Climate Change!

[idscience]

Some of the data has been lost over the years? destroyed you mean. pulically available? FReedom of information requests went ignored for years. The system is so corrupt it isn't funny. Every body knows it now and that is why no one cares anymore.

Total brain wash. Buddy says the 99% of the American pulic want climate justice. What a hoot. They don't care. The teenagers do. I have a video of them caring below.

Lauding "Collapse of Global Warming Movement," Sen. Inhofe Tells U.N. Summit "You Are Being Ignored"
"While no members of the U.S. Congress attended the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma recorded a video message that was aired at a press conference of climate change deniers here at the summit on Wednesday. "Tossing out any remote possibility of a U.N. global warming treaty is one of the most important things we can do for the economy," Sen. Inhofe said. "I’m making this announcement from Washington, D.C., where I am confident that the only person left talking about global warming is me. The message from the Washington to the U.N. delegates in South Africa is this, this week, could not be any clearer: you are being ignored."
Watch the video.

Climate Computer Models Are Proven Wrong
Friends of Science |
Here are some pretty charts!

Oh yeh, It's us!
Global Warming: Scientists' Best Predictions May Be Wrong
"The study, which was published online July 13, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.
"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."
During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.
In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years."

Earth could be entering global cooling for the next 30 years
Earth could be entering global cooling for the next 30 years

Since your so impressed with peer review how about this guy?
Earth Is Cooling, Sea Levels Not Rising, Scientists Say
"According to Professor Easterbrook, author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers, the Earth is now in the beginning period of a trend of global cooling."

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
"No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."

NASA, NOAA create global warming trend with cooked data (YOU GUYS AREN'T GOING TO LIKE THIS ONE)http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/nasa-noaa-create-global-warming-trend-with-cooked-data

Bad climate science: IPCC exposed as unreliable reporters

Let me save you the response;

"Typical cherry picking of data. Typical cut and pasting of people who don't know what they are talking about. Climate racists, deniers, need to look at the real science from the professionals appointed by governments to keep us all safe. How can you argue with all the teenagers living in parks and protesting everything. They know what is really going on."

Oh wait, that reminds me of something you may not want to watch.
This is the only reason global warming is even discussed today. If it wasn't for the young passionate, lots of time on their hands, wanting to do something to change the world, wish I actually new anything about science people, this issue would be dead.

Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition - YouTube

CANCUM CLIMATE SUMMET
"Now watch the video from the Cancun climate conference, you’d think some of these folks would be have enough science background (from their work in complex climate issues) to realize what they are signing, but sadly, no.
The attendees were also more than eager to sign a petition to cripple the US economy."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzZ_Zcp4PwY

I am pretty sure I saw some evolutionists there too. Signing Anti-Intelligent Design petitions.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/
"signatures of more than 31,000 American scientists for a petition opposed entirely on scientific grounds published in peer reviewed journals - to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming."

PEER REVIEW PAPERS AND DATA Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

SUMMARY OF PEER REVIEW DATA
Global Warming Petition Project

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

I know, I know, this is all meaningless. 31,000 scientists and the rest of us are all a big conspiracy to promote big oil. The 600 polititions over at the IPCC are right.
There, no need to reply now. cheers,

 

[idscience]

I've been both peer reviewed and a peer reviewer, I think your assessment is flawed. Can you give us both an analysis showing systemic bias in peer review and throw in a few of your personal experiences with peer review.

There really isn't that much controversy. When about 97% of the world's climatologists feel agw is likely real I'm curious how many would have to agree for it to be considered "not particularly controversial".

I know, just like the creationists it has to be absolute 100% unanimity.

You really should get more familiar with the "standard" graphs in this discussion. Not to mention the fact that Rick said explicitly this was from NASA.

There really isn't that much controversy. When about 97% of the world's climatologists feel agw is likely real I'm curious how many would have to agree for it to be considered not particularly controversial

consensus has never been a strong point of science, historically. I would like to know where the urban myth of 97% comes from. Some political organization maybe who counted them? I think 31,000 skeptics is enough not to be dismissed.

I know, just like the creationists it has to be absolute 100% unanimity.

So fakin with a left and comin across with a right are yeh? If that attempted insult was for me, it missed its mark, I'm not a creationist. So, your just generally angry then?

Those uneducated creastionists and climate racists!!! You don't work for the NCSE do ya? They hate us too.

 

[idscience]

I've been both peer reviewed and a peer reviewer, I think your assessment is flawed. Can you give us both an analysis showing systemic bias in peer review and throw in a few of your personal experiences with peer review.

GUARDIAN SPECIAL REPORT ON CENSORSHIP
Part six: Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Climate change science being stifled by NSW Labor bureaucrats
Climate change science being stifled by NSW Labor bureaucrats | thetelegraph.com.au

IPCC CHAIR PHIL JONES
" I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," "keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
"This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature.' Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

MICHAEL MANN:
EMAIL: August 2007. "I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy."
(Doug Keenan is a skeptic and gadfly of the climate-change establishment. Steve McIntyre is the tenacious Canadian ex-mining engineer whose dogged research helped expose flaws in Mr. Mann's "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures.) Wall Street JOurnal
James Delingpole: Climategate 2.0 - WSJ.com


Revealing the 'ol hockey stick fraud Peer Review Style: this is one reason public faith in peer review is gone. http://fakeclimate.com/arquivos/Internacional/RossMcKitrick/Stattered.Consensus.Ch2.pdf

I don't know about you , but I am seeing a pattern here...

Oh look at this,
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows
"The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."
Then you read on and the scientists are still warning it is could happen.
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows | Environment | The Guardian


Here is some great insight into the IPCC

The IPCC, the UK, and Climate Censorship
"In essence, the UK delegation tried to censor the proceedings. The head of the delegation, Sir David King (then Tony Blair’s top science adviser), insisted that two-thirds of the scheduled presenters should not be allowed to speak and proposed his own agenda, comprised of topics he considered more suitable. Warning that the entire British delegation would walk out if his demands weren’t met, King apparently insisted that his atrocious behaviour was supported by the highest levels of the British government.
When the Russians ignored his ultimatum, some members of the UK delegation apparently then behaved like bullies on four separate occasions – interrupting other speakers, talking for far longer than they were supposed to (thus preventing other people from having a turn at the podium), and leaving the room rather than answering questions posed to them.
The text of the press conference is here. It’s worth reading in its entirety. The important takeaway is that this is not how scientists behave.
If real scientists were in charge of the IPCC, would it really have declined to answer those ten questions?
Would real scientists attempt to censor two-thirds of the speakers at an event organized by another country’s national Academy?"
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/16/the-ipcc-the-uk-and-climate-censorship/


GORE AT IT AGAIN: Stirring up trouble
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/07/19/al-gores-shameful-new-campaign/
"In 2006 Pielke helped organize an international workshop on climate change and disasters such as floods and storms. Twenty-four papers were presented at the workshop, spanning a range of analyses and opinions. In the end, after two days of discussion and debate, the participants jointly agreed to a series of consensus statements.
According to these experts, there is currently no evidence that human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are making storms – or floods – worse. Moreover, they think it’s unlikely such evidence will become available in “the near future.”

I know, I know, NONE of this means anything. Its all lies and conspiracies. Its all pseudo-science. Just a lot of noise from the 3% that support big oil and think the earth is a 6,000 year old flat disc.

Call me ignorant, but I see something here. And before you start all the "cut and paste" objections, not everyone follows the links so I like to get share the main points so they don't have to jump all around, and through hoops, like skeptics who try to get papers published.

I await your wisdom!

 

[Greatcloud]

I am strictly a layman but after seeing the first 3 videos I can see the series is very biased. Questions remain and I do not see myself change my mind about AGW and climate change. Rather I see this as an effort to belittle the science I know and love. Which is the converse opinion. AGW is wrong and my sources tell a different story.

Obama is incorrect in his assumption of climate control for our generation. His assumption of being the lead in this endevor is too much for me I will teach my children to listen to both sides of this important debate.





CO2

 

[thaumaturgy]

consensus has never been a strong point of science, historically.

Science is not done by consensus, however, a likely hypothesis that has good support should probably generate a consensus among professionals.

It is an indicator that the people who study this see it as valuable.

Take plate tectonics. There are few "skeptics" on this because the majority of earth scientists feel the science is solid.

I would like to know where the urban myth of 97% comes from.

I suggest first you look up what "urban myth" means.

I'm frankly surprised people who speak so loudly about the topic don't know the pertinent facts of things like this.

The PNAS has a study of thousands of published articles from which they calculated the general consensus HERE. Another study using polling data of professionals in the sciences found a similar value (using completely different methodology) HERE

So fakin with a left and comin across with a right are yeh? If that attempted insult was for me, it missed its mark, I'm not a creationist. So, your just generally angry then?

No, just that Creationists, like most non-science skeptics of agw share similar approaches, one of which is some sort of nebulous demand for "perfect certainty".

Those uneducated creastionists and climate racists!!! You don't work for the NCSE do ya? They hate us too.

What's this about "racists"????

 

[Nabobalis]

How I explain a scientific consensus to people, is to state that is the best position for a lay person to have on a topic of science. Many people won't/don't care enough to learn the theory behind a topic. So a consensus is good for those people to know where things stand at the moment.

 

[idscience]

Consensus is fine if the process isn't corrupted, and this one is. When scientists are coersed, censored or pressured to align themselves with a political ideology the consensus is meaningless. The fraud is evident.
The sad part of this is, when governments have taken all your money to combat this fantasy and nothing happens, there will be those who believe it was they who saved the planet, when nothing was happening anyway.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Consensus is fine if the process isn't corrupted, and this one is.

I'd ask for "evidence" of such a vicious claim, but I'm guessing you don't have any.

When scientists are coersed, censored or pressured to align themselves with a political ideology the consensus is meaningless. The fraud is evident.

What about when the science seems pretty darn solid in the eyes of the professionals who study it?

Personally I'm not a climatologist, but I am a PhD geologist with about 16 years as a professional research chemist. The science seems pretty solid to me, but since I'm not a pro I also rely on seeing what the pros say.

They also seem pretty convinced.

So I'm always curious when someone wants to lambaste science but the only "critique" they can come up with is some nebulous "corruption charge" or some other fluff.

If the science is so bad it requires some conspiracy cabal to "pressure" and "coerce" thousands upon thousands of independent researchers all over the globe I'm curious why it isn't easier for people to simply debunk it quickly.

Also: just as a clue; scientists can be a rather prickly lot. Getting them to simply toe a line usually doesn't work. Just an FYI, I mean, should you ever actually meet a real scientist.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I'd ask for "evidence" of such a vicious claim, but I'm guessing you don't have any.



What about when the science seems pretty darn solid in the eyes of the professionals who study it?

Personally I'm not a climatologist, but I am a PhD geologist with about 16 years as a professional research chemist. The science seems pretty solid to me, but since I'm not a pro I also rely on seeing what the pros say.

They also seem pretty convinced.

So I'm always curious when someone wants to lambaste science but the only "critique" they can come up with is some nebulous "corruption charge" or some other fluff.

If the science is so bad it requires some conspiracy cabal to "pressure" and "coerce" thousands upon thousands of independent researchers all over the globe I'm curious why it isn't easier for people to simply debunk it quickly.

Also: just as a clue; scientists can be a rather prickly lot. Getting them to simply toe a line usually doesn't work. Just an FYI, I mean, should you ever actually meet a real scientist.

Thanks for your input thaumaturgy. It does seem that those who argue most vociferously are most likely the ones who have never stepped into a university science department.

 

[idscience]

I'd ask for "evidence" of such a vicious claim, but I'm guessing you don't have any.



What about when the science seems pretty darn solid in the eyes of the professionals who study it?

Personally I'm not a climatologist, but I am a PhD geologist with about 16 years as a professional research chemist. The science seems pretty solid to me, but since I'm not a pro I also rely on seeing what the pros say.

They also seem pretty convinced.

So I'm always curious when someone wants to lambaste science but the only "critique" they can come up with is some nebulous "corruption charge" or some other fluff.

If the science is so bad it requires some conspiracy cabal to "pressure" and "coerce" thousands upon thousands of independent researchers all over the globe I'm curious why it isn't easier for people to simply debunk it quickly.

Also: just as a clue; scientists can be a rather prickly lot. Getting them to simply toe a line usually doesn't work. Just an FYI, I mean, should you ever actually meet a real scientist.

Are you not reading any of the posts I am making? There are thousand and thousands of scientists to disagree the "science is solid" It does not take a cabal of thousands, just the few who control the gate. Those who are in charge like the IPCC.

FLUFF? you are obviously just going along to get along. The paper on Mann's hockey stick fake was a peer reviewed piece of science that clearly showed the fraud. Nature, did their best to censor it and ended up doing the job.
Funding is another good way to control scientists. In evolution and climate the funding only goes to the political purpose. You are just choosing to close your eyes. The vast majority of the sensor sites were not in the last IPCC report, the computer modeling program would not be released, raw data was destroyed, coercion was evident in the emails between these losers who are supposed to be leaders in their fields. The investigation found many of the papers were not even peer reviewed, they were taking reports from mountain guides to support their cause, and on and on.

If this is the type of "good science" you are talking about my PhD friend, then you are deluding yourself. Did you know that of the 600 scientists who contribute to the IPCC report, non of them have final draft input. The conclusions are all the IPCC politician's.

Well, I guess there is the Ausi's as well who also put out reports. Oh wait, they were caught manipulating their data too. I don't expect you read any of that though.

These people are the same as you I guess. They believe its happening so anything they can do to prove it is ok, because it is happening. Doesn't matter if 31,000 + scientists disagree. They are all a cabal of conspirators, right!

 

[idscience]

Also: just as a clue; scientists can be a rather prickly lot. Getting them to simply toe a line usually doesn't work. Just an FYI, I mean, should you ever actually meet a real scientist.

Most of the scientists I know, usually follow the money. Not prickly, just predictable.

Scientists in hiding | The Spectator

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Most of the scientists I know, usually follow the money. Not prickly, just predictable.

Scientists in hiding | The Spectator

Oh man, you really do have no idea, do you?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Are you not reading any of the posts I am making? There are thousand and thousands of scientists to disagree the "science is solid" It does not take a cabal of thousands, just the few who control the gate. Those who are in charge like the IPCC.

"Thousands and thousands"? Are they all climate scientists? Are even most of them earth scientists?

I read what you post, I have read what countless "skeptoids" post and I also read the science.

The science is far more compelling.

FLUFF? you are obviously just going along to get along.

Yeah. That's it. Or it could be my doctorate in earth science, my year working as an oceanographic lab tech at one of the big players in the climate debate seeing how some of this data is collected, or it could be my decade and a half as a chemist. Nahhh, must be that I'm "going along to get along".

Couldn't possibly be the science. Not at all.

The paper on Mann's hockey stick fake was a peer reviewed piece of science that clearly showed the fraud.

I'm assuming you are referring to McKitrick's paper you linked to earlier? Can you tell me where that was "peer reviewed" at? I see a pdf, but I don't see where it was published at. (I'm assuming "Fakeclimate.com" is not a primary source of peer reviewed literature itself).

But, do please, be careful with words like "Fraud". If you think McKitrick and McIntyre did their principal component analyses correctly (despite not using the standard selection procedures) then finding errors in Mann is not "fraud".

However, from what I've read McIntyre and McKitrick didn't do thier PCA correctly. I'm not enough of a statistician to make the call that clearly. ARE YOU?

Nature, did their best to censor it and ended up doing the job.

So Nature should just publish stuff because you like it? Don't they get to get actual statisticians and climate scientists to judge if their work is "good"?

Funding is another good way to control scientists.

And I bet you know all about that too!

In evolution and climate the funding only goes to the political purpose.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Heard it all before. Hey, why isn't ICR just rippin' through all of the known science?

Well, could be because it does sloppy research that won't result in anything useful in science.

See, science works because....well the scientific findings WORK. Not because someone whined loud enough to get funding.

You are just choosing to close your eyes.

Well, be fair, at least I spent 11 years getting an advanced education in the earth systems and chemistry, spent a year working for a coal company, spent a year working as an oceanographic technician, and invested years as a professional chemist. So if I'm closing my eyes I'm doing it all wrong.

If I wanted to "close my eyes" I'd probably forego all the work of learning how physical science works.

 

[idscience]

findings? your out of you mind. all the scientific work goes into the cauldron called computer modeling, which by the way, thousands and thousands of scientists cannot do, and what pops out? political agenda.

No body is buying it anyway. Just the hippies, polititician's and some others, like Gore. There is a great poster child for global warming... oopos sorry, "climate change", its not warming anymore.

 

[thaumaturgy]

findings? your out of you mind.

Thank you.

all the scientific work goes into the cauldron called computer modeling,

Ummm, not to shock you or anything but "models" are an integral part of science and pretty much have been part of science for a couple hundred years. Computers just make modelling easier.

I do statistical models most of the time. Physical modesl in climate are a bit different, but anyone who kvetches about "modelling" as if it were some sort of gross abrogation of science is really showing how little they understand about science in general.

which by the way, thousands and thousands of scientists cannot do, and what pops out? political agenda.

-yawn- Oh, sorry, were you going to make a salient point here at some juncture?

No body is buying it anyway.

Except most of the world's climatologists and professionals who work in this area. But other than that, no one else.

Just the hippies, polititician's and some others, like Gore.

"Gore"? Oh, I thought you were wanting to talk about the science. If the only people you recognize in the debate are political people, perhaps you should study the topic in a bit more detail.

There's a lot of big scientific minds on this. Going all the way back more than a century to Svante Aarhenius and then up to mid-20th century with Roger Revelle and too many others to list.

 

[idscience]

Thank you.



Ummm, not to shock you or anything but "models" are an integral part of science and pretty much have been part of science for a couple hundred years. Computers just make modelling easier.

I do statistical models most of the time. Physical modesl in climate are a bit different, but anyone who kvetches about "modelling" as if it were some sort of gross abrogation of science is really showing how little they understand about science in general.



-yawn- Oh, sorry, were you going to make a salient point here at some juncture?



Except most of the world's climatologists and professionals who work in this area. But other than that, no one else.



"Gore"? Oh, I thought you were wanting to talk about the science. If the only people you recognize in the debate are political people, perhaps you should study the topic in a bit more detail.

There's a lot of big scientific minds on this. Going all the way back more than a century to Svante Aarhenius and then up to mid-20th century with Roger Revelle and too many others to list.

Nice try, but didn't say that. What I said was, they are easily manipulated as is evident by the climate fake scientists in East Anglia and Australia.
All you dudes seem to be able to keep cherping is anyone who is a skeptic doesn't know science. That's ok.

 

[Elendur]

Nice try, but didn't say that. What I said was, they are easily manipulated as is evident by the climate fake scientists in East Anglia and Australia.
All you dudes seem to be able to keep cherping is anyone who is a skeptic doesn't know science. That's ok.

I recommend reading an article in guardian.co.uk, search on google for science-scepticism-usdomesticpolicy (copied from the end of the adress-bar).

I can link it as soon as I hit 50 posts if you don't find it.

 

[idscience]

Thank you.
There's a lot of big scientific minds on this. Going all the way back more than a century to Svante Aarhenius and then up to mid-20th century with Roger Revelle and too many others to list.

Up until recently, those big mines were warning us about the coming iceage. AAAaaaahahahhaha, Then someone figured out how to make trillions of dollars taxing air.

 

[idscience]

how come you can't delete posts?

 

[idscience]

never mind