1. Your entire chart link leads to a 404 error. As useless a metric as "global temperature anomaly" is, the earth has been cooling slightly since 1998. Maybe your "entire chart" was meant to start in the heart of the LIA? I sure hope it's warmed since then.

2. You don't "need" CO2 to "trap" heat. Water vapor does more than CO2 possibly could.

3. Al Gore was/is wrong about a lot of things. A causal relationship between global climate and CO2 is one of them.

4. Or you can ask Chris Landsea and NOAA.

5. No, it's not the worst reason. The vast majority of human achievement has occurred during warmer times, not colder.

6. Climate models, more properly called Global Circulation Models, are best guesses, not evidence. They can, of course, be tuned to turn out whatever you want. I'll stick with observational science.

Oh, and by the way, the only ones denying that climate changes are the alarmists, who claim relative calm until the last 30 years. That's some serious denial.

I'm not the smartest person in the world.

That much is obvious. Votes: -9

Steel Rat, I admire both your brainpower and your nerve.

By this time tomorrow (2:32 AM), your fellow skeptics will have, lemming-like, caused your comment to disappear from view, in favor of a "lowly rated comment" message.

When it comes to global disasters, it seems that everyone wants in, for a variety of reasons. Most of your fellow skeptics probably mistakenly think that all the coolest kids believe in AGW.

Thanks for the excellent comment. Votes: -8

The George De Mestral goes to the Wiki entry forVelcro.

Generally one is expected to wait until the second post before getting into intelligence flames, and number three for Godwins, but I guess it is saving time given the topic. Votes: -7

Doh, OK so lower down he's the inventor. Wee bit cryptic for a Sunday. Votes: -2

Grammar suggestion To avoid ambiguity, it would help (at least some) to use "chanty", as the alternate spelling probably confused others like myself, who may only be familiar with the following definition.

shanty : a small crudely built dwelling or shelter usually of wood. Votes: -9

@Steel Rat: Most of your points are excellent, but #1 isn't.

Of course it's been colder since 1998 - 1998 was a RECORD YEAR. Every year in the last century was colder than 1998. If you look at the last 30 years, or 20 years, or 10 years, or even 50 years, the temperature has been rising. The ONLY way to make it look like the Earth is cooling is to look at 1998 - the anamoly.

I'm not saying climate change is manmade (it might be, I don't know) but I'm saying that looking at the one exception to rising temperature and calling it evidence of cooling is dishonest. Votes: +20

1. The earth is cooling. (Unless you look at the entire chart.)

But that is not the entire chart. You too are cheating. The entire chart is here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

It is far less alarming, of course, but rather more accurate than deliberately choosing the bottom point to measure from. It shows that temperature has varied wildly in the past without major human intervention: but that is something we must not talk about. Shhh! Votes: +17

First, I hope that your comment is not voted down to invisibility, because your arguments are worth considering. I also happen to think they are wrong.

1. The de-404'd URL is http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...triad.html - there was a stray ) on the end.
The issue here is that taking the trend from the last 10 years is meaningless, because the year-by-year random variation dwarfs any lasting trend. Of course, looking at the last 10,000 years is also meaningless because it won't tell you anything about what manmade CO2 is doing to the climate. The best thing to do is to look over recent temperatures over a sufficiently large range that climate change trends dominate year-by-year variation.

2. Water vapor is indeed a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 but it has an important difference: We can pump out as much water vapor as we like and it won't stay in the atmosphere; it will fall as rain. Similarly, if we were to try to reduce warming by somehow removing vapor from the atmosphere, more vapor would evaporate from the oceans and equilibrium would be restored. As a result, manmade global warming cannot be caused by water vapor alone.

3. You've just stated an opinion, not made an argument.

4. Actually I think you and the article both make the mistake of argument from authority here. Here I'm prepared to say I don't know whether higher temperature will cause more or stronger hurricanes. But looking at NOAA, Friends of Science, and NASA, they are not contradictory: NOAA says storms have not significantly increased in strength, Friends of Science says that accumulated cyclone energy has not shown an upward trend, while NASA says that individual storms may become more destructive in the future.

5. What is your metric for human achievement? How strong have you measured the link to be? And what makes you think this link is causal? The Enlightenment happened during the Little Ice Age. But I don't claim that cold temperatures result in better achievement.

6. If climate models can be tuned to turn out whatever you want, what do you make of the argument that climate models fail to hindcast the recent surge in temperature unless they take manmade CO2 into account? Votes: +41

Since when is dumbass part of serious discussion, dumbass ? Votes: -7

Sean, can you write CO2 instead of C02? It makes me twitch everytime I see it Votes: +3

Steel Rat:

1. Cherry picking a period 'since 1998' is bad science. A ten year period is too short to draw many conclusions - we know this because previous decades within the warming period have had 'cooling' trends. In this case, the cherry picking does not work however. A chart with decadal trends is available here: http://chartsgraphs.files.word...decade.png

And you can recreate it yourself from source data by following instructions here:

http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/decadal-trend-rates-in-global-temperature/

Again, decadal trends are not too useful, but I think this graph nicely illustrates why they are not.


3. That increased CO2 levels causes global warming is known since 1896. If you can disprove this, you have a guaranteed Nobel price in either physics or chemistry. The 'friendsofscience' argument is actually even worse: they repeat the old fallacy that because during previous periods of warming, CO2-levels have not initiated the warming but rather been caused by the warming, it cannot be the cause for warming now either. This is equivalent to the following argument: because previously many drivers have suddenly died as a result of car crashes, the sudden death of a driver cannot cause a car crash.


5. The argument is not that higher temperatures would make the Earth uninhabitable. The argument is that the rapid change would cause severe disruptions in the ecosystems (not to mention agriculture), and while life on Earth would *eventually* adapt, you may not want to live in the transitional period.


6. Regarding your disregard for 'models', do you apply the same standards in other fields of science? For example, would you refuse to drive a car that has been computer modeled, believing it is just a 'guess'? *Everything* in science is models, from the theory of gravity to evolution. It's never 100% accurate. But it's often good enough to draw very useful conclusions. If you think you can tweak climate models to show anything you want, why not tweak them to get the result *you* want (and why do you want a particular result?), and then send your result to a peer reviewed journal?
Votes: +18

I don't profess to have a deep knowledge of climate change and the arguments for or against it, but as a regular Swift reader I was disappointed with the article because it seems to venture too far into ridicule, sarcasm, and debasement. There are many good points to consider, but the level of journalistic integrity seems to drop down a few notches when terms such as 'dumbass' along with the stupidly out-of-place 'hooker' analogy are used. Stick to the facts, don't rely on schoolyard name-calling, and we can all be happy. Votes: +6

this_is_gavin: It's a humor column... Votes: +10

Am I the only person who suspects that we humans, owing to our awareness of our own mortality, are by nature apocalyptic, and that "climate change aka anthropogenic global warming" is simply armageddon in a lab coat?
REPENT! THE END IS NIGH! Votes: +0

Not the only one, bosshog. Humanity’s fascination with its own demise is so pervasive and common across times and cultures that one would hope to be forgiven for indulging in a bit of speculative cynicism that it is often prompted by thoughts that go something like, “Well, my own life’s a mess and there must be something better, so nobody else should get to enjoy the world either. It would be good if it came to an end really soon.” Votes: +0

bosshog, you've always written like a true skeptic.

The other element in our psychological make-up, I think, is egocentrism. Egocentrism causes us to believe in religion, also. (How can I possibly die? I'm unique. Look at me! Supernatural entities are fighting, this very moment, over my "immortal soul.")

We're apocalyptic because we know we're gonna die? Very possible.
We believe we're affecting Earth's mean temps because we're egocentric? Also possible.

Al Gore stands to become a green billionaire? No doubt! Votes: -2

I'm not sure that New Orleans proves anything about climate change. Build a city on a sinking swamp below sea level in a region that experiences hurricanes...and you're bound to get flooded.
Votes: +25

Human Person: No, we believe we are affecting the Earth's temperature because we have done very careful measurements and developed well-tested models that show we are actually doing this.

It does not matter what we want. It does not matter whether a million apocalyptic theories have been nonsense. It does not matter what you think about Al Gore. All that matters is the facts.

Besides, you might want to look up 'apocalyptic'. This is a term for someone who believes that everything is lost. People who want to do something about a problem are, by definition, *not* apocalyptic.
Votes: +10

Bjorn Lomborg believes that AGW is real.

He brings common sense to the table, offering real-world solutions that cost a mere fraction of the amounts the administration proposes to spend with Cap and Trade legislation.

He's recognized as one of the foremost thinkers in the world. But his proposals have gotten short shrift. They don't break the bank. They don't punish achievers. They don't provide for the creation of instant green billionaires.

You'd think a serious person would take a serious look at Lomborg's thinking. However, he refuses to wear the doomsayer robe or carry the ubiquitous "The End Is Near!" sign. That makes him pretty much nobody. Votes: -1

Lomborg is pretty much a nobody. He has been found to use data fabrication, cherry picking of data, deliberately misleading use of statistical methods, and deliberate misinterpretation of scientific results (quote mining). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...dishonesty


The climate change denier movement lays out their case like a defendant in a murder case.

First, they deny that any climate change is happening.
But if it happens, they deny that it is harmful.
But if it is harmful, they deny that humans are causing it.
But if we are causing it, they deny that we can do anything about it.
But if we can do anything, they deny that we should do anything of the stuff that is actually proposed.

Lomborg falls in to the last category, but make no mistake: he shares the same goal as the rest of the movement, and he uses the same dishonest methods.
Votes: +16

disproves your claims against Lomborg.

Don't let it worry you, though, since Wikipedia is an invalid source, by its very nature (open source, or as I call it, open sore). Votes: +3

Whether intelligence (as we humans define it) is an evolutionary advantage is yet to be determined. Votes: +0

Widipedia as a source might cast doubt, but it does not disprove anything. Votes: +7

Right. It neither proves nor disproves anything at all. It's not a legitimate source. Stop agreeing with me. Votes: -7

I have absolutely no desire to enter into the endlessly tedious global warming debate, but I do want to congratulate Sean on an article that made me laugh a few times. We need a lot more of that around here. Votes: +12

Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for information. Lomborg has been found, by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, exactly what the Wikipedia article claims. Moreover, the Wikipedia article provides links to Lomborgs defense (and defenders) as well as to his accusers, which makes it easy to form an independent opinion on his credibility.

For anyone wishing to judge for themselves, I would recommend this page: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/example3.htm

I think this is enough to determine that Lomborg is not merely a campaigner trying to bring up the best arguments he can find that support his case (such as, say, Al Gore), but that he is actively making stuff up. He belongs in the category of creationists and 9/11 conspiracists, not among serious debaters.
Votes: +11

I'm writing this stuff down, so I can retrain myself how to think.

Ok, I've got it: Al Gore good, not makee up stuff. Al Gore detractors bad -- bad motives, bad thinking, bad personal hygiene.

Al Gore, instant green billionaire -- not a problem, since he never makes up stuff. Well, umm, except for that troubling case in front of a British judge, who ruled that Al's movie could be shown to schoolkids, but only if the little tykes were warned about the parts fabricated by good ol' Al. Votes: -4

The page I linked to also details errors and issues with Al Gore's material. Such as when he discusses shrinking glaciers and manages to show footage of one of the very few glaciers in South America which is not shrinking.

If you wish to argue that Al Gore sometimes overstates his case, I have no issue with that. There's plenty of evidence that he has done so. But when you present Lomborg as 'one of the foremost thinkers in the world', I have to point out that no, this guy is actually not just making errors, he's actively making stuff up, again and again and again.

If we want to know what is going on, we should listen to neither Gore nor Lomborg, as they are both campaigners, not scientists. But they are not equally dishonest campaigners, as Lomborg's errors are both much more incriminating and much more frequent.


I'm also taking issue with your portrayal of Gore as motivated by some sort of sinister money-making industry, whereas Lomborg would somehow be the underdog. Last I checked, the industry profiting from CO2-harmful activities was many thousand times bigger than the 'green' industry. Of course, that does not tell us who is right and who is wrong on the issues. For that, we must look at the facts only.
Votes: +19

That was a well-reasoned comment. Thank you,Johan. I apologize sincerely (no sarcasm intended, I promise) for misjudging your earlier remarks. Please forgive. Votes: +13

Thanks, that was very gracious. I hope I will be able to do the same some day.
Votes: +12

You said the use of Wikipedia as a source disproves.

I said it does not.

That is not agreeing with you.
Votes: +5

First, they deny that any climate change is happening.

Since this first point is wrong, the rest of the remaining points relying on it are also wrong. The "deniers" as you like to call them, don't believe that CO2 is causing catastrophic warming. That's all. None of them deny that there has been some warming since the LIA (at least none that I'm aware of.) But, and this is a big but, there is no measurement that says said warming was due to CO2. That's the bottom line. Scientists who use dubious statistical methods, refuse to disclose data and methods, on both sides, are doing harm to their causes.

There are many so-called "lukewarmers" who want to follow the science, but are being stonewalled by the above practices in finding out the truth. So many papers are being published without archived data and methods (most of them boil down to statistical output, so there's no real "climate science" involved), and when such a thing happens, the paper is just a gratuitous assertion, which can be just as gratuitously ignored. They amount to statements of "You don't need to see the data, just trust me." Sorry, I can't do that. Votes: +2

Steel Rat, I admire both your brainpower and your nerve.

By this time tomorrow (2:32 AM), your fellow skeptics will have, lemming-like, caused your comment to disappear from view, in favor of a "lowly rated comment" message.

Looks like mine wasn't the only one. But anyway, I couldn't care less about the rating.

I am not someone to be admired. Those who SHOULD be admired are the scientists wo, at great risk to their careers, are speaking out against poor science. Votes: -3

I perfer the term "heritic" to "denier" Votes: -4

You could at least spell it correctly. Votes: +5

This is such a load of bad science I really can't believe it gets into a sceptic site. It is utterly credulous, exactly what JREF is supposed to be opposing. The evidence that humans are causing a major climate change is poor at best.

1. The earth is cooling. (Unless you look at the entire chart.) There is some good evidence the Earth is cooling. Even those that claim AGW agree that 1998 was the hottest year since sound records began (1979) and that 1934 was probably the warmest year in the last century. After that with cooling from 1945 to 1977, warming 1977 to 1998 and steady or cooling 1998 to 2009, I really don't see a pattern of steady warming. None of those facts I have stated is controversial.

2. The Sun causes climate change. (Yes, Virginia, the sun is a heat source, but you need CO2 to trap it.) No you don't. That is simply a lie. 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour. 0.28% is caused by gases released by human activity. Since the whole effect increases the Earth's temperature by an estimated 33 degrees Celsius, that gives a prediction of 0.1 degree rise. So this point is a strong argument against your argument that human activity dominates climate.

3. Al Gore was wrong about CO2. (Maybe, but it's sure hard to tell when you crop the hell out of your source.) Al Gore is so full of crap I don't know one fact he has correct. Here the court has decided that nine key facts in his film were simply not true. He is also projected to make up to a billion dollars from climate panic.

4. Violent weather isn't getting worse. (Unless you ask NASA, or New Orleans.) What utter bullshit. Not only was there no proven connection between climate change and Katrina, but Katrina was not even an unusually large storm. The known poor condition of the storm defences and the location of the storm caused the damage, not the severity. To use the NASA report is a classic case of circular reasoning, a complete logical fallacy. You are trying to prove AGW with a prediction that assumes AGW is true. Two astonishingly ignorant arguments don't make one good one!

5. It's been hotter. (Yes, let's roll the dice on that, too.) More bullshit. The whole climate hysteria (if you can call sceptics deniers, we can call those panicking hysterics) is based on the supposition that the climate is heating to a degree with no historical precedent. Therefore disproving it is not a logical fallacy. Of course it is simply not true. In Greenland there are farmsteads a few hundred years old in areas which are now permanently frozen. There is much more evidence from around the world, including here in the UK. The only evidence that this is not the case comes from a handful of trees in Russia (with data from more trees nearby that refuted this conveniently ignored).

(By the way, is it just me or is #5 the worst reason you've ever heard? It's been hotter? So what? It can still be too hot now. You could literally use this argument for anything. Got strep throat? Too bad, the doctor will say -- it's not nearly as bad as cholera or dysentery.) Why do you assume that the recent climate is ideal? In criticising this you are making a far worse argument than the argument you are attacking, by simply not making any argument at all and assuming we agree with you.

6. Climate computer models are proven wrong. (Unless they aren't, you dumbass.) Except that they are, all the time. They failed to predict that the Earth would stop warming in 1998, it did. They predict that the first warming should be in the upper atmosphere, it's not. They predicted that here in the UK we will have warm, dry summers but cool, wet winters. We have had cool, wet summers and warm, wet winters ever since that prediction was made - three out of four predictions wrong. The same computer used for the models in the UK was used to predict us good summers for the last year. They have been three of the worst summers in my life.

The models are built by people who assume climate change, and who get paid grant money for predicting it. Of course they predict it!

So what kind of scientific argument is calling someone dumbass, while making it obvious you have no idea of what you are talking about? Votes: +0

"Fanitullen, November 14, 2009
@Steel Rat: Most of your points are excellent, but #1 isn't.

Of course it's been colder since 1998 - 1998 was a RECORD YEAR."

Sorry, complete fabrication by the climate hysterics. In the US they finally had to admit 1934 was warmer, it probably was in many areas. Otherwise it can't be proved because wide, accurate data are only available from 1979, when the first satellite-derived information was available. For earlier years the temperatures are based on individual stations, at limited locations, and the people who corrected it for problems like the heat-island effect have openly admitted that they basically guessed the corrections. Their government funding depends on them finding warming. Guess what, they found warming!

Johan

Models used to make cars are not guesses because they are based on known science the their results are tested. The science of climate change is based on untested models, i.e. guesses. Your argument is a fallacy, in assuming incorrectly that just because two things are both called models they can be compared and assumed alike. Votes: +6

Johan, November 15, 2009
"we believe we are affecting the Earth's temperature because we have done very careful measurements and developed well-tested models that show we are actually doing this."

Sorry, that is not true. The measurements are not very careful. The models are very poorly-tested. You show far too much faith in scientists who have been offered unlimited funding if they say what the polticians want to hear.

"It does not matter what we want. It does not matter whether a million apocalyptic theories have been nonsense. It does not matter what you think about Al Gore. All that matters is the facts."

Yep. Sean's article is rather sparse on those, and misrepresents those it uses.

"Besides, you might want to look up 'apocalyptic'. This is a term for someone who believes that everything is lost. People who want to do something about a problem are, by definition, *not* apocalyptic."

So what do we call those that want to cause an apocalypse by claiming to prevent one? Al Gore for example clearly does not believe his own propaganda or he would reduce his own energy use. Yet he is willing to see millions die and millions more remain in grounding poverty to help the value of his carbon offset business. Votes: -3

Interesting note: this is obviously a political piece. It strays way off the political argument into political attack, because most of the arguments Sean uses are not factual but a matter of his opinion. It is a political opinion, it has been made so by the climate hysterics by the nature of their attacks on sceptics. So considering the last article, is it risking JREF's tax status? Votes: -3

It took less than 20 hours for our fellow skeptics to bury your opening comment as a "lowly rated comment." I predicted it would take 24.

The only reason it took so long was the fact that I predicted it. I'm sure some refrained from voting you down purely to avoid being predictable.

Yep, we got us some skeptical skeptics here, unless you're asking them to be skeptical of the political left. Jesus God!

That was heartfelt. Here am I, an avowed atheist, calling on not one, but two, deities. It's crazy-making, the way these skeptical skeptics, these affirmative-action robots, view the world. Votes: -4

SteelRat or Random were claiming that Jesus is coming soon.

What's wrong with you people? Don't be sheeple. Votes: -10

On the website's linked page they have 'C02' (that's a zero) rather than 'CO2', although it's understandable that they don't bother with making the '2' a subscript.

1. Earth cooling: yeah, if you look at only 1997 - 2005. Cue the boiling frog looking at the thermometer moving from 80C to 78C: Hey, it's pretty cool at the moment! I'll believe it's cooling when global mean temperatures are below the 10-year mean from 1900.

2. Sun causes climate change: Haha; that was one of the first causes ruled out. The sun doesn't vary enough on the timescales we're looking at. Usually the claim is followed by dutifully trotting out select sunspot activity and temperature logs while ignoring the vast majority of subspot activity and temperature logs. "Ooh, look, this iota of data proves I'm right - I just have to ignore the other 99.999% of data."

3. I'm sure Al Gore is wrong about a lot of things, but one of the things he's got right is that more CO2 = more warming.

4. I've never seen a coherent article showing that violent weather is getting worse - the "storms will be even worse" is a straw man though. I don't believe that should ever be parroted until people make it clear how they determine that Event X is "worse" than Event Y and show an analysis of storms at least through the period for which there are reasonable measurements. One low probability event like hurricane Katrina is not proof of anything other than low probability events occur (duh!).

5. Sure it's been hotter before - but what was the world like back then and how did humans struggle? (Were there even any humans at that period in time.)

6. Climate models, for all the expensive computers, lengthy calculations, etc, as far as I can tell don't really do anything useful - except give the denialists something to whine abut. The models, like the claim of more frequent and more violent weather events (which, incidentally is based on models and not fact) are really just straw men begging for the stuffing to be knocked out of them. If the models can be improved to give a reasonable estimate of future warming that would be fantastic because then we can make reasonable estimates of how effective various CO2 control measures may be. However, climate models have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the globe is warming and that increasing CO2 is responsible for a large chunk of that warming (both directly and indirectly). I really couldn't care if the climate models do not make usable predictions - they are absolutely irrelevant to the case.
Votes: +3

1. You need to go back further than 1900. Try 1000ad, 1ad...

2. The sun is the source of 99.9% of the energy being placed into the system. It certainly does cause the climate to change. If you mean "global warming", you're right, it's not variable enough for the outlandish predictions we've seen. On the other hand, if it's not variable enough, then warmer times during this interglacial were caused by something other than the sun, and SUVs.

3. More CO2 does NOT result in the kind of warming Al Gore predicts. It's not possible.

4. I guess we agree on this one.

5. Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period. Prosperous times.

6. For models to be effective at prediction they need to be accurate with ALL the physical parameters which make up global climate. They don't account for cloud formation or effects at all well, nor do they account for factors which are becoming more apparent. They may get there someday, but I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. Votes: +3

Random:
"Sorry, complete fabrication by the climate hysterics. In the US they finally had to admit 1934 was warmer, it probably was in many areas."
Most years were warmer in some areas. It may be news to you, but the world is bigger than the US. The warmest year on record, globally, was 2005. I predict it will be only 2-3 years until climate change deniers start claiming that "but it's been getting cooler lately, everything changed in 2005!!!". That is, unless one of the next 2-3 years become even hotter than 2005, which is unfortunately very likely.

"Models used to make cars are not guesses because they are based on known science the their results are tested. The science of climate change is based on untested models, i.e. guesses."

Do you have any sort of source for that statement, or are you just making it up because it feels good? Peer-reviewed articles please, not some retired engineer with his own website.

The models are indeed completely comparable: in both cases models are created to explain previously made observations. They are then tested by their ability to predict observations which were not used to create the models.

"You show far too much faith in scientists who have been offered unlimited funding if they say what the polticians want to hear."

Yeah, it's of course all a global conspiracy involving practically every government and qualified scientist in the known universe. Politicians are dying to impose extra costs on the industry and they love nothing more than looking impotent because there's a problem they can't easily solve. And scientists have absolutely no interest in pursuing the truth or publishing sensational results. I mean, if they did that they might get the Nobel prize or something. Totally not something scientists would want.

Wait a moment, you're calling yourself a skeptic?


Human Person:
"Yep, we got us some skeptical skeptics here, unless you're asking them to be skeptical of the political left."

If you did not come across as a conspiracy thinker with an anti-science stance, you would probably get higher ratings on this site. Just a hint.
Votes: +8

I forgot to answer to this one:
"Even those that claim AGW agree that 1998 was the hottest year since sound records began (1979) and that 1934 was probably the warmest year in the last century. After that with cooling from 1945 to 1977, warming 1977 to 1998 and steady or cooling 1998 to 2009, I really don't see a pattern of steady warming. None of those facts I have stated is controversial."

Controversial? All of those statements are just plain wrong. The warmest year on record was 2005, not 1998, and 1934..? Sorry, but there has not been a year in about 30 years that was not warmer than 1934. All this data is available from the links I already provided. Votes: +5

Jesus is coming! Quick, someone grab a towel! Votes: +0

@Random: What's political about it? "The earth is warming, we should probably do something about our CO2 emissions" is certainly not something the politicians (or anyone for that matter) wants to hear. Even those who claim to be pro-CO2 control are not doing enough despite the highly exaggerated claims in the newspapers. In Australia for example, the prime minister set what I thought were extremely ambitious goals (20% reduction on year 2000 figures) while the greenies largely poo-pooed the decision for not doing enough. The end result: lots of talk with nothing happening. I'm pragmatic so I nag people to get more instrumentation out so that we can get a better handle on the warming which we will be observing for at least the next 50 years; unlike many I have no delusions about achieving a limit of 560ppm of CO2 (twice pre-industrial levels) and I have no fixation with numbers like 450ppm. If anything, the global politics is still very much against doing anything to address the problems.

@Steel Rat:
1. OK, let's go back in time. 1000AD - still cooler than today. 1AD - still cooler than today. Of course we don't have global coverage or satellite coverage from those eras and have to rely by proxy on isotope ratios in air trapped in ancient ice. So the temperature trend is still up.

2. Sure the sun is not variable enough to cause the large temperature changes which some models predict - but so what? The sun can have an absolutely stable output and the earth will still warm from increased CO2. Whether model predictions of the heating are accurate enough to be of any use whatsoever is hardly the point; more CO2 still causes more heating. We're not only in an interglacial period but we're in the warmest interglacial period on a geological timescale - the last warmest interglacial occurred at a time when the species on this planet would have been largely alien to us.

3. Al Gore only quotes figures which the IPCC have published. There are so many disparate results from the modeling exercises that one is extremely likely to be 'right' merely by coincidence. If you say that Al Gore is wrong, you need to show us why he's wrong - preferably by telling us what's right and why it's right - otherwise you're simply parroting some words with absolutely no evidence to back your claim. The globe is warming and increasing CO2 is a large contributor. Personally I see no evidence to believe the instant movie-worthy doomsday scenarios with monstrous storms, but there is a lot of evidence of a subtle change that is far more devastating than what the doomsayers say. Lomborg pretends to accept those changes then simply shrugs off those changes and spouts nonsense like "oh, we'll just move this city and move that farm" and thus advocates what the denialists like to call "adaptation". Except in a war, large changes to the status quo are never expedited by politicians, so Lomborg's (and others') notion of "adaptation" is likely to fail - aside from the gargantuan resource requirements, politics cannot act swiftly enough to avert catastrophes.

5. That's a non-sequitur; those periods were not only not as warm as the current era but the medieval warming appears to have been a localized effect, nor can you say "all warming must be good because people in the past had a great time during warmer periods".

6. The climate models really do not matter. Who cares if they're wrong - the globe is still warming and it is due largely to increasing CO2; this is a simple matter of basic physics. What the modelers are attempting is to make a prediction of the "enhanced" effect rather than the minimal heating due solely and directly to the increase in CO2. What is known is that the temperatures will continue to go up - how far and how fast no one really knows even though we can make a decent guess at the minimum increase. Doing something will be beneficial for society even if future generations were to discover that all the predictions were too high; however, sitting still and doing nothing makes it likely that future generations are helpless to enact any meaningful change if it were determined (probably still by empirical observation as in the case today) that the temperatures will continue to increase beyond comfortable limits.
Votes: +6

Well done Sean! Very funny column! Keep them coming!! Votes: +2

I don't think so.

Well, there was this one conspiracy theory I subsrcribe to (hell, invented), back in the days when Menachem Begin was Israel's leader. After he left office, I noticed that he and/or his family were trying to take over the road construction and repair business here in the United States.

You probably saw the same signs I saw, and thought nothing of them (not being the conspiracy theorist I am, of course).

Yep, they were everywhere, and they were always placed wherever road construction started, big as life: BEGIN CONSTRUCTION.

If only you knew what I knew, you would join me in fighting conspiracies. We'd be outta hand and off the hook. The non-existent Jesus really isn't coming any time soon, though. Votes: -1

@MadScientist

What's political about it? Errrmmmm, where do I start? Far too large a subject for this forum, but a few minor points.

What is political is that many politicians do want to hear that, as they can then impose more government control. What's political is that the IPCC scientific report is required to support the political summary, and that summary is officially finally drafted by politicians and NGOs. So the scientific report is based on the politics, not the other way round. What's political is that many people lie, and say that the science is decided and the scientific community largely unanimous. That lie is a political view. What is political is that governments are using this as an excuse to increase taxes.

"1000AD - still cooler than today"

Probably not. That is the middle of the Mediaeval Warm Period, when Vikings colonised Greenland. Some of their farms are now under permafrost. I have a friend who was born in Greenland and has a degree in archaeology, who confirms this. There is no evidence that it was a local effect, however that is irrelevant. "Global Warming" is no such thing, that is also localised. Areas of Africa with some of the best temperature records because they have tea plantations have not significantly changed in temperature in over a century.

"1AD - still cooler than today" - how do you know?

The Romans produced wine up to Hadrians wall, the English/Scottish border. It is difficult now to grow wine here in southern England, 4 degrees of latitude south of that, and viticulture is impossible that far North. So this area was far warmer then. So whatever warming might have happened it is certainly not "global"!

"The sun can have an absolutely stable output and the earth will still warm from increased CO2"

Yes that is true. However the current levels of increased carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activity can only have increased the temperature by 0.1 degrees Celsius. That is where your "basic physics" break down,a nd you have not even attempted to address it.

At the moment the Earth has very low levels of CO2. We are in fact in a long-term carbon-dioxide catastrophe, with far below optimum for most types of plant. Prehistorically carbon dioxide levels have been far higher, yet the temperatures, while higher, were not higher to anything like the degree that would be required by the claims of climate hysterics. Votes: +0

Johan

What??? I have never heard any suggestion anywhere that 2005 was especially warm. Anything before 1979 is uncertain as the figures have effectively been made up, and the people who have them refuse to allow anyone else to see the raw data they used or confirm the techniques used to process them. Votes: +0

@Random:
"What??? I have never heard any suggestion anywhere that 2005 was especially warm."

Which was why he provided a link to NASA backing up his claim. Votes: +6

These are great! Keep up the good work! Votes: +6

Random thoughts.

On #2 - yes, you need CO2 to trap the sun's heat, but the more output from the sun, the more to trap, too.

On #3 - yes, they are advocates, and they present badly, but that's not addressing the argument's truth.

On #5 - correct again, but it begs the question: If human activity is causing warming now, what was causing warming then? And is that cause being considered now?

Remember, there is a human cost to "Global Warming" legislation. Increased energy prices really do mean human lives: both freezing deaths during Buffalo winters, and heatstroke deaths in Phoenix and Los Angeles. It also has huge economic implications, in giving huge manufacturing advantages to India, China and the third world. We would essentially be legislating the outsourcing of industry.

A long generation ago, the majority of the academic community was united in a similar manner, and advocating similar economic and legislative changes to prevent some hypothesized new Ice Age. It is not unreasonable to assume that those advocating CO2 change are carrying bias toward reducing fossil fuel use. Votes: +4

people that don't kow tow to big enviro and the statists are "Deniers" like the loons that deny the holocaust? You sir are an equivicating scum bag.

there aren't good and decent proclimate cahnge people that are at best unsavory and aren't making a buck off of being climate changer grifters? You tool.

by they way what sort of vehicle are you driving so much? Your killing me murderer. Votes: +0

CatOfGrey: "If human activity is causing warming now, what was causing warming then? And is that cause being considered now?"

I'm sure you are very clever, but yes, it has been considered. It's only practically everyone active in any related field of science that's thinking about this, you know. Causes for previous warming periods have been extremely slow compared to the current warming trend.

Furthermore, even if you were to hypothesize some alternative warming mechanism, you would then get a gigantic problem on your hands. We know that humans are releasing lots of CO2 (and equivalents) into the atmosphere. We can measure the CO2-rate and it is going up as predicted. And we know that increased levels of CO2 produce warming.

So even if you found some other factor that would bring about global warming, you would then have to find some other factor that cools the Earth so much that it explains why we're not seeing a double effect, both from your new heat source, and that from increased CO2 levels. And the policy implications would be zero, because we would still want to reduce the rate of warming by mitigating the cause that we can do something about, which is CO2.

So it's a bit like hypothesizing that there is a vast force speeding up the rotation of Earth, but that we don't see it because there is another hypothetical force that is slowing it down equally.


"A long generation ago, the majority of the academic community was united in a similar manner, and advocating similar economic and legislative changes to prevent some hypothesized new Ice Age."

This is simply incorrect. There were a few scientists hypothesizing about a possible cooling a few decades ago, but there was never anything approaching a scientific consensus and much less any policy action.
Votes: +1

It is a sad day when one of the world's leading scepticism sites posts unscientific rhetoric such as this. Remember, sceptical inquiry is based on the assumption that any side could be false.

As for the nature of the funding the freindsofscience.org, this does not mean their arguments are logically flawed due to bias. They might be, but the only way to discover this is to examine the arguments themselves. Simply saying 'the funding means they are biased thus we should ignore them' fails to actually examine anything they say.

As people have pointed out, yes it has been cooling since 1998, because that year was significantly warmer than others in recent years. Has it occurred to people that it was anomalous, and now the temperatures are reverting to the norm? News headlines from the past show a cyclic nature to the climate: current warming stretches back to the late 70s / early 80s, preceded by cooling scares, which in turn was preceded by a warming scare, and again was preceded by cooling. The newspaper headline trend stretches back for over a century, and clearly demonstrates the fact that the climate simply fluctuates.

This in itself is far from remarkable; it would be considerably more surprising if every year had the same average temperature without variation.

Speaking of which, is anyone else bothered by the audacity in reducing the global average for an entire year to a single number? The sheer variety in altitude, latitude, albedo, insolation, precipitation and the like across the globe gives rise to a plethora of distinct ecosystems each with their local climate, most of which have a very different average temperature to the global average. It is oversimplification to an incredible degree. Votes: +3

Dammit, apparently I screwed up the italics in my post and accidentally applied it to almost the entire thing Votes: +0

Random: "However the current levels of increased carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activity can only have increased the temperature by 0.1 degrees Celsius. That is where your "basic physics" break down,a nd you have not even attempted to address it."

Do you have any peer-reviewed source for this statement? This would be an absolutely astounding discovery if anyone could prove it, and it would bring enormous fame and prestige to its discoverer.

So unless you're just making this up - give us a source.


"At the moment the Earth has very low levels of CO2. We are in fact in a long-term carbon-dioxide catastrophe, with far below optimum for most types of plant. Prehistorically carbon dioxide levels have been far higher, yet the temperatures, while higher, were not higher to anything like the degree that would be required by the claims of climate hysterics."

It's true that CO2 levels have been much higher. Particularly during the cambric era, when neither plants nor animals could live on land.

How is that in any way relevant to the current debate?
Votes: +3

Lee: "As for the nature of the funding the freindsofscience.org, this does not mean their arguments are logically flawed due to bias. They might be, but the only way to discover this is to examine the arguments themselves."

The bias in funding is reason for being suspicious of their claims. When we investigate the claims, as has been done in these comments, we find that many of their claims are fallacies of the worst order.

Note that denialists have been challenged many times over in these comments to provide any support for their claims from peer-reviewed scientific articles. The result so far: nothing.


"As people have pointed out, yes it has been cooling since 1998, because that year was significantly warmer than others in recent years."

As people have pointed out, it has gotten even warmer since 1998, both on average and for the record year (which is of course not a good indicator, but anyway).
Votes: +2

@Lee

It is a sad day when one of the world's leading scepticism sites posts unscientific rhetoric such as this.

It's a humor column.

Now relax. Votes: -1

@Random: Your response is one major FAIL. I don't even know where to start addressing what's wrong. Oh well, I'll try anyway:

1. Your assertions of a global political conspiracy are quite crazy. As I pointed out, if anything the politicians in general really aren't doing anything which results in any useful outcome. Politicians certainly don't earn votes by telling people they will have to adjust to a world in which they pay perhaps double for the energy they consume. Norway had imposed taxes to encourage industry to cut CO2 emissions and some industries have significantly cut emissions, but Norway seems to be the exception and the only nation so far to do something significant.

2. The medieval warming period was ~0.4C cooler than today. 1AD was ~0.8C cooler. Yes, those eras were cooler than the contemporary era. Your unsupported claims about viticulture are rather bizarre. The contemporary era is still the warmest period in over 100 thousand years.

3. "However the current levels of increased carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activity can only have increased the temperature by 0.1 degrees Celsius."
Really? Even Tyndall and Arrhenius knew better than you and they've been long dead. Roughly 120 years later we know an awful lot more about CO2; after all it's one of the most extensively studied trace gases. As Johan pointed out, if you can support your assertions you'll get a Nobel Prize; I'll even personally nag Molina, Crutzen, and others to nominate and campaign for you. The direct CO2 contribution is much higher than that and if we're generous and stick to the lowest estimates of the direct CO2 contribution then we have to accept that the "enhanced" warming more than doubles the effect of CO2. So, if you're going to make that claim of only 0.1C, you'd better have some damn good evidence other than "someone told me so".


4. "We are in fact in a long-term carbon-dioxide catastrophe, with far below optimum for most types of plant." Even if we were to assume that were true, I don't see how it is in any way relevant unless you believe in a magic sky fairy that created the world so that it would have optimal conditions for all plants. Even Charles Darwin knew better; he understood that the earth does not necessarily provide the best conditions for any species and that in fact the earth often comes up with rather harsh conditions and that the species which thrive under those conditions are the ones which happen to have developed traits that allow them to withstand the conditions better than other species - nor are such conditions in any way optimum even for those species. Just remember that the last time the earth was this warm, it was an earth which you would not have recognized at all. The dominant plants and animals were very different then, nor has there been enough work done to date to make reliable estimates of what species would continue to thrive and what ecosystems may look like in the warmer times to come.
Votes: +4

You need to provide a cite for your paleo temp records. Everything I've seen (apart from the discredited "hockey stick") shows the opposite of what you say.

As for previous interglacials, the best reconstructions we have from isotopes shows them all warmer than the current. According to this graphic hosted in Wikipedia, taken from scientific papers, shows we're below the Holocene optimum, and below the MWP and RWP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...rature.png Votes: +1

As for 1934 and 1998... 1934 is the warmest on record regarding raw data. After the data has been massaged to rewrite history, it's cooler than 1998. At any rate, the idea of a "global temperature" is ridiculous. Some places warm, some places cool, some remain relatively constant. Votes: -1

Steel Rat: "You need to provide a cite for your paleo temp records. Everything I've seen (apart from the discredited "hockey stick") shows the opposite of what you say."

The truth is not determined by what you have seen, sticking your head in the sand does not work. As for the 'hockey stick graph' and 'paleo temp records', this just goes to show that you have no idea what you're talking about. The so-called 'hockey stick graph' does not show the paleolithic era.


"According to this graphic hosted in Wikipedia, taken from scientific papers, shows we're below the Holocene optimum, and below the MWP and RWP."

Again, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. As 'Mad Scientist' remarked above, the climate is currently hotter than it has been in over 100 thousand years. Your source confirms this. That it was even warmer at a time when humans had not even developed agriculture is not particularly relevant. The main problem, as I've repeated many times over, is not the absolute temperature: it's the fast rate of change. If we had ten thousand years to adapt, it would not be such a big deal.


"As for 1934 and 1998... 1934 is the warmest on record regarding raw data. After the data has been massaged to rewrite history, it's cooler than 1998."

Once again: do you have any peer-reviewed scientific source for these outrageous claims? Since I've asked before and you're not responding, I'll have to assume that you're just making this up.
Votes: +4

Ugh, I hate friendsofscience...

Their policy of cherry-picking science seems to suggest they are backed by a strict agenda, but they stay pretty quiet about where their donor money comes from.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php does a good job of debunking most of the arguments you'll find on global warming denial sites.
Votes: +1

...why does it matter?

Is it the position of anthropogenic climate change deniers that we should continue polluting the planet with wanton disregard? When I was a kid in Riverside, CA, in the '60s, there were days that the smog was so bad you couldn't see across the street. Later on we moved and the high school I went to in the '70s was perched on the side of a mountain, and many days you could see the cloud of pollution moving up the side of the mountain and eventually flowing right over the top of the school into the valley behind it.

Since then, great strides have been made to clean up SoCal air. Why would we not want to continue doing that whether or not it's making the planet warmer. Seems like there's a whole host of more immediate reasons to clean up the environment.

In my opinion, the global warming thing is really just a political strawman. Votes: +5

When I click on the "entire chart" link in the article, it gives me a 404 error. Votes: +0

The truth is not determined by what you have seen, sticking your head in the sand does not work. As for the 'hockey stick graph' and 'paleo temp records', this just goes to show that you have no idea what you're talking about. The so-called 'hockey stick graph' does not show the paleolithic era.

You're obviously a bit out of touch. "Paleo" reconstructions have nothing to do with the "paleolithic era". The "Paleo" here refers to reconstructions using fossil and living tree rings. I think you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.

Again, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. As 'Mad Scientist' remarked above, the climate is currently hotter than it has been in over 100 thousand years. Your source confirms this. That it was even warmer at a time when humans had not even developed agriculture is not particularly relevant. The main problem, as I've repeated many times over, is not the absolute temperature: it's the fast rate of change. If we had ten thousand years to adapt, it would not be such a big deal.

You obviously have a problem with your eyes. It's blatantly clear that all the previous interglacials were warmer at their peaks than the current one has ever been. There is also no evidence that any change we've seen is faster that other changes. If you have it, please provide it. My stance is that CC is natural, which is the default position. You claim that it isn't, please provide evidence.

Once again: do you have any peer-reviewed scientific source for these outrageous claims? Since I've asked before and you're not responding, I'll have to assume that you're just making this up.

Check the GHCN raw data and see for yourself. I'm not posting a bunch of links here because the comment then ends up in the spam bin, never to be seen again.

Also, google "how not to measure temperature" and tell me how good the modern data is. Votes: -1

Of course nothing in your statement has anything to do with CO2. Those actual pollutants have been acted upon for decades now, and it shows. Votes: -1

I still think you got testicles of steel, lol. You've done a good job in these threads. Votes: -3

I wasn't aware the scope of the conversation was so limited, thanks for taking on the role of topic monitor and checking my hall pass to make sure I stay focused. I'm sorry my analogy is wanting.

Of course, nothing in your statement has anything to do with the premise of my post, which I thought was pretty clear: shouldn't we limit pollution for the sake of the planet whether or not anthropogenic global warming is true? Votes: +2

Griz: "Since then, great strides have been made to clean up SoCal air. Why would we not want to continue doing that whether or not it's making the planet warmer."

It's not the same. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant in the sense that it causes smog or is directly dangerous to your health. If we were only interested in clean air, we could focus on filter out particles, sulphur, etc. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is not feasible to filter out because it's such a large part of the exhausts. Some of it might be captured and stored in cavities where we have pumped out oil for example, but there's not nearly enough available space to make this more than a very small part of the solution.
Votes: -1

Steel Rat: "You need to provide a cite for your paleo temp records. Everything I've seen (apart from the discredited "hockey stick") shows the opposite of what you say."

Fine - if by 'paleo' you mean the last 1000 years (like the 'hockey stick' graph), why not look at some of these graphs.

Now, since you've obviously never seen any of these graphs, may I ask you what graphs you have seen? (if any)


"You obviously have a problem with your eyes. It's blatantly clear that all the previous interglacials were warmer at their peaks than the current one has ever been."

Either you have a problem with your eyes, or you are blatantly trying to confuse the issue in the hope that a casual reader will not spot the fraud. Like I wrote, the graph you provided confirms that it has never been warmer within the last 100 thousand years. Yes, it has been warmer before then - but as I remarked, this was before humans even invented agriculture. It is not particularly relevant to how anything resembling the modern society will cope.


"There is also no evidence that any change we've seen is faster that other changes."

The current rate of change is measured at 0.13°C ±0.03°C per decade. Compare that to this graph. In this graph, every pixel represents 900 years. At the current rate of change, you would somewhere see a rise of 11.7°C on a single pixel - ie the entire range of the chart. Furthermore, the graph shows the Antarctic - the global rate of change would be expected to be much less significant.


"Check the GHCN raw data and see for yourself."

The curves I've posted are based on that data. You've made the claim that there's something wrong with the treatment of the data. Now, you can either back this claim up with some peer-reviewed scientific review, or you must accept that no one with a skeptical outlook will take your extraordinary accusations seriously.


"I'm not posting a bunch of links here because the comment then ends up in the spam bin, never to be seen again."

No. You're rated down because you never provide any meaningful evidence for your bald assertions, not the other way round. There's no conspiracy. It's you. Votes: +3

Not directly related to the science in question (of which Mad Scientist seems to have pretty conclusively argued) but I've seen the hilarious term "big-eviro" thrown around here. A bit of perspective: The largest environmental group in the US, the Sierra Club, had $100,673,863 in assets last year according to an independent audit. By contrast, Exxon Mobile in 2007 in reported $40.61 BILLION in PROFITS (nearly $1,300 per second). So... yeah...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/
http://www.sierraclub.org/foundation/downloads/2008-audited-financials.pdf

Again, that doesn't directly say anything about the science. Might be worth thinking about with respect to the politics of the situation though.

Votes: +3

No. You're rated down because you never provide any meaningful evidence for your bald assertions, not the other way round. There's no conspiracy. It's you.

I'll get this one out of the way first. No, I said nothing about a conspiracy, you did. I was referring to automatic spam filters on this site which seem to, sometimes, force a comment with more than a certain number of links into a moderation queue which doesn't seem to be moderated, then stays gone. It's a common type of spam filter for blogs. I said before that I don't care about being rated high or low.

Fine - if by 'paleo' you mean the last 1000 years (like the 'hockey stick' graph), why not look at some of these graphs.

Now, since you've obviously never seen any of these graphs, may I ask you what graphs you have seen? (if any)

What you just posted IS the hockey stick graph. It uses poor statistical methods and relies heavily on "stripbark" pines in a very isolated area to create the hockey stick. The 2006 PNAS panel said such trees should not be used in temperature reconstructions, yet they've been used numerous times since then, and no corrigenda have been submitted by the authors of the papers before 2006 which are the source of that graph. Try this on for size for a concise explanation: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7747 You'll see there that without stripbark pines, there is no hockey stick.

Either you have a problem with your eyes, or you are blatantly trying to confuse the issue in the hope that a casual reader will not spot the fraud. Like I wrote, the graph you provided confirms that it has never been warmer within the last 100 thousand years. Yes, it has been warmer before then - but as I remarked, this was before humans even invented agriculture. It is not particularly relevant to how anything resembling the modern society will cope.

Ok, you got me there. It's now almost the warmest it's been since the start of the last ice age. I was talking about previous interglacials. They were ALL warmer. What difference does it make whether humans are doing agriculture? The question is, are we experiencing unprecedented warming? The answer is, not as compared to previous interglacials, nor during this one. We're below the RWP, MWP and the Holocene optimum. Sea levels have been at least 2 meters higher earlier in THIS interglacial than they are now. The catastrophe is that humans are stupid and built all along coast lines that are now historically low.

The current rate of change is measured at 0.13°C ±0.03°C per decade. Compare that to this graph. In this graph, every pixel represents 900 years. At the current rate of change, you would somewhere see a rise of 11.7°C on a single pixel - ie the entire range of the chart. Furthermore, the graph shows the Antarctic - the global rate of change would be expected to be much less significant.

Your statement might be true if the rates of change were constant. They aren't.

The curves I've posted are based on that data. You've made the claim that there's something wrong with the treatment of the data. Now, you can either back this claim up with some peer-reviewed scientific review, or you must accept that no one with a skeptical outlook will take your extraordinary accusations seriously.

I didn't see any link from you based on GHCN raw data. You do know that GHCN/NOAA modifies the raw data, then GISS modifies it some more. That's documented, though the details of the GHCN/NOAA modifications are not made public. The GISS modifications are buried in horrendous FORTRAN code which some folks are still deciphering, and the results aren't pretty. I'm guessing you didn't follow my links or suggestions. Your choice. I can't force you to, but since your response was non-responsive, I'll just leave it at that. Votes: +0

would be ridiculed by Johan and other skeptics in much the same way he ridiculed Bjorn Lomborg.

Crichton and Lomborg both seem to make lots of sense, to me. Below is a link to a transcript of one of Crichton's speeches, entitled "Environmentalism as Religion."

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html Votes: -1

from the top.

The actionable link is

http://www.michaelcrichton.net...igion.html Votes: -2

who died of cancer and never harmed anyone. Yet, you're voting down a comment that has pretty much nothing in it except his name and URL.

ObaMao FOREVFR!!! Votes: -1

Steel Rat: "What you just posted IS the hockey stick graph."

No. There are ten different graphs in that diagram. All of them published in peer-reviewed articles. If you think they all look a lot like the 'hockey stick graph', then that's because.. the 'hockey stick graph' was actually pretty good!


"Try this on for size for a concise explanation: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7747"

So your 'source' is some dude with his own blog. Sorry, if you can't come up with a peer reviewed article that supports your accusations, I'm not bothered. There are just too many sites dedicated to 'proving' that the moon landing was faked, that homeopathy cures cancer, or that Nibiru will crush the Earth in 2012 for me to have time to take this stuff seriously.


"What difference does it make whether humans are doing agriculture?"

Have you ever pondered how it is possible to feed 6 billion humans? Have you ever pondered what would happen if the food production was suddenly reduced even by a few percents?


"The catastrophe is that humans are stupid and built all along coast lines that are now historically low."

So your argument is that because we are stupid and let this happen, the suffering resulting from global warming is not a problem?


"Your statement might be true if the rates of change were constant."

Incorrect. If at any time during the period that graph covers, the average rate of change was comparable to what is expected over the next 100 years assuming no corrective action, you would see that on the graph. But you don't.


"I didn't see any link from you based on GHCN raw data."

They are based on that data. Yes, of course it's processed. There's no raw data for global temperatures for the simple reason that you can't put a thermometer anywhere that will measure the 'temperature of Earth'. This argument is equivalent to creationists arguing that we can't know that macroevolution happens because nobody observed the entire process directly in a laboratory.


"You do know that GHCN/NOAA modifies the raw data, then GISS modifies it some more."

They process it, because.. a lump of raw data is completely useless for any purpose. But of course, if you want to believe that it's all a big conspiracy, then there's nothing much I can do about that.


"The GISS modifications are buried in horrendous FORTRAN code which some folks are still deciphering, and the results aren't pretty."

So you're going to dismiss the most respected source of data in the scientific community based on the argument that you don't like their choice of programming language?
Votes: +2

Human Person Jr: "Below is a link to a transcript of one of Crichton's speeches"

Michael Crichton was a science fiction writer. I think you're pretty seriously confused.

Or maybe you're one of those postmodernists who think that a fiction writer's 'narrative' should be given equal credence to the 'narrative' endorsed by all the major national academies of science. On the one hand we have thousands of people conducting experiments and meticulously correcting each others errors over the course of decades. On the other hand we have this guy who just made some stuff up. But you know it's just two different opinions, right!? Votes: +1

Let's say that AGW is nothing more than a loose hypothesis with little to back it up, and may be equally (or even unequally) likely or unlikely. I don't happen to believe that, but just for the sake of argument.

Burning things releases CO2 into the environment that would not otherwise be released so quickly, which I venture to say is irrefutable.

Let's say, in addition, that such CO2 has not been demonstrated to contribute to climate change. I don't happen to believe that, either, but again, just for the sake of argument.

You'll STILL save a lot of $$ personally if you find individual ways of cutting down your fuel use.

What are we all so bugged about here? Save some energy, save some money. And -- who knows? -- maybe it might even help stabilize world climate. Can't be bad. Votes: +4

What are your heroes concealing behind that curtain? I don't blame you for this whole mess. People like Gore the Instant Green Billionaire would regard you as a useful idiot, nothing more, nothing less. Even if AGW is a fact, this panicky desire to spend the U.S. into bankruptcy is an ill-considered, ineffective "fix."

Fact is, it isn't possible to cut CO2 emissions enough to make a significant change in global average temps. However, it IS possible (and desirable, at least to ObaMao & Company)to create a few lucky billionaires, redistribute great chunks of America's wealth to other nations, and cripple America's industrial capacity, while leaving China and India unmolested in their intransigence.

Environmentalism is a religion. It's a religion for thinking people, those who would never succumb to the more obvious superstitions involving man-gods, etc. That's what Crichton's speech is about. If you'd read it with an open mind, it might make a difference. Then again, maybe not.

Do you support the now-thoroughly-discredited worldwide ban on the use of DDT? Are you aware that the banning DDT, due to the religion of environmentalism, killed 10-30 million people since 1970? Are you still worried about the population bomb? How about global cooling?

It is immoral to leave third-world countries in their present-day conditions. It is also immoral to hand their leaders a combined total of trillions of dollars, so they can ignore their peoples' suffering.

Crichton doesn't go outside his area of expertise in his speeches. He was a science-fiction writer, and a Harvard-educated M.D. (scientist), as well.

You're too flippant by half. This means you could cut your FQ (flippancy quotient) by 33% and still be as flippant as the average Joe. Votes: -1

No. There are ten different graphs in that diagram. All of them published in peer-reviewed articles. If you think they all look a lot like the 'hockey stick graph', then that's because.. the 'hockey stick graph' was actually pretty good!

No, it's the Hockey Stick done ten different times, same data, same methods. They all rely on questionable proxies, small selections of tree rings which purport to represent the whole planet. None of the papers listed at the bottom of your link are independent, many are the same authors all mixed in.

So your 'source' is some dude with his own blog. Sorry, if you can't come up with a peer reviewed article that supports your accusations, I'm not bothered. There are just too many sites dedicated to 'proving' that the moon landing was faked, that homeopathy cures cancer, or that Nibiru will crush the Earth in 2012 for me to have time to take this stuff seriously.

That "dude" is an IPCC expert reviewer, statistician. The "Hockey Stick" is pure statistics, plain and simple. It was determined that the Mann regression methods would make hockey stick shapes out of any red noise source. As usual you don't respond to the critic because it's easier not to.

So your argument is that because we are stupid and let this happen, the suffering resulting from global warming is not a problem?

Try some reading comprehension, because you're not getting it. I'm saying that sea levels are historically low for this interglacial. If they rise, there's no proof that it will do so due to CO2. If you live next to an active volcano, you have to expect some lava...

Incorrect. If at any time during the period that graph covers, the average rate of change was comparable to what is expected over the next 100 years assuming no corrective action, you would see that on the graph. But you don't.

The rates of change clearly are not constant. They go positive, they go negative all through this interglacial. Again, nothing we're seeing is unprecedented.

They are based on that data. Yes, of course it's processed. There's no raw data for global temperatures for the simple reason that you can't put a thermometer anywhere that will measure the 'temperature of Earth'. This argument is equivalent to creationists arguing that we can't know that macroevolution happens because nobody observed the entire process directly in a laboratory.

Again, you don't seem to be grasping the concept. The raw data, individual temperature stations, don't need adjusting unless it can be demonstrated that adjustments are necessary and done properly. Since the adjustments by NOAA (FILNET, SHAP) are not available to the public, we don't know if they're valid. Are they state secrets? As for no raw data, where do you think it comes from? In the US there are approximately 1221 temperature monitoring stations. Some of them show cooling trends throughout their histories, some show warming, some are pretty static. Some have undocumented moves, most break the rules for thermometer placement established by NOAA and the NWS (too close to buildings, asphalt, non-representative terrain, air conditioning units, burn barrels, parking lots, airports, etc.) This is the raw data, that wasn't originally established to monitor climate change, and therefore does not have the accuracy claimed by the alarmists.

They process it, because.. a lump of raw data is completely useless for any purpose. But of course, if you want to believe that it's all a big conspiracy, then there's nothing much I can do about that.

See above. I just want to know what the adjustments are, and I want them to take responsibility for their network, instead of relying on citizen volunteers to expose their shortcomings. I'm willing to believe we're experiencing unprecedented warming, but the due diligence is seriously lacking.

So you're going to dismiss the most respected source of data in the scientific community based on the argument that you don't like their choice of programming language?

Again you're having comprehension problems. I said the code was horrendous, I didn't say FORTRAN was horrendous. Most respected source of data?? Puh-leeze!!

Votes: +1

I certainly haven't said CO2 doesn't contribute to "climate change", the question is how sensitive is the global climate? If ice core isotope analysis is to be believed, the climate is very insensitive to trace gases, and extremely sensitive to orbital changes (which directly affects total energy received from the sun.) So far orbital changes are the best explanation for the ice ages which have dominated climate over the last couple million years, and not CO2. We should be more concerned about the next ice age and not CO2. Votes: -1

Sean Sturgeon: Calling this warm loaf of climate change denial "friendly to science" would be like saying that Michael Steele is friendly to black people.
Luigi Novi: Um, Michael Steele is a black person.

(Was it really necessary to include an irrelevant and confusing racial comment in this?)

Human Person Jr: since Wikipedia is an invalid source....
Luigi Novi: That only depends on whether the material in question is sourced. If it's not sourced, or poorly sourced, then it should not be relied upon. But if it's supported by citations of reliable, verifiable sources, then there's no reason to dismiss it, since the fact that it appears in Wikipedia does not, in and of itself, affect its reliability, any more than if it showed up in a Google Search. Rather than citing Wikipedia, the original source should be cited, as Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself prescribed. Votes: +2

@Luigi Novi

Um, Michael Steele is a black person.

Um, I think that's a joke because Steele is also a conservative Republican.

Just a guess. Votes: +0

@incredulous

There's only one way to get back to Kansas. You must look behind the curtain. Surely there's a one word term which means "fear of looking behind the curtain."

Yes, incredulous, it's a joke. The bigger joke, however, is to watch the skeptical community blindly endorse disastrous policies, simply because they've been approved by the state-approved media. Anyone who's watched CNN, MSNBC or any other "fair and balanced" media outlet knows the entire Republican apparatus is a sham, and that, in fact, black or Hispanic Republicans are actually cunningly disguised white people. It's sorta the same way with women. Female Republicans are actually men.

That's why you'll never see the National Organization for Women sticking up for a politically conservative woman, nor the NAACP sticking up for a politically conservative black person.

It's the collectivist way. It requires that you never look behind the curtain. And that, fellow "skeptics," is why everyone knows Michael Steele can't be a friend to black people. The only friends to black people are Democrats. That is why the joke really doesn't require explanation. It's because most everyone has signed onto the imaginary document that says, "I will accept what I'm told. I understand that Republicans and conservatives are ignorant, evil people, and that Obama (and by extension, Gore) is the way, the truth and the light."'

Environmentalism is a religion. Like any other religion, it kills people, human beings. It killed 10-30 million since 1970. Since most of them were people of color, I'm sure that's no big deal to the wacked-out goofballs of the left. Really, all they need is good intentions. They'll never be accountable for their results. Votes: -4

I think there's probably an argument to make that a lot of minorities are voting against their interest when they vote Republican. That's probably the basis for the joke, since the RNC was pretty shameless in appointing their first African American chair only after losing to an African American liberal.

It doesn't need to be indisputably true to be used a fodder for comedy.

The rest of your post is aimed at the climate change argument, and I'm not interested in debating that topic. Votes: +0

incredulous is incredible

If only you could step back and take a good look at what you just wrote. Votes: +0

All right.

I'm not saying that its my argument, but 'vote against interest' is out there and it is fodder for comedy. As for Steele being a rather shameless Republican response to the huge popularity of Barack Obama, I stand by that as my own opinion. In the same fashion, I think it's fair to say that Sarah Palin was an equally jaded response to Hillary Clinton supporters.

As for climate change, the debate here has been fairly bi-polar, so I have no interest in taking part in that.

What about this requires me to reposition myself in response to your incredulity? Votes: +2

Thanks for your response, incredulous.

You wrote: "I think there's probably an argument to make that a lot of minorities are voting against their interest when they vote Republican..."

Actually, that argument is about as widespread (and as false) as thinking that Jesus will provide eternal life (but will cunningly give us the "pretend" death that everyone goes through, just so unbelievers can have free will to be burned forever in a lake of fire).

The popularity of an idea is unrelated to its truth. If the reverse were the actual factual reality, only the best musicians would be allowed to create "country music," which isn't music and is bad for our country. Also, in this alternate reality, the 100 German scientists who produced the brochure claiming Einstein was wrong would be correct, simply by force of numbers. (Hey, it's one-hundred to one against. Einstein lost, didja hear about it?)

Only a modest amount of investigation is required to see that blacks and other minorities have been ill-used and ill-served by the Democrats. The concept of "Voting against interest" when minorities vote Republican requires a narrow definition of "interest," which isn't one I'd care to endorse.

The moral is, if you're a pet rock, you might be taken for granite.

I don't say you're required to reposition yourself. I just wanted the opportunity to say that this concept, while widely accepted, is a damnable lie.
Votes: +1

I don't think that minorities have been misused by Democrats more than by Republicans.

I think they're both vile. Votes: +1

Human Person Jr: "I don't blame you for this whole mess."

But I blame you and your kind. You are the Neville Chamberlains of our time. Because you are delaying action while there is still time, we will all have to pay more to act later.

"Fact is, it isn't possible to cut CO2 emissions enough"

No, that is an opinion. And even that is probably generous, because it is obviously possible to cut CO2 emissions even to zero (not that I'm advocating that).

"Do you support the now-thoroughly-discredited worldwide ban on the use of DDT?"

No, because there is no such ban, and never has been. That's the problem with the likes of Crichton. I don't deny the possible value of telling a story based on overzealous environmentalists. The problem with Crichton is that he writes his fiction (which is clearly labeled as such) close enough to reality that some people start to believe that some 'facts' in his stories are actually true. Or maybe he intended them to be, but just did sloppy research - anyway I don't blame him too much. If people are not able to tell fact from fiction, there's not much hope anyway.

"He was a science-fiction writer, and a Harvard-educated M.D. (scientist), as well."

Having an M.D. does not make you a scientist. Being a scientist does not make you more trustworthy. What we should trust is science, not scientists. Crichton believed in telekinetic spoon bending and auras.. not exactly a beacon of rationality. Votes: +3

Steel Rat: "No, it's the Hockey Stick done ten different times, same data, same methods."

Wrong, they are based on very different data and very different methods. If you cared, you would have followed the links. You obviously don't care and just make something up in the hope that no one will check.

"They all rely on questionable proxies, small selections of tree rings which purport to represent the whole planet."

They do not, some don't use tree rings at all, and those who do use them only as one source among many (and certainly not a 'small selection').

"That 'dude' is an IPCC expert reviewer, statistician."

Self-proclaimed expert - as far as I can see he does not have a single peer-reviewed publication in this field. I can imagine two reasons for that:
a) This guy knows much more than all the national science academies of the world, but there's a global conspiracy to suppress his vast knowledge.
b) This guy doesn't have a clue and no one wants to publish his research because it is so full of flaws as to be rendered useless.

If you can think of some other possibility, please share.
Votes: +2

BREAKING NEWS!!

Veracity to be determined, but data were released today, purportedly stolen from CRU by someone who wanted to expose the bad science being performed there.

It was allegedly a 61MB zip file, placed on a Russian server. I've looked at some of the alleged emails. They mention deliberate falsification of temp data, as well as the necessity to resist FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) requests.

Supposedly, this will blow the lid off fraud in climate science. Votes: +1

You're not interested in following my links, and simply disparaging anyone who has checked the facts. So I guess we're done. Votes: +1

The AGW-at-any-cost-crowd...

made a few booboos, looks like. I've seen some of the emails.

The Hadley CRU people have confirmed the data are real.

What now, Johan?

I have a prediction. The emails were illegally obtained; the deniers are interpreting the emails in the worst possible light; and, the #1 response -- drum roll, please: DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS, my mind is made up. Votes: +0

Human Person Jr: From the excerpts that have been posted by various climate change deniers, I fail to see anything interesting in this aside from the Big Brother-esque thrill of reading somebody's private emails.

I understand that you see things differently and if you wish to discuss any of your quite serious allegations in more detail, I'll be around. It would probably be helpful if you could point out which leaked email that would prove what, in your opinion.
Votes: +0

Human Person Jnr

What other way can the emails possibly be interpreted? What difference does the legality of the release make? The content of the emails is the important factor.

I hate to say "I told you so", and I know I am going to get lots of negative votes. I also know that smugness in scepticism simply puts off the credulous from listening to the argument. However I did tell you so, and you people claim to be fellow sceptics. If that claim means anything at all, and is not you simply being self-satisfied and self-opinionated then you should be re-examining everything you have ever heard about climate change in light of this evidence of genuine widespread conspiracy and fraud. Votes: +0

Here is a compilation of some of the more egregious emails, which specifically denote illegal activity (deleting emails and data to avoid an FOI request), twisting the data to achieve a desired result, corruption of the peer-review process, and other pretty petty activity.

Whether it "matters" with respect to whether AGW is happening or not, I don't know. I do know that these "gentlemen" were not practicing good science. Sure looks like a conspiracy of sorts to me. Votes: +1

Oops, I forgot the link: http://bishophill.squarespace....gs-33.html Votes: +0

Steel Rat:

There's no doubt that some of these emails contain 'petty' behaviour, these are after all private emails and we can hardly expect that these people would all behave better in private than some of those posting in this thread have done in public.

That list is huge and there is no way I'm going to even start reading it. It is clear that most of that stuff is really just about 'petty' things and not really newsworthy. Please highlight one or two that you find especially interesting and I will comment.

Note that I'm not a lawyer and I can't comment on whether or not it would be illegal for UK scientists to delete their emails.


I also note that you have reverted your earlier stance regarding conspiracies.
Votes: -1

No, they're not private emails. They belong to the organizations the individuals work for. If they wanted private, they should have used Gmail or Hotmail accounts, not CRU accounts. Any company I've worked for has made it clear that emails are not private. Heck, one of the emailers even warns to write as if your emails will be public. He was apparently ignored.

If you can't be bothered to start reading the list, why should I bother providing you something I think is noteworthy? If you want to debate it, do a little work. Votes: +1

Steel Rat: I've read a few of the mails and they are certainly private. Whether they should have been private or not is besides the point (I don't know and I could not care less).

With regards to why you should tell me what you think is interesting: well, you're the one who says there's something interesting to see here.

If I tell you there may be an irrefutable proof for AGW hidden a thousand meters under the ground in your garden, will you start digging?

I think not. Clearly, that kind of debate technique is just meant to waste other peoples' time, not to have any sort of meaningful exchange.

So if you think you've found something interesting - tell me about it.
Votes: -1

For whoever implied that Katrina was evidence of global warming, this might be an inconvenient truth. Only this one, unlike Gore's, is actually, well, true.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/032951.html

Johan

Errrrmmm, Steel Rat gave you a link to a website that told you precisely that information. Below is an even shorter summary, if you are really that idle you will not even read the Bishop's Hill post before dismissing out of hand this very obviously scandalous story. This is evidence (now confirmed at least largely genuine) of two conspiracies and scientific fraud. I would say the ball is now firmly in your court.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/g...s-it-mean/ Votes: +2

I've read a few of the mails and they are certainly private. Whether they should have been private or not is besides the point (I don't know and I could not care less).

Whether they treated them as private or not is irrelevant. They were organization email accounts, hence, property of the organization(s) in question.

I really couldn't care less if you don't want to read page I sent the link to. You obviously don't want to know what's going on, so have fun in ignorance. Votes: -1

I mean, that's what the alarmists call me, so I'll accept the title.

I gave a misimpression. I was actually predicting the criticisms that the alamrmists would use to discredit any controversial information revealed in those emails. Sorry to give a misimpression. I was being facetious. Until these alarmists show more than they have, I'll remain a denier. I don't deny the holocaust or the moon landing. I'm not a Christian or a 9/11 truther. I think I'm fairly well grounded in reality. I just can't, at the moment, swallow the alarmist line. Votes: +1

If that headline can be averted forever, or even delayed, I'm for it.

Man-bear-pig makes me absolutely sick with his pedantic manner. I loved it when Bill Clinton walked away in disgust after Al Gore asked the curator at Monticello (regarding the bronze busts nearby), "Who are these people?" The people were George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and another less-well-known individual.

The Obama administration wants to spend and tax billions based on this science. For billions spent, I'd like to have a bit more confidence in those doing the science. Votes: +0

Ah, sorry Human Person, it was very late here and I was obviously not alert to the subtlety of your post! Votes: +0

Human Person Jr: Well, if you're not willing to point to whatever it is that you find incriminating about those emails, I can only assume that you find them all equally interesting. I therefore took the time to look at the first one at the link you sent.

On the page you linked, it is described as follows: "Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired."

Reading the mail in question, it rather looks like ms Boehmer Christiansen has been engaged in spreading vicious rumours (alleging criminal behaviour) about mr Jones, among others. Mr Jones understandably reacts to this, by trying to counter some of the allegations in an extremely factual manner. He complains that his opponents are resorting to smear tactics such as this email, instead of using the peer review process to publish any scientific disagreements.


I find it utterly unbelievable that anyone with an unbiased mind can read that email conversation and find mr Jones to be the 'bad guy'.

If the rest of those emails are in the same vein, this is certainly making some people look very bad.. namely the climate change deniers.
Votes: +0

I can only assume that you find them all equally interesting. I therefore took the time to look at the first one at the link you sent.

Wow, I hope you didn't pull a muscle or anything. Votes: -1

That's what the Boston newspaper called it, sarcastically.

No, they weren't referring to Phil Jones's chicanery. The headline was from October 22, 1844, and was published after William Miller's failed prediction that the world would end on that day. This dumb-mass was actually disappointed that the world didn't end.

Phil Jones is clearly and likewise disappointed that there's been no significant warming trend in the last decade. I expect this attitude out of a Baptist preacher, like Miller, but not out of a world-class scientist like Phil Jones.

@ Johan

I didn't provide any link. You must've meant Steel Rat.

I see the emails as damning, even if they don't entirely prove the Climate Crisis a hoax. Why wouldn't you see it that way, also, Johan? Are you like Reverend Miller, so heavily invested in a religion that you bemoan the lack of disaster? There is plenty enough disaster to go around, my friend, just not of the sort that Phil Jones needs to maintain his credibility (which is apparently more important, to him, than the continuation of our species). Votes: -1

Human Person Jr: There are apparently 1000+ emails there. Only a truly obsessed person would read through all of that.

From what I have read, there doesn't seem to be anything newsworthy. Given that no one here seems interested in pointing out what would be so bad, preferring instead to just assert that oh it really is bad but never mind the details, my theory goes a bit like this:

1. Part of the global warming denial movement have for years kept slandering the CRU, for example by passing around emails accusing them of fraud.

2. Although some of this is no doubt done in bad faith, there's no doubt in my mind that most of those involved actually believe their own conspiracy theories.

3. When someone hacked into the CRU servers, this part of the movement was therefore overjoyed over the crime as they were certain that this must expose the conspiracy once and for all.

4. When nothing of the sort was found in the emails, they therefore applied tried-and-tested methods previously seen for example in the truther and birther movements, to convince themselves that ordinary conversations, once you figure out the secret meaning, were in fact evidence of the far-reaching conspiracy that they knew about all along anyway.

5. When no one outside the already convinced would 'see the truth', the movement did what always happens in this type of situation - the true believers again saw this as further evidence of how far the conspiracy has reached.
Votes: -1

You wouldn't change your mind if a major deity, say, President Obama, told you to cease and desist promoting AGW. You are able to agree that our President is a major deity, right? Surely we can agree on that simple fact.

These published emails are, in fact, damning. Regardless of what they prove or fail to prove, they evidence some very bad attitudes.

I think there's enough there to get someone's ass thrown behind bars, from what I've seen. You just go right along with it, though. I think you subscribe to a hoax because it meets your religious needs. It helps you to think of humanity in terms of having "fallen" in creating industry, but also possessing the means for "redemption" by ceasing industrial activity and going into third-world mode.

Does it bother you at all that future generations yet unborn will pay for Al Gore to become an instant green billionaire today? It doesn't bother Al, obviously, but then, not much does bother man-bear-pig. He is truly a scoundrel, and the fact that you don't see that bothers me. A lot. Votes: +1

Johan

"From what I have read, there doesn't seem to be anything newsworthy"

What? Are you nuts, are you ignorant or are you lying? This is dynamite. The emails have evidence of two worldwide conspiracies (one to corrupt the peer-review process, one to hide the data, the latter by committing criminal acts in the UK and federal crimes in the USA) and scientific fraud.

As we find today that is the least of this scandal. The deepest problem is not that the scientists deliberately altered the data or selectively used them, or that they silenced others or refused to share. No the biggest scandal is in the databases themselves and the processing. The data itself were essentially useless. Utter garbage, that someone unidentified appears to have spent three despairing years trying to untangle and reconstruct from information which he often could not positively identify. It is meaningless, it is as good as entirely made up. In addition to that whole areas of the world were not covered (5 degrees to 10 degrees south is a band 345 miles wide by an average of 24,627 miles; that's nearly 8.5 million square miles of continuous surface with no data) and in others there was evidence that temperature stations had simply been made up. Temperature stations that did exist might extend their influence for hundreds of miles.

On the other hand the programs used to process this crap would happily churn out negative squares, and carry on regardless after reporting errors. Some of the processing was done by software bought in, and they essentially could not confirm what it was actually doing.

So the data sets are useless or no-one knew what it actually represented and the processing software riddled with bugs or else no-one knew what it actually did.

Is this not newsworthy? Votes: +0

Well, Johan, you took all that time to type that out, but couldn't be bothered to even scan the list from the link. I guess you prefer not to know. Though I doubt you'd admit if you were wrong in this anyway. Votes: -1

other than two guys about 70 comments ago, I'm not seeing a lot of people actually taking the opposing arguments with anything other than open scorn.Is that a new definition of skepticism and I never got the memo?

It's not enough to just argue, we need to be open to being proved wrong - for real.

So let's all try and back off the pedal of 'you'd never accept any evidence that proved you wrong' - there's a busload of that going around. Votes: +0

Human Person Jr: "Regardless of what they prove or fail to prove, they evidence some very bad attitudes."

So does your posts in this thread. This argument is called moving the goalposts. Because you cannot argue with the science presented by these researchers, you instead resort to character assassination.
Votes: +0

Random: "The emails have evidence of two worldwide conspiracies"

Which emails? I might as just argue that 'the emails' prove that you are a giant lizard.
Votes: +0

Sham-wow is made in GERMANY! The Germans make great things! Who can be skeptical about that? Votes: +0

Johan

Anyone with an open mind who read the emails could not respond to them as you have. So if you are being honest, read more of them, they are all publicly available. Or bury your head in the sand. It will not affect me, it will just mean that you are ill-informed. Do you really want to keep believing that much? The attitude does fit with today's news story about the nature of religious belief, as always looking to affirm a believers own views.

It is not any one email, or even a small number. That is the nature of a conspiracy. You need to read quite a lot of them to realise how large and important this is. Votes: +0

Random:
"Anyone with an open mind[...]"

Hmm, where did I hear that phrase before?

"who read the emails could not respond to them as you have. So if you are being honest, read more of them, they are all publicly available. Or bury your head in the sand."

Why? No one has been able to give me a reason. Of course, it seems very unlikely that there would be anything more interesting than the quotes that have already been thrown around everywhere. Like the jokes at the expense of denialists that are now taken as "admissions" that these scientists don't believe in their own results. Or the horrible, horrible practice of scientists to take an active interest in the quality of the journals in their field. Or the shocking revelation that scientists are not just taking raw data from different places and collecting it all in a big heap, they are actually processing the data as well.

"Do you really want to keep believing that much? The attitude does fit with today's news story about the nature of religious belief, as always looking to affirm a believers own views."

I don't believe anything. If you tell me that there are pink elephants or that the Earth is cooling, I'm always willing to listen. But when I've listened for a while and you have failed to come up with even the faintest shred of evidence, I become less interested in your claims.

"It is not any one email, or even a small number. That is the nature of a conspiracy. You need to read quite a lot of them to realise how large and important this is."

That is the most ridiculous statement I've read in quite a while. So it's impossible to give anything like an actual description of what is supposed to have happened?

Here's a hint. Ok, so you seem to believe that some researchers were involved in a conspiracy to produce false scientific results. If that happened, you should be able to write something like this:

"Researcher A, B and C engaged in scientific fraud by performing action D to create report E which was published in F on date G. The action D was discussed in emails H-M and can be revealed by comparing this with data from N and performing the analysis done by O in the paper P, published in Q on date R."

No one has done this. All that the denialists have done is to write what amounts to repetitions of vague allegations. When challenged, they resort to coming with even more (and different) allegations, rather than by specifying their previous accusations or providing any sort of support for it.
Votes: -2

Why? No one has been able to give me a reason. Of course, it seems very unlikely that there would be anything more interesting than the quotes that have already been thrown around everywhere. Like the jokes at the expense of denialists that are now taken as "admissions" that these scientists don't believe in their own results. Or the horrible, horrible practice of scientists to take an active interest in the quality of the journals in their field. Or the shocking revelation that scientists are not just taking raw data from different places and collecting it all in a big heap, they are actually processing the data as well.

Wow, you've really drank the Kool-aid. I'm afraid there's no hope for you. You have my condolences. Votes: +0

Steel Rat: Have you heard the claims that Obama is not a legal president? I found a web page here which puts forth a number of documents to prove this theory. Compared to the link you gave me in this matter, that web page appears to be much more coherent in the claims that are being made. In contrast, your Bishops Hill page is just all over the place with no particular focus, so it's hard to understand even what it is that their claim is in the first place.

I would be interesting to hear what you think about this, given that you appear to be "open-minded". Votes: +1

Johan

The reasons are in the emails and the other data. This is 160 MB. This is too small a forum to pass those on to you. We have provided links, they show some of those issues. The data is there, it is just you refuse to see it.

Conspiracy to corrupt the peer-review process. Criminal conspiracy to withhold information against both the US and UK freedom of information acts, and also against the principles of science.

Science based on impossibly muddled data run through software that varies from uncertain through error-ridden to deliberately dishonestly manipulative. That is a description of what has happened; it is available at the links we posted.

Your demand for just a description after I pointed out that the mass of emails is important shows that you are being dishonest again. You didn't really want reasons, that is what I was directing you to and we have been directing you to all along. The only reasons you wanted were reasons to carry on believing your religion. You have been directed to all the information you have asked for, you just flat deny it. You can stand there with your fingers in your ears all you like, it doesn't mean the words have not been said, it just means that you have no idea what is going on.

You should celebrate. The world is not in peril. Climate catastrophe is a myth based on poor science, pride, corruption and politics. This is good news, yet you act as if some just peed on your grandmother. You want to believe for the same reason as religious people want to believe in sin. Guilt allied with the promise of redemption, a religious staple for thousands of years. Votes: +0

P.S. Saying that a journal must be boycotted or editors attacked leading to their removal because they publish a paper you disagree with is not "...[taking] an active interest in the quality of the journals...". It is corruption. It should not happen in science at all, let alone without any mention of the actual content of the paper. There is no consideration of what is wrong with those papers, or consideration that the papers might be good and Jones et al might not be absolutely correct. No, the fact that these papers did not follow the orthodoxy means they should not have been published by the climate hysterics' logic.

To call that "active interest in the quality of the journals" is either grossly ignorant or grossly dishonest. That is not how science works, that is not how any academic discipline should work. That is how politics and criminal enterprise work.

Saying that no scientist publishing in peer-reviewed journals disagrees with your work then preventing publishing of anything that disagrees in peer-reviewed journals or redefining peer-reviewed to exclude anything that manages to sneak by despite agreeing with you is circular logic. It has no meaning. It is also utterly and obviously dishonest. These people are lying about that, the very basis of their claims to be in a consensus. They lie about their raw data and their models. So why on Earth do we trust anything they say? Where is the global warming if nothing they say can be trusted? There is no other evidence for it. Votes: +0

Have you heard the claims that Obama is not a legal president? I found a web page here

Nice non-sequitur. You obviously do not have an inquisitive mind, nor do you care to find out what the fuss is all about. I'm not going to spoon-feed you anything. If you want to find out why there is a problem, go to climateaudit.org, go to wattsupwiththat.com and read for yourself. Or you can go to realclimate.org and get a sterilized version of what they want you to hear (yes, they do censor out dissenting opinions or difficult questions, that's been documented hundreds of times at rcrejects.wordpress.com).

As I said, I don't know if AGW is a problem, I just don't think the case has been made. Votes: +0

Random: "Conspiracy to corrupt the peer-review process. Criminal conspiracy to withhold information against both the US and UK freedom of information acts, and also against the principles of science.

Science based on impossibly muddled data run through software that varies from uncertain through error-ridden to deliberately dishonestly manipulative. That is a description of what has happened; it is available at the links we posted."

Maybe, maybe not. If you would at least post a direct link to a page that actually outlines any of those claims, rather than a link to a list full of widely divergent, incoherent stacks of accusations without any attempt to back them up with a reasoned argumentation, I'd be interested. As of now.. well as I said before, I can find 'birther' pages that lay out their case in a more coherent manner, and that does not impress me too much.
Votes: -1

Random: "P.S. Saying that a journal must be boycotted or editors attacked leading to their removal because they publish a paper you disagree with is not '...[taking] an active interest in the quality of the journals...'. It is corruption. It should not happen in science at all, let alone without any mention of the actual content of the paper."

I disagree completely. Peer-review is the golden standard of science because peer-reviewed journals keep a high standard. How do you know that a journal holds a high standard? Because the most respected scientists within the field publish in it. You look at something like the ISI Journal Impact factor which measures that. What happens when a journal goes bad and starts publishing woo? Who regulates that? The answer is that the reputable scientists within the field must do that. And the way they can and should do that is to stop publishing in the journal, and to argue that their colleagues should do the same. That is exactly the responsible thing to do.

"There is no consideration of what is wrong with those papers, or consideration that the papers might be good and Jones et al might not be absolutely correct. No, the fact that these papers did not follow the orthodoxy means they should not have been published by the climate hysterics' logic."

That is complete speculation on your part. In a free society, Jones must be entitled to his view just as well as you're entitled to yours. If Jones thought that this journal was bad it was his right to stop publishing in it. If you thought the journal was good, you could have stepped up and submitted quality research papers to it. The fact that Jones' opinion mattered more than yours is proof that the process works: the opinions of experts in the field matter more than that of random people who argue on the internet.

"Saying that no scientist publishing in peer-reviewed journals disagrees with your work then preventing publishing of anything that disagrees in peer-reviewed journals or redefining peer-reviewed to exclude anything that manages to sneak by despite agreeing with you is circular logic"

How did Jones prevent anybody from publishing anything? He did not have this power. All he could do was to stop publishing there and ask others to do the same. That would have been absolutely futile unless most qualified experts agreed that the journal's standards had become unacceptably low. This is meritocracy in action, exactly how science should work. No one is entitled to publish their work in well-respected peer reviewed journals.
Votes: -1

or as uninterested as Johan claims to be.

But, embarrassed? Well, yeah, I can see that. I can certainly see that. This so-called Climategate event is the most exciting news I've seen in a long, long time. If nothing else, it should stop some of the more obvious political pandering in the AGW religious community. AGWism (environmentalism) is a religion, just like Chrichton said.

The big enchilada, manbearpig himself, Albert Gore, Jr., is also embarrassed. Not to mention chagrined upon thinking, "Hmmm, I might not become an instant green billionaire, after all!" (He cancelled his appearance at Copenhagen, by the way.) Votes: +0

Yea, verily, we have industrialized a large part of the planet! But I'm here tonight, brothers and sisters, to tell ya, Praise Gaia, there's a way to avert the disaster, reverse the industrialization, salve your consciences and attain everlasting noble third-world status for your descendants. Just support this here green bill, a little sump'n we call Cap and Trade.

(If and when the science supports it, I'll be glad to believe it.) Votes: -1

Instead of contributing to the hijacking of the "Crockopetard" thread, I'll post this link here. CBC apparently thinks "Climategate" is important: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...r_embedded Votes: +0

I'll have to check out what they're doing to "CrocoPetard."

But, yeah, it's amazing that other countries, Denmark included, are largely aware of the implications of the "released" UEA Hadley CRU material. Our government and much of the media haven't noticed anything, anything at all.

It's the height of arrogance, given the text that's been released, to say "Ah, no biggie." Even worse would be looking at the released code and seeing no cause for alarm. It's eyes-wide-shut insanity. Votes: +0

I wouldn't say they haven't noticed it, but have chosen to ignore it, since most of them are so far in bed with AGW, they're trying to save face, hoping it will go away. Votes: +0

@Human Person, Steel Rat: I notice that you've given up any attempt to provide arguments and are now instead completely relying on making personal insults. I have no interest in responding in kind, so I suppose the discussion is over. Votes: +0

and those more closely involved in the science than you have expressed extreme dismay over this flap (notably Hulme and Monbiot).

They're not worried about supposed privacy rights having been violated, a la boy-journalist Revkin (All the news that fits, we print). Their concerns are the same as mine: What does this mean for the science, for humans on the Earth?

Eyes wide shut, Johan. And for the record, if AGW were real, and the tipping point two years or less away, I'd opt for carrying on in similar fashion, including our present energy use. My inclination would be to buy an SUV and drive the hell out of it until I sizzle, bake or drown. Live free, then die. I don't want to live in Van Jonestown. I'd rather die.

This republic wasn't designed to allow mere survival, to become a third-world hut city. It was created by us and for us, to give us a chance to live large. I won't join the high priests of the Church of Hey Watch Out, with their febrile imaginations demanding that we minimize, socialize, regress, regress, regress.

That's a political take, one I'm qualified to offer. The science is another matter, but it looks hinkier each day. Good luck, offended sir. Votes: +0

Human Person Jr: I think I understand your position now. You're basically arguing from wishful thinking. Because you (falsely) believe that the consequences from X being true would be intolerable, you therefore conclude that X must be false.

This is the same mistake as a religious person arguing that God must exist because they feel that they would not be possible to live without one.

I can see that you are slightly more sophisticated in that you are hedging your position by offering to become a sociopath in case your wishful thinking did not hold up.

Fortunately, just like the religious person fearing the imaginary hell, your fears are not grounded in reality. Combating global warming is simply a matter of stopping the emissions of CO2 and equivalents. This is a solvable problem, and we know how to do it. It is just that producing energy in other ways and to reducing useless waste requires a lot of work. In other words, it is expensive. But given that we have huge unemployment worldwide, that is not really such a hard problem.


As for the nowhere-elaborated-upon 'arguments' about this supposed scandal, I realize that I'm not going to get any more details because that wouldn't really help your case. It seems to me that this youtube clip summarizes the controversy pretty nicely, as well as capturing the type of, ehm, 'reasoning' that is prevailing among those pushing this controversy.
Votes: -2

mentioning the two AGW alarmists who expressed their dismay with their colleagues.

I'm assuming you're cherry-picking which alarmists to support. That's a bit strange, isn't it? Wouldn't you want to support them all? All of them support your good ol' time religious belief (complete with priests, a method of "redemption," and imminent mass deaths by a deity (Gaia). Mass death is a staple of bullshit religion.

It's odd that you'd peg me for religious. It's also odd that you peg SUV drivers for sociopaths. I don't deny AGW. I do allege his whole business looks fishy as hell to the untrained eye.

So, make up your mind. Which alarmists do you support? Votes: +0

Human Person: Why would I want to support anybody?

And why are you arguing against these weird imagined bullshit theories of yours? Do you have some voices in your head pestering you about them, or what?


So it seems you've basically changed your stance now from 'Climategate' being 'the most exciting news I've seen in a long, long time' to proof that some climate scientists sometimes disagree about details of their research. Again.. why should I bother wasting time on this non-event?
Votes: +0

You sound as if you're unraveling.

Take care -- last response from me.

Oh, and please don't waste any further time on this, ok? It's only trillions that we don't have; it's only bringing us a government that's further left than the one the idiots elected in 2008; it's only consigning third-world nations to permanent poverty.

DO NOT. WASTE. FURTHER TIME ON THIS!! Votes: -1

@Human Person, Steel Rat: I notice that you've given up any attempt to provide arguments and are now instead completely relying on making personal insults. I have no interest in responding in kind, so I suppose the discussion is over.

No, you didn't deem it worthwhile to read what was provided. I made no personal insults. If you can point out where I have, I will most surely apologize. If you can't, then I will expect an apology for the accusation. Votes: +0