Global Warming Scam Exposed?

[Kalvaer]

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

Seems the same powerful tool that the believers use.. "Here is the data. Please note however, every 10th line has been deleted as the person working on that data only worked on so much of the information and we cant release it..."

Then when somebody actually takes that data, and makes new graphs, The line is:

"WTF do you know about CC, your not qualified enough to make that assumption, You're an activist trying to cause trouble, I bet you're funded by the petrol companies"

As Robert Jordan says... "and so the wheel of time turns"

PS: I see that data was updated the 27th of November, I wonder how much of it was actually available prior to the climategate BS

 

[BCO]

Seems the same powerful tool that the believers use.. "Here is the data. Please note however, every 10th line has been deleted as the person working on that data only worked on so much of the information and we cant release it..."

Then when somebody actually takes that data, and makes new graphs, The line is:

"WTF do you know about CC, your not qualified enough to make that assumption, You're an activist trying to cause trouble, I bet you're funded by the petrol companies"

As Robert Jordan says... "and so the wheel of time turns"

PS: I see that data was updated the 27th of November, I wonder how much of it was actually available prior to the climategate BS

It's my understanding that most of this data was publicly available long before "climategate". Furthermore, if more data is being made available since then, well that's all the better and it's further evidence that there's nothing to hide.

Tell you what, provide ONE alternate theory with even a fraction of the supporting evidence as AGW does. That should be simple considering how flimsy AGW evidently is...

We know from direct measurements of the absorption spectra that CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas. We know from direct measurement that it is increasing in concentration in the atmosphere. We know from direct measurements of the isotopic ratios of that CO2 that most of the increase is due to fossil fuel use and land use changes rather than natural sources like volcanoes. We know from measurements that the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere warms, and that the warming is greatest at night, both observations which are consistent with greenhouse warming and inconsistent with almost any other mechanism.

Performing an analysis disproving anthropogenic warming would mean showing that either MANY of these measurements are in serious error or that there other mechanisms exist which can explain the evidence better. In either case, the analysis would prove a positive- the existence of errors, or more powerful mechanisms.

 

[msmoorad]

climate change

you can belive whatever u want to but all i know is that whatever is on the news is moslty lies. use the internet and you will learn who is really behind the scam & why- actually its the same people as for all the other troubles in the world & theyre after the same thing-power & wealth.
i will not mention who they are cause i might be branded an "anti-semite"

 

[BCO]

you can belive whatever u want to but all i know is that whatever is on the news is moslty lies. use the internet and you will learn who is really behind the scam & why- actually its the same people as for all the other troubles in the world & theyre after the same thing-power & wealth.
i will not mention who they are cause i might be branded an "anti-semite"

O RLY?

 

[Nod]

Another analysis at ArsTechnica:

Reading the Climategate archive is a bit like discovering that Professional Wrestling is rigged. You mean, it is? Really?

The archive - a carefully curated 160MB collection of source code, emails and other documents from the internal network of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - provides grim confirmation for critics of climate science. But it also raises far more troubling questions.

Perhaps the real scandal is the dependence of media and politicians on their academics' work - an ask-no-questions approach that saw them surrender much of their power, and ultimately authority. This doesn't absolve the CRU crew of the charges, but might put it into a better context.

The secretive approach of CRU director Jones and his colleagues, particularly in the paleoclimatology field, is not a secret. Distinguished scientists have testified to this throughout from the early 1990s onwards. A report specifically commissioned four years ago by Congress, the Wegman Report, identified many of the failings discussed in the past week.

Failings are understandable, climatology is in its infancy, and the man-made greenhouse gas theory is a recent development. However no action was taken. A little like Goldman Sachs, the group that includes the CRU Crew was deemed to be important to fail - or even have the semblance of fallibility.

A lightning recap of what CRU is, and what role it plays, helps bring the puzzle out of the shadows.

The first IPCC report in 1990 used the established temperature record created by Lamb. It's very different to the one we're familiar with today - and that's the work of CRU director Phil Jones, CRU's pioneer dendrochronologist Keith Briffa, and their colleagues in (mainly) US institutions.

You can see the difference here.

Lamb's temperature graph, featured in the first IPCC report in 1990

Without the error bars (grey), the Medieval Warm Period disappears Source: IPCC TAR 2001

Although Lamb's version is supported by historical accounts, archaeology, geology and even contemporary literature, two key differences are the decreased significance of the Medieval Warming Period (CRU and its allies prefer the term 'MCA', or "Medieval Climate Anomaly") and a radically warmer modern period.

Jones and his team began to produce work that contradicted the established picture in 1990 - and CRU was able to do so from both ends. By creating new temperature recreations, it could create a new account of history. By issuing a monthly gridded temperature set while making raw station data unavailable for inspection, it defined contemporary data. So CRU controlled two important narratives: the "then", and the "now".

More reading at the link at the top.

 

[Arthur]

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

That's only the UK court case.
I lost count at 58 lies. After that they were coming too thick and fast.

Now we know it's not just rightwing reactionary fundamentalist evangelical anti-rational nazi religious denialist zealots who put ideology above science. It's now an indisputable historical and scientific fact that some (lefty) pro-AGW climate scientist with heretofore impeccable reputations are not above falsification, obfuscation and conspiracy to push their political agenda. All in the name of The Great Cause, of course, to which facts are never an obstacle. For students of human nature, this is of course not news. Just delicious to see them eat their own poo.

 

[Arthur]

Here's a public bet: I wager One Million Carbon Credits that AGW is false. Yes, one million CCs to the first person who can definitively show AGW (note the 'A') is true.

 

[Kalvaer]

I don't think its necessarily "false". Just a natural cycle, one that we don't know 100% to what extent we are actually making an impact on. I still think it would be as funny as hell if we are in fact helping to slow down a mini ice age, and by stopping what we are doing now, More people will die from cold.

 

[BCO]

Here's Nature's take on the stolen emails.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

 

[Kalvaer]

You have to love an article that starts by mentioning "climate-change-denialist" and "paranoid interpretation"

Blah.. for me right now the more I read into this, the more it seems that people are crapping themselves that the raising sea levels are going to flood the biggest economic centers of the world. It has nothing to do with what is actually good/right for the planet. Its more about money than what any Oil company could ever dream of funding.

I'll say the same thing I've been saying for a while. Where is the proof that they warming cycle is not a natural cycle, just as the cooling cycling is and we are messing with it regardless of what we do.

 

[BCO]

I'll say the same thing I've been saying for a while. Where is the proof that they warming cycle is not a natural cycle, just as the cooling cycling is and we are messing with it regardless of what we do.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

 

[Kalvaer]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

That is still not proof that we are contributing massively to a natural cycle, only that we are adding in gases. How much CO2 was released by volcanoes a thousand years ago, compared to us? Was it maybe these volcanoes that caused the Ice age to start switching? Now that they are "extinct", are we maybe not just stopping the ice ages from returning. What effect would an ice age have on the earths core? would it maybe cause more tectonic plate movement due to the increases mass and cause volcanoes to appear again. Would the increased CO2 not help solve the global food crises

Those are answers I would like to see with proof and evidence to support the theory, Not this crap about.. Ohhh gases=bad=we all die.. Run for the hills the sky is falling

 

[Bismuth]

That is still not proof that we are contributing massively to a natural cycle, only that we are adding in gases. How much CO2 was released by volcanoes a thousand years ago, compared to us? Was it maybe these volcanoes that caused the Ice age to start switching? Now that they are "extinct", are we maybe not just stopping the ice ages from returning. What effect would an ice age have on the earths core? would it maybe cause more tectonic plate movement due to the increases mass and cause volcanoes to appear again. Would the increased CO2 not help solve the global food crises

Those are answers I would like to see with proof and evidence to support the theory, Not this crap about.. Ohhh gases=bad=we all die.. Run for the hills the sky is falling

+1

Kalvaer, I highly doubt you are going to get the answers you are looking for. Every time I ask similar questions, I get graphs and statistics thrown at me, that don't prove jack. And certainly don't answer the questions I've asked in the first place, or are answered, but not to my satisfaction.

B

 

[BCO]

Kalvaer - I'll try to answer your questions:

That is still not proof that we are contributing massively to a natural cycle, only that we are adding in gases. How much CO2 was released by volcanoes a thousand years ago, compared to us?

We are able to measure carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, in tree rings, corals and ice cores. Firstly, CO2 measured directly in the atmosphere today is higher than any readings from tree rings in the last 10 000 years and from ice cores in the last 780 000 years. Also, because the carbon isotopes created from burning fossil fuels and other plant materials are different to those that occur naturally in the atmosphere or from volcanoes, we are able to measure exactly what percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity.

It's also possible to calculate humans' contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels by taking account of the quanitites of all the fossil fuels extracted and burned since the industrial revolution. This figure independetantly corroborates the isotope measurements.

Was it maybe these volcanoes that caused the Ice age to start switching? Now that they are "extinct", are we maybe not just stopping the ice ages from returning.

The biggest driver of climate change was Milankovitch cycles (the amount of solar radiation received in each hemisphere each season) as well as volcanic activity. Looking at current Milankowvitch cycles it seems that we are only destined for another ice age in about 30 000 years' time.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-6.1.html

Without anthropogenic emissions, current climate models indicate that we would currently be experiencing no warming or even some slight cooling (but not a trend towards another ice age).

What effect would an ice age have on the earths core? would it maybe cause more tectonic plate movement due to the increases mass and cause volcanoes to appear again.

Given that an ice age isn't due for another 30k years, this isn't really relevant.

Would the increased CO2 not help solve the global food crises

Current observations of changing climate seem to indicate that conditions are becoming more extreme generally, so wet areas are becoming more prone to flooding and dry areas are drying out even more. This doesn't seem conducive to agriculture in general.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.3.html

Those are answers I would like to see with proof and evidence to support the theory, Not this crap about.. Ohhh gases=bad=we all die.. Run for the hills the sky is falling

Many of the claims made by AGW proponents are made based on actual observed events and not "just" on modelling as so many people like to claim. While it is difficult to predict future climate patterns, our best estimates are that cuurent global warming will not be a Good Thing. Even if there's not 100% on exactly how this climate change will play out, surely the risk demands action? Would you play Russian roulette, even if only one chamber out of six had a bullet in it? Because that's exactly what's happening here on a global scale.

If you're genuinely interested to find answers to your questions (all of which have been asked before) why not visit this page? You will find cogent and solid answers for most anything you'd care to know about there.

 

[Naks]

Current observations of changing climate seem to indicate that conditions are becoming more extreme generally, so wet areas are becoming more prone to flooding and dry areas are drying out even more. This doesn't seem conducive to agriculture in general.

Bull.

Humans have always fared better in warmer than colder conditions. Also consider that vast tracts of previously unfarmable land will be freed up for agriculture

Longer growing seasons (longer restricted by snow and/or ice)

Less energy demands during cold seasons.

 

[BCO]

Bull.

Humans have always fared better in warmer than colder conditions. Also consider that vast tracts of previously unfarmable land will be freed up for agriculture

Longer growing seasons (longer restricted by snow and/or ice)

Less energy demands during cold seasons.

So you're saying that flooding and/or droughts are not bad for agriculture? Coz I was talking about flooding and droughts, not "generally warmer weather".

A prominent indication of a change in extremes is the observed evidence of increases in heavy precipitation events over the mid-latitudes in the last 50 years, even in places where mean precipitation amounts are not increasing (see also FAQ 3.2). For very heavy precipitation events, increasing trends are reported as well, but results are available for few areas.

Drought is easier to measure because of its long duration. While there are numerous indices and metrics of drought, many studies use monthly precipitation totals and temperature averages combined into a measure called the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). The PDSI calculated from the middle of the 20th century shows a large drying trend over many Northern Hemisphere land areas since the mid-1950s, with widespread drying over much of southern Eurasia, northern Africa, Canada and Alaska

 

[Kalvaer]

If you're genuinely interested to find answers to your questions (all of which have been asked before) why not visit this page? You will find cogent and solid answers for most anything you'd care to know about there.

I am.. I don't however think those answers given there are all that "solid" Nothing is, not my theory (mindless ramblings more than theories), not theirs. For everything thats up there, others have given valid responses in certain other papers and things, But because its not the IPCC its taken with a pinch of salt. As to the IPCC, right now until climategate is sorted, I take everything they have up on their sites with much less than a pinch of salt.

I think Bismuths response to my post would be exactly how I would respond now since I don't fully believe the graphs and models the IPCC make at all.

 

[Kalvaer]

So you're saying that flooding and/or droughts are not bad for agriculture? Coz I was talking about flooding and droughts, not "generally warmer weather".

Yeah.. The flooding will kill a few million people in the coastal area's, Creating more land for planting rice which we have seen grows better in rich CO2 environments More food, less people. Two crises solved. (starvation and over population) Once thats done, we can sort out the GW, at which time we would of learnt from it to terraform Mars and have a whole new set of problems on our hands

Of course I'm kidding but Blah... There are just way to many variables in this problem to work out anything 100%

 

[BCO]

I am.. I don't however think those answers given there are all that "solid" Nothing is, not my theory (mindless ramblings more than theories), not theirs. For everything thats up there, others have given valid responses in certain other papers and things, But because its not the IPCC its taken with a pinch of salt. As to the IPCC, right now until climategate is sorted, I take everything they have up on their sites with much less than a pinch of salt.

I think Bismuths response to my post would be exactly how I would respond now since I don't fully believe the graphs and models the IPCC make at all.

The IPCC assessments are based on a LOT more data and research than provided by just the East Anglia unit. To discount the entire IPCC standpoint based on "climategate" (which itself has exposed no great conspiracy or tampering with information) is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

When talking about climate science, I'm really not sure how much more solid you can get than having a proven physical theory (GHG theory, proven well over 100 years ago), observed measurements, and computer models that all corroborate each other. You're basically saying that climate is something that can't be studied because all the methods we have of studying it are unsatisfactory.

 

[BCO]

Yeah.. The flooding will kill a few million people in the coastal area's, Creating more land for planting rice which we have seen grows better in rich CO2 environments More food, less people. Two crises solved. (starvation and over population) Once thats done, we can sort out the GW, at which time we would of learnt from it to terraform Mars and have a whole new set of problems on our hands

Of course I'm kidding but Blah... There are just way to many variables in this problem to work out anything 100%

I agree with you that it's very hard to accurately predict what's going to happen. But surely if there's a chance that what's going to happen is going to casue human deaths, suffering and ecological devastation and there's a chance that we can mitigate this, then we are morally obliged to attempt this mitigation?