The truth of Global Warming

[Deuce]

Why do they manipulate instead of fixing the problems with the raw data?

They have to manipulate it because the warming actually happening is so small no one would care. Who knows we may actually be cooling but with data manipulation who would know?

Uhh, dude, that "manipulation" you're talking about IS fixing the problems with the raw data. Make up your mind!

 

[ptif219]

Uhh, dude, that "manipulation" you're talking about IS fixing the problems with the raw data. Make up your mind!

No the manipulation is making sure you can't use the raw data.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Of course, 99.9% of the time they're either repeating the same conspiracy theories they can't substantiate, repeating long-since-debunked arguments, or failing to understand the difference between news articles and science journals as a source of information. :shrug:

My god man... No need to lie... Tell the truth : (Say it with me) "I will not read material that might prove the fraud"
I don't care if you intend to live in denial.... but let's not lie about the fact that I've given you book titles and everything...

 

[Deuce]

My god man... No need to lie... Tell the truth : (Say it with me) "I will not read material that might prove the fraud"
I don't care if you intend to live in denial.... but let's not lie about the fact that I've given you book titles and everything...

I only recall one book title, with the relevant quote being a vague conspiracy theory about finding a common enemy. Why don't you relist them again with a synopsis or amazon link or something.

Also, that moon-magnet-man's research would be good.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I only recall one book title, with the relevant quote being a vague conspiracy theory about finding a common enemy. Why don't you relist them again with a synopsis or amazon link or something.

So that you won't bother to go read them again...

Ok... well, I found one copy of the 1960's document online... Report From Iron Mountain
This one has been called a 'hoax'... but given the later documents, it's turned out to be accurate.

The key section you want is section 6 : substitutes for the function of war.
I ENCOURAGE you to read the whole thing... but even for number 6... here's what a Peace based society would look like :
- ONLY artificial insemination to offset the 'eugenic' effect of war (or to stop targeting soldiers who are viewed as better genetic stock)
- militarized work brigades for 'incorrigible' and 'delinquent' individuals..
Theres more too... but I don't want to spoil too much.

The key part in section 6 is of just how important it is to have a replacement for the social enemies that war provides... that if an extra-terrestrial threat arrived, we would stop shooting at each other and start shooting aliens. OTHERWISE, a threat would need to be 'invented'... pollution was discussed, but that it would require time in order for there to be sufficient pollution to really be a far-reaching social issue.

Then in the 1970's, the club of rome comes out with 'limits to growth' where the conclusions are that society must change from a 'growth' society to a 'sustainable' society... and get into the loving depictions of how to pull it off...

Fast forward, 1991, the Club of Rome, 'The first global revolution' also discusses global warming...
Club of Rome: The First Global Revolution

THis has been a PROCESS, the use of 'environmental threats' is only one facet...

Also, that moon-magnet-man's research would be good.

WeatherAction (Piers Corbyn) - Welcome

That's the guy's website... I can't tell you more about that process he uses or anything, because when I came across it, that was the first I had seen.

That this guy can not only forecast the weather, in a general sense, his 'model' actually goes through the highs and lows of climate.

As for how the impacts the charge of data manipulation : The most suspect data is only what's been more recent...

I just saw the appeal in this guy pointing out that the climate operates as a result of cyclical causes and effects... that there's different solar cycles, the 11 year cycle, a 20 year cycle, and somewhere around a hundred year cycle... then there are the lunar cycles and how the moon is located relative to the sun and the earth, and how that shifts the sun's energy in different ways that can be calculated and forecast...

I'm not going to go out on a limb and say this guy IS legit, but I will say his technique is intriguing...

 

[Deuce]

So that you won't bother to go read them again...

Ok... well, I found one copy of the 1960's document online... Report From Iron Mountain
This one has been called a 'hoax'... but given the later documents, it's turned out to be accurate.

Gonna go ahead and stop you right there, because I think you missed something. The title.

The Report From Iron Mountain

A Satirical Indictment of RANDthink
by Leonard Lewin

Then in the 1970's, the club of rome comes out with 'limits to growth' where the conclusions are that society must change from a 'growth' society to a 'sustainable' society... and get into the loving depictions of how to pull it off...

If you've got a link to this one too, that'd be cool, but on the face it sounds, well, reasonable. Does the Earth have infinite capacity? No. Therefore, growth cannot be infinitely sustained, right?
Also, the Club of Rome didn't write Limits to Growth. It was a study they commissioned. This comes from your next link, page 6.
"The Club was widely criticized for what was seen as advocacy for a zero-growth society. This was never out intention. We fully accepted the pressing need for material growth in the poor countries of the world, but warned readers of the consequences of an unthinking pursuit of growth by the industrialized countries, depletion of the world resource base, deterioration of the environment, and the domination of material values in society."
This isn't sounding as ominous as you make it out to be.

Fast forward, 1991, the Club of Rome, 'The first global revolution' also discusses global warming...
Club of Rome: The First Global Revolution

THis has been a PROCESS, the use of 'environmental threats' is only one facet...

So how many climatologists are members of this Club of Rome?

WeatherAction (Piers Corbyn) - Welcome

That's the guy's website... I can't tell you more about that process he uses or anything, because when I came across it, that was the first I had seen.

That this guy can not only forecast the weather, in a general sense, his 'model' actually goes through the highs and lows of climate.

As for how the impacts the charge of data manipulation : The most suspect data is only what's been more recent...

I just saw the appeal in this guy pointing out that the climate operates as a result of cyclical causes and effects... that there's different solar cycles, the 11 year cycle, a 20 year cycle, and somewhere around a hundred year cycle... then there are the lunar cycles and how the moon is located relative to the sun and the earth, and how that shifts the sun's energy in different ways that can be calculated and forecast...

I'm not going to go out on a limb and say this guy IS legit, but I will say his technique is intriguing...

Eh, this particular theory might be interesting if he publishes a paper on it, but the rest of his website seems very typical of climate skepticism. Blanket accusations of what "the scientists" "never consider," like the historical lag of CO2 vs. temperature. Never considered? Really? This guy acts like a scientist, but if that really is his opinion then he is horribly ignorant of his subject. He seems to have a theory of how magnetic fields affect temperature instead of total solar irradiance, but doesn't have any information on his website about how that mechanism works.

He talks about the 22-year solar cycle, but temperature has been rising for longer than 22 years. Where is the corresponding correlation with magnetic fields over a longer timeframe? Has the sun's magnetic field been changing over the last 50 years? I don't think we even have the data to know that, we haven't been able to directly monitor that for very long.

He even makes the laughably hypocritical accusation of attacking the messenger, while simultaneously calling AGW proponents "pseudo-scientists."

I don't know. The language he uses sounds like every other skeptic I've talked to. I'll need to see some actual data before he's really worth paying attention to. Like I said, neat theory, needs supporting data.

re: climate data
Even if "only the recent data" were under criticism (and I've never actually heard a skeptic say it was only the recent data), it would still blow his correlation over that last 20 years or so.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Gonna go ahead and stop you right there, because I think you missed something. The title.

I know, It's a "hoax". Read the chapter, and keep the suggestions in that chapter in mind as you read the rest of them, because they ALL say the EXACT SAME...

If you've got a link to this one too, that'd be cool, but on the face it sounds, well, reasonable. Does the Earth have infinite capacity? No. Therefore, growth cannot be infinitely sustained, right?
Also, the Club of Rome didn't write Limits to Growth. It was a study they commissioned. This comes from your next link, page 6.
"The Club was widely criticized for what was seen as advocacy for a zero-growth society. This was never out intention. We fully accepted the pressing need for material growth in the poor countries of the world, but warned readers of the consequences of an unthinking pursuit of growth by the industrialized countries, depletion of the world resource base, deterioration of the environment, and the domination of material values in society."
This isn't sounding as ominous as you make it out to be.

SUre, it's all made to sound 'reasonable'... this would require a fundamental alteration of the human condition though. Keep reading though... These are THE main planning documents in terms of how the AGW agenda became as it is.

So how many climatologists are members of this Club of Rome?

You mean how many climatologists are under Club of Rome members payroll??

I would say all of them... how many are 'corrupt' ?? Probably not a majority...

Eh, this particular theory might be interesting if he publishes a paper on it, but the rest of his website seems very typical of climate skepticism. Blanket accusations of what "the scientists" "never consider," like the historical lag of CO2 vs. temperature. Never considered? Really? This guy acts like a scientist, but if that really is his opinion then he is horribly ignorant of his subject. He seems to have a theory of how magnetic fields affect temperature instead of total solar irradiance, but doesn't have any information on his website about how that mechanism works.

He talks about the 22-year solar cycle, but temperature has been rising for longer than 22 years. Where is the corresponding correlation with magnetic fields over a longer timeframe? Has the sun's magnetic field been changing over the last 50 years? I don't think we even have the data to know that, we haven't been able to directly monitor that for very long.

He even makes the laughably hypocritical accusation of attacking the messenger, while simultaneously calling AGW proponents "pseudo-scientists."

I don't know. The language he uses sounds like every other skeptic I've talked to. I'll need to see some actual data before he's really worth paying attention to. Like I said, neat theory, needs supporting data.

That's why it's just presented as is... he does have a page dedicated to the accuracy of his forecasts... but I agree that's not the same as a published article.

re: climate data
Even if "only the recent data" were under criticism (and I've never actually heard a skeptic say it was only the recent data), it would still blow his correlation over that last 20 years or so.

I'd also have to look over his work... 20-30 years... and it also depends if he's predicting overall climate, or if he's cabableof more region specific predictions. That I'm not sure. The past 20-30 years in particular are called to great scrutiny because that's the area where it's been admitted to have performed the 'tricks' on the data... at least with the CRU.

 

[Deuce]

I'd also have to look over his work... 20-30 years... and it also depends if he's predicting overall climate, or if he's cabableof more region specific predictions. That I'm not sure. The past 20-30 years in particular are called to great scrutiny because that's the area where it's been admitted to have performed the 'tricks' on the data... at least with the CRU.

That wasn't what the trick was referring to, and that's not what the decline was.

The infamous trick that hid the decline was referring to tree rings. Tree ring temperature proxies track well with the instrumental record and with other paleoclimate temperature proxies.... except after about 1960 in the northern lattitudes. At that point, tree rings temperature proxies diverge from the known temperature record, showing a decline in temperature where the instrumental record shows an increase. This is the "decline" that was being "hidden" via a "trick." (which was splicing in the instrumental temperatures in place of the bad tree-ring data)

The data after 1960 was flawed, and provably so, so they tossed it. They didn't even really "hide" the issue either, as the divergence problem is discussed in several published papers. Hell, a lot of the climategate accusations of sneakiness were things that have always been public, like Trenberth's statement that we "can't account for the lack of warming." He published that concern. (and other scientists responded to that email saying they disagreed, so clearly Trenberth was giving his own opinion, not that of the CRU) Other scientists published how they calculated the discrepancy. Some conspiracy. I know if I were committing some sort of fraud, I wouldn't publish that in a peer-reviewed journal and put it up on the internet. So the media and blogs didn't talk about this much... that's hardly the fault of the scientists. "Scientists found some bad data, tossed it, did some research to figure out why the data was bad. They think it's ozone depletion or acid rain" is boring. "FRAAAAAUD" is exciting!

Tree rings. That's the scope of the climategate accusations. Tree rings. Don't like tree rings? There's several other proxy methods, take your pick. They all show pretty much the same thing.

 

[Ikari]

No the manipulation is making sure you can't use the raw data.

No offense, but the vast majority of you wouldn't know what to do with the raw data. Data processing is nothing new to science, we have to do it in order to separate out errors and measurements and isolate variables which can cause change. The majority of people can look at a list of numbers and not know what conclusion to draw from it. It's because they are not trained the way scientists are trained to handle numbers, isolate variables, understand the dynamics of systems, remove systematic error, etc. When it comes to science and data, just listen to the scientists. We've spent a good portion of our lives figuring out how to proper take, handle, and interpret data.

 

[ptif219]

No offense, but the vast majority of you wouldn't know what to do with the raw data. Data processing is nothing new to science, we have to do it in order to separate out errors and measurements and isolate variables which can cause change. The majority of people can look at a list of numbers and not know what conclusion to draw from it. It's because they are not trained the way scientists are trained to handle numbers, isolate variables, understand the dynamics of systems, remove systematic error, etc. When it comes to science and data, just listen to the scientists. We've spent a good portion of our lives figuring out how to proper take, handle, and interpret data.

Wrong they put equipment in places to get false readings and then say they have to manipulate it. This is done so they can fudge numbers to get the results they want.

I do not trust scientist that keep getting caught in lies. These scientist have lost their credibility

 

[drz-400]

Wrong they put equipment in places to get false readings and then say they have to manipulate it. This is done so they can fudge numbers to get the results they want.

I do not trust scientist that keep getting caught in lies. These scientist have lost their credibility

I am not sure why such manipulation could not go the other way either. Anyways, how many stations do you think this is done on? There are 6257 stations included in GISS surface temperature analysis. Here is the list if you want to see it:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/station_list.txt

Here is the product of all of those stations:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Here is where you can get all of the data, or even see how they calculate the means:
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data

 

[ptif219]

I am not sure why such manipulation could not go the other way either. Anyways, how many stations do you think this is done on? There are 6257 stations included in GISS surface temperature analysis. Here is the list if you want to see it:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/station_list.txt

Here is the product of all of those stations:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Here is where you can get all of the data, or even see how they calculate the means:
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data

Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero | Watts Up With That?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Wrong they put equipment in places to get false readings and then say they have to manipulate it. This is done so they can fudge numbers to get the results they want.

I do not trust scientist that keep getting caught in lies. These scientist have lost their credibility

Right. All of the scientific organizations worldwide have lost their credibility. Some guy sitting in his living room and posting on an internet forum under a made up name is much more credible. Then, of course, there are the other unimpeachable sources, such as Glenn Beck, (PhD), and Sean Hannity (PhD). All very credible.

 

[ptif219]

Right. All of the scientific organizations worldwide have lost their credibility. Some guy sitting in his living room and posting on an internet forum under a made up name is much more credible. Then, of course, there are the other unimpeachable sources, such as Glenn Beck, (PhD), and Sean Hannity (PhD). All very credible.

The lies from the IPCC and GISS keep coming

 

[Catawba]

Right. All of the scientific organizations worldwide have lost their credibility. Some guy sitting in his living room and posting on an internet forum under a made up name is much more credible. Then, of course, there are the other unimpeachable sources, such as Glenn Beck, (PhD), and Sean Hannity (PhD). All very credible.

Certainly, who would possibly believe all the world's scientific academies? Who are they to provide scientific data and analysis? One of the world's leading climate research centers said in November,

"Evidence of man-made warming has increased in the past year."

"The UK's Met Office Hadley Center says data from a range of climate indicators continues to make an "overwhelming" case for long-term man-made global warming.

"It is clear from the observational evidence across a wide range of indicators that the world is warming," Matt Palmer, an oceans expert at the Met Office, said in a statement.

"As well as a clear increase in air temperature observed above both the land and sea we see observations which are all consistent with increasing greenhouse gases."
Case for man-made warming increased in 2010, scientists say - CNN

Who you gonna believe, all of the world's scientific academies, or the popular right wing bloggers and TV pundits who make their living telling people what they want to hear?
Any reasoning person would have to go with the bloggers because if the scientists are right its just too scary to think about.

 

[Ikari]

Wrong they put equipment in places to get false readings and then say they have to manipulate it. This is done so they can fudge numbers to get the results they want.

I do not trust scientist that keep getting caught in lies. These scientist have lost their credibility

You can not trust any scientist you want. But in the end if we're talking about data processing and interpretation if I'm left between you and a bunch of scientists; I'm going with the scientists. They're intelligent and trained for this very thing.

 

[Deuce]

You can not trust any scientist you want. But in the end if we're talking about data processing and interpretation if I'm left between you and a bunch of scientists; I'm going with the scientists. They're intelligent and trained for this very thing.

Right. I mean, people can argue about how large or small an impact the greenhouse effect might have, but this is clearly a situation where people will sieze upon anything that could be remotely construed as supporting their argument and just assume that it's true. Anything that contradicts the view is simply part of the big conspiracy and should be immediately dismissed. You could list the huge number of organizations supporting the theory and some people would just conclude that the conspiracy is bigger than they thought.

edit: And calculating the impact of the greenhouse effect, by the way, also something that should be left to scientists. It would be arrogant of me to assume I just know better.

 

[ptif219]

Certainly, who would possibly believe all the world's scientific academies? Who are they to provide scientific data and analysis? One of the world's leading climate research centers said in November,

"Evidence of man-made warming has increased in the past year."

"The UK's Met Office Hadley Center says data from a range of climate indicators continues to make an "overwhelming" case for long-term man-made global warming.

"It is clear from the observational evidence across a wide range of indicators that the world is warming," Matt Palmer, an oceans expert at the Met Office, said in a statement.

"As well as a clear increase in air temperature observed above both the land and sea we see observations which are all consistent with increasing greenhouse gases."
Case for man-made warming increased in 2010, scientists say - CNN

Who you gonna believe, all of the world's scientific academies, or the popular right wing bloggers and TV pundits who make their living telling people what they want to hear?
Any reasoning person would have to go with the bloggers because if the scientists are right its just too scary to think about.

With all the lies they keep getting caught in why would anyone believe these scientist organizations

 

[ptif219]

You can not trust any scientist you want. But in the end if we're talking about data processing and interpretation if I'm left between you and a bunch of scientists; I'm going with the scientists. They're intelligent and trained for this very thing.

They keep getting caught lying

 

[Catawba]

With all the lies they keep getting caught in why would anyone believe these scientist organizations

There have been no lies proven to change the huge scientific consensus regarding AGW. Not any of the major science academies have changed their positions.

 

[Dittohead not!]

They keep getting caught lying

Thank you for having proven my sig line once again.

 

[Guy Incognito]

There have been no lies proven to change the huge scientific consensus regarding AGW.

How can this be taken seriously when there is no scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming? The consensus is regarding anthropogenic global climate change.

When you use incorrect descriptors how can you be surprised when people say you are wrong?

 

[ptif219]

There have been no lies proven to change the huge scientific consensus regarding AGW. Not any of the major science academies have changed their positions.

So it is ok for scientist to lie? Their credibility is still good? I think not

 

[Dittohead not!]

How can this be taken seriously when there is no scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming? The consensus is regarding anthropogenic global climate change.

When you use incorrect descriptors how can you be surprised when people say you are wrong?

What Is Climate Change?

Global climate change is caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere. The global concentration of these gases is increasing, mainly due to human activities, such as the combustion of fossil fuels (which release carbon dioxide) and deforestation (because forests remove carbon from the atmosphere). The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, has increased by 30 percent since preindustrial times.

Projections of future climate change are derived from global climate model or general circulation model (GCM) experiments. Climatologists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) review the results of these experiments for global and regional assessments. It is estimated that global mean surface temperature will rise by 1.5° to 3.5° C by 2100. This rate of warming is significant. Large changes in precipitation, both increases and decreases, are forecast, largely in the tropics.

Climate change is caused by in increase in average temperature, i.e., global warming.

There is no nice, even warming of every part of Earth. There is an increase of average temperature that affects different parts of the globe in different ways, that is to say, climate change.

 

[Renae]

What's funny is those folks pushing the AGW Science claim those science institutions and the like are purely driven for the TRUTH.

Those that have even the most loose ties to any oil money are tainted by greed...

And then claim money isn't a factor when confronted with the TRUTH that Gov't spending on research for climate is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Oil/gas money? Couple of hundred million over the last 5-10 years.