Is Global warming a Hoax?

[Toronado3800]

I'm for prosecuting anyone who falsified scientific information to make a point. To me this is the same as an investment ranking company giving false high ratings to (in)securities.

 

[code1211]

The emails were stolen.

The investigation has just begun.

In the end I think you will see some people go to jail for stealing private information and the data will hold firm.

Huh??!?!?

The moral of the whole story is that the data you say will hold firm has not held firm to date and that is the whole issue.

The data has been changed. The data has not held firm. If the data had held firm there would be no issue with this.

Pleae recall that all U.S. temperatures before 1965 were lowered and all temperatures after were raised. These changes were made following 1999. Temperatures after 1965 would have been more affected by urban heat islands and therefore, one might reasonable assume, would be subject to lowering as a correction.

If the Urban Heat Island effect had raised the temps, why would Dr. Hansen have raised them again to compensate? Another example of your data holding "firm"?

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product « Watts Up With That?

 

[code1211]

The best scientific evidence very strongly suggests (but cannot prove without any shadow of a doubt) that climate change is real and that human activity is contributing.
In spite of an attempt to create the illusion of a lack of consensus among the scientific community - an overwhelming consensus (in fact NO peer-reviewed work has refuted the premise of Anthropogenic climate change) has emerged.

Does it mean that it is impossible that they are all wrong? Nope - it is possible they are wrong.

As to a vast conspiracy among the world's scientific community to perpetuate a hoax - absurd. WAAAY TOO MANY people would have to be involved with not a single one EVER "coming clean." Also, when have people from all over the globe ever been able to agree to secretly participate in something like this. Too absurd for serious consideration.

AND the profit motive would support denying climate change far more than it would support accepting it.

The absolute best information available and the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community supports the premise that our climate is changing and that human activity is contributing to that change (although the extent to which human activity is contributing is certainly not agreed upon).

So there are the simple facts. Twist, spin, hurl faux science as your political ideology and your commitment to your rhetorical heros demand - but the facts don't change.

you're some kind of a fucking idiot aren't you ?

you stupid bitch keep repeating the talking points from Al Gore movie but did you ever actually pass the science class in your kindergarden ?

could you explain what the science is and the evidence instead of writing that Al Gore has already proven everything while he was inventing the internet ?

ahhh that elevated Borat IQ on display once more. I'm having such a hard time understanding some of your bigger words ....

google beyond the ivory tower.

It clearly puts to rest any nonesense about a lack of consensus in the scientific community.

If something is absolutely provable, consensus makes no difference. The same is true if it is absolutely unprovable. In science, consensus means nothing.

Things that do mean something are predictability. AGW science does not provide this. Consistancy. Again, a big zero for the AGW'ers. A clear cause-effect relationship demonstrated when one is cited. Goose egg.

When an overwhelming array of observations and supporting data are gathered and a tenative idea is put forth, then tested and finally demonstrated to be the only reasonable conclusion even though it may not be absolutely and irrevocably proven, then it rises to the level of being a scientific theory. The scientific community welcomes adversarial debate to refine the understanding and test the validity of the theory.

When, on the other hand, an idea is put forth and then data is cherry picked to support this idea, opposing views are shut out of the discussion, data is adjusted, changed or rigged to support a pre-drawn conclusion and vast sums of money are hanging in the balance to be directed by elitist idealogues who stand to profit by that direction of funds, this is a swindle.

By any reasonable assesment, the "science" that supports AGW is a swindle of this type.

 

[Toronado3800]

We are a more efficient species than I thought if only one group of temperature records were kept worldwide.

 

[code1211]

Facts we all agree on:
In enclosed environment experiments those with higher CO2/greenhouse gas content experience higher temperatures than those with a normal atmospheric make up.

Humans increase atmospheric CO2 by at least 5% yearly, and thanks to this its according high historically right now according to ice core samples.

That seems to be it anymore.

Besides that, everyone has an opinion concerning even the formerly "obvious" decade long trend of the loss of polar ice (weird, ask shipping companies that go through the northwest passage now if its more open than before)

Regardless, that opening could be part of a natural cycle, or could not.

What percentage of could or could not is up for debate. Also is the percentage of risk different ppl are willing to take in regards to "it could be our fault"

My point would be, "If there is a 5% chance giving your kid milk out of a lead cup will make him 5% dumber do you take the chance to avoid buying a proper bottle?" 50% 25% 75% who knows how important that buck we can save in exhaust technology is.

We don't all agree on those "facts". The figures that I've read about the contribution of CO2 by man is 3 to 5%. In some articles, the quote is "up to" 3%.

Experiments with CO2 or other GHG's don't reflect how these gases acts in the real world with regard to the effect on climate.

The loss of Ice in the Arctic more likely caused by a change in the temperature of the water than the air. This is far more likely a result of ocean currents than air temperature. The North WEST passage is not the one that is recently opened for shipping. It is the North EAST passage. According to experts, this is due to prevailing southerly winds from that side of the arctic that moves the ice away from shore.

The climate system is comprised of perhaps millions of actions and reactions, causes and effects that change on a minute by minute basis. The effects of clouds on temperature cannot be modeled and yet we know that clouds exist and that they come and go. We know that ocean currents have a humongus effect on climate worldwide.

When North and South America joined, the ocean currents changed and the Ice ages started. During our little warm spell right now, the one that has lasted about 10.000 years, we have departed from and returned to a climate that was prevalent about 5000 years ago when most of the glaciers that are now melting started to form.

If we had temperature records back then, this might have been viewed as a very cool dip in normal temperature.

Finally, in 2000 years, our global climate has increased by 0.7 degrees. This is not runaway warming. It is astonishing stability. The temperature in my house varies more than that during the Super Bowl game broadcast.

This is an invented worry about a minor variation in climate produced by swindlers for the enjoyment of the easily duped. If you must campaign for something, why not make it feeding the hungry, clothing the naked or housing the homeless.

At least then you'd be doing the works of a real religion.

 

[Toronado3800]

so code, I will modify my statement.

Facts we all agree on:
In enclosed environment experiments those with higher CO2/greenhouse gas content experience higher temperatures than those with a normal atmospheric percentages.

Humans increase atmospheric CO2 up to 5% yearly, and thanks to this its according high historically right now according to ice core samples. (a steady 2% doubles it in 50 years or so, 5%,20)

That seems to be what we agree on.

Besides that, everyone has an opinion concerning even the formerly "obvious" decade long trend of the loss of polar ice. Ask shipping companies that go through the northeast passage now if its more open than before. (sorry for calling it northwest in homage to the old search)

Regardless, that opening could be part of a natural cycle (like you mentioned), or could not.

What percentage of could or could not is up for debate. Also is the percentage of risk different ppl are willing to take in regards to "it could be our fault"

Can I say:
"Extrapolating the small scale tests on greenhouse gas effects on enclosed environment onto a world wide level is thought of as foolhardy by some." (I feel this is akin to being careful increasing the presence of any substance around humans that causes cancer to rats.)

My point would be, "If there is a 5% chance giving your kid milk out of a lead cup will make him 5% dumber do you take the chance to avoid buying a proper bottle?" 50% 25% 75% who knows how important that buck we can save in exhaust technology is.
********************
Don't take me wrong. I post a lot on this issue but I'm not going to do anything crazy like outlaw buying oil from terrorists or post de facto outlaw older cars. I'd even maintain CAFE standards which make sure cars don't fall below 1990 horsepower levels (I won't make CAFE standards so high everyone has to buy an Aveo)

 

[Si modo]

so code, I will modify my statement.

Facts we all agree on:
In enclosed environment experiments those with higher CO2/greenhouse gas content experience higher temperatures than those with a normal atmospheric percentages.

Humans increase atmospheric CO2 up to 5% yearly, and thanks to this its according high historically right now according to ice core samples. (a steady 2% doubles it in 50 years or so, 5%,20)

That seems to be what we agree on.

Besides that, everyone has an opinion concerning even the formerly "obvious" decade long trend of the loss of polar ice. Ask shipping companies that go through the northeast passage now if its more open than before. (sorry for calling it northwest in homage to the old search)

Regardless, that opening could be part of a natural cycle (like you mentioned), or could not.

What percentage of could or could not is up for debate. Also is the percentage of risk different ppl are willing to take in regards to "it could be our fault"

Can I say:
"Extrapolating the small scale tests on greenhouse gas effects on enclosed environment onto a world wide level is thought of as foolhardy by some." (I feel this is akin to being careful increasing the presence of any substance around humans that causes cancer to rats.)

My point would be, "If there is a 5% chance giving your kid milk out of a lead cup will make him 5% dumber do you take the chance to avoid buying a proper bottle?" 50% 25% 75% who knows how important that buck we can save in exhaust technology is.
********************
Don't take me wrong. I post a lot on this issue but I'm not going to do anything crazy like outlaw buying oil from terrorists or post de facto outlaw older cars. I'd even maintain CAFE standards which make sure cars don't fall below 1990 horsepower levels (I won't make CAFE standards so high everyone has to buy an Aveo)

1. Extrapolating from the models is foolhardy as the models are not scientific (they are not falsifiable as there exists no data set for which the models are inconsistent - I'm speaking of the oft-cited compilation of IPCC models). 2. Extrapolating from the models is beyond foolhardy because the models were made on data that cannot be trusted.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Global warming, global cooling, save the whales, save the trees, save the endangered species and all the rest of what ever it is that the idiots are yelling that needs to be saved is all a big scam. If there is money to be made, something will always need to be "saved".

 

[Toronado3800]

1. Extrapolating from the models is foolhardy as the models are not scientific (they are not falsifiable as there exists no data set for which the models are inconsistent - I'm speaking of the oft-cited compilation of IPCC models). 2. Extrapolating from the models is beyond foolhardy because the models were made on data that cannot be trusted.

No no, I need to be more clear. Not computer models. I mean relatively simple experiments such as filling up a fish tank with a CO2 rich atmosphere and comparing the temperature inside it with a "normal" atmosphere fish tank.

Still not a full proof experiment. I find it logical to pay some attention to it though like its logical to pay some attention to what poisons kill canaries despite the fact we're a much bigger animal.

 

[Toronado3800]

Global warming, global cooling, save the whales, save the trees, save the endangered species and all the rest of what ever it is that the idiots are yelling that needs to be saved is all a big scam. If there is money to be made, something will always need to be "saved".

Tell me about what ppl or ppl under the guise of a corporation will do to make money. Working or volunteering for Green Peace doesn't seem to be the easiest path to wealth to me though. I would think there is more money in using fake science to claim cigarettes are safe or environmental regulations which cost your company money are bad.

 

[Si modo]

1. Extrapolating from the models is foolhardy as the models are not scientific (they are not falsifiable as there exists no data set for which the models are inconsistent - I'm speaking of the oft-cited compilation of IPCC models). 2. Extrapolating from the models is beyond foolhardy because the models were made on data that cannot be trusted.

No no, I need to be more clear. Not computer models. I mean relatively simple experiments such as filling up a fish tank with a CO2 rich atmosphere and comparing the temperature inside it with a "normal" atmosphere fish tank.

Still not a full proof experiment. I find it logical to pay some attention to it though like its logical to pay some attention to what poisons kill canaries despite the fact we're a much bigger animal.

A fish tank IS a model, and not a very good one at that. I fail to see what point you have.

 

[Toronado3800]

hmmm, how to explain differently....

A fish tank or even a sealed bottle is used to check the rough effects of increasing the percentages of different gasses in the atmosphere. A perfect experiment? No it isn't. One good enough to prove what gasses help an atmosphere retain heat? Yes I believe.

I was comparing using the ol' fish tank experiment to using animal experiments to determine if a drug or substance is possibly harmful to humans.

Something like "If a few monkeys eat our pudding with a new artificial sweetener and die then maybe we should not give it to our kids w/o lots of further testing."

Or "If increasing the percentage of x,y, and z gasses in an enclosed environment raises its temperature then maybe we should be careful with it."

I'm not an environut saying you need to give up your car or let big government in to check and see if you're living carbon neutral enough. Just being conservative. I'd rather error on the side of caution.

 

[Peacedog]

As far as I can tell, the people who collect climate data are fully aware that they are under attack. They realize that they have to duck and dodge to keep thier process active.
See, the scientific process is all about peer reveiw; you send your research out into the world to be reviewed and critizised. It is the critique process that makes science strong. Problem is, an aggressive journalist could take pieces of the crtique to show that the whole is invalid. So, these scientists try to keep thier stuff hidden until its ready. Of course, scientists are not spooks, so they're pretty bad at it.

Maybe this batch of guys were crappy scientists, maybe they are brilliant. Doesn't matter. The planet is getting warmer. Go ask a 3700 year old bristlecone pine tree. Don't listen to the media; search for the scientific reports and decide for yourself.

 

[Peacedog]

Huh?

"Flat-earth global warmers"?

If you're going to be insulting, at least think through it. You'll have a better chance of making sense that way.

Flat-earth was a concept debunked by the scientific process.

Global warming is a concept being introduced by scientific process.


Who you going to trust, a scientist or a radio commentator?

 

[Si modo]

Huh?

"Flat-earth global warmers"?

If you're going to be insulting, at least think through it. You'll have a better chance of making sense that way.

Flat-earth was a concept debunked by the scientific process.

Global warming is a concept being introduced by scientific process. ....

And, some big names in that community have sold out their scientific integrity for a political agenda. They are sellouts. So, their credibility is a problem. They have done more damage to their agenda with this lack of integrity than any others could have done.

.... Who you going to trust, a scientist or a radio commentator?

Of this pool of scientists, they have as much credibility as someone in the press.

 

[Peacedog]

So, I believe we agree then. Its the scientists, not the process.

And the same would hold true for the press. Its the commentators, not the process.

Of course, the media does not submit itself to peer review. Someone could just write something up and send it out there as if it were credible. Have you ever tried to get something published in an acedemic journal?

 

[Si modo]

So, I believe we agree then. Its the scientists, not the process.

And the same would hold true for the press. Its the commentators, not the process.

Of course, the media does not submit itself to peer review. Someone could just write something up and send it out there as if it were credible. Have you ever tried to get something published in an acedemic journal?

All scientists are entrusted with this process. The process is thus abusable to scientists. Most scientists do not abuse or corrupt that process as the integrity of it is more important than their fame, agenda, etc.

These scientists DID abuse the process - they did not use it with the integrity they should have. In this case, the scientists and the process that they used are both without credibility.

 

[code1211]

Apparently scientists that don't agree with the methods of the scientists whose emails were hacked STILL believe that humans contribute to global warming.

IMO, this is pretty much a no brainer. How could we not be affecting the earth's atmosphere with our polluting ways and deforestation?

Do the percolating data issues matter to the overall integrity of a) anthropogenic warming and b) “dangerous” anthropogenic warming?

A response has come in from Roger A. Pielke Sr., a climate scientist at the University of Colorado who has often been a critic of what he has called “the climate oligarchy” — including some of the scientists involved in the e-mail strings taken from the Climatic Research Unit. Aspects of his comment may be unwelcome to just about everyone in one way or another, but I think it is worth noting that he says that the data issues don’t detract from clear evidence of a long-term warming trend and that carbon dioxide is “a major climate forcing” (along with many others):

Natural Resources and the Environment - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

Pollution and warming don't neccesarily go hand in hand. Sulfur, as a f'rinstance contributes to cooling as it reflects sunlight back into space. The same is true of contrails. Volcanoes belch plenty of CO2 into the air, but also much more plentiful sulfur and ash and dust. Volcanoes have a net cooling effect on the planet.

Go figure. Air pollution is a proven coolant for the planet. Can we please abandon the "pollution is bad so let's stop the warming" swindle?

CO2 is below 400 ppm of the atmospohere. Let's call it that, though. 4 one hundredths of one percent of our air is CO2. In the past, scientists think it was at 7000 ppm. It obviously has fallen dramatically since then. Of that 4 100's of 1 percent, 97% comes from nature and 3% comes from man.

Man's annual contibution to the atmosphere as a percent of our air is 1.2 1000's of one percent per year. Start a savings program today in which you sock away 1.2 1000's of one penny every year. This is $0.000012 per year. In 1,000,000 years you will have 12 cents.

Is this a cause to re-arrange our entire economy?

 

[code1211]

Apparently scientists that don't agree with the methods of the scientists whose emails were hacked STILL believe that humans contribute to global warming.

IMO, this is pretty much a no brainer. How could we not be affecting the earth's atmosphere with our polluting ways and deforestation?

Do the percolating data issues matter to the overall integrity of a) anthropogenic warming and b) “dangerous” anthropogenic warming?

A response has come in from Roger A. Pielke Sr., a climate scientist at the University of Colorado who has often been a critic of what he has called “the climate oligarchy” — including some of the scientists involved in the e-mail strings taken from the Climatic Research Unit. Aspects of his comment may be unwelcome to just about everyone in one way or another, but I think it is worth noting that he says that the data issues don’t detract from clear evidence of a long-term warming trend and that carbon dioxide is “a major climate forcing” (along with many others):

Natural Resources and the Environment - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

Pollution and warming don't neccesarily go hand in hand. Sulfur, as a f'rinstance contributes to cooling as it reflects sunlight back into space. The same is true of contrails. Volcanoes belch plenty of CO2 into the air, but also much more plentiful sulfur and ash and dust. Volcanoes have a net cooling effect on the planet.

Go figure. Air pollution is a proven coolant for the planet. Can we please abandon the "pollution is bad so let's stop the warming" swindle?

CO2 is below 400 ppm of the atmospohere. Let's call it that, though. 4 tenths of one percent of our air is CO2. In the past, scientists think it was at 7000 ppm. It obviously has fallen dramatically since then. Of that 4 tenths of 1 percent, 97% comes from nature and 3% comes from man.

Man's annual contibution to the atmosphere as a percent of our air is 1.2 100's of one percent per year. Start a savings program today in which you sock away 1.2 100's of one penny every year. This is $0.0000012 per year. In 100,000 years you will have 12 cents.

Is this a cause to re-arrange our entire economy?

Just a note in passing:

In how many articles on Global Warming is the very small amount of CO2 in our air accurately defined, the very small percent contribution by man defined and in how many articles is the actual increase in temperature, 0.7 degrees in 2000 years defined?

Lacking these few critical bits of info, hysteria is likely to follow. Leaving them out is evidence of an agenda-driven presentation.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Jay, my understanding is the CRU massaged data, the data revealed in the e-mails, the data the scientists in question used their "trick" to "hide declines" was the same data all scientists were using in their predictions.

When I took science in college, we called this GIGO...Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Meaning if your model contains corrupted data, there is no escaping a corrupted result.

So, you may say, let's just compare the un-massaged data, the original data, the data that was requested under the Freedom of Information Act, the data that was referred to in the CRU e-mails discussions on how they could thwart that FOIA request....

Well...uh...you see...that data is missing.

Gone, erased, dumped, thrown away.

Convenient, isn't it.

Ever heard of a scientist THROWING AWAY THE RAW DATA !

Me either.

I take it you can prove that what was lost was purpously thrown away and what was lost was proof that man-made climate change in fact does not exist?

Yes Jay, I can prove the original data was thrown away:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.


It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

Climate change data dumped - Times Online​

​

No, no one can prove anything contained in the original data...mostly due to the fact...wait for it...the scientists threw it away.

Can I prove that the data was intentionally destroyed to hide discrepancies? No, I cannot...but I can INFER from the PATTERN of deceit proven by the hacked emails that it is possible...even likely...that this is the indeed the case.​

In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"




At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." ...




Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.

​

Hiding evidence of global warming --thewashingtontimes.com
​

​

See a trend forming?

Me too.
​

yes I can see a trend forming -

"No, no one can prove anything contained in the original data."

"Can I prove that the data was intentionally destroyed to hide discrepancies? No, I cannot."

"but I can INFER"