Fast Facts About Climategate
What It’s About
On the night of November 19, a compressed file containing 1,073 emails and almost 3,600 other files mysteriously appeared on a download site in Siberia. These emails and files had somehow been taken from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK. This became known as Climategate.
The CRU and its director, Dr. Phil Jones, are important because the CRU is a central point for data collection, storage, and analysis of climate data. And Dr. Jones is one of the lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 report, which is the basis for much of the current political drive for CO2 limits.
The theory IPCC favors for climate change is that human-caused CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm beyond what would naturally happen.
The Climategate files held many embarrassing revelations. They appear to show collusion on the part of many of the top names in climate science:
- to subvert peer review and prevent publication of papers that didn’t completely agree with the favored theory;
- to manipulate data, and the analysis of data, to make the best case for the favored theory;
- to avoid releasing their data under the Freedom of Information laws in the U.S. and UK.
- The consensus is not scientific as much as it is political.
What we find out from the emails is that Jones and a number of others were using underhanded manipulations to suppress scientific publications that disagreed with the CO2-caused AGW theory. There is no scientific consensus if all the science isn’t being considered.
- There’s a difference between “global warming,” “anthropogenic (caused by humans) global warming,” and “anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2.”
-
- The Climategate files don’t call global warming into question, but they make some of the science of anthropogenic global warming more suspect, and they make it clear that “forcings” other than CO2 have not been fairly considered.
- There has clearly been significant warming in the last 400 years — since the “Little Ice Age”. That’s how we know it was the Little Ice Age.
- There is good reason to believe that humans may be accounting for some warming — and some cooling, for that matter. But we don’t know how much.
- The case for all or most of the warming being due to CO2 was not as unquestionable as it was presented to be, and from the Climategate files we know that even that case was being slanted significantly.
- … and the program codes will be yielding new surprises for a while to come.
About the Politics
- Science invariably has politics involved. That’s because science is invariably done by people.
- The key to science is “trust but verify”: you trust the science because you are assured you can verify it if necessary. The Climategate files show the CRU clique wanted to be trusted, but didn’t want to be verified.
- The science was being used politically long before we think it was.
About the Finances:
- “Global warming” was a big source of grants and funding.
- “Global warming scientists” got to go to all the best conferences. (Tahiti? Gstaad?)
- Ultimately, there are billions of dollars to be made off of “global warming.”
For More Information
Charlie:
thanks for the cliff’s notes on this thing. This is just what I needed. Cheers–tc
Thought everyone could use a chuckle…set to music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
Good summary. Under science, I would add the data. They claim the raw data were lost. Even if the code works correctly, we need to know the results can be reproduced starting with the raw data.
Global Warming / Climate change is a Trojan horse for
restructuring the balance of world power.
It is a tax scam and a tool to wrest power.
As usual Americans are deeply divided along political lines.
See what the Seattle P.I crowd said before and after.
http://www.seattlepi.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=2014
Environmentalism is a most ingenius racket. It has legions and armies of free laborers, people who love the Earth and want to do their part and believe every lie told in the name of the environment. We should pray that recent revelations about the racket and its owners/profiteers will turn the free labor against them.
“The consensus is not scientific as much as it is political.”
Exactly.
In science, you test your hypothesis with real empirical data. So a test of the GCMs(global climate models) which all predict a hotspot between +-15 latitude finds, nothing, nada, zip, zero. Therefore all the computer models are wrong, since you can verify their key output does not exist, and the hypothesis that says CO2 causes warming is likewise falsified.
In a sane world that would be the end of it … need new hypothesis.
It shows alot about the state of education in this country. If it’s on TV it’s believable to the x/y generation.
Maybe it’s a lot worse then we know. What proof do we have that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas at all? The same kind of fraud that produced AGW? Let’s have them trot out their data on that subject, unless they’ve destroyed that too.
Charlie,
You forgot to mention in the funding section, that the emails show them seeking funding from the ever-evil “big oil.” Since a common critique of skeptics, this otherwise unremarkable piece of information is important.
Perhaps a bit too abbreviated, but a good start.
It helps to put this into perspective if you’d been following the drama at ClimateAudit over the past few years. Nobody there is the least bit surprised by anything other than their brazenness and stupidity. The general reaction is akin to learning that Nixon was keeping tapes.
If anyone is interested in what *real* hard scientists (the physicists at CERN) have to say about climate, this is one of the most informative hours you can ever spend:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate-revolt-of-the-physicists
(notice the admission of uncertainties and unknowns, and complete absence of “the science is settled” crap. Science is *never* settled).
What is this Greenhouse Bull Shit to begin with? Just the use of the term gives some creditability to AGW types and their next attempt at extortion, on behalf of the planet of course.
At a get together last night of us “crumblies”, old people, we were having quite a laugh about Global warming and its followers. The best line of the night was if they lived in our age of making a living we would have to build more bridges for the stupid son’s abitches to live under.
After a long night, about 9:30 or so, we decided we would all do something the next day for our planet, increase our carbon footprint, what ever the hell that really is, and plant a tree.
Just imagine what this Country would look like if Al Gore had become President. We must all give thanks that it didn’t happen ! (and that’s not to say that Obama isn’t a catastrophe in his on right ! )
Nice synopsis of an incredible scandal and very eye-opening Unfortunately it won’t make a damn bit of difference. The global-warming zealots (or “climate change” zealots or whatever they are) have decreed in their best despotic/totalitarian tones that “The science is settled.” Actually they don’t give much of a damn about the actual science since it is the politics it supports that is critical. The MSM has buried the CRU releases in the back pages and, instead, is beating the drums more frantically than ever for “Copenhagen.” The left is playing for “all the marbles” with this one. They want a “worldwide environmental policy” as to further a redistibutionist agenda and curtail much-hated economic (and other) liberties. At this writing it looks like Obama is going to be an active participant in the Copenhagen negotiations and come back with a treaty “to reduce carbon emissions” that he will seek to impose on the U.S. Already we are starting to see the sort of frantic electioneering on this issue that has marked other Obama policy initiatives. Global warming skeptics can expect the same reception at Copenhagen that Galileo got from the Renaissance papacy.
Thank you for this brilliant synthesis.
And thank you to
#12 Bohemond
for the excellent link.
A lecture that every thinking person should watch.
When Al gore said the “the science is complete”-”the debate is over”, I stopped listening. This isn’t science and there certainly was never a debate. Of particular interest is Gore’s complete unwillingness to debate anyone. These are giant red flags in my view. This should not be tolerated by any serious critical thinker.
Climategate was inevitable and rightly so. The practice of portraying learned PHD’s in science who question AWG, not climate change, as skeptics/deniers/hicks from the backwoods is unconscionable.
Furthermore there are not just a ‘few’ of these skeptics as portrayed by the news media, indeed there are thousands upon thousands. Read Up.
#9 Bill: Maybe it’s a lot worse then we know. What proof do we have that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas at all? The same kind of fraud that produced AGW?
Bill, it’s a lot stronger than that. This is a “live” document, plus I’m working on another one to get more detail on the science; I’ll get links in.
#10 John: That came out after this left my virtual hands; it will be added.
#11: Calvin, tell me what you would add. In fact, everyone, suggest additions in the comments. Two requests: include citations for whatever you’re suggesting, and don’t bother with the ones saying, eg, that everyone involved is a socialist and want to create a world government. There are plenty of excitable people covering that already.
HACKED EMAILS – GET THE FACTS! – From the National Wildlife Federation: The latest attack on climate science is simply another attempt to distract from the reality that the world is warming more than ever and the buildup of heat-trapping pollution in our atmosphere is higher than it’s been in 15 million years. Get the facts here: http://www.fightcleanenergysmears.org/NWF%20Factsheet.pdf — http://bit.ly/Debunked
And BTW, for an in-depth discussion, I find this most excellent. Just out, and the best I’ve seen so far. Of course, anyone wanting to get up to speed should also read Willis Eschenbach’s piece from a week or so ago at WattsUpWithThat.com.
Sorry, Charlie, I didn’t notice your request in #18. The link in 19 has a lot of good material, and there’s a technical dimension to this as well as a political dimension. The political dimension is why I recommended Willis’ piece. It’s here. Willis’ piece gives you a good picture of why i said that no one who was actually following this issue is surprised. The FOIA stonewalling was already well documented at Climateaudit.
If you want to keep this at the “Cliff Notes” level of brevety, you have a real quandary, because this is a huge issue. I can’t make any specific recommendations; you have a smorgasbord of material the size of the moon to work with.
Remember the “cold fusion” business in the ’80′s? That nonsense was nipped in the bud. Unfortunately, way too much money has gone into AGW and too many personal fortunes are involved. Not to mention ideology. They’re not going to give this one up without a fight.
#19 Ruth: Once we get the peer review process back on track, and some of the competing ideas have a chance to be heard, then we’ll have a chance o evaluate the scientific status of those claims. I’d never make fun of someone’s religion, so I’m otherwise limited.
#20,21 Calvin: The point of this is to be at a Cliff’s notes level, but we’re running a fair bot of more detailed coverave. Our general Climategate page http://climate-gate.com/ should very quickly have an index of all of them, and of course the link on my name above will take you to everything I’ve done on the topic.
Big storm, small teacup. Its the pollution and what we are going to do about it. The corporate elite has spent millions to stop progress on starting to clean up the planet, but change is coming whether they like it or not. However, for many, they will soon begin to understand that there is also money to be made by providing clean, renewable energy. So not all bad news for ….”former” pollution pushers…eh? Good Luck to Copenhagen.
@ #22 Donna:
Cold fusion was “nipped in the bud” because Fleischmann & Pons reported their discovery properly, giving methods, data, and results. Soon thereafter their paper was ripped for not giving enough detail, but they *did* give enough for dozens of physics and radiochemistry graduate students (and a few PhD’s) to have a field day trying to replicate the results. When they couldn’t, the discovery was considered an unfortunate mistake. That’s how science is supposed to work. scientists are people. People make mistakes. The only way to correct mistakes is to reveal everything you have and let the rest of the world try to spot any errors. When you “hide the decline”, refuse to let others point out errors, destroy data, and so forth, this isn’t science, it’s fraud and should be punished to the max. Jail and more.
“…tell me what you would add. In fact, everyone, suggest additions in the comments.”
An interesting article describing the importance of proxies (eg, using tree rings or ice cores to estimate temperature in the past) and how this data has been manipulated to fit the AGW hypothesis:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
Here is a short explanation shown on the BBC of the source code used to hide the decline in temp data.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3MkMAUvOVk
Consensus is all they have because their “science” is so weak.
Sometimes they even (unintentionally) let you know just how weak it is:
FRUIT OF THE POISON TREE, TARTS FROM THE POISON FRUIT
http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/fruit-of-the-poison-tree-tarts-from-the-poison-fruit/
Modern Climate Research Paper:
We have studied global phenomenon X using a computer simulation with 100,000 lines of code and 35 calls to other researchers simulations. What we found was truly astonishing. Phenomenon X not only contributes to global warming, it actually amplifies it!
We lost the data on phenomenon X, even that from all those non-existent congressional districts where job growth is booming. Moreover, regrettably, we don’t even agree amongst ourselves what X really is, but this is so important that the US economy must be down-sized immediately to accommodate our findings.
Canadian Issues:
$10 Billion Dollars per Year For a Fraud?
Canadians are interested in results of what is going on about Climategate in Canada! As it has to do with our lives,lifestyle whether or not we are going to be living in a Democracy or under a Dictatorship?
Jim prentice has stated & PM Harper advocates this as well otherwise Prentice wouldn’t be uttering it”Canada will be paying it’s fair share of Carbon Emmissions! To the tune of $10 Billion per year!” Really, we are already $70 Billion in debt thanks to Michael Ignatieff & the Liberals who up’ed the anti to the Canadian debt load on stimulus!
This begs the question where Jim Prentice plans to dig the $10 Billion per year out of? Did somebody say more Tax?
What is so disheartening about that is the fact that now it’s been found that the whole Climate Emission scam has been proven to be Fraudulent as credible Scientests around the world who were previously locked out of putting their work and findings forth by Jones of East Anglia University and the CRU,were pushed out of the picture with thier observations and experiment results on Climate Change found that not only is the earth not heating up in reality it has been cooling since the 1960’s!
How much more fraudulent can this Scientific Data be? The United Nations and the Globalists are using this false Data at Copenhagen, to transfer our wealth to third world countries? Yet Environment Minister Jim Prentice and Prime Minister Stephen Harper feel so generous with Canadian Tax payer dollars that they are willing to toss in $10 Billion per year on the “hot air” that Ban Kai Moon and Pompus PM Gordon Brown and the rest of the Criminal Rogues that are involved in this bogus Carbon Emission Treaty! As the Bible says,”A Fool and his money are soon parted”! To request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, causing Canadians to lose their Sovereignty and Freedom email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca,Protest Copenhagen Treaty http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html
There are four reasons the UN and IMF, Global Elitist Members Re: Ban Kai Moon ( Who has openly expressed his stong desire for Global Governance ), PM Gordon Brown, Bilderberg Member Henry Kissinger, Senior Bilderberg Member David Rockefeller as well as an unprecedented number of Dictators that run various countries who are members of the United Nations this Copenhagen Treaty that was designed to acquire four goals, the least of them being climate improvment or protection as Lord Moncton has stated!
(1.) To de-industrialize Sovereign Countries ( No Jobs keep you dependant on State ) ( 2.) Take your money and assets – Hence, Fraudulent Carbon Emmissions and Carbon Gases for Carbon Credits and Carbon Taxes! (3.) Take away your property (4.) Take away your Sovereignty and Freedom!
Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
Charlie, you go to the trouble of mentioning the warming trend in the 400 year period following the little ice age, but fail to mention the warm period just preceding the little ice age that equalled or exceeded the warming of today. This medieval warm period was a significant part of the fraudulent omission referenced in the “hide the decline” email.
It would be interesting to see how much real money is tied up in Governmental regulations that support the global warming ponzi-scheme.
To my mind the most revelatory email was the one that admitted they could not explain the cooling, and therefore the data must be wrong. This is not the remark of a scientist, it’s from a different world than science.
Cold fusion was actually promoted by the left, because it was so clearly a hoax that it could be used to assist in discrediting any form of nuclear energy. Similarly, the Church Of Globaloney demands so much sacrifice, and hardly ever mentions any mitigating actions, because the forces behind it seek the dimunition of western, and specifically American, power. That is the real purpose of the movement, not saving the planet.
Nor was Globaloney originally invented to destroy America – it’s just that once it became obvious that such would be the effect, the leftists of the world were drawn to it irresistably!
This piece really got my attention–I picked up your broadcast on POTUS yesterday morning (5 December 2009). You also might like to take a look at an excellent video put out by Novus, “The Dimming Sun.” The information is very eye-opening and helps to clarify the differences between pollution caused by gases and that caused by particles. Keep on keepin’ on!
Carol Crumlish in Glendale, Oregon
It’s for longer than you think. My background is in archeology, I studied paleoclimatology since the ’70s, but it was my debate training that made me sit up in January 2002, when in Scientific American, four climate experts responded to Bjorn Lomborg’s rather moderate (from the left) critique with a storm of ad hominem, appeal to authority and other fallacious argumentation that sent up a big red flag for me. I canceled our 35-year subscription to SA and sat back to wait for the fraud to finally be revealed.
You can find similar bad logic and science in Nature (e.g. review of Lomborg’s book, and intemperate recent editorial) and Science (who should know better)
We shall see–the underlying hypothesis is intuitively appealing (human CO2 and greenhouse increase), but the AGW scientific community has clearly been overplaying their hand, suppressing contradictory data and generally behaving like their proof is nothing but BS.
#31 Willis: Charlie, you go to the trouble of mentioning the warming trend in the 400 year period following the little ice age, but fail to mention the warm period just preceding the little ice age that equalled or exceeded the warming of today. This medieval warm period was a significant part of the fraudulent omission referenced in the “hide the decline” email.
That’s because it’s more controversial (see the Wegman report) and not important for setting the context of Climategate. I’ll make sure it’s in the longer science article, though.
Beyond the obvious self-interest, it’s clear from the emails that these climatologists believed they were playing at a larger game than science: they were good shepherds leading the rest of us out of the dark. Much the same can be said of MSM behavior – and, in truth, of many politicians and governments.
See “Climategate: The good shepherds”:
http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/climategate-the-good-shepherds/
14. subsailor:
Just imagine what this Country would look like if Al Gore had become President. We must all give thanks that it didn’t happen ! (and that’s not to say that Obama isn’t a catastrophe in his on right ! )
lol
it would be just a different version of stupid
@ 22 25 34: Cold Fusion
Glad you all used that example.
Because CF is real:
http://www.military.com/cs/Satellite?c=maArticle&cid=1199421528108&pagename=News%2FnwsLayout
The lessons here for Global Climate Change are:
Persistent, painstaking research pays off when
the science is settled…except for a few
inconvenient details.
The primary discovery of the CF researchers
is not power generation (or storage ?) but
a reproducible experimental result which
contradicts accepted theories; as in the case
of the Photoelectric effect, the theory has
to be changed to match the results.
In the case of Global Climate Change, the
primary discovery is that cooling has
occured in the past over a timespan short
enough to matter:
Current view:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344.800-mini-ice-age-took-hold-of-europe-in-months.html
and 30 years ago:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v281/n5732/abs/281558a0.html
Finding out why that happened, how to predict
a recurrence, and what to do about it, _are_
valid scientific goals.
Check out the number of limos being brought in for the conference in Copenhagen and the number of private jets that will bring high profile AGW supporters to the conference. To date, the number of limos is over 2,000 and there is not enough room at the airport to park all of the jets. How many vehicles with alternative fuel or battery are there for attendees? At last count, 5. Now, who the hell are the hypocrites and why should elitists like these cultists make rules and regulations for the average citizen to follow while they live in Al Gore luxury?
Maybe we need to enact a Fat Tax on Gore. His fee should pay for all AGW requirements for the next 100 years.
Time for a ‘who’s who’ of open-source luminaries to sign a declaration of climate research principals:
(a) ‘rejection’ of cargo cult science … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
(b) ‘open’ data
(c) ‘open’ meta-data
(d) ‘open’ data calibration methods and traceability back to national international prime standards
(e) ‘open’ code
(f) ‘open’ software configuration management
(g) ‘open’ programmatic design reviews (program as in like ‘new product development’ program management)
(h) ‘open’ algorithms
(i) ‘open’ publication of results with side-by-side ‘open’ publication of ‘pseudo-anonymous’ reviewers feedback
(j) ‘rejection’ of all data, meta-data, code, algorithms, results, etc etc that is ‘not-open’
Rev 0.0.1 list of SUGGESTED luminaries: Tim O’Reilly, Linus Torvalds, Larry Wall, Brian Behlendorf, Eric Allman, Guido van Rossum, Michael Tiemann, Paul Vixie, Jamie Zawinski of Netscape, and Eric Raymond. Yep – i copied & pasted from wiki article; however, I want to get the ball rolling sooner rather than later. Would be nice if Steve Wozniak would sign on.
37. Charlie Martin – “That’s because (the MWP is) more controversial … and not important for setting the context of Climategate.
But “science is settled” argument requires that the last decade be “the hottest ever”, so that if global temperatures continue to rise three or four degrees F over the next 100 years, a “tipping point” is reached and catastrophe follows. If the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, 800-1200 AD) was warmer, then no catastrophe is likely.
Well, I try to heed the experts who say that I am dumb,
I have monitored the HOGWASH and listened to the SCUM.*
Our progress is the enemy, it seems from what they cry;
if climates change, inventive man will just give up and die.
So how could men survive the worst the weather threw at them
in ages past, did they just quit and moan a requiem?
The ice-age men and Bedouin and cunning Eskimo
have demonstrated humans can survive both drought and snow.
If all the oceans rise and flood the land whereon we dwell
we’d build more ocean liners and some mountain homes as well.
We’d surely have some time to plan—a little breathing space—
before supposing climate change must doom the human race.
Environmentalists today who claim they want to be
at one with nature are, in truth, against humanity.
The answer is quite simple for each carbon-hating dunce:
to end their exhalations and to suicide at once.
*HOGWASH, an acronym for Hysteria over Global Warming and Such-like Hooey;
SCUM, an acronym for Stupidly Criminal Unscientific Misanthropes.
TEN MYTHS of Global Warming
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”).
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The “hockey stick” graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth’s oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as “greenhouse agents” than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the “Greenhouse effect”.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: Computer models can be made to “verify” anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not “prove” anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier’s health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
This is the latest manifestation of repub stupidity. Of course data must be ‘fixed.’ If you have one station in a sharow and another over a hot roof the instruments need calibration. But of course American conservitards take that as a great conspiracy. Alongside their ridiculous denial about the citizenship of their president. Funny how repubs are so selective about their conspiracies. Hard data and ever earlier growing seasons worldwide are a ‘flukes’, but of course the physics-defying WTC towers were enacted by an arab hiding in a cave across the planet and the hundreds of mossad fingerprints were “just a coincidence.” in the world’s greatest display of zionist lightning. Oh and the WMD was never found.
Just a random thought on science on politics. There is a strong consensus among economists that free trade is the best policy — but this is rarely used as a club to target those who advocate trade barriers.
A recent Pew survey showed that belief in AGW has declined significantly; moreover, those who follow the issue and know most about it are least likely to agree with the warmists. This is a clear case where the public is ahead of the “opinion leaders”.
So lets see all your LINKS to where all the OBAMANATIONS HIDDEN documents including his VAULT Birth Certificate are moonbat. I mean you would not shout your mouth off like a lunatic if you did NOT have all that information at your finger tips would you. Oh you WOULD now there’s a surprise you MOONBAT. Then tell us what “MANIPULATE” “TRICK” ‘HIDE THE DECLINE’ and “DESTROY THE DATA BEFORE THE FFI ACT GETS IT ” means I am sure YOU know exactly what that signifies too. You DON’t well you surprise me yet again. Then give us all the information of the detailed search that has taken place in the Bekaa Valley in Syria for Saddams WMD’s you know like the ones HE USED on the Kurds.
The above comment was of course directed to that towering intellect #46 kochevnik:
One more thing kochevnik: is this another MOHO incarnation yet again? But anyway you give away your MOHAMMEDANISM so easily but I am not telling you how.
#43 Ice: If you think that I’m arguing the science is settled, then I’ve failed you somehow.
#46 kochevnik: You’re absolutely right that the data needs to be corrected for any number of things; the problem is that the corrections haven’t been made available for peer review, the data haven’t been made available for replication of the studies, and the Mann-Jones-Schmidt clique have been actively encouraging the mindless to respond to all criticism by saying the critics were evil Republican creationist birther neocons who are taking money under the table from Big Oil while lying about Iraqi WMDs.
#46 This is the latest manifestation of repub stupidity. Of course data must be ‘fixed.’ If you have one station in a sharow and another over a hot roof the instruments need calibration.==============
Actually, both of those instruments would have been poorly sited. Calibration is done before putting an instrument in the field. Everybody knows that -now.
RULE BY EPA
EPA, controlled by Obama’s Marxist-leaning bureaucrats, will take over the management of life and work in America, to protect us all from the dangers of air-borne plat food, carbon dioxide. It is like second-hand smoke, only in this case it is second hand plant food. Instead of hanging with the unjustified notion of global warming by lighter-than-air plant food blanketing the earth, they are using the smoking argument. If we inhale that plant food, we’ll all die. Of course, the same people are hell-bent on euthanizing the elderly, infirm or too young to contribute as a means of decreasing medical care and plant food expiration. When we view the people as one mass, a community, instead of individuals with peculiar interests, it is appropriate to amputate parts of the community body that do not contribute, or stand in the way of their social progress. Hitler did it! We didn’t approve of it then, why do we approve of it now? claysamerica.com
#46.
The data were being ‘fixed’, not the instruments. Statistical transforms can’t turn bad data into good data – this is one of the major criticisms I have of many of the papers I read (I’m a clinical pharmacist).
Statistical manipulation is used because it’s easier (a lot) to do statistical transformations than to collect good data. Case in point: the tree-ring proxies used to estimate temperatures at earlier time periods. After reading the e-mails, the tree-ring proxy does not appear to hold up very well. If tree rings are not a reliable proxy measurement, then the dataset is invalid – as are all other datasets created using substantially similar methodologies.
In other words: Oops.
Hard data and ever earlier growing seasons worldwide are a ‘flukes’
Try again. Houston, TX just experienced its earliest measurable snow on record, and the previous record was set in… 2008.
Seems to me the people that believe in AGW are the same people that will drink Obama’s Kool-Aid when the government thinks it’s time for them to cash in their chips, i.e. substitute Jim Jones Cult religion for Phil Jones Cult Religion.
JOHN HOLDREN, CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR TO OBAMA, BACK IN 1975 ‘putting the “con” back in “con”ference: @ THE REHEARSAL for “NOPENHAGENDAZZ”
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
SPECIAL REPORT
1975 ‘Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference
Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born
by Marjorie Mazel Hecht
Anthropologist Margaret Mead gave global warming its start, as part of a movement to curb population growth.
Mead is famous for saying:
“Instead of needing lots of children, we need high-quality children.”
Another player was Paul Ehrlich, a 20th Century Malthusian, author of the prophetically wrong book, The Population Bomb. Ehrlich’s calculated con ideology is shared by the leading global warming scientists who attended Mead’s 1975 conference where they all decided that “climate consensus” and the absence of scientific debate was the only way to reduce population.
Stephen Schneider George Woodwell John Holdren
Three of Mead’s minions, scientists who have preached global warming & population control ever since the 1975 conference. All have worked closely with Paul Ehrlich, who thinks the the U.S. population should be cut in half (not starting with his family and friends, of course).
“Global Warming” is, & always was, a policy for genocidal reduction of the world’s population.
The preposterous claim that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt the ice caps, & destroy human life, came out of a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in 1974.
50@Pragmatist
Well as you share the old testament with Islam, you have much more in common with Muslims than I. But keep making up life as you go. No need to get out of your pajamas! And you fuhrer Bush openly admitted there was no wmd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM
51@Charlie Martin
>You’re absolutely right that the data needs to be corrected for any number
>of things; the problem is that the corrections haven’t been made available
>for peer review
Well science is competitive, unlike the GOP where people just say anything that is easily mouthed. So imagine you’ve been schooled twenty years then worked another two decades collecting research. It’s extremely common for others to take credit and wingnuts would easily like to tear through the data like a bull in a china shoppe. Given the mass delusion and open fascism and racism we see right here I think they’re acting cautiously.
That said there’s a lot of religion in science but it stems from inertia and the same herd mentality so in vogue with US politics. There are elements willing to exploit any consensus and they merely attack the more cost-prohibitive position, which ironically often reverses after consensus.
# 57 kochevnik: You’re right science is competitive, but it also has rules, one of which being that you archive and manage the data so others can replicate your work. Go over to my new article on the first rule of holes and read the NCDC’s open-access policy.
And if you’re going to use fancy words like Führer, learn to spell them.