Slashdot Mirror

Well why don't we get some progressives and environmentalists in here. Then we can watch as a scientist disputes their data, and the university cans them for not backing down due to their outcry. And then we can get into the really shit crap from ~40 years ago when they(progressives, environmentalists, NGO's like greenpeace, sierra club, etc) were complaining about paper bags and how cutting down sustainable forestry is "really bad" for the environment and how we should all switch to plastic.

As always, TFA fails to look at the broader context. 200 years ago was the Little Ice Age", i.e., an unusually cold period in history. Much of the warming of the past 200 years is simply due to coming out of this cold period. Exactly how much, is difficult to say.

CRU is the climate research unit from University of East Anglia who refused to provide climate data used to push the global warming narrative when requested by people they considered hostile to their cause. Accusations of this were made several times and denied but someone hacked into the email servers and released a bunch of email showing them discussing withholding the information. Now it is said that the original raw data does not exist any more nor does the methods and processes used to correct irregularities of it.

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

http://jennifermarohasy.com/20...

Now, I know you are a global warming pusher and have your own beliefs but this is not about you in the slightest. All that I'm a believer bullshit you just posted is irrelevant to what was said. Let me repeat that in less convoluted terms in case it was too difficult for you. What kind of grand conspiracy would you be tilting at instead of windmills if the data and process were made available early on when the notion of anthropogenic global warming was being introduced instead of hiding it because of fears that people would pick it apart? I would be more than 80% of the so called deniers- the ones who actually believe there is long term warming but either do not believe humans are the chief architect of it or that there are agendas hidden within the claims so the so called solutions should not be trusted would not be questioning anything right now. But you go on stating how you was always a believer and the appearance of improprieties did nothing to shake that belief.

You think if I read some anti-science blogs I would find that science is all wrong, and that the real truth can only be found in blogs that say that the scientists are all lying?

What makes you think "Steve Goddard's" blog is "anti-science"? Because it doesn't conform to your world-view? That's name-calling, not an argument.

Goddard examines raw data records and compares against the "adjusted" data. This is what allowed him (and others) to show the massive amount of manipulation that is done to data that comes out of NCDC, and GISS in particular. GISS has been widely criticized for questionable manipulation of its data sets, and in fact not long ago it was found (by who? your "anti-science" Steve Goddard that NCDC was improperly "infilling" as much as 40% of its data in some cases from temperature stations that were offline or did not even exist.

Not only that, NCDC publicly admitted that infilling was a problem, that they had known about it (for some unspecified time), and that they "intended to fix it" at some unspecified time in the future. Nobody knows how long they had known about it or when they intend to fix it.

Obviously, nobody needs to "fix" something that is working properly.

Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted.

Further, your sources are not all "independent", since most of them incestuously rely on the same questionable data sets. It doesn't have to be "a conspiracy" or "lying", if they all work with the same questionable data. This is a valid point that people have been making for well over a decade.

So don't sit there and tell me what your vaunted sources say, until you address the data they are all using. There are KNOWN serious problems with it. Not just minor problems; big ones.

I suspect that this is bullshit.

You suspect incorrectly. My "collection" consists of web links to official data, of course, it's not all right here on my hard drive. But I do have it. Don't expect me to post it all here on Slashdot. Regardless, your "suspicions" are irrelevant.

I see you don't read your own links very well. From the abstract of the first paper: These adjustments yield large increases (2.2â"7.1 Ã-- 1022 J 35 yr1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.

I see you didn't read my comment very well, AND have poor analysis skills. First, the conclusion is drawn from the second paper, which references the first. Second, the Argo array has been measuring the upper-level sea temperatures since 2005. THOSE temperatures are no surprise and have already been accounted for.

Deep ocean warming was the last gasp attempt to show that the CO2-based warming models were sound, by discovering the "missing heat" that they predict. There is none. Therefore the CO2-based warming models are unsound.

You can try to obfuscate this fact all you like, but it really doesn't get much simpler than that.

Hell, even the majority of climate scientists admit that it hasn't really warmed for 16 years or more now.

Really. Citation please.

Seriously? Do you know absolutely nothing about the subject you are discussing, and pretending to refute me on?

Even the latest IPCC AR report, which is of course based largely

Certainly not in the scientific literature.

Actually, yes it is. This first example isn't NOAA, it is just for illustration, because it was a handy but excellent example of the same kind of shenanigans. (Note, I'm not claiming "conspiracy" here but incompetence and certain other circumstances can lead to the same net result.) The data is from official sources, the same datasets that scientists use, as is the progressive "adjustment" of same. The historical (official) record is quite clear. The linked story is not itself "the scientific literature", of course, but the official historical temperature data IS.

Now go look at NOAA and GISS explanations of their TOBS "adjustments" for just one more example, and compare them against analyses of the actual historical temperature records (which are, in fact, the very basis of much of the "scientific literature" ). It's not just there, it's all over the place for anyone who bothers to look. Not that I expect you to. You appear to want people to not look, by calling anyone who dares to question authority a nutcase conspiracy theorist.

Nice try, but it won't work.

"1000s" of years? Really?

This paper (linked from the blog post with the abstract) says 5-15: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/04/carbon-dioxide-in-atmosphere-5-15-years-only/

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/wwf-and-greenpeace-as-well-funded-successful-modern-political-organisations/

272 million for greenpeace, and 487 million for WWF, *per year*. Subsidies for wind, solar, hybrid vehicles, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent in compliance with legislation like the Clean Air Act.

Now, perhaps not as much political power as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or AIG and General Motors, but almost zero? I think not.

I don't have any proofs yet. I've downloaded a good chunk of raw data and am processing it for my own amusement. I've collected about 100GB so far. It's all out there for you to read if you want to. I don't expect my proofs to mean anything to you as I'm not a climate scientist. Fortunately a compact binary representation of the temperature data can be done in 20GB, and that's not too much for one machine to fit into memory any more (I have servers with 96GB each). As part of my hobby I'm designing a daemon that loads the raw data into a memory array and answers database queries on it. It could be a year before I have my own stuff to share, but it sure is fun!

In the meantime, here's that link to a non-reliable source you asked for. If you look at figure 5 you should be able to pick out the dust bowl drought era (1930-1945) and the rapid decline (1935-1970) that had a few scientists in 1975 concerned about an impending ice age - both events well supported by the historical record and not subject to scientific reinterpretation. Neither of these events is visible in the adjusted data. Then there's the fact that the cataclysmic rise in temperatures halted a decade ago for no apparent reason - itself a refutation of AGW. That's why their graphs stop in 2000.

Of course this link actually restates original work by Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian environmentalist.

If you look at the AGW alarmists' own chart of corrections (difference between raw and final) you can see that the AGW signal is imposed by the corrections and not by the data. It's as simple as that. They're telling you they made it up. Further, updates have been made in the last six months to modify the "raw" data to show the AGW signal. Fortunately archival copies are available of historical raw data and this isn't going to fool anybody.

As a final note, not one of the climate studies uses the actual daily mean temps, even where they were observed. Instead they use the average of the extremes, which isn't accurate to 3 degrees in 99% of cases. That puts the error bars around the observations at a far larger scale than the observed phenomena. It's flat made up.

Politicians haven't decided the matter. Climate scientists, the people best qualified to do so, have decided the matter and provided reports to the politicians, who then decide that to do about it.

The only way for non-experts to make a meaningful judgement is to become experts.

Sorry, I've known too many experts to accept that. Perhaps the ones I haven't met personally could convince me. Wasn't it experts who were running the banks and financial system? How's that working out? I know that in my country, experts run the education system. How's that working out? I know, I know, science is different, blah, blah. Scientists come from the same educational institutions that have nearly half of their output functionally illiterate. Is it the degree that's supposed to inspire confidence? What about the MBA's, economists and teachers?

Then you have experts that disagree:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/02/first-woman-to-earn-phd-in-meteorology-speaks-out/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/another_ipcc_dissenter_speaks_out

So now I, as a non-expert, am in the position of being confronted with divided experts. I suppose I'll have to rely on my own judgement after all. If you, as a scientist, can make the logical blunder in the first line I quoted, there's no way I'm giving in to a dictatorship made of the likes of you.

No I meant pH8+ to pH8+ trying to point out that the change is minute, at best, and it's nowhere near dropping even below pH8 to ... pH6 ... thus using words like "acidic" stinks of fear mongering.

Also, it's a myth. If you'd looked into the issue you'd know.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21144521-7583,00.html

(You'll find her debating the references her: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/01/coral-reefs-may-benefit-from-global-warming/ )

Is that the best you can do? References from IPCC that are over 7 years old? Pathetic.

The very first reference you gave (7), was written in 2001 and bases its support of the subject on an earlier IPCC Third Assessment Report! Jesus Christ! Not only the third but now even the 4th have been discredited. They mis-reported the science, and in some cases the "science" in them was actual fraud!

The second reference (8) also bases its position on the 2001 IPCC TAR, and other related United Nations activities, which again have been discredited.

The third reference above (10), ALSO uses as a basis the IPCC FAR (4th Assessment Report). Do I have to state yet again that this has been discredited?

The fourth reference you cite (11), (which, incidentally, is the third many-years-old citation from the Royal Academy), ALSO cites as the basis for its support, the IPCC TAR of 2001.

And the fifth reference you cite (12) is the laughable, discredited "study" by Naomi Oreskes. (Hint: I asked for something other than that, thank you very much.) Is that the best you can do? References from IPCC that are over 7 years old? Pathetic.

The very first reference you gave (7), was written in 2001 and bases its support of the subject on an earlier IPCC Assessment Report! Jesus Christ! Even the report before last was discredited, unreliable, and largely retracted!

The second reference (8) also bases its position on the 2001 IPCC TAR, and other related United Nations activities, which again have been discredited.

The third reference above (10), ALSO uses as a basis the IPCC FAR (4th Assessment Report). Do I have to state yet again that this has been discredited?

The fourth reference you cite (11), (which, incidentally, is the third years-old citation from the Royal Academy), ALSO cites as the basis for its support, the IPCC TAR of 2001.

In short, 4 of the 5 references you cite above are solely based on the flawed Assessment Reports from the IPCC, and the fifth (12) is the laughable, discredited "study" by Naomi Oreskes. (Hint: If you go back and look, you will see that I specifically asked you for something other than that because it is known to be flawed, thank you very much.)

Sorry, guy, but you should know better than to use Wikipedia as your source on such matters. I can do better than that with one cerebral hemisphere tied behind my back.

Here is the public letter from Chris Landsea, explaining why he had his name removed from participation in the IPCC studies: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

Here are a bunch more links. No, they are not all peer-reviewed scientific papers, but they sure do refer to a bunch of them. Follow the link chain as deeply as you care to, but they pretty much all contradict your position:

International Conference on Integrity in Science http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002299.html [jennifermarohasy.com]

Economic Formulas in IPCC Report Criticized for Overstating Emissions http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22786 [heartland.org]

Here's a DIFFERENT former IPCC participant: Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge http://newsbusters.org/node/13971 [newsbusters.org]

Yet another official IPCC reviewer criticizes the reports: http://oldsarges.blogspot.com/2008/03/paul-reiter-takes-on-ipcc.html [blogspot.com]

Global Warming: Science versus Fraud http://www.forces.

... that my claims are anything but "extraordinary"! Where did you get this idea? Are you somehow of the opinion that just because I disagree with you (for good reason, by the way), that my claims must therefore be "extraordinary"??? How fascinatingly arrogant. Well, let's work on concrete statements rather than trying to read between the lines. Apparently, what you are asserting (at least), is that someone who disagrees with the IPCC reports has an "extraordinary" point of view. Wow. And YOU are accusing ME of being "different". Just wow.

As I have clearly stated here more than once, I am merely echoing what a lot of reputable scientists are saying. And I can safely say that at least some of them are scientists with much more credibility that the vast majority of the reviewers of the IPCC reports.

I mentioned before that you could find well-supported contrary opinions by spending only a few moments on Google. You have refused to do so. So, just this one time (because I dislike your smarmy attitude so much), I will indulge you and actually do just a little bit of your homework for you. I am not your daddy, so do not expect me to do it again.

I would like you to know up front that just as I stated was possible a few posts ago, I actually spent less than 2 minutes on Google pulling up these articles. The links below actually represent only a small percentage of all I found, and I did not spend a lot of time choosing among them. I could have spent a LOT of time following related links... but I figure that if you are actually interested in learning you can do that for yourself. I suspect that you can actually feed yourself too, if you try. But in any case, even if you disagree, if you do not hear opposing arguments then by definition you are being deliberately biased.

To anticipate a possible objection, I will state from the outset that most of these are not "peer reviewed" papers from "science journals", but they do contain a good many links to same. Read to the depth you care but if you do not care, then do not come back later and ask me yet again to do it for you.

To start, here are just a few pieces that support my statements about the problems with "peer review". These are only a few of the huge list I found. The amount of literature out there on problems with and utter failings of peer review, especially in recent years, is vast:

PROBLEMS WITH PEER REVIEW: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0124/p14s02-stss.htm

NY TIMES: "For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html

Nature: Quality and value: How can we research peer review? http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05006.html



There is a lot more I could say here, but I believe that under the circumstances it would be pointless. Here are some more links. Understand that these are only a very small sampling of those that are out there. But (this one time only), you asked for some, you got some.

Letter from Chris Landsea http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

International Conference on Integrity in Science http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002299.html

Economic Formulas in IPCC Report Criticized for Overstating Emissions http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22786

Here's a DIFFERENT former IPCC participant: Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge http://newsbusters.org/node/13971

Yet another official IPCC reviewer criticizes the

More important would be the BBC article. It was published April 3 and authored by Roger Harrabin.

The transcript of the email conversation that may have precipitated the change can be found at
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002906.html

The quasi-retraction:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/04/climate_change_debate.html