Global Warming Scam Exposed?

[Phronesis]

I don't know about you all, but I personally love winter, but I prefer the beach to be honest. And if it floods.. it will be a shorter drive to Durbs

Well, the experts tell us that if the CO2 doubles, it should result in a 1.9 +-1 degree Celsius warm-up of the earth. We are currently at around 380-400 ppm. At current rates it should double in the next 35-40 years and reach a level of +- 800ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.

Have a look at what a little extra CO2 does to plant growth...
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/photo/p/piceaa.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/p/pinusp.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/c/calamagrostisa.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/g/glycinem.php

Not too bad. Those denialist oil companies and their propaganda machines are doing a favour for some farmers it seems. Maybe the farmers are in on the denialist machine? Who knows, there is another conspricay theory for the tinfoilers.

Meanwhile in NZ... Where is the warming?

Interesting times indeed...

 

[Kalvaer]

So if I am reading that right, the increased temps will cause plants to grow more? Plus 2 degrees extra temperature? So lets rather spend more money and stopping the destruction of the forests and we could return the planet BACK to its original state and be a global rain forest.

Plus the extra/bigger trees will create more O2 wont they?

EDIT: Reading that PDF now BTW.. and seems the CRU are back in it again.. hmmm

 

[Arthur]

Global Warming is hopefully real. It's good for the planet, and it's good for people.
What is pure nonsense is that human beings have anything to do with it, or can stop or even arrest the warming. That's a form of insanity.

Get the 2009 movie Not Evil Just Wrong [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHMOEVRysWE]Not Evil, Just Wrong[/ame].

Also take a look at The Great Global Warming Swindle.

 

[Kalvaer]

The more I am reading into this the more I am beginning to wonder if we should actually believe these guys with they PHD's at all. We seem to have this mentality that if somebody has their PHD in a subject.. They must know what they are talking about right? (Generally speaking of course, there are and always will be brilliant people, but there will also be liars among those with there own agenda's)

It is interesting though and there are just so many things to consider. Each on its own seems kinda simple, and easy to understand, One variable says we are getting hot. Another says we are cooling, but try put them all together, and its a whole new ball game.

 

[BattleMoose]

One variable says we are getting hot. Another says we are cooling, but try put them all together, and its a whole new ball game.

All indications we have, and we have a lot, all put to us getting warmer.

 

[BCO]

All indications we have, and we have a lot, all put to us getting warmer.

BM, I realised this morning after reading this thread that it doesn't matter what you are me or anyone says, people have chosen to not to accept AGW and no amount of information will change their minds.

This point was driven home rather forcefully upon seeing, once again, The Great Global Warming Swindle trotted out by a skeptic as some form of refutation of AGW. It doesn't matter how many times one exposes TGGWS as a complete fraud, people keep bringing it up.

 

[Fieldy]

Those of you that debate weather humans are capable of destroying the rainforests really need to do some research on just how resilient the rain forests of the Amazon are. They are often referred to as "galloping jungle".

New Jungles Prompt a Debate on Rain Forests - New York Times

The land where Marta Ortega de Wing raised hundreds of pigs until 10 years ago is being overtaken by galloping jungle — palms, lizards and ants.

Instead of farming, she now shops at the supermarket and her grown children and grandchildren live in places like Panama City and New York.

Here, and in other tropical countries around the world, small holdings like Ms. Ortega de Wing’s — and much larger swaths of farmland — are reverting to nature, as people abandon their land and move to the cities in search of better livings.

These new “secondary” forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval rain forest — an iconic environmental cause — may be less urgent than once thought. By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.

“There is far more forest here than there was 30 years ago,” said Ms. Ortega de Wing, 64, who remembers fields of mango trees and banana plants.

The new forests, the scientists argue, could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, one crucial role that rain forests play. They could also, to a lesser extent, provide habitat for endangered species.

I would would like point out that this specific opinion does not sit well with the global warming alarmists and they insist that a carbon credits system with "global government" as the EU president claims.

I am appauled at how this exposure has been covered/up by the media. This plan really did go to the highest levels and is embarrassing.

Does anybody know how to contact the IPCC representatives for South Africa? I recently read an article where Dr Guy Midgley said the following.

A South African representative on the IPCC, Dr Guy Midgley of the SA National Biodiversity Institute, said Vermaak’s statements appeared to be “regurgitated denialist material”.

The “hockey stick graph” had been confirmed by several independent reports, including one by the US National Academy of Science, and Vermaak’s allegation about previous ice ages having been left out of the IPCC report was incorrect, he said. “There is a whole chapter in the (last) IPCC report (www.ipcc.ch) devoted to palaeo-climate and how it fits in.”

He said Vermaak’s reference to the stratosphere warming study was also flawed.

“A subsequent review showed that satellite drift and loss of altitude affected its findings. The matter was sorted out in 2003-04 in a review by a least three scientific publications which confirmed warming results correlating with surface studies.”

Suggestions that the IPCC was biased made no sense as the panel included scientists from the developed and developing world, he said.

Developing countries had an opportunity through UN climate change negotiations to attract funding and other support for technology transfer, adaptation support, and capacity building.

I would like to know what this guy thinks of the recent exposure of the fraud, because he is representing all of us and he is clearly an global warming alarmist. He even calls his critics deniers, using the whole holocaust deniers meme.

 

[Kalvaer]

All indications we have, and we have a lot, all put to us getting warmer.

Have you read the whole thread???? or even bothered to read any of the links?

BM, I realised this morning after reading this thread that it doesn't matter what you are me or anyone says, people have chosen to not to accept AGW and no amount of information will change their minds.

Now Now... I think we have all started to be civil instead of the name calling and bashing, But that works both ways. There has been a lot of evidence to prove the other way as well. If you choose to believe it not is up to you. Brings back my point I made earlier about people believing what they want in order to suit there own beliefs and agenda's.

I should be meeting up with somebody next week for a braai/supper (and YES, he has a PHD in Physics), who is a firm believer of GW. I think the table conversation is going to be interesting

 

[Phronesis]

Hitler you bad boy
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTGLpqFGyYM[/ame]

 

[BCO]

Have you read the whole thread???? or even bothered to read any of the links?

Now Now... I think we have all started to be civil instead of the name calling and bashing, But that works both ways. There has been a lot of evidence to prove the other way as well. If you choose to believe it not is up to you. Brings back my point I made earlier about people believing what they want in order to suit there own beliefs and agenda's.

I should be meeting up with somebody next week for a braai/supper (and YES, he has a PHD in Physics), who is a firm believer of GW. I think the table conversation is going to be interesting

When people LIE at me repeatedly despite explanations as to why they are wrong, it gets quite frustrating, so you'll excuse my anger.

I will say it again - The Great Global Warming Swindle is a fraudelent film. It does NOT constitute any kind of "proof" against AGW:

The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[9][10][11][12] Channel 4 and Wag TV (the production company) accepted some of the criticism, correcting a few errors in subsequent releases.[13] However according to Bob Ward (former spokesman for the Royal Society), this still left five out of seven of the errors and misleading arguments which had been previously attacked by him and 36 other scientists in an open letter.[11]

The British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), received 265 complaints about the programme, one of which was a 176-page detailed complaint co-authored by a group of scientists.[14][15] Ofcom used this complaint in its deliberation,[2] and delivered its ruling on 21 July 2008. It ruled that the programme had unfairly treated Sir David King, the IPCC and Professor Carl Wunsch. Ofcom also found that part 5 of the programme (the 'political' part) had breached several parts of the Broadcasting Code regarding impartiality. Ofcom said that the rules on impartiality did not apply to the scientific arguments in parts 1-4, because global warming caused by human activity was a settled fact: "In this respect it could be said that the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast ( 8 March 2007 ). [...] In Ofcom’s view the link between human activity and global warming also became similarly settled before March 2007. [...] Having reached this view, it follows that the rules relating to the preservation of due impartiality did not apply to these parts."[2]. Regarding the programme's accuracy, Ofcom noted that in its role as regulator it: "had to ascertain – not whether the programme was accurate - but whether it materially misled the audience." On this basis Ofcom ruled that: "On balance it did not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence."[2][16] On 4 and 5 August 2008, Channel 4 and More 4 broadcast a summary of Ofcom's findings,[17] though it will not face sanctions.[13]

 

[Phronesis]

When people LIE at me repeatedly despite explanations as to why they are wrong, it gets quite frustrating, so you'll excuse my anger.

Then you must be pretty frustrated at the lies (9 of them) in Al Gore's film
Court case

 

[BCO]

Then you must be pretty frustrated at the lies (9 of them) in Al Gore's film
Court case

When last did you see me using Gore's film as "proof" of anything?

 

[Phronesis]

The last time you got angry at someone for telling others to go and watch Al Gore's film.

 

[BCO]

The last time you got angry at someone for telling others to go and watch Al Gore's film.

Heh?

 

[Kalvaer]

Hitler you bad boy

OK. I actually have tears running down my face from laughing so hard!

 

[BandwidthAddict]

If you choose to believe it not is up to you. Brings back my point I made earlier about people believing what they want in order to suit there own beliefs and agenda's.

There is plenty evidence that the earth is warming slightly. There is plenty evidence to show that this is natural and a consequence of being in an inter-glacial period. There is plenty evidence of data hiding, obfuscation and politiking by the AGW crowd. If *A*GW is so proven, and true and settled, then why all the politiks instead of science? Science requires transparency. Most of the CRU and MET departments are publicly funded so why is the raw data hidden / destroyed?

When something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is generally a duck. With the AGW crowd, when you point out that some things don't add up, certain behaviour, claims and evidence, IE these ducks look like politiks rather than real science, then the AGW crowd goes and proves the point by using social/politikal means to silence the "dessenters", instead of using science and proof.

Recent discoveries have shown that the oceans are capable of absorbing more CO2 than was ever thought before. Did the super accurate models take this into consideration? How could they, it was not known until recently. Just that one point is all it takes to show that the models are not correct. But have the AGW crowd adjusted their models? Of course not.

There is plenty evidedence that more CO2 is good for the planet - more plankton, more trees, more abundance. But does that phase the AGW crowd? No.

There is a simple reason for this.

There are two halves to the AGW cult.

The one half are those that stand to benefit from AGW laws.

There are politicians that will be able to use new laws to invade and control large areas of our lives that they would never have hoped for pre-AGW. The AGW is a useful disaster in the making for them. Most of your freedoms under a democratic system will fall away with these laws. And those freedoms that are not covered by cap and trade regulation, will be covered by national health care. In short, we will become defenceless slaves to a big brother government. And the governments are licking their lips in anticipation. Total control, nothing less.

There are scientists, the climate scientists that were previously ignored and underfunded that suddenly have all the funds they want; and people listen to them. Suddenly they matter and this will only last until AGW goes away so there is a strong motive for them to keep this going as long as possible. No wonder data is hidden, destroyed, obfuscated. They will lose everything if AGW goes away.

There are businessmen that will make billions from the AGW scare. The so called "green" businesses and also the "green" speakers like Al Gore who has made hundreds of millions from AGW. If AGW was such a problem, why does his house use 25 times the energy of a normal user? Why does he jet around in his private plane. In fact, why is it that most AGW people jet around in planes to multiple conferences in nice locations when they could teleconference instead?

On the other side are the enablers. People who really believe in AGW.

There are the death cultists that hate humans and want humans to be removed from the planet. For them, AGW is a godsend. A reason to hope that humans will be wiped out, or a rallying call to "prevent" the disaster from happening by mass culling of the dangerous species. These people are demented and pure evil.

There are the anti-west crowd that want the western civilization destroyed for various reasons. Cap and trade will do nicely for them.

There are the anti-civilization and anti-technology crowd. Cap and trade will also do nicely for them. They want us all reverted to small villages and subsistance living. The fact that this would mean that billions would die of starvation is, for them, a small price to pay for returning to nature.

Then there are the communist/socialist that believe in big government. They believe that only a government can control a rampant self-destructive set of humans called businesmen. They also believe that a big government cures poverty and will usher in a utopia of needless living; all our needs are taken care of by mommy and daddy government. Once again, cap and trade work well for them, coupled with national health care, they will have their dream. Of course for sane, rational people, this would be the same nightmare as "mother" Russia under the USSR. But, you know, what is reality when you have the dream.

So you can see that the BCO and his ilk will never be open to the possibility that GW is not *A*GW, and that it is natural. For them, the "science" is settled, just like the "religious texts" are settled and perfect and non-debatable. For them, AGW is a religion, nothing more. They BELIEVE.

Peace, and lets enjoy the warmth, while we can.

 

[BCO]

Little more on the UEA hack:

* Trenberth: You need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth’s energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes.
* Wigley: The concern with sea surface temperatures in the 1940s stems from the paper by Thompson et al (2007) which identified a spurious discontinuity in ocean temperatures. The impact of this has not yet been fully corrected for in the HadSST data set, but people still want to assess what impact it might have on any work that used the original data.
* Climate Research and peer-review: You should read about the issues from the editors (Claire Goodess, Hans von Storch) who resigned because of a breakdown of the peer review process at that journal, that came to light with the particularly egregious (and well-publicised) paper by Soon and Baliunas (2003). The publisher’s assessment is here.

Update: Pulling out some of the common points being raised in the comments.

* HARRY_read_me.txt. This is a 4 year-long work log of Ian (Harry) Harris who was working to upgrade the documentation, metadata and databases associated with the legacy CRU TS 2.1 product, which is not the same as the HadCRUT data (see Mitchell and Jones, 2003 for details). The CSU TS 3.0 is available now (via ClimateExplorer for instance), and so presumably the database problems got fixed. Anyone who has ever worked on constructing a database from dozens of individual, sometimes contradictory and inconsistently formatted datasets will share his evident frustration with how tedious that can be.
* “Redefine the peer-reviewed literature!” . Nobody actually gets to do that, and both papers discussed in that comment – McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) were both cited and discussed in Chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 report. As an aside, neither has stood the test of time.
* “Declines” in the MXD record. This decline was hidden written up in Nature in 1998 where the authors suggested not using the post 1960 data. Their actual programs (in IDL script), unsurprisingly warn against using post 1960 data. Added: Note that the ‘hide the decline’ comment was made in 1999 – 10 years ago, and has no connection whatsoever to more recent instrumental records.
* CRU data accessibility. From the date of the first FOI request to CRU (in 2007), it has been made abundantly clear that the main impediment to releasing the whole CRU archive is the small % of it that was given to CRU on the understanding it wouldn’t be passed on to third parties. Those restrictions are in place because of the originating organisations (the various National Met. Services) around the world and are not CRU’s to break. As of Nov 13, the response to the umpteenth FOI request for the same data met with exactly the same response. This is an unfortunate situation, and pressure should be brought to bear on the National Met Services to release CRU from that obligation. It is not however the fault of CRU. The vast majority of the data in the HadCRU records is publicly available from GHCN (v2.mean.Z).
* Suggestions that FOI-related material be deleted … are ill-advised even if not carried out. What is and is not responsive and deliverable to an FOI request is however a subject that it is very appropriate to discuss.

Further update: This comment from Halldór Björnsson of the Icelandic Met. Service goes right to the heart of the accessibility issue:

Re: CRU data accessibility.

National Meteorological Services (NMSs) have different rules on data exchange. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) organizes the exchange of “basic data”, i.e. data that are needed for weather forecasts. For details on these see WMO resolution number 40 (see http://bit.ly/8jOjX1).

This document acknowledges that WMO member states can place restrictions on the dissemination of data to third parties “for reasons such as national laws or costs of production”. These restrictions are only supposed to apply to commercial use, the research and education community is supposed to have free access to all the data.

Now, for researchers this sounds open and fine. In practice it hasn’t proved to be so.

Most NMSs also can distribute all sorts of data that are classified as “additional data and products”. Restrictions can be placed on these. These special data and products (which can range from regular weather data from a specific station to maps of rain intensity based on satellite and radar data). Many nations do place restrictions on such data (see link for additional data on above WMO-40 webpage for details).

The reasons for restricting access is often commercial, NMSs are often required by law to have substantial income from commercial sources, in other cases it can be for national security reasons, but in many cases (in my experience) the reasons simply seem to be “because we can”.

What has this got to do with CRU? The data that CRU needs for their data base comes from entities that restrict access to much of their data. And even better, since the UK has submitted an exception for additional data, some nations that otherwise would provide data without question will not provide data to the UK. I know this from experience, since my nation (Iceland) did send in such conditions and for years I had problem getting certain data from the US.

The ideal, that all data should be free and open is unfortunately not adhered to by a large portion of the meteorological community. Probably only a small portion of the CRU data is “locked” but the end effect is that all their data becomes closed. It is not their fault, and I am sure that they dislike them as much as any other researcher who has tried to get access to all data from stations in region X in country Y.

These restrictions end up by wasting resources and hurting everyone. The research community (CRU included) and the public are the victims. If you don’t like it, write to you NMSs and urge them to open all their data.

From RC.

 

[Naks]

A good summary of Climategate:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

 

[BCO]

Be aware that this is a powerful tool in the denialist arsenal - "OMG THEY WON'T RELEASE THE DATA".

The majority of climate data is available here.

 

[BCO]

Interesting article on Galactic Cosmic Rays and climate by Peter Laut - Professor (emeritus) of physics at The Technical University of Denmark and former scientific advisor on climate change for The Danish Energy Agency:

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN1.pdf

The myth – describing a small group of ingenious scientists, who have arrived at the ultimate truth about climate, who have identified the sun as the mighty culprit, and who are shunned by a stubborn, envious establishment of old, narrow‐minded professors – has a strong appeal to many. It is good stuff for an artistic film maker. It can be molded into a moving story – mixing images of lonely heroes, brave, fighting underdogs, with beautiful pictures of the sun and clouds. And it turns out that neither the filmmaker nor the audience can be influenced by being told that the solemnly presented graphs on the screen are rigged.

(Scuse the formatting - seems to not want to copy and paste nicely from the pdf)