Global Warming

[AtticaFlinch]

Fourth attempt: YES! That's why I'm pissed off.

Well, that's not entirely true. I fully understand that your position is based on economics, but as you yourself intimated, once we delve into issues like costs in relation to morality and ethics, we reach a muddy area where there's no real such thing as an expert. I happen to agree, that's why I didn't argue the point.

Accept the premise, but the emails and data don't cover a single incident. They reach back to 1996 and included cooking the books for the landmark IPCC reports. Mike Mann (Al Gore's personal climatologist) is busted in these emails. Not the first time. He comes across like a complete crybaby twit (not that it matters). Everything at EAU-CRU's questionable from the hacking. At this point any derivative works based on these guys need to be reexamined. Hansen's work (NASA) had been discredited previously. The amount of "validated" work is shrinking rapidly.

It is possible that the same conclusions could be reached if the flaws were "fixed". But it begs the question... why cook the books in the first place? It's kinda like the OJ trial when Furhman got caught giving false statements. As a juror.. what parts of a liar's work is truthful, and how do you determine?

Someone needs to start from fresh. With an open approach. The groundwater modeling community took that approach years ago. And today there are numerous fully documented (incl. flaws), well validated, widely accepted modeling tools available. Until the climate community does... this their validity will always be called into question.

All good points. Every last one of them. Very curious the timing though, no? Also, there's enough compiled literature about climate change to fill the Houston Public Library, the main branch, several times over. I wouldn't exactly say that valid work is "shrinking rapidly" because the authenticity of a few people's contributions has been cast into doubt. Don't get me wrong. I agree more oversight would be beneficial. Unfortunately, that would require more public funding, which considering some many people refuse to even accept the climate is changing, I doubt that money would be willingly given.

You do bring up a point I'd to clarify definitively though. So everyone knows, the way science works is this: 1) Make an observation. 2) Form a hypothesis about that observation. 3) Devise tests to test your hypothesis. 4) Test your hypothesis. 5) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 6) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 7) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 8) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 9) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 10) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 11) Continue with this process until you've consistently gotten the same results time after time. 12) Submit your conclusions to a peer reviewed publication (ie not Mad Magazine). 13) Peer test. 14) Peer retest. 15) Peer retest. 16) Peer retest. 17) Peer retest. 18) Peer retest. 19) Peer retest. If the same conclusions can't be reached consistently, then the whole conclusion is discarded. The entire thing. And then, you start over, "fresh" as you say. Trust me, had CRU's numbers been anomalies that were impossible to replicate, they would hold no merit.

[Gooch]

More info on the "40's Blip"...

Here's what Phil Jones had to say about it

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: 1940s

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600

Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>

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 the

land 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.

[...]

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,

but we are still left with "why the blip".

Keep in mind they are discussing how to remove actual measured temperatures. As a modeler, measured data is your best friend, not something to impeach.

The raw data is in this ...PDF File... UEA-CRU fought against releasing this data for years, including evading FOI requests. The reason's pretty obvious. It looks nothing like a hockey-stick curves included in the IPCC and Al Gore's movie. While some stations show spikes in the 2000's, many stations show hotter decades in the '40's than the '00. IOW the temperature rise we've seen over the last decade could very likely be an anomoly rather than a trend. There's observed climatic precendent for it. This is a direct contradiction of the IPCC conclusions that the present warming is unusual, and will continue going forward.

[Gooch]

So everyone knows, the way science works is this: 1) Make an observation. 2) Form a hypothesis about that observation. 3) Devise tests to test your hypothesis. 4) Test your hypothesis. 5) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 6) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 7) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 8) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 9) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 10) Modify your hypothesis if necessary and retest. 11) Continue with this process until you've consistently gotten the same results time after time. 12) Submit your conclusions to a peer reviewed publication (ie not Mad Magazine). 13) Peer test. 14) Peer retest. 15) Peer retest. 16) Peer retest. 17) Peer retest. 18) Peer retest. 19) Peer retest. If the same conclusions can't be reached consistently, then the whole conclusion is discarded. The entire thing. And then, you start over, "fresh" as you say. Trust me, had CRU's numbers been anomalies that were impossible to replicate, they would hold no merit.

Thats a great summary! Unfortunately... these guys actively tried to subvert Step 12 by stacking the review boards. There were so many examples I don't know how to whittle them down to quote them here. These are two famous ones...

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this.

Blah. That's not so bothersome. It happens all. the. time. in peer reviews. Bothersome is subverting Steps 13...?? Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have for years been trying unsuccessfully to duplicate the published results coming from the UEA-Hadley and Mann. They are referred to as "the two MMs" and "M&M" in many of the hacked emails. They asked for help, because they could not reproduce the results and were stonewalled by UEA-CRU. They asked for input data and were told No! After filing FOI requests they were told the data had been accidently deleted. Then suddenly it was located, but they still couldn't have it, because it was too dangerous that the data would be used "incorrectly".

Phil Jones said:

I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

This was all reported by BBC earlier this year. Jones refusal to disclose set off alarm bells in the scientific community. Perhaps that inspired the hacker/whistleblower? Finally they said they didn't have permission to disclose. That's where it stands today. Behind the scene; the emails tell a different story....

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,

I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it!

The CRU station data is believed to be the the data on the graphs I posted above.

From: Phil Jones

To: Gavin Schmidt

Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper

Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008

Cc: Michael Mann

Gavin,

Almost all have gone in. Have sent an email to Janice re the regional freshening. On the boreholes I've used mostly Mike's revised text, with bits of yours making it read a little better. Thinking about the final bit for the Appendix. Keith should be in later, so I'll check with him - and look at that vineyard book. I did rephrase the bit about the 'evidence' as Lamb refers to it. I wanted to use his phrasing—he used this word several times in these various papers. What he means is his mind and its inherent bias(es).

Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don't want to give them something clearly tangible. Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond —advice they got from the Information Commissioner. As an aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn't want to have to deal with this hassle.

The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on.

Cheers

Phil

From Ben Santer:

We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; [...] I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues.

We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.

They didn't like publications that required data submission for review very much either... (For context: RMS=Royal Meterological Society)

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Subject: Re: See the link below

Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009

Ben,

I don't know whether they even had a meeting yet - but I did say I would

send something to their Chief Exec.

In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London's UHI

and the effect that it hasn't got any bigger since 1900. It's easy

to do with 3 long time series. It is only one urban site (St James Park),

but that is where the measurements are from. Heathrow has a bit

of a UHI and it has go bigger.

I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained

about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't

be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS.

The paper is about London and its UHI!

Cheers

Phil

At 16:48 19/03/2009, you wrote:

Thanks, Phil. The stuff on the website is awful. I'm really sorry you have to deal with that kind of crap.

If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.

Cheers,

Ben

[BryanS]

Might as well have fun with it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

[barracuda]

For those interested, I linked to an interview of Mohamed Nasheed, the President of the Maldives, regarding the effects of global warming on his island country. It's worth the 21 minutes if you have an interest in the subject of this thread.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/548/index.html

[TJones]

Interestingly, neither is TheNiche...or Marksmu, Highway6, or TJones, to name a few.

I agree, I am not a scientist....but I have played one on TV.

[AtticaFlinch]

I agree, I am not a scientist....but I have played one on TV.

I knew it! This is you, isn't it?!

[Highway6]

I agree, I am not a scientist....but I have played one on TV.

Nope... that's not him Attica..

Ahh.. here he is..

[AtticaFlinch]

Nope... that's not him Attica..

Ahh.. here he is..

Now you're blowin' my mind. TJones... a democrat?!

[Highway6]

So apparently, this group and these scientists involved in this email scandal are key contributors to the IPCC report and run one of the key models used by the report and others. "Oh, its only a few scientists.. that doesnt mean all scientists are bad"... Yah, that excuse is rapidly being flushed down the toilet.

Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). - Full link

Furthermore, programmers and other independent parties that have been pouring over some of the leaked data/code/reports. They've basically determined that the CRU's main model that the IPCC uses to estimate the costs of global warming is a joke. - Full link

[barracuda]

So apparently, this group and these scientists involved in this email scandal are key contributors to the IPCC report and run one of the key models used by the report and others. "Oh, its only a few scientists.. that doesnt mean all scientists are bad"... Yah, that excuse is rapidly being flushed down the toilet.

Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). - Full link

Furthermore, programmers and other independent parties that have been pouring over some of the leaked data/code/reports. They've basically determined that the CRU's main model that the IPCC uses to estimate the costs of global warming is a joke. - Full link

You're right. All scientists are bad. Oh, and I hear the glaciers are now rapidly rebuilding themselves in response to this recent discovery. And to the residents of Kiribati, ignore the sea level rise that washed away your homes and contaminated your water supplies. It was all just part of a global scientific hoax. Everything is fine now.

[Highway6]

You're right. All scientists are bad. Oh, and I hear the glaciers are now rapidly rebuilding themselves in response to this recent discovery. And to the residents of Kiribati, ignore the sea level rise that washed away your homes and contaminated your water supplies. It was all just part of a global scientific hoax. Everything is fine now.

Let me give a non-climate example of what you just did:

Me: I don't believe in Santa Clause.

You: Oh yah, I guess the presents are putting themselves under the tree, and I guess I'm just imagining seeing a half eaten cookie on the plate.

Just like last week's response "Ah, so we're just imagining that the glaciers are melting and the sea levels are rising. Phew! "

You are aware that observations don't equal theory, right? Glaciers melting in and of themselves don't equal a theory on carbon emissions.

The theory is that man-made carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming and unless we act yesterday, we are all doomed. I 'm not disagreeing with the observation of melting glaciers. I have a problem with the theory - degree and cause of the warming.

It gets old. Refuting an attack on a theory by pointing out observations doesn't prove anything. It makes those that do it look pretty dumb though.

And no.. I'm not saying all scientists are bad... I'm am however refuting the earlier claim by some that one group of scientists being caught fudging data means nothing. This isn't just one group of scientists.. they are a highly influential group key to the IPCC report, key to the models used by other scientists, keepers of the data used by other scientists. As this unfolds though.. I'll be curious to see how many other climate scientists jump off the bandwagon. The increase in skeptical scientists has grown exponentially over the past few years... I imagine this will increase even faster in the near future.

[DiamondRing]

You're right. All scientists are bad. Oh, and I hear the glaciers are now rapidly rebuilding themselves in response to this recent discovery. And to the residents of Kiribati, ignore the sea level rise that washed away your homes and contaminated your water supplies. It was all just part of a global scientific hoax. Everything is fine now.

Melting glaciers (and the like) can be attributed to more than just one reason.

For instance, there isn't just one cause for bumbling idiocy. It could be attributed to lots of things--genetics, environment, education, etc.

Theory does not equal law. Basic high school science.

[RedScare]

Melting glaciers (and the like) can be attributed to more than just one reason.

For instance, there isn't just one cause for bumbling idiocy. It could be attributed to lots of things--genetics, environment, education, etc.

Theory does not equal law. Basic high school science.

You created an account to post this?

Welcome to the forum.

[barracuda]

Let me give a non-climate example of what you just did:

Me: I don't believe in Santa Clause.

You: Oh yah, I guess the presents are putting themselves under the tree, and I guess I'm just imagining seeing a half eaten cookie on the plate.

Just like last week's response "Ah, so we're just imagining that the glaciers are melting and the sea levels are rising. Phew! "

You are aware that observations don't equal theory, right? Glaciers melting in and of themselves don't equal a theory on carbon emissions.

The theory is that man-made carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming and unless we act yesterday, we are all doomed. I 'm not disagreeing with the observation of melting glaciers. I have a problem with the theory - degree and cause of the warming.

It gets old. Refuting an attack on a theory by pointing out observations doesn't prove anything. It makes those that do it look pretty dumb though.

And no.. I'm not saying all scientists are bad... I'm am however refuting the earlier claim by some that one group of scientists being caught fudging data means nothing. This isn't just one group of scientists.. they are a highly influential group key to the IPCC report, key to the models used by other scientists, keepers of the data used by other scientists. As this unfolds though.. I'll be curious to see how many other climate scientists jump off the bandwagon. The increase in skeptical scientists has grown exponentially over the past few years... I imagine this will increase even faster in the near future.

Refer to this quote:

"Oh, its only a few scientists.. that doesnt mean all scientists are bad"... Yah, that excuse is rapidly being flushed down the toilet."

And that's where my joke came in. You made a hyperbolic attack on scientists based on this one case of illegally hacked emails, which themselves merely raises some doubts rather than disprove global warming. So I made a joke regarding the clear and irreversible effects of global warming. Obviously I don't expect glaciers to rebuild themselves, not when average temperatures are on an upward trajectory.

Observations may not equate to testing a hypothesis, but they represent the most tangible examples that the earth is warming. I don't take it lightly when a continental ice shelf the size of a small country melts into the ocean. It's only an observation. And it doesn't matter what is causing it to happen. The continued effects are going to seriously affect our lives in the decades to come. I've never once said or written what exactly we need to do about it. But at least I recognize a problem when I see it.

[Highway6]

You created an account to post this?

Welcome to the forum.

No. Actually she created an account to make fun of my grammar. I guess she had a change of heart somewhere along the way. That would be my wife, Mrs. Highway6.

[barracuda]

Melting glaciers (and the like) can be attributed to more than just one reason.

For instance, there isn't just one cause for bumbling idiocy. It could be attributed to lots of things--genetics, environment, education, etc.

Theory does not equal law. Basic high school science.

Thanks for the insight! Yeah, welcome to the forum .

[RedScare]

No. Actually she created an account to make fun of my grammar. I guess she had a change of heart somewhere along the way. That would be my wife, Mrs. Highway6.

HA!!!

Welcome to the forum, Mrs. 6! No need to sign for grammar policing, though. We'll rag on your hubby for that ourselves!

[Highway6]

Observations may not equate to testing a hypothesis, but they represent the most tangible examples that the earth is warming.

"The earth is warming" is not the theory. The theory states a guess ( carbon emissions ) as to the cause and degree of the earth warming.

"Observing glaciers melting" ....is not a tangible example of.... "carbon emissions cause the earth to warm"

So again... your observations as a retort to the attack on the theory achieves nothing.

[Trixie.]

..

[Subdude]

You created an account to post this?

Welcome to the forum.

Gee, thanks for insulting new members. That does a lot for the board.

[RedScare]

Gee, thanks for insulting new members. That does a lot for the board.

Trust me, the board has done plenty for itself. This thread consists of 261 insults. And, if you had taken the time to read them, you'd know that Highway6's wife signed up to insult HIM! I think she understands. If not, I'm sure 6 will let me know, and I'll make it right by the both of them.

[Highway6]

If not, I'm sure 6 will let me know, and I'll make it right by the both of them.

Mrs. Highway6 is devastated by the welcome and wants to know if you'll now pay for her law school to 'make it right'.

[barracuda]

"The earth is warming" is not the theory. The theory states a guess ( carbon emissions ) as to the cause and degree of the earth warming.

"Observing glaciers melting" ....is not a tangible example of.... "carbon emissions cause the earth to warm"

So again... your observations as a retort to the attack on the theory achieves nothing.

As has been discussed ad nauseam on this thread, the link between carbon emissions and global warming hasn't been proven or disproven. The data gleaned from the University of East Anglia doesn't change that.

With that said, there is a strong correlation between the rise of industrialization and the rise in average temperatures. Measurements from as far back as the 1930's have shown rising carbon dioxide levels up to the present. Tests in labs demonstrate that CO2 alters the balance of heat radiation, but this hasn't been proven on a global scale. Deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels continues to release massive quantities of CO2, and the world becomes more industrialized everyday.

You may choose to ignore these observations and the tangible evidence of global warming from around the world until we have that final, concrete proof that human activity is indeed the cause. But some folks are alarmed by the prospect of major climate shift. It's too bad the scientists at East Anglia may have fudged their numbers, because the whole situation just detracts from the reality of the problem we face.

[barracuda]

Gee, thanks for insulting new members. That does a lot for the board.

But it's okay that she opens with an insult?

I'd actually be curious to know if I ever insulted someone here. And by that, I mean an actual insult or name-calling, not a civil debate where we simply disagree or we don't read each other's minds. Niche got upset because nobody responded to a question on his mind but not evident in the actual thread, and I and a few others are called bitches. And then Mrs. Highway6 introduces herself by essentially referring to me as a bumbling idiot.

[RedScare]

Mrs. Highway6 is devastated by the welcome and wants to know if you'll now pay for her law school to 'make it right'.

How about I just white out the name on my degree and write her name in its place? Nobody asks to see mine anymore anyway.

[DiamondRing]

But it's okay that she opens with an insult?

. And then Mrs. Highway6 introduces herself by essentially referring to me as a bumbling idiot.

I did no such thing!

[RedScare]

I did no such thing!

How do we know that it's you that's indignant, and not just Highway6 playing indignant on your accout? He could be simply toggling between the two alter egos.

[barracuda]

I did no such thing!

Wait, are you saying I'm an idiot for not understanding your post? Or are you denying that post 253 was an indirect attempt to call me an idiot?

P.S. - I'm only kidding! But seriously, you called me an idiot!

[TheNiche]

I'd actually be curious to know if I ever insulted someone here. And by that, I mean an actual insult or name-calling, not a civil debate where we simply disagree or we don't read each other's minds. Niche got upset because nobody responded to a question on his mind but not evident in the actual thread, and I and a few others are called bitches. And then Mrs. Highway6 introduces herself by essentially referring to me as a bumbling idiot.

To be clear as a matter of record--because stating it only once is obviously never enough--I've given up on you and others because you have demonstrated poor reading comprehension and a penchant for straw men and other fallacies and therefore are not worthy of the time or effort that is required to even communicate with you, much less attempt to productively debate you.

In answer to your question, you have not insulted me, but only because I am inclined to believe that this behavior is accidental on your part rather than a deliberate attempt to waste my time and piss me off. The error is mine for believing that I could productively debate you, when in fact I could no sooner debate with a Global Warming^TM apologist over the reliability or application of scientific interpretations of anthropogenic climate change or an appropriate policy response than I could a Mormon missionary over the reliability of Joseph Smith's writings. It is an error that I will not soon repeat.

(Refering to you and others as "bitches" was an inappropriate pejorative, merely a projection of my own inner frustration. I retract that comment as it serves no purpose except as a distraction.)