Falsified Data, Lies, & Anthropogenic Global Warming

[wstphal]

I agree. I've been disgusted myself by some of this sort of thinking: We've raped the planet to get where we are; now we're going to instruct you on how to scrape by while preserving what we haven't spoiled yet (but we're working on it).

And so until the AGW'ers come up with answers that don't involve making the world's poorest poorer still, I am in opposition to them.

Does this mean I want to further destroy the planet? No, but short of killing 95% of the world's population, we are going to need to include technological fixes, not just "stop burning fossil fuels & either freeze or roast depending on your local climate & then starve", and those techno fixes need to be applied in ways that allow the world's poorest to share in the benefit, not as a handout but as a hand up to help them lift themselves out of poverty. So far all the AGW'ers talk about is conservation & ceasing to use fossil fuels, and those aren't answers that work for the majority of humans on earth.:madeuce:

 

[Roy Munson]

What I do have disdain for is being side-tracked like the Roadrunner by one of Wiley Coyote's falsely painted desertscapes. Or being dragged through/into the desertscape by a bandwagonful of naive eco~martyrs more gullible and easily fooled than I.

Yes, but which dubious, painted desert-scape facade holds ultimate peril? Is there a cliff beyond? Does the road go on and on? Either way, I wouldn't want to run full-force and bust through without a little evaluation.

 

[snakewispera snr]

Argue what ever way you want......
Me, I think the global warming phenomenon is just in time.....
Why????
Look at this
My company is owned by one guy and no share holders out side of the family.....
Nothing is ever hired or rented and it's always self funded....
So thats me and my pension plan safe for the time being.......
Way to go Bevel........

 

[wade]

I have seen several people confuse the Global Warming issue with pollution or fossil fuel issues. They are in fact two separate things. The enviro whackos have used Global Warming as a club to make you see their side of various planetary disasters. Now it looks like we didn’t cause Global Warming. Now it looks like there is no Global Warming at all. The whackos can still have their end of the world they just can’t use GW as the club.

I think fossil fuels pollute our atmosphere. You would have to be blind to not understand that. I don’t think that auto emissions are going to cause the polar caps to melt and the polar bears to die. (they are so cute and cuddly) So lets find alternative fuels. I’m all for it. But don’t show me pictures of dead baby seals floating in a warming sea.

I’m tired of buying my oil from terrorists. Why don’t we drill our own off shore oil? Enviro Whackos!! It is there waiting to be drilled. Why are we not drilling for more oil in Alaska? Same dumb answer.

Let’s save the planet. But lets not loose sight of the fact that we are a blip on the radar screen. We didn’t kill the dinosaurs. We didn’t kill the saber tooth tiger nor the wooly mammoth. The cockroaches were here before us and will be here when we are gone. Let’s save the planet, but lets solve a problem that actually exists.

 

[Roy Munson]

I don't give two blue flux capacitors as to what's going on. If calling it warming instead of change saves your beach-house or community, then more power to ya. Regardless of cause, things are changing. Brown folks will suffer first, and who cares about them anyway? They ALWAYS suffer first, and usually during, and finally in the aftermath. It all started in Africa. Those #%^*#} had their shot.

 

[tom e]

Now it looks like we didn’t cause Global Warming. Now it looks like there is no Global Warming at all.

I agree with SO MUCH of what you've said in that post Wade. But can you really say you're sure of this part? I'll admit that I'm not sure of the other, though I did have the understanding that 'an overwhelming majority of the experts' were.. It's starting to look like maybe they were too quick with that consensus, and that some number were trying to manipulate us. But that's not the same as saying it was all BS. It seems like the jury is still out on this, or if not, they are mighty silent these days, maybe not so confident.

 

[wade]

I never believed in Global Warming from the start. We have only been keeping records for a few hundred years. That is not enough time to establish a trend in a phenomena that takes tens of thousands of years. Discrepancies could be explained as simply as more accurate measuring equipment today as compared to 20 years ago or 200 years ago. Even the lead scientist behind all of this came out yesterday and admitted that there has been no evidence of any warming during the last 15 years. He also went on to say there is a possibility that it was warmer around 700 to 1300 ad. It would be hard to blame that on us.

Last week they came out with a statement that the number one green house gas was water vapor. I can’t say if the climate is changing. But the evidence is growing very quickly over the last year that we didn’t cause it. The scientists who were saying that we did cause it are now admitting to doctoring the data or just plain making it up.

 

[Roy Munson]

Let’s save the planet. But lets not loose sight of the fact that we are a blip on the radar screen. We didn’t kill the dinosaurs. We didn’t kill the saber tooth tiger nor the wooly mammoth. The cockroaches were here before us and will be here when we are gone. Let’s save the planet, but lets solve a problem that actually exists.

I actually agree with you. I don't give two bleeps about the planet, or which life-form acheives dominance. I don't have children. I feel uneasy that your beloved descendents may become fodder for giant, blood-sucking, sentient aphids, but the planet will be ok for a few billion years.

 

[wade]

Dean-o you seem somewhat contrary this evening. Does someone need a hug?

 

[Roy Munson]

Dean-o you seem somewhat contrary this evening. Does someone need a hug?

I might. *sniff, sniff*

And I'm not too insecure or proud to accept one from a friend hailing from the great state of LDS. (And I strongly dislike THEM. I'm a self-confessed LDS bigot!)

 

[wade]

There are a great many people in Utah with Little Duck Syndrome but they are no longer in the majority. We would like to be thought of as the state with beautiful girls rather than the state with strange religions.

 

[Roy Munson]

There are a great many people in Utah with Little Duck Syndrome but they are no longer in the majority. We would like to be thought of as the state with beautiful girls rather than the state with strange religions.

I'll work on changing my perception!

 

[Nova_C]

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits:
There has been no global warming since 1995 :

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fd7L9aEi

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61C1V420100213

That's not what he said. Here's his original, full quote, in response to a question asking if he agreed that there's been no statistical significant warming since 1995:

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

So, basically, there's been no statistically significant warming during this period because 15 years is too short a period for significant warming to happen. Notice he said it's .12 C per decade warming, which is a lot different from what those articles are saying he said.

 

[Nova_C]

Oh, and here's the link to the Q&A session by the BBC that those articles quote mined like crazy from:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

 

[wade]

If you want to use the words Statistically Significant as a disclaimer then you have the include the very first question posed to him:

Question:
Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Director Phil Jones answer:
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

If our industrialization is causing global warming, why is the no statistically significant difference between 1860 and 1998?

 

[Nova_C]

If you want to use the words Statistically Significant as a disclaimer then you have the include the very first question posed to him:

If our industrialization is causing global warming, why is the no statistically significant difference between 1860 and 1998?

Since this has nothing to do with me saying that headline was a total fabrication, should I assume you agree those articles were deliberately misconstruing his words?

With regards to your question, though, the answer is, I don't know. I'm not a climate scientist. However, what I do know is that the claim isn't that mankind is causing global warming, only that we are accelerating it. If we're going to be 'including' quotes for completion's sake, here's some important ones:

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

(This is important since he's certain that the climate is warming, but less certain that human activity has caused most of the warming since the 1950s)

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period [1975-1998] we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

(The question asked: If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?)

The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing

He also goes on to talk about the hacked e-mails if you haven't read about what they were talking about yet. I guess the question I have to ask, Wade, is do you think he's lying about what the e-mails meant, or do you believe him and think that the e-mails discredit nothing at all?

 

[wade]

Nova, I asked you once for a name, that I might address you as a person, and you declined. I’ll call you Bob.

Bob, since you addressed that questions directly to me I’ll tell you want I think. As a scientist the very core of your being is to observe and record data. Observe and record data. Then to go through a peer revue where they try to reproduce your results through test of their own. Science has always been the water mark for accuracy. When you state a fact it is so thoroughly proven that it can’t be any thing other than fact. Even to this day Einstein’s theory of relativity is called a theory because it has yet to be proven.

Professor Phil Jones is looking at the end of his career as a scientist. How he came up with his data is of no consequence because he has lost them, misplaced them. We are no long discussing the results of years of study, we are discussing the best of his recollection. He will never again be believed by any one in the scientific community even if his data is proven to be correct at some later date. The entire study has been thrown into question to such a degree that it may as well be thrown out and let a real scientist start over.

Do I think he is lying about the e-mails? Doesn’t matter. I am sure he is trying to make them look as favorable to him as possible. It doesn’t matter what the truth of the e-mails is. What the e-mails did was bring questions to a study that under scrutiny proved itself to be very questionable.

 

[Drizzt80]

I haven't had the chance to really peruse this site yet, but a friend recommended it. I forgot about Carlin's take on saving the planet.

http://www.globalwarmingisbs.com/

D80

 

[vetusvates]

For Dean and Nova_C

For Dean and Nova_C

This is NOT to beat a dead horse, and it is my thread, but I found this article just today, and it was directly pertinent to this thread and this subject.
And Dean, I thought about you and Nova immediately.
This takes on the whole debate, and places it under a more sophisticated lens of scrutiny.
I, of course, have been playing the devil's advocate on the AGW subject, but seriously, I want to march into the future, not like a dull following sheep, but like a knowledgeable, thinking, person.
Not because Brad and Angelina have said it is the right thing to do,
but because I have, with knowledge and insight, arrived at it being the right thing to do.

Anyhoo, this is a very interesting article, that is about responsibly reporting facts, and responsibly reporting the contra-opinions/information to a given set of facts.
And Nova, it supports your argument,...so you can see, when the sun goes down it is not about WHO is right or wrong, but WHAT is right or wrong. I had hoped you realized that about me, but here is proof.

Science Matters: The BBC's balancing act

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/eureka/article7011355.ece

 

[Roy Munson]

Interesting. I read an article earlier in the week that had me thinking about this, though it wasn't the focus of the article.

"A journalist friend once remarked to me that “fair and balanced” reportage is an impossible ideal because the two terms are at war. To be fair is to tell the truth as best you can. To be balanced is to consult a flat-Earther for a counterpoint every time you write a story about a shuttle launch."

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php...eady-not-very-progressive-southern-state.html