Moderator: Jon Estes
Gary wrote:Old thread had reached 109 posts.
Arbitrary new thread per David's earlier discussion. He's busy. I did it for him.
Now, have at each other, Brothers.
Gary
Conclusions
1. We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work
of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely
that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if
slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of
public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures
were rather informal.
2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that
depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close
collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual
benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a
much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of
temperature specialists.
3. It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were
important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of
environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted
a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by
government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of
processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and
seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in
government.
4. A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of
Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the
CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties
should stay with those who collected it
Ed Edwards wrote:Strawman AGW Denier argument: No group of earth persons ever caused Global Warming.
Bye Bye argument. All it takes is one exception:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/1007 ... e_mammoths
Of course, that was back before God crated Adam. So we would have to call those Mammoth killers:
Apes
David Flick wrote:Ed Edwards wrote:Strawman AGW Denier argument: No group of earth persons ever caused Global Warming.
Bye Bye argument. All it takes is one exception:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/1007 ... e_mammoths
Of course, that was back before God crated Adam. So we would have to call those Mammoth killers:
Apes
AGW Dude, that entire article was pure unadulterated baloney cheese. The author (Yereth Rosen) has no clue about the truth of the matter. No credible person or scientist ("credible" being the operative word here) has ever proven that human beings can cause global warming or climate change.
FIRST HUMAN IMPACT ON CLIMATE
If mammoth hunters helped hasten Arctic warming, that would potentially be the first such human impact on climate, preceding that caused by ancient farmers, Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology and a co-author of the study, said on Tuesday.
With the advent of agriculture about 7,000 years ago at more southern latitudes, humans are believed to have modified the climate through deforestation and cultivation of new plants, he said.
The earlier climate consequences of declining mammoth populations were extremely subtle.
The flourishing of plant life as the voracious, vegetarian beasts were disappearing about 15,000 years ago helped warm the Arctic and boreal regions in what is now Siberia and North America by 0.2 degrees Celsius over a period of several centuries, though certain spots saw a temperature rise of up to 1 degree Celsius, the study found.
Ancient human-caused warming was tiny compared to modern-day warming, in which the Earth's temperature has risen about 0.74 degrees Celsius (1.33 degrees F) since the start of the 20th century, with temperatures rising at least twice as fast in the Arctic, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The research attributes about a fourth of the Arctic's vegetation-driven warming to the decline of the woolly mammoth. If human hunters helped kill off the large mammals, they bear some responsibility for warming the climate, the scientists concluded.
"We're not saying this was a big effect," Field said. "The point of the paper isn't that this is a big effect. But it's a human effect."
Ed Edwards wrote:Brother Jim || ... by the 1970s the “experts” were warning of a new Ice Age ... ||
Better statement: by the 1970s an expert or two warned of a new Ice Age coming in about 20,000 years
by th 1990s many climate experts, paleoclimate experts, geologists, biologists, and kindred experts were warning of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) that would be well on it's way and obvious by 2030. This AGW scare was proved UNTRUE. AGW is now and the AGW is going to increase through 2100 even if we do now what we should have done in 1992 (when we should have elected Al Gore). Fortunately I did not vote for Bush nor Gore. (I figured that we had a Bush already and do not need an american Dynasty!) I guess it was alright to spend a Trillion Dollars killing Iraqi and Afgans - but not alright to spend a Trillion Dollars building dikes?
Jim wrote:Ed Edwards wrote:Brother Jim || ... by the 1970s the “experts” were warning of a new Ice Age ... ||
Better statement: by the 1970s an expert or two warned of a new Ice Age coming in about 20,000 years
by th 1990s many climate experts, paleoclimate experts, geologists, biologists, and kindred experts were warning of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) that would be well on it's way and obvious by 2030. This AGW scare was proved UNTRUE. AGW is now and the AGW is going to increase through 2100 even if we do now what we should have done in 1992 (when we should have elected Al Gore). Fortunately I did not vote for Bush nor Gore. (I figured that we had a Bush already and do not need an american Dynasty!) I guess it was alright to spend a Trillion Dollars killing Iraqi and Afgans - but not alright to spend a Trillion Dollars building dikes?
Try these and note especially the Hansen flip-flop:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/;
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Excerpts_from_the_August_1977_book.pdf;
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html;
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=3432.
Ed Edwards wrote:Brother Jim || ... by the 1970s the “experts” were warning of a new Ice Age ... ||
Better statement: by the 1970s an expert or two warned of a new Ice Age coming in about 20,000 years
by th 1990s many climate experts, paleoclimate experts, geologists, biologists, and kindred experts were warning of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) that would be well on it's way and obvious by 2030. This AGW scare was proved UNTRUE. AGW is now and the AGW is going to increase through 2100 even if we do now what we should have done in 1992 (when we should have elected Al Gore). Fortunately I did not vote for Bush nor Gore. (I figured that we had a Bush already and do not need an american Dynasty!) I guess it was alright to spend a Trillion Dollars killing Iraqi and Afgans - but not alright to spend a Trillion Dollars building dikes?
Jim wrote:Try these and note especially the Hansen flip-flop:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/;
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Excerpts_from_the_August_1977_book.pdf;
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html;
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=3432.
To Jim, KeithE wrote:That was 1971 Jim. And it was a Hansen colleague not Hansen himself (who was 30 years old at the time and not even studying global warming - he was maninly studying circulation models of Venus according to his autobiography). Besides the earth's temp at that time had decreased very slightly since 1940 by 0.1C.
Keith's Wikipedia graph...
It was a mistaken prognostication by Hansen's colleague then. Facts have dramatically changed since then as you should be able to see (if you have eyes to see) above.
Your claim of Hansen flip-flop, flops on all accounts. Same goes for Holdren - some people actual continue to look at data and are man enough to adjust. Some people choose to be comfortably derelict, others eye near-term profits.
The lengths that the denialist go to - bringing up 40 year old newsclips show how desparate they are for information to make their pre-ordained point and not upset their corporate sponsors' short-term profits.
Ed Edwards wrote:Strawman AGW Denier argument: No group of earth persons ever caused Global Warming.
Bye Bye argument. All it takes is one exception:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/1007 ... e_mammoths
Of course, that was back before God crated Adam. So we would have to call those Mammoth killers:
Apes
David Flick wrote:AGW Dude, that entire article was pure unadulterated baloney cheese. The author (Yereth Rosen) has no clue about the truth of the matter. No credible person or scientist ("credible" being the operative word here) has ever proven that human beings can cause global warming or climate change.
To AGW Dude, KeithE wrote:Yeah AGW Dude, David really provides powerful DATA![]()
![]()
His baloney cheese really proves his points.
David: You bet... Quoting a warmist is powerful DATA. Proves my point quite well...
From your article we can put the recent temp rises in perspective.
Quoting, Yereth Rosen, a non-credible warmists re AGW climate change, Keith wrote:FIRST HUMAN IMPACT ON CLIMATE
[By Yereth Rosen]
If mammoth hunters helped hasten Arctic warming, that would potentially be the first such human impact on climate, preceding that caused by ancient farmers, Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology and a co-author of the study, said on Tuesday.
With the advent of agriculture about 7,000 years ago at more southern latitudes, humans are believed to have modified the climate through deforestation and cultivation of new plants, he said.
The earlier climate consequences of declining mammoth populations were extremely subtle.
The flourishing of plant life as the voracious, vegetarian beasts were disappearing about 15,000 years ago helped warm the Arctic and boreal regions in what is now Siberia and North America by 0.2 degrees Celsius over a period of several centuries, though certain spots saw a temperature rise of up to 1 degree Celsius, the study found.
Ancient human-caused warming was tiny compared to modern-day warming, in which the Earth's temperature has risen about 0.74 degrees Celsius (1.33 degrees F) since the start of the 20th century, with temperatures rising at least twice as fast in the Arctic, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.David: Ah yes...
The research attributes about a fourth of the Arctic's vegetation-driven warming to the decline of the woolly mammoth. If human hunters helped kill off the large mammals, they bear some responsibility for warming the climate, the scientists concluded.Thus saith the No-Name IPCC. We all know how "credible" that bunch is. You can practically mark it down... If the "No-Namers" speak it, there's a 90% likelihood it's false alarmism...
"We're not saying this was a big effect," Field said. "The point of the paper isn't that this is a big effect. But it's a human effect."
0.74 C in one century (at least twice that much in the Arctic =1.48C ) vs 0.2C in several centuries in Arctic/boreal regions. Say "several centuries" means at a minimum 3 centuries. Then the 20th century's rate of temp change in the Arctic is at least 20 times that due to early earth agriculture (and I'm am low balling that ratio)
This book Earth's Climate: Past and Future makes the same points as Chris Field does in a very detailed, illustrated, more global fashion.
While absolute 100% certainty is elusive in true earth science, AGW is as near to that level of proof as any earth-related scientific assertion at least to any credible (non-politically biased) earth/climate scientist.David: I suppose you're trying to convince me that AGW earth-related scientific assertions (i.e. IPCC, Climategate personalities, Algore, Hansen, etc. etc.) are "non-politically biased"?? Nice try there, Keith.
Wanna back off and try another response? Those are the most politically biased sources on the face of the globe.
Ed Edwards wrote:James 1:8 (KJV1611 edition, e-sword.com edition):
A double minded man is vnstable in all his wayes.
Strong's explains this for the source of the term here translated "double minded".
G1374
δίψυχος
dipsuchos
dip'-soo-khos
From G1364 and G5590; two spirited, that is, vacillating (in opinion or purpose): - double minded.
Ed Edwards wrote:Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder; but ugly goes clear to the bone.
The scripture is (metaphorically speaking) a mirror, revealing the inner self, soul, spirit, etc.
I just post scripture, the Lord gives it meaning for the reader.
I plant the seed, God gives the increase.
David Flick wrote:Ed Edwards wrote:Brother Jim || ... by the 1970s the “experts” were warning of a new Ice Age ... ||
Better statement: by the 1970s an expert or two warned of a new Ice Age coming in about 20,000 years
by th 1990s many climate experts, paleoclimate experts, geologists, biologists, and kindred experts were warning of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) that would be well on it's way and obvious by 2030. This AGW scare was proved UNTRUE. AGW is now and the AGW is going to increase through 2100 even if we do now what we should have done in 1992 (when we should have elected Al Gore). Fortunately I did not vote for Bush nor Gore. (I figured that we had a Bush already and do not need an american Dynasty!) I guess it was alright to spend a Trillion Dollars killing Iraqi and Afgans - but not alright to spend a Trillion Dollars building dikes?
Jim wrote:Try these and note especially the Hansen flip-flop:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/;
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Excerpts_from_the_August_1977_book.pdf;
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html;
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=3432.
To Jim, KeithE wrote:That was 1971 Jim. And it was a Hansen colleague not Hansen himself (who was 30 years old at the time and not even studying global warming - he was maninly studying circulation models of Venus according to his autobiography). Besides the earth's temp at that time had decreased very slightly since 1940 by 0.1C.
Keith's Wikipedia graph...
It was a mistaken prognostication by Hansen's colleague then. Facts have dramatically changed since then as you should be able to see (if you have eyes to see) above.
Your claim of Hansen flip-flop, flops on all accounts. Same goes for Holdren - some people actual continue to look at data and are man enough to adjust. Some people choose to be comfortably derelict, others eye near-term profits.
The lengths that the denialist go to - bringing up 40 year old newsclips show how desparate they are for information to make their pre-ordained point and not upset their corporate sponsors' short-term profits.The lengths to which the warmists will go (e.g. perpetuating the hoax) shows how desperate they are to convince the ever decreasing number of gullible people that man-made global warming/climate change is a reality...
KeithE wrote:1For those with eyes to see, I'll repeat the DATA that David hides calling it "Keith's Wikipedia graph".
Keith's Wikipedia graph #1
2It is not Keith's or Wikipedia's graph, it is real DATA from surface station measurements. And it is confirmed by independent satellite DATA as shown here.
Keith's Wikipedia graph #2
3You cannot just wish away the AGW problem by quoting 40 year old op-eds or hiding/ignoring the DATA.
David Flick wrote:KeithE wrote:1For those with eyes to see, I'll repeat the DATA that David hides calling it "Keith's Wikipedia graph".
Keith's Wikipedia graph #1
2It is not Keith's or Wikipedia's graph, it is real DATA from surface station measurements. And it is confirmed by independent satellite DATA as shown here.
Keith's Wikipedia graph #2
3You cannot just wish away the AGW problem by quoting 40 year old op-eds or hiding/ignoring the DATA.
1) Those with eyes to see will recognize that I'm not hiding anything... I just reduced the Wikipedia graph to a link which makes it possible to see the entire graph. When Keith posts the graph as an image, it's impossible to read the entire graph. Those with eyes to see will observe that the url to the graph is indeed a Wikipedia graph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Record.png
2) Link to Keith's Wikipedia graph #2: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... atures.png
3)Of course... No one can "wish away" the AGW problem. Inasmuch as an AGW problem doesn't exist, you can't wish it away. There is no "AGW problem". You can't wish away something that doesn't actually exist...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, Keith, you should know that Wikipedia is totally untrustworthy as a quoting source for global warming/climate change. Wikipedia is totally biased to the alarmist side of question. In December of '09 (seven months ago) Wikipedia fired a radical online climate editor. The guy's name is William Connolley. He was a software engineer and host at RealClimate. RealClimate.Org is radical AGW site that relentlessly punished AGW skeptics and lavishly praised alarmists. Connolley changed over 5,000 Wikipedia articles to promote AGW catastrophic speculation. He even altered climate history, most prominently by removing the Medieval Warming Period. But he also described the careers and accomplishments of AGW skeptics in the most unflattering way.
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it. More than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred. Over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
I don't trust much of anything that Wikipedia publishes wrt global warming and climate change. It's totally dishonest and biased toward global warmning and climate change alarmism. You can read all about it here...
Global warming deniers have had a bad couple of weeks on the truth versus falsehood front, the line between what is and their wishful fantasies. Scientists have thumped the deniers who cling to their beliefs – beliefs in the ideology of laissez-faire capitalism and the theology of literalism.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the "combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2010 was the warmest on record."
June "was also the fourth consecutive warmest month on record (March, April and May 2010 were also the warmest on record)."
NASA reported that the first half of the year was the hottest on record.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported, "Average June ice extent was the lowest in the satellite data record, from 1979 to 2010. Arctic air temperatures were higher than normal, and Arctic sea ice continued to decline at a fast pace."
So much for the claim of global cooling.
In order to avoid what global warming deniers do, a word of caution must be inserted.
"One hot year doesn't, on its own, prove that humans are warming the planet any more than one cold year disproves it," Bradford Plumer wrote in The New Republic.
He added, "That said, there's a clear upward trend here, and reams of evidence that the planet is heating up. It's not just the thermometer record, either – as a recent EPA report noted, there are dozens of indicators, from the changing length of the growing season to shifting species habitats."
Now add to what scientists are reporting to three independent investigations that have affirmed the studies of climate scientists and cleared scientists of wrongdoing in the bogus scandal related to hacked emails.
"Emails stolen from this university were selectively misused to make serious allegations about the work of the Climatic Research Unit," said Edward Acton, vice chancellor of the University of East Anglia. "Some people accepted those misrepresentations at face value without question and repeated them as fact."
In a statement two weeks ago, Acton noted that "for the third and hopefully for the final time, an exhaustive independent review has exposed as unfounded the overwhelming thrust of the allegations against our science."
He said, "We hope that commentators will accurately reflect what this highly detailed independent report says, and finally lay to rest the conspiracy theories, untruths and misunderstandings that have circulated."
On July 16, Jonathan Kay, managing editor for the National Post, addressed the mythical claim that a "growing number of scientists" reject manmade global warming.
"In a new article published in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, a group of scholars from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and elsewhere provide a statistical breakdown of the opinions of the world's most prominent climate experts," he wrote in Canada's national newspaper.
"Their conclusion: The group that is skeptical of the evidence of man-made global warming 'comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers in the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups ...This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that [about] 97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of [man-made global warming],'" observed Kay.
He rightly asked, "How has this tiny 2%-3% sliver of fringe opinion been reinvented as a perpetually 'growing' share of the scientific community?"
Over a year ago, I noted that one of the 700 prominent scientists – identified by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) – who objected to the scientific understanding about manmade global warming was a Southern Baptist creationist without a college degree who was a weatherman at a Fox-affiliated TV station in Bowling Green, Ky.
Of course, the Stanford University report focused on real climate scientists, not bogus ones. Yet together – bogus scientists and those with fringe opinions – create a widespread narrative that scientists are in disagreement about climate change. That false narrative creates public skepticism driven by two forces – the ideological party of short-term greed and the theological party of fundamentalism.
Any number of free-market advocacy groups spew out opposition to the science of climate change. Their goal is to prevent any legislation, any government action, that will redress global warming. Is it likely that they fear action on climate change will eat into the short-term profits of their sponsors and overturn their reverence for laissez faire economics?
At the same time, Christian leaders need to challenge those who spout bad religion. They also need to offer sermons, statements, commentaries and Bible lessons that restore earth-keeping to its rightful place in Christian discipleship.
Good science and good religion are not at odds over the truth about climate change. One offers empirical data and objective explanations; the other provides a moral vision.
Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest