What Do We Think About Climate Change

[troy2000]

Troy, if the science were so perfect and the consensus so real, why the need to hide data, hijack the peer review process, defy FOI laws, and intimidate skeptics.

If the science were so perfect and the consensus so real, why the need to harass scientists and interrupt their work by inundating them with frivolous FOIA requests and threatening them with lawsuits?

As far as I can see, the hackers sorted out about a dozen emails from 10,000 of them, and are now trying to pretend that little handful is typical of the whole batch.

AP just put a group of people to reading each and every word of the hacked email, which adds up to over a million words. They found nothing which invalidated any scientific conclusion, proved fraud or showed invented data. What they did find was what we already know: scientists are human. They can be petty; they can be spiteful and vindictive; they can be uncooperative, particularly if they think someone is trying to jack them around. So?

It's ridiculous for anyone to claim the handful of emails is a smoking gun which proves scientists at that particular lab are producing fraudulent science. It's even more ridiculous to then try to pretend that climate change research all over the world stands only upon their shoulders, and has been therefore been invalidated.

I'm not a scientist, and I didn't get into these two climate change threads to single-handedly prove the current state of the science. I got into them to point out how unlikely it is that 97% of climatologists are either deliberate frauds or utter incompetents, and that the handful of pet skeptics that get trotted out in every discussion are the only ones who really know the facts.

 

[dskira]

whats the problem, ive always wanted to live in the desert

It's quite something. Like the sea on land, ever changing, and great peoples.
About that it seams more people live in an hostile environement more they are friendly and want to share.
Try to ring a bell in Beverly Hill, and let me know what the answer was, after you spend a month in the Sheriff hospitality.
Cheers
Daniel

 

[Jimbo1490]

If the science were so perfect and the consensus so real, why the need to harass scientists and interrupt their work by inundating them with frivolous FOIA requests and threatening them with lawsuits?

Why would a FOIA request be needed in the first place? Data archiving is one of the cornerstone principles of the peer-review process; the data MUST be made available to colleagues (regardless of affilitations /allegiances) upon request.

They had no right to on the one hand, call their work "Peer Reviewed", then on the other hand refuse to provide the raw data and algorithms used to process that data for the express purpose of allowing their fellow academics to either verify or falsify their conclusions.

That's just not cricket, mahn!

As icing on the cake, the data did not even belong to them in the first place; it was government property, thus a FOIA request would ultimately be successful, though should have been completely unnecessary.

On the issue of content, the press has been far kinder than the REAL content of the emails would indicate.

The content show that these men colluded to prevent the publication of skeptical arguments in the prestigious journals, so that they could say "Look, if these skeptical arguments had any technical merit, wouldn't they get published in a prestigious journal?" They did this by threatening these very journals with a boycott if these certain papers were published. In this they were successful.

Next, the emails show that the AGW via CO2 narrative and the computer models created around it are unable to competently predict the direction the climate will take. This shows that the importance assigned to CO2 as a climate forcing agent is exaggerated. The emails reveal that the scientists admit that it has not been warming for several years, that this is significant (despite what they have been saying in press releases, this is what they admit to each other) and that they are unable to explain this within the framework of their hypothesis.

The emails reveal that they have been playing around with data graphs to tweak the numbers until they show what they wish them to show, rather than let them speak for themselves. This seems especially true for the rapid warming around the 1940's, just before the "Global Cooling" took off. These emails also show that they are concerned about this rapid warming and subsequent cooling and tacitly admit that it cuts against the case they are attempting to make about CO2 and 20th century warming as temperatures began to cool just as the AGW hypothesis predicts they should have started to warm.

Jimbo

 

[masrapido]

There is no evidence of "rapid" warming in 1940's. The only research properly done started in 1950's. Before that, the evidence is scarce and is no better than those ice cores held in Denver. No one can compare the info from cores and talk about daily changes the way we can discuss the daily changes since the 1950's. The data is just not as precise.

For example, the ice cores demonstrate clearly that there were numerous episodes of global warming, adn cooling, that had occured quite rapidly in the past.

But what does "rapid" mean exactly?

In the case of the cores, the speed is still calculated in hundreds and thousands of years. After all, what is two or three thousands of years compared to 150 millions of year, for example?

A blink of an eye. So that is kind of "rapid" in the greater scheme of the things.

The changes in just the last centuries are of a stelar speed. For that we do not have any evidence whatsoever, even if it may have occured in the past, that it actually did happen.

We have indications that it may have happened, but no one actually measured atmospheric changes on a daily basis, and in a way we do it today, to be able to authoritatively say either way.

All we have is a very generic data that only creates a very generic picture.

A lot more, and very forensic in the nature, research will need to be done before any of deniers can say "we told you so."

The same goes for "pro-camp". Both are half right and half wrong in my opinion. Both sides are using scarce and incomplete data to promote their respective agenda with no regard whatsoever to the actual facts and the truth.

Pseudo-science on both sides.

 

[Jimbo1490]

There is no evidence of "rapid" warming in 1940's. The only research properly done started in 1950's. Before that, the evidence is scarce and is no better than those ice cores held in Denver..

I'll let a clueless teenager answer this one:

Hey, dude, uh the thing is..we really don't need like "iCE cORES" to tell us what like, the temperature did recently. There's like this "new-fangled" invention called a THERMOMETER that, like, "Shows The Temperature" on the side, so like no ice cores needed, dude. And like, these science guys like, kept reading the little thermometer things and like wrote down all the numbers, so that's like how we "kNOW" what the temperature was recently.

Thanks, sonny boy.



And yes it warmed in the first half of the 20th century; in fact most of the warming of the 20th century occurred before the 1940's. After that (right when anthropogenic CO2 emissions really took off) it cooled for ~40 years.

Jimbo

 

[troy2000]

On the issue of content, the press has been far kinder than the REAL content of the emails would indicate.
Jimbo

Really, Jimbo? Associated Press put reporters to reading each and every one of the 10,000 emails, and enlisted professional scientists as advisers to help explain them.

How many of the emails have you read, that you know better what's in them than the "press" does? Explain to me why you have more credibility than AP.

 

[wardd]

i have no credibility which make me an expert on anything i wish to comment about

 

[Jimbo1490]

Really, Jimbo? Associated Press put reporters to reading each and every one of the 10,000 emails, and enlisted professional scientists as advisers to help explain them.

How many of the emails have you read, that you know better what's in them than the "press" does? Explain to me why you have more credibility than AP.

I've downloaded the group of giant pdf's but as I'm having trouble scrolling pdf's right now (must re-load Windows to repair damaged C++ dll files from a malware attack/recovery) So far I've only looked at a few. I can search the pdf's OK and I've been doing that, (just can't scroll; 'Puter crashes), and of course reading them online.

First AP's science writer covering climate, Seth Borenstein, has for years now been accused of being a little too cozy with the various mainstream climate researchers, being at all times totally credulous of their claims and predictions despite ample reasons for doubt, so the fact that AP is not very critical of Hadley is not at all surprising.



On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:

Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth

Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454

There were many more of Seth having this kind of very friendly, NEVER challenging banter with the people he's supposed to be covering in an unbiased, probing fashion, you know, like a freakin news reporter should do. Just believes everything they tell him; like that all the skeptics are just 'wackos'. Never asks for proof, just believes them.
Of course, not all the press is so forgiving. The Daily Telegraph feels as I do, that this is the greatest scientific scandal of our lifetime.

And here's an excerpt from the From the Tacoma News-Tribune on Seth:

"Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation as a runaway alarmist. Even global warming enthusiasts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate."

So even others in the press had noticed that Seth was taking an advocacy position rather than reporting on climate change issues. Remember that he's the AP's chief go-to guy on the subject.

On the issue of content, the press has been far kinder than the REAL content of the emails would indicate.

The content show that these men colluded to prevent the publication of skeptical arguments in the prestigious journals, so that they could say "Look, if these skeptical arguments had any technical merit, wouldn't they get published in a prestigious journal?" They did this by threatening these very journals with a boycott if these certain papers were published. In this they were successful.

The following email was triggered by Seth's email quoted above,

From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming – paper in JGR
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:23:09 -0600
Cc: Grant Foster <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, “J. Salinger” <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Annan <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi all
Wow this is a nice analysis by Grant et al. What we should do is turn this into a learning experience for everyone: there is often misuse of filtering. Obviously the editor and reviewers need to to also be taken to task here...

So their response is to get aggressive with the journal which published the skeptical paper.

Next, the emails show that the AGW via CO2 narrative and the computer models created around it are unable to competently predict the direction the climate will take. This shows that the importance assigned to CO2 as a climate forcing agent is exaggerated. The emails reveal that the scientists admit that it has not been warming for several years, that this is significant (despite what they have been saying in press releases, this is what they admit to each other) and that they are unable to explain this within the framework of their hypothesis.

On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:

Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet a lot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: 650 725 9978
F: 650 725 4387
Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <[3]ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[4]shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate

Steve,

You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics' views.

[5]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natur/8299079.stm
[6]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/

BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.

Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?

Narasimha
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.

Kevin

The emails reveal that they have been playing around with data graphs to tweak the numbers until they show what they wish them to show, rather than let them speak for themselves. This seems especially true for the rapid warming around the 1940's, just before the "Global Cooling" took off. These emails also show that they are concerned about this rapid warming and subsequent cooling and tacitly admit that it cuts against the case they are attempting to make about CO2 and 20th century warming as temperatures began to cool just as the AGW hypothesis predicts they should have started to warm.

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx



Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

I think the meanings in the emails are pretty clear and does not need interpretation by a higher authority; and certainly AP is not that authority anyway.

Jimbo

 

[mark775]

"Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation as a runaway alarmist. Even global warming enthusiasts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate."
The News Tribune said that! My stompin' ground when I was a kid and I'm mighty proud of 'em!

 

[Guillermo]

More accusations of data manipulation:

"On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research."

More at: http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

Cheers.

 

[masalai]

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/casey/2009/1216.html "What Does Global Warming Have to Do with Energy Stocks?" - - This may be of interest to some? - I have not read it, but thought of you whilst getting other essays...

 

[fasteddy106]

The AP has been a pimp for the grant whores of the IPCC since its founding. They can hardly be considered to be objective. Troy you still haven't answered why the perfect science of the AGW hypothesis needs to packaged and sold like a bad used car. The emails only give written proof of the intent of the hucksters. I was referring to the methodology fraud by Mann in using tree ring date to start with after he was told by the U.N. not to do so. Then after doing so anyhow, he abandoned the tree ring data when it diverged from slant he was pursuing and inserted observational temp readings to continue the curve. To make matters even more suspicious the tree ring data he used was from a minute sample that fit his preordained conclusion and he deliberately excluded the mountain of data that did not. Jones used a sample from one tree to back up his efforts to reshape mankind in his own elitist vision. When Hansen couldn't make his models work with real data, he make up stuff. Like the substitution of an artificial lifespan for atmospheric C02 in order to prove positive feedback. Why were the ground temp stations placed in urban heat sinks like highway meridians and asphalt parking lots in direct violation of siting rules. Why were faculty members threatened with loss of tenure if they questioned methods. The gagging of Carlin at the EPA is a perfect example. When he attended the SPPI conference this year as a private citizen he was given a reprimand by the Obama lemming in charge. The men that are referred to as oil company shills were hired by the oil companys after their reputations were established over decades for precisely that reason. What makes a government grant ***** more credulous than someone in private enterprise?

Back to the question that was never answered. If the science is so perfect, why the need to do all of the above.

The answer is, because it is not about the science. The science is just a necessary vehicle to be used to obtain the means of furthering a social agenda that would put the human race at about the same level of sophistication as a meerkat colony. Incredibly enough we have a couple of idiots here in this forum who support that idea. What kind of boats do they have? Papyrus rafts tied together with recyled twine?

 

[troy2000]

OK. I officially surrender. You guys must have more time on your hands than I do. You'll shovel this crap at me until doomsday, and I couldn't keep up with all of you if I tried. Nor would it do any good if I could; since paranoid conspiracy theories are irrational by nature, they can't be laid to rest with facts or appeals to reason.

But you will not convince me that 97% of the climatologists worldwide are involved in a hoax and a fraud--to consolidate government power; to obtain grant money; to save face and their careers; or for any other reason. That's as likely as the theory of evolution being a fraud and a conspiracy to undermine Christianity, or the 9/11 attacks being planned in the White House as an excuse to declare war on Muslims.

 

[Jimbo1490]

Troy,

I don't need to seek out an "Authority Figure" to tell me how to feel about some matter of importance. My preference is to learn as much as I can about the matter, using the rawest data available, and then form my own conclusions.

I like to do this with matters of science, as well. The science of climate and the mechanisms of greenhouse warming are certainly not 'beyond my understanding' and I'm certain that they are not beyond yours. So I learned all the arguments pro and con (Started out very pro, BTW, back in my Greenpeace days) and it became clear to me that somebody was wrong. The AGW argument was plausible; it could have been right. But the observational data have not corroborated even one corner of the hypothesis. This began to be true about ~17 years ago with ice cores, continued with Christy/Spencer's work with discovering how to get temp data from satellites, Then Lindzen's breakthroughs on clouds. You can't have a hypothesis where each piece fails a real world test but somehow is still correct.

So if 97 or 98 or 99.99% of scientists all endorse a hypothesis that fails every objective test, I'll still stand up and say so, because that's just how I am. They wrote didactic fables like "The Emperor's New Clothes" for a reason, you know.

Cheers!

Jimbo

 

[fasteddy106]

Gotta the love the logic paths of the alarmists, you don't agree with me so you are all nuts! Btw, many of the same guys screaming the earth is warming are the same ones who screamed we were facing an ice age for the same reasons.