0
mikkey

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

***

Actually, FOX didn't distort anything and Media Matters has it's head up it's ass again.

But hey, beats having to respond to the emails and data, right?

So, John...if AGW is so REAL and SUCH a PROBLEM... why'd they have to cook the books and exclude data to make the data fit the hypothesis?

Why'd they have to put notations into the data saying "don't use this data for calculations past 1960".

Why'd they have to 'hide the decrease'?



Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method?


:oAre you really trying to explain Science to this guy?:S;)
It appears that anybody can explain science better than the main group of the IPCC scientists can at this point huh:S


Well, you have to understand that they had no idea they would end up trying to explain it to YOU. :D


Well, being the frauds that they are, nobody will listen to them anyway don't you think:o


Other scientists will. They don't care what your interpretation is. That's kinda how science works ;)


Oh, I think other real scientists will care. They would rather not be seen with those proven to lie about the data to support an agenda. Just in case you don't understant it (and you are showing here you may not) real scientists care about the data and research, not the a forgone conclusion or agenda.

What do you think?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Other scientists will. They don't care what your interpretation is. That's kinda how science works ;)



Would that be the scientists LYING about the data (you know - the AGW adherents), or the scientists that the lying ones have kept from being published (you know, the 'deniers')?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Government, Bill - not an individual politician . . .

CEO's get multi million dollar bonuses for doing things that improve profitability. Politicians don't. no, they pass mulit trillion dollar slush funds they draw from. Less risk that way

CEO's cannot be 'removed' by the general public for making poor decisions. Politicians can (although all too often the public lets them get away with doing a bad job.)no, but they do get more easily removed and fined when proven to be frauds

>unless you somehow think that fed.gov isn't going to get anything
>from "crap and tax"?

They'll probably get trillions! Just like they did from the SOx cap and trade program that's already in effect. Why, the money they made from that makes Exxon's profits look like a child's allowance.



Kind of like the politicians huh....
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Other scientists will. They don't care what your interpretation is. That's kinda how science works ;)



Would that be the scientists LYING about the data (you know - the AGW adherents), or the scientists that the lying ones have kept from being published (you know, the 'deniers')?


All of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Summary of the recent Copenhagen report on climate:

===================
Top points

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present –day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2oC. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2oC warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190C per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

Sea-level prediction revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as – 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.
===========================

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, how much of what you post is based on false and manipulated data?

All data supporting your agenda/cause is now suspect at the very least.

I find it hard to believe you think the IPCC has even a shred of credibility left at all[:/]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Chaotic weather patterns and heat sinks, variable driving sources, feedback loops, limited data sets. But underlying all of those complications are three known and indisputable facts. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing and the laws of Thermodynamics work. The undeniable conclusion is global warming.

CO2 has always been a "greenhouse gas". Plants can't grow without it. The earth has been warmer than it is, right now. Mankind would suffer more, from global cooling, than global warming....Why do you hate mankind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> no, they pass mulit trillion dollar slush funds they draw from.
>Less risk that way

Link, please.

>no, but they do get more easily removed and fined when proven
>to be frauds

Agreed there. In both cases, actual crimes can cause their removal - although it's easier with CEO's.

>Kind of like the politicians huh....

Again, link, please, Show me where the SOx cap and trade program makes more than Exxon. (As a help to get you started, Exxon made about $45 billion last year.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Bill, how much of what you post is based on false and manipulated data?

None.

>All data supporting your agenda/cause is now suspect at the very least.

It has always been to people whose job depends on them suspecting it.

>I find it hard to believe you think the IPCC has even a shred of
>credibility left at all

"There's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 1998!" How much credibility do you think _that_ guy has left?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well, being the frauds that they are.....



Based on my limited review of the emails (mostly just verifying what others claim they say), there is/was definitely non-scientific and likely fraudulent behavior on the part of the authors of the emails. They are chasing money and playing politics. Not too scientific an endeavor, IMHO.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 1998!" How much credibility do you think _that_ guy has left?



Well, according to the stolen files, my post was correct now wasn't it[:/]
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That what AGW research is all about.

It's about a group of people, so called "scientists", using govt. funding, to perpetrate the grandest fraud, of all time, upon the rest of the people, so that they may make a huge profit, with "green" technology.


You know, if they had to seek private funds, for their work, they'd all be out, getting a real job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Well, according to the stolen files, my post was correct now wasn't it

Nope. 2005 was the warmest year per NASA:

===========
2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century
01.24.06

The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world.

Image displaying the five warmest years in the past century. Image to right: 2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years. Credit: NASA

Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City noted that the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century was recorded in their analysis for the 2005 calendar year.
============

Now - ready, set - DENY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>You know, if they had to seek private funds, for their work, they'd all
>be out, getting a real job.

Yep. They'd likely be working for Exxon, being paid to claim that there's no such thing as global warming.



Nah, they'd just hire you away from your volunteer work... :P
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This thread has gotten very quiet very quickly



Well, the dirty underbelly (and probably only a small part of that dirty underbelly) of the AGW INDUSTRY has been exposed. Lots of head scratching and "what do we do now" going on....

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You know, if they had to seek private funds, for their work, they'd all be out, getting a real job.



Yeah, 'cos we all know that science isn't really work... it's just a cushy old boys club, right?

My housmate's just started a PhD, he's in the lab maybe 10 hours a day, often in on weekends and spends a whole lot of his evenings at home reading through literature in the field, working through results data and designing his next experiments. All for what probably works out as somewhat less than minimum wage.

Bloody slacker needs to get out and see how the real world works!
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hansen works for NASA correct>

nuff said



The same Hansen you were salivating over when a cherry picked sentence of a paper of his made you think he'd switched to the anti-AGW side?

That Hansen?;)
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


---- --- ----

Does anyone who’s following this more closely than I, (Jim [1969912] ?) know if the reported change w/r/t processing data, the “trick,” coincides with the start of the Mauna Loa direct data?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote




---- --- ----

Does anyone who’s following this more closely than I, (Jim [1969912] ?) know if the reported change w/r/t processing data, the “trick,” coincides with the start of the Mauna Loa direct data?

/Marg




Yes. I'm not sure that this has any significance, however, since the decline discussed is for tree ring reconstructed temperature vs. observed local temperature. There is a recent 2007 review in Global and Planetary Change by D-Arrigio that goes into quite a bit more detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Bill what would it take for your to change you mind on AGW? How long would the planet have to cool?



I know that you didn't ask me directly, but I think it's an excellent question.

For me, at least, if the broad consensus in the scientific community reversed it might change my mind.

Quote

How much, and what type of proof would you need?



The scientific method doesn't work that way. Theories are not proven. Instead, hypotheses are tested. If the results of the test are consistent with a theory, that theory gains strength and credibility. If the test is not consistent, then the theory is modified.

A theory is not disproved by hacking emails and taking what some scientists say out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0