Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

[barfo]

He's lying. Legally, as of now, but he's still lying, and still profiting off of it. We'll see what happens as "ClimateGate" advances, since it's clear that nothing substantive is going to result from the Copenhagen scam.

Ok, so you agree the Madoff comparison was inappropriate. Good, we are making progress.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Ok, so you agree the Madoff comparison was inappropriate. Good, we are making progress.

barfo

There is no international law against defrauding governments and their taxpayers to fund a carbon credit scheme.

So, he's Madoff, but in a more egregious manner, since the people paying him aren't doing so voluntarily. He's found a loophole. He's the ultimate capitalist, yet I disagree with his lies.

 

[barfo]

There is no international law against defrauding governments and their taxpayers to fund a carbon credit scheme.

So, he's Madoff, but in a more egregious manner, since the people paying him aren't doing so voluntarily. He's found a loophole. He's the ultimate capitalist, yet I disagree with his lies.

Lobbying for one's own business interests is not considered illegal or even immoral in this country. You can disagree with what he says, but your case that he's doing something inappropriate is weaker than the weakest weakling this week.

barfo

 

[¹²³]

I found this interesting and thought I should share here.

A Look At Climate Data

 

[Denny Crane]

Lobbying for one's own business interests is not considered illegal or even immoral in this country. You can disagree with what he says, but your case that he's doing something inappropriate is weaker than the weakest weakling this week.

barfo

Of course what he's doing is not illegal.

But what does it say about him being so wrong and Hollywood and the Nobel committee giving him awards for his bullshit?

Pick one: either he's got them fooled, or there's some climategate type collusion going on.

 

[maxiep]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-mcintyre-and-the-divergence-problem/

 

[MrJayremmie]

I think that the Climategate e-mails were a pretty major deal that should be looked into far more than it is currently.

Fox News sure seems to love it, though.

I just think it is sooo dumb that this turned into a left vs. right issue. If data was really being manipulated for a certain purpose, it needs to be investigated.

That being said, I do not doubt that global warming/climate change is happening. I think that it takes someone who is pretty ignorant of scientific data to deny that. At the same time, I do have doubt about the severity of it, and that was amplified by the data. I'm still all for lowering pollution and emissions while getting off fossil fuels to more clean energy. I think that is a necessity.

 

[barfo]

But what does it say about him being so wrong and Hollywood and the Nobel committee giving him awards for his bullshit?

It says you have no perspective. Getting a fact wrong, or misquoting someone, doesn't make him "so wrong" about everything, any more than your mistakes make you "so wrong" about everything.

Of course, you are wrong about everything, but it's not because you are casual with the facts.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

It says you have no perspective. Getting a fact wrong, or misquoting someone, doesn't make him "so wrong" about everything, any more than your mistakes make you "so wrong" about everything.

Of course, you are wrong about everything, but it's not because you are casual with the facts.

barfo

You have a point there.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think that the Climategate e-mails were a pretty major deal that should be looked into far more than it is currently.

Fox News sure seems to love it, though.

I just think it is sooo dumb that this turned into a left vs. right issue. If data was really being manipulated for a certain purpose, it needs to be investigated.

That being said, I do not doubt that global warming/climate change is happening. I think that it takes someone who is pretty ignorant of scientific data to deny that. At the same time, I do have doubt about the severity of it, and that was amplified by the data. I'm still all for lowering pollution and emissions while getting off fossil fuels to more clean energy. I think that is a necessity.

Exactly.

 

[Denny Crane]

I won't bother with the daily "Gore being an ass" article.

Instead, this:

[video=youtube;qJUFTm6cJXM]

 

[barfo]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-mcintyre-and-the-divergence-problem/

This is the kind of thing that gives the skeptics a bad name.

He claims that if the green line (Briffa) had been extended beyond 1960, the result would look very different and the hockey stick would be less pronounced.

That's nonsense, and here's why. The green line is tree-ring data, the red line is actual thermometer measurements of the temperature. The red line is what makes the hockey stick. The red line is not affected by whether the green line is on the graph or not.

The case he could have made, had he had any clue about what he was talking about, is that maybe because the last 40 years of tree-ring data doesn't seem to agree with actual temperatures, that casts doubt on the value of tree-ring data to determine past temperatures. That would have been a logical point to make. Of course it wouldn't invalidate the graph, because they also included 3 other methods for determining past temperatures, and they all show lower past temperatures than the last few years.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

This is the kind of thing that gives the skeptics a bad name.

He claims that if the green line (Briffa) had been extended beyond 1960, the result would look very different and the hockey stick would be less pronounced.

That's nonsense, and here's why. The green line is tree-ring data, the red line is actual thermometer measurements of the temperature. The red line is what makes the hockey stick. The red line is not affected by whether the green line is on the graph or not.

The case he could have made, had he had any clue about what he was talking about, is that maybe because the last 40 years of tree-ring data doesn't seem to agree with actual temperatures, that casts doubt on the value of tree-ring data to determine past temperatures. That would have been a logical point to make. Of course it wouldn't invalidate the graph, because they also included 3 other methods for determining past temperatures, and they all show lower past temperatures than the last few years.

barfo

Or it could be the fact that data that doesn't fit the conclusion gets tossed out in this field. This attitude is my primary problem with the way science is being used here. I think the globe is warming, but I have doubts exactly how much humankind is to blame. What I was taught in grad school was first you come up with a question and then you attempt to answer it. You don't arrive at a conclusion and then try to find the data to fit it. That's bad science.

If scientists are going to be unassailable, then they need to be above the fray in the political debate. If there is messy or contradictory data, then you bring that data to the forefront and start investigating why that data is divergent. You don't hide it and then call the science "settled".

 

[barfo]

Or it could be the fact that data that doesn't fit the conclusion gets tossed out in this field. This attitude is my primary problem with the way science is being used here. I think the globe is warming, but I have doubts exactly how much humankind is to blame.

That, I think, is a perfectly reasonable position. However, the article you quoted was trying to cast doubt on whether the globe is in fact warming, and doing so with no understanding.

What I was taught in grad school was first you come up with a question and then you attempt to answer it. You don't arrive at a conclusion and then try to find the data to fit it. That's bad science.

Which is what the author of the article you cited was doing. Trying to fit data he didn't understand into a conclusion he already had.

If scientists are going to be unassailable, then they need to be above the fray in the political debate. If there is messy or contradictory data, then you bring that data to the forefront and start investigating why that data is divergent. You don't hide it and then call the science "settled".

Agreed.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

When the walls, come crumbling down...

Cherrypicking data in the name of "science". This will turn out to be the scientific scandal of the century. Thank goodness the Russians (along with an apparently shamed CRU scientist) are on top of this.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf

Russians confirm UK climate scientists manipulated data

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

 

[Denny Crane]

If you want really cold weather and blizzard conditions, just hold one of those global warming conferences. Like tornadoes to trailer parks.

 

[Denny Crane]