Global warming hoax!?! - UPDATED -

Scientists no longer in it for the science...

By on December 3, 2009 9:00:13 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums External Link

SivCorp

Join Date 02/2009
+42

So, the truth has finially come out...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

 

Man created global warming has been politicized to the point that scientists have been rigging the results of tests to get the desired result.  This is not science, and all those "scientists" should lose their grants, teaching licenses, and be barred from ever touching a beaker

 

Seriously, has science died?  What has the world come to that the nations of the world were getting close to passing greatly limiting, taxing and controling treaties all based on false information?  What should be done with the whole "green" agenda that has now been proven to be based on lies?

 

Thoughts?

--- Over 1000 replies makes this a very hot topic ---

 

Therefore I will continue to update with the unraveling of the IPCC and politicized science. (new articles will be placed first)

Please keep the topics a little more on point from here on out, thanks.

 - Glacer calculation show to be false, and scientist refuses to apologize...

 - More errors in report?

 - Opinion paper - Rigging climate 'consensus'

 

Locked Post 1250 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 12, 2010 10:33:04 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

The reason it didn't have the backing of science was because the scientists were saying it was normal, cyclical climate patterns, and that we'd already reached the tail end of the cold spell and would be warming back up for roughly thirty years.
Not exactly.

Mojib Latif predicted that up to two decades of cooling were coming: “We could be about to enter one or even two decades of cooler temperatures, according to one of the world’s top climate modellers.”

However this does not deny AGW or indicate any kind of reversal in AGW in the same manner that the ENSO does not deny or reverse AGW. It's simply yet another climate oscillation upon which AGW continues to build up year after year.

From http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/of-moles-and-whacking-mojib-latif-predicted-two-decades-of-cooling/.

On interannual (more than a single year) and decadal (tens of years) scales, natural variability swamps the long term anthropogenic warming trend. That is to say that variations in naturally occurring aspects of the climate system have more of an impact on the ultimate value of, say, global average temperature over a span of 10 or so years than man-made global warming does.

While this might be surprising for some readers, let’s be clear: This is not “new” information. This does not represent a “shake up” of the climate science community’s understanding of the system, or a blow to “settled science”.

Latif begins the section of his presentation misrepresented by Pearce by confirming that the media incorrectly believes that global warming is monotonic- something that we know the warming is decidedly not; something not claimed by “climate science” or “climate scientists”. Significant natural variability is superimposed on the long term man-made warming trend.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 12, 2010 10:46:10 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

misrepresented

 

The only word of any use in that post.  The seventies aren't now, read that quote again and reply to what I was actually saying.

 

Since we're expecting 10-20 years of cooling, how do you expect me to eat crow 5-10 years from now when it keeps getting warmer?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 12, 2010 10:58:46 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Since we're expecting 10-20 years of cooling, how do you expect me to eat crow 5-10 years from now when it keeps getting warmer?
Because I don't expect that we will get 10-20 years of actual cooling. At most I expect 10-20 years of simply *slower* warming than would otherwise occur.

As I've said if we actually do get ten years of cooling then I would have to rethink *my* position. However I mean "real"  cooling based on arbitrary timelines, not cherry picked timelines that only show what you want them to show when you pick precisely 1998 as the starting point.

Plus if as you say we're expecting *cooling* and we do in fact get warmer doesn't that make you that much more wrong?

I guess the bottom line is, is there any evidence whatsoever that you would accept as proving your current position wrong? I've stated my ten year window, you could at least strap on a pair of balls and make a decision.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 12, 2010 11:06:22 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Significant natural variability is superimposed on the long term man-made warming trend.

I'm afraid you have that sort of backwards.  Whatever trend man is 'principally' responsible for, it's 'short-term'.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 12, 2010 11:09:48 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

The only word of any use in that post. The seventies aren't now, read that quote again and reply to what I was actually saying.
I was responding to what you were saying and making an additional point at the same time.

Your implication (or at least how I interpreted your implication) was that merely seeing a temperature rise over a 30 year period could simply be the result of being in a trough at the beginning and a peak at the end. If so then there would be no accumulated trend over multiple cycles. I acknowledged the fact that decadal cycles do in fact exist but pointed out that in itself does not deny that such cycles are not *superimposed* on real but slow AGW increases.

In reality 50 years should be enough to prove everything to everybody however I'll be long dead and will no longer care. Most people alive probably won't care much either unless of course they have children or grandchildren about which they may be concerned.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 12, 2010 11:11:09 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

I'm afraid you have that sort of backwards. Whatever trend man is 'principally' responsible for, it's 'short-term'.
I've quoted scientists saying the opposite. Do you have any credible source for this statement?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 12, 2010 11:19:15 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

How convenient that the predictions change, as if they hadn't existed as such initially, when reality renders them inaccurate.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 12, 2010 11:25:24 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

If so then there would be no accumulated trend over multiple cycles. I acknowledged the fact that decadal cycles do in fact exist but pointed out that in itself does not deny that such cycles are not *superimposed* on real but slow AGW increases.

 

This is assumption, not fact.  There were no satellites checking the temperature for the last warming cycle.  There weren't even satellites checking the temperature for the last cooling cycle.  The tree ring data is a mixed bag, they have indeed been cherry picked to exclude those trees not showing increases.  Many of them have been excluded specifically because they were in disagreement with the surface stations.  Those surface stations have been chosen as the more accurate source, yet tree rings are making up for the lack of stations elsewhere in the record to prove that it's warmed.  Even worse, they have never made for a matching record as can be seen in links you yourself posted just on the last page.  The surface station data is demonstrably inaccurate, you can whine about Watts till hell freezes over but it's still true.  I've yet to find an adjusted record that was adjusted how they claimed and fit the situation of the station.  The ice core samples that compose our long term record are proving uncooperative as well, showing no such drastic warming trends for the recent years.

 

There may be an accumulated trend, but it's an assumption supported by faulty information, not something we know to be true.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 12, 2010 11:29:24 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting Melchiz,
How convenient that the predictions change, as if they hadn't existed as such initially, when reality renders them inaccurate.
My prediction hasn't changed nor do I believe the current scientific consensus predictions have changed.

I stand by expecting that the decade of the 10's will be warmer on average than any decade on record and will contain at least one if not more years warmer than the precious 1998 that skeptics claim was the year that global warming ended.

Is that specific enough for you? Could you perhaps be specific on what sort of evidence might be sufficient to change your mind? Or like most skeptics here is there no possible evidence that could change your mind which in effect proves my point?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 12, 2010 11:29:51 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

I guess the bottom line is, is there any evidence whatsoever that you would accept as proving your current position wrong? I've stated my ten year window, you could at least strap on a pair of balls and make a decision.

'Proof' in the scientific sense is not possible with AGW.  You might as well be asking 'is there any evidence you would accept as proving God does not exist?'  It's more a matter of whether one is more or less likely to believe that the anthropogenic portion of rising CO2 concentration is the principle cause of the warming trend, assuming one accepts that a long-term sustained warming trend is indeed occurring.  Because that's the bottom-line issue - must we accede to onerous economic hardship through means of unprovable value?  To be fair, there's a lot more to it than that - a significant number of stars must magically align for the whole thing to pan out.

Besides, our 50 days are up already.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 12, 2010 11:40:24 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

This is assumption, not fact.
At the very minimum it is the educated guess of the consensus of credible credentialed climate scientists which in my mind carries quite a bit more weight than mere assumption. Also your doubt of the temperature record is extemely paranoid. Yes we did not have weather satellites 40 years ago but we have had thermometers and have basically known how to use them for at least 130 years if not 150 years. I submit that at least over the last 100 years the temperature record is pretty reliable and what some retired TV weatherman without even a bachelors degree says or does not say doesn't really concern me one way or another.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 12, 2010 11:47:31 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

must we accede to onerous economic hardship through means of unprovable value?
This thread was proportedly about the science and should have nothing to do with "acced[ing] to onerous economic hardship".

We've had this discussion before and if your point is to argue against any particular legislation then I'm as likely to agree with you as not. You don't fight the legislation by attacking the science. That just doesn't make sense.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2010 12:09:42 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Absent consequences, it's an academic discussion that would have petered out many pages ago.  The AGW hypothesis is being used to justify proposed tangible consequences; it's no longer academic.

The skepticism (at least in my case) has more to do with the use of the science than the science itself, though I have significant doubts about the science of climatology because of its dependence on manipulating proxy data of dubious power and reliability and its focus on a sliver of time smaller than a geologic eye blink, not to mention the hubris involved in assuming we can 'fix' a problem not yet sufficiently understood.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2010 12:13:53 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Mumblefratz,

I stand by expecting that the decade of the 10's will be warmer on average than any decade on record and will contain at least one if not more years warmer than the precious 1998 that skeptics claim was the year that global warming ended.

Is that specific enough for you? Could you perhaps be specific on what sort of evidence might be sufficient to change your mind? Or like most skeptics here is there no possible evidence that could change your mind which in effect proves my point?

All of these short-term predictions are foolish because, ultimately, they are not of statistical significance. Individual decades mean little, and individual centuries are barely significant. If you say that the 10's are to be the warmer, and you are right, no hypothesis is validated. Likewise, if the 10's are colder than predicted, AGW is not disproven. If we can remove the painfully obvious conflicts of interest, improve the quality of data, and can finally demonstrate a link (beyond this correlation proves causation nonsense) between human emissions and changes to the global climate, then a truly valid theory will arrive.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2010 12:32:14 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

At the very minimum it is the educated guess of the consensus of credible credentialed climate scientists which in my mind carries quite a bit more weight than mere assumption. Also your doubt of the temperature record is extemely paranoid. Yes we did not have weather satellites 40 years ago but we have had thermometers and have basically known how to use them for at least 130 years if not 150 years. I submit that at least over the last 100 years the temperature record is pretty reliable and what some retired TV weatherman without even a bachelors degree says or does not say doesn't really concern me one way or another.

 

Climatology is about as hard a science as astrology right now.  There is nothing resembling a complete surface station record even today, do you really think that a century back, when half the cities in the new world didn't even exist, and the population was a fraction of the size, that we had anything at all resembling the coverage we do now?  It's a joke, we haven't the foggiest idea.  Even with the number we have now, we're barely covering a third of the planet with anything resembling a reasonable spread.  The stations we have had for a long time have, generally speaking, been urbanized(yet mysteriously corrected upwards) and, predictably, show increases.  I do not find them credible, and the guess is definitely not educated based on the numbers.  You say at the very minimum, but that's more like the best possible situation.  One where none of them have utopian leanings, none of them are radical environmentalists, none of them hate capitalism, and none of them are just going with the politicians that fund them for purely pragmatic reasons.

 

That's not even taking into consideration that all but a couple dozen of them are working off the admittedly manipulated data from politically created bodies beholden to the politicians that fund them.  Markedly anti-US political bodies, we do use more petrol than anyone else after all.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2010 12:42:18 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Climatology is about as hard a science as astrology right now.

I'd say closer to Applied Astrology.   Or maybe homeopathy.  Speaking of which, homeopaths use pretty much the same (il)logical arguments as AGW proponents in justifying what they do.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2010 2:19:21 AM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

I guess the bottom line is, is there any evidence whatsoever that you would accept as proving your current position wrong? I've stated my ten year window, you could at least strap on a pair of balls and make a decision.

When you can point to the inland beach where Holland used to be, or Bangledesh being half the size it used to be. Hell, I'd settle for the day they evacuate Diego Garcia. In short, if there isn't a meter of sea level rise in your lifetime, the whole thing was a crock of shit.

The important point to Mojib Latif's work is that the warmists now have "peer reviewed research" that they can point to to cover basically ANY pattern we see in the next 10 years. It gets cooler, Mojib Latif was right, it gets warmer he was wrong but everyone else was right; neither disproves AGW but the warmist science was "right" if either happens. It's pretty damn easy to make an "accurate" prediction if you move the bullseye to within arm's reach and make it 10 feet across. Literally anything short of the apocolypse is covered by their predictions.

The tree ring data is a mixed bag, they have indeed been cherry picked to exclude those trees not showing increases.  Many of them have been excluded specifically because they were in disagreement with the surface stations.  Those surface stations have been chosen as the more accurate source, yet tree rings are making up for the lack of stations elsewhere in the record to prove that it's warmed.

Indeed, this is why anyone with half a brain should have seen the big red flag waved by the "hide the decline" trick. Not that they resorted to a statistical trick to hide the decline to begin with - it's unfortunate terminology but at least the "debunkers" got that part right; the trick itself is not a huge reason for concern. It's the fact that they used the observed temp for the last portion of the record rather than the tree rings, despite the rings telling them the exact opposite of what the thermometers were saying. Either the thermometers were wrong, or the tree rings were not the reliable temperature record they assumed they were - the two disagree bad enough that the rings and thermometers can't *both* be right, but that is exactly what they assume. then for some magical unexplained reason the tree data goes screwy, coincidentally when they have "reliable" thermometer readings to replace the "previously-reliable-but-now-completely-wrong" tree rings.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2010 4:43:22 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Mumblefratz,

Since we're expecting 10-20 years of cooling, how do you expect me to eat crow 5-10 years from now when it keeps getting warmer?Because I don't expect that we will get 10-20 years of actual cooling. At most I expect 10-20 years of simply *slower* warming than would otherwise occur.
As I've said if we actually do get ten years of cooling then I would have to rethink *my* position. However I mean "real"  cooling based on arbitrary timelines, not cherry picked timelines that only show what you want them to show when you pick precisely 1998 as the starting point.

Plus if as you say we're expecting *cooling* and we do in fact get warmer doesn't that make you that much more wrong?

I guess the bottom line is, is there any evidence whatsoever that you would accept as proving your current position wrong? I've stated my ten year window, you could at least strap on a pair of balls and make a decision.

 

The thing is even if there was another 10-20 years of warming, it will prove only itself, not the theory that we caused it via CO2 emissions. The last interglacial period - Eemian - was even hotter than it is today - and there were no people to produce carbon emissions that time around...to prove AGW is happening, just continuous warming is not enough. They have to prove strong positive feedback of CO2 in the complex system of climate, which they claim supposedly to exist. How they do it and if it is even possible to achieve, i really do not know. I think that complete - i mean really complete and proper -  understanding of climate will be a good start though.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2010 5:14:35 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Mumblefratz,

4At the very minimum it is the educated guess of the consensus of credible credentialed climate scientists which in my mind carries quite a bit more weight than mere assumption. Also your doubt of the temperature record is extemely paranoid. Yes we did not have weather satellites 40 years ago but we have had thermometers and have basically known how to use them for at least 130 years if not 150 years. I submit that at least over the last 100 years the temperature record is pretty reliable and what some retired TV weatherman without even a bachelors degree says or does not say doesn't really concern me one way or another.

The educated guess is not enough, when you are prepared to f*ck up the entire world economy with the carbon cap. We require facts, not guesses.

And i do not see nothing paranoid about not trusting the available temeprature records, on which the predictions are based. I am under impression, that there is no system in these records at all. They come from random locations, some records have years missing, the quality and the calibration of devices, used to record temperature for those 150 years on those different places is at best questionable, the recorded data are adjusted etc...

Again this is my impression based on what i keep reading about it, so i might be wrong. But i think if they measured the atmospheric temp for another 100 years via satellites, i might be much more inclined to trust them.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2010 6:35:05 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Qyth,



Quoting TheRezonator,
reply 750
thats a lovely statement, because i can now go back to my first point:

Prove to me how maybe 100 years of (sketchy?) data qualifies as a wide enough base to map a change of the climate of a planet thats many billions of years old...


The 100 years of temperatures is too short period of time, but it can tell you trending. I think that scientists rely more on ice core samples from some place like Antarctica to determine CO2 levels during known ice age periods and warm periods, or something like that, which is why scientists are alarmed at the CO2 levels today.

wow, amazing how much you miss in a single day...

anyway: how can 100 years show you trending in a process that takes many times that period to do anything really?

as for ice core samples... okay, there was less CO2 where there was ice however many thousands of years ago... but with only 100 years of sketchy trending showing a temp rise (and even then...)

as for the multitudes of internet links that Mumbles seems to like posting just for the shits and giggles... like i said, just because some guy has some piece of paper and says some things doesnt make him right...

best example: Galileo, enough said. and the arguement that we're better now than we were then or that things are different is shite because honestly, nothing has changed

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2010 7:20:35 AM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

In all honesty, there is no accurate weather data that reflects the entire world today. There is no real collaborative world effort to look for temperature changes in all of the countries on Earth. Even still, the method for finding out what the "average" temperature seems a bit odd to me.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2010 8:09:13 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

The educated guess is not enough, when you are prepared to f*ck up the entire world economy with the carbon cap. We require facts, not guesses.

Somehow, I am wondering if the entire world economy isn't currently going into the wall due to its dependancy on fossil energies and its ability to destroy natural ressources faster than the nature can resplenish them (ie current trend is more on short term gain that on long term impact)?

And I guess that in few decennies, carbon cap will be a moot point since oil will be very rare and very costly.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2010 8:10:05 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

The skepticism (at least in my case) has more to do with the use of the science than the science itself,
This is the reason.

though I have significant doubts about the science of climatology because of its dependence on manipulating proxy data of dubious power and reliability and its focus on a sliver of time smaller than a geologic eye blink, not to mention the hubris involved in assuming we can 'fix' a problem not yet sufficiently understood
This is rationalization.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2010 8:16:03 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Mumblefratz,

The skepticism (at least in my case) has more to do with the use of the science than the science itself,This is the reason.



though I have significant doubts about the science of climatology because of its dependence on manipulating proxy data of dubious power and reliability and its focus on a sliver of time smaller than a geologic eye blink, not to mention the hubris involved in assuming we can 'fix' a problem not yet sufficiently understoodThis is rationalization.

i have to agree with this. all cementing the point: we dont know anything, yet, lets make a buck off scaring people with the next end-of-the-world gimmick. next it will be our space junk is causing a massive solar flare so buy our suncrean cause itll protect you =D

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
January 13, 2010 8:19:34 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

When you can point to the inland beach where Holland used to be, or Bangledesh being half the size it used to be. Hell, I'd settle for the day they evacuate Diego Garcia. In short, if there isn't a meter of sea level rise in your lifetime, the whole thing was a crock of shit.
Finally, at least *some* demonstrable criteria that would cause a rethinking of at least one skeptics position.

I expect that you will get that meter in your life but probably not in mine. My guess is 30 years for something that dramatic. The question is what will everyone say when that happens, take a quote from Emily Litella and just say "never mind". If you wait for a meter of rise to acctually occur then you may have committed the planet to a 6 meter rise before it could stabilize. I guess you could always tell your children and grandchildren that you were sorry.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #101114  walnut1   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0001281   Page Render Time: