Climate change - socialist conspiracy

[westwall]

I do agree with RT - the fact that all doctors agree that smoking causes cancer is not evidence of a conspiracy.

To suggest that states should fund doctors who don't believe smoking causes cancer isn't necessary - all we need to see is that any meaningful research can still be published and discussed.

With climate change, we know that it can be published. Thr bar might be set a little higher, but good research that does not confirm climate change is still being published.

That seems healthy to me.

A more farcical response would be hard to come up with. Even the near total whitwash attempt by the warmists to cover their collective asses admitted that the peer review and publishing process had been corrupted.


This is ONE example of hundreds....

"The CRU e-mails have revealed how the normal conventions of the peer review process appear to have been compromised by a team* of global warming scientists, with the willing cooperation of the editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC), Glenn McGregor. The team spent nearly a year preparing and publishing a paper that attempted to rebut a previously published paper in IJC by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer (DCPS). The DCPS paper, reviewed and accepted in the traditional manner, had shown that the IPCC models that predicted significant "global warming" in fact largely disagreed with the observational data.


We will let the reader judge whether this team effort, revealed in dozens of e-mails and taking nearly a year, involves inappropriate behavior, including (a) unusual cooperation between authors and editor, (b) misstatement of known facts, (c) character assassination, (d) avoidance of traditional scientific give-and-take, (e) using confidential information, (f) misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the scientific question posed by DCPS, (g) withholding data, and more.


*The team is a group of climate scientists who frequently collaborate and publish papers which often support the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. For this essay, the leading team members include Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Timothy Osborn, and Tom Wigley, with lesser roles for several others."



Archived-Articles: A Climatology Conspiracy?

 

[RollingThunder]

The problem with this is that you can make exactly the same case as to why right-wing politicians would look to fund studies which denied climate change - at least through the next election.

What you say here certainly explains why climate is so studied and why the research is well-funded - it does not explain why conservative politicians or scientists would fradulently fake results.

I agree that many University staff are left wing....but Professors of Physics? Heads of Biology departments in a country with a right-wing government?

I think not, somehow.

When a Conservative Minister of the Enviroment chooses people he knows and trusts to serve as his advisors, he simply is not going to select a member of the Greens Party. In this country Directors General in a ministry are poltically appointed....so if the minister is a Conservative, so are his Directors General.

Saigon insists that Nazis are right-wingers, so his take on this is hardly surprising.

Bratpatsy's historically ignorant delusion that Nazis weren't far, far right-wingers is just part of her rightwingnut insanity.

 

[RollingThunder]

Good luck finding a climatologist that isn't on the bandwagon of AGW. That's part of the problem.

LOLOLOLOL....classic....

Virtually all of the experts on Earth agree that AGW is real and a danger to our biosphere and our civilization. Yeah, I can see where that would be a problem for the brainwashed idiots like you who are desperately trying to deny reality.

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007[54], and revised and expanded in 2013,[55] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:
“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."


In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[61]


The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[66]

(source: Scientific opinion on climate change)

The same was true about Heliocentrism when Galileo was the only known skeptic in the Western world.

Your ignorance of history is almost as vast as your ignorance about science, assface. And BTW moron, you even got your mistaken 'facts' reversed, Galileo wasn't a "skeptic" about Heliocentrism, he presented evidence in support of the idea. Too bad you're such a complete retard.

Heliocentrism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heliocentrism, or heliocentricism,[1] is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System. The word comes from the Greek (ἥλιος helios "sun" and κέντρον kentron "center"). Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the Earth at the center. The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos,[2] but Aristarchus's heliocentrism attracted little attention until Copernicus revived and elaborated it.[3] Lucio Russo, however, argues that this is a misleading impression resulting from the loss of scientific works of the Hellenistic Era. Using indirect evidence he argues that a heliocentric view was expounded in Hipparchus's work on gravity.[4]

It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus of Poland, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In the following century, Johannes Kepler elaborated upon and expanded this model to include elliptical orbits, and supporting observations made using a telescope were presented by Galileo Galilei.

Perhaps the funniest thing about your retarded post here is your idiotic assumption that the systematic investigation and research into the physical universe and the sharing of the results through worldwide publication and scientific conferences that we call modern science is somehow comparable to the bare beginnings of those systems of inquiry that existed in the 16th century. You really are totally clueless.

I'm not brainwashed, I've seen enough direct evidence of incompetence and corruption to convince me that the original premise is not proven.

You suffer from many delusions, assface, and one of them is that you aren't brainwashed. The idiotic propaganda that you imagine is "direct evidence of incompetence and corruption" is just another part of the brainwashing that you've fallen for, you poor deluded cretin.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Climate scientists quickly found out that disaster studies with CO2 lead to easy and generous funding while the opposite direction only brought suspicion and 'outsider' status

The funding comes before the studies. Your claim doesn't even pass basic logical scrutiny. You probably actually made the entire thing up and assume its correct just because it sounds right and you've heard other people say things like it.

 

[Saigon]

Climate scientists quickly found out that disaster studies with CO2 lead to easy and generous funding while the opposite direction only brought suspicion and 'outsider' status

The funding comes before the studies. Your claim doesn't even pass basic logical scrutiny. You probably actually made the entire thing up and assume its correct just because it sounds right and you've heard other people say things like it.

Exactly - and Ian also forgets to explain why studies which contradict some elements of climate change science are still being funded and still being published.

I think a lot of sceptics want to believe there is a conspiracy, but few can actually muster a coherent argument for one.

 

[RollingThunder]

Climate scientists quickly found out that disaster studies with CO2 lead to easy and generous funding while the opposite direction only brought suspicion and 'outsider' status

The funding comes before the studies. Your claim doesn't even pass basic logical scrutiny. You probably actually made the entire thing up and assume its correct just because it sounds right and you've heard other people say things like it.

Exactly - and Ian also forgets to explain why studies which contradict some elements of climate change science are still being funded and still being published.

I think a lot of sceptics want to believe there is a conspiracy, but few can actually muster a coherent argument for one.

There is a strong link between AGW denial and wacko belief in conspiracy theories. The deniers insane conspiracy theories about AGW have nothing to do with the facts or evidence and everything to do with what is so screwed up in their own heads.

Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories
Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
September 07, 2012
(excerpts)
A study suggesting climate change deniers also tend to hold general beliefs in conspiracy theories has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs. The research, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, surveyed more than 1,000 readers of science blogs regarding their beliefs regarding global warming. The results revealed that people who tend to believe in a wide array of conspiracy theories are more likely to reject the scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up.

Though about 97 percent of working scientists agree that the evidence shows a warming trend caused by humans, public understanding of climate change falls along political lines. Democrats are more likely to "believe in" global warming than Republicans, according to a 2011 report by the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute. Believing that climate change isn't happening or that it's not human-caused requires a belief that thousands of climate scientists around the world are lying outright, Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote in their new paper. Conspiracy theory beliefs are known to come in clusters — someone who thinks NASA faked the moon landing is more likely to accept the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, for example. "To our knowledge, our results are the first to provide empirical evidence for the correlation between a general construct of conspiracist ideation and the general tendency to reject well-founded science," Lewandowsky and his colleagues concluded.

 

[Abraham3]

Catastrophe scenarios draw attention. Govts and organizations tend to cover their asses in public, so they went the route of least chance of looking bad by deferring to 'authority'. Climate scientists quickly found out that disaster studies with CO2 lead to easy and generous funding while the opposite direction only brought suspicion and 'outsider' status. Error cascade and groupthink have brought us to this point but hopefully fifteen years of contradictory data will help reverse the incorrect path we are focused on.

Ian,
Do you have an opinion on why the 38 years of "contradictory data" from 1941-1979 didn't "help reverse the incorrect path we are focused on"?

 

[Abraham3]

BTW- you would be hard pressed to name another profession that is more left wing and socialist than university staff.

Isn't that something? The correlation between level of education and approaching center left politically (ie, the more college classes you've passed, the more likely you are to be center left (and an atheist)) is REALLY interesting.

I've heard a lot of people claim its all due to some sort of conspiracy back in the 50's. But Mr Occam has a better solution: the liberals are right and the smarter you are, the more likely you are to realize the fact.

 

[Abraham3]

Oh go piss off you clown. GOVERNMENTS EVERYWHERE want to use the fraud of AGW to push their political agendas and to enrich themselves. Folow the money is the mantra, you useful idiots point to the billions the oil companies will make keeping the energy system as it is while completely IGNORING the TRILLIONS that your fraudsters are angling for.

They are hoping to pull off the greatest theft ever.

Allow me to point out that there is a great deal more fossil fuel money at risk than there is AGW money to be made. If money drives fraud, the fossil fuel industry has a great deal more motivation to perpetrate a fraud than does a relative handful of scientists scattered about the globe. Why should we believe that thousands of scientists are participating in an apparently tightly organized deception looking for grant money but reject the thought that a much smaller number of VERY wealthy people are spreading a little cash about in an attempt to protect what they've already got?

BTW, are you ever going to explain what "actual force" it is that drives photons to race about the way they do? Or was that from one of your sock-puppets?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BTW- you would be hard pressed to name another profession that is more left wing and socialist than university staff.

Isn't that something? The correlation between level of education and approaching center left politically (ie, the more college classes you've passed, the more likely you are to be center left (and an atheist)) is REALLY interesting.

I've heard a lot of people claim its all due to some sort of conspiracy back in the 50's. But Mr Occam has a better solution: the liberals are right and the smarter you are, the more likely you are to realize the fact.

Liberals happen to be the dumbest fucks I ever met, no more apparent than after reading their posts at USMB.

 

[Abraham3]

BTW- you would be hard pressed to name another profession that is more left wing and socialist than university staff.

Isn't that something? The correlation between level of education and approaching center left politically (ie, the more college classes you've passed, the more likely you are to be center left (and an atheist)) is REALLY interesting.

I've heard a lot of people claim its all due to some sort of conspiracy back in the 50's. But Mr Occam has a better solution: the liberals are right and the smarter you are, the more likely you are to realize the fact.

Liberals happen to be the dumbest fucks I ever met, no more apparent than after reading their posts at USMB.

Then what, would you say, has kept folks with political opinions such as your own, from the ranks of the world's academic elite?

 

[asterism]

LOLOLOLOL....classic....

Virtually all of the experts on Earth agree that AGW is real and a danger to our biosphere and our civilization. Yeah, I can see where that would be a problem for the brainwashed idiots like you who are desperately trying to deny reality.

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007[54], and revised and expanded in 2013,[55] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:
“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."


In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[61]


The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[66]

(source: Scientific opinion on climate change)

The same was true about Heliocentrism when Galileo was the only known skeptic in the Western world.

Your ignorance of history is almost as vast as your ignorance about science, assface. And BTW moron, you even got your mistaken 'facts' reversed, Galileo wasn't a "skeptic" about Heliocentrism, he presented evidence in support of the idea. Too bad you're such a complete retard.

Heliocentrism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heliocentrism, or heliocentricism,[1] is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System. The word comes from the Greek (ἥλιος helios "sun" and κέντρον kentron "center"). Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the Earth at the center. The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos,[2] but Aristarchus's heliocentrism attracted little attention until Copernicus revived and elaborated it.[3] Lucio Russo, however, argues that this is a misleading impression resulting from the loss of scientific works of the Hellenistic Era. Using indirect evidence he argues that a heliocentric view was expounded in Hipparchus's work on gravity.[4]

It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus of Poland, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In the following century, Johannes Kepler elaborated upon and expanded this model to include elliptical orbits, and supporting observations made using a telescope were presented by Galileo Galilei.

Perhaps the funniest thing about your retarded post here is your idiotic assumption that the systematic investigation and research into the physical universe and the sharing of the results through worldwide publication and scientific conferences that we call modern science is somehow comparable to the bare beginnings of those systems of inquiry that existed in the 16th century. You really are totally clueless.

So Heliocentrism was accepted before Galileo?

No, but you need to make a point so go right ahead.

I'm not brainwashed, I've seen enough direct evidence of incompetence and corruption to convince me that the original premise is not proven.

You suffer from many delusions, assface, and one of them is that you aren't brainwashed. The idiotic propaganda that you imagine is "direct evidence of incompetence and corruption" is just another part of the brainwashing that you've fallen for, you poor deluded cretin.

What percentage of ground sensors would have to be accurate for you to think the aggregate is reliable?

Home

 

[asterism]

BTW- you would be hard pressed to name another profession that is more left wing and socialist than university staff.

Isn't that something? The correlation between level of education and approaching center left politically (ie, the more college classes you've passed, the more likely you are to be center left (and an atheist)) is REALLY interesting.

I've heard a lot of people claim its all due to some sort of conspiracy back in the 50's. But Mr Occam has a better solution: the liberals are right and the smarter you are, the more likely you are to realize the fact.

Couldn't that also be a sign of selection bias? As in bias on the part of those choosing who advances? It could also suggest that there is a self-selection bias since there are many fields in which excellence can be obtained through means other than graduate school.

That would be an interesting study.

 

[Saigon]

Asterism -

The whole idea of socialist conspiracy rests upon the theory that most Professors, most HODs and most lecturers are socialist.

Within a field like Philosophy or Gender Studies that might well be true. Within Physics or Chemistry I think it's just silly.

It's much the same as with evolution - the fact that 99% of people who have degrees in Biology confirm Evolution exists is not evidence of an anti-Christian conspiracy - it is evidence of scientific proof.

The idea that Universities should fund Creationist research is a very odd one for me.

 

[asterism]

Asterism -

The whole idea of socialist conspiracy rests upon the theory that most Professors, most HODs and most lecturers are socialist.

I disagree. History is full of people in academia who have been fooled.

Within a field like Philosophy or Gender Studies that might well be true. Within Physics or Chemistry I think it's just silly.

That's a valid point, however your assertion requires intellectual pursuit to be pure and that's not always the case. However, it would be interesting to see a study of Chemists and Physicists outside of academia who are proponents of AGW.

It's much the same as with evolution - the fact that 99% of people who have degrees in Biology confirm Evolution exists is not evidence of an anti-Christian conspiracy - it is evidence of scientific proof.

The idea that Universities should fund Creationist research is a very odd one for me.

I don't agree, and I don't consider polling to be an effective proof. Scientific proof is an effective proof. Polls just give indications of opinions, and even they are wrong.

Although I do agree that research into Creationism specifically is silly. By its very definition, Creationism is not based on Scientific evidence. However, Science is not the absolute authority on everything.

 

[RollingThunder]

The same was true about Heliocentrism when Galileo was the only known skeptic in the Western world.

Your ignorance of history is almost as vast as your ignorance about science, assface. And BTW moron, you even got your mistaken 'facts' reversed, Galileo wasn't a "skeptic" about Heliocentrism, he presented evidence in support of the idea. Too bad you're such a complete retard.

Heliocentrism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heliocentrism, or heliocentricism,[1] is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System. The word comes from the Greek (ἥλιος helios "sun" and κέντρον kentron "center"). Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the Earth at the center. The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos,[2] but Aristarchus's heliocentrism attracted little attention until Copernicus revived and elaborated it.[3] Lucio Russo, however, argues that this is a misleading impression resulting from the loss of scientific works of the Hellenistic Era. Using indirect evidence he argues that a heliocentric view was expounded in Hipparchus's work on gravity.[4]

It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus of Poland, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In the following century, Johannes Kepler elaborated upon and expanded this model to include elliptical orbits, and supporting observations made using a telescope were presented by Galileo Galilei.

Perhaps the funniest thing about your retarded post here is your idiotic assumption that the systematic investigation and research into the physical universe and the sharing of the results through worldwide publication and scientific conferences that we call modern science is somehow comparable to the bare beginnings of those systems of inquiry that existed in the 16th century. You really are totally clueless.

So Heliocentrism was accepted before Galileo?

Your insistence that 16th century conflicts between the nascent scientific understanding of the universe and the dogmatists of the Catholic Church, have anything to do with the modern day scientific understanding of CO2 driven global warming and its associated climate changes, is just more evidence that you are very ignorant, foolish and extremely brainwashed.

No, but you need to make a point so go right ahead.

My "point" was that you have no idea what you're talking about because you're kind of retarded and very brainwashed but you've managed to make my point for me over and over again with every post you make.

I'm not brainwashed, I've seen enough direct evidence of incompetence and corruption to convince me that the original premise is not proven.

You suffer from many delusions, assface, and one of them is that you aren't brainwashed. The idiotic propaganda that you imagine is "direct evidence of incompetence and corruption" is just another part of the brainwashing that you've fallen for, you poor deluded cretin.

What percentage of ground sensors would have to be accurate for you to think the aggregate is reliable?

//surfacestations.org/]Home

LOLOLOLOLOL....so your earlier nonsense got shot down so you want to change the subject to some other idiotic denier cult propaganda meme? LOLOLOL.

NOAA Climate Services
July 6, 2009

Talking Points related to concerns about whether the U.S. temperature record is reliable

Q. Over the course of time have U.S. weather stations been exposed to local environmental conditions that could unduly influence temperature readings e.g., located close to growing trees, buildings, parking lots, etc.?
A. Yes. That is one reason why NOAA created the Climate Reference Network. These stations adhere to all of the Global Climate Monitoring Principles and are located are located in areas free local human influences and have excellent site location characteristics. They are closely monitored and are subject to rigorous calibration procedures. It is a network designed specifically for assessing climate change. Page has moved. Additionally, an effort is underway to modernize the Historical Climatology Network (a network of over 1000 long-term weather and climate stations), though funds are currently available only to modernize and maintain stations in the Southwest. Managers of both of these networks work diligently to locate stations in pristine areas where the site characteristics are unlikely to change very much over the coming decades.

Q. How has the poor exposure biased local temperatures trends?
A. A peer-reviewed study specifically quantified the potential bias in trends caused by poor station exposure (Peterson, 2006). The analysis examined only a small subset of stations – all that had their exposure checked at that time – and found no bias in long-term trends.

Q. Does a station with good exposure read warmer than a station with poor exposure?
Not necessarily. Many local factors influence the observed temperature: whether a station is in a valley with cold air drainage, whether the station is a liquid-in-glass thermometer in a standard wooden shelter or an electronic thermometer in the new smaller and more open plastic shelters, whether the station reads and resets its maximum and minimum thermometers in the coolest time of the day in early morning or in the warmest time of the day in the afternoon, etc. But for detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature – whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station over grass – but how that temperature changes over time.

Q. Over the years, stations move in location for a variety of reasons and the local environment changes. If the local environment around the station changes could this cause a bias in the temperature record? Can that bias be adjusted out of the record?
A. A great deal of work has gone into efforts to account for a wide variety of biases in the climate record, both in NOAA and at sister agencies around the world. Since the 1980s, scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center have been at the forefront of this effort developing techniques to detect and quantify biases in station time series. When a bias associated with any change is detected, it is removed so that the time series is homogeneous with respect to its current instrumentation and exposure. The latest peer-reviewed paper which provides an overview the sources of bias and their removal (Menne et al., 2009 in press), including urbanization and nonstandard exposures. They evaluated urban bias and found that once the data were fully adjusted the most urban stations had about the same trend as the remaining more rural stations.

Q. What can we say about poor station exposure and its impact on national temperature trends?
A. Surfacestations.org has examined about 70% of the 1221 stations in NOAA’s Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) (Watts, 2009). According to their web site of early June 2009, they classified 70 USHCN version 2 stations as good or best (class 1 or 2). The criteria used to make that classification is based on NOAA’s Climate Reference Network Site Handbook so the criteria are clear. But, as many different individuals participated in the site evaluations, with varying levels of expertise, the degree of standardization and reproducibility of this process is unknown. However, at the present time this is the only large scale site evaluation information available so we conducted a preliminary analysis.
Two national time series were made using the same homogeneity adjusted data set and the same gridding and area averaging technique used by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center for its annual climate monitoring. One analysis was for the full USHCN version 2 data set. The other used only USHCN version 2 data from the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best. We would expect some differences simply due to the different area covered: the 70 stations only covered 43% of the country with no stations in, for example, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or North Carolina. Yet the two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.

Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?
A. None at all. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the length and breadth of the United States the impacts of the warming are unmistakable. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. Coastal temperatures are rising. And a multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in mountainous areas, upward as well.

 

[asterism]

Your ignorance of history is almost as vast as your ignorance about science, assface. And BTW moron, you even got your mistaken 'facts' reversed, Galileo wasn't a "skeptic" about Heliocentrism, he presented evidence in support of the idea. Too bad you're such a complete retard.

Heliocentrism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heliocentrism, or heliocentricism,[1] is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System. The word comes from the Greek (ἥλιος helios "sun" and κέντρον kentron "center"). Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the Earth at the center. The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos,[2] but Aristarchus's heliocentrism attracted little attention until Copernicus revived and elaborated it.[3] Lucio Russo, however, argues that this is a misleading impression resulting from the loss of scientific works of the Hellenistic Era. Using indirect evidence he argues that a heliocentric view was expounded in Hipparchus's work on gravity.[4]

It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus of Poland, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In the following century, Johannes Kepler elaborated upon and expanded this model to include elliptical orbits, and supporting observations made using a telescope were presented by Galileo Galilei.

Perhaps the funniest thing about your retarded post here is your idiotic assumption that the systematic investigation and research into the physical universe and the sharing of the results through worldwide publication and scientific conferences that we call modern science is somehow comparable to the bare beginnings of those systems of inquiry that existed in the 16th century. You really are totally clueless.

So Heliocentrism was accepted before Galileo?

Your insistence that 16th century conflicts between the nascent scientific understanding of the universe and the dogmatists of the Catholic Church, have anything to do with the modern day scientific understanding of CO2 driven global warming and its associated climate changes, is just more evidence that you are very ignorant, foolish and extremely brainwashed.





My "point" was that you have no idea what you're talking about because you're kind of retarded and very brainwashed but you've managed to make my point for me over and over again with every post you make.

You suffer from many delusions, assface, and one of them is that you aren't brainwashed. The idiotic propaganda that you imagine is "direct evidence of incompetence and corruption" is just another part of the brainwashing that you've fallen for, you poor deluded cretin.

What percentage of ground sensors would have to be accurate for you to think the aggregate is reliable?

//surfacestations.org/]Home

LOLOLOLOLOL....so your earlier nonsense got shot down so you want to change the subject to some other idiotic denier cult propaganda meme? LOLOLOL.

NOAA Climate Services
July 6, 2009

Talking Points related to concerns about whether the U.S. temperature record is reliable

Q. Over the course of time have U.S. weather stations been exposed to local environmental conditions that could unduly influence temperature readings e.g., located close to growing trees, buildings, parking lots, etc.?
A. Yes. That is one reason why NOAA created the Climate Reference Network. These stations adhere to all of the Global Climate Monitoring Principles and are located are located in areas free local human influences and have excellent site location characteristics. They are closely monitored and are subject to rigorous calibration procedures. It is a network designed specifically for assessing climate change. Page has moved. Additionally, an effort is underway to modernize the Historical Climatology Network (a network of over 1000 long-term weather and climate stations), though funds are currently available only to modernize and maintain stations in the Southwest. Managers of both of these networks work diligently to locate stations in pristine areas where the site characteristics are unlikely to change very much over the coming decades.

Q. How has the poor exposure biased local temperatures trends?
A. A peer-reviewed study specifically quantified the potential bias in trends caused by poor station exposure (Peterson, 2006). The analysis examined only a small subset of stations – all that had their exposure checked at that time – and found no bias in long-term trends.

Q. Does a station with good exposure read warmer than a station with poor exposure?
Not necessarily. Many local factors influence the observed temperature: whether a station is in a valley with cold air drainage, whether the station is a liquid-in-glass thermometer in a standard wooden shelter or an electronic thermometer in the new smaller and more open plastic shelters, whether the station reads and resets its maximum and minimum thermometers in the coolest time of the day in early morning or in the warmest time of the day in the afternoon, etc. But for detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature – whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station over grass – but how that temperature changes over time.

Q. Over the years, stations move in location for a variety of reasons and the local environment changes. If the local environment around the station changes could this cause a bias in the temperature record? Can that bias be adjusted out of the record?
A. A great deal of work has gone into efforts to account for a wide variety of biases in the climate record, both in NOAA and at sister agencies around the world. Since the 1980s, scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center have been at the forefront of this effort developing techniques to detect and quantify biases in station time series. When a bias associated with any change is detected, it is removed so that the time series is homogeneous with respect to its current instrumentation and exposure. The latest peer-reviewed paper which provides an overview the sources of bias and their removal (Menne et al., 2009 in press), including urbanization and nonstandard exposures. They evaluated urban bias and found that once the data were fully adjusted the most urban stations had about the same trend as the remaining more rural stations.

Q. What can we say about poor station exposure and its impact on national temperature trends?
A. Surfacestations.org has examined about 70% of the 1221 stations in NOAA’s Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) (Watts, 2009). According to their web site of early June 2009, they classified 70 USHCN version 2 stations as good or best (class 1 or 2). The criteria used to make that classification is based on NOAA’s Climate Reference Network Site Handbook so the criteria are clear. But, as many different individuals participated in the site evaluations, with varying levels of expertise, the degree of standardization and reproducibility of this process is unknown. However, at the present time this is the only large scale site evaluation information available so we conducted a preliminary analysis.
Two national time series were made using the same homogeneity adjusted data set and the same gridding and area averaging technique used by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center for its annual climate monitoring. One analysis was for the full USHCN version 2 data set. The other used only USHCN version 2 data from the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best. We would expect some differences simply due to the different area covered: the 70 stations only covered 43% of the country with no stations in, for example, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or North Carolina. Yet the two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.

Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?
A. None at all. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the length and breadth of the United States the impacts of the warming are unmistakable. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. Coastal temperatures are rising. And a multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in mountainous areas, upward as well.

So NOAA responds to faulty sensors by saying that the sensors really don't matter and you accept this?

And then you say I'm brainwashed?

Please, while following the Scientific Method, devise an experiment that demonstrates the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Then report the results.

If things were as settled as people like you suggest, there wouldn't be any need to study it any further. Or, perhaps that's where the grant money is.

 

[IanC]

Catastrophe scenarios draw attention. Govts and organizations tend to cover their asses in public, so they went the route of least chance of looking bad by deferring to 'authority'. Climate scientists quickly found out that disaster studies with CO2 lead to easy and generous funding while the opposite direction only brought suspicion and 'outsider' status. Error cascade and groupthink have brought us to this point but hopefully fifteen years of contradictory data will help reverse the incorrect path we are focused on.

Ian,
Do you have an opinion on why the 38 years of "contradictory data" from 1941-1979 didn't "help reverse the incorrect path we are focused on"?

The data from 41-79 lead to the 'Coming Ice Age Scare'. While there was a tie in to nuclear warfare it didn't make the common man feel guilty about his role.

Steven Schneider was a strong supporter of cooling until an even better catastrophe scenario came along with CO2 being the boogieman. This had the very large benefit of pointing the finger of guilt at every man woman and child. Not only that,but circumstantial evidence was cooperating until the new millennium.

I feel sorry for those who made up their minds in the 90's about AGW because the it really did seem to make sense at the time. Unfortunately for them, the last decade has shattered the illusion. I still see CO2 theory as having a supporting role in climate, but it isn't the temperature control knob it was made out to be.

 

[IanC]

Climate scientists quickly found out that disaster studies with CO2 lead to easy and generous funding while the opposite direction only brought suspicion and 'outsider' status

The funding comes before the studies. Your claim doesn't even pass basic logical scrutiny. You probably actually made the entire thing up and assume its correct just because it sounds right and you've heard other people say things like it.

In the seventies, every proposal had to make a differential nod to ecology. In the nineties it was global warming. Now it is climate change. The name of the fad may change but the ritual remains.

 

[Stephanie]

Just this week I have seen three posters claim climate change is a socialist conspiracy.

Would someone mind explaining to me why CONSERVATIVE governments like those in Canada, Germany, the UK, Finlnd, New Zealand, Spain, etc etc etc would be running some Socialist conspiracy?

Although most countries 'bulk fund' universities ir order to ensure politicians cannot 'buy research' results or pressure academices, all of the governments listed also have their own science advisors (whom they select).

Why would conservative politicians hire socialist advisors?

Why did so many consevative politicians and parties adopt climate change strategies during the 1990s, after a few years of claiming everything was fine?

Why do people assume that all experts in physics, biology and climatology are socialism?

And lastly; Germany has created 370,000 private sector jobs in renewable energy. Most of these work in export industries, most in small to medium sized enterprises. Since when did socialists start backing SMEs?

Or is this one of those theories that no one actually believes to begin with?

For many decades, rightwing retards have been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to froth at the mouth over anything their puppet masters labeled "communism" or "socialism". Most of the rwr's have no real idea what these terms actually mean but they will obediently demonize and oppose anything Rush or Glenn label as "socialist".

The science that affirms the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate change has nothing to do with politics or ideologies but labeling it as "socialist" is part of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign to discredit the science and create useful doubt in the minds of the public about the reality of AGW and the urgency in reducing carbon emissions. They do this because reducing carbon emissions will also cut into the profits generated through the extraction and sales of the fossil fuels that are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that is creating the climate change crisis.

Looking for any rationality in the rightwingnuts' "socialist" drivel on this topic is futile. Labeling climate science "socialist" isn't rational and has nothing to do with reality but everything to do with the propaganda driven fantasy worlds most of these half-witted deniers live in.

shit, the only frothing I see is the this long winded condescending post of yours...you want to belong to AGW cult, your damn right...others have the same RIGHT to think and believe WANT THEY WANT...you asses are so TOLERANT of others views, my ass..you post is so full of shit...and for you AGW cult members read up on how Hitler used the enviornment for his agendas