Ten Facts & Ten Myths On Climate Change

Bad Link for some reason - try this again:

www.dailymail.co.uk... ed.html

www.dailymail.co.uk... ed.html

Sorry all - the link appears to be too long - Google "Scientist Peter Taylor" and click on the first news result.

When I read your impressive attempt to create a mathematical model that could reflect or predict the impact of increased CO2 levels on temperature..

It renewed my faith in ATS.

I went into your thread with an open mind and a smile. Someone who thinks differently than I but is open...much like myself. What a great example for ATS...I even shot you a star for the thread.

But then you appeared to ignore some serious questions about your model, dismissed certain data and correlations as “too difficult” to include.

I still gave you the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to believe that all those opposed to the concept of AGW were not simply agenda motivated by agenda or blindly wed to their position.

But this...this tipped it for me...and really dissapointed me.

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Science is science. The only difference between the disciplines are the fields in which they specialize.
....
But once the discovery is made, the veterinarian should be able to understand the science behind the climatologists discovery, and the climatologist should be able to understand the science behind the treatment discovered. The only thing that is different is the application of science, not science itself.
.....
My area of expertise is not climate. Instead it is electromagnetic and chemical. Yet, I can read a paper on metallurgy and understand it just fine. The same goes for a paper on meteorology. The same goes for a paper on optics, Relativity, or even quantum mechanics. The same carbon dioxide I use in chemical research occurs with the exact same physical characteristics in climatology. The key to all of these branches is an understanding of the basic principles of physics and mathematics. Everything else is focus, not foundation.

So yes, if a veterinarian explained why a paper on climatology was wrong, it would at least behoove me to investigate his claims before simply dismissing them.

.....

why not answer the question directly?

Because it is a moot question.

Consensus means nothing.
[edit on 12/10/2009 by TheRedneck]

I could simply be snarky and suggest next time you feel seriously ill you visit your local meteorologist...science is science after all....right?

Yes…science and math are a language for describing the natural world and synchronicity between fields exist in many scientific leaps, paradigm shifts etc.

The difference, which I am sure you are aware of, is that those innovations and discoveries WORK...they fall into place with outstanding synchronicity and elegance...

The AGW deniers are not discovering anything, no grand correlation or synchronicity...but rather doing just the opposite...premising their claims on denying established science. …ignoring and dismissing clear scientific critique...refusing to include known factors within their calculations and models. Appealing to those who distrust scientists and relying on the fact that the vast majority of the population have no foundation to examine the veracity of the claims. Weaving the debate within a culture war...

Scientific leaps occur when someone refuses to be limited by scientific norms.

The "Scientists" who deny AGW start with the accepted Norm and omit established science.

And the vast majority of the time they do this for money.

Surely you see the difference.

Honestly...likening denial “scientists” with brilliant men like Einstein is offensive to me. They are polar opposites in intellectual honesty.

Perhaps someday we will discover that relativity itself contains assumptive errors; perhaps not.

FYI - The cosmological constant? ...

Once upon a time the Tobacco industry employed the same tactics...this memo sums it up for me nicely...

Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the mind of the general public.

It is also the means of establishing a controversy.

Within the business we recognize that a controversy exists. However, with the general public the consensus is that cigarettes are in some way harmful to the health.

If we are successful in establishing a controversy at the public level, then there is an opportunity to put across the real facts about smoking and health.

Doubt is also the limit of our “product”. Unfortunately, we cannot take a position directly opposing the anti-cigarette forces and say that cigarettes are a contributor to good health. No information that we have supports such a claim.

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

Not only are they doing the same sort of thing big tobacco did before them, they're using many of the same 'scientists'. The idea is to take a minority opinion of skeptics and make it seem as if there's a split in the scientific community

griperblade.blogspot.com...

This does not offend me because of my ideological leanings...it is not cultural, religious or political….it offends me because it is intellectual dishonesty and frankly the ugliest of human nature...money before truth. Propaganda for profit…at the expense of us all.

What amazes me the most about this whole issue is how it is playing out almost lock-step with Howard Becker's notion of moral entrepreneurs and how social controls develop into institutionalized controls. The name of the book is Outsiders if anyone needs a reference.

At this point in time, the argument is sounding more and more like arguing religion. Tautologies are rampant, even the old standby: They can't prove warming is NOT happening / They can't prove warming is happening. I am sure the debates will rage on...

As for this whole gloom and doom about "think of the kids and grandkids" fear mongering. Human's greatest strength is adaptation. Regardless of what happens, do you all honestly think the human race can not and will not adapt to conditions? Just look at all we have accomplished in the last 50 years... so spare me the "end of the world...soon!" propaganda. I think Billy Joel needs to extend We Didn't Start the Fire with a few more lines.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Ok

Putting a PhD behind a name does nothing to increase the creditability of a person. I knew quite a few PhD's that were one step away from complete ignorance. I call them educated idiots.

So regarding the author of your post.

Ph.D., University of Cambridge, Palaeontology, 1968.

Perhaps there is a connection?

Originally posted by Yabby

Nice rant, tell me, do you keep guns in the back shed...?
As for your VERY selective...

that's going to be the top shocker today: i'm not even a US citizen. i d not own weapons, unless you count manually sharpened kitchen knives.


btw, it's not really my quote, it was written by another member in another thread, my quotes read something like

www.abovetopsecret.com...

5. In this connection, however, I am somewhat surprised by the
paper prepared by you and Wigley for the May 21 seminar. Figure
3(a) shows only the (positive) 50-year linear trend, but not the
zero and negative trends of figure 10 in your Climate Dynamics
paper. I would judge that the most relevant trend line should be
one starting around 1960 when data coverage increased globally.

the full text is better, of course, but it should always be noted that i'm not playing the role of judge here, i'm simply refuting your point that people who read some of these mails are just generalizing and lying. i admit that i did at one point start to read more into one single mail than was actually there - and promptly got busted, of course and rightly so, but as usual, the more people reading the matter the better.

Originally posted by Yabby
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

Instead of making grand generalisations about the lies etc contained in the leaked emails, why don't you be specific or like so many of the deniers are you just going to flail about with broad unsubstantiated allegations?

these quotes are revealing all by themselves, that's why they were selected for your perusal in the first place, obviously. what on earth would be the point of posting harmless and stale quotes, may i ask? the mind boggles. that doesn't mean there is no context, which in fact is growing broader every day, see More Climate Fraud Uncovered

you wanted to tar us all with the broadest brush in the inventory, you're still trying to do that even though you accusations of 'flailing about with unsubstantiated allegations' have been revealed for what they were, an attempt to deny the mere existence of the leak, which equals revisionism, pure and simple.

anyone who disagrees must be a 'right wing gun-nut', every sentence you post is riddled with derision, contempt for poster, message and actual facts and your unwavering bias must be very revealing to anyone who bothers to read. i've seen it countless times before and i decided long ago not to let such attempts at distortion go unchallenged.

PS: for a good reason, search the web for 'King Leopold's Ghost' and you'll find one example of a successful PR campaign: a book written in French denounced the crimes of the person in question committed in Africa during the 19th century, the whole thing was so damning that it just had to be censored. how did these guys manage to do that? easy: publish a 'summary' in English which was for all intents and purposes not related in any way to the original text. next to no-one read the original, therefore no scandal, no problems.

....and that's EXACTLY what you people are trying to do here. you wish to suppress the facts, you wish to enforce censorship. i guess you will have to resort to violence after all, the current method just won't work...

reply to post by maybereal11

But then you appeared to ignore some serious questions about your model, dismissed certain data and correlations as “too difficult” to include.

I am a bit dismayed that I gave that impression. But I will say that I at least attempted to answer all the questions put to me (and am in the process right now of writing a detailed response to one).

Certain things I did dismiss after an initial explanation. Do you realize how many people posting accused me of ignoring the shape of the earth, while themselves ignoring simple geometry (the concept of a normal plane). I would love to be able to give detailed tutoring in basic mathematics, but to put it bluntly, I simply do not have the time. As it were, I spent at least three days doing little more than answering responses. In the above example, I finally typed out a detailed explanation of what a normal plane is and why it is applicable... and lo and behold, a few posts later was the same concern. I can only answer so many times. The answer does not change.

Now there are some things I did leave out of the calculations, but whereas the CRU adjusted temperatures upward to fit their pre-conceived expectations, all of my omissions were designed to deny my expectation. I increased the amount of radiation from the sun by considering a 100% absorption (as opposed to the actual 8%) and 0% attenuation on re-emission, as opposed to the actual 50%. I left out the mass of the land in calculating the temperature rise from energy received, thereby making the model heat up faster than the actual planet would.

Some things are beyond an online forum. One of those is the radiative forcing argument. There are only two ways I have found to calculate this: use solutions that have been performed by the IPCC/CRU (which I distrust) or use a statistical model. My present bent is toward the statistical model, but the model has rapidly turned into a massive exercise in potential confusion. I'm still working to put this into terms that will be understood by the majority of readers, but it is taking some time.

But one thing happened that you have not mentioned, which I think is very important: every assumption and every piece of data was openly and publicly displayed for review. Contrast this to the assumptions and fudges by the CRU climatologists, who hid their operations in private emails and proprietary secret coding that were never supposed to see the light of public scrutiny.

Now on to your next concern:

Yes, the 'snarky' comment might be appropriate; perhaps I have not made my position clear enough. So let me use your example.

Yes, I would initially go to a doctor for treatment should I be injured or ill. However, I would not simply do whatever the doctor said without first vetting the instructions. A part of that vetting process could well include the meteorologist, if that meteorologist happened to have information applicable to my situation. To be specific, let's say I needed a heart transplant according to the doctor. I'm not going to just say "OK" to that kind of operation; I will want a second opinion and a chance to consider the consequences of having the operation compared to the consequences of not having one. During that consideration, I speak to a meteorologist who informs me that he had a similar condition that was cured without surgery.

I would not deny having surgery because of what the meteorologist said alone. I would, however, try to find out more about this alternative treatment, and would try to find doctors who knew about it. So while I would indeed go to a doctor for treatment, I would also consider the advice of anyone with knowledge, doctor or not.

Some of the smartest people I have known have been janitors, pipefitters, welders, truck drivers, carpenters, etc. Some of the dumbest people I have known (in terms of common sense anyway) have been engineers and scientists. Again, do not take that to mean that I would prefer to hear what a janitor said concerning climate change over that of a climatologist; I would also not, however, discount what that janitor said simply because he is a janitor.

As I have already mentioned, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, worked as a Patent Clerk.

Understand the context of the post you quoted: it was written in response to a claim that no one should have anything to say about climate unless they are climatologists with verifiable experience (I assume with the CRU) in that specific field. That is not how science works, and the poster I was replying to knows that full well. He just won't admit it.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Long Lance
the full text is better, of course, but it should always be noted that i'm not playing the role of judge here, i'm simply refuting your point that people who read some of these mails are just generalizing and lying. i admit that i did at one point start to read more into one single mail than was actually there - and promptly got busted, of course and rightly so, but as usual, the more people reading the matter the better.

And I was about to bust you again. Lance, once is an unfortunate mistake, repeating the problem multiple times is a bit beyond that.

now on to my personal commentary: anyone who's reading this thread or any other on the subject even half awake KNOWS what you are up to, deconstructive criticism and inane repetition of the same drivel

You mean like repeatedly posting quote-mined emails and smearing scientists?

I liked the next bit, but won't bother posting: almost hulk-like. The whole post was a rather sad rant. I know it's hard, you thought you had the golden-goose, but little more than a mite-ridden stuffed dodo. Dead on arrival. A teapot tempest. A creationist-like manufactroversy.

Lets expose more quote-mines, all on a similar issue. As I said, once is unfortunate, second time with multiples shows a complete and utter lack of care and attention.

Quote 1

1256747199
Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.

From: Phil Jones
To: "Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science)"
Subject: Yamal response from Keith
Date: Wed Oct 28 12:26:39 2009

John,

[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
This went up last night about 5pm. There is a lot to read at various levels. If you get time just the top level is necessary. There is also a bit from Tim Osborn showing that Yamal was used in 3 of the 12 millennial reconstructions used in Ch 6. Also McIntyre had the Yamal data in Feb 2004 - although he seems to have forgotten this. Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.

Cheers
Phil

Keith [Briffa] restrained in his reponse to the claims of fraud by the self-appointed McCarthy-like blog-frauditor, Steve McIntyre. McIntyre posts blog posts and comments essentially accusing Briffa of fraud and leading to multiple denier media articles making the same accusations and worse, Briffa responds. Considering the seriousness of claiming scientific misconduct, Briffa was restrained. He was professional. Unlike McIntyre. Although, he's not a professional. Mainly a blog hack.

As was noted, they think that McIntyre knew what he was doing using other trees from another site. It isn't meant to be a nice comment.

This leads nicely onto the next email quote-mine which is related to the same issue - McIntyre's BS blog 'science' on Yamal which had underpinned claims of scientific fraud against Briffa:

Quote 2

1256735067
As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,

The first email in the series from Phil Jones:

I'll let you make up you own minds! It seems to me as though McIntyre cherry picked for effect...McIntyre knows that the millennial temperature record is pretty robust, otherwise he would produce his own series. Similarly the instrumental temperature is even more robust, which he also knows.
Cheers
Phil

Michael Mann responds in reply to the above:

thanks Phil,
Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,
m

The accusations are McIntyre's. It's what he does. He makes implicit and explicit claims of fraud against scientists. These are spread far and wide throughout the deniosphere feeding the rubes. Ending up here and elsewhere. McIntyre is usually clever enough to make the accusations 'plausibly deniable'. He failed this time. Because after that fiasco, he denied accusing Briffa of fraud as normal but:

I’d be inclined to remove the data affected by CRU cherrypicking but will leave it in for now.

A claim of scientific misconduct made by McIntyre against Briffa. Lots more on the McCarthy-like blog frauditor here.

Lets bother with another on the same topic:

Quote 3

1252164302
We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia.

There's other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre's group:
(1) We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia. Apparently this is old ground, but do we need to address why we chose the Yamal record over the Polar Urals? Apparently, there's also a record from the Indigirka River region, which might not have been published and doesn't seem to be included in Keith's recent summary. If we overlooked any record that met our criteria, I suggest that we explain why. Keith: are you back? Can Ray or Mike provide some advise?

I can't be assed with anymore, the above is just ridiculous. Shocking that someone would even attempt to push that, and shows the extreme gullibility of those consuming such sophistry. I might even say that whoever produced that knew what they were doing. How could they read that email and honestly produce that quote-mine?

Time-wasting deceptive quote-mines. The fact you're still pushing this stuff after being 'busted' weeks ago and even being apologetic shows me that you're unable to fully grasp the problem:

Originally posted by Long Lance
ok, i'll admit that, having now taken another look, i have been reading too much into that particular quote, for whatever reason. must have been these quotation marks and the next line, 'whether it's kosher to show it' which sent me off on a tangent. still, that's not an excuse.

The reason, I suggest, is because you are being very sloppy and are driven by wishful-thinking. That's four quote-mines now. There's more there, but what's the point? If you care about more than sophistry, go do the work yourself.

Must say, after reading the reply above, you seem to be developing an ability for 'plausibly deniable accusations' yourself.

btw, it's not really my quote, it was written by another member in another thread, my quotes read something like...[example quote]...the full text is better, of course, but it should always be noted that i'm not playing the role of judge here, i'm simply refuting your point that people who read some of these mails are just generalizing and lying.

Cheers.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by melatonin]

As I have already mentioned, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, worked as a Patent Clerk.

Yeah, 1902-1909. He received his doctorate in 1905 and was publishing scientific articles during that period.

I do like that you've graduated from the greenhouse effect being based on UV absorption to overturning radiative physics in the space of a few months. Time to get that thesis together. If you need any advice on getting through viva, shoot me a U2U...

[edit on 11-12-2009 by melatonin]

The problem with Climate change is it is ALWAYS changing, with or without human

Originally posted by TheRedneck
So while I would indeed go to a doctor for treatment, I would also consider the advice of anyone with knowledge, doctor or not.
Some of the smartest people I have known have been janitors, pipefitters, welders, truck drivers, carpenters, etc.

Same here…Janitors, pipe-fitters, welders, carpenters etc. are required by the nature of their occupation to continually assess problems and implement solutions in a literal real-world way as opposed to theoretical….and those problem sets are different for each job. Otherwise they are required to actually THINK for a living.

Sidenote: I have an uncle …a carpenter and other things…he also plays a ferocious game of chess…When I was young and used to go on jobs with him I always admired how before starting a job to repair a wall, a machine, replace a kitchen, whatever….he would stand quietly and simply stare at the work space or device. In his mind he was disassembling everything and re-assembling it, taking into account everything from electrical to plumbing to what walls were load bearing, which were not, which ways the cabinet doors would open…and creating an exact mental plan of what must be done and in what order. He could do this with any repair challenge….how does it work? What does each mechanism do? Where has it failed? What would be the result if I adjusted component x or y…all in his head before ever picking up a screw driver. That is why he is also a force to be feared on the chess board

Again, do not take that to mean that I would prefer to hear what a janitor said concerning climate change over that of a climatologist; I would also not, however, discount what that janitor said simply because he is a janitor.

I have no disdain for “common man” intelligence, to the contrary I have a deep respect of it, but find it strange that you would express a respect for intelligence purportedly without "occupational bias" that would include getting a meteorologists “opinion” on a medical issue while in the next paragraph outright dismissing any and everything the IPCC/CRU produces with relation to the climate…??

It seems to me you have skipped going to the doctor alltogether and are relying solely on the Climatologist to diagnose your ills?

Even the most pessismistic of intelligent minds should understand the foolishness of dismissing the entirity of the IPCC research based on a few selected emails released by hackers..."patriot hackers"...which now appear to be employed by Russian Secret Service...a release timed carefully to disrupt copenhagen while at the same time not affording the IPCC enough time before copenhagen to properly investigate and respond.

The emails raise issues, but given the span of years that was hacked and the tonage of data...a few emails with associated "interpetations" do not damn the entirity of scientific research on the matter.

Some things are beyond an online forum. One of those is the radiative forcing argument. There are only two ways I have found to calculate this: use solutions that have been performed by the IPCC/CRU (which I distrust) or use a statistical model. My present bent is toward the statistical model, but the model has rapidly turned into a massive exercise in potential confusion.

For a greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, radiative transfer codes that examine each spectral line for atmospheric conditions can be used to calculate the change ΔF as a function of changing concentration. These calculations can often be simplified into an algebraic formulation that is specific to that gas.
For instance, the simplified first-order approximation expression for carbon dioxide is:

Delta F = 5.35 x ln C/C(0) W m(to the power of -2)

where C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration[2]. The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

Hopefully this equation will be of use to you….it does not originate from the IPCC/CRU, and it’s source goes as far to say…

The radiative forcing due to CO2, including shortwave absorption, is 15% lower than the previous IPCC estimate.

Source here
www.agu.org...

the equation is available with original context as a graphic on this page.
en.wikipedia.org...-1

Also see here...www.john-daly.com...
the formula predicts 15% less temperature increase than the IPCC model you distrust.

Now you can incorporate it into your calculations?

The authors express the view that the IPCC estimates "have not necessarily been based on consistent model conditions". They carry out calculations on the spectra of the main greenhouse gases by all three of the recognised radiative transfer schemes, line by line (LBL), narrow-based model (NBM) and broad-based model (BBM). They calculate the Global Mean Instantaneous Clear Sky Radiative Forcing for 1995, for atmospheric carbon dioxide, relative to an assumed "pre-industrial" level of 280ppmv, as 1.759Wm-2 for LBL, 1.790Wm-2 for NBM and 1.800Wm-2 for BBM; a mean of 1.776Wm-2 with BBM 2.3 % greater than LBL.

Originally posted by TSZodiac
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

 

Thank you for this thread - you get my very FIRST Star and Flag - good job. Now buckle your seatbelt because the Gore-ites are about to attack everything you posted - they will attack Dr. Carter's credentials, political leanings and associations. They will attack your intelligence, political correctness, and anything else then can feebly latch onto to be able to continue their quest to perpetuate this falsehood known as "Man Made Global Climate Change". Stand tall, take the high road, and continue to expose this fraud for what it is.

What a ridiculous post - simply put the guys name into Google and one of the worlds foremost research organisations the CSIRO has taken the time to publicly ridicule this guy

www.csiro.au...

He is an absolute quack and PAID stooge who is using bogus data.

All this serves to do is highlight the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE in a published peer reviewed journal by a respected (not on the books of big oil) scientist - none - which debunks AGW.

Yet in contrast there are literally thousands upond thousands which support it.

reply to post by audas


Yes also see my post from the first page...this guy is bad news, but what's new in this debate..

post by maybereal11

Originally posted by Unnoan
What amazes me the most about this whole issue is how it is playing out almost lock-step with Howard Becker's notion of moral entrepreneurs and how social controls develop into institutionalized controls. The name of the book is Outsiders if anyone needs a reference.

At this point in time, the argument is sounding more and more like arguing religion. Tautologies are rampant, even the old standby: They can't prove warming is NOT happening / They can't prove warming is happening. I am sure the debates will rage on...

As for this whole gloom and doom about "think of the kids and grandkids" fear mongering. Human's greatest strength is adaptation. Regardless of what happens, do you all honestly think the human race can not and will not adapt to conditions? Just look at all we have accomplished in the last 50 years... so spare me the "end of the world...soon!" propaganda. I think Billy Joel needs to extend We Didn't Start the Fire with a few more lines.

Wow - so the THOUSANDS of studies which conclusively prove global warming are what - debatable ?

And the fact that there is not a single peice of evindence published in a peer reviewed scientific journal which is current and disproves this ?

So how is there a debate, how is it in question ? Simply because the deniers claim it is unresovled does not make it so, the issue is well and truly settled, it is unfortunately a matter delusion and inability to face facts.

reply to post by melatonin


i was very specific when i wrote that and the quote was related to one single quote.

I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…
www.eastangliaemails.com...

and nothing else.

i actively attacked that quote and misinterpreted the word 'contain' and the sentences following that paragraph to mean something it need not necessarily mean. therefore, it amounts to nothing in the context of this discussion. the other quotes i gave to this guy because he asked for something. i did not expect him to stop there, so i re-used an existing thread and intended to wait for some kind of response. when someone is unwilling to read throughexisting threads and starts implicitly accusing everyone of simply making everything up, i'll provide some material, which, as you see, can be verified by everyone, or not.

if you believe your explanations will cover everything, then do what you must, but i believe you are quite over-optimistic to believe that just because i made one mistake, i will never post any of the material again. part of the idea is to make people take a look at these mails, that's half the battle, imho although it has become obvious, that people rarely do that, which is a shame.

i could well address these quotes one-by-one, but suffice it to say, the first one isn't that incrementing at all and you really, really should abandon the idea that i'm somehow trying to prove illegal activities or scientific misconduct. let's see:

Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.

so, what can we say, apparently replacing the set of trees was somehow inconvenient but not outright wrong, because they could have called him out on it, if it had been, right? if a case is air tight, such a move shouldn't be possible.

either it's valid data or it isn't, i doubt there's a lot of margin for error, is there?

wrt quote 2, it's unclear who's meant, unless one looks at the mails (let's call it an incentive to look) which you did, but the guy i directed this post at, probably did not. still, from the mail, one can't tell whether they're talking about (veiled) accusations against them, or about (planned?) accusations directed at someone else, which should come in a 'deniable' format. in the context of questioning AGW, this is meaningless, though.


wrt quote 3, there's a fallacy at play, he says McIntyre knew this and that, maybe he did, maybe not, but there's no way to tell, it's just the interpretation. again if the guy is biased and selects based on his wishes, why not nail him down? maybe i'm just naive, who knows.

it's kind of ridiculous, though, that i'm defending another member's post by writing this. i don't see the parallels, quite frankly, because i simply provided the quotes, which aren't really interesting to begin with and did not write a single comment directed at them. the point was please, before posting, search, which he still did not do, apparently, or even bothered to follow the link, for that matter. it's not too much to ask, so any quote will be a sample of what has been posted before, not a definitive collection, because the initial thread netted 532 replies so far and there's no chance i could do that in one post, let alone be willing to actually spend the effort. and what for, may i ask?



that said, let's see how you skip around

www.eastangliaemails.com...

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

again, no misconduct in the legal sense, but it seems that someone won't believe the data unless it confirms a prediction. quite telling i'd imagine.

PS: i understand it would have been nice from your point of view. to convict me of hypocrisy through 're-using' already refuted arguments, too bad that's not what happened, as far as i can tell.

edit: duplications in the first paragraph

[edit on 2009.12.12 by Long Lance]

Great piece by a very intelligent man. The hysteria engaged in by the environmentalists is completely uncalled for and dangerous to the people. They are grabbing at anything to prove their point and have a "knee jerk" reaction to unfounded science. Case in point...Cap and Tax, oh excuse me, Cap and Trade. The only thing this will do is hamstring the corporations and drive our energy prices through the roof. How does that help any of us?

Again, great piece Professor!

Originally posted by Long Lance

Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.

so, what can we say, apparently replacing the set of trees was somehow inconvenient but not outright wrong, because they could have called him out on it, if it had been, right? if a case is air tight, such a move shouldn't be possible.

either it's valid data or it isn't, i doubt there's a lot of margin for error, is there?

McIntyre isn't a dendrochronologist. If he thinks his work is robust he can submit it like very other scientist does.

He removed a number of samples from the original data in Briffa's study (data which is actually from a Russian group), then replaced them with tree samples from a completely different site.

All he showed was by murdering a proxy series and using a different set of tree samples the data is different. No sheet. The data with which he replaced a large number of the original proxies were in an area suffering from a divergence problem, lol. The only difference between the two reconstructions is 1960+. The same problem that has been known in the dendro literature for a decade and more. An effect that shows divergence between actual observed temps and some proxies.

Because the data was different, even though due to a known problem with certain proxies in the late 20th century, and he didn't like some of the Yamal proxies he fostered claims of scientific misconduct.

The dude is an ass.

wrt quote 2, it's unclear who's meant, unless one looks at the mails (let's call it an incentive to look) which you did

Yeah, you post a rant then go all plausibly deniable. You have some responsibility for what you post. Don't you even want to know yourself? Are you so gullible?

wrt quote 3, there's a fallacy at play, he says McIntyre knew this and that, maybe he did, maybe not, but there's no way to tell, it's just the interpretation. again if the guy is biased and selects based on his wishes, why not nail him down? maybe i'm just naive, who knows.

You are joshing here? That quote-mine is clearly meant to bolster claims that the likes of Jones et al were cherrypicking data. But it's just a pure deceptive quote-mine.

This is how creationists argue their case. It is clearly dishonest. There is no room for ambiguity in that quote-mine.

This is the last hurrah for deniers. You've attained the status I've been suggesting for a while. The new YEC creationists.

it's kind of ridiculous, though, that i'm defending another member's post by writing this.

Lance, please. Go read that post of yours. It's clear where you were coming from. Again, you do have some responsibility for what you post. If you didn't think they were robust, why post them in some sad rant?

that said, let's see how you skip around

Don't you even note the language you're using? Do you think I've been 'skipping around' these dishonest quote-mines? lol

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

again, no misconduct in the legal sense, but it seems that someone won't believe the data unless it confirms a prediction. quite telling i'd imagine.

There's no misconduct in any sense there, lol.

Stop the presses! Scientist questions veracity of data!

The email from Trenberth is replying to Schneider's question:

Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and ampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC?...

You can read the article of his that Trenberth mentions in that email, but you decided to ignore here.

An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy
Kevin E. Trenberth
National Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000,U.S.A.
email: [email protected]

Planned adaptation to climate change requires information about what is happening and why. While a long-term trend is for global warming, short-term periods of cooling can occur and have physical causes associated with natural variability. However, such natural variability means that energy is rearranged or changed within the climate system, and should be traceable. An assessment is given of our ability to track changes in reservoirs and flows of energy within the climate system. Arguments are given that developing the ability to do this is important, as it affects interpretations of global and especially regional climate change, and prospects for the future.

If you bother to read it you'll understand the email better. Trenberth is talking about the CERES satellite. It has suggested that there should be more warming happening than actually was. Trenberth thinks the data is wrong. CERES has only been up there since 2005, the dataset is short and its reliability still being assessed. This is about short-term variability - accounting for energy variations in the system.

New equipment and its data has a tendency to need tweaking before attaining reliability. It happened with the MSU satellite data (mistakenly showed no warming), it happened with the ARGO floats (mistakenly showed unexpected trends in ocean heat content), and it might potentially be an issue with CERES

It's an open question. Scientists ask them. And better understanding of such short-term variations is an issue Trenberth thinks the science really needs to do better on.

PS: i understand it would have been nice from your point of view. to convict me of hypocrisy through 're-using' already refuted arguments, too bad that's not what happened, as far as i can tell.

I'm not trying to 'convict' you of anything. Just trying to make you think.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by melatonin]

I have no desire to read through the maze of so called facts or myths of global warming.
I have no desire to bolster or condone any political contestent.
If the earths overall temperature has flat lined for several years,
Then it is because the earth is smarter than all science and mankind.
The earth has been on a relatively linear rise since the retreat of the last Ice Age 15 or 16,000 years ago.
Mankind has been contributing to it and unknowingly working against that rise
for just a short portion of that time.
You would have to be brain dead to think that if the earth couldn't counter the effects of rapid temperature rise. The rise created by the Industrial Revolution. Other wise we would be cooking like steamed shrimp .
Mankind helps unwittingly by creating contrails and steam from the sources that create the heat.
Artificial cloud cover. We should always be aware of our entire planet and the bubble that surrounds it.
I think we have the choice to be a good or bad element in OUR LIVING PLANET.
Let us not forget pollutants!!! Be a player.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by Donny 4 million]

Originally posted by mantisfan72
1) There has never been a carbon dioxide related warming for at least 10000 years, but that is because carbn dioxide has remained stable for that amount of time.

Wow, you sure have a lot of wrong information with you buddy...and all those people that gave you a vote of course also don't know much about this topic.

First of all the geological record of Earth shows that levels of atmospheric CO2 LAG temperature changes, and there is no proof whatsoever that CO2 causes the warming claimed by the AGWers...

Second of all, atmospheric CO2 does not remain "stable"... it is always changing, because of it's natural cycles. The only thing is that SUPPOSEDLY atmospheric CO2 levels didn't change much for a long time, but that in itself is no proof of ANYTHING because Earth went through the Medieval Warm, and the Roman warm, among other warm periods that were WARMER than the late 20th century, and the beginning of the 21st century, and atmospheric CO2 did not increase "dangerously".

Atmospheric CO2 is GOOD for Earth, and for ALL life on Earth....

Originally posted by mantisfan72
2) The recent increase in snow is caoused by la nina and the sun cycle

Buddy, we are in an El Nino period...no la nina... El nino brings warm temperatures, and it is the main reason why Australia has seen so much warming this year...

Originally posted by mantisfan72
3) According to NASA there has been a sharp increase of CO2 after sthe industrial revolution.

So what?... atmospheric CO2 is GOOD for Earth, and there is NO EVIDENCE that CO2 causes the warming claimed by the AGWers...

Originally posted by mantisfan72
George Durkin who created the Global Warming Swindle has a bad habit of drawing his own graphs

Geroge Durkin is not the only person who doubts AGW... in that interview he made there were several scientists who spoke about it, and only one decided to whine because he wasn't given enough time to blabbler about his OPINION on AGW...

Originally posted by mantisfan72
4) Ethenoal acctually creates more carbon dioxide than gasoline

What are you trying to claim with this? Does this prove that CO2 causes the warming claimed by the AGWers?

Originally posted by mantisfan72
5) There is more ozone in the atmosphere than CO2

and?.....

Originally posted by mantisfan72
6) water vapor is more abundent than CO2 but CO2 blocks twice as many wave lenths

Again WRONG, Water vapor is more abundant and it retains more bands of radiation than CO2 EVER will... They do share some bands of radiation absortion, but in the end water vapor is a far more potent ghg than CO2 ever will..

BTW, ghgs do not block any wave length, I don't even know what that means. Anyway, they RETAIN certain bands of radiation, but if you notice at night temperatures for the most part become cooler, and this happens for a reason... At night ALL ghgs release the radiation that they had been retaining, to once again retain radiation during the day. This is the main reason why IT DOESN'T MATTER that CO2 has a longer lifetime than water vapor. Water vapor levels ALWAYS increase during warming cycles, and this causes a feedback loop effect, which increases the level of atmospheric CO2, and it becomes hotter.

Perhaps some members can remember that at night if there are low lying clouds it is usually VERY HOT, and that is the power of retaintion of heat of water vapor. Those days when there are no low lying clouds, normally it is cooler, even in large cities like Miami, Fl, and this shows that CO2 does not cause the warming CLAIMED by the AGWers.

Originally posted by mantisfan72
7) polititions like ethonal and so does big oil it is easy to support

???

Originally posted by mantisfan72
8) You will not feel the full effect of global warming, only your children and grand children will

NO ONE knows what will happen in 20 years from now... We could be in another Little Ice Age, or we could be in a warming period, or we could be in a transitional period....

This claim of yours, like many others is nothing more than paranoia without any evidence to support your claims...

Originally posted by mantisfan72
9) There is no other explanation for the sharp increase in CO2

That doesn't prove CO2 is the cause for the warming....

Originally posted by mantisfan72
10) New York city.. etc will be flooded after you die

Maybe, maybe not....

Originally posted by mantisfan72
11) Peak oil is a bigger problem

A bigger problem than CO2? of course it is...

Originally posted by mantisfan72
12) the US rejected kyoto because it is unfriendly to corporations

No...the U.S. rejected Kyto because only an idiot would agree to the Kyoto protocol... The Kyoto protocol allowed nations like CHina, India, Russia, and many others to have no emission caps whatsoever, and wold allow them to pollute as much as they want...

As it is China, India, Russia, among someothers, are the wose polluters in the world...

Originally posted by mantisfan72
13) copehagen is friendly to corporations

Copenhagen is only friendly to the Socialist elites who want a One World Government...

Originally posted by mantisfan72
14) only 2-3 out of 13 years of emails show a cospirncy. And 3 of those will be disporved of you read the replys

Are you talking about the leaked emails?... Sorry but again you are wrong...even scientists fro CRU are saying the leaked emails are real, and now it will be harder for people to believe anything from CRU.



[edit on 11-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]