this article highlights the means by which those that have a stake in believing and spreading the myth that there is NO climate change - especially as a function of human interaction with the environment - will resort to create confusion, conflation and direct deceit in order to prop up a inaccurate reading of scientific research.
people like Andrew Bolt, shout all the time that the science is not conclusive or even convincing, and yet they do so with the non-scientific interpretation of certified information.
there is a point when it no longer becomes incumbent upon those whose have produced the science and shown its validity to have to respond to those who keep demanding more and more evidence, when they themselves are not able to prove that climate change has NOT happened.
Zoolander and J. Klompus - YOU do the work to prove it otherwise - instead of asking everyone else to do your work for you.
It is worth noting that key decisions and orientations on COP15 had already been wrapped up at the World Business Summit on Climate Change (WBSCC) held in May in Copenhagen, six months ahead of COP15.
So there you have it, climate change is a business.
Drudge was running Phil Jones as a misleading headline (as with most of his headlines) in order to stir up the foam-at-the-mouth right wingers. Jones still has his office, he's just stepping aside while a review is conducted.
Zoolander, James Delingpole hardly constitutes "people" beginning to wake up. The guy is a one man air raid siren of anti-climate change gossip.
I meant that people im in regular contact are beginning to question things. I know most people privatly know its all a con, but as they say, truth is only spoken in the shadows.
"The truth of the enviro scam:"
the BBC article shows that this idea that reducing population has few supporters,especially from climate scientists. following its logic, it is the West, and particularly the USA that should reduce, given that people in Africa (and elsewhere) produce almost no carbon effects in comparison. so basically YOUR denial is what is going to effect their lives the most.
"People beginning to waken up:"
the very fact that you rely so heavily on the Daily Telegraph to support your position undercuts and exposes your bias. the Daily Telegraph hasn't been right about anything since Margaret Thatcher.
You know, zooblather, you and klompus and et. al, are just a waste of fucking typing time. I mean, fine, be obsessed by conspiracies all you want, but what the fuck is the use of denigrating people who are essentially trying to be canaries in a coal mine? So they might be wrong: so fucking what? So the world might warm up on its own, without us doing much to accelerate it, or the world might go the other way and freeze up like it's done in the remote past, and that's just as bad; or maybe a huge fucking asteroid will hit us and split this fucking rock into a million pieces (please, let it be true 'cause I can't take much more of this). So if you guys were to live long enough to see this planet become unlivable and it turns out the scientists were right, or if it turns out they weren't cause humans didn't cause the worst of it, natural events did .........so FUCKING what?!? The result is the same and you - if you're still alive - or your descendants are royally screwed either way. What exactly is the purpose of this fucking thread? to make you feel superior to scientists? to put your head in the fucking sand? Please, zoo, why don't you go in a closet and scratch your balls, it will be much more productive (and take klompus and the others with you.) And, oh yea, while we're at it: FUCK THOSE EMAILS, they mean less than mosquito dung in the grand scheme of things.
and while we're at it: fuck Tiger Woods and fuck the couple that crashed the White House event: they mean less than mosquito dung in the grand scheme of things as well.
Calm down, the world is not going to end. You've been listening to the scientists and gov a bit too much.
The point is, given that you have seemed to miss it:
The government are creating all this hysteria about climate change to exert more control over us and to take away our freedoms.
We already know that our gov's are paying billions of our tax money to all sort of questionable schemes, and are going to take thing to the next level with this copenhagen. They have moved all our industries over seas, taken all our jobs and promised to give billions to third world countries on the basis that 'we' have damaged them in the past. Rubbish.
This is all done on the back of 'science' which is far from conclusive.
They are using global warming as a beating stick, and I sense that you are starting to feel it, yet your take your frustration out on the people calling their bluff, not on the government.
The world is not changing, its everything about YOUR life thats changing.
"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.
Another believer incapable of having a reasonable discussion.
No wonder the elites call you all the plebs, your low intelligence and gullability is infinite.
You read too much mass media my friend.
Talk a look at what is happening, the rug has been pulled from under your feet, yet like an abused person, you seek out your opressor for comfort and abuse the voice of reason.
The world is not burning (when the last time your took an unpropagandised look at the world?).
when you come back with a researched topic - sans bullshit UK tabloid crap - then perhaps a reasoned discussion can ensue. but, you've not read the emails, you've read the "analysis" of the emails, i tried reading those emails, and i am stupified, they're boring, obtuse, confusing and so loaded with scientific jargon, i doubt any tool in the UK tabloids, so more interested in stalking royals, would have clue how to wipe their ass, let alone be aware enough to digest science.
my feet are firmly planted, and willing to hear all sides, you my boring little turd, are so far up the deniers colon, you might as well check their arteries for cholesterol blockage - or are you a denier of trans fats too.
Just shoveled another 2 inches of climate change off my driveway. b3dinesutures - you are incapable of having a conversation. On this thread and many others you have time and again shown yourself to be juvenile and overly emotional and I as the one who started this thread would like you to please stop posting to it. Go away.
no. and given your pavlovian proclivities, you should get a clue and realize that people care even less for your opinions than mine, so when you leave, i'll follow.
I'm actualy standing up against the ripping off of an entire generation from a tax on "everything" and your tossing verbal grenades in a war you know nothing about. You add nothing, you think nothing and are probably up from a long night playing video games on your mom's computer. Go to bed, loser.
we don't pay enough taxes. i know more than you think, and you've been spanked by people well more informed than you or i, you read tabloid schlock, unable to decipher on your own, and rely on the world's equivalent of fox news to tell you what to think. i grow weary of this thread, and it's annoying jaunt to the top of the list, every time some "news" hack tells you something you're too stupid to interpret yourself. perhaps the reason you seem so put upon, is because you live in constant fear of things that don't exist, but only in your mind, they have drugs for that.
i don't play video games, i am too busy trying read books, things that outside your ability to comprehend. how about you leave my mom out of any future conversation? don't you have some kids to steal candy from, or some tea parties to attend?
don't it figure, i am arguing with a dead seinfeld character...should have known, arguing with someone so unoriginal, as to spew words and thoughts written by others.
you know what Klompus, i take "some" of what i said about you back. i seem to recall that you made an important point about transportation and local farming, that has made me think a lot about how we move food in this country; i seem to recall it had to do with freight and rail. that point, i thought, was an area where you brought an very intriguing dilemma to light.
I'm actualy standing up against the ripping off of an entire generation from a tax on "everything"
hardly. all you are doing is bringing your CEI/exxon/heartland-funded, anti-science distractions to be an anti-innovative obstructionist. you might stand up for something, but it's definitely not progress, science, innovation, conservation... in fact, all you really seem to do is repeat beck ad nauseum.
a war you know nothing about
jack, as you've got a history of epic science fail, you should really stop being such a hypocrite.
You add nothing
and you do? effing hilarious. hypocrite
you think nothing
again, hilarious.
are probably up from a long night playing video games on your mom's computer.
jacqueline, stop being such a hypocrite.
btw, you might want to learn the difference between weather and climate. unless you enjoy looking like an idiot.
speaking of climate change, looks like 2009 is set to be the 5th warmest year on record...
Look the lone ranger's sidekick dushey mcqueen shows up. I love how you all claim you know the science because thats the popular belief and what you were taught (arguable) in school. Whos the followers? I think you are. Whos the one swallowing what theyre selling, thats right, you two pricks. You cant deny that CO2 is leass than 1 half of 1% of the atmosphere a mere trace gas and yet its causing the planet to warm. Your so fucking stupid as to believe a bold faced lie. You deserve each other. I just want to know, which one of you 2 is on top when your capping and trading with each other.
Face it guys - you bet on the wrong horse. This shit is only just begining, the outrage is going to be huge.
You're fighting like peasants in an alley way over day old fried chicken.
Jack, people will go ahead with the Copenhagen Plan no matter how big of a farce it really is.
The general way both Western and Far Eastern economies grow is by doing something different every 5-10 years. "Keeping things the way things are" and other other conservative mantra that could be said is equivocal to "stagnation."
No economy can "grow" whether it is naturally (loss of capital, disaster, famine, epidemic) or artificially (tradition, refusal, corruption) stagnated.
The entire world over the last 200 years is built off of change-- innovation, invention et cetera.
Others, people like Jack will never change. While most people do not think class or social status is important or relevant in American society, some people have fought really hard to get to where they are.
While we aren't rigid about it, social constructs and class standing is often passed through generations. Much in the same way a "culture of violence" exists in the United States regarding corporal punishment or how aggression escalates easily into physical violence.
Many people are addicted to the "American Way of Life" because they could not easily attain such levels of material wealth and comfort without an addiction to machinery or electrical power.
These kind of people fear that the "educated elite" will come and steal whatever they can from them. And while this was a truth in very old times, it was a truth when less than 10% of the population was literate.
That's not the case anymore. They also need to understand that all government is not evil, that most people will not willing pay for the kind of necessary services government provides and they don't fully grasp how government intervention has positively effected their lives.
I think when it comes to the environment-- those willing to protect the environment should stand back for 5 to 10 years.
I think all environmental laws should be repealed for that time period. All hunting and fishing restrictions should be repealed. I think garbage service should be stopped. Sewers be turned off. Water stop being filtered and treated. Smog devices be removed. Pollution controlled devices disabled.
When the US fills up full of rats, shit, garbage and the air is brown... everyone will appreciate what these "nazi nature greenies" are actually doing.
I love that this thread has deteriorated to a second-grade level. Except that second-graders are more sophisticated with their insults.
Meanwhile the "huge" climate change email "scandal" begins to fade into the background, already being forgotten. Copenhagen goes on as planned. Science is still able to prove that climate change is happening.
And JKlompus, zoolander, and all of their denier friends retreat into the corners of the room, muttering incoherently to themselves.
The following commentary is by Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU).
Puncturing the Climate Balloon
By Dr. Bill Gray
December 8, 2009
Had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events I would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate degradation.
There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO_2 ) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.
Rising levels of CO_2 are not near the threat these alarmists have portrayed them to be. There has yet to be a honest and broad scientific debate on the basic science of CO_2 's influence on global temperature. The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO_2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.
The last century's global warming of about 1 degree F is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe's deep ocean circulation. These ocean current changes have lead to a small and gradual increase in the globe's temperature. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age and into a generally warmer climate state. This is akin to the warmer global climate of the Medieval Period. We can do nothing but adapt to such long period natural temperature changes.
The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the US and of foreign governments were ever made public.
The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO_2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO_2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate.
The Cap-and-Trade bill presently before Congress, the likely climate agreements coming out of the Copenhagen Conference, and the EPA's just announced decision to treat CO_2 as a pollutant represents a grave threat to the industrial world's continued economic development. We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth. Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country's sovereignty.
Scientists Behaving Badly
A corrupt cabal of global warming alarmists are exposed by a massive document leak.
by Steven F. Hayward
12/14/2009, Volume 015, Issue 13
"As tempting as it is to indulge in Schadenfreude over the richly deserved travails of a gang that has heaped endless calumny on dissenting scientists (NASA's James Hansen, for instance, compared MIT's Richard Lindzen to a tobacco-industry scientist, and Al Gore and countless -others liken skeptics to "Holocaust deniers"), the meaning of the CRU documents should not be misconstrued. The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any foundation. What they reveal is something problematic for the scientific community as a whole, namely, the tendency of scientists to cross the line from being disinterested investigators after the truth to advocates for a preconceived conclusion about the issues at hand. In the understatement of the year, CRU's Phil Jones, one of the principal figures in the controversy, admitted the emails "do not read well."
and;
"In the larger world of climate science, the Climate-gate story is overwhelmingly about one small but very important subfield--paleoclimatology, the effort to reconstruct the earth's climate during the vast sweep of time before humans began measuring and recording observations about the weather. That turns out to be a massively complicated exercise in statistical manipulation of huge amounts of raw data. Because the gap between observation and conclusion in this subfield is so dependent on statistical techniques rather than direct measurement, it was bound to be a matter of intense controversy and deserved the most searching review by outside scientists. It is exactly this kind of review that the CRU insiders acted to prevent or obscure."
and;
"The most devastating document in the CRUtape letters may be not the egregious emails that have drawn most of the public attention but the detailed notes of a CRU programmer, Ian "Harry" Harris, assigned the task of sorting out the handling of the raw data and computer files.... No drug company could get through the FDA approval process with data handling this slapdash, yet the climate policy process contemplates trillions of dollars in costs to economies around the world based partially on this incompetent work. Worse, it suggests the possibility that the CRU circle might not be able to replicate its own findings from scratch, let alone outside reviewers. No wonder Mann keeps issuing new versions of his hockey stick."
And in regards to COP15, lets see what is really in store:
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak:
Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol
"The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations. The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals. The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week."
this i have no problem with.
quarrel with the science, rediscover the importance of peer reviewed materials... of course thats critical when were discussing subjects with such massive impact...
even the standard admits this does not debunk the over arching premise that we are negatively impacting the global climate. What ISNT helpful, is the ridiculous politicization of the issue.
Skeptics of the world... listen to me... you will never be taken seriously by anyone who isnt like minded unless you abandon the ridiculous partisian shit. STOP using words like "mainstream media bias" and "socialists"... quit trying to create massive global conspiracies dependent on unprecedented communication and cooperation amongst "governmental beuacracies"
its completely, and utterly, ridiculous... baseless, and so inherently flawed that i literally stop reading the second i see a single one of those buzz words. Those words are carefully placed to serve particular purposes, and thrown about to rally maniacal little fish to the cause of big fish interested in advancing their own interests.
I agree with you. Whilst none of us are scientists, that does not mean we cannot engage in a philosophical argument around the scientific processes with climate change.
Its a very interesting debate, but too frequently overtaken by hysteria and hyperbole.
Considering Ive been called a neanderthal, denier, "holocaust denier", wing nut, skeptic, heretic, "right winger" lol, Glenn Beck follower - a person I had to look up, I will retain my right to defend myself and insult back. Lletdown I understand your part of this brainwashed generation so its not your fault. Just be thankful people out there are looking out for your interests since you cant. Most of your generation cant get out from behind your ipods to realize your becoming a "sharecropper society" as Warren Buffet puts it:
"This annual royalty paid the world - which would not disappear unless the U.S. massively underconsumed and began to run consistent and large trade surpluses - would undoubtedly produce significant political unrest in the U.S. Americans would still be living very well, indeed better than now because of the growth in our economy. But they would chafe at the idea of perpetually paying tribute to their creditors and owners abroad. A country that is now aspiring to an "Ownership Society" will not find happiness in - and I'll use hyperbole here for emphasis - a "Sharecropper's Society." But that's precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us."
There has been another challenge [by 151 signees] to the UN:
Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations
His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
8 December 2009
Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so"
Prominent Princeton physicist circulates his own petition...but more stonewalling
One APS dissenting member is William Happer, a physicist who runs the Happer Lab at Princeton University. Another is Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. A third is Robert Austin, another Princeton physics professor and head of a biophysics research group.
They've been circulating a letter saying: "By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen... We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done."
Fraction too much fiction in 'climategate'
STEPHAN LEWANDOWSKY
December 5, 2009
Stolen emails do not support wild claims of scientific misconduct.
'Climategate has gone viral on the web, forcing the director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia to step aside pending an investigation. Hacked emails point to leading climate scientists withholding data, subverting the peer-review process, and distorting information. These are stunning accusations of serious misconduct, but are they true?
They are not. Even if we presume that the stolen material is authentic, the notion that climate data is being nefariously withheld is fantastical. Most of the world's climate data, including programming code for climate models, is freely available on the web. Anyone can download it and apply their instantly acquired expertise for the betterment of humanity.
Unfortunately, a small subset of the data is forcibly withheld by governments. For example, the British Met Office pursues legal action if data released for research is passed on to third parties. This policy emerged from an ideology that commercialises any public good, even weather information, and turns it into a ''product''.
What about attempts to interfere with the peer-review process? Some stolen emails reveal anger directed at other researchers, accompanied by the wish that certain papers had not been published. To understand why this is not an attempt to suppress dissent, one must understand the scientific peer-review process.
Having published nearly 100 journal articles, my disk is full of sizzling emails about editors, reviewers, journals, and granting bodies that are about as relevant to science as my gripes during last Friday's pub meet.
In the case of "Climategate", no censorship could have been exercised because the two papers in question made it into the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, arguably the contemporary world's most important document. However, both papers have identifiable flaws (including elementary numerical and statistical errors in one instance), thus retrospectively identifying any endeavour to prevent their publication as quality control rather than censorship.
Finally, what about the infamous use of a "trick" to "hide a decline" in the data? What about the pernicious "fudge factor" in the programming code? Surely those are the smoking guns that close the case against the scientists?
No. If scientists fabricated their data, why is the Arctic melting even faster than they predicted? If scientists fudged their models, why do temperature increases during the past decade conform to predictions?
NASA has just reported the hottest June to October period ever. Download the data and see for yourself. If climate scientists played less than straight, why was Adelaide's 2008 heatwave - by itself a once-in-3000-years event - followed by spring temperatures this year that equalled all previous summer records?
Make no mistake, this is climate change.
If climate scientists invented a trend, why are 400 out of 442 glaciers monitored worldwide retreating at a rapid rate? Why are sea levels rising? If climate scientists cooked the books, why have wind speeds in the southern oceans increased by 20 per cent since 1980? If climate scientists cheated, why is the human toll from civil wars in Africa a function of temperature? Darfur is a climate war, and a recent study showed that every extra degree Celsius in a given year increases the likelihood of civil conflict in Africa by 50 per cent. Best scientific estimates predict an additional human toll of 390,000 in Africa by 2030 because of climate change.
No, the climate scientists did nothing wrong. They just produced amazingly good science on a shoestring budget for the betterment of humanity. Everything we experience today was predicted 10 years ago and could have been ameliorated by heeding scientific advice.
And just because it is an interesting detective story, what about that "decline" that was being "hidden"? Paleoclimatology is a fascinating discipline that provides us with a temperature record dating back millennia by using "proxy" measures, such as the width of tree rings, corals, or ice cores. Proxies are calibrated by correlating them with modern temperature records. More than 1200 such proxy measures exist and, oddly, one of them showed a decline after 1960 while actual temperatures increased. This finding is well-known and cannot be hidden. But it makes no sense to graph the decline because we know what the temperatures were after 1960. So, the "trick" is simply to plot temperature using the best available measure for any given time period; proxies where necessary and measured temperature otherwise. This hides nothing.
Oh, and by the way, within the past few months the missing piece of the puzzle has been found; we now have a reason why those recalcitrant tree rings stopped indicating the temperature from 1960 onward - an effect due to special conditions at that particular altitude. Now the more than 1200 proxy measures confirm that our rapidly changing climate has not been encountered in the past 1000 years.
Beautiful science like this is a human achievement that ranks equal to Beethoven's 9th symphony. Why would anyone forgo that for the hysterical caterwauling surrounding some cherry-picked stolen emails?
Stephan Lewandowsky is Australian professorial fellow in the school of psychology at the University of Western Australia.
The arctic isnt melting. They did skew the data for multiple graphs. It's a little too late for these clowns to circle the wagons now especially STEPHAN LEWANDOWSKY, the cognitive psychologist.
North Pole expedition finds 'ice 100% thicker than expected' - April 28, 2009 - Excerpt: Surprising results - In Canada, "Polar 5", a research aircraft (see 27 hi-res pictures), has ended its recent Arctic expedition today. During the flight, scientists were measuring the ice thickness in regions that have never been overflown before. The result: the sea ice is apparently thicker than the scientists had suspected. Under normal conditions, the ice is formed within two years and ends up being slightly above 2 meters of thickness. "Here, the thickness was as high as four meters," said the spokesperson for the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven. According to the scientists, this conclusion seems to contradict the warming of the ocean water.
Arctic Sea Ice Not Following Consensus
By Jeff Id
The Air Vent, September 18, 2009
From the NSIDC, Sea ice reaches it’s annual minimum extent growing by 370,000 square miles over 2007. An area 1 1/2 times the size of Texas. The recovery is 220,000 sq miles above last year alone yet the NSIDC claims below that the scientists don’t consider this a recovery.
Climate Change Emails Hacked
Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University, quit:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
Particularly to Zoolander and his contention that Tim Flannery was now a climate change skeptic:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/climate-sceptics-and-the-liberals-negotiating-in-bad-faith-20091203-k8pr.html
this article highlights the means by which those that have a stake in believing and spreading the myth that there is NO climate change - especially as a function of human interaction with the environment - will resort to create confusion, conflation and direct deceit in order to prop up a inaccurate reading of scientific research.
people like Andrew Bolt, shout all the time that the science is not conclusive or even convincing, and yet they do so with the non-scientific interpretation of certified information.
there is a point when it no longer becomes incumbent upon those whose have produced the science and shown its validity to have to respond to those who keep demanding more and more evidence, when they themselves are not able to prove that climate change has NOT happened.
Zoolander and J. Klompus - YOU do the work to prove it otherwise - instead of asking everyone else to do your work for you.
randomized,
jones didn't quit, he stepped down during the course of the independent review.
But Jones is no longer in office, that's what I tried to get across.
The truth of the enviro scam:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8392193.stm
They want us all dead.
Therefore all you greenie nuts, show us how much you really 'believe' and go jump off a cliff. Leave the rest of us sane people in peace.
People beginning to waken up:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/
Some coverage about this con is finally turning up in the biased mass media.
It is worth noting that key decisions and orientations on COP15 had already been wrapped up at the World Business Summit on Climate Change (WBSCC) held in May in Copenhagen, six months ahead of COP15.
So there you have it, climate change is a business.
Not to mention them fixing data around policy.
randomized,
Drudge was running Phil Jones as a misleading headline (as with most of his headlines) in order to stir up the foam-at-the-mouth right wingers. Jones still has his office, he's just stepping aside while a review is conducted.
Zoolander, James Delingpole hardly constitutes "people" beginning to wake up. The guy is a one man air raid siren of anti-climate change gossip.
farwest,
I meant that people im in regular contact are beginning to question things. I know most people privatly know its all a con, but as they say, truth is only spoken in the shadows.
Derek
Zoolander - do you even read what you reference??
"The truth of the enviro scam:"
the BBC article shows that this idea that reducing population has few supporters,especially from climate scientists. following its logic, it is the West, and particularly the USA that should reduce, given that people in Africa (and elsewhere) produce almost no carbon effects in comparison. so basically YOUR denial is what is going to effect their lives the most.
"People beginning to waken up:"
the very fact that you rely so heavily on the Daily Telegraph to support your position undercuts and exposes your bias. the Daily Telegraph hasn't been right about anything since Margaret Thatcher.
You know, zooblather, you and klompus and et. al, are just a waste of fucking typing time. I mean, fine, be obsessed by conspiracies all you want, but what the fuck is the use of denigrating people who are essentially trying to be canaries in a coal mine? So they might be wrong: so fucking what? So the world might warm up on its own, without us doing much to accelerate it, or the world might go the other way and freeze up like it's done in the remote past, and that's just as bad; or maybe a huge fucking asteroid will hit us and split this fucking rock into a million pieces (please, let it be true 'cause I can't take much more of this). So if you guys were to live long enough to see this planet become unlivable and it turns out the scientists were right, or if it turns out they weren't cause humans didn't cause the worst of it, natural events did .........so FUCKING what?!? The result is the same and you - if you're still alive - or your descendants are royally screwed either way. What exactly is the purpose of this fucking thread? to make you feel superior to scientists? to put your head in the fucking sand? Please, zoo, why don't you go in a closet and scratch your balls, it will be much more productive (and take klompus and the others with you.) And, oh yea, while we're at it: FUCK THOSE EMAILS, they mean less than mosquito dung in the grand scheme of things.
GOD, I am so sick of this shit.
and while we're at it: fuck Tiger Woods and fuck the couple that crashed the White House event: they mean less than mosquito dung in the grand scheme of things as well.
Emilio,
Calm down, the world is not going to end. You've been listening to the scientists and gov a bit too much.
The point is, given that you have seemed to miss it:
The government are creating all this hysteria about climate change to exert more control over us and to take away our freedoms.
We already know that our gov's are paying billions of our tax money to all sort of questionable schemes, and are going to take thing to the next level with this copenhagen. They have moved all our industries over seas, taken all our jobs and promised to give billions to third world countries on the basis that 'we' have damaged them in the past. Rubbish.
This is all done on the back of 'science' which is far from conclusive.
They are using global warming as a beating stick, and I sense that you are starting to feel it, yet your take your frustration out on the people calling their bluff, not on the government.
The world is not changing, its everything about YOUR life thats changing.
This is a race to the bottom.
Derek
The common enemy of humanity is Man
"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/198294-Connecting-the-Dots-Welcome-to-the-House-of-Fun-and-Games-where-Family-Heads-Shoot-to-Kill-and-Hide-the-Decline-of-their-Mask-of-Sanity
What more do people need to seen this con for what it is?
yea, whatever.......methinks i hear the sound of scratching.
I guess someone isnt on board with our alien overlords secret plot to enslave humanity with electric cars and windmills.
Global warming the real agenda:
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/reality/realagenda.html
Do as I say, not as I do:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
I suppose this global warming con was only to keep the plebs in line anyway, it was only ever going to make the elites even richer.
you deniers are an embarrassment to real truth seekers, like birthers, knollers, deathers and truthers.
you really think that on a planet of 7 billion, that 1200 limos is a "real" impact?
that's it zooey destupid, keep focusing on the inconsequential, and let the world burn.
fucking retard.
Another believer incapable of having a reasonable discussion.
No wonder the elites call you all the plebs, your low intelligence and gullability is infinite.
You read too much mass media my friend.
Talk a look at what is happening, the rug has been pulled from under your feet, yet like an abused person, you seek out your opressor for comfort and abuse the voice of reason.
The world is not burning (when the last time your took an unpropagandised look at the world?).
Global Warming is a sham.
when you come back with a researched topic - sans bullshit UK tabloid crap - then perhaps a reasoned discussion can ensue. but, you've not read the emails, you've read the "analysis" of the emails, i tried reading those emails, and i am stupified, they're boring, obtuse, confusing and so loaded with scientific jargon, i doubt any tool in the UK tabloids, so more interested in stalking royals, would have clue how to wipe their ass, let alone be aware enough to digest science.
my feet are firmly planted, and willing to hear all sides, you my boring little turd, are so far up the deniers colon, you might as well check their arteries for cholesterol blockage - or are you a denier of trans fats too.
fucking retard.
Just shoveled another 2 inches of climate change off my driveway. b3dinesutures - you are incapable of having a conversation. On this thread and many others you have time and again shown yourself to be juvenile and overly emotional and I as the one who started this thread would like you to please stop posting to it. Go away.
no. and given your pavlovian proclivities, you should get a clue and realize that people care even less for your opinions than mine, so when you leave, i'll follow.
I'm actualy standing up against the ripping off of an entire generation from a tax on "everything" and your tossing verbal grenades in a war you know nothing about. You add nothing, you think nothing and are probably up from a long night playing video games on your mom's computer. Go to bed, loser.
we don't pay enough taxes. i know more than you think, and you've been spanked by people well more informed than you or i, you read tabloid schlock, unable to decipher on your own, and rely on the world's equivalent of fox news to tell you what to think. i grow weary of this thread, and it's annoying jaunt to the top of the list, every time some "news" hack tells you something you're too stupid to interpret yourself. perhaps the reason you seem so put upon, is because you live in constant fear of things that don't exist, but only in your mind, they have drugs for that.
i don't play video games, i am too busy trying read books, things that outside your ability to comprehend. how about you leave my mom out of any future conversation? don't you have some kids to steal candy from, or some tea parties to attend?
don't it figure, i am arguing with a dead seinfeld character...should have known, arguing with someone so unoriginal, as to spew words and thoughts written by others.
i am sorry.
you know what Klompus, i take "some" of what i said about you back. i seem to recall that you made an important point about transportation and local farming, that has made me think a lot about how we move food in this country; i seem to recall it had to do with freight and rail. that point, i thought, was an area where you brought an very intriguing dilemma to light.
hardly. all you are doing is bringing your CEI/exxon/heartland-funded, anti-science distractions to be an anti-innovative obstructionist. you might stand up for something, but it's definitely not progress, science, innovation, conservation... in fact, all you really seem to do is repeat beck ad nauseum.
a war you know nothing about
jack, as you've got a history of epic science fail, you should really stop being such a hypocrite.
You add nothing
and you do? effing hilarious. hypocrite
you think nothing
again, hilarious.
are probably up from a long night playing video games on your mom's computer.
jacqueline, stop being such a hypocrite.
btw, you might want to learn the difference between weather and climate. unless you enjoy looking like an idiot.
speaking of climate change, looks like 2009 is set to be the 5th warmest year on record...
Look the lone ranger's sidekick dushey mcqueen shows up. I love how you all claim you know the science because thats the popular belief and what you were taught (arguable) in school. Whos the followers? I think you are. Whos the one swallowing what theyre selling, thats right, you two pricks. You cant deny that CO2 is leass than 1 half of 1% of the atmosphere a mere trace gas and yet its causing the planet to warm. Your so fucking stupid as to believe a bold faced lie. You deserve each other. I just want to know, which one of you 2 is on top when your capping and trading with each other.
Face it guys - you bet on the wrong horse. This shit is only just begining, the outrage is going to be huge.
Oh, you guys just give it up.
You're fighting like peasants in an alley way over day old fried chicken.
Jack, people will go ahead with the Copenhagen Plan no matter how big of a farce it really is.
The general way both Western and Far Eastern economies grow is by doing something different every 5-10 years. "Keeping things the way things are" and other other conservative mantra that could be said is equivocal to "stagnation."
No economy can "grow" whether it is naturally (loss of capital, disaster, famine, epidemic) or artificially (tradition, refusal, corruption) stagnated.
The entire world over the last 200 years is built off of change-- innovation, invention et cetera.
Others, people like Jack will never change. While most people do not think class or social status is important or relevant in American society, some people have fought really hard to get to where they are.
While we aren't rigid about it, social constructs and class standing is often passed through generations. Much in the same way a "culture of violence" exists in the United States regarding corporal punishment or how aggression escalates easily into physical violence.
Many people are addicted to the "American Way of Life" because they could not easily attain such levels of material wealth and comfort without an addiction to machinery or electrical power.
These kind of people fear that the "educated elite" will come and steal whatever they can from them. And while this was a truth in very old times, it was a truth when less than 10% of the population was literate.
That's not the case anymore. They also need to understand that all government is not evil, that most people will not willing pay for the kind of necessary services government provides and they don't fully grasp how government intervention has positively effected their lives.
I think when it comes to the environment-- those willing to protect the environment should stand back for 5 to 10 years.
I think all environmental laws should be repealed for that time period. All hunting and fishing restrictions should be repealed. I think garbage service should be stopped. Sewers be turned off. Water stop being filtered and treated. Smog devices be removed. Pollution controlled devices disabled.
When the US fills up full of rats, shit, garbage and the air is brown... everyone will appreciate what these "nazi nature greenies" are actually doing.
um… wow. i might be able to decipher your banal, horribly misspelled rant if you cleaned up the grammar fails, jackie.
btw, who knew you were a homophobic bigot? i guess it makes sense, given your other political views.
faux outrage+CEI funded ‘articles’ != anything huge or important.
do you really expect to get anywhere with your asinine, illogical, freeper-copied drivel.
jack - CO2 levels of the entire atmosphere overall are currently about 0.04%, far below 0.5%.
i'm curious what percentage of CO2 would cause you to think that variations would have an appreciable affect on the climate? 1%, 5%, 20%? why?
let's see klompass and zooey douche-channel are the closeted deniers, so i guess all we need to know who is felching who...
I love that this thread has deteriorated to a second-grade level. Except that second-graders are more sophisticated with their insults.
Meanwhile the "huge" climate change email "scandal" begins to fade into the background, already being forgotten. Copenhagen goes on as planned. Science is still able to prove that climate change is happening.
And JKlompus, zoolander, and all of their denier friends retreat into the corners of the room, muttering incoherently to themselves.
i too love this thread... i hope it continues for several more days at least
The following commentary is by Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU).
Puncturing the Climate Balloon
By Dr. Bill Gray
December 8, 2009
Had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events I would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate degradation.
There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO_2 ) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.
Rising levels of CO_2 are not near the threat these alarmists have portrayed them to be. There has yet to be a honest and broad scientific debate on the basic science of CO_2 's influence on global temperature. The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO_2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.
The last century's global warming of about 1 degree F is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe's deep ocean circulation. These ocean current changes have lead to a small and gradual increase in the globe's temperature. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age and into a generally warmer climate state. This is akin to the warmer global climate of the Medieval Period. We can do nothing but adapt to such long period natural temperature changes.
The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the US and of foreign governments were ever made public.
The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO_2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO_2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate.
The Cap-and-Trade bill presently before Congress, the likely climate agreements coming out of the Copenhagen Conference, and the EPA's just announced decision to treat CO_2 as a pollutant represents a grave threat to the industrial world's continued economic development. We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth. Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country's sovereignty.
ding ding ding ding ding!!!!
scientists!!!!!!!
socialists!!!!!!!!
mainstream media!!!!!!!!
government bureaucrats!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALARMISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
congratulations, every right wing buzz word has successfully be utilized in only 1 sentence. props Dr. Gray... mad props...
lletdownl,
Let me engage your interest:
Scientists Behaving Badly
A corrupt cabal of global warming alarmists are exposed by a massive document leak.
by Steven F. Hayward
12/14/2009, Volume 015, Issue 13
"As tempting as it is to indulge in Schadenfreude over the richly deserved travails of a gang that has heaped endless calumny on dissenting scientists (NASA's James Hansen, for instance, compared MIT's Richard Lindzen to a tobacco-industry scientist, and Al Gore and countless -others liken skeptics to "Holocaust deniers"), the meaning of the CRU documents should not be misconstrued. The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any foundation. What they reveal is something problematic for the scientific community as a whole, namely, the tendency of scientists to cross the line from being disinterested investigators after the truth to advocates for a preconceived conclusion about the issues at hand. In the understatement of the year, CRU's Phil Jones, one of the principal figures in the controversy, admitted the emails "do not read well."
and;
"In the larger world of climate science, the Climate-gate story is overwhelmingly about one small but very important subfield--paleoclimatology, the effort to reconstruct the earth's climate during the vast sweep of time before humans began measuring and recording observations about the weather. That turns out to be a massively complicated exercise in statistical manipulation of huge amounts of raw data. Because the gap between observation and conclusion in this subfield is so dependent on statistical techniques rather than direct measurement, it was bound to be a matter of intense controversy and deserved the most searching review by outside scientists. It is exactly this kind of review that the CRU insiders acted to prevent or obscure."
and;
"The most devastating document in the CRUtape letters may be not the egregious emails that have drawn most of the public attention but the detailed notes of a CRU programmer, Ian "Harry" Harris, assigned the task of sorting out the handling of the raw data and computer files.... No drug company could get through the FDA approval process with data handling this slapdash, yet the climate policy process contemplates trillions of dollars in costs to economies around the world based partially on this incompetent work. Worse, it suggests the possibility that the CRU circle might not be able to replicate its own findings from scratch, let alone outside reviewers. No wonder Mann keeps issuing new versions of his hockey stick."
excerpted from here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp?pg=1
And in regards to COP15, lets see what is really in store:
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak:
Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol
"The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations. The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals. The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week."
Excerpted from here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
this i have no problem with.
quarrel with the science, rediscover the importance of peer reviewed materials... of course thats critical when were discussing subjects with such massive impact...
even the standard admits this does not debunk the over arching premise that we are negatively impacting the global climate. What ISNT helpful, is the ridiculous politicization of the issue.
Skeptics of the world... listen to me... you will never be taken seriously by anyone who isnt like minded unless you abandon the ridiculous partisian shit. STOP using words like "mainstream media bias" and "socialists"... quit trying to create massive global conspiracies dependent on unprecedented communication and cooperation amongst "governmental beuacracies"
its completely, and utterly, ridiculous... baseless, and so inherently flawed that i literally stop reading the second i see a single one of those buzz words. Those words are carefully placed to serve particular purposes, and thrown about to rally maniacal little fish to the cause of big fish interested in advancing their own interests.
lletdownl,
I agree with you. Whilst none of us are scientists, that does not mean we cannot engage in a philosophical argument around the scientific processes with climate change.
Its a very interesting debate, but too frequently overtaken by hysteria and hyperbole.
Considering Ive been called a neanderthal, denier, "holocaust denier", wing nut, skeptic, heretic, "right winger" lol, Glenn Beck follower - a person I had to look up, I will retain my right to defend myself and insult back. Lletdown I understand your part of this brainwashed generation so its not your fault. Just be thankful people out there are looking out for your interests since you cant. Most of your generation cant get out from behind your ipods to realize your becoming a "sharecropper society" as Warren Buffet puts it:
"This annual royalty paid the world - which would not disappear unless the U.S. massively underconsumed and began to run consistent and large trade surpluses - would undoubtedly produce significant political unrest in the U.S. Americans would still be living very well, indeed better than now because of the growth in our economy. But they would chafe at the idea of perpetually paying tribute to their creditors and owners abroad. A country that is now aspiring to an "Ownership Society" will not find happiness in - and I'll use hyperbole here for emphasis - a "Sharecropper's Society." But that's precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us."
Interesting,
There has been another challenge [by 151 signees] to the UN:
Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations
His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
8 December 2009
Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so"
See here for the signees: http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1
And here for the 10 questions and answers: http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=55
Prominent Princeton physicist circulates his own petition...but more stonewalling
One APS dissenting member is William Happer, a physicist who runs the Happer Lab at Princeton University. Another is Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. A third is Robert Austin, another Princeton physics professor and head of a biophysics research group.
They've been circulating a letter saying: "By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen... We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done."
Fraction too much fiction in 'climategate'
STEPHAN LEWANDOWSKY
December 5, 2009
Stolen emails do not support wild claims of scientific misconduct.
'Climategate has gone viral on the web, forcing the director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia to step aside pending an investigation. Hacked emails point to leading climate scientists withholding data, subverting the peer-review process, and distorting information. These are stunning accusations of serious misconduct, but are they true?
They are not. Even if we presume that the stolen material is authentic, the notion that climate data is being nefariously withheld is fantastical. Most of the world's climate data, including programming code for climate models, is freely available on the web. Anyone can download it and apply their instantly acquired expertise for the betterment of humanity.
Unfortunately, a small subset of the data is forcibly withheld by governments. For example, the British Met Office pursues legal action if data released for research is passed on to third parties. This policy emerged from an ideology that commercialises any public good, even weather information, and turns it into a ''product''.
What about attempts to interfere with the peer-review process? Some stolen emails reveal anger directed at other researchers, accompanied by the wish that certain papers had not been published. To understand why this is not an attempt to suppress dissent, one must understand the scientific peer-review process.
Having published nearly 100 journal articles, my disk is full of sizzling emails about editors, reviewers, journals, and granting bodies that are about as relevant to science as my gripes during last Friday's pub meet.
In the case of "Climategate", no censorship could have been exercised because the two papers in question made it into the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, arguably the contemporary world's most important document. However, both papers have identifiable flaws (including elementary numerical and statistical errors in one instance), thus retrospectively identifying any endeavour to prevent their publication as quality control rather than censorship.
Finally, what about the infamous use of a "trick" to "hide a decline" in the data? What about the pernicious "fudge factor" in the programming code? Surely those are the smoking guns that close the case against the scientists?
No. If scientists fabricated their data, why is the Arctic melting even faster than they predicted? If scientists fudged their models, why do temperature increases during the past decade conform to predictions?
NASA has just reported the hottest June to October period ever. Download the data and see for yourself. If climate scientists played less than straight, why was Adelaide's 2008 heatwave - by itself a once-in-3000-years event - followed by spring temperatures this year that equalled all previous summer records?
Make no mistake, this is climate change.
If climate scientists invented a trend, why are 400 out of 442 glaciers monitored worldwide retreating at a rapid rate? Why are sea levels rising? If climate scientists cooked the books, why have wind speeds in the southern oceans increased by 20 per cent since 1980? If climate scientists cheated, why is the human toll from civil wars in Africa a function of temperature? Darfur is a climate war, and a recent study showed that every extra degree Celsius in a given year increases the likelihood of civil conflict in Africa by 50 per cent. Best scientific estimates predict an additional human toll of 390,000 in Africa by 2030 because of climate change.
No, the climate scientists did nothing wrong. They just produced amazingly good science on a shoestring budget for the betterment of humanity. Everything we experience today was predicted 10 years ago and could have been ameliorated by heeding scientific advice.
And just because it is an interesting detective story, what about that "decline" that was being "hidden"? Paleoclimatology is a fascinating discipline that provides us with a temperature record dating back millennia by using "proxy" measures, such as the width of tree rings, corals, or ice cores. Proxies are calibrated by correlating them with modern temperature records. More than 1200 such proxy measures exist and, oddly, one of them showed a decline after 1960 while actual temperatures increased. This finding is well-known and cannot be hidden. But it makes no sense to graph the decline because we know what the temperatures were after 1960. So, the "trick" is simply to plot temperature using the best available measure for any given time period; proxies where necessary and measured temperature otherwise. This hides nothing.
Oh, and by the way, within the past few months the missing piece of the puzzle has been found; we now have a reason why those recalcitrant tree rings stopped indicating the temperature from 1960 onward - an effect due to special conditions at that particular altitude. Now the more than 1200 proxy measures confirm that our rapidly changing climate has not been encountered in the past 1000 years.
Beautiful science like this is a human achievement that ranks equal to Beethoven's 9th symphony. Why would anyone forgo that for the hysterical caterwauling surrounding some cherry-picked stolen emails?
Stephan Lewandowsky is Australian professorial fellow in the school of psychology at the University of Western Australia.
The arctic isnt melting. They did skew the data for multiple graphs. It's a little too late for these clowns to circle the wagons now especially STEPHAN LEWANDOWSKY, the cognitive psychologist.
OK Jack, since you seem to believe you have the knowledge that no one else does - show me where there is proof that the Artic is not melting.
simple request.
North Pole expedition finds 'ice 100% thicker than expected' - April 28, 2009 - Excerpt: Surprising results - In Canada, "Polar 5", a research aircraft (see 27 hi-res pictures), has ended its recent Arctic expedition today. During the flight, scientists were measuring the ice thickness in regions that have never been overflown before. The result: the sea ice is apparently thicker than the scientists had suspected. Under normal conditions, the ice is formed within two years and ends up being slightly above 2 meters of thickness. "Here, the thickness was as high as four meters," said the spokesperson for the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven. According to the scientists, this conclusion seems to contradict the warming of the ocean water.
Arctic Sea Ice Not Following Consensus
By Jeff Id
The Air Vent, September 18, 2009
From the NSIDC, Sea ice reaches it’s annual minimum extent growing by 370,000 square miles over 2007. An area 1 1/2 times the size of Texas. The recovery is 220,000 sq miles above last year alone yet the NSIDC claims below that the scientists don’t consider this a recovery.
"100% thicker than expected" means they predicted it would be x and it ended up being 2x. That's not measuring any kind of change at all.
I'm really only posting here to uncheck the "notify me" box.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.