Why is climate science political?

[bobgnote]

http://www.climategate.com/

Educate yourself fuckface.

I took a look at it, and it's crap, Pig Shitz. Do you and your punk posse actually read any part of that Climategate? It's kind of like Log Cabin Club coffee-table media, only online. Do you mainly just 'read' gay porn?

Post a paragraph or something, to go with an issue, fucktard. I go to government sites, these days. You queens of the JBS locker-room don't impress me.

"Everyone's a hypocrite. After that it is just a question of subject and scale." Boncher's Maxim

Since you put this down for signature, I guess this applies, to you, first. And you are some kind of BIG hypocrite, aren't you, Pig Shitz.

 

[westwall]

Fitz -

Can you explain why you use a blog as a source?

For someone who complains about junk science and cherrypicked data - that seems surprisingly inconsistent.

Because the blogs are proving to be more accurate than the scientists doing the work. I present this example of the scientists getting it completely ridiculously wrong and the AMS removing the paper from its website as a result. A COMPLETE failure of the peer review process that you worship. In the case of AGW it has failed and will continue to do so until there is a complete overhaul and punishment of the academic fraud that is now systemic within the "science" of climatology.


"American Meteorological Society disappears withdraws Gergis et al paper on proxy temperature reconstruction after post peer review finds fatal flaws.....

At Climate Audit, the paper was examined in more detail, and alarm bells went off. Concern centered around the 27 proxy data sets used in the study. Now, after Steve McIntyre found some major faults, it seems this paper has gone missing from the AMS website without explanation. All that remains is the Google cache thumbnail image, not even the cached web page.

Steve McIntyre has shown yet again that the climatologists can't do math and seem to be unable to do any kind of legitimate scientific research. Over, and over and over again they have been PROVEN wrong.

When will you wake up?



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/...ion-after-post-peer-review-finds-fatal-flaws/

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

I'll "wake up" when I see climate scpetics present a convincing case.

I find most conspiracy theories (holocaust denial, 9/11 truthers) can ask some powerful questions, but what they utterly unable to do is to present a sound narrative that explains the physical evidence.

When climate sceptics present a case which explains, for instance, why 97% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat, and retreating at what seems to be an ever-increasing pace, plus explanatiosn for melting arctic ice, increased storm patterns, desertification etc - I'll absolutely look at it.

I strongly doubt we'll ever see such a case presented.

 

[code1211]

Westwall -

I'll "wake up" when I see climate scpetics present a convincing case.

I find most conspiracy theories (holocaust denial, 9/11 truthers) can ask some powerful questions, but what they utterly unable to do is to present a sound narrative that explains the physical evidence.

When climate sceptics present a case which explains, for instance, why 97% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat, and retreating at what seems to be an ever-increasing pace, plus explanatiosn for melting arctic ice, increased storm patterns, desertification etc - I'll absolutely look at it.

I strongly doubt we'll ever see such a case presented.

Why wait?

The warming we are now experiencing is occurring at about the same pace today as it has for the last 400 or so years. This predates the Industrial Revolution which you cite as the cause of the warming.

The warming started before the cause you cite and so the cause you cite, while it might be contributor to the array of causes, is not the prime cause.

The reason climate science is political is that charlatans are trying to produce the effect of picking the pockets of the citizenry. They are using as the cause the rise of CO2.

Like the warming itself, the pocket picking was also occurring before this cause was invented.

When you can explain why the warming started in the first place, you will have gone a long way in explaining why it is continuing today.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

This link takes you to the graph of proxies of temperature increase. The research to develop this graph was done by these folks:

Reconstructions

The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:
(dark blue 1000-1991):
[abstract] [DOI] Jones, P.D., K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471.
(blue 1000-1980):
[abstract] [full text] Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762.
(light blue 1000-1965):
[abstract] Crowley, Thomas J. and Thomas S. Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. ; Modified as published in [abstract] [DOI] Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277.
(lightest blue 1402-1960):
[abstract] [DOI] Briffa, K.R., T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941.
(light green 831-1992):
[abstract] [DOI] Esper, J., E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253.
(yellow 200-1980):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Mann, M.E. and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820.
(orange 200-1995):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Jones, P.D. and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002.
(red-orange 1500-1980):
[abstract] [DOI] Huang, S. (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205.
(red 1-1979):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617.
(dark red 1600-1990):
[abstract] [DOI] Oerlemans, J.H. (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677.

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v was used. Documentation for the most recent update of the CRU/Hadley instrumental data set appears in:
[abstract] Jones, P.D. and A. Moberg (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate 16: 206-223.

This group of folks belongs to a larger group known as scientists. Presenting data is what scientists do. Picking pockets is what politicians do.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

LOL!!!!!!!!! Code, you are really full of it. You are stating that chart backs up your assertation that warming is occuring at present at the same rate it has been occurring for the last 400 years? From 1600 to 1800 that graph is about flat, from 1800 to 1900, a little warming, from 1900 to present, a rapidly increasing warmth, the graph is going straight up.

How the hell did you arrive at your interpretation of that graph?

 

[Saigon]

Code -

My reaction is the same as Old Rocks - it looks to me like the temperatures have fluctuated for several hundred years - before suddenly rocketing upwards from around 1950.

 

[Big Fitz]

http://www.climategate.com/

Educate yourself fuckface.

I took a look at it, and it's crap, Pig Shitz. Do you and your punk posse actually read any part of that Climategate? It's kind of like Log Cabin Club coffee-table media, only online. Do you mainly just 'read' gay porn?

Post a paragraph or something, to go with an issue, fucktard. I go to government sites, these days. You queens of the JBS locker-room don't impress me.

"Everyone's a hypocrite. After that it is just a question of subject and scale." Boncher's Maxim

Since you put this down for signature, I guess this applies, to you, first. And you are some kind of BIG hypocrite, aren't you, Pig Shitz.

Wow, Intellectually bankrupt AND projecting your homosexual desires. Won't even look at the EAU's own admissions of lying and preselecting the outcome via fraudulant software coding to get a desired result.

Not so flattered, and not your type bobo.

 

[bobgnote]

http://www.climategate.com/

Educate yourself fuckface.

I took a look at it, and it's crap, Pig Shitz. Do you and your punk posse actually read any part of that Climategate? It's kind of like Log Cabin Club coffee-table media, only online. Do you mainly just 'read' gay porn?

Post a paragraph or something, to go with an issue, fucktard. I go to government sites, these days. You queens of the JBS locker-room don't impress me.

"Everyone's a hypocrite. After that it is just a question of subject and scale." Boncher's Maxim

Since you put this down for signature, I guess this applies, to you, first. And you are some kind of BIG hypocrite, aren't you, Pig Shitz.

Wow, Intellectually bankrupt AND projecting your homosexual desires. Won't even look at the EAU's own admissions of lying and preselecting the outcome via fraudulant software coding to get a desired result.

Not so flattered, and not your type bobo.

Queen Pig Shitz, if you won't paste it up here, I won't hit the punk links, but since you are a Log Cabin sock, you have this idea I desire your type of porky junkie or your trick sites.

Since you are Pig Shitz, you think you can refer me to your sty, and I'll bring something back. I will go to wattsupwiththat.org, since it has other links, which are worthwhile, and a lot of pig shit. But your link is pure pig shit, and since you won't post or discuss any of it, hey, you are a Log Cabin closet-case, who acts like it's OK to shoot speed and trick, to shove your latest dose, all the way to death. No more jubilee, then!

Death comes, Queen Pig Shitz, even to queer piggies, so if you have time, post something from your shitty site, discuss part of it, and we'll see if you can get past being a shitty, queer sock.

 

[code1211]

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

LOL!!!!!!!!! Code, you are really full of it. You are stating that chart backs up your assertation that warming is occuring at present at the same rate it has been occurring for the last 400 years? From 1600 to 1800 that graph is about flat, from 1800 to 1900, a little warming, from 1900 to present, a rapidly increasing warmth, the graph is going straight up.

How the hell did you arrive at your interpretation of that graph?

Most of the graph is proxy measurements. Comparing proxy measurements to instrument measures is moronic, present company excepted, of course.

The end of the graph is not appropriately included in the proxies, but this is from an AGW Proponent site. I enjoy using your own supporters to undermine your case.

The most recent proxies actually show a decrease recently and the rate increase is just about constant from 1600 forward.

Check your bias at the door and take a second look.

 

[code1211]

Code -

My reaction is the same as Old Rocks - it looks to me like the temperatures have fluctuated for several hundred years - before suddenly rocketing upwards from around 1950.

The abridged answer given to Rocks, the end of the graph switches from proxies to instruments. There is no sense in comparing the instrument record to the proxy record.

Check the end of the proxy record.

 

[Trakar]

Why wait?

The warming we are now experiencing is occurring at about the same pace today as it has for the last 400 or so years.

I see no evidence compellingly supportive of this assertion in your post.

This predates the Industrial Revolution which you cite as the cause of the warming.

Forcing and causation aren't synomous terms. Additionally, the emissions are low and slow and dirty enough through-out most of the early industrialization period that we really don't start seeing anthropogenic CO2 becoming the major forcing factor until 1940-1950s.

The warming started before the cause you cite and so the cause you cite, while it might be contributor to the array of causes, is not the prime cause.

again, you seem to have a problem understanding the difference between "causation" and "forcing." There are multiple forcing factors involved in most climate change episodes, the current episode is no different. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary forcing agent of the modern climate change episode (there are other anthropogenic and natural forcing agents involved as well).

The reason climate science is political is that charlatans are trying to produce the effect of picking the pockets of the citizenry. They are using as the cause the rise of CO2.

This is an uncompellingly evidenced or supported partisan political conspiracy theory, not in accord with any objective and critical examination of the issue. I would not doubt that there are both some wise and some unscrupulous indivduals who are trying to profit from an understanding of what the science portends, but there is no compelling evidence that any of these people (individually or in concert) are shaping or influencing climate science.

 

[code1211]

Why wait?

The warming we are now experiencing is occurring at about the same pace today as it has for the last 400 or so years.

I see no evidence compellingly supportive of this assertion in your post.

This predates the Industrial Revolution which you cite as the cause of the warming.

Forcing and causation aren't synomous terms. Additionally, the emissions are low and slow and dirty enough through-out most of the early industrialization period that we really don't start seeing anthropogenic CO2 becoming the major forcing factor until 1940-1950s.

The warming started before the cause you cite and so the cause you cite, while it might be contributor to the array of causes, is not the prime cause.

again, you seem to have a problem understanding the difference between "causation" and "forcing." There are multiple forcing factors involved in most climate change episodes, the current episode is no different. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary forcing forcing agent of the modern climate change episode (there are other anthropogenic and natural forcing agents involved as well).

The reason climate science is political is that charlatans are trying to produce the effect of picking the pockets of the citizenry. They are using as the cause the rise of CO2.

This is an uncompellingly evidenced or supported partisan political conspiracy theory, not in accord with any objective and critical examination of the issue. I would not doubt that there are both some wise and some unscrupulous indivduals who are trying to profit from an understanding of what the science portends, but there is no compelling evidence that any of these people (individually or in concert) are shaping or influencing climate science.

For the purpose of this post, let's assume that you are absolutely correct and all other forcings are weak compared to the primary one that is CO2.

Why is there a cooling trend from 2001 forward while CO2 continues its increase?

 

[Trakar]

Fitz -

Can you explain why you use a blog as a source?

For someone who complains about junk science and cherrypicked data - that seems surprisingly inconsistent.

Because the blogs are proving to be more accurate than the scientists doing the work. I present this example of the scientists getting it completely ridiculously wrong and the AMS removing the paper from its website as a result. A COMPLETE failure of the peer review process that you worship. In the case of AGW it has failed and will continue to do so until there is a complete overhaul and punishment of the academic fraud that is now systemic within the "science" of climatology.

"American Meteorological Society disappears withdraws Gergis et al paper on proxy temperature reconstruction after post peer review finds fatal flaws.....

At Climate Audit, the paper was examined in more detail, and alarm bells went off. Concern centered around the 27 proxy data sets used in the study. Now, after Steve McIntyre found some major faults, it seems this paper has gone missing from the AMS website without explanation. All that remains is the Google cache thumbnail image, not even the cached web page.

Steve McIntyre has shown yet again that the climatologists can't do math and seem to be unable to do any kind of legitimate scientific research. Over, and over and over again they have been PROVEN wrong.

When will you wake up?

American Meteorological Society disappears withdraws Gergis et al paper on proxy temperature reconstruction after post peer review finds fatal flaws | Watts Up With That?

As the paper you reference is still available on the NOAA website, I'd have to say this is rather a row without much substance or significance. It is impossible to say what the reasons are for why it is not available on the AMS site, but without some compelling evidence one way or the other, the blogs are simply speculating and asserting their partisan political and pseudoscience in the lieu of facts, evidences and critical analyses, not that this is, or should be, any great surprise.

And the full paper and supplements are readily available from the University of Melborne research site where it has been available for the last month and a half or so.

http://climatehistory.com.au/wp-con...script_and_Supplementary_April_2012_final.pdf

Upon superficial examination it is not merely this one paper that is missing, all of Gergis's and Neukom's papers seem to have disappeared from the AMS database. It is certainly possible that someone has pulled many formerly available papers from the AMS website, what is not clear at this time is who pulled them and why they were pulled. speculating in the absence of compelling evidence is not a rigorous methodology in accord with scientific principles.

 

[Trakar]

For the purpose of this post, let's assume that you are absolutely correct and all other forcings are weak compared to the primary one that is CO2.

Why is there a cooling trend from 2001 forward while CO2 continues its increase?

You seem to have several confusions operating in concert here.

1. Climate operates with a minimal normative period of substantive assessment of 30 years. There definitionally cannot be climate relevent trends of less than 30 years.

2. Annual and seasonal weather is highly variable over the short-term (<30y mean assessments), with annual mean temperature variations of up to (and occassionally in excess of) +/- 0.1º C being quite common due to a confluence of the various interacting forcing factors and the natural system cycles (oceanic and atmospheric oscillation cycles, solar fluctuations, etc.,) operating within the background setting of those forcing factors.

3. As 2001, is the tenth warmest year in the instrumental record that stretches back for more than 160 years. With the exception of 1998 (the third warmest year on the instrumental record) all of the other years in the top ten warmest years on the instrumental record have occurred since 2001, with 2005 and 2010 being the two warmest years in the instrumental record.

There is no compelling, evidentiary indication of any "cooling trend" since 2001, in either weather, or climate.

(Weather trend)

(Climate trend)
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/dTs_60+132mons.pdf

 

[skookerasbil]

Westwall -

I'll "wake up" when I see climate scpetics present a convincing case.

I find most conspiracy theories (holocaust denial, 9/11 truthers) can ask some powerful questions, but what they utterly unable to do is to present a sound narrative that explains the physical evidence.

When climate sceptics present a case which explains, for instance, why 97% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat, and retreating at what seems to be an ever-increasing pace, plus explanatiosn for melting arctic ice, increased storm patterns, desertification etc - I'll absolutely look at it.

I strongly doubt we'll ever see such a case presented.

s0n.......not sure if you recall, but you were the bozo who started this thread. The whole point is.......the sceptics dont need to present shit. They're winning!!! Its the other side that hasnt sealed the deal.


Because if they did s0n...............Cap and Trade would be law!!!


Instead?????????????????????

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[code1211]

For the purpose of this post, let's assume that you are absolutely correct and all other forcings are weak compared to the primary one that is CO2.

Why is there a cooling trend from 2001 forward while CO2 continues its increase?

You seem to have several confusions operating in concert here.

1. Climate operates with a minimal normative period of substantive assessment of 30 years. There definitionally cannot be climate relevent trends of less than 30 years.

2. Annual and seasonal weather is highly variable over the short-term (<30y mean assessments), with annual mean temperature variations of up to (and occassionally in excess of) +/- 0.1º C being quite common due to a confluence of the various interacting forcing factors and the natural system cycles (oceanic and atmospheric oscillation cycles, solar fluctuations, etc.,) operating within the background setting of those forcing factors.

3. As 2001, is the tenth warmest year in the instrumental record that stretches back for more than 160 years. With the exception of 1998 (the third warmest year on the instrumental record) all of the other years in the top ten warmest years on the instrumental record have occurred since 2001, with 2005 and 2010 being the two warmest years in the instrumental record.

There is no compelling, evidentiary indication of any "cooling trend" since 2001, in either weather, or climate.

(Weather trend)

(Climate trend)
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/dTs_60+132mons.pdf

Very well stated.

The accurate measurements of global climate started in about 1980 with satellite measurements.

It is now 2012.

That's just a tad over 30 years.

For the first 20 of those years, the temperature has increased which is meaningless since it is less than 30 years.

For the last 10 of those years, the temperature has stalled or decreased. Also meaningless due to brevity.

The question, though is based on the prescription to avert the catastrophic warming.

If we reduce CO2 and by way of ending our dependance on Fossil Fuels which will also consign our society to famine and mass deaths, we are told that we can save ourselves. For ten years, though, we find that our temperature is not increasing and also find that that the brightest mind of the AGW crowd, Dr. James Hansen, apparently has gross misunderstandings on how our climate system works.

Compelling evidence of a cooling trend is not required. Compelling evidence of a warming trend IS required. It is the warming that must be stopped, is it not? If there is no compelling evidence of a cooling trend, this does not automatically provide compelling evidence of warming.

Salvation, in the form of stalled warming, is at hand with no sacrifice. We may all rejoice!


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/...n-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

 

[Big Fitz]

I took a look at it, and it's crap, Pig Shitz. Do you and your punk posse actually read any part of that Climategate? It's kind of like Log Cabin Club coffee-table media, only online. Do you mainly just 'read' gay porn?

Post a paragraph or something, to go with an issue, fucktard. I go to government sites, these days. You queens of the JBS locker-room don't impress me.

"Everyone's a hypocrite. After that it is just a question of subject and scale." Boncher's Maxim

Since you put this down for signature, I guess this applies, to you, first. And you are some kind of BIG hypocrite, aren't you, Pig Shitz.

Wow, Intellectually bankrupt AND projecting your homosexual desires. Won't even look at the EAU's own admissions of lying and preselecting the outcome via fraudulant software coding to get a desired result.

Not so flattered, and not your type bobo.

Queen Pig Shitz, if you won't paste it up here, I won't hit the punk links, but since you are a Log Cabin sock, you have this idea I desire your type of porky junkie or your trick sites.

Since you are Pig Shitz, you think you can refer me to your sty, and I'll bring something back. I will go to wattsupwiththat.org, since it has other links, which are worthwhile, and a lot of pig shit. But your link is pure pig shit, and since you won't post or discuss any of it, hey, you are a Log Cabin closet-case, who acts like it's OK to shoot speed and trick, to shove your latest dose, all the way to death. No more jubilee, then!

Death comes, Queen Pig Shitz, even to queer piggies, so if you have time, post something from your shitty site, discuss part of it, and we'll see if you can get past being a shitty, queer sock.

I do believe I hit a nerve.

Let's see. This is the first time I've ever been called a sock before. That's new. He's obviously a poor example of liberal tolerance because he uses queer as a perjorative. Seems to be trying out kosher or halal insults by using pig references and all the time flipping out because reality done left him behind.

Very entertaining. Do melt down more for us, will you Bobo.

 

[skookerasbil]

Wow, Intellectually bankrupt AND projecting your homosexual desires. Won't even look at the EAU's own admissions of lying and preselecting the outcome via fraudulant software coding to get a desired result.

Not so flattered, and not your type bobo.

Queen Pig Shitz, if you won't paste it up here, I won't hit the punk links, but since you are a Log Cabin sock, you have this idea I desire your type of porky junkie or your trick sites.

Since you are Pig Shitz, you think you can refer me to your sty, and I'll bring something back. I will go to wattsupwiththat.org, since it has other links, which are worthwhile, and a lot of pig shit. But your link is pure pig shit, and since you won't post or discuss any of it, hey, you are a Log Cabin closet-case, who acts like it's OK to shoot speed and trick, to shove your latest dose, all the way to death. No more jubilee, then!

Death comes, Queen Pig Shitz, even to queer piggies, so if you have time, post something from your shitty site, discuss part of it, and we'll see if you can get past being a shitty, queer sock.

I do believe I hit a nerve.

Let's see. This is the first time I've ever been called a sock before. That's new. He's obviously a poor example of liberal tolerance because he uses queer as a perjorative. Seems to be trying out kosher or halal insults by using pig references and all the time flipping out because reality done left him behind.

Very entertaining. Do melt down more for us, will you Bobo.

I told ya Fitz..............this place is a hoot for guys like us.

Ever see those psycholigical thrillers Fitz? The ones where the victim has figured out that they cant say certain things or else they'll surely be gutted!!! Here its the reverse..........its like being in the same position as the victim but you can say anything you want and the nut melts down........but here, its like they start slicing themselves up while we laugh our asses off. You know these mental cases are just the most miserable mofu's on the planet.

 

[Saigon]

Check your bias at the door and take a second look.

There is no question at all that the graph shows a dramatic rise from around halfway through the 20th century.

Are you seriously claiming that it does not exist?