What Do We Think About Climate Change

I'm bit more convinced seeing pictures like this instead of the one above

 

These are the two scientific papers that the IPCC still uses to reassure the public that the skeptic's claim that the surface temperature data gathering network is untrustworthy is false, and that the 'urban heat island' effect has been duly accounted for by the very trustworthy folks in the AGW alarm camp:

Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. (1990),
“Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land”,
Nature, 347: 169–172.
Wang W.-C., Zeng Z., Karl T.R. (1990),

“Urban heat islands in China”,
Geophysical Research Letters, 17: 2377–2380.


Unfortunately, both of those papers contain not just errors but fabricated critical data, and are discredited. Another paper which enumerates the nature of the fabrications is here.
The fabrications are easy enough to prove, as anyone can check on the published dates for the changes to the sensors.

Why does this not make the news?

Jimbo

 

Teddy,
have a look here:
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

Enjoy.

 

Thanks Guille.. took look at the content and, being quite impressive, has atleast one mistake. The conclusions with temp at Jan Mayen is faulty. They self claim that :

1 "yet our temperature record from Jan Mayen Island at the edge of the Arctic shows that the Arctic was warmer during the 1930s than it was during the 1990s"
and
2 "If the rate of flow is increased, not only will the melt rate increase (as per the kitchen experiment), but the water itself is likely to be slightly warmer as it enters the Arctic Ocean since it will have had less time in which to cool on its journey north"

The first claim is wrong and the second one right. They seem to fail take into account that the water around Jan Mayen flows from the nort and, to follow the principle presented in claim 2, means that the cold flow from the north is increased in volume and speed and haven't yet warmed up.. Which means also that the Gulf stream pushes more warmer water to Arctic... causality you see..

Anyway I'm not afraid of global warming..

 

Kerry is almost as big a fabricator of misinformation as our friend Boston, read this report from SPPI.............

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/sen_kerry_misfires.pdf

 

More from Jonova..............

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12

 

Hi Teddy! Now you have it in Finnish!
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/translations/finnish/ilmastoskeptikon-kasikirja.pdf

Cheers

 

From Richard Lindzen himself:

".... one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, their psychic welfare is at stake. With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence."



Find the full thing at: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/27/a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/#more-3053

 

I've been a skeptic from birth.. and I'm skeptic to ALL instant, ready chewed, swallow-it-up knowledge. What I believe is what I see, I make my own decisions and conclusions based on my excperience. And I do read alot.. with open mind hoax filtering as I can..

What we have witnessed in this thread.. stats.. more stats with controversal content, conclusions based on those stats, counter conclusions based on controversal stats etc. ..

I've seen some research done around, some good some bad (scientifically). Same with conclusions.. not saying anything bad about the academically ambitioned researchers, but I would thrust more for car salesman than a scientist promoting his career.

So rather believe what I see, and around here it's been milder wheathers than it used to be.. don't know why and strictly speakin, don't care much, thou there's nothing wrong to spare some energy and try to promote "green" alternatives. Fossile hydrocarbons are more valuable asset as rawmaterials than fuel and what's sure the resources are gonna dry some day.

Teddy

 

Be more cautious: you should only believe half of what you see and, of course, nothing of what you hear.

Cheers.

 

Rather than debating and evaluating sientific proofs it´s up to everybody to make their own choise based on the information they believe is relevant. Right or wrong...who knows...you just make a personal choise.
I´ve been around since the mid 40-ties.....and based on what I see happening around the world I chose to belive in "evidence" that supports and explain this very complexed situation.

If others make different evaluations...it´s all up to them, I don´t care....it´s not a question of being right or wrong as nobody knows for shure....it´s all about how I chose to change my way of living according to the "facts" that I think i relevant.

This thread is not gonna come up with the answer...it just shows the complexity of the matter, and that some belive that human activities has a minor effect on whats happening.

Olle

 

"This thread is not gonna come up with the answer..."
YOU ARE CORRECT! William, Jimbo, Eddy, and others have simply put the information out there - anyone who can, and is willing to, read and assimilate concepts will no longer be in the tank for GW because of this.
You are also on track with your conclusion about what to do about it. ANYTHING ONE CARES TO. There is a problem, however, when one tells another he has to believe his way or applies a tax so as ruin it for everybody...

 

True mark775, we can not always trust goverment or overstate athorities, but as Paul Simon sings "One mans ceiling is another mans floor"....if someone is getting a short time benifit from orthers willingness to change...let it be....
I really do hope I´m wrong....but the signs are not all that good....a lot of humans will be loosers in a longer run.

But, if I can make a change by a rational analysis of avaliable data, a lot of others might do so too. If not....well Scandinavia is supposed to get a warmer and very comfortable climate over the next few decades....as long as I will be around...but after that...who knows...

So it´s up to everybody to read and judge....critical...yes..but with an opened mind....if there is a high possibility.....that´s scareing enough.

Olle

 

Don't know about the comfortnes.. so far it's becoming more winds, rain, wet snow, warm winters and cold summers .. anyway up here 70 deg N

 

Hey Teddy...where are you locaded...70 N is Hammerfest, Norway...Finland is Kemijärvi at 66 N...The ostersee ends at appr 65,5 N,,,,Murmansk is at 68N.

Just wounder if this is a relevant place for GW opinions...with all respect.....you will of cource be affected in the long run but you will probably be one of the last one to realize it.

Olle