Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change

[Dubya]

Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change - http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1763.html
Nature Climate Change(2012)(2012)doi:10.1038/nclimate1763
Received 31 July 2012 Accepted 01 November 2012
[Abstract]
In 1990, climate scientists from around the world wrote the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It contained a prediction of the global mean temperature trend over the 1990–2030 period that, halfway through that period, seems accurate. This is all the more remarkable in hindsight, considering that a number of important external forcings were not included. So how did this success arise? In the end, the greenhouse-gas-induced warming is largely overwhelming the other forcings, which are only of secondary importance on the 20-year timescale.


Professor Frame and Dr. Dáithí Stone, from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, have produced this report comparing predictions from the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report published in 1990, with global climate change data gathered over the past 20 years. Their analysis indicates that the global climate is responding largely as predicted by the first IPCC report, which included a range of predictions for global temperature increase to the year 2030. We are now at the midpoint of that period, and the data shows that the actual global mean surface temperature increase has been between 0.35-0.39 degrees Celsius, which is in reasonable agreement with the 1990 predictions. Professor Frame and Dr. Stone have compared the results from these models against observed changes. From the resulting study, it is highly unlikely that recent changes can be accounted for by natural variability alone.

I'll give a quick opinion on AR5 as it was leaked and I think it's a piece of crap.

We could lose all the arctic sea ice by 2015 and if we really wanted to check the changes, look at the June snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere! If those numbers don't go down and the albedo effect in the Northern Hemisphere doesn't quickly reverse, we're going to have serious problems in the coming years, and I'm not talking about decades away, but like next year or now!

The jet streams aren't going to be like they were in the past and will stall over an area causing exceptional weather patterns.

I think the world is already into serious shit, for lack of a better term.

 

[Trakar]

Trakar posts from a peer reviewed scientific journal, Walleyes posts from a blog of a person that has no connection with any kind of climate research.

So.....peer-review is important?

Yes?

Maybe you should take a gander hence:

Of the 18531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible we found 5587- a full 30%- to be non-peer reviewed. Of the 5587 non-peer citations, a grand total of six, or 0.1 percent, were flagged as such.
Donna Laframboise, "The Delinquent Teenager Who Became The World's Top Climate Expert."

Making an assertion does not qualify that assertion as supported or factual.
Ms. Laframboise pushes a political agenda. I would be willing to look at ms. Laframboise's work and findings if you have a link to such, but anyone who calls an IPCC report the "Climate Bible," has largely excluded themselves from being taken seriously.
I have just acquired a kindle version of her book and wll continue to give it a thorough look through, but despite her assertions to the contrary, the only sources she appears to be using for the vast majority of her otherwise unsupported claims are the disputed, refuted and unsupported claims of other pseudoscience contrarians and their publications. There is no citation of published journal science that I have yet run across that isn't grossly distorted or misrepresented.

 

[Trakar]

- Bishop Hill blog - Another Hockey Stick*broken

A blog post where the author is neither a climate scientist nor a mathematician, and in which the author misstates and obviously misunderstands the words of the paper he is reviewing, is hardly compelling support for your assertions. I am more than open to reviewing any compelling science support you have for your position, but offers such as these discredit your contentions rather than offering them support.

And yet a similar blog DESTROYED GERGIS in other 10 hours.

How would you know? You seem to be under the impression that because you read it on the internet it must be true. ..."Bon Jour," does not a French model make.

 

[westwall]

A blog post where the author is neither a climate scientist nor a mathematician, and in which the author misstates and obviously misunderstands the words of the paper he is reviewing, is hardly compelling support for your assertions. I am more than open to reviewing any compelling science support you have for your position, but offers such as these discredit your contentions rather than offering them support.

And yet a similar blog DESTROYED GERGIS in other 10 hours.

How would you know? You seem to be under the impression that because you read it on the internet it must be true. ..."Bon Jour," does not a French model make.

So, have you allways lived in this land of delusion you call home, or were you sane once upon a time?

Or to put it another way....please give us a link to the Gergis et al paper and let us know when it is going to be published.

Truly, you are priceless. First you find no fault with what's his nose commiting a felony and now you stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" when presented with one of your high priests papers being destroyed by the "chattering class" you so despise.

Sadly for you the chatterer's were correct and your high priest was WRONG!

Must suck to be you.

 

[Ernie S.]

Thankfully science doesn't concern itself with "consensus" which is a purely political term.

Thankfully, science isn't restricted to your distorted understandings of what is and is not within its purview. But then again, given your posts here, I doubt that many would confuse you for someone who understands any aspect of science, mathematics or reality in general.

I find it funny that you, of all people would use the words distorted and understanding in the same sentence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Trakar posts from a peer reviewed scientific journal, Walleyes posts from a blog of a person that has no connection with any kind of climate research.

So.....peer-review is important?

Yes?

Maybe you should take a gander hence:

Of the 18531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible we found 5587- a full 30%- to be non-peer reviewed. Of the 5587 non-peer citations, a grand total of six, or 0.1 percent, were flagged as such.
Donna Laframboise, "The Delinquent Teenager Who Became The World's Top Climate Expert."

Making an assertion does not qualify that assertion as supported or factual.
Ms. Laframboise pushes a political agenda. I would be willing to look at ms. Laframboise's work and findings if you have a link to such, but anyone who calls an IPCC report the "Climate Bible," has largely excluded themselves from being taken seriously.
I have just acquired a kindle version of her book and wll continue to give it a thorough look through, but despite her assertions to the contrary, the only sources she appears to be using for the vast majority of her otherwise unsupported claims are the disputed, refuted and unsupported claims of other pseudoscience contrarians and their publications. There is no citation of published journal science that I have yet run across that isn't grossly distorted or misrepresented.

"Ms. Laframboise pushes a political agenda."

OMG!!!

The winner in the category of "Unintentional Humor"!!!!



A"political agenda?????


What the heck do you think the Global Warming scam is????

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again PC demonstrates the typical "Conservative" disconnect to reality. Global warming is about an Arctic Ice Cap that looks like it may be completely melted for part of the summer by 2015, and almost for sure, by 2020. It is about the Glacier National Park having no glaciers within my lifetime. It is about extreme weather events that have increased by a factor of 3 to 4 in the last forty years. It is about the price of food that is being driven up by these extreme weather events.

And, yes, we will play poltics with this issue. You see, as the consequences of global warimg become ever more apparent, we are going to hang the obstruction of consideration of ameliorating measures around the necks, justly so, of people like yourself. And those you support.

 

[westwall]

Once again PC demonstrates the typical "Conservative" disconnect to reality. Global warming is about an Arctic Ice Cap that looks like it may be completely melted for part of the summer by 2015, and almost for sure, by 2020. It is about the Glacier National Park having no glaciers within my lifetime. It is about extreme weather events that have increased by a factor of 3 to 4 in the last forty years. It is about the price of food that is being driven up by these extreme weather events.

And, yes, we will play poltics with this issue. You see, as the consequences of global warimg become ever more apparent, we are going to hang the obstruction of consideration of ameliorating measures around the necks, justly so, of people like yourself. And those you support.

Well, at least you have finally declared something that is measurable within our lifetimes!

So what are you going to say when 2015 rolls around and the Arctic is the same as today?

And how do you explain the Antarctics continued ice increase in a supposedly ever warming world. The Antarctic should be melting even faster than the Arctic according to you guys so what gives.

 

[Trakar]

So.....peer-review is important?

Yes?

Maybe you should take a gander hence:

Of the 18531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible we found 5587- a full 30%- to be non-peer reviewed. Of the 5587 non-peer citations, a grand total of six, or 0.1 percent, were flagged as such.
Donna Laframboise, "The Delinquent Teenager Who Became The World's Top Climate Expert."

Making an assertion does not qualify that assertion as supported or factual.
Ms. Laframboise pushes a political agenda. I would be willing to look at ms. Laframboise's work and findings if you have a link to such, but anyone who calls an IPCC report the "Climate Bible," has largely excluded themselves from being taken seriously.
I have just acquired a kindle version of her book and wll continue to give it a thorough look through, but despite her assertions to the contrary, the only sources she appears to be using for the vast majority of her otherwise unsupported claims are the disputed, refuted and unsupported claims of other pseudoscience contrarians and their publications. There is no citation of published journal science that I have yet run across that isn't grossly distorted or misrepresented.

"Ms. Laframboise pushes a political agenda."

A"political agenda?????

What the heck do you think the Global Warming scam is????

I am not aware of any "scam," but anthropogenic forced climate change is a reality and a challenge that we as a civilization will either address or be subject to. The costs of addressing it are much less, the sooner we start taking substantive measures (preventative and adaptive). The longer such is put off, the more it will cost in dollars, time and lives.

 

[Trakar]

And yet a similar blog DESTROYED GERGIS in other 10 hours.

How would you know? You seem to be under the impression that because you read it on the internet it must be true. ..."Bon Jour," does not a French model make.

So, have you allways lived in this land of delusion you call home, or were you sane once upon a time?

Or to put it another way....please give us a link to the Gergis et al paper and let us know when it is going to be published.

Truly, you are priceless. First you find no fault with what's his nose commiting a felony and now you stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" when presented with one of your high priests papers being destroyed by the "chattering class" you so despise.

Sadly for you the chatterer's were correct and your high priest was WRONG!

Must suck to be you.

"Chattering class?" so now you've created an entire imagnary class of humans so that you don't feel so lonely in your delusions? amazing, if I had the time, you might make an interesting, case study.

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again PC demonstrates the typical "Conservative" disconnect to reality. Global warming is about an Arctic Ice Cap that looks like it may be completely melted for part of the summer by 2015, and almost for sure, by 2020. It is about the Glacier National Park having no glaciers within my lifetime. It is about extreme weather events that have increased by a factor of 3 to 4 in the last forty years. It is about the price of food that is being driven up by these extreme weather events.

And, yes, we will play poltics with this issue. You see, as the consequences of global warimg become ever more apparent, we are going to hang the obstruction of consideration of ameliorating measures around the necks, justly so, of people like yourself. And those you support.

Well, at least you have finally declared something that is measurable within our lifetimes!

So what are you going to say when 2015 rolls around and the Arctic is the same as today?

And how do you explain the Antarctics continued ice increase in a supposedly ever warming world. The Antarctic should be melting even faster than the Arctic according to you guys so what gives.

Here we go again. You stated a couple of years ago that things were definately going into a cooling trend worldwide. Didn't happen, won't happen. You stated that the Arctic Ice would increase. The decrease has been such that if it continues at this pace, between 2015 and 2010, there will be a period in the summer with virtually no Arctic Sea Ice.

No, the predictions were not for the Antarctic to be melting at present. In fact, the increasing mass loss for the whole of the Antarctic Ice Cap has taken even the 'alarmists' by surprise. They did not expect it to be this large this soon.

But then, we have seen nothing but lies from you concerning what the real scientists have predicted and what they are observing.

 

[westwall]

How would you know? You seem to be under the impression that because you read it on the internet it must be true. ..."Bon Jour," does not a French model make.

So, have you allways lived in this land of delusion you call home, or were you sane once upon a time?

Or to put it another way....please give us a link to the Gergis et al paper and let us know when it is going to be published.

Truly, you are priceless. First you find no fault with what's his nose commiting a felony and now you stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" when presented with one of your high priests papers being destroyed by the "chattering class" you so despise.

Sadly for you the chatterer's were correct and your high priest was WRONG!

Must suck to be you.

"Chattering class?" so now you've created an entire imagnary class of humans so that you don't feel so lonely in your delusions? amazing, if I had the time, you might make an interesting, case study.

Your lack of a classical education is showing dear boy...no, I didn't create the classification, that would be one of your Fourth Estate pundits. He generally viewed anyone below his class as a imbecile. Something that most of the elitists do.

Auberon Waugh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

Once again PC demonstrates the typical "Conservative" disconnect to reality. Global warming is about an Arctic Ice Cap that looks like it may be completely melted for part of the summer by 2015, and almost for sure, by 2020. It is about the Glacier National Park having no glaciers within my lifetime. It is about extreme weather events that have increased by a factor of 3 to 4 in the last forty years. It is about the price of food that is being driven up by these extreme weather events.

And, yes, we will play poltics with this issue. You see, as the consequences of global warimg become ever more apparent, we are going to hang the obstruction of consideration of ameliorating measures around the necks, justly so, of people like yourself. And those you support.

Well, at least you have finally declared something that is measurable within our lifetimes!

So what are you going to say when 2015 rolls around and the Arctic is the same as today?

And how do you explain the Antarctics continued ice increase in a supposedly ever warming world. The Antarctic should be melting even faster than the Arctic according to you guys so what gives.

Here we go again. You stated a couple of years ago that things were definately going into a cooling trend worldwide. Didn't happen, won't happen. You stated that the Arctic Ice would increase. The decrease has been such that if it continues at this pace, between 2015 and 2010, there will be a period in the summer with virtually no Arctic Sea Ice.

No, the predictions were not for the Antarctic to be melting at present. In fact, the increasing mass loss for the whole of the Antarctic Ice Cap has taken even the 'alarmists' by surprise. They did not expect it to be this large this soon.

But then, we have seen nothing but lies from you concerning what the real scientists have predicted and what they are observing.

Wrong again as usual. I very clearly stated that the trend over the next 20 years will be towoards cold. The UK just saw the worst cold snap in 100 years, an Europe in general has been slammedthe last 5 winters, so I think my estimate is more correct than yours.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Making an assertion does not qualify that assertion as supported or factual.
Ms. Laframboise pushes a political agenda. I would be willing to look at ms. Laframboise's work and findings if you have a link to such, but anyone who calls an IPCC report the "Climate Bible," has largely excluded themselves from being taken seriously.
I have just acquired a kindle version of her book and wll continue to give it a thorough look through, but despite her assertions to the contrary, the only sources she appears to be using for the vast majority of her otherwise unsupported claims are the disputed, refuted and unsupported claims of other pseudoscience contrarians and their publications. There is no citation of published journal science that I have yet run across that isn't grossly distorted or misrepresented.

"Ms. Laframboise pushes a political agenda."

A"political agenda?????

What the heck do you think the Global Warming scam is????

I am not aware of any "scam," but anthropogenic forced climate change is a reality and a challenge that we as a civilization will either address or be subject to. The costs of addressing it are much less, the sooner we start taking substantive measures (preventative and adaptive). The longer such is put off, the more it will cost in dollars, time and lives.

Silly boy......it's all about global governance.


Didn't you learn anything from East Anglia???



Need more?

1. How about a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia admitting that it's all about funding?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.





 So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.





c. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’
http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf

Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.




d. Ideology represents the power over truth. The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century “saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also…”


Wise up.

 

[RollingThunder]

"Ms. Laframboise pushes a political agenda."

A"political agenda?????

What the heck do you think the Global Warming scam is????

I am not aware of any "scam," but anthropogenic forced climate change is a reality and a challenge that we as a civilization will either address or be subject to. The costs of addressing it are much less, the sooner we start taking substantive measures (preventative and adaptive). The longer such is put off, the more it will cost in dollars, time and lives.

Silly boy......it's all about global governance.
Didn't you learn anything from East Anglia???
Need more?
1. How about a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia admitting that it's all about funding?
a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.
b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.
So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.
c. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’
http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf
Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.
d. Ideology represents the power over truth. The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century “saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also…”

Wise up.

You would have to exceptionally retarded or completely brainwashed to get that nonsense out of what Dr. Hulme actually said in that article you cited. He was critiquing and debunking a piece of trash pseudo-science called 'Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years', by S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery.


Grow a brain, retard.

 

[Trakar]

Silly boy......it's all about global governance.

Now, you simply sound hysterical. That may be your agenda, but it is nothing I am associated with, or interested in.

Didn't you learn anything from East Anglia???

More importantly, you don't seem to have learned anything of import from one of the most well-respected academic bodies on the face of the planet.

Need more?

1. How about a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia admitting that it's all about funding?

cite or reference to compelling support?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

cite or reference to compelling support?

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.

Nothing in this referenced interview compellingly supports the assertions it is offered as citation for, in fact the quipped and pieced together structure of sans contextual quotes and the over-the-top commentary within which those quotes are embedded, speak more to confabulation than the transparent and objective presentation of fact.

Wise up.

are you wise enough to put your own advice into action?

 

[Dubya]

"Ms. Laframboise pushes a political agenda."

A"political agenda?????

What the heck do you think the Global Warming scam is????

I am not aware of any "scam," but anthropogenic forced climate change is a reality and a challenge that we as a civilization will either address or be subject to. The costs of addressing it are much less, the sooner we start taking substantive measures (preventative and adaptive). The longer such is put off, the more it will cost in dollars, time and lives.

Silly boy......it's all about global governance.


Didn't you learn anything from East Anglia???



Need more?

1. How about a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia admitting that it's all about funding?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.





 So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.





c. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’
http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf

Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.




d. Ideology represents the power over truth. The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century “saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also…”


Wise up.

Why don't you people wise up and stop making baseless accusations?

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia gathers data from meteorological stations around the world and the university processes the information for the Hadley Center and the UK Met Office. The only thing they do with that data is collect monthly averages of temperature and assess the temperature of a 5 degree latitude by 5 degree longitude spacial grid of the Earth, if an area has enough ground stations to give good data and the ground stations existed during the time they use for a base average. Governments use universities because they will do the work cheaper. The UK Met Office and Hadley Center was started by the conservative Margaret Thatcher.

Now, you Denialistas were asked how is it possible to change that data and you didn't answer, because you don't have an answer. You just keep making baseless charges only backed by your words, that can't make sense unless the whole world is involved in a giant comspiracy. Our National Climatic Data Center does the same thing, collecting meteorological data from around the world for the Department of Commerce. The countries that send that data keep records in their own countries, so anyone changing that data would be caught. There is also satellite temperature data processed at the University of Alabama.

 

[westwall]

I am not aware of any "scam," but anthropogenic forced climate change is a reality and a challenge that we as a civilization will either address or be subject to. The costs of addressing it are much less, the sooner we start taking substantive measures (preventative and adaptive). The longer such is put off, the more it will cost in dollars, time and lives.

Silly boy......it's all about global governance.


Didn't you learn anything from East Anglia???



Need more?

1. How about a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia admitting that it's all about funding?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.





 So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.





c. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’
http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf

Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.




d. Ideology represents the power over truth. The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century “saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also…”


Wise up.

Why don't you people wise up and stop making baseless accusations?

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia gathers data from meteorological stations around the world and the university processes the information for the Hadley Center and the UK Met Office. The only thing they do with that data is collect monthly averages of temperature and assess the temperature of a 5 degree latitude by 5 degree longitude spacial grid of the Earth, if an area has enough ground stations to give good data and the ground stations existed during the time they use for a base average. Governments use universities because they will do the work cheaper. The UK Met Office and Hadley Center was started by the conservative Margaret Thatcher.

Now, you Denialistas were asked how is it possible to change that data and you didn't answer, because you don't have an answer. You just keep making baseless charges only backed by your words, that can't make sense unless the whole world is involved in a giant comspiracy. Our National Climatic Data Center does the same thing, collecting meteorological data from around the world for the Department of Commerce. The countries that send that data keep records in their own countries, so anyone changing that data would be caught. There is also satellite temperature data processed at the University of Alabama.

But it's you Revisionists who have dropped 5000 weather stations from use. Now, you only use the ones near urban areas that benefit from the Urban island Effect. Do you realise we are using the same number of weather stations as were used back in 1916? A thinking person would wonder why.

A REVISIONIST, on the other hand, will just look at something else to falsify.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I am not aware of any "scam," but anthropogenic forced climate change is a reality and a challenge that we as a civilization will either address or be subject to. The costs of addressing it are much less, the sooner we start taking substantive measures (preventative and adaptive). The longer such is put off, the more it will cost in dollars, time and lives.

Silly boy......it's all about global governance.
Didn't you learn anything from East Anglia???
Need more?
1. How about a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia admitting that it's all about funding?
a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.
b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.
So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.
c. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’
http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf
Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.
d. Ideology represents the power over truth. The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century “saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also…”

Wise up.

You would have to exceptionally retarded or completely brainwashed to get that nonsense out of what Dr. Hulme actually said in that article you cited. He was critiquing and debunking a piece of trash pseudo-science called 'Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years', by S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery.


Grow a brain, retard.

Thanks, Bro

 

[Dubya]

Silly boy......it's all about global governance.


Didn't you learn anything from East Anglia???



Need more?

1. How about a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia admitting that it's all about funding?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), []Mike Hulme and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.





 So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.





c. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’
http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf

Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.




d. Ideology represents the power over truth. The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century “saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also…”


Wise up.

Why don't you people wise up and stop making baseless accusations?

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia gathers data from meteorological stations around the world and the university processes the information for the Hadley Center and the UK Met Office. The only thing they do with that data is collect monthly averages of temperature and assess the temperature of a 5 degree latitude by 5 degree longitude spacial grid of the Earth, if an area has enough ground stations to give good data and the ground stations existed during the time they use for a base average. Governments use universities because they will do the work cheaper. The UK Met Office and Hadley Center was started by the conservative Margaret Thatcher.

Now, you Denialistas were asked how is it possible to change that data and you didn't answer, because you don't have an answer. You just keep making baseless charges only backed by your words, that can't make sense unless the whole world is involved in a giant comspiracy. Our National Climatic Data Center does the same thing, collecting meteorological data from around the world for the Department of Commerce. The countries that send that data keep records in their own countries, so anyone changing that data would be caught. There is also satellite temperature data processed at the University of Alabama.

But it's you Revisionists who have dropped 5000 weather stations from use. Now, you only use the ones near urban areas that benefit from the Urban island Effect. Do you realise we are using the same number of weather stations as were used back in 1916? A thinking person would wonder why.

A REVISIONIST, on the other hand, will just look at something else to falsify.

You just make things up and believes someone is going to buy it, like that nonsense about using urban areas! They evaluate whether the data will be representative of the grid I mentioned. 5 degrees by 5 degrees is a large area that can have various geographies.

What part of excluding areas that didn't have data during the base period can't you understand? What part of GISS and HadCRUT being entirely independent don't you understand? What part of that data still existing in the nations that provided it don't you understand?

You say they are falsifying data, but you can't give one example from all those countries providing that data to support your claims. Is every country on Earth involved in this conspiracy to falsify data on the US and UK temperature maps? Your claims are just words from someone making them up.

The NCDC and Met Office still gather data from all the weather stations they can get data from, but they can't use the data on a map if data didn't exist for that area during the base period where they compare current data with the past. In the future, when data exists to show an anomaly in a particular area, then they can do it. When they can't determine the changes in temperature in a grid area, they just leave the grid blank, so how is that falsifying data to not even show an anomaly for a grid, when there is no way of knowing what the anomaly is? In order to show the changes of present temperatures to the past, you have to know what the past temperatures were.

I live in the mid-Atlantic area and the weather is warmer than it was. I've seen videos of farmers in Greenland and they are growing crops they couldn't grow before. There are hundreds of glaciers that had pictures taken of them and they show retreat. There are pictures of homes in permafrost areas losing their foundation. There is evidence of sea ice melting. There is a world of evidence of warming and you run around telling people it isn't happening for your economic agenda.

When you post pictures of nuclear submarines surfacing and say it can't happen today, then you have no credibility in what you choose to claim. You knew those submarines were surfacing in polynias and intentionally made false statements about it not being able to happen today.

The only way it would be possible to falsify those global temperatrure maps is to lower the past temperatures during the base period and raise the present temperatures on a monthly basis. The UK and the US would both have to be doing it, all the countries of the world supplying the data would have to be going along with it and the US would have to be changing it's satellite temperature data to go along with it. Even if all that was possible, how do you convince the ice to go along with it?

I gave you a chart of June Snow Cover for the Northern Hemisphere and pointed out the area was like 3 times the area of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS). If it didn't get warmer what happened to the snow? What happened to the arctic sea ice to reduce it to around the area of GIS? You can claim melting 97% of the Greenland surface was a once in a 150 year thing, but with less arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere snow cover, it's going to be a regular thing.