Global warming proved to be a scam?

[retro]

Wow, perhaps the biggest scam in recorded history?

It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.

EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling - Washington Times

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”


“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”​

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs


Hopefully this will put an end to the Cap and Tax debacle that Obama has been trying to get passed, and perhaps put the final nail in the coffin of so-called global warming. I mean come on here, deleting data and e-mails that disagree with their own beliefs, manipulating data to show warming trends where there were actually cooling trends? It's disgusting on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin.

 

[Tomperi]

I doubt this'll have any effect on the ecomentalism of today.. After all, it's not based around saving the planet. It's based around profit.

 

[Lord Stanley]

not headlines news, why are the media not jumping on this

 

[MoonOwl]

not headlines news, why are the media not jumping on this

:24: One guess


This has been all over indy news blogs for the last few days. Good thing we weren't holding our collective breath waiting on the corporate media to inform us eh?

Raise your hand if you're surprised about it all? *keeps hand down*

 

[Lord Stanley]

:24: One guess


This has been all over indy news blogs for the last few days. Good thing we weren't holding our collective breath waiting on the corporate media to inform us eh?

Raise your hand if you're surprised about it all? *keeps hand down*

sits on hands

 

[Zorak]

You lot make me laugh.

You're all so partisan. I've read a number of articles that also "prove" that environmental data has been edited to leave out evidence of global warming.

This is no different. You're right not to believe at face value what men in white coats tell you, but you're happy to take at face value whatever agrees with your viewpoint.

 

[MoonOwl]

I'll say one more sarcastic thing

Cherry-picking evidence/Manipulating data to push an agenda ? That's NEVER happened before:24: Tho, it's really not funny.:thumbdown

 

[nova]

You're all so partisan. I've read a number of articles that also "prove" that environmental data has been edited to leave out evidence of global warming.

Except this is emails and computer code by the guys dinking with the data saying "Hey here's what we're doing." Phil Jones, the director of CRU, and Gavin Smidt have already admitted this stuff is genuine.

On top of that, they're implicated in illegal activities, namely conspiring to violate both the US and the UK Freedom of Information Acts.

 

[Tim]

Except this is emails and computer code by the guys dinking with the data saying "Hey here's what we're doing." Phil Jones, the director of CRU, and Gavin Smidt have already admitted this stuff is genuine.

On top of that, they're implicated in illegal activities, namely conspiring to violate both the US and the UK Freedom of Information Acts.

And I'm glad they were found out to be impostors and frauds. I hope they get real time behind bars if any crimes were indeed broken.
But to say that man made global warming is a hoax because this group manipulated and falsified data... that's a stretch. To say that the bogus data supplied by group A invalidates the data from groups B-Z is ridiculous.

I heard all about this on Rush yesterday and it made me laugh. This was all the proof that he needed to validate his "common sense" conclusions concerning global warming. He actually had the balls to say that he believes in God *cough* and that God created man, so man is incapable of destroying the planet. Basically he is saying that advanced lifestyles, progress, cannot be killing the planet, because God wouldn't allow it. :24:

 

[nova]

To say that the bogus data supplied by group A invalidates the data from groups B-Z is ridiculous.

Only problem is, Group A is the only group running pushing the "must take action right now whatever the cost line." Groups B-Z are a lot more reticent about those claims. Group A is just dominating the debate and as these emails have shown, actively conspired to keep any skeptical claims out of the debate. When you're main argument against skeptics is lack of published peer reviewed articles and you're actively trying to keep journals from publishing skeptical arguments, thats not in the best interest of science, I don't care what the science is.

20 years ago, James Hansen testified before congress that if we did not take steps to curb CO2 emissions, there would be worldwide disaster by 2010. Well its almost 2010 and life goes on as usual, no disasters. Maybe he was off by a couple years and mean 2012 but who knows.

You look back at his 3 scenarios graph and CO2 concentrations are higher than his worst case scenario and temps are lower than his best case scenario. Thats not the mark of people who really understand just WTF is going on.

Dig even deeper and look at the forcing constants that the climate models rely on. Most rely on CO2 forcing values an order of magnitude higher than anything that has been observed in the real climate over the last 100 years. They also rely on positive feedback mechanisms that are virtually non-existent in nature. Positive feedbacks that are diametrically at odds to the relatively stable climate that the earth has had for 10s of thousands of years.

Those are the models that they're using to push claims of catastrophe, the same models that they have to tweak constantly because, gosh darn it, the real temperature trends just aren't behaving and are continuing on the same exact trend that has been seen since the end of the "little ice age" instead of shooting through the roof.

There's also the claims of this warming being "unprecedented." Its only unprecedented if it hasn't happened before, and the emails show attempts to diminish the data record of the medieval warm period, which without monkeying with the data to remove the MWP, makes the current temps decidedly precedented.

Is putting GHGs into the atmosphere affecting the climate? I'd have to say yes.

Is it affecting the climate more than land use or other changes we make? Maybe, maybe not.

Is it going to causes disasters requiring immediate action right now before we really understand whats going on? Given the history of the last 20 years and no evidence to support positive feedbacks, I doubt it.

 

[JanieDough]

look it's not like global warming ever scared anyone into voting differently or acting any differently

if you are an environmentalist, you just don't believe in pollution period whether it causes global warming or not.

 

[All Else Failed]

Global warming has been confirmed by several thousands independent scientific organizations and researchers. This is not about science, this is about academia. Anyone who denies the existence of global warming is scientifically illiterate.

 

[Tangerine]

Global warming has been confirmed by several thousands independent scientific organizations and researchers. This is not about science, this is about academia. Anyone who denies the existence of global warming is scientifically illiterate.

The cause of it, however, has not.

 

[Dana]

Global warming has been confirmed by several thousands independent scientific organizations and researchers. This is not about science, this is about academia. Anyone who denies the existence of global warming is scientifically illiterate.

The real problem is societies definition of global warming. of course the earth is heating up and cooling down but why? is man partly at fault? Sure... But to say the climactic change thats been happening since Earth's beginning is solely mans fault is ridiculous.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

The only way someone will make me think that Global Warming is proved wrong is if they:

a) Prove how the Greenhouse effect doesn't change the climate
b) how digging up millions of pounds of carbon that have collected under ground for millions of years, and putting them back into the atmosphere in under 200 years doesn't effect something
c) Why the earths climate is warming, with none of the other variables that generally cause climate change, changing, except the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

Not by saying a group of scientists is corrupt or lied about something somewhere.

 

[nova]

The only way someone will make me think that Global Warming is proved wrong is if they:

a) Prove how the Greenhouse effect doesn't change the climate
b) how digging up millions of pounds of carbon that have collected under ground for millions of years, and putting them back into the atmosphere in under 200 years doesn't effect something
c) Why the earths climate is warming, with none of the other variables that generally cause climate change, changing, except the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

Not by saying a group of scientists is corrupt or lied about something somewhere.

a. Nobody is ever going to argue that because its quite obviously bogus. The basic science of GHGs has been established for over 100 years. The argument is not whether increasing GHGs impacts the complex climate system, but to what degree, how it relates to other factors and what the impact to humans will be.

b. The basic science I mentioned in a shows thats CO2 has a warming impact that is an exponential decay function ie the more there is, the less effect the next increase has. Therefore the argument is not over what CO2 does, but what the secondary effects and feedback loops are. One side says there are positive feedback loops leading to an unstable climate and catastrophe the other side is questioning why we've never seen the instability before if positive feedback loops exists along with pointing out the fact that positive feedback loops are rare in nature.

c. How exactly would you know since the majority of climate science is focused almost entirely on the greenhouse effect and not things like solar irradiance and changes to the earth's albedo from things like land use changes and variations in cloud cover? I believe Lindzen from MIT has a plausible paper describing how cyclical variations in wind patterns can cause fluctuations in cloud cover and thus albedo, raising or lowering temperature on a global scale. What level of contribution might we be seeing from that? If we spend the majority of our resources investigating one avenue, we may never know...

The ultimate point is this, if they are corrupt and lying, keeping legitimate skeptical research out of the journal literature, in effect suppressing the research then they could (and did to some extent) suppress evidence of all 3 of your points. THATS where the problem comes in because thats not science. Science examines all the ideas in the open based upon the merits, not based on pre-conceived ideas...

 

[Goat Whisperer]

a. Nobody is ever going to argue that because its quite obviously bogus. The basic science of GHGs has been established for over 100 years. The argument is not whether increasing GHGs impacts the complex climate system, but to what degree, how it relates to other factors and what the impact to humans will be.

b. The basic science I mentioned in a shows thats CO2 has a warming impact that is an exponential decay function ie the more there is, the less effect the next increase has. Therefore the argument is not over what CO2 does, but what the secondary effects and feedback loops are. One side says there are positive feedback loops leading to an unstable climate and catastrophe the other side is questioning why we've never seen the instability before if positive feedback loops exists along with pointing out the fact that positive feedback loops are rare in nature.

c. How exactly would you know since the majority of climate science is focused almost entirely on the greenhouse effect and not things like solar irradiance and changes to the earth's albedo from things like land use changes and variations in cloud cover? I believe Lindzen from MIT has a plausible paper describing how cyclical variations in wind patterns can cause fluctuations in cloud cover and thus albedo, raising or lowering temperature on a global scale. What level of contribution might we be seeing from that? If we spend the majority of our resources investigating one avenue, we may never know...

The ultimate point is this, if they are corrupt and lying, keeping legitimate skeptical research out of the journal literature, in effect suppressing the research then they could (and did to some extent) suppress evidence of all 3 of your points. THATS where the problem comes in because thats not science. Science examines all the ideas in the open based upon the merits, not based on pre-conceived ideas...

a) Saying something is 'bogus' doesn't prove it wrong.
b) True, but since we don't know what that exponential decay is (aka, we don't know at what point there is enough carbon to stop it's effect on the climate) The point where there will be a high concentration of carbon in the atmosphere so it doesn't increase temperatures anymore, could be well beyond what we can handle in climate change.
c) Good so you agree, we still haven't found an alternative to anthropogenic climate change.

Still doesn't prove climate change is completely false.

 

[JanieDough]

lol LOVE that you guys are organizing your arguments!

 

[nova]

a) Saying something is 'bogus' doesn't prove it wrong.
b) True, but since we don't know what that exponential decay is (aka, we don't know at what point there is enough carbon to stop it's effect on the climate) The point where there will be a high concentration of carbon in the atmosphere so it doesn't increase temperatures anymore, could be well beyond what we can handle in climate change.
c) Good so you agree, we still haven't found an alternative to anthropogenic climate change.

Still doesn't prove climate change is completely false.

a. I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying the argument that GHGs have no effect is bogus.

b. We actually do know what the exponential decay is based on both the basic lab science I first mentioned combined with a bit of empirical observations. That curve is pretty well defined and has been nearly 100 years. Even the likes of Jones and Mann agree the curve is what it is and use it as the basis for their modeling, the only diference being they use positive feedback mechanisms.

The exponential decay curve indicates a temp increase of around 1*C as a consequence of doubling pre-industrial CO2 concentrations. Oddly enough, temp trends are following a track somewhat lower than that, indicating negative feedback mechanisms in the climate system. Negative feedback mechanisms that would preclude the claims of catastrophe when coupled with the exponential decay.

If thats the case, then we can actually afford to wait on new technologies that will reduce the amount of CO2 we put into the air without bankrupting us. At some point in the not too distant future, we may even be able to reclaim CO2 as fuel to re-use...

c. If you're saying I agree we're having some affect, then yes. If you're saying I agree we're the primary driver then no not necessarily. It reminds me of how much I love comparisons like this. One supposedly "natural" and one caused by us. But which is which exactly?



And this is all not to touch on the question of whether we could or should do anything to mitigate if we are the primary drivers. Historically, the periods of humanities greatest prosperity have been the warmest periods. That being the case, do we really want to try and keep the world a colder place, especially if it requires us expending large sums of money on mitigation eroding our prosperity further.

I guess, what I'm saying ultimately, is I want an open investigation followed by an open and honest cost/benefit analysis, before we undertake actions that will fundamentally change our way of life....

 

[dt3]

Climate change hits Mars - Times Online

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Those damn polluting Martians need to get their act together