Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

[rushmc 18]

I dont think this guys writing stye does a debate any good (just a small few tid bits of info here) but I was taken how the words (insults) and style resemble a few posters who seem to hate conservatives who post here regulary

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/.

More for enjoyment with an edge ok!

Quote

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 26th, 2009



Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.

ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.

Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.

Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.

The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots.

Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve.

For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.

Where they lead, the rest of the world’s politicians will eventually be forced to follow: their appalled electorates will make sure of it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,394]

Still waiting on your links. Do you have anything at all to back up your statements?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Still waiting on your links. Do you have anything at all to back up your statements?

He's wating for the next Glenn Beck or Lush Rimjob "newsflash" for it

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>And I have been prove right now havent I!!

Nope. The facts of AGW still hold:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) We have been increasing its concentration due to our CO2 emissions
3) Increases in CO2 result in more heat retained in the radiative system that is the Earth

Too bad the tropo readings don't support that, huh?

"ignoring the snow and cold and the downward line......hide the decline (hide the decline)"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Still waiting on your links. Do you have anything at all to back up your statements?

You gotta stay on the re-direct dont you

Well, just to help you remember, (for one example) there was this CA Senator that is under investigation for "helping" a certin bank in CA ( get TARP money)that her husband works for and they both own large amounts of stock.

Remember that one??

Anyway, this thread is about your special "scientists" fucking with the data, stoping or infuencing peer reviews, and hiding and withhold reports.

(in case you forgot)



Oh, and can search the "links" if you want but, I got a feeling you know what I am talking about.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Still waiting on your links. Do you have anything at all to back up your statements?

Something else that we will all will be waiting for in the future. And that will be YOU using IPCC and those "scientists" "peer reviewed" "reports" to back up your man made global warming position. (since that is what this thread is about)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>So, proof that the AGW scientists were falsifying data and results
>carries no weight with you.

Correct. Just as proof that deniers are funded by oil companies, have done the same for smoking, have falsified data and have lied about their qualifications carries no weight with you.

Falsified data? What data would that be, Bill? I was unaware that taking the same data and coming up with a different result (a la reconstruction of Mann's hockey stick) was 'falsifying data'.

Or would it be similar to the rebuttal of Briffa, where they showed that ONE TREE skewed the graph?

Or where they show Mann flipped the values of sediment proxies?

Or maybe where a programmer, with access to all the data, all the scientists and all the computer programs couldn't make things match after THREE YEARS of work?

Oh, wait...that last one was CRU - pay no attention to that one.

I always thought the scientific method meant that when the observations didn't match the hypothesis, you changed the hypothesis, not the data.

I guess climatology is exempt from that. Oh, wait - the emails and programs and data already show that, don't they?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Jeffwxyz 0]

Quote

>And I have been prove right now havent I!!

Nope. The facts of AGW still hold:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) We have been increasing its concentration due to our CO2 emissions
3) Increases in CO2 result in more heat retained in the radiative system that is the Earth

>Withheld docs and data, manipulated data and models are now
>proof that this whole scam was never about climate, but rather an
>attempt to force others live as the GW nuts think we should all live.

Funny - when deniers do that you consider them heroes.

Still waiting on those links, BTW. If you want to claim one side "withheld data" it would be nice for you not to do the same thing.

Bill, I have a problem with how you phrased 1-3.

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but saying that alone does not place any value to the magnitude of concentration for it to make a significant difference in temperatures.

2. Yes we may have been increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, but can you be 100% certain that humans are not the only cause of the increase? Are you 100% sure that the rise in temperature is not actually causing the increase of CO2? What is your opinion on the Vostok Ice Core? I constantly see AGW supporters use data that only goes back to 1850. 160 years is not even a blink of the eye when compared to 450k years worth of data from the Vostok ice core.

3. Again this is a relative statement. Of course CO2 increases the amount of heat retained, but how much does the concentration of CO2 contribute to the whole problem? What about the concentration of water vapor? Don't you think that is a more significant contributor?

Why am I against the supporters of CO2 controls? It is because we are up against a very big problem if they manage to impose CO2 controls. This country could be driven deep into poverty if we can no longer emit CO2. If what the supporters say is true about climate change, then maybe their proposed ideas are a good thing. But, they are proposing what will result in huge changes in our lives based on incomplete research, stretched and doctored data, and possibly wrong conclusions. I am 100% behind energy efficiency improvment efforts, but to jump head first into capping CO2 emissions could be suicide.

Look at what is happening right now at the climate summit. China is willing to make a deal limiting CO2 emissions on a per capita basis. Do you think that is fair? They have an advantage because of their population size and the proportion of poor. Poor people naturally do not make as much CO2 as those like us. So because of this, their industries can be less efficient, and emit more CO2 per unit of goods produced than us in the USA.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

2. Yes we may have been increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, but can you be 100% certain that humans are not the only cause of the increase? .

The rate at which humans belch CO2 into the atmosphere corresponds very closely to the measured rise in CO2 content of the atmosphere.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

2. Yes we may have been increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, but can you be 100% certain that humans are not the only cause of the increase? .

The rate at which humans belch CO2 into the atmosphere corresponds very closely to the measured rise in CO2 content of the atmosphere.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

1. Is that coming from the 'consensus', or from someplace we can actually trust the data?

2. Why aren't the tropo satellites showing the warming anymore?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,394]

>Too bad the tropo readings don't support that, huh?

What "that" are you referring to? I listed three basic concepts, not one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Too bad the tropo readings don't support that, huh?

What "that" are you referring to? I listed three basic concepts, not one.

Well far be it from me to claim the vast expertise of the consensus, but I'm pretty sure that tropo satellites aren't used to determine if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or if the concentration of CO2 has increased due to human action.

So, why don't you tell me which 'that' I'm referring to, Bill?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Now they (the CRU) have dumped the data

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

Opening paragraph

Quote

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.

Later in the link

Quote

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.”

Query, isn't the raw data used/needed for peers to do a review?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Something they like to ignore

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

While it still supports AWG, they do admit they ain't got a clue as to what is going on at present

And here is a part I found very interesting

Quote

The global temperature-monitoring network consists of 517 weather stations. But each reading is only a tiny dot on the big world map, and it has to be extrapolated to the entire region with the help of supercomputers. Besides, there are still many blind spots, the largest being the Arctic, where there are only about 20 measuring stations to cover a vast area. Climatologists refer to the problem as the "Arctic hole."

And we know know those supercomputers have had the programs and data "tweaked" to get desired results

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Jeffwxyz 0]

Quote

Quote

2. Yes we may have been increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, but can you be 100% certain that humans are not the only cause of the increase? .

The rate at which humans belch CO2 into the atmosphere corresponds very closely to the measured rise in CO2 content of the atmosphere.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

Please have a look at the published graphs from the Vostok Ice core. It shows that the rate of rise of CO2 concentration has been almost straight up many times in the past.

My question was are you 100% sure? Humans are a contributing factor, but can you be 100% sure that they are the only factor. How about 90% of the rise?

What you may not be considering is how much CO2 is released from volcanic activity and what is released from the oceans.

Further, how much does CO2 really add to the warming problem? Don't you think water vapor is a problem?

[billvon 2,394]

>So, why don't you tell me which 'that' I'm referring to, Bill?

OK, so you feel that tropospheric data disproves the idea that "increases in CO2 result in more heat retained in the radiative system that is the Earth." Perhaps you could explain why you think that satellite data can disprove that basic physical concept (given that it can be demonstrated in a lab.)

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

>So, why don't you tell me which 'that' I'm referring to, Bill?

OK, so you feel that tropospheric data disproves the idea that "increases in CO2 result in more heat retained in the radiative system that is the Earth." Perhaps you could explain why you think that satellite data can disprove that basic physical concept (given that it can be demonstrated in a lab.)

I don't think it "disproves that basic physical concept" as much as it demonstrates the complexity of the earth's system. More CO2 should result in greater heat retention, less polar ice should too (greater dark areas). BUT more particulate pollution in the air results in less solar radiation reaching the ground, replacing dark rainforest/jungle areas with lighter colored cropfields can reduce both absorbtion rates due to color and water vapor levels.

There was a concern a few years ago about the "Brown Cloud" of pollution over the Indian Ocean (mostly from slash & burn agriculture and the two-stroke engines in SE Asia). The worry was that the cloud would reduce the solar energy reaching the water, which would reduce the evaporation levels, which would result in much lower rainfall during the monsoon season in India.

How much of the "Ice Age Fears" from the late 70's/early 80's was a result of air pollution reducing the solar energy that reached the ground?
And how much of the big upsurge in temps was the result of cleaning up the air in the 80's and 90's? (look at the air quality in the LA basin for a dramatic example of this).

I really don't know enough to answer these questions. But I'm a little disturbed that nobody on either side of the AGW debate seems to be giving them any thought.
The AGW crowd is screaming "The sky is falling" and the Antis are "Burying their heads in the sand".

Hopefully the "real" scientists are working to incorporate all the factors into their models.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,394]

>I don't think it "disproves that basic physical concept" as much as it
>demonstrates the complexity of the earth's system.

Agreed. CO2 forcing is just one of many forcings.

> BUT more particulate pollution in the air results in less solar
>radiation reaching the ground

Light colored particulates - agreed. (i.e. high altitude aerosols.)

>How much of the "Ice Age Fears" from the late 70's/early 80's was a
>result of air pollution reducing the solar energy that reached the
>ground?

Well, keep in mind that the only "ice age fears" of the time were media-inspired. There was a single study showing how high altitude aerosols were reducing insolation, and one sentence in the conclusion said that if that continued (i.e. aerosols continued to accumulate) it could result in reduction of global temperatures and growth of glaciers. Most studies indicated that CO2 was the dominant forcing effect, as they do today - and that there was far more evidence for warming.

Then a Newsweek article came out entitled "The Cooling World." They ignored the papers on global warming, and instead singled out that study. Some quotes from the article:

There were "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" leading to"a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."

And the media blitz began. In retrospect, the majority of research was correct; it was only the selective reporting of the media that gave the impression of a new ice age. (After all, "it's cooling down now but is probably going to get warmer in the long run" doesn't sell as many papers as "ICE AGE COMING!")

>But I'm a little disturbed that nobody on either side of the AGW
>debate seems to be giving them any thought.

Don't worry; they are. Most of what the public hears are the deniers and the alarmists, who feel they must push one side of the science to gain political advantage. The scientists actually working on the issue are largely ignoring all the political squabbling.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

2. Yes we may have been increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, but can you be 100% certain that humans are not the only cause of the increase? .

The rate at which humans belch CO2 into the atmosphere corresponds very closely to the measured rise in CO2 content of the atmosphere.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

1. Is that coming from the 'consensus', or from someplace we can actually trust the data?

2. Why aren't the tropo satellites showing the warming anymore?

The amount of human produced CO2 is readily determined from publically available data. There's no dispute about it that I'm aware of. The CO2 content of the atmosphere and its annual change is easy to measure by any competent chemist, there's no dispute about it that I'm aware of.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,394]

>Humans are a contributing factor, but can you be 100% sure that
>they are the only factor. How about 90% of the rise?

They actually contribute far more than 100% of the rise, but the biosphere manages to absorb a big chunk of what we're producing (via the usual processes of photosynthesis, carbonate formation etc.) The remainder accumulates in the atmosphere (and ocean.)

Which means, fortunately, there is a "safe" amount we can emit that will not cause a steady increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>So, why don't you tell me which 'that' I'm referring to, Bill?

OK, so you feel that tropospheric data disproves the idea that "increases in CO2 result in more heat retained in the radiative system that is the Earth." Perhaps you could explain why you think that satellite data can disprove that basic physical concept (given that it can be demonstrated in a lab.)

Ok, so you can't answer why, even with the increasing CO2, the tropo satellite readings are decreasing. Thanks.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

Perhaps one of the people that think GW is bullshit can tell me which one of these is false?
a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing
c) Thermodynamics works
Because unless one of those statements is false, GW must be true.

You live in a village and all you have seen today are white swans, from which you conclude all swans are white. A little rash perhaps, but logical. Now this isn’t yet a convincing theory, so we wander down to the village pond and look for swans. We are not looking for white swans though, we are looking for non-white ones. This assymetry is important, because although more white swans advance our case only a little, a single black swan will kill it stone dead. Because the threat to our theory is so devastating, every time it survives it increases our confidence. If we want to pursuade the world that our theory is correct we want to attack it as often as possible. Ideally we will search high and low for black swans, but fail to find any. We want to test the theory in as many novel ways as possible, and with notoriety others will test it too and they will think differently from us. And so collectively we never prove it, but we do get ever more confident.

All the GW "scientists" ever search for are white swans. From what little I know on the issue, these emails, etc seem to indicate that they are not only looking for only white swans, but killing any black swans and burying them as deep as possible. Anyone searching for swans of a color other than white are criticized and ridiculed.

GW has nothing to do about global warming or climate change, it's about redistribution of wealth. Follow the money.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Black_Swans.jpg/685px-Black_Swans.jpg

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[rehmwa 2]

You are a denier.

I postulate that the existence of non-white swans is a hoax perpetrated by your ilk. You obviously are taking white swans and dying them black, purple and green.

This is very clear, because every black swan I've found was very easy to wash back to white with just a lot of bleach. They can also be plucked and then when put into a cold room with a bed of white feathers, they tend to burrow into the white feathers - clear indication of a wish to be their natural color.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,394]

>Ok, so you can't answer why, even with the increasing CO2, the
>tropo satellite readings are decreasing.

And you apparently don't even understand what I was talking about. Par for the course.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Ok, so you can't answer why, even with the increasing CO2, the
>tropo satellite readings are decreasing.

And you apparently don't even understand what I was talking about. Par for the course.

I understood what you said just fine - I'm not letting you sidetrack the question (par for the course).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706