In the End

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:10 pm

Just another hoax perpetuated by petty politically motivated people:

\"But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said this and other exchanges show researchers have colluded to establish the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.

\"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research,\" said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. \"Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position.\"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 93_pf.html

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:11 pm

So which part are you saying is a hoax? That these people may be more interested in spreading an alarmist political agenda? Or that some have \"colluded to establish the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.\" ?

Please clarify.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:36 pm

I would say what the article implies, Global warming.

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:28 pm

So ... You're saying that Global Warming is a hoax? (just making sure)

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 6:22 am

No, I'm not saying....the hacked emails are implying that people have \"Massaged\" the data to bolster the global warming hypothesis. I'd have to see more of the emails to see how wide spread the situation is though.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:36 am

Both sides of the global warming debate have problems. The main reason it gets so much heated debate is because we simply don't know yet. The whole issue needs more science and less politics.

There are a lot of things that can cause increased warming or cooling on the earth that are not caused by human sources. For instance the earths orbit around the sun is elliptical and varied, the average distance from the earth to the sun varies over hundreds of thousands of years. If the earth gets closer or further away from the sun, it has a real impact on global temperatures.
Then the output of the sun is not a constant. From what I understand of the life cycle of stars, the sun will get brighter and larger as it ages and burns different fuel. A brighter and larger sun means a warmer earth.
Even intergalactic cosmic rays and the suns magnetic field seem to have an effect on the climate. As the suns magnetic field grows stronger and weaker in its 11 year cycle it repels fewer or greater cosmic rays, which may have a hand in cloud formation. More or less clouds spells changes in global temperature averages.

Carbon emissions on our part would accelerate any warming caused by natural sources. Forces outside our control could be leading the charge on global warming and we are only giving it a little push, we just don't know yet.

I don't think global warming alone should be the only reason for cutting carbon emissions and curbing the use of fossil fuels. I think they should be reduced purely because of pollution period and because fossil fuels are a limited resource that we should be conserving. We do need better, cleaner and greater amount of energy than is practical to deliver permanently with fossil fuel.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:43 pm

Make India and China sign on first.

Why should the US cripple itself and take the economic poison pill for the rest of the world when they aren't going to lift a finger?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 6:10 pm

Krom wrote: Then the output of the sun is not a constant. From what I understand of the life cycle of stars, the sun will get brighter and larger as it ages and burns different fuel. A brighter and larger sun means a warmer earth.
Even intergalactic cosmic rays and the suns magnetic field seem to have an effect on the climate. As the suns magnetic field grows stronger and weaker in its 11 year cycle it repels fewer or greater cosmic rays, which may have a hand in cloud formation. More or less clouds spells changes in global temperature averages.

This is really interesting stuff. I was just reading about it last Friday. I had no idea that the Sun itself generates a HUGE field that extends a good deal beyond the solar system. This protects us from the harshest cosmic rays. Our own atmosphere does some work too. But as you stated as the sun cycles every 10 years or so and it continues to grow older, some of those things fluctuate. Wish I had the link to what I was reading... :
Personally, I don't buy into the hype or the idea. I really think the whole weather system is far too complex to make an accurate assessment. Certainly not as "precise" as we've heard in the media. I've done a little deep research (I need to get back after it too) and I wasn't impressed with what I found...but I've ranted about that before.

I agree with TB. China's output of toxins exceeds ours by a long shot. I've heard a lot of PR lately that paints China in a warm glowing light, but it's a lie. From what I read in a National Geographic a year or so ago, In many of their larger cities, the air quality is horrid; far worse than LA can concoct during an air inversion. Also, many of these "global initiatives" hurt developing nations from utilizing their natural resources to continue developing or at all. I'd really like to see Hydrogen tech developed more in the commercial sector.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:26 pm

ThunderBunny wrote:Make India and China sign on first.

Why should the US cripple itself and take the economic poison pill for the rest of the world when they aren't going to lift a finger?

Because it's the right thing to do? Because we should lead by example? If there's something right to do, should we really not do it because no one else will? I guess I never found *that* argument against reducing our carbon emissions compelling. It just seems like weaseling out of our obligations to me.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:31 pm

Who died and left us with the “obligation” to reduce emissions? This is making way too many assumptions.

“Because it's the right thing to do?”

No, throwing yourself on the grenade is only worthwhile, if it actually saves the other guys.

“Because we should lead by example?”

No again, the rest of the word wants us to get the hell out of the way, the US century is over…time for others to “lead”.

The human race is not going to change the inevitable…that being whatever is going to happen to the climate because of carbon emission…simply because it’s all going to be released anyway! All of it, so the idea that “slowing it down” is some kind of solution is crazy, and only serves political desires.

Krom is right, we need to develop other energy sources, not just because of the pollution, but because the burning of carbon based fuels won’t last forever.

And, we need to start thinking about living in the future, and stop all the bickering over who is responsible for the crap, and pointing fingers.

We are guilty as a race…that’s all there is to it.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:41 pm

Jeff250 wrote:
ThunderBunny wrote:Make India and China sign on first.

Why should the US cripple itself and take the economic poison pill for the rest of the world when they aren't going to lift a finger?
Because it's the right thing to do? Because we should lead by example? If there's something right to do, should we really not do it because no one else will? I guess I never found *that* argument against reducing our carbon emissions compelling. It just seems like weaseling out of our obligations to me.

Wait a minute, do we not already do the right thing? Look at the laws controlling things like auto emissions and CAFE standards. Do India and China even come close? How about EPA controls. China and India have similar EPA rules? I'd say we are already way in the lead and by no means are we weaseling out on any "obligations".

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:45 pm

Well…you are arguing with someone who believes if you don’t give it “all” away, you haven’t given enough.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:01 pm

Spidey wrote:Who died and left us with the “obligation” to reduce emissions?

We have an obligation to make sure that we are responsible about *our* emissions. And this responsibility has nothing to do with how well anyone else is doing it. I'm not saying that we have to make up for anyone else's emissions. In fact, just the opposite--our responsibility over our emissions is not a function of how anyone else is handling their own.

woodchip wrote:Do India and China even come close?

Of course not, but I don't think that that is the right question to be asking.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:10 am

I don't think questioning China and other developing countries contributions to CO2 emissions is irrelevent at all. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/ ... -2030-co2/

and the chart (Fig. 2) here - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissi ... alghg.html

China's increased emissions, especially since about 2000, are due largely to coal use. If China keeps up this pace we should all be concerned. I think we should be very careful about making significant changes to the planetary atmosphere. However, I don't think that knee-jerk, politically motivated mandates will lead to the most productive policy decisions.

Firewheel · Post by **Firewheel** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:50 am

Here's some more fuel for the fire!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... n-science/

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:28 pm

...fwippp.....(tosses another log on the fire)

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24 ... 1180.shtml

George Monbiot wrote:It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).

Yeah. Pretty disappointing, alright .....

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:31 pm

To me the following statement from one of the emails pretty much sums up the neo climatologists:

\"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. \"

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:02 am

quote mining FTW!

Sniper · Post by **Sniper** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:28 am

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:50 pm

Pandora wrote:quote mining FTW!

So is there no substance to the allegations, just a conspiracy from Big Oil?
Or are the quotes mined from a body of evidence that will expose the "There is no need for further debate we have a consensus of all qualified scientists" to be a steaming pile of methane weeping bovine feces?

Of course to properly expose anything you need the cooperation of the media and since their golden boy is on his way to accept his Nobel Peace Prize and then do another U.S. Sucks performance at the climate talks in Copenhagen I guess we won't see much of this story except on Fox News.... conveniently by leaving Fox as the only outlet to initially touch the story and Obama's Whitehouse having declared Fox as 'not news' all the Kool-Aid drinkers will see the story as lies without having to think for themselves. Keep those slaves on the plantation Obamamedia you'll need them next election!

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:34 pm

Will Robinson wrote:...Keep those slaves on the plantation Obamamedia you'll need them next election!

Assuming China doesn't call in its loan first before then. ...and you think I'm kidding?

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:39 pm

Will, I was addressing the specific 'travesty' quote of Woody's in the post above. For this quote at least it is abundantly clear that it means something completely different when taken in context. The cool-aid drinkers are those who don't do their own research to see this.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:20 pm

Pandora, why not elucidate us with the context instead of just posting meaningless gibberish?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:29 pm

Full paragraph:

\"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.\"

So the travesty in reality is the whole smorgasbord of collecting data and trying to bend it to fit a politically driven conclusion. Lets face it, dishonest science is bad science, especially when reality sits there staring you in the face.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:46 pm

... I've been saying that the last 2+ years

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:18 am

Woodchip wrote:Pandora, why not elucidate us with the context instead of just posting meaningless gibberish?

He is pissed off that climate science is still stuck in the 25-30 year mode, that is, that they CAN account for long term variations, but that short term variations still elude them. He says that we need a better observational system that allows us to track energy distribution in the global system more effectively. He lays it out quite nicely in a paper that is actually referred to in the same email (this paper is actually what the email is about! --- if you would have read the email and not just the soundbites you would know that!).

So the travesty in reality is the whole smorgasbord of collecting data and trying to bend it to fit a politically driven conclusion. Lets face it, dishonest science is bad science, especially when reality sits there staring you in the face.

And it eludes me how you can come to this conclusion from this paragraph --- doesn't it say exactly the opposite? Can you lay out your line of reasoning?

[edited for clarity]

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:22 am

I read the paper and I understand all the hard work that went into it. Bottom line is they/he still do not understand all the mechanisms involved in planetary/biological/solar heat exchanges as evidenced by a 10 year cooling cycle that, by their intricate and complex formulae, should be a heating cycle. To base whole economies on a science that is not working is beyond me.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 5:48 pm

Our feckless climatologist have further ruined their reps by:

\"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.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.\"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936328.ece

So Pandora, you still see good science here?

Flatlander · Post by **Flatlander** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:31 am

Raw data (and more) here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:14 am

Flatlander wrote:Raw data (and more) here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

So is that the real raw data or the raw data after it was adjusted by the consensus of the politically active scientists?

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

It's a shame we have to even ask the question!

So sad to hear they didn't have room to save the original paper and magnetic tape records....must be an awfully large stack of paper....so big they abandoned scientific methods and all that...heh, right!

Fricken fundamentalist wacko "scientists"!
God forbid...er, I mean...AlGore forbid anyone could examine the real raw data and challenge them!

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:49 pm

woodchip wrote:I read the paper and I understand all the hard work that went into it. Bottom line is they/he still do not understand all the mechanisms involved in planetary/biological/solar heat exchanges as evidenced by a 10 year cooling cycle that, by their intricate and complex formulae, should be a heating cycle. To base whole economies on a science that is not working is beyond me.

Wasn't this known for ages? Climate science needs time scales of more than 10 years, the current state of the art doesn't allow predictions on shorter time scales. But why would you discount what they can say for the longer run? The models have a very good track record. Warming was predicted for rising CO2 emissions, what, 50 years ago, when all the skeptics were screaming NO WAY! Guess who was right so far?

I find your argument is very weird. It's as if you were discounting the business models of casinos because they can't predict every hand that is played.

But at least you're not calling Trenberth's email dishonest anymore. I take what I can get

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:59 pm

woodchip wrote:Our feckless climatologist have further ruined their reps by:

"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.

So Pandora, you still see good science here?

Incredibly sloppy, but as a German living in the UK it does not surprise me at all. This being said, I don't see how this would affect the science at all.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."

Hogwash. Several reasons:

1. The raw data does not belong to east anglia uni, but to the respective MET offices. They should have it, and it is in effect their responsibility to store it. I know this is pretty weak as an excuse, just mentioning it to make clear that the data is still around.

2. 98% or so of the raw data is already in the public domain. The only parts that are not are those that are under confidentiality/copyright agreements with the MET offices.

3. But most importantly, the HadCRUT is only ONE of four major temperature products that all more or less show the same thing. Take NASA's Gistemp for example, all the code, all the raw data are completely in the public domain. Everybody can download it and go nuts. Same is true (I think!) for the satellite measurements. So there is *nothing* stopping skeptics from 'auditing' to their heart's desire.

Floyd · Post by **Floyd** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:07 pm

climate change eh?
extensive, informative, yet short for a scientific view at the subject: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... 4AFB057BB8

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:14 pm

woodchip wrote:Bottom line is they/he still do not understand all the mechanisms involved in planetary/biological/solar heat exchanges as evidenced by a 10 year cooling cycle that...

heh, this is funny. You know that of the two available temperature records, the one that shows this 'cooling cycle' (at least when picking the outlier 1998 as a starting year) is exactly the one you now say is discredited...

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:23 am

Floyd wrote:climate change eh?
extensive, informative, yet short for a scientific view at the subject: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... 4AFB057BB8

Just watched the first one. This is actually a very good video. Not very flashy, but very clear and concise.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:13 am

Pandora wrote:
woodchip wrote: stuff
Wasn't this known for ages? Climate science needs time scales of more than 10 years, the current state of the art doesn't allow predictions on shorter time scales. But why would you discount what they can say for the longer run? The models have a very good track record. Warming was predicted for rising CO2 emissions, what, 50 years ago, when all the skeptics were screaming NO WAY! Guess who was right so far?

I find your argument is very weird. It's as if you were discounting the business models of casinos because they can't predict every hand that is played.

But at least you're not calling Trenberth's email dishonest anymore. I take what I can get

The model only looked good for 40 of the last 50 years. We now have, with ever increasing co2, a cooling trend which makes the model worthless. Even the emails show our feckless scientist as lamenting their lack of understanding of how a cooling trend can be happening. Perhaps they should of been less interested in blocking man made warming skeptics from being published and thus protecting their pet idea and more focused on what scientist should really be doing with a model i.e., finding holes in it and correcting the model.

The emails are still dishonest as they show influential climate scientists trying to squash honest debate to protect their pet idea...and no doubt to keep the grant money rolling in from those who have the most to gain from global warming profiteers. It would be interesting to see where their grant money came from.

I find it very weird that govts. want to enact policy based on playing black jack just because they won three hands in a row.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:18 am

Pandora wrote:
woodchip wrote:Bottom line is they/he still do not understand all the mechanisms involved in planetary/biological/solar heat exchanges as evidenced by a 10 year cooling cycle that...
heh, this is funny. You know that of the two available temperature records, the one that shows this 'cooling cycle' (at least when picking the outlier 1998 as a starting year) is exactly the one you now say is discredited...

You misconstrue. I didn't say the raw data was suspect. I said the predictive model is junk.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:12 am

woodchip wrote:The model only looked good for 40 of the last 50 years. We now have, with ever increasing co2, a cooling trend which makes the model worthless. Even the emails show our feckless scientist as lamenting their lack of understanding of how a cooling trend can be happening.

Where do you get this cooling trend from? There is no evidence at all for a cooling trend. The most you can argue that there has been no net warming since 1998, but even this depends on the starting year. No where in the emails is a cooling trend discussed, AFAIK.

You misconstrue. I didn't say the raw data was suspect. I said the predictive model is junk.

Eh? But the data that has been lost is exactly that, the raw data from the different countries' weather stations, not the predictive stuff. You can't on the one hand call this record 'bad science' and on the other use it to make your point.

[edited for emphasis]

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:43 am

Pandora wrote:
woodchip wrote:The model only looked good for 40 of the last 50 years. We now have, with ever increasing co2, a cooling trend which makes the model worthless. Even the emails show our feckless scientist as lamenting their lack of understanding of how a cooling trend can be happening.
Where do you get this cooling trend from? There is no evidence at all for a cooling trend. The most you can argue that there has been no net warming since 1998, but even this depends on the starting year. No where in the emails is a cooling trend discussed, AFAIK.

Are you deliberately being obtuse? No net warming equals what? Are you saying there is no cooling in the last 10 years and temps have flat lined? You best do more research instead of trying to hide facts behind sly word alignments:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/06/n ... ing-trend/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/j ... 12-months/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=10783

Pandora wrote:
You misconstrue. I didn't say the raw data was suspect. I said the predictive model is junk.
Eh? But the data that has been lost is exactly that, the raw data from the different countries' weather stations, not the predictive stuff. You can't on the one hand call this record 'bad science' and on the other use it to make your point.

[edited for emphasis]

You sir, need to take a reading comprehension course.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:37 am

woodchip wrote:Are you deliberately being obtuse? No net warming equals what? Are you saying there is no cooling in the last 10 years and temps have flat lined? You best do more research instead of trying to hide facts behind sly word alignments:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/06/n ... ing-trend/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/j ... 12-months/

LOL, Woody. "Watts up with that" now classes as a reliable source? And even if it were a valid source:

From your link one: "Some folks are erroneously thinking that this graph above represents a global trend, it does not. " <--- you seem to be one of these folks.

Link 2 just says that 2008 was a very cold year. So what? Such drops happen all the time, with global warming or without it --- you can hardly read global cooling out of it. [edit: see here and double check how often there were colder years in the middle of the warming phase]

[edit: doesn't seem to be me who is suffering from reading comprehension problems

]

In the End

In the End

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: