Case in point: Deniers don't understand the science. If you had bothered to check the facts instead of automatically being a denier, you would have known that the reason for the addition cold periods this winter is due to arctic winds reaching new areas. The globe as a whole, on the other hand, is warmer than ever.
The Times is a major UK newspaper and hardly a source of "right-wing anti-science propaganda".
I don't give a shit what the source is. The "data dumped" claim is a blatant right-wing lie.
Not that right-wing / left-wing have anything to do with science.
In the case of AGW, like with evolution and the tobacco farce, those who seek to undermine science with lies and FUD are indeed right-wing individuals and organizations.
I asked you why I should take the word of some random poster on Slashdot over a major newspaper which states the scientists themselves have admitted deleting data, I asked where your citation was.
You don't have to take my word for anything. Educate yourself. And not by reading idiotic propaganda. The data that was deleted was a tiny part of a mere copy, and was deleted to save space during a move. The original data is still fully intact where they licensed it from in the first place.
AGW does not rest on CO2 absorption - that is logarithmic and at the levels we're at in modern times (280ppm+) the effect of a doubling or tripling will go unnoticed.
And you base this on a batshit insane denialist? Read this. You need to do better than some right-wing political blog. Come up with actual science, not just idiotic talking points.
Feedbacks have not been observed, on the contrary, at least one of the speculated feedbacks has instead been observed to be negative.
This nonsensical drivel will get you nowhere. You keep spewing out links, but obviously don't understand any of it. Did you even read the paper? Here's what the authors add:
"It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived."
And others have pointed out what you clearly missed in your eagerness to parrot talking-points from right-wing sites:
"In 2005, well before Paltridge et al. paper, a much more extensive analysis of water vapour datasets had been published; Trenberth at. al 2005 compared four different reanalisys (two versions of NCEP, NVAP and ERA-40) and SSM/1 satellite data. Although they considered the total integrated water vapour column, the problems with both NCEP and NVAP were clearly noticed. Paltridge et al. didn't even refer to Trenberth et al. work; honestly, i'm not that surprised that it has been rejected on J. Clim.
This does not mean that those datasets should be thrown away, but the caution in using them is required, for _scientific_ reasons.
Thus, the existing AGW models have been falsified.
You have shown no such thing. All you have shown is the same extreme dishonesty as all other deniers. You claim that actual scientists are wrong. Thousands of them. And you and your right-wing retard friends know better. Laughable.
For more information, look up the "scientific method" and read some Popper.
You wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it kicked you in the face wearing spiked boots.
There is huge financial gain in espousing GW theory as a climatologist.
Yeah, that's why they are all so filthy rich.. Oh, wait! They aren't!
You don't get grants otherwise. You don't get published otherwise. You might loose your job.
You are an idiot. Ever heard about Richard Lindzen? He rejects AGW, and is happily doing work at MIT and publishing climate science related papers. You fucking ignorant moron.
I'd love to. They either threw it out or scientists can't agree on what it means.
Scientists agree about AGW, though. Nothing was thrown out.
No models proposed currently have done a great job at predicting future trends.
On the contrary, models have turned out to work remarkably well.
No models proposed have done a great job of explaining past trends without heavy assumptions about what the past was.
On the contrary, there are multiple sources of data for climate in the past.
So basically we are not really very close to having true scientific understanding of the field.
On the contrary, the scientists understand the overall picture very well. That is why they have moved on from discussing whether AGW is happening or not, to study the actual details.
On a side note, I ignore the emails that were released and looked pretty much just as the code. There were some pretty sketchy things in there that really make me doubt the output just on a correctness of operation level.
Those "sketchy" things I have seen quoted from the code was either commented out, clearly labeled as what it was, or similar mundane explanations to the claims of the denialist propaganda machinery.
What's verified about evolution? It's verified by thousands of experiments over many years, and all observation support the theory. That's true for AGW as well.
Well know liar? He's a professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Queensland. And if you had watched more than 30 seconds of the first part of his lecture, and also the rest of the parts, you would see that the temperatures and warming rates of our time are statistically insignificant. In fact from the look of things, we are heading into another mini ice age.
Again, you failed to address the fact that he has a history of lies, and merely parroted the same old right-wing anti-science lies. We are not heading into a mini ice age.
There has been no statistical warming for the past decade.
What do you base that claim on?
Why do you think those emails caused such a stink?
Because of creationist-like quote-mining and misrepresentation of the contents.
They admitted it themselves.
They did no such thing.
Even climategate's Phil Jones conceded in a recent interview with the BBC that there had been no statistical warming recently which belies their own models.
Oh dear. You are quoting the misinformation from the Daily Fail, aren't you? You are evidently extremely ignorant of even basic science. The "statistical significance" comment takes more than half a brain to understand, and you evidently don't have that. Educate yourself instead of showing off your amazing ignorance and dishonesty.
Not some random female, but a greenpeace activist was who he was talking to.
Again, this is completely irrelevant. What some random activist things is not even remotely relevant to what the actual scientists are saying.
In it, he queries her motives and how she investigated the science. And we learn that she never actually did, but instead took unquestionably the propaganda pumped out by greenpeace as truth. This is the problem with most of the alarmists; it's no longer a scientific debate, but a matter of faith as is the case in religion. An utterly abhorrent stance in my opinion, and not one that should be taken when making decisions that could bankrupt our country.
The hypocrisy here is quite amazing. Monckton is a dishonest and disgusting liar who himself will only parrot right-wing lies. He hasn't a scientific bone in his body. Never mind the fact that the video is completely irrelevant to the scientific facts. It's just more hand-waving to get people to ignore the science.
It's patently obvious you have made up your mind regardless of the actual science, as demonstrated by repeated links to pro-AGW sites. If you have any real unmarred data sets (not hockey stick graphs constructed with manipulated data sets) which prove your position, then I would be more than happy to evaluate them.
You wouldn't know unmarred data if it punched you in the face. The way you are linking to videos of the retarded moron Monckton process that you are nothing but a denialist.
Please point out any half-truths I may have used. Is it a half truth that in the historical temperature record, CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around? That's a fact. Another fact; The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been ten times what it is today, yet all life did not cease to exist. Quite the opposite in fact, life thrived.
Indeed. The Gish Gallop. Typical brainwashed denialist drone. Here are the actual facts that refute your dishonest talking points:
No. Actually it hasn't been shown a single time as of yet.
It has indeed. Like creationits are ignorant of evolution, you are ignorant of AGW. Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean that everyone else is.
Don't mistake the factual absorption spectre of CO2 (logarithmic) with AGW. The latter rests solely on speculated positive feedbacks of which none have been observed in reality. When observations have been made, they've indicated negative feedbacks instead.
If AGW were so factual, its proponents would not be so adamant about hiding data.
No one is hiding data.
Carbon is a precious resource we should preserve because we need it.
So is water. But not in too large amounts. Too much water is dangerous. You could try walking through a flooded area some time. Yes, we need water, but it is dangerous in too large amounts. Just like CO2.
We live in an interglacial age. By fits and starts the temperature is rising as it is expected to - and we should be glad of that.
No, the sun is warming the planet less than it should, which means that it should be getting colder. But it isn't. It's getting warmer despite the sun's effect being low.
The skewed graphs that made the end of the last millenium into a hockey stick that implied a runaway greenhouse effect have been thoroughly debunked. We're still contributing CO2, and the warming stopped.
No, the warming has not stopped, and the hockey stick has been confirmed to be essentially correct.
Far more carbon than this was once in the air
This is just ignorant nonsense.
By increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere we lengthen the time before the glaciers return
Typical denialist bullshit. First you deny the facts, and now you suddenly admit that human activity is causing global warming, except now it's good for us! The retardation is strong with this one.
But let's not panic. The world is changing - as it always has and always will.
You are just a fucking moron who are reciting the same old bullshit denialist talking points. Educate yourself.
"Scientists" deliberately mislead and misrepresented facts to promote an agenda.
Again, so what? Actual scientists are still doing actual science, and those facts are there regardless of whether someone uses them for their own evil purposes or not.
You can't just "look at the science" any more because you no longer have a way if knowing, without actually being one of the scientists, what the hell "the science" is.
Yes you do have a way of knowing, because the scientific process is designed so that claims cannot be made without being verifiable by independent parties. Science is that which is published in respected scientific journals like "Nature" and "Science".
The existence of something is irrefutable proof of its possibility. In this case, the thing that you can no longer dismiss as "extremely unlikely" is "deliberate fraud with respect to climate data for the purpose of promoting an agenda."
The only fraud here is from the denialist camp. There is no evidence what so ever of fraud by actual scientists. If that were the case, then thousands of scientists all over the world would have to be in on it. A completely insane conspiracy theory by any measurement.
No. The extent of snow certainly does not support global warming.
Typical denialist. Keep insisting that facts are wrong even after having them explained to him.
It merely comes at a politically inconvenient time, when CRU, Penn State University, and the IPCC are being investigated for tampering with the temperature records.
Typical denialist. Misrepresent what's going on and pretend that there's something sinister at work, and that the conclusion has already been reached that they tampered with anything. Pathetic.
Perhaps your should educate yourself, instead of blindly accepting propaganda:
I'm sorry, but random YouTube videos featuring well known liars does not count as "education". I tried to see what Bob had to say, and it was the old "not a pollutant" canard. How predictable. Again, you need to educate yourself. You could also read up on Bob The Liar Carter over at scienceblogs.com.
This one is particularly interesting, as it exposes that most alarmists completely ignore the scientific evidence and choose to believe unequivocally what most of these vested interest groups propagate verbatim:
I'm sorry, but what on earth does this have to do with anything? Never mind the fact that Monckton is an insane liar, but what difference does it make what some random female on the street has to say?
I think it's becoming clearer now... You don't actually listen to the scientists. You prefer to base your opinions on random ignoramuses on the street (one example being Monckton).
By the way, I notice that instead of addressing my comment, you are doing a Gish Gallop.
Neither "the planet is warming" nor "human emissions are causing it" are "observed facts". They're conclusions drawn from the available data.
You are mistaken. The warming is something scientists have observed directly (a fact), as is the observed fact that the greenhouse gases emitted by humans cause warming. AGW is therefore a fact. But it is also a theory: It explains how and why.
So again, AGW is both a theory and a fact. It is an observed fact, and a theory which explains said observed facts.
Just like gravity is a fact and theory. We observe gravity (fact), and we explain how it works (theory).
Just like evolution is a fact and a theory. We observe evolution (genetic changes in populations of organisms over successive generations), and we explain how it works (theory).
Thanks for playing, though. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
No, you are mistaken. They rejected flawed research. You are clearly extremely ignorant, so I suggest you go away and educate yourself instead of wasting your time reading right-wing propaganda blogs.
The problem is that there is a massive conspiracy trying to use climate change as a lever to promote a social agenda.
So what? Just because someone is using scientific facts for something you don't like doesn't mean that said scientific facts are wrong.
There are a lot of thumbs leaning on the scales, and it's made it more challenging to separate the nuggets of truth from the nodules of crap that have been surreptitiously dumped into this "perfect storm" of conflicting interests.
No, it's not challenging at all. Just look at the science.
Never happened, actually. They only deleted a small part of a local copy in order to save space when moving to a new location. The original data was still available where they licensed it from(!) in the first place.
The climate change supporters always say "they just don't understand the science" so then why don't the climate scientists explain things very nice and clearly instead of making wild claims and picking on the minors and ignoring the majors and all the while refusing to show anyone their raw data.
But deniers clearly don't understand the science. Someone who understands the science won't make completely retarded claims. The science has been explained clearly and nicely countless times. The ones making the wild claims are the denialists. You can even access the raw data if you want to! Not that you would understand any of it, of course. And no matter what it shows, you will deny it.
It is kind of like not showing your work in math class then whining that the teacher is unfair for accusing you of cheating. You can't prove you did any calculation right if you don't show your work.
Thousands of scientists around the world have independently verified the facts. Just because you are ignorant of the science doesn't mean that the science is wrong, dear denialist.
Slashdot Mirror
Chrome is claimed to be the winner only because the author uses a strange way to count scores. If you count the average score, Opera wins.
No way! A right-wing loon denying scientific facts that he feels threaten his ideology! Say it isn't so!
What "US political crap"? Are you drunk?
Climategate did no such thing. You are just spouting right-wing propaganda again.
They are not at all valid. I explained why. But as all right-wing loons, you will reject all facts that don't match your extremist ideology.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11641-climate-myths-chaotic-systems-are-not-predictable.html
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
http://skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm
It is indeed an observed fact. You fail again.
Case in point: Deniers don't understand the science. If you had bothered to check the facts instead of automatically being a denier, you would have known that the reason for the addition cold periods this winter is due to arctic winds reaching new areas. The globe as a whole, on the other hand, is warmer than ever.
I don't give a shit what the source is. The "data dumped" claim is a blatant right-wing lie.
In the case of AGW, like with evolution and the tobacco farce, those who seek to undermine science with lies and FUD are indeed right-wing individuals and organizations.
You don't have to take my word for anything. Educate yourself. And not by reading idiotic propaganda. The data that was deleted was a tiny part of a mere copy, and was deleted to save space during a move. The original data is still fully intact where they licensed it from in the first place.
And you base this on a batshit insane denialist? Read this. You need to do better than some right-wing political blog. Come up with actual science, not just idiotic talking points.
This nonsensical drivel will get you nowhere. You keep spewing out links, but obviously don't understand any of it. Did you even read the paper? Here's what the authors add:
"It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived."
And others have pointed out what you clearly missed in your eagerness to parrot talking-points from right-wing sites:
"In 2005, well before Paltridge et al. paper, a much more extensive analysis of water vapour datasets had been published; Trenberth at. al 2005 compared four different reanalisys (two versions of NCEP, NVAP and ERA-40) and SSM/1 satellite data. Although they considered the total integrated water vapour column, the problems with both NCEP and NVAP were clearly noticed.
Paltridge et al. didn't even refer to Trenberth et al. work; honestly, i'm not that surprised that it has been rejected on J. Clim. This does not mean that those datasets should be thrown away, but the caution in using them is required, for _scientific_ reasons.
You have shown no such thing. All you have shown is the same extreme dishonesty as all other deniers. You claim that actual scientists are wrong. Thousands of them. And you and your right-wing retard friends know better. Laughable.
You wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it kicked you in the face wearing spiked boots.
Yeah, that's why they are all so filthy rich.. Oh, wait! They aren't!
You are an idiot. Ever heard about Richard Lindzen? He rejects AGW, and is happily doing work at MIT and publishing climate science related papers. You fucking ignorant moron.
Scientists agree about AGW, though. Nothing was thrown out.
On the contrary, models have turned out to work remarkably well.
On the contrary, there are multiple sources of data for climate in the past.
On the contrary, the scientists understand the overall picture very well. That is why they have moved on from discussing whether AGW is happening or not, to study the actual details.
Those "sketchy" things I have seen quoted from the code was either commented out, clearly labeled as what it was, or similar mundane explanations to the claims of the denialist propaganda machinery.
What's verified about evolution? It's verified by thousands of experiments over many years, and all observation support the theory. That's true for AGW as well.
Again, you failed to address the fact that he has a history of lies, and merely parroted the same old right-wing anti-science lies. We are not heading into a mini ice age.
What do you base that claim on?
Because of creationist-like quote-mining and misrepresentation of the contents.
They did no such thing.
Oh dear. You are quoting the misinformation from the Daily Fail, aren't you? You are evidently extremely ignorant of even basic science. The "statistical significance" comment takes more than half a brain to understand, and you evidently don't have that. Educate yourself instead of showing off your amazing ignorance and dishonesty.
Again, this is completely irrelevant. What some random activist things is not even remotely relevant to what the actual scientists are saying.
The hypocrisy here is quite amazing. Monckton is a dishonest and disgusting liar who himself will only parrot right-wing lies. He hasn't a scientific bone in his body. Never mind the fact that the video is completely irrelevant to the scientific facts. It's just more hand-waving to get people to ignore the science.
You wouldn't know unmarred data if it punched you in the face. The way you are linking to videos of the retarded moron Monckton process that you are nothing but a denialist.
Indeed. The Gish Gallop. Typical brainwashed denialist drone. Here are the actual facts that refute your dishonest talking points:
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to glob
You are evidently completely ignorant, and will only ever listen to right-wing anti-science propaganda. Fail.
It has indeed. Like creationits are ignorant of evolution, you are ignorant of AGW. Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean that everyone else is.
No, observations have clearly shown AGW.
Really! And how might that have happened?
Typical denialist drivel from you.
It had everything to do with your post. You claimed that AGW was not a fact. I explained to you how it is both a fact and a theory.
Al Gore is not a scientist. I don't give a shit about his crappy movie.
Carbon credits suck.
So what? It's irrelevant to the actual scientific facts, which idiots like you reject because they don't match our right-wing ideology.
No one is hiding data.
So is water. But not in too large amounts. Too much water is dangerous. You could try walking through a flooded area some time. Yes, we need water, but it is dangerous in too large amounts. Just like CO2.
No, the sun is warming the planet less than it should, which means that it should be getting colder. But it isn't. It's getting warmer despite the sun's effect being low.
No, the warming has not stopped, and the hockey stick has been confirmed to be essentially correct.
This is just ignorant nonsense.
Typical denialist bullshit. First you deny the facts, and now you suddenly admit that human activity is causing global warming, except now it's good for us! The retardation is strong with this one.
You are just a fucking moron who are reciting the same old bullshit denialist talking points. Educate yourself.
Again, so what? Actual scientists are still doing actual science, and those facts are there regardless of whether someone uses them for their own evil purposes or not.
Yes you do have a way of knowing, because the scientific process is designed so that claims cannot be made without being verifiable by independent parties. Science is that which is published in respected scientific journals like "Nature" and "Science".
The only fraud here is from the denialist camp. There is no evidence what so ever of fraud by actual scientists. If that were the case, then thousands of scientists all over the world would have to be in on it. A completely insane conspiracy theory by any measurement.
Typical denialist. Keep insisting that facts are wrong even after having them explained to him.
Typical denialist. Misrepresent what's going on and pretend that there's something sinister at work, and that the conclusion has already been reached that they tampered with anything. Pathetic.
Sounds like the typical creationist argument against evolution: "Whatever happens, it's used as proof that evolution is true"
Also, "why didn't biologists predict that this species would evolve into that"? LOL.
I'm sorry, but random YouTube videos featuring well known liars does not count as "education". I tried to see what Bob had to say, and it was the old "not a pollutant" canard. How predictable. Again, you need to educate yourself. You could also read up on Bob The Liar Carter over at scienceblogs.com.
This disgusting liar claims that it is not warming.
I'm sorry, but what on earth does this have to do with anything? Never mind the fact that Monckton is an insane liar, but what difference does it make what some random female on the street has to say?
I think it's becoming clearer now... You don't actually listen to the scientists. You prefer to base your opinions on random ignoramuses on the street (one example being Monckton).
By the way, I notice that instead of addressing my comment, you are doing a Gish Gallop.
You are mistaken. The warming is something scientists have observed directly (a fact), as is the observed fact that the greenhouse gases emitted by humans cause warming. AGW is therefore a fact. But it is also a theory: It explains how and why.
So again, AGW is both a theory and a fact. It is an observed fact, and a theory which explains said observed facts.
Just like gravity is a fact and theory. We observe gravity (fact), and we explain how it works (theory).
Just like evolution is a fact and a theory. We observe evolution (genetic changes in populations of organisms over successive generations), and we explain how it works (theory).
Thanks for playing, though. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
No, you are mistaken. They rejected flawed research. You are clearly extremely ignorant, so I suggest you go away and educate yourself instead of wasting your time reading right-wing propaganda blogs.
So what? Just because someone is using scientific facts for something you don't like doesn't mean that said scientific facts are wrong.
No, it's not challenging at all. Just look at the science.
Never happened, actually. They only deleted a small part of a local copy in order to save space when moving to a new location. The original data was still available where they licensed it from(!) in the first place.
But deniers clearly don't understand the science. Someone who understands the science won't make completely retarded claims. The science has been explained clearly and nicely countless times. The ones making the wild claims are the denialists. You can even access the raw data if you want to! Not that you would understand any of it, of course. And no matter what it shows, you will deny it.
Thousands of scientists around the world have independently verified the facts. Just because you are ignorant of the science doesn't mean that the science is wrong, dear denialist.