Global Warming Scam

[a_unique_person]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5109188.stm

The Earth was hotter in the late 20th Century than it had been in the last 400 or possibly 1,000 years, a report requested by the US Congress concludes.

It backs some of the key findings of the original study that gave rise to the iconic "hockey stick" graph.
The diagram, which shows a sharp upturn in temperatures in recent decades, has been a prime target for groups who doubt humans are warming the planet.
These sceptics had challenged the way the hockey stick data was assembled.
They argued it had been massaged to produce the distinctive shape.
The fall-out culminated in one US politician demanding to see financial and research records from the three scientists who had put the data together: Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes (sometimes referred to simply as MBH).
'Plausible' assessment
The new report, carried out by a panel of the US-based National Research Council (NRC), largely vindicates the researchers' work, first published in 1998.
The report says it has very high confidence that the last few decades of the 20th Century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years.

 

[DeviousB]

You mean the ones directly funded by the IPCC, or the ones indirectly funded?

The IPCC is a review body, it does not carry out research. In what way then are climate scientists being 'indirectly' funded by the IPCC?

 

[Cuddles]

You mean the ones directly funded by the IPCC, or the ones indirectly funded?

I mean the ones funded by the Milk Marketing Board to further their nefarious plans for world domination by supporting the theory that anthopogenic milk is causing a global imbalance in world calcium levels, thereby flipping the Earth's weather axis and causing a slight increase in the number of cricket matches.

 

[varwoche]

If by "top" you mean only the ones affiliated or dependent on the IPCC, sure.

Abject nonsense.

 

[Piggy]

None? Heh. You try to come off as so fact oriented later in this post... There is always doubt when assumptions are made.

Sorry. There is no doubt that we're in a warming trend. This is simple observation. If you have any counter-evidence, by all means, present it.

And I notice that later in your post, you conveniently ignore my "fact oriented" citations regarding scientific consensus on whether human activity is affecting the current warming trend.

The strongest 'evidence' of global warming are the ones most likely to be tainted by unrelated variables such as the heat island effect.

You have no doubts at all that unrelated variables are at play?

Unrelated to what? If, in this dicussion, you're unable to keep track of references to warming trends on the one hand, and human contribution to warming on the other, you're going to continue to make nonsensical statements like that.

Satellite data doesnt back up the current claims.

Which data, and which claims?

Moving on entails not repetitively making the unsupported claim until you win over enough people. If you have evidence then offer it. I read your quotes from various papers and psuedonews and none of them say what you wish they did.

Which sources are "pseudonews"? Which sources do not claim what I "wish they did"? What do I "wish"? Is it different from what I'm saying?

There is a better chance that our activities have extremely little to do with it. If you want to drag out statistics then we can do that..

It would be nice if you were to drag out some evidence at all, yes.

I bring with me statistics on a repeating cycle of ice ages followed by warm periods. A warming earth isnt a suprise and is not evidence of significant human contribution.

We all know there are warm and cool cycles. A warming earth is not evidence of significant human contribution. But the science is not claiming that warming per se is evidence of this.

You obviously are ignorant of the state of the science in this matter.

The critique you provide is uninformed, outdated generalization which holds no water. Or water vapor.

 

[Piggy]

Pessimistic thinking isn't either. Give me proof (NOT models) that man is causing GW.

You still haven't said what this type of "proof" might possibly consist of?

 

[Piggy]

If you cannot find evidence that water vapor is THE chief contributor to the greenhouse effect, then you haven't looked. I am not your research assistant. This is well understood and has been for nearly a century. There is no debate or controversy about it.




If by "top" you mean only the ones affiliated or dependent on the IPCC, sure.

The IPCC review process is seriously flawed and it is known that their reports are dressed up to promote a viewpoint that is in conflict with data they already have.

It isnt suprising that the IPCC does not want to swallow their own "mistakes" and are unwilling to admit the flaws in the process they previously claimed was "vigorously reviewed."

The hockey stick scandal is a big thorn in their side. They chose to trumpet the hockey stick as the chief #1 undeniable evidence (hah!) and used the the old repeat it until they believe it "science" strategy. The seriously flawed graph appears more times than any other graph in almost all of their more recent "reports." Conflicting graphs (in the rare case that they include it) are obfuscated by additional data, much smaller than the hockey stick, and appear in black and white next to the large unobfuscated colorized (yet seriously flawed) hockey stick.

Any admission to the contrary now is an admission that the trust and funding that many governments have put in them was a monumental mistake. Expect them to continue to play politics until the bitter end.

rockoon, since you choose to use the tactics of 9/11 conspiracy theorists and proponents of "intelligent design", there is no need for anyone to take you seriously, or to respond to you.

If you're going to make claims, then refuse to provide any evidence or support or citations, and to simply hurl unfounded accusations at legitimate scientists who are in the mainstream, you're not worth talking to.

You're either a crank or a troll.

Good luck with that.

 

[Texastwister]

And why is warmer temperatures bad??

I am actually more worried about the decline in Pirates than Global warming.

I also thought most people didnt believe in religion on this site

 

[Piggy]

And why is warmer temperatures bad??

Read the IPCC policy statement I linked to above.

If this planet is launched into a rapid period shift, it's impossible to predict exactly what the new configuration will be, but since we're adapted to this one, and have built extensive infrastructure and agricultural systems based on it, there's an enormous likelihood that we're not going to like it.

Drought, desertification, heavy storms, and flooding of the coasts. That's not good.

 

[rockoon]

It would be nice if you were to drag out some evidence at all, yes.

What would be nice is if the guy with the extraordinary claims brought out some evidence. Thats not me. Thats you. "Popular opinion" does not mean your claims arent extraordinary.

The current "popular opinion" in climatology is that Mann isn't a fraud. All works derived from his fraud should automatically be considered suspect.. but you don't seem to be doing that.

Why arent you skeptical of any works derived from it?

 

[rockoon]

rockoon, since you choose to use the tactics of 9/11 conspiracy theorists and proponents of "intelligent design", there is no need for anyone to take you seriously, or to respond to you.

If you're going to make claims, then refuse to provide any evidence or support or citations, and to simply hurl unfounded accusations at legitimate scientists who are in the mainstream, you're not worth talking to.

You're either a crank or a troll.

Good luck with that.

Fine, I'll be your research assistent for 5 seconds. Thats how long it takes me to find good reason to doubt Mann and the IPCC.

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

Unfounded indeed... take your 'faith based' skepticism and shove it. You picked a theory and now sit with blinders on. I don't blame you for picking the theory originally.. but a real skeptic is willing to back off on a belief when things arent as kosher as they first thought.

 

[a_unique_person]

What would be nice is if the guy with the extraordinary claims brought out some evidence. Thats not me. Thats you. "Popular opinion" does not mean your claims arent extraordinary.

The current "popular opinion" in climatology is that Mann isn't a fraud. All works derived from his fraud should automatically be considered suspect.. but you don't seem to be doing that.

Why arent you skeptical of any works derived from it?

I just posted a link that validated the hockey stick. What work are the scientists doing that depends on the hockey stick?

 

[Buckaroo]

Fine, I'll be your research assistent for 5 seconds. Thats how long it takes me to find good reason to doubt Mann and the IPCC.

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

Unfounded indeed... take your 'faith based' skepticism and shove it. You picked a theory and now sit with blinders on. I don't blame you for picking the theory originally.. but a real skeptic is willing to back off on a belief when things arent as kosher as they first thought.

Typical. This Denier picks an economist to critique the consensus conclusion of climate scientists.

What would be nice is if the guy with the extraordinary claims brought out some evidence. Thats not me. Thats you. "Popular opinion" does not mean your claims arent extraordinary.

You're just repeating points which were handily demolished earlier in the thread. You might want to review before you post again, so you don't embarrass yourself.

 

[casebro]

So, as I read the study in the link provided by rockoon, http://www.climatechangeissues.com/f...5mckitrick.pdf Mann used the rapid growth of the Bristlecone Pines in California as an indicator of warmer climate. Except that modern local records don't show any climate changes in California. (see pg 11, last full paragraph, I dunno how to quote from PDF)

Looks like Mann used some circular logic there- rapid growth = temperature increase, therefor the higher temp= rapid growth.

It makes me wonder how many Iraqis have died, according to Mann?

I guess I'l go look up the authors of that study. Economists I guess, they ought to know stats and studies.

 

[Buckaroo]

Here are some fun facts about our friend Ross McKitrick:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick

A Denier with a conservative political agenda? Say it ain't so!

Especially juicy is the bottom part, where there are 15 links with responses to his nonsense. Delicious.

You Deniers really need to work on finding more credible posterboys.

 

[casebro]

Okay, I found Mann's rebuttal to McKitrick: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

Funny how the graph down about 1/3 of the way, opposite point "9)" seems to show the Medievil Warming Period just as warm as today. And that is one of Mann's graphs, isn't it? Including some of the data that McKitrick said to add to MBH98.

And Mann doesn't refute that the Bristlecone data is flawed. Instead he sidesteps that issue when says it ought to be included to verify the other proxies into the 20th century.

Yup, I'm convinced- Mann ought to do studies of Iraqi death rates.

 

[Buckaroo]

Okay, I found Mann's rebuttal to McKitrick: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

Funny how the graph down about 1/3 of the way, opposite point "9)" seems to show the Medievil Warming Period just as warm as today. And that is one of Mann's graphs, isn't it? Including some of the data that McKitrick said to add to MBH98.

*Sigh.* No one denies that there was a Medieval Warm Period. It is well known. It appears in the hockey stick. It is also quite beside the point. What, do you think the Deniers are the first ones who noticed this? That the numerous independent groups who have arrived at the same figure weren't clever enough to spot it? That they didn't take it into account, and trusted that their referees were part of the Great Conspiracy, and wouldn't call them on it?

And Mann doesn't refute that the Bristlecone data is flawed. Instead he sidesteps that issue when says it ought to be included to verify the other proxies into the 20th century.

You're simply mistaken:

7) Basically then the MM05 criticism is simply about whether selected N. American tree rings should have been included, not that there was a mathematical flaw?

Yes. Their argument since the beginning has essentially not been about methodological issues at all, but about 'source data' issues. Particular concerns with the "bristlecone pine" data were addressed in the followup paper MBH99 but the fact remains that including these data improves the statistical validation over the 19th Century period and they therefore should be included.

 

[varwoche]

Here are some fun facts about our friend Ross McKitrick:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick

A Denier with a conservative political agenda? Say it ain't so!

Especially juicy is the bottom part, where there are 15 links with responses to his nonsense. Delicious.

You Deniers really need to work on finding more credible posterboys.

I hope you noticed where Tim Lambert documents that McKitrick confused degrees with radians, or how McKitrick extrapolated zeros from missing temperature readings, including in areas of the world where it never reaches zero. (Both errors acknowledged by Mckitrick.)

So what we have is an associate professor of economics challenging expert climatologists based on number crunching, yet making grade school mistakes in the process.

Economists I guess, they ought to know stats

Oh well.

 

[a_unique_person]

Economists I guess, they ought to know stats and studies.

I guess scientists ought to know science?

 

[casebro]

*Sigh.* No one denies that there was a Medieval Warm Period. It is well known. :

So then what is the big hoo-hoo about the current warming trend? If there is nothing unique about the current trend, then isn't it likely that there is no 'A' in AGW? If no 'A", then our C02 is not to blame. Likewise, if the heat is 'natural', then it's likely that the heat raises the CO2, not the other way around. Likewise, the trend ought to top out like all the other warming periods before, and NOT boil the oceans.

So what we will have is a natural warming, with all of the same weather improvements as the Medieval Warming Period brought about. Historical record shows the world economy booming. Everywhere except the very small percentage of land that lies only a couple meters above sea level. Good bye Mexicali, hello Palm Springs Beach, and the Port of Yuma, with it's rail connections from the rice fields of Nebraska. And the corn fields will return to Nazca, obliterating those silly drawings for once and for all.