Triple OUCH! Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'

[IanC]

rightwinger said-Where in any of this does it say global warming doesn't exist? You take one element of a global warming analysis that may be questionable and use it to claim all evidence of global warming is now invalid

Typical rightwing flat earth logic
__________________

nobody is saying that there has been no overall warming since the Little Ice Age. nobody is saying that mankind has not burned fossil fuels and put CO2 into the air.

the main points that 'climate skeptics' are presenting are:
-- climate reconstructions from proxies are inherently unreliable with large error bars. Mann's Hockey Stick Graph gives estimates of the earth's temperature in tenths of a degree for up to 1000 years ago. exaggerated claims, especially when his first graph did not even produce the known Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.
-- computer models that only incorporate a small number of known climate factors and no unknown (obviously!) factors. while the final stage graph of temperatures corresponds reasonably well with recent data, the actual models are dramatically wrong in predicting where in the atmosphere the warming is taking place. A stopped clock is right twice a day, especially when you know what temperature, oops I mean what time you want.
-- physical measurements of temperature over the last 100-150 years has shown rises and dips, with high temps in the 30's being roughly equal to the late 90's-00s. That is for RAW data. increasingly over the last 15 years more and more 'adjustments' have been added to the raw data, always driving the average up. skeptics want open access to the raw data and the methodologies used to make the adjustments. often the adjustments are as large as the so-called temperature increases that are used to invoke catastrophic global warming.

gtg, maybe I'll add more later

 

[MaggieMae]

Well sorry, but unless someone can prove that these pictures have been photoshopped, I'll still continue to believe that global warming is, in fact, happening.

Global warming, photography, pictures, photos, climate change, impact, science, weather, arctic, antarctica, climate zones, glacier, arctic warming, antarctica warming, documentation, effects, effects of climate change, paleoclimate, mountain glacier

 

[Charles_Main]

Well sorry, but unless someone can prove that these pictures have been photoshopped, I'll still continue to believe that global warming is, in fact, happening.

Global warming, photography, pictures, photos, climate change, impact, science, weather, arctic, antarctica, climate zones, glacier, arctic warming, antarctica warming, documentation, effects, effects of climate change, paleoclimate, mountain glacier

I think most of us agree it is happening. That is not what the debate is about. That is simply how the alarmist frame it. They claim we are saying there is no warming happening. Even though we are not saying that.

 

[Big Fitz]

Ultimately, it still comes down to this:

Warmist kooks solutions are all in the same pattern, government control of your entire life on a global scale. They have no private sector solutions or interest in freedom to do stupid things.

They have no conclusive proof of mankind being the source of, or the ability to control, only circumstantial evidence and corollary which is not proof.

They are willing to lie and misrepresent data for political goals. They live by the maxim "The ends justify the means" and if lying now gets their goals accomplished succeeds, then the lies are forgiven.

This is not science. This is using science for tyranny based on a desire for a specific political world outcome.

 

[IanC]

Ultimately, it still comes down to this:

Warmist kooks solutions are all in the same pattern, government control of your entire life on a global scale. They have no private sector solutions or interest in freedom to do stupid things.

They have no conclusive proof of mankind being the source of, or the ability to control, only circumstantial evidence and corollary which is not proof.

They are willing to lie and misrepresent data for political goals. They live by the maxim "The ends justify the means" and if lying now gets their goals accomplished succeeds, then the lies are forgiven.

This is not science. This is using science for tyranny based on a desire for a specific political world outcome.

While your rhetoric seems a tad overblown I can't argue your main points.
The AGW alarmists do seem to think every minuteia of climate data supports their side, whether the assumption is reasonable or not. And any steps we take will be credited to their side if temps go down or declared insufficient if temps go up. Heads they win, tails we lose

 

[taichiliberal]

Amazon rainforests have little or nothing to do with Climategate. Neither does the Himalayan glacier fiasco. Climategate is about the integrity of climate science and scientists that has been called into question by the leaked emails and data from the CRU of EAU.
Please direct me to the emails about the Amazon so that I might be enlightened.

Your insipid stubborness is amazing. You just can't deal with the FACT that one of your supposed land mark cases against the reality of global warming was shot down, so now YOU make some assinine assertion that the FACTS regarding the climategate situation.

So let's take your moronic statement at face value......the basis for claiming someone falsified information is irrelevent. That's like accusing someone of stealing and then saying that the alleged stolen items are irrelevent when they are found NOT to be missing.

Grow up, Ian.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2717793-post44.html

 

[taichiliberal]

taichiliberal- I think you are confused about climategate. climategate is about the leaked emails and data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia (UEA). You seem to be lumping criticisms of the IPCC into the term 'climategate'.


There have been at least 3 inquiries into climategate, all finding that there was no actual criminal misbehaviour, but chastising the principal scientists for sloppy work and data keeping and obstructing flow of information.

Because of the shallowness of investigation in both of the british inquiries, the government is now investigating the investigators. While I doubt that either Russell or Oxbridge will be censured for their shoddy work at investigating the integrity of the scientists (neither inquiry actually looked into the science), I can only hope for a more thorough scrutiny of how the science was done in the past and will be done in the future.

Ian, the fact that you manufacture a quote from me that fits into your assertions is pathetic, given that the chronology of the posts shows your folly there.

Bottom line Ian, you're just beating a dead horse because you and your like minded cohorts just can't accept the fact that YOU WERE WRONG. Adding insult to injury, you initially went on a tear claiming that the article I sourced wasn't about the IPCC or climate-gate....and when I proved you wrong there, you don't have the maturity to admit error on that:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2717793-post44.html

You added NOTHING to the mix to avoid admitting that you were wrong on a crucial point.....and your insipid stubborness is showing to that effect.

where did I 'manufacture a quote from you'? and where did you show that the amazon had anything to do with the common definition of climategate?

Folks, just click the little arrows.....and if you can find where I typed the EXACT sentence that Ian used, then I'm wrong. But as I stated, Ian is just a stubborn child stamping his widdle feet because he can't deal with the FACTS of being proven wrong....so his lies are inconsequential to him.

 

[IanC]

Ian, the fact that you manufacture a quote from me that fits into your assertions is pathetic, given that the chronology of the posts shows your folly there.

Bottom line Ian, you're just beating a dead horse because you and your like minded cohorts just can't accept the fact that YOU WERE WRONG. Adding insult to injury, you initially went on a tear claiming that the article I sourced wasn't about the IPCC or climate-gate....and when I proved you wrong there, you don't have the maturity to admit error on that:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2717793-post44.html

You added NOTHING to the mix to avoid admitting that you were wrong on a crucial point.....and your insipid stubborness is showing to that effect.

where did I 'manufacture a quote from you'? and where did you show that the amazon had anything to do with the common definition of climategate?

Folks, just click the little arrows.....and if you can find where I typed the EXACT sentence that Ian used, then I'm wrong. But as I stated, Ian is just a stubborn child stamping his widdle feet because he can't deal with the FACTS of being proven wrong....so his lies are inconsequential to him.

Dude! are you stoned or something? What exactly are you accusing me of misquoting?

 

[IanC]

Amazon rainforests have little or nothing to do with Climategate. Neither does the Himalayan glacier fiasco. Climategate is about the integrity of climate science and scientists that has been called into question by the leaked emails and data from the CRU of EAU.
Please direct me to the emails about the Amazon so that I might be enlightened.

Your insipid stubborness is amazing. You just can't deal with the FACT that one of your supposed land mark cases against the reality of global warming was shot down, so now YOU make some assinine assertion that the FACTS regarding the climategate situation.

So let's take your moronic statement at face value......the basis for claiming someone falsified information is irrelevent. That's like accusing someone of stealing and then saying that the alleged stolen items are irrelevent when they are found NOT to be missing.

Grow up, Ian.




http://www.usmessageboard.com/2717793-post44.html

has anyone but you even brought up the amazon in the context of climategate? have you found it mentioned in any of the climategate emails yet? could you post some links to the story other than your original so I can find out what it was before someone 'retracted it and exonerated climategate'

 

[taichiliberal]

where did I 'manufacture a quote from you'? and where did you show that the amazon had anything to do with the common definition of climategate?

Folks, just click the little arrows.....and if you can find where I typed the EXACT sentence that Ian used, then I'm wrong. But as I stated, Ian is just a stubborn child stamping his widdle feet because he can't deal with the FACTS of being proven wrong....so his lies are inconsequential to him.

Dude! are you stoned or something? What exactly are you accusing me of misquoting?

Grow up, will ya? Suddenly you can't comprehend what you read.....but others can, and they see you for the dishonest little BS artist that you are. Your games and denial are over bunky. Flail away!

 

[taichiliberal]

Amazon rainforests have little or nothing to do with Climategate. Neither does the Himalayan glacier fiasco. Climategate is about the integrity of climate science and scientists that has been called into question by the leaked emails and data from the CRU of EAU.
Please direct me to the emails about the Amazon so that I might be enlightened.

Your insipid stubborness is amazing. You just can't deal with the FACT that one of your supposed land mark cases against the reality of global warming was shot down, so now YOU make some assinine assertion that the FACTS regarding the climategate situation.

So let's take your moronic statement at face value......the basis for claiming someone falsified information is irrelevent. That's like accusing someone of stealing and then saying that the alleged stolen items are irrelevent when they are found NOT to be missing.

Grow up, Ian.




http://www.usmessageboard.com/2717793-post44.html

has anyone but you even brought up the amazon in the context of climategate? have you found it mentioned in any of the climategate emails yet? could you post some links to the story other than your original so I can find out what it was before someone 'retracted it and exonerated climategate'

Read the information provided, and stop acting like a stubborn child. You're denial of what is presented is staggering, and suggest you need therapy...as you consistently cannot admit error on something as anonymous as this format. So continue to pretend information that proves you wrong doesn't exist.....ignore what is and create questions based on that fantasy. I'm done with you here.

 

[IanC]

Folks, just click the little arrows.....and if you can find where I typed the EXACT sentence that Ian used, then I'm wrong. But as I stated, Ian is just a stubborn child stamping his widdle feet because he can't deal with the FACTS of being proven wrong....so his lies are inconsequential to him.

Dude! are you stoned or something? What exactly are you accusing me of misquoting?

Grow up, will ya? Suddenly you can't comprehend what you read.....but others can, and they see you for the dishonest little BS artist that you are. Your games and denial are over bunky. Flail away!

ahhhh.... I get it. You mistakenly thought I misquoted you and now you are just stonewalling.

carry on then

 

[Big Fitz]

Folks, just click the little arrows.....and if you can find where I typed the EXACT sentence that Ian used, then I'm wrong. But as I stated, Ian is just a stubborn child stamping his widdle feet because he can't deal with the FACTS of being proven wrong....so his lies are inconsequential to him.

Dude! are you stoned or something? What exactly are you accusing me of misquoting?

Grow up, will ya? Suddenly you can't comprehend what you read.....but others can, and they see you for the dishonest little BS artist that you are. Your games and denial are over bunky. Flail away!

Wow.... someone's blowing a diode in panic that the lie's exposed for all the world, and they won't stay cowed anymore.

 

[IanC]

Dude! are you stoned or something? What exactly are you accusing me of misquoting?

Grow up, will ya? Suddenly you can't comprehend what you read.....but others can, and they see you for the dishonest little BS artist that you are. Your games and denial are over bunky. Flail away!

Wow.... someone's blowing a diode in panic that the lie's exposed for all the world, and they won't stay cowed anymore.

I am ashamed to admit that I get taken in by the insane ones. I thought he was pissed at something I did rather than the scary colours swirling in his brain.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Ian, you don't like what the scientists all over the world are reporting. We understand that. But it changes the evidence not one whit.

It is not just the people in England, or Mann, or Dr. Hansen. It is people in all fields of science. Physicists, chemists, geologists, biologists, ect. that are stating the AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Even the agriculteral community is pointing out the changes in growing seasons and weather variability.

Go ahead and sing in the chorus of denial. Won't change what is happening.

Old Rocks- I can understand your position too. And I don't want to change the evidence, I want to change the mistaken presumptions about it. I have never denied that there has been warming or that mankind's production of CO2 has added to that warming. But the two of us differ in our outlook.

You see manman GHGs as the main driver of temperature increases. I see them as being an additional amount to natural warming after the Little Ice Age.

Right now, by the Milankovic Cycles, we should not be warming at all, but cooling in a slow descent toward another ice age. So the warming that we are seeing right now in unnatural.

You see tipping points everywhere. I see the earth as biological system with built-in mechanisms to dampen out disruptions to the system.

I see evidence that we are crossing thresholds, and at some point, will cross enough that there will be no returning to the prior conditions for hundreds of generations.

You have extraordinary faith in scientific theorums and computer modelling that are based on simplistic and preliminary findings. I think we are a long way off from having a sound understanding of even the basics, let alone being able to predict events decades in the future.

Actually, if you look at my posts, you will see that most of the referances are not from computer modeling, but from observations of ice packs, glaciers, permafrost, clathrates, and actual present weather patterns. And, had you taken the time to look at the lectures from the American Geophysical Convention of 2009, you would have seen the source of much of my information.

Dr. James Hansen made some pretty accurate predictions in 1988. However, everybody pretty much missed their predictions after that. Nobody expected the melt in the Arctic to be where it is at today. Much faster than predicted. We did not expect to see the Arctic Ocean clathrates outgassing untill near the end of this century. Not start serious outgassing in 2008.

You seem to believe in the infallibility of scientists and their means of measurements. I am skeptical of both the accuracy and the precision of many of the data sets used to support AGW. Computer code errors at NASA, crazy readings from satellites, bizarre corrections in some areas and no corrections in others, small sample data given tremendous weighting over the complete data set, etc lead me to believe that the error ranges are large and suceptable to confirmation bias.

Yes, if their is a way to cast doubt on any of the data, then all the data must be wrong. Nice logical way to dismiss evidence that you do not like.

Ever have a computer crash on you? Then all computers are going to crash, so there is no use in using a computer. Your logic in a nutshell.

I hope you are wrong and I am right because there is no possible way of ending the use of fossil fuels until technology develops new means of powering our lifestyle. Windmills and solar panels won't make a dent but nuclear power might. Until then, continue on with your plaintive cries of 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling'.

I have spent a couple of decades hoping the evidence that I was seeing accumulate was wrong. However, every week there is more evidence that we are unalterably changing the climate that our agriculture depends on.

As for your nonsense about alternative power, wind has already made a considerable dent. Last years increase in wind power was the equal of several nuke plants at considerably less cost per kw.

Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity and Wind Project Locations

The sky fell on the Pakis and the Russians this year. In the manner that we "alarmists" have been predicting. Even though good crops in the US and Canada will make up for most of the shortfall, there will be some hungry people in the world because of the loss in those two nations.

 

[IanC]

I decided to check into 'Amazongate'. The results were unsuprising.

IPCC makes claim with bogus article. Observers report mistake and are ignored. Newspapers jump on story. IPCC cobbles together new (as in different) story with peer reviewed sources and claims the first story was accident. Newspaper retracts story and gives IPCC exoneration for this breach of scholarship, past breaches, and any undetected breaches that may come up in the future. The fact that an organization, entrusted to give governments advice on how to deal with a trillion dollar problem, used an article from a defunct website of a partisan environmental to make a major claim is somehow swept under the carpet.

Excerpts from what Christopher Booker writes in his latest Telegraph Column:

Last week, after six months of evasions, obfuscation, denials and retractions, a story which has preoccupied this column on and off since January came to a startling conclusion. It turns out that one of the most widely publicised statements in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a claim on which tens of billions of dollars could hang – was not based on peer-reviewed science, as repeatedly claimed, but originated solely from anonymous propaganda published on the website of a small Brazilian environmental advocacy group.


The ramifications of this discovery stretch in many directions. First, it seems to show that the IPCC – whose reports governments rely on to justify presenting mankind with the largest bill in history – has been in serious breach of its own rules.

…

The document cited by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), which it later described, after a full internal inquiry, as a “report”, proved remarkably difficult to track down. Since then, both the WWF and Dr Nepstad have cited other papers in support of their claim – but none of these provided any support for the specific claim about the impact of climate change made by the IPCC.

…

The original read: “Probably 30-40 per cent of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.” This was hyped up in the final drafting of the IPCC report, to claim that “up to 40 per cent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation”. “Brazilian Amazon” – only around half the total rainforest area – was changed to include the entire forest. The word “sensitive” was changed to “react drastically”. And the original IPAM note had made no mention at all of climate change.

 

[IanC]

OK, Ian, you don't like what the scientists all over the world are reporting. We understand that. But it changes the evidence not one whit.

It is not just the people in England, or Mann, or Dr. Hansen. It is people in all fields of science. Physicists, chemists, geologists, biologists, ect. that are stating the AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Even the agriculteral community is pointing out the changes in growing seasons and weather variability.

Go ahead and sing in the chorus of denial. Won't change what is happening.

Old Rocks- I can understand your position too. And I don't want to change the evidence, I want to change the mistaken presumptions about it. I have never denied that there has been warming or that mankind's production of CO2 has added to that warming. But the two of us differ in our outlook.

You see manman GHGs as the main driver of temperature increases. I see them as being an additional amount to natural warming after the Little Ice Age.

Right now, by the Milankovic Cycles, we should not be warming at all, but cooling in a slow descent toward another ice age. So the warming that we are seeing right now in unnatural.

You see tipping points everywhere. I see the earth as biological system with built-in mechanisms to dampen out disruptions to the system.

I see evidence that we are crossing thresholds, and at some point, will cross enough that there will be no returning to the prior conditions for hundreds of generations.

You have extraordinary faith in scientific theorums and computer modelling that are based on simplistic and preliminary findings. I think we are a long way off from having a sound understanding of even the basics, let alone being able to predict events decades in the future.

Actually, if you look at my posts, you will see that most of the referances are not from computer modeling, but from observations of ice packs, glaciers, permafrost, clathrates, and actual present weather patterns. And, had you taken the time to look at the lectures from the American Geophysical Convention of 2009, you would have seen the source of much of my information.

Dr. James Hansen made some pretty accurate predictions in 1988. However, everybody pretty much missed their predictions after that. Nobody expected the melt in the Arctic to be where it is at today. Much faster than predicted. We did not expect to see the Arctic Ocean clathrates outgassing untill near the end of this century. Not start serious outgassing in 2008.

You seem to believe in the infallibility of scientists and their means of measurements. I am skeptical of both the accuracy and the precision of many of the data sets used to support AGW. Computer code errors at NASA, crazy readings from satellites, bizarre corrections in some areas and no corrections in others, small sample data given tremendous weighting over the complete data set, etc lead me to believe that the error ranges are large and suceptable to confirmation bias.

Yes, if their is a way to cast doubt on any of the data, then all the data must be wrong. Nice logical way to dismiss evidence that you do not like.

Ever have a computer crash on you? Then all computers are going to crash, so there is no use in using a computer. Your logic in a nutshell.

I hope you are wrong and I am right because there is no possible way of ending the use of fossil fuels until technology develops new means of powering our lifestyle. Windmills and solar panels won't make a dent but nuclear power might. Until then, continue on with your plaintive cries of 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling'.

I have spent a couple of decades hoping the evidence that I was seeing accumulate was wrong. However, every week there is more evidence that we are unalterably changing the climate that our agriculture depends on.

As for your nonsense about alternative power, wind has already made a considerable dent. Last years increase in wind power was the equal of several nuke plants at considerably less cost per kw.

Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity and Wind Project Locations

The sky fell on the Pakis and the Russians this year. In the manner that we "alarmists" have been predicting. Even though good crops in the US and Canada will make up for most of the shortfall, there will be some hungry people in the world because of the loss in those two nations.

small request of you Old Rocks-- please dont insert your comments into what is identified as a direct quote from me. thanks.

I suppose I could or should go through and rebutt or reframe your rebuttals and reframes of my comments but I think I will just pass. You have your way of seeing evidence and I have mine.