WikiLeaks Cables Confirm Worst Fears of Climate Skeptics
Just a year ago, the Climategate files — a collection of emails, data, and computer source code — were somehow purloined from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit and made public. PJ Media was one of the first news organizations to cover them, with the first breaking news story out within hours of their first discovery (“Hacker Releases Data Implicating CRU in Global Warming Fraud“).
The full consequences are not yet clear, but the files’ release probably led to the collapse of the Copenhagen climate conference — to which the Obama administration had committed no little amount of political capital — and certainly contributed to the public’s increasing skepticism about the supposed consensus of climate science.
In some ways, the most surprising part of the Climategate files was how well they confirmed the dark suspicions of climate skeptics: there really were problems with replicating some of the most quoted results, there really had been some questionable manipulations made so the data would present the “right” picture, and there really was a somewhat covert group, composed of scientists on the “human agency” side of the argument and certain “reliable” environmental journalists, who were working together to suppress counter-evidence and assassinate the reputations of the skeptics.
Almost exactly a year later, Julius Assange and the WikiLeaks website revealed another collection of similarly purloined data. This time, the data was a collection of diplomatic cable traffic among American diplomats all over the world, some of it considered very sensitive — classified SECRET. Again, the purloined messages proved very embarrassing to the authors, although in this case the damage wasn’t just to egos and reputations; the cables did damage to American interests, even to national security.
On December 3rd, the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom published one of a series of stories based on the cables, this one titled “WikiLeaks cables reveal how U.S. manipulated climate accord.” The United States really was applying considerable political and diplomatic pressure on other players; the scientific “consensus” had long since been subsumed by the pressure to score a political win. As the Guardian put it:
Hidden behind the save-the-world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky realpolitik: money and threats buy political support; spying and cyberwarfare are used to seek out leverage.
The bribes — sorry, I mean promised aid — was no mean amount of money. The Guardian reports amounts in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. The government of the Maldives set their price at $30 million. With a population of roughly 300,000, that is $100 per person in a country where the average household gets by on $450 a year.
Well, anyone with a hint of scientific or statistical training knew from the first that their figures were BS. And anyone who’s ever received instruction in the scientific method knew they weren’t doing science. So their motivations had to be other than the search for knowledge.
Simply because of a very narrow and covertly established money trail all recipients of global warming “benefits” with the single solitary objective of skimming the take could have been exposed prior to any corrupt data illumination. They’ve been using the same method since 1743. Only the names have been changed to protect the
guilty.
Hmmmm…wonder if there is anything in the WikiLeaks about anAL GOREtentive and his second chakra
So, thanks to the miracle of cloud hacking we now know that:
- The bears don’t have to worry about floating away on icebergs.
- Its okay for cows, sheep, and goats to keep polluting thier intestines with non-organic grass and weeds.
- Its okay for humans to breath and make backyard compose piles out of grass and leaves.
- Car parts and repair stores can sell anyone cans of freon so they can fix their own air conditioners.
- Health-Spas and landfills can operate 7 days a week.
- The government can do away with their phony vehicle emmission fees and tests.
- Al Gore should be arrested and thrown into the same jail cell with Assange
OKAY, MAYBE.. the only people wiki leaks is “bad” for are the dishonest people we have running our governments..and influencing our everyday lives
So far, there seems to be little exposed actually damaging to the U.S. It has been a boon to the public. It has exposed this AGW pottage. It showed that Bush did NOT lie about Iraq. It has demonstrated the incompetence of this administration. It exposes China, and others. The leak came from a gay in the military. (Wasn’t that one of the politically incorrect predictions?)
Obama DID promise greater transparency….
P.S. Maybe we could get Obama’s school records while we’re at it?
i’m waiting for the good sh^%..like b.s., school records, corrupt judges,
etc…hey obama ”GOD IS WATCHING YOU…”"
I’M WAITING FOR THE GOOD SH%$…ON OBAMA….LIKE B.S. ALL HIS PAPER WORK,
WIKILEAKS GIVE US THE GOOD STUFF, WE ALL KNOW OBAMA’S ILLEGAL. BUT I DO HOPE HE SCREWED UP ON SAYING SOMETHING…
Any side that Al Gore’s on, I’m on the opposite. Anything he says he believes, I know is a lie.
If Al Gore always lies, he is as trustworthy as someone who always tells the truth. You just have to use elementary logic to interpret his statements.
In reality, no one *always* lies, and that is what causes the problems.
The bears can survive just fine without icebergs, watch documentaries on them. They can swim 25 miles or more without a problem. The whole ozone layer thing was a hoax. Ozone is a byproduct of ultraviolet light being absorbed by O2 molecules which split apart when they absorb a photon and speed off to smack into other O2 molecules which thereby forms O3 or Ozone. Basic chemistry and physics. Note that the hole in the ozone is over Antarctica in Winter, when there’s no sunlight to produce more. Is it a coincidence that the patents on R12 and R22 rand out shortly after the whole ozone thing started? or that R134 just happened to be available to fill the gap? How’s that for a conspiracy?
Climategate was just another way for liberals in government to force the redistribution of wealth around the world (a very definite form of communism) and for the central government in Washington to gain even more power and control over people’s lives in this country. It was a despicable power grab and I’m happy the whole bogus movement is collapsing. Had it not been for the Internet, many people in this country would still believe this nonsense. The liberals also would have had, through cap and trade, one of the biggest ways to fleece the American public out of even more money than they are already getting from us now. Just proves that information is the worst enemy of liberals.
Libertyship46,
Unfortunately, too many people still do believe the nonsense. I hope to god the republicans don’t come up with another McCain who asks “What is the worst that can happen if we cut our carbon footprint?” The pervasive ignorance of liberals is driving our country down. There needs to be a major change soon… before it’s too late.
How on earth did the American people re-elect McCain anyway.He should have been one of the first to go.
He did another about face and projected what the people in AZ wanted to see and hear. Boneheads almost don’t deserve our support against the prop 1087 (number?) boycotts.
Easy Chris… We in Arizona are suffering from a migration of California’s fruits and nuts. My only regret is that they were not included in 1087.
I think I might have to change my opinion on the wikileaks ordeal. Anything that exposes how Marxist politicians and environmentalist work together is a positive thing.
Or, the whole thing was a way to be able to make money on the stock exchange by buying and selling their made-up carbon credits.
The Cancun climate partying exposed human-caused climate change as a complete hoax. The UN delegates are trying to get the U.S. to pay $100 BILLION a year until 2050 as “climate reparations” to gross polluting countries like China.
Climategate is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated. And it is based on ZERO credible evidence. Elmer Gantry and Bernie Madoff were pikers compared with UN kleptocrats.
Themistocles,
I would say the “Bank Bailout” was the biggest fraud ever perpetrated… but Climategate/Cap and Trade would eclipse even that if it were allowed to succeed. Have you read the book Climategate by Brian Sussman? Pretty good. Very much on topic.
Please do not take offense because I believe you are trying to be constructive. However it does not take a rocket scientist or for that mattter any scientist, to see that the “climate changers” and “global warmers” are full of crap. Look at the UK and Europe now suffering one of the coldest early winters in history. Oh I forgot the new mantra is that this is “climate change” NOT global warming. So lets see, CO 2 emmissions caused this. Right?
What a load of BS. Any third grader would give a thumbs down if they had the facts. Unfortunately these innocents are being taught by drones of the various academic left who are true believers. So we can forgive them because they will not be shown the facts.
Not to worry however. Tax paying Americans have had about enough of these third world scam artists. We are not only not supporting these rediculous theories we are going to role back the clock and purge the liars when we take back the government in 2 years. The EPA will be eliminated, we will withdraw from the UN, cancel our subscriptions to aid to the EU through the IMF, force the europeans to be responsible for their own defense, and go our merry way. To hell with global warming and the horse they rode in on!
Eliminate the EPA, withdraw from the UN, force Europeans to be responsible for their own defense, the hell w/global warming? That would be a taxpayer’s “Dream Come True Act”.
tommy gunn and carolannie,
It sure would be…. but it’s not going to happen. Name one candidate who has a chance to unseat O’Bama in 2 years who would advocate such measures. I don’t see one. We also have to ask ourselves, if there was one, would he/she be electable? Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that the repubs are that much better than the dems…. they are not. The power still lies with a ruling elite. That’s were the money has always been… and now, thanks to both parties, they have more of it than ever. The Tea Party needs to take over the Republican Party… or drive it further to the right. That may not be enough. People need to care who controls the levers of their government.
I will keep on asking….Were the American people on drugs when they re-elected John McCain. He should have been the first to go.
It sounds like you’re just confused. McCain didn’t run for national office this time. It was the people of Arizona who re-elected him.
There were enough people in AZ that were once again baffled with McCain’s BS. He spent 20+ million yes 20 + million dollars running nasty adds against his primary challenger, J D Haworth. His BS prevailed and he defeated JD. He then went on to easily defeat his Dem, opponent. I live in AZ, Voted for JD and did not vote for McCain in the general. McCain is a self proclaimed jerk, read his book, he admits to that in his own words.
Once again… I will say the same thing I said to Chris: We in Arizona are suffering from a migration of California’s fruits and nuts. My only regret is that they were not included in 1087. McCain is a jerk and everyone in my circle of friends agrees with me.
I think I might have to change my opinion on the wikileaks ordeal. Anything that exposes how Marxist politicians and environmentalist work together is a positive thing.
Keep in mind that the Director of the CIA is always a political appointee, serving “at the pleasure of the President”. Since The One has been in power, it has been Leon Panetta, formerly White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton, and long-time Democrat Congressman, “progressive” activist, and hard-core environmentalist “true believer”. Which explains why The One picked him for the job.
In short, the CIA Director always tends to tell the President what the President wants to hear. And in Panetta’s case, he is, shall we say, “highly motivated” by the dogma he shares with The One to see to it that things like “climate change” are defined as a higher priority than, say, Islamist terrorism.
As for the analysts at Langley, and the line-animals in the field, they know from experience that the guy in the big chair is there to pursue his, and his boss’, agendas, not to listen to what they say. While purely fiction, Tom Clancy’s “The Sum Of All Fears” (the novel, not the horrid movie “adaptation”) is a devastatingly accurate portrait of how the Company is routinely misused and abused by politicians who define themselves as being both “smarter” and “on a higher moral plane” than everybody else. The circumstances Clancy postulated in the novel are eerily- and uncomfortably- like those prevailing at Langley, and in the White House, right now.
Under conditions like these, the best the actual professionals in the Agency can do is follow orders, give the Gods on High what they demand- and in between, try to get said deities to actually look at a real fact about a real problem once in a while. And hope they don’t get crucified for heresy for making the attempt.
clear ether
eon
No. The explanation for the U.S.’s heavy-handedness is a bit more basic.
Not sure of your point here, but you will notice that that article is a year old, written before the truth about the non-melting Himalayan glaciers came out (i.e., that they are not actually going to melt by 2035, if ever). The article also makes the point that the US military investigates everything that might become a threat, just in case.
Oh no, not you again. Go away and find a liberal outlet that says what you want to hear and what you want to believe without facts or the effort of independent intellectual analysis.
I move that everyone ignore BC.
To STR: Another clueless, right wing crybaby, eh? See how these words are highlighted? That means I’ve provided a link to some evidence you can click on and judge for yourself rather than just take anything I say at face value (granted that I tend to be more right, so to speak, at face value than the entire right wing nut-o-sphere even on their best days.)
BC, I read through it all. Where do you get this drivel?
Ooo, the US military now considers blah, blah, blah. Who is the Commander-in-Chief of said military? Oh, right. Him.
And they are referencing as the basis, the IPCC. Really? What part of completely debunked by ClimateGate hacking do you not understand?
Oh, and they do this, because we may have to intervene in some humanitarian crisis, or genocidal situation, due to some migration? Foreign intervention? I thought Dems were against that, except when they get to pillory Republicans for not acting?
You are really, really poor at laying out your arguments.
To Marc Malone: Yeah, an official DoD report is drivel is because the Pentagon is filled with bleeding hearts liberals who all came on board January 20, 2009. And emails showing climate researchers getting frustrated with attacks by right wing politicians, as well as poor science coverage by the media, completely debunks a 100 yrs plus of careful research.
Sooo…do you make your hats out of genuine Reynolds Wrap or do you use cheap store brands?
Ooo, the US military now considers blah, blah, blah. Who is the Commander-in-Chief of said military? Oh, right. Him.
Subjects like these have long gestation periods and you see (perhaps) results years after start. It’s the DoD’s job to be prepared (semper paratus!) for anything, and if the IPCC is right or thee’s an upcoming ice age, DoD needs to be able to deal with it and have plans in place.
You = ideological parrot (far right wing and not bright enough to do much other than repeat.)
Oh crap I see BC already referenced tinfoil… heh.
BC,
While I completely understand your need to come to PJM for intellectual stimulation, I can’t understand why you continue to cling to this collectivist claptrap even when you know that most of it is based on a rationale that derives more from fantasy than reality. Let yourself explore the possibility that collectivism, since it makes no sense in relation to human nature, cannot be the path to follow. You already know that the government is not spending your money as wisely as you can, so let yourself pretend that another approach is plausible. Your postings and listings here are not convincing anyone to follow the collective, so what the F, try letting yourself entertain a few different ideas. I mean no disrespect, and I apologize if this feels a little insulting to you.
To Jim Baker: I’m here partly because Usenet died as place to go for a good argument. I’m also here partly because our irresponsible and fractured news-like media has allowed more and more people to go about their days and weeks blissfully confused and uninformed about key topics, regardless of how much “coverage” they get.
Another reason is that eye-rolling confusion and misinformation is common on these right wing sites and it’s very hard to pass on by without making some sort of corrective comment. There is a difference between having a different ideological viewpoint and having bad information.
That isn’t confusion you see and corrective commentary is usually not what you are bestowing on all of the inferiors you find here. Get over yourself, bozo.
The big thing is that I see and hear these same confused bits of “well-established” nonsense echoed by Republican leaders on Sunday morning talk shows. Once a dopey or malicious, but good-sounding meme gets started on one right wing site, it often gets canonized throughout the right wing media, and then more and more often spilling over into the mainstream media. The next thing I know is that my dad is telling me about the new “news” he heard….
But guess what? Bush did lie, there were no Iraqi WMD’s or al-Qaeada connections, Joe Wilson didn’t lie and his wife Valerie Plame was a genuine CIA spook who was outed during a petty smear campaign against him, the US was indeed running illegal & covert ops in Cambodia in 1968, those Killian memos were not forged, Obama really was born in this country and is neither a socialist nor a Muslim, and that CRU hack changed absolutely nothing regarding the science behind global warming and instead only showed the frustration of scientists increasingly having to deal with with willfully ignorant politicians and an increasingly useless news media. Don’t blame the likes of me if you heard and ended up being suckered into believing otherwise.
Sheesh. You just made my point, bozo.
Charles – Are you surprised? I’m not. As in other things that this Administration has done, it is not so much about science or increasing the general welfare, but about remaking America into Europe West.
BTW Do you notice that the Gore Effect has hit the Global Warming Conference in Cancun? I have read the area is having record low temperatures.
On climategate: Not one paper or scientific claim has been retracted because of “climategate.”
And the fact that countries would spy to seek leverage in climate negotiations is so obvious it could induce a corpse to yawn.
Boris, you’re incorrect. At least one claim, the “glaciers gone from the Himalayas” claim, has been formally withdrawn from the IPCC AR4.
Others, such as most of the substantive claims in the original Mann “hockey stick” papers, have either been heavily revised — for instance it appears the “Little Climatic Optimum” or “Medieval Warm Period” have come back — or discredited.
What’s most important, I think, is that “skeptical” scientific papers now seem to have a much easier time being published. Follow Anthony Watts’ blog, for example, and you’ll find regular reports of anti-”Consensus” articles.
CHARLIE, you seem to stress that the ones that LIED, are allowing the ‘skeptics’ to vent their opinion. Surely ,the ones that lied should apologise and retract their statements. They won’t as long as you let them off the hook.What I mean is ,they won’t admit their wrong until pushed by the hordes.
Captain, which is better? This way, or the way it was a year ago? I realize that you’re prefer to see everyone who ever had anything to do with the AGW market forced to confess, followed by a beating, tar and feathers, and then being driven into the wilderness, there to be eaten by weasels, but it don’t happen that way.
Thanks for this article. Climategate and the follow-up whitewashes showed that the APG ‘scientists’ were a mere cabal of academics paid big $ by government….It caused many previously silent scientists to speak up. See the website Climate Skeptic’s paper on 1000 scientists who now challenge the theory of AGW. That’s up 200 from the 2008 paper, viewable on Sen James Inhofe’s website…Of course, as more people realize the purloining of the environmentalists by the politicians seeking a world government (and lots of carbon trillions), few will ever again trust government-sponsored science. People now realize environmentalism has become a pagan religion; those rich sponsors (philanthropists) may move their money to a new scheme for world power….
The Green fanatics will let the storm blow over and resume the practice of their religion. But I wonder if government will be as free in bankrolling the cult as when Democrats ran all three branches.
The so-called “Greens” contradict themselves in thinking that carbon dioxide is bad. They call themselves “Green” supposedly because they promote the growth of green plants – but carbon dioxide is food for green plants!
It should actually read “Never miss an opportunity to fake a crisis.” It is all about control.
Revealing article. Could you try to be the first to stop using the term climate skeptics? The proper term is critic. The left, also known as climate alarmists, have a vested interest in using ‘skeptic.’ The concept skeptic refers to the ancient Greek philosophers called ‘skeptics.’ They believed that knowledge was not possible to man, that concepts like truth and proof were invalid.
The concept critic refers to someone who disagrees with a position because they have evidence to the contrary or have evidence that the positive arguments are flawed.
The scientists who oppose the GW mantra have lots of contrary data as well as facts showing the evidence for GW is seriously flawed. They should be called critics not skeptics. This is not a matter of semantics.
There is a reason alarmists prefer skeptic. Skeptic is a concept which suggests those who practice it should not be taken seriously since they arbitrarily disagree with everything. Critic however suggests a person who has reasons for his disagreements and should be heeded. This is not what the alarmists want.
By constantly crying ‘skeptic’ and ‘denier’ over time, the real meaning of critic–disagreement based on evidence which should be considered–is replaced in the public’s mind by the intended meaning–arbitrary, baseless disagreement unworthy of consideration.
I urge PJM to take the lead in intellectual clarity. Your readers need and deserve it.
Skepticism is an integral part of the Scientific Method. Those promoting the repeatedly falsified hypothesis claiming that CO2 will cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming [CO2=CAGW] have not been able to withstand the falsification of their hypothesis by skeptical scientists. If it were not for the Scientific Method, people would still be going to witch doctors to treat diseases. The modern equivalent of witch doctors are the UN climate scientists, who are trained by taxpayer-funded grant money the way Pavlov’s dogs were trained with dog biscuits.
There is nothing wrong with being a scientific skeptic. In fact, scientific skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. The central problem is the total refusal of the climate alarmist crowd to follow the Scientific Method. Twelve YEARS after the corrupt UN/IPCC poster boy Michael Mann promoted his Hockey Stick chart – which fraudulently erased the Medieval Warm Period [MWP] and the Little Ice Age [LIA] – Mann still refuses to disclose his data and methodologies as required by the Scientific Method. He knows that if he opened the books on his methods he would be the laughingstock of the meteorological world.
CO2=CAGW is to real science as astrology is to astronomy. The entire AGW fraud is based on zero empirical, testable evidence; no one has been able to quantify the effect of CO2, so they rely on always-wrong computer models.
CAGW is instead based on money. And the approaching major increase in everyone’s energy costs is directly attributable to these climate alarmists, who have made CAGW a political issue rather than a scientific question.
For mkore on this subject, see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com
Sooooo…..The bass turds lied.
Even had there been no Climategate or Wikileaks releases, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) should have no credibility because of the many failed predictions of alarmists.
Doc Hansen of NASA GISS, the father of global warming, predicted in 2007 that by 2100 the seas will rise 25 meters (82 feet). The seas have actually been rising at about 1.8 mm per year for the last 150 years with little variation. Which means the seas need to start rising 15,000% faster than they are at present. Ha. This goes along with his other failed prediction from 1988 that Manhattan would be partially underwater by now. Yet every alarmist defends and venerates him.
There may be no proof of CAGW, but there’s plenty of proof that CAGW is a grant-gouging and rent-seeking scam.
If Assange is that good, where is Obambi’s college transcripts and hard copy of his birth certificate? Oh; THAT is classified as National Security!
(Sorry if this posts twice; Connection seems bad.)
Maybe that’s the poison pill? One can only hope!!
Maybe this is something Julian et al should look into!!!!
I’m all for full disclosure of a public officials background, any and everything if they are going to try and run my life.
Here’s hoping Julian looks into Obama’s background!! what an excellent question/idea cybergeezer.
It will never happen, they have a connected through the TIDES FOUNDATION. Maybe this whole thing is staged for an excuse to shut down or control the internet more?
Yes, when one of those documents comes out (they won’t), you will know that the cache really is Top Secret.
Your point, though possibly in gest, I believe is the smoking gun that proves that wikileaks is just part of the one-worlders’ “communication plan”. It wouldn’t shock me to learn that some truly sensitive infomation is hacked into at some point….but this stuff isn’t it.
so true. it’s all part of a plan. one world bs etc. otherwise there would be mroe stink. what we are seeing is a smoke screen. the u.s., would have swooped in taken julian if this was real. yes, somehow, someway.
Concerning Wikileaks, Governor Mike Huckabee said:
“If we want to keep our nation’s secrets ‘SECRET,’ store them where President Obama stores his college transcripts and birth certificate.”
Charles – Have you noticed that Drudge is reporting (from AccuWeather.com) that the fist week in December has been the coldest in England since 1659!! I know — one such report means nothing in the bigger of scheme of things, but nevertheless I find it curious. In any event, it looks like the Gore effect has hit not only Cancun, but England as well. A couple of more such conferences and we’ll have an ice age on our hands. -:)
See similar results for Florida — Ft Lauderdale coldest in nearly 200 years.
…and, here in Colorado, we have had the mildest Autumn in recent memory… and my point is …. WE CAN’T DRAW ANY LONG TERM CONCLUSIONS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE FROM WHAT WE CAN SEE IN THE WEATHER WE ARE EXPERIENCING…. Even ice ages, which are the fastest climate changes in the geologic records, usually take at least decades to happen.
How can we reign in the government from spending billions outside the US for such crass reasons; they are debasing our currency and impovershing our treasury. Who can I sue? This thing with the Maldives should simply be against the law.
Just a few years ago the Brazilian Real was 3.5 to the dollar and now it’s 1.7. Brazil, which used to be super cheap is now expensive for Americans. A hotel I stayed at in 1985 in Rio was $3.50 at the time, now it’s $80 and up. It’s the same story all over the world. Our government is insane and out of control.
….and why aren’t these people in jail.
they have broken a lot of laws …both statute and moral.
“Seeking negotiating chips, the U.S. State Department sent a secret cable on July 31, 2009, seeking human intelligence from UN diplomats across a range of issues, including climate change….As well as countries’ negotiating positions for Copenhagen, diplomats were asked to provide evidence of UN environmental “treaty circumvention” and deals between nations.”
When the negotiating position of the United States, in this case the one taken to Copenhagen, so lacks inherent logic and virtue that it must be advanced by collecting compromising information against other parties to the negotiations (and, ultimately, attempted bribery), one must marvel at the extent to which the ethics, strategies, and wholesale corruption of the Chicago street hustler/community organizer have infused international dialog.
I now understand the unique, and very personal, perspective that produced Michelle Obama’s justifiable sense of shame.
Charlie, I know you’re interested in the technical stuff, and while this is off topic vis a vis wikileaks, I submit this for your consideration. It seems that much of the underlying premise of AGW is based on NOAA’s formulae connecting mankind with Co2; this informs notions of climate sensitivity AND any natural temp change/CO2 signal. The formula isn’t hidden, but I doubt it’s well known, and if you haven’t heard this yet, prepare to have your socks blown off.
On Judith Curry’s web site an AGW alarmist professor type (major league university) was showing basic proof regarding rise of CO2 and anthropogenic cause and referenced this paper:
http://tinyurl.com/2am36hf
He says: Hofmann explains that his formula for CO2, which replaces the quadratics and cubics that NOAA had previously used, was based on considerations of exponentially exploding population deploying exponentially improving technology.
This is the interesting part, which is essentially an equation based on correlation and an assumption, not necessarily something determined via historical data, i.e. hard data evidence, etc. It would seem to also have some presumptions about how long CO2 hangs in the atmosphere.
During the early 1900s there really wasn’t much in the way of carbon emitting tech in the world. The Occident was using trains and burning coal, sure. In the Orient though… not so much. Man didn’t really have widespread worldwide adoption of major carbon tech (read: enough cars to even cause a blip) though until nearly 1930, and this was still mostly a western world phenomenon. (And I’d argue that you’d at least need 1950′s levels of cars to be able to have any effect at all, only due to the numbers.)
And yet temps rose, as did presumably CO2. Now what’s interesting here that this rise was already occuring BEFORE the adoption of automobiles as we see today, and so on. If you look at this particular hockey stick –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Extrapolated_world_population_history.png
It shows what I’m referring to. There’s a correlation of human population to temp rise to CO2. And yet… the technology we have to emit carbon didn’t really start ratcheting exponentially until after WWII. A tech explosion, if you will. There’s no “knee” that one would expect to see on the graphical representation of CO2 as the result of all of this rapid carbon release. It just keeps rising, nice and slow.
What I get from looking at the big picture here is that the correlation of CO2 and temp pre-1930 doesn’t imply anthropogenic cause based solely on CO2 release given the lack of a knee when human CO2 emissions from (energy and vehicle) technology adoption really kicked in. It could be argued that pre-1930 anthropogenic influence includes land use and deforestation, i.e. changing the nature of CO2 sinks, but it doesn’t seem that correlating hypothetical formula derived CO2 emissions and temp records is worth much prior to the modern era. In fact the data by itself is ambiguous; you could just as easily use it to say that pre-modern era CO2 rise was reaction to temp rise.
I’m very much interested in the notion of the A in AGW being solely tied to CO2 emission when clearly CO2 and temp was rising before CO2 emission was at a level that could be detectable. I find this doubly interesting given the data showing that MWP temps were close to that of today (or above, depending on whose work you trust.) Clearly there’s a lot that isn’t understood.
Yes, professor, I know this is very un-PC for one who gets greenhouse effect physics and thinks that we’re adding to GHG’s. I get the physics part. And I’m aware that we’re running an open ended experiment re emission.
however, it seems that Hoffman’s formulae are incorrect and imply causation unsupported by fact — there’s no slow adoption of technology as implied. There ought to be a modern era CO2 knee *if* the A in AGW is based on the modern era explosion in emissions, and there’s no knee. Why?
Quick followup note:
Just to be ridiculously clear, the assertion that the climate was sensitive enough in 1890 to show temp rise following CO2 also says there was no sink of the extra CO2 (otherwise, why would it rise at all?)
At the time of massive CO2 belching starting in the 1940s’-50′s this same “sensitive” climate unable to sink CO2 in 1900 would still be unable to sink. CO2 should have gone right through the roof, as would he temp.
Didn’t happen. Tres confusing. The climate is sensitive or it is not. But there was no linear rise in human tech and emission of CO2.
[crickets... no reply from the professor]
****
So there you have it. For those of you not following the argument, let me sum things up. The assertion is that change in CO2 from 280 ppmv to present day 390 ppmv started around 1800. There was a discernable rise in temps, and the human population was increasing. So what the NOAA did was run the numbers backwards (this is called “a posteriori” modeling) to show that temps rose as the number of people rose. They then ASSUME that the technical level explains this, as if there’s a linear or even exponential curve.
On top of this they then ASSERT that the climate is so sensitive that the rise in CO2 from 1800 – say 1930 is the result of CO2.
The problem here is thaat humans didn’t start major league CO2 emission until after widespread adoption of the automobile AND until the population explosion starting in the 1930′s. If the climate is so sensitive as to show response in 1910 then the same sensitivity ought to show *incredible* rises in temp and CO2 starting after 1930.
It doesn’t. The NOAA model is nonsense. Everything else is built on top of this model.
So there you have it. “A posteriori” modeling from horse’s posteriors. Enjoy.
I believe if you check the history of petroleum you will find gasoline was burned off as an unusable fraction in great volumes during the production of kerosene – late 1800′s.
Considering I haven’t seen anything yet which would convince me that co2 isn’t an atmospheric cooling agent – in an era of incessant b.s. – that’s just something I ran across.
Believe it or not, there’s a difference between understanding basic physics and commentary regarding a posteriori modeling underlying what the basic physics are being used for.
Thanks, GL. I’d been following Curry but don’t remember that piece in particular. I’m working on a long piece on climategate plus one year — it was due the week of Nov 20th, which tells you how far overdue I am — comvering some of these things.
As I mentioned above, one of the most envcouraging things post-Climategate is that anti-”consensus” papers now seem to be getting fair reviews and an honest hearing… part of the time, at least. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/01/skeptic-paper-accepted-on-antarctica-rebuts-steig-et-al/
Re : that note about record breaking cold winter in England. That may not actually have as much to do with anything cyclical as much as the Gulf of Mexico. Seems oil/Corexit all over the floor of the Gulf may have interfered with the convection current which takes warm water to Europe. We all know what happens when you turn off the radiator when it’s cold.
And if anybody cares, I’m sure there has been complaint about the fraud. Not that all of it has surfaced yet. I ran across a LaRouche file just over a year ago which started me tracking the noise as a component in a larger scheme of disinformation warfare.
Besides CFACT, Global Research.ca has posted a number of articles disputing any idea of ‘scientific consensus’ on ‘climate science’.
In my Topical Index is an open collection which I add to from time to time ‘Climate in Contention’. It’s mostly for musing at how pervasive b.s. is. It really competes with the Foreign Policy files…which I introduced again Dec 20 2009 in Afghanistan,etc. Lately though the Nov 22 Morning Musings took the cake with the comprehensive outline about TRAP…the NPT fraud.
Which brought me full circle back to Dec 4 2009 Global Warming Hoax.
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com
It’s odd to think of you guys on the side of the angels. That’s not really my overall impression. But do I think ‘liberals’ lie ?
Find me one. A Real one. Chomsky is about it….nah Chris Floyd, there are more. I still think the anarchists are the most challenging to the mind.
And for those who say I harm the fight on pollution : bullshit. Looking at the wrong evil causes being distracted from real danger…rather like War on Terra and War on Druggies. Water – Wealth & Power. More notes on the causes of fall of empire are likely easier to find from http://my.opera.com/oldephartte/links
Opit,
Please go away. Your lack of scientific knowledge is lowering the level of discussion here.
By the way, please do the following math and post your result here – divide the volume of oil released in the Gulf by the volume of water in the Gulf. Then think about it.
You people are ingrates. Why, oh why, can’t you see the truth? It is now colder and the seas are receeding because Obama’s pledge has been implemented. Didn’t he tell his followers that “We are the ones” who will remake the climate of the Earth. And congratulations to you too, business pro Al Gore, you are indeed the prince of the shifting, whispering sands. People, volk, give credit where credit is due.
CORRECTION:
On top of this they then ASSERT that the climate is so sensitive that the rise in *TEMPERATURE* from 1800 – say 1930 is the result of CO2.
(sorry about that.)
You need to keep in mind:
“• In the pre-Hispanic language Cancun means ‘nest of serpents’. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8167386/Cancun-Climate-Change-Conference-the-Diary.html
so it should be
WashingtonCancun, d.c…. yep
Here is Monkton the stitch-up in Cabcun
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/09/moncktons-mexican-missive-3/
You mean the sky isn’t falling? What about ManBearPig?
Don’t pay any attention to these lies, Al Gore will save the world. He’s serial.
The fact that the wikileak people are trying to shut down peope like Sarah palin’s site and gone into her credit cards etc , is wrong
. It’s against the law no matter how you look at it. If you criticize these people/Juian that try to hurt you they hack your life.. the government is one thing, personal things like the Palin’s and their personal accounts is another, and wrong in so many ways.
Dear Mr. Assange,
Sorry about that post where we recommended the CIA kidnap you and bring you back to the USA for trial.
Carry on.
Sincerely,
Pro-Carbon Coalition
Mr. Oak
Mr. Elm
Mr. Maple
Mr. Grass
Mrs. Flower
Mrs. Lilipad
Mrs. Clover
The Navier Stokes equations describe the movement of air with changes in density and temperature. They are non-linear, and therefore states can not be predicted far in advance.
The entire global warming hoax is based on the assertion that the annual average temperature (and CO2 levels), rather than being an artifact of the means used to collect data, has some predictive ability for the future. But because the NS equations are non-linear, this is not true.
The importance of the non-linearity of the NS equations has been known since the work of Edward Lorenz in the 1960s.
Don, that’s not actually true.You’re indeed correct that the weather models are big systems of nonlinear partial differential equations, and of course its a folk theorem that non-linear + more that three degrees of freedom = chaos. But a chaotic system can still be, in some sense, predictable: you may not know what th next instant’s position in the lorentz attractor will be, but still know to a high probability that it will be somewhere within the Loretz attractor,
Well, I’m no mathematician. But even to me, variations in received radiation from orbital position, received mass into the atmosphere changing ( and you have to wonder what such changes might imply to Solar activity ) along the galactic path and much more tend to make me think you’re still talking ‘Closed System’. Cycles of change will have drivers which may recur with some regularity. Otherwise you’re saying that a kaleidoscope is not infinitely variable…which doesn’t sound hugely useful.
I was trying to answer him at the level he was asking questions. The point is that there are very good reasons to think that this stuff is “chaotic”, which means “sensitively dependent on initial conditions.” That means you can’t predict exactly what the state will be a long time in the future without knowing exactly what the state is now — and you can’t know what the state is now.
But even if a system is SDOIC, it’s still entirely possible that you can state the range in which the values will fall.
In this case, the real underlying point is that there are many inputs, and we can’t quantify any of them perfectly, so while anthropogenic greenhouse gases may have an effect, it’s not instantly clear we can quantify the magnitude of that effect.
I wonder in what year was there the perfect model of harmony in nature and with our climate? Has anyone ever told you? Environmentalism is a totally non-fact based exercise. It is not science. It is politics being played with religious certitude. The whole play is to make the skeptic prove that the canards of this religion are false. The fraud is that the perpetrator does not attempt to prove the theory and instead relies on the same premise as is the basis of any religion: “If you can’t prove that my theory is not true, then my theory must be true”. Enlightened religious leaders fight through this faux logic with the expression of a great leap of faith. Environmentalists don’t even bother with that because they are in a political play that they believe they are winning. We should be asking them if they are believers in Environmentalism because of their faith. They should no more be given the podium of science than the religious zealots they usually despise.
A prime example of the urgency of information security needs in corporate and government organizations.
It’s not necessarily that these organiations were hacked, news coverage seems to be pointing to insiders leaking the documents to WikiLeaks. Wikileaks posted the classified information, there’s no evidence that it hacked to get the info.
Information assurance training can be taken online and prep individuals for high security positions.
It would be really great if Arnold Swartzenegger would read this. He certainly is ruining California what with all his green plans. I have the feeling he is quite stubborn and will do nothing but encourage the greenies.
God help us all!
Mabel,
Hang in there, you only have one more month of the “Governator”. Of course, then all you Californians leap from the frying pan into the fire. Good luck with the “Greenie in Chief” Jerry(re-run)Brown. How do you guys do this to yourselves every time?
Thanks , I’ve recently been searching for information approximately this topic for a while and yours is the greatest I have discovered so far. However, what in regards to the conclusion? Are you positive in regards to the source?|What i don’t understood is actually how you are not really a lot more neatly-liked than you might be right now. You’re so intelligent.