Turns out that even the skeptics agree, the earth is warming abnormally

Summary

In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

* The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.

* Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.

* E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

Analysis

Skeptics claim this trove of e-mails shows the scientists at the U.K. research center were engaging in evidence-tampering, and they are portraying the affair as a major scandal: "Climategate." Saudi Arabian climate negotiator Mohammad Al-Sabban went so far as to tell the BBC: "It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change." He said that he expected news of the e-mails to disrupt the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen this month. An article from the conservative-leaning Canada Free Press claims that the stolen files are proof of a "deliberate fraud" and "the greatest deception in history."

News coverage of the e-mails and the various claims about what they supposedly show may have contributed to public confusion on the subject. A Dec. 3 Rasmussen survey found that only 25 percent of adults surveyed said that "most scientists agree on global warming" while 52 percent said that "there is significant disagreement within the scientific community" and 23 percent said they were not sure.

The truth is that over the 13 years covered by the CRU e-mails, scientific consensus has only become stronger as the evidence for global warming from various sources has mounted.

Reports from the National Academies and the U.S. Global Change Research Program that analyze large amounts of data from various sources also agree, as does the IPCC, that climate change is not in doubt.

In advance of the 2009 U.N. climate change summit, the national academies of 13 nations issued a joint statement of their recommendations for combating climate change, in which they discussed the "human forcing" of global warming and said that the need for action was "indisputable."

Leading scientists are unequivocally reaffirming the consensus on global warming in the wake of "Climategate." White House science adviser John Holdren said at a congressional hearing on climate change: "However this particular controversy comes out, the result will not call into question the bulk of our understanding of how the climate works or how humans are affecting it."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science released a statement "reaffirm[ing] the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society."

The American Meteorological Society and the Union of Concerned Scientists have also reiterated their positions on climate change, which they say are unaffected by the leaked e-mails.

– by Jess Henig

FactCheck.org : “Climategate”
 
Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

* raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence

* funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings

* attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest

* used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

ExxonMobil Report: Smoke Mirrors & Hot Air (2007) | Union of Concerned Scientists
 
LONDON — E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged how reliable certain data was.

The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast England, an influential source of climate science, and were posted online last month. The university shut down the server and contacted the police.

Review: Climate e-mails petty, not fraudulent - US news - Environment - Climate Change - msnbc.com
 
What is Global Warming?

When CO2 and other heat-trapping emissions are released into the air, they act like a blanket, holding heat in our atmosphere and warming the planet. Overloading our atmosphere with carbon has far-reaching effects for people everywhere.

Learn more


Global Warming Science & Impacts

What does the science say about global warming and what are the connections between climate data and the changes we see around us—and those we expect to see in the future?

Learn more:

Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists
 
Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer

Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer

Yep, even skeptics like Richard Muller and Anthony Watts are now admitting that Global Warming is in fact a real phenomena.

Although, in a move that would be funny if it weren't so sad, Global Warming doubter Anthony Watts is claiming that's what he said all along...

Bump and thanks...
 
N_stddev_timeseries.png
 
"Turns out that even the skeptics agree, the earth is warming abnormally"

Anybody who belives that hasn't been paying attention.
 
e

Other than the graph doesn't look like you want it to look, what specifically about this 18 year old paper do you disagree with?

He tried to hide the MWP with his original hockey stick.

The paper doesn't state anyting about his motiviations.

SO, again, Other than the graph doesn't look like you want it to look, what specifically about this 18 year old paper do you disagree with? Tell us exactly where the authors went wrong in their method.
 
Last edited:
e
Other than the graph doesn't look like you want it to look, what specifically about this 18 year old paper do you disagree with?

He tried to hide the MWP with his original hockey stick.

The paper doesn't state anyting about his motiviations.

SO, again, Other than the graph doesn't look like you want it to look, what specifically about this 18 year old paper do you disagree with? Tell us exactly where the authors went wrong in their method.

It doesn't state his motivations, so what were they?
 
e
He tried to hide the MWP with his original hockey stick.

The paper doesn't state anyting about his motiviations.

SO, again, Other than the graph doesn't look like you want it to look, what specifically about this 18 year old paper do you disagree with? Tell us exactly where the authors went wrong in their method.

It doesn't state his motivations, so what were they?

You're the one claming he is "trying to hide" something, yet so far the only "evidence" you've come up with is he's got a graph that doesn't look like you want it to look like.
 
The paper doesn't state anyting about his motiviations.

Yeah, right. When someone commits scientific fraud, the include their motive for the fraud in the paper they submit.

Are you really that stupid?

SO, again, Other than the graph doesn't look like you want it to look, what specifically about this 18 year old paper do you disagree with? Tell us exactly where the authors went wrong in their method.

The data was doctored to produce the desired result.

Are you totally ignorant of the Hockey Stick scandal? You can read about the faulty methodology used to conjure up the Hockey Stick here:

M&M Project Page
 
The paper doesn't state anyting about his motiviations.

Yeah, right. When someone commits scientific fraud, the include their motive for the fraud in the paper they submit.

Other than the paper exists and Toddsterpatriot doesn't like one of the graphs, I've yet to see any evidence of "fraud".


SO, again, Other than the graph doesn't look like you want it to look, what specifically about this 18 year old paper do you disagree with? Tell us exactly where the authors went wrong in their method.

The data was doctored to produce the desired result.

How do you know it was doctored?


Are you totally ignorant of the Hockey Stick scandal? You can read about the faulty methodology used to conjure up the Hockey Stick here:

M&M Project Page

If you can't explain it to me then you don't understand it, and if you don't understand it then I'm arguing with a guy who doesn't have an informed opinion, thus there is no point ot the argument.
 
Last edited:
e

The paper doesn't state anyting about his motiviations.

SO, again, Other than the graph doesn't look like you want it to look, what specifically about this 18 year old paper do you disagree with? Tell us exactly where the authors went wrong in their method.

It doesn't state his motivations, so what were they?

You're the one claming he is "trying to hide" something, yet so far the only "evidence" you've come up with is he's got a graph that doesn't look like you want it to look like.

It's not a question of what I want, it's a question of pretending we didn't have a warming trend well before humans had a measureable impact.
 
It doesn't state his motivations, so what were they?

You're the one claming he is "trying to hide" something, yet so far the only "evidence" you've come up with is he's got a graph that doesn't look like you want it to look like.

It's not a question of what I want, it's a question of pretending we didn't have a warming trend well before humans had a measureable impact.

I don't see where anyone is "pretending" there wasn't a MWP. In fact the Mann paper you cite references other papers that show evidence for a MWP, and there is a noticeable cooling off in the figure you cited, from the beginning of the graph, which is the peak of the MWP, towards the middle. So I surely don't see how its "hiding" something when its right there in the graph.

I'm waiting for you to tell me specifically what is wrong with the method applied by Mann. The fact that the graph doesn't look like you want it to will not be accepted as evidence of anything.
 
The paper doesn't state anyting about his motiviations.

Yeah, right. When someone commits scientific fraud, the include their motive for the fraud in the paper they submit.

Other than the paper exists and Toddsterpatriot doesn't like one of the graphs, I've yet to see any evidence of "fraud".

That's because you don't want to see the evidence. Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick did a thorough analysis of the statistical methods Mann used and showed they were bogus. Mann also used data that was proven to be an invalid proxy for temperature. If you want a detailed explanation of the problems with Mann's methodology, then read the article I posted a reference to.



The data was doctored to produce the desired result.

How do you know it was doctored?

Read the article by Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick


Are you totally ignorant of the Hockey Stick scandal? You can read about the faulty methodology used to conjure up the Hockey Stick here:

M&M Project Page

If you can't explain it to me then you don't understand it, and if you don't understand it then I'm arguing with a guy who doesn't have an informed opinion, thus there is no point ot the argument.

I can easily explain it, but it's complicated and would take a lot of typing. It's much easier for you to just read the article at the link I posted. Anyone who isn't a complete doofus on the climate change issue is aware of the Hockey Stick scandal and how McIntyre and McKitrick totally debunked Mann's fraudulent graph.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, right. When someone commits scientific fraud, the include their motive for the fraud in the paper they submit.

Other than the paper exists and Toddsterpatriot doesn't like one of the graphs, I've yet to see any evidence of "fraud".

That's because you don't want to see the evidence.

It hasn't been shown to me.

Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick did a thorough analysis of the statistical methods Mann used and showed they were bogus. They also used data that was proven to be an invalid proxy for temperature. If you want a detailed explanation of the problems with Mann's methodology, then read the article I posted a reference to.
I'm not reading anything you can't explain yourself, sorry. I can just as easily post links to papers claiming to have refuted the McIntyre paper - but those papers come to conclusions you do not like, so you would reject them.

Clearly - you're going to post the papers that conclude what you like, and there's no need for you to actually be able to understand and explain them to others!

I can easily explain it, but it's complicated and would take a lot of typing.

No, you can't easily explain it. It isn't easy to explain.


It's much easier for you to just read the article at the link I posted. Anyone who isn't a complete doofus on the climate change issue is aware of the Hockey Stick scandal and how McIntyre and McKitrick totally debunked Mann's fraudulent graph.

Oh, well if people are aware of the "scandal", that's all the proof I need, no need to read anything at all. There's a scandal, people are "aware" of it - what more evidence is needed?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top