Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

The easiest way we can demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 is NOT the cause of ANY discernible warming is the fact that most of the warming has been occurring FAR AWAY from sources of anthropogenic CO2... Even NASA had to admit this fact...

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

This makes it pretty clear that you only know enough science just to fool yourself into believing lies from clever denialists. A tiny bit of rational thought would make it clear why this argument doesn't work.

In actual fact, CO2 and other greenhouse gases from human activity get pretty sufficiently mixed so that the effects are global. You know, actual scientists have thought about this before, maybe many decades ago, and have actually done measurements(!) rather than make silly assertions. For instance, look at only the most famous data set in the whole thing, the Keeling Curve. This measures CO2 from a high volcano in the middle of an ocean far from major industrial activity, and yes, it is most definitely going UP.

Therefore scientists were right, starting say 50 years ago in calling it global warming because they had a factual basis to know that it would be both global and warming and that basis (atmospheric mixing of CO2 plus infrared properties of it) continues to remain unassailable experimentally confirmed fact today.

reply to post by mc_squared

Thanks for coming out and admitting you're flat-out trolling

Please, don't insult me with the vocabulary of a simpleton.

First off - ever consider the fact that a process can still be calibrated against a known? See sir, in science this is called a "control", and it's pretty much a staple in any proper analytical experiment! Do I get a cookie now?

*yawn*

Well, at least you're doing what I told you to do. I was just hoping for a little more ... creativity. Or something I didn't expect.

I suppose you wouldn't care to explain to the audience how it is that one establishes a control in a world of unknowns. How do you establish a control group with odorless, color-less gasses that diffuse?

I do have to say that I do not appreciate the shallow nature of your responses. You should stop presuming that I ask or challenge out of ignorance.

And there are plenty of reasons why Beck's does NOT:

And then you go and do stuff like this.

We've already discussed this. Or, rather, I've already discussed this with myself on your behalf. Why you want to parade it around as something new is beyond me. Perhaps you should revisit this in my previous post, and realize how irrelevant this was.

Strange... you claim to be oh-so-aware that I'll trawl you in a heartbeat... but go for it every damned time. It's like a dog going for the fake throw. Of course - I'm sure if you took the time to actually read what I was saying, you would not be continuing down this line of self-humiliation, and begin to take this a little more seriously.

Here's another thing I knows about science: when your method can make predictions that are matched, especially against other independent lines of evidence - it makes that method look good.

Look good. But one must be careful to avoid circle-jerking the numbers to support each other. This is exactly the sort of thing that is exposed in the "Climate Gate" e-mails.

So on top of that, ice cores also correlate well with each other, and with concurrent observations. Etheridge et al (1996) proved how robust they are by showing that the same amount of CO2 exists in the firn as it does in the ice where air bubbles become trapped. They demonstrated that ice core concentrations overlapped with actual atmospheric ones by 20 years, within an uncertainty of 1.2ppm. Kinda puts the whole thing to bed, really.

If we ever had a nickel for every time something was put to bed only to receive a rude awakening.

This is still missing the relationship and interaction between ground-layer CO2 levels (that will become trapped in ice sheets, locally) and higher atmosphere levels of CO2 (often considered the "background"). The relationship between the two has not seen very little research while historical data is going to be difficult to analyze.

But ultimately all this comes down to. . .

You not getting it.

Honestly, your entire second post is addressed by several of my previous statements in other posts.

You're attempting to apply a label to me - that I am somehow this "denier" or whatever. I've already made it quite clear to you: What you or I think is going on is quite irrelevant to what is going to happen.

Which, quite plainly, is this: Fossil fuels are becoming increasingly expensive and resource-intensive to extract. Hydrocarbon based energy sources will become highly strained, and no efficient process for their manufacture and refinement currently exists (non-fossil, that is). In order to meet energy demands, several steps must be taken - first to reduce the overall energy demand by improving efficiency and eliminating wasteful expenditures; second to explore more efficient methods of harnessing existing energy sources; and third to explore alternate energy sources.

All of which is the domain of engineers.

Now, let me ask you a much more pointed question;

Taking the alleged increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere - how much additional IR energy is being absorbed each year?

This is an angle I rarely see taken by either side of this debate - and one that seems like a very logical point of interest, to me. The theory is that this gas induces more heat from solar radiation... and a measurable increase in it should be able to be extrapolated as units of power that must be sunk, diffused, or vented.

But - that gets more into climate modeling than the validity of the AGW standpoint.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

a little problem for you: how can you say there is nothing wrong with the emails when one of them says that the sun could account for ALL changes?

Because it doesn't say that, and far more importantly, actual scientific studies by many people which have looked at this very issue in deep quantitative detail for a long, long time make it clear that recent warming cannot be explained by changes in solar irradiance. Both have been measured with sufficient precision over decades.++

Remember, global warming from greenhouse effect is a physics problem.

There is a specific physical causal mechanism which has been validated for decades. That is, of course there is a natural greenhouse effect from CO2 and other atmospheric components which is essential to explain even the pre-industrial temperature of the Earth. This is incontrovertible fact. Now, if you increase the number of such molecules you will get more of it, this is incontrovertible consequence of the laws of physics. The number of such molecules has increased, this is incontrovertible experimental fact. Furthermore other physical consequences of this fact, such as increased IR flux and decreased stratospheric temperatures have also been observed. It is therefore an incontrovertible fact that human activity has changed the climate, and increased greenhouse gases from human activities will change the climate more.

So, even if the Sun were doing something funky, which it is not, the effect from human changes to the atmosphere will still continue to contribute. The laws of physics never take a day, or even a microsecond, off.


( Note that even if the Sun's output were to decrease exactly (contrary to observations) to make the global average temperature stay the same when added to the increased greenhouse effect, there would still be substantial climate change, because the pattern of energy is different (Sun's effect is relatively larger in daytime and in tropical latitudes, greenhouse effect more at night and polar latitudes). This applies to geoengineering proposals---blocking summer Sun in the tropics from aerosols is not counteracting greenhouse warming cleanly)

'Global warming is a physics problem' - well lets hear from some physicists then shall we............you do realise that if the political agendas were served by the implications of this prediction - then we would see global cooling 'the debate is over' hysteria - with all the bought and paid for research to back it up.

Polar amplification works both ways Posted on December 16, 2011 by Anthony Watts Guest post by David Archibald

When I started out in climate science in 2005, the prevailing view in the sceptic community was that carbon dioxide-caused global warming was real but it wouldn’t be anything as bad as it was painted by the AGW crowd. Sceptics generally thought that climate was a random walk and at that stage we hadn’t quantified the carbon dioxide heating effect. Roy Spencer’s paper finding negative feedbacks from warming was at that stage two years off. At the time, I thought that climate was controlled by the Sun and set out to find the relationship. The relationship had been found by Friis-Christensen and Lassen in 1991, and I extended their work to use solar cycle length as a predictive tool.

Now has come the first paper from Northern Hemisphere scientists to use solar cycle length to predict climate. Three Norwegian researchers, led by Professor Jan-Erik Solheim of the Institute of Theoretical Physics of the University of Oslo, have just published a paper entitled “Solar Activity and Svalbard Temperatures”. It is available at: arxiv.org...

What these eminent scientists are predicting is significant: “We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5°C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009–‐20) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6°C.” A 6°C temperature decrease in under ten years from the present day! This is significant at two levels. Firstly, it is going to get really cold very soon.

This predicted cooling is calculated to have a 95% confidence level. Secondly, it gives the sceptic community a climate forecast that is based on physical evidence, with a statistician signing off. When the predictions of these three wise Norwegian are borne out, that is going to be a big thing.

wattsupwiththat.com...-53159

British Police Raid Climategate Blogger's Home
Timothy Birdnow

Read more: www.americanthinker.com...

I wondered why the ClimateGate II e-mails are so much different from the ClimateGate I e-mails that they have triggered this crackdown and the answer is evident when we take a closer look at an e-mail with the number 5310 I found as a posting at Musings from the Chiefio.

The ClimateGate I e-mails were limited to communication between scientists. This time the e-mails contain the names of political leaders, government departments, institutions and... a potentially explosive content. A Freedom of Information request produced some interesting results. to see a message thread involving government people and people from the University of East Anglia strategizing on how best to present things to the public, go here.

The thread shows that the British government was colluding with scientists . Be sure to note the e-mail addresses. So, now the long knives are coming out. The leftists, the ruling class, the environmentalists pinned all of their hopes on Global Warming, and these leaked e-mails are finishing it.

We are now seeing acts of desperation. Keep an eye on this, folks; this situation could explode! Timothy Birdnow is a St. Louis based writer. He blogs at www.tbirdnow.mee.nu. Read more: www.americanthinker.com...

And of course the IPCC has just declared itself immune from F.O.I demands.

www.bishop-hill.net...

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


Of course if the Sun reduces its output then it will be cooler than it would be otherwise, but yet that still does nothing about the greenhouse effect. All laws of physics stay working all the time.

However, the dynamics of solar cycles is far less understood and most importantly measured than Earth-based radiative transfer and chemistry. It's extremely certain that greenhouse gases will continue to increase (and because of the dynamics of mixing, the effective amount in the atmosphere relevant for greenhouse will continue to go up even without additional human emissions for a long time), and its extremely certain that this will cause a warming effect.

Now, if you think you'll get lucky and for reasons which are controversial, and based on an external analysis of the Sun, where we can measure a few things from the photosphere surface and very little internally, you predict a lower temperature for the next 11 years. Note that there is no scientific consensus on exactly the dynamics of the solar cycle and if we can measure sufficiently well the internal state of the Sun to make a valid prediction.

And what happens after the solar cycle after that? Suppose its back to normal? Suppose this means there is some internal variability longer than a normal cycle and it gets hotter? Global warming gets really bad in 40-50 years and goes nuts by 100 years from now, that's nearly 10 solar cycles away. And it keeps on going and going and going.

In sum: we can't well predict the Sun and we don't know if it will go up or down, and it is totally out of our control. Our best bet is to assume that it will continue to behave as it has behaved in the last few decades which has been fairly stable. Maybe we'll get lucky and it will counteract our own activities. But maybe we'll get unlucky and it will make things even worse. In engineering you always worry about tail risks, and if the Sun is more variable than we thought then we should worry about global warming even more and curb our own contribution to it.

Originally posted by Aim64C

Taking the alleged increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere - how much additional IR energy is being absorbed each year?

This is an angle I rarely see taken by either side of this debate - and one that seems like a very logical point of interest, to me. The theory is that this gas induces more heat from solar radiation... and a measurable increase in it should be able to be extrapolated as units of power that must be sunk, diffused, or vented.

Indeed. Answering this question from direct experimental measurements was one of the goals of the Triana satellite, which was canceled for political reasons because it was an "Al Gore project", and probably because people didn't want to hear the answers.

More correctly increased greenhouse effect (note greenhouse effect has been there before industrial civilization, humans are adding to an existing, confirmed effect) increases IR opacity/emissivity.

Note that even in total energetic equilbirium, i.e total electromagnetic energy radiated out equals total electromagnetic energy radiated in, a stronger greenhouse layer results in a higher surface temperature.
That is enough to explain almost completely the important increase.

Since the greenhouse concentrations are increasing there will have to be some tiny imbalance which when integrated can be correlated with increased heat, most likely in the oceans.

If you were to have global 4 pi observing sphere around the Earth you'd find that energy in equals energy out almost exactly, there is some additional heat from Earth's radioactive decay and some heat taken up from heat capacity as temperature increases.

Note that most of this is in the oceans and not land and that explains partially why so far the temperature increase has been very modest, but even with the large size/heat capacity of the oceans its starting to move (true deep ocean temp increases are showing up).

But - that gets more into climate modeling than the validity of the AGW standpoint.

Originally posted by Aim64C

I suppose you wouldn't care to explain to the audience how it is that one establishes a control in a world of unknowns. How do you establish a control group with odorless, color-less gasses that diffuse?

You make a known amount of it inside an enclosure.

C'mon. Measurement of CO2 has been pretty important for gazillions of commercial applications of chemical engineering, with a lot of money riding on it: pharmaceutical manufacturing and petroleum refining, activities at least 100 years old. Ability to make absolute measurements of CO2 is a solved engineering problem. Somebody does them every time a car gets a smog check. If somebody has a need for high precision and calibrated CO2 measurements, it can be done.

For climate change, samples may be captured and analyzed by different laboratories. In fact, they even store atmospheric samples for many decades so that in future years people can analyze how the atmosphere used to be and will be all on the same experimental apparatus, so as to maintain calibration throughout time and over experimental procedures and techniques.

Real scientists working in this have thought about many many issues just as real scientists working in all sorts of other fields over the last 150 years have figured out how to do things.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by mc_squared

 

that's the one. mid 20th century is around 1950. the sun is quite powerful, and co2 emissions cannot compare.

remember in the 70's when there was a huge ice age scare?

Another falsehood. There certainly wasn't any scientific consensus (and yes the Milankovitch orbital cycles will eventually result in cooling, maybe 50,000 to 150,000 years from now, but global warming from increased greenhouse forcing will happen now)

journals.ametsoc.org...

same kind of thing. the climate cycles about, and i'm more inclined to believe it has more to do with the sun and the specific region of space we're moving through at the moment. relatively speaking, of course. "moment" is more around a century.

Then there's the other alternative of actually attempting to measure things and develop a theory based on physics that we know that makes detailed quantitative predictions, like every other area of physical science.

When you do that you find that both solar output and atmospheric composition make a difference and we have ways of making measurements and computations about how it all works.

Or you can ignore it, and say it is some vague "natural cycle" and have no answer about

*any details what is involved with "natural",
*what is involved with "cycle"
*and what the experimental evidence for either is, and how the alternative theory works
*and how these explain other observed facts better than the mainstream physics.

The first way of doing science works, and the second doesn't.

Of course if the Sun reduces its output then it will be cooler than it would be otherwise, but yet that still does nothing about the greenhouse effect. All laws of physics stay working all the time.

reply to post by mbkennel



Ooh - that sounds very definitive doesn't it!, except the AGW case doesn't rest on the 'laws of physics' does it!.

Instead it rests on the very small warming effect caused by man made CO2, being amplified by presumed and unverified, totally positive feedback mechanisms to create a runaway effect.

It is further assumed that climate sensitivity is a linear function of temperature - when it is far more likely that it actually decreases with temp in a self governing system.


The real danger is that we are in fact headed for another ice-age!

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Ooh - that sounds very definitive doesn't it!, except the AGW case doesn't rest on the 'laws of physics' does it!.

That's exactly what the AGW case rests on.

That's why the case was made over a hundred years ago by a bunch of chemists, physicists and mathematicians - before there was any emails, hockey sticks or carbon credits...


You can rap all you want about the politics and the economics and the yaddi yadda - but for crying out loud if you're going to bitch about the science at least get yourself educated enough to not make extremely ignorant statements like "AGW isn't based on physics"... Yeesh.

reply to post by Aim64C

Please, don't insult me with the vocabulary of a simpleton.

You're still playing this card? Really? Nothing else needs to be said here - while you've devoted the majority of your posts worthlessly talking down to people and bragging what an amazing high brow genius you are, I've merely focused on the content and let that speak for itself. The proof is in the pudding, and you have already demonstrated yourself to be just another ignoramus internet troll, short on facts but big on little man complex.

We've already discussed this. Or, rather, I've already discussed this with myself on your behalf.

Yeah, exactly. This whole conversation has been some delusional pep-talk you've been having with yourself on how brilliant you are and how pedestrian everyone else is. Every bit of reality has shown otherwise. You have repeatedly made ignorant statements and then tried to deflect them with dumb questions and even dumber excuses. Quite frankly you've made a total utter fool of yourself. Yet there you are, of course thinking you're "winning" or something... You're like the Charlie Sheen of trolling - at first it was kind of amusing, but ultimately it's just sad and pathetic.

So please find someone else to entertain your delusions already. This conversation has been nothing but a painful exercise in watching yet another Dunning-Kruger climate denier congratulate themselves on their self-taught willful ignorance.

Originally posted by jdub297
Wouldn't a full, frank and complete response to the first FOI request render all others superfluous?

Phil Jones did respond to the first request(s). His correspondence with Steve McIntyre (founder of climateaudit.org, the guy making most of those requests) dates back as far as 2002. And back then Jones' responses were indeed "full, frank and complete". McIntyre even points this out on his own website:

At that time, I was surprised by the promptness of the response and the extra effort that Jones had put into the response. (I think that I noted Jones’ courtesy as a correspondent from time to time in the first years of the blog.)

But over the years Jones' attitude towards McIntyre changed. Phil came to see that these "audits" were not conducted under the auspice of some healthy form of skepticism, but rather as full fledged witch-hunt style attacks on his, and others' work. These people deliberately sought to pick out any loose thread they could find and blow it completely out of proportion - not even in a properly refereed scientific forum but in the friggin' blogosphere of all places. This is of course a constant denier motif that comes up in every single one of their attacks on climate science - from the hockey stick to the surface station record to climategate itself.


So eventually people like Jones' just got sick of the BS and stopped playing ball. Amazingly enough, that's when they got hacked.


So if you think I'm just making convenient excuses here, then please explain this: Why is ^^this^^ version of the story completely corroborated in the last place you'd expect to find it - in the emails themselves. Look at this one for example:

Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything, partly because we don't have some of the series he wants, also partly as we've got the data through contacts like you, but mostly because he'll distort and misuse them.

If they were the guilty culprits - then why would the scientists be talking like this in private emails amongst each other? If they were truly guilty of the supposedly premeditated crimes they've been accused of, those emails would be all "ZOMG! Mcintyre's on to us, burn the evidence, run!!". But it's NEVER like that. The tone is always along the lines of "Delete your info rather than give it to this guy, because he's a dishonest prick who'll only try to use it against you."


That certainly doesn't excuse the scientists for what they did. But it does add much more context to the FULL story here - one which no one wants to look at because they're too busy judging and making up their minds already.

Originally posted by mc_squared

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Ooh - that sounds very definitive doesn't it!, except the AGW case doesn't rest on the 'laws of physics' does it!.

That's exactly what the AGW case rests on.

That's why the case was made over a hundred years ago by a bunch of chemists, physicists and mathematicians - before there was any emails, hockey sticks or carbon credits...


You can rap all you want about the politics and the economics and the yaddi yadda - but for crying out loud if you're going to bitch about the science at least get yourself educated enough to not make extremely ignorant statements like "AGW isn't based on physics"... Yeesh.

Know I know you are just a shill - you completely misrepresent what I say!

Monckton on sensitivity training at Durban

wattsupwiththat.com...

Take all the greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and keep the Earth’s albedo magically the same as today’s. How much cooler would it be? All are agreed that it would be around 33 Celsius degrees cooler. This is climate theory 101. So, how much radiative forcing causes the 33 C° warming that arises from the presence – as opposed to total absence – of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

The answer – again straight out of the usual suspects’ playbook – is around 100 Watts per square meter. Accordingly, the equilibrium system climate sensitivity parameter is 33/100 = 0.33 Celsius per Watt per square meter, after just about all temperature feedbacks have acted.

Multiply this key parameter by 3.7 Watts per square meter, which is the IPCC’s own value for the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 concentration, and you get a warming of just 1.2 C° per CO2 doubling. But that is just one-third of the 3.3 C° the IPCC predicts. This theoretical value of 1.2 C° is remarkably robust: it uses the IPCC’s own data and methods, applied to the entire history of the atmosphere, to demonstrate just how low climate sensitivity really is.

When I pointed out this simple but powerful result to scientists recently at the Santa Fe climate conference organized by the Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of them said, “Ah, yes, but what evidence do you have that today’s climate exhibits the same sensitivity as the total system sensitivity?” The answer is that the world is now in a position to verify this theoretical result by measurement. In August this year, Dr. Blasing of the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center in the United States quietly published a bombshell.

Few noticed. His detailed estimate is that all the manmade greenhouse gases added to the air by us since 1750 have caused as much as 3 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing between them. From this 3 Watts per square meter, in line with IPCC data, we must be fair and deduct 1 Watt per square meter to allow for manmade climate influences that cause cooling, such as soot and other particulates that act as helpful little parasols shading us from the Sun and keeping us cooler than we should otherwise be.

How much warming did this manmade net 2 Watts per square meter of forcing cause? Around 0.8 Celsius of warming has occurred since 1750, of which – if the IPCC is right – 50-100% was attributable to us. So the equilibrium climate sensitivity parameter since 1750 (again, most of the temperature feedbacks that the IPCC wrongly imagines will amplify warming hugely will have acted by now) is 0.2-0.4 Celsius per Watt per square meter. Multiply that key parameter by 3.7 and the warming we can expect from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is just 0.75-1.5 Celsius.

Those estimates neatly bracket the equilibrium system sensitivity of 1.2 C° that we calculated earlier by well-established theory. So the sensitivity of the climate over the most recent quarter of the millennium is very much the same as the sensitivity of the climate throughout the past 4.5 billion years – at around one-third of the IPCC’s central estimate. Frankly, one Celsius degree of warming this century will simply not be worth worrying about. It will do far more good than harm. Not a cent should be spent trying to prevent it.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

you sound very sensible, which is rare...most discussions with people are more like two fans who like rival football teams. they can't tell you why they support their team, but they'll defend them against common sense to the death.

Although it's safe to say I've definitely picked a team in this match, it's come from researching the debate itself, objectively, on both sides, to death. I can certainly have a sensible discussion on the matter with anyone who shows the same respect, but the problem is most people who love debating it think they already know everything there is to know, just because they read a website or two which advertised itself as "skeptical".

Virtually every one of those sources turns out to be a biased, manipulative lying piece of propaganda itself in the end - and I have little trouble showing this, since I've already looked deeper into it. Problem is that forces those people to reconsider what they already "knew"...and, well...let's just say most people don't take that proposition so well lol. And thus begins the inevitable pissing contest...


Anyway, I have no problem looking at the issue open-mindedly and sensibly, provided the other party is willing to do the same. Just hard to find a suitable dance partner is all...


Continuing this one though:

that bit from nasa goes above and beyond the email from the cru. in the cru email, the man is saying that GHG's are "important" but that all of the climate change could just as easily be attributed to the sun if they took it into account more in their models.

I think he quite clearly says:

it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from the sun alone.

This is exactly in line with the NASA statement, which more explicitly states that models without GHGs are indeed able to fit observations -

up until about 1950

So really there's no ambiguity there, other than from what I warned about before - people hearing only what they want to hear.

This is unfortunately the case in every single "incriminating" climategate email I've seen out there - they are deliberately quote-mined and presented out of context to lead people towards an "obvious", but ultimately disingenuous conclusion.


So as a follow-up, let me just ask you this - what do you believe the 'decline' in "hide the decline" is referring to?

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


How can I misrepresent what you say when I directly quoted exactly what you said lol?

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

 

How can I misrepresent what you say when I directly quoted exactly what you said lol?

I said:

Ooh - that sounds very definitive doesn't it!, except the AGW case doesn't rest on the 'laws of physics' does it!. Instead it rests on the very small warming effect caused by man made CO2, being amplified by presumed and unverified, totally positive feedback mechanisms to create a runaway effect.

Meaning quite clearly that the 'laws of physics applies' to the 'small warming effect caused by man made CO2 which nobody disputes!

Whilst the AGW case rests upon (this small undisputed effect) being amplified by presumed and unverified, totally positive feedback mechanisms to create a runaway effect.

You then selectively quote me (so as to miss out the vital context), so that you can then go off on a rant to make it seem as though sceptics are ignorant hillbillies - whilst you the wise 'scientist' are overcome with exasperation! - this is pure SHILLING!

You can rap all you want about the politics and the economics and the yaddi yadda - but for crying out loud if you're going to bitch about the science at least get yourself educated enough to not make extremely ignorant statements like "AGW isn't based on physics"... Yeesh.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

and you know what they found?? ZERO WRONGDOING.

so that quote about "don't let the dirty laundry air" is just casual banter, and telling people to hide behind FOIA requests is science as usual? what about the emails that talk of altering past temperature data to make it look like it's warmer now, or the ones admitting there is huge political pressure?

i can read the emails for myself, thanks. their intentions are clear.

i can see you'll support AGW no matter what. i could care less which side is right, i have no stake in it, but i believe the earth goes through cycles all the time.

a little problem for you: how can you say there is nothing wrong with the emails when one of them says that the sun could account for ALL changes? it's a bit like the "this statement is false" logical paradox. for you to say there is nothing wrong with them, then you're accepting that email is correct, thereby disproving AGW.

would you provide a link to the "three independent reviews" please? i'd like to review them if they exist.

Here ya go, my friend:

www.skepticalscience.com...

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Are you SERIOUSLY going to call the scientific community CORRUPT and completely IGNORE the fossil fuel industry, the politicians, and the media who TOW THE LINE of AGW denial because they're controlled by large corporations (i.e. fossil fuel industries)??

People like you are a real piece of work ("work" substituted for a far more appropriate and simultaneously inappropriate word). Like all right-wingers, you FLIP accusations laid upon you, ones that fit YOU and your ilk better, and lay them on your opponents. If your opponents have called you corrupt and beholden to money, you flip it and accuse scientists of the same thing. I can't believe the nerve, lies, and stupidity with which you conduct discussion/debate, you seriously need to be stopped (along with bastions of propaganda like Fox News).

First, who the hell are you to demand that anyone prove anything to you? You are already committed to an agenda that contradicts common sense, the scientific method and obsevervable facts.

Second, one of the first principles I learned in school was that, "if you have the facts, argue the facts;" "if you have the law, argue the law;" and, if you do not have the law or the facts, "shoot the messenger."

In this light, I find it very enlightening that instead of showing how Pachauri, Jones, Mann, et al, were correct in their misrepresentations and exaggerations, the AGW believers and prophets revert to ad hominem and ridicule of the source.

If AGW had any legitimate scientific legs to stand on, it would invite skepticism, to emphasize the "falsifiablilty" of any one or all of itrs base theories.

Instead, any challenge to the "conventioanl wisdom" is treated with derision.

This is not "science," it is gospel, dogma and doctrine.

jw

Nice quote-fail.

If you're arguing BS against me, I have EVERY RIGHT TO DEMAND YOU PROVE YOUR STANCE. Period. It's not like I can force you to, but my demand is rooted in very basic/common-sense rules of debate.

I'm already "committed" to an "agenda" that "contradicts common sense, the scientific method, and observable facts"???? That's a complete lie. Even the words you use are loaded and simply FLIPPING of accusations laid against you... and rightfully so. Your arguments work against you better than they work against me. Try using them in an intellectual mirror.

It's been demonstrated consistently that those various scientists were correct in their science. If you SERIOUSLY don't have the intelligence to find their studies or information about global warming, then that's your problem. I'm not going to walk you through the elementary information/studies on global warming when a simple google search will suffice. You and I both know that the proof is there, but what I'm attacking is YOUR ASSUMPTION that it's somehow false, based on some inane pseudo-science you've read on right-wing/industry/conspiracy denier blogs/sites. This stuff has been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over... and you still don't quit, you still don't change your mind. It's pathetic/tiring, really.

The BIGGEST ACTUAL SKEPTICS of the science behind AGW are the scientists themselves. They are conditioned to question everything, to doubt things, to USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD and verify their results with various other scientists and scientific organizations/research teams... which they have done consistently. There is no possibility that the entire body of science would be in some kind of conspiracy, planet-wide, to manufacture a hoax that is obviously not a hoax to anybody who considers them-self a true admirer of science.

It's funny how you call ACTUAL SCIENCE "gospel/dogma/doctrine" but fail to recognize your denial as unscientific, corrupt and obstinately faith-based. You people are a real laugh...

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money.

Who audits the IPCC? The Summary

The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.

Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded. Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation? Read the Full Report at the Science and Public Policy Institute.

reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

joannenova.com.au...

As I have already detailed in previous posts the funding is entirely lopsided towards the warmist side by orders of magnitude even from the 'evil oil industry' - despite the warmists using any slight oil industry connection to declare sceptical scientists 'corrupt'.

This is science being run as a (leftist) political strategy - instead of the self defined moral high ground, there is manufactured 'scientific consensus'

Instead of stranglehold on academia there is a stranglehold on the peer review process' - and of course the entire educational establishment turned into a propaganda machine.

As usual, the leftist dominated media reports uncritically on their agenda, whilst all opposing voices are demonised and shut down.

Science is simply the last of the institutions to fall to the Grammscian 'long march through the institutions'

So wait...

Your entire point is that, since people are making money off of half-assed carbon-credit trading schemes (which were more/less CRAFTED by fossil fuel industry), that AGW is therefore a hoax? SERIOUSLY?? Because markets/Capitalism is perverting an issue into a business-as-usual profit-venture... the SCIENTISTS are somehow corrupt??

Totally weak.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


That is not what I said at all - is this some sort of game on here now, where trolls just deliberately misrepresent what you say to wind you up!?