Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn't made up of climate scientists, but is just a group of global warming skeptics who gave themselves a fancy title. And they just got caught combining temperature data from different places to get rid of the inconvenient warming trend in New Zealand. If you want to know what the science really says, please read the Copenhagen Diagnosis.
The latest story exciting the denialosphere is being put about by Anthony Watts and is based on a "news alert" from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. (Note: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition contains no actual climate scientists.)
The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.
The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ...
Gareth Renowden explains how the NZCSC concocted their result -- they made the NZ warming trend go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site. Now that might be simple incompetence, but they also claim that NIWA won't explain how they adjust the data for site changes, and as Renowden says:
Nothing in the station histories? It's all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least two years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about "adjusted data". In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth.
I wonder how many of the folks accusing NIWA of cooking their data will correct their posts?
- Log in to post comments
@Chicken Little:
No, NASA did not confuse atmospheric and global cooling. They were pretty clear about the distinction in the page you linked.
But go on, continue to claim that major scientific organizations who endorse the IPCC consensus don't actually know what they're saying.
@Michael Ralston:
You said:
"Chicken_Little seems to be confusing atmospheric temperature with global temperature, and confusing the effects of self-limiting confounders with the effects of non-limited forcings."
I replied to you with a turn of your own words:
"NASA seems to be confusing atmospheric temperature with global temperature, and confusing the effects of self-limiting confounders with the effects of non-limited forcings."
Perhaps the subtlety of this interchange eluded you?
;o)
acadder,
It won't surprise you that I'm not impressed by mere assertions. Please do provide the evidence you rely on for your claim of fudged data.
This is what I originally asked for and your list of assertions does nothing by delay a proper response to my simple request.
A secondary request may help avoid further diversions. I request where the "fudged data" has been used. This will avert the smear problem of claiming that normal practice of creating dummy data, mean that fudged data was used in CRU published data.
Thank you in advance.
Chicken_Little: No, in fact, I know exactly what you said. You tried to imply that I was criticizing NASA, when in fact I was saying that you do not understand the page you are linking.
NASA is not confusing atmospheric and global warming, in fact they are carefully distinguishing between the two. You, however, are conflating the two and thereby misrepresenting NASA's claims.
Perhaps this is too subtle for you?
This is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
CRU and NASA GISS both use the same public data. In addition CRU uses another 2% proprietary data which NASA GISS does not.
The 98% of the raw data used in common is, and long has been, online.
So ... feel free to look at that 98% shared raw data and tell us why it's garbage.
And please explain to us why the fact that a programmer in the UK having difficulty understanding some poorly documented code makes that raw data garbage ...
498 Chicken,
"MITâs journal Energy & Environment "
Care to tell us where you got that idea? It's hard to express just how bizarre it is.
Chicken_Little:
Energy and Environment is not a scientific journal. It has little credibility.
@Michael Ralston:
Apparently MITâs journal Energy & Environment (October 2009) seems to be confused as well:
ABSTRACT
Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009. Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment evinces a warming trend. The past 12 to 13 years show cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16 years. It is shown that several published studies have predicted cooling in this time frame. One of these models is extrapolated from its 2000 calibration end date and shows a good match to the satellite data, with a projection of continued cooling for several more decades.
INTRODUCTION
Temperature trends provide critical evidence for evaluating claims regarding
anthropogenic climate change. On the one hand, models project continued warming
(e.g., Hansen et al., 2006). On the other, it has been argued that Earthâs weather
should be expected to exhibit long-term persistence (LTP) at some scale (Cohn and
Lins, 2005; Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Wood, 2008). LTP could at any given time
give a false impression of the strength of anthropogenic effects by adding a warming
trend to an existing anthropogenic signal, or it could act to counter such signal for some
period of years or decades. Thus it is critical to examine climate history data at
multiple scales to evaluate these effects.
Read it all here:
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230
(click the download link icon to view the document)
;o)
Ah, so "Chicken Little" was in fact lying, not merely mistaken. Good to know!
For Dave (re #355):
Greetings Dave.
So far, AGW advocates have called my comments âfantastic speculationâ and âan absurd positionâ. I hope this is not what passes for substantive debate for AGWrs, or there can be no progress here. If I say that 2+2=4, then yes Iâm saying that if you donât agree with me you are de facto wrong. So, you see I have made a comment which can be demonstrated to be true here. If it hurts your feelings that you canât be allowed to have your own opinion concerning what must be considered reasonable to any logical person, nothing more can be said to you on this. You are free to âstrongly disagreeâ, but that lends not one shred of legitimacy to your disagreement. Why not say âI strongly, EMPHATICALLY disagreeâ? Wouldnât that bolster your position even more? You should have thought of it first â too late. ï
Clearly if bogus data has found its way into a wide variety of calculations in the field, that bogus data must be removed. Once it is removed, the papers that used that data must be re-done â i.e. âthrown outâ. This is too easy.
After reading this comment, I immediately began looking for hidden cameras in my room and office. Surely, someone with such a level of knowledge concerning what I have or have not read must be spying on me day and night. Unfortunately for me, I havenât read them ALL, so you could have saved a lot of money and time by not spying on me. I have read (at Real Climate and other places) a vast amount of the arguments pro and con. In order to get the cons, I have to find an opposition website because the AGWrs just wonât accurately present the cons. At any rate, I acquainted myself with both sides on most arguments.
Also, I have read that many of the scientists who disagreed with the IPCC report had to fight like mad to get their names OFF of the list of those who supposedly endorsed it. Many more evidently could not get theirs off. So, even though they disagreed with the reportâs findings, their name appears as an endorsement. This is the type of thing that happens with heavy-handed politicians who are corrupt as the day is long. And this is the SAME type of thing CRU and PSU were doing that is obviously not above board. Now, I donât expect you to immediately say to yourself âdarn, if thatâs true I better go back and find out what the real truth isâ. Instead, I expect you to be conjuring up some response to obfuscate that fact or to just ignore it. If you do that, then you can be excused from those are want the truth, and introduce yourself to all of the advocates I see here â as one of them. These comments are meant to be more gentle than they appear â debate is debate, so please donât take them to heart.
Let me be clear on this one. ANYONE who makes up data, hides data, attempts to besmirch other ideas and skepticism is to be shunned. I am not advocating for the âdeniersâ here. If you think I am, Iâm afraid Iâve not made myself clear. I donât care about those who deny AGW so much. They can jump off a cliff for all I care. But, they are not the ones causing governments to tax me to death, or to take political power from my country and give it to a global body. That is being pushed by the AGWrs. Therefore, I want them to be above board and proven correct BEFORE such draconian actions are foisted upon me. I am just looking on at all of the arguments pro and con. If I see ad hominum or straw man or appeals to authority or any other logical fallacies, I make note of it and dismiss said arguments. It is striking to me that 99% of the AGWrs posts here fall into some logical fallacy (mostly ad hominum) or another.
Look, this is what I see. Letâs say someone comes back and says there is a huge hole growing to gigantic proportions on the edge of town, and it is going to grow to a size large enough to swallow the town. So, they start using data to show âwhyâ this is happening. They also start purchasing all of the items in town that would increase in value under such a threat. They start making the town government take out insurance with THEIR company against the hole damage. They have the whole town up on arms. And, they are the town rangers, so they have more legitimacy in that area than others would. But, one or two of the townsfolk ask to be taken to see this hole. The hole advocates immediately obfuscate such a move. They use every tactic they can think of to stop anyone from seeing the hole. Besides, they have all of the data to prove the hole is growing. Finally, some townsfolk force their way to the hole and find that it is not growing. Same hole they always knew was there. At this point, the advocates say âthe hole is growing UNDER the ground where our calculations show it to be advancing quickly.â The âdeniersâ look and see no sloping underground. So, the advocates say âits so far down you canât see it â just trust usâ. Etc. etc.
This is precisely where things stand right now with AGW. Most people who live in the real world day by day are not fooled by this any longer. They live in a jungle of hucksters every day, and they know what it looks like when they see it. When someone tells you something is true but then denies you access to the data and calls you names if you donât agree, they are selling a pig in a poke. Plain and simple. That is why the general populace doesnât buy this any more.
Beautiful! Best chuckle today. Hehehe..
You see, this is where you really lose out. There were RECORD cold temps this year all over the world. The summer was VERY mild. Now the CRU data might say it was a real boiler this year, but I watched the weatherman tell me a potload of times that record temps and snows and earliest winter, etc. happened. I also experienced it first hand â with my own skin. Absent all of the so-called data, there is no warming. Clearly there is COOLING. The reason I canât be moved from my position that I donât trust the data from CRU is because it has been shown to be garbage, and that those who promulgated it are obfuscators. In the real world, that is very damning. Up till this point in the debate, I hadnât made up my mind who was right. The data are too complex and require too many âcorrectionsâ and algorithmic methods to ânormalizeâ them. So, I was on the fence. When this scandal appeared, I moved off the fence and now I expect the AGWârs to show where they used the bad data and to show that it was removed from all of their calculations and to show how their calculations now look with said bad data. Until they do that, they are PRESUMED to be wrong â period. Especially since it is THEY who are trying to alter the worldâs economics. Such a large step should require proof beyond doubt before proceeding. But, they are saying âits just too important. We canât wait to see if weâre right. We have to do this now!â Pig in a poke language.
I do not trust the GISS data until I look a little further into how it was obtained, and what algorithmic manipulations went into producing their numbers. They show a tidy little number for each month. Where did it come from? What normalizing did they do? I donât know, so I will call it a draw until I can find out (which I will do, and soon).
Regards
Re.Chicken Little (#498)
Energy and Environment is not an MIT journal. It is merely the house organ of the denialists that also counts the anthropologist Benny Peiser on its editorial staff. Scopus lists it as a 'trade journal' (how true) and the ISIS Journal Citation Index doesn't have it at all among the 6000 peer reviewed journals it has listed.
Roger Pielke Jr. who once published in it. said that he did so because he didn't know how the journal would evolve. Now nobody refers to it (he forgot the ChickenLittles of this world).
Sonya Boehmer-Christiansen, the editor of Energy and Environment, is, as far as I know, the only editor of a 'science' journal who has brazenly stated to have a 'political agenda' (see the quote in Wikipedia that originally comes from the Chronicle of Higher Education).
It is not hard to guess what that agenda is. She is an 'advising member' of the 'Scientific Alliance', a pseudo-scientific group set up by the British businessman Robert Durward. Durward has refused to reveal who is behind the funding of this group (if I am not mistaken it was his group that allowed that British busdriver to spend sixty thousand pounds on harassing Al Gore in a law suit - the outcome of which has been widely misrepresented among denialists in their usual fashion).
The journal is only taken seriously, if there, among sceptics, that is to say a largely ill informed crowd.
No, the substantive debate in science takes place in the peer-reviewed literature, at conferences, between scientists in personal communications, between grad student and advisor, etc.
Of all that, the only substantive debate that *matters* is that which makes it to the literature.
CRU does not make up data.
CRU does not hide data. CRU says "we can't give you data we have no right to distribute (roughly 2% of the raw data, the other 98% being online for years) - if you want it, you'll have to go ask those who own that 2%".
Good bye science. Physicists besmirch perpetual motion cranks every time they're confronted with one. Biologists besmirch creationist cranks every time they're confronted with one. Geologists outright laugh at those who claim the earth is only 6,000 years old.
For Chris OâNeill (re #364):
Greetings Chris. You do make an assumption in your comments which insinuate that I havenât read the article details, donât you? Perhaps you just assume everyone who doesnât see it your way canât be informed? Since I have informed myself of both sides, it is all too likely that I am more informed than you are â though not certain. Nothing substantive in your post though. But, I donât take that to mean you couldnât produce substantive comments.
You said: You look like you've got plenty of time to do this so why don't you do it?
Mayhap youâll be happy to know that I already have done much of what you suggest. I havenât read every article everywhere, but Iâve seen enough of the technical support for the various contentions. Some of the AGW information is persuasive, but so are the rebuttals. But when a persuasive article tells me it must be very hot, and I walk outside into the bitter cold, the persuasiveness is destroyed. Ok, I donât understand exactly why some of the conclusions are wrong, but if they ask me to deny reality, I wonât do it â itâs too much to ask. Reality is against the clever arguments, therefore they canât win unless they have advocates with ulterior motives, and who are willing to deceive. Just so happens that is what has been discovered.
Regards
@Arie Brand:
Thanks for the input.
Perhaps you'd like to chew on this from another ill-informed crowd (NASA):
"The atmosphere is extremely complex in its behavior. Because of this, finding the correct explanation for the behavior we observe is complex as well. Virtually all scientists will agree that a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere should have some effect on the temperature of the Earth. But it is much less certain how or if we will recognize the effects of this increase. There are several reasons:
* First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.
* Second, there is a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, namely water vapor. Water vapor over the Earth is extremely variable, both in space and in time.
* Third, the ways in which clouds and water vapor feed back and ultimately influence the temperature of the Earth are, at best, poorly understood.
* Fourth, while the whole Earth is indeed in a state that scientists describe as "radiative equilibrium," where the incoming sunlight equals the outgoing infrared radiation to provide a roughly constant overall temperature, the surface is far from this radiative balance condition. Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor. So in short, it is this convective overturning of the atmosphere - poorly represented in computer models of global warming - that primarily determines the temperature distribution of the surface and upper troposphere, not radiation balance."
http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
Interestingly, this material seems to buttress the aforementioned published findings which you and others blanketly assail; despite its age.
:o)
You know, repetitive cut-and-paste of stuff you misunderstand or misrepresent (not sure which is true in this case) does nothing other than make you look foolish.
For Guthrie (re #497):
Greetings Guthrie.
No need to be rude/abrasive.
Er⦠Yes I do. The code cannot be called ârightâ because it was created and manipulated to produce ânormalâ values. When the output wasnât right, fudge factors were introduced to bump everything to where it âlooked rightâ. If you have ever written programs or handled data much, you know exactly how this works. Usually, you have to reason your way through and for your programming to produce the right answers WITHOUT cheating. Then, you have to be sure you didnât just create a special case to match the specific data you are looking at. The process used by this programmer was to ACCEPT that the program was producing wrong answers and just use what he called âmultipliersâ sometimes and âfactorsâ at other times. Some of the factor corrections he performed were not untoward in any way. Thatâs how you have to deal with real data sometimes. But, you donât BLANKET correct data unless you are simply doing a conversion.
No, the programmer did â several times. Read the file. If you donât have access to it, email me and Iâll send it over to you â or you can find it elsewhere if you look.
This is not âusualâ. The files he was given were not documented for the most part. He opened files and just saw a lot of numbers â nothing to tell him what they meant. I donât blame the programmer. Seems to be level-headed enough. He just didnât want to quit and lose his job, which is what he should have done when he discovered the data set he was to work with. And, youâre right â the billions of dollars weâve given to the global warming conceptual study is just not enough â maybe they need trillions, no?
Yes, and the earth is flatâ¦.
Regardsâ¦
@dhogaza:
Care to comment on the substance of what NASA (and many others) have stated regarding this matter? This looks like a couple of pretty straightforward assertions to me:
* First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.
* Second, there is a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, namely water vapor. Water vapor over the Earth is extremely variable, both in space and in time.
(NASA's own words: http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm)
Or, perhaps, "kill the messenger" is the approach which you and your affiliates here prefer to practice?
;o)
acadder,
I searched and searched through your two posts (since my last), for an answer to my [straight forward request](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…), I could not find where you address basic request for evidence.
I repost my request in case you overlooked it.
>*It won't surprise you that I'm not impressed by mere assertions. Please do provide the evidence you rely on for your claim of fudged data.*
>*This is what I originally asked for and your list of assertions does nothing by delay a proper response to my simple request.*
>*A secondary request may help avoid further diversions. I request where the "fudged data" has been used. This will avert the smear problem of claiming that normal practice of creating dummy data, mean that fudged data was used in CRU published data.*
>*Thank you in advance.*
You've got the emails, so that surely should help you find the data that you allege to be fraud.
Link syntax correction for post #517:
http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
;o)
>"The atmosphere is extremely complex in its behavior. Because of this, finding the correct explanation for the behavior we observe is complex as well. Virtually all scientists will agree that a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere should have some effect on the temperature of the Earth. But it is much less certain how or if we will recognize the effects of this increase.
I don't need to be able to predict the behaviour of every single wave to be able to accurately estimate the change in the tide. The atmosphere is complex but it still obeys basic physical principles, specially in this case the change in various properties as a response to bulk changes in the important radiative gases. Whether Nancy's backyard is warm or cold is basically irrelevant.
Chicken_LIttle, you refer, perhaps without knowing to Roy Spencer's satellite temperature retrievals. It may bother you to learn that these satellite derived temperatures are derived from complex mathematical models and can in no sense be considered a direct measurement. In addition satellite sensitivity to temperature change is weakest for the the lower troposphere (because it is furthest from the satellite basically).
Having said all that, your link is old and wrong. Because we now know that the satellite observations agree with the temperature record within measurement and computational uncertainty. Of course computing the lower tropospheric temperature from satellite and measuring the temperature at the surface with a thermometer are different things, you should expect some small differences. To summarize: Spencer likes to write articles casting doubt on global warming, but his own work backs it up.
[Wiki link on satellite temperature]
acadder:
The earth's climate is still warming. "Climate" means at least 30 years of data. Every trend at least 30 years long is warming. Every surface measurement: HadCrut3, GISS, NCDC, and every satelllite measurement: UAH, RASS, has a warming 30 year trend. Anyone who says the climate is cooling is in denial of the facts.
Yes, as I already pointed out, we know that if the sun were to go out, the earth would cool, regardless of GHG content. Happens every night when the air is still and clear.
This doesn't mean that adding CO2 while the sun is still shining won't cause warming. In fact, your quote mine says nothing about GHGs + sun.
Yes. So? Climate science understands that water vapor feedback is a large component of CO2-forced warming. Gosh. Tell us something climate science hasn't known for a couple of decades.
Essentially what you're proving here is that you're extraordinarily ignorant.
It read like an honest assessment, to me.
Acadder writes:
>*But when a persuasive article tells me it must be very hot, and I walk outside into the bitter cold, the persuasiveness is destroyed.*
Will you cite the article that tells you when you walk outside (on whatever day to refer to) that it is supposed to be very hot? The science I read make different sorts of projections to the ones you set up as strawman. I.e. projections over long times, and in the order of 3-5 degrees globallly (meaning that -20 might become -10 in cold regions over a long time, or 5 degress might become 10 degress, which means that some regions will still experience cold.
> But when a persuasive article tells me it must be very hot, and I walk outside into the bitter cold, the persuasiveness is destroyed.
To add to the (correct) point Kessler makes: If you walk outside into bitter winter cold, feel the icy wind on your face, but you still expect next summer to be warm, then you already accept the science of climatology.
Greetings Janet. I have the programmer's history file, and I'll go through that and post some tidbits that show he had to cook the data. That will take me some time since I can't come back to it for a couple of days. Not to worry.
If you want some examples, try this (just found it, will look for more when I return):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFt07eAAQ94&feature=video_response
Just saw this too, quoting Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
"They've been doing this for years and it's clear by looking at the data files that they have been doing that," he told Fox News. "I'm sorry but these people have already been revealed as not having any honor. Now they're being revealed as not having any sense of shame. They're just trying to brazen it out."
Very descriptive of what I've seen on this board. The AGWrs are a snarky, rude and arrogant lot. That alone moves me further from AGW. Clearly when you've lost intellectually, the only thing remaining is to use invective.
At any rate, I'll get you what you've requested shortly.
Regards
acadder:
How do you expect people to react when they keep hearing dishonest claims over and over again that "the world is cooling" when the climate, as opposed to a short-term cherry-pick, is undeniably warming?
>Very descriptive of what I've seen on this board. The AGWrs are a snarky, rude and arrogant lot.
Your reading of this thread tells you that "AGWrs" (aka: scientists) are snarky and rude? Your selective observational powers are indeed strong. In general I guess I would prefer snark to the incoherent spittle flying rage displayed by the "anti-AGWrs" (aka: anti-scientists).
Wow, Chicken Little found a 12-year-old page at NASA.
http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
It turns out they were wrong about that. Odd that NASA still has that old information up and available without a footnote.
[JohnU](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…).
In your attempt to calculate the temperature increase in response to CO2 doubling, where is your taking into account of the masking of warming by particulates, and where is your taking into account of the thermal inertia of the atmosphere/hydrosphere?
Oops, you didn't take them into account?
Hmmm... how do you think that these alone might alter your finger counting?
I especially like acadder's tacit admission that he has no evidence as of now, but is in the process of acquiring it. That's good denialist protocol. Smear and slander, than google "climate science is a fraud" and see what 'evidence' you can turn up. Russian state media no doubt features prominently amongst the choice hits, as per what he just introduced into the thread, including no doubt Pravda features about climate scientists actually being aliens.
Tip of the cap to you acadder- you're a class act.
Bah! I see that others subsequent to JohnU's posting pointed the inertia issue out to him, although I note that his response was rather less than mathematical.
More generally, it's interesting to note that since Drudge removed the link to this thread, the sheer number of different drive-by trolls has decreased substantially. The remainder have somewhat more to say than "it's all a conspeeraysee!!1!", although Tom's [confabulation of science and Christian Fundamentalist mythology](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…) shows that you can lead a Denialist to the water of rationality, but you can make him drink of it.
acadder,
Interesting that you use the opions of Myron Ebell in place of evidence.
Sorry that you didn't have the evidence available when you found CRU guilty of fraud.
Please do come back when you found the evidence that I requested.
Acadder,
That would be [Myron Ebell](http://www.desmogblog.com/myron-ebell) who's taken over $2 million from Exxon ad more a quarter million from Big tobacco to run favourable propaganda campaigns for polices aligned with Exxon interest.
You have selectd an odd primary source there acadder.
And Kessler, still waiting for [that citation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…), or alternatively perhaps a retraction and apology for a blatant straw man beatup?
453. This is the reason why "skeptics" are not skeptics. They aren't skeptical. Their position is outside of reason.
To jog your memory:
"And I can tell you one thing, I do not need a scientist to tell me that making pollution and emmisions a fungible asset like money and then trading it on an open market will NOT lead to less of it. You may be a climate expert but I doubt your are an economic scientist as well. No market will allow a contraction without a fight therefore how do you reduce polluttion when you make a market to trade it ?"
The assertion is demonstrably false. The SOx and NOx cap and trade system unquestionably reduced pollution and it was unquestionably cheaper than industry had warned.
Thus the followup non-sequitur that the system created a "big old mess" is equally false. It did not. It was cheap, easy, and accomplished the goal.
As for weather models, they are fed up to date observations and are then run forward in time to see what happens based on those inputs. They are, in fact, physics-based "predictions." Climate models are similar, although they don't concern themselves with the exact timing of weather events that are required for a weather forecast. Nor are they predictions. They are "what if" scenarios based on possible futures. They don't contain all of the physics, thus they certainly have their share of problems. But they don't need to be perfect as few (no) models are.
The idea that we don't know enough to know that we are heading into disaster is preposterous. i.e. the whole, "more study is necessary" canard. The only way that a doubling of CO2, tripling of methane, and large increases in N2O and other greenhouse gases might not be a problem is if there is a negative Goldilocks feedback that counteracts all/most of the warming predicted by physics. And the great white hopes of most skeptics, negative water vapor and cloud feedbacks don't exist, and are probably positive.
i.e.
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/PacCloudFeedback.pdf
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2008b.pdf
Also required: plugging your ears when anyone mentions "ocean acidification"
The National Academy of Sciences first warned that governments were going to have to do something about this problem in 1977. And yet, people ignore repeated warnings from them and every other scientific society in the world in favor of Myron Ebell, or whoever tells them what they want to hear. There are no do-overs. You can't decide to erase past emissions if the science turns out to be true, which at this point, certainly is.
Majorajam,
>*I especially like acadder's tacit admission that he has no evidence as of now, but is in the process of acquiring it. That's good denialist protocol. Smear and slander, than google "climate science is a fraud" and see what 'evidence' you can turn up.*
Yes, I noticed that point. It's been quite consistently the a case on this issue. Its been repeated every time I've asked people for the evidence on which they have found people guilt, they either disappear or try divergence tactics, or both.
Amazing how premature finding of guilt are brought down with such heat and passion, based on the flimsiness of cherry picked out of context emails. Emails for which everyone can project their own bias, beliefs, ideology and fantasy, and care not for the basic (and fair) evidence gathering to make sense of what the emails mean.
What does it say out all those claims of bad data, if given all the possible clues in the emails, that they still can't produce solid evidence of the fraud that they so readily charge?
Jones might resign for his brain fade (please "delete" emails), but even that has extenuating circumstances, (ie. the extreme harassment and the apparent detail that they didn't follow through on the deletions)- (did he retract the request?), who knows, lets get the evidence before we convict.
So, we do know the "shape of the curve", it would flatten eventually. Unfortunately for us, the slope is still very steep. We're talking thousands of times pre-industrial levels before adding more CO2 would not heat the planet any more - and by that time, Earth would be Venus 2.)
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen | November 27, 2009 3:04 PM
hahaha in your dreams henny penny,,,
fat chance the earth will go from .03% to 97% henny penny,,,
add to the fact venus is closer to the sun, rotates at a very slow 243 earth days and has negligible magnetic field to protect it from solar wind,,,
go back to your farm henny penny before foxy loxy gets you,,,
Chicken Little,
The NASA article you link to, from 12 years ago, is wrong. Spencer and Christy f**ked up their satellite temperature measurement adjustments for the rotational drift of the satellites. In 2005, other scientists realised their mistake and published it. Spencer and Christy agreed they had made a mistake and [updated their methods in May 2005](http://climate.uah.edu/may2005.htm) - that's 8 years after the article you link to. Since then, UAH's temperature measurements have shown a steady rise in global temperature, same as every other temperature measuring method and group on the planet.
When it comes to water vapour, etc, Roy Spencer is, not to put too fine a point on it, blowing smoke. He has made so many errors on the public record in the past that he has his own special category on Deltoid (you can find the link on the upper left of the page).
Bernie J, You being a Smart guy and all. Help me again with my prior question dealing with "The myth of the rational man". Referenced in post #80. What does that mean to you. "people" like us need you because we are so vile and dirty, being an uneducated & unwashed mass. You sir are a gas bag. Just like the rest of us tabernacles. And just a guess but what is it with you and the God of you fathers? He has given you everything, except you pride.
please inform us,,,
at what global population level do you feel that AGW will cease and possibly reverse???
3 billion?
1 billion?
500 million?
Janet Ackerman, Hi again, perhaps you missed my earlier request of you to explain to us what was meant in the Climate Change PR hand-out you were so aware of last night. See post #80. Point 20; Please tell us who the "Stakeholders" in this long term complex issue dealing with the risks of Global Warming would be? How much do you have to invest to own a piece of this scam? Why are you all, you, and we are just people. You don't even identify with your species. Keep the faith, baby
Even in this early PR brochure you knew it was a "game". I know I am irritating but unimportant. It is just that saving the people of the world a $1,000,000,000,000 or one million millions, is important. I get it...
To: Gen. Jack Ripper
Burbbullson AFB
U and Your Strange-love, P O E = purity of essence
You guys just don't quit... What's the secret hand shake? Put a franklin in my fist?
Keep the Faith, baby
Sorry, I must have burped. All the scientists went home and did not grade my papers. They are probably tricking the sh_t out of something; we know how busy they all are.
"Global Warming Skeptics"? Oh, please, next we'll hear about the "Holocaust Skeptics". They are not skeptics, they are denialists; they only wish people would believe they are skeptics because it would give them some semblance of legitimacy.
Tom,
I haven't read the pink PR document, just glanced over it, so I can't answer your questions.
But I hope someone teaches the scientist about PR, they need high quality communication skills to combat the BS pushed by [these anti-science propagandists](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/put-tiger-your-think-tank).
>*please inform us,,, at what global population level do you feel that AGW will cease and possibly reverse??? 3 billion? 1 billion? 500 million?*
Answer depends on how we behave, if we internalise a lot of our currently externalised costs we may be able to better self organise and become more sensitive to the feedbacks of our actions. Currently we are behaving like an organism with leprosy, our signals of harm are not making it back to the decision making neurons.
Timing also has a lot to do with it, so it becomes a many dimensioned answer.
The linked NASA article is not posted on a NASA site. Instead it's on an "archive" of old articles that a third party has put up.
Speaking of UAH, it's interesting that there are no FOI requests to Christy and Spencer to release their data and code, to my knowledge. CEI is suing NASA for emails regarding the "Y2K error" which received widespread media attention despite the minscule magnitude of the correction. The 2005 UAH diurnal correction was literally 50 times more significant.
Another reason why "skeptics" are not skeptics.
Tom:
Ever looked in a mirror?
@chicken_little and many others:
I have a suggestion: check the date of the document you link, and check the date when UAH had to correct its satellite temperature record (40% upward).
Hint: one is much later than the other.
546 please inform us,,, at what global population level do you feel that AGW will cease and possibly reverse??? 3 billion? 1 billion? 500 million?
Answer depends on how we behave, if we internalise a lot of our currently externalised costs we may be able to better self organise and become more sensitive to the feedbacks of our actions. Currently we are behaving like an organism with leprosy, our signals of harm are not making it back to the decision making neurons.
Timing also has a lot to do with it, so it becomes a many dimensioned answer.
Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 2:47 AM
ummmm so you are saying that reducing humans will not slow or stop or reverse human caused global warming??? interesting,,,
if 6 billion plus people are causing AGW then 3 billion should reduce it by 50%,,, all things being equal,,,
3 billion fewer needing manufactured goods, agricultural products, transportation and energy,,,
the U.N. Population Fund said recently that population control wass needed to slow global warming,,,
"As the growth of population, economies and consumption outpaces the Earth's capacity to adjust, climate change could become much more extreme and conceivably catastrophic," the report said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_sc/climate_population_growth
Chris O'Neill, P O E = Purity of Essence. See above comment. These folks won't say Christian, God, Jesus or Holy Spirit. To them we are just POE's and they can't even be honest about that. Offer em' a franklin maybe that would move them to get real and open up as to what POE means to them. We know how they love transparent science. Right you den of vpr's.
>ummmm so you are saying that reducing humans will not slow or stop or reverse human caused global warming???
Huuh?
Are You sure you really want to ignore [my response](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…) and answer a strawman response that you had in your mind already?
>Right you den of vpr's.
Uh Tom? You're getting incoherent. What on earth are you talking about?
Janet Ackerman, Please, do as I asked and review your document and answer my questions it won't take you a minute. As to never give up Chris, you are right. I have not been properly relieved, our A/O is still not secure. Until then I am going to continue to roll over your position using your own words. I don't like the communist way, I don't like the facist way, I don't like zionist way. Not a dimes worth of differance between them, for me and many more in our world. We have had first hand experiance with their utopia. Your lie. I hope you are not a vpr. Please tell me you are not a VPR
@Tom
[Purity of essence?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY)
Hi Dave, Yes I think that may be it. If you go to posting #271, you will see the tongue in cheek answer. Lots of folks had asked the regulars what they were meaning when calling others POE's. This evening after reviewing when POE had been used I saw the guns, drinking, fool, military, smoking, swearing, hard ass, nut, Christian... POE the code for the strike call-back. It is pretty obvious. They are sure smart high-brow long ears(Ref. Easter Island) They are too cute by half. If I am wrong I apologize.
Tom ask, these questions:
In relation to [this PR document](http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf).
>*Please tell us who the "Stakeholders" in this long term complex issue dealing with the risks of Global Warming would be?*
Everyone and every ecosystem.
>*How much do you have to invest to own a piece of this scam?*
Argument by assertion. Looks like you want people to belive its a scam, but want to take a short cut or have no credible argument to make. You substitute for lack of rigor or argument by asking questions trying act like its a scam and hope to catch some ill informed people in the con.
>*Why are you all, you, and we are just people. [sic]*
I don't know what this question is asking about.
>*POE the code for the strike call-back.*
I don't know what this means, but it sounds good. I'd read your novel if you write one Tom.
Can you detail it a bit more, I'm getting excited by the of military thriller suspense sort of tone.
How does the POE code work in your reckoning? I promise I'll come clean if you call it right!
552
ummmm so you are saying that reducing humans will not slow or stop or reverse human caused global warming???
Huuh?
Are You sure you really want to ignore my response and answer a strawman response that you had in your mind already?
Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 4:03 AM
how about zero humans??? will that stop AGW???
can AGW still be controlled with even a 100 billion humans???
Wrong at large,
If you want to debate the voices in your mind, then carry on.
We'll still be here when you land.
Hi Janet, thank you for you reply. Here is what I mean...
It is unproductive to attack that which people hold dear.
You are asking the world to give over their lives and futures to NWO people, for a price. But we are not going to give them the facts but rather emotion and pictures to help them give up their independece as this PR piece says. To who-- GHWBush, Soros, Obama, Rahm, the Queen... you know these people better than I and the world is full of them... They have the money in invest "stakeholders"(Ref. Gore). This is true; you know it. This whole effort has been moving forward for many years, long before the "science started". Freedom. You will not get a selling price from me. The more they sell this the more it all stinks. Check the web, the world is giving thanks that the truth will out.
560 Wrong at large,
If you want to debate the voices in your mind, then carry on.
We'll still be here when you land.
Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 5:14 AM
you want the world to believe that AGW via human caused co2 is settled science and the only solution will cost trillions to lower co2,,,
and yet these same scientists that tell us how much the co2 must be reduced cannot put a number on the human population???
good one
Tom,
This comment (@561) has elements of similarity of one I had with a poster called "nanny_govt_sucks", you might have some interest in the exchange we had over several days getting meaty [from about here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php#…).
You will hear a lot of snarkey comments on blogs, exactly for the reason you mention, its about what "people hold dear".
You hold dear freedom and not being ruled by a tyrant authoritarian. And I hold dear having healthy ecosystem that provides for peaceful health lives on an on a sustainable basis.
We'll that's an over-simplification, cos I reckon we both cherish each of these needs dearly.
I'll tell you what I know I you can do the same for me. And We can see were that takes us.
For starters, I don't think its about a few rich individual pulling all the strings. Sure that happens to some extent, I I'm only guessing about that. What I think is that we don't need a grand conspiracy when we've got a system that bad enough to have a million little conspiracies flourishing at once.
Obama, Bush, Soros etc are controlled by systems not by evil genius. Read some of my discussion with Nanny.
John U:
>And I was being generous with the 1.85 degree increase. According to the US Department of Energy, only about 14.8% of the increase in CO2 from 1900 (288 PPM baseline), or 11.88 ppm, is man-made. The remaining 68.5 ppm is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires.
Erm, this has just been copied almost word for word from here (scroll down to Fig. 7):
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
A bio-chemistry software site.
Question is, was/is JohnU really TJ Nelson?
wrong at large,
You seem quite determined ignore [my answer](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…).
I suspect you wanted a different answer, hence your strawman stackup.
If you want me to say it a different way I can try.
If we want 6 biilion people to consume at the rate of the ave. US citizen, we need more than one planets worth of current extract rates.
Yet current extraction rates are already unsustainable. So to prevent a mass die off we can opt for reducing overall extraction, being less wasteful, more efficient, and putting in feedback system to reward efficient goods and charge more for wasteful goods.
Then we need ask about the question of distribution. We can consume at sustainable levels with massive current inequality, or we can be more equitable and prove opportunities for the most vulnerable to rise out of a dire plight.
And here is Gavin's assesment of TJ Nelson on RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/one-year-on/#comm…
Thank you Janet, I checked it out. I disagree with you on a carbon tax. I feel that the Cap & Trade would become the reason for so-to-speak; the birth of the NWO. Encompassing all those organizations in some form over a short time. As to the science itself for me at this point, the data is corrupt. It has led a very troubled life and now the data for any real purpose is worthless. It is numbers and code that has been "tricked". A valid discription I think. At the best; you all need to start from scratch to prove your points. This window has closed for your endevour now I think. That is my hope. Now will you tell me what your code for POE is? If you have never seen the movie Dr. Strangelove or How I stopped worrying and learned to love the Bomb. A great movie.
Tom,
A POE is one who is being satirical, but others don't see the joke for reasons of both the subject in discussion and because communication being limted to text.
People sometimes say things that are so far off the planet that I'd assume they are joking. Others say similar things as a joke but are taken to be real.
see [Poe's Law](http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law)
It seems from the use of Poe in this thread that some people thought "melissa" was too crazy to be genuine.
Oh, Tom, if you hang around here and want to find out another law, try calling people Hilter when you find yourself frustrated or in a tight squeeze.
Thank you Janet, POE Purity of Essence. That works for me. I like it. I am a fundamentalist. God has been very good to me and I have needed Him. For years this has just been a line from a movie. Seriously, Janet if you have never seen Dr. Strangelove, do yourself a favor and have a great laugh. I had no idea it was in use...? Learn something new everyday.
Before I forget,
A carbon tax, is different to cap-and-trade.
Cap and trade is carbon trading and Goldman Sachs love the idea of carbon trading. James Hansen (top climate scientist) don't like cap-trade, he likes cap-and-dividend which is a form of straight tax. CnD can be revenue neutral, that is government get no more revenue, it just collects carbon tax and gives it all back as a divident to offset the price rise. If you cut your energy bill you can end up in front.
If the super rich want to burn more fuel, they they pay more which gets shared by all in their dividend. It creates ways of rewarding business that do the right thing, and does a bit to protect ethical businesses from being undercut by people externalising cost and foisting them on the rest of us.
So I'm steering clear of Goldman and going with Hansen.
Unfortunately CnT is a potential rort. CnD will be cheaper and simpler.
A Carbon tax (like CnD) will be no more NWO than a sales tax, called a consumption tax elsewhere. Totally regular government business.
Tom,
I've been meaning to see DSL sometime and I will get it now on your recommendation.
[I grew up Fundamentalist, now a bit Pantheist. Have you come across the author Bart Ehrman - though, Perhaps we shouldn't come to blows on the Bible and climate change in one night]
566 Then we need ask about the question of distribution. We can consume at sustainable levels with massive current inequality, or we can be more equitable and prove opportunities for the most vulnerable to rise out of a dire plight.
Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 5:58 AM
I see,,, so AGW is not about human activity causing global warming as much as it is about social engineering,,,
so if we were to develope a way that reduced 66% of the atmospheric co2 for a mere $100 million,,, the AGW scientists would not be interested,,,
A German research ship carrying 20 tons of iron sulfate is currently motoring towards the South Atlantic, and the crew plans to dump its mineral cargo into the ocean in a controversial science experiment. The researchers will be testing a technique called ocean fertilization, in which iron is dumped into nutrient-poor waters to induce a huge blooms of phytoplankton. After the photosynthesizing plankton grows and absorbs carbon dioxide, researchers hope it will die and sink down to the seafloor still bearing that greenhouse gas in a natural form of carbon sequestration. Ocean iron fertilization is considered one of the more promising options for global-scale geoengineering, which aims to slow or reverse the effects of climate change caused by manâs burning of fossil fuels.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/experiment-trying-…
link to the NZCSC pdf: http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
NIWA is using the canard it's all about stations being moved.Now we have Salinger's adjustment data,we can see that 6 out of 7 datasets were cranked down by 0.5C AT LEAST from the beginning of the datasets.Explain that,please.You Global Cooling deniers have no shame whatsoever.
In the future we will build 'Camps' fot the Deniers, and when the waters start rising they will all drown.
@wrong at large
"so if we were to develope a way that reduced 66% of the atmospheric co2 for a mere $100 million...the AGW scientists would not be interested"
What makes you think scientists would not be interested? Funnily enough, those testing the experiments ARE 'AGW scientists' !
There are, however, a lot of caveats with these 'geoengineering' approaches. In essence we would be changing something else in our environment without knowing what the consequences will be. If we're lucky, they are positive.
Wrong at large,
Have you ever heard the phrase 'intellectual dishonesty'.
What you have been [posting recently](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…) fits that bill. You either ingore my responses or take one small portion and distort it beyond its meaning to create create strawmen. Then you so skillfully knock down all the strawmen.
The problem is unlike where you might usually practice your trade, I can call you on your dishonest, and you just look silly.
A13: Houston we, have a problem.
WAL: *I see Appllo 13, so your telling me we need to kill half the world's population*
A13: NO Houston listen, we have a really big problem, our carbon scrubbers have failed.
WAL: *What you are telling me is that you are more interesting in "socail engineering" and not the carbon scrubers.*
A13: Houston?, Who am I speaking to?
I would just like to say; to everyone who has participated in this thread... "It's a gas man, it's really been a gas." Humble Pie "Rockin' The Fillmore"
Let me improve my anallogy:
Let me improve my analogy: A13: Houston we, have a problem. WAL:
>I see Appllo 13, *"[please inform us,,, at what [crew] population level do you feel that problem will cease and possibly reverse???*](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…) 3? 1? a half?
A13: What?...NO Houston listen, we have a really big problem, our carbon scrubbers have failed. I think we can fix it but we need to switch power source, and conserve energy.
>WAL: I see,,, so your problem is not about the carbon filtration system [as much as it is about social engineering,,,]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…)
A13: Houston?
>WAL: *so if we were to develope a way that significantly reduced of the problem you describe for a mere $100 million,,, you are telling me you [would not be interested,,,]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…)*
A13: Houston?, Who am I speaking to?
Did someone really just link to evidence in the NZCSC website in the comment to a post explaining how the NZCSC is lying? You couldn't make these things up, even if you tried.
Indeed Kristjan - it's like I've skipped merrily through the looking glass.
@575 SteveS, how about you *read the blog post you're commenting on* and *follow the link provided* for the explanation you so desperately seek.
THIS is why I sometimes feel like running away into the wilderness and living off nuts and berries.
Can't hear you...
...I'm running....
...still running...
Tom, (Tom with questions from the pink form from last night),
Its now morning is Oz, and I realise that you made a few points that I wish to address.
>*As to the science itself for me at this point, the data is corrupt. It has led a very troubled life and now the data for any real purpose is worthless. It is numbers and code that has been "tricked".*
To have a proper discussion on this claim you make, we need to talk specifics. Rather than making broad sweeping claims we should go to the specifics and test evidence for each claim of wrong doing.
The one specific you mention is the word âtrickâ.
On that word "trick" I submit [this context]( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/) :
> *No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded âgotchaâ phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that âIâve just completed Mikeâs Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keithâs to hide the decline.â*
>*The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the âtrickâ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term âtrickâ to refer to a âa good way to deal with a problemâ, rather than something that is âsecretâ, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.*
>*As for the âdeclineâ, it is well known that Keith Briffaâs maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the âdivergence problemââsee e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).*
>*Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while âhidingâ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is âhiddenâ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.*
From a lay persons perspective I understand that the proxies for temperature (coral growth rings, ice cores, tree growth rings, sediments etc.. have excellent correlation with the thermometer record up to about 1960. From that time there is a divergence (the decline). I have read speculation that this divergence is due to massive change in the biosphere (CO2 rise, aerosols causing global dimming etc) that are in addition to temperature, resulting a messy response from the previously temperature correlated proxies.
People from all over the place have brought similar claims about the alleged fraud shown the CRU emails, they come full of surety and certain of the guilt that has been uncovered.
Having so many alleged clues to the alleged crimes, yet they havenât taken the manifold steps required of going past speculation of what the authors mean. Theyâve pronounced fraud and guilt; and done so without assessing how well the documented evidence fits with the crimes they speculate that the emails show.
If there really were fraud, their failure to produce corroborating evidence now in light of the emails (as thier guide) would be the equivalent of being awarded a free kick right in front of the goals, and then walking away.
An odd thing happens when one asks for the specifics. Take a look at the response from these commentators after each of the question asked as follows:
To Robert [here]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…)
To William Wallace [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php#…).
To acadder [here]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…).
Who is pushing the idea of climate fraud? It is front groups [like these]( http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-… ) who are really misrepresenting the facts and tricking people.
578 Wrong at large,
Have you ever heard the phrase 'intellectual dishonesty'.
Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 3:58 PM
i always find it interesting that psychotic people acuse others of what it is they are doing,,,
>i always find it interesting that psychotic people acuse others of what it is they are doing,,,
"Intellectual dishonesty' includes calling people names when they call you on your dishonest rhetorical tactics.
wrong at large:
I love it when psychopaths call other people psychotic.
586
i always find it interesting that psychotic people acuse others of what it is they are doing,,,
"Intellectual dishonesty' includes calling people names when they call you on your dishonest rhetorical tactics.
Posted by: MarkG | November 28, 2009 8:39 PM
587
wrong at large:
i always find it interesting that psychotic people
I love it when psychopaths call other people psychotic.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | November 28, 2009 8:48 PM
you must be referring to janet akerman et al then,,,
talk about intellectual dishonesty,,,
>*i always find it interesting that psychotic people acuse others of what it is they are doing,,,*
The unfortunate part of your latest assertion is that I didn't just call you intellectually dishonset, but I also [demonstrated your intellectual dishonesty](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…). And your latest comment worked to reinforce the evidence of your practice of intellectual dishonesty.
**Houston, we have a shining example of denial here!**
Wrong At Large,
Did you just employ the "*I know you are, but what am I?*" playground defence?
Wrong at large, if nothing else, please stop abusing the comma. It's a hard-working, very pleasant member of the punctuation community and it doesn't deserve what you are doing to it.
A
Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 28, 2009 9:23 PM
don't be afraid,,, stand by the behaviour you have displayed in all your previous posts,,, not just to me,,,
Posted by: ajax | November 28, 2009 9:26 PM
calling them as i see them,,,
Posted by: AmandaS | November 28, 2009 9:28 PM
interesting how it takes so little to annoy you,,,
Good morning Janet Akerman, Today I have been thinking about what has happend and what will probably be the outcome. I can't refute any scientist on "the science" I do not have the training. However, let's say that the FOIA files and emails had been disseminated just like what has taken place. The difference being the emails were tight and on point, people focused on their jobs-that kinda thing. The data sets were intact and backed up. There were no emails with the personal attacks of MM and PJ. When the program codes; though using different types of data sources,languages and codes showed the frustration and victory of the programer, instead of what we are seeing now. Since the people of the world were bank-rolling the research, all solid data was accesable, online 24/7. If the costs to the world were not as expensive and penalties going hand in glove with more control from a centralized source... You all would be sitting in the sunshine this morning enjoying what was ahead of you. Unfortunatly for the Global Warming folks, that is not going to be. Like I said last night. At the best; you all need to start from scratch. And you will not have the money you have had, for good reason. If this had been a new Star-Wars program and they had a mountain of stuff dumped that made them look like they were going to have huge cost overruns and lots of graft & payoffs, etc. you would hope that we would stop their funding and close the project. I understand this is just a loose comparison of two compleatly different situations but it works for me. People of the world were trusting a small group of experts. This looks like a large failure for the small group. Rock on...
The NZCSC refutes the story from NIWA that they have explained the adjustments.
The Coalition says Dr Wratt's release mentioned specifically that NIWA climate scientists had previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections are made. Mr Dunleavy comments: âWe disagree. We have no record of receiving an explanation. NIWA has in fact refused numerous requests over the years to disclose the corrections. The most recent one was a written request to Dr James Renwick - over a month ago - still unanswered. So we would be grateful to hear what Dr Wratt is referring to, when the information was sent and to whom.
Oh, wrong at large. Not annoyed. Just kind of embarrassed for you.
But if you like to think of yourself as some kind of e.e.cummings rebel against the strictures of society and the bounds of conventional language, you go right ahead and think of yourself that way. *pats*
A
Tom,
There are strong forces at play including the direct interest of the [most profitable corporations](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/worldbusiness/01iht-exxon.4…) in history, and [PR campaigns](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/put-tiger-your-think-tank) could make even the best of us look like terrible sinners. Let he who is willing to handover all their private correspondence cast the first stone.
Essentially like I said, you've got to get to the specifics to see what is spin and what is real. And we've seen what [comes to light](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…) when you get into the details.
Tom have you ever come across the phrase "doubt is our product"?
The NZCSC refutes the story from NIWA that they have explained the adjustments.
Shorter NZCSC: Ok, so we lied when we said there was no reason for adjustments, but we dare you to prove we heard you two years ago!
I can't wait you hear your guys conspiracy theory. You all know how us POE's love a good conspiracy! Who is out to get you in your world?... I am all ringing ears:o)
Posted by: AmandaS | November 28, 2009 10:28 PM
the embarrassment is all yours,,,
598 I can't wait you hear your guys conspiracy theory. You all know how us POE's love a good conspiracy! Who is out to get you in your world?... I am all ringing ears:o)
Posted by: Tom | November 28, 2009 10:39 PM
exactly,,, you never see real scientists (newton, einstein, etc) worry about "most profitable corporations",,,
real scientists worry about the science,,, and let their findings stand up to open scrutiny,,,
but not the proselytizers of AGWism,,,
Janet, Strong forces at work, "cast the first stone."... You are going POE? Doubt Is Our Product... Wow, all this biblical, mysterious, threatining talk is getting me all wound up. Please tell me what you know and when you first knew it.
Oh, wrong at large, I know it is. I doubt that you would even know what shame is. But some of us are willing to feel it for you.
It's okay, the English language is hard. You do it on purpose. We know ;)
A
PS If you want the real conspiracy theory (the one that explains the melting ice and the heatwaves and the water drying up and the warming nights - you know; all that pesky physical data) you need to think climate scientists and hairdryers. They go out at night, you know, with hairdryers (when NO-ONE is looking) and they run them all night and heat up the world. They need the money from the ETS to pay for the electricity. You know it's true; don't follow the money - follow the hairdryers.
Posted by: Tom | November 28, 2009 11:08 PM
maybe they will give us a peek at their AGMist manifesto,,,
their posts give us clues to it,,,
>maybe they will give us a peek at their AGMist manifesto,,,
>their posts give us clues to it,,,
There's a name for the manifesto in this case. It's called "Physics of Radiative Transfer". Feel free to look it up.
ps: commas; they don't mean what you think they mean.
Amanda S, Alright kids, it looks like all the little monkeys are back into the jungle for the night. I just got off the web after seeing what the world holds for the morrow... Drudge Report and Climate Depot.com are reporting a worldwide raising of temperature as monitors around the globe blaze late into the night. Citizens of the world at last unite to roll up the feared New World Order. The faith of unbelievers everywhere is being tested as we type. As disbelief turns toward anger and the thousand points of lite; face the wrath of the 5,957,423,777. Free loving people of the world say; let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their yokes from us(Psalms 2:3) For God & Truth are with us. Sweet dreams all
Tom,
The conspiracy is not about individuals but a corrupt system of self-serving, an open secret, its a the self-licking-icecream I pointed you to earlier (re Nanny) [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php#…).
Would be hard to miss if not for all the bread and circus distractions.
Physicists didn't have e-mail 150 years ago, and my guess is that you're so clueless you don't even understand why that's relevant.
Yo Dhog, Waz up; Hey man... like I said "after all that cake; got milk?"...;) Don't worry, everything I'm hearing is nobody in the USA wants to waste the feathers and we have decided we can't do the ride the rail trip because that would just be putting our problems onto someone else. Anyway your in OZ or whateva... No sweat i am sure.
By the way Dr. dhogaza: the Earth is only 25 Heavenly miles in circumference, roughly. If you are 72" tall, you are really only .0072 Heavenly inches tall. Ratchet down the pride a bit. Where is the 97% of the mass of Mighty Univ? According to the Word it has been hidden from man by God. Presto you aren't going to find the God partical. I will bet you the cost of the LHC. No tricks. If you doubt my obsevations check II Peter, 1Day in Heaven=1000 years on Earth. You do the math Bright Boy.
POE Janet, Now you will plumb the depths. As you explain to people what you feel and see... their eyes will just glaze over as they smile softly at you. Sheep and serpents, we both like the warm lazy days of summer in our quiet green field. A bit of drama but after all these years of the fake blank smile just to be nice, now it's your turn. Rock on...
No, just the person who said "psychotic people".
Tom, "Doubt is our product" is PR strategy with a successful history. [Browse here](http://tinyurl.com/yaco6jk).
When people "do not have the training" to understand the science they are vulnerable to manipulation via PR campaigns. If a network of front groups can manufacture a controversy, then it gets reported in a "balanced" way. You have one side says this, one says that then how is the public to choose who is right?
When regulation threatens the profits of powerful, well resourced groups it is in their shareholder interest to protect their profits. Selling doubt is an âeconomically rationalâ way of achieving this goal. And âPursuit of rational self interest maximizes the good for allâ. Hence selling doubt (in a manner that disproportionately serves the interest of the most well-resourced groups) is part of âmaximising good for all.
What I describe above is a perverse self justification logic that also. This should also be view along the [self-licking-icecream]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php#…) that I described earlier. And also the small (tip of the iceberg) fraction of front group spending that we have found by an accidental slipup on behalf of [just one corporation]( http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon…) Exxon).
The fact that you believe all the Data should be thrown out, regardless of being able to judge the science. The fact that people who scream guilt about CRU canât produce corroborating evidence, is all consistent with a PR coup. A lot of groundwork was done to get these results even before the emails.
Its also a template that can be broadened to any threat to profits of those with most resources.
Tom:
Yes, we need to go back before Fourier, Tyndal and Arrhenius. Sure, if you say so Tom.
Tom @609,
You can only lead a horse to water.
MarkG:
Yeah, what is with the 3 commas (",,,") at end of every sentence?
Does this person think it signifies something?
I've been wondering how one such as Tom, who professes to hold the Christian God in such high esteem, can simultaneously be so intolerant, rude, unaccepting and generally nasty to those who accept the large and extensively-evidenced science of climatology, when his Lord would councel him to turn the other cheek, at the very least.
Then, having a Fundamentalist upbringing myself, I remembered the extreme [cognitive dissonance](http://tiny.cc/c83hQ) that one must endure if one is to accept the Word of the Lord in its literal form.
Of course Tom, if you believe that I am somehow in error when I speak of the manifold contradictions (and hypocrisy) inherent in a literalist interpretation of Christian mythology, you will have a glib answer for each and every one of the points listed in the links on the above site.
Go for it buster - and "rock on" (or should that be "stone the bloody heathens"?).
The sad thing about this, Tim, is that you claim to be a mathematician.
If you move a temperature site, the effect is to add or subtract a constant amount from the temperature record, creating a discontinuity at that point in the graph. The size of the discontinuity is the difference in temperature due to the movement divided by the number of stations in the average. The temperature curve may have a different shape in the two locations, but as you are looking for an average to find a trend this doesn't matter.
If there are multiple movements the result is to add a step function to the basic curve, with the size of the steps being the temperature difference divided by the number of stations and the direction on whether the new site is hotter or colder than the old. Unless you have some basis for claiming otherwise, the step function would as likely go down as up.
Examination of the two graphs shows that the difference is not the addition of such a step function, but rather a straight line, starting in about 1920 and rising at a slope of about 20 degrees. A straight line is not a step function.
The explanation offered by the NIWS may sound good to the layman, but to a mathematician it is nonsense. Either the NIWS, or the person they went to for this explanation, is lying. That someone like you who claims to be a mathematician would help cover this up is a disgrace.
James Smith @616: How does that exculpate the NZCSC who
Surely the whole point of science is to apply maths appropriately with knowledge of the REAL world??
I don't see how a slope would represent a real world interpretation of what has happened. Maybe James Smith can elaborate.
@James Smith,
I'm not sure which graphs you are looking at, but I can see a clear step function, NOT a sloping line, being applied.
The green line stays exactly where it is, and Thorndon is moved down by 0.79 degrees (based on the airport data being moved down with that amount in order to overlap with Kelburn).
Marco, I got the impression that James Smith was implying that a step function wasn't appropriate, but a slope was.
I might be wrong though.
But why apply a slope??
When the station was moved did the temperature decide magically decide to gradually increase to ease the station in after a long drive from the old location?? :-)
James Smith said:
>Examination of the two graphs shows that the difference is not the addition of such a step function, but rather a straight line, starting in about 1920 and rising at a slope of about 20 degrees. A straight line is not a step function.
Just to clarify.
I am assuming James means a straight line slope from about 1920 to the present year.
Which seems like a bizarre analysis of a real world situation of moving stations.
I think James needs to clarify whether the slope thing is an accusation of what has been done to the graphs (which as Marco says, it clearly hasn't), or a suggestion by James of what should have been done, which is just ridiculous.
you clowns need to look for the cheapist scientific way to solve your creationist AGW apocalypse,,, to get your credibility back,,, as if,,, you had any to begin with,,, see you at the next ice age,,,
Creationist AGW apocalypse? What?
The people who are concerned with creationism are mostly geologists, biologists, paleontologists, and physicists. Few of them overlap with climate scientists in their areas of expertise and interest. These are two very different fronts in the fight against anti-thought. Lumping them together as you did there makes little sense, especially if you did so to imply that the scientific community has somehow lost credibility in the battle against creationism (it hasn't), or that creationists have any credibility at all (they don't).
Good morning Janet, I just hate it when people call me clueless:o) Yikes. The Stakeholders have been moving their businesses and wealth out of the US for the last 25 years. Moving almost en masse to the new 1.3 billion consumer mecca in China, Along with their Chinesse (1 for each business) partners they have the cash now to buy our Treasuries. They want higher rates before they really get active on the buy side. Congress helped this happen every step of the way, you know it too. Hey, what were those secret conversations with Mao & Kissinger all about do you think? Only the two of them and the one Chinesse interperter. No one here at the time liked it but we all wanted out of Nam... Maybe FOIA will now fill us in on that but I am not going to holding my breath. Moving right along here. Chris, when I said start from scratch, it just means start from the beginning. Are the works of Fourier, Tyndal as well as Arrhenius still in the origional form. Useable. If you all say you need it for your foundation use it. Then you have to build. Build well or a shambles it is all up to you folks. Janet, you are mixing up your metaphorse "You are the horse; I am already in the Water."Get it? Bernie J, there is just the One God. Not him and a bunch of others that you pan-theists see in urworld. I am always reassured when someone so far away can detect those of us who are unable to reason. See PR hand-out once more Bernie,#80. You guys already pronounced the "Rational Man" a myth. So why are you grading me on such a steep curve. I did not know you were gay Bernard. I appologize. As to the Word it really says we are to be as wise as a serpent and as gentle as a dove. As to the turn the cheek observation it really works like this... I lie, cheat and steal from a bunch of sheep people, trusting folks. Then I realize that I have sinned. I repent(turn away from) my sin. Now I am supposed to go back to the people I have cheated and appologize to them face to face... then the Christian forgives you like
God will forgive us when we accept his Son into our lives. Some people have too much Pride. Become a disiple and read again one more Book. This time you all need what it will provide. I am probably older that you Bernard. When I was young we used to go to things called Rock Concerts. It was a time to party! We drove fast cars and chased faster women. It was a wonderful time to be alive... You need to check out Humble Pie, man. It has a great energy- I Don't Need No Doctor...m mm bu boba boba. Made loud to be played loud. You people have a nice day I am going to watch some football. Eat some popcorn and kick it. Back to the Beach!
Don't need to build on it, that gets you the foundation for increasing CO2 causing global warming ... after that, the only question is "how much?".
That's how unphysical the denialist argument is.
Bah, Tom #625 is totally clueless.
I think when Tom says "you gotta start from scratch", he means Genesis ...
Bernard J, I apologize for not staying on the gas thing...
In your post #615, you say that the Bible is literal and of course it is a book. Here is the wonderful thing about it though, if you believe in the Messiah and become a true disciple(one who studies and prays daily asking for understanding) the current is compleated. When the Holy Spirit reveals the meaning and the truth of the Word of God to you. That is the process that helps us grow in our faith. It does not always happen at once, God tests our faithfulness and patience. He is with us all, always. That is too big for me to truly to get my mind around but I know it to be true & I know he loves us all. He is in real control. We just never really know what is coming next. Not to the day anyway:) Love, Tom
I was right ...
Dr dhogaza, Thank you for reading my post #488. I am sure that if you had been Moses, six thousand(6 days according to II Peter)years ago you too would have been able to repeat his success. Time, Space, Matter, and in their proper order to boot. All in the first verse. I wonder where all his work books and stuff are---maybe yet to be dis-covered in Qumran. Probably find an old DEC Rainbow too!
Remember people: Faith+nothing. Are you in?
I nominate Tom for "Turing Test Failure of the Week".
I'm quite serious - at this point your posts are indistinguishable from the random gibberish generated by spambots.
Tom,
It seems your defences have gone up. That also happens when one is challenged to peruse the specifics to discern reality from spin.
And I note your defences went up before people challenged you on fundamentalism.
Ref. post #631. People of the World, I have to apologize to everyone. My model is correct; it is the time line that I used that was wrong. Please read your Bibles to get the accurate information. I am not a scientist.( Tom
Hi Janet:o) You are just like Hitler!,,,
Dave, TTFW~:)#632! I hardly know you folks. What is the gift package anyway if I had been turned to a, you know; one of you guys. A trip to Venice! As I mentioned earlier in my posts I am envious of the way you all traveled and got to see the whole world over lo' these many years. Wow, almost makes me want to join you but as an old stockbroker I think you and yours just topped out. If you can figur out what I mean. What VPR's... Oh,Except for Janet Akerman, who may be leaning to the POE's but still in the closet:)
I wonder what he thinks a Poe is.
Janet, It is just this simple. People don't like getting played for fools. No matter how Smart they/you all are. Get it?
Posted by: Tom | November 26, 2009 8:27 PM
To those of you familiar with talk.origins this is a well qualified "Chez Watt". It almost characterizes this entire thread. Brilliant.
This example of right wing USA USA frothing bewilderment is coming from people who are full of fear. Some if it is justified because 300,000 or more of them per month are being foreclosed, many of them will become homeless. Another 400,000 or so will lose their jobs, and then their homes. Another half million per year will be bankrupted by medical expenses they thought they were insured against. Millions have lost their life savings in one year.
They know they have been conned. But they cannot admit it to themselves because they fell for it. They are proud to standup and scream accusations and slander at climate scientists because they are told that will "prevent" them from being conned out of "their money"!
They have been conned already out of their dignity, their courage, their native intelligence, their confidence in themselves. They know it, but they cannot admit it.
The few who showed up here to act out their fear and irrationality are not necessarily representative of even the groups they self-identify with. But they are representative of the extent to which PR and message control, and the corruption of money can be manipulative of a significant fraction of a population.
That I think, is a more intractable problem by far than AGW and a much greater threat. If anything good at all can come from this type of thing (this nontroversy over AGW) it is perhaps that the otherwise apathetic and inattentive but large majority still capable of a moment's reason will recognize their peril. But I am not optimistic.
Cheers,
A raven' maniac, perhaps?
*rimshot!*
>you clowns need to look for the cheapist scientific way ...
Is cheapism some new wingnut ideology?
Hello Mr. Krubozumo Nyankoye, I feel that Chez Watt was probably right. It is creation after all... I think that if you go to the beginning of this thread you will be able to see two distinct camps. One that has already declared the "rational man" dead. They are wrong. I have lived a very interesting life, lots of it spent doing what my superiors told me they wanted done. Now at this stage of my life I can see how many people have at times controlled my knowingness. No more. The word of God is real weather the AGW people like it or not. They make a joke I think Ref:FOAI files;Job 37:14-24; it reflects on their problems with code. Funny! I know what I believe and who I trust. As to this thread and my give and take with all these nice people who have taken part, thank you again. Those that read this will be able to see for themselves if I was open, honest, truthful as best as I could be. Let the people judge for themselves of what has been written.
PS Dr. Dhogaza, You have not been following along with us...
I have it on good authority that Janet Akerman, is now a full-on-POE, amazing since...:)
>you clowns need to look for the cheapist scientific way to solve your creationist AGW apocalypse,,,
So it seems you're just a troll after all. Hardly surprising. If, on the other hand, you are seriously equating creationism with AGM science... Well frankly all I can take from that is that your theology skills are as weak as your science and logic.
>*"I think that if you go to the beginning of this thread you will be able to see two distinct camps. One that has already declared the "rational man" dead. They are wrong."*
Interesting to contrast this againt the statement (in the same paragraph) that the "*word of God is real weather the AGW people like it or not*".
There is no God postion from "AGW people" as we a diverse bunch. There is room for all sorts.
But what do you mean when you say that one group:
>*"has already declared the "rational man" dead. They are wrong."*
Which rational man are your refering to, and what declarations have been made, and why are they wrong? Following 500 posts I need a recap.
>*Hi Janet:o) You are just like Hitler!,,,*
>Posted by: Tom | November 29, 2009 3:15 PM
Tom, not enough fire, nor conviction. You need to have your shutters open with passion, not closed in defense. Only when I can virtually see the spittle, will it sound convincing.
Then we'll tell you the 'Lore'.
#644 Hello & Goodnight Janet, Once more, to all of those who have arrived late to this thread-it is the first thing I posted here; Post #80. One of PJ's FOIA files, The Rules Of The Game. Readers please feel free to decide for yourself. This PR piece states clearly for all to see, The Rational Man is a myth,...the people,...stakeholders. I don't care about font size it's their words throughout this document for me. So let's not be fooled again by the "what the meaning of "Is" is...defence. The writer of this piece does not see himself as one of the people. I have already been diagnosed here as clueless; by some of the Smartest people in the world. Breaking News: Drudge Report, FYI All 150 years of base data at EAU CRU-hard copy, written stuff... dumped to save space when they moved into their new building, and on it goes... What do I know? And NASA did the same thing with the MOon landing videos. We are running out of "Space"...We we're all lucky that they were able to bring in a team of FX folks from Hollywood to retrieve what they could. Not that that means anything....
Hello and good night Tom,
What is the "rational man" as you know it? What is the myth that you refer to and which are you saying is correct? And why do hold this view?
And why is this a point of focus for you?
626
Don't need to build on it, that gets you the foundation for increasing CO2 causing global warming ... after that, the only question is "how much?".
That's how unphysical the denialist argument is.
Posted by: dhogaza | November 29, 2009 1:30 PM
shouldn't the question be,,, how many fewer people there needs to be in the world??? please inform us how many fewer people there needs to be to slow, stop or reverse AGW,,,
Tom:
Not only do these ignoramuses not know the difference between weather and climate, they don't even know the difference between weather and whether.
Tom:
Ah yes, I remember now. In the beginning, there was Fourier, Tyndal and Arrhenius. No-one knows why they exist. They just always existed.
WAL writes:
>*shouldn't the question be,,, how many fewer people there needs to be in the world??? please inform us how many fewer people there needs to be to slow, stop or reverse AGW,,,*
We've been there, [done that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…). WAL you seem really keen on pretending that a contracted population is the only solution to globaal warming. Or can I see through you and say; you seem really keen on wanting to say that AGW'er want to kill people.
You still trying to paly that [intellectually dishonest game.
Well, at least for you, you do not seem to be plagued by the embarressment that normal people would feel if they were to practice such a [dishonest argument](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…).
Hiding in comments starting in 561 are a couple of questions, starting with how much does one care about the future versus the present? How much do we care what happens after we are dead?
Let me put it this way, assume all the predictions and science are true. Then do we care? A lot of the predictions will only come to pass after we are dead. How much do we care about our childrens future? The far other end of the discussion is that it is to late to do anything, which leads to the same policy result as I don't care, but perhaps a better interim as we all start eating drinking and being merry. (Perhaps the hidden source of the obesity epidemic, most know we are doomed and are doing the eat drink and be merry thing)(However I contend that the chances of global catastrophe have lessened since the the 1980s as the chances of global nuclear war have lessened).
This is a subject on which science can not say anything since it is one mostly about morals and relative weightings of actions, or perhaps more metaphysical.
Opposing taking action on climate change is the moral equivalent of voting against school taxes because your children are grown, or you have no children.
Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 29, 2009 10:40 PM
i am not asking the question of you,,, but you knew that already,,,
btw,,, according to you AGW kills people,,,
also,,, your solutions for AGW kills people,,,
but again,,, you knew that already,,,
Tom pulls this from his arse:
Dude
WTF is with the ",,," is that wingnut for \dots?
[Ellipses](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis) they don't mean what you think they mean.
wrong at large (abridged): Instead of giving direct answers to direct questions, I'll just imply you're all in favour of a mass extermination campaign.
FYI Dave Andrews tried this tack before. Read the rest of the thread if you're interested in finding out how specious this "argument" is...
Lyle,
Have you seen the projections for water supply to Pakistan with the disappearance of glacial flows. Readers may not of the pre-existing [water conflict](http://eagle1.american.edu/~ua1607a/baglihar.htm).
Some readers will also be aware of Pakistanâs [particular agrarian dependence]( http://www.aaas.org/international/ehn/waterpop/paki.htm) on this threatened water resource.
The forced of nature, of mass population, and global warming induced water unavailability make this an extreme risk site for nuclear conflict.
Damn ABC [didn't report](http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2656906.htm) Bolt's perspective.
In post #653 WAL's formatting might lead people to wonder if WAL is citing a prior post of mine. WAL formatting made me wonder what he was on about.
To be clear WAL has just posted more of his/her own words to assert more rubbish.
At the risk of perpetuating more intellectually dishonset argument from WAL I ask: how do my manifold solutions to AGW kill people?
the following examples kill nobody:
zero child policy or even one or 2 child policy,,, population is still reduced,,, as is co2,,, there aren't you happy,,,
ban all meat eating,,, the production of which generates large amounts of co2,,, there aren't you happy,,,
seed and fertilize the ocean with algae that consume co2,,, there aren't you happy,,,
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/experiment-trying-…
just a few examples,,, i am sure you can come up with many more,,,
WAL @659,
Interesting examples, but do you care to address [my question?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…)
To answer #675 even if they assume all the predictions made will come true, many people may not care, If you are 70 for example (I am not quite that age), it may not affect you. Or perhaps to take argument made re: God, perhaps they believe God will provide, or they believe that AGW is a great way to provoke the end of the world and the second coming. Yes the predicted changes are bad ,but just like many other times in history if it doesn't directly affect you your to busy to care. Selfishness is a very powerful motivator, IMHO its a lot of the reason the economic system is in the state its in today.
Part of the issue is that AGW is one of many effects that show up with long time constants, time constants longer than almost anyone does business plans. Imagine doing a business plan in 1960 for today. How many great predictions for the future have come true? The whole orientation of society revolves around get rich quick, in particular for the US where large parts were founded as a get rich quick scheme. Thinking long term and get rich quick create great dissonance. Part of this may be a reaction to the cold war, where there was a serious question of being blown up in the short term, resulting in a live for today and let tomorrow take care of itself.
In summary the question is what do we owe the future? There are likley 6.8 billion or more answers to the question out there i.e. every person has their own answer. But a large number IMHO would answer NOTHING!!.
Oops got dyslexic on numbers it is post #574, responding to a post not yet made would be a good trick.
Carbon dioxide is good for agriculture. The world needs more CO2.
649 Chris,
Or POE from Poe (unless that's part of the Poe itself).
656 Steve,
Just for the record, I have no objection to confining Denydiots to sealed buildings containing about 5% CO2. It's only plant food, after all. When can we start?
663 Ric,
This appeared after I posted 665. Can I assume you'll be the first in, to show everyone how safe it is?
666 Eh?
Perfect for Tom's Purity Of Essence!
Re: 622
To explain. The obvious difference between the two graphs is that one shows a warming trend and the other doesn't. This is due to the addition to the first of a sloping line. The explanation offered is that site movements have produced a downward slope in the data which exactly counters this line, removal of that downward slope revealing the line. Two seconds of mathematical analysis shows that the sort of change created by station movements is a step function, not a sloping line. So the explanation offered is nonsense. They may have corrected for site movements, but they have also add a second correction that has produced the slope and that has nothing to do with site movements. What is the reason for it? On the face of it, to make the data show global show global warming when it doesn't.
Re: 619
The site movement may have produced a drop of .79 of a degree in one curve, but as the curves are averaged you have to divide that by the number of sites to see the effect on the graph, which would be to cause the whole graph to shift downwards from that point on by .4, .27, .2 or even .16 of a degree depending on how many sites were being averaged at that point.
>Two seconds of mathematical analysis...
equals zero mathematical analysis
[Step Change](http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temp…)
Keep your eye on the blue line, Jimbo.
James Smith writes:
>*They may have corrected for site movements, but they have also add a second correction that has produced the slope and that has nothing to do with site movements.*
You could support this assertion with some evidence.
Here are two choices:
1) the NZ climate authorities (and presumably other authorities around the world) are cooking the books by **adding a second secret correction slope for no good reason**;
Or
2) When proper calibration for site changes are included the data itself shows a warming trend (trend line slope).
Which are you claiming James?
it has now been ADMITTED,,,
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
and then some,,,
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082…
WAL,
Here's a little project for you,
pick out the best evidence that booker presents to support the assertion of a scientific scandal. Source the evidence, then post it here.
the UEA threw away the raw temperature data that they got from others, that still exists in those others' archives, and that could be reconstructed from their published data anyway.
oh my god a smoking gun.
>*the UEA threw away the raw temperature data that they got from others, that still exists in those others' archives, and that could be reconstructed from their published data anyway.*
Solution: Cut tax, smaller government. Reduce archiving budgets.
Janet Akerman write:
> You could support this assertion with some evidence.
I explained the maths. If you are too ignorant to understand it, then I don't see how I can do anything else for you. These people are preying on the ignorance of the masses, and I'm afraid you are one of them.
>Janet Akerman writes:
>>You could support this assertion with some evidence.
James Smith responds:
>*I explained the maths. If you are too ignorant to understand it, then I don't see how I can do anything else for you. These people are preying on the ignorance of the masses, and I'm afraid you are one of them.*
So you are now passing this off as an explanation of the maths:
>*Two seconds of mathematical analysis shows that the sort of change created by station movements is a step function, not a sloping line. So the explanation offered is nonsense.*
That is not maths, that is assertion. And your claims of others ignorance is transparent cloaking of your own. Playing on people's ignorance might be your game, thought your blatant falsehoods and misrepresentation will get called out here.
BTW, LB has already provided you [this link](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…)
I reiterate:
>You could support this assertion with some evidence.
>Here are two choices:
>1) the NZ climate authorities (and presumably other authorities around the world) are cooking the books by adding a second secret correction slope for no good reason;
>Or
>2) When proper calibration for site changes are included the data itself shows a warming trend (trend line slope).
>Which are you claiming James?
@James Smith:
I'm going to add more insult to the injury provided to your ego by Janet Akerman, and state that you need glasses. There is absolutely NO introduction of a slope in the graph.
Let's prove that by looking at four points on the green graph:
1928 12.8 degrees in both graphs (before and after)
1930 11.4 degrees in both graphs
1992 11.7 degrees in both graphs
1999 13.8 degrees in both graphs
(might also be 1998)
Quite a feat to introduce a slope that does not show up in the individual points!
do as i say,,, not as i do,,,
Taking the private jet to Copenhagen
Any celebrity flying the green flag needs glittering eco-credentials. But how do they justify the fleet of customised planes, the luxury homes and the posse of servants?
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/celebrity/artic…
WAL,
Is that what you learned at Drudge, immerse yourself in the spam and suspend critical thinking?
Step out of the Matrix WAL.
> If you are too ignorant to understand it, then I don't see how I can do anything else for you.
Bold claims for someone who apparently believes that "eyeballing the figure" is a mathematical proof. These suggestions of a secretly added slope in the NIWA temperatures are absolute gibberish.
Can we just be clear what graphs we are talking about? Is it these? If not, please say as I've seen no links posted since James Smith appeared.
682 me,
Ignore the last bit. Links *have* been posted.
Good morning all, it is a beautiful day here, crisp and bright. Just a little house cleaning here... It seems that the game for post 666 was silly. Still tricking data I see. I know that God wanted me to have the number for Post 555, a wonderful and ironic touch. "The wing can not be called back..." Isaiah 10:14 etc., etc. wow. People please see the video clip, you can't make this stuff up... As to the meaning of what's, what. In Arie's posting #350 he gives a link that has three words from the address end; "propaganda". I don't really know what kind of dictionary scientists use but in mine it does not read well. May the Truth of God, be know by all. Enjoy you day. Love to all, Tom
684 Tom,
I didn't even notice the post numbers until afterwards. Hitting 666 was pure chance, but given your religious references, I simply had to comment on it. ;)
Post #350: Arie, I was at the Sweetness & Light site looking at futerra's propaganda piece and then went to the futerra site... The head of futerra let's us know she sits on the board of Tomorrows Company, and is that "Al Gore", in the picture?... I have not read further but I will say that; this just gets curiousor and curiousor.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
at least somebody is willing to admit to recent non-AGW and cooling,,,
Medieval Warm Period from the 900s to 1300s, and the LIttle Ice Age from the 1300s to 1800s
'Global' is a place where nobody lives
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-is-a-place-where-nobody-lives.ht…
Climate scientist at center of e-mail controversy to step down
Phil Jones, director of the university's Climatic Research Unit
SITREP 0905H, Hill 777 secure. Global warming defeated. Will be moving out at dawn+30. Viper 6 out.
Hello folks
You may be interested to know that NIWA has published a response to the NZCSC claims on its WWW site
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/nz-temperature-ris…
good thing these geniuses were not around during the Medieval Warm Period from the 900s to 1300s
they would have thought the world was ending,,,
A paper published in 1995 identified an upward trend of about 0.7°C from 1900 to 1993
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/nz-temperature-ris…
Glad our resident genius, wrong at large, knows the credible scientists to cite:
"Lead author of the study, paleoclimate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, who discusses the research in this Science podcast, sees "important implications" for future climate change. "For example," he said, "if the tropical Pacific thermostat response suggested by our analyses of past changes applies to anthropogenic climate change, this holds profound implications for regional climate change effects such as future drought patterns."
Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as âclimate comradesâ keeping the âgravy trainâ going.
CLIMATE CHANGE 'FRAUD'
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573
well: Chris O'Neill | December 2, 2009 8:07 PM
they see never ending AGW from 90 years of warming,,, what would these geniuses have done with 400 years of warming during the Medieval Warm Period from the 900s to 1300s
wrong:
Thanks wrong. We already know Plimer is off with the fairies.
well: Chris O'Neill | December 3, 2009 3:23 AM
they see never ending AGW from 90 years of warming,,,
what would these geniuses have done with 400 years of warming during the Medieval Warm Period from the 900s to 1300s???
followed by 550 years of cooling,,,
the LIttle Ice Age from the 1300s to 1800s
well: Chris O'Neill | December 3, 2009 3:23 AM
please inform us again on how scientists feel about name calling,,,
Sensenbrenner chastised Holdren for his 2003 e-mail, when he was at Harvard, that dealt with skeptics by "calling them names."
Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."
food onen jones,,, hahaha,,,
apparently he does not consider it "settled" science,,,
Apparently WAL still thinks he can turn fantasy into reality by speculating his favourite meaning from out of context emails. WAL [all I ask for](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…) some evidence to take your speculation beyond the world of fantasy.
And could you cite the evidence on which base your claims about the scale of the MWP? The best [evidence I am aware of](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html) shows that the MWP was not even as high has current anomalies, let alone another 2-5 degrees C.
Dawn is almost here, getting ready to move out. People please go to: Post #350-go to futerra-then look for the new propaganda piece-New Rules of the Game-then point #8, "Useful Egg-heads"... Perhaps these might be folks like NZCSC. Scientists please let enquiring minds know the truth now that you to can see that the; thousand points of lite, don't think much of you either. Rock on
Hmmm...
More foaming gibberish from the peanut gallery. Is it possible that he might ever construct a coherent and focussed argument?
Still, it just goes to show the calibre of the intellect (and I use the word generously) amongst the Denialists.
Could someone please give Tom his meds. He's delirious again. Thinks he's on a battlefield somewhere.
wrong:
Please tell me where I called Plimer a name. Why don't you read Jones' interview with Plimer to see how he is suffering from dementia.
Researcher: NASA hiding climate data
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hi…
scare tactics are not science,,, let the science or lack therre of stand on its own,,,
scientists know this,,, the AGWists do not seem to,,, including gore,,,
I can only say again...
Hmmm...
More foaming gibberish from the peanut gallery. Is it possible that he might ever construct a coherent and focussed argument?
Still, it just goes to show the calibre of the intellect (and I use the word generously) amongst the Denialists.
well: Bernard J. | December 4, 2009 4:32 AM
please inform us again on how scientists feel about name calling,,,
Sensenbrenner chastised Holdren for his 2003 e-mail, when he was at Harvard, that dealt with skeptics by "calling them names."
Parliamentary Speaker: Climate debate derailed?
The Speaker of the Danish Parliament has issued a damning criticism of the climate debate, saying politicians gullibly turn theories into facts.
http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article851820.ece
Bernard,
Drudge provides the links, WAL puts them out. Its not is job to critique or think critically about the propaganda machine.
The coordinated message comes from above.
Praise be to God... It is offical now... Janet Akerman is now a full-on-POE, we are all very joyful to have you join us. I could not have said it better myself, beloved... "The coordinated message comes from above." Rock on.
I've just trawled through every post here [numerous {selected} hyperlinks included], and had my first trollgasm.
AWESOME.
Yes, I was wondering when the attack on Nasa Giss would take place, I see it is already under way.
The Washington times article contains the usual lies about CRU throwing away raw data, and that the e-mails appear to show data shaving, whereas not even the denialists on here have managed to make that claim.
Tom, I really want to know, what do you think a POE is?
Father & Son & Holy Spirit===Purity of Essence; POE
I believe that in about 1 day or 1000 years they will be reunited as the "One".
That is what the Holy Spirit is telling me. Love to all, Tom
Thank you. That definitely clears it all up. But just to let you know, when people around here use the word 'Poe' they are generally referring to Poe's law regarding religious fundamentalism, which states that a straightforward parody of a fundamentalist is indistinguishable from the real thing.
The truth be told. Janet Akerman, was kind enough to keep her promise to me and she gave us the link to understand the meaning of a "Poe",and its slippery texture. I have had a wonderful time being able to explore these issues with so many people. I cannot forget Dave, who provided us with the humor of Dr. Strangelove(link), at Post #555. Thank you all, Tom
713 Tom,
Hats off to you. That's a truly great Poe. "1 day or 1000 years." Genius.
But how about 2012? Got something about that?
714 Lurker,
This has been explained, and links given, in this thread. Tom is playing the Poe thing as far as he can take it.
(If not, he's senile.)
do as i say not as i do,,, right,,,
Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.
>*do as i say not as i do,,, right,,,*
Do as the population calling for action want, put a price on carbon. Not as the short-termist want, to continue market surpression of low carbon alternatives.
please inform us again on how scientists feel about name calling,,,
Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia in eastern England, "What an asshole," Watson said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/05/blogs/coopscorner/entry5905404…
these same geniuses were saying there was an ice age before,,,
In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an endâ¦leading into the next ice age."
>*please inform us again on how scientists feel about name calling,,,*
Scientist views of name calling are a little differnt to most people's view, due mainly to their thir ear, which is well adapted to picking up names.
views of the wider public about calling someone an arsehole range from beleif that:
* That some scientist are a better judge of charater than others?
* Or some are more diplomatic than others?
* Or that Global warming is a hoax?
WAL, you are perpertuating fraud, and pushing a common denialist meme put out to mislead and confuse.
Read the quoted paragraph in full:
>Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures **should be drawing to an end**, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. **However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path**. (National Science Board 1972).
(Emphasis added)
wronggggg,,,
AGWists are perpertuating the fraud,,,
WAL, Thanks for your powerful rebuttle to [the evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…) I presented.
Sometimes its useful to illustrate to readers how deeply denialism can run.
a theory is merely a theory,,, not a fact,,, and proof of nothing,,,
stop perpertuating theories as facts,,,
Give the specifics WAL, not some run-away empty etherial guff.
Who perpetuate what precisely, and what evidence do you used to counter what ever your are referring to?
Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Within a year of the 2007 IPCC report, scientists from modelling centres in the UK and Germany acknowledged that the failure of the models to predict the relatively static temperatures of recent years was due precisely to the modelsâ failure to adequately display natural variability. This hardly proves that Man made no contribution, but it certainly does invalidate the claimed attribution.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/eureka/article6933589.ece
WAL, that tactic you keep employing is called 'smear-and-run'.
How about you answer [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…) to support your last assertion.
Or are satisfied just flinging poop, then running from every challenge?
a theory is merely a theory,,, not a fact,,, and proof of nothing,,,
stop perpertuating theories as facts,,,
Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
For the more dramatic associations, we could argue about what is really going on, about the cherry-picking of data etc, but that would be beside the point. The important point is that these are complex phenomena that depend on the confluence of many factors, of which global warming is generally not the most important. Consider the following scenario: Person A kicked up some dirt, leaving an indentation in the ground into which a rock fell, and B tripped on this rock and bumped into C, who was carrying a carton of eggs that dropped and broke. Would any rational person conclude that the best way to prevent this would be to prohibit kicking dirt? Yet this is precisely the âlogicâ that will dominate Copenhagen.
WAL,
Are you Girma?
What the hell did you just say?
And why did you have Lindzen's, name and title plonked in the middle of it?
And how did you respond to this question?
>*Who perpetuate what precisely, and what evidence do you used to counter what ever your are referring to?*
Which was in response to this unsupported statement of yours:
>>*stop perpertuating theories as facts,,,*
724 Wrong,
Are you capable of making any claim at all that isn't obviously false? Are you that stupid that you think it won't be exposed? This isn't WUWT or Marohasy, you know.
You chose your name well.
726 Wrong,
You don't know what a theory is, do you?
Ah, the Denialati must be so proud to have a towering intellectual giant, of wrong-writ-large's calibre, hooting for them with such magnificently-crafted material.
It reflects poorly on our society that such a significant proportion of the lay public is willing to follow this sort of guff without questioning it.
And it's one of the major reasons why I personally believe that we'll missed the boat, if we haven't already done so.
Why does Stupidity win so frequently?
Because Bernie Jay, "brain dead scientists" are few... and we the unimportant and irritating mass of unwashed "free-dumb" loving people are easily able to get the drop on perps, there are just too many of us to contend with all at once. When you all receive your "cake" for your job. The enslaved around the world will alway remember you and their children. Though not in the same way. Enjoy while you can. Us and them... Next please
Wow...
"[G]et the drop on perps", "cake", "enslaved around the world", "[u]s and them"? Tom, is your alfoil hat becoming just a little too constrictive? That's the type of paranoia that lures the white-coated men with butterfly nets.
If this is a part of your brand of Christianity, I shudder to think what your congregation is like. I'm thinking duelling banjoes and tobaccy loogies in the dust...
Nevertheless, you provide the perfect foil for wrong-writ-large.
Science is full of outstanding "deniers". Heard of a bloke by the name of Galileo?
You so called scientists actually need to get back to science which is all about testing hypotheses. Failing to critically peer review and singing from a global song sheet is not science.
climate change,,,
adapt or die,,,
like the dinosaurs,,,
when man can cap all volcanoes,,, then maybe you can reduce climate change,,,
icelandic volcanoes alone have caused climate change in the recent past,,,
[Wrong-writ-large](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…).
What is your best reference that shows the relative CO2 contributions of volcanoes and of humans to the atmosphere? Or are you to afraid to substantiate your crap?
Oo, and a warning - you will have to deal with some seriously scientifically numerate responses to anything that you might imagine exonerates humans.
[Paranormal](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…).
What is your evidence that climate scientists are not testing hypotheses, or that they are not using "critical" peer-review? And what is your evidence that denialists are more inclined to test hypotheses, and that they are using "critical" peer-review?
I reckon that if you actually reply, it won't be with any crdible evidence to support anything to do with your blather.
Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
For the more dramatic associations, we could argue about what is really going on, about the cherry-picking of data etc, but that would be beside the point. The important point is that these are complex phenomena that depend on the confluence of many factors, of which global warming is generally not the most important. Consider the following scenario: Person A kicked up some dirt, leaving an indentation in the ground into which a rock fell, and B tripped on this rock and bumped into C, who was carrying a carton of eggs that dropped and broke. Would any rational person conclude that the best way to prevent this would be to prohibit kicking dirt? Yet this is precisely the âlogicâ that will dominate Copenhagen.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/eureka/article6933589.ece
good thing these geniuses were not around during the Medieval Warm Period from the 900s to 1300s
wow,,, 400 years of runaway global warming with no end in sight,,, followed by the little ice age
and the current clowns worry over 90 years of warming,,, rightttt,,,,
they would have thought the world was ending,,,
A paper published in 1995 identified an upward trend of about 0.7°C from 1900 to 1993
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/nz-temperature-ris…
what??? me worried about AGW,,, damn the CO2,,, full reproduction ahead,,,
Pregnant 18 Kids and Counting Mom Airlifted to Hospital
The pregnant 18 Kids and Counting mom, whose 19th child is due this spring
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b156923_pregnant_18_kids_counting_mom_a…
octomom agrees,,, with only 14,,,
single mother already had six other young children at home at the time and was not financially independent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadya_Suleman
wrong at large:
Your alias is wholly appropriate, especially the "wrong" part.
I have perused some of your posts since I recently returned from a research sabbatical in Japan and, lest I be repeating the comments of others on this thread, your posts are generally vacuous. Little in the way of science; a lot in the way of rhetoric. Post # 738 had me almost in hysterics.
As I ask many other denialists here, I also ask you: what are your scientific qualifications in criticizing the broad scientific consensus over AGW? Or are you framing your opinion, like many of the other denialists, wholly within your own political ideology?
Wrong-writ-large.
So Richard Lindzen is your authority on volcanic CO2? Exactly what paper (or other peer-reviewed work) of his is it, in particular, to which you refer?
Come on stone - bleed.
please explain the AGWism of the Medieval Warm Period from the 900s to 1300s,,,
Wrong,
Please detail the geographical extent of the MWP.
736 Bernard,
Ironic that a fervent Christian would mention the "enslaved".
Did you see that? Paranormal mentioned Galileo. I don't believe it. No one's that ignorant, are they?
746 Michael,
And the temperature where it *did* occur.
Note how the MWP is only brazenly asserted as a "fact" by many of the denialists. Most researchers in climate science argue that the MWP was a localized event and was relatively minor; by promulgating the myth that it was of global significance *ad nauseum* across the blogosphere (whereas it is obscure, to say the least, in the empirical literature), the denialists have created another version of their own reality.
The same goes for their abuse of statistics in promoting the nonsensical idea that warming stopped in 1998. This is just another blog trick that does not withstand scientific scrutiny. Interestingly, the BBC have just posted an article online showing that the last decade has been the warmest on the planet by far. The graph is definitive.
Of course there is one question that is always avoided by the denialists when they proclaim the MWP as 'proving' AGW is nonsense. If the MWP was so warm, then that would suggest that the atmosphere is more, rather than less, sensitive to 'natural' forcing agents. Taking this argument at face value, therefore, given the additional forcing that is being applied by the GHGs that we have subsequently pumped into the atmosphere, shouldn't we be much more at risk from heading toward thermal 'catastrophe' now than if the MWP had been cooler? Sensitivity seems a particularly inconvenient aspect of this denialist argument to me!
D'ohhh...unless...They 'honestly' believe that sensitivity to 2 x CO2 is 0.1*C That'll be it!!
Please help us get a firm understanding of the real world AGW folks; Mr Harvey seems pretty smart. If we are going to have a New World Leader; who do you like as our model. Pol Pot was a teacher, Mao had a very small carbon footprint, Stalin got the Kulak's to quit breathing and growing food for those stupid masses. Can't be a Trotsky type even though the ice pick did not require much fossil fuel to move from one place to another. Hitler was a true believer, vegan too from what I see on the tube. All the poor people of Africa were given the same shot with the same needle until the scientists had given everbody AIDS. Smart people all. You do the math Bright Boy... I don't have the "the space" to give you all the full list but then nobody does do they? Better living through chemistry my ass. Anyone for a shower? Help me Mister, please help us... If I misspelled any names I don't really care. Say hey, Burn-Knee-Jay; see you are up early and too no good:o) Oh hey, I just saw the word sabbatical, that is hopeful... People of the World; doc, we would love to know what the going rate is for one of those things. I am not smart enough to get em',... bummer. Just so everyone knows what my vote will be for the model we end up with is; "Uncle Ho". I respect him even though he was educated. He loved His People. I know.
Tom,
Wanna repeat that drivel in plain English this time?
Ah, I have read through some of Tom's other posts in this thread and get the picture. None of his posts make any sense. A pattern emerges:
He is the king of pure gibberish and gobbledegook!
Now I get it!
Well done, Tom.
His homeschooling consisted of reading Genesis twice in the morning, twice after lunch, and once after supper.
Thick as a brick?
753 Tom,
Time for your meds? Ask the nurse if you can't find them.
FYI: Revelation 9:21 (sorceries)=(Strong's;Greek,#5331:pharmakeia=pharmacy=magic=sorcery=witchcraft). If anyone disagrees with you it is always "get the med's". Although we got MIRV, cluster bombs, depleated U, all kinda cool agents, plus even without asking the World, you all dug up Spanish Flu for us. I could go on but my fingers would get cold. I wonder why Native Americans don't take free blankets anymore. You folks just don't quit. So, tell the truth now; who does not get it?...
not to worry,,, the political scientists are here to save you,,,
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leakDeveloping countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-su…
Tom, I understand that imbecility is an inherent component of your genotype, but I thought that it was just a rumour that an unfortunately large proportion of USAdians think that their country equates with the world...
You seem to be hell-bent on pushing your Stupid Quotient into the red in order to validate this jaded view that the rest of the world has of your country. See, dude, this is an Australian blog, even though it's hosted in the Yoo-Nighted Staytes - and, well, I hate to put it to you, but where I live in Australia is 16 hours ahead of the server that hosts this blog.
Strange thing, this world. It's much bigger than the US, and it's round, and well, most of the time most of the world's population has other things on its mind than what the States are doing or thinking.
Not that time zones are really even relevant when one is a father to young babies that require regular feeding and changing. Reading Deltoid is a great way to while away the time whilst holding a feeding child.
Trouble is, it's easier to feed an eleven-month old than it is to feed some basic science to the intellectual neonates such as are pooping on the threads here lately. Yourself included.
[Wrong-writ-large](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…).
You're [not the only one](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/more_on_the_stolen_emails.php#c…) to misunderstand the politics of the Copenhagen 'leak'.
You're also not answering [the question I put to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…) about volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.
Why is it that you denialist drones cannot ever answer basic questions, or grasp the fundmentals of the science?!
God help us. As I read the news of the AGW meeting about to take place and having read the MSM spin; who is going to pay whom... The governments will decide. You fools. Have you ever been in a civil war? You are worried about a "Tipping Point" measured in years. I pray I am wrong but you are going to see one much sooner if this does not stop. You don't have to worry about me, I am the ocean for the strong fish. You all will be soft targets. Read world history. You see it happening all around the world as I write. This is no joking matter. When this thing turns, there will be no "off switch" it will run; It's course. Read your history again. I am not making this up. See what happened to Il Duce... not good people. Dead people put out a lot of CO2. Is that what you really want? You laugh because the people have allowed it so far. What do you Smart people think when you are all alone... You want Burundi? People are still savage. It is just below the surface, check your research papers. Where is the peoples tent; for who will pay? I don't read about it anywhere? The people will rise it up for themselves, I think. See what you have done? Who is going to clean up your mess for you now? Thick as a brick, eh?... Old grunts like me won't help you this time. You will be on your own. My skill sets are rusty but my important fingers still work well. I am ready. Will you all be? Lights Out.
Nurse! Nurse!!
Excellent. And as long as you have a hole in your pocket, you're set.
Err...is this all about this site:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/how-not-to-measure-temperature-pa…
in which case - the site move probably just put the site closer to an asphalt car park and various parked cars - so it most likely wasn't a colder new site after the move. Comments?
Good Gods, what the fuck is wrong with Tom? Just another paranoid crank with a well-worn tape-loop of libertard delusions running in his head? Or is he just here to make the other denialists look sane?
true scientists solve the so-called CO2 issue,,,
A German research ship carrying 20 tons of iron sulfate is currently motoring towards the South Atlantic, and the crew plans to dump its mineral cargo into the ocean in a controversial science experiment. The researchers will be testing a technique called ocean fertilization, in which iron is dumped into nutrient-poor waters to induce a huge blooms of phytoplankton. After the photosynthesizing plankton grows and absorbs carbon dioxide, researchers hope it will die and sink down to the seafloor still bearing that greenhouse gas in a natural form of carbon sequestration. Ocean iron fertilization is considered one of the more promising options for global-scale geoengineering, which aims to slow or reverse the effects of climate change caused by manâs burning of fossil fuels. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/12/experiment-trying-…
[Wrong-writ-large](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16842-ocean-engineering-wont-cool…).
You're way behind the times, and [wrong again](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16842-ocean-engineering-wont-cool…) besides.
That's a 100% rate for wrongness, to date. Impressive.
true scientists solve the so-called CO2 issue,,,
âWhen algae are introduced to a rich carbon source, such as the flue gas emissions of a power plant, they propagate exponentially compared to traditional agricultural crops and do not compete for land or water that might otherwise be used for food production.â
So, explain how this solves "the so-called CO2 issue"?
And haven't you got the hint yet about the triple commas???
please inform us what your solution is,,,
My solution is an ellipsis, as you've already been advised.
And some basic understanding of appropriate punctuation usage, even when you've learned what an ellipsis is.
ummmm i am referring to your so-called CO2 problem,,, but you knew that already,,,
Mate, if you can't grasp 3rd grade punctuation, what makes you think that you can understand tertiary physics?
Oh, and don't think that I haven't noticed that you are avoiding answering the first question [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…), or the question that has lingered for many posts since first posed [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…).
good one sheila,,, that will surely solve your so-called CO2 issue,,,
Food for thought. Just to be honest; I have never seen the leading edge of a civil war, just the aftermath. My theory is very simple. 1. The people are uncertin about the value of their money, economy, culture. 2. The leaders are weak, lie, abuse the system for gain. 3. The media is not trusted by the people... This eventualy leads to rumor for news and disinformation among the people is always available wheather intended or not. It just is. Then there is some evidence of abuse that becomes known to all. Next there is some spark. An arrest. Fire. Bomb. Something. There you go. It starts. You can be an island like Cyprus, a beautiful country like Burundi, Lebonon, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam. No one ever seems to know how long they will last. I think it depends on the amount of accumulated brush so to speak. It is a movement. Not a plan. So, now look around you and ask yourself if the igniter, combustable material and fuel source are in place for a true disaster. The Chi-com's are now also for population control world wide...along with Cap n Trade. Trading partner or no. These are huge things that will affect the whole world. Do you deney it? You all need to come clean to the people and stop the lies. Have a nice day:)
like i said before,,, if you truely belive in AGW,,, you would be calling for one child policy,,,
COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm
The real inconvenient truth
The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy
The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438
WAL: draconian legal measures to FORCE birth rates down would be tyrannical, wrong, and probably counterproductive insofar as it would result in a political backlash, as it did in both China and India. So we have no good reason to advocate tyrannical measures that have little chance of doing more good than harm.
Making VOLUNTARY contraception widely available, however, and encouraging people to use it, would be a very good thing indeed, and not just in the area of global warming either. The Republicans have done a very effective job, over the last eight years at least, of discouraging and suppressing contraception (Ellen Sauerbrey, anyone?); so any concerted attempt to reverse the damage done by their faith-based (and underhanded) suppression of reproductive choice would be welcome all over the world.
ummmm draconian will be what the consequences of AGW will be according to the AGWist proselytizers,,,
and india and china will do nothing,,,
However, governments in India and China â which is the world's biggest carbon emitter â have resisted draft proposals that would allow for international verification of data.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-10-copenhagen_N.htm?loc=inte…
this is not how a real scientist acts,,, this is how a AGWist proselytizers act,,,
UN Security Stops Journalistâs Questions About ClimateGateby Mike Flynn
A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him âinconvenient questionsâ during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
Professor Stephen Schneiderâs assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-quest…
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
Inconvenient Question to Al Gore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fooYtalS9Gc
Journalist and filmmaker Phelim McAleer (Mine Your Own Business, Not Evil Just Wrong) attempts to ask Al Gore a question about 'Climategate' emails at the UN Climate Change Conference. Al Gore's Press Secretary grabs his McAleer's microphone and UN security guard pulls the cable from the microphone. For more Inconvenient Questions and answers about The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria visit www.noteviljustwrong.com
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Dr Stephen Schneider the same climate expert who was on the global cooling bandwagon (The Iceage Cometh) of the 1970's. To quote the late John L Daly "Dr Schneider's 1971 conclusions were nearer the truth and ..... his later change of heart was was due less to new evidence and more to changing temperatures
Not accurate. Do the google yourself.
Peter Fraser Smith writes:
>*"Dr Schneider's 1971 conclusions were nearer the truth and ..... his later change of heart was was due less to new evidence and more to changing temperatures*
Peter Fraser Smith thanks for contributing but Schneider's [concern re AGW](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-coolin…) is due to [overwhelming evidence](http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/ClimateFrameset.html).
Your quote from Mr Daly did not include any supporting evience regarding what is "truth" nor what informed Schneider.
I suggest you make any follow up comments in a live thread such as [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_41.php)
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update May 15, 2010
Salinger,
In the face of all these obstacles, why has NIWA persevered with the 30-year-old Salinger methodology â which they never agreed to adopt in the first place? Could it be that Dr Salinger was so well-trusted by his peers and superiors that they could simply accept his bare assurance that all was well?
Well, no. He isnât held in high regard by NIWA:
First, they fired him for his persistent refusal to accept direction, or to follow company policy, or to cease talking to the media. He appealed to the Employment Court for reinstatement, but NIWA fought that hard for most of last year, and were ultimately successful.
Secondly, when the SSS was criticised in âAre We Feeling Warmer Yetâ, Dr Wratt did not respond with a Salinger argument. Instead, he invented a whole web page describing how the Wellington record had been adjusted for altitude changes, and had a Minister table that in the House. Wrattâs misleading conduct, which is a serious matter, seems to have been motivated by his distrust of the Salinger method.
Thirdly, NIWA published a new paper called âThe NIWA âSeven-Stationâ Temperature Seriesâ on 3rd February, written by Dr Brett Mullan, which sets out details of 34 temperature adjustments. These have been compared with their counterparts in the Salinger thesis and only one adjustment is the same! This new Schedule of Adjustments does not even pretend to follow the 1981 Salinger precedent â but avoids disclosing that fact.
The NSS has not been retained out of respect for Salinger. The only remaining explanation is that NIWA and the Climate Ministers are attempting to save face rather than confess that they have been running their policies on the basis of bogus data for many years.
Conclusion
Piecing together the provenance of the New Zealand historical temperature record has been no easy task. Much of the detail is set out in the Climate Conversation blog. It has involved a myriad of investigative methods but the most productive has been the placement of nearly 50 Parliamentary Questions for Written Answer, for which credit must go to John Boscawen MP. The New Zealand mainstream media, all highly partisan on climate change matters, have evinced little interest in the scandal to date.
Science claims a special place in the trust of the public because of its unswerving adherence to certain objective methodologies, involving transparency, peer review, replicability and honest purpose. NIWA has forfeited that trust in so many ways.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7ze
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
The New Zealand temperature data dispute is about reasonableness, not about how code was written as per the assumptions and protocols of data management. In all data management there are models; that is how you know whether to warm or cool data or drop data or how to infill missing data. If your model assumptions have errors or, worse, built-in biases, then your output conclusions will be consistent but certainly wrong.
Much argument by the skeptics (of which I am one) is based on the data, principally on the massaging of the data. If there are 3 corrections, and each one gives the benefit of the doubt to warming, then the end result will be an excess of apparent warming that is artefact rather than real. That is what the pre vs post data correction summaries look like they are showing.
The effect of cummulative, positive adjustments cannot be over emphasized. The perceived warming of 0.7K is so small relative to daily, yearly and regional variations that the end result systemic biases are a huge problem. Plus, we have to remember - which we forget to do all the time - that there is no antropogenic signal if the warming since 1900 is of the 1.8K/century. That is strictly "normal", like it or not. Only beyond that is therepotential for AGW. And it has to be 3.0K/century (+1.2C/century) for it to be "catastrophic". So the amount we are to be worried about is an amount greater than 0.4K over the last 35 years. Have we seen that? Perhaps, if we believe GISS/NASA/NIWA. But the extra 0.3-0.5K is equal to the adjustments. Very worrisome.
If we are to cvhange global economies, we should be extremely confident on the truth of the temperature data, not on the consistency of the model output or how computer codes work. The confidence in the data is not 95% as the IPCC would have you believe. And it is not even in how the models imitate reality. The confidence is in the consistency of results from model runs using the assumptions and data put into them. The change in banner from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Disruption" should fire off alarms in the warming community that at the head of the carbon reduction strategies, the "leaders" are aware that the alleged warming NOT clear or well documented.
That is, if you look at the temperature data itself, rather than the press releases, you will be inclinded to be skeptical also.
Approach what the authorities say with caution as you would if they wanted you to join the army. There are agendas and there are those all excited by being in the excitment. Same as in high school. We're just older. Look at the data and see if "reasonablenss" doesn't make you hesitate.
The skeptic will accept the result if the questions are reasonably addressed, not just with a reference to authorities. We are beyond Aristotle and Plato as being the wisest of us all. Gore and Suzuki WILL NOT accept questions. Why not? With $79billion invested in AGW in the US alone, you would think that those fellows would have such rock-solid evidence that a questioner would be humiliated. Instead, as Cameron found out, it is more likely that the warmist speaker will be humiliated.
> In all data management there are models; that is how you know whether to warm or cool data or drop data or how to infill missing data.
...
> Much argument by the skeptics (of which I am one) is based on the data, principally on the massaging of the data.
And yet each "model" of what data to use and how to correct it (and this information is available at your local government climate centre) gets pretty much the same value.
This could be
a) A huge coincidence
b) A huge conspiracy
c) Showing that the models used are valid
(a) is out because there are too many different methods of collection and they agree too closely to both physical expectations and each other to be happenstance.
(b) is out because if it were, then there would be evidence in the "climate gate" email history.
But you refuse (c). Why?
You don't seem to be skeptical at all, you seem to be denying the logical conclusion.
Doug, care to tell us how RSS and UAH are 'cooking their data' to yield warming similar to the surface stations?
Oh, and climate disruption was already used by Holdren many, many years ago. For example here:
http://www.whrc.org/resources/publications/pdf/HoldrenEnv.01.pdf
and here:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17661/global_climate_di…
And Stuart Pimm explains why it is a better term than global warming:
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/people/faculty/pimm/publications/pimmrepri…
Doug Proctor:
>The skeptic will accept the result if the questions are reasonably addressed
You haven't asked any questions. You've just posted a load of anti-science talking points and conspiracy theories, all of which are [well known to be false](http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php) and have been "reasonably addressed" ad nauseum.
The fact that you simply parroted them here without bothering to check whether they were true shows that you are [very far from being a skeptic](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/22/climate-change-s…). Please do not abuse the word in future.
> The skeptic will accept the result if the questions are reasonably addressed.
they have been, and they do.
your move.
[Doug Proctor](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…).
So climate scientists have cooked the books, huh?
Exactly how did they convince the biosphere and the hydrosphere to join the conspiracy, and to do so in a manner that reflects the modelling?
If there is fraud, then the only people not invited to participate were the pseudo-sceptics and the outright denialists. But don't worry - if you are feeling a bit left out you can come to the party of reason on my ticket.
All you need to do is to have your fairy godmother change you ideological ignorance into
...somethng resembling objective scientific understanding.
[Sorry - not sure where the end of the sentence drifted off to.]
[Doug Proctor...](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…)?
You seem to have rather quietened once [challenged on your claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co…).
Seriously, if you think that there has been no significant climate change, how then do you explain the biological shiftings (ranges, phenology, et cetera) and the hydrological changes that are all consistent with the warming spoken of by the world's best trained, professional, expert climatologists?
You're welcome to ask the scientific audience or to 'phone a friend if you need to.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem.
ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don't bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don't you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.
The deniers can scrutinise and obfuscate all they like but the direction a multiplicity of independent evidence streams points at is a clear upward trend that only a charlatan (on the payroll) or Flat Earther would deny.