Ed The latest on climate science/Climate Conspiracy Theories

[catsmate]

Ah, the Daily Fail, a source so impeachable it should be based in Atlanta.

Indeed.

 

[Trakar]

Because it's all about me, and not about several governments colluding to spread false information.

Of course this story does not ipso facto mean that there is no man made climate change, only that governments are trying to exploit it in a particular way.

Except that your statements have nothing to do with Stavins or what he was protesting. The doctored report removed the scientific recommendations on ways to address the causes of AGW. The government groups are not being accused of spreading false information, they are being accused of repressing scientific evidence that they find politically inconvenient, bothersome and troubling.

 

[Warmer1]

The OP is Abdul Alhazred.

His thread titles are always intentionally misleading.

So is the content that he posts such as the following

Which proves he's lying about being ordered to falsify the report?

We'd better investigate.

Too bad you can't seem to comprehend the only answers that are needed and provided above in this thread. Perhaps you don't read your own threads as well as being misleading?

Too bad no one is buying your Daily Fail.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Too bad no one is buying your Daily Fail.

Spart from those who have written ppsts agreeing with the character and content pf the Mail and indeed this story? As that seems a lot of posters to be thought of ae no one.

 

[Puppycow]

Of course this story does not ipso facto mean that there is no man made climate change, only that governments are trying to exploit it in a particular way.

More about governments wanting to save face I think.

 

[phiwum]

Isnt that a fallacy?

No.

The fallacy you're thinking of occurs when one rejects (or accepts) an argument based on some feature of the person making the argument. But the claim here isn't about an argument. It is about the veracity of a report.

Logic does not require one to pretend that all sources are equally trustworthy.

 

[Butter!]

Spart from those who have written ppsts agreeing with the character and content pf the Mail and indeed this story? As that seems a lot of posters to be thought of ae no one.

Pardon?


Also, OP, I don't think you read the whole article you linked. It does not mean what you think it means. The lengthy "intro" (by which I mean 6 or 7 paragraphs of blathering exposition) is intentionally misleading and doesn't actually contain any concrete information. If you read to the end, you'll see it doesn't have a thing to do with the veracity of climate change...

 

[jaydeehess]

..... The doctored report removed the scientific recommendations on ways to address the causes of AGW. The government groups are not being accused of spreading false information, they are being accused of repressing scientific evidence that they find politically inconvenient, bothersome and troubling.

No, scientific evidence is what was not removed. Conclusions of what individual countries must do, based on that evidence is what was removed.

 

[jaydeehess]

The way it was presented was misleading , intentionally or not, as if government had removed critical science. That's not the case. Governments *always* try to exploit international policy in a way they see advantageous to their own country. It is a bit sad and lead to the tragedy of the common, but as long as they do not manipulate the science, I would say it is business as usual.

Now if the science was manipulated one way or another that would be something else.

As such, it is a non story. Not surprising from the daily fail as how it was presentend, it is their MO.

As to the way you formulate your OP, I leave that to a community thread if somebody want to open it, but that should not be part of the discussion in this thread.

+1

 

[Trakar]

No, scientific evidence is what was not removed. Conclusions of what individual countries must do, based on that evidence is what was removed.

Rationally evolved consideration, duly and compellingly supported through the weight of peer-reviewed and appropriately referenced evidences comport with "science," whether the subject is economics or physics.

Removing the science recommendations and options from the report is what happened and what was improper.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

listening to AGW-deniers has gotten to be like listening to flat-earthers. I feel kind of embarrassed for them.

 

[000063]

That's one way to cling to your conviction. The thing that makes me laugh is the way climate-change groupies behave just like YECs.

You're on a forum chock full of athiests and agnostics and skeptics. Comparisons to creationists aren't going to make people listen to you.

What's really weird is that a lot of CT folks never seem to get that.

 

[NoahFence]

Because it's all about me, and not about several governments colluding to spread false information.

Of course this story does not ipso facto mean that there is no man made climate change, only that governments are trying to exploit it in a particular way.

No, but it does mean that whenever we see a sensational thread title, and combine it with your member name, we're pretty safe to ignore it.

 

[cwalner]

What I find interesting is that because what was removed because of political pressure was recommendations to deal with climate change. This most likely means that the pressure was from nations that did not want to address climate change, and likely would be amenable to climate change deniers as that would get them off the hook. However this pressure is then used by climate change deniers to argue that science supporting climate change is politically motivated.

This is the kind of logic that makes my head spin.

 

[Trakar]

What I find interesting is that because what was removed because of political pressure was recommendations to deal with climate change. This most likely means that the pressure was from nations that did not want to address climate change, and likely would be amenable to climate change deniers as that would get them off the hook. However this pressure is then used by climate change deniers to argue that science supporting climate change is politically motivated.

This is the kind of logic that makes my head spin.

BTW - care to take a guess at which countries objected to them (it did come out in other coverage) Hint: the US apparently wasn't a major participant in this objection.

Though my position on blogs with regard to science is clearly established here, in this instance a link to Stavin's blog is included for a direct link to his words and the unedited version of one of the main sections of the IPCC report that he was concerned about.

Stavin's blog - http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/

unedited section - http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/IPCC/Item_A.pdf

edited section - http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/IPCC/Item_B.pdf

 

[r-j]

It does mean you are misusing line charts.

It's probably a lot worse than just that. But the main thing to remember is that if any data/research/climate goes against drastic warming, all due to humans, it must be bunk. If it show drastic human caused warming, then it shouldn't be looked at skeptically.

Experts have quantified the climate forcings.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg

ther is no forcing that can explain the observed warming.

Actually there is, but you won't know this from the alarmist press. The constant message is drastic warming (dangerous warming), even when the observed warming is actually cooling.

Then there is the skeptical look at the data itself. Any records that show no warming, or even worse, cooling, are "adjusted" to be in line with the story that it's all warming, all the time.

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )

Raw monthly anomalies -0.27
After quality control -0.25
After breakpoint alignment 0.63

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/18625

It's why so many people are skeptical. The raw data actually shows cooling for most of the world. Only after it's changed does it show drastic warming. But recently even the adjusted data shows cooling, not warming.

ther is no forcing that can explain the observed warming.

That's why that claim is so funny. They claim CO2 forcing is causing the current warming, when there isn't any warming. When the alarmist realizes this is so, the goalposts get moved, and then it's "the oceans are where the warming is happening now", but there is no forcing that would explain warming deep oceans, with no warming for land, surface, troposphere or sea surface temperatures.

That isn't even possible for a model to explain, much less did any model predict that sort of "warming", which to the observer is cooling of land and ocean temperatures, while the deep ocean warms.

Of course this can be happening, and it can be explained (currently wind is the assumed factor), but no model predicted this.

It's why the alarmist is constantly moving the goalposts, coming up with new hypothesis, new explanations, or even still insisting that despite all the instruments, all the data, that the atmosphere and SSTs and surface temps are still rapidly warming, even when no data supports this.

There are a multitude of serious problems with the warming narrative, but the alarmist has an answer for them all. Even if they have to make things up.

 

[r-j]

While there are all kinds of reasons for adjusting data, all of which make the past colder, and the recent period warmer, like we see with WELLINGTON, NZ, that such adjustments are done, the data is actually changed, and always to show warming, it's the sort of thing that makes a skeptic seriously skeptical.

It really makes me skeptical when I check the actual records and find they don't show anything like we see from the big organizations, that are claiming the warming is unusual, fast and dangerous as can be imagined.

That everything, all of it, has to be changed to show the warming we hear about, that is a bit creepy. Especially when we see in the emails from the CRU, where changing the past is discussed.

That every skeptic isn't investigating this is so unusual. Wild claims, especially ones that are designed to benefit a few people financially, that is the sort of thing skeptics usually just don't buy.

 

[DC]

...


Actually there is, but you won't know this from the alarmist press. The constant message is drastic warming (dangerous warming), even when the observed warming is actually cooling.

Then there is the skeptical look at the data itself. Any records that show no warming, or even worse, cooling, are "adjusted" to be in line with the story that it's all warming, all the time. It's why so many people are skeptical. The raw data actually shows cooling for most of the world. Only after it's changed does it show drastic warming. But recently even the adjusted data shows cooling, not warming.

Where is your evidence for this claim?

That's why that claim is so funny. They claim CO2 forcing is causing the current warming, when there isn't any warming. When the alarmist realizes this is so, the goalposts get moved, and then it's "the oceans are where the warming is happening now", but there is no forcing that would explain warming deep oceans, with no warming for land, surface, troposphere or sea surface temperatures.

That isn't even possible for a model to explain, much less did any model predict that sort of "warming", which to the observer is cooling of land and ocean temperatures, while the deep ocean warms.

Of course this can be happening, and it can be explained (currently wind is the assumed factor), but no model predicted this.

It's why the alarmist is constantly moving the goalposts, coming up with new hypothesis, new explanations, or even still insisting that despite all the instruments, all the data, that the atmosphere and SSTs and surface temps are still rapidly warming, even when no data supports this.

There are a multitude of serious problems with the warming narrative, but the alarmist has an answer for them all. Even if they have to make things up.

there is warming in the atmosphere
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998/trend

and there is warming in the oceans going on.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/


all the rest of your claims based on your fantasy global cooling are dismissed as they came without any evidence.


why don0t you make one of your so famous scientific posts liek you recently claimed to do. would like to see one of those for a change.
got anything on this ?

 

[greybeard]

So the world is cooling r-j but statistics show that the last year with a temperature below the 20th century average was 1976 and 13 of the 14 warmest years on record were in the 21st century. How do you explain that then? Are the scientists really really stupid or is it a conspiracy?

 

[DC]

While there are all kinds of reasons for adjusting data, all of which make the past colder, and the recent period warmer, like we see with WELLINGTON, NZ, that such adjustments are done, the data is actually changed, and always to show warming, it's the sort of thing that makes a skeptic seriously skeptical.

It really makes me skeptical when I check the actual records and find they don't show anything like we see from the big organizations, that are claiming the warming is unusual, fast and dangerous as can be imagined.

That everything, all of it, has to be changed to show the warming we hear about, that is a bit creepy. Especially when we see in the emails from the CRU, where changing the past is discussed.

That every skeptic isn't investigating this is so unusual. Wild claims, especially ones that are designed to benefit a few people financially, that is the sort of thing skeptics usually just don't buy.

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/44250

Raw monthly anomalies 0.66
After quality control 0.66
After breakpoint alignment -0.77


http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/167760

Raw monthly anomalies 1.47
After quality control 2.15
After breakpoint alignment -0.27
oops, you got that wrong