The REAL global warming

[dcraig1]

It is not a conspiracy view of politics as much as a cynical view by politicians, corporations and the wealthy to take advantage of the situation. The very wealthy will pay more for what is available. Look at the money made by the pharmaceutical companies in their production of vaccines for swine flu. A bit off topic but it is an example.

I wholeheartedly agree that the b***ards cannot be trusted - not even a little bit. It seems to me that very possibly significant action to mitigate climate change will not come until there is real anger amongst the general population. That's usually how these things pan out - when the whole house of cards might come tumbling down the powers that be start doing something.

But to turn rightful distrust of western (and other) governments due to their imperialist wars and many other valid reasons into a rejection of science is just not rational. And to suggest that the science is "cooked" (for which there is no evidence) affords those that some the deniers claim to despise far more more that they actually posses.

Furthermore it should be noted that the likes of Bush and his neocon mates were the most powerful deniers of them all. That, at least, should give pause for thought.

I haven't seen anybody talk about it, but it's very possible that in 10, 15 or 20 years you will see a generation gap and inter generational anger such as never been seen before. Pretty much along the lines of "The science was quite clear, the warnings were quite clear and you did essentially nothing".

 

[maiden22]

Furthermore it should be noted that the likes of Bush and his neocon mates were the most powerful deniers of them all. That, at least, should give pause for thought.

Should we also pause as Bush has, as you previously pointed out in establishing the existence of the "consensus", been on the AGW bandwagon for some time?

Would you, by the same logic, be automatically sceptical of Kyoto because of Enron's seemingly boundless enthusiasm for it?

 

[Splitlink]

This is a phone-in that I listened to, yesterday. It deals with this up to 40 mins elapsed. You press Chapter 1, at the bottom


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p6yn7

 

[zupcon]

The evidence is very clear that the planet is warming. It is in the temperature record. It's that bloody simple.

But is isnt that simple. The accuracy of temperature measurement has improved over time, and therefore we have to "estimate" errors in temperature records derived from 100 years ago. Should those temperatures be adjusted UP or DOWN

Then we have heat island effects, we have temperature measuring stations that where surounded by countryside 100 years ago, that are now surrounded by a trillion tons of concrete and a population of millions pumping out heat using their central heating in winter and air con in summer. This needs to be compensated for, so just how should you reduce those temperature measurements by ?

Add into this sun spot activity, variations due to locality, long term cyclic weather and climate patters and its anything BUT simple. Those simple temperature measurements need to be adjusted (and are adjusted) to takethese factors into account.

Add into this deficincies in models, errors in parameter estimation etc, and it gets complex. Models developed in the 80's and 90's have failed to accurately estimate climate change 5-10 years into the future.

Estimating temperatures from ice cores, foscilised tree rings etc is error prone. Raw data has been conviniently lost or destroyed, estimates have been made for missing records. Conclusion have been drawn by "scientists" with an adgenda who'll sacrifice scientific integrity to prove their misguided beliefs (on both sides of the argument)

Despite all of the above, we have scientists and politicians basing their arguments in support of global warming or global cooling based on a few tenths of a degree. Its insanity, and its far from simple.

We cant actually prove if temperature is increasing or decreasing withing expected parameters. If temperatures are increasing or decreasing, we cant determine if man is actually responsible.

Even if man is responsible, we can only guess at the range of solutions, and many of those solutions will result in financial hardships for some of the poorest people on the planet.

Common sense should tell us that polluting the planet isnt a particularly good idea, but the whole global warming adgenda is simply a con trick. At least people are waking up to this issue and questioning the basic science.

 

[maiden22]

But is isnt that simple. The accuracy of temperature measurement has improved over time, and therefore we have to "estimate" errors in temperature records derived from 100 years ago. Should those temperatures be adjusted UP or DOWN

Then we have heat island effects, we have temperature measuring stations that where surounded by countryside 100 years ago, that are now surrounded by a trillion tons of concrete and a population of millions pumping out heat using their central heating in winter and air con in summer. This needs to be compensated for, so just how should you reduce those temperature measurements by ?

Add into this sun spot activity, variations due to locality, long term cyclic weather and climate patters and its anything BUT simple. Those simple temperature measurements need to be adjusted (and are adjusted) to takethese factors into account.

Add into this deficincies in models, errors in parameter estimation etc, and it gets complex. Models developed in the 80's and 90's have failed to accurately estimate climate change 5-10 years into the future.

Estimating temperatures from ice cores, foscilised tree rings etc is error prone. Raw data has been conviniently lost or destroyed, estimates have been made for missing records. Conclusion have been drawn by "scientists" with an adgenda who'll sacrifice scientific integrity to prove their misguided beliefs (on both sides of the argument)

Despite all of the above, we have scientists and politicians basing their arguments in support of global warming or global cooling based on a few tenths of a degree. Its insanity, and its far from simple.

We cant actually prove if temperature is increasing or decreasing withing expected parameters. If temperatures are increasing or decreasing, we cant determine if man is actually responsible.

Even if man is responsible, we can only guess at the range of solutions, and many of those solutions will result in financial hardships for some of the poorest people on the planet.

Common sense should tell us that polluting the planet isnt a particularly good idea, but the whole global warming adgenda is simply a con trick. At least people are waking up to this issue and questioning the basic science.

Excellent post.

 

[dcraig1]

But is isnt that simple. The accuracy of temperature measurement has improved over time, and therefore we have to "estimate" errors in temperature records derived from 100 years ago. Should those temperatures be adjusted UP or DOWN

Then we have heat island effects, we have temperature measuring stations that where surounded by countryside 100 years ago, that are now surrounded by a trillion tons of concrete and a population of millions pumping out heat using their central heating in winter and air con in summer. This needs to be compensated for, so just how should you reduce those temperature measurements by ?

Add into this sun spot activity, variations due to locality, long term cyclic weather and climate patters and its anything BUT simple. Those simple temperature measurements need to be adjusted (and are adjusted) to takethese factors into account.

Add into this deficincies in models, errors in parameter estimation etc, and it gets complex. Models developed in the 80's and 90's have failed to accurately estimate climate change 5-10 years into the future.

Estimating temperatures from ice cores, foscilised tree rings etc is error prone. Raw data has been conviniently lost or destroyed, estimates have been made for missing records. Conclusion have been drawn by "scientists" with an adgenda who'll sacrifice scientific integrity to prove their misguided beliefs (on both sides of the argument)

Despite all of the above, we have scientists and politicians basing their arguments in support of global warming or global cooling based on a few tenths of a degree. Its insanity, and its far from simple.

We cant actually prove if temperature is increasing or decreasing withing expected parameters. If temperatures are increasing or decreasing, we cant determine if man is actually responsible.

Even if man is responsible, we can only guess at the range of solutions, and many of those solutions will result in financial hardships for some of the poorest people on the planet.

Common sense should tell us that polluting the planet isnt a particularly good idea, but the whole global warming adgenda is simply a con trick. At least people are waking up to this issue and questioning the basic science.

Indeed there is a striking absence of common sense exhibited by some parties. And a feeble clutching at term like "corrections". Corrections to data are made all the time in experimental science for all sorts of reasons ranging from malfunctioning instruments to incorrect experimental procedure, systematic errors and even trivially simple things such as units of measurement and many, many other things. Experimental science always assigns uncertainties to measurement.

Now here is a common sense question that really should be answered - why does no science body or academy of national or international standing dispute the data that the world is warming? Not a one.

So why so you think that bloggers putting together a mismash of alleged reasons for the data to be wrong have got it right? Why do you think that throwing together a few sound bites - almost never accompanied by any actual numbers - in any way compares with years, indeed decades of research by the most qualified people on the planet?

These are very much common sense issues.

 

[dcraig1]

Raw data has been conviniently lost or destroyed

Common then, please tell us what data has been "conviniently" lost or destroyed. What actual substance is there to these accusations?

If you are referring to the original raw data used by CRU it has been neither lost nor destroyed. It is still held by the national meteorological services of something like 150 countries. Anybody has always be free to ask each of these bodies individually for the data. That is what CRU did.

CRU was prevented from redistributing a lot of this data because of the charters of many of the national meteorological services prohibited it. Whether this is right or wrong is another issue, but in general if scientists request data over which others hold intellectual property rights and then start handing it out for free, they are well aware that they not going to get it next time.

CRU has now requested all the national meteorological services to provide this data to be held in a central repository.

Lets repeat the "Common sense" question - what data has been lost or destroyed?

All this stuff about "conveniently" lost data is a beat up of the first order.

 

[zupcon]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

Funnily enough I still have the raw data from my PhD research, and so does the university, and I assure you, the consequences of my research where not particularly serious 🙂
Something tells me that you'll have to get a great deal better at defending this hoax, and that over the coming years, as the hoax unravels, you'll be defending this nonsense on practically a full time basis.

Another convinient truth that I forgot to mention of course are the climate scientists who promote the global warming adgenda, conspiring to ensure that alternative viewpoints are not published in peer reviewed articles or conferences. Now why would they be frightened of their peers being exposed to a different perspective ?

 

[dcraig1]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

What part of the statement "The data has not been lost" do you not understand? It is still held by the various national meteorological services. Is this so very difficult to grasp?

 

[montmorencyt2w]

My this global warming is certainly having an effect down-under:

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/a-snowy-dusting-in-victorias-summer/13262

😆

 

[Black Swan]

What part of the statement "The data has not been lost" do you not understand? It is still held by the various national meteorological services. Is this so very difficult to grasp?

your dismissive and arrogant tone once again reveals your lack of true conviction and perspective...

 

[montmorencyt2w]

....still, if it's unusually cold in the southern hemisphere summer, you'd expect it to balance out by being unusually warm in the northern hemisphere winter.

However....

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2009/12/13/12138496-sun.html

 

[Black Swan]

My this global warming is certainly having an effect down-under:

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/a-snowy-dusting-in-victorias-summer/13262

😆

Unfortunately this plays into the hands of The Believers either way, "warming" was changed to "change" some time back, in anticipation of planet cooling becoming the key issue...

 

[zambuck]

My this global warming is certainly having an effect down-under:

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/a-snowy-dusting-in-victorias-summer/13262

😆

Must be because of that large 'ice island' which broke away from South Pole and is floating northwards towards Aus....!!

 

[dcraig1]

....still, if it's unusually cold in the southern hemisphere summer, you'd expect it to balance out by being unusually warm in the northern hemisphere winter.

However....

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2009/12/13/12138496-sun.html

Never let the facts get in the way of an iceberg:

It's not unusually cold in the southern summer - it's unusually hot. Melbourne had the highest mean max on record for November (by nearly 2C). Darwin had the highest mean max on record for October. Australia had the hottest winter/spring on record. You can look at the temperature maps here:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/temp_maps.cgi?variable=maxanom&area=nat&period=6month&time=latest

 

[dcraig1]

your dismissive and arrogant tone once again reveals your lack of true conviction and perspective...

If we cut out the psycho babble, has data been lost or not? Furthermore is there a conspiracy to suppress climate data or not?

 

[zupcon]

If we cut out the psycho babble, has data been lost or not? Furthermore is there a conspiracy to suppress climate data or not?

Well when a group of scientists decide between themselves to block freedom of information requests for raw data, or to block particular authors with discening views from publishing then technically its a conspiracy.

I have no idea if their motive was petty professional jealousy, bloody mindedness, or a deliberate and sinister attempt to mislead the public, however, a conspiracy occurred.

 

[dcraig1]

Well when a group of scientists decide between themselves to block freedom of information requests for raw data

The editorial in Nature deals with this rather well:

"If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

In other words, the researches were trying to do their real jobs - research into a damned important subject. Which is what they get paid for. It is very easy to understand why they might get frustrated with wasting huge amounts of time responding to what was frequently little more than harassment.

All the raw data is available, the denialists could ask the national meteorological services for it, but that might mean some serious work.

But at least we can thank some denialists for that great contribution to modern science - quote mining emails.

All this stuff is a sort of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" redux:

 

[dcraig1]

block particular authors with discening views from publishing then technically its a conspiracy.

From the same piece in Nature:

"A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers."

So when all is said and done exactly what has been suppressed?

 

[Black Swan]

Copenhagen stalls decision on catastrophic climate change for six years 😆

The key decision on preventing catastrophic climate change will be delayed for up to six years if the Copenhagen summit delivers a compromise deal which ignores advice from the UN’s science body.

World leaders will not agree on the emissions cuts recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and are likely instead to commit to reviewing them in 2015 or 2016

President Obama has offered to cut US emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020

9 Comments
(Displaying 1-9)


mike alker wrote:
It is good to step back and view new evidence.
The science is obviously flawed. I don't wish to go into who it will benefit, but it was obviously some lobbying group or groups. Perhaps when the science get back on track then they may consider having to name interested donators so we can all get a reasonable point of view.
I am embaressed at the fact it was British scientists that corrupted the evidence to promote a political agenda and apologise to the rest of the world. I thought British scientists were at least honest. Obviously I need to rethink my patriotism.
I have rethought the whole thing and read into many other articles and came to the conclusion that i need to know a lot more than I do before I accept more of this global warming non entity.
December 14, 2009 12:38 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (5) Report Abuse
Permalink


Jeff London wrote:
If you were the leader of a developed country, you would want to put off climate change prevention for as long as possible, especially when in an economic recession. Having seen the temperature projections, both if action was taken or not, it is clear that the developed countries will cope better and survive long after the developing countries have perished/suffered the brunt of it. Maybe this is the West's unspoken answer to population growth?
December 14, 2009 12:16 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (2) Report Abuse
Permalink


Fab KD wrote:
@John Andrew

Please, elevate the quality of the comments that we should see in a newspaper as respectable as The Times. Before talking about the CRU emails, read them in full details to see where the so called hoax is. That is, for every of the few out of thousands emails that are being used as evidence, look at what they really mean in the context they were written.

And please, do not use this ice-age prediction made in the 70s. This theory was mostly fuelled by media, represented only the view of a few scientists and was quickly discredited by the scientific community.



December 14, 2009 12:14 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (4) Report Abuse
Permalink


James Mailer wrote:
So actually the arrival of the four horsemen of the apocalypse is at least another few years away?

Comedy GOLD!

Come on everyone, the gig's up. Day after day after day, for about a month now, commentators here have completely shreded the arguments (sorry, "science"!) of the AGW fantasists.

It's time to bring this undignified farce to an end please.
December 13, 2009 11:57 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (12) Report Abuse
Permalink


Joseph Kellie wrote:
We are telling countries that are developing that we have damaged the environment and if you get flooded etc it is our fault. Now funny enough these same countries are demanding compensation. The climate is changing but the evidence it is largly man made is dubious and in question. Peer review needs to be done properly and openly, no more hiding data that may disprove the theory, no more stiffling disenters and above all publish onto the web for all to see.

Many mathematicians are dismayed at the level of inaccuracies and assumptions in the current model.
December 13, 2009 11:36 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (12) Report Abuse
Permalink


John Andrew wrote:
well im happy to say im pleased they stalled on making a final decision!, the evidence is starting to crumble with the emails of many scientists being released, predictions being changed weekly! and of corse the support from many leaders of the "green" movement starting to fade away like Al Gore who praticalyy ivented the whole theory, and of corse the faliure of the US president not turning up until the final day.

well there goes another scam to the history books, just think in thirty years time we will be teaching this stuff in history lessons, well either that or trying to cover it up like that "global ice age" they predicted in the 70's what happend to that, they said that by 2010 we will be in over 100ft of ice! just think if we had acted on that where would be be now?
December 13, 2009 11:21 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (11) Report Abuse
Permalink


Oscar Ernst wrote:
This could be good if by 2016 the review can be made based in scientific research we can trust.
December 13, 2009 11:19 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (11) Report Abuse
Permalink


P V wrote:
Wasn't it Nero who fiddled whilst Rome was burning?
Seems like some things never change.
We'll all be paddling to work in canoes by the time the World leaders agree on anything.
December 13, 2009 11:18 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (3) Report Abuse
Permalink


Stuart David wrote:
Wow, we are told with a straight face that catastrophic climate change can be prevented by politicians.
December 13, 2009 11:14 PM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk Recommend? (14)




Copenhagen stalls decision on catastrophic climate change for six years