Climategate: … And Just Like That, the Warming’s Gone (PJM Exclusive)
As James Delingpole, in the Telegraph, noted Wednesday:
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
On Tuesday, we heard via the Ria Novosti agency that the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian-climate data:
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. They concluded climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations and data from stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
Paint-by-Numbers Science
Imagine a paint-by-numbers kit with 12 colors of the spectrum — from purple and blue, green to yellow, orange and red, each numbered. When you finish coloring the areas in the coloring book or canvas with the appropriate color number, you have a color painting for the fridge.
Suppose you got a version with only the number 1 and 2 colors marked. You have the colors — but what you end up with is a patchwork of two colors on a white background, with lines defining other areas. You could guess about the other colors, but the end result may not be what the original creator had in mind.
Believe it or not, this very simple analogy applies to the claims of global warming.
In the climate change map of the world, where the Earth is depicted as flat (and skeptics are called flat-earthers, naturally) and with a latitude/longitude grid as the “to be colored” areas, the purples and blues represent cold temperatures and yellows, oranges, and reds represent warm. It appears the stations chosen in Russia were those that were likely to be warmer — reds and oranges. Further, with no information on what color to use for the areas where stations were ignored, guesses were made to fill in the empty grid boxes by extrapolating only from the warmer subset of stations.
More reds and oranges.
Partners in Crime: NOAA and NASA Complicit
Russia was not the only area that underwent cherry-picking, nor is CRU the only cherry-picker.
NOAA’s global climate database (GHCN) — according to CRU’s Phil Jones in the following email — mirrors the CRU data under attack:
Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center.
And NASA uses the GHCN, applying their own adjustments, as we reported in this story:
Perhaps one of the biggest issues with the global data is station dropout after 1990. Over 6000 stations were active in the mid-1990s. Just over 1000 are in use today. The stations that dropped out were mainly rural and at higher latitudes and altitudes — all cooler stations. This alone should account for part of the assessed warming. China had 100 stations in 1950, over 400 in 1960, then only 25 by 1990. This changing distribution makes any assessment of accurate change impossible.
I love it when a SCAM gets vaporized!!!
Anyone with a pulse and an IQ over 100 knew this was BS from the beginning. No one who is completely sure of their scientific conclusions tries to prevent others from reaching theirs. It will take years before the peer-review process regains its credibility.
There indeed has been man-made global warming — but it’s from the paint-by-numbers men and women at NOAA, NASA, and Hadley … and now, just like that, it’s gone.
An army of totalitarians – that controls the universities and the media – will not graciously concede defeat.
Chavez docet.
They have a communist revolution to carry on, truth cannot be taken into serious consideration.
After the nazis burning the books, now we have the commies burning the data.
Considering that this constitutes prima facie evidence of academic fraud on the taxpayers’ nickel, I’d say we have now moved to the point where criminal charges are in order. Against not only the “researchers” who engaged in the fraud, but the administrators who helped them conceal their chicanery and the politicians who sought to profit from it.
Somebody needs to go to jail. Period.
clear ether
eon
Mr. D’Aleo:
“There indeed has been man-made global warming — but it’s from the paint-by-numbers men and women at NOAA, NASA, and Hadley … and now, just like that, it’s gone.”
And now what are we to make of the NEXT big scientific concern,(that may actually be valid), when the politics of wealth redistribution and resource denial,(to some), has been allowed to pre-ordain what “Science” will vouch for?
There has to be academic and criminal show trials and heads rolling in a very loud, messy and public manner before any rational person will trust any scientifically-based input on policy decisions.
Closing ranks and sweeping this under the rug until it all blows over would be a grave mistake if you call yourself an academic or a scientist.
This scam got too big and too fast for this all to blow over.
Nice summary. One of a number that have found print in the last week or so. The wheels are truly coming off of the bus. Those with a vested interest in preserving the alarmist myth that disaster looms and a political response is required will continue the charade for a while longer but the revelations about the Russian data, exposure of shenanigans with the Darwin data in Australia and with stations in New Zealand, on top of McIntyre’s valiant work and sites like Watt’s Up With That collecting and reporting the growing mountain of evidence are refuting the “concensus” despite the dishonesty and malfeasance of the MSM. The other “scientists”, that is to say those with integrity and no dog in the fight, through the medium of the internet (and PJM are winning the battle. Now even the lay public and those without scientific credentials are beginning to see the light. Nobody, scientist or not, highly educated or not, enjoys being taken for a sucker and a fool. The anger will ultimately become a cascade and with respect for politicians at ever lower levels will fuel a very unpleasant reaction to the smug and self-interested people who fathered this alarmist hoax and the political abettors who have played it in what is increasingly clear as a transparent play for raw power and dishonest financial gain. Those returning from Hopenhagen will find that the game is being transformed. I have no sympathy for any of them and wish them only the severest of comeuppance. My respect they lost years ago so that isn’t an issue.
Gee, what silly little ol’ me just DOESN’T get is……why aren’t all the ‘environmentalists’ out dancing in the street at this ‘good news’?
I mean, global warming (insert ominous music here) was supposed to lead to mass extinctions and the potential end of civilization, if not of the planet itself (herself?). In the name of global warming (insert ominous music here) no sacrifice by the peoples of the developed countries all over the globe was deemed to be too great in the quest to end global warming (insert ominous music here).
But, golly gee willikers, seems like we may not be suffering from global warming (insert ominous music here) after all. Soooooooo, why isn’t this good news for the environmentalists? Hmmmmmmm?
Given the unimpeachable fact that they are fighting the discreditation of the theory of AGW with all their might and fury should reveal to EVERYONE that curbing CO2 emissions IN THE NAME OF GLOBAL WARMING was only the means to an end. And if this means is shot down, another will sprout in it’s place.
The issue is not the science…….that’s window dressing. The issue is ideology.
Just remember last fall, when the September data was ‘accidentally’ copied over to the month of October, at which point the CRU people were squawking that October was the HOTTEST OCTOBER EVER ON RECORD..
2008, folks. 2008. They were COPYING TEMPS FROM WARMER MONTHS INTO COOLER MONTHS AND CLAIMING THE COOLER MONTHS WERE WARMER.
And it was the Russian data they did this with. October turned out, as we know and common sense tells us, to be one of the cooler Octobers in Russian history.
B@$terds.
In 1994, a noted rancer researcher was forced to admit that his data was “cooked” and ultimately, Dr. Bernard Fisher of U of Pittsburgh had to step down. Climategate, more and more, looks like Yogi’s “deja vu all over again.”
Maybe you meatheads should consider what actual Russian *climate researchers* say about climate change instead of the apparent Russian equivalent of the AEI.
Can you blame them? Try to get a lucrative grant to disprove AGW.
And they accuse deniers of being paid by “Big Oil”!
It is no surprise when a mediocre dummy like Al Gore was made the leader of the world scientific climate research. Little Al is just another rich yuppy kid who got into Harvard because of his families political power and wealth and managed a pathetic C average in English Lit?Journalism; there is no proof that he ever took a college science course. Of course he was made to look like the genius of geniuses when he reaped in the hooky prizes that self important organizations give to each other. Gore has always been a fraud and continues to be a fraud and his devoted followers are no better that brain dead cult members.
Obama is now flying to Copenhagen
Hey Bambie- and Fathead- BC
Its called the ‘GORE EFFECT’
ROFLMAO
Obama is now flying to Copenhagen
Hey Bambie- and Fathead- BC
Its called the ‘GORE EFFECT’
ROFLMAO
#10 BC: Go over to my more recent. This is one of at least six examples where the selection of data led to imputed warming that isn’t there in the larger data set.
It could easily be settled: all CRU and the other have to do is make their data and procedures available so their results could be replicated.
Just a couple comments on the global warming con happening these days.
Where I live in NE Montana some 10′s of millions of years ago was populated by dinosaurs, apparently a warm place.
Where I grew up in NE Ohio, on the south shore of Lake Erie, 10,000 years ago was under a mile of ice, and the Great Lakes didn’t exist.
Obviously, things warm up and cool down, and did a long time before homo sapiens entered the picture. Thank you.
10. BC:
Your messiah has failed. Your god is dead. The next three years will see the ultimate unraveling of all of your ideology. There never was any “hope,” only vanity and pathetic worship of pop culture stupidity.
BAAL HAS SPOKEN!
do you think tha al gore will ever admit to being duped or complicit or duplicit.
This guys are gonna stick to their stories and the cap and trade bill will be shoved down our throats by our one party government
Bilgeman has a point. What happens when we have a real crisis. Is any one going to belive it after these political hacks have cried wolf the way they have. Curtis M also makes a good point. Why, oh why aren’t the sheeple out celebrating the end of global warming? Maybe they enjoy the fear, the outrage they can direct towards the “neo-cons” and corporate “polluters” and “wingnuts” as well as Sarah Palin. I’m just glad this whole mess is coming out into the open now. We’ve spent enough, just go away. Ahnold, that means you, don’t come back.
Well, that would explain why the head of the CRU threatened to erase the raw data if he were ever forced to release it, and why the IPCC reports ignore the satellite temperature data which shows almost no warming compared to the surface temperature data.
@10. BC: – Maybe you…
Maybe you should try standing in my backyard without a jacket. We’ll see how long you can make it before you’re pounding on the door begging to be let in. As I type this, it’s 17° out there; 8° with the wind. And winter is still officially days away. You’ve been had.
bc, jharp, moho, yes we did, and all the other Soros trolls, just get over it. Your anti-freedom agenda is coming off the rails. Relax…there will be other things you can do from your basement…like call center operations.
Another good, relevant article. Let’s hope these points are made ad nauseam cubed and spread widely. Talking to warming alarmists is like talking to a stop sign but there are ordinary fairly disinterested people out there on the social highway. These are the ones to speak to, repeatedly.
I think it is important to concisely say something about this during every social event that one attends – even if it’s only to two or three people at a time. Just be prepared for some very emotional, anti-capitalist blow back.
I guess we can light the Christmas tree lights after all and cook the beef roast as well. I was worried I might increase the earth’s temperature if my family celebrated Christmas.
Thank you Russians. Who would have thought that the Commies would swoop in to add to the Climategate fraud drama. Never thought I’d say, “Thank God for the Russians”!
speaking about fraud (because it IS, it’s not a case of human error, there is bad faith here)… can’t people start filing lawsuits?
oh please.. it was obvious to absolutely anyone who has a brain that this was total bs from the beginning. it will takes YEARS before the peer review process regains all its credibility.
also, yes people can start filing lawsuits – its like the case where the two scientists claimed they had created a fusion process yet the results were absolutely unverifiable. nobody could replicate their results, they were sued big time.
Rule #1 of the Liberal Handbook. “Never, ever, admit to making a mistake”. Simply move on to another calamity. Scientists can’t get major grants for saying everything is okay. They have to be showing a threat of imminent disaster, or the grant money dries up.
baal:
“#10 BC: Go over to my more recent. This is one of at least six examples where the selection of data led to imputed warming that isn’t there in the larger data set.
It could easily be settled: all CRU and the other have to do is make their data and procedures available so their results could be replicated.”
..not any more; the original data was deleted because they “ran out of room”.
You can all be assured that you’ll be greeted with not a single story on this in your morning paper.
BC – You are failing to grasp. I could care less what any “Climate Researcher” has to say. I want the raw data, nothing else.
I work with large data sets all the time. If I presented findings to executives based on such biased manipulations, I would be immediately fired.
27 Trigeek: Amen. Has Ehrlich ever recanted? Has Schneider ever admitted he was wrong about Global Cooling- even as he slithered into Global Warming? Not on your sweet bippy.
To Charlie Martin: there are already mountains and mountains of data out there. More to the point of the Russians, who have their own data sets, check out the first few pages of this report.
24@Oakley
Russian anarchism is alive and well
BC- Let me get this straight, did you back Ice Age warnings in the 70′s. Time Magazine said it was a sure thing. It made for great skating weather.
Just checked: water levels here in Hawaii are still normal (haven’t changed for the past 30 years). BC, please tell me when I need to start moving to ridgeline.
BC
Yes, there are “mountains and mountains” of data. Why don’t our esteemed scientists use ALL of it? Why don’t they release it to the public? We paid for it.
Page 4, first sentance of the Russian report blows it out of the water. Computer models prove NOTHING. Models can only show a microcosm. AND, can only interpolate or extrapolate from past occurances what MIGHT happen. This is the “dice have memory” school of thought. And all it take to manipulate a model is to leave out certain data sets and “adjust” others.
Why hang on to this so hard? The waste of money is a shame, but really, this is good news. We no longer have to live in fear.
bc, I read some of that russian report, and only made it as far as their claim that co2 is the most prevalent and important ghg. I can’t finish it now, but didn’t see water vapor listed, whichj makes up @97% of the atmosphere and holds heat to a far greater degree than any of the other ghg’s. I’ll get to the other stuff later (it’s late) but what I really want to know from you is…
bc, you evidently didn’t read the atlasshrugs post. The character assasination piece you supplied the link for didn’t address the topic, which is no surprise. “Kill the messenger!”, right? She didn’t wtite the piece, bc. You’d know that if you read the article! Nor would you have supplied the link for MPI.
MPI is a well-renowned and prestigious institution, yes. But, since you evidently didn’t look too closely at that one either, please do so. You’ll find that the information they used (and they actually linked to wikipedia, the home page, not the relevant data sets which I found after five minutes!) for the 1000 yr temps were supplied by folks like Mann and other group-thinkers mentioned in the CRU e-mails. Further, the data for the last part of the graph (in black) was supplied directly by the CRU @ East Anglia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Referring back to the wattsupwiththat post (where she found it!),
you probably shouldn’t have used MPI as your evidence. Not only was it based on data that’s proven to be falsified, but it’s one (yeah, one) guy! try these German scientists, all 130+ of ‘em!
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views
C’Mon, bc! If you’re interested in real answers, stop parroting the party line! Have you, in all seriousness, actually read the disections of the CRU e-mails? If you’re truly that hard-left, then you should do a better job of researching your arguments as you must know by now that most here are reading them and shooting them down. It took me about thirty minutes. The time stamp reflects the time I took to feed and bathe my kids. Point being, your stuff’s weak! I know others here bad-mouth you pretty regularly and have no hope for you, but I would like to know what you (YOU) think of the CRU e-mails, not the party line.
Try this link. I just found it. Frankly, it made my head hurt, but it’s another explanation of the falsification of the data.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html
over
“Maybe you meatheads should consider what actual Russian *climate researchers* say”
BC calling people names won’t change the fact that the books were cooked. Nor will adding more self serving liars to the extra-large pile we already have change anything.
Since you are having trouble understanding this issue, let me help.
Those “Experts” are lying. They are intentionally falsifying data and forging misleading conclusions for personal gain. The technical term is “Fraud”;
http://www.answers.com/topic/fraud
“n.
1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
3.
1. One that defrauds; a cheat.
2. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.
[Middle English fraude, from Old French, from Latin fraus, fraud-.]
It’s all a big lie and you fell for it.
Don’t feel to bad. Madeoff had salespeople out hustling more victims for his scam as the cops perp walked him to the jail. Some people just never get the memo. That is why I stepped up to help you out.
PS. If someone offers you a bridge in London with a real pretty clock on it, tell them you need to check the zoning and you’ll get back to them.
To nolan: water vapor is indeed the most prominent greenhouse gas, *BUT* it’s involved in a feedback affect with CO2: then warmer the atmosphere, the more moist it becomes, which in turn amplifies the effect of the increasing CO2. So you are back to humans causing the problem.
Believe it or not, real scientists are suppose to consider and factor in these little details.
@Curtis M Well spoken. Thanks, you just answered a question I’ve had for a long time. That is, why is it that for the most part, liberals believe in AGW and conservatives don’t?
you know…the thing is the Anglia emails don’t actually prove or disprove anything. There are so many different indicators from so many unrelated sources pointing to AGW that even if some of the most famous ones were exaggerated, only someone who really really wanted to believe AGW was false to begin with would think this proves their point. I’m disappointed talking to conservatives who challenge evolution and I’m disappointed that conservatives have ceded the conservation ethos so willingly. in the long run, this will be very very bad for the movement. Some posts here: after everything you still confuse weather and climate? who cares how cold it is where you live. Also even realclimate makes clear that yes, long term climate change is constant and that dinosaurs roamed ohio (assuming you believe in evolution)…none of this is the point. there is no way to reconcile the spike in CO2 (and methane from meat growing) and temp in the 2nd half of the 20th century other than AGW. Sun activity IS the major cause of climate change but can’t account for the current trend. As for the cooling trend, it is a dip in the curve not a reversal of the trend. Look http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/Images/CO2_temperature_rt.gif
But I suppose NASA is part of the conspiracy too?
Frankly the only ones who will be discredited by this in the long run is the conservative movement Please DONT DO THIS
BC:
1) You are just repeating the the fraudulent data set, and regurigtatign the political (and therefore non-scientific) political rhetoric of the Left. You refuse to respond in a rational, reasoned and logical manner to the the arguments and counter-arguments presented here. You cast aside reason for the regurgitation of ideology and ideologically motivated propaganda. This fails as sober argumentation.
s
2) Aside form the error mentioned in #1, Logically yoor response rest on two well known fallacies: a) Appeals to authority, and b) Ad Homonem attacks. This is not science. This is not reason. Here on these alone your argument fails and unambiguously so.
3) You have not the faintest idea what “science” is or what “Scientists” are or actually do. This is amply demonstrated by #1 through #3 above. This idiotic left wing conceit of your that only the people who agree with you are “real scientists” is demonstrable false (and risible) and has no place in serious discussion. That is just the point of “climategate”: Real science has found out the fakers; so-called “scientific institutions” and the processes around them have been compromised by political and personal agendas. This is not a matter of debate. To claim otherwise is to depart from science and reason, and enter the into the world of rhetoric and political machinations, and in this case the very suspect rhetorical dodges of sophistry and casuistry. You are not touting science; at best you indulge in the modern superstition of “Scientism”. At worst you are a liar.
You seem to assume that no one here is a trained scientist or engineer, or what you liberals comically term a “knowledge worker”. What a childish supposition. It is you trolls that lack scientific training and merely echo this psueod-scientific gobbledygook we get out of the AGW crowd and do so because, in your ignorance, it sound impressive to you. That fact that it impresses you so merely highlights your incompetence in these matters.
All of these hustles from the AGW crowd are set up just to con people like you into thinking that this is about science when in fact it is about nothing of the sort. You may not have the soundness of character to understand what is happening and admit that you are wrong, but but i assure you thatthe rest of us are made of strnger stuff.
disillusioned conservative:
Frankly the only ones who will be discredited by this in the long run is the conservative movement Please DONT DO THIS
Hogwash. And stop posing as a conservative. You a are no such thing. You are a moby.
Science is science. All they need do is put their data and methods out there. Let them publish the code of their models. This is something all other scientists are required to do. Why are “climate scientists” exempt? It has nothing to do with being conservative and the fact that you wish to politicize it just shows that you are not conservative at all.
I say that you are a liar. You are a leftist posing as a conservative.
40. disillusioned conservative:
Charles? is that you?
getting lonely for some human companionship?
world wide drought morphed into the
population bomb morphed into
global cooling morphed into the
ozone hoe morphed into
global warming morphed into the
climate change . . .
WHAT NEXT?
NO. NO ONE WILL GO ON TRIAL. THEY NEVER HAVE. BUT THEY’VE GOT YOUR MONEY.
It’s easy to understand why global warming was an easy sell. I grew up in NY in 50′s and it was much colder then than it is now. the scam is that man is the culprit and not natural ebb and flow of solar radiation and other phenomena.
The global warming crowd just wants an excuse to control human behavior and economies.
The Indians, Chinese and Russians will complete;y ignore all of this.
disillusioned conservative
Since the CO2 level is almost at it’s lowest concentration in history. 7000ppm when life started on this planet and 2000ppm during the dinosaur era, a mere 100ppm rise in the last 100 years to 385ppm doesn’t fill me with fear for the future. Add to that the fact that temperature and CO2 concentration have never tracked together, what you are left with is a total non-issue. The CRU data was faked and if the other data matches the CRU data then they are all suspect until proven true. CO2 is plant food and it is one of the fundamental building blocks of life on this planet.
@ #40
Yes NASA’s head of Goddard has been caught fudging the data on more than one occasion. Also if you think that the climate is static you’re an idiot, the Earth and the climate is constantly changing and has been since it was formed and will continue to do so with or without humans. The scope of time over which this occurs is just generally too vast for humans to really conceptualize. It also varies as well, sometimes the change is glacial taking centuries, millennia, or tens of millennia where other times its incredibly rapid and occurs in a few years or decades.
Think back to high school, do remember that little thing called a “control group”? You know like in pharmaceutical tests where they give some sugar pills? Well the one thing people seem to forget is that with all this “climate science” there is no control to compare against. That invalidates their conclusions right there. If we had another Earth exactly like ours in every way but lacking the human species that would be an accurate control.
You seem to forget that its only recently that people actually were able to measure global climate and compare notes in anything like a timely manner. The Earth is known to have had both warmer and colder periods before Humans and the Industrial Revolution. The “climate” has also varied greatly with plains becoming tundra, forests becoming deserts, seas forming & drying up, etc. as is shown in both the fossil and geological record. Also our understanding of the universe is not complete enough to actually factor all variables. The Sun, Earth’s orbit, rotation, axial tilt, magnetic field, the Moon, planets, and even other star systems or galaxies all have an effect on our planet and environment however small.
Its also known that the Earth had a much higher atmospheric CO2 content, so high in fact that current species could not exist. Its also known that during several of these periods of higher CO2 that the Earth was colder than it is now.
Also its not about “conservation” its about government intrusion into every aspect of your life. Conservation is not buying overpriced, trendy, “green” products, mercury filled light bulbs, and ballooning government. You willfully ignore the real cost of these supposedly “environmentally friendly” products, often they cause as much or more pollution as traditional products. On top of that the nut job environmentalists fight wind and solar energy projects with just as much effort as they do oil drilling, refineries, and nuclear plants. There is no pleasing these people short of everyone but them going back running around naked and living in caves. Its all about control, them controlling others.
disillusioned conservative:
“you know…the thing is the Anglia emails don’t actually prove or disprove anything.”
First of all, the issue with Anglia (CRU) is NOT JUST a bunch of e-mails. The vast majority of the information released was computer code and data. Which apparently was the code and data which was being SOUGHT through various FOI requests but which had been withheld, for years, from the powers in charge at the CRU. And now that the code and data is out, it is becoming evident why they fought the release of the data.
“There are so many different indicators from so many unrelated sources pointing to AGW….”
Who are also fighting the release of their raw data and, when data does come out from these ‘unrelated sources’, more evidence of data tampering is coming to light.
“….that even if some of the most famous ones were exaggerated, only someone who really really wanted to believe AGW was false to begin with would think this proves their point.”
IF some of the most famous ones were exaggerated? Since the most famous (and INFLUENTIAL) ones WERE exaggerated, it appears as though only someone who really really wanted to believe AGW was TRUE to begin with would think that all of this should be ignored.
So tell us – why would a ‘disillusioned conservative’ such as yourself really really REALLY want to believe (have faith?) that AGW was true to begin with?
Shouldn’t the revelation that, perhaps, AGW isn’t actually occurring be GOOD NEWS to those interested in saving the planet?
To Old Soldier: what you and the other are not failing to grasp is the sheer enormity of the data involved — I don’t know what “raw data” you deal with, but no matter how large you might think it is, it’s likely no more than a tiny fraction of a newspaper sports page worth compared to what climate researchers deal with regularly.
But here are some more data sources
#38: ‘To nolan: water vapor is indeed the most prominent greenhouse gas, *BUT* it’s involved in a feedback affect with CO2: then warmer the atmosphere, the more moist it becomes, which in turn amplifies the effect of the increasing CO2. So you are back to humans causing the problem.’
Not quite correct.
Any discussion with no mention as to cloud dynamics and air dynamics is incomplete. One can stick with water only and say that more water vapor induces more heating and more heating induces even more water vapor. etc. etc. And you have a runaway system. Looking at the past 2 billion years, co2 has been much higher and there were no runaway effect.
co2 has SOME effect on climate but most of its effects are moderated by water and air dynamics.
An analogy: if I drink orange juice (an acid), my blood pH will go down. The HORROR! Acidemia! Hospital quick! However the blood has a co3/hco3 buffer system to moderate the pH change.
I’m also one who thinks AGW is a crock, but what about the pics? Is it just a matter of photoshopped pics, and if so, why hasn’t anyone picked it up?
http://gfl.usgs.gov/Publications.shtml
Is the US government in on the fraud?
In order to truely understand the impot of this mess one has to realise that without the “Unprecidented Warming” of the 20th century there is no AWG. That is why the temperature record is important. Next AWG also relys on a very shaky assumption that the positive forcings of Carbon Dioxide which does cause warming and which does cause more water vapor in the air does not have any equal negative feedbacks of equal value. The climate models used are based on this asumption. I am somewhat over simplifying this but the core argument is still sound. If the assumtions made by the AWG modelers were correct then the earth would have had a runaway process several times in history and the geological record just does not support that. AWG is based on one assumption after another with no proof of any of the assumptions. It does not mean it is totally wrong but the intensity of the effect is what is in question.
The latest news from Russia, which will be easily verified by an checking the raw data and then processing it will show if any intentional biases were inserted into the temperature record. Surface temperature are not the best records to use but it is what we have to work with. The good news is this because of the concern raised by Global Warming we are begininng to have a more robust way of actually measuring what is going on and within a few decades much better science will be the result. It is the Alarmists that I have the most trouble with. Even if the worst case of temperature increase were to occur the actual temperature increase in the regions where people live would not be all that bad. Most warming will occur above and below the arctic circle. The antarctic is so cold that Ice would actually increase, not decrease, because of the increase in water vapor and that leads to more snow and ice.
Here’s is an example of how one of your champions, here at PM, is viewed by the world press. Poor Inhofe…nobody knows who he is, or cares. And by implication, nobody with credible status regarding the climate issue cares about the conspiracy theories he (or you lot, here) proselytizes:
One reporter asked Inhofe (at Copenhagen) if he was referring to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another reporter — this one from Der Spiegel — told the senator: “You’re ridiculous.”
Inhofe ignored the jab, fielded a few more questions, then raced to the airport for the nine-hour flight back to Washington.
After Inhofe left, some reporters were still a bit confused about what had happened and who he was.
“His name is Inhofe,” a German journalist told a Japanese reporter, “but I don’t know if it’s one or two f’s.”
I see no reason why the world press would give up on pushing this fraud. Their number one goal seems to be a one world regime and they think global warming lies will accomplish that. Nothing that they say can be verified. 100% fraudsters every one of them.
Albert:
“Here’s is an example of how one of your champions, here at PM, is viewed by the world press. Poor Inhofe…nobody knows who he is, or cares.”
Okay. Not sure what your point is. Are you trying to say that we’re wrong because…..the ‘world press’ doesn’t do their job?
Albert:
What a stupid comment about Jim Inhofe not being known by EUroweenies. BFD. Is that the best you have?
Inhofe has steadfastly ignored the ridicule of back benchers like you as he stood up to this hoax, calling it exactly what it was.
He has stared all of you grass-skirters down and now you don’t know what to do. You might as well dance a few more circles around the fire before it goes out. Too bad you’re not going to get anything from any of us to throw in the fire like you had planned.
Albert,
What nonsense. Some glib, ignorant, idiot in the media (but i repeat myself) mouths off to a US senator and that invalidates what Inhofe has to say. How childish of you to think such a thing.
Do you imagine that our future should hinge on a popularity contest in the left wong media.
Gore is well know; does this make him less of a liar and a hustler? Of course not.
This is the problem with young trolls like you. You are so mired in the false media world of the left that you imagine taht unless that world approves of something it is not so. That is why the left created that false world in the first place: To manipulate weak minds such as yours.
If the history of science proves anything, it proves that superficial minds of any age have little grasp of the real, physical world.
Your “assertion” (or whatever it is) has not the slightest rational, intellectual or scientific basis. Fact are facts, science is science. It matter little who asserts them or puts out the science. That is how science works.
On the other hand you have commuist/populist tyrants like Mugabe and Chavez up there screaming about AGW, and screaming against the West. They know an open bar when they see one.
What about that?
Are you saying the words and thoughts an honorable and decent Senior like Inhofe is worth less than bloody gangsters like Chavez?
‘
If so, your need to do some soul searching as your moral compass is poining in the wrong direction.
BC: You need to get over this narcissistic fantasy of yours that you have some deeper grasp of this matter than have other here. You have less grasp of it, ad your every posting shows.
Stop pretending you have this intellectual and scientific depth and capability.
You do not. You are clearly demonstrating this sad fact with every utterance. You cannot even muster a valid logical argument to one logicalpoint peeople here have put forward, let make a <i<scientific rebuttle.
You keep sending them back to ideologically bias web sites, or comprised studies.
You are quire literally making a fool out of yourself. Stop pretending that you are something that you are not. Stoppretending that repeating lies is telling the truth.
If you have some point make make it. But stop repeating the propaganda of liars and imagined that it is some sort of insight on your part. And stop this absurd supercilious attitude of yours, you are younger that the youngest child of great many of the people here, and one of the least educated or accomplished commenters. You are basically just an ill-informe troll.
Many here have advanced degrees from major univesities and have worked in major institutions or run their own businesses. They are conserviative for heaven;s sake, they actually do something in the world. A large segment of the APS is up in arms about teir offcial stance on AGW and have are demanding it back away from it. Whay owuld that be the cae if what you say is true?
The warmist “scientific fraud” crowd has been caught lying, and lying in the CORE data sets.
There is no prepondoursness of evidence. What you say is simply not true. That is just the point. It is demostrubly not so. Stop asserting that this is the case. The core data set for the IPCC has been comprised, as well as the NOAA set and apparently the NASA set as well. You are literally not making any sense at all. You are making a fool out of yourself, is what you are doing.
I’m an saddened by all of this. As I’m 49 years, and grew up during some of
‘Cold War’ learning how the Russians and Pravda were such ‘liars’. My father
flew RB-57 Canberra recon aircraft, and died in one.
Now, to learn that the ones that lie, cheat, and steal from the common people
are the Western rulers. And the HONEST leaders are Soviet….
Just unbelievable how the States is going downhill so fast since N.A.F.T.A. and
the other ‘treaties’ that are so Treasonous, for the good of the world.
On the bright side, Goldman Sucks will get millions of taxpayer funded bonuses,
and many of Obama’s cronies will get richer while even more U.S. jobs are exported. Not really the ‘Change’ most thought, as we hoped for change to
the better, not worse.
Amos (Zionist Minion):
“I’m also one who thinks AGW is a crock, but what about the pics? Is it just a matter of photoshopped pics, and if so, why hasn’t anyone picked it up?
http://gfl.usgs.gov/Publications.shtml“
The pics. I noticed that they are nicely displayed up there suitable for poster sized downloading. I wonder why?
The first ‘poster’ shows two aerials of the coast of Barrow Alaska, one labeled ‘July 2006′ shows ‘lots’ of pack ice, the second labeled ‘July 2007′ shows zero pack ice.
WHOA NELLY! STOP THE PRESSES! THE ARCTIC IS MELTING!!!! Not so fast skippy….in the text writeup I find “The town of Barrow, Alaska, is on the coast of the Beaufort Sea. Landfast ice forms along the coast in the winter, and generally melts or breaks away by mid July. At this time of year the pack ice can be close to shore (as in 2006) or farther off shore (as in 2007).”
See that? “Generally melts or breaks away BY mid July”. The 2006 photo is from July 20 which would indicate a LATER THAN NORMAL breakup/melting (ie. COLDER than normal perhaps?) July. The 2007 photo actually AGREES with the writeup of ‘generally melts or breaks away by mid July’.
I also wonder why we don’t see similar photos for 2005? 2008? 2009? Perhaps they aren’t quite a ‘dramatic’? Perhaps they don’t fit the narrative? Nah……
The second ‘poster’ show two aerials of the Beaufort Sea: one in August of 2001, the other in August of 2007. Same impression – OMG the Artic is MELTING!!!!!!
In the blurb under the two photos one finds: “Observations of sea ice conditions reveal considerable year to year variability.”
No kidding. Looking through that same website one can find a photo of the Beufort from August 22, 1999 which shows LESS ICE than the 2007 photo and a photo from September 4, 2006 which shows MORE ICE than the 2001 photo.
It would have JUST AS FACTUAL, and even more dramatic, to show the 1999 photo (with less ice that 2007) and the 2006 photo (with more ice than 2001) and yet left everybody with the opposite impression.
No photoshop needed; just cherry-picking the data (or in this case, the images) to put out there.
It would seem like the scare is over, but the rest of the world is still just swirling around this non-issue like dandelion fluff in a dust devil.They’re still debating in Copenhagen and still spreading propaganda all over the net.
We could use some of you guys at the Climate Pool. All I can do is drop links and wish there was a way to b***h slap a few traitors. Most of us there can’t offer up a real debate.Amazing how many Americans are willing to just roll over and take it, no questions asked….
Thanks alot for keeping us informed PJM.You make MSM seem laughable at best.
http://www.facebook.com/edittopic.php?uid=183120636086&topic=12836&action=4#/TheClimatePool
Sorry, I gave you a bad link.
http://www.facebook.com/TheClimatePool
To Friedfish2718: No.
To Mongoose: According to your logic, *all* scientific sites are “ideologically biased” cuz there isn’t a single legitimate scientific site that supports any of the right wing rubbish about manmade global warming not being real, and all of the not quite smarter than a 5th grader amateur “analysis” by random blog people is not going to change that. As Colbert once said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
I’m gonna play devils advocate for just a minute. My dad used to say when confronted by some widely publicised crock of cr*p:
“Never atribute to bad intentions what can be explained by laziness and incompetence.”
There is a reason why most of the AGW boosters work for various governments.
Trying to figure out something; this is from the Weather Channel:
The bottom line is that with the rate of greenhouse gas emissions increasing, a significant warming trend is expected to also continue. This warming will manifest itself in a variety of ways, and shifts in climate could occur quickly, so while society needs to continue to wrestle with the difficult issues involved with mitigation of the causes of global warming, an increased focus should be placed on adaptation to the effects of global warming given the sensitivity of civilizations and ecosystems to rapid climate change.
Potential outcomes range from moderate and manageable to extreme and catastrophic, depending on a number of factors including location and type of effect, and amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Not every location and its inhabitants will be affected equally, but the more the planet warms, the fewer “winners” and the more “losers” there will be as a result of the changes in climate. The potential exists for the climate to reach a “tipping point,” if it hasn’t already done so, beyond which radical and irreversible changes occur.
Now, I believe the scientific method, or lack thereof, certainly trashes the “anthopogenic” climate change theory. But, this statement above is current on the Weather Channel site. What input does or did the author of the article have on the official statement on the site? Or is it due for a revision?
bc, I looked at most of your data, even after reading other posters responses. Still looks weak.
The link to gizmag was pointless in that it only means there’s more space to store fraudulent data.
Your response to friendfish2718, your premise about water vapor being involved w/ co2 in a positive feedback loop may be scientifically sound, but fails to acknowledge that the earth had many periods when co2 was much higher, temps were much higher, humidity was also much higher, but not always at the same time. This link is informative. HERE
Right wing rubbish? Not supported by legitimate scientific websites? Your Alinsky tactics are boorish at best, but it does seem to be your MO, as with the other post you keep running away from…
bc, you evidently didn’t read the atlasshrugs post. The character assasination piece you supplied the link for didn’t address the topic, which is no surprise. “Kill the messenger!”, right? She didn’t wtite the piece, bc. You’d know that if you read the article! Nor would you have supplied the link for MPI.
MPI is a well-renowned and prestigious institution, yes. But, since you evidently didn’t look too closely at that one either, please do so. You’ll find that the information they used (and they actually linked to wikipedia, the home page, not the relevant data sets which I found after five minutes!) for the 1000 yr temps were supplied by folks like Mann and other group-thinkers mentioned in the CRU e-mails. Further, the data for the last part of the graph (in black) was supplied directly by the CRU @ East Anglia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Referring back to the wattsupwiththat post (where she found it!),
you probably shouldn’t have used MPI as your evidence. Not only was it based on data that’s proven to be falsified, but it’s one (yeah, one) guy! try these German scientists, all 130+ of ‘em!
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views
C’Mon, bc! If you’re interested in real answers, stop parroting the party line! Have you, in all seriousness, actually read the disections of the CRU e-mails? If you’re truly that hard-left, then you should do a better job of researching your arguments as you must know by now that most here are reading them and shooting them down. It took me about thirty minutes. The time stamp reflects the time I took to feed and bathe my kids. Point being, your stuff’s weak! I know others here bad-mouth you pretty regularly and have no hope for you, but I would like to know what you (YOU) think of the CRU e-mails, not the party line.
Try this link. I just found it. Frankly, it made my head hurt, but it’s another explanation of the falsification of the data.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html
over
bc, sorry, the link I wanted didn’t transfer. Here it is.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Speaking of the water vapor issue, do you support fuel-cell technology as a viable alternative to fossil-fuel?
Also, I’m not conceding the science, but what does it mean to you that the agw crowd is made up of hard-left marxist types? The hammer and sickle flags, the signs calling for the downfall of capitalism and the West in general? Does this signify anything to you about the motives of those pushing this crap? Are you in favor of that? Are you a proponent of the transfer of wealth to third world nations?
This whole pile of crap is nothing but a shakedown ala acorn using the cra to “democratize capital”, but on a global scale! The science is almost irrelevant. It seems to be distracting those of us who are right (not just on the right, but correct) from focusing on the true nature of the enemy’s tactics. Some get it, and are fighting the “science” of the agw crowd, but personally, I’m looking forward to the coming backlash.
Also, grow up! Your points will go alot further if it appears that you have the confidence of facts behind you. As it stands, you’re no better than the petty, scheming, unprofessional, cowardly, (I could go on) folks which they revealed themselves to be in the CRU e-mails. If the data was sound they would have provided it. You seem to be providing lots of data that’s been found wanting, to put it mildly.
over
BC is a known fool and liar. Ignore him. Most of us do.
Miked @68; I know, I know! I don’t know why I think I can get him to realize the error of his ways, but I’ll give a shot for a little longer. I guess it’s ‘cuz I’m raising four kids and find myself with lots of patience and a propensity to explain things as of late.
BC:
It’s over.
Ken
Dallas
Until mankind learns to restrict his breeding all efforts to counter-act global warming will be futile. Don’t any of you get it? Six and a half billion people screwing each other witless. And we hoped that Copenhagen could produce any kind of action? All we are doing is making the world a more comfortable place for another billion people to be born.
All that was achieved at Copenhagen was the world’s costliest photo-shoot.
There are 5 key questions in the global warming debate:
1) Has it warmed since man began using thermometers to track air temperatures in 1850?
2) How much has it warmed?
3) How does this warming compare to past climate change?
4) What is the evidence that man has a role in the warming?
5) What is the evidence that additional warming will be harmful?
On question 1, there is a huge amount of data showing that some warming has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age — thank goodness! Question 1 can be answered with certainty: Yes.
However, as one evaluates the other questions, this certainty dissolves and the answers become much more ambiguous.
2) Evidence indicates that urban heat island still contaminates the surface record — and the CRU e-mails and data give us reason to believe that the data has been fudged and cherry picked — so question 2 can’t really be answered except to note that all the numbers you’ve heard to date are likely too high.
3) The “hockey stick” temperature reconstructions purporting to show that recent warming is “unprecedented” have been repeatedly exposed and refuted. So question 3 is completely unknown — except that we know in the very distant past it has been much hotter and CO2 levels have been 17 times as high as at present.
-4) The primary evidence that man has played a role comes from the 15 different climate models used by the IPCC — but none of the climate models accurately predicts all of the observed temperatures. Those models whose results match the surface observations predict far more warming of the tropical troposphere than has been observed to date — while those models whose results match the troposphere observations predict virtually no warming at the surface. None of the models matches reality.
5) The evidence that additional warming will be catastrophic for mankind is almost entirely pure speculation and cherry picking of data. For instance, we hear endlessly about the decrease in the Arctic summer ice — but we never hear about the fact that the ice also disappeared there in the 1950s — just as we also never hear about the fact that ice extent in Antarctica is increasing.
Here is the point: Alarmists like “BC” pretend that the entire case for AGW is known with the same certainty as question 1 — when in fact, the rest of the case is on very shaky grounds that are getting shakier by the day.
Battle of the googlepedists – believing what you’ve been told to believe.
To Nolan: Those cycles were already factored in and they didn’t explain what’s happening *now*. Lot’s of things can cause why, say, a car won’t start. Most people will immediately suspect a weak battery, but if that turns out not to be problem, there is a long checklist of alternative explanations that will have to be explored in turn. Most people seem to believe that placing the blame on human activity for this current global warming cycle is a recent theory — not really. It was a very long time in developing and its acceptance did not come easily (the American Meteorological Society didn’t come around until 2007)
As far as I’m concerned, the best, most readable and comprehensive history of how scientists first became suspicious of CO2′s role in global climate and mankind’s possible role in it, is this. It’s a good, good and informative read that kind of puts things in perspective. I think.
Having difficulty seeing my posts. Server is claiming duplicate posts. I have more info bc.
Mr. D’Aleo, I can’t see a post, and it’s claiming duplicates when I re-submit. Any assistance you can offer?
Thanks
Not sure what his name is, but I did read that the man who founded “The Weather Channel” retired recently. Seems once he was out of that corporate environment, he decided to tell the world what he really thought about AGW.
He specifically stated he thinks, its all a hoax of historic proportions. Turns out the folks running the channel since it went public, also have bought into the AGW theory & they also want any weather person who does not subscribe to the theory, to be discredited & their credentials taken from them. Mean spirited, huh?
The very real fact is, we have discovered that data was destroyed, and data was ‘manipulated or homogenized”, and that any researcher whose positions were not lockstep w/ the AGW crowd, were to be marginalized & their research was to be excluded from scientific journals.
Seems to me the socialists of the world want us to reduce our successes, because their socialist government systems have been failing & they do not want their peoples to be upset with them.
So we end up w/ the likes of Chavez or Mugabe et al, screaming we are the danger & we must give them our money to make things right.
Except, we should not ask to be able to verify the money is being used to actually do something about AGW. We should just, ‘trust them.”
Yeah, right!
The gig is up & its time we prosecute those who have been selling all on a falsified theory based on these folks greedy desires to bilk others out of their money & to impose governmental control over others in the spirit of & actually implementing, draconian government control over average people just like histories tyrants.
BC:
Cooked data. It doesn’t matter how MUCH, but what QUALITY.
And quoting RealClimate is hilarious seeing they are at the center of the fraud.
AGW Researcher: No, we didn’t cook the data, we promise.
BC: Okay, good enough.
Operative word: gullible
#74 BC wrote, “As far as I’m concerned, the best, most readable and comprehensive history of how scientists first became suspicious of CO2’s role in global climate and mankind’s possible role in it, is this. It’s a good, good and informative read that kind of puts things in perspective. I think.”
Yeah, it is definitely worth reading. It provides a much larger context for the whole process of scientists over the last 100+ years learning more and more about CO2. I am not a believer…yet, but your link goes far beyond a lot of the dismissals fired off here regarding why CO2 can’t be the major culprit in recent warming.
Anyone who cares enough to comment on this issue should check out that site and can learn why it is possible to have high CO2 levels and a world covered with ice…just not for long. This link took me a long time to read (mixed in with NFL football) but if folks read it, we might be able to do something more productive around here than just trade insults (as much fun as that might be.)
Anybody who thinks the peer-review process means anything anymore has forgotten the Michael Bellesiles affair. This fellow got the history scholars’ most prestigious award for a fraudulent book. The history crowd were so busy slapping each other on the back over how Bellesiles had pwned the “evil NRA” that they somehow failed to notice that he had sourced material that didn’t actually exist, sometimes from institutions that didn’t actually exist, either. It took two or three maverick, ideologically-driven researchers who weren’t “part of the old boys’ club” to bring him down, expose his work for the fraud it was, get his award retracted, and get the liar fired… and every step of the way, the “community with the consensus” were trying to shut up and shut out the debunkers. Does any of this sound familiar from the global whining game?
Tiger Woods is also a fine moral gentleman He has been extensivley peer reviewed. I am sure there are tramp stamps that support his integrity.
Even wiki says global warming is proven. They edit posts saying otherwise.
bc & Dwight @79 The history lesson of CO2 is addressed and debunked here.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
thanks for this!!
Hi just thought we would let you know something.. This can be twice now i’ve landed in your blog within the last few 30 days hunting for totally unrelated things. Spooky or what?