Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[Max™]

http://www.grida.no/publications/oth...ar/wg1/070.htm

Regarding the "Little Ice Age"

Hmmm... I've seen their chart before.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...1648-2_726.jpg

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/photo..._1000years.gif

Same thing?

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/photo...ction_high.gif

Hmmm...

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/photo...inflection.gif

Well... that's odd.

Perhaps Mann has updated his stuff?

http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805721105

Oh, he did, with the charts showing a more familiar structure, but still maintaining the dramatic stick inflection tacked on to the end.

He loves that stick shape, I'm starting to think it is Freudian or something now.

http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpre...iffa_recon.gif

Really loves it... enough to actually omit data?

Well, if you guys say that is good science, then I'll just have to take your word for it. I certainly can't tell anymore.

http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpre...0/picture1.png

Note: Apparently the lower x-ray density corresponds to higher temperatures, and there is evidence that the data is corrupted in modern times due to excess run-off from agriculture tainting recent samples.

Nonetheless, if you flip it upside down:

http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpre...0/picture2.png

Hockey Stick ahoy!

Is he Canadian?


As long as the numbers can be manipulated, right?

What is this though:

http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpre...ts-500x366.jpg

?

Station weights? What the hell does that mean?

Well, the weighting is used to determine how strong the reading is for their "averaged" results.

Do you see the problem? Five stations actually have negative weights! Basically, this means that in rolling up these stations, these five thermometers were used upside down! Increases in these temperatures in these stations cause the reconstructed continental average to decrease, and vice versa. Of course, this makes zero sense, and is a great example of scientists wallowing in the numbers and forgetting they are supposed to have a physical reality. Michael Mann has been quoted as saying the multi-variable regression analysis doesn’t care as to the orientation (positive or negative) of the correlation. This is literally true, but what he forgets is that while the math may not care, Nature does.

Uhh...

[Heavencloud]

The problem is - whether or not the earth is getting warmer or cooler - earth has never seen CO2 levels as high as they are now. You can't predict what will happen if the levels of CO2 continue to rise, simply because it hasn't happened at this rate in the last 800,000 years. No one really gives a fuck if it's a conspiracy, we HAVE to look at worse case scenarios if we're talking about the survival of the human race.

You can't predict what will happen in 100+ years from now, and maybe you don't give a fuck, but some of us do. If nothing catastrophic happens, great, then the human race will live on. However, you have to look at the possibility that something similar to what happened to Venus will occur.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weHr1aTC5-o

Stephen Hawking is definitely a conspiracy theorist who doesn't know shit about earth. Right?

[Max™]

The problem is - whether or not the earth is getting warmer or cooler - earth has never seen CO2 levels as high as they are now. You can't predict what will happen if the levels of CO2 continue to rise, simply because it hasn't happened at this rate in the last 800,000 years. No one really gives a fuck if it's a conspiracy, we HAVE to look at worse case scenarios if we're talking about the survival of the human race.

You can't predict what will happen in 100+ years from now, and maybe you don't give a fuck, but some of us do. If nothing catastrophic happens, great, then the human race will live on. However, you have to look at the possibility that something similar to what happened to Venus will occur.

Oh, I KNOW that this is going to be having an unknowable effect on the climate in the future.

I'm not doubting that, I'm simply taking umbrage over calling this bullshit "science", when it Thordamn isn't!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weHr1aTC5-o

Stephen Hawking is definitely a conspiracy theorist who doesn't know shit about earth. Right?

Hawking is a brilliant mathematician, but as Feynman said:

Several conversations that Feynman and I had involved the remarkable abilities of other physicists. In one of these conversations, I remarked to Feynman that I was impressed by Steven Hawking's ability to do path integration in his head. Ahh, that's not so great, Feynman replied. It's much more interesting to come up with the technique like I did, rather than to be able to do the mechanics in your head. Feynman wasn't being immodest, he was quite right. The true secret to genius is in creativity, not in technical mechanics.

Another one which fits the global warming argument at hand:

There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in "cargo cult science"... It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards... For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.

[Solefald]

Uhh...

what are you saying? that temperature measurements from this decade are unreliable?

[Beckwin]

A fun paper looking at what funds the skeptics:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...xon_report.pdf

Basically, ExxonMobil hired many of the same guys who worked for PhillipMorris, et al, denying that cigarettes caused cancer.

And maxteeem, your whole "gotcha!" here is that the current models use current data collected after the reports of the other curves end (the reports seem to have been published around the year 2000, and the "hockey stick" graphs are using the current decade's data as well). The black curve, the one you're questioning, is instrumental data- meaning it used direct measuring of temperature, not just tree rings/ice samples/etc, like the historic data in the other curves.

[Leif]

A fun paper looking at what funds the skeptics:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...xon_report.pdf

Basically, ExxonMobil hired many of the same guys who worked for PhillipMorris, et al, denying that cigarettes caused cancer.

Is this the BEST evidence you can find?

The second page of this phony document states quite clearly:

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Then the report, masquerading as some kind of official document by "scientists", goes on for 68 pages about how ExxonMobil is evil and should abandon its profit incentive in favor of "renewable energy". This is not evidence or science. This is an opinion piece from a radical advocacy group.

Even the people of BG deserve better than this crap.

[Shuvo]

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world.

DIABOLICAL!

[Leif]

DIABOLICAL!

Biased

in the same way half of the population secretly shudders when they see the words "equal opportunity", "diversity", or "multicultural" branded on a company's or school's motto. They don't really mean equal opportunity (equal result as a consequence of massive discrimination), diversity (in only skin color), and multicultural (only in ethnicity and religion).

If by "healthy environment" they mean kids grow up in a drug-free home with two parents and by "safer world" they mean no crime, then sure, I agree. But we all know the actual meanings of those words have been corrupted by groups with an agenda (this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we can't pretend that these organizations intend the most literal and out-of-date expressions).

[Shuvo]

"healthy environment"

Nefarious!

Also, the chairman of the UCS is a senior staffer for CERN, and the organization itself was founded by MIT and a noble prize winning physicist, among other notable scientists.

Obviously The LHC is another fabricated report by "scientists"!

[Beckwin]

what, didn't you know? the whole CERN project is designed to open up a dimensional portal that will allow our reptilian overlords to enter this world.

[Max™]

what are you saying? that temperature measurements from this decade are unreliable?

The "Uhh" was in reference to giving negative weighting for certain stations.


Again, remember my position on this, I am not saying we're not doing something which could drastically affect the environment. I am well aware that the Co2 is WAY THE FUCK OVER NORMAL LEVELS, but I am also aware that it isn't as strong of a greenhouse gas as, well... water vapor.

Co2 DOES have a forcing effect on those stronger factors, and I would expect to see it have a more profound impact on the climate in the near future.


It hasn't been shown that it is having that effect right now, and the AGW argument is built almost exclusively around that premise.


I'm bitching because these guys are pushing whatever the fuck they want to call science off on the general public, and I can't find any way to support their claim that they did actually use scientific methods to obtain their results. I tried, I'm still trying. For any good science they did seem to do, shit like negative weighting on data stations, averaging urban and rural areas, and omission of entire datasets pops up.

[Beckwin]

Water vapor only achieves a greenhouse effect for certain types of heat/radiation/whatever, correct?

In fact, didn't several posters post clarification earlier in the thread? Yep, they did. Restrat and Tristram did, iirc. And of course we're still luckily in a bit of a buffer zone where the oceans can absorb some of the CO2 we pump out, but that won't go on indefinitely, at which point atmospheric CO2 levels will rise even faster.

Do you think they did negative weighing with the express purpose of an AGW conspiracy? I would think there's probably a pretty good reason for doing what they did. Drop your scientist delusions and realize that these people have probably thought it through in ways that you haven't. You're making very base level criticisms by pointing at graphs and saying HAY LOOK TEHRE IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE TO ME MUST BE LYING.

[Leif]

Nefarious!

Also, the chairman of the UCS is a senior staffer for CERN, and the organization itself was founded by MIT and a noble prize winning physicist, among other notable scientists.

Obviously The LHC is another fabricated report by "scientists"!

You talk like "scientists" are incapable of having political opinions and abandoning their professional integrity for those beliefs.

[Beckwin]

like the guys working for exxon?

[Shuvo]

You talk like "scientists" are incapable of having political opinions and abandoning their professional integrity for those beliefs.

You talk like you know better then CERN & noble prize winning scientists. Oh sorry I mean "scientists". Lol.

[Max™]

Water vapor only achieves a greenhouse effect for certain types of heat/radiation/whatever, correct?

In fact, didn't several posters post clarification earlier in the thread? Yep, they did. Restrat and Tristram did, iirc. And of course we're still luckily in a bit of a buffer zone where the oceans can absorb some of the CO2 we pump out, but that won't go on indefinitely, at which point atmospheric CO2 levels will rise even faster.

Indeed, I'm not arguing against the possible effects of this in the near term/long term.

I'm arguing against the manner in which this data was handled, processed, presented, so forth.

Do you think they did negative weighing with the express purpose of an AGW conspiracy? I would think there's probably a pretty good reason for doing what they did.

There's a good reason for reading a thermometer upside down I'm sure... when it's sticking out of someones ass?

I don't know why the fuck they did it, but it's there for us to go "uh... why would you deliberately read data upside down?"

Drop your scientist delusions and realize that these people have probably thought it through in ways that you haven't. You're making very base level criticisms by pointing at graphs and saying HAY LOOK TEHRE IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE TO ME MUST BE LYING.

I'm not a climate scientist, I know, but don't make me science your ass back into the stone age! Seriously, it doesn't matter how they think it through if they don't show their work.

I had a teacher who was pissed at me because when she started trying to teach us algebra, I'd throw numbers at the problem in my head until I got one that fit, and write it down. I didn't see what was wrong til she explained I had to show my work, that THAT was doing algebra, not just showing a solution.


You can find some of their stuff if you look for it, I've been sifting through the stuff that Mann and the folks at realclimate.org used.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/index.html (site down)

Spoiler: show

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate...an.60s.60n.gif

Some fairly raw data.


http://icoads.noaa.gov/rt.html

1800's records on data points, NOT temperature, just showing how many samples they received to base their information on.

Spoiler: show

http://icoads.noaa.gov/images/r1c_beta_fig1.gif
http://icoads.noaa.gov/images/r1c_beta_fig2.gif

1900~1949

Spoiler: show

http://icoads.noaa.gov/images/r1c_beta_fig4b.gif

Not having any luck finding the 1950~present ones.

http://icoads.noaa.gov/r1a.html
http://icoads.noaa.gov/r1b.html


Ah, found something here, let's see what it is: http://icoads.noaa.gov/r2.5.html

1930~2007

Spoiler: show

1930~49
http://icoads.noaa.gov/images/r2.5_fig2b5.gif
1950~1970
http://icoads.noaa.gov/images/r2.5_fig2b6.gif

1970~1989


http://icoads.noaa.gov/images/r2.5_fig2b7.gif
99~07

http://icoads.noaa.gov/images/r2.5_fig2b8.gif

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/pro...p/ann_wld.html

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/pro...fig/an_wld.gif

http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_des..._trend_map_tmt

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.png

Mmm, datalicious.


That's enough for now.


I mean, I can see how you could hunt around and pick things to put into models to produce a specific outcome.

I can also see how you could present data honestly, have any of you guys seen this stuff? Do you know where to get more of it? It can take some digging to find, lemme tell ya, and there are lots of "if you wanna see where we got the info for our models, download the model, dumbass" type references... which is uh, unhelpful?

[Howard Roark]

how is it that lief manages to say his argument much better without images he googled?

[Max™]

Incidentally, those weren't googled...

They were the results of digging through the climatereport.org site, looking for their sources, and digging through those sites.


My argument involves the ridiculous lengths you have to take to find the information these models are based on, the manner they are presented in, the assumptions used when putting information into the models, the liberties taken when interpreting the results, etc.

[orson]

I love how everyone paints this picture of the ever caring environmentalists that just want to save the planet. Al Gore has made millions of dollars off of his green investments. Many many companies also use this "green" bullshit as marketing and a way to create money for their new products. Not only that but cap and trade is literally a way of socializing world business basically allowing environmental and green companies to legally take money from any type of business that puts out a carbon footprint.

To sit there and believe that people aren't using global warming as an avenue to make huge amounts of money is ludicrous. Yes this is a chicken or egg scenario but it also shows a great deal of reason as to why scientists are just as likely to be coerced by environmentalist groups seeking to make profit as there is of someone like ExxonMobil to do the same. This pretend altruistic people all the while spouting their green agenda like a damn religion is very often a facade to simply promote their own business and political needs.

Ultimately there are people who are hardcore that truly believe humans shouldn't be negatively impacting the planet and nature in anyway but these people even if not self admitting almost act against the human race. Environmentalists are responsible for things like banning the use of DDT which was the greatest weapon against malaria in Africa which kills roughly 1-3 million people a year. Why did they ban it? Oh sure DDT in large amounts was a carcinogen but the main reason they stopped use was to protect birds. That's the thing about true environmentalism though even in their science they are usually more concerned about maintaining a low impact on every else and perceive humans as a problem.

Sure there are plenty of of industries like the automobile industry and tobacco that cause far more deaths a year than something like aforementioned but that's a choice. You can choose not to drive or smoke. Most environmental agendas are a constant barrage of threats of destruction and devastation, see the prediction of ice age in the 1970s, the hole in the ozone layer 1980s, oil and coal stocks running out 1990s, and global warming 2000s. All of these spurred mainly by environmentalism were issues that professed doom and gloom for the planet and human race if we did not immediately change our terrible ways. Environmentalism never allows for choice just varying degrees of how far they can get you to go back to mud farming.

[Shuvo]

I love how everyone paints this picture of the ever caring environmentalists that just want to save the planet. Al Gore has made billions of dollars off of his green investments. Many many companies also use this "green" bullshit as marketing and a way to create money for their new products. Not only that but cap and trade is literally a way of socializing world business basically allowing environmental and green companies to legally take money from any type of business that puts out a carbon footprint.

To sit there and believe that people aren't using global warming as an avenue to make huge amounts of money is ludicrous. Yes this is a chicken or egg scenario but it also shows a great deal of reason as to why scientists are just as likely to be coerced by environmentalist groups seeking to make profit as there is of someone like ExxonMobil to do the same. This pretend altruistic people all the while spouting their green agenda like a damn religion is very often a facade to simply promote their own business and political needs.

Ultimately there are people who are hardcore that truly believe humans shouldn't be negatively impacting the planet and nature in anyway but these people even if not self admitting almost act against the human race. Environmentalists are responsible for things like banning the use of DDT which was the greatest weapon against malaria in Africa which kills roughly 1-3 million people a year. Why did they ban it? Oh sure DDT in large amounts was a carcinogen but the main reason they stopped use was to protect birds. That's the thing about true environmentalism though even in their science they are usually more concerned about maintaining a low impact on every else and perceive humans as a problem.

I agree on the 3rd part of what you said - environmentalists often put the wildlife above humans. And even the environment itself sometime, nuclear power is a good example of this - where they protest CO2 emissions but then protest nuclear power which is the only feasible alternative with a negligible carbon footprint.

But the part about Al Gore was pretty ridiculous, in fact I saw a video of some congresswoman saying the same thing to him. He slapped her down silly by pointing out that all of his profits would go right back into more green projects (and she STFU'd straight away). And as for the other part, a lot of companies try to boost their reputation by labelling themselves as green sure...but.. I don't see anything wrong with this. What's wrong with profiting from being green? I can't think of a reason.