Stimulating climategate
Climategate scientist Michael Mann received a $541,000 National Science Foundation grant under the stimulus bill passed by Congress in February. According to the government’s transparency website on stimulus spending, the grant has generated 1.62 jobs and is less than 50 percent complete (that’s $334,000 per job). But the job creation may not last due to Mann’s data creation. Mann is the stylist of the now famous “hockey stick” chart, which showed a dramatic spike in global temperatures. Let The Wall Street Journal explain its significance—from a 2005 article:
Just so we’re clear, this hockey stick isn’t a sports implement; it’s a scientific graph. Back in the late 1990s, American geoscientist Michael Mann published a chart that purported to show average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 1,000 years. The chart showed relatively minor fluctuations in temperature over the first 900 years, then a sharp and continuous rise over the past century, giving it a hockey-stick shape.
Mr. Mann’s chart was both a scientific and political sensation. It contradicted a body of scientific work suggesting a warm period early in the second millennium, followed by a “Little Ice Age” starting in the 14th century. It also provided some visually arresting scientific support for the contention that fossil-fuel emissions were the cause of higher temperatures. Little wonder, then, that Mr. Mann’s hockey stick appears five times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s landmark 2001 report on global warming, which paved the way to this week’s global ratification–sans the U.S., Australia and China–of the Kyoto Protocol.
The Journal notes that “there were doubts about Mr. Mann’s methods and analysis from the start,” but what’s clear from the emails released in the last 2 weeks is how far Mann and others went to mishandle the data. And that has some colleagues at Penn State calling for his ouster. Overall, Mann and his colleagues have at least $6 million in U.S. taxpayer money to answer for. But so far, as Telegraph columnist Gerald Warner points out, all Congress has done is summon the “consensual warmists” in the White House to spin why it all happened.













Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top85 Comments to “Stimulating climategate”
If it weren’t for the hockey stick, would Mann have gotten the $541k? It seems to me that’s the problem.
Maybe we should follow the money.
There’s money in global warming.
Ask AlGore.
Report comment to moderator
This guy was outed as a complete fraud a LONG time ago, when his data was shown to be completely manufactured – and yet I am being forced as a taxpayer to pay this leftist data-manipulating goon over a half million this year alone – so that he can continue to churn out lie after lie after lie, in support of the climate fraud being pushed by the Obama administration and fellow Statists?
I had thought this piece of work was shoveling REAL manure in a stable a LONG time ago – not still sucking the taxpayer dry – it is amazing how wide-spread this climate scam is, and how it keeps going on and on at OUR expense.
And we now have a compromised ‘President’ going to Copenhagen to sell this Republic even further into idiocy and oppression and slavery to the Coming Global Plantation, even as the entire fabricated structure of global climate – human linkage, which has been used as a ‘convenient’ tool to befuddle and bemuse the peasantry is exposed for just the total scam it is.
Just great.
How soon can the current ruling junta be thrown out on their posteriors and some degree of integrity restored to this country? And how much damage will this bizarre collection of morons, Statists, and outright traitors do before they ARE thrown out?
Report comment to moderator
Well there is 1.62 of those 600,000 jobs that the Obama administration has purportedly created. We can only imagine that the other 598,998.38 jobs are just as full of baloney as this one is.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Mann is Al Gore’s scientific adviser and has been caught in a number of lies, just as Gore has.
ClimateAudit.org has shown for years that Mann manipulated the Northern Hemisphere tree ring data, by purposely leaving out the decline in temperatures (called the Briffa reconstruction) from the 1960s onward. This caused his data to rise sharply in the last 50 years causing the “hockey stick”.
This same junk science will be used in a few days in Copenhagen to try and create a One World Eco-Government.
Report comment to moderator
It’s climatequiddick.
Report comment to moderator
The Democrat war machine (a.k.a. – NBC, CBS, ABC, and NPR) has it’s fingers in its ears singing; “Nah, nah, nah, nah…
Trusting the lame-stream media for news is like trusting Madoff (to this day) for an investment and holding your breath for results. The sad thing is they know they are corrupt. Alice’s Wonderland is far more sane and honest than the media and the American left.
Report comment to moderator
What the conservative media won’t tell you, and what the MSM, with their love of controversy, probably won’t get around to telling you, is that the “hokey stick” has been duplicated using an entirely different method by a team at Harvard University.
The method used at Harvard Makes it much easier to handle uncertainties because it allows areas with poor climate data to be simply related to areas with comprehensive climate data. For example, it’d been observed that temperatures in neighboring places seem correlated in a way that drops off approximately exponentially with distance. Using this relationship it’s possible to much more accurately define your error bars.
Unfortunately this method requires an extreme amount of computation, and the computation requirements go up exponentially with increased data, With the data that’s been analyzed thus far, the new method has larger error bars and variability in the past than Mann’s hockey stick, but it does better reflect the “little ice age” in the 1600’s. The new method also clearly shows the “hockey stick”, with the 1990’s as the warmest decade and 1995 as the warmest year. As more data is added and more numbers are crunched, this new method promises to be much more accurate than the method used by Mann.
The above is paraphrasing a short article in the November 2009 issue of Scientific American, The initial findings will appear in Journal of Climate.
The Problem with Mann’s analysis has always been with it’s accuracy as you go back in time, not with the shape at the end of the hockey stick. The sharp temp rise of the 20th century isn’t in dispute because of the abundance of thermometers. The most often sited e-mail I’ve seen is one in which Mann is questioning how to deal with data that simply didn’t mach what is in effect the historical record. He wouldn’t be doing his job if he didn’t question outlying data. But no no no, Fox and the usual suspects have turned this into “Climate-gate” to fire up the scientifically illiterate.
I’m sure if the Russian Mafia wanted to hack my companies e-mail and dump it Russian server, my companies competitors would have plenty of fodder to find criticism. The same is true for any large company or organization. Canada’s National Post is reporting that a Canadian Climate research institute at the University of Victoria has been subject to break-ins and repeated attempts at hacking into their network. This is what a well funded industrial “public relations” effort gets you, a conspiracy with Republican Politicians and the Russian Mob to discredit Science.
Yes, I think an investigation is in order. Unfortunately Putin is in bed with the Russian Mob and sitting on huge oil reserves, so I won’t hold me breath.
Report comment to moderator
I clicked on the “mishandled the data” link above, and what I got was “Stimulus Meets Climategate”, with no mention whatsoever of how any data was mishandled. I have yet to see anything that resembles a smoking gun. I’m sure the paid help at Exxon is going over the stolen data now. We’ll see what they can cook up.
Report comment to moderator
Nothing could be more ignorant and naive today than to blindly trust a Harvard academic’s “reseach” and the alleged “peer reviewed” rubber stamps given to that alleged research. I don’t disregard it completely, but I don’t trust it either. our trust has been betrayed.
Fraud is still fraud and the global warming industry is a proven fraud–no matter how much the left tries to ignore it and spin it away.
Report comment to moderator
what proof are you refering to?
Report comment to moderator
It is unwise to presume that alleged “data” or “statistics” prove what the creator of those figures say they prove. When people on this blog link to other websites, I have never regarded such links as proof of anything. A website, a “scholarly” study, a panel of”peer,” a high-paid pundit, a politican and any book in any library can always be found by anyone to say aything that anyone wants it to say at any time. And gov’t grant money can be attracted by any leftist cause without the slightest credence or credibility.
In my opinion, a Harvard University study is less trustworthy than most.
With regard to the global warming industry and climate control alarmists, we have been scammed (just as we were in the 70s with the global cooling scam). Chicken little lives and gets tons of money to run around screaming. It’s a multi-million dollar scam, perhaps a billion dollar fraud. The numbers were doctored, unwelcome information was buried and alternative points of view were systematically prohibited and disqualified from the outset. It was a high tech scam, much the same as the treatment of Clarence Thomas by hateful leftists was indeed a high-tech lynching.
_________________________________
Report comment to moderator
Government should not get tied up supporting a religion, which they have with regard to this current case of devout climate ideologues.
Remember when Al Gore and others said the global warming debate is over!? The fact is, the debate was corrupted, butchered and distorted.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson, I think he’s referring to the now infamous “Hockey Stick” of Michael Martin printedd in Nature that didn’t show the variations of the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age. The graph became the crutch that all the global warming enthusiasts leaned on. And the very basis for the scam.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson, #10, a mass of documentation with unquestioned reliability now exists proving the fraud, cover-ups and the doctoring that has taken place. It’s why Micahael Mann and others are in trouble now. It happened. The documents exist. Dishonesty is proven. Have you not been following the news? Perhaps you are following the Demcorat approved news only.
Report comment to moderator
I see in thr Washington Times that the Competitive Enterprise Institute is suing NASA and it’s Goddard instute “for their refusal-for nearly three years- to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act”. This information is relevant to the “Climategate scandal”.
If there’s nothing to hide, they would supply the data.
Report comment to moderator
Science requires an open mind and continued serious questioning and study. But what is proven is that the global warming enthusiasts, in the name of high science, distorted and doctored information fraudulently for political purposes. What is proven is not some scientific claim, but that the global warming ideologues betrayed science itself. That is what is proven.
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson, We’ve provided numerous links showing Mann’s slight of hand.
I have also shown at length that the computations you speak of ARE the problem. A grass roots group at SurfaceStations.org has been documenting every thermometer station that contributes to the NOAA data at Gothard. They have clearly documented that raw data from rural areas don’t show any increase.
What the climate model software does is use algorithms to average in urban data from areas where cities have grown up around the thermometers. Many are now at airports, on hot tarmacs, next to air conditioners and on hot roofs. This is called the heat island effect. Why trust artificial algorithm model data over actual raw unaltered data?
But who wants facts and science when it disagrees with the agenda to create an eco-economy?
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
If you wanted to criticize the new Harvard method you could have simple to point out that the alleged increase in accuracy of this new method is contingent on the assumption that presently observed correlations between distant regions holds over periods of hundreds of years. But instead you call me ignorant and naive, offer a curmudgeonly “I don’t trust them”, and suggest that global warming is the biggest conspiracy of all time. Nice.
Report comment to moderator
It amazes me that we have ancient wooly mammoth remains quick frozen with tropical plants in their stomach and we’re going to impoverish millions with trillions in debt to fight a half degree of dubious temperature increase when it may have happened many times before in the past with no detrimental effect to the planet.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
Wow, all those smart scientists forgot to take into account heat island effect, and ammature weather observers have shown there is no global warming. Amazing. Thank God for the internet.
Now we’ll have to come up with another explenation for the melting glacers, disapearing polar ice, rising sea levels, and nothward march of mallaria, We’ll also have to explain exactlly what process counteracts the heat trapping properties of the 28 billions metric of tons of CO2 we pump into the air each year.
Did you read your woolly mamoth link? It says nothing about tropical plants in mamoth stomachs. Nothing. That is Amazing.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I have to wonder if you read the first link you provided in 17. The first paragraph says:
“If you use only tree-rings, the “present global warming” is only 0.1°C warmer than Medieval Warm Period. Because above certain level of temperatures the tree-rings do not respond any more. But such slight warming was not enough to raise “global warming hysteria”. So they improved it by adding the black line (instrumental records from our thermometers)… If we had MWP instrumental records, the medieval temperatures would also be much higher in the graph.”
Do you see the flaw in this reasoning? “above certain level of temperatures the tree-rings do not respond any more.” it does not follow that if they “had instrument records the medieval temperatures would also be much higher”. The best they could honestly say is that instrument data “may” have been much higher. That’s a big difference, and shows a level of intellectual dishonesty on the authors part, and a lack scientific literacy on your part.
So, if you look at only tree ring data, there may have been more warming in the middle ages than Mann’s diagram shows. Nice to know, but hardly a game changer.
Report comment to moderator
“We’ll also have to explain exactlly what process counteracts the heat trapping properties of the 28 billions metric of tons of CO2 we pump into the air each year.”
Every thing I read about Global Warming, including the IPCC report, is saturated with words like “uncertainty”, “probable”, and “unknown”. The climate scientists admit freely that they have no idea what really conrols the climate. So for you to blithely assert that Co2 is what actually drives climate change is a bit on the disengenuous side…
Report comment to moderator
“What the conservative media won’t tell you, and what the MSM, with their love of controversy, probably won’t get around to telling you, is that the “hokey stick” has been duplicated using an entirely different method by a team at Harvard University.”
Freudian slip much?
Report comment to moderator
KWATSON
I can tell you WHY the polar ice caps are MELTING.
There are TOO MANY scientists which causes lots of yellow ice.
Have you watched the MAKING of the MARCH of the PENGUINS?
Watch what those bozos do to the ice with their ships.
When you cut ice into chunks it melts WAY faster.
And the French aren’t the only scientists living where the ice USED to grow. How many countries have claimed a spot for their Scientists? Anyone know?
I sat there watching and thinking, what do they do with ALL of their WASTE???
Do you suppose they carry it out on that ship? I don’t think so.
Those Penguins were almost mowed over by the large ship that came to pick up the film crew. The part where the Penguins are trying to get over some WONKY looking ice in the movie–probably ice cut by those ships that cut thru ice and pull up to where the Scientists are.
And now they have TOURISTS shipped in.
Report comment to moderator
As we were told on another thread, “Now why would Scientists falsify information?”
I’m sure it’s not about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ they receive for telling the person supplying the cash what they want to hear.
Report comment to moderator
This thread is so sad.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah. Sad. It’s like watching a dream slip away….
Report comment to moderator
Maybe the resident cartoon scientist on the thread, KWatson, could provide us with some information. Specifically, information on the computational methodologies/techniques now used to ‘predict’ future climate change (and which are driving the Statist/Leftwing Global Plantation agenda – currently in Copenhagen). Even more specifically, proof of the predictive ability of these same methods for back-predicting KNOWN past climate vartiability and changes.
But he won’t, of course.
Because the methods entirely fail. They utterly fail to predict the large and sudden variability and climate swings as evidenced by ice core samples and other non-fraudulent and non-massaged data sets.
The global climate is a huge and complex and highly non-linear system that is far beyond the predictive ability of current computational methods. Even the main drivers on the global climate variability are incompletely formulated and non-linear interactions between drivers are not even understood at the most fundamental level.
But for a cartoon-educated parrot, the slogans and lies and fraudulent data of cartoonish politicized ’science’ makes up their Holy Canon – and behind it all, of course – the ONLY rationale for the whole present scam – the viral leftwing dream of a political and social slave-state and the eternal and remorseless grinding of the peasants.
Report comment to moderator
#21 Kwatson “Do you see the flaw in this reasoning? “above certain level of temperatures the tree-rings do not respond any more.”
Yup, there is a flaw alright. They were mocking Mann and the environmental alarmists who argue that artificial data was needed to circumvent the actual data beginning in 1960 which showed a downward trend.
Mann’s argument in the emails was to “hide the decline”. Please explain to us why Al Gore’s science adviser felt it was necessary to “hide the decline”?
Report comment to moderator
And it’s KWATSON speaking of ’scientific illiteracy’?
That is a real hoot.
So, I have an airplane that you need to buy, Kwatson.
The analytical and computational methods that engineers used to design the airplane utterly fail to predict the known flight characteristics of ALL past airplanes. And the engineers who designed it are crooks, to boot.
Heck, though – go ahead and buy it for yourself – I will even help strap you in and show you where the throttle is.
But please just don’t expect anyone with any brains at all to actually go along with you.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson, read my post. I was not attempting to criticize some “new Harvard method.” In fact, my respect for Harvard academics is so low that I have no time to waste on their methods. And yes, I am an academic and have been a professor in the past. What I was saying is simply that I don’t have as much trust anymore for the captital of mindless political correctness (Harvard and like istitutions).
Report comment to moderator
And KWatson, where do you get that I called you ignorant? You are imagining things. I simply think it is ignorant to blindly trust in Harvard research. If you don’t think your trust is blind, then don’t presume I’m tallking about you.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder if Kwatson would care to respond to the 35 errors in Al Gore’s junk science movie?
If it is junk science, why should we pay trillions to follow its recommendations?
Report comment to moderator
Allowing visible light to pass while blocking infrared is a fundamental property of CO2. The sun radiates in visible light, and the earth radiated in infrared. We have roughly doubled the concentration of CO2. In a simple model there would be no way of avoiding warming with increased CO2.
To avoid global warming when CO2 concentration goes up there must be other factors that mitigate the warming, and indeed there are. Climate models are now incorporating the effects of “global dimming”, the reduction in solar radiation due to particulate matter, such as soot and ash, and aircraft contrails. It turns out that our particulate pollution and cloud seeding by aircraft have mitigated much of the warming effects of increased CO2.
Maybe if we’re lucky, there will be some other process that limits the temperature rise or CO2 concentration, but I’ve yet to hear of any plausible mechanism that hasn’t already been taken into account. So please tell me, given the fundamental properties of CO2, why wouldn’t the Earth warm? Don’t know? too complicated? too non-linear?
Report comment to moderator
It’s a valiant effort KWatson, but you have to remember that these are many of the same people who find the evidence for evolution to be unconvincing. Their tinfoil hats are precisely tuned to reject any facts that threaten any beliefs that they already hold.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
It would be trivial to respond to most of the points presented in 35 errors in Al Gore’s junk science movie.
Much of what is presented is deliberately misleading. For instance, look how the chart shown for error #1 is annotated. The chart makes the point that sea level was rising before hydrocarbon use (gasp!), but the chat itself shows the rise in sea level almost exactly corresponding to the use of coal at the beginning of the industrial revolution. The chat itself may be totally bogus for all I know, but the fact that it’s misleadingly annotated is very revealing. After almost immediately spotting a blatant deception why on earth would I be compelled to believe anything in this obvious hit piece.
I’ve now looked at three links you’ve provided and they either don’t say what you claim, or are obviously misleading. If this is the sort of stuff you count on for your information then it’s no wonder you believe what you do. You’re being used.
Good night, As much as I love a good global warming argument, I need to get some sleep.
Report comment to moderator
But the fact that the earth isn’t warming means what?
Report comment to moderator
Par from the course for Kwatson and GWF81: Both reveal a complete ignorance of the most basic foundation of the scientific method – claims of predictive capability in complex physical processes must be validated against existing (past) data sets.
The basic scientific illiteracy of the average Statist/Leftist (and the inability to think independently and logically) is really quite amazing.
For anyone still retaining their brains, a very good and easily understood book on the incredibly unpredictable nature of the climate in the past many hundreds of thousands of years can be found in The Two Mile Time Machine by Richard Alley – Ice Core Project description and analysis. (He, of course, gives the obligatory nod to global warming – to not do that would dry up his grants from the current Socialist Scam Machine; even though most of his very good book is a compelling story about the absolute unpredictability of global climate).
Another link about the extreme variability in past climate (and showcasing the complete lack of current modeling ability to back-predict the known climate in the past is:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142112.htm
Report comment to moderator
#35 GWF81 “Their tinfoil hats are precisely tuned to reject any facts that threaten any beliefs that they already hold.”
On the contrary. This thread is about fraud committed by scientists. While most of us here are promoting real science and actual facts, you and KWatson are defending dubious software climate models created by people who cook the numbers for political gain.
Will you or KWatson please comment on why Mann felt the need to “hide the decline” and leave out the Briffa reconstruction data in order to amplify the hockey stick for Al Gore’s political movie? Why do you defend junk science?
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
Insulting people and claiming the problem is too hard to handle isn’t much of an argument. Be that as it may, I’ll stick to the facts.
You’re misguided to think a climate model should be able to predict a change in solar activity, volcanism, evolution, industrial pollution, or any of a myriad of other possible causes of climate change. Nobody is claiming that the climate would remain absolutely stable indefinably in the absence of greenhouse gas emission. Both the historical record and the new Harvard method of deriving past temperatures show the little ice age. The little ice age appears to to have been caused by an increase in volcanic activity and an prolonged period of solar inactivity, both of which no climate model can reasonably expect to predict. These need to be added ad hoc based on evidence from sources other than climate models.
I’ve know since Tuesday that it’s probably going to snow tonight, about what temperature it will be, where the wind will be coming from, and approximately how hard it will be blowing. We all depend on the accuracy of these future climate predictions every day, despite the fact that this is the most chaotic and variable realm of climate modeling.
Is that scientifically illiterate? If so, please be specific about what I got wrong. That would be an argument.
The basic scientific illiteracy of the average Statist/Leftist (and the inability to think independently and logically) is really quite amazing, especially considering, that according to Pew, only 6% of scientists identify themselves as Republican and 55% identify themselves as Democrats.
I’ve know since Tuesday that it’s probably going to snow tonight, about what temperature it will be, where the wind will be coming from, and approximately how hard it will be blowing. We all depend on the accuracy of these future climate predictions every day, despite the fact that this is the most chaotic and variable realm of climate modeling.
Report comment to moderator
#36 KWatson “Xion, It would be trivial to respond to most of the points presented in 35 errors in Al Gore’s junk science movie.”
Let the record show that Kwatson didn’t answer those points. Let the record also show that Al Gore’s movie is banned from public schools in England unless accompanied by a disclaimer pointing out nine scientific errors. KWatson, why do you defend junk science?
The chief greenhouse gas is water vapor. CO2 is a lesser contributor. Neither are pollutants. Both are necessary for life. Without the greenhouse effect, we would all die. The earth has had far wider fluctuations and it is perfectly fine. The “sky is falling” mentality is a political ploy to centralize power.
I agree that the data shows the earth has warmed by 0.8 deg C in the last century. However, as I have explained numerous times, those numbers are not raw data. Those are cooked numbers fed into climate models which failed to predict the current cooling trend which correlates to solar radiation trends. Look at the two graphs at the bottom of this link. Raw data from well maintained surface stations do not show a warming trend.
Even if it were true, it would actually be more beneficial for the planet, as it would lengthen the growing season and curb starvation. Trillions that could be spent helping poorer countries grow more food will be diverted instead to politician’s pockets.
Report comment to moderator
Will you or KWatson please comment on why Mann felt the need to “hide the decline” and leave out the Briffa reconstruction data in order to amplify the hockey stick for Al Gore’s political movie? Why do you defend junk science?
I have see, #7 and #21.
Even if you are absolutely right, that this was some nefarious plot for Mann to manipulate the data for political purposes, it doesn’t change anything. The evidence and argument for global warming isn’t contingent upon the exact shape of the middle part of one diagram! This was an early effort at documenting the effects of CO2 on warming and served as an important stepping stone to more advances study. Was Mann concerned enough by what he saw to raise the alarm level? Probably. Did he let that concern influence his decision making? Probably. Mann is human, science is done by humans.
Report comment to moderator
Look at the two graphs at the bottom of this link. Raw data from well maintained surface stations do not show a warming trend.
I’ve looked at the plots from the two surface stations as you suggested, and they both appear to show ~1 deg C rise in temperature. Not that anyone could possibly trust two stations to reliably reflect global trends. Your “evidence” is a mighty thin gruel.
Report comment to moderator
#43 Kwatson “I’ve looked at the plots from the two surface stations as you suggested, and they both appear to show ~1 deg C rise in temperature. Not that anyone could possibly trust two stations to reliably reflect global trends. Your “evidence” is a mighty thin gruel.”
(FYI – people resort to ad hominem when they lack a better argument. Can we stick to the facts please?)
Here is a better view of the graph. It is an animation that shows the difference between the actual numbers and the Goddard (GISS) “homogenized” data. Notice that the Goddard artificially pushes earlier temperatures down.
What do you have against real data? The actual data shows a slight rise since the 1950’s, but we are cooler now than in the 1930s. The Ignoring the much warmer 1880s data, the overall trend is basically flat.
Report comment to moderator
Why does this thread sound so much like past inflammatory discussions, like embryonic stem cell research vs adult stem cell realities, and convoluted Darwinian evolution theory verses obvious Intelligent Design?
At last someone has pulled the curtain back on these “peer reviewed” high priests to reveal these pseudo scientists are really sons of the father of lies dressed in lab coats.
Report comment to moderator
So, some guy named MacIntyre proved that Mann eliminated some tree rings and that he was lying all along and that the earth was actually hotter in medieval times, is that it?
Report comment to moderator
Xion: “On the contrary. This thread is about fraud committed by scientists. While most of us here are promoting real science and actual facts, you and KWatson are defending dubious software climate models created by people who cook the numbers for political gain.”
You can keep telling yourself that all you want, it won’t make it true. The fact of the matter is that while everyone makes mistakes, the case for anthropogenic global warming is plenty strong enough to withstand a few unscrupulous individuals. Meanwhile, the case against is 99% fraud and 1% jumping up and down pointing at situations like this as if it invalidates the entire field of study. This is exactly the same situation we have with the evolution “debate.” Unsurprisingly, it is largely the same people who fall hook, line, and sinker for both the anti-global warming and anti-evolution rhetoric, regardless of the facts.
Report comment to moderator
You guys need to go to the Volokh.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81 Your entire argument is to call people you disagree with kooks. Any comment on the actual science? What is your explanation of the raw data vs. the cooked GISS data in #44?
This isn’t hard. Look at real data and explain it. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
#46 NJL “So, some guy named MacIntyre proved that Mann eliminated some tree rings and that he was lying all along and that the earth was actually hotter in medieval times, is that it?”
No, that isn’t all of it. The bottom line is that a few honest scientists have been looking at the real climate data and have pointed out for years flaws in the climate models. Now, some prominent scientists including the Mann behind the hockey stick, have been caught red handed cooking the numbers in order to push a political agenda.
This issue is less about science than economics. The problem is that politically motivated scientists are willing to cook the data to promote a political agenda which will shift massive wealth and power into the hands of globalists by changing the world economy.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
Make no mistake, plenty of people that I disagree with are not kooks. It just so happens that many of the people I disagree with on this subject are, in fact, kooks and not receptive to science. Quite honestly, even if your example in #44 was clear evidence of tampering with data, it would be negligible against the mountain of evidence in favor of AGW. However, since you seem to be so concerned, here is an example from your own source that shows that whatever is involved with the GISS homogenization process, it is not merely pushing down earlier temperatures.
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=69704
Now, please leave the science to someone who is actually interested in the facts rather than reinforcing ideas they already hold.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, KWatson – you were the first to trot out the label ’scientifically illiterate’ for people who questioned fraudulent data and the lack of any meaningful science behind the current global warming scam. You don’t like the term, then don’t throw it around to begin with. Especially when you are trying to defend the indefensible.
You show an abysmal ignorance regards present modeling of climate change – both in terms of capability and techniques and issues. And yet you choose to pontificate.
Climate change models are based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD), among MANY other things. CFD involves the simulation of the Navier Stokes equations (or specialized approximate sub-sets of the Navier-Stokes equations in order to reduce complexity). This entails the simultaneous solution of the governing equations (mass, momentum, and energy) on a discretized (time and space) grid. These equations are highly non-linear and tightly coupled. Current state-of-the-art CFD simulations of realistic engineering problems (say a component in a jet engine with a simulated time on the order of seconds or less) may take tens of millions of spatial grid points and weeks of wall-clock time, even using the most advanced computer clusters. Even though variables and all functional drivers are well known and tightly controlled and solutions are obtained – often not worth anything due to major challenges in physical modeling of transport, turbulence, etc.
The science of CFD is still in its infancy with such small-scale problems. Many problems yet to be resolved.
Further, when CFD on such a problem is combined with structural computational analysis (a multi-disciplinary approach for fluid – structural interactions), even more uncertainty exists – to the point that the science is not even in its infancy – it is primitive, at best.
Three major problems on such a small problem: spatial resolution, temporal resolution (time step) and modeling (a huge one). Not to mention a bunch of others as well.
Now, in the interest of time, consider long-range climate modeling. You have a physical domain the size of a planet and a time to model spanning, at the minimum, many decades. You have a huge number of major drivers with no clue as to the first order, much less the higher order, couplings between these drivers. It is not just CFD (atmospheric modeling) required, which is uncertain in totality, anyway – required also is also coupled oceanic and geological modeling and astrophysical phenomena and chemistry (largely speculative) and modeling and almost completely unknown coupling between them.
Shall we talk about grid resolution?
Shall we talk about temporal resolution?]
Shall we talk about modeling uncertainties and unknowns?
Just where DO we begin?
Okay. Whatever. Too much information for a Huff-Poster.
Back to the original point that you struggle to avoid. Can these models (run by – as you admit – so-called ’scientists’ who are more politicos than scientists and have no belief in objective truth, anyway), even remotely back-predict known climate in the past?
The answer is no – and your Harvard model is a piece of crap – sure, it ‘predicts’ anything the modelers want it to.
There is no science in it at all – as you yourself admit. They simply turn a big dial labeled ‘unknown effect’ until they get some match to data. If they were working for me and tried that sort of scam on the design of an aerospace vehicle they would get their fraudulent butts canned and cashiered within five minutes.
A fourth grader could write a ten line program in BASIC and do the same thing.
Get real.
As Chas has repeatedly pointed out, this global climate scam is all about political and social and economic control.
It has nothing to do with science at all.
What really corks me is that people who use the label ’scientist’ sully the name of science by fraud and misrepresentation and outright lies to push a sordid Statist political and social and economic agenda. No integrity and no science.
Bleah.
This whole thing reminds me so much of an old science fiction story from the 60’s called ‘The Marching Morons’.
The guy who wrote that story was a REAL prophet.
Report comment to moderator
#51 GWF81 “However, since you seem to be so concerned, here is an example from your own source that shows that whatever is involved with the GISS homogenization process, it is not merely pushing down earlier temperatures.”
You are using the same slight of hand that Mann used to produce his hockey stick data for Gore’s fraudulent movie.
The data you selected was for Brodhead, Wisconsin. The data is essentially flat until the year 2000 where it rose dramatically. This is odd since the earth has been in a cooling trend since 1998. So what caused the anomaly?
A little investigation shows that the thermometer is located on the edge of town at the Brodhead Wastewater Treatment Facility. Curiously, that is a brand new Wastewater Treatment Facility which was build in 1998. If you read the link, the chief concern was the temperature of the wastewater in such a cold climate. It needs to be kept above 7 deg C.
And so, what we have is a classic case of the heat island effect. A thermometer is monitored in a rural area for years and shows no temperature increase. Then all of a sudden a town grows up around it. It is now near asphalt or air conditioners or airports or decaying biomass and the temperature goes up. Even changing the paint on the box housing the thermometer can cause the temperature to change 4 degrees.
If anyone is curious enough to read the report on the extensive investigation of the surface stations, then read this.
Report comment to moderator
Drill: “A fourth grader could write a ten line program in BASIC and do the same thing.”
Furthermore, a first grader can take a red crayon and draw a line that curves upward.
Report comment to moderator
Scientist have just figured out how we got the Great Lakes. About 500,000 years ago, so many SUVs were sold that the ice caps and glaciers melted and formed the Great Lakes.
Climate variation on earth is older than Senator Byrd.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, I’ll grant you it’s old, but not that old.
Report comment to moderator
From the Brookings Institution:
This issue has been examined extensively in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and dismissed by the vast majority of earth scientists as an inadequate explanation of observed temperature rise. Ocean temperatures have climbed steadily during the past century, for example — yet this data is not affected by “urban heat islands.” Most land glaciers around the world are melting, far away from urban centers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, using only peer-reviewed data,concluded that urban heat islands caused “at most” 0.05°C of the increase in global average temperatures during the period 1900-1990 — roughly one-tenth of the increase during this period. In contrast, as one source reports, “there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers” to support the view that “the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based thermometers.”
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
You seem to be confusing climate models with the attempts to obtain a accurate record of earths past temperatures. The two aren’t the same. The historical record of temperature in and of itself can’t in principle predict anything.
You are also completely wrong to say that climate models have failed the test of retrodiction. They have not only been able to account for the “dialed in” changes such explaining the cooling after a major volcanic ash release, but they also do an amazing job of retrodicting the cloud cover observes since the advent of satellite imagery. Climate models are routinely compared to historical data as the primary test of their utility.
You are absolutely on target about the difficulties of applying CFD to climate models. That’s why the various predictions based on these models have such wide ranges in their predictions. Nobody would be foolish enough to try to tell you the temperature in Moscow on any given day 20 years from now. Climate models that look that that far into the future can only be expected to predict the boundary conditions of the system based on gross global changes such as the increase in CO2 concentration.
Report comment to moderator
#57 is in regards to the Urban heat island effect.
Report comment to moderator
Here is a great little article from Skeptic
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html
Note the copious references at the end of the article. I have never seen anything like this on any of the global warming denial websites.
Report comment to moderator
Xion (53),
You were complaining about the GISS homogenization, so I provided a counterexample from your own source. This has nothing to do with the quality of the data from either station, so the sleight of hand is all happening at your end. Of course, this is unsurprising because as soon as one conspiracy nut’s question is addressed, its typical for them to immediately switch gears and go in a different direction. It’s true with creationists, it’s true with antivaxers, and it’s true here.
Report comment to moderator
One of the tragedies of the betrayal of science revealed by the documentation proving dishonesty through much of the global warming persuation process, is that soem highly placed global warming alarmists have made a crock out of the fancy-minded phrase “peer reviewed.” That ought to be a sign of credibility. Now, that phrase only evokes the word: “crock!” They created their own definition of the word “peer” and kept out honest excellent scientists who did not toe the P.C. line.
You should be outraged at the dishonestly that discredits academia and reveals leftist science abuse. Instead, you just continue to play spin.
Report comment to moderator
#57 KWatson “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, using only peer-reviewed data,concluded that urban heat islands caused “at most” 0.05°C of the increase in global average temperatures during the period 1900-1990 — roughly one-tenth of the increase during this period. In contrast, as one source reports, “there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers” to support the view that “the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based thermometers.”
That’s just silly. Turn on your nightly weather forecast and observe that urban areas are several degrees warmer than rural ones. It doesn’t matter how many peer reviewed scientific papers are written denying it; every meteorologist in the country talks about it every single day.
GFW81 doesn’t care whether a sewage treatment plant kept artificially above 7 deg C is built right next to a thermometer. As long as the data matches his political agenda, it doesn’t matter where it came from.
Reality does matter. There are honest scientists who will accept the data wherever it leads them. Though Mann and others have banished them and labeled them kooks. Gore’s right hand Mann has been shown to be a dishonest scientists who will cook the books to support a politic power shift. GFW81 puts politics above truth.
On the other hand, you KWatson appear to be trying to deal with the facts even though your political agenda is tugging at you strongly.
Report comment to moderator
#60 KWatson – Wow, what a great article! But doesn’t it contradict everything you’ve been saying?
I acknowledge that the earth may very well be slightly warmer last century, but we can’t tell for sure and it wouldn’t be a disaster if true. The earth has been far warmer in the past.
I was going to say that the margin of error in global temperature data is about 0.5 deg C, which nearly accounts for the 0.8 C value from the cooked GISS numbers.
But your article says there margin of error could be far greater than the value itself:
After reading this I have a few questions for you KWatson:
1) Do you believe that there is an imminent climate catastrophe caused by man-made CO2?
2) Do you acknowledge that CO2 is not a pollutant, but necessary for life to exist on earth? The greenhouse affect is equally necessary.
3) Do you acknowledge that variations in solar output has a far greater affect on temperature than anything man has ever done?
4) Do you believe that signing Copenhagen which keeps CO2 levels at a percentage of 1990 levels will make any difference whatsoever on the climate, but will affect the global economy?
5) Why do you support liars like Mann who promote bad science, deceptively manipulating data for political gain?
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. The post of yours that I was replying to had nothing to do with the quality of the data from any particular measuring station, but the GISS homogenization process. I never said I don’t care about the quality of the data, but it was irrelevant to that particular issue. Do you wish to continue this dishonest charade?
I have engaged in enough discussion with you that I don’t hold out any hope that you will ever attempt to understand the scientific method or discover what it means to have a well supported theory. My only purpose for responding to your ill-informed propaganda is that crackpot “science” in a public forum should never go unchallenged.
I really and truly wish that the data did not unequivocally show that temperatures are climbing. I wish we could burn all the fossil fuels we wanted with impunity. Unfortunately, that simply isn’t the case and I am not in the habit of burying my head in the sand every time I see or hear something that I don’t like.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
Your five questions for KWatson show that you really have no grasp of what the opposing point of view is. Question 2 is especially telling.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding climate models which related geographic areas in order to share the data or make up for low data in one of the area, I was reminded of an NPR report I heard a while back about the temperature of the air over Antarctica. The researchers found the air to be much warmer than they anticipated, and it did not seem to related to the temperature near the ground. They could conclude nothing from this; it baffled them. That was just one of several honest reports (well, I assume honest) which makes me conclude we don’t understand the earth’s climate well enough to make radical statements like those made by global warming politicians and celebrities. The money to be made is the most reasonable explanation for the tom-foolery that we are seeing today.
Did you hear of the climatologist (I forget his name) who has been telling congressmen that there is good evidence that if we succeed in reducing the CO2 levels in the air, we could do serious damage in various ways? Makes me want to sit back and breath a bit. I need to cut down that dead-enough tree in my back yard and put a new one up.
Report comment to moderator
#65 GWF81 “I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. The post of yours that I was replying to had nothing to do with the quality of the data from any particular measuring station, but the GISS homogenization process.”
Pardon me if I put words in your mouth. I am having a hard time discerning your point since it consists almost entirely of ridicule. Ridicule is the argument of a person with no argument.
Can you please explain what your point was about the GISS homogenization process, since it is obvious from your link that it artificially raised the raw data by a degree. Is that OK with you?
I said, “GFW81 doesn’t care whether a sewage treatment plant kept artificially above 7 deg C is built right next to a thermometer. As long as the data matches his political agenda, it doesn’t matter where it came from.”
Was I wrong? Do you care? You refuse to explain to us how the GISS homogenization process corrected data that was perfectly flat until a sewage treatment plant was built next to the thermometer. You refuse to explain why you defend Mann’s fraud. You offer no comments on Watt’s extensive report. You refuse to explain any of the science whatsoever.
Instead you appear to simply be parroting the talking points of your political mentors. If I am wrong, please explain my error. Lemme guess … your next post will just be ridicule again, right?
Report comment to moderator
The problem KWatson and GWF81 are having it’s that it’s very difficult to try to debate a topic with people who have not got the slightest idea what they’re talking about but do have a great certainty that they are right.
Report comment to moderator
#69 Conan, Do you agree or disagree with the link that Kwatson posted in #60?
Report comment to moderator
#57 Kwatson
Here is a peer reviewed paper from atmospheric and research scientists at the University of Alabama. The peer review unearthed some slight problems with their balloon data, which have been corrected in the new document.
They considered data from land, sea, atmospheric balloons, satellite, humidity, hurricane frequency, droughts, tree rings, etc. They say essentially what I have been saying. The data shows slight warming in the last century, but this is more consistent with land-use changes. They ran the IPCC climate models numerous times and they consistently came out warmer than the real data.
The surface temperature at the South Pole has been cooling and the sea ice has been expanding in the last twenty-five years. The Arctic on the other hand has been warming. Curiously all the focus is on the Arctic.
Dr. Spensor says, “I believe that some portion of the warming is due to the extra CO2, but that is a statement of faith. Because we know it is a greenhouse gas, it causes a warming tendency, but can you prove that the current warming is due to CO2? I don’t think that you can.”
In other words, there is no direct evidence that CO2 is the cause of global warming. It is a statement of faith.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: I don’t know. I don’t know a lot about the science of climate change, and the claims and counter-claims seem to me to be motivated more by politics than science (on both sides.) Because of all that, I prefer to remain firmly undecided on the issue.
You, as a skeptic, fall into the same trap as the True Believers do. You find the scientists whose findings agree with what you want the answer to be, like this Dr. Spensor in your post #71, and speak as if they alone are right and those who disagree are wrong.
Report comment to moderator
#72 Conan. Interesting. You say, “I don’t know. I don’t know a lot about the science of climate change…” and yet you are certain that the atmospheric scientists are UA are wrong and that politicians like Gore are right.
I simply want the truth. It is undeniable that Gore and his chief scientist Mann have both purposely manipulated the data and the way it is presented for political gain. Gore’s documentary is provably false on many points.
All of this is true. What is so bothersome about the truth? Scientists should be willing to consider all of the data. Atmospheric data and algorithms should be open and available to the public. Data produced by frauds like Mann should be not be used to restructure the global economy.
Report comment to moderator
Conan. Slight correction. I said, “you are certain that the atmospheric scientists are UA are wrong and that politicians like Gore are right.” I’ll retract that since you say, “I prefer to remain firmly undecided on the issue.”
So then, if you are undecided, why have you decided that anyone who questions the data does not know what they are talking about? You are also certain that both sides are political. You don’t sound very undecided.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson: Unfortunately, the models used to predict global climate change are essentially based (partly)on reduced-order Navier-Stokes (for atmospheric modeling – which is only a piece of the puzzle – and do I ever mean puzzle . And they are attempting to do what the higher-order models cannot even begin to predict, as you admit, through gross simplifications of a highly non-linear and massively coupled system THAT WE DON’T EVEN HAVE THE FIRST ORDER HANDLES ON!
You cannot model the dynamic motion of a slinky by ’simplifying’ the problem (due to lack of modeling capability) to assume that the slinky is a rigid body, simply because you don’t understand dynamics. Or you CAN, but you have nothing of any scientific merit.
Face it, global climate, both in terms of trend and detail, is impossible to predict more than a week or two ahead. (Sure, weather prediction for a few days ahead is pretty good – based on detailed knowledge of initial conditions provided by satellites, etc.)
The latest computational models for long-range prediction of the unpredictable, i.e. the Harvard model, attempt to provide this gaping travesty of failure to work on known data (back-predictability) by simply turning large dials (call them what you will – volcanic activity, solar activity, etc.) to ‘match’ data. This is bogus. There is no meaningful data on any of this. It is certainly not science. And in the context of the politics and the lies being told, it most certainly is criminal fraud and treasonable, in fact.
Finally, it is not even certain that all the data that exists have not been massaged by the politicos masquerading as ’scientists’.
The politicos behind the curtain have been revealed in the bizarre Land of Oz that you call ‘climate science’.
Right now, the only thing the global warming scammers have going for them is that the American Public is generally ignorant after too many decades of leftists controlling the educational process and cartoonizing science. They tend to believe what the State-controlled media and the various Statist prostitutes in the entertainment industry tell them.
However, that may just be changing.
Truth is a powerful antidote to lies, KWatson.
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. knew that and that is why they were so scared of truth.
Sort of like how certain people are scared of the truth now.
Report comment to moderator
What is so painfully interesting about the past climate record is the startlingly large changes – and the extremely rapid changes – as evidenced in ice cores, etc. (assuming that data has not been massaged by politico leftists posing as scientists, as we see in the current scam).
We MAY indeed be warming – but the past record indicates that short warming spells can precede extreme long-term cooling events – and vice versa. And there is really no idea WHY.
The coupled, non-linear, massively complex, and interlocking system with thousands of drivers which represents the global climate (long-range) is far beyond our capability to meaningfully model for magnitude or trends.
Finally: Two things would be interesting:
Let a disinterested party run an uncertainty quantification analysis on these disputed methods – it has not been done although it is required for all other disciplines – wonder why not . . .
Do blind tests by disinterested third parties using current models to see if existing (non-manipulated) data can be matched – it is axiomatic in the business that if someone who has a vested interest in a given outcome (as the politicos do) knows ahead of time the data to be validated against, CFD (or its climate-modeling child) will almost always match the data.. This is why these blind tests are done in the CFD validation business in which people have to predict and predict results before they see the data.
There are simply too many huge knobs in the modeling to trust the results, otherwise. Even if the people doing the modeling and data collection were actually trustworthy, which they most certainly are not, on THIS topic.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: “Pardon me if I put words in your mouth. I am having a hard time discerning your point since it consists almost entirely of ridicule. Ridicule is the argument of a person with no argument.”
If calling a spade a spade is ridicule, then I am guilty as charged.
Xion: “Can you please explain what your point was about the GISS homogenization process, since it is obvious from your link that it artificially raised the raw data by a degree. Is that OK with you?”
In post #44, you implied that GISS homogenization was some nefarious plot to exaggerate the rise in temperature. I merely provided a counter-example that shows that whatever GISS homogenization is, it is not what you accused it of being. Is it really hard to discern this point from post #51?
Xion: “I said, “GFW81 doesn’t care whether a sewage treatment plant kept artificially above 7 deg C is built right next to a thermometer. As long as the data matches his political agenda, it doesn’t matter where it came from.”
Was I wrong? Do you care? You refuse to explain to us how the GISS homogenization process corrected data that was perfectly flat until a sewage treatment plant was built next to the thermometer. You refuse to explain why you defend Mann’s fraud. You offer no comments on Watt’s extensive report. You refuse to explain any of the science whatsoever.”
I do care where the data comes from when we are talking about the data. When we are talking about performing some process on the data, it doesn’t matter if it is randomly generated by a computer. I haven’t defended Mann in this thread and I wouldn’t waste my time with Watts.
Xion: “Instead you appear to simply be parroting the talking points of your political mentors. If I am wrong, please explain my error. Lemme guess … your next post will just be ridicule again, right?”
I have nearly every science organization of international standing on my side and you have a bunch of “research” funded by ExxonMobil. Who is parroting political points?
Here is a brief overview of how we know the temperature record is reliable:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/temperature-record-reliability-attack.php
Your concerns about methodology or reliability of data become insignificant next to the evidence.
Report comment to moderator
Xion said: So then, if you are undecided, why have you decided that anyone who questions the data does not know what they are talking about?
I never said that. I was only referring to this thread.
I do think the conspiracy theory you’re espousing is very unlikely, though. And as for the stolen e-mails that have you all excited lately, the scientists involved say that they can explain the few turns of phrase critics have seized on, and furthermore, that a lot of what’s being said is untrue. In particular, they did not destroy the source data as claimed, and their results have been replicated and confirmed by other researchers.
In particular Wigley vigorously denies that any data was ever destroyed. “We did not destroy any primary records,” he said. “All these data came from National Meteorological Services, and the originals are still there for anyone to access. Indeed other groups such as GISS and NOAA have independently accessed these data and independently reproduced our results.”
Climate scientists not caught up in the scandal agree that the independent investigation is necessary, but don’t believe that the CRU science will be discredited or any misdoings uncovered. “CRU is just one of many climate-research institutes that provide the underlying scientific basis for climate policy at national and international levels,” said Dave Reay, a climate scientist at the University of Edinburgh, UK. “The conspiracy theorists may be having a field day, but if they really knew academia they would also know that every published paper and data set is continually put through the wringer by other independent research groups. The information that makes it into the IPCC reports is some of the most rigorously tested and debated in any area of science.”
You are also certain that both sides are political. You don’t sound very undecided.
Well of course they are. I haven’t quite figured out who stands to gain from more rigorous climate-related policies, but it’s obvious who stands to lose. And they are powerful interests with considerable political influence.
None of this means that the science is conclusive, which is why I remain uncommitted to a side, but it does mean most of what you and your colleagues have been talking about in this thread is mistaken.
Report comment to moderator
#77 GWF81 In post #44, you implied that GISS homogenization was some nefarious plot to exaggerate the rise in temperature. I merely provided a counter-example that shows that whatever GISS homogenization is, it is not what you accused it of being. Is it really hard to discern this point from post #51?
I don’t get it. You provided an example that shows that GISS artificially raised the temperature and ignored corruption from the heat island effect. How does that prove they didn’t artificially raise the temperature.
Also, I never said there was some nefarious plot. This is simply bad science. They’ve created a bogus climate model that doesn’t at all track reality. That’s fine, but call it what it is, i.e. a particularly bad model and not the truth.
Report comment to moderator
#78 None of this means that the science is conclusive, which is why I remain uncommitted to a side, but it does mean most of what you and your colleagues have been talking about in this thread is mistaken.
Since you say, “I don’t know. I don’t know a lot about the science of climate change…”, then you don’t really know who is mistaken.
Report comment to moderator
#77 GWF81 Interesting link. Curiously your link referenced a page that basically said, “We’re right because we say so and we’re scientists”.
How do they back this up? By referring to the same report from the atmospheric scientists at the University of Alabama that I referenced.
You said, “I have nearly every science organization of international standing on my side and you have a bunch of “research” funded by ExxonMobil.” Um, your science organizations reference the same data I am referencing.
What your link failed to mention was the central point of the paper that the atmospheric scientists wrote. It was that the data shows the earth has warmed slightly in the last century but the margin of error is significant and no scientist can prove that it is man made or caused by CO2.
Here is what Dr. Spencer says in the report that your link referenced:
Report comment to moderator
Xion: “I don’t get it.”
Thank you for finally admitting the truth!
Although I feel that this statement accurately sums up your understanding of the “debate” in question, I cannot, in good conscience, take up the tactics of the AGW denialists and I will respond to your posts at 79 and 81 in an honest fashion.
The fact remains that regardless of whether we are responsible for the warming (it is pretty dang conclusive that we are) or not, our children will reap whatever is sown for them. Until we can guarantee that natural regulation of greenhouse gasses is adequate to deal with what we are putting into the atmosphere (it is pretty dang conclusive that it isn’t), it is unbelievably irresponsible, selfish, and foolish to pretend that AGW isn’t happening and that we shouldn’t do anything about it.
Report comment to moderator
#82 Lemme attempt to summarize what you are saying.
“We have no idea whether or not man has affected global temperatures, nor whether it will have adverse affects, nor whether we can do anything about it, but it’s pretty dang conclusive that we need to institute a global redistribution of wealth which we are pretty dang sure will do absolutely nothing except take America down several notches because America is just to dang irresponsible, selfish and foolish.”
Well, that’s some pretty doggone intelligent logic right there, for dang sure!
One question, “Do you have all your teeth?” Just wondering. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81,
It appears that your whole argument in #82 hinges on your belief that humans are responsible for ‘global warming’. You have shown no evidence that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas. YOu have shown no evidence that humans are the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 – all the studies that I have seen show that a CO2 rise follows a rise in temperature, not the reverse.
Have you ever seen the high school experiment where you open a can of coke and put a balloon over it and put it in the sun? The balloon fills as the sun warms the coke can. If put in the shade the balloon will deflate as the coke cools.
It would appear that oceans are a great sink that releases and absorbs CO2 as it heats and cools. Just the burning of fossil fuels is not enough to show that this is the cause of a rise in atmospheric CO2. From what I have heard, our near 50% rise in CO2 levels are right on track for what is usual during a warming spell.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!