Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Unsettling enough, I am reminded of the ideology of religious extremists when dealing with Man-Made-Climate-Change enthusiasts.

In both cases, they are only going to do things for our own good.

In both cases it'll cost us, but the rewards will be wonderful.

In both cases, it's okay if we don't understand because they do understand.

In both cases, we are wrong and they are right.

In both cases, they refuse to listen to any opposing viewpoint.

In both cases, they have their literature which they think is indisputable.

In both cases, they will do anything they can to insult, debase any opposition.

In both cases, they have very narrow, myopic views.

In both cases, they put their faith into others rather than seeking it out themselves.

Correct on all accounts.

The one I emphasized can be seen everyday here on ATS, when those that do not "toe the line" are referred to as "Deniers" or "Climate Deniers". If you have a question, you MUST be one of THOSE. If you point out something that seems wrong or is wrong, you MUST be one of THOSE. If you DARE to have doubts or are on the fence, you MUST be one of THOSE.

Every single climate thread here on ATS shows that over and over and over. So much so that I sometimes have to scroll up and double check to make sure I'm in the Fragile Earth forum and not one dealing with religion....

I know exactly what you mean. If this was on one of the many "skeptic" pages I'm on throughout the internet
you would have had 20 meme's of tinfoil, a bunch of people posting Neil Degrasse Tyson videos that are titled something like "Global warming for dummies".

Skepticism has become a religion of its own, you'll often hear "but it's backed by science IT HAS TO BE TRUE" Yet like this, the info is missing/cherry picked or not widely understood.

All in all COSMOS was a great show but it created a bunch of A holes who aren;t that educated but makes them think they are. It also made people believe Neil Degrasse Tyson(who I like) is a deity of some kind, infallible, I thought he was human like the rest of us.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse


The fact that you can't understand you are contradicting yourself goes a long way in showing that you can't understand logic. The main premise behind AGW is that "anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for the warming and for Climate Change"... On several occasions you have stated "we need to cull CO2 to stop the warming" which is in AGREEMENT with the AGW claim, yet you also claim to not believe in AGW... You can't have both as it is a contradiction...

Awesome dude.

Because of your great debating skills the rising CO2 and CH4 levels are now no longer a concern. Stopping deforestation can not happen because it is bad for the economy.

Rapa Nui is nothing but a myth

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: links234
Wow... really, so let me get this straight... investigations done by the very same agencies that have been involved in the scandals, such as CRU, alongside investigations into the scandal done by groups that have been calling for "a need to combat climate change and to implement a world government which will combat it" and of course people like links234 do not question such "findings"...

Can you point me to any legitimate investigations that found otherwise? A blogger or a reporter misquoting an internal email isn't a legitimate investigation. Neither should it be taken as fact.

Then there is the fact that CRU also deleted the raw temperature data... but according to links234, there was nothing wrong going on... lol

That's not a fact, I've told you twice now. There's no data to delete. The data used for the models was aggregate data from the thousands of global independent sites.

You refuse to accept proof given to you. Is there anything that would change your mind?

a reply to: links234

IPCC scientists were caught fudging their numbers, very publicly, by cherry picking data in order make the numbers prove their theory.

That is fact.

Climate Change is very real, it has happened for untold eons and is underway again.

It is the height of arrogance to think that humans, in their pitifully short time on the planet, could actually be responsible for it.

Grow up please.

a reply to: Cynic

That's simply not true. If it's so public, show me the evidence.

Climate change is real, and humans are helping it in a profound way. If you can't accept the idea that the burning of fossil fuels is detrimental to the stability of global temperatures then I'd like to know what you can accept.

Next you're going to tell me there is no hole in the ozone layer and that the scientists were wrong about the CFC's that were causing it.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Cynic

That's simply not true. If it's so public, show me the evidence.

Climate change is real, and humans are helping it in a profound way. If you can't accept the idea that the burning of fossil fuels is detrimental to the stability of global temperatures then I'd like to know what you can accept.

Next you're going to tell me there is no hole in the ozone layer and that the scientists were wrong about the CFC's that were causing it.

Here, let me help you with that...

Evidence of Climate Data Tampering



~Namaste

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: links234
Wow... really, so let me get this straight... investigations done by the very same agencies that have been involved in the scandals, such as CRU, alongside investigations into the scandal done by groups that have been calling for "a need to combat climate change and to implement a world government which will combat it" and of course people like links234 do not question such "findings"...

Can you point me to any legitimate investigations that found otherwise? A blogger or a reporter misquoting an internal email isn't a legitimate investigation. Neither should it be taken as fact.

Then there is the fact that CRU also deleted the raw temperature data... but according to links234, there was nothing wrong going on... lol

That's not a fact, I've told you twice now. There's no data to delete. The data used for the models was aggregate data from the thousands of global independent sites.

You refuse to accept proof given to you. Is there anything that would change your mind?

You don't have to delete data to be able to "fudge" it a little...

Even the GISS data, which is the most used and widely accepted, is not the raw temperature data needed to build accurate models:

NASA GISS are currently the only group calculating global temperature estimates that explicitly adjust their weather station data for urbanization biases. In this study, their urbanization adjustment procedure was considered.

A number of serious problems were found with their urbanization adjustments: 1.) The vast majority of their adjustments involved correcting for “urban cooling”, whereas urbanization bias is predominantly a warming bias. 2.) The net effect of their adjustments on their global temperature estimates was unrealistically low, particularly for recent decades, when urbanization bias is expected to have increased. 3.) When a sample of highly urbanized stations was tested, the adjustments successfully removed warming bias for the 1895-1980 period, but left the 1980s-2000s period effectively unadjusted.

In an attempt to explain these unexpected problems, a critical assessment of their adjustment procedure was carried out. Several serious flaws in their procedure were identified, and recommendations to overcome these flaws were given.
Overall, NASA GISS’ urbanization adjustments were found to be seriously flawed, unreliable and in- adequate. Until their adjustment approach is substantially improved, their global temperature estimates should be treated with considerable caution.

It goes on to say...

We find that urbanization bias is a systemic problem within that 14 dataset, and that the extent of the problem has been 15 seriously underestimated[2]. Only one of the groups currently estimating global temperature trends from weather station records explicitly attempts to adjust their data to account for urbanization bias - National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, henceforth NASA GISS. In this paper, we assess in detail the urbanization adjustment method applied by NASA GISS.

And further...

An unusual feature of the NASA GISS adjustment algorithm is is that it applies the urbanization adjustments retrospectively inverted. In other words, instead of subtracting warming from the more recent part of the Phoenix record (in the above case), NASA GISS add warming to the earlier part. This is a counter-intuitive approach - if a weather station becomes warmer due to urbanization bias, NASA GISS treat the new warmer temperature as “normal” and increase the earlier temperatures to match.

Here, Read It For Yourself - And Yes, It Is An Open Peer Review

As more and more researchers dig into the data that is driving climate models, they are finding things like this, it's not an isolated event.

Deleting data is just one part of the problem, regardless of its relationship to the CRU, even though there is a TON of evidence of what the CRU did.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

And Yes, It Is An Open Peer Review

Which means the article has not been peer reviewed prior to publication.

Interesting. All of the papers on the website are by the same authors. The ones that publish the "journal." The family Connolly.

For the first trial run of the Open Peer Review Journal, we have submitted eight articles of our own research into climate science and atmospheric science. If this open peer review process is successful, then we hope to expand the journal to accept submissions from other researchers.

oprj.net...
To bad it actually hasn't been peer reviewed. However, the Connolly paper about their discovery of "pervection" has been subject to some criticism. All of which shows how silly they are.
oprj.net...-34


You know that many of the stations used in determining global temperatures are rural, right? You know that those station show virtually the same changes that urban stations do, right?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
It would be nice to take the CAGW issue on a piece-by-piece fashion, but that would take a book, instead of a post.
To start, we should note the oft-cited difference between "climate" and "weather."
As we all know, "climate" is the sum of observations over an extended period of time; 15 to 20 years according to many CAGW advocates, the IPCC and NOAA.
Given this, we need to ignore the MSM hyperbole that this fire, or that flood or those storms are any type of "proof" of AGW. Nothing in any individual weather event has yet been tied to anthropogenic influences.

Next, it is valuable to keep in mind that sound hypotheses are testable and falsifiable. As of this date, no one has provided an independently testable experiment to "prove" the CAGW hypothesis. Over the past 20 years, the most-used climate models have failed to match observations. Even extending "match" to include the 90% confidence level, GCMs simply have not been able to provide anything close to what even elementary-school science would consider accuracy.
Ask any CAGW advocate for a "null hypothesis," and you will see the disconnect between science and "climate science."

In the face of unworkable models, and non-falsifiable hypotheses, the "believers" will refer you to a "consensus" that is based primarily upon political science and propaganda. Two names come to the fore: Zimmerman and Cook.
Zimmerman's grad-student paper was based 100% upon subjective "analysis" of a tiny subset of a large population. It ignored the comments offered by those few respondents who actually had opinions on CAGW. Have you read any of them? If they supported the "consensus," don't you think you would have? Look for the original study, read the comment, and see it there is anything close to a "consensus."
tigger.uic.edu...

Cook, a core member of Skeptical Science, predicated his study upon the following "call-to-arms:"

It’s essential that the public understands that there’s a scientific consensus on AGW. So (Skeptical Science activists) Jim Powell, Dana (Nuccitelli) and I have been working on something over the last few months that we hope will have a game changing impact on the public perception of consensus. Basically, we hope to establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus.

www.populartechnology.net...

Then there's the overriding concern behind everything "Global Warming," or "Climate Change:" politics.
The oft-cited "2 degrees C" limit that CAGW advocates have incorporated into their dogma. It is nothing more than a political construct; having no reference whatsoever to science, "climate science" or 400,000 years of experience.

"Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal," says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), "the "father" of the two-degree "target."

www.spiegel.de...

Even the basic premises of "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" (as the CAGW advocates have evolved); and now, "extreme weather events" are founded upon a U.N.- based system of redistribution of wealth and assets.
In Nov. 2010, Ottmar Edenhoffer, co-chair of the IPCC, revealed to NZZ Online,

“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.”

Former U. S. senator Tim Wirth (D., Colo.) ( now chairman of the UN Foundation and the Better World Fund) .told The National Journal on August 13, 1988:

“What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

www.forbes.com...

As for the claims from Obama, Kerry, Hansen et al that "the science is settled," Dr. Phil Jones, former head of the UK's highest authority on weather and climate, Univ. of East Anglia's Hadley CRU has already gone on record that "the science os far from settled."
news.bbc.co.uk...

Use your better judgment.
Deny ignorance.

jw

a reply to: jdub297
Your source, which is about a separate survey, not Zimmerman:

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1).

Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

The questions:

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

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

tigger.uic.edu...

Whether you believe or disbelieve AGW, there is one thing that hopefully most people can agree on, that we need to take the beginning steps to transition the U.S. away from using oil as the primary fuel for transportation. Just think of all the money the U.S. has spent fighting wars in essence to defend our oil interests in the middle east (and the interests of certain special countries in the middle east)? If we were to treat this as an investment, then we are basically investing in the last major oil fields which may peak within a decade or two.

This is not the wisest investment the U.S. could make, because after the fields peak, we will have to transition to some other transportation fuel, which will cost even more money because of inflation and the declining reserves of oil and may lead to more conflicts.

It would be more rational to invest in an energy infrastructure that could be used by any energy source and not an infrastructure that could only be used by very few types like oil and similar products. That's why I think the U.S. should upgrade the electrical infrastructure to the point where it can supply all of our energy needs. In this manner the U.S. will no longer be hindered by our reliance on a limited number of energy options. Any and all energy sources that can produce power on an industrial scale could be used: oil, coal, nuclear, gas, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. In fact the U.S. can find the appropriate mix of energy sources that minimize price and maximize reliability. This energy infrastructure will make the transition away from fossil fuels much smoother, with less problems, less cost, and less conflicts. Most importantly, it gives the U.S. the option to supply all of it's own energy needs, so if any energy sources become too expensive or too politically challenging to obtain we can easily transfer to other less costly and troublesome sources.

Just think, we won't have to go around the world paying out the nose, and other body parts, for energy.

And just in case you are an AGW skeptic here is some "nice" reading for ya:

grist.org...

Come on skeptics, do you really have to shill for the oil companies that badly? They must have sensitive body parts in vice or something.

Unless I am well versed in the methods and principles of climate dynamics, how am I to know whether or not a certain algorithm, data analysis technique, or even data collection method is or isn't valid? I literally have to take the word for the AGW skeptics, in any case it won't matter. Once we begin work on upgrading the electrical infrastructure, then we can eventually transition to building the 100,000+ square mile solar array in the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico, which will provide more than enough power to meet ALL of the energy needs of the U.S., AGW problem somewhat solved (the solar array may have some influence on local weather patterns).

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Thank you for that, that was hilarious.

It even led me to this helpful site: Did CRU tamper with temperature data?

a reply to: Phage
Wrong, again!
You missed this part of the report:

A review of previous attempts at quantifying the consensus and criticisms is provided by Kendall Zimmerman
[2008]

(the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008])

tigger.uic.edu...

We can include Oreskes, along with Zimmerman and Cook; but Zimmerman and Cook are the bookends, and Oreskes is so completely debunked, she adds nothing to the "consensus" fallacy.

I heartily invite all members to examine Oreskes' paper and her professional reputation to assess whatever "contribution" you seem to imply she makes to nothing more than a poli-sci failure and admitted (by Cook) self-confirmation of a foregone conclusion.
Did you read Cook's "invitation?"

It’s essential that the public understands that there’s a scientific consensus on AGW. So (Skeptical Science activists) Jim Powell, Dana (Nuccitelli) and I have been working on something over the last few months that we hope will have a game changing impact on the public perception of consensus. Basically, we hope to establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus.

www.populartechnology.net...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

And Yes, It Is An Open Peer Review

Which means the article has not been peer reviewed prior to publication.

Interesting. All of the papers on the website are by the same authors. The ones that publish the "journal." The family Connolly.

For the first trial run of the Open Peer Review Journal, we have submitted eight articles of our own research into climate science and atmospheric science. If this open peer review process is successful, then we hope to expand the journal to accept submissions from other researchers.

oprj.net...
To bad it actually hasn't been peer reviewed. However, the Connolly paper about their discovery of "pervection" has been subject to some criticism. All of which shows how silly they are.
oprj.net...-34


You know that many of the stations used in determining global temperatures are rural, right? You know that those station show virtually the same changes that urban stations do, right?

The paper was to illustrate, yet another, data set that doesn't use the raw data, to support the arguments on this thread that there are various things in question that give rise to perfectly rational doubt and skepticism.

It's nice how you completely and utterly avoid the evidence of data being manipulated or corrupted, and instead, try to attack the open peer review process. Classy.

Key word Phage... virtually.

A virtual reality isn't the same as reality, now is it?

Virtually the same, isn't the same, which is what the paper is trying to show.

The fact of the matter remains (as is nicely shown in the paper, regardless of your opinion), that there is admitted bias used against the raw data to create the datasets that are used by GISS, which in turn is used by almost every climate model on the planet. The bias isn't hidden, and that illustrates that if you are applying bias to a calculated data set, then you are going to get a different result. The error range that is unaccounted for in the data set skews the final product, and that is then plugged right into a GCM, EBM, or EMiCs, which then produces an "answer" to the questions being asked of it that are incorrect.

Nice strawman though.

~Namaste

a reply to: jdub297

You missed this part of the report:

No. I didn't miss it. It is a reference to a prior study of published articles. This was a direct survey of Earth scientists.

I heartily invite all members to examine Oreskes' paper and her professional reputation to assess whatever "contribution" you seem to imply she makes to nothing more than a poli-sci failure and admitted (by Cook) self-confirmation of a foregone conclusion.

No. I stated the results of the survey which you linked.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Thank you for that, that was hilarious.

It even led me to this helpful site: Did CRU tamper with temperature data?

My pleasure.

Some advice (friendly or not, you decide)... John Cook is a very well-known AGW proponent, and keep in mind, is a cartoonist by trade, and has never worked in any field of climate science.

I would not use his website as a reference for anything of value on here, other than perhaps some cited papers.

There were about 100 other great links on the evidence of data being manipulated, and you picked a single one from one of the biggest AGW proponent sites on the entire Internet... probably because it had the word skeptical in the name.

Good investigative work there!



~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Nothing wrong with being skeptical! I figured, if anything, it would give me a less biased summary of the situation than maybe climatesciencelies.blog.net, ya know?

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Nothing wrong with being skeptical! I figured, if anything, it would give me a less biased summary of the situation than maybe climatesciencelies.blog.net, ya know?

I agree with you... nothing wrong at all with being skeptical.

But it's equally important to keep an open-mind and be objective.

~Namaste

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
Here, let me help you with that...

Evidence of Climate Data Tampering

Again, linking to an internet search to backup a claim is phenomenally lazy.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
Here, let me help you with that...

Evidence of Climate Data Tampering

Again, linking to an internet search to backup a claim is phenomenally lazy.

Not bothering to read the data is the epitome of laziness and indicative of blind allegiance to a questionable faith.