global warming data...garbage in...

[WC_lun]

No, billi, you are a science denier. A majority of scientist in the field, by a vast magin, say it is real and man made. You say it is not. Not only is that not logical thinking, but it just proves that you will put the propaganda you hear before everything else. It is also very sad, because it means that absolutely nothing will convince you that you are mistaken...certainly not all those scientist who have trained in the the field.

 

[billc]

The guys hiding data and destroying data and sabotaging other scientists and journalists and editors are not fringe guys...they are the guys generating the data that everyone else cites as global warming gospel...The other scientists are using their data, and then proclaiming that global warming is man made...you don't think twice about that?

Oh, so you know, it is just Bill. Thanks.

How do you call me a science denier when we have e-mails from the main global warming theorists destroying their data to keep it from being analyzed? This isn't a fringe thing, it actually happened...is that real science?

 

[ballen0351]

I guess for me it comes down to if it were as serious as every claims then why are there programs out there to try and sell Carbon Credits? If it so bad shouldnt we be trying to stop CO2 from entering the system not bartering with other poor countries to buy there share of co2 credits. If it were so bad shouldnt the ones leading the charge Gore. Leo Decaprio, ect lead by example and ditch the huge houses and private planes. If its really an earth changing evert should we not try to shut down India and China and Africa whos polution standards are so much higher then our own By force if we need to since its for the children after all.

OR

Is it a natrual cycle that the earth has a warming and cooling period ice melts it happens at the end of every ice age so for the ice to melt the temps must rise and some smart people saw a way to make a few bucks by selling things like Carbon Offsets and Hybrid vehicles. And a small niche of scientest found a way to keep the grant money rolling in by finding the results they were actually trying to find.

Me Im more of the Clean up your yard because it looks nicer and makes the out doors more enjoyable. Do it because its the right thing to do not because some doom and gloom "science" says we must. Do it because When I take my kids out on our boat I dont like seeing floating beer cans and trash. Do it because we should be looking out for other animals and be good stewards of the earth so my gand kids will know the thirll of reeling in a large Rockfish or Shooting a huge white tail buck.

 

[WC_lun]

Because many of the emails have been proven to be fakes and 98% of the people who actually do the science say it is real and man made. I see you have convenientley ignored the scienteist hired by the Koch brothers as well. You post anything that supports your narrative, but ignore the far greater body of work that does not.

For your theory to be correct, Bill, 98% of the scientist in the world who have anything to do with climate change investigation or research would have to collude together in order to keep the false information output consistant. Not only is that not plausable, but also not very possible. So yes, you are a science denier, right up there with your friends that say the Earth is only six thousand years old.

 

[ballen0351]

Because many of the emails have been proven to be fakes and 98% of the people who actually do the science say it is real and man made. I see you have convenientley ignored the scienteist hired by the Koch brothers as well. You post anything that supports your narrative, but ignore the far greater body of work that does not.

For your theory to be correct, Bill, 98% of the scientist in the world who have anything to do with climate change investigation or research would have to collude together in order to keep the false information output consistant. Not only is that not plausable, but also not very possible. So yes, you are a science denier, right up there with your friends that say the Earth is only six thousand years old.

There was a time when 98% of the worlds experts thought the world was flat as well.

 

[fangjian]

There was a time when 98% of the worlds experts thought the world was flat as well.

True.

The scientific consensus currently is also that the Earth is a spheroid, and that the planet Neptune exists. Maybe those silly theories will get debunked as well. lolz

 

[Tgace]

When I was a school kid the scientists were telling us that acid rain and the next ice age were the extinction events I had to look forward to...


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[arnisador]

There was a time when 98% of the worlds experts thought the world was flat as well.

Actually. it's not so simple. The Greeks already had pretty good estimates for the circumference of the round earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

But mistakes happen in science. However, it's unlikely that 98% of experts are completely wrong in the age of the Scientific Method. It's true that F=ma is false but Newton was absolutely on to something and that contribution has lasted.

 

[ballen0351]

True.

The scientific consensus currently is also that the Earth is a spheroid, and that the planet Neptune exists. Maybe those silly theories will get debunked as well. lolz

We had a planet named pluto once but no more

 

[Xue Sheng]

The people in Alaska say the ice is melting, so do the Polar Bears.

The oceanic conveyor belt is among other currents the Gulf Stream: Water that melts from the Arctic icecap sinks to the bottom of the ocean floor, creating a push/pull for warmer water from other areas of the ocean to flow there

Actually I think I have it partially wrong, as the water getting in contact with the big ice cubes up north cools down too and sinks to the bottom of he ocean...

Also, I think an abundance of floating trash somewhere in the pacific is marking the ocean currents in a rather visible way...

And if you introduce a lot of fresh water into the conveyorbelt it will shut down and then let the climate games begin. However you reallywon’t feel the full extent of it for about 100 years

The global ocean conveyor belt

 

[ballen0351]

Actually. it's not so simple. The Greeks already had pretty good estimates for the circumference of the round earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

But mistakes happen in science. However, it's unlikely that 98% of experts are completely wrong in the age of the Scientific Method. It's true that F=ma is false but Newton was absolutely on to something and that contribution has lasted.

98% of experts that have there entire job based on climate change. If they all of a sudden said opps we were wrong there would be 98% of them in the unemployment line. When your only existance is it prove something exists it becomes pretty easy to prove it. Even easier when the earth naturally warms and cools in cycles and we may be on the warming trend. Then again maybe not

 

[WC_lun]

Ballen, sorry your theory does not hold up to logical probing. For the gloabl warming to be faked by so many people, they would have to coordinate the fraud of every single researcher and scientist that says it is real and man made. Think about how difficult it would be to do that. Even in today's world of super communication it would not be possible. Let's dumb it down a bit to make it easier to understand what I am saying. Take 50 people and put them in a room. Now ask 49 of those 50 people to coordinate a lie. Now ask 49 of them to provide data supporting the truthfullness of thier lie. Also remind them thier reputations are on the line. How long do you think it woul be before those 49 fractured and started telling the truth? 98% of scientist have said global warming is real and man made. Which is more credible that so many scientist would be lying and the lie would hold up or that other people are pushing an agenda are lying?

 

[elder999]

98% of experts that have there entire job based on climate change. If they all of a sudden said opps we were wrong there would be 98% of them in the unemployment line. When your only existance is it prove something exists it becomes pretty easy to prove it. Even easier when the earth naturally warms and cools in cycles and we may be on the warming trend. Then again maybe not

That's weather, not climate a common confusion of the common man.

Worldwide Climate Classifications

Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elemental measurements in a given region over long periods. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these elements and their variations over shorter periods.

Weather is the state of the atmosphere, to the degree that it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy.[SUP][1][/SUP] Most weather phenomena occur in the troposphere,[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] just below the stratosphere. Weather refers, generally, to day-to-day temperature and precipitation activity, whereas climate is the term for the average atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time.[SUP][4][/SUP] When used without qualification, "weather" is understood to be the weather of Earth

So, anecdotally, here is what I know:

For the last three years, I've gotten two corn crops per season, and two melon crops as well, where, in anyone else's memory, including Ernesto Roybal, my 90 some odd year old well technician, we'd have only had one.

This has happened, as near as I can tell, as far north as Pueblo, CO.

High mountain flowers, on which bees and much of the rest of the ecosphere are dependent, are dying off, made more vulnerable by earlier spring seasons.

Bees are dying off.

More to the point, as others have pointed out, glaciers and ice caps are melting away, adding water to the thermohayalene current (sorry, Xue-I'm a sailor....:lfao: ) which drives our world's climate.

Lastly, of course, core samples of arctic, antarctic and Greenland ice indicate that our atmospheric CO2 content is at a level that the planet hasn't seen in close to 850000 years-and the planet was much warmer when it was this high.

Basically, we're kinda ****ed. The ice caps reflected a great deal of heat from the earth-their melting means less reflected heat, and more melting-and more melting means more fresh water disrupting the thermohayelene current.

There's really very litte we can do about it, now. We could all go back to the stone age, and the process is probably nearly irreversible: the earth is getting warmer, and we'll all see it's effects-our children and grandchildren even more. What's really disgusting, is that some, in the name of economics and profit, would choose to insist that global warming-man made or otherwise-is a hoax, meant to keep business from doing business as usual.

We're gonna get the world we deserve, unfortunately, and I'm glad I won't live to see it-even as I cry for my kids and grandkids.

 

[ballen0351]

Ballen, sorry your theory does not hold up to logical probing. For the gloabl warming to be faked by so many people, they would have to coordinate the fraud of every single researcher and scientist that says it is real and man made. Think about how difficult it would be to do that. Even in today's world of super communication it would not be possible. Let's dumb it down a bit to make it easier to understand what I am saying. Take 50 people and put them in a room. Now ask 49 of those 50 people to coordinate a lie. Now ask 49 of them to provide data supporting the truthfullness of thier lie. Also remind them thier reputations are on the line. How long do you think it woul be before those 49 fractured and started telling the truth? 98% of scientist have said global warming is real and man made. Which is more credible that so many scientist would be lying and the lie would hold up or that other people are pushing an agenda are lying?

Most of these so called experts just regurgitate the same data over and over so its really not that hard. But again Im not saying the climate isnt warming Im saying its natural it warms and cools like its done for millions of years. So its really not hard to do a study and say well see the climate is getting warmer. You cant prove it is man made.
Now if it is man made and its such a global crisis why are the powers of the world doing anyhting about it. If it truly was going to kill us all why are we not cracking down with force against the worlds top polluters like China India US Germany and Canada. Could it be that its not really as bad as we are being told. Im still waiting to burn up from the hole in the Ozone I was told was going to kill us all by the year 2010

 

[ballen0351]

That's weather, not climate a common confusion of the common man.

I understand the difference thanks its just a funny picture

So, anecdotally, here is what I know:

For the last three years, I've gotten two corn crops per season, and two melon crops as well, where, in anyone else's memory, including Ernesto Roybal, my 90 some odd year old well technician, we'd have only had one.

This has happened, as near as I can tell, as far north as Pueblo, CO.

High mountain flowers, on which bees and much of the rest of the ecosphere are dependent, are dying off, made more vulnerable by earlier spring seasons.

Bees are dying off.

More to the point, as others have pointed out, glaciers and ice caps are melting away, adding water to the thermohayalene current (sorry, Xue-I'm a sailor....:lfao: ) which drives our world's climate.

Lastly, of course, core samples of arctic, antarctic and Greenland ice indicate that our atmospheric CO2 content is at a level that the planet hasn't seen in close to 850000 years-and the planet was much warmer when it was this high.

Basically, we're kinda ****ed. The ice caps reflected a great deal of heat from the earth-their melting means less reflected heat, and more melting-and more melting means more fresh water disrupting the thermohayelene current.

There's really very litte we can do about it, now. We could all go back to the stone age, and the process is probably nearly irreversible: the earth is getting warmer, and we'll all see it's effects-our children and grandchildren even more. What's really disgusting, is that some, in the name of economics and profit, would choose to insist that global warming-man made or otherwise-is a hoax, meant to keep business from doing business as usual.

We're gonna get the world we deserve, unfortunately, and I'm glad I won't live to see it-even as I cry for my kids and grandkids.

Again I dont doubt all that but you cant say we caused it. Warming and cooling are natural we will all be wiped out at some point in the future either by heat of by freeze its the earths cycle if we dont nuke ourselves first before that happens

 

[fangjian]

Most of these so called experts just regurgitate the same data over and over so its really not that hard.

Right?! Just like the planet Neptune. It's a conspiracy. These people just believe whatever they're told. "Neptune exists, We went to the Moon, The Holocaust happened................" BS

Now if it is man made and its such a global crisis why are the powers of the world doing anyhting about it. If it truly was going to kill us all why are we not cracking down with force...............

Complacency.

 

[billc]

Wc Lun you obviously didn't read post #18 where I specifically discussed the Koch guy and made a pepsi joke...except the article discusses some of the views he held before he worked for the Koch (or do you prefer pepsi) guys, which is in my post...

and as to the Koch guy (or do you prefer pepsi?)...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ver-muller.php

But just how much of a “skeptic” was Muller? Here’s the opening from his 2008 interview with Grist.org:

Grist: What should a President McCain or Obama know about global warming?
Muller: The bottom line is that there is a consensus — the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] — and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can’t. Roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit of global warming has taken place; we’re responsible for one quarter of it. If we cut back so we don’t cause any more, global warming will be delayed by three years and keep on going up. And now the developing world is producing most of the carbon dioxide.​

Sounds pretty close to the “consensus” party line to me, and as such today’s Times op-ed does not represent a fundamentally new position for Muller at all. (I’m wondering whether a Timeseditor pressured him to use the “total turnaround” language.) Actually, Muller has always been among the group of folks known as “lukewarmers,” i.e., that warming has taken place, but that serious doubts remain about the full extent of human causation, and more importantly, how much more warming can be expected in the future (not much, says MIT’s Richard Lindzen, for example), or what should be done about it if there is more warming ahead: the climateers’ only answer—suppression of fossil fuels, is idiotic—full stop—and their opposition to considering alternatives to fossil fuel suppression hinders the development of real options (geoengineering, carbon capture, resilience/adaptation, etc.) for dealing with climate change from whatever cause. (The weakest part of Muller’s new piece, by the way, is his discussion of the potential of future warming, which shouldn’t make anyone on any side of this controversy happy. But we’ll have to see what additional findings are released tomorrow.)



It turns out that the Climateers hate the “lukewarmers” almost more than climate skeptics, as can be seen from this piece from Clive Hamilton on the ThinkProgress blog:

We are familiar with the tactics, arguments, and personnel of the denial industry. Yet there is a perhaps more insidious and influential line of argument that is preventing the world from responding to the warnings of climate science.
“Luke-warmists” may be defined as those who appear to accept the body of climate science but interpret it in a way that is least threatening: emphasizing uncertainties, playing down dangers, and advocating a slow and cautious response.​

Sure enough, Muller’s Times op-ed today includes these important breaks with the alarmist line:

I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.
Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.​

Well this rather takes all the fun about of being a climateer, doesn’t it?

 

[billc]

Do you mean this 97-98% of scientists...

http://junkscience.com/2011/09/08/t...climate-scientists-believe-in-global-warming/

During Wednesday’s GOP presidential debate, Jon Huntsman attacked Rick Perry with the claim that 97% to 98% of climate scientists believe in the manmade global warming hypothesis. This claim is also gaining currency in the lamestream media
The claim arises from this June 2010 PNAS study. Read it if you have the time and stomach, but the bottom line is that about 97% to 98% of climate researchers (if not more) are paid by the government and climate interest groups to support and to advance the global warming hypothesis and, guess what, they do.
This doesn’t make these researchers correct or credible, just employed.
The study’s premise that unless you’ve published 20 papers on climate your views don’t matter or are uninformed is patently arbitrary and absurd.
If you can read a graph, then you have all the tools necessary to decide the climate controversy for yourself. You only need the PhD and track record of publications if you want to rip-off taxpayers in the name of alarmism.

Or this take on the 98% from the Heartland institute...oh I know, they are conservative so their views don't count...but still, it you are interested...

http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/05-02-12_bast_myth_of_the_98.pdf

The Myth of the 98% By Joseph L. Bast
Last updated: May 1, 2012
Do 98 percent of climate scientists really believe in man‐made global warming? A little research reveals that the often‐cited figure is a confused and erroneous reference to two different studies that both fail to prove what those who cite them believe or allege.

Doran and Zimmerman
The first study, by Doran and Zimmerman, appeared in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in 2009. You can retrieve it at http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf. This article reports the results of a survey, but it was a meaningless one.
The researchers – a professor at the University of Illinois and a graduate student – sent a two‐ minute online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies, generating responses from 3,146 people. Only 5 percent of respondents self‐ identified as climate scientists. The survey asked two questions:
“Q1. “When compared with pre‐1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Overall, 90 percent of respondents answered “risen” to question 1 and 82 percent answered “yes” to question 2. The authors get their fraudulent “98 percent of climate scientists believe”
sound bite by focusing on only 79 (not a typo) scientists who responded and “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50 percent of their recent peer‐reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.”
Given that there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of scientists with real expertise in basic sciences related to climate, a survey that looks at the views of only 79 climate scientists is ridiculous. Its tiny sample size makes it meaningless.
Even worse than the sample size, though, is the complete irrelevance of the questions asked in the survey to the real debate taking place about climate change. Most skeptics would answer those two questions the same way as alarmists would.

Anderegg et al.
The Doran and Zimmerman survey is often confused or conflated with a second study, Anderegg et al., “Expert credibility in climate change,” in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107
From the abstract:
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Note that this is not a survey of scientists, whether “all scientists” or specifically climate scientists. Instead, Anderegg et al. counted the number of articles published in academic journals by 908 “climate researchers,” defined as people who had signed petitions opposing or supporting the IPCC’s positions or had coauthored IPCC reports and had published a minimum of 20 climate publications.
They found that 97 to 98 percent of the most prolific 200 climate researchers, so defined, appeared to believe that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century.”
Observe that this counting exercise did not determine how many of these authors believe global warming is a crisis, or that the science is sufficiently established to be the basis for public policy, or even that future global warming would be bad (or good). Anyone who cites this study in defense of these views is mistaken.

Wow, a new term..."Publication Bias." What's that?

Why Alarmists Publish More
Anderegg et al.’s assertion that “he who publishes the most must be the most credible” is implausible. There are at least four reasons why skeptics appear in print less frequently than do alarmists, and none of them has to do with credibility or expertise. They are:
Publication bias. Articles that “find something” – such as a statistically significant correlation that might imply causation – are much more likely to get published than those that do not. Such “findings” are newsworthy and important to other researchers, while experiments that do not “find something” are less so. Even though falsifying hypotheses with experimental data is the essence of true science, it is the experiment that seems to generate or support a hypothesis that gets all the attention and is most likely to be published, even if that experiment had a small sample size, limited duration, or other defects that increased the odds of a false positive finding.
Publication bias is also caused by heavy government funding of the search for one result, but little or no funding for other results. In the case of climate change, hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants have gone to scholars who say they are trying to find a discernible human impact on climate, or of climate change on plants, animals, fish, human health, or a litany of other things. Much less funding is available to scholars who say they are seeking to find natural causes for climate change, or explanations of natural phenomena that don’t involve climate change.
Publication bias helps explain why most published research findings are false, not only in climate science but in all disciplines. Thousands of researchers are being paid to “find something,” and they publish whenever they think they might have found something, no...

:angel:

These climate scientists wouldn't "Pad their resumes," would they...Uh oh...!

Resumé padding. Climate scientist Phil Jones, before the Climategate scandal revealed that he was hiding data and illegally blocking FOIA requests, was identified as a coauthor on articles appearing in science journals an average of once a week, an astounding pace if the findings he was reporting were being carefully vetted. (As reported by Fred Pearce in The Climate Files). His data are still being cited in footnotes for scores of other published articles every week or month.
This extraordinary productivity is a function of several things, but one is the practice of having large numbers of coauthors on scientific papers, so that a dozen or even two dozen writers get to list the paper in their resumé. This makes objective peer review difficult or impossible, helping to ensure publication. This practice became pervasive in climate research only in the past decade, and it is entirely a phenomenon of alarmist scientists. Most skeptics continue to publish alone or with only a few coauthors.

Ummmm...errrr...sooo...tell me again how this is all about the science...

 

[billc]

The 98%ers vs. the old farts...

http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/05-02-12_bast_myth_of_the_98.pdf

Age and academic status. Climate scientists who are skeptics tend to be older, and more are emeritus, than scientists in the alarmist camp. This could be the result of two things: Either they are willing to speak out because they either have tenure or are retired and do not fear retaliation for taking an unpopular stance, or they are less impressed by the current fixation on computer models.
These “old school” scientists recognize that computer models’ outputs are not data but hypotheses that must be tested by data (empirical observation) – a relationship that many younger scientists, accustomed to working constantly with computers and far less with observations of the natural world, tend to get exactly backward. These older scientists also were considered respected and successful if they published once or twice a year and devoted time to classroom teaching, if they are not fully retired.
Climate alarmists tend to be younger, trying to get tenure by appearing in academic journals, and more likely to team up with other scientists to appear more frequently in those journals. Alarmists also are more likely to be environmental activists, drawn to the field by their interest in environmental issues rather than by pure interest in science itself. This again makes them more likely to write and publish articles specifically on the hot topic of climate change.

Editorial Bias...What's that?

Editorial bias. We know from the leaked Climategate emails that a small clique of influential government scientists worked behind the scenes to get academic journal editors to reject papers that would otherwise have qualified for publication. These scientists even arranged for editors who dared to publish such papers to be fired or pressured into resigning. This is gross editorial bias and likely contributed to some of the disparity in publishing numbers between skeptics and alarmists. More subtle bias, which might not be apparent even to the editors who exercise it, probably accounts for still more of the disparity.

Sooo...tell me again about this 98% of scientists thing...

 

[Xue Sheng]

More to the point, as others have pointed out, glaciers and ice caps are melting away, adding water to the thermohayalene current (sorry, Xue-I'm a sailor....:lfao: ) which drives our world's climate.

You have no idea how close I came to adding to my question "this is for everyone BUT elder"

That Climatology class waaaaaaaay back in college did also call it the thermohayalene current but I was not sure how many would know that terminology

And I'm the son of a sailor (22 years navy and 3 carriers )