Free State Project Forum

FSP Community => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: MK on January 31, 2010, 09:04:09 am

Title: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MK on January 31, 2010, 09:04:09 am
I'd like to have a thread that features all the stories on Climategate (i.e.; global warming is a hoax) that report on any lies, fraud, or simply any story that reveals the truth about this hoax that's been "sold" to the American people by the mainstream (government) media, government education, government science and of course, the Gubernment.   

If you've got one, please post it here,  Also if you do post, please copy the entire story and paste it (as well as the link if you can) as links tend to disappear over time. Thanks.
Title: Re: Climategate & the like Stories
Post by: MK on January 31, 2010, 09:05:37 am
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece


From The Times  January 30, 2010 (UK paper)

Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen
Most experts believe that the Himalayan glaciers will take centuries to melt

Ben Webster, Environment Editor
274 Comments
Recommend? (164)
The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”

Related Links
UN's rogue glacier claim 'just one page in report'
UN climate chief 'got grants through bogus claims'
Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”

However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaciologists believe they would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are growing and many show little sign of change.

Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”.

Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350.

Mr Pallava interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week for Science and asked him why he had decided to overlook the error before the Copenhagen summit. In the taped interview, Mr Pallava asked: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?”

Dr Pachauri replied: “Not at all, not at all. As it happens, we were all terribly preoccupied with a lot of events. We were working round the clock with several things that had to be done in Copenhagen. It was only when the story broke, I think in December, we decided to, well, early this month — as a matter of fact, I can give you the exact dates — early in January that we decided to go into it and we moved very fast.

“And within three or four days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened. So I think this presumption on your part or on the part of any others is totally wrong. We are certainly never — and I can say this categorically — ever going to do anything other than what is truthful and what upholds the veracity of science.”

Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: swamp_yankee on January 31, 2010, 12:22:05 pm
Oldie, but goodie: Great Global Warming Swindle movie. Holds up ten times better than Inconvenient Truth.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on January 31, 2010, 12:38:45 pm
I have a thread precisely like that on another BBS:

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=31353.new
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MK on February 02, 2010, 08:54:01 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese


Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws

 Exclusive: Key study by East Anglia professor Phil Jones was based on suspect figures
• How the location of weather stations in China undermines data
• How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies
Comments (574)
Buzz up!
Digg it (128)
Fred Pearce guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 February 2010 21.00 GMT Article history
Professor Phil Jones, who was director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a professor of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. Photograph: University of East Anglia

Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.


Link to this audio Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue.

Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones's collaborator, Wei-­Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had "screwed up".

The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

Wang was cleared of scientific fraud by his university, but new information brought to light today indicates at least one senior colleague had serious concerns about the affair.

It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist.

The revelations come at a torrid time for climate science, with the IPPC suffering heavy criticism for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked – in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 – and UEA having been criticised last week by the deputy information commissioner for refusing valid requests for data under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Guardian has learned that of 105 freedom of information requests to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU), which Jones headed up to the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.

The temperature data from the Chinese weather stations measured the warming there over the past half century and appeared in a 1990 paper in the prestigious journal Nature, which was cited by the IPCC's latest report in 2007.

Climate change sceptics asked the UEA, via FOI requests, for location data for the 84 weather stations in eastern China, half of which were urban and half rural.

The history of where the weather stations were sited was crucial to Jones and Wang's 1990 study, as it concluded the rising temperatures recorded in China were the result of global climate changes rather the warming effects of expanding cities.

The IPCC's 2007 report used the study to justify the claim that "any urban-related trend" in global temperatures was small. Jones was one of two "coordinating lead authors" for the relevant chapter.

The leaked emails from the CRU reveal that the former director of the unit, Tom Wigley, harboured grave doubts about the cover-up of the shortcomings in Jones and Wang's work. Wigley was in charge of CRU when the original paper was published. "Were you taking W-CW [Wang] on trust?" he asked Jones. He continued: "Why, why, why did you and W-CW not simply say this right at the start?"

Jones said he was not able to comment on the story.

Wang said: "I have been exonerated by my university on all the charges. When we started on the paper we had all the station location details in order to identify our network, but we cannot find them any more.

"Some of the location changes were probably only a few metres, and where they were more we corrected for them."

In an interview with the Observer on Sunday Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, warned of the danger of a public backlash against mainstream climate science over claims that scientists manipulated data. He declared a "battle" against the "siren voices" who denied global warming was real or caused by humans. "It's right that there's rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it's somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that's there," he said.

Last week the Information Commissioner's Office – the body that administers the Freedom of Information Act – said the University of East Anglia had flouted the rules in its handling of an FOI request in May 2008.

Days after receiving the request for information from the British climate change sceptic David Holland, Jones asked Prof Mike Mann of Pennsylvania State University in the United States: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise.

"Can you also email Gene [Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist in Boulder, Colorado] and get him to do the same ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann, also from Boulder] to do the same."

The University of East Anglia says that no emails were deleted following this exchange.

• For regular email updates on climate change and the environment sign up for the Guardian and Observer's Green light newsletter
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on February 02, 2010, 09:00:22 am
I recently came across something that made the hairs on my head stand up - a major poll gauging the public opinion on Global Warming (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20091202005057&newsLang=en) phrased its question as:  "Do you believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures, or not?"

Wow...  Not only is that sentence grammatically incorrect, it is unquestionable blatant mis-framing of the question - "heads I win, tails you lose"!  There's no way anyone would honestly claim to disbelieve that infinite amounts of carbon dioxide and other unnamed gases over an indefinite period of time will eventually fuck things up!  But that has nothing to do with what we're dealing with here on Earth!

The relevant way to phrase this question would be...  "Do you believe sufficient scientific proof has been presented to conclude that:  (1) human activity is causing a change in the Earth climate, ruling out all natural explanations,  AND  (2) that this change is significant,  AND  (3) that this change is harmful,  AND  (4) that this change wouldn't correct itself automatically as humanity moves to more cost-effective technologies,  AND  (5) that global government regulation is the best way to deal with this problem,  AND  (6) that the side-effects of imposing a global government will not do more harm than good?"

And the factual answer to that is NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, and NO!
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 02, 2010, 12:03:29 pm
Actually your questions are also flawed.
They suggest that carbon dioxide and other GHGs created from one source are different when created from another source.
Congress has this same problem.
The significance of a change in atmospheric and oceanic composition would not need to be that great to create change.
Whether these 'effects' are considered harmful or not depends on your point of view.
And (4) completely fails to take into effect the collective effort to create inertia in technological improvement, or that the falling commodity prices of carbon rich energy sources would simply make their use more attractive.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on February 02, 2010, 12:44:58 pm
The GW alarmists typically acknowledge that over 95% of total CO2 emissions are non-anthropogenic, but they say the 1-5% that is is throwing the global equilibrium out of whack.  That's kind of silly because CO2 is only 0.0387% of the atmosphere.  Increasing it to 0.0389% for a few decades is not the end of the world - earth has experienced increases many orders of magnitude higher in the past.  The burden of proof remains in their field, where it has been for decades, and they only thing they've managed to prove so far is their capacity for violence and deceit!

Furthermore, the human race needs CO2 to grow more plants, since thanks to human stewardship the amount of plant biomass is expected to increase tremendously as we irrigate the deserts and other areas with relatively little rainfall, farm seaweed, build multistory greenhouses and massive floating cornfields on seas and oceans, etc, etc, etc.  The one thing that Earth is good for is farming - all pollution-producing activities can eventually be moved to space!

Space is where solar energy begins to make actual economic sense, where raw materials (i.e. asteroids) are much easier to mine without much gravity getting in your way, where transporting those materials is cheaper with zero air resistance, where massive nuclear power plants and robotized factories can be built without putting any residential neighborhoods in danger, etc, etc, etc.  I bet that if free markets are just allowed to work then by the end of this century we'll actually have to import CO2 back to Earth just to fertilize our crops!
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MK on February 02, 2010, 10:07:31 pm
No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/climate-change-pachauri-un-glaciers

Head of UN climate change body 'not at fault' for false claim Himalaya ice caps would melt by 2035
Comments (123)
Buzz up!
Digg it (19)
David Adam and Fred Pearce guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 February 2010 20.31 GMT Article history
Pachauri said it would be hypocritical to apologise for the false claim that Himalayan glaciers (above) could melt away by 2035. Photograph: Channi Anand/AP

The embattled chief of the UN's climate change body has hit out at his critics and refused to resign or apologise for a ­damaging mistake in a landmark 2007 report on global warming.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said it would be hypocritical to apologise for the false claim that ­Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035, because he was not personally responsible for that part of the report. "You can't expect me to be personally responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report," he said.

The IPCC issued a statement that expressed regret for the mistake, but Pachauri said a personal apology would be a "populist" step.

"I don't do too many populist things, that's why I'm so unpopular with a certain section of society," he said.

In a robust defence of his position and of the science of climate change, Pachauri said:

• The mistake had seriously damaged the IPCC's credibility and boosted the efforts of climate sceptics.

• It was an isolated mistake, down to human error and "totally out of character" for the panel.

• It does not undermine the "basic truth" that human activity is causing temperatures to rise.

• That he would not resign and was ­subject to lies about his personal income and lifestyle.

Pachauri spoke as the second day of the Guardian's investigation into the emails stolen from the University of East Anglia reveals how climate scientists acted to keep research papers they did not like out of academic journals. One UEA scientist, Dr Keith Briffa, wrote to a colleague to ask him for help rejecting a paper from a journal which he edited. "Confidentially I now need a hard, and if required, extensive case for rejecting." The request apparently broke the convention that the review process should be independent and anonymous. Briffa was not able to comment because of an ongoing independent review into the stolen emails.

In another email, sent in March 2003, the leading US climate scientist Prof Michael Mann suggested ostracising a journal for publishing a paper that attacked his work.

"I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues … to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." Mann denies any attempt to "stifle legitimate sceptical views".

The emails also reveal that one of the most influential data sets in climate science – the "hockey stick" graph of temperature over the past 1,000 years – was controversial not just with sceptics but among climate scientists themselves. "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story [in the forthcoming IPCC report], but in reality the situation is not quite so simple," wrote Briffa in September 1999.

In his Guardian interview, Pachauri defended the IPCC's use of so-called "grey literature" – sources outside peer-reviewed academic journals, such as reports from campaign groups, companies and student theses. The false Himalayan glacier claim came from a report by the green group WWF. He said reports of further errors in the IPCC report linked to grey literature were ­spurious and the result of a "factory" of people "only there to create pinpricks and get attention".

Stories that claimed errors about losses from natural disasters and Amazon destruction were false, he said. "We looked into that [Amazon claim] and we're totally satisfied that what's been stated in the report is totally valid."

The IPCC is beginning work on its next climate report, and Pachauri said it would stress to authors and reviewers the importance of checking sources. "Our procedures are very clear on the use of grey literature. Whenever an author uses grey literature they need to double check the source of information is authentic and defensible. People have been using grey literature for quite some time now. Apparently in this [Himalayan glacier] case there has been a failure because authors did not follow the procedures required."

To exclude such reports, he said, would give an incomplete picture. "The reality is that in several parts of the world, which will be influenced by the impacts of climate change, it's an unfortunate fact that we just don't have peer-reviewed material available."

Pachauri also rebutted newspapers' claims that he lives a lavish lifestyle and wears $1,000 suits. He said: "It's ridiculous and it's a bunch of lies."

His salary from the research institute that employs him is fixed in the range of 190,000 rupees (£2,600) a month, he said, while he receives only travel expenses for chairing the IPCC.

He added: "There is a tailor who stitches all my suits for 2,200 rupees (£30)."

The panel's report at the centre of the controversy said: "The likelihood of them [the Himalayan glaciers] disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high," a statement referenced to a report by WWF, which had taken it from a magazine article. It was subsequently found to be wrong.

Questions were raised about the glacier claim in an article in the US journal Science in November, and again by the BBC on 5 December, leading to allegations that Pachauri had been told by Pallava Bagla, the Indian journalist who wrote both, that it was problematic, but failed to act.

But Pachauri said he had not become aware of the problem until January. "If he [Bagla] sent me an email and I didn't see it, I can only say that I'm sorry that I didn't see that email. A lot of my emails are handled by my office and I don't get to see them personally."

Pachauri also said he was taking steps to strengthen the staff employed by the panel. "We're in an information society today and we have to respond adequately and professionally. We've been weak in that regard to be honest. The IPCC is starting to realise we're living in a very different world to what we had in 1988.

"I think this [glacier] mistake has certainly cost us dear, there's no question about it," he said. "Everybody thought that what the IPCC brought out was the gold standard and nothing could go wrong. But look at the larger picture, don't get blinded by this one mistake.

"The larger picture is solid, it's convincing and it's extremely important. How can we lose sight of what climate change is going to do to this planet? What it's already doing to this planet?"
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 02, 2010, 11:54:22 pm
There is no global equilibrium.
There is only the knowledge that compounds such as CO2 have a lower and upper level which rates 'endangerment'.

As for GW theory, its actually pretty simple science basic science trying to be applied in a complex manner for which scientific teams do not currently have the answers. Which is why it is still highly debated. It would be like us debating a moon colony. The basic science for such exists, but its application is less than perfect.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on February 03, 2010, 05:17:58 am
The GW fans need to collect a couple hundred years worth of accurate trustworthy global satellite temperature reading and then get back to us.  They are basing their current conclusions on data so unreliable with error margins so high it is completely useless and can be interpreted to verify every preexisting "I wanna double my research grant and save the world" biases that any government scientist (not to be confused with a real scientist) will have.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 03, 2010, 04:39:48 pm
Again, your mixing applied and basic.
I could quadruple the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The basic science would reason that this level would provide more absorbtion of the EM spectrum associated with the particular molecule. But it wouldn't take into account other factors that could lower the global mean temperature.

Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MK on February 07, 2010, 09:47:36 am
(*For the Record, the DC area has recieved more than 2 feet of snow during the last couple of days)


RFK, Jr. 15 months ago: Global warming means no snow or cold in DC

By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
12/21/09 1:51 PM EST

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-79834057.html#ixzz0erTxtybh

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who flies around on private planes so as to tell larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the planet, wrote a column last year on the lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C.

In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.

In those days, I recall my uncle, President Kennedy, standing erect as he rode a toboggan in his top coat, never faltering until he slid into the boxwood at the bottom of the hill. Once, my father, Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, brought a delegation of visiting Eskimos home from the Justice Department for lunch at our house. They spent the afternoon building a great igloo in the deep snow in our backyard. My brothers and sisters played in the structure for several weeks before it began to melt. On weekend afternoons, we commonly joined hundreds of Georgetown residents for ice skating on Washington's C&O Canal, which these days rarely freezes enough to safely skate.

Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing that global warming is a fantasy.

Having shoveled my walk five times in the midst of this past weekend's extreme cold and blizzard, I think perhaps RFK, Jr. should leave weather analysis to the meteorologists instead of trying to attribute every global phenomenon to anthropogenic climate change.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-79834057.html#ixzz0erTKo2gh
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MK on February 13, 2010, 07:31:05 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/utah-climate-alarmists


Utah delivers vote of no confidence for 'climate alarmists'The US's most Republican state passes bill disputing science of climate change, claiming emissions are 'essentially harmless'

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 February 2010 18.20 GMT Article history
Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants. So now will you stop worrying about global warming?


Utah's House of Representatives apparently has at least. Officially the most Republican state in America, its political masters have adopted a resolution condemning "climate alarmists", and disputing any scientific basis for global warming.


The measure, which passed by 56-17, has no legal force, though it was predictably claimed by climate change sceptics as a great victory in the wake of the controversy caused by a mistake over Himalayan glaciers in the UN's landmark report on global warming.


But it does offer a view of state politicians' concerns in Utah which is a major oil and coal producing state.


The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a "well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome". It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty".


In the heat of the debate, the representative Mike Noel said environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and control world population through forced sterilisation and abortion.


By the time the final version of the bill came to a vote, cooler heats apparently prevailed. The bill dropped the word "conspiracy", and described climate science as "questionable" rather than "flawed".


However, it insisted – against all evidence – that the hockey stick graph of changing temperatures was discredited. It also called on the federal government's Environmental Protection Agency to order an immediate halt in its moves to regulate greenhouse gas emissions "until a full and independent investigation of climate data and global warming science can be substantiated".


As Noel explained: "Sometimes ... we need to have the courage to do nothing."
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 14, 2010, 12:45:14 am
The EPA hasn't made any movement based on global temperatures... that may be the perception, but not the fact.
It would be like stating that Cap & Trade is based on climate science.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: JasonPSorens on February 15, 2010, 10:10:51 am
Here's a useful article setting forth what we do & do not know about human-caused global warming. It's written by an MIT climate scientist:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/02/15/climate_changes_are_proven_fact/
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: greap on February 15, 2010, 01:54:04 pm
Here's a useful article setting forth what we do & do not know about human-caused global warming. It's written by an MIT climate scientist:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/02/15/climate_changes_are_proven_fact/

If anyone would like to read the counter claims for this article he wrote a book covering the same subject matter called "What we know about climate change" which has been dealt with in various places already.

It is worth pointing out that the author is also a Meteorologist specialising in Hurricanes, certainly he would fall in the grouping of fields refereed to as "climate science" so his claims to be a "climate scientist" are correct, but he is not in a field directly related to the warming process and works on near term not long term projections.

Frankly I find the self professed "climate scientists" on both sides of the argument to be little more then media whores who are utilising the debate to further their own financial empires rather than actually completing good science. The peer review process is hopelessly broken in the area and most of the "science" done is based entirely on the interpreted data obtained from either climatic models or the three "normalised" datasets available.

On a related subject the only people who are really qualified to lend real science to the issue (rather than opinion) are atmospheric physicists and atmospheric chemists working in conjunction, every other field in climate science either feeds in to possible sources or possible effects not the process of warming itself. Any other "scientist" involving themselves without making the caveat that they are not trained in the right field to make a qualified judgement on the science is immediately suspect.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on February 16, 2010, 11:58:06 am
From a recent article in NY Post -- "Warming" meltdown (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_meltdown_iD1hypJAstOrvovafbIbGK) --

Quote
[...] (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_meltdown_iD1hypJAstOrvovafbIbGK)

In The Boston Globe, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Emanuel) marshals a new argument for fighting warming:  "We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come."  Really?  That's not what we were told even a few months ago - before climate alarmism acknowledged doubt.

As I've stated previously in this thread, we have every reason to believe that human population will begin to decline and energy efficiency will increase during the 21st century, up to the point where the vast majority of humanity's pollution ends up in space, a drop in the ocean of the pollution produced by the sun.  Alarmists don't have the "divine right" to clip the wings of the human civilization for their political convenience!  The burden of proof continues to be on them, and they continue to fail to deliver it!


[...]  the only people who are really qualified to lend real science to the issue (rather than opinion) are atmospheric physicists and atmospheric chemists  [...]

Ah, how convenient - the one academic field that is 100% government-funded and has the most to gain from Global Warming gets the monopoly on deciding its validity.  Bravo!  What's next, putting Dr Strangelove in charge of diplomacy?!
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: greap on February 16, 2010, 12:02:44 pm
THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

The precautionary principle tells us that its all your job to prove it is not happening not our job to prove it is so nah.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 16, 2010, 01:50:23 pm
They're not 100% government funded.

It wasn't even till the early attempts of 'applied' science began predicting the next ice age was beginning in the 70s that it got media and then political interest.
The debate isn't even really centered around science, but economics... mostly taxation. And the US is going to need new revenue or dramatic cuts. Self-funding (Pay-as-you-Go) is not popular with the voters.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Mo250 on February 16, 2010, 07:55:31 pm
THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

The precautionary principle tells us that its all your job to prove it is not happening not our job to prove it is so nah.

the principle is basically a way for people who take Pascal's Wager to force the rest of us to do the same by smuggling in arbitrary criteria of harm to excuse government action in situations where it is not warranted. Interesting indeed
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Mo250 on February 16, 2010, 08:17:02 pm
They're not 100% government funded.

It wasn't even till the early attempts of 'applied' science began predicting the next ice age was beginning in the 70s that it got media and then political interest.
The debate isn't even really centered around science, but economics... mostly taxation. And the US is going to need new revenue or dramatic cuts. Self-funding (Pay-as-you-Go) is not popular with the voters.

its neither science nor economics. those are just cover-ups.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: rossby on February 16, 2010, 09:02:15 pm
Frankly I find the self professed "climate scientists" on both sides of the argument to be little more then media whores

Really, it's a good specimen of poor popular scientific writing. But there's no need for the name calling. :P
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 17, 2010, 01:49:22 am
its neither science nor economics. those are just cover-ups.
Its pretty easy even for the layperson to realize that the Earth's temperature does not suffer the extremes of the moon in roughly the same orbit. So there must be something special about the Earth tempering those extremes. Its a little harder to experiment with variance. But the basic science is pretty basic.
As for the economics, a carbon tax really isn't anything more than expansion of already existing taxes with maybe a little of the 'fair tax' consumption thrown in. Not really new. But when looking for a new source of revenue... its what politicians can 'sell' to the voters that counts. Most mathematicians will tell you that C&T will not lower the amount of anthropogenic produced atmospheric carbon... the taxation would simply need to be too high to get results.



Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: rossby on February 17, 2010, 02:45:08 am
Most mathematicians will tell you that C&T will not lower the amount of anthropogenic produced atmospheric carbon... the taxation would simply need to be too high to get results.

Ooh, math. Even if you assume that *cringe* "average global temperature" is rising as a direct cause of anthropogenic carbon (I'm not say it isn't--just assuming a best case), the most strict emissions reduction protocols are not predicted to reduce rising *cringe* global temperatures until 40-60 years from now. C&T will do nothing.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 17, 2010, 02:32:29 pm
C&T isn't really about reducing atmospheric carbon... because it will not work.
C&T is about expanding federal revenue.

To my knowledge, none of the lead scientists have concluded a singular method by which atmospheric carbon can be stabilized.
Also none of the lead scientists has concluded what if possible the optimum atmospheric carbon would be. The basic science just gives a range for human well being.

Its sort of like the arbitrary target for when the natural feedback loop will elevate... no one is actually positive.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Luck on February 17, 2010, 08:00:32 pm
* It's true, as I recall, that a new ice age was the scare in the 70s. I think it was only in 79 that the global warming scare got started, though it was not publicized much at the time and didn't interest many scientists or anyone else. It was Margaret Thatcher who apparently started it, because she wanted Britain to switch from coal and oil to nuclear energy. It's funny that the GW hypers don't seem to care for that "solution". I heard that Stewart Brand does though.
* John Haymaker and Dennis Weaver [not the actor] were writing in the 70s and 80s about the coming ice age and trying to rile up Congress to see the threat and pass laws to grind up granite rock to put on all the land to halt the process. I thought the theory was plausible at first, but I never did accept the global warming theory, as it was dependent on the theory of the greenhouse effect, which was based on observations of Venus. In the 1950s and early 60s, scientists expected Venus to be a very cold planet because of its thick atmosphere, which should block out heat from sunlight. When Venus was found to be over 700 degrees F, they then jumped to the conclusion that CO2, which makes up over 90% of Venus' atmosphere, acts like a greenhouse, trapping heat from the sun.
* Being a reader of alternative sciences, I knew what the far more likely reason for Venus' heat was. Venus is a young planet and planets start out hot, when they fission from stars or eject from gas giant planets. The nebular theory of solar system formation is very implausible. When a cloud of gas or dust heats up, it doesn't collapse, it expands. So there's nothing to cause collapse of gases and dust to form planetoids. Gravity is not the major force in the universe. Instead the major force is the electrical force, which is seen in the plasma that fills the universe. Electric and magnetic forces combine to compress matter into stars and planetoids. See http://thunderbolts.info * Venus is not heating up; it's cooling off. It's losing heat rapidly.
* The best website I've seen on global warming reality is http://CO2science.org


Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: rossby on February 17, 2010, 11:31:13 pm
* Being a reader of alternative sciences, I knew what the far more likely reason for Venus' heat was. Venus is a young planet and planets start out hot, when they fission from stars or eject from gas giant planets. The nebular theory of solar system formation is very implausible. When a cloud of gas or dust heats up, it doesn't collapse, it expands. So there's nothing to cause collapse of gases and dust to form planetoids. Gravity is not the major force in the universe. Instead the major force is the electrical force, which is seen in the plasma that fills the universe. Electric and magnetic forces combine to compress matter into stars and planetoids. See http://thunderbolts.info * Venus is not heating up; it's cooling off. It's losing heat rapidly.

-10 Karma Science Points
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 18, 2010, 04:03:55 am
Really just a change in focus of the media.
The media tends to present hypothesis as fact. And then fails to air the finding when the study is finalized.

I can think of several of these that deal with NH alone.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: greap on February 18, 2010, 12:19:35 pm
-10 Karma Science Points

Much kinder then I would be when presented with such nonsense  :)
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Pat McCotter on February 19, 2010, 08:08:01 am
1972 Horizon documentary on the controversial theories of Velikovsky shown in the UK on BBC 2

Worlds in Collision: Immanuel Velikovsky (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6229135744841359869#) - VIDEO
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on February 22, 2010, 04:25:43 pm
(First, here's some appropriate background audio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsUdZrG1Fpo) while you read the below news article - if you're a fellow "Global Warming" skeptic that is.)


Now, from The Guardian (UK) -- Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall) --

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


Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo587.html), one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html).  It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol (http://www.gly.bris.ac.uk/people/siddall.html), said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results (http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6484.html)".  The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf) that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."

Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html), said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.

The paper -- entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo587.html)" -- used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/29/climate-science-2009) to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.

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

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".


Ladies and Gentlemen:

     The world is NOT coming to an end.

Repeat:

     The world is NOT coming to an end.

Thank you.

 ;D


Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 23, 2010, 12:27:16 am
Once again. APPLIED SCIENCE.

With the lack of a static control to measure from, applied science is sort of a waste of time.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MK on March 02, 2010, 09:42:57 am
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-professor-Phil-Jones-admits-sending-pretty-awful-emails.html


Head of 'Climategate' research unit admits sending 'pretty awful emails' to hide data
By David Derbyshire

Last updated at 8:34 AM on 02nd March 2010

 

Scientists at the heart of the Climategate row were yesterday accused by a leading academic body of undermining science's credibility.

The Institute of Physics said 'worrying implications' had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had manipulated data on global warming.

The rebuke - the strongest yet from the scientific community - came as Professor Phil Jones, the researcher at the heart of the scandal, told MPs he had written 'some pretty awful emails' - but denied trying to suppress data.
 On the spot: Professor Phil Jones being grilled by the Science and Technology committee in the Commons yesterday
The Climategate row, which was first revealed by the Daily Mail in November, was triggered when a hacker stole hundreds of emails sent from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

They revealed scientists plotting how to avoid responding to Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics.

Some even appeared to show the researchers discussing how to manipulate raw data from tree rings about historical temperatures.

In one, Professor Jones talks about using a 'trick' to massage figures and 'hide the decline'.

 More...'Environmentally-friendly' biofuels are more harmful to the planet than normal fossil fuel
It's official: This winter was the coldest for more than 30 years
QUENTIN LETTS: Lord Lawson labelled them climate alarmists

Giving evidence to a Science and Technology Committee inquiry, the Institute of Physics said: 'Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method.

'The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.'

Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled the CRU had broken Freedom of Information rules by refusing to hand over raw data.

But yesterday Professor Jones - in his first public appearance since the scandal broke - denied manipulating the figures.

Looking pale and clasping his shaking hands in front of him, he told MPs: 'I have obviously written some pretty awful emails.'

He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.

And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

'I don't think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way,' he said.

Professor Jones, who was forced to stand down as head of the CRU last year, also insisted the scientific findings on climate change were robust.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-professor-Phil-Jones-admits-sending-pretty-awful-emails.html#ixzz0h1wlNRSt
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on March 02, 2010, 02:32:42 pm
Not sure what winter temperatures they are discussing... is this for the recent North Hemisphere winter or the recent Southern Hemisphere winter?
And wouldn't that be weather, and not climate?

Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MK on March 07, 2010, 10:20:08 pm
Not sure what winter temperatures they are discussing... is this for the recent North Hemisphere winter or the recent Southern Hemisphere winter?
And wouldn't that be weather, and not climate?



Weather and Climate are going to be in the same book for my thread friend!
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on March 08, 2010, 12:25:58 am
How?
They aren't the same things.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: rossby on March 08, 2010, 12:58:21 am
How?
They aren't the same things.

Sarcasm.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MK on March 11, 2010, 09:09:48 am
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx

Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop
Multiple indicators show less concern, more feelings that global warming is exaggeratedby Frank Newport
Page: 12
PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.



These results are based on the annual Gallup Social Series Environment poll, conducted March 4-7 of this year. The survey results show that the reversal in Americans' concerns about global warming that began last year has continued in 2010 -- in some cases reverting to the levels recorded when Gallup began tracking global warming measures more than a decade ago.

For example, the percentage of Americans who now say reports of global warming are generally exaggerated is by a significant margin the highest such reading in the 13-year history of asking the question. In 1997, 31% said global warming's effects had been exaggerated; last year, 41% said the same, and this year the number is 48%.

Fewer Americans Think Effects of Global Warming Are Occurring

"In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth's temperature over the last century."Many global warming activists have used film and photos of melting ice caps and glaciers, and the expanding reach of deserts, to drive home their point that global warming is already having alarming effects on the earth. While these efforts may have borne fruit over much of the 2000s, during the last two years, Americans' convictions about global warming's effects have waned.

A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years. That percentage is dwindling, however. The average American is now less convinced than at any time since 1997 that global warming's effects have already begun or will begin shortly.

Meanwhile, 35% say that the effects of global warming either will never happen (19%) or will not happen in their lifetimes (16%).

The 19% figure is more than double the number who held this view in 1997.



Fewer See Global Warming as Serious Threat
In similar fashion, the percentage of Americans who believe that global warming is going to affect them or their way of life in their lifetimes has dropped to 32% from a 40% high point in 2008. Two-thirds of Americans say global warming will not affect them in their lifetimes.



The shift in these views during the past two years has been particularly striking. The percentage who said global warming would pose a serious threat increased gradually from 1997 through 2008. The trend in these responses changed course last year, with slightly fewer Americans saying global warming would have a significant effect in their lifetimes. This year, that percentage is down even more, marking a six-point drop from 2009, and roughly similar to where it was nine years ago.

Americans Divided on Causes of Global Warming

In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth's temperature over the last century.



In 2003, 61% of Americans said such increases were due to human activities -- in line with advocates of the global warming issue -- while 33% said they were due to natural changes in the environment. Now, a significantly diminished 50% say temperature increases are due to human activities, and 46% say they are not.

Americans Less Sure About Scientists' Beliefs

Since last fall, there have been widespread news accounts of allegations of errors in scientific reports on global warming and alleged attempts by some scientists to doctor the global warming record.

These news reports may well have caused some Americans to re-evaluate the scientific consensus on global warming. Roughly half of Americans now say that "most scientists believe that global warming is occurring," down from 65% in recent years. The dominant opposing thesis, held by 36% of Americans, is that scientists are unsure about global warming. An additional 10% say most scientists believe global warming is not occurring.



The percentage of Americans who think most scientists believe global warming is occurring has dropped 13 points from two years ago, and is the lowest since the first time Gallup asked this question back in 1997.

Implications

The last two years have marked a general reversal in the trend of Americans' attitudes about global warming. Most Gallup measures up to 2008 had shown increasing concern over global warming on the part of the average American, in line with what one might have expected given the high level of publicity on the topic. Former Vice President Al Gore had been particularly prominent in this regard, with the publication of his bestselling book, "An Inconvenient Truth," an Academy Award-winning documentary movie focusing on his global warming awareness campaign, and Gore's receipt of a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

But the public opinion tide turned in 2009, when several Gallup measures showed a slight retreat in public concern about global warming. This year, the downturn is even more pronounced.

Some of the shifts in Americans' views may reflect real-world events, including the publicity surrounding allegations of scientific fraud relating to global warming evidence, and -- perhaps in some parts of the country -- a reflection of the record-breaking snow and cold temperatures of this past winter. Additionally, evidence from last year showed that the issue of global warming was becoming heavily partisan in nature, and it may be that the continuing doubts about global warming put forth by conservatives and others are having an effect. A forthcoming analysis here at Gallup.com will examine shifts in global warming attitudes in recent years among various demographic and political groups.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,014 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted March 4-7, 2010. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion p

Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on March 11, 2010, 03:41:03 pm
So now you want to use popular opinion to determine climate?
Obviously it has political concerns... but not real physical dictate.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MK on March 15, 2010, 07:19:47 am
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7440664/Government-rebuked-over-global-warming-nursery-rhyme-adverts.html


Government rebuked over global warming nursery rhyme adverts
Two nursery rhyme adverts commissioned by the Government to raise awareness of climate change have been banned for overstating the risks.
 
By Matthew Moore
Published: 9:25AM GMT 14 Mar 2010

Comments 15 | Comment on this article

 In definitely asserting that climate change would cause flooding and drought the adverts went beyond mainstream scientific consensus, the watchdog said. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the adverts – which were based on the children's poems Jack and Jill and Rub-A-Dub-Dub – made exaggerated claims about the threat to Britain from global warming.

In definitely asserting that climate change would cause flooding and drought the adverts went beyond mainstream scientific consensus, the watchdog said.

It noted that predictions about the potential global impact of global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "involved uncertainties" that the adverts failed to reflect.

The two posters created on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change juxtaposed adapted extracts from the nursery rhymes with prose warnings about the dangers of global warning.

One began: “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.” Beneath was written: “Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense.”

The second advert read: "Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub — a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change.” It was captioned: “Climate change is happening. Temperature and sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense. If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different.”

Upholding complaints from members of the public, the ASA said that in both instances the text accompanying the rhymes should have been couched in softer language.

The newspaper adverts were part of a controversial media campaign launched by the DECC last year which attracted a total of 939 complaints.

The watchdog found that the other elements of the campaign, including a television and cinema advert in which a father read his daughter a nightmarish bedtime story about a world blighted by climate change, did not breach its guidelines.

Ed Miliband, the Environment Secretary, said that that his department had been "comprehensively vindicated" by the ASA but promised to better reflect scientific uncertainty about global warming in future campaigns.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on March 22, 2010, 08:09:29 pm
I found myself experiencing off-topic verbal diarrhea on Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1586352&cid=31573828) again, where no one will read my comments because of my -1 Troll rating (and I sometimes post as Anonymous Coward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Coward) to get around the 2 posts per 24 hours limit), so I wanted to cross-post it somewhere else...

Quote
Great, another Global Warming zombie making an appeal to "authority" and ignoring factual evidence that this authority is invalid. The one thing you always get from Global Warming proponents is political bias, strong emotions, and a lot of chest-pounding. What you don't get are facts, because scientifically they don't have a leg to stand on. (And by scientifically I mean the actual scientific method, not the government-controlled propaganda package that is tries to sell as "science", just as all dictatorships try to present themselves as "scientific".)

Governments have always, ALWAYS used the unifying effect of an external threat as justification for their own power. Hitler was loved because he wasn't Stalin. Stalin was loved because he wasn't Hitler. FDR was loved because he wasn't either of them - he'd be remembered as a major tyrant himself if not for that comparison. Watch a few minutes of North Korean television and it's all about Big Bad America wanting to rape their women and children... You get the idea... But that's the previous version of the tyrannical model, and it no longer works very well in the globalized interconnected world of the 21st century. The "divine right" of national governments (ex. "democracy") is no longer the ideal religion for the power elite to use as a justification of their aggression against the rest of humanity, because intergovernmental competition (tax havens, brain drain, the "Galt's Gulch" effect, etc) has always been the greatest limit to their power. Universal power requires universal government, and the establishment of a world government would require a whole new propaganda strategy that would appeal to the emotions of all human beings everywhere. Faking an alien invasion being just slightly above what most sheeple would swallow, the environmentalist religion was the next best thing.

Show me a "Global Warming" proponent, and I'll show you a person whose livelihood and self-esteem are tied to it directly, resulting in a huge amount of cognitive bias. Climatology is for the most part a government-controlled science, with the small fraction of climatologists who are not profiting from government force being OVERWHELMINGLY in the skeptic camp. The people who are a part of this religion have passed through an academic filter of pro-government bias - if you don't believe in the government-dictated theories then you don't become a climatologist, it's that simple. And most climatologists pushing "Global Warming" know that without it they'd be teaching third grade science instead!

You need to stop accepting the "Global Warming" propaganda on faith and actually look at the scientific facts: what is the nature of the temperature data being presented, how was this data collected, how accurate and reliable is it, what scientific conclusions can be drawn from it, how can those scientific conclusions be tested and validated or invalidated, what political actions do those conclusions mandate, and what is the exact nature and limit to that mandate. The burden of proof remains on the alarmists to substantiate their agenda with solid scientific certainties, which remain virtually non-existent.

And remember that they need to prove not just that the earth (and not just human cities) has warmed substantially in the recent past (which they haven't done due to the aforementioned error margins), but they also need to account for the possibility of natural cycles causing a change in temperature - with some of those natural cycles requiring centuries of data about this solar system which we simply don't have. Finally you must remember that governments have a very long history of pushing cures that are far, FAR more painful than the alleged disease. They need to prove not only that Global Warming is substantial and anthropogenic, but that the cure that they're pushing is the best possible alternative, taking into account all the nasty side-effects an all-powerful world government would bring. Those side-effects can make the difference between economic growth (which leads to ever-cleaner technologies) and economic stagnation, the difference between you dying in the first century of your life and science finding a way to prolong your lifespan indefinitely, the difference between humanity eventually colonizing the stars or falling back to an environmentalist dystopia like the one described in Ayn Rand's Anthem...

Now a few words about what "Global Warming" skepticism is not. It does not deny that human activity causes heat and releases pollutants - so does panda bear activity to some degree. What we're skeptical about is the governmental power grab that is being promoted in the name of "fighting" "Global Warming", with its selling point being based not on scientific knowledge but political convenience. Pollution is an economic liability and it needs to be treated as such, as would most certainly be the case in a more rational system of jurisprudence which is not under the government's thumb. (You'll find plenty of good libertarian and even Anarcho-Capitalist books on managing pollution - read them!) Skeptics don't claim that infinite pollution growth will never cause any problems, but that has nothing to do with what is going to happen in the real world.

The 21st century will see ever-more natural market incentives toward greater efficiency (with plenty of PR incentives as well), and a gradual move of energy production, mining, and heavy industry into space. We'd probably be off hydrocarbons already if not for all the government red tape around other viable alternatives (nuclear, space solar, etc), and all they trillion-dollar wars fought for cheaper oil! We might actually end up importing some CO2 back to earth in the form of much-needed plant fertilizer before this century is out!

The problem of CO2 will simply be solved, just like the alleged "problem" of population growth has been solved, with all models showing population decline by the end of this century. What solves both problems is free markets and free competition of ideas, not government force, though the latter is particularly apt at jumping in front of any parade that it comes across.

How soon people forget that socialism (and not just in its fascist / communist forms) has killed hundreds of millions of people directly in the 20th century alone, and one could argue that it has "killed" billions of people indirectly - by lowering economic growth and thus their life expectancy, not to mention the quality of their life. The new religion of environmentalism (socialism 2.0) can kill even more people, with its naive supporters being no different than the "scientific" fascists and communists that they are replacing...

What will it take for government supporters to learn from their mistakes?! Why can't you put down the guns of the state and let your arguments sink or swim by scientific evidence alone?!
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on June 06, 2011, 05:38:25 am
Top of Drudge (http://drudgereport.com/) -

PAPER: Activist calls for forcibly tattooing 'climate change' deniers... (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-dangers-of-boneheaded-beliefs-20110602-1fijg.html)


The eco-tards still don't have the tiniest amount of coherent scientific evidence to support their claims, but they are ever-more ready to use violence to stifle anyone attempting a rational scientific analysis of their greenie religious delusions!  How can people possibly be so damn stupid?!

Can't they stop chanting "we are right, we are always right, all scientists agree with us" for one freakin' minute and look at the framing of the argument - and of course the actual data, where error margins are actually bigger than the one-degree past temperature change they're trying so hard to allege?!  Can't they understand the self-selection and other biases that affect those government-funded "scientists", who in absence of this "crisis" would be flipping burgers instead?!

Don't they know what tiny percentage of greenhouse gasses is man-made, and how quickly the various gasses are absorbed by plants and oceans?!  Don't they know that we didn't have space satellites hundreds of years ago, and, therefore, cannot with any accuracy speculate about what long-term cycles might be affecting our climate?!  Can't they study real hard and try to comprehend elementary concepts like the heat caused by urbanization around temperature monitoring stations being completely different than the heating of the whole planet?!

Can't they understand that simply imagining a worst-case-scenario in their twisted little miseducated brains -- an impossible delusion of indefinite pollution growth and zero scientific progress -- doesn't automatically grant them the "divine right" to Hitlerian control over the entirety of the human race?!  Don't they understand that ending intergovernmental competition has been the #1 wet-dream of tyrants, and a global "ecological crisis" is precisely what they'd need to manufacture to make that happen?!

Don't they have the slightest comprehension of basic economics, like Property Rights creating the incentive to limit external liabilities like pollution?!  Don't they know that hydrocarbons are merely the cheapest temporary source of energy, which they have subsidized for a century with trillion-dollar wars, with many alternatives ripening - not because of their central planning interventionism, but in spite of it?!  Don't they know that E=MC2?!  Don't they know that 99.86% of the mass of our solar system is a giant nuclear reactor just sitting there and waiting for us to tap into?!  Their conservation / regulation bullshit has no purpose except to control!

Can't they understand that humanity is achieving great things as the result of our industrialization, expanding our access to resources much faster than our needs for them, and now being on the verge of becoming what as far as we know is unique among the 70 sextillion stars in the known universe - a space-faring civilization!  Don't they know that fertility rates are falling, fuel efficiency is rising, and that by the end of this century humanity will inevitably export all of its manufacturing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_manufacturing), mining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining), and energy production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power) into space?!  Unless they get in the way, of course...  By clipping the wings of progress, it is they that are the worst enemies of this planet, and of everything else that a free human civilization can accomplish far beyond!
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 06, 2011, 07:37:25 am
Would you stipulate a volcanic activity if continuous would change the climate?
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on June 06, 2011, 11:24:43 am
Even a butterfly flapping its wings "changes the climate" - it's just a matter of where, when, how, how much, and whether it creates the political excuse for a global government power-grab.

No source of CO2 emissions on this planet is more temporary than the sub-atmospheric phase of human industrialization, and I know of nothing in this universe that carries a greater value.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 07, 2011, 05:21:37 am
No source of CO2? I think your generalizing a bit.

And your not talking about the government power-grab... your talking about the science.
These are two whole-heartedly different subjects.



Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on June 08, 2011, 12:46:32 am
First of all, you may need to re-read the post you just brainfarted on:

Would you stipulate a volcanic activity, if continuous, would change the climate?

Even a butterfly flapping its wings "changes the climate" - it's just a matter of where, when, how, how much, and whether it creates the political excuse for a global government power-grab.

No source of CO2 emissions on this planet is more temporary than the sub-atmospheric phase of human industrialization, and I know of nothing in this universe that carries a greater value.

Now, please clarify - exactly which part escapes your comprehension?
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 08, 2011, 01:03:11 am
Nothing escaped me. Where is your evidence that human industrial CO2 is less absorbed than other formats?
You wanted to speak to the science rather than the politics... so present the evidence.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on June 08, 2011, 02:13:30 am
human industrial CO2 is less absorbed than other formats?

Who said that?  I didn't.  What I said was:  "No source of CO2 emissions on this planet is more temporary than the sub-atmospheric phase of human industrialization, and I know of nothing in this universe that carries a greater value."

All non-human sources of greenhouse gasses have been and will be around for millions or billions of years.  Large-scale anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gasses started in early 20th century and will be in decline by the end of the 21st, when most human pollution will be cost-effective to export into space.  In other words, this 0.28% slice of the greenhouse source pie chart is a tiny, tiny, tiny price this planet must pay for the human civilization, which will in turn spread this planet's natural circumstances to countless planets beyond...

(http://alexlibman.net/img/bak/greenhouse_pie.jpg) (http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/2009/05/spit-and-pie-charts.html)
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 08, 2011, 05:32:44 am
For it to be more temporary... would suggest that its absorbed faster than other formats.
And your doing exactly what the alarmist are... suggesting that you know the future... and thus the outcome.

Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on June 08, 2011, 12:09:47 pm
For it to be more temporary... would suggest that its absorbed faster than other formats.

Um, no, it (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/temporary) would suggest a shorter duration of the phenomenon to its foreseeable conclusion - billions of years vs a couple of centuries.


And your doing exactly what the alarmist are... suggesting that you know the future... and thus the outcome.

I am not claiming to know the future with total certainty, but to counter their moonbattery with a logical outlook over the same time-frame during which they project limitless exponential pollution growth.  And even without the drastic difference in the plausibility of the two outlooks, the burden of proof would still be on the alarmists - a 10,000 mile journey of which they haven't yet taken a single step.

The reality of our solar system is understood well enough by modern science to be able to compare the costs and benefits of performing certain industries on our overpriced planet vs in the superabundant space, sunlight, and mineral wealth all around it, where pollution liabilities are pretty much zero.  There really are no two ways about it...  Keeping those industries on earth would eventually be like drinking your own urine and eventually dying of thirst while standing in a fountain of Poland Spring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_Spring)!
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 09, 2011, 05:57:12 am
The climate models only handle 80 years.
And humans will be producing carbon for their entire existence.

The basic science that the alarmists are using is the same science that will be needed to achieve what you would propose.
So the science either has value... or you'll never see the future you suggest.
 
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on June 09, 2011, 11:35:04 am
The climate models only handle 80 years.

I don't know where you got that arbitrary number...

First of all, in order to have an accurate model (the changes we're talking about are a fraction of a degree), you need to know every last possible detail you can about a system.  This is very difficult when much of your data for even two decades ago relies on disgruntled vodka-belching Soviet climatologists in Siberia who were owed 3 years back-pay!  Some sources of data, like tree rings and ice core samples, are estimates that simply don't give you this level of detail.  Then the data would need to be adjusted for things like "urban warming" around the temperature stations, solar activity, etc, etc, etc.  There are error margins and rooms for creative accounting at every turn.

The science of planetary-scale climatology is relatively new, and there are various natural cycles, some of which lasting hundreds of years, that humanity simply haven't had the chance to record yet.  In order words, an honest climatologist would be answering a lot of questions with "I don't know".


And humans will be producing carbon for their entire existence.

That in of itself isn't a bad thing, it's just a matter of where we put it and how much.  CO2 is plant food (http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm), and every 21st century high-efficiency agricultural plant should consider piping in some filtered CO2 from a nearby factory to optimize growth.  There are existing or potential industrial uses for all other byproducts of humanity, and failing that there is a darn big universe out there to safely throw them away.

The crazy allegation is that human beings will inevitably be producing enough carbon and other pollutants to cause a catastrophe on this planet, and that Mommy Global Government needs to take out its axe and intervene.  They have a desired politically-motivated solution in search of a problem, the very opposite of how a scientific inquiry should work.  Factually, they haven't proven a single thing!

All of their alarmist predictions have a 100% track record of failure.  My predictions continue to inch closer to reality as science continues to find new ways to increase efficiency and reduce pollution.  For example, when I first heard of solar panels, they achieved about 10-15% efficiency, while today they achieve 40-45%.  Laptop and other consumer electronics are financing the evolution of battery technologies to the point where electric cars are becoming feasible, with governmental tax incentives for those things being an example of "the crutches government gives you after it first breaks your legs".  Private sector spaceflight is paving the way for what will be the ultimate solution to pollution-free energy: space-based solar power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power).  All we need is to end government subsidy of pollution (including the meat industry and trillion-dollar wars for cheaper oil) and phase in libertarian pollution control methods that are based on Property Rights, and the problem of pollution growth will be solved once and for all.


The basic science that the alarmists are using is the same science that will be needed to achieve what you would propose.
So the science either has value... or you'll never see the future you suggest.

All science has value.  But what the alarmists are doing is politics, not science.
 
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 10, 2011, 10:03:08 pm
The arbitrary number is what the model designers chose... most likely do to computational limitations of the time.
And the models are applied science... which is not accurate.

Not a catastrophe... a change.

You seem to want to fall to the alarmists.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on June 11, 2011, 12:30:20 am
That last statement makes me wonder if you have any crayons stuck far up your nose...

My views on Global Warming can be summed up with this quote (http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/40422-pending-climate-bill/page__view__findpost__p__400355):

"Remember that the burden of proof is on the alarmists to prove that (1) the past temperature measurements are accurate and statistically significant, (2) that the earth is indeed warming, (3) that the change is indeed anthropogenic and not explainable by dozens of natural cycles which science still has very little understanding of, (4) that the change is economically significant, (5) that the change is economically harmful, and (6) that their "world government" agenda is the ideal solution for this problem, considering all downsides and risks involved. The only thing they have proven so far is their capacity for deceit!"


Speaking of "capacity for deceit" - there has been a new twist in the popular pseudo-science of picking out trees and using their ring measurements to back whatever political agenda you happen to have.  The eco-nuts have been claiming for years that trees are nature's perfect thermometers, perfectly recording and retaining data within a fraction of a degree (which is the scale of the alleged temperature change), and thus must be unaffected by other factors like rainfall patterns, air and soil chemistry, insects, local human activity, etc.  Now, in addition to being perfect measures of temperature, tree ring sizes are also perfect measures of hydration (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015274835_snowpack09m.html) - at the same time!  Rings get bigger - "zomg, Global Warming!"  Rings get smaller - "zomg, water crisis caused by Global Warming!"  Rings stay roughly even - "um, let's go find another tree"...
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 11, 2011, 04:07:29 am
No... No... No.
The 'burden of proof' is data to confirm that increased CO2 affects EM absorbtion... that CO2 is increasing... and that humans are contributors.
Each of these has been proven.

Basic science and applied are not the same...
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2011, 07:02:20 am
The 'burden of proof' is data to confirm that increased CO2 affects EM absorbtion... that CO2 is increasing... and that humans are contributors.
Each of these has been proven.

That it effects absorption?  I think you mean reflection or emission, or such.

Anyway, the idea that humans are contributing to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in any significant way has not actually been proven.  We produce carbon dioxide, but we also produce agriculture, which absorbs carbon dioxide.  Our net impact may be quite a bit smaller than the graph Libman posted (which also includes other gasses; maybe we should discuss cutting those emissions, but that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide).

And there's a fourth item that would need to be proven: that increases in carbon dioxide on the order measured actually impact global temperatures.  Global temperatures have not been shown to track with carbon dioxide levels at the sort of magnitude that is being discussed.  At these levels of change in carbon dioxide levels, global temperature has only been shown to respond to solar cycles.  It would take levels of output that we probably couldn't even managed if we tried, to produce the level of carbon dioxide release that has been proven to impact global temperature.

Joe
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 11, 2011, 07:57:38 am
No. I meant absorbtion. Emission occurs afterward; usually at a different wavelength.

The point is not to prove its significant. The original hypothesis was not developed for the express purpose of imposing upon human development; it was developed to determine a mechanism of climate variation. The environment really doesn't care where the CO2 comes from. It only notes more or less... it doesn't even note whether one is growing lawn, corn, or unmanaged forest.

As for the fourth item...
It only really matters if one can determine that the impact has signifigance (applied science).

The applied science has been shown to lack the ability to compensate for all other factors... and runs into ruination when determining whether the projects are significant within the time scale.

For instance... the date of last frost.
If the applied science could prove with some certainty that the DOF was going to be a week early next year (or even the next decade) that would have signifigance to you and I. If the applied science determined that it was going to be a week earlier a century from now. It would be interesting... but hardly significant.


 
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2011, 08:42:56 am
No. I meant absorbtion. Emission occurs afterward; usually at a different wavelength.

Not really, no.  But I don't feel like getting into a discussion of blackbody radiation this morning, so let's drop it, as it's irrelevant to the topic...

The point is not to prove its significant.

We're speaking scientifically.  If it is insignificant, then it has no measurable effect.  Pouring a glass of water into the ocean has no significant effect on ocean levels.  It's a scientific term, and it is the most critical item in the discussion.

The original hypothesis was not developed for the express purpose of imposing upon human development; it was developed to determine a mechanism of climate variation.

I disagree.  The biggest issue with this topic is precisely that they did not start from observing a phenomenon, and then look for causes, but started by deciding that humans were causing damage, then looked for anything they could blame on humans.  The former is science.  The latter is not.

The environment really doesn't care where the CO2 comes from. It only notes more or less... it doesn't even note whether one is growing lawn, corn, or unmanaged forest.

Given that different plants process carbon dioxide at different rates per acre, it very much does "note" such.

As for the fourth item...
It only really matters if one can determine that the impact has signifigance (applied science).

Significance is hard science.  And yes, it would have to be determined that the impact was significant.  If it is not, then the whole hypothesis fails.

For instance... the date of last frost.
If the applied science could prove with some certainty that the DOF was going to be a week early next year (or even the next decade) that would have signifigance to you and I. If the applied science determined that it was going to be a week earlier a century from now. It would be interesting... but hardly significant.

That might matter, regarding the practical significance to human lives, but the way you're using the word has nothing to do with science.  An effect is significant if it has a measurable effect.  If there was actually a way to determine such a change, then it would be significant, because it would be at a measurable level.

If someone announced that the frost date would be five seconds earlier next century, it would not be significant, because "frost" is not something that happens on a seconds-level timescale.  There would be no way to measure such a thing, so the claim is not falsifiable.  Claims that are not falsifiable are not science.  Which, incidentally, is why AGW is not science: nothing the proponents claim is falsifiable.  That makes it religion, not science.

Joe
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 11, 2011, 11:15:08 am
Joe...
Absorbtion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_(electromagnetic_radiation)

We can measure ('note) the level of atmospheric CO2. We can only estimate its level of production and absorbtion by various sources. This is why models use a 'cheat'. Regardless of what our esitmates are... they must coincide with the measurement.

The point of the hypothesis was not about the significance of the human factor when the theory was originally established.
And yes, they started from observing phenomena and hypothesizing from there. Which is why the early studies focused on solar output and orbital variations.

Its filling in some of those math 'cheats' and orbital/lunar/Mars colonization visions that is leading the way at this point.
 

 

Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MaineShark on June 11, 2011, 11:36:58 am
Absorbtion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_(electromagnetic_radiation)

I know what absorption is.

We can measure ('note) the level of atmospheric CO2. We can only estimate its level of production and absorbtion by various sources. This is why models use a 'cheat'. Regardless of what our esitmates are... they must coincide with the measurement.

Except there are no accurate measurements for certain time periods.

The point of the hypothesis was not about the significance of the human factor when the theory was originally established.
And yes, they started from observing phenomena and hypothesizing from there. Which is why the early studies focused on solar output and orbital variations.

That's wholly incorrect.  The proponents of AGW exclusively started out blaming humans, then looking for data they could "massage" to support that.

Those who started out studying solar output and such... still claim that solar output and such are responsible for the temperature fluctuations.

Joe
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on June 11, 2011, 12:07:57 pm
The 'burden of proof' is data to confirm that increased CO2 affects EM [absorption]  [...]

No, it's all of the points I've listed above (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=19992.msg266777#msg266777), and possibly more.  We are talking about the political agenda behind "Global Warming" pushing a global "enabling act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933)" that will make a very significant step toward ending all intergovernmental competition and funding an all-powerful universal government.  All claims of a "moral imperative" need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt before aggression can be initiated to address them.  They haven't done anything remotely close - they can't even get their act together and defend their temperature data for the past, much less make accurate arguments about the future!
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Jerry on June 11, 2011, 10:17:52 pm
Ever since National Geographic reported that the temperature change on Mars is pretty much tracking the change on earth I put my money on the Sun being the cause.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 13, 2011, 06:58:02 am
Again Alex... your talking about the politics, not science.

Jerry,
The article is the view of a scientist talking about changes over the eons. As the ice caps on Mars melt... they release CO2.
Scientist have already known about the causes of the glacial ages... which another scientist with pretty good math theorized was orbital forcing.

For solar radiation to have a short term measurable effect, we would see that mimic the solar cycle.

Joe...
Its best never to use periods without measurement. And to gauge direct effects within the lab.
And the proponents original concieved an Ice Age. The applied science never being more than a guess.




Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on June 13, 2011, 09:15:40 am
Again Alex... your talking about the politics, not science.

More accurately, I'm talking about philosophy, which must guide the direction of how science is applied.  By itself science is just a means of answering logically formulated questions, and much of the time answers are inconclusive.  Science cannot tell you the value of pollution or of (post)industrial civilization, it can only measure concrete things.  When questions are not framed logically, the whole exercise is meaningless - garbage in, garbage out.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 14, 2011, 08:04:37 am
It does.
But the basic, and even applied, science being used to develop ET colonization will most likely proceed down different philosophical paths. Whereas the politics seems to be more concerned with it as a revenue generator.

Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on June 18, 2011, 11:53:19 am
REPORT: Climate change 'researchers' caught padding sea level data... (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/)
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 19, 2011, 09:41:30 am
Applied science.

Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on July 06, 2011, 06:37:07 pm
Egg-on-ecofascist-face news roundup:






Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 07, 2011, 11:13:43 am
Applied Science. Do you know what applied science is?
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on July 07, 2011, 05:34:50 pm
A science that applies for a government grant?  ::rimshot::   >:D

Seriously, repetition does not make up for lack of a coherent point.  Go play in traffic.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 08, 2011, 05:35:36 am
My coherent point is your an imbecile.

The basic science is not abstract. And the applied science is not settled, nor even close.
You keep equating the two to be the same.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Uncle Walt on July 08, 2011, 09:07:59 am
If everyone had just listened to dad and left the thermostat alone, global warming/cooling wouldn't be an issue.

 ;D
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 08, 2011, 12:56:26 pm
Its not a real issue.
Some people just wish to use it as an excuse for revenue enhancement.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on July 28, 2011, 10:18:28 am




Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on August 09, 2011, 11:50:06 am
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/nUH7RhF8mcU9kfrSj1KHDQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMzM7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2011-07-19T215620Z_01_CJB01_RTRIDSP_3_MEXICO.jpg) (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/175967-gore-climate-skeptics-are-spreading-bullst)




You have to scream pretty loud to distract people from the fact that you don't have anything resembling a coherent scientific argument...


Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 25, 2011, 09:33:26 pm
Evidence for human-caused climate change keeps strengthening:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/despite-rick-perry-consensus-on-climate-change-keeps-strengthening/2011/08/23/gIQAMT3UZJ_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein

In 2010, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a survey of 1,372 climate researchers, finding that 97 to 98 percent of those publishing in the field said they believe humans are causing global warming. That’s the same majority that existed in a similar 2009 survey. Dissenters do exist, the PNAS study found, but “the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced … are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on August 26, 2011, 01:33:35 am
Jason,

It's very sad to consider what statements like the one above will do to the credibility of your other publications...

You said "EVIDENCE keeps strengthening", and you backed that up with an opinion poll among self-selected environmentalists who depend on the climate catastrophe religion for their livelihood and self-esteem!  That is about as logical as surveying the Vatican for "evidence" of existence of God!

Actual evidence that the Earth has warmed in the past would involve providing conclusive and verifiable DATA that shows temperature change that is greater than the margin of error.  They don't have that, and they don't like to talk about it.  They want it to be a great mystery religion that only a divinely appointed few could ever understand.  They will beat their chests, they will insult you, they will accuse you of murder, they will play sad music and show you cartoons of children drowning, but when it comes to the accuracy and verifiability of actual numbers...  We're expected to accept their claims as a matter of blind faith.

Evidence that the change is anthropogenic and not natural would at this point require sending temperature measuring equipment back in time, since during that time the human civilization had failed to accurately measure the multiple overlapping natural cycles that affect this planet and this solar system.  Real scientists know when to say "we don't know".

Providing evidence that their solutions are less harmful would come next.  All their environmental laws have done so far is outsource manufacturing from the "first world" to less regulated countries like China, so they would need to take much more drastic measures in order to make a significant difference.  How does one exactly measure the potential harm of a tyrannical world government?  Throughout human history it was intergovernmental competition that provided an objective frame of reference for how governments performed, and allowed gradual evolution to take place.  Communism failed because it couldn't hide its inferiority relative to the West, but what if the whole world was in the same boat?  This could clip the wings of the human civilization indefinitely...

As technology advances, the human race will inevitably move energy production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power) and manufacturing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_manufacturing) into space, solving the pollution issue once and for all.  But something needs to fuel the economy in the meantime.  What the environmental wackos are pushing is akin to trying to lose weight by cutting out your liver!
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: rossby on August 26, 2011, 03:03:31 am
You said "EVIDENCE keeps strengthening", and you backed that up with an opinion poll among self-selected environmentalists who depend on the climate catastrophe religion for their livelihood and self-esteem!  That is about as logical as surveying the Vatican for "evidence" of existence of God!

The articles says consensus, not evidence.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 26, 2011, 08:10:36 am
Climate scientists, not environmentalists. & if you look at the whole article, it discusses the increasing confidence researchers have in assigning the global rise in temperatures to human forcings.

But Rush Limbaugh says it's a hoax, so it must be.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MaineShark on August 26, 2011, 11:32:02 am
Climate scientists, not environmentalists. & if you look at the whole article, it discusses the increasing confidence researchers have in assigning the global rise in temperatures to human forcings.

So, folks whose entire field of study - their entire life's work - their ability to earn a paycheck without doing honest work - is based upon saying a particular thing... will say that particular thing?

In other shocking news, water has been found to be wet.

If it's not falsifiable, it's not science.  And the "evidence" for AGW is not falsifiable.  So, it's religious dogma, not science.

Joe
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 26, 2011, 01:40:24 pm
Climate science existed long before AGW was discovered. It's grown since, precisely because the discovery has made it a more interesting & attractive field to scientists. Isn't this argument just the flip side of the "AGW deniers are funded by Big Oil" contention? Of course climate science is falsifiable. You can't get a paper published in any scientific field if you neither develop nor test a hypothesis.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on August 26, 2011, 03:02:08 pm
Climate scientists, not environmentalists.

They choose to study climate science - a field that has relatively limited prospects in the private sector.  This comprises significant selection bias that affects their objectivity.  Arguments for environmental alarmism constituting an imperative for government force should be based in impartial application of scientific principles, not an opinion poll among political hacks who scream "science" the loudest.  Show me the data.


if you look at the whole article, it discusses the increasing confidence researchers have in assigning the global rise in temperatures to human forcings.

They must have had a very convincing tarot card reading, because there is no scientific basis to justify their beliefs.

And, when you actually look at the details of how the questions are framed, you'll almost always find political bias - bait and switch tactics, moving the goalposts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts), etc.  The question isn't whether the human civilization produces some heat (ex. urban warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island)) - all matter in the universe does.  The question isn't whether indefinite pollution growth would eventually cause a problem.  The question isn't whether people who create pollution liabilities shouldn't have to pay for them (and, at present, it's usually the government that protects them).  The question isn't whether they like smelling flowers more than exhaust pipes.  Etc, etc, etc.  The question is whether the governmental violence that is being pushed through on the basis of environmental claims is justified.

Most people are instinctively biased toward primitivism - "tree good, SUV bad".  Mis-framing the question is so easy and so tempting...  Skepticism of global warming has been marketed to be on par with young-earth creationism, and it takes some degree of courage and strength to swim against that ideological current.  This isn't the hill that most people want to die on - thus the distortion proliferates.


But Rush Limbaugh says it's a hoax, so it must be.

Rush Limbaugh isn't on my radar.  I strive to base my opinions on pure reason, whenever it is humanly possible to do so.  (Although, I must admit, my humanity is quite an anchor...)
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: swamp_yankee on August 26, 2011, 04:27:34 pm
Climate science existed long before AGW was discovered. It's grown since, precisely because the discovery has made it a more interesting & attractive field to scientists. Isn't this argument just the flip side of the "AGW deniers are funded by Big Oil" contention? Of course climate science is falsifiable. You can't get a paper published in any scientific field if you neither develop nor test a hypothesis.


Dick Lindzen is a climatologist, a great one. One of many refuting and challenging AGW. Of course, they are suppressed. But they exist in large numbers if you look.

The issue isn’t the science, it the remedies. The Green movement roots are in collectivism; its exploited by disingenuous intellectuals to expand the powers of the state and international law.

Just go back and look at claims made ten and five years ago, they've already been disproven. Al Gore's movie is so foolish it looks like a parody. The fact they keep revising their data, models and predictions is a tacit admission that the data, models and predictions are not, and never have been, settled. Remember, the used to say the "consensus" agreed, and the science is "settled" - but that has proven to be bunk.

Lindzen:

http://youtu.be/i1CR0v7dwXU

Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MaineShark on August 26, 2011, 07:11:03 pm
Climate science existed long before AGW was discovered. It's grown since, precisely because the discovery has made it a more interesting & attractive field to scientists.

Yeah, you just "discover" some major catastrophe that requires more researchers and more funding, and suddenly it's a more "interesting & attractive field."

Isn't this argument just the flip side of the "AGW deniers are funded by Big Oil" contention?

No.  "Big oil" could not fund everyone who denies the nonsense that is AGW.  There are too many.  It would require a conspiracy of monumental proportions.  Since those supporting that nonsense are self-perpetuating, there's no conspiracy theory needed; they act as they do, because it is automatically in their own interest to act that way.  Confirmation bias can do what conspiracies could not hope to achieve.

Of course climate science is falsifiable. You can't get a paper published in any scientific field if you neither develop nor test a hypothesis.

I've yet to read one where they actually developed and tested any hypothesis that was not entirely circular.  "According to our models, our models show that X, which matches what we previously modeled, using our models."  That's not science.  At best, it would be a poor grade of engineering.

Scientists go into things without biases.  No one goes into "climate science" these days, unless s/he is strongly biased in support of the AGW mythos.  You don't decide what the answer will be, then select only those data which support it, and call it "science."

Joe
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 26, 2011, 10:17:16 pm
The basic science meets the criteria.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 27, 2011, 07:45:14 am
The only reason AGW skeptics get any press at all is that thinktanks funded by Big Oil and politicians from oil states always parade them out to support their claims. Yes, there are dissenters in climate science, but not many. There are always dissenters in any line of scientific inquiry; there are incentives to be a dissenter. It's a way to make a name for yourself in the field, even if your theories don't end up working out. And it's good for science for there to be dissenters. So AGW isn't as certain as, say, the heliocentric solar system, but the only reasonable conclusion for anyone who hasn't read the scientific literature (BTW, I have) is that it's very likely.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MaineShark on August 27, 2011, 08:02:59 am
The basic science meets the criteria.

Yes, and what basic science exists, says that we're heading out of a glacial period, and temperatures are warming at a rate concomitant with that.

The basic science also says that the minuscule levels of carbon dioxide (etc.) produced by humans are insignificant within the climate; homeopathy makes as much scientific sense as AGW.

You know, someone should do a survey and find out, statistically speaking, whether those who support AGW also support other pseudoscience, like tarot, astrology, homeopathy, Freudian psychoanalysis, those HHO systems for cars, et cetera.  I theorize that those who will believe in AGW, despite it's clear inability to qualify as real science, do so because they lack the skill/ability to properly test (by logical analysis) whether something is or is not scientific, so there should be a positive correlation between belief in AGW, and belief in other forms of pseudoscience.

Joe
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MaineShark on August 27, 2011, 08:03:52 am
So AGW isn't as certain as, say, the heliocentric solar system, but the only reasonable conclusion for anyone who hasn't read the scientific literature (BTW, I have) is that it's very likely.
[emphasis added]

Quoted for truth.

Joe
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 28, 2011, 12:27:41 am
The basic science meets the criteria.

Yes, and what basic science exists, says that we're heading out of a glacial period, and temperatures are warming at a rate concomitant with that.

The basic science also says that the minuscule levels of carbon dioxide (etc.) produced by humans are insignificant within the climate; homeopathy makes as much scientific sense as AGW.

You know, someone should do a survey and find out, statistically speaking, whether those who support AGW also support other pseudoscience, like tarot, astrology, homeopathy, Freudian psychoanalysis, those HHO systems for cars, et cetera.  I theorize that those who will believe in AGW, despite it's clear inability to qualify as real science, do so because they lack the skill/ability to properly test (by logical analysis) whether something is or is not scientific, so there should be a positive correlation between belief in AGW, and belief in other forms of pseudoscience.

Joe
Insignificance makes no difference. Any amount attributed to humans would be anthropogenic. Its the applied science that is in question.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MaineShark on August 28, 2011, 08:01:59 am
Insignificance makes no difference. Any amount attributed to humans would be anthropogenic. Its the applied science that is in question.

The study of the threshold at which an input to a system becomes significant, is part of the basic science studying that system.

Joe
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on August 28, 2011, 04:10:32 pm
Anticivilizationists propaganda news roundup:





With Mommy Government violently monopolizing scientific research, is it any wonder that only 6% of "scientists" understand basic economics (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html)?!
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 28, 2011, 06:53:24 pm
Insignificance makes no difference. Any amount attributed to humans would be anthropogenic. Its the applied science that is in question.

The study of the threshold at which an input to a system becomes significant, is part of the basic science studying that system.

Joe
So if we rob someone of a million dollars... but I only take one dollar... I really didn't rob them?
Your trying to make an applied argument about basic science.

The factor that humans may not be a major contributor is not the same as humans not being a contributor.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MaineShark on August 28, 2011, 07:12:06 pm
So if we rob someone of a million dollars... but I only take one dollar... I really didn't rob them?
Your trying to make an applied argument about basic science.

The factor that humans may not be a major contributor is not the same as humans not being a contributor.

Um, no.  You're comparing logic and science, which are two different fields.

In a self-stabilizing system, additions below the threshold at which it becomes unbalanced, literally have no contribution to change, because the system automatically adapts to them.

Release some extra carbon dioxide?  More plants grow, and existing plants grow larger.

Unless you release so much, so fast, that plants cannot possibly overcome it, there is no impact on global temperatures due to carbon dioxide releases.

The whole "butterfly effect" thing is popular nonsense, with no basis in science.  Real systems are very stable, which is how they survived as many years as they have, and small inputs are automatically adapted-for.  That's the basic science.  Measuring and charting the adaptation would be applied science.

Joe
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MS Libertarian on August 28, 2011, 09:58:31 pm
It is like threatening to steal from them but not taking anything.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on August 29, 2011, 11:01:44 am
The basic science shows an increase in atmospheric and marine concentrations of carbon... so we're currently beyond that threshold.

While those scientists are using flawed applied science to determine that this extra carbon is 100% (or nearly 100%) human-induced... it would also be flawed application to suggest that none of it is human-induced.




Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on August 30, 2011, 03:39:07 pm
News roundup:










And, here's a (potentially) interesting aside...

I always have a dozen movie screenplays I'll never write turning over in my head, and one of them is a psychological drama taking place at a Soviet climate research station, something like M*A*S*H meets Apocalypse Now in the deep arctic.  Well, I just came across a film set in a similar setting, the (poorly translated) English title of which is How I Ended This Summer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_I_Ended_This_Summer) [BT] (http://btjunkie.org/torrent/How-I-Ended-This-Summer-2010-DVDRip-XviD-EPiSODE/43580a8f88f2082455431191f66e25606da2891d7e00) [IMDb] (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1588875/).  That film doesn't address the accuracy and reliability of the weather data the same way I would, but it touches upon a related theme...  As one review puts it (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/how-i-ended-summer-film-29325), "the Arctic Circle makes people crazy".  The film takes place in the present, and doesn't touch upon issues like alcoholism and career disgruntlement, but what's been happening at those horrendously underfunded stations leading up to and during the collapse of the Soviet economy was a total FUBAR nightmare.  Academics were sent there basically as punishment for stepping on the wrong toes in the Soviet science bureaucracy, and were left there for extended periods of time, expected to "do their duty for the motherland", freezing their butts off to get readings that no one else could verify...
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on September 12, 2011, 03:56:04 pm
Gore in 24-hour broadcast to brainwash and coerce climate realists... (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/12/us-gore-climatechange-idUSTRE78B2GT20110912)

My prediction: 86,400 seconds seconds of childish emotionalism and appeals to authority (self-selected high-priests of environmentalism), 0 seconds on actual science and logic.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Uncle Walt on September 12, 2011, 04:09:35 pm
The basic science shows an increase in atmospheric and marine concentrations of carbon... so we're currently beyond that threshold.

While those scientists are using flawed applied science to determine that this extra carbon is 100% (or nearly 100%) human-induced... it would also be flawed application to suggest that none of it is human-induced.


I stopped using carbon paper for copies, to reduce MY "carbon footprint".   ;D
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on September 13, 2011, 02:07:27 am
Tax resisters who don't drive on the government road monopoly and follow my Tax Resister Diet (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/the-tax-resister-diet/) should have some of the lowest carbon footprints in the world.  I live in a small room, I walk everywhere, and I don't even have a fridge (I need the exercise of walking to store every day).  Government and pollution tend to go together, so if you avoid the former you'll avoid the latter as well.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: WendellBerry on September 13, 2011, 05:40:06 am
Tax resisters who don't drive on the government road monopoly and follow my Tax Resister Diet (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/the-tax-resister-diet/) should have some of the lowest carbon footprints in the world.  I live in a small room, I walk everywhere, and I don't even have a fridge (I need the exercise of walking to store every day).  Government and pollution tend to go together, so if you avoid the former you'll avoid the latter as well.


good for you for walking, but aren't you walking on "government owned" sidewalks
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on September 13, 2011, 06:56:26 am
Let's take this sidewalks / easement rights conversation to a new thread (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=24360).
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 13, 2011, 08:39:44 pm
Generally when they're referencing a 'carbon footprint' their allocating only certain processes.
I saw this once at a Montreal summit, where a woman speaking for the First Nation, wanted immediate restrictions on registering auto/trucks/SUVs that didn't achieve a certain mileage standard... but was aghast when someone suggested expanding to all forms of transport including snowmobiling. It was more of an urban/rural shoving match than science.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: swamp_yankee on September 14, 2011, 07:31:30 am
The ugliness of the "Green Movement" keeps rearing its ugly head.

Liberals elevate global warming and the environment into a moral imperative, thereby giving them leverage to exploit authoritarian government with little push back

But I loved in the last GOP debate when Newt Gingrich reminded people that the "green economy" is one giant tax loophole, corny capitalism, neo-fascism. Whatever you call it.

But the Solyndra story, and Evergreen Solar across the border in MA are disgusting. Half a billion of taxpayer dollars and corrupt regulatory shortcuts went to pump up Obama's business project, that had no natural supply and no natural demand. Government controlled economy at its worst, and no one will say a peep because fighting global warming is so noble.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on September 14, 2011, 07:56:04 am
It was the government that created this addiction to hydrocarbons in the first place, with a century of tax-victim-funded trillion-dollar wars to reduce the cost at the pump.  Regulations for private sector nuclear energy and other alternatives were grossly mishandled as well.  Governments also encourage other wasteful uses of resources, like meat consumption, military, liability limitations for polluters, etc.  In the long term, space-based solar power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power) (and possibly space-based antimatter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Common_energy_densities) reactors) are the future, but we have to get there organically - not on the basis of central planning deciding when its time to switch to what source of energy. 

I'm not even against gas taxes and pollution taxes for the short term - government isn't going to disappear overnight...  If it must steal money in the meantime, then stealing it on the basis of pollution is certainly less harmful than stealing it on the basis of income.  But the rational solution is to punish polluters on the basis of other people's Property Rights, at which the government monopoly in jurisprudence has been a total failure.  If the free market can unite millions of people to shop at Amazon.com or vote for American Idol, it can certainly organize them to fill out an online form to join a joint action lawsuit!

The greentards keep moving the goalposts on what their concept of "global warming" or "global climate change" really means.  One minute it means things we all agree on: sucking on a tailpipe is a bad idea, urban warming, indefinite pollution growth would eventually cause a problem, etc.  Then, after they've gathered their opinion data and ingrained those concepts into people's political identities, those concepts suddenly mean the worst of catastrophes that alarmists care to imagine, and that can only be solved through urgent imposition of world communism.  Classic bait and switch.  They never have to defend their crazy "sky is falling" fantasies with actual science, only appeals to authority and popularity, because enough people have already bought onto a completely different framing of the question.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 14, 2011, 01:48:01 pm
The ugliness of the "Green Movement" keeps rearing its ugly head.

Liberals elevate global warming and the environment into a moral imperative, thereby giving them leverage to exploit authoritarian government with little push back

But I loved in the last GOP debate when Newt Gingrich reminded people that the "green economy" is one giant tax loophole, corny capitalism, neo-fascism. Whatever you call it.

But the Solyndra story, and Evergreen Solar across the border in MA are disgusting. Half a billion of taxpayer dollars and corrupt regulatory shortcuts went to pump up Obama's business project, that had no natural supply and no natural demand. Government controlled economy at its worst, and no one will say a peep because fighting global warming is so noble.
The woman from the First Nation wasn't a liberal... she was a snowmobiler. What your talking about is an agenda not based on science. I'm quite sure those solar panels had a carbon footprint, possibly higher than other formats when honestly compared.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on September 14, 2011, 02:25:05 pm
The alarmist propaganda machine is in overdrive...

Take this piece that recently made Slashdot (http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/13/0252239/Of-Diamond-Planets-Climate-Change-and-the-Scientific-Method) - Diamond Planets, Climate Change, and The Scientific Method (http://theconversation.edu.au/diamond-planets-climate-change-and-the-scientific-method-3329).  The proposition of that attack is so stupid I don't even know how to summarize it - "no one found our completely unrelated astrophysicists research controversial, which proves that skepticism of the global warming agenda is a right wing conspiracy", or something like that.  Well, perhaps your premise and your evidence simply checks out, and there is no urgency to question it?!  After all, astrophysicists studying pulsars haven't been running around political halls with computer models based on data where the error margins are greater than the alleged temperature change!  The study of pulsars many lightyears away does not (yet? (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/when-the-zetas-fill-the-skies/)) provide the most convenient excuse by which governments can greatly increase and consolidate their power!  Astrophysicists departments usually don't attract biased hippies trying to "save the world"!  If Hollywood ever makes a stupid apocalypse movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow) about a diamond planet hurling toward the earth, it will not be shown in every government science classroom to promote world government!  Etc, etc, etc...

Also, a recent episode (http://eztv.it/ep/29477/the-colbert-report-2011-09-13-hdtv-fqm/) of The Colbert Report hit the commie trifecta - Al Gore, Paul Krugman, and a segment bashing Ron Paul...
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on September 15, 2011, 04:24:58 pm
From Fox News -- Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/) --

Quote
The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever), a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rensselaer_Polytechnic_Institute) and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Physics), abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring".

The official position (http://aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm) of the American Physical Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society) (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree - and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming), a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS", Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible".

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby (http://www.aps.org/about/governance/election/kirby.cfm), executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged "consensus" regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signers of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.

The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely".
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on September 15, 2011, 04:45:14 pm
From Forbes, OpEd by James Taylor (http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/) -- Global Warming: A 98% Consensus Of Nothing (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/09/08/global-warming-a-98-consensus-of-nothing/) --

Quote
During last night's [Sep 7th] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_debates,_2012#September_7.2C_2011_.E2.80.93_Simi_Valley.2C_California) Republican presidential debate, Jon Huntsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.) doubled down on Al Gorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore), claiming skeptics of "global climate disruption" (that's the White House's term) are making "comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said". Just as moderator John Harris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Harris) of Politico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico_(newspaper)) asked Rick Perry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry) to name some of the scientists he agrees with, Harris should have asked Huntsman just what the "98 out of 100 climate scientists" believe.

In the "survey" to which Huntsman alluded, scientists were invited to participate in a two-question online survey. Despite what Huntsman said, not even 100 climate scientists chose to participate. The two questions were simple:

        1.  Have global temperatures risen during the past 200 years?

and

        2.  Are humans a significant contributing factor to this?

Forgetting for the moment that only shameless activists or the most statistically and scientifically ignorant of persons would claim that a survey sample of only 77 scientists volunteering to participate in a survey is indicative of what the entire climate science community believes, the questions and answers themselves tell us nothing.

To illustrate, I will answer the survey:

Q1.  "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"

James Taylor Answer: Risen

Q2.  "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

James Taylor Answer: Yes

Regarding the first question, in the early 1800s the world was in the grips of the Little Ice Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age), which brought about the planet's coldest temperatures since the last ice age epoch ended roughly 10,000 years ago. The answer to Question 1 is not only "risen", but more appropriately (and sarcastically) "Duh!" (And it's a good thing the answer is "risen". Only the most zealous and delusional of global warming activists would argue the Little Ice Age brought about beneficial climate conditions.)

Regarding the second question, is human activity a significant contributing factor? Notice how the question did not say "sole factor", "majority factor", or even "primary contributing factor". Rather, the term is merely "significant contributing factor". More precisely, if human activity is not a "significant" contributing factor then it must be an "insignificant" contributing factor. What is the threshold between "significant" and "insignificant"? Five percent? Ten Percent? The threshold of "insignificance" is certainly no higher than that.

So, are humans responsible for at least 10 percent or so of recent global warming? In other words, are humans responsible for roughly -- and merely -- 0.06 degrees Celsius of warming during the past century? Most global warming "skeptics" certainly believe that!

The real question is, "So what?"

From the assertion that humans may have caused roughly 0.06 degrees of warming during the past century, it does not necessarily follow, as Huntsman and his fellow alarmists would have us believe, that humans are creating a global warming crisis. Nor does it necessarily follow that we must wreck our economy to fight it. I suspect that even the most sensitive of plant and animal species will not notice a 0.06 degree increase in temperature, especially when such a miniscule temperature increase is spread out over the course of a century.

So then, just what do "98 out of 100 climate scientists" believe? Nothing of significance, unless you like to misrepresent meaningless surveys to score cheap political points.


Other recent writings by James Taylor:







Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 15, 2011, 08:55:46 pm
Now your applying politics as if it were science.

Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on September 16, 2011, 05:46:26 am
You need to make a greater effort to coherently communicate whatever you're trying to say, or simply stop polluting this thread.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 16, 2011, 11:01:39 am
Coherent?
Your suggesting that politics is based on science.

The author was pointing out that science was being used to score cheap political points...
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on September 16, 2011, 04:39:40 pm
You're still being incoherent.  Where am I suggesting that current politics are "based on science"?
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on September 20, 2011, 02:17:15 pm
Roundup of news and commentary:








Particularly good articles by Ron Paul supporter Paul Mulshine (http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/index.html):







It seems that Al Gore's little propaganda piece was so unpopular that I still can't find any way to download the video!  It's still not on any BitTorrent networks, YouTube, etc...
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on September 22, 2011, 12:11:43 pm
I've said something in my previous post that I now sorta regret...  It was just a Copyfree purist (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=19771) inside joke, but it could be taken out of context and cited as evidence of intellectual dishonesty, so now I must clarify...

It seems that Al Gore's little propaganda piece was so unpopular
that I still can't find any way to download the video!

It's still not on any BitTorrent networks, YouTube, etc...

I've made that jab about the popularity of Gore's Orwellian propaganda piece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-Hours_of_Reality) obviously knowing that it only reflected my own TV-less (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/frugal-tax-resister-diaries/) Flash-less (http://openbsd.org/faq/faq13.html#flashplugin) perspective.  Most people can watch it on ClimateRealityProject.org (http://climaterealityproject.org/video/) via Flash, and Windows users can download it using tools like Orbit Grab+ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_Downloader).  I was just saying that it's still nowhere to be found on P2P networks (http://btjunkie.org/search?q=climate+reality) or any other place I can easily download it via Copyfree software.  (Coincidentally, Al Gore's growing prominence (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_APPLE_NEW_IPHONE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-21-17-07-28) on Apple's board of directors is yet another reason to go Copyfree.)  I've made similar jokes in the past about Free Talk Live being immensely bigger than Rush Limbaugh, because the latter is completely inaccessible and off-radar to people who don't use 20th century radio (http://www.talkers.com/heavy-hundred/) and don't have a paid subscription on his site.

Unfortunately a few "skeptic" articles are now trying to claim that Gore's sermon was unpopular with the public at large, and that position is both inaccurate and dangerous.  One example of this is an article titled "Whose Reality is it Anyway? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/whose-reality-is-it-anyway/)", which attempted to analyze Alexa rankings, and was referenced by another article called "Al Gore's five loaves and two fishes (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100106264/al-gores-five-loaves-and-two-fishes/)", which was featured on Drudge Report (http://drudgereport.com/).  The evidence they present is circumstantial and misleading.  For example, much of the bandwidth from Gore's event would be tracked for the third party video streaming services that hosted it (ex. vimeo (http://vimeo.com/29107248)).  Furthermore, that event aired around the world - including many places where tinpot dictators stand to benefit from the climate hysteria, and have substantial control over what their serfs can watch on their government-controlled Tee Vee.

The numbers on their YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/climatereality) (currently 429 subscribers and 6,274 views - compared, for example, to Ridley's (http://www.youtube.com/RidleyReport) 9,035 subs and 6,491,435 views) are irrelevant - even though it is linked to from every page on their site, the link is in the footer and not very prominent, and the channel offers only a few partial clips.  Their Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/climatereality) "like" numbers (currently 121,342) are also a misleading underestimate.  Resist the temptation to belittle their popularity!  It could even be a deliberate trap!  Remember that Al Gore actually won the election in 2000, and candidates with similar positions can do it again - especially abroad.  Al Gore would have a good chance of being elected "world president" as well.  Real science is not a democracy, but people who get to fund and control "government science" are indeed very talented at manipulating public opinion.

I've always accepted that, while logic and real unbiased science remains on our side, the advantage of popular opinion was firmly in the hands of the alarmists - after all, the vast majority of the world's population believes the governmental power-grab Gore and pals are trying to institute would pay them substantial dividends in the form of political favors.

The hysteria may be "green", but it ain't AstroTurf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing) - at least if one doesn't broaden that term to also be applicable to movements like Communism or Islam, which obviously have immense grassroots support.  Like many other religions throughout history, they've bribed and brainwashed millions, possibly billions of people.  The scientific merits of their alarmism is fraudulent, but their popularity ratings are not.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 22, 2011, 09:07:41 pm
Nope. Logic and unbiased science remains opposed.

To suggest that atmospheric and oceanic tempering does not affect the climate; and that the chemical composition of either is does not affect this tempering simply goes against scientific understanding.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on September 22, 2011, 10:26:02 pm
No one is claiming that the human civilization or panda bear farts don't "affect the climate" to some small degree.  I've already answered your repetitive nonsense (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=19992.msg266777#msg266777) and told you to look at the numbers.  Let me write the word "numbers" in a very large font so you can see it better:

Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!



I suppose this is what some people call "trolling"...  I really should stop clicking "Show" on John Edward Mercier's posts...
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on October 14, 2011, 06:46:44 am
Roundup of news and commentary:







More from James Taylor (http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/):




Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on October 19, 2011, 11:59:41 am
You know the drill...







Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on October 23, 2011, 11:06:53 am


Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 24, 2011, 05:00:06 pm
Skeptics re-analyze the entire instrumental temperature record and find that, yes, the world is warming rapidly:

http://www.economist.com/node/21533360
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on October 24, 2011, 06:42:21 pm
First of all, "Global Warming" is a political concept, the validity of which depends on the multi-point progression of proof I've summarized above (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=19992.msg266777#msg266777).  What they are referring to is much more specific - a slight increasing trend in heterogeneous data.  We're talking about people as far back as 150 years ago squinting at a mercury thermometers and writing down numbers on a piece of paper, often treating it as matter of silly routine that doesn't require perfection.  Look at an old thermometer under the wrong angle and you could be off by a degree or two.  The human capacity to observe temperature has changed substantially in that time, in many complex ways that introduce a significant margin of error into any comparison of data gathered via old methods vs the new.  Whether that constitutes an actual change in the actual temperature of the actual globe remains an open question that cannot be answered without taking modern equipment backwards in time.

That article actually makes more valid points for skepticism rather than belief in Global Warming:

Quote
The uncertainty arises mainly because weather stations were never intended to provide a climatic record. The temperature series they give tend therefore to be patchy and even where the stations are relatively abundant, as in western Europe and America, they often contain inconsistencies. They may have gaps, or readings taken at different times of day, or with different kinds of thermometer. The local environment may have changed. Extrapolating a global average from such data involves an amount of tinkering - or homogenisation.

It might involve omitting especially awkward readings; or where, for example, a heat source like an airport has sprung up alongside a weather station, inputting a lower temperature than the data show. As such cases are mostly in the earlier portions of the records, this will exaggerate the long-term warming trend. That is at best imperfect.

Many things could account for that change.

The most obvious problem is what is called "urban warming".  Temperature isn't measured by an omnipresent deity that can observe the entirety of the "Globe" without affecting it - it is measured by people, whose lifestyles have changed substantially over the past few decades.  The local area around the thermometers became warmer due to larger and more powerful Navy ships producing more heat, asphalt from paved roads around weather stations retaining more heat, and probably hundreds of other small human trends that don't encompass the entire "Globe".

Arctic explorers have always had the tendency to exaggerate the harshness of their environment, like perhaps through a subconscious bias in rounding the temperature numbers in a particular direction - something that they could no longer get away with as measurements became more accurate and more verifiable.  This is similar to how fishermen describe the size of the fish that got away, or how the average male penis size is a lot higher in anonymous chat-rooms, where claims aren't likely to be verified.  Scientists are still human, and some of the data is likely to have been taken by some poop-deck-scraper in a big hurry to get back indoors.

But, guess what - all of the aforementioned critical thinking and margin for doubt are now completely invalid!  How do we know?  Because a bunch of people who stand to profit from Global Warming, who are paid by other people who stand to profit from Global Warming, applied a magical algorithm that takes inaccurate data and makes it accurate and reliable!  Anyone who questions this magic is obviously against science and believes in young-earth creationism, dontchyaknow!   ::)

In reality, while things like gaps and high-frequency variations can be smoothed out, there are simply too many trends and biases that simply cannot be corrected for.  For some reason left-wingers have a particularly hard time grasping the concept of unknown unknowns (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3599959/Rummy-speaks-the-truth-not-gobbledygook.html).  Real scientists should know when to say "we aren't certain", and the alleged yearly warming of 0.018 degrees Celsius (0.03 degrees Fahrenheit) is well below the margin of error.

So, no, they cannot yet prove that the globe has warmed at all, much less that the warming is anthropogenic, harmful, permanent, etc, etc, etc (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=19992.msg266777#msg266777)...
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 24, 2011, 08:20:26 pm
The article goes on to say that even when climate skeptics adjusted for all those problems, they still find a warming trend extremely close to that established in the existing datasets.

BTW, high margin of error =/= bias, & therefore cannot account for any spurious trend in the data.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on October 24, 2011, 10:50:17 pm
And my previous post goes on to explain that "adjustments" can only correct for some of the issues, but not the major concerns that make the data uselessly inconclusive.  In analogy - you can sharpen a photograph, but you can't remove solid walls from it and render what's behind them (assuming there are no reflections of objects behind walls elsewhere in the picture, etc).  If you start drawing things behind the walls, then you're no longer relying on the original data / the photograph.

The word "bias" can be applied to this situation in several different meanings.  First there's the likelihood of human bias, even if it is subconscious.  People think in terms of "even if the evidence is not 100% yet today, it will be tomorrow, and we scientists must circle our wagons or the greedy pollution-loving Armageddonists win"...

There is also measurement bias, the error margin of which changes over time.  Measuring equipment becomes more accurate for newer data, so if there were slight too-cold measurement errors in the past you'd get the illusion of a warming trend.  (And if the records were showing a slight cooling trend, they could (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22man-made+global+cooling%22) spin it into a man-made crisis also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction#Types).  And they get to choose the trend start time.  As total temperature stability and total measurement error stability (or total compensative resonance between the two) are highly improbable, they get their politically-needed "climate crisis" irregardless of the data.)

There are cultural changes taking place across generations - people didn't used to look at a thermometer in terms of fractions of a degree but in terms of "how many sweaters do I need to put on today".  The training and discipline of the average temperature-taker have increased since the 1950s, as did the perceived importance of keeping super-accurate temperature records.  Rounding errors are more likely to result in improper rounding down than improper rounding up.  Analog thermometers were not always held perfectly at eye-level.  Etc, etc, etc.  And, of course, the "urban warming" effect - how the heck do you decide exactly how much you need to adjust for that?!

In the end, it becomes an art-form of picking which factors you choose to adjust for (and to what degree) and which you choose to ignore, and any of these decisions can push the data a degree in one direction or the other.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 25, 2011, 09:06:14 am
Measurement instruments in the past were all too-cold? LOL That's a new one.

You don't understand the types of issues that are in the data and how statistical techniques can correct for them.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on October 25, 2011, 10:19:26 am
Yet another case of skeptics making rational arguments for reasonable doubt, and the government-influenced "academic" elite applying magical / esoteric tricks to justify their power - in this case algorithms that input garbage data, with countless immeasurable known and unknown offset biases, and make it infallibly reliable...  It's just particularly disappointing to hear this from one Jason P. Sorens, as I've said, because it creates the suspicion that you've applied the same hubris in your data analysis for NH and the FSP...

I've already provided many examples of why data biases / measurement error trends would change over time, and the probability of there being 0.0 degree variation as measurement tech improves is highly unlikely.  You cannot deny that the "urban warming" effect exists, and you cannot claim to be able to measure it accurately enough - and that is just one of the uncertainly factors.  The data was inevitable to inch a little bit up or a little bit down, and the political interests have hedged their bets between "Global Warming", "Global Cooling", and "Global Climate Change".  Now they can spin all weather phenomena for political gain...  Typical GIGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_In,_Garbage_Out) tricks that are very familiar to me from studying the history of Soviet "science" - Garbage data goes In, Government power comes Out.

And here comes my oft-repeated reminder:  Reliable temperature data showing a significant and global warming would be just the first thing the alarmists have to prove.  If they were to succeed in this first step, which so far they are nowhere close to doing, they would still have to prove that: (2) the change is anthropogenic, (3) significantly harmful, (4) permanent, (5) solvable through their political agenda, and (6) that their agenda wouldn't have unintended consequences that do more than harm than good.  The only thing they have proven so far is their capacity for deceit!
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 25, 2011, 01:00:18 pm
Actually, lots of the tests for factors are done in a lab.
Why? Because some group of scientist, and people that support them, want to inhabit areas other than terrestrial.
You aren't possible one of those are you? ::)

And by the way, climate scientists are working on science... not some political agenda.
Which is what your long rant at the end is about.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 25, 2011, 01:38:58 pm
Vague hand-waving doesn't count as examples. Here, let me help you out a little. In the case of an airport being built nearby and recorded temperatures adjusted accordingly - it's straightforward to build a spatial model of the effects of airport size and distance on recorded temperatures, then use the coefficients extracted from the model to adjust the recorded temperatures to what they would be in the absence of the airport. There is some uncertainty associated with this procedure, but it's measurable uncertainty, in the sense that we can assign a confidence interval to it.

And again, uncertainty =/= bias. To argue that every temperature dataset is biased toward a recent warming you have to insert fantastical claims about every thermometer in the 1950s being off in the same direction...
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: swamp_yankee on October 26, 2011, 12:47:52 am
Global wrming alarmist moving the goal posts again? I thought the science was settled. They told us a consensus was reached... in 2004.

Just wait six months, they'll change their tune again then again then again.

Its the opposite of science. They start with a desired end and then manipulate the scientific method to rationalize their goals.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: MS Libertarian on October 26, 2011, 06:21:24 am
Global wrming alarmist moving the goal posts again? I thought the science was settled. They told us a consensus was reached... in 2004.

Just wait six months, they'll change their tune again then again then again.

Its the opposite of science. They start with a desired end and then manipulate the scientific method to rationalize their goals.
But why would they do that... it is not like they have some economic incentive to this.  O wait, yea they do.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 26, 2011, 03:41:51 pm
Global wrming alarmist moving the goal posts again? I thought the science was settled. They told us a consensus was reached... in 2004.

Just wait six months, they'll change their tune again then again then again.

Its the opposite of science. They start with a desired end and then manipulate the scientific method to rationalize their goals.
A consensus isn't science. But climate scientists haven't set any 'goal posts'... they only wish to determine what regulates the terrestrial (and possibly secondary planet) climates.

Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: swamp_yankee on October 26, 2011, 08:36:01 pm
Global wrming alarmist moving the goal posts again? I thought the science was settled. They told us a consensus was reached... in 2004.

Just wait six months, they'll change their tune again then again then again.

Its the opposite of science. They start with a desired end and then manipulate the scientific method to rationalize their goals.
A consensus isn't science. But climate scientists haven't set any 'goal posts'... they only wish to determine what regulates the terrestrial (and possibly secondary planet) climates.



The only wish to determine what the end results they want.  In 2002, people like me were called names because we questioned the science.  In time, the science proved faulty, so they went back to the drawing board to find new data to support their end result. Same in 2004. Same in 2006. Same in2008.

They start with an end supposition and then work backwards. That a scholastic thought process, not academic and certainly not scientific. They have an agenda. The process has been compromised by politics, both the politics of ideology and of peer pressure and funding.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 26, 2011, 08:52:15 pm
It's interesting that the further to the right you are on the ideological spectrum, the better a scientist you become...
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 26, 2011, 11:15:06 pm
So Swamp Yankee...
What makes the surface of the Moon hotter in sunlight and colder in darkness than the surface of the Earth?
Because that is the question that you start with.

Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on October 27, 2011, 12:39:42 am
Actually, lots of the tests for factors are done in a lab.
Why? Because some group of scientist, and people that support them,
want to inhabit areas other than terrestrial.
You aren't possible one of those are you? ::)

And by the way, climate scientists are working on science... [...]

That's some interesting misuse of language these, so I can't tell exactly what you're saying, but it's clear that you keep making appeals to authority.  (You should read some "peer-reviewed" studies conducted by respected "scientists" working in "labs" in 1930s Germany...)  I keep presenting substantive technical points that cast doubt (or, in some cases, completely invalidate) what your authorities are claiming.

Granted that my background is in software engineering rather than atmospheric sciences, but that still gives me some crucial insights into understanding data gathering, data analysis, and complex computational models, which some people seem to mystify into an infallible truth machine.  I also have some knowledge of history of 20th century totalitarian regimes, and their use of the word "science" to promote some of the most irrational ideas in the history of mankind!


[...  Science,] not some political agenda.  
Which is what your long rant at the end is about.

The word "rant" can be defined (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rant) as "a wild, incoherent, emotional articulation" - which seems to describe your post, but not mine.  I am known to at times do some "emotional" or satirical writing, but only as a dessert that follows a structured reasonable argument, and I am never "incoherent".  I put a lot of effort into writing my posts, proof-reading and revising them multiple times.  You write in shallow slogans and accusations, and your grammar would make any 5th grade English teacher weep.  (And I bet English is even your first language...)


Vague hand-waving doesn't count as examples.

Based on your contributions to this thread, you calling me "vague" is almost as funnysad as JEM implying I am "incoherent".

"Hand-waving", maybe, but no one is paying me to write scholarly articles here.  (And the amount of diligence I should be applying to these forums should in theory decline after Ian Fraudman demonstrated how inconsequentially years of such writings can be flushed down the toilet (http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=3966.msg44725#msg44725)...)  Moneyed interests seem to line up overwhelmingly on the side of AGW, from government funding to funding by government-entangled corporations (http://www.pewclimate.org/business/belc/members) like GE.


Here, let me help you out a little. In the case of an airport being built nearby and recorded temperatures adjusted accordingly - it's straightforward to build a spatial model of the effects of airport size and distance on recorded temperatures, then use the coefficients extracted from the model to adjust the recorded temperatures to what they would be in the absence of the airport. There is some uncertainty associated with this procedure, but it's measurable uncertainty, in the sense that we can assign a confidence interval to it.

Of course the "adjustment for nearby airport" program would need to take into account things like the history of this airport's construction, runway area and reflectiveness of the pavement at any particular time, how many planes took off and landed at any particular time, what kind of engines and fuel they've used, and a dozen of other things -- for each of the sites where temperature measures were taken -- and there would still be a considerable margin of error.  They would need dozens if not hundreds of such special adjustment programs taking into account known "urban warming" sources like building size, ship size and engine properties, reflectiveness of the roofing, road construction and traffic, local landscaping, etc, etc, etc.  And those are just the known variables...  Maybe you'll end up adjusting for 99 categories of things that offset the averages by a thousandth of a degree, and miss the 100th thing that offsets by a whole degree!

What you cannot measure is human attention to detail, but it is rather obvious that it has changed over the past decades.  As stated above, weather stations were never intended to provide a climatic record.


And again, uncertainty =/= bias. To argue that every temperature dataset is biased toward a recent warming you have to insert fantastical claims about every thermometer in the 1950s being off in the same direction...

I think I may be using the word "bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias)" in a broader sense than you are.  The change in measuring equipment, human cultural attitudes, and the local environment around the thermometer (aka "urban warming") all constitute forms of bias.  Are you really going to dispute that we have more asphalt on the ground, more houses, more cars / planes / trains / automobiles, higher per-capita energy consumption, and more powerful navy ship engines than we did in the 1950s?!  All of those things retain or generate heat that isn't caused by greenhouse gases, and is by no means global.


It's interesting that the further to the right you are on the ideological spectrum, the better a scientist you become...

What I observe is a correlation between the belief in a one-dimensional "ideological spectrum" and the belief in AGW.  Both involve simplifying your view of reality until it fits your preconceived notions.


---


As an aside...  You know, I almost hope that the temperature data shows an on-going, global, and verifiable warming trend.  This would move the debate to point #2, proving that it's anthropogenic - it's a lot more fun to argue cosmology than human error trends.  And other points are more interesting still.   ;)
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 27, 2011, 08:04:19 am
Read up on the theory of instrumental variables. To get unbiased estimates you don't need 100% accuracy; indeed, attempting to get 100% accuracy can create problems.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on October 27, 2011, 01:14:50 pm
Debunking misleading or outright inappropriate appeals to the "law of averages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_averages)" or IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_variable) slide-of-hand is an on-going process...

At this time, I'd like to take a time-out to pay tribute to a hero of mine, John McCarthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCarthy_(computer_scientist)), who had passed away earlier this week, by posting a topic-appropriate link to this site:

The Sustainability of Human Progress (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html)
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: swamp_yankee on October 31, 2011, 03:42:37 pm
Global warming is real, except when it isn't.

There is a scientific consensus, except when there is none.

The science is settled, except when it isn't.

Much ballyhooed report vindicating global warming that was released last week, turns out is full of holes. More leading scientists join the sceptics:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on October 31, 2011, 09:47:49 pm
It looks like I may have to argue this issue from both sides, because some libertarians simply cannot psychologically cope with the possibility of Global Warming being sufficiently proven by any points of my aforementioned multi-point criteria of proof...  That possibility obviously does exist, and we should be prepared to accept the evidence if and when it becomes objectively conclusive.  I've written extensively in the past on how government force may theoretically be justified in some situations, most clearly in the past but possibly also in the future, given sufficiently strong evidence of that necessity, which is what I am skeptically waiting to see.

If I had to give the Global Warming agenda a crude scorecard, it would be something like this:







I'm curious to learn how some of our resident AGW cheerleaders would assess this situation.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on November 02, 2011, 05:31:41 pm
News & Opinion RoundUp:









Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: JasonPSorens on November 04, 2011, 09:28:08 pm
Here is a very good, straightforward explanation of the current state of climate science from libertarianish scientist Matt Ridley:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/ScientificHeresy.pdf

His views come close to mine: Anthropogenic global warming is definitely happening, but not at a catastrophic rate. The cost of carbon control policies is likely greater than the benefit. Nevertheless, we should continue to keep a close eye on the phenomenon and research relatively cheap solutions like geoengineering.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: freedomroad on November 05, 2011, 12:01:23 am
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2011/11/ap_proves_co2_based_global_warming_is_a.html

This is from the #2 conservative blog in NH.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: rossby on November 05, 2011, 12:50:02 am
Here is a very good, straightforward explanation of the current state of climate science from libertarianish scientist Matt Ridley:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/ScientificHeresy.pdf

His views come close to mine: Anthropogenic global warming is definitely happening, but not at a catastrophic rate. The cost of carbon control policies is likely greater than the benefit. Nevertheless, we should continue to keep a close eye on the phenomenon and research relatively cheap solutions like geoengineering.

I concur with his sentiments. Except that even "warming" is dubious; not necessarily not-true; just not a religious truth. As used, "global warming" is itself a statistically meaningless statement, something we really can't observe in a meaningful way. "Climate change" is more appropriate word. And, even then, we have little ability to detect what part of local weather variation is actually long-term climate change attributable to anthropogenic carbon emissions.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on November 05, 2011, 01:35:26 am
Anthropogenic global warming is definitely happening

Take away one of the three words in bold, and I would agree with you:




I would also agree with you if you were to capitalize the term "Global Warming", referencing the political movement rather than the alleged temperature trend on the planet's surface.  The political movement definitely exists, is definitely global, and is definitely made up by man.


[...]  anthropogenic carbon emissions.

Which are absolutely minuscule (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) compared to non-anthropogenic emissions, making much less of a difference than a major volcanic eruption.  Non-anthropogenic emissions have existed for billions of years, and will continue to exist, while anthropogenic emissions  should cease by the end of this century, as all energy production and industry is inevitably moved to space.


(EDIT:  oops, I'm sleepy and I said something stupid...  Volcanoes don't produce specifically more CO2 than humans, although a major eruption can have a greater temporary impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer) on climate.  My point was that human emissions are dwarfed by natural emissions of various greenhouse gases - which tend to fluctuate in various complex cycles, not all of which are yet fully measured and understood.  And then there's cycles in Earth's magnetic field, the sun, etc...)
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: rossby on November 05, 2011, 02:10:05 am
[...]  anthropogenic carbon emissions.

Which are absolutely minuscule (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) compared to non-anthropogenic emissions, making much less of a difference than a major volcanic eruption.

The concern is accumulation of "surplus" CO2.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on November 05, 2011, 02:58:35 am
It's not a concern to plants, algae, and cyanobacteria that turn CO2 into food and oxygen, or to animals that eat those plants and breathe that oxygen.  It's not a concern for billions of people whose lives are enabled and improved as the result of industrialization.  It's only a concern to people who need a "we're all in the same boat" pseudo-crisis to justify a World Government, and of course their brainwashed juvenile patsies.  Aside from that, it just isn't a big deal.

If the government wants to improve the environment, then it first should stop harming it - as it does through immense agricultural subsidies (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/the-tax-resister-diet/) that encourage consumption of animal products, subsidy of cheap oil through a century of trillion-dollar wars, and failure to make pollution a liability on the basis of local Property Rights.

Humans temporarily increase the planet's emission of CO2 by about 3%, but we can also optimize the planet's plant-life through agriculture and aquaculture, and otherwise increase the absorption of CO2 as well.  Only industrialized humans can irrigate deserts, fertilize barren land, genetically engineer plants for better photosynthesis, concentrate solar energy to grow plants in polar climates, dot the oceans with floating garden-islands, and someday export life from this planet to worlds beyond!
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on November 05, 2011, 03:50:09 pm
ZOMG, NYC IS SHRINKING!  TWO SQUARE MILES GONE - EVIL CAPITALISTS MUST HAVE EATEN IT! (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/a-city-shrinks-or-so-the-census-says/)

Oh, wait, no, it didn't shrink, only the methods of measure changed and became more accurate.  See how this works?
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 05, 2011, 04:40:31 pm
So submariners and astronauts worrying about scrubbing CO2 from their ambient air are just overtly concerned?
And yes, I do realize the difference in concentration being discussed.

And while your points are well taken... what is 'temporary' about the 3% increase?
Scientist retest the samples... and correlate to more recent data... but they aren't noting 'temporary' factors like solar cycles.

It would be hard to validate that long term climate changes are the result of short term changes that have an equalizing factor.

And we do have anthropogenic cooling. The same factors come into play.


Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 05, 2011, 04:45:08 pm
Here is a very good, straightforward explanation of the current state of climate science from libertarianish scientist Matt Ridley:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/ScientificHeresy.pdf

His views come close to mine: Anthropogenic global warming is definitely happening, but not at a catastrophic rate. The cost of carbon control policies is likely greater than the benefit. Nevertheless, we should continue to keep a close eye on the phenomenon and research relatively cheap solutions like geoengineering.

I concur with his sentiments. Except that even "warming" is dubious; not necessarily not-true; just not a religious truth. As used, "global warming" is itself a statistically meaningless statement, something we really can't observe in a meaningful way. "Climate change" is more appropriate word. And, even then, we have little ability to detect what part of local weather variation is actually long-term climate change attributable to anthropogenic carbon emissions.
And we shouldn't be able to in the short term...
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on November 05, 2011, 05:43:43 pm
So submariners and astronauts worrying about scrubbing CO2 from their ambient air are just overtly concerned?
And yes, I do realize the difference in concentration being discussed.

Then why bring it up?  Those examples are very much different, and if you account for all those differences then you no longer have a point.

If you have a huge and complex biosphere where everything is roughly (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html) balanced, and you increase CO2 production by 3%, you can make an equivalent increase in CO2 absorption as well.  This happens naturally when plants get more favorable growing conditions, for which CO2 is one of the factors (http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-knew-co2-makes-plants-grow-faster.html), and this can happen on a massive scale through human ingenuity.


And while your points are well taken... what is 'temporary' about the 3% increase?

Burning hydrocarbons for energy when you live in a solar system 99.86% of which is a giant nuclear reactor is ridiculous.  Pollution will decrease, while anthropogenic greenery will increase, because people like to be surrounded by plants.  Advances in gastronomy will lead to better vegan cuisine, which means less cows to exhale and fart CO2.  By around 2070s we'll be worried about having too little CO2, not to too much, and on planetary scale that's just a blink of an eye...
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 06, 2011, 02:53:15 am
Because you keep assessing the carbon dioxide can not have a human downside. I consider death a downside.

And while you 'can' have a greater CO2 absorption... this isn't supported by the data.

Um... you do realize that the oxidation of that carbon is releasing stored solar energy?
And what your contemplating, though feasible, doesn't change the science.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on November 06, 2011, 01:08:29 pm
I've "assessed" nothing of the sort.  What I did say is that the human contribution to the amount of gases being added to the atmosphere by natural sources is negligible and temporary, and their impact remains to be conclusively proven.

The size of this planet and the volume of its atmosphere are very fast.  Humans do produce CO2, but there are natural processes that absorb it, and human contribution to the absorption elements is a lot more significant and also more permanent.  We irrigate, we fertilize, and we plant.

The burden of proof is on the alarmists to justify the "moral imperative" for the aggression they want to institute to "fight Global Warming", which would have to include fundamental homogenization of international law to severely limit what has historically been the greatest enabler of human liberty and achievement - intergovernmental competition.  Appeals to authority and popularity do not constitute proof!  Alleged global consequences of human activity have not been monitored with sufficient accuracy, other factors have not been sufficiently understood to be excluded, etc.  The political motivations of the alarmists are clear, the actual climate evidence is not.  
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: rossby on November 06, 2011, 02:10:29 pm
Because you keep assessing the carbon dioxide can not have a human downside. I consider death a downside.

What are the present levels of atmospheric CO2?
At what levels do humans die from CO2 poisoning?
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on November 22, 2011, 05:47:13 pm
From Slashdot -- New Batch of Leaked Climate Emails (http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/11/22/2030208/new-batch-of-leaked-climate-emails) --

Quote
Someone going by the alias "foia" has dropped a link to a zip file (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived/) containing thousands more emails similar to those released in 2009 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails).  There are apparently many more which are locked behind a password, presumably waiting to be released at some time in the future (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Password_cracking).

The University of East Anglia has released a brief statement (http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/statements/CRUnov11) indicating that the emails were probably obtained during the 2009 breach (http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/11/20/1747257/climatic-research-unit-hacked-files-leaked) and held back until now as "a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy".


Get it via BitTorrent (http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Climategate-2-Climategate-II-FOIA2011-FOIA-2011/31070a5a90a251229dcf810c07401df624edb2d8f659), or via magnet URL:

Code: [Select]
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:0a5a90a251229dcf810c07401df624edb2d8f659&dn=Climategate+2+/+Climategate+II+/+FOIA2011+/+FOIA+2011&tr=http://conspiracyhub.com/hub&tr=http://onebigtorrent.org/announce&tr=http://tracker.istole.it/announce&tr=http://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80/announce&tr=http://tracker.publicbt.com:80/announce&tr=http://tracker.thepiratebay.org/announce&tr=udp://tracker.ccc.de:80&tr=udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80&tr=udp://tracker.publicbt.com:80

(EDIT: changed torrent link to a faster one.)
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 22, 2011, 05:56:37 pm
Because you keep assessing the carbon dioxide can not have a human downside. I consider death a downside.

What are the present levels of atmospheric CO2?
At what levels do humans die from CO2 poisoning?
Not even close... but like suggesting that falling below 200ppm would have no downside.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 22, 2011, 05:59:13 pm
I've "assessed" nothing of the sort.  What I did say is that the human contribution to the amount of gases being added to the atmosphere by natural sources is negligible and temporary, and their impact remains to be conclusively proven.

The size of this planet and the volume of its atmosphere are very fast.  Humans do produce CO2, but there are natural processes that absorb it, and human contribution to the absorption elements is a lot more significant and also more permanent.  We irrigate, we fertilize, and we plant.

The burden of proof is on the alarmists to justify the "moral imperative" for the aggression they want to institute to "fight Global Warming", which would have to include fundamental homogenization of international law to severely limit what has historically been the greatest enabler of human liberty and achievement - intergovernmental competition.  Appeals to authority and popularity do not constitute proof!  Alleged global consequences of human activity have not been monitored with sufficient accuracy, other factors have not been sufficiently understood to be excluded, etc.  The political motivations of the alarmists are clear, the actual climate evidence is not.  

Whoaa... temporary how? If we're doing so much to create absorption... then why is the level rising? And why would non-anthropogenic carbon dioxide have any more (or less) of an 'impact'? And since when are 'alarmists' the same as 'scientists'?
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on November 22, 2011, 06:13:49 pm
More reading comprehension failure from Little JEMmy...

I'm talking about the future, the same timeline that the alarmists use to predict their doomsday scenarios.

I've already explained why humanity's use of hydrocarbons is inevitably temporary in the grand scheme of things, given the obvious economical advantages of space-based energy production, and eventually space-based manufacturing and mining.  At the same time the number of plants added by humanity through irrigating the deserts, building floating farms, ever-more-dense greenhouse farms (that can also act as CO2 sinks), etc will continue to increase.  Even meat production will probably decline in favor of cheaper / healthier artificial meats that don't fart so much.  Water levels might actually decline if we build enough artificial lakes and canals!

"Alarmists" are individuals, regardless of their educational background, who are biased toward overstating weather-related conclusions and risks, while completely ignoring the dangers of regulations (i.e. economic stagnation) and unchecked universal government force...
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 24, 2011, 01:30:10 am
You fail to explain why CO2 levels are rising, even with all this extra absorbtion... and keep establishing some distant belief in that which may never come (the same basis for the alarmists).

Its not my reading comprehension... its your desire to sidestep.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on November 24, 2011, 01:57:55 am
**facepalm**

Re-read everything I wrote on this thread 100 times before you post here again.
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: Alex Libman on November 25, 2011, 02:29:06 am
From Forbes -- Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/) --

Quote
A new batch of 5,000 e-mails (http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Climategate-2-Climategate-II-FOIA2011-FOIA-2011/43580a5a90a251229dcf810c07401df624edb2d8f659) among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Further_release.2C_2011) scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:  (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;  (2) these scientists view global warming as a political "cause" rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and  (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations.  Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

"I've been told that IPCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) is above national FOI Acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_legislation).  One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report) would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process", writes Phil Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)), a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released e-mail.

"Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden", Jones writes in another newly released email.  "I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy)) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data."

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. "Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Briffa) re AR4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report)?"  Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann) in an email released in Climategate 1.0.  "Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/Home.html) to do likewise.  I see that CA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Audit) claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!"

The new emails also reveal the scientists' attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

"The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's included and what is left out" of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_Basis), coordinating lead author for the IPCC's most recent climate assessment.

"I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry) a while ago.  I don't know what she thinks she's doing, but its not helping the cause", wrote Mann in another newly released email.

"I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose" skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre), Mann writes in another newly released e-mail.

These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate.  For example, Tom Wigley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wigley), a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Corporation_for_Atmospheric_Research), authored a Climategate 1.0 e-mail asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists "must get rid of" the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.

"Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others.  This is just downright dangerous.  We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary", writes Peter Thorne (http://www.cicsnc.org/people/peter-thorne/) of the UK Met Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorological_Office).

"I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run", Thorne adds.

"Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC", Wigley acknowledges.

More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 e-mails.  What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.


(Quoted content hyper-linked and edited by me, as usual.)
Title: Re: Climategate & Global Warming is a Hoax news stories
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 26, 2011, 01:38:03 am
I've read tons of things you post...