The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud (1 Viewer)

[tommyboy]

i prefer my shirts be made by starving guatamalan children, at high noon under the heat of the sun, at gunpoint.

 

[jon_mx]

NBC Nightly News Takes Up ClimateGate, But Frets It Could 'Delay Taking Action'

By Brent Baker (Bio | Archive)

December 4, 2009 - 21:05 ET

Two weeks after the scandal broke, NBC Nightly News on Friday night became the first broadcast network morning or evening news program to inform viewers about “ClimateGate,” but only in the most cursory manner as correspondent Anne Thompson, a long-time ally of the environmental left, despaired the e-mails may end up “giving politicians from coal and oil-producing states another reason to delay taking action to reduce emissions. The government's leading scientist told Congress there is no time to lose.”

Anchor Brian Williams had teased: “ClimateGate, they're calling it. A new scandal over global warming and it's burning up the Internet. Have the books been cooked on climate change?” But neither Williams nor Thompson ever again used the “ClimateGate” term as Thompson's story assured viewers the threat remains while she saw -- not a major scientific scandal -- but merely how “those who doubt that manmade greenhouse gases are changing the climate say” the e-mails “show climate scientists massaging data and suppressing studies by those who disagree.”

Thompson, who in 2007 declared “the scientific debate is no longer over society's role in global warming. It is now a matter of degrees,” allowed soundbites from a Republican Congressman and Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute, but countered with how “25 leading U.S. scientists accused climate change opponents of misrepresenting the e-mails' significance” and, after a clip of left-wing activist Michael Oppenheimer, she fretted over how, as quoted above, the e-mails will “delay” vital action. Thompson concluded with NOAA's administrator: “Climate change is not a theory. It is a documented set of observations about the world.”

 

[jonessed]

sad, but true.

On the Horn with the Warming All-Stars [stephen Spruiell]

I joined a conference call today, hosted by the Center for American Progress (CAP), featuring Penn State’s Michael Mann, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, and Princeton’s Michael Oppenheimer. CAP advertised the call as “setting the record straight” on this whole Climategate nonsense. Here are my notes from the call:

1. A tense-sounding Joe Romm, CAP’s global-warming head honcho, opens by reading from Nature’s editorial on Climategate: “‘Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real,’” Romm says, “‘or that human activities are almost certainly the cause.’” Romm argues that Climategate is a smear campaign based on a “misrepresentation of some illegally hacked e-mails.”

2. Mann also argues that Climategate is a smear campaign orchestrated by “a handful of people and organizations that have tried to cloud the debate.” Mann accused these individuals and groups of having no interest in “contributing to the scientific discourse,” because the science isn’t on their side. Instead, they’ve stolen e-mails, mined them for certain key phrases, and then taken those phrases out of context in order to foment public confusion. Schmidt and Oppenheimer make similar points.

3. The first question comes from Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. “You guys have worked really hard to keep yourself separate from the political process,” Revkin says, and yet CAP has a specific political agenda. Why do this call through CAP? Mann replies that the conference call was CAP’s idea, and that he agreed to it because CAP is “a wonderful venue for us to get out what the science has to say and to address these specious allegations.”

4. The second question is not about the leaked e-mails, and then it’s my turn. I ask Mann about the e-mail in which he wrote, “We have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal.” Mann replies, “It’s important to understand what peer review actually is. It’s not a license for anybody to publish in the scientific literature an article that doesn’t meet the high standards of scientific quality expected from the scientific literature.” With regard to Climate Research, Mann says, “There was an editor that appeared to be gaming the system to allow through papers that did not meet the standards of science simply because they expressed a contrarian viewpoint.”

5. I ask a follow-up about the e-mail in which Tom Wigley recommended that the group get the editor of another journal ousted. Schmidt fields this one. Again, he says, the problem was not that the journal in question published skeptical articles; it’s that the articles in question did not meet the “high standards” of the climate-science community. There were “frustrations with the fact that the peer-review process, which is supposed to screen out papers that do meet those standards, had failed here,” Schmidt says. But he hurriedly adds that the editor in question “was not pressured to resign.” The tactic recommended by Wigley “was not pursued#...#the guy did his full rotation as editor then rotated off.”

6. Another reporter asks Mann about reports that Penn State has opened an investigation into Climategate. He also asks about an e-mail that CRU’s Phil Jones wrote to Mann, requesting that Mann delete certain e-mails. Mann replies, “There is no investigation. Penn State is simply reviewing the evidence out there to determine if there is any reason for an investigation.” He adds that he welcomes the scrutiny. “I have nothing to hide, I did nothing wrong.” As for the e-mail evidence that he and Jones might have deleted information subject to FOIA, Mann says, “Frankly, the sending of that e-mail demonstrated unfortunate judgment on the part of that scientist,” and, “to my knowledge, nobody acted on it,” and, “I did not delete any e-mails and I felt uncomfortable receiving that request.”

7. Neil Munro of National Journal asks if the group would be willing to invite a group of outsiders to examine the data that the e-mails suggest was manipulated to “hide the decline.” Schmidt replies that the CRU database is “not the only database out there,” and that the differences between its data and those of organizations like NASA, etc., are “completely minimal.” Schmidt says, “Maybe it’s important that [CRU has] some of the older data, but any of the changes over the 20th century are available.”

8. Some themes throughout the call: A) The people making a big deal out of Climategate are smear artists who don’t have the science on their side. Despite having admitted that the e-mails demonstrate at least one instance of “unfortunate judgment,” Mann reiterates that the skeptics are “twisting the words of scientists in their private correspondence.” B) The e-mails do not disprove the theory of anthropogenic global warming or that it poses a massive threat that must be addressed by sharply reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. C) Despite Revkin’s assertion that these guys have “worked really hard” to steer clear of politics, the scientists repeatedly talk about the importance of their relationship with policymakers, which necessarily involves politics. D) Of course, they can’t stress enough that the e-mails in question were illegally obtained.

9. Schmidt ends the call by saying that the storm cloud of Climategate might have a silver lining: “Once all the gotcha stuff is worn out and the context has been established . . . there will be a record when you actually look at these e-mails of how science is actually done.” Hmm. If you say so . . .

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/...jRmMDlkNDI0OTE=

This kind of attitude is going to end up making it a lot harder on them. The pieces being taken out of the emails are not phrases, they are entire conversations. I mean, the emails are out there. There is no sense telling people that what they are seeing isn't really what they are seeing. There is no way to spin some of the things they discussed. It was unethical, really unethical, and there is a lot of it.

 

[jon_mx]

A lecture on Global Warming on the impact to the Lone Star state postponed....for snow.....

 

[The Z Machine]

Here is, I think, a good analogy for the whole "climate-gate" episode. This is very much akin to a criminal trial, where the defense discovers that the chain of evidence was not maintained by the investigating police department, and in fact, the evidence may have been tampered with. Maybe I watch noo many cop shows, but as far as I know, if the evidence may have been tampered with, it get's tossed out. Now, in no way does that mean the trial is over - there may be other evidence to consider, but at the very least, the lynch-pin evidence pointing towards global warming is compromised. Can you not even admit this much?

We can agree on that much.The salient point, of course, is the other evidence to consider. You can have your star witness or your key evidence discredited and still win the case when you have supporting evidence that is strong enough.And I've said at least 6 times in this thread that if the scientific community, who is best able to judge this, looks at what has been revealed and decides that the evidence no longer supports the hypothesis, I'm more than happy to change my view. I am not planting a flag in "Global Warming." I am planting a flag in "common wisdom of scientists."

I htink such a large number of scientists believe in AGW because a larg number of scientists believe that other scientists are basically honest. It reminds of of some of the old demonstrations by The Amazing Randi, whichproved how easy it is to fool scientists, simply because they believed that the process was an honest one.

I actually agree with this. As a published scientist, who has never and will never falsify / fabricate / alter data to elicit a particular conclusion, when I hear about falsified or manipulated data, it gives me pause about the whole thing.I was a pretty big proponent of AGCC theory, but I'm now calling that into question. I have fewer answers now than I did before, and that's a shame.Personally, I find it hard to believe that there's some sort of major conspiracy going on, a la the South Korean biologists and the human cloning stuff. Rather, I *want* to believe that this situation (which I haven't been following closely) is a small potatoes thing where communications that were never intended to be published were taken out of context and used to attack the published conclusions of the authors, and there was no active intent to falsify data or conclusions. It could also be that there are a few bad apples that really actively did manipulate data to achieve nefarious ends. There are FAR too many people involved for there to be a huge global conspiracy here.

 

[Gigantomachia]

A lecture on Global Warming on the impact to the Lone Star state postponed....for snow.....

mx proving the power of a lack of intelligence at its finest.LINK

The results highlight one of the challenges in the public debate over global warming: the tendency to cite weather in one location or a year’s pattern for one continent as evidence for or against global warming.

“Warming is not going to be uniform,” Mr. Jarraud says. “There will still be cold winters” and colder-than-normal summers, he says. “What we’re talking about is trends averaged over large areas and over long periods.”

 

[jon_mx]

A lecture on Global Warming on the impact to the Lone Star state postponed....for snow.....

mx proving the power of a lack of intelligence at its finest.LINK

The results highlight one of the challenges in the public debate over global warming: the tendency to cite weather in one location or a year’s pattern for one continent as evidence for or against global warming.

“Warming is not going to be uniform,” Mr. Jarraud says. “There will still be cold winters” and colder-than-normal summers, he says. “What we’re talking about is trends averaged over large areas and over long periods.”

First off, did I call you stupid? I was just pointing out an ironic tidbit and you have to jump into the insults for no reason what so ever. Nothing I said was incorrect or lacking intelligence. The fact is, in 1998 when we were hitting the highs, all the computer models and global warming scientist were screaming that this is a sure sign we are headed towards accelerating growth in temperature. Instead temperatures leveled off and perhaps even decreased. ALL the models were wrong and they have yet to come up with an explanation. OK, so now the spin is to average the decades and compare it to this decade. That is cherry picking at its finest. Global Alarmist want to have it both ways. They love to point to every bad weather incident and trumpet global warming on the front page of every newspaper, but then when something like this happens, it becomes only valid to look at the long term trends.

 

[Gigantomachia]

A lecture on Global Warming on the impact to the Lone Star state postponed....for snow.....

mx proving the power of a lack of intelligence at its finest.LINK

The results highlight one of the challenges in the public debate over global warming: the tendency to cite weather in one location or a year’s pattern for one continent as evidence for or against global warming.

“Warming is not going to be uniform,” Mr. Jarraud says. “There will still be cold winters” and colder-than-normal summers, he says. “What we’re talking about is trends averaged over large areas and over long periods.”

First off, did I call you stupid? I was just pointing out an ironic tidbit and you have to jump into the insults for no reason what so ever. Nothing I said was incorrect or lacking intelligence. The fact is, in 1998 when we were hitting the highs, all the computer models and global warming scientist were screaming that this is a sure sign we are headed towards accelerating growth in temperature. Instead temperatures leveled off and perhaps even decreased. ALL the models were wrong and they have yet to come up with an explanation. OK, so now the spin is to average the decades and compare it to this decade. That is cherry picking at its finest. Global Alarmist want to have it both ways. They love to point to every bad weather incident and trumpet global warming on the front page of every newspaper, but then when something like this happens, it becomes only valid to look at the long term trends.

Global alarmist do not equal science. Go roll your eyes with the rest of the fourth graders.ETA: and the worst possible thing we can do is act like this is all a joke. Sir.

 

[moleculo]

A lecture on Global Warming on the impact to the Lone Star state postponed....for snow.....

mx proving the power of a lack of intelligence at its finest.LINK

The results highlight one of the challenges in the public debate over global warming: the tendency to cite weather in one location or a year’s pattern for one continent as evidence for or against global warming.

“Warming is not going to be uniform,” Mr. Jarraud says. “There will still be cold winters” and colder-than-normal summers, he says. “What we’re talking about is trends averaged over large areas and over long periods.”

First off, did I call you stupid? I was just pointing out an ironic tidbit and you have to jump into the insults for no reason what so ever. Nothing I said was incorrect or lacking intelligence. The fact is, in 1998 when we were hitting the highs, all the computer models and global warming scientist were screaming that this is a sure sign we are headed towards accelerating growth in temperature. Instead temperatures leveled off and perhaps even decreased. ALL the models were wrong and they have yet to come up with an explanation. OK, so now the spin is to average the decades and compare it to this decade. That is cherry picking at its finest. Global Alarmist want to have it both ways. They love to point to every bad weather incident and trumpet global warming on the front page of every newspaper, but then when something like this happens, it becomes only valid to look at the long term trends.

Global alarmist do not equal science. Go roll your eyes with the rest of the fourth graders.ETA: and the worst possible thing we can do is act like this is all a joke. Sir.

is your position that none of the AGW scientists ever overstated their case?

 

[Gigantomachia]

is your position that none of the AGW scientists ever overstated their case?

My position is that even if that is the case that does not mean GW is false. To assume otherwise is the worst kind of fallacy.

 

[moleculo]

is your position that none of the AGW scientists ever overstated their case?

My position is that even if that is the case that does not mean GW is false. To assume otherwise is the worst kind of fallacy.

so if the scientists overstate their case and point out how anomalies that err on their favor (i.e. this is the hottest year on record), do they not deserve mocking when various anomalies work against them?it looks to me like the GW we have seen so far is about 1.5 deg C per century, or on average 0.015 deg C per year. Year to year fluctuations are likely to be +/- 0.1 deg C, so the noise is an order of magnatude higher than the signal. When you come out and state that this year is hotter than last year, that really is due to fluctuations - could be caused by anything ranging from solar activity, volcanos, el nino, or a butterfly flapping it's wings in China. any time anyone tries to draw a conclusion on GW by looking at one single year or comparing a couple of data points, they are doing a disservice to the science in general, and the scientists should be held to a higher standard. If Jon_mx chooses to mock them for overstating their case, I'm all for it.

 

[Gigantomachia]

is your position that none of the AGW scientists ever overstated their case?

My position is that even if that is the case that does not mean GW is false. To assume otherwise is the worst kind of fallacy.

so if the scientists overstate their case and point out how anomalies that err on their favor (i.e. this is the hottest year on record), do they not deserve mocking when various anomalies work against them?it looks to me like the GW we have seen so far is about 1.5 deg C per century, or on average 0.015 deg C per year. Year to year fluctuations are likely to be +/- 0.1 deg C, so the noise is an order of magnatude higher than the signal. When you come out and state that this year is hotter than last year, that really is due to fluctuations - could be caused by anything ranging from solar activity, volcanos, el nino, or a butterfly flapping it's wings in China. any time anyone tries to draw a conclusion on GW by looking at one single year or comparing a couple of data points, they are doing a disservice to the science in general, and the scientists should be held to a higher standard. If Jon_mx chooses to mock them for overstating their case, I'm all for it.

You assume that acts of a few equal the knowledge of the many. Mocking merely reinforces this fallacy. Bottom line, well over 90% of climatologists agree that we are influencing the global temperature and that icecap reduction is a direct result. But go ahead and keep acting like your argument is actually valid.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

is your position that none of the AGW scientists ever overstated their case?

My position is that even if that is the case that does not mean GW is false. To assume otherwise is the worst kind of fallacy.

so if the scientists overstate their case and point out how anomalies that err on their favor (i.e. this is the hottest year on record), do they not deserve mocking when various anomalies work against them?it looks to me like the GW we have seen so far is about 1.5 deg C per century, or on average 0.015 deg C per year. Year to year fluctuations are likely to be +/- 0.1 deg C, so the noise is an order of magnatude higher than the signal. When you come out and state that this year is hotter than last year, that really is due to fluctuations - could be caused by anything ranging from solar activity, volcanos, el nino, or a butterfly flapping it's wings in China. any time anyone tries to draw a conclusion on GW by looking at one single year or comparing a couple of data points, they are doing a disservice to the science in general, and the scientists should be held to a higher standard. If Jon_mx chooses to mock them for overstating their case, I'm all for it.

You assume that acts of a few equal the knowledge of the many. Mocking merely reinforces this fallacy. Bottom line, well over 90% of climatologists agree that we are influencing the global temperature and that icecap reduction is a direct result. But go ahead and keep acting like your argument is actually valid.

Do you chew Trident?

 

[tommyboy]

A lecture on Global Warming on the impact to the Lone Star state postponed....for snow.....

mx proving the power of a lack of intelligence at its finest.LINK

The results highlight one of the challenges in the public debate over global warming: the tendency to cite weather in one location or a year's pattern for one continent as evidence for or against global warming.

"Warming is not going to be uniform," Mr. Jarraud says. "There will still be cold winters" and colder-than-normal summers, he says. "What we're talking about is trends averaged over large areas and over long periods."

like when the alarmists/scientists/climatechangers told us that Katrina was the evidence of global warming and how we were going to be hammered by more and worse in the future. I wonder how that turned out for their models?

 

[Phurfur]

The GW movement is about two things and nothing else. 1) The New World Order and 2) Redistribution of Wealth. It will be too late to stop once most of you figure this out but I am guess most of the pro GW people are for this anyway. Enjoy your new planet.

 

[Phurfur]

A lecture on Global Warming on the impact to the Lone Star state postponed....for snow.....

mx proving the power of a lack of intelligence at its finest.LINK

The results highlight one of the challenges in the public debate over global warming: the tendency to cite weather in one location or a year’s pattern for one continent as evidence for or against global warming.

“Warming is not going to be uniform,” Mr. Jarraud says. “There will still be cold winters” and colder-than-normal summers, he says. “What we’re talking about is trends averaged over large areas and over long periods.”

I really love this, the earth is millions of years old and they are talking about long periods of time. Some people will believe anything.

 

[moleculo]

is your position that none of the AGW scientists ever overstated their case?

My position is that even if that is the case that does not mean GW is false. To assume otherwise is the worst kind of fallacy.

so if the scientists overstate their case and point out how anomalies that err on their favor (i.e. this is the hottest year on record), do they not deserve mocking when various anomalies work against them?it looks to me like the GW we have seen so far is about 1.5 deg C per century, or on average 0.015 deg C per year. Year to year fluctuations are likely to be +/- 0.1 deg C, so the noise is an order of magnitude higher than the signal. When you come out and state that this year is hotter than last year, that really is due to fluctuations - could be caused by anything ranging from solar activity, volcanos, el nino, or a butterfly flapping it's wings in China. any time anyone tries to draw a conclusion on GW by looking at one single year or comparing a couple of data points, they are doing a disservice to the science in general, and the scientists should be held to a higher standard. If Jon_mx chooses to mock them for overstating their case, I'm all for it.

You assume that acts of a few equal the knowledge of the many. Mocking merely reinforces this fallacy. Bottom line, well over 90% of climatologists agree that we are influencing the global temperature and that icecap reduction is a direct result. But go ahead and keep acting like your argument is actually valid.

so we are clear, what exactly is invalid about my argument?

 

[Gigantomachia]

so we are clear, what exactly is invalid about my argument?

You don't have an argument. You do not offer counter statistics, you lack a focused thesis, and your lack of support makes your conclusion far less than sound.Moreover, validity is not a measure of discourse.

 

[Gigantomachia]

A lecture on Global Warming on the impact to the Lone Star state postponed....for snow.....

mx proving the power of a lack of intelligence at its finest.LINK

The results highlight one of the challenges in the public debate over global warming: the tendency to cite weather in one location or a year’s pattern for one continent as evidence for or against global warming.

“Warming is not going to be uniform,” Mr. Jarraud says. “There will still be cold winters” and colder-than-normal summers, he says. “What we’re talking about is trends averaged over large areas and over long periods.”

I really love this, the earth is millions of years old and they are talking about long periods of time. Some people will believe anything.

I know, like that whole God thing. Hillarious.

 

[Gigantomachia]

The GW movement is about two things and nothing else. 1) The New World Order and 2) Redistribution of Wealth. It will be too late to stop once most of you figure this out but I am guess most of the pro GW people are for this anyway. Enjoy your new planet.

Wow, another person who really does not understand the difference between politics and science.Sad.

 

[Gigantomachia]

A lecture on Global Warming on the impact to the Lone Star state postponed....for snow.....

mx proving the power of a lack of intelligence at its finest.LINK

The results highlight one of the challenges in the public debate over global warming: the tendency to cite weather in one location or a year's pattern for one continent as evidence for or against global warming.

"Warming is not going to be uniform," Mr. Jarraud says. "There will still be cold winters" and colder-than-normal summers, he says. "What we're talking about is trends averaged over large areas and over long periods."

like when the alarmists/scientists/climatechangers told us that Katrina was the evidence of global warming and how we were going to be hammered by more and worse in the future. I wonder how that turned out for their models?

Are one of those dense individuals that believes only what happens in America counts as a measure?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Oh ####. I just stepped in a big puddle of irony.

 

[tommyboy]

so we are clear, what exactly is invalid about my argument?

You don't have an argument. You do not offer counter statistics, you lack a focused thesis, and your lack of support makes your conclusion far less than sound.Moreover, validity is not a measure of discourse.

well here's an argument, and according to the scientists, its indisputable.over the course of 4.5 billion years the earth has been through periods of millions of years of significantly hotter and cooler weather than what we have experienced the last 2000 years, let alone the last 50 or last 20. in this light, the idea of global warming is a joke. We're fretting over 0.5 C over a century.

 

[DrJ]

The GW movement is about two things and nothing else. 1) The New World Order and 2) Redistribution of Wealth. It will be too late to stop once most of you figure this out but I am guess most of the pro GW people are for this anyway. Enjoy your new planet.

Wow, another person who really does not understand the difference between politics and science.Sad.

Since this is all just science, I'm sure that GISS will gladly allow the public to see their raw data and the algorithms they use to come up with their adjusted data? Especially after there have already proven to be issues with the quality control that was discovered earlier in the year. And also considering it is all of our tax dollars that go to fund said research. Oh wait...This isn't just CRU and a couple of scientists. It appears that it could be a heck of a lot more.

 

[Bogeys]

You guys do realize that gigi just to in order to watch the right?

It is amusing to watch when he hooks people, but he insults and dismisses anyone who disagrees with him just to get a reaction IMO.

 

[Gigantomachia]

so we are clear, what exactly is invalid about my argument?

You don't have an argument. You do not offer counter statistics, you lack a focused thesis, and your lack of support makes your conclusion far less than sound.Moreover, validity is not a measure of discourse.

well here's an argument, and according to the scientists, its indisputable.over the course of 4.5 billion years the earth has been through periods of millions of years of significantly hotter and cooler weather than what we have experienced the last 2000 years, let alone the last 50 or last 20. in this light, the idea of global warming is a joke. We're fretting over 0.5 C over a century.

You clearly miss the point. The argument is not about whether or not the earth has risen and fallen in overall global temps over time, no one disputes that. The argument is that it is currently happening due to human influence. So again, you have no argument per se, you simply restate political rhetoric.

 

[Gigantomachia]

You guys do realize that gigi just to in order to watch the right?It is amusing to watch when he hooks people, but he insults and dismisses anyone who disagrees with him just to get a reaction IMO.

I only insult claims that are made in absolute terms supported by nothing more than mere doxa. The attack is on the claim, not the person; though most cannot seperate themselves from their claims.The rest sounds about right.

 

[Phurfur]

The GW movement is about two things and nothing else. 1) The New World Order and 2) Redistribution of Wealth. It will be too late to stop once most of you figure this out but I am guess most of the pro GW people are for this anyway. Enjoy your new planet.

Wow, another person who really does not understand the difference between politics and science.Sad.

Wow, look at what they are proposing in Copenhagen! I am not saying GW is true or false just how the information will be used. The fact is that the people in Copenhagen don't care if GW is true because they have a different agenda. 1) The New World Order and 2) Redistribution of Wealth. GW is a means to an end. Always watch what the other hand is doing.

 

[Phurfur]

so we are clear, what exactly is invalid about my argument?

You don't have an argument. You do not offer counter statistics, you lack a focused thesis, and your lack of support makes your conclusion far less than sound.Moreover, validity is not a measure of discourse.

well here's an argument, and according to the scientists, its indisputable.over the course of 4.5 billion years the earth has been through periods of millions of years of significantly hotter and cooler weather than what we have experienced the last 2000 years, let alone the last 50 or last 20. in this light, the idea of global warming is a joke. We're fretting over 0.5 C over a century.

You clearly miss the point. The argument is not about whether or not the earth has risen and fallen in overall global temps over time, no one disputes that. The argument is that it is currently happening due to human influence. So again, you have no argument per se, you simply restate political rhetoric.

You clearly miss the point. It is not about if GW is true but how they are proposing to fix it. We all want a cleaner planet.

 

[moleculo]

so we are clear, what exactly is invalid about my argument?

You don't have an argument. You do not offer counter statistics, you lack a focused thesis, and your lack of support makes your conclusion far less than sound.Moreover, validity is not a measure of discourse.

XI did offer statistics, i'm sorry I need to spell this out in greater detail.

it looks to me like the GW we have seen so far is about 1.5 deg C per century, or on average 0.015 deg C per year. Year to year fluctuations are likely to be +/- 0.1 deg C, so the noise is an order of magnatude higher than the signal. When you come out and state that this year is hotter than last year, that really is due to fluctuations - could be caused by anything ranging from solar activity, volcanos, el nino, or a butterfly flapping it's wings in China.

statistics: GW accounts for ~0.015 deg C/year. Year to year fluctuations are +/ 0.1 deg C. Argument: it is impossible to draw conclusions when looking at short term data. To make any valid argument, we need to consider time slices on the scale of 100 years.

Focused thesis: both sides are guilty of looking at short term data and trying to draw conclusions. This is bad science, and we should expect more from those skilled in the art.

I'm sorry if you looked at my post and inferred something that wasn't there, and (poorly) constructed a strawman argument based on that. My statements and conclusions are not to be extrapolated and beyond the data I presented. At no point did I make any claim regarding human influence within the scope of this particular discussion.

 

[bueno]

Here is, I think, a good analogy for the whole "climate-gate" episode. This is very much akin to a criminal trial, where the defense discovers that the chain of evidence was not maintained by the investigating police department, and in fact, the evidence may have been tampered with. Maybe I watch noo many cop shows, but as far as I know, if the evidence may have been tampered with, it get's tossed out. Now, in no way does that mean the trial is over - there may be other evidence to consider, but at the very least, the lynch-pin evidence pointing towards global warming is compromised. Can you not even admit this much?

We can agree on that much.The salient point, of course, is the other evidence to consider. You can have your star witness or your key evidence discredited and still win the case when you have supporting evidence that is strong enough.And I've said at least 6 times in this thread that if the scientific community, who is best able to judge this, looks at what has been revealed and decides that the evidence no longer supports the hypothesis, I'm more than happy to change my view. I am not planting a flag in "Global Warming." I am planting a flag in "common wisdom of scientists."

I htink such a large number of scientists believe in AGW because a larg number of scientists believe that other scientists are basically honest. It reminds of of some of the old demonstrations by The Amazing Randi, whichproved how easy it is to fool scientists, simply because they believed that the process was an honest one.

I actually agree with this. As a published scientist, who has never and will never falsify / fabricate / alter data to elicit a particular conclusion, when I hear about falsified or manipulated data, it gives me pause about the whole thing.I was a pretty big proponent of AGCC theory, but I'm now calling that into question. I have fewer answers now than I did before, and that's a shame.Personally, I find it hard to believe that there's some sort of major conspiracy going on, a la the South Korean biologists and the human cloning stuff. Rather, I *want* to believe that this situation (which I haven't been following closely) is a small potatoes thing where communications that were never intended to be published were taken out of context and used to attack the published conclusions of the authors, and there was no active intent to falsify data or conclusions. It could also be that there are a few bad apples that really actively did manipulate data to achieve nefarious ends. There are FAR too many people involved for there to be a huge global conspiracy here.

The probem as I understand it is that the "bad apples" controlled the data against which a lot of other data was calibrated. So the conclusions of a lot of honest research can be called into question as well.You and I both know as well, that in building models, certain assumptions are used. If the assumptions used are wrong, the model is wrong. It appears that is what has happened and rather than being honest about it, certain scientists atrted massaging the data to fit the model.I don't think there is a major conspiracy either, but I do know, as you do too, that scientists are all too human, have egos and often defend their pet theories emotionally as much as scientifically. It is entirely possible, IMO that a combination of factors has built a house of cards that is now tumbling down. Unfortunately, this doesn't put us in a scenario where AGW is discredited so much as it puts us in a scenario where certain scientists and institutions are, and the real answers are as unknown now as they were 30 years ago.

 

[bueno]

is your position that none of the AGW scientists ever overstated their case?

My position is that even if that is the case that does not mean GW is false. To assume otherwise is the worst kind of fallacy.

The problem is that it doesn't mean it is true either. To assume that is also the worst kind of fallacy.

 

[bueno]

so we are clear, what exactly is invalid about my argument?

You don't have an argument. You do not offer counter statistics, you lack a focused thesis, and your lack of support makes your conclusion far less than sound.Moreover, validity is not a measure of discourse.

well here's an argument, and according to the scientists, its indisputable.over the course of 4.5 billion years the earth has been through periods of millions of years of significantly hotter and cooler weather than what we have experienced the last 2000 years, let alone the last 50 or last 20. in this light, the idea of global warming is a joke. We're fretting over 0.5 C over a century.

You clearly miss the point. The argument is not about whether or not the earth has risen and fallen in overall global temps over time, no one disputes that. The argument is that it is currently happening due to human influence. So again, you have no argument per se, you simply restate political rhetoric.

If the argument is that itis currently happening solely due to human influence rather than human influence playing a minor role in climate change, then the argument deserves mocking.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

.... but I do know, as you do too, that scientists are all too human, have egos and often defend their pet theories emotionally as much as scientifically. ...

Science depends on this. These human flaws are what tears down bad "pet theories" as much as it promotes them.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If the argument is that itis currently happening solely due to human influence rather than human influence playing a minor role in climate change, then the argument deserves mocking.

There are more choices than these two.

 

[Bonzai]

Here is, I think, a good analogy for the whole "climate-gate" episode. This is very much akin to a criminal trial, where the defense discovers that the chain of evidence was not maintained by the investigating police department, and in fact, the evidence may have been tampered with. Maybe I watch noo many cop shows, but as far as I know, if the evidence may have been tampered with, it get's tossed out. Now, in no way does that mean the trial is over - there may be other evidence to consider, but at the very least, the lynch-pin evidence pointing towards global warming is compromised. Can you not even admit this much?

We can agree on that much.The salient point, of course, is the other evidence to consider. You can have your star witness or your key evidence discredited and still win the case when you have supporting evidence that is strong enough.

And I've said at least 6 times in this thread that if the scientific community, who is best able to judge this, looks at what has been revealed and decides that the evidence no longer supports the hypothesis, I'm more than happy to change my view. I am not planting a flag in "Global Warming." I am planting a flag in "common wisdom of scientists."

I htink such a large number of scientists believe in AGW because a larg number of scientists believe that other scientists are basically honest. It reminds of of some of the old demonstrations by The Amazing Randi, whichproved how easy it is to fool scientists, simply because they believed that the process was an honest one.

I actually agree with this. As a published scientist, who has never and will never falsify / fabricate / alter data to elicit a particular conclusion, when I hear about falsified or manipulated data, it gives me pause about the whole thing.I was a pretty big proponent of AGCC theory, but I'm now calling that into question. I have fewer answers now than I did before, and that's a shame.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that there's some sort of major conspiracy going on, a la the South Korean biologists and the human cloning stuff. Rather, I *want* to believe that this situation (which I haven't been following closely) is a small potatoes thing where communications that were never intended to be published were taken out of context and used to attack the published conclusions of the authors, and there was no active intent to falsify data or conclusions.

It could also be that there are a few bad apples that really actively did manipulate data to achieve nefarious ends. There are FAR too many people involved for there to be a huge global conspiracy here.

The probem as I understand it is that the "bad apples" controlled the data against which a lot of other data was calibrated. So the conclusions of a lot of honest research can be called into question as well.You and I both know as well, that in building models, certain assumptions are used. If the assumptions used are wrong, the model is wrong. It appears that is what has happened and rather than being honest about it, certain scientists atrted massaging the data to fit the model.

I don't think there is a major conspiracy either, but I do know, as you do too, that scientists are all too human, have egos and often defend their pet theories emotionally as much as scientifically. It is entirely possible, IMO that a combination of factors has built a house of cards that is now tumbling down. Unfortunately, this doesn't put us in a scenario where AGW is discredited so much as it puts us in a scenario where certain scientists and institutions are, and the real answers are as unknown now as they were 30 years ago.

You don't understand it. The claims you've made here have been repeatedly debunked in this thread.No data was controlled, tampered with, massaged, or lost. Even if all the research at the CRU was deemed flawed, other institutions have independently replicated their work.

 

[bueno]

.... but I do know, as you do too, that scientists are all too human, have egos and often defend their pet theories emotionally as much as scientifically. ...

Science depends on this. These human flaws are what tears down bad "pet theories" as much as it promotes them.

While that may be true, when you have a majority of scientists wanting to believe in a pet theory (as I think is the case with AGW) and shouting down or trying to ostracize the skeptics, what happens is the continual promotion of flawed theory.It is to the point where every news release about global warming needs to be questioned as to the reliability of the data and the computer models used. As a skeptic, I could say ha the house of cards has finally fallen, but as a believer one should realize that climategate has put the entire science back very close to square one. It will take man-decades to fix, and only then will we be able to trust the conclusions again.

 

[Sammy3469]

.... but I do know, as you do too, that scientists are all too human, have egos and often defend their pet theories emotionally as much as scientifically. ...

Science depends on this. These human flaws are what tears down bad "pet theories" as much as it promotes them.

While that may be true, when you have a majority of scientists wanting to believe in a pet theory (as I think is the case with AGW) and shouting down or trying to ostracize the skeptics, what happens is the continual promotion of flawed theory.It is to the point where every news release about global warming needs to be questioned as to the reliability of the data and the computer models used. As a skeptic, I could say ha the house of cards has finally fallen, but as a believer one should realize that climategate has put the entire science back very close to square one. It will take man-decades to fix, and only then will we be able to trust the conclusions again.

 

[The Z Machine]

in this light, the idea of global warming is a joke. We're fretting over 0.5 C over a century.

IF the predictions are accurate (I'm not so sure they are anymore) then the global temp rise would be like 1.5-4 C over the coming century, right?Tell that to the Solomon Islands that it's nothing to fret about.

 

[bueno]

in this light, the idea of global warming is a joke. We're fretting over 0.5 C over a century.

IF the predictions are accurate (I'm not so sure they are anymore) then the global temp rise would be like 1.5-4 C over the coming century, right?Tell that to the Solomon Islands that it's nothing to fret about.

Is there a way to make coral grow faster?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

.... but I do know, as you do too, that scientists are all too human, have egos and often defend their pet theories emotionally as much as scientifically. ...

Science depends on this. These human flaws are what tears down bad "pet theories" as much as it promotes them.

While that may be true, when you have a majority of scientists wanting to believe in a pet theory (as I think is the case with AGW) and shouting down or trying to ostracize the skeptics, what happens is the continual promotion of flawed theory.It is to the point where every news release about global warming needs to be questioned as to the reliability of the data and the computer models used. As a skeptic, I could say ha the house of cards has finally fallen, but as a believer one should realize that climategate has put the entire science back very close to square one. It will take man-decades to fix, and only then will we be able to trust the conclusions again.

Climategate hasn't yet demonstrated that any data should not be trusted, that any data has been tampered with inappropriately. In one of these threads, maybe this one GISS (I think) was supplementing data from a second source to create a continuous line of data where the second source was different enough to lead to skewed results. Something they acknowledged, noted, and corrected when it was pointed out. Other than this there is just a fishing trip. Lots of throwing crap at the wall hoping something sticks. Maybe something will, but so far as someone not a "believer" in either side there has been nothing that causes that much of pause let alone concern that the entire science is back close to square one.

 

[bueno]

.... but I do know, as you do too, that scientists are all too human, have egos and often defend their pet theories emotionally as much as scientifically. ...

Science depends on this. These human flaws are what tears down bad "pet theories" as much as it promotes them.

While that may be true, when you have a majority of scientists wanting to believe in a pet theory (as I think is the case with AGW) and shouting down or trying to ostracize the skeptics, what happens is the continual promotion of flawed theory.It is to the point where every news release about global warming needs to be questioned as to the reliability of the data and the computer models used. As a skeptic, I could say ha the house of cards has finally fallen, but as a believer one should realize that climategate has put the entire science back very close to square one. It will take man-decades to fix, and only then will we be able to trust the conclusions again.

Climategate hasn't yet demonstrated that any data should not be trusted, that any data has been tampered with inappropriately. In one of these threads, maybe this one GISS (I think) was supplementing data from a second source to create a continuous line of data where the second source was different enough to lead to skewed results. Something they acknowledged, noted, and corrected when it was pointed out. Other than this there is just a fishing trip. Lots of throwing crap at the wall hoping something sticks. Maybe something will, but so far as someone not a "believer" in either side there has been nothing that causes that much of pause let alone concern that the entire science is back close to square one.

Flawed algorithms and cooked data don't impress you, I guess.

 

[DrJ]

.... but I do know, as you do too, that scientists are all too human, have egos and often defend their pet theories emotionally as much as scientifically. ...

Science depends on this. These human flaws are what tears down bad "pet theories" as much as it promotes them.

While that may be true, when you have a majority of scientists wanting to believe in a pet theory (as I think is the case with AGW) and shouting down or trying to ostracize the skeptics, what happens is the continual promotion of flawed theory.It is to the point where every news release about global warming needs to be questioned as to the reliability of the data and the computer models used. As a skeptic, I could say ha the house of cards has finally fallen, but as a believer one should realize that climategate has put the entire science back very close to square one. It will take man-decades to fix, and only then will we be able to trust the conclusions again.

Climategate hasn't yet demonstrated that any data should not be trusted, that any data has been tampered with inappropriately. In one of these threads, maybe this one GISS (I think) was supplementing data from a second source to create a continuous line of data where the second source was different enough to lead to skewed results. Something they acknowledged, noted, and corrected when it was pointed out. Other than this there is just a fishing trip. Lots of throwing crap at the wall hoping something sticks. Maybe something will, but so far as someone not a "believer" in either side there has been nothing that causes that much of pause let alone concern that the entire science is back close to square one.

There was also a Y2K bug that was causing everything after 2000 to be .15 degrees Celsius higher. In light of these errors, don't you think it's reasonable that their data and algorithms are turned over to public scrutiny so that they can really be examined for any other potential errors? What is the basis for them refusing to disclose this?

 

[Guest]

The probem as I understand it is that the "bad apples" controlled the data against which a lot of other data was calibrated. So the conclusions of a lot of honest research can be called into question as well.You and I both know as well, that in building models, certain assumptions are used. If the assumptions used are wrong, the model is wrong. It appears that is what has happened and rather than being honest about it, certain scientists atrted massaging the data to fit the model.I don't think there is a major conspiracy either, but I do know, as you do too, that scientists are all too human, have egos and often defend their pet theories emotionally as much as scientifically. It is entirely possible, IMO that a combination of factors has built a house of cards that is now tumbling down. Unfortunately, this doesn't put us in a scenario where AGW is discredited so much as it puts us in a scenario where certain scientists and institutions are, and the real answers are as unknown now as they were 30 years ago.

Translation: "I'm not really sure what's going on or what the overall effect is but I do know that we're now right back where we were in 1979." "I may have never bought a live pig, used yuan as a currency, or ever been to Shanghai but I can tell you with certainty that if you were to buy one in a live market there today it would be between 25 and 30 yuan... and that you should have bought it last week when the guy at the one corner was trying to sell them for cheaper in order to cover a cash-flow problem he was having because his wife was sick."

 

[bueno]

The probem as I understand it is that the "bad apples" controlled the data against which a lot of other data was calibrated. So the conclusions of a lot of honest research can be called into question as well.You and I both know as well, that in building models, certain assumptions are used. If the assumptions used are wrong, the model is wrong. It appears that is what has happened and rather than being honest about it, certain scientists atrted massaging the data to fit the model.I don't think there is a major conspiracy either, but I do know, as you do too, that scientists are all too human, have egos and often defend their pet theories emotionally as much as scientifically. It is entirely possible, IMO that a combination of factors has built a house of cards that is now tumbling down. Unfortunately, this doesn't put us in a scenario where AGW is discredited so much as it puts us in a scenario where certain scientists and institutions are, and the real answers are as unknown now as they were 30 years ago.

Translation: "I'm not really sure what's going on or what the overall effect is but I do know that we're now right back where we were in 1979." "I may have never bought a live pig, used yuan as a currency, or ever been to Shanghai but I can tell you with certainty that if you were to buy one in a live market there today it would be between 25 and 30 yuan... and that you should have bought it last week when the guy at the one corner was trying to sell them for cheaper in order to cover a cash-flow problem he was having because his wife was sick."

You need to have your universal translator repaired or replaced. It isn't working well. Or maybe there is a disconnect between it and your reflex pathways.

 

[tommyboy]

so we are clear, what exactly is invalid about my argument?

You don't have an argument. You do not offer counter statistics, you lack a focused thesis, and your lack of support makes your conclusion far less than sound.Moreover, validity is not a measure of discourse.

well here's an argument, and according to the scientists, its indisputable.over the course of 4.5 billion years the earth has been through periods of millions of years of significantly hotter and cooler weather than what we have experienced the last 2000 years, let alone the last 50 or last 20. in this light, the idea of global warming is a joke. We're fretting over 0.5 C over a century.

You clearly miss the point. The argument is not about whether or not the earth has risen and fallen in overall global temps over time, no one disputes that. The argument is that it is currently happening due to human influence. So again, you have no argument per se, you simply restate political rhetoric.

you seem to be the one missing the point. Humans have an infinitely insignificant effect on the climate of the earth. End of story.

 

[Guest]

The probem as I understand it is that the "bad apples" controlled the data against which a lot of other data was calibrated. So the conclusions of a lot of honest research can be called into question as well.You and I both know as well, that in building models, certain assumptions are used. If the assumptions used are wrong, the model is wrong. It appears that is what has happened and rather than being honest about it, certain scientists atrted massaging the data to fit the model.I don't think there is a major conspiracy either, but I do know, as you do too, that scientists are all too human, have egos and often defend their pet theories emotionally as much as scientifically. It is entirely possible, IMO that a combination of factors has built a house of cards that is now tumbling down. Unfortunately, this doesn't put us in a scenario where AGW is discredited so much as it puts us in a scenario where certain scientists and institutions are, and the real answers are as unknown now as they were 30 years ago.

Translation: "I'm not really sure what's going on or what the overall effect is but I do know that we're now right back where we were in 1979." "I may have never bought a live pig, used yuan as a currency, or ever been to Shanghai but I can tell you with certainty that if you were to buy one in a live market there today it would be between 25 and 30 yuan... and that you should have bought it last week when the guy at the one corner was trying to sell them for cheaper in order to cover a cash-flow problem he was having because his wife was sick."

You need to have your universal translator repaired or replaced. It isn't working well. Or maybe there is a disconnect between it and your reflex pathways.

What I said is completely fair.You acknowledge that you don't know the extent of the issue yet you declare definitely, "the real answers are as unknown now as they were 30 years ago." My guess is that people who actually work and research in the field would strenuously disagree.

 

[Guest]

you seem to be the one missing the point. Humans have an infinitely insignificant effect on the climate of the earth. End of story.

Really? I seem to have missed the whole plot of the story.I'm sure that you have reams of unbiased and non-partisan data to tell it, though.

 

[tommyboy]

No data was controlled, tampered with, massaged, or lost. Even if all the research at the CRU was deemed flawed, other institutions have independently replicated their work.

this is completely false.

 

[bueno]

The probem as I understand it is that the "bad apples" controlled the data against which a lot of other data was calibrated. So the conclusions of a lot of honest research can be called into question as well.You and I both know as well, that in building models, certain assumptions are used. If the assumptions used are wrong, the model is wrong. It appears that is what has happened and rather than being honest about it, certain scientists atrted massaging the data to fit the model.I don't think there is a major conspiracy either, but I do know, as you do too, that scientists are all too human, have egos and often defend their pet theories emotionally as much as scientifically. It is entirely possible, IMO that a combination of factors has built a house of cards that is now tumbling down. Unfortunately, this doesn't put us in a scenario where AGW is discredited so much as it puts us in a scenario where certain scientists and institutions are, and the real answers are as unknown now as they were 30 years ago.

Translation: "I'm not really sure what's going on or what the overall effect is but I do know that we're now right back where we were in 1979." "I may have never bought a live pig, used yuan as a currency, or ever been to Shanghai but I can tell you with certainty that if you were to buy one in a live market there today it would be between 25 and 30 yuan... and that you should have bought it last week when the guy at the one corner was trying to sell them for cheaper in order to cover a cash-flow problem he was having because his wife was sick."

You need to have your universal translator repaired or replaced. It isn't working well. Or maybe there is a disconnect between it and your reflex pathways.

What I said is completely fair.You acknowledge that you don't know the extent of the issue yet you declare definitely, "the real answers are as unknown now as they were 30 years ago." My guess is that people who actually work and research in the field would strenuously disagree.

That's not what I said at all. The calibrated and normalized data are compromised. The computer model is bad and isn't prognosticating actual events. The CRU has covered itt up. A significant part of the GW researchers use CRU resuklts for calibration of their own data (which generally are indirect measurements). The real answers are unknown as a result. So of course, we don't know what the answers are - which is exactly where we were in 1979.I don't see why you would have a problem with that logic. I can see where there would be a problem if I said: "The data are compromised, the computer modelling isn't working, CRU cooked the data, therefore AGW is completely disproved."