Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Cleared of Misusing Global Warming Data
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The NY Times reports that an inquiry by the Commerce Department's inspector general has found no evidence that NOAA scientists manipulated climate data (reg. may be required) to buttress evidence in support of global warming after climate change skeptics contended that e-mail messages between climate scientists that were stolen and circulated on the Internet in late 2009 showed that scientists were manipulating or withholding information to advance the theory that the earth is warming as a result of human activity. 'None of the investigations have found any evidence to question the ethics of our scientists or raise doubts about NOAA's understanding of climate change science,' says Mary Glackin, the agency's deputy undersecretary for operations. The inquiry, requested last May by Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, who has challenged the science underlying human-induced climate change, comes at a critical moment for NOAA, as some newly empowered Republican House members seek to rein in the EPA's plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, often contending that the science underpinning global warming is flawed. Inhofe says the report (PDF) was far from a clean bill of health for the agency, and that contrary to its executive summary, showed that the scientists 'engaged in data manipulation.'"
Is there enough statistically significant clear, objective data that is available to be verified that indicates anything with any amount of confidence?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Regardless of the validity of the data or their conclusions, I think the price of oil is going to reign in those pesky greenhouse gas emissions for us.
I'm pretty sure you'd die of asphyxia if you tried to read that opening sentence aloud. Holy run-on sentence, copyeditman.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
it looks like a failure on our part to buy advertising. now, we don't show up at all, after 10 years at # 1? nothing gnu about that?
as far as climate change; look around. the 'debate' has ended.
It seems like scientists in this one field get angry if you challenge their conclusions. I'm not sure why they've adopted an Imperial "you dare challenge us, mortal?" attitude over this. I always assumed the more people who ask questions, the better chance you have of finding out problems.
If you think a Dept. of Commerce report under a President who has a vested interest in this climate change issue is going to be objective and fair, you're nuts. Personally, I think there are a lot of shenanigans going on on both sides of this issue. A lot of scientists are groupthinking and leeching onto grant money by exaggerating global warming and its effects. And a lot of right-wingers are lock-stepping to defend big business with the contention that dumping tons of shit into the atmosphere every day isn't having ANY effect.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Of course they would clear the fiddling of climate data, if they didn't, how do you think the Western governments could get away with screwing more money from taxpayers to prop up the crooked bankers and politicians?
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Says it all, people more interested in business and money, over facts, no matter how distasteful.
Fox guarding the hen house? You bet.
The discrepancy doesn't appear to pertain to any climate data or research. Kind of seems like grasping at straws if you want to refute the academic credibility of the entire field (or for that matter, even that one researcher).
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
Climate Audit is hardly accurately representing the situation itself (scientists conference call with attorney, misremember who actually gave what advice, are corrected by same attorney). The earth-shattering, agency-destroying advice of the report is:
"Given that federal agencies are legally obligated to publicly disclose records under FOIA, we recommend that NOAA carry out a proper search for the records sought in these FOIA requests and, as appropriate, reassess its response. Additionally, given the issues we identified in NOAA's handling ofthese particular FOIA requests, NOAA should consider whether these issues warrant an overall assessment ofthe sufficiency of its FOIA process.".
I'll just leave this here.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
“It also appears that one senior NOAA employee possibly thwarted the release of important federal scientific information for the public to assess and analyze,” he said, referring to an employee’s failure to provide material related to work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a different body that compiles research, in response to a Freedom of Information request. " Mann's manipulation of data and failure to provide information about his research have been a long standing joke. http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ It was really no surprise that he wouldn't want to provide the information. What is a giant surprise is that he is still in a position of any responsibility. Well maybe not so much if you want trillions of dollars to be spent on changing the country's energy economy.
NOAA is exonerated, but Inhofe now says this is not clearing the charges and instead, will continue to issue charges and slander at the EPA during the now on-going attempts by Republicans to gut the organization. This is almost perfectly mirrored by Gov. Walker's moves to kill worker's abilities to legally negotiate and/or go on strike. Its not what the Government representatives are saying that is important, its what the goals are. For Wisconsin its a move to force employees to accept work contracts and any changes the company may deign to add, without an ability to challenge. For the EPA its the complete neutering of environmental safeguards and monitoring, thus enabling companies to reduce the monies spent to ensure their production has minimal if or no impact on our environment. Both situations are only being pursued by government representatives with the reduction of corporate responsibility and accountability. To finalize this argument I point to the "Prank" call to Walker; wherein you can infer cronyism, and a willfulness to forgo even a semblance of altruism in exchange for a quid pro quo with corporate interests and power.
I call computer-illiteracy job security
The fox says that the henhouse is fine? You don't say...
Hardly cleared. Sounds like further investigation is needed (and will be performed).
The positive out of all of this is that the "skeptic" side is finally being heard instead of being completely ignored as heretical by the clergy of the Church of Global warming. There's way too much money to be made in all this carbon/green stuff for it ever to completely go away, but at least now we may be more inclined to focus on immediate and concrete issues rather than a wild goose chase.
To be clear, the "lie" in question is a discrepancy in one scientist's account of the origin of a piece of legal advice during an FOI request. It has nothing to do with the science itself.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Had the exposed emails I read been from scientists working in some other discipline, I think there'd be no doubt cast on the accusations of manipulation. I suspect that the huge political and financial agenda behind the so called global warming movement (political control, taxation and the sale of carbon credits) is whitewashing what any reasonable person can read as blatant manipulation of data.
Next thing you know they're going to be accusing scientists not only of manipulating data, but making guesses and interpreting data. Fucking bastards.
As a european, i really cant understand how anyone with a sane mind can challenge the idea of climate change.
It appears only right wing nuts and "scientists" bought of with corporate money are fear mongering about climate socialism etc.?
Are you all watching FOX News only or why do so many belief this FUD?
No I haven't RTFA'd but is this to do with the East Anglia University mail leak which is turn just shows that in order to make pretty graphs to justify your existence for large funding boards, you have to merge data from different data sets. IIRC there is anomalous tree ring data from the 1960s onwards, so it's more accurate to use actual temperature measurements but these don't match up perfectly with the pre 1960 tree ring data, so a small amount of "fudging" is required. Remember this was to create a graph of temperature over 4000 years for a high level overview - it is not part of the actual analysis.
That's right - put your heads back in the sand. The world is not getting warmer, and at least if it is, God would make sure that it didn't get too hot so as not to harm us. Damn those pesky scientists.
the loss of life is purposely uncounted, & the damage to what's left of our planet/atmosphere by constant use of oxygen depleting HEAVY equipment to control populations/further destroy our habitat, is absolutely in opposition to our purpose, as put forth in ALL of the manuals. see you (soon?) on the other side of it.
you can rest assured that the much maligned 'scientists' mean us no harm
I don't think it's a matter of discrediting an entire field. Climate change research is needed whether you believe man is the causation or not. We have to be prepared either way. It does bring into question credibility, objectivity, and ethics. The question is more knowing the kind of people involved and is the report trustworthy. I'm far more concerned that each and every country represented in the study seems to have conveniently cleared their researchers but each also seemed to bring up serious issues with ethics. It's like saying, "Sure this guy lies about a lot of things but I see no evidence he lied about this." Of course, my contention is getting the U.N. involved in any study is a waste of time anyway. They are by nature corrupt and I would always wonder, and do, how much it had to do with money.
Don't use inflammatory comments in your e-mail and most of all, take this stuff off line, you can't afford to be caught expressing a view which clearly states you are not open to disagreement.
While many government sponsored investigations have cleared these guys of manipulating data none cleared them of misinterpreting it or better put, showing any desire to prove Falsifiability of their conclusions.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
All you warming fools go put yer money where your brain is and live without power generated by anything that you think causes global warming. Until then your just blowing smoke (pun intended).
Global warming is just a money grab.
look at pictures 30-40 years old of glaciers
now look at them
thats the start of your journey to enlightenment and away form faith based hokey pokey rich capitalists
whom want to get all the patents and copyrights to it all first then they will sell you the solutions
The NY Times reports that an inquiry by the Commerce Department's inspector general has found no evidence that NOAA scientists manipulated climate data (reg. may be required) to buttress evidence in support of global warming after climate change skeptics contended that e-mail messages between climate scientists that were stolen and circulated on the Internet in late 2009 showed that scientists were manipulating or withholding information to advance the theory that the earth is warming as a result of human activity.
?
sudo ergo sum
Bill Nye, the self-proclaimed "science-guy" is not a scientist. He does science on TV. And, he has an engineering degree. What he has to say on science is interesting, but ultimately, he is not an authority on topics like biological evolution, physics, meteorology, climate science and so on.
Why is that relevant? Well, who actually reviewed the emails from a scientific perspective, and were they independent, objective reviewers? Of the 1000+ emails, what were the specific areas of concern regarding mis-conduct and how were those concerns resolved?
This is just a feel-good pronouncement from a government agency for those who are philosophically (dare I say religiously) committed to the idea that human activity is causing the climate to change in catastrophic ways.
If this had failed, think of all the people who bought solar panels and had done the ROI math based on state and federal credits, rebates, incentives. :)
Without the CO2 issue, this could have looked bad. With the expected rush over carbon reduction schemes, wow
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
That was enough to convict Scooter Libby of malfeasance in the eyes of a lot of Slashdotters whom will hypocritically give this guy a pass for just agreeing with them politically.
record high temperatures in some areas = "man made global warming"
record cold temperatures in some areas = "man made global warming"
if you have decided the results you are going to get BEFORE you start your "scientific study" then something is probably wrong...
*duckandrun*and did the internal combustion engine cause previous "ice ages"? */duckandrun*
IANAL, but it is interesting to me that in the court of law these emails would be inadmissible, according to NYT's assertion that the emails were stolen and circulated. Yet, in the 'court' of academia, information is king. It is nice to know, regardless of the outcome of these results or their scrutinies, that we as a people pay less attention to red tape or an irrelevant legal standard when the credibility of information gathering is at stake. Just a thought. While there are nay-sayers on either side of this investigation, I insist that there is nothing wrong with the objective scrutiny of any falsehoods in the realm of scientific research. The scientific community should expect it and embrace it. If they do not, this is what will create doubt. I would be more at ease with the NOAA if they had revealed the error displayed in DeathToBill's comment, wherein another reporter identifies a discrepancy not mentioned by the NYT. While I do not particularly fault NOAA for NYT's words, I doubt that NYT is responsible for the missing information. That, however, is also up for debate.
Wow, that's quite a misrepresentation of Anthony Watts website. Pretty much the opposite of his conclusions, in fact.
Articles on his blog (which sometimes reads more like a scientific journal) show that rural stations often show no warming at all - at least, until they have been appropriately "adjusted" (using methods that are generally not released). Meanwhile, the increasing temperatures of urban stations are not adjusted to eliminate the Urban Heat Island effect. Large parts of the arctic and antarctic are presumed to be warming, even though there are no weather stations within hundreds or thousands of miles.
Is the climate warming? He would agree with you that the climate warmed through (plus or minus) the year 2000 so, but possibly has now entered a cooling phase. Articles on his blog also show that (a) over decades, there is a warming/cooling cycle that very closely follows solar cycles, (b) that the overall warming trend of the past 200 years predates any significant human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere, (c) the planet has in the past been warmer than today - in that sense, the recent warming is not "unprecedented", and finally (d) millions of years ago CO2 levels were much, much higher than today, so a higher CO2 level is also not unprecedented.
In short: the earth warms and cools. We do not understand all of the factors that influence these climate cycles, but CO2 is almost certainly not a precursor of increased temperatures. In any case, a warmer earth is in many ways preferable to a cooling earth. The entire panic about CO2 is politically driven, and many scientists have hooked their wagons to it, in order to get research funding.
My take is that Anthony Watts wants to present the objective truth - whatever that may be - and to discredit bad science and politically driven science.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Shorter jav123:
I don't think this discredits the entire field. Here's some FUD why it discredits the entire field.
Someone had to do it.
Right, and his felony conviction was due to looking a bit like a bad person. The man was obviously a saint.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Remember, denialists think that CO2 can't affect the climate because God does that/Water is far more important/it's all a scam (delete as appropriate).
Therefore removing all the CO2 can't affect the climate and create a snowball earth.
But who were they cleared by? Scientists! I think I smell some collaboration!
-Hosni Mubarak promised a full investigation to find out who ordered the use of excessive force
-Wall St. firms were cleared of any wrongdoing in the financial bust by SEC/TREAS Timothy Geithner
-Google announces the Wifi data logs, SSN numbers, etc., were all just innocent mistakes
-MS announces itself cleared of all charges of manipulating the ISO process
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
He was convicted of perjury (you know, the same thing the left said Bill Clinton should get away with) for mis-remembering some trivial fact, so Patrick Fitzgerald could have something to show for his witchhunt after he already knew where the leak originated (Richard Armitage). Despite that, half of slashdot still accuses Libby of being the leaker.
All that greenhouse gas emission means nothing in the midst of an ecology that thrives on it
All the greenhouse gas emissions? rotfl, unless by ecology, you mean planet earth.
Yes, indeed, earth is a very small ecology.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The Commerce Department, which is part of the Obama Administration, which is admittedly all-in for Global Warming, has found no fault in the scientists' manipulation of data to fit the hypothesis.
File this under "Duh."
But: who say's the ice is melting? Yes, there is less arctic ice than some years ago. What supporters of global warming somehow always omit is that the ice in Antarctica has increased by pretty much the same amount. We are seeing regional variations - for unknown reasons - that pretty much balance out.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Have you actually read the series of emails that "hid the decline" comes from? 13 years of stolen emails, and a classic case of cherry picking, and that is the best that denialists can come up with.
/that/ we fail to notice
You should really watch this (hide the decline starts at 4:10) and this, and try to pay attention.
Denial works by preventing your mind from processing information, and then making you forget about it afterwards. It is always felt as negativity in the body. You have to sit with that feeling if you really want to consider yourself "rational", whatever that means. See Goleman's Vital lies, simple truths for more information on the mechanisms of denial.
Consider this quote from Ronnie Laing's "Knows":
"The range of what we think and do
is limited by what we fail to notice.
And because we fail to notice
there is little we can do
to change
until we notice
how failing to notice
shapes our thoughts and deeds."
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
If you have actually followed the debate that arose over the infamous "hockey stick" graph that erased the medieval warm period and little ice age (McIntyre and McKittrick) and sundry additional papers since, you know that while they may or may not have done anything to the data per se, they've abused the hell out of statistical analysis, for example experimenting with untested and unstudied methodologies until they get one that shows warming, then publishing results obtained using it without giving any hint of the fact that what they are doing is most sketchy. I've been following this with great interest for just under a decade now, and IMO there is absolutely no question that this has been repeatedly done in the past (by MBH and nearly all the papers on which any of them have collaborated) and continues to be done today. And I won't even go into the bristlecone pine problem and the general problem of using tree-ring proxies for temperature when tree ring thickness is not a monotonic function of temperature only.
For example, a recent paper was published in Science (Steig) that claimed that the Antarctic is warming at an alarming rate. I've read over the paper and the counterchallenge to the statistical methodology used (which basically coarse grained thermal sensors on the thin peninsula that sticks out into the ocean from continental Antarctica until their generally warming trend overwhelmed the generally and clearly trend of the mainland). This all involved infilling data on continental thermal sensors on the basis of temperatures basically on the other side of the continent, an effect clearly visible if one computes the (infilled) sensor-sensor correlation as a function of sensor separation. The actual real (not infilled) sensor-sensor correlation falls off with distance fairly rapidly, as one might expect (Chicago weather isn't like LA's weather). The infilled correlation function shows substantial station correlation out at two or three thousand kilometers. If one simply includes one more principle component in the PCA, this effect disappears, and so does most of the warming; cooling for the last 30 years appears instead.
Is this lying with or manipulating data or simple lack of competence with statistics? You decide.
A reliable statistical estimate of warming of the sort that somebody with no horse in the race might do (and the sort that is done in computing the actual global average temperature from satellite data) shows moderate warming from 1957 to 1980, and cooling from 1980 to 2010. The latter, of course, confounds the predictions that as CO_2 goes steadily up, everything gets warmer; the fact that the fifty year warming is completely negligible is anathema to the scientists who make a living from the AGW hysteria.
Of course, anyone in the world who wants to can go read the climategate emails (or the comments in the actual hockey stick code), where it is made perfectly clear that the "hockey team" set out to erase the MWP and LIA and does anything and anything necessary to defend the AGW conclusion, right up to having journal editors fired if they dare to print a paper that concludes otherwise. Perhaps science is broad enough that they did all of this in good faith, although if they pulled these sorts of shenanigans in medical research e.g. verifying drug safety there would be immediate, permanent, negative sequellae. But it doesn't make it good science.
Anybody who actually understands statistics and things like R^2 and principle component analysis can read over things and judge for themselves, of course. If I point out that R^2 for the infamous hockey stick graph in the extrapolated region was basically 0, you will understand exactly what that means...
AGW may or may not be true, but so far it has been a poster child for confirmation bias, incredibly poor statistical analysis, cherrypicking of data (of course it has happened and continues
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
This is another meaningless assertion made by a political organ absolutely unqualified to make any statement on the matter. Note the sentence "The report was not a review of the climate data itself." The Commerce Department can't clear someone of misusing scientific data, this is as stupid a congress declaring there was no data manipulation a day after the "climategate" leaks hit the news.
The entire panic about CO2 is politically driven, and many scientists have hooked their wagons to it, in order to get research funding.
Yeah, I'm sure you're an atmospheric physicist. No? Well, I have news for you. As a scientist who has worked in multiple fields I can tell you that scientists do not take positions just to get research funding. Yes, there may be an occasional bad apple who does, but they are very few. The large number of scientists who have looked at the data and run computer simulations (not you), and have reached a common conclusion is insurmountable.
Your statement is deluded and insulting.
It would be kind of funny if Anonymous DDOSed someone like Fox News, or maybe just the Republican Congressman's personal e-mail by spam e-mailing links to this study.
Ah, a man can dream.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
He's "my" senator, unfortunately. He comes from Oklahoma, and we still make quite a bit of money on oil here. The refinery is probably all that keeps my town alive.
With the exception of the Tar Creek cleanup (an old lead mine from the '30s that he manages to get cleanup funding for tacked onto important bills), I don't agree with anything this guy stands for. It's quite embarrassing for me that I'm "represented" by him. Oklahoma's very much a red state (our only democratic representative just happens to be the son of a quite popular republican representative, otherwise he wouldn't have the job), and he's the senior senator with quite a few cronies in Washington, so until he dies we're all going to have to deal with him.
Fortunately, he's getting up there in years. Granted, when he's gone, my fellow Oklahomans will just vote in a clone, but at least the new guy won't have all the clout in congress that Inhofe has, and our other senator (Coburn) has burnt enough bridges in congress that I doubt he'll reach Inhofe's level of influence.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
There's a difference between perjuring oneself, which by definition involves deliberate deception, and simple error.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Hand in anything made from renewable energy. Turn in your computers now, hypocrites.
Yes, your computer was made with renewable energy.
Once again, we are very, very sorry for this asshat. Nobody I know voted for him and many question his sanity. Sorry.
The one thing that climate does is change. The better question to ask is: "Under what conditions would the supporters of a 'man-made climate damage' theory say we've fixed the problem"? In other words, since "Climate Change" is an absurdly broad term, and given that the world has been much hotter than today and had much higher CO2 levels, when would it be ok? Or is this a perpetually changing crisis we must respond to?
Right, Bill Clinton deliberately lied while Libby misremembered his notes.
Umm...
We have at best, less than an hundred years of precision temperature records. Even assuming that all of this data was gathered in a consistent, non-biased fashion (based on the instruments used, processes followed, etc), there is not enough of a baseline to establish that there is an extraordinary warming trend.
We may have precision records for the carbon dioxide records if the methodology, for measuring historical carbon dioxide levels, is not flawed. But all this shows is that the level of carbon dioxide was a third lower in the past.
It was manufactured by the media. They saw something they didn't understand, and certain media outlets went nuts showing how this thin they don't understand totally disproves this other thing they don't understand, ans scientist are a bunch of liars.
It was stupid, shameful, and there was no need for an investigation.
Since some people can't actually use science and data to back up their belief that man can't impact the environment they do shot like this to stir the pot in hopes a tine thing will causer the public to rally against the EPA.
It's called FUD, and it's a classic Neo-Con trick.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It just goes from thing to thing, name to name, but the one thing that stays constant?
The UN
The UNEP
The IPCC
The Money sucked out of US taxpayers in various schemes.
The Constant push to override the US's sovereignty by adapting agenda 21
If you really want my opinion on what to do, it starts with reigning in this comfort zone between foreign influences and The US Public's interest.
But hey enjoy your intermittent Constitution.
Revolution won't be long now.
Didn't RTFA, but in the summary it says "found no evidence that NOAA scientists manipulated climate data" then goes on to say "was far from a clean bill of health for the agency, and that contrary to its executive summary, showed that the scientists 'engaged in data manipulation.'"
Colour me confused.
It sounds to me like the report is shit, the reporting by NYT is shit, and that the summary is shit.
Always wonderful to add more FUD to the pile.
Records show that since the Earth was created over 4 billion years ago, that CO2 levels have steadily increased with the proliferation of life, its worked out pretty well so far for us.
Ah yes, a reasoned response I can see that is flavored by your sig. You sir are a scholar and a thoughtful person. If he doesn't agree with my world view or is in another political party, he is a lunatic and an idiot. Sensei ways, these are not.
... they would come to any other conclusion? Most of the people here are too young to remember all of the doom and gloom over the Impending Ice Age that was all the rage back in the 70's. Now it's global warming... It's all BS... The climate has been changing for billions of years and will continue to do so, regardless of human activity. So why did the next Ice Age not come to be? For the same reason all of the Global Warming non-sense is just that - it's BS.... The solar activity runs in a 22 year cycle, and there are cycles to that cycle with the sun's output increasing and decreasing. Of course the earth warms and cools along with the solar output. Nothing humans do will change that - the volcano in Iceland pumped more CO_2 into the atmosphere in a couple of months than humanity has in the last 5. We are but a small perturbation - of course, that won't stop people from trying to make money off this natural effect - like Gore and other charlatans...
I won't believe anyone until Gore is put in prison along with the rest of the financial elite that have created the carbon credit scam.
The whole climate debate on man made issues is just a scam for making money.
Meanwhile, breakthroughs in sun energy measurements are showing 99.9999% of earths climate is controlled by the sun.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/25may_costep/
With a huge portion of that energy not even within range of our current instrumentation used in climate modeling.
To condemn the third world to destruction so a bunch of financial elites can rob vast areas of these countries in the name of climate change is BS.
We have all the technology and money to solve just about any problem mother nature throws at us if we can just get rid of the 1% that want to rob, control, own and enslave the rest of the 99% of us.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Israel clearing itself for the flotilla massacre..
Talking to some neo-cons, I was under the impression "ClimateGate" had once and for all proved how global warming was nonsense created by "progressives" to ruin the American way of life. I'll have to let them know about this, I'm sure they'll be glad to see and will stop pretending ClimateGate somehow refutes the huge body of AGW science.
1980 : The forests are dying, acid rains : our countries are becoming deserts - we're all going to die
1990 : The ozone layer depletion : dangerous radiations will hit us . we're all going to die
2000 : Global warming : Poles will melt, huricanes will hit us - we're all going to die
2010 : ????
I happen to know the fucker. And I know the tactics of him and his cronies. If you aren't goose-stepping with them, they will stomp you into the ground, whether or not your in their way.
Remember their saying: "You're either with us or against us."
If you try and compromise with them, they will crush you.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
I would suggest that anybody who wishes to discuss this scandal, or global warming in general, watch this video of Dr. Richard Muller discussing the current state of global warming science. Its about an hour long but well worth it.
EVERYONE learns this in Freshman - I'm talking HIGH SCHOOL FRESHMAN - Science class. The Scientific method is a process. You write your hypothesis. You design your experiment. You collect your data. You eliminate outliers and match the data to a model that helps predict - according to your hypothesis and formula(e). Will the predicted FUTURE data have outliers that don't come out of your formula(e)? Of course. But if the gathered data fit the curve, that's a pretty good indicator that your hypothesis was a good guess. This is like, the most basic concept in Science that there is. It's not fraud in any sense of the word.
Everyone learns this. Everyone is required to take at least this minimal level of Science education; at least to get the High School diploma.
Compare this . . . to the blatant skullduggery that goes on in the pseudoscience of Economics. . . the counterargument that limiting Carbon via Economic Policy - is going to "harm our economic growth". (as if deregulation and tax cuts from 2000-2008 have not CLEARLY and demonstrably done so!). Go on, Doctor Economics. Take your payoff from the Heritage Foundation for your "consultation" - and don't bother to cite your affiliation on your "scientific paper". We believe you. And your Invisible Hand.
Hell. Let's call this a basic reasoning FAIL - on the part of an entire nation. An entire civilization. An entire species. WTF?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Yeah, or those same people who print money if Saudi or Algier regimes become destabilized. I'm guessing the upside to their gamble is significantly greater than the downside you propose if AGW is defeated. You know, we still have resources controlled by repressive regimes, dwindling supplies, economic competitiveness, and speculation that can easily increase ROI compared to business as usual. Generally, in the US residential solar adopters received their economic incentives up front anyway...
But it' s still getting warmer year after year. Who's responsible for that then if not NOAA? Al Gore? Is he manipulating our climate?
I hate idiots who waste public money on grandstanding.
From the FOIA.ZIP file is the document called "prescient.doc":
"An ESTB/ASTB Thematic Programme Proposal
Palaeoclimatic Research and Earth System Modelling for Enhanced ClImatic and ENvironmental PredicTion (PRESCIENT)
We propose a joint five-year Earth Science/Atmospheric Science Thematic Programme of Research designed to enable more rigorous testing of the capabilities and reliability of GCMs, with a specific focus on increasing the sophistication and versatility of the Earth System model being developed at the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (HC).
Informed social and economic planning demands a genuine and realistically defined predictive capability for climatic and environmental change. Accurate prediction requires an understanding of both natural and anthropogenic mechanisms of change. Our only realistic approach to developing such an integrated and quantitative capability is through the use of advanced General Circulation Models (GCMs) which attempt to simulate the operation of the whole Earth System. Major advances in GCM development are currently underway and UK research in this area is at the forefront of this development. It is now evident, however, that these models require thorough testing beyond that achievable by comparison with the short instrumental-based observational record. Palaeoclimate data can extend the instrumental record, provide evidence on the nature of past mean climates, climate variability and extreme events during periods of different climate forcing; and provide evidence of the likelihood and possible mechanisms of extremely rapid ‘switches’ between different modes of climate operation. ... snip ..
Deliverables
The major deliverables will be:
1) More confidence in the veracity of predictions of 21st Century Climate Change
2) Major improvement in our ability to disentangle ‘natural’ and ‘anthropogenic’ climate change
3) More confidence in current claims of detection and attribution of human induced climate change through better knowledge and understanding of natural climate variability.
Other deliverables will be:
4) A methodology for the validation of climate models using palaeo-data
5) Better constraint/validation of the sub-process operation and climate output of the most recent HC model(s).
6) An empirical basis for improving the pragmatic definitions of extreme event recurrences under different climate boundary conditions and assessing future recurrence probabilities (with practical application in engineering, building design, agriculture, coastal protection, etc.)
7) A more coordinated and interactive body of earth and climate model scientists and an increased number of young interdisciplinary researchers with experience of assessing and using palaeodata in a climate modelling context.
They weren't kidding about "deliverables". Their contracts with the IPCC had delivery dates for "data" that would support AGW, including sign offs, just as if they were programmers contracted to deliver a working program to some business. In fact, "programmers" are what they are. If you have read the HARRY_README.txt file that was also in the FOIA.ZIP files you'd understand exactly HOW they managed to gather that "data" which would support their agenda. Just search for the "F**K" word, without the asterisks to locate sections where they describe the quality of their data, or the word "synthetic" to learn how they replaced real data with .... synthetic data.
Of course, "deliverable" #1 is a washout: Wrong .... again!. But, they planned ahead with "deliverable #7", which is more along the lines of AgiProp than science. In an email (1102687002.txt) dated Dec 10,
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Even with a confirmation of the data, the kinds of blatant bias exhibited shake confidence in those scientists selection of what data is significant and for any conclusions the scientists involved may reach.
Layzej:
bradley13 responds
Bradley13 in confusing what Watts wanted to try and show, with the fact that Watts' data validated the robustness of the data. This we keep calling on Watts to publish in peer reviewed journal. And why Watts keep promising to do so always in the future.
And if you don't like the .sig, guess what? Inhofe was one of the inspirations for it.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
It never shocks me to see the massive self-worth people can feel. These people who believe humans are capable of impacted the most powerful on earth; earth itself. Can we control, or even more than elementarily predict, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes yet? Oh, but we can kill the place. Right.
But I thought this wasn't "Global Warming" any longer. I thought the new buzz phrase was "Climate Change". Thus allowing us to avoid explaining the record winters throughout the North America and Asia (2008-2010). The data associated with the temperatures in say New York, or Dallas, or Beijing is pretty much at everyone's fingertips. Isn't that more telling (and relatively without question) than some number brought back from the poles by someone else (whose opinions, interpretations, political views, etc can always be questioned)?
I wonder what species will be driving their SUV's, in gridlock, while listening to some fool try to explain that it is their activities that are causing the change in climate. And not just that this is a big cycle, that has happened and will happen again. I just hope we stop trying to fight this hopeless battle and start putting efforts into making sure some of us (our great-grand children perhaps) survive the next Ice Age. Because it is coming boys and girls. Wear your mittens.
I appreciate the wisdom of your reasoning. It is an effective way to deal with incomplete information. But the crucial part of what you consider unknown about climatology is not unknown. It is known, knowable, proven fact.
American Institute of Physics
"As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth's surface." Thus in 1862 John Tyndall described the key to climate change. He had discovered in his laboratory that certain gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide ( CO2), are opaque to heat rays. He understood that such gases high in the air help keep our planet warm by interfering with escaping radiation.(9)
This kind of intuitive physical reasoning had already appeared in the earliest speculations on how atmospheric composition could affect climate. It was in the 1820s that a French scientist, Joseph Fourier, first realized that the Earth's atmosphere retains heat radiation. He had asked himself a deceptively simple question, of a sort that physics theory was just then beginning to learn how to attack: what determines the average temperature of a planet like the Earth? When light from the Sun strikes the Earth's surface and warms it up, why doesn't the planet keep heating up until it is as hot as the Sun itself? Fourier's answer was that the heated surface emits invisible infrared radiation, which carries the heat energy away into space. But when he calculated the effect with his new theoretical tools, he got a temperature well below freezing, much colder than the actual Earth.(9a*)
The difference, Fourier recognized, was due to the Earth's atmosphere. Somehow it kept part of the heat radiation in. He tried to explain this by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment — the box's interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape.(10) This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (The main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away, although the glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping.) Nevertheless, trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called "the greenhouse effect."(11*)
Not until the mid-20th century would scientists fully grasp, and calculate with some precision, just how the effect works. A rough explanation goes like this. Visible sunlight penetrates easily through the air and warms the Earth’s surface. When the surface emits invisible infrared heat radiation, this radiation too easily penetrates the main gases of the air. But as Tyndall found, even a trace of CO2 or water vapor, no more than it took to fill a bottle in his laboratory, is almost opaque to heat radiation.
This can now be proved in any respectable chem lab.
Roger Wilco:
There are also clues that there is a cause and effect relationship between the two, but as I understand that's less clear.
Marc Morano, Jim Inhoffe and the Viscount #3 of Brenchley, so-called "Christopher Monckton" and their corporate overlords would very much like for us to believe that, but it simply isn't so. As in any field of science broad enough to be its own field, some things remain to be determined. Some of the coupling constants in the Global Circulation Models are known with higher confidence than others. But the first order effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is absolutely not one of the things that remains to be determined. It is known, and has been a known fact since the 19th century. Later, quantum mechanics told us why this is so; certain wavelengths correspond to heat, and carbon dioxide refuses to emit wavelength at a significant portion of the
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
So, where is the evidence for the well established man-made part, along with the data so it can be reproduced and verified?
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
LoL! And Friss-Christensen -- stop, you're killing me!
Oh, wait. It's not really funny, because you actually are killing me (slowly). And in the meantime, you're killing 300,000 people every year who don't have the good luck of being born in the United States. Go read some real climate scientists. Go read as much climate science by legitimate scientists who are not climate science deniars as you have already read by climate "scientists" like Svensmark and Friis-Christensen who are in fact climate science deniars, and in the meantime,
SHUT
THE
FUCK
UP.
You are telling lies that are literally killing people. You are an accomplice to mass murder, you brainless waste of carbon.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p