Listener Round Table

[pixelsmith]

*sigh* I'm sure you're going to now tell me all about it...

I shouldn't have to. IF you are doing REAL research you will know who the players are at that web site.

 

[pixelsmith]

you can definitely throw the first 2 con men out. they are two of the worst.

hey you left out James Hansen! wtf?

I am not sure why you put all your faith in "scientists" playing around with climate models that do not predict squat, the modelers have to admittedly fudge the data to spit out the desired result. The scientists even fought amongst themselves that what they were doing could get them in trouble and hopefully a FOI request would never happen and even if asked for data they would rather destroy it than to let REAL scientists find something wrong... which btw is part of the scientific method.

 

[markdee]

hey you left out James Hansen! wtf?

I am not sure why you put all your faith in "scientists" playing around with climate models that do not predict squat, the modelers have to admittedly fudge the data to spit out the desired result. The scientists even fought amongst themselves that what they were doing could get them in trouble and hopefully a FOI request would never happen and even if asked for data they would rather destroy it than to let REAL scientists find something wrong... which btw is part of the scientific method.

I am new to the forum and this is my first post. Since I work in the field of environmental impact analysis, and I myself have actually run such models (mostly erosion models, hydro modeling for flood events, and have used models for predicting long term and short term carbon cycle change caused by deforestation) I would like to ask which models are you referring to? And would also like to know which scientists (organizations and/or institutions or companies) that are purposely fudging data? I worked extensively on land-loss issues here in Louisiana because of land compaction and also sea level rise and sea level temperature rise. The objective of these projects is to protect wetlands and model for hydro disasters in places like New Orleans and SE Louisiana. Just curious as to these claims you state as fact that scientists are purposely fudging. By the way the oceans ARE rising due to warming of ice cap regions...just a fact. And no I didn't say humans are the direct cause. But it is happening regardless of what is causing it.

 

[pixelsmith]

welcome to the forums markdee.
I suggest you start here to get a back ground on the players of this scam: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
I would be very interested in what your thoughts are after reading the link above.

 

[Michael Allen]

welcome to the forums markdee.
I suggest you start here to get a back ground on the players of this scam: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
I would be very interested in what your thoughts are after reading the link above.

Don't freaking make this a war of links...seriously...I can keep this going indefinitely.

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

 

[pixelsmith]

The other believers in man made global warming should also read the link above. these guys admit to manipulating data, admit to controlling the peer review process, admit to misappropriating funding, they even fight amongst themselves over the deceit and contrived "consensus". How can anyone still believe the global warming scam is real when the very scientists responsible for the scam ADMIT the science is made up?!

Muadib, Michael Allen, and others here who attend the Church of Climatology please respond to these emails.

 

[Jimi H.]

Pixel, please try to respond to other posts before making demands of others. Your replies are one-liners and links. You haven't responded to the posts that explain the science. It's very arrogant.
Don't expect others to take the time, if you don't do the same. You have yet to demonstrate any interest in the actual chemical reactions or physics which are the core of the matter. It's not magic, it's science..

 

[Michael Allen]

The other believers in man made global warming should also read the link above. these guys admit to manipulating data, admit to controlling the peer review process, admit to misappropriating funding, they even fight amongst themselves over the deceit and contrived "consensus". How can anyone still believe the global warming scam is real when the very scientists responsible for the scam ADMIT the science is made up?!

Muadib, Michael Allen, and others here who attend the Church of Climatology please respond to these e
mails.

I didn't get any emails.

If you are talking about that link to a document that doesn't prove anything about IPCC, yes I am reading it. Its quite entertaining.

A quote from my link is instructive and worth looking at.

An important point to realise is that the emails involve a handful of scientists discussing a few pieces of climate data. Even without this data, there is still an overwhelming and consistent body of evidence, painstakingly compiled by independent scientific teams from institutions across the world.
What do they find? The planet is steadily accumulating heat. When you add up all the heat building in the oceans, land and atmosphere plus the energy required to melt glaciers and ice sheets, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 Gigawatts over the past 40 years (Murphy 2009). Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 Gigawatt, imagine over 190,000 power plants pouring their energy output directly into heating our land and oceans, melting ice and warming the air.
This build-up of heat is causing ice loss across the globe, from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice at an accelerated rate (Velicogna 2009, ). Even East Antarctica, previously thought to be too cold and stable, is now losing ice mass (Chen 2009).Glacier shrinkage is accelerating. Arctic sea ice has fallen so sharply, observations exceed even the IPCC worst case scenario. The combination of warming oceans and melting ice has resulted in sea level rise tracking the upper limit of IPCC predictions.
Rising temperatures have impacted animal and plant species worldwide. The distribution of tree lines, plants and many species of animals are moving into cooler regions towards the poles. As the onset of spring is happening earlier each year, animal and plant species are responding to the shift in seasons. Scientists observe that frog breeding, bird nesting, flowering and migration patterns are all occurring earlier in the year (Parmeson 2003). There are many other physical signs of widespread warming. The height of the tropopause, a layer in our atmosphere, is rising (Santer 2003). Arctic permafrost, covering about 25% of Northern Hemisphere land, is warming and degrading (Walsh 2009). The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007). These results are all consistent with global warming.

What’s causing this heat build-up? Humans are emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - 29 billion tonnes in 2009 (CDIAC). Greenhouse theory predicts that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will trap heat energy as it escapes out to space. What do we observe? Carbon dioxide absorbs heat at certain wavelengths. Satellites over the past 40 years find less heat escaping to space at these wavelengths (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). Where does the heat go? Surface measurements find more heat returning back to the Earth's surface (Philipona 2004). Tellingly, the increase occurs at those same carbon dioxide absorption wavelengths (Evans 2006). This is the human fingerprint in global warming.
There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that global warming is happening and human activity is the cause. A few suggestive emails may serve as a useful distraction for those wishing to avoid the physical realities of climate change. But they change nothing about our scientific understanding of humanity’s role in global warming.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I haven't been following the thread very closely, but perhaps anyone out there owning real-estate located 100' above sea-level, or below, would be well advised to list it pronto—say within the next 500 years (?)
Although the subject is not a joking matter—that was a joke, in case anyone was wondering...

 

[pixelsmith]

Pixel, please try to respond to other posts before making demands of others. Your replies are one-liners and links. You haven't responded to the posts that explain the science. It's very arrogant.
Don't expect others to take the time, if you don't do the same. You have yet to demonstrate any interest in the actual chemical reactions or physics which are the core of the matter. It's not magic, it's science..

I and others have explained the science many times here, look it up yourself.
I have spent 12 years reading both sides of this topic. It is painfully obvious Jimi, Michael and Muadib have spent about 20 minutes researching links simply to prop up the failing global warming bullshit. Read the emails from the scientists yourself instead of the interpretations from known faux science web sites like SkS and RC. I have the original emails and lots of data with remarks from the scientists saying they can't seem to show any warming in their models so they will alter the data input.

 

[pixelsmith]

I haven't been following the thread very closely, but perhaps anyone out there owning real-estate located 100' above sea-level, or below, would be well advised to list it pronto—say within the next 500 years (?)
Although the subject is not a joking matter—that was a joke, in case anyone was wondering...

al gore said sea levels were rising at an alarming rate then bought ocean view property.

 

[pixelsmith]

Don't freaking make this a war of links...seriously...I can keep this going indefinitely.

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

I find it odd that your link does not back up its BS by providing a link to each email. hmm... i wonder why?
My link gives a breakdown of the emails and provides a link to each one showing the original content as it was sent. It lets you decide how to interpret it for yourself instead of telling you what to think... but then that why you think CAGW is real, you have been told what to think... that is sad.

 

[Burnt State]

Pixel, please try to respond to other posts before making demands of others. Your replies are one-liners and links. You haven't responded to the posts that explain the science. It's very arrogant.
Don't expect others to take the time, if you don't do the same. You have yet to demonstrate any interest in the actual chemical reactions or physics which are the core of the matter. It's not magic, it's science..

During all the link wars, you'd think that the simple fact that has been proven time and time again would be acknowledged: no one agrees on facts when personal belief is involved.

Meanwhile, I just kept hearing riffs from Crosstown Traffic playing in my head till it got so calmly interrupted by a serious and calculated Hendrix staring at me with his gentle words of admonishment.

 

[Michael Allen]

I find it odd that your link does not back up its BS by providing a link to each email. hmm... i wonder why?
My link gives a breakdown of the emails and provides a link to each one showing the original content as it was sent. It lets you decide how to interpret it for yourself instead of telling you what to think... but then that why you think CAGW is real, you have been told what to think... that is sad.

I don't consider an annotated book of quote mining "letting the reader decide how to interpret for themselves." And you didn't answer the charge that the data in dispute did not overthrow AGW even if eliminated from the pool since it was corroborated by other data that was not in dispute. Its the same crap they throw at you about the Keeling curve, which they say "well of course its measured next to a volcano," which sounds nice till you superimpose all the other data curves from data (i.e. for instance at the south pole and other stations) more or less pointing at the same trend.

I read the emails and got a glimpse of internal squabbling (a herd of cats, and that is not a put down for scientists) that seemed normal. It actually gave me more confidence in the process than I had before.

What the deniers want is a list of scientists all monotonically agreeing with each other like robots -- as if that would convince them anyhow since they would say "hey why aren't your scientists arguing and debating about the issue--clearly this is all just a conspiracy of robot scientists taking over the world!"

So I read and continue to read from your link, but I am not seeing anything that disrupts AGW or IPCC conclusions--its a Rorschach blot.

Hey, I have an idea...how about you start posting your highlights (quotes) from that email that you think overthrow AGW? I just bet I will be able to find quotes from those very same emails that turn the tables against the denial position.

 

[pixelsmith]

I don't consider an annotated book of quote mining "letting the reader decide how to interpret for themselves." And you didn't answer the charge that the data in dispute did not overthrow AGW it eliminated since it was corroborated by other data that was not in dispute. Its the same crap they throw at you about the Keeling curve, which they say "well of course its measured next to a volcano," which sounds nice till you superimpose all the other data curves from data (i.e. for instance at the south pole and other stations) more or less pointing at the same trend.

I read the emails and got a glimpse of internal squabbling (a herd of cats, and that is not a put down for scientists) that seemed normal. It actually gave me more confidence in the process than I had before.

What the deniers want is a list of scientists all monotonically agreeing with each other like robots -- as if that would convince them anyhow since they would say "hey why aren't your scientists arguing and debating about the issue--clearly this is all just a conspiracy of robot scientists taking over the world!"

So I read and continue to read from your link, but I am not seeing anything that disrupts AGW or IPCC conclusions--its a Rorschach blot.

what?! these are the bozos that the IPCC used to create the IPCC summary for policy makers... either you are not reading like you say or your comprehension skills are lacking.

 

[Michael Allen]

what?! these are the bozos that the IPCC used to create the IPCC summary for policy makers... either you are not reading like you say or your comprehension skills are lacking.

Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[29] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[21] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[29] with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "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".[20] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[30] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[31][32]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36][/QUOTE]

The argument that Climategate reveals an international climate science conspiracy is not really a very skeptical one. It is skeptical in the weak sense of questioning authority, but it stops there. Unlike true skepticism, it doesn’t go on to objectively examine all the evidence and draw a conclusion based on that evidence. Instead, it cherry-picks suggestive emails, seeing everything as incontrovertible evidence of a conspiracy, and concludes all of mainstream climate science is guilty by association. This is not skepticism; this is conspiracy theory.

Exhibit No. 1 of the climate conspiracy theory is a collection of emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA), which appeared on the internet in November 2009.
Founded in 1972, CRU is only a small research unit with around 16 staff. CRU is best known for its work, since 1978, on a global record of instrumental temperature measurements from 1850 to the present, or CRUTEM. CRU’s land surface temperatures are combined with the UK Met Office Hadley Centre’s sea surface temperatures to form the global land-ocean record HadCRUT. CRU has also published reconstructions of pre-1850 temperatures based on tree rings, and CRU scientists have been involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The 1,073 emails span 13 years of correspondence between colleagues at CRU. Much of it is mundane, but in this digital age it took only a matter of hours for contrarians to do some quote-mining. Contrarians alleged that the CRU scientists had manipulated temperature and tree ring data to support predetermined conclusions, that they had stonewalled Freedom of Information (FoI) requests for data, and that they had corrupted the peer review and IPCC processes.
The story was quickly dubbed “Climategate”, and it spread rapidly from arcane contrarian blogs through conservative columnists to the mainstream media. The hyperbole was turned up to eleven. Conspiracy theorists had a field day, claiming that anyone even mentioned in the emails, or remotely connected to CRU, must also be part of a conspiracy. In this way, theClimategate conspiracy theory snowballed to include the entire field of climate science. TheClimategate emails were held up as “the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming”, and the media were only too happy to play up the controversy.
The CRU scientists have been cleared

In the months that followed, there were several inquiries into the allegations resulting from the emails. When a few of the more suggestive email quotes are reeled off by pundits without much context, they can sound pretty damning. But each and every one of these inquiries has found no fraud and no conspiracy.
The most comprehensive inquiry was the Independent Climate Change Email Review led by Sir Muir Russell, commissioned by UEA to examine the behaviour of the CRU scientists (but not the scientific validity of their work). It published its final report in July 2010. This inquiry was no whitewash: it examined the main allegations arising from the emails and their implications in meticulous detail. It focused on what the CRU scientists did, not what they said, investigating the evidence for and against each allegation. It interviewed CRU and UEA staff, and took 111 submissions including one from CRU itself. And it also did something the media completely failed to do: it attempted to put the actions of CRU scientists into context.
The Review went back to primary sources to see if CRU really was hiding or falsifying their data. It considered how much CRU’s actions influenced the IPCC’s conclusions about temperatures during the past millennium. It commissioned a paper by Dr Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, on the context of scientific peer review. It asked IPCC Review Editors how much influence individuals could wield on writing groups. And it reviewed the university's FoI processes and CRU's compliance with them. Many of these are things any journalist could have done relatively easily, but few ever bothered to do.
The Review also commented on the broader context of science in the 21st century. To paraphrase from Chapter 5: the emergence of the blogosphere requires significantly more openness from scientists. However, providing the details necessary to validate large datasets can be difficult and time-consuming, and how FoI laws apply to research is still an evolving area. Meanwhile, the public needs to understand that science cannot and does not produce absolutely precise answers. Though the uncertainties may become smaller and better constrained over time, uncertainty in science is a fact of life which policymakers have to deal with. The chapter concludes: “the Review would urge all scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand”.
The Review points out the well-known psychological phenomenon that email is less formal than other forms of communication: “Extreme forms of language are frequently applied to quite normal situations by people who would never use it in other communication channels.” The CRU scientists assumed their emails to be private, so they used “slang, jargon and acronyms” which would have been more fully explained had they been talking to the public. And although some emails suggest CRU went out of their way to make life difficult for their critics, there are others which suggest they were bending over backwards to be honest. Therefore the Review found “the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behaviour that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.” [section 4.3]
So when put into the proper context, what do these emails actually reveal about the behaviour of the CRU scientists? The report concluded (its emphasis):

Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour, and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.​

In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.​

But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognize not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science. [1.3]​

These general findings are more or less consistent across the various allegations the Review investigated. Its specific findings are summarized in the following rebuttals: "Did CRU tamper with temperature data?", "What does Mike's Nature trick to 'hide the decline' mean?", "Climategate and the peer-review process", "Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC?", and "Climategate and the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests".
The science is unchanged by Climategate

The argument that Climategate reveals an international climate science conspiracy is not really a very skeptical one. It is skeptical in the weak sense of questioning authority, but it stops there. Unlike true skepticism, it doesn’t go on to objectively examine all the evidence and draw a conclusion based on that evidence. Instead, it cherry-picks suggestive emails, seeing everything as incontrovertible evidence of a conspiracy, and concludes all of mainstreamclimate science is guilty by association. This is not skepticism; this is conspiracy theory.
In reality, Climategate has not thrown any legitimate doubt on CRU’s results, let alone the conclusions of the entire climate science community. The entire work of CRU comprises only a small part of the evidence for AGW. There are all sorts of lines of evidence for global warming, and for a human influence on climate, which in no way depend on the behaviour of the CRU scientists. Global warming has been observed not just on land but also over the oceans and in the troposphere, as well as being confirmed by many other indicators such as ocean heat content, humidity, sea level, glaciers, and Arctic sea ice. And while the hockey stick tells us thathumans have caused a profound disturbance to our climate system, we don’t need it to know that humans are causing global warming. The pattern of warming we observe is the same as that long predicted for greenhouse warming: the stratosphere is cooling, nights have warmed faster than days, and winters faster than summers.
But this reality doesn’t fit into the narrative that the contrarians would like to tell: that AGW is a house of cards that is falling down. It is very difficult to attack all of these diverse lines of evidence for global warming. Instead they tend to focus on some of the better publicized ones and try to associate them with a few individuals, making a much easier target. Yet while contrarians have been nosing around in scientists’ emails, the actual science has, if anything, become more concerning. Many major studies during 2009 and 2010 found things may be worse than previously thought.
Far from exposing a global warming fraud, “Climategate” merely exposed the depths to which contrarians are willing to sink in their attempts to manufacture doubt about AGW. They cannot win the argument on scientific grounds, so now they are trying to discredit researchers themselves. Climategate was a fake scandal from beginning to end, and the media swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The real scandal is the attacks on climate science which have done untold damage to the reputation of the scientists involved, public trust in science, and the prospects of mitigating future warming.

 

[pixelsmith]

yes i have read all that.. very nice that they get a "warmist" to investigate... how convenient.
Here is a quote from Phil Jones, you decide if this is how a scientist following the scientific method should act. If you believe he was right to withhold data then our discussions on this are a waste of time and it proves you are not interested in the science.

CRU’s Dr. Phil Jones’s response of 21/02/2005 to Warwick Hughes’s request for Jones’s raw climate data:

“Even if WMO agrees, 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.“

 

[Michael Allen]

yes i have read all that.. very nice that they get a "warmist" to investigate... how convenient.
Here is a quote from Phil Jones, you decide if this is how a scientist following the scientific method should act. If you believe he was right to withhold data then our discussions on this are a waste of time and it proves you are not interested in the science.

Find that data that was withheld and post it here in the forums and give me a point by point analysis of how that data stacks up or does not stack up.

Otherwise I am going to make this null claim: the email is forged and there is no data to correspond to the discussion--it is all make-believe.

To be clear, I am not interesting in idle gossip -- if you have something that shows AGW is false, then make your point with real data and facts related to a careful study of ALL the materials (even what you consider to be "warmist" driven).

All I see you doing is posting from astroturf groups funded by Exxon Mobile and Koch Industries and deliberately leaving out the mainstream sources in the discussion--this is not science, this is an ECHO-CHAMBER of your own choosing.

 

[pixelsmith]

The fact that you know nothing about these "climategate" emails should disqualify you from discussing it. The emails in question were verified by the people who wrote them. There is not disputing the authenticity. I have the 2000 emails as they were leaked along with other information in a 90mb file.
I have very little time to get you caught up to where I am at. It took me a couple years to discover who ran the web sites you get your science from, who the charlatans are and to realize the CAGW movement is a scam. It will take you a few years as well because it sounds like you are a little like me in that it will not make sense until you discover the facts for yourself.
I suggest
Climate Audit
wattsupwiththat.com
Home
GW 101 « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

There are several more but you can find links to them and the pro-agw views like yours on the right side of the wattsupwiththat web site and towards the bottom.

 

[nameless]

pixel.. step away from the thread. Ive said it before and i'll say it again...