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on for. Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old.

Additional detail and sources regarding these evidences along with others may be researched at the following links:

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm (http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm)
http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp (http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp)

And we mustn't forget:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=986824&postcount=12


Sure does seem like a double standard - as folks are constantly posting about how GW is "proven" and then not wanting to discuss it either... shall I point to some of Skybirds posts for example? *And I am not talking his 2 recent joke ones

It also seems that if its something the tree huggers like then by all means, post it - use whatever it is to create a soap box about how we evil Americans need to change, or how we are all at fault for the evil in the world, or how if we would just embrace this or that liberal idea then we could all say koombyeya.....

But let someone disagree - and instead of looking at it with a discerning eye, you lefties do the same thing you accuse us of - ignore it.

Thats WHY there is such a division in this wonderful country called America. People don't discuss, they try to ramrod their views. Its like intelligent discussion is a bad thing. Oh that's right - the liberal media and socialists on the left don't want thought and discourse - it would mean the end of their power and influence.


Just thought I'd throw this out there for the sake of Morts' comment.

EDIT: Also, the evil Fascist-Socialist-Communist-Leftist-Liberal government is watching our every move as we speak... put on your tinfoil hats! It destroys the mind reading machine's capabilities.

[Tribesman]

Just thought I'd throw it out there for the sake of Morts' comment.
You naughty boy, Haplo will put you on his ignore list :har:

[Stealth Hunter]

You naughty boy, Haplo will put you on his ignore list :har:

Maybe, or return the favor.

[Stealth Hunter]

Some other sources you all may wish to consult for information from both sides on this topic:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

den Elzen, M & M Meinshausen. "Multi-gas emission pathways for meeting the EU 2°C climate target," Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. 2005.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-2001/synthesis-spm/synthesis-spm-en.pdf), Cambridge University Press. 2001.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report: Summary for Policy Makers (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-2001/synthesis-spm/synthesis-spm-en.pdf).

Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change, 2005

Michaels, Patrick J. "Non-Linear Climate Change (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/08/09/non-linear-climate-change/#more-41)," World Climate Report. 9 Aug 2004.

Michaels, Patrick J. "Observations, Not Models (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/04/14/observations-not-models/)," World Climate Report. 14 April 2004.

Michaels, Patrick J. "Hot Tip: Post Misses Point (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/31/hot-tip-post-misses-the-point/#more-137)," World Climate Report. 31 Jan 2006.

National Acadamies of Science. "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions," The National Academies Press. 2001.

Pielke, Jr., R. A., C. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver and R. Pasch. "Hurricanes and Global Warming (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1766-2005.36.pdf)," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Nov 2005.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoting some of the statements made by institutions mentioned in these articles that are researching and studying the subject of climate change, global warming, and the greenhouse effect and concur with the majority of the scientific community that it exists.


The National Academy of Sciences, 2001: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

The National Academy of Sciences, 2005: There is now strong evidence that the rate at which the Earth is heating due to increases in CO2 over China and India from their industrial centers has accelerated definitively within the past two decades ... Thus, we have confirmed that the ~140 billion tons of greenhouse gases emitted daily into the atmosphere by human beings alone is in fact having an effect on the environment.


NASA GISS - Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2007:Results from coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models driven by a variety of greenhouse gas emission scenarios indicate that planet Earth warmed by 2*C relative to the Industrial Age; and by 1.3*C from 1950 to the present. Around every 10 years, to the extent that the global community continues to follow a "business-as-usual" path with a heavy reliance on fossil fuels and will not seek to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the climate will pass the 2*C threshold sooner than later, between 2026 and 2060. Much of this range is caused by uncertainties in future greenhouse emissions (whether the rate shall continue to climb or regulations shall be imposed to force it to moderation).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To summarize from other sources here on the web and in literary works, and to educate here and now those who are still reading, let us ask ourselves one single question: is the increase in CO2 man-made? And I shall address it in an at least moderately well organized format.

Simple Accounting (second order evidence)

The first thing one must look at for this is simple accounting. We know how much carbon (as in fossil fuels) we've burned since the beginning of the Second Industrial Revolution and birth of the Industrial Age. The total amount comes to around twice as much as the increase in atmospheric CO2 (we'll get into where the last part went - when we get further on in this debate; see the first three citations for this particular segment's sources of information).

Carbon Isotopes (first order evidence)

The second thing which scientists and we can base our conclusions upon are measurements of carbon (C-12) and its isotopes (C-14 and C-13) in the atmosphere (referred to as the Suess Effect; cited in the fourth and fifth sources listed).

Carbon-14 is created in the upper troposphere by high-energy reactions created by cosmic rays. It's is radioactive and has a half-life of 5730±40 years. Because it is radioactive, it undergoes radioactive decay. As such, it's frequently used in dating objects just around 100,000-years-old (radiometric dating can trace back billions of years, on a related note). Oil, coal, and other fossil fuel materials have no carbon-14 content (as it's decayed away over the 65 million years or so that the oil began formulating, around the time of the mass extinctions of the dinosaurs and 90% of all life on the surface of Earth). So, when we burn the fossil fuel materials, they release carbon with no C14 content. This means that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere should fall, and indeed it does.

Carbon-13 has the strange characteristic that causes plants to not particularly "like it", so when plants use CO2 in carrying out their metabolic photosynthesis pathway, they avoid using the C13. This means that plant material is consisting almost completely of carbon-12, and for the same reason, oil, coal, and other fossil fuel materials contain almost no C13. So when we burn it we'll see the same effect as for C14: The relative abundance of (C12,C13,C14) changes.

The latter two (C13,C14) and their relative abundance work as a fingerprint as to where the carbon is coming from. This means we can trace their sources for each cubic foot of the gases we capture and study.

Plant material has low levels of C13 but normal levels of C12 and C14.
CO2 produced from dissolution in the oceans has normal levels of C12 and C13 (normal levels of C14, but could be low if the CO2 came from the bottom, for whatever reason).

Fossil fuel materials have low levels of C13 and C14 (being almost pure C12).

So when the atmospheric level of C13 and C14 falls (as measured and documented by practically all climate change research institutes and organizations) in proportion to C12, then we can see that it comes from the burning of fossil fuels. Consequently, we know it was not produced naturally, but from human beings burning the fuels for whatever reason (cars, industrial complexes, power plants, etc.).

Paleo-data (first order evidence)

This line of evidence is primarily inferred during the last stable geological period (around 20 million years ago). CO2 in the atmosphere has varied between 180ppm (the coldest parts of a glacier) and 300ppm (the warmest part of the interiors of the glaciers). We know this from several paleo sources, particularly ones relating to ice core samples that have been taken from all around the globe. All results gathered have shown virtually the same thing: a general trend of warming followed by a violent period after the Second Industrial Revolution and the birth of the Industrial Age. During the last 150 years (or since we started to burn fossil fuels like coal in factories, steamships, and the like), the atmospheric content of CO2 has risen by 35.7% from 280ppm (has been reasonably stable here for the last 20.000 years) to currently around 380ppm (see the sixth and seventh sources listed below). That's a large increase, not at all like the natural trends found before.

Sinks and Sources (second order evidence)

This line of evidence is based upon tallying the various sources, and the various sinks of CO2; what is calculated is the net sink or net sources. The ocean, for instance is emitting CO2 (the algae in it is anyway), but is also sinking CO2 (from other types of algae, too). By subtracting these fluctuations, we can see how much the oceanic contribution to the carbon budget is (eighth source listed).

When calculating this we can see that the annual contribution to the atmosphere is around 2ppm (or 4.26 Gt CO2), and we can also see that the only source where this can come from is from human (antropogenic) sources. Since nature as a whole is acting as a sink, save for a few exceptions.

Oxygen content (first order evidence)

The last one is rather simple. When carbon is burned, it oxidizes. That means that it uses 1 oxygen molecule. So for each new carbon atom released, 2 oxygen atoms are used. This can be measured since in each 100 atoms of fossil fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O2 are consumed (ninth source listed)

Addendum here: the reason that this line of evidence is important is that if the CO2 had come from the oceans as many global warming/climate change deniers claim, the oxygen level would not fall as the CO2 is released with oxygen molecules from the oceans as well (tenth source listed).

It would have been theoretically possible for the CO2 to come from the very bottom of the oceans (for example, large outgassings beyond what Henry's law could counteract and thus elude us by still making the surface waters acidic), which means that it could have been stored away for thousands of years, exhibiting the same C14 depletion as fossil fuels, so that the oxygen level falls proportionally with CO2 increase. This means that the CO2 couldn't originate in the oceans, but if this were true, then this wouldn't have the C13 signature seen though.

The same can be said for volcanoes, as they also release it as CO2 (without oxygen from the atmosphere). This happens by metamorphism of basic elements and substances. For instance, carbonates reacting with quartz, the chemistry being represented as: CaCO3 + SiO2 = CO2 + CaSiO3. The calcium silicates (CaSiO3) come back out as lava, adding to continental crust, and the CO2 comes out of the volcanoes as an explosive gas- which leaves very few atmospheric traces despite claims made by deniers and their "research".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:


CDIAC CO2 emissions http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2005.ems

Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

1 ppm by volume of atmosphere CO2 = 2.13 Gt C http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html

Tans et al(1979) "Natural atmospheric 14C variation and the Suess effect" Nature 280, 826 - 828; doi:10.1038/280826a0 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v280/n5725/abs/280826a0.html

Battle et al(2000) "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C" Science 31 March 2000: Vol. 287. no. 5462, pp. 2467 - 2470 DOI: 10.1126/science.287.5462.2467 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;287/5462/2467

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif

http://www.whrc.org/carbon/index.htm

Bender et al(2005) "Atmospheric O2/N2 changes, 1993–2002: Implications for the partitioning of fossil fuel CO2 sequestration" Global Biochemical Cycles, vol. 19, gb4017, doi:10.1029/2004GB002410 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GB002410.shtml

Wallace S. Broecker "Et tu, O2" http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm

[Aramike]

I have to ask: what does the "pro-climate change" group here have against accountability? Is there some belief that any admission of any fraudalant behavior whatsoever will somehow diminish your point?

Such a stance is why public trust in the scientific community continues to drop.

[NeonSamurai]

I have to ask: what does the "pro-climate change" group here have against accountability? Is there some belief that any admission of any fraudalant behavior whatsoever will somehow diminish your point?

Such a stance is why public trust in the scientific community continues to drop.

We don't have a problem with accountability and never have, that is why the whole event is being investigated by experts in the field, to make certain there was no scientific fraud. I don't think any of us have an issue with that.

The problem we have, not that I am necessarily "pro-climate change" (I follow where the science goes), is unsubstantiated rumor and allegations. The hysterics that have followed the so called 'climategate' (talk about a loaded word) go far beyond any potential evidence that has surfaced to date.

Me I will wait till the end of the formal investigation, before I draw any conclusions. Also even if there is proven fraud (which right now I am doubtful of) it doesn't even come close to toppling the theories, this is just one of many research groups out there doing this type of research.

[Stealth Hunter]

I have to ask: what does the "pro-climate change" group here have against accountability?

Neon summarized it best: we don't have a problem with accountability.

Is there some belief that any admission of any fraudalant behavior whatsoever will somehow diminish your point?

Not with me anyway. Indeed, we've been gathering research and evidence about climate change since the 1980s. There are literally thousands of papers and studies published out there that support it in at least some form or another. Even if this one instance were discredited as fraudulent, the deniers still have to tackle all these other papers and studies the scientific community has published.

Such a stance is why public trust in the scientific community continues to drop.

Over half the public believes that evolution could not have happened, that divine intervention must have been required, despite the contradictory articles of evidence produced from studies, some being nearly 130 years old.

http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/FO3020630014/

"Despite enjoying strong support in the scientific community, a vast majority of the public remains skeptical over Darwinian evolution: in a 2006 Gallup poll, only 13 percent of those surveyed said that they believed humans evolved on earth with no help whatsoever from a creator."

If they're ignorant about the subject and yet they still comment on it anyway, then their opinions are not worth a damn. Because they have no idea what they're talking about. The public too often ignores all the wonderful tools science has created for them to use- like antibiotics, cars, cell phones, COMPUTERS, THE INTERNET, aircraft, ships, new medical techniques and practices- I don't think I really need to go on in strenuous detail.

[August]

Over half the public believes that evolution could not have happened, that divine intervention must have been required, despite the contradictory articles of evidence produced from studies, some being nearly 130 years old.

http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/FO3020630014/

"Despite enjoying strong support in the scientific community, a vast majority of the public remains skeptical over Darwinian evolution: in a 2006 Gallup poll, only 13 percent of those surveyed said that they believed humans evolved on earth with no help whatsoever from a creator."

If they're ignorant about the subject and yet they still comment on it anyway, then their opinions are not worth a damn. Because they have no idea what they're talking about. The public too often ignores all the wonderful tools science has created for them to use- like antibiotics, cars, cell phones, COMPUTERS, THE INTERNET, aircraft, ships, new medical techniques and practices- I don't think I really need to go on in strenuous detail.

A belief that humans evolved on earth with no help whatsoever from a creator is not the nearly the same thing as a belief in the "Young Earth Theory" but of course you knew that, just like you know it has nothing to do with global warming and amounts to nothing more than a personal attack on Aramike.

[Stealth Hunter]

A belief that humans evolved on earth with no help whatsoever from a creator is not the nearly the same thing as a belief in the "Young Earth Theory"

List off the alternatives then. The two biggest factions on that issue are the scientific community, which takes the stance of evolution, and the religious community which takes the stance of Young Earth Creationism (except for the Catholics and some more moderate groups, particularly amongst the Lutherans; the Baptists are some of the most hardshelled ones you'll find out there).

but of course you knew that, just like you know it has nothing to do with global warming

But it does have to do with his original statement that: "Such a stance is why public trust in the scientific community continues to drop." Global warming is just one area that the community takes a stance on, evolution may very well be an issue just as big if not bigger. Hence, it does have a manner of relevance- particularly when also discussing how uninformed the public is today- yet how they take sides anyway despite their ignorance. But on.

and amounts to nothing more than a personal attack on Aramike.

Touchy, touchy we are tonight. A personal attack on Aramike would be, "Well you're a friggin' dumbass!" Simply disagreeing with his statement in a refined and non-hostile way- since when does that constitute a personal attack?:roll: The only people I've attacked are the 87% from that poll that take a side without knowing what the hell they're talking about, and the others the world over who are exactly like them. Aramike has an interest in science and a good amount of knowledge on it. Moreso than Haplo... and several others amongst us...

[CaptainHaplo]

Stealth Hunter - not only do you try an insult me repeatedly in this thread, such as calling me a thief, implying that because I disagree I have no scientific knowledge or ability, etc, you then go and "quote" me as saying something I never said......

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1311955&postcount=166 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1311955&postcount=166)

You seriously are a piece of work, ya know that. Neon can discuss things reasonably - though we may disagree - and he doesn't make it personal.

"Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo
You naughty boy, Haplo will put you on his ignore list :har: "

I mean seriously - you have to make up a quote of me as saying something I didn't say, and do it as if I speak of myself in the third person to boot? That is just.... pathetic.....

[Stealth Hunter]

Stealth Hunter - not only do you try an insult me repeatedly in this thread, such as calling me a thief,

Where did I use the term "thief"?

implying that because I disagree I have no scientific knowledge or ability, etc,

I do not think this because you disagree, I think it because you have demonstrated time and time again that you do indeed have no idea about how the scientific method is supposed to work in this case and the items you've posted as evidence are not but bunk as I've shown. I've presented statistical proof for what I'm arguing for; why is it that you haven't been able to?

you then go and "quote" me as saying something I never said......

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1311955&postcount=166 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1311955&postcount=166)

This was an honest mistake, and I am sorry about it. I've been typing your name in for all the quotes a ridiculous number of times; that's all I have to say in my defense. The error has been mended. Not that I meant anything negative by the comment, "Maybe, or return the favor."

You seriously are a piece of work, ya know that. Neon can discuss things reasonably - though we may disagree - and he doesn't make it personal.

Feel free to get worked up over an honest quoting mistake. It happens. It's been fixed.

I mean seriously - you have to make up a quote of me as saying something I didn't say, and do it as if I speak of myself in the third person to boot? That is just.... pathetic.....

Assuming it was intentional, how exactly would it be a negative thing as you are implying? All I said was, "Maybe, or return the favor." Nothing bad about that. Simple quote fail. But for the third time, it's been corrected. Why would I intentionally misquote you when everybody can see clearly Tribesman posted what I quoted a page before- thusly and correctly inferring that there was a human error made?:up:

[Stealth Hunter]

Continuing on topic.

I think it time we touch upon the greenhouse effect, which is poorly understood by many deniers today.

The effect itself is what keeps the earth warm and habitable for us. If we didn't have it, Earth’s surface would be about 60*Fahrenheit on average. Since the average temperature of Earth is about 45*F, the natural greenhouse effect is clearly a good thing, as are the gases in limited quantity. But the enhanced greenhouse effect means even more of energy given off by the sun is trapped by having too many of the gases in our atmosphere, the result of course being global temperatures rising.

By pumping man-made greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, humans are altering the process by which naturally occurring greenhouse gases trap the sun's energy before it can be released back into space. The main gases are as followed:




Carbon Dioxide (CO2; unnaturally produced/exacerbated by fossil fuel combustion, land use conversion (destroying trees and other plants which are responsible for recycling it and emitting oxygen as a byproduct, and basic cement production)
Methane (CH4; fossil fuels, farms, waste dumps)
Nitrous Oxide (N20; fertilizer, industrial production, combustion)
Chlorofluorocarbon-12 (CCL2F2; liquid coolants and foams)
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 (HCCL2F2; refrigerants)
Perfluoroethane (C2F6; smelting of metals, semiconductor manufacturing)
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6; dielectric fluids)


All chlorofluorocarbons listed are damaging to ozone, the greenhouse gas (albeit, a harmless one) that is there to protect us from the sun's great amount of energy and UV-rays.

Today, tropospheric composition of these gases is as follows (in parts per billion with the numbers from 1750 included for comparison):



Carbon Dioxide - 377,700 (280,000)
Methane - 1,847 (635)
Nitrous Oxide - 319 (260)
CFC-12 - .545 (0)
HCFC-22 - .174 (0)
Perfluoroethane - .03 (0)
Sulfur Hexafluoride - .00522 (0)


Source of graphical information:

Blasing, T.J. ad K. Smith 2006. "Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations." In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Cetner, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.

Global CO2 flows, carbon reservoirs, and changes in the reservoirs can best be displayed via a statistical figure representative:

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/figure2_image.gif

The tan colored pool is decreasing in size, but the blue colored pools are increasing. Intensity of the blue color indicates the magnitude of stock change. The numbers in orange indicate the total amount of carbon in the reservoir discovered by NCAR, green ones the average annual change in the amount of carbon in the reservoir. Also note that a gigaton (as the graph is displayed in; Gt.) are as follows: 1 Gt = 109 metric tons

Source of graph: Bolin et al. in NCAR, 2007a; Houghton.

As shown in the graph, the annual average human-induced flows of CO2 - 6.3 gigatons from fossil fuel combustion and 1.6 Gt from deforestation in the from the late 1990s/early 2000s- are a small fraction of total CO2 flows. However, these flows are resulting in increased carbon in the ocean and atmospheric reservoirs on Earth.



Anthropogenic emissions of CH4 and N2O comprise a much larger share of total emissions of these gases than is the case for CO2. Approximately 70% of the 550 million metric tons of CH4 emitted annually and about half of the 14 MMT of N2O emitted annually are due to human activities, concentrated over large industrial nations- chiefly being India and China (source: also Bolin et al. in NCAR, 2007a).

It should be noted that water vapor also acts as a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect (which, for the record, is not at all like how a literal greenhouse works). This is a result of the natural cycle of water.

And now, I'm out for the night.

[August]

List off the alternatives then. The two biggest factions on that issue are the scientific community, which takes the stance of evolution, and the religious community which takes the stance of Young Earth Creationism (except for the Catholics and some more moderate groups, particularly amongst the Lutherans; the Baptists are some of the most hardshelled ones you'll find out there).

Alternatives? You provide them yourself! First you try to claim that 87% of Americans believe in the Young Earth Theory and then you contradict yourself in your very next post by admitting that the religious community is not at all in agreement on the issue. All while ignoring the large number of people, including many in the scientific community, who do not belong to any religion but still have a belief in a supreme being.

[Tribesman]

First you try to claim that 87% of Americans believe in the Young Earth Theory
Wow I must have missed that claim.
Is it in the fiction section?
Oh I get it, you take the words and change them into something else.
Thats been a recurrent theme by some people since post#1.

Citing as "evidence" for their conspiracy theories words that were never said, events that never happened and "experts" who have no expertise in the field.

I mean seriously - you have to make up a quote of me as saying something I didn't say
No he didn't, Haplo just demonstrated the problems that arise when a policy of ignorance is chosen.
Its quite illuminating really on both this and the creationist topic, he only sees what he wants to see .:rotfl2:

[NeonSamurai]

Alternatives? You provide them yourself! First you try to claim that 87% of Americans believe in the Young Earth Theory and then you contradict yourself in your very next post by admitting that the religious community is not at all in agreement on the issue. All while ignoring the large number of people, including many in the scientific community, who do not belong to any religion but still have a belief in a supreme being.

It's not 87%, there is the hybrid version, theistic evolution, which is part evolution and part creationism.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm


Anyhow might I suggest we all relax a little and keep this discussion to the "facts" themselves and not let this get personal? I also would suggest that everyone referencing things, including if the idea presented is not your own (ie plagiarism).

[Stealth Hunter]

Alternatives? You provide them yourself! First you try to claim that 87% of Americans believe in the Young Earth Theory

All I said was: "The two biggest factions on that issue are the scientific community, which takes the stance of evolution, and the religious community which takes the stance of Young Earth Creationism (except for the Catholics and some more moderate groups, particularly amongst the Lutherans; the Baptists are some of the most hardshelled ones you'll find out there)."

The two biggest sides in the global warming debate are those who support its existence and those who deny its existence. Furthermore, the 87% listed off their cannot believe in much else. I mean how much clearer than:"Despite enjoying strong support in the scientific community, a vast majority of the public remains skeptical over Darwinian evolution" can you get? Either it happened with the help of a creator or it didn't. It's a simple issue, undecideds be damned- because they have to be skeptical in some form or another not to know which side they should go with. That is assuming anybody could vote "Undecided" on that particular poll. I doubt few did in this case, and other cases aren't much better. The United States' standing compared to other countries is, to say the least, pitiful as far as the common populace is concerned:

http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c148211/publicAcceptanceEvolution.jpg

Source: J. D. Miller, R. Pardo, F. Niwa, Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada (BBV Foundation Press, Madrid, 1997).

and then you contradict yourself in your very next post by admitting that the religious community is not at all in agreement on the issue.

Over the issue of YEC's claims that the universe is 6,000 years old, man lived with dinosaurs, the Bible's interpretation is flawless, etc. On the issue of whether or not a god was involved, however, they are all in agreement. But as I said, the primary people we have fighting in this debate (over evolution) are the ones who support its existence and the ones who deny its existence, in this case the so-called "evolutionists" (as we've been dubbed by fundamentalists) and the Young Earth Creationists (generally belonging in the United States to a Christian denomination, common among the Baptists)- excluding the Intelligent Design groups, Creation Science groups, Old Earth Creationism groups, Gap Creationists, Progressive Creationism, and Theistic Evolutionists.

The only group of that lot that even remotely affiliates themselves with science are the Theistic Evolutionists (who, even then, still believe in god); still, there's only five denominations that are supportive of them- including the Church of Nazarene, the United Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church, some sects of Anglicans and some Catholics (the Catholic view to this very day remains one of limited acceptance; at least it's progress in the right direction).

All while ignoring the large number of people, including many in the scientific community, who do not belong to any religion but still have a belief in a supreme being.

Statistically, most of the scientific community's members do not believe in a supreme being as Neon's link confirmed.

:salute:
(http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/sci_relig.htm)

[Stealth Hunter]

Continuing on topic.

One of the most important bits of evidence touched upon are global surface temperature trends. The global average surface temperature fluctuates over time, but in recent decades it has increased dramatically. From 1920 to the present, Earth’s average surface temperature has increased by 1.4*F. According to the National Academy of Sciences, this change is the largest global temperature rise in at least the last 2,000 years and may steal the record from the last 5,000 years. The sharpest rise occurred between 1975 and 2005, when temperatures rose steadily by about 1*F on average.

The recent increase in concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the result of human activities, as we discussed earlier- mainly the burning of fossil fuels. As the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, so has the average surface temperature (to reiterate). The relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and surface temperature is shown here for the past 150 years.


http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/co2-and-temp-trends_013007_092528.gif

The quality sucks, but the red line represents surface temperature, the pink outline represents the uncertainty range, the blue line represents CO2 concentration. The graph begins in 1845 and ends in 2005, and each number along the bottom represents an elapsed interval of 20 years.

Source for CO2 concentration data: Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf, 2005. Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. DOE, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

Source for temperature data: Brohan, P., I. Haris, S.F.B. Tett, P.D. Jones, and J.J. Kennedy, 2006. Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. Journal of Geophysical Research, p. 111, 2003.

Over the last 400,000 years.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/vostok-ice-core_013107_062554.gif

Again, the quality is bad, but the red line represents Antarctic surface temperature, the blue line pre-industrial atmospheric CO2, the yellow-orange line human-contributed atmospheric CO2. Intervals along the x-axis go for 50,000 years each, starting 400,000 years ago and ending in the present. This data was also collected by C.D. Keeling and T.P. Whorf, published on pages 121-126 of issue #398 of Nature magazine in 2000.

The graph below this section of paragraphs compares measurements of the Earth’s past temperature variations (shown by the black line) with simulations of past temperature variations (shown by the red and blue lines) in order to determine whether the major changes in temperature were caused by natural or human-caused factors.

The black line shows observed surface temperature variations from the average. The blue and red lines show computer model results when past temperatures are simulated including different drivers of the climate system. Natural drivers include solar radiation and volcanic emissions, while anthropogenic (man-made) drivers include man-made greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols. The blue line shows variation when natural drivers are included in the calculations, while the red line shows variation when both natural and anthropogenic drivers are included.


This graph shows that the combination of natural and anthropogenic drivers (the red line) provides a better match to the observed temperatures (black line) than only natural drivers (the blue line).



Natural drivers alone can explain much of the temperature change in the first half of the century, as demonstrated by the similarity between the black and blue lines during that time period. As can be seen with the close match between the red and black lines, human-produced drivers strongly dominated the temperature change in the latter part of the 20th century.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/meehl-attribution.gif

It's of somewhat better quality. The source: Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.M. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigley, and C. Tebaldi, 2004. Of Models and Men. Journal Collective of Scientific Minds, p. 44, found in the January 2005 edition.

The graph below shows the heat content of the ocean measured at three depths: from 0-300 meters (red line), from 0-700 meters (blue line), and from 0-3000 meters (gray line). Each line on the graph corresponds to measurements taken at one of these three depths and shows a gradual increase in heat content over time. Warming of the oceans has many consequences, including sea level rise, coral bleaching, loss of sea ice, intensification of hurricanes, and higher coastal storm surges. Taken together with the graph below, this shows that increased temperatures have been observed at Earth’s surface and in the oceans.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/ocean-heat-trends.gif

Source: Levitus, S., J. Antonov, and T. Boyer, 2005. Journal of Geophysical Research, p. 66, 2005.

Tonight, I'll cover the issue of impacts of the enhanced greenhouse effect, climate change, and global warming.

[Tribesman]

One of the most important bits of evidence touched upon
There you go again.
Can't you understand that evidence means nothing.
All the evidence that matters is statements that were never made and events that never happened.
You are the sort of person who would go up to a "birther" and produce documentation about the time and place of birth..... in these situations it just doesn't work like that.

[Stealth Hunter]

True, with many of these people they'll only listen to what they want to and will believe what they want to read. It's not just global warming deniers, but also creationists, flat earthers, moon landing deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the list goes on.. But for those who have an open mind and approach it to learn something, they at least have the opportunity.

[Stealth Hunter]

Continuing on, later than I had hoped.

One of the projected impacts of climate change is an increase in sea level. This figure shows the results of satellite measurements of the change in average global sea level in recent times. The slope of the graph suggests that the change in sea level is accelerating, which is expected as a result of global warming.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/mean-sea-level-rise.gif

Source: Cazenave, A. and R.S. Nerem, 2004. Present-day sea level change: Observations, Causes, and Conclusions. Rev. Geophys., p. 42.

This figure compares the extent of the summer arctic sea ice in 1979 with the extent of the sea ice in summer 2005. Since 1979, more than 20% of the Polar Ice Caps have melted away in response to increased surface air and ocean temperatures. Information and graphical representation from NASA and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/arctic-sea-ice-decline.gif

This figure demonstrates the trend in arctic sea ice extent, as measured in September, the annual summer minimum for sea ice extent, for each reporting year. Starts in 1979, going in intervals of five years until the 2004 mark, and ends in 2006 (the quality is also downgraded, for some reason; probably the pure-white background it had in the magazine- from the National Snow & Ice Data Center).

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/ice_decline_graph.gif

This figure shows the number of named tropical storms in the North Atlantic, per year, smoothed out over a decade long running average to minimize the clutter of data in year-to-year variation. Since 1996, tropical storm frequency has exceeded by 40% the old historic maximum of the mid-1950s, previously considered extreme. Recent peer-reviewed studies suggest a link between higher sea surface temperature and storm frequency. Extreme weather events are a projected impact of global climate change.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/NATL-TS-Frequency_1930-2007.gif

Emissions will be covered tomorrow.

[CaptainHaplo]

I decided to take a break from this thread for a day to insure I could approach it with a clear head. Let me address you, Stealth Hunter.

You asked "Where did I use the term "thief"? You did not use the term - however - in post 152 of this thread you stated:

"Your emails section of your post had parts taken directly from Sweetness & Light"
and
"You had those exact same sentences in your post, when they were not by you. They originated from the website I posted a link to. That's called infringement and it's very illegal."

The word TAKEN - and you intentionally italicizing (for effect) of "very illegal" - well - I don't know what you call a thief, but where I come from its someone who takes something illegally. Which is what you were accusing me of. If I told you that you took something illegally, wouldn't you call that stealing? What do you call someone who steals something? I had to correct you on the source and show it was in the public domain, which I had no problem doing. Your response?

"As far as copyright sourcing goes, true. But in a debate, as a rule of thumb, you ALWAYS cite where you gathered your information from. Regardless of copyright."

So basically you did call me a thief (using different words), then when I showed I wasn't, you admit that I was correct, but still try and find fault with me because I didn't "play by the rules" you expected. Yet in the same post you accuse me of stealing - you post 2 graphs without sourcing them which is not "playing by the rules" either. Of course, prior to posting your accusation, you had not posted in this thread at all... so nine pages in, nothing was worth responding to until that. I didn't say a word about it, but instead tried to move forward.

Next post by you - discussing the validity of the emails, and you come up with this one:

"You may be telling the truth, and then again you may be lying to try and make yourself appear more of an expert on the subject."

Another swipe at my character, for what reason? You could have simply said you disagreed or laid out some legal basis for a different opinion, but instead you had to make it a personal thing. Not cool, but again I kept quiet, though I ask, if one person had said the same things about you, what would your view be regarding the intent of that person to reasonably debate?

Then we get to your "quote". The quote really got to me, I admit that. To log in and see my ID stating something I know I would not type - especially in third person (since referring to yourself like that makes you a little off in the head in my view) ticked me off to no end, especially after all that had gone one before. Not everyone can see things tribesman posts, because he is on a few ignore lists, mine included. So there was no way I could have seen it as a misquote.

Having read your explanation, and seeing you did the honorable thing: admitting the mistake and correcting it, I give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your apology.

I also have to ask what the post regarding young earth creationism has to do with this. Had you paid attention to the very first post of that thread - I stated it was a debate. I suspect you do realize that when people start a debate, they do not always get to take a side they are firmly behind? To start that debate I did have to take a side does not conform to my own personal views. I have not ever posted a personal belief in the young earth theory, though I do not dismiss it out of hand either. That actually was the first time I had ever looked at any science for or against it. So why that is even brought into this I can't figure.....

Regardless of our disagreements, you have brought some interesting science to this discussion, and I don't mind looking at it. My point in being here is not whether global warming is or isn't real - it is about the fact that the "science" of climate change - on both sides - is more about politics and money than it is about true science. It is also about the fact that climate change is not nearly the issue that some people make it out to be, since environmentally we actually have much more important matters to deal with.

Could we debate whether GW is real? Sure, but what we were discussing was why GW is a shell game - whether real or not. Its a money sink and political power play - ON BOTH SIDES. If you think $2 Million a year from exxon will buy a few scientists, what will $170 Million do? Are all the scientists crooked? But this wasn't an attack on the science itself - this discussion - at least from my end - was an attack on those who were doing all they could to KEEP from letting that science be reviewed openly. You can try and twist it every way you want, but intentionally telling people that your trying to find ways around FoIA acts to keep from releasing data - in science that is just ethically wrong. When you start questioning a group of scientists ethics, wisdom dictates you must then question their results.

Is global warming real? The theory of it looks good on paper. The computer models in labs seem to be reasonable and logical. As an engineer however, I deal in applied science, not theoretical science. I can tell you that where the rubber meets the road, or where the theory meets reality, way too often the theory just doesn't pan out "out in the field". So do I question the theory - absolutely. However, I am not adverse to looking at the data. But as someone who sees theory applied to the field 5 days a week, and see it fail at least 3 days out of those 5 most weeks, I have to say that the theory is not yet withstanding the "in the field" test for me personally.

[CaptainHaplo]

Your glacial ice melting by 20% since 1979 chart. Interesting, but one question....

If all the glacial ice melted, the oceans would be expected to rise 68 meters (or 223 feet).

Source: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm

So 20% of the ice melting would mean that the oceans should rise by 20% of that figure - or roughtly 45 feet at a minimum. Now how many scientists, or laypersons, feel comfortable with claiming that the oceans have risen 45 feet by 1979? What... no hands? That is because - it hasn't...

But wait - its arctic ice only right? Ok - that would amount to a rise in the oceans of 7 meters (or 22.96 feet - we will call it 23) if it were to all melt. I used the same source for the 7 meter number. So - at the least, 20% of that 23 feet is 4.5 feet.... yet where is the 4.5 foot rise in the ocean since 1979? That has not happened either. In fact, global warming alarmists say that in the next 100 years, the water level could rise as much as 6 feet - yet if their models were correct, we would have seen a 4.5 foot rise in just the last 30 years....

Just one example of why theoretical science cannot be used to dictate how humanity should live, since humanity does not live in the world of the theoretical.

[Skybird]

Is global warming real? The theory of it looks good on paper. The computer models in labs seem to be reasonable and logical.

GW is no abstract theory nor is it a computer model only.

It's reality is being measured.

And the results speak a very clear language: since some decades, we have an unnatural acceleration in climate warming up, several hundred times faster than ever before in known history of Earth. You can ignore it, you can weasel around it, you can try to distort it, you can want to discredit it, you can wish to relabel it, and you can hope to weaken it by constructing different, fictional contexts. But the data remains what it is, no matter wether it is tried to be ignored or discreddited, or not. And the data says: there is a global trend towards warming.

Supporting observations from related sciences also confirm this, namely different branches of biology, zoology and medicine (germ and virus research). The patterns of how species follow their preferred environmental conditions and avoid unpleasant ones, shows that it becomes warmer.

Theories and models only come into play regarding prediction of future climatic trend, or explaining the already measured values.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird - then kindly explain the math on the issue above...

[NeonSamurai]

I decided to take a break from this thread for a day to insure I could approach it with a clear head. Let me address you, Stealth Hunter.

You asked "Where did I use the term "thief"? You did not use the term - however - in post 152 of this thread you stated:

"Your emails section of your post had parts taken directly from Sweetness & Light"
and
"You had those exact same sentences in your post, when they were not by you. They originated from the website I posted a link to. That's called infringement and it's very illegal."

The word TAKEN - and you intentionally italicizing (for effect) of "very illegal" - well - I don't know what you call a thief, but where I come from its someone who takes something illegally. Which is what you were accusing me of. If I told you that you took something illegally, wouldn't you call that stealing? What do you call someone who steals something? I had to correct you on the source and show it was in the public domain, which I had no problem doing. Your response?

"As far as copyright sourcing goes, true. But in a debate, as a rule of thumb, you ALWAYS cite where you gathered your information from. Regardless of copyright."

So basically you did call me a thief (using different words), then when I showed I wasn't, you admit that I was correct, but still try and find fault with me because I didn't "play by the rules" you expected. Yet in the same post you accuse me of stealing - you post 2 graphs without sourcing them which is not "playing by the rules" either. Of course, prior to posting your accusation, you had not posted in this thread at all... so nine pages in, nothing was worth responding to until that. I didn't say a word about it, but instead tried to move forward.

Not to turn this into a big argument, but he is kind of correct in the sense that what you did is plagiarism which is theft of ideas. The everyday world does it with out a second thought, but if caught doing so in the academic or scientific world and you would be in big trouble. These are the rules and what would happen if you got caught doing so at the University of Ottawa for example.
http://www.uottawa.ca/plagiarism.pdf
http://web5.uottawa.ca/admingov/regulation_13.html
As you can see the penalties can be very steep, including expulsion, and that is just for student work.

You are half correct that he did not fully cite the graphs. They are linked to their original sites, you just have to look at the image properties to see where they came from. But he did not formally cite them.

PS. public domain does not excuse a person from citing the source. Say I were to use Wikipedia (not that I would ever EVER cite them) as a source in a paper, even though the material may be public domain, I still would have to reference where the information came from and cite it properly.

Next post by you - discussing the validity of the emails, and you come up with this one:

"You may be telling the truth, and then again you may be lying to try and make yourself appear more of an expert on the subject."

Another swipe at my character, for what reason? You could have simply said you disagreed or laid out some legal basis for a different opinion, but instead you had to make it a personal thing. Not cool, but again I kept quiet, though I ask, if one person had said the same things about you, what would your view be regarding the intent of that person to reasonably debate?He does have a point though you must admit, we have no way of knowing for sure. After all we can say, claim, and be anything we want to on the internet. I've caught many many people in all kinds of obvious lies on the internet that they used to bolster their image. Personally I don't have the impression that you are that sort of person, but it is mearly my opinion and I have no solid evidence to back it up.


Regardless of our disagreements, you have brought some interesting science to this discussion, and I don't mind looking at it. My point in being here is not whether global warming is or isn't real - it is about the fact that the "science" of climate change - on both sides - is more about politics and money than it is about true science. It is also about the fact that climate change is not nearly the issue that some people make it out to be, since environmentally we actually have much more important matters to deal with.I think given the modeling available, GW is a very pressing issue which could have dire consequences, especially given the current problems in the environment (it is already a set of systems under severe pressure). The whole system could topple over very easily.

Could we debate whether GW is real? Sure, but what we were discussing was why GW is a shell game - whether real or not. Its a money sink and political power play - ON BOTH SIDES. If you think $2 Million a year from exxon will buy a few scientists, what will $170 Million do? Are all the scientists crooked? But this wasn't an attack on the science itself - this discussion - at least from my end - was an attack on those who were doing all they could to KEEP from letting that science be reviewed openly. You can try and twist it every way you want, but intentionally telling people that your trying to find ways around FoIA acts to keep from releasing data - in science that is just ethically wrong. When you start questioning a group of scientists ethics, wisdom dictates you must then question their results.See I don't agree with that, the reason being the different sources of money don't put the same pressures on researchers. Grant money goes toward specified research, but with out intended results (you will notice that the real researchers who are skeptical have the same sources of funding). They just want some results period, and not have the money wasted finding null results. When interest groups invest in 'research' they generally want specific results that are favorable to their position, when a tobacco company invests in 'research' they don't want the lab showing that tobacco causes cancer, and unsurprisingly the lab (cause they want to stay in business) fudges the results (and there are many ways they can discretely do this). There are countless examples of junk science papers when it comes to the tobacco industry. It would follow that similar is going on when the oil companies invest in GW research, and those companies have serious motivation to stifle GW research given how much it could hurt their bottom line with fuel efficiency and other things lowering sales rates.

Of course I would be equally suspicious of research from interest groups from the other side of the equation, I am wary of research from anti smoking groups. But most global warming research money is coming from more theoretically neutral sources.

It is also much cheaper to do junk science then it is to do valid science. You don't need research equipment, or to purchase data from other sources, you just make it up or fudge with existing data. Most of this stuff doesn't go through peer review, and isn't published in respectable journals, but often online. The time investment is also significantly less, as is the required number of staff. This is why they don't need as much money to function. Lastly of course is they are a minority, there are way more scientists doing more genuine research.

Now as for transparency, I agree it would be nice. Problem though is a bunch of the raw data the CRU used is private IP data, which they cannot disseminate. They can show the calculated results only. Remember this article? http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022410_metproposal.pdf It was about trying to make the data more transparent by using more independent non IP data.

From a human perspective I can understand why he would not want his data falling into the hands of skeptics with out a scientific background. I know full well how it would be twisted and misconstrued by them. Furthermore we all say things we don't really mean. Plus this was a snippet from a private conversation between colleagues, he could have been being sarcastic or joking for all we know. As I said before without the emails in the proper context, we don't know exactly what is going on there.

Is global warming real? The theory of it looks good on paper. The computer models in labs seem to be reasonable and logical. As an engineer however, I deal in applied science, not theoretical science. I can tell you that where the rubber meets the road, or where the theory meets reality, way too often the theory just doesn't pan out "out in the field". So do I question the theory - absolutely. However, I am not adverse to looking at the data. But as someone who sees theory applied to the field 5 days a week, and see it fail at least 3 days out of those 5 most weeks, I have to say that the theory is not yet withstanding the "in the field" test for me personally.Don't forget that the data is also there supporting it, and that data comes from the field itself. Also how exactly have you been field testing the theories?

I've also said that theories are never perfect, there are always little flaws or areas which they don't yet cover, and they tend to be more accurate over averaged data rather then case by case.



Your glacial ice melting by 20% since 1979 chart. Interesting, but one question....

If all the glacial ice melted, the oceans would be expected to rise 68 meters (or 223 feet).

Source: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm

So 20% of the ice melting would mean that the oceans should rise by 20% of that figure - or roughtly 45 feet at a minimum. Now how many scientists, or laypersons, feel comfortable with claiming that the oceans have risen 45 feet by 1979? What... no hands? That is because - it hasn't...

But wait - its arctic ice only right? Ok - that would amount to a rise in the oceans of 7 meters (or 22.96 feet - we will call it 23) if it were to all melt. I used the same source for the 7 meter number. So - at the least, 20% of that 23 feet is 4.5 feet.... yet where is the 4.5 foot rise in the ocean since 1979? That has not happened either. In fact, global warming alarmists say that in the next 100 years, the water level could rise as much as 6 feet - yet if their models were correct, we would have seen a 4.5 foot rise in just the last 30 years....

Just one example of why theoretical science cannot be used to dictate how humanity should live, since humanity does not live in the world of the theoretical.

Well the problem is you made an error, he is referring to polar ice, not glacial ice. The polar icecap expands and contracts every year, in the summer it melts, and in the fall/winter it refreezes, with only the northern areas staying ice bound all year. The problem though as the picture shows is that the icecap has been melting further and further back each summer. Glacial ice on the other hand is far more permanent, and does not melt and refreeze each year, its rate of change is much slower. Furthermore the temperature changes are much greater in the poles due to CO2 levels concentrating in those areas. The changes in the ice levels in the poles are pretty strong (and visual) evidence of the temperatures increasing.

[CaptainHaplo]

All right... lets start with this first...

Neon - your answer to the polar/glacial ice issue makes me think you didn't check my source. :DL Call it my own lack of knowledge in the field - which I readily admit BTW - but I used the terms interchangably. The source does state Polar Ice Caps melting would cause the amount referenced - and I simply used the term "glacial" - an error on my part. However, comparing the source to his picture in question, we are in fact talking about the same thing - polar ice caps, so that math itself stands as correct.

Now - on the other issues. Your right - he and I both were in error on a failure to cite sources. My error may be the greater, so be it. However I was simply pointing out that one must be careful when they throw mud, because they might be a bit muddy themselves as well as there was no need to be personal about it. As to him having a point that I could be fabricating my own experience concerning emails in court, yes there is always the possibility that someone on the net is full of bull. However, my point was simply that the entire issue could have been dealt with in a manner that did not involve a personal swipe, which was how I took it given what had gone on before. It may not have been intended as such, and to me its irrelevant and I intend to move past it regardless. I simply think that pointing out that this forum can do less with the slams and innuendo - some of which I have seen I have used as well, much to my chagrin, would be a positive. I also thank you for your words regarding your impression of my character.

With that out of the way, on to the emails.

From a human perspective I can understand why he would not want his data falling into the hands of skeptics with out a scientific background. I know full well how it would be twisted and misconstrued by them. Furthermore we all say things we don't really mean. Plus this was a snippet from a private conversation between colleagues, he could have been being sarcastic or joking for all we know. As I said before without the emails in the proper context, we don't know exactly what is going on there. Lets look at the context.
Did Phil Jones know that a FiOA request was made regarding AR4?

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: A couple of things
Date: Fri May 9 09:53:41 2008
Cc: "Caspar Ammann" <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Mike, Ray, Caspar,

A couple of things - don't pass on either.
1. Have seen you're RC bet. Not entirely sure this is the right way to go,
but it will drum up some discussion.
Anyway Mike and Caspar have seen me present possible problems with the
SST data (in the 1940s/50s and since about 2000). The first of these will appear
in Nature on May 29. There should be a News and Views item with this article
by Dick Reynolds. The paper concludes by pointing out that SSTs now (or since
about 2000, when the effect gets larger) are likely too low. This likely won't
get corrected quickly as it really needs more overlap to increase confidence.
Bottom line for me is that it appears SSTs now are about 0.1 deg C too cool
globally. Issue is that the preponderance of drifters now (which measure SST
better but between 0.1 and 0.2 lower than ships) mean anomalies are low
relative to the ship-based 1961-90 base.
This also means that the SST base the German modellers used in their runs
was likely too warm by a similar amount. This applies to all modellers, reanalyses etc.
There will be a lot of discussion of the global T series with people saying we can't
even measure it properly now.
The 1940s/50s problem with SSTs (the May 29 paper) also means there will be
warmer SSTs for about 10 years. This will move the post-40s cooling to a little
later - more in line with higher sulphate aerosol loading in the late 50s and 1960s70s.
The paper doesn't provide a correction. This will come, but will include the addition
of loads more British SSTs for WW2, which may very slightly cool the WW2 years.
More British SST data have also been digitized for the late 1940s. Budget
constraints mean that only about half the RN log books have been digitized. Emphasis
has been given to the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean log books.
As an aside, it is unfortunate that there are few in the Pacific. They have digitized
all the logbooks of the ships journeys from the Indian Ocean south of Australia and NZ
to Seattle for refits. Nice bit of history here - it turns out that most of the ships are
US ones the UK got under the Churchill/Roosevelt deal in early 1940. All the RN bases
in South Africa, India and Australia didn't have parts for these ships for a few years.
So the German group would be stupid to take your bet. There is a likely
ongoing negative volcanic event in the offing!
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but
this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim
have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way
around this.
I can't wait for the Wengen review to come out with the Appendix showing what
that 1990 IPCC Figure was really based on.
The Garnaut review appears to be an Australian version of the Stern Report.
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ

(Source: http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=877&s=kw )

Per this email - dated May 9, 2008 from Phil Jones - it states clearly he is aware of the FoIA requests. In fact, he references the fact that the requests are specifically for all emails recieved or sent by specific persons regarding AR4.... So how does anyone still dispute that he knew about the request, or that he was, as he stated - finding a way "around" it? This is not out of context, the first part of the email simply does not bear on the question at hand. Now, hopefully there will be no arguement over his awareness of the request. So lets move on to the next bit - dated May 29.

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

(Source: http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=893&s=kw )

Now - the recipient is not one of the people mentioned in the FoIA request, yet Jones clearly states that one of the people specified in the FoIA act, a person under his supervision I might add, will delete the emails in question - those regarding AR4. This is now 20 days AFTER his own words prove he is aware of the request, and has been looking to circumvent it.

So how can anyone ask "where is the deletion"? Do we have the requested AR4 emails? Were they ever released? The answer to those questions - is NO. Regardless of the opinion of Jones, or any other scientist at CRU about those who were making the request, they had a ethical and legal duty to insure the data in question was safeguarded and released in compliance with the law. Yet we can see that Jones, while aware of his legal duty, abrogated it, being aware that data was to be deleted by an person in his supervision, and doing nothing to stop it. On the contrary, he was attempting to assist by insuring all other copies were destroyed as well. These are not out of context - in fact - had you even looked at the title Jones chose for the May 29 email - he specifically was speaking in regards to FoIA issues since he chose that as part of the title.

To continue to ask "where is the smoking gun" on wrongdoing at the CRU is simply absurd. Is this a smoking gun disproving GW? No, but it does make the CRU - and its results - more suspect. Considering that the CRU has been the main source for the IPCC, which recall is a POLITICAL body, means that there are alot of unanswered questions still.

I understand the point about IP data, but then again - why would anyone try to use protected data on an issue where they knew the results would cause controversy? Doing so makes the results "uncheckable" - which will only add fuel to the debate itself, instead of move the science forward. Makes no sense at all to use protected data in something like this. The claim that its protected data is like a doctor coming in to see you after a physical and saying "well you have cancer, but don't try and get a second opinion because we use a test no one else can use and I won't let any other doctors see the results." I mean, its ludicrous.... I won't say it wasn't done, but I will say to do so was blasted stupid.

Then there is the question of how accurate is the data they really have? Part of what was released in the whole "climategate" documentation was a log by a gentleman working on their databases. He worked on the db's for what appears to be at least 3 years, and as any decent IT person will do, he kept that running log. Since that log is more in the area of my own knowledge, I have been taking time to read over it. I am not even 1/10th of the way through it, but I can say this - taking his log as a true record of his actions and the results, there is no way I could accept the data in use at the CRU as anywhere near accurate. It was one of your sources, Neon, that ultimately led me to finding this. It will likely take me a good week or two for me to complete the read but when it can reference 2000+ data readings from "unidentified" stations that also have no lat/long data - so no one knows where the heck they are (and thus cannot determine if they are even real) - being used in datasets that the models at the CRU use, I don't think its unreasonable to already question the veracity of the outcomes those models produce.The entire log I refer to may be found here:

http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Lastly, and this has been a rather long post - I will say this. Yes, I fully agree that research funded by parties with an interest in the outcome means the science should be double and triple checked before acceptance. But once again - the CRU recieves funding from the UN and WMO, as it was and still is contracted by the IPCC (a political body) that was created by those groups. The UN is indisputably a political body - and the WMO on its own page describes itself with the following statement (bolding added for emphasis):

"WMO plays a leading role in international efforts to monitor and protect the environment through its Programmes. In collaboration with other UN agencies and the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services, WMO supports the implementation of a number of environmental conventions (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/Environmentalconventions_en.html) and is instrumental in providing advice and assessments to governments on related matters. These activities contribute towards ensuring the sustainable development and well-being of nations."

(Source: http://www.wmo.int/pages/about/index_en.html )

To claim then that the UN, WMO or IPCC are not political in nature is clearly untrue. Thus, any research they fund must also be considered to POSSIBLY have a political motivation. Thus, any results should be double and triple checked just as "oil funded" results should be. Only one problem - that appears to be impossible when the CRU uses IP data.....

It should also be noted that the WMO - on the page I cited above - expounds on how they want environmental data to be freely accessible to all. Yet they fund a group that uses private data, and then uses the results from that group to "provide advice" to governmental bodies? Something smells fishy right there. Please, do not pretend that the CRU, the IPCC or the other groups involved do not have a political interest in this. It is blatently apparent that they do have a political interests, just as much as big oil has an economic interest.

[NeonSamurai]

All right... lets start with this first...

Neon - your answer to the polar/glacial ice issue makes me think you didn't check my source. :DL Call it my own lack of knowledge in the field - which I readily admit BTW - but I used the terms interchangably. The source does state Polar Ice Caps melting would cause the amount referenced - and I simply used the term "glacial" - an error on my part. However, comparing the source to his picture in question, we are in fact talking about the same thing - polar ice caps, so that math itself stands as correct.

No there is a problem as they are not at all interchangeable, polar ice cap (or pack) and glacial ice are not the same. Thing is that the polar icecap is over water, and glacial ice is over land. This is why in the summer time only the ends and surfaces of glaciers melt, where as much of the polar ice cap melts and refreezes on a yearly rate. Also there is a massive difference in thickness (which also enables glaciers to survive much longer then pack ice). much of the polar ice cap is not very thick, only a few meters on average. Glaciers can be several kilometers thick.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MaySy.shtml
Plus on top of it Glacial ice tends to be more dense with much less air trapped inside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_mass_balance
Usual caveat with wiki of course that there could be mistakes on those pages.

Furthermore I did read the article, and most of it talks about glaciers and icebergs not polar ice, in spite of the title. The important thing though is that the ice pack is over water, and the oceans are heating up. Water also conducts heat far better then air or soil do (put an ice cube in water, suspended in the air, and put on top of earth all at the same temperature and see for yourself). this is why the pack ice is getting smaller and smaller each year. The polar ice packs also does not represent a whole lot of water in comparison to the glaciers (particularly those of Antarctica). You also might want to reread your article a bit more closely, as they say that it is unlikely that the antarctic glaciers will ever melt, and that it represents 90% of the world's ice.


I will address the email stuff maybe later as I am very busy with my own work right now. I just wanted to finish addressing your other point and not leave it hanging. I do want to say though, that I do fully support a formal investigation into what exactly did go on there. If there was any improprieties then they should be held accountable.

[Stealth Hunter]

You asked "Where did I use the term "thief"? You did not use the term - however - in post 152 of this thread you stated:

. . . .

The word TAKEN - and you intentionally italicizing (for effect) of "very illegal" - well - I don't know what you call a thief, but where I come from its someone who takes something illegally.

The correct term for a person violating copyright on an issue of written materials is "plagiarist", not "thief"- particularly when trying to pass off somebody else's statements as one's own.

someone who uses another person's words or ideas as if they were his own - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarist

a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=thief

Though this issue is really pointless now, because you posted your source finally and rectified your mistake by showing where the materials originated from.

Which is what you were accusing me of.

Plagiarism is not thievery- by their very definitions, as demonstrated above.

If I told you that you took something illegally, wouldn't you call that stealing?

Yep. But what is this something? A physical object, or written statements?

What do you call someone who steals something?

A thief. Now, what do you call someone who uses another person's written material in an attempt to pass it off as their own? I'll give you a hint: it starts with "p" and ends in "ist".

I had to correct you on the source and show it was in the public domain, which I had no problem doing.


And thusly rectifying your mistake, as I've already said.

Your response?

. . . .

So basically you did call me a thief (using different words),

*sigh*

someone who uses another person's words or ideas as if they were his own - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarist

a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=thief

:up:


then when I showed I wasn't, you admit that I was correct, but still try and find fault with me because I didn't "play by the rules" you expected.

It's not what I expect. As a debating rule of thumb, you always cite your sources for your information or any claims you make. If you bother going to a university with a debating class, oral and/or written, they'll make you do the exact same thing.

Yet in the same post you accuse me of stealing -

Plagiarism, not stealing.

you post 2 graphs without sourcing them which is not "playing by the rules" either.

Correction: "Because we the MBH model does nothing but confirm the data the University of East Anglia has produced." Then I posted the first graph for you to make your comparisons. The second graph is also from them, and if you bothered following the URL behind it, you would see it originates from NASA's Goddard Institute.

Of course, prior to posting your accusation, you had not posted in this thread at all... so nine pages in, nothing was worth responding to until that. I didn't say a word about it, but instead tried to move forward.

NeonSamurai's posts have been well worth responding to. His posted plenty of information and links (not to mention rebuttals of your posts and others') on the original topic we've been fighting on of global warming.

Next post by you - discussing the validity of the emails, and you come up with this one:

. . . .

Another swipe at my character, for what reason?

Hardly a swipe. What goes on in that head of yours I wonder? All I said was you may be telling the truth and you may not be, because what you posted has simply been for years a tired old way of trying to make oneself look more like an expert- and it's because so many people have tried using this over the years that we don't even bother dragging personal experiences into professional debates, which the latter is exactly what I'm trying to encourage here. Why do you seemingly have a problem with it? First, you scrutinize the routine of citing sources in debates, now this issue of personal experiences in them (assuming, of course, they ever really happened; people do like to lie so).

You could have simply said you disagreed

Was that not made obvious by the paragraph you're bringing up?

or laid out some legal basis for a different opinion, but instead you had to make it a personal thing. Not cool, but again I kept quiet, though I ask, if one person had said the same things about you, what would your view be regarding the intent of that person to reasonably debate?

Hang on, I'm not the one making this personal. You are. By trying to force your personal experiences in here as proof, which, because we have so many people who lie and make up personal experiences to try and reinforce their positions, we don't do in debating. Yet it was you in the first place who brought that mannerism of content into this debate, not me. That's all I've been pointing out. Now, if you can prove that what you say is true, as far as the personal experiences are concerned, then do so- because then it can be used.

Then we get to your "quote". The quote really got to me, I admit that. To log in and see my ID stating something I know I would not type - especially in third person (since referring to yourself like that makes you a little off in the head in my view) ticked me off to no end, especially after all that had gone one before. Not everyone can see things tribesman posts, because he is on a few ignore lists, mine included. So there was no way I could have seen it as a misquote.

Having read your explanation, and seeing you did the honorable thing: admitting the mistake and correcting it, I give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your apology.

Well that's settled.

I also have to ask what the post regarding young earth creationism has to do with this.

As far as the debate over global warming is concerned, little. As far as Aramike's statement that: "Such a stance is why public trust in the scientific community continues to drop."; quite a bit, by firstly showing that the ignorance of the public on such scientific matters makes them hardly at liberty to comment without some prior education on what they call into question- using one scientific example, the theory of evolution, to show that at least a good number of them know very little about the exact science which they show nothing but scrutiny for. Since your side finds global warming to be such a questionable thing, I figure something that's not nearly as up for as much debate (at least, not on the grounds of facts and truth are concerned, or general accepted amongst the educational institutions) should be submitted as an example. If you can prove their stupidity on one scientific matter (evolution), how likely do you think it is they'll be any more intelligent on another, i.e. global warming? Now, if you want to continue further into this matter, be my guest. We can revive the old evolution thread and take it from there to keep this thread less cluttered.

Had you paid attention to the very first post of that thread - I stated it was a debate.

Yes- between you and me. The original post where I brought up the concurrent scientific issue of skepticism about evolution, in correlation with the same types of skepticism you get on the concordant issue of global warming, was in response to Aramike's statement.

I suspect you do realize that when people start a debate, they do not always get to take a side they are firmly behind?

Though as far as global warming goes, agnosticism really isn't a choice as far as the real world is concerned. Either it exists or it doesn't; either it's a true event that's happening as we speak or it's an elaborate hoax perpetuated by governments all over the world and their scientists in some kind of money-ploy scheme (there's so many conspiracies out there about it today I don't think I could name them all off... so I'll leave the job to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory); (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory%29;) either the facts and statistics behind it are accurate and unaltered or they're inaccurate and have been fabricated. Etc.

To start that debate I did have to take a side does not conform to my own personal views. I have not ever posted a personal belief in the young earth theory, though I do not dismiss it out of hand either.

But again, it's the same kind of deal: either the Earth's beginnings began as the Creationists' state or as the scientists state; either it is 6,000 years old as the Creationists say or it's 4.54 billion years old as the scientists say; concurrently with the latter, either radiometric and carbon dating don't work and are inaccurate for dating Earth and objects on it as the Creationists say or they're both fine and work perfectly well as the scientists say. Really, everything breaks down to a black or white deal. If you push it far enough.

That actually was the first time I had ever looked at any science for or against it. So why that is even brought into this I can't figure.....

"Just thought I'd throw this out there for the sake of Morts' comment."

Regardless of our disagreements, you have brought some interesting science to this discussion, and I don't mind looking at it.

Now we're making progress.

My point in being here is not whether global warming is or isn't real - it is about the fact that the "science" of climate change - on both sides - is more about politics and money than it is about true science.

So the results would have been skewed and thusly make any evidence for global warming nothing but puffery, basically destroying the theory as we know it. After all, if the results don't support the theory, you really don't have a theory. Not a valid one, anyway. Fabrication of the results and the debunking of the theory would show it to all have been nothing but a hoax.;)

It is also about the fact that climate change is not nearly the issue that some people make it out to be, since environmentally we actually have much more important matters to deal with.

Environmentally speaking, assuming the greenhouse effect goes wild, and it will if we keep pouring billions of tons of gases into the atmosphere, we won't have to worry about deforestation, energy problems, and fuel source problems anymore. Because we won't be able to survive on the terranean hell that will become Earth. Consider the state Venus is in. Earth's condition would be a fraction of it, but the point in case is that we won't be able to survive it.

Could we debate whether GW is real? Sure, but what we were discussing was why GW is a shell game -

We've been discussing both. If it's nothing but a "shell game", then you may just as well have debunked the entire theory. Thankfully, that's not the reality of the situation, and the public doesn't have much sway in scientific matters.

whether real or not.

So you do question its existence, nevermind the politics behind it. Thanks for finally admitting it.

Its a money sink and political power play - ON BOTH SIDES. If you think $2 Million a year from exxon will buy a few scientists, what will $170 Million do?

But do you really think that private interests and governments have been able to buy out ALL of the scientists? All of them? Not that this amounts to anything less than pure speculation, but even so, do you realize how fantastical that sounds- not even taking into account the lack of evidence for such a notion about the majority of the community?

Are all the scientists crooked?

You tell me.

But this wasn't an attack on the science itself - this discussion - at least from my end - was an attack on those who were doing all they could to KEEP from letting that science be reviewed openly.

But by saying, or at least insinuating, that a good portion of the scientific community could be bought out by both private interests and government (if not all of it, as some conspiracy theorists claim), how is that not an attack on their integrity- let alone the community's? After all, it is the latter which they act as representatives for.

You can try and twist it every way you want,

Which, as demonstrated, no twisting is necessary on my part. I've already explained the situation behind Dr. Jones' emails, the reasons for actions taken (in both his words and in scientific practice), but the one thing I haven't done is asked you this: what exactly was he hiding, assuming you were correct and ignoring the facts, in the data- and, on a related note, what did the data say? Produce it, and then you've got something. Until then, it remains rebutted speculation.

but intentionally telling people that your trying to find ways around FoIA acts to keep from releasing data - in science that is just ethically wrong.

How does that prove he was hiding anything though? As I've already said, it doesn't. He deleted the data from his computer, passed it along to Dr. Scott so it could be archived and viewed by the public; Scott's computer crashed and the data was lost. An unfortunate event, but jumping to conclusions is all that's being done here by your lot.

When you start questioning a group of scientists ethics, wisdom dictates you must then question their results.

So again, this does confirm that you have doubts about global warming being real. If you question the results, you question the thing which they are there to support or rebut.

Is global warming real? The theory of it looks good on paper.

Have you ever read anything on it, by chance? Informational and long, I mean, like a scientific encyclopedia article on it? Just wondering since you comment on it with such a confident tone, yet you have previously demonstrated that there are plenty of things you were unaware of about it (some of the most basic things to it...).

The computer models in labs seem to be reasonable and logical.

What about the tests done to produce results and work with these computer models in the laboratory? Are they reasonable and logical?

As an engineer however, I deal in applied science, not theoretical science.

Dragging personal "experiences" back into this again I see. Well, as an engineer, do you happen to deal with climatology, meteorology, geology, anything of that sort on a daily basis like the scientists and people like myself (hey- if you want to throw personal experiences in there, I might as well do it too) do on a daily basis when studying climate change, the greenhouse effect, or global warming?:hmmm:

I can tell you that where the rubber meets the road, or where the theory meets reality,

A freshman in high school can too, because learning this stuff is a mandatory requirement now. What makes you more of a professional and a better choice to comment than people who work with this stuff everyday? What reasons do you have for us to trust you on this? What's there to assure us that you yourself don't have any personal interests which are affecting your conclusions on this subject, as you insinuate about the scientific community's representatives on matters of private and government interests?

way too often the theory just doesn't pan out "out in the field".

Of course, engineering theories and climate relation theories are two very different things from each other. But I digress.

So do I question the theory - absolutely.

To the point where it becomes repetitively unnecessary. There comes a point when it's time to stop, particularly after a ridiculous amount of information supporting the theory you're questioning has been brought to light. That's like the evolution issue, we use the theory everyday in biological science, we've shown it happens time and time again, we apply it to common things (like medicines and foods) also on a daily basis- yet we still get people who question its integrity.

However, I am not adverse to looking at the data. But as someone who sees theory applied to the field 5 days a week, and see it fail at least 3 days out of those 5 most weeks, I have to say that the theory is not yet withstanding the "in the field" test for me personally.

So what exactly are you using global warming, climate change, and the greenhouse effect for in your engineering trade? I'm curious to know, and I'm also curious to know how you figured up the statistics behind those numbers. Furthermore, what details are there about your job? What position do you hold? How important is it within the profession you're in? What have you got to show us that proves that this is what your job really is?:up:

Your glacial ice melting by 20% since 1979 chart. Interesting, but one question. If all the glacial ice melted, the oceans would be expected to rise 68 meters (or 223 feet).

Source: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm

So 20% of the ice melting would mean that the oceans should rise by 20% of that figure - or roughtly 45 feet at a minimum. Now how many scientists, or laypersons, feel comfortable with claiming that the oceans have risen 45 feet by 1979? What... no hands? That is because - it hasn't...

My god- there is no way you can be an engineer. Otherwise, you would understand that the 20% of melted ice converted into water is distributed throughout the world's oceans, meaning that, worldwide, you only see a small increase in sea levels, because 71% of the Earth's surface, an area of some 139.5 million square miles, is covered with water- and all major oceans and seas interconnect with one another, meaning that (and I'm reiterating here) the melted ice water would be distributed throughout them; nobody in their right mind (let alone a knowledgeable mind) would say that the graph means ALL oceans and seas- "the oceans"-- rose by 45 feet "at a minimum"!:haha:

But wait - its arctic ice only right? Ok - that would amount to a rise in the oceans of 7 meters (or 22.96 feet - we will call it 23) if it were to all melt.

Though it hasn't all melted. Not yet, anyway. This statement is moot. Furthermore, the error in your math above has been displayed. Not just an error in math, but also scientific know-how and measurements. You have to account for the percentage of surface area the oceans cover, then distribute the 20% throughout them...

I used the same source for the 7 meter number. So - at the least, 20% of that 23 feet is 4.5 feet.... yet where is the 4.5 foot rise in the ocean since 1979?

"The ocean"? I wasn't aware there was just one- nevermind a single depth and current flow to every bit of it. Current rates of sea rising levels have occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century (a mean rate is used because there is no single ocean we're talking about here; they're all being affected- except for the landlocked ones like the Caspian Sea). With that said, you were apparently reading the graph wrong. This one makes it clearer (source: Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory; http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/): (http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/%29:)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

You will note it's in centimeters. 1cm = 0.032808399ft

The problem noted by global warming is that if sea levels continue to rise at their present rate, as I previously mentioned, we will no longer be dealing with graphs that only extend as high as 35 or 50cm within the next century, but ones that go up as high as hundreds of centimeters (the mean average models placing it at 450cm, or 14ft- high enough that the Eastern Seaboard would be flooded as far inland as the Appalachian Mountains, eventually sweeping down through rivers and valleys even as far as the Midwestern United States- not accounting for the highest models that go to 880cm or 28.871391076088003ft; source: Miller, L. and Bruce C. Douglas, 2004. Mass and volume contributions to twentieth-century global sea level rise and future projections. Nature magazine #428. p. 406–409.). From the Phoenix Project Foundation is a projected graph showing the outcomes of such a rise:

http://www.phoenixprojectfoundation.us/images/sealevel.jpg

That has not happened either.

Are you catching on to your error yet?

In fact, global warming alarmists say that in the next 100 years, the water level could rise as much as 6 feet - yet if their models were correct, we would have seen a 4.5 foot rise in just the last 30 years

Citation for this? And I've already shown why your 4.5ft sea level rise within the last 30 years claim is bunk. You didn't bother accounting for all that water being distributed throughout Earth's oceans. This is like the third (maybe fourth) time I've had to point this out to you. There's no way you can be an applied science engineer if you left out that variable. And while it's just one factor, it's still a damn big one to the equation!

Just one example of why theoretical science cannot be used to dictate how humanity should live, since humanity does not live in the world of the theoretical.

We live in a theoretical world as much as an applied world. The simple fact of the matter is that your lot is not going to acknowledge that we were right until the effects of us pouring out too many greenhouse gases are seen- chiefly, the mass extinction of Arctic animals, rise in sea levels, famine, widespread disease, a breakdown in governments, you get the picture. Because people, in disasters this big, due to their stupid nature, go batsh** insane.:shifty:

Continuing on.

In the year 2004, the United States emitted over seven billion metric tons of greenhouse gases (CO2E). Carbon dioxide accounted for the largest percentage of greenhouse gases (83%), followed by methane (9%), nitrous oxide (5%), and the high global warming potential gases (2%).

(sources are all listed beneath the images; if they're too blurry, I'll write them out for anyone who asks)

http://i43.tinypic.com/wgouht.jpg

Greenhouse gases are emitted by all sectors of the economy, including industry (30% of total), transportation (28%), commercial (17%), residential (17%), and agriculture (8%). In this figure, greenhouse gases from electricity generation have been allocated to the end-use sector.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2pzfyu8.jpg

This figure shows the trends in US carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2004. The data indicate that carbon dioxide emissions increased 15.8% between 1990 and 2004.

http://i43.tinypic.com/hrhh7t.jpg

This figure shows the emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels in the generation of electric power. The three electricity-generating fuels shown here are coal, natural gas, and petroleum.

http://i41.tinypic.com/a4sll4.jpg

This figure shows trends in emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of oil to produce energy for the following five sectors: transportation, industry, electric power, residential, and commercial.

http://i43.tinypic.com/205xk5d.jpg

The transportation sector is the second largest contributor of greenhosue gas emissions (mainly in the form of carbon dioxide) in the United States (see the second figure in this post). This figure shows the trends in aggregate and per capita vehicle miles traveled by Americans per year.

http://i41.tinypic.com/k1rs6b.jpg

Greenhouse gas emissions, largely CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels, have risen dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, energy-related CO2 emissions have risen approximately 145-fold since 1850 - from 200 million tons to 29 billion tons a year.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/Historical-Emissions.preview.JPG

Most of the world's greenhouse gas emissions come from a relatively small number of countries. The United States, China, and the European Union (EU-25) together accounted for about 50% of global emissions in 2004. The eight largest emitters- the United States, China, the European Union, Russia, India, Japan, Germany and Brazil- accounted for more than 70% of global emissions.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/Annual-GHG-Emissions.1.preview.JPG

Greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere and contribute to global warming long after they are emitted (in most cases, for a century or more), so cumulative emissions are an important measure of a country's contribution to climate change. From 1850 to 2000, the United States and the European Union were responsible for about 60% of energy-related CO2 emissions, while China contributed 7% and India 2%.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Cumulative.jpg

Globally, the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions are the energy supply sector (26%), industry (19%) and forestry (17%). Agriculture and transportation account for 14% and 13% of total emissions, respectively.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/GHG-by-Sector.jpg

CO2 accounts for about 80% of total greenhouse gas emissions- 57% from fossil fuel use and 20% from deforestation and other activities. Methane, primarily from agriculture, is the next largest category of emissions (14%). Note that different gases have different potentials. All figures here are expressed in CO2-equivalents.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/GHG-by-Gas.jpg

[CaptainHaplo]

Well lets deal with this polar ice cap thing for a minute if you don't mind. I might learn something from it, because obviously we seem to be on different pages.

I looked at your sources Neon - and the first thing that jumps out at me was this - sourced from your first link (May Sy).

"Elsmitte, at the center of the Greenland ice cap, rests an elevation of almost 3,000 meters, and much of Antarctica is even higher."

Ok - either this is the name of a specific cap - or Greenland moved to the antarctic when I wasn't looking. I suspect the former. If so, then we are ok here, but if the latter, well someone needs to explain to me how that happened. Now - lets establish some basic terms, and correct me if I misread your sources.

Polar Ice Cap - Ice floating in water found at the poles. You have both the Arctic and Antarctic. The Antarctic holds 85-90% of the frozen water in ice caps on earth, the Arctic holding the balance.

Glacial Ice - Ice formed on land.

OK - if this is correct - then Stealth Hunter's chart states that 20% of the ice at the Arctic Ice cap has melted. That is waterborne ice. Now, this is where physics come in and the question gets more complex. If we are talking purely about waterborne ice - it could all melt and it wouldn't raise sea level one bit - because waterborn ice displaces the amount of water equal to its weight and density. Thus, frozen some of it may stick up in the air - but melted its volume takes up only the water it displaced (that being the water displaced by the underwater ice). So the 20% melting of "Polar Ice Caps" would thus not result in any change of sea level. Am I right so far? If not - let me know where I have gone wrong.

OK - assuming I am right to this point - there is still one problem. Your talking about an ice cap that is almost fully surrounded by land that does have Glacial Ice on it. For the waterborne ice to melt - the Glacial ice has to be doing the same thing - unless the ambient air temperature is not sufficient to allow it. This would require the ocean to be warmer than the air - which makes sense. However - for the water to be sufficiently warm enough to cause a 20% decline in the 30 years in question would mean that the water should be measurably warmer on average than it has been. After all - if it was generally the same temperature as it has always been we would not see a precipitous increase in polar ice cap melting. Some research indicates that warmer oceans are in fact expected with global warming.... The problem is that so far, the ocean has not warmed as expected. In fact, it appears that the oceans have been cooling - though not significantly. (Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025 )

So if its not warmer oceans - it must be warmer air right? But warmer air means that Glacial Ice would be affected as well and in fact would likely be melting faster than polar pack ice. (Take 2 identical chunks of ice - put one in a specific volume of 35 degree water, one in 35 degree air - which melts faster? The one in air - because water as it cools acts as a better temperature insulater than air....). Yet Glacial ice is what would cause the oceans to rise because water that is on land and melts goes where? Thats right - into the ocean (either running into it, or via the evaporation/precipitation cycle or a combination of them both). But we still don't see the rise such a melt would cause.

Ok - so it looks like it can't be warmer air.... and it can't be warmer water.... What the devil could it be then? There has to be an answer here. I mean - the data itself can't be wrong can it? What would cause seaborne ice to melt - but not the land based ice? The only difference is the water. Perhaps - just perhaps - your dealing with more than just temperature here.

Oh - and so much for "the icecaps are going to melt and flood us all" - unless they meant to say "Glacial" ice. The claim is that glacial ice is retreating as well - but if so - then where is the associated increase in sea level? Its still not happening. So where is the disconnect?

Edit - ok got some of Stealth Hunter's post to delve into - so lets start:

Want a source for the 6ft alarmist - ok - here ya go:

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/read/default.html Just read the header section on Global Sea Level.....
I should also point out that that study is one written and condoned under the IPCC - which we have already establishd as and answering to - a political entity.

Though I must say Stealth Hunter - you seem to think that my 6' statement was somehow questionable or false - then you go right on to post a source claiming a max sea level increase of 28.871391076088003ft. - and ya know - I like your alarmist claim better.... I figure since you sourced it you don't need me to repeat the source back to you.

Now I have never claimed that I use any type of environmental science in my own work - and I don't know why you seem to think I do, because I am more than happy to admit I don't (unless we are talking about figuring out line of sight for wireless communication and possible environmental factors that could affect said communication, or simply where and how to best run wire). I simply was stating that generally, theory doesn't match reality an awful lot in the real world.

Now - on to the issue of sea level....

My god- there is no way you can be an engineer. Otherwise, you would understand that the 20% of melted ice converted into water is distributed throughout the world's oceans, meaning that, worldwide, you only see a small increase in sea levels, because 71% of the Earth's surface, an area of some 139.5 million square miles, is covered with water- and all major oceans and seas interconnect with one another, meaning that (and I'm reiterating here) the melted ice water would be distributed throughout them; nobody in their right mind (let alone a knowledgeable mind) would say that the graph means ALL oceans and seas- "the oceans"-- rose by 45 feet "at a minimum"!:haha:

Ok let me get this right - your saying sea level is not generally uniform? If not - then how can your own sources come up with "28.871391076088003ft" as an increase in the sea level? Where would this increase take place? I mean - physics says any body of liquid will try to, in general, get itself to its lowest equal level. So if sea level in new york is at one point, and off the coast of North Carolina its 5 foot lower - explain to me why the water doesn't just even itself out.... because any liquid will try to do exactly that. Now oceanography is definitely not something I know about - but I do understand the physical properties of liquid, and something isn't adding up here. Now based on those physical properties - if a source claims that 100% melting would equal a 22.96 ft rise - how is it that a 20% melt does not equal a 20% rise? Now as I posted above - if we are talking sea ice only - I understand why it would have NO rise. However, on one hand you want to say "the changes would be minimal" - and then you want to quote sources that say the increase we would see is one of disaster sized importance...

Dude - make up your mind!

I also do not find it suprising that you sure didnt want to touch the email issue - since it did in fact show that the then head of CRU was aware of the FoIA request and emailed out requesting that same data be deleted (in violation of the law). I am sure some lame defense will be forthcoming on that - probably one just slamming the source since the parent company is "anti-gw" right? Oh and no comment either on the IPCC, WMO or UN being poltical entities - just a bunch of graphs that say "fossil fuel / CO2 is evil" in one way or the other.... and of course some of those pretty pictures originate with the IPCC themselves.... but of course they wouldn't have a political agenda though...

Which of course at this point - its only fair to remind our fair readers that most of the IPCC data - whether from the CRU or not - originates from the same WMO that admits it supports political action on environmental issues. No way that data that originates from them could possibly be suspect either right?

[NeonSamurai]

I will be brief this time, and just say that the glaciers in much of the world are melting too and this is what is responsible for the slowly increasing water level. Difference though is it is happening at a much slower rate given the thickness of the glaciers vs pack ice. Also your NPR article is hardly scientific. We will not get the massive flooding mentioned though unless the antarctic glaciers really start to melt (which holds ~90% of earth's frozen water). The ice pack there however has been also shrinking though over the years. Over the Arctic it is all pack ice with ocean underneath (with the obvious exceptions of northern Canada, Greenland, etc)

Anyhow some counter articles of my own
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ocean.html
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleid=38531

Just remember that the glaciers are also shrinking too (well other then Antarctica since the average temperature is still far below zero). That is what is causing the ocean levels to rise slowly.

[CaptainHaplo]

Okay - now I am REALLY confused. Neon - were your sources supposed to show the arctic water was warming? Cuz if so, uhm... they didn't exactly do that.

"Observations at a NABOS (http://nabos.iarc.uaf.edu/) mooring in the vicinity of Spitsbergen (Fig. O.3) along the entry point of the AWCT showed that the monthly mean AWCT at 260 m reached a maximum of ~3.8°C in November-December 2006. Subsequently, the temperature at this location has declined or cooled, reaching ~2.8°C in 2008.

This was from your second citing - and is referencing the entry point for water going into the Arctic polar area... So it actually concurs and states that the water has minutely declined in temperature. If the entering water is 1.0 degrees celsius colder than normal - thats cooling. This is water coming from outside the arctic after all - where the water would be expected to be warmer than normal - not colder. That doesn't work out to the ocean's being warmer....

The first citation - the one with the graph - shows 2003 to be the "hottest" ocean year - after a significant climb in the 1990's. However, since 2003 - that graph - both the yearly average and the three month average - shows a trend of overall slightly decreasing temperatures (though nowhere near going back to the 1990 levels - as yet).

Now the third citing does speak on temperatures increasing - and 5 degrees C is no small increase either. However - it does state the measurement was in one location - so there is no information as to whether this was a localized anomoly, or a widespread event. The first source is dealing with the bigger picture - and thus would not answer for us. The second - as mentioned above - saw both colder and warmer than expected temperatures in various locales, suggesting the temperature in the last source is likely to be a local occurance. As such, there is no telling if it will occur again, or not.

Now I promise you - I am not trying to be difficult - but anyone looking at the graph in citation 1 can see that since 2003 - there has been a slight decline in temps. If the melting was due to warmer oceans, then we would have seen more melting in 2003 than any other time. Did we? I mean - does it not stand to reason that the warmer the water - the more ice melts? It works that way in my tea - and I know that is a simplistic example, but the point itself is the same.

I am not disputing that the ice caps have seen a 20% decrease in size over the last 30 years. They very well might have and the graph you cited would explain quite a bit of that given the spike in the 90's. But forgive me - and maybe I am dense here - but we are talking about ice that we established isn't actually going to cause any change in sea level (which, after discussion with Stealth Hunter - I am not even so sure what that is anymore - always thought that the word "level" meant exactly that LOL). So it melts.... the problem there is what? I mean - if we are talking only polar ice caps (waterborne) - then ok why is that such a bad thing? If we are talking about glacial ice- I could see the problem as that would cause a sea level rise. However - one thing that keeps getting missed here on the whole "sea level rising" thing is that if glacial ice melts - the increase in temperature also opens up currently unusable earth, does it not? Your third citation suggests so, since it states:

"The extra ocean warming also might be contributing to some changes on land, such as previously unseen plant growth in the coastal Arctic tundra, if heat coming off the ocean during freeze-up is making its way over land."

So the warming of the ocean thaws currently inhospitable land masses - which would result in glacial warming - which then allows previously unseen plant growth to occur... This is bad why?

And if all this is bad - then shouldn't that first graph - which shows the temps decreasing over the last 7 years - be reassuring?

[Stealth Hunter]

Want a source for the 6ft alarmist - ok - here ya go:

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/read/default.html Just read the header section on Global Sea Level.....

That's from Greenland's sheet and West Antarctic exit glaciers; an ~2m increase in sea levels from the largest ice sheets in the world by 2100. Neon has been trying to get through to you the difference between glaciers, exit glaciers, ice sheets, ice caps, etc. Evidently, you have not bothered investigating his links. Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf, the guy cited in the Copenhagen Diagnosis, wrote a paper detailing sea levels based upon specific ice sources melting individually.

Rahmstorf's paper (with the 3.4mm/year statistic and the ~2m rise from Greenland's ice sheet/West Antarctic exit glaciers- the same statistics from the Copenhagen Diagnosis):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5810/368

Science article detailing Rahmstorf's study and specifically mentioning the ice sheets and exit glaciers' melting contributions.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/

I quote the article's summary: In summary, they estimate that including dynamic ice sheet processes gives projected SLR at 2100 somewhere in the 80 cm to 2 meter range, and suggest that 80 cm should be the ‘default’ value.

This means no more than 80cm to ~2m worth of water can be expected to be added to be distributed throughout the oceans from the ice sheets alone.

I should also point out that that study is one written and condoned under the IPCC - which we have already establishd as and answering to - a political entity.

We have established it as a governmental/scientific organization (it's not just political) with the intent or reporting to the world's peoples and governments information relating specifically to the issue of climate change, global warming, and greenhouse gases.

Though I must say Stealth Hunter - you seem to think that my 6' statement was somehow questionable or false - then you go right on to post a source claiming a max sea level increase of 28.871391076088003ft.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis' report was about ice sheets and exit glaciers, and that was made clear by them when they cited Rahmstorf's research (and when I got a link to his paper). Mine was taking ice sheets, ice caps, glaciers, exit glaciers and the lot into account. There is a difference between the lot as Neon has been trying to point out, and, not only based upon their demographic distributions in nature but also the numbers included in the studies, that explains the reason why you were only coming up with ~2m increases in sea level (because Rahmstorf's report was only about ice sheets) and I was getting over 28ft (because mine was taking into account as many ice sources as possible).

- and ya know - I like your alarmist claim better.... I figure since you sourced it you don't need me to repeat the source back to you.

Yeah, we've got nothing more to discuss on this issue of sea increases. I've already pointed out what was making the difference between Rahmstorf's numbers and mine. Neither one of our sources is inaccurate, just one of our personal interpretations of what the sources are saying... and it's not me as you seem to think. I've shown why, too.

Now I have never claimed that I use any type of environmental science in my own work - and I don't know why you seem to think I do,

I never even insinuated I thought you did work with it. Never. How you managed to come up with the idea that I was is beyond me; but then again so is how you managed to misinterpret so many things about Rahmstorf's work, the differences between glaciers, ice sheets, ice caps, etc., and the projected totals (accounting for all major sources of ice in the world) for flooding by 2100. I was merely questioning if you did or didn't work with it.

because I am more than happy to admit I don't

Well now we're getting somewhere. Admittedly, you mentioning you're an engineer means nothing as far as climatology, meteorological, geology, etc. are concerned (these three are used often when dealing with the subject of climate change, global warming, and greenhouse gas research, in case you didn't know).


(unless we are talking about figuring out line of sight for wireless communication and possible environmental factors that could affect said communication, or simply where and how to best run wire).

So pretty amateur stuff. Glad we cleared that up.:up:

I simply was stating that generally, theory doesn't match reality an awful lot in the real world.

Stating baselessly, might I add. We use theories every single day in the real world, particularly in science. Physics theories, chemistry theories, biological theories, general mathematical theories, etc. In doing so, we've been able to do some amazing things. Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtmR3KvVBKE

All that off nothing but physics theories.

Ok let me get this right - your saying sea level is not generally uniform?

Yes. This is because of a variety of different things, including oceanic currents, depths, underwater seabed features (volcanoes, trenches, tectonic plate lines, mountains, etc.), barometric pressure, the list goes on. Indeed, oceanic currents are partially caused by these differences in sea area level heights (the other reason is oceanic temperature). Nothing huge, much different than a few centimeters, but enough to make a big difference on how our planet works.

If not - then how can your own sources come up with "28.871391076088003ft" as an increase in the sea level?

You're stating that as if the number is definitive for all areas; it's based off the averages and means of models constructed based upon the data collected, and therefore is indeed itself an average increase statistic. For some countries, like the Netherlands that's located below what is our (the United States') sea level height, it would be measured differently, and in the event they flooded would be a different numerical value. But on.

Where would this increase take place?

Mostly in the northern and southern areas of oceanic waters, given the current flowing patterns of oceanic currents. But, when the ice caps are gone, the currents will be altered (no longer will the North Pole or Antarctic be in the way to block them from free-flowing all the way around), and we can only wonder at what will happen then (I'm not aware of any computer models that have been constructed to study this; I'm personally not aware, but that of course does not mean there aren't some out there).

I mean - physics says any body of liquid will try to, in general, get itself to its lowest equal level.

A single uniform body of liquid, not many interconnected non-uniform bodies. Which is essentially what oceans and seas are, excluding distinguishing features above and below the surface.

So if sea level in new york is at one point, and off the coast of North Carolina its 5 foot lower - explain to me why the water doesn't just even itself out....

It would move to do so (the water from New York). But because it's such a large volume, it would cause the waters off the coast of North Carolina to actually move. This is why we have currents (one reason, anyway; the other also relating to temperatures), the only difference being we don't have that huge of gaps in surface heights (centimeters yes; several feet no, though it can happen when you have a tsunami occur when the tides are pulled back out to sea before returning to shore).

because any liquid will try to do exactly that.

Didn't you say that "generally, theory doesn't match reality an awful lot in the real world"?;) Anyway like I said, this isn't a small body of water, let alone a uniformed one. It's an interconnected network of non-uniformed bodies with different properties about them.

Now oceanography is definitely not something I know about -

Surprise, surprise.

but I do understand the physical properties of liquid,

Apparently not the physical properties of the hydrosphere and their main oceanic element.

and something isn't adding up here.

Actually, everything is. The problem is you just don't understand the science beyond a small and limited scale.

Now based on those physical properties - if a source claims that 100% melting would equal a 22.96 ft rise - how is it that a 20% melt does not equal a 20% rise?

You're saying again that it would equal a 22.96ft rise, just through the percents value; as I've explained, that doesn't mean that's what it would be everywhere world wide, for the reasons I gave previously and further elaborated upon. Differences in sea level heights, currents, sea temperatures, barometric pressures, etc. This is accounting for the unknown variables' values.

Now as I posted above - if we are talking sea ice only -

What kind of sea ice: from glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets, icebergs... what?

I understand why it would have NO rise.

...what?

However, on one hand you want to say "the changes would be minimal" - and then you want to quote sources that say the increase we would see is one of disaster sized importance...

The changes would be small if it were just one thing, which SOME of the studies have been focusing on (just one thing). But it's not just one thing that's melting in the real world here. Like I said, glaciers are melting, exit glaciers are melting, icebergs are melting, ice caps are melting, ice sheets are melting... do you not see how it adds up to be a lot of water being put out there into the oceans eventually?

Dude - make up your mind!

Dude... pay attention. "The changes would be small if it were just one thing, which SOME of the studies have been focusing on (just one thing). But it's not just one thing that's melting in the real world here. Like I said, glaciers are melting, exit glaciers are melting, icebergs are melting, ice caps are melting, ice sheets are melting... do you not see how it adds up to be a lot of water being put out there into the oceans eventually?"

I also do not find it suprising that you sure didnt want to touch the email issue -

Because there's nothing left to touch on. I've already shown, pages ago, that the emails prove nothing about global warming being a hoax or call its existence into question, I've given the true stories behind them from the perspective of the scientists, and I've also shown why the cherry-picked ones and sentences you've been using would not be admissible evidence for such conspiracies (despite what you and others claim) because of how vague these sentiments are about the exact natures of the bits of data collected by the scientists.

since it did in fact show that the then head of CRU was aware of the FoIA request

No. He said that IF there was an FoIA request, he WOULD delete the data on his hard drive and pass it along to Scott, for archiving purposes and for it to be accessed by any who wished to see it. He did not state, nor was there even any hint by him, that he knew of a forthcoming FoIA request.

and emailed out requesting that same data be deleted (in violation of the law).

Hardly. It's only in violation if none of it survived and if all of it was intentionally deleted. But, it DID survive in a copied format (the information that was sent to Scott) and was not intentionally deleted; it was lost when Scott's hard drive crashed. Simple.

I am sure some lame defense will be forthcoming on that - probably one just slamming the source since the parent company is "anti-gw" right?

Wrong.:03:

Oh and no comment either on the IPCC, WMO or UN being poltical entities -

The IPCC is a governmental/scientific organization that is obliged to study, report on, and take in information from other scientists that pertains to the issues of global warming, climate change, and greenhouse gases. The primary thing they do, however, is publish data by other scientists (hence why you saw Rahmstorf's paper cited in the Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009 report). The WMO is no different. They are both governmental and scientific organizations- jointed. Not one or the other as you baselessly (and falsely, might I add) claim. The UN a political entity? Wow. None of us ever knew that...*sarcasm*. Redundancy: Because Someone Has To State The Obvious. Hurr durr.

just a bunch of graphs that say "fossil fuel / CO2 is evil" in one way or the other....

No- global warming aside, there's nothing problematic about pumping billions of tons per year of gases poisonous to us into the atmosphere... what a stooge you are.:haha: CO2 evil? Well hey- you're making the personifications here man, not me.

and of course some of those pretty pictures originate with the IPCC themselves.... but of course they wouldn't have a political agenda though...

But of course you wouldn't bother checking to see where the graphs came from in the first place. There was ONE that came directly from the IPCC. All the others came from scientists that are not members of the organization; that belong to different universities, organizations, units of research, institutes, etc.

Which of course at this point - its only fair to remind our fair readers that most of the IPCC data -

Here comes the soapbox again; "it's only fair to remind our fair readers". You sound as bad as one of those Fox News correspondents. "Our fair listeners/fans/etc." Stick to the topic if you please.

whether from the CRU or not - originates from the same WMO that admits it supports political action on environmental issues.

What's wrong with that? Can't we as groups or individuals support political action against environmental issues if we want- let alone issues that will destroy us unless we get something done about them? Jesus, Haplo. I overestimated your intelligence over the course of the last few posts you made.

No way that data that originates from them could possibly be suspect either right?

You can make anything suspect if you want. But it still doesn't prove a goddamn thing about them. It's just your own unworthy suspicions and paranoid attitude getting the best of you. "IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY! GLOBAL WARMING IS A POLITICAL LIE! THE SCIENTISTS LIE!":haha: I might put this "intelligent" conversation (which it has since devolved into) up on Conspiracy Theorists Say the Darndest Things.

http://www.fstdt.com/

Quote# 69479

I cant say I dont feel a slight tinge of justification towards those who have called me just the @crazy consiracy theorist who knows nothing about so called real science, hopefully this will wake many people up to the dogmatic pathetically politically oriented priesthood science has become.

This has now been confirmed as real and many of those involved are being pressured to step down from their positions, and all this in light of the upcoming Copenhagen treaty, which effectively seals our fate and lays the groundwork for the systematic destruction of first world economies and and massive transfer of wealth from 1st to 3rd world countries, though the likes of carbon taxes etc, carbon taxes effectively meaning we are taxing breathing, and the new President of Europe stated recently, this will be the first year of global governance, and copenhagen is the reason why.

Dont let this story fade, spread it far and wide, it is one of the most important stories of the century and unless addressed in the context of copenhagen, will be a travesty.

This is just confirmation of what many already knew, that Anthropogenic Global warming is one of the worst scams in history.

Just look at the man behind it and what he is brought to, the snakeoil soon to be green billionaire was recently caught photoshopping the image of his book and saying it was nasa data, making the effects of global warming seem worse, and then of course theres his famous hockey stick graph scam, and this scumbag won a Nobel Prize?

Sometimes I just dont know, then again if you know who owns the Nobel Prize System, it becomes pretty obvious.


SPREAD THIS FAR AND WIDE!!!!

Outlawstar, Anime UK News (http://forums.animeuknews.net/viewtopic.php?t=11647) 12 Comments (http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=69479) [1/15/2010 7:57:13 AM]

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=69479

I'm curious to know what you'll respond with next, because it's painfully funny to hear all the things you're saying. At the same time, I'm scared, because I may die laughing first.

Okay - now I am REALLY confused. Neon - were your sources supposed to show the arctic water was warming? Cuz if so, uhm... they didn't exactly do that.

"Observations at a NABOS (http://nabos.iarc.uaf.edu/) mooring in the vicinity of Spitsbergen (Fig. O.3) along the entry point of the AWCT showed that the monthly mean AWCT at 260 m reached a maximum of ~3.8°C in November-December 2006. Subsequently, the temperature at this location has declined or cooled, reaching ~2.8°C in 2008.

No, they weren't. The ice itself doesn't have to warm. That's what I've been trying to tell you. If the water these glaciers and ice sheets, caps, etc. are resting IN is warming, that's all it would take. Melts it from below, causes it to weaken and break off into the sea. Hence these massive collapses you sometimes see people get on tape show up on the news or YouTube.

This was from your second citing - and is referencing the entry point for water going into the Arctic polar area... So it actually concurs and states that the water has minutely declined in temperature.

You're not making any sense at all, mate. The water is not the ice. The water can easily absorb the energy from sunlight and the UV-radiation. Ice acts as an excellent repusler of UV-radiation and can survive absorbing sunlight without too much trouble. Some melts, but because of the cold temperatures at the poles, the melted ice doesn't melt fully. When night hits and the temperatures decrease to way below negative, it refreezes. Some is lost, but not much. This is another issue where the degradation of the ozone layer by CFCs enters into the situation. Because it's not there in the upper layers of the atmosphere, more UV-radiation is allowed to enter and more energy from sunlight. This causes increased warming of the waters, not counting the increased particle density of other greenhouse gases.

If the entering water is 1.0 degrees celsius colder than normal - thats cooling.

And this happens in trends. It cools from time to time because of the oceanic currents, but that hardly matters if it drops one year by 1*C and the next rises back up by 2*C or anything greater than 1.0*C because of the seawater temperatures rising.

This is water coming from outside the arctic after all - where the water would be expected to be warmer than normal - not colder. That doesn't work out to the ocean's being warmer....

Actually, it does. Temperature-sensitive satellite imagery shows that the ocean waters, as well as landmasses, are increasing in temperature.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/42000/42392/GISS_temperature_2009.jpg
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/42000/42392/GISS_temperature_2000-09.jpg

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42392

Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, Earth’s surface temperatures have increased since 1880. The last decade has brought temperatures to the highest levels ever recorded, and the last year of the decade (2009) was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, is based on temperatures recorded at weather stations around the world and satellite data over the oceans.

These maps illustrate just how much warmer temperatures were in 2009 (top image) and the decade (2000-2009, lower image) compared to average temperatures recorded between 1951 and 1980 (a common reference period for climate studies). In both images, the most extreme warming, shown in red, was in the Arctic. Very few areas saw cooler than average temperatures, shown in blue in both time periods. Gray areas over Africa and parts of the Southern Ocean are places where temperatures were not recorded.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures, despite an unseasonably cool December (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42260) in much of North America, Europe, and Asia. The year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years—1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007—as the second warmest year since modern recordkeeping began in 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

“There’s always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year’s ranking, but usually that misses the point,” said James Hansen, the director of GISS. “There’s substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated.”
January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record.


Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880.


The first citation - the one with the graph - shows 2003 to be the "hottest" ocean year - after a significant climb in the 1990's. However, since 2003 - that graph - both the yearly average and the three month average - shows a trend of overall slightly decreasing temperatures (though nowhere near going back to the 1990 levels - as yet).

I never spotted any graph or any paragraph sentence that stated "since 2003...both the yearly average and the three month average show a trend of overall slightly decreasing temperatures". There's a chart on there, but it doesn't have 2003 even listed along the x-axis. The contrary, actually, is visible in the second source's imagery photographs- that take into account not only the landmass of the Arctic, but the waters surrounding it:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/figures/Fig5c3_2008-600.jpg

Now the third citing does speak on temperatures increasing - and 5 degrees C is no small increase either. However - it does state the measurement was in one location - so there is no information as to whether this was a localized anomoly, or a widespread event.

While his graphs may be that way, you never bothered commenting on my graphs that I meticulously cited and explained to you about, which were not just taken in one location. You simply dismissed them as being all from the IPCC (even though only ONE was) and insinuated that there was a suspect level of bias/intentional inaccuracy in the results they showed. That's hardly a rebuttal, that's just cupping your hands over your ears and making strange noises to shut out what I'm saying in the guise of intelligent written thought.

The first source is dealing with the bigger picture - and thus would not answer for us.

But it does. We're PART of the bigger picture, genius. What can you not understand about that? It's like trying to explain this to a toddler for me.

The second - as mentioned above - saw both colder and warmer than expected temperatures in various locales, suggesting the temperature in the last source is likely to be a local occurance. As such, there is no telling if it will occur again, or not.

Though the general trend since 2003 was warmer. Darker, darker, and darker. 2007 it cleared up A BIT, but as of 2009, as my graphs showned and the NASA GISS satellite imagery showed that I posted above several paragraphs ago, it warmed up again more than it had cooled.

Now I promise you - I am not trying to be difficult -

We figured that much. I'm sorry you have such difficulty understanding this. I really and sincerely am.

but anyone looking at the graph in citation 1 can see that since 2003 - there has been a slight decline in temps.

Slight decline? In the Arctic? What the devil are you on about? The satellite imagery from the second source shows that they're warming up to 2007 when they cool down by a fraction of a degree, then my imagery photographs showed they warmed back up again in 2008 and 2009 more than they had cooled.

If the melting was due to warmer oceans, then we would have seen more melting in 2003 than any other time.

2007 was warmer according to my graphs and the second source he posted.

Did we?

No because 2003 wasn't the warmest year in the decade.

I mean - does it not stand to reason that the warmer the water - the more ice melts?

It does. You're just misinterpreting the information. But don't take my word for it. Allow NASA to explain it in the form of a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjILZWW6Ko0

It works that way in my tea - and I know that is a simplistic example, but the point itself is the same.

The point is moot. Your tea does not work the way the Arctic, Atlantic, or really any ocean or sea does, especially because it's not exposed to the same conditions the ice caps, sheets, and glaciers are.

I am not disputing that the ice caps have seen a 20% decrease in size over the last 30 years. They very well might have and the graph you cited would explain quite a bit of that given the spike in the 90's. But forgive me - and maybe I am dense here - but we are talking about ice that we established isn't actually going to cause any change in sea level (which, after discussion with Stealth Hunter - I am not even so sure what that is anymore - always thought that the word "level" meant exactly that LOL).

"Might have". You still don't know that they did, even though we've shown you that they have. Neon has, I have. What is it going to take I wonder? If it melts and turns into water that becomes part of the hydrosphere's oceans/seas, it changes the sea level. Over the past few decades, it's risen just about over an inch and a half. Seems insignificant, but in a few more decades as more and more melts what kind of difference will it make then? And that's exactly what we're worried about. For the record, saying "level" or including it in a term does not mean it is EXACTLY level.

So it melts.... the problem there is what?

We have increases in sea levels by feet instead of centimeters. Floods in lowland countries and along the coastlines. Mass death for people who cannot evacuate, shifts in sea currents, changes in climate and how the Earth works on an ecosystem level, mass extinctions of animals and plants... I think I've covered most of the basics here.

I mean - if we are talking only polar ice caps (waterborne) - then ok why is that such a bad thing?

Because the Polar Ice Caps are what regulate our oceanic currents (partially, anyway; as far as how the currents flow and move around the globe that is). If they go, the way the entire planet works will be altered. Imagine what it would be like without monsoon season, La Nina and El Nino, etc. My paragraph above covered some of the issues we'd be facing in the event it all melts. And it will if we don't start reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

If we are talking about glacial ice- I could see the problem as that would cause a sea level rise.

Yes, but how exactly can you still not see and understand that the exact same would result from ice caps, ice sheets, etc. melting? They ALL would contribute water to the oceans. Too much for comfort, anyway.

However - one thing that keeps getting missed here on the whole "sea level rising" thing is that if glacial ice melts - the increase in temperature also opens up currently unusable earth, does it not?

Yes and no. Some areas would be flooded over, others would be opened up. Not that the latter would matter, since the oceanic currents would be so badly messed up that our weather patterns would change completely and we'd have to contend with that issue as well as the problems of famine, mass death, extinction of numerous animal and plant species, etc. The funny thing about the ecosystem is that when you destroy one part of it, even the smallest, it always has this funny way of getting completely FUBAR'd.

So the warming of the ocean thaws currently inhospitable land masses - which would result in glacial warming - which then allows previously unseen plant growth to occur... This is bad why?

On this one issue? It isn't. But allow me to reiterate: it wouldn't matter, since the oceanic currents would be so badly messed up that our weather patterns would change completely and we'd have to contend with that issue as well as the problems of famine, mass death, extinction of numerous animal and plant species, etc. The funny thing about the ecosystem is that when you destroy one part of it, even the smallest, it always has this funny way of getting completely FUBAR'd.

And if all this is bad - then shouldn't that first graph - which shows the temps decreasing over the last 7 years - be reassuring?

Over the last seven years? Barely three. Even then, and I should have mentioned this earlier, it's only discussing heat content energy in joules. As in of the actual ice landmass, not oceanic temperatures. But I've already stated like four times why it wouldn't matter in the long run. The Earth would basically become comparable to Venus at one point, perhaps thousands of years in the future. No oceans, a lot of atmospheric gases, high atmospheric pressure, high temperatures, you get the gist... I hope. I've been wrong before when it comes from what I assume you'll pick up and retain in that noggin.:yawn:

[NeonSamurai]

I have to ask Haplo, have you ever taken any university level statistics courses? As one of the areas you seem to have some difficulty with is statistics, both as far as interpretation, and understanding why statistics are used in the first place.

The reason I say this is because data recorded in the natural world is by its nature 'noisy' with lots of potential sources of interference which can throw off single measurements.
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/truescor.php

Now what scientists do to get around this is to take multiple samples and then average them out to show trends (and hopefully get close to the true score). You will notice that most of the graphs Stealth Hunter has been posting have multiple lines, one being the short term averaged data (monthly, bimonthly, yearly,etc) and the other being the longer term averaged data (3 years, 5 years, 10 years, etc). The longer term stuff is what is used to show a trend as it levels out the ammout of error or noise that occurs sample to sample from natural fluctuation such as solar output.


I remember when people were going on about I think it was 2008 being a cooler year than average, and saying that that one year proved global warming was a hoax. The problem though was that was just one year, it could (and was) just be statistical variance (in that case I believe it was due to lower solar output) or natural fluctuations. This is why when looking at trends you average things over longer intervals and over several intervals to see what the overall trend is.

Here is some wiki info on solar variation for fun (which is a big factor in actual temperature)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation



Anyhow, I have to inform you all that I am going to have to back out of this debate for the next month or so. I am in the middle of a major crunch period and will be for the next while (till around late April). I really hate to leave off in the middle of this when I think we have been making some good progress. Once the crunch is over I'll be more then happy to resume the debate then. I may still pop in and make some small comments, but I do not have the time for long rebuttals or any researching into the subject, it is just far to time consuming. I hope you all understand.

[Stealth Hunter]

Anyhow, I have to inform you all that I am going to have to back out of this debate for the next month or so. I am in the middle of a major crunch period and will be for the next while (till around late April). I really hate to leave off in the middle of this when I think we have been making some good progress. Once the crunch is over I'll be more then happy to resume the debate then. I may still pop in and make some small comments, but I do not have the time for long rebuttals or any researching into the subject, it is just far to time consuming. I hope you all understand.

Best of luck, old boy.:salute::up:

[NeonSamurai]

PS. I think a source of confusion for Haplo is the relationships between pack ice and the rest. He is right I believe in the sense that pack ice (free floating ice that formed from ocean water, in the ocean) will not change the water level if it melts as it displaces an equal volume already as frozen water compared to liquid water.

Problem though is when we introduce sources of ice that originate on land, like glaciers that run into the ocean and produce icebergs and the like. It is the destabilization of land based ice sources like glaciers melting faster then they regrow, that is causing the water level to increase. Especially if temperatures in the antarctic got high enough to cause those glaciers to melt.

This is aside of course from all the environmental and weather havoc loosing ice in the north pole would cause.

[antikristuseke]

PS. I think a source of confusion for Haplo is the relationships between pack ice and the rest. He is right I believe in the sense that pack ice (free floating ice that formed from ocean water, in the ocean) will not change the water level if it melts as it displaces an equal volume already as frozen water compared to liquid water.


What about heat expansion?

[CaptainHaplo]

Neon - I took a statistics course - but that was a decade and a half or more ago, and to be honest - your right - it was definitely not the high water mark of my courses that semester.

You take that month off and do what you need to, I will use the time to try and get a better grip on this all - and when you return we will continue.

Best of luck and effort to combine for the desired outcome my friend! :yeah:

[NeonSamurai]

What about heat expansion?

Figured I would answer this. Water expands as it freezes (also as it heats up) but its total mass remains the same (meaning if you freeze or boil a specific amount of water, its mass remains unchanged, but the space it wants to occupy (density) gets larger), only the density changes and it still displaces the same amount of water, just that part of the ice sticks up above the surface of the water (like icebergs for example). When heating up the change in density is minuscule until you reach the boiling point (at 1 atmosphere of pressure).

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html
http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/javascript/water-properties.html


Anyhow thanks for the kind words and understand Stealthunter and CaptainHaplo. It is much appreciated :DL

[antikristuseke]

Fair enough. I just figured that a tiny change in such a huge non uniform body might be enough to cause larger changes in the total space that water would occupy. Thanks for the answer.

[tater]

BY training I'm an astrophysics geek. I'm open to the AGW hypothesis, but I think their current code—only glimpsed because it was leaked in the CRU debacle, they refused to ever actually publish their code—is pretty, um, un-robust. :)

I'd not go out on a limb in either direction, frankly. The notion that industrial output could alter climate is without question plausible, but with respect to policy, it needs to be very well characterized so a cost-benefit analysis can be done.

So I'm not in the "hoax" camp, though I remain deeply skeptical. From reading the CRU stuff (admitted by the authors to be entirely real) it is clear that they colluded to not "show their work" via denying FOIA requests, "losing" data, etc. They also clearly work hard to minimize any historical warm periods while cherry-picking to increase recent warming trends in their model.

That is something to remember, the very notion of "average temperature" is a statistical construct that requires subjective input in terms of programming. How does one weight temperatures over sea vs land? How does one compare historical temp data collected differently than modern satellite data? How do you calibrate temperature proxies (tree rings, ice cores, and so forth) accurately enough to make claims that can have the temp increase/decrease as some fraction of a degree?

I think anyone claiming it's "settled science" in either direction is either intentionally disingenuous or not very smart. This is why when I hear climate scientists talking about things with great certainty I instantly distrust them since I'm used to real scientists putting appropriate (large) error bars on things. (heck, I'm used to being happy with "order of magnitude" level answers :) ). The usual response is that they have to not be so conditional when talking top non-experts. Sorry, but that is activism, not science IMO. If people are too stupid to understand uncertainty, tough, deal with it. By stating something like a tiny temp increase with certainty, you lose a lot of credibility. (there is plenty that CAN be stated with certainty, but the output of a bunch of crap, spaghetti code is not among that set)

I remember asking Meave Leakey about a species attribution and lineage to modern man, and really respected her "we simply don't know" answer.

[NeonSamurai]

Fair enough. I just figured that a tiny change in such a huge non uniform body might be enough to cause larger changes in the total space that water would occupy. Thanks for the answer.

Well to put a numbers behind it, the density at 4c (the maximal density point) is 0.999975 g/cm^3, at 40c (not likely to occur naturally) the density is 0.9922187 g/cm^3 (this is for fresh water, salt water is more dense). Now the important thing to remember is that water temperature is not constant in the ocean, either in location or depth, the deeper you go the colder it gets, only water close to the surface would be higher then a few degrees above zero. And also there is the factor of water pressure and temperature. So only really the surface water has any chance of changing density to speak of.

[tater]

A good article about statistics in science.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_Are,_Its_Wrong

Highly relevant to climate science since virtually all the AGW science is entirely predicated on statistical models.

Another good article that is a rebuttal to the above:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/defending-statistical-methods.html

Note that I think his basic premise that the first author was somehow saying all statistics are bad, or entirely discredit sciences that use it is wrong. I didn't read the first article as more than a cautionary tale that statistics need to be used properly to be meaningful. The 2d article puts by previous post about "not knowing one way or the other" into a clearer light, too.

From a policy standpoint, you need to do a cost analysis of doing nothing, doing nothing and later mitigating, or doing whatever the AGW mitigation schemes are. Then, you need to weight them based on a "hard-science" probability of the different models unfolding, as well as the range of outcomes. If the AGW mitigation is not clearly superior, I think it fails the test. The notion that it's better to do something than nothing is false, since in many cases, the idea is that short of some radical change, mitigation actually doesn't do anything (chaotic effects, basically).

[SteamWake]

I reserect this thread from its page 3 slumber to bring you yet another refutiation.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climate_change_happening_before_your_eyes

[Tribesman]

I reserect this thread from its page 3 slumber to bring you yet another refutiation.

So a small snippet from an unusually very cold couple of months begins to approach one point of a 30 year average which means??????
Oh, it means you don't get it at all.
All you need to know to see why your "refutation" makes no sense Steamwake is on page 1 of this topic.:down:

[August]

I reserect this thread from its page 3 slumber to bring you yet another refutiation.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climate_change_happening_before_your_eyes

Interesting article Steam. Thanks for posting.

[NeonSamurai]

And my ultra quicky response is that a year (or in this case what looks like a few months) does not a trend make.

Sometimes I think high school should teach statistics relating to science, as that has to be the number one mistake made by non scientists when it comes to them trying to understand scientific data and reasoning, not knowing how to work with statistics or what they mean or indicate.

Anyhow.
<goes back to work>

[Skybird]

And my ultra quicky response is that a year (or in this case what looks like a few months) does not a trend make.

In vain, Neon. Don't know how often I have pointed out the very same over the years. It simply gets ignored as if it never was explained by anyone.

[Aramike]

And my ultra quicky response is that a year (or in this case what looks like a few months) does not a trend make.Indeed.

However, on the geological timescales we're talking about, neither do a few decades.

[NeonSamurai]

In vain, Neon. Don't know how often I have pointed out the very same over the years. It simply gets ignored as if it never was explained by anyone.

I know, but I seem to have a penchant for tilting at windmills :DL


Indeed.

However, on the geological timescales we're talking about, neither do a few decades.

Depends on which scales we are looking at, But yes at the geological level that is true. Though I would point out that Global Warming theories come from many different scientific fields including areas where looking at time periods of a decade or 2 is more appropriate.

[baggygreen]

One thing I haven't had a satisfactory answer to is this: Why is 1979 deemed so important? Why is the the norm only taken from 1979? Who says that what we're experiencing over the past 500 years is 'normal'?

the vostok ice core showed that the temperatures we're experiencing are certainly not normal in the context of the earth's past 400,000 years.

The average temperature for the past 400,000 years, which is shown by that ice core sample, shows we're currently at an temperature well above the mean. so why 1979??

We all know that if the earth hits an ice age we're buggered anyway.

what i think i'm trying to get at is ultimately, who is honestly arrogant enough to say that the planet now must stay withini a narrow band of temperatures, when it has changed so much in the past. Surely noone really thinks that we're going to be able to stop any apparent warming now, and then stop cooling later on??

[Skybird]

Sigh... I often said that over the years. It is not only about the extremes at the upper and lower limit that define the band inside which climate phenomeneons take place. It is about the speed of chnage in them. And what we currently see is an acceleration in warming of global temperatures that is so quick and fast that you cannot explain it with natural causes, only. This acceleration is often been described as a three digit factor.

The acceleration must have been caused by something outside the range of natural causes. And it seems that the beginning of this trend of drastically accelerated warming correlates with the the emission of industrial gas. This correlation is extremely high, meaning: the two points of time marking both, beginning of that acceleration, and beginning of industrialisation, are very, very close to each other. That high correlation makes the probability that both are just coincidence (random chance) extremely unlikely.


Attention everybody: Acceleration. Correlation. Try to engrave these two words in your longterm memories now, dear children. Two or three years of explaining it over and over and over and over again should be enough for even the most tiresome of minds.:yawn: Certainly I become tired of explaining it over and over and over and over again myself.:zzz:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x310/AwCrapBob/322.jpg

[tater]

^ does that mean that climate scientists consult statisticians and programmers, or do they just write their own code since they did take that FORTRAN class once back in the mid 80s?

;)

tater

[NeonSamurai]

Many scientists are trained statisticians for statistical processes relating to their field. I sure as hell am, though psychology is rather stats heavy. And most labs will employ programmers too if they make use of computer programs that are not pre-built. Of course it is not unheard of for people to have more then one area of job training, I for example was a computer tech before entering my current profession.

[tater]

BTW, regarding the notion of "average temperature" that one might get from ice cores—it's not an observation, but a calculation. It is a value derived from proxies by assumptions, and is not a direct measurement. Ten people with ten assumptions could get differing temps from the same data. Calibration to the present might, or might not mean good calibration with periods farther back depending on the model. I'm quite wary of over generalized conclusions.

Even modern "average temp" is a calculated value. Weighted, too. It's not like someone takes a giant thermometer and shoves it in Bangladesh (or wherever the ******* of the Earth actually is) and gets a temperature measurement. Even satellite data has to be manipulated to provide such a figure—how does one weight over land vs ocean, does the satellite cover the whole earth, or does it miss certain regions due to orbital inclination?

So the notion of some long term global average temp is somewhat silly, IMO, particularly when the proxy is ice cores. What IS the proxy there, are they using layer thickness (what if the ice melted one year?)? Are they using dissolved CO2—doesn't that require assumptions about CO2 absorption leading or following warming (there are reasonable arguments that dissolved CO2 is released as a response to ocean warming, for example)? Tree ring proxies have certainly been troublesome statistically (they basically throw away any data that doesn't support their conclusion instead of throwing all the data in, and seeing if it works or not).

I'm not saying that a temperature history isn't interesting, but I think that the complexity of the system is such that a "global average" is not terribly meaningful. The average temperature of a star, for example, is similarly meaningless. The core temp is a function of the type of fusion cycle it is running, and the surface temp a function of convection, reradiation, etc. At least that temp is actually observable directly—though the corona is yet another region to look at. Complex systems and the idea of a single number to describe them are an odd combination.

[tater]

Many scientists are trained statisticians for statistical processes relating to their field. I sure as hell am, though psychology is rather stats heavy. And most labs will employ programmers too if they make use of computer programs that are not pre-built. Of course it is not unheard of for people to have more then one area of job training, I for example was a computer tech before entering my current profession.

Note the CRU guys, and Mann, et al. You can look at their (horrible) code. They finally hired a guy who was a programmer to go over the code and try to clean it up. His "readme" notes are available to read. I feel sorry for the guy. Note that IPCC is based on work with the (still unfixed) code. It's amateurish at best.

They were not trained in either except whatever was required for their degrees. My astrophysics degree virtually "came with" a math minor, for example, though programming was entirely optional.

I'm not saying they are wrong, but they simply do not respond to reasonable criticism of their methodology. Heck, they don't even publish their methodology. They claimed that they were bombarded with FOIA requests and it was slowing their real work. They got maybe 3 or 4 such requests over a few years, and all were because they stated conclusions derived entirely from computer models and never once published the models, OR the exact data sets used. Yes, 90-something % of the data is online, but which they choose to use matters.

Since important, public policy is involved, is it not reasonable to ask for them to have to "show their work?"

I think they knew how awful their code looked, and didn't want anyone to see it, frankly. Hard to make sweeping statements with certainty when the remarks in your own code say to ignore vast stretches of time in the results, and that it will be added back by hand (using some completely invisible methodology).

I read many of the CRU emails when they came out, and it paints a terrible picture of their discipline, frankly, and does their goals no good. I frankly don't trust them at this point—least many of the major names that appear again and again in the literature that seems to drive the political end. I'm open to AGW, but I remain (appropriately, IMHO) skeptical.

Less politics, more, and more open science, IMO.

tater

PS—money is a powerful force to drive certain conclusions, and cannot be ignored. The amount spent on "climate science" is orders of magnitude higher than it used to be. A friend of mine who is an entomologist told me that a way increase chances to get funds is to tie research to "climate change." He does comparison of Asian and New World termites... but the money pours in if he simply adds some talk about differential climate change to the grant. It's certainly a motivator for confirmation bias. Back in the '80s, I knew tons of guys working on SDI. Everyone was writing SBIRs, etc to milk that cow, too. I know my wife's friends (she's a PhD toxicologist of physician) in medical research were all over retroviruses back when HIV was the cash cow, too. Money can be good, or corrupting.

[CaptainHaplo]

Tater - the readme you are talking about is a roadmap for how the data used was so faulty it boggles the mind. Plugging in temperatures from "sources" that had no identifier - either code or lat/long coords.... Who knows if they were even real - especially since a number of them came from data "subsets" that had no original sourcing. Heck, the problems the guy had just getting the data to be accepted by various routines to spit out subset results show how questionable the data itself was. I am still reading through it, but I am beyond appalled. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject could read that and be horrified that the data that came out was used.

[SteamWake]

Since the Eruption of the Volcano in Iceland I figured it was time to bring up this old topic again :03:


A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/162b0c58-47f5-11df-b998-00144feab49a.html

[August]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/162b0c58-47f5-11df-b998-00144feab49a.html

Got to be registered to read the article. :cry:

[SteamWake]

Got to be registered to read the article. :cry:

Huh your right.. you can get to it through drudge.

I would copy paste it but it has specific copyright language.



“It used a particular statistical technique that exaggerated the effect [of recent warming],” he said.


Thats pretty much it in a nutshell though.

[Gerald]

By,PAUL KRUGMAN

Why didn’t climate-change legislation get through the Senate? The triumph of greed and cowardice.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/opinion/26krugman.html?ref=opinion

[Lord_magerius]

My bad...

*Turns oven down* :O:

[ETR3(SS)]

Nice article. I liked the part where they singled out a republican and implied that it was his fault that climate legislation didn't pass. Never mind the fact that Congress is (last I heard) under the democrats rule. Oh don't forget about the fact that both parties do this sort of thing.

Bottom line, when both parties decide to quit playing point the finger I might start listening to what spews from their mouths.:roll:

[August]

I started a fire in my fireplace in protest.

[TLAM Strike]

When are we going to get our collective heads out of our asses and end climate change by just moving the fracking Earth (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/earth_move_010207.html)....

Decreased sunlight = decreased global warming... Do I have to think of everything... ;)

[Sailor Steve]

Paul Krugman is a truly unbiased observer who never plays politics and only wants what is best for all of us.




Just like Molly Ivins was.




:rotfl2:

[nikimcbee]

To answer your question, I'll guess the Sun. Final answer:yeah:

[Dimitrius07]

My bad...

*Turns oven down* :O:

Beware when you use it next time, you might get burn first :dead::88)

[SteamWake]

Paul Krugman is a truly unbiased observer who never plays politics and only wants what is best for all of us.




Just like Molly Ivins was.




:rotfl2:

New York Times ... ;)

[Skybird]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009.php

Again, scientific research results and measuring key variables show that in 2009 it continued to become warmer - all top ten climate indices indicate that.

The page offers download by chapters, full downloads, a summary of ten pages (recommended for a quick overview), and all three options in low and high resolution pdf.

[SteamWake]

There is also a lot of chatter about how the data is skewed due to the fact that alot of the temprature monitoring stations are located in the middle of a city surrounded by asphalt and rooftops.

It's curious how global warming always comes up in the summer.

[Tribesman]

It's curious how global warming always comes up in the summer.
Ain't it a bugger with the southern hemisphere though....unless of course you go for a turtle on back of 4 elephants...which iof course means one elephant is hot as he is having a must as that is the only explanation.

Considering that elephant people might be rare on this forum so "must" might be confusing, yet knowing there are a good few equine types here, you know how bad a stallion can get when there is a mare ready.....imagine a bull elephant on a must !!!!!!!!

edit....There is also a lot of chatter...and about nazi dentistsd and concentration camps where the evil government will steal your gold teeth and melt them down in a gas furnace to prop up oil shares.

Sorry Steamwake but if you consistantly write about piles of conspiracy theories you have heard and then write" a lot of chatter" then what do you expect?

[The Third Man]

Better to have warming than cooling. My opinion only.

[mookiemookie]

Imagine what we could do if the brainpower expended on coming up with ways to ignore facts, data and reality was actually used for something productive.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Well, all I know is that two years ago our house maintained a cool 67 degrees, and now it never drops below 75. Draw your own conclusions :smug:

[Schroeder]

There is also a lot of chatter about how the data is skewed due to the fact that alot of the temprature monitoring stations are located in the middle of a city surrounded by asphalt and rooftops.

Er, I don't get the logic behind that. :hmm2:

If I have a thermometer on a rooftop in the middle of a city and it indicates an average of, let's say, 45° throughout a year and five years later it indicates an average temperature of 50° then I shall dismiss this because it was in the middle of a city?
If the temperature monitoring stations have been there for years then their early readings can be compared to their current readings, right? So if their current average readings are higher than those of the earlier days why shouldn't that be a valid observation?

[SteamWake]

edit.......and about nazi dentistsd and concentration camps where the evil government will steal your gold teeth and melt them down in a gas furnace to prop up oil shares.

Sorry Steamwake but if you consistantly write about piles of conspiracy theories you have heard and then write" a lot of chatter" then what do you expect?

Errr.... You mean these Nazis?

The so-called “urban heat island” effect leads to a local warming in more populated areas, showing slightly higher temperatures due to to increased heat generated by cities, rather than a global temperature rise. Anyhow, this argument was confuted by the IPPC, indicating that the effect of the urban heat island on the global temperature trend is no more than 0.05 °C (0.09 °F) degrees through 1990.

http://www.article-buzz.com/Article/Global-Warming-Scientists-Dispute/156499

and


But the argument over the weather stations, and how it affects an important set of data on global warming, has led to accusations of scientific fraud and may yet result in a significant revision of a scientific paper that is still cited by the UN's top climate science body.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

[Tribesman]

If I have a thermometer on a rooftop in the middle of a city and it indicates an average of, let's say, 45° throughout a year and five years later it indicates an average temperature of 50° then I shall dismiss this because it was in the middle of a city?

Don't you go geting scientific:down:, if you can't explain things to a satisfactory pre determined conclusion in simple everyday language then you are part of the conspiracy:up:

[Sailor Steve]

So, what should I make of the fact that where I live it used to consistently get up over 100 degrees F for a couple of weeks every summer, and it hasn't done' that for several years now?

Should I still draw my own conclusions?

[SteamWake]

Simply put... place more temprature measuring stations in locations that hotter than the actual temprature is going to produce tempratures that are actually hotter than the actual tempratures.

The 'over time' argument doesent hold because more measuring stations are now located in 'urban' areas that were (5 years ago) undeveloped areas. Also more measuring stations have been added in those 5 years in the heat bubble areas in relation to those located in a more neutral site.

[Tribesman]

Errr.... You mean these Nazis?

No I meant Obamas secret army of gestapo like health workers:yeah:

BTW did you actually read the articles you linked to??????:doh:

[SteamWake]

No I meant Obamas secret army of gestapo like health workers:yeah:

BTW did you actually read the articles you linked to??????:doh:

Oh!!! the IRS !!! why dident you just say so ;)

Yes I did. Its a pretty balanced article when taken as a whole puts things in doubt.

[mookiemookie]

http://imgur.com/0IEuQ.jpg

[antikristuseke]

So, what should I make of the fact that where I live it used to consistently get up over 100 degrees F for a couple of weeks every summer, and it hasn't done' that for several years now?

Should I still draw my own conclusions?

Well, yes and no really.

You should raw conclusions as to how your local area has been affected, but just localized data can not be used to establish a general pattern. Here we had the coldest winter since 1942 and now are in the hottest winter since, well, ever in our recorded history. This fits pretty well with what scientists have predicted for the climate in this area. The theory of global warming does not actually state that it will get uniformly warmer everywhere during all times of the year, but rather that the extremes will be further apart and the average of the two will be higher.

[AVGWarhawk]

WTH did Bush do now? :hmmm:

[Skybird]

So, what should I make of the fact that where I live it used to consistently get up over 100 degrees F for a couple of weeks every summer, and it hasn't done' that for several years now?

Should I still draw my own conclusions?
You should understand that local weather and global climate are two different things both regarding the dimension of space and the dimension of time. ;)

The chnage in dispersion patterns of organisms and species also indicate a warming of climate: that warmner climate zones are spreading, and coller climate zones are shrinking. Talking of insects, birds, fishes, and certain bacterias. Yo9u see warmth-depending species emerging in areas where ten and twenty years before they would not have been able to survive. The equatorial deserts are fastly expanding, not shrinking.

Also, the oceans warm up, with all the changes to the oceanographic environment that means in salintiy, oxygen, ph index, disperison patterns of higher life forms, and by changes in the latter: reproduction cycles slowing down, making any losses even more hurtful. When I read that in the past 50% years the level of phytoplancton in all oceans dropped by an alarming 40% and that cureently the present levels shrink by 1% per year, then I know that something is gpoing on: and that is not that overfishing the oceans has something to do with it. The massve spreading of yellyfish populations in practically all oceans also indicate that the maritime environment is turning upside down. With regard to both symptoms, we talk of water temperature (too warm for plancton), and shifting ph-levels (favouring yellyfish, killing fish). Both symptoms are two of the most obvious and alarming flashlight alerts there are, I am surprised that general attention focusses so little on it.

[AVGWarhawk]

You should understand that local weather and global climate are two different things both regarding the dimension of space and the dimension of time. ;)

The chnage in dispersion patterns of organisms and species also indicate a warming of climate: that warmner climate zones are spreading, and coller climate zones are shrinking. Talking of insects, birds, fishes, and certain bacterias. Yo9u see warmth-depending species emerging in areas where ten and twenty years before they would not have been able to survive. The equatorial deserts are fastly expanding, not shrinking.

Also, the oceans warm up, with all the changes to the oceanographic environment that means in salintiy, oxygen, ph index, disperison patterns of higher life forms, and by changes in the latter: reproduction cycles slowing down, making any losses even more hurtful. When I read that in the past 50% years the level of phytoplancton in all oceans dropped by an alarming 40% and that cureently the present levels shrink by 1% per year, then I know that something is gpoing on: and that is not that overfishing the oceans has something to do with it. The massve spreading of yellyfish populations in practically all oceans also indicate that the maritime environment is turning upside down. With regard to both symptoms, we talk of water temperature (too warm for plancton), and shifting ph-levels (favouring yellyfish, killing fish). Both symptoms are two of the most obvious and alarming flashlight alerts there are, I am surprised that general attention focusses so little on it.

Global warming/global climate change? Yes. Enough proof in my own backyard. This is all a man made issue? To some extent. I believe there are other contributing factors that we can not examine. Do we really know what made the dinosaurs extinct?