Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
11-12-2010, 02:31 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-12-2010, 03:51 PM by JazzRoc.)
#16
RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
(11-12-2010, 02:19 AM)icosaface Wrote: He did give you reasons. The whole quote is an example of marketing propaganda.
The ORIGINAL is a scientific paper published in Nature:
Galbraith, E.D., Jaccard, S.L., Pedersen, T.F., Sigman, D.M., Haug, G.H., Cook, M., Southon, J.R., Francois, R. Carbon dioxide release from the North Pacific abyss during the last deglaciation, Nature, 449, 890-894.

And reasons given were NONE.

[Image: Pacific.jpg]

http://www.climategeology.ethz.ch/people/jaccards/Galbraith_et_al_07

How come these people came from all over the world to write this "propaganda"?

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation" - no matter how hard you try...
Reply
11-12-2010, 06:23 PM,
#17
RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
Bullshit doesn't become truth because somebody with a degree espouses it! Just look at the agenda in the statement that was quoted.

"Oceans that warm up as a result of climate change release more CO2 into the atmosphere."
So, they are saying that oceans warm up because of climate change. They are trying to slip "climate change" into the fact category. I
would say that as ocean temperatures increase so does the rate of CO2 released from the oceans into the atmosphere.

"This discovery has far-reaching consequences for the climate."
Bullshit, the climate is not affected by the discovery!

"The ocean warming caused by humans contributes to the formation of additional greenhouse gases, mainly CO2."

More bullshit, the ocean warming caused by humans causes the oceans to be warmer. This causes more CO2 to be released from the oceans to the atmosphere. The ocean warming caused by humans does not result in the formation of additional greenhouse gases, the greenhouse gases are already in the ocean.

"Consequently the positive feedback with the atmosphere associated with the latter leads to an even greater acceleration in global warming." Where is the proof that global warming is happening? Where are the temperature records showing that temperatures are increasing globally?




An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
11-13-2010, 01:13 PM,
#18
RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
(11-12-2010, 06:23 PM)icosaface Wrote: So, they are saying that oceans warm up because of climate change.
Climate change is atmospheric change. It isn't sensible to exclude the oceans from the atmosphere: in terms of THERMAL EXCHANGE they are a massive part of it.

Quote:They are trying to slip "climate change" into the fact category.
And you the reverse. The difference between you and them is YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING. Theirs...

Quote:I would say that as ocean temperatures increase so does the rate of CO2 released from the oceans into the atmosphere.
So would I.

Quote:Bullshit, the climate is not affected by the discovery!
I agree. Perhaps their ability to express themselves isn't on a par with their technical understanding.

Quote:the greenhouse gases are already in the ocean.
No. The gases are. While they are THERE, they AREN'T greenhouse gases.

Quote:Where is the proof that global warming is happening? Where are the temperature records showing that temperatures are increasing globally?
1. The world is warming in all areas across land, air, and sea.
2. Natural variations cannot explain the warming: forcing due to changes in volcanic activity, solar activity, orbital effects, etc., do NOT explain this warming.
3. Greenhouse gases are known warmers of the climate and have increased exponentially in the last 100 years.
4. Models developed to predict climate only replicate observations when man-made effects are included.
5. All testable impacts on climate remain consistent.

Refer to the Met Offfice:





Or the University of Arizona. This one has (mercifully) its comments disabled.





There are factions who disagree: "Watts up with That?", Plimer, et al., but the MAIN BODY (97+%) of scientific studies confirm Global Warming and Climate Change.
Pointing to the distant past, by the way, is FLAWED, because of the DIFFERENT CONTINENTAL AND OCEAN GEOGRAPHY, which bears little relationship to the present.

Your views are consistent, I imagine, with "chemtrails", 9-11, "anti-fluoride", "Big Pharma", etc.

Are you a creationist and Bible fundamentalist Tea Party pooper too?

Do you believe Man isn't an ape, or even an animal, as well?



Reply
11-15-2010, 11:14 PM,
#19
RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
On a different note, science can be used as a form of propaganda (by withholding knowledge from the majority of scientists. Furthermore, the very establishment of science was based on occult secret societies. This will require quite a deal of studying on your behalf to see so please do not expect me to write a book on this for you right now. You can, however, look into the origins of masonry, the rosy croix, the scientific establishment, the figures of the renaissance, royal society, and invisible college to name only a few ). Additionally, true science is in the method of falsification by nature.

On another note which you perhaps overlooked is that you cannot, under strict scientific standards, claim a causative agent to independent variables that cannot be randomly assigned. You can only provide systematic observations that converge to support that said hypothesis.

You are free to believe what you wish. You also stated

Quote:And you the reverse. The difference between you and them is YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING. Theirs...

Simply look at the public's history of science. It shows there really is no concrete understanding other than relative understanding. 35 years ago the public was told a global ice age is imminent, now the reverse. I've seen plausible alternative hypotheses which show correlations with solar activity. There also is a misnomer with the greenhouse effect you should look into yourself.

Kind regards,
Darius
Reply
11-17-2010, 10:41 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-17-2010, 11:33 PM by JazzRoc.)
#20
RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
(11-15-2010, 11:14 PM)sublimetruth.com Wrote: On a different note, science can be used as a form of propaganda (by withholding knowledge from the majority of scientists. Furthermore, the very establishment of science was based on occult secret societies. This will require quite a deal of studying on your behalf to see so please do not expect me to write a book on this for you right now. You can, however, look into the origins of masonry, the rosy croix, the scientific establishment, the figures of the renaissance, royal society, and invisible college to name only a few).
It's an interesting point, though rather oblique.
I am under the impression that the first "science" WAS religion. Ever since that, science has moved away from religion BY MEANS OF FALSIFICATION - religion having logically falsified itself. It's only faith that keeps it going now. That's not to imply that science is perfect, by any means.

Quote:Additionally, true science is in the method of falsification by nature.
Indeed.

Quote:you cannot claim a causative agent to independent variables that cannot be randomly assigned. You can only provide systematic observations that converge to support that said hypothesis.
You may well be correct, but I'm not sure what the meaning of your first statement is. Is it possible for you to state it some other way? Science demands not only systematic observations, but also tests or predictions which turn out to be successful.

Quote:Simply look at the public's history of science. It shows there really is no concrete understanding other than relative understanding.
Understanding will only be "concrete" when everything is known. (When will that be, do you think? Is there such a thing as objective morality, for that matter? Isn't everything relative until everything is known?)
Almost all* science is an understanding of the balance of probabilities. It works pretty well that way...

Quote:35 years ago the public was told a global ice age is imminent, now the reverse.
But the preponderance of evidence (and/or advice) at the time was the reverse, by a factor of ten - I remember it clearly, believe me. I am informed that various tested calculations have more recently led scientists to closely predict the onset of the next ice age to be around 17,000 years from the present.

Quote:I've seen plausible alternative hypotheses which show correlations with solar activity.
I've seen some of them too. What I am aware of were selective and appeared to exclude evidence which wasn't in agreement with their hypotheses.

Quote:There also is a misnomer with the greenhouse effect you should look into yourself.
I will if you can clarify what you say here. "Misnomer" cannot be the right word, surely?

The impression you create here is, as you say, that science is occult. That isn't what I was taught at school a decade after WW2 by any means. I was taught, (and I still believe) that it is an abstract pattern that is incomplete, a jigsaw puzzle if you like, which is not beyond the wit of Man to solve - at least partially - in one's lifetime. The biggest secrets aren't "politically" withheld at all, because they can always be discovered, or rediscovered. You simply need to be able to THINK. And THAT is the rub. If science isn't your primary concern, then you may well think it occult - but that is a mistake.

Quote:Kind regards, Darius
I shall return the courtesy, thankyou, Tony

* But some things are known, absolutely and completely - the spectral lines of hydrogen, for instance, are calculated with great precision by the maths of quantum chromodynamics.

Reply
11-18-2010, 07:49 AM,
#21
RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
Concerning the statement of causative agents, to state a causal inference, a true experiment must be implemented which involves random assignment of subjects to treatment groups, and a manipulation of one or more variables.

Since not all variables can be controlled (e.g., gender), you are limited to matching uncontrollable variables. This is termed quasi-variables.

The strength of one’s argument is based on its validity, constructs, and statistical conclusions (the extent to which the conclusion logically follows from the premises) to name the minimum.

How this relates to global warming is that it can only be inferred via the studying of latent variables which require the active observation of direct variable outcome (things that you can observe and infer to a latent variable).

Example: happiness is a latent variable. However, you can measure multiple neurochemicals (thus having multiple measures - this increases the strength of your conclusion) and infer one's level of happiness.
Concerning concrete knowledge, there is the probability of a day coming to fruition. On a practical note, science has simply turned into a dialectic and a tool for the system to gather miscellaneous data they haven’t already observed.
articles you should checkout:
I.G Usoskin, M. Schussler, S.K Solanki, K.Mursula. Solar Activity Over The Last 1150 Years: Does it Correlate With Climate? Department of Physical Sciences, 2005
• Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase: Another Global Warming Fraud Exposed, 21st Century Science, 1997
Humans are only responsible for .0038% of greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse misnomer:
R, Lee. The "Green House" Effect. Journal of Applied Meteorology Volume 12, 19 October 1972 and 9 January 1973
• In spite of the evidence, modern textbooks on meteorology and climatology not only repeat the misnomer, but frequently support the false notion that the "heat-retaining behavior of the atmosphere is analogous to what happens in a green house" (Miller, 1966)
• Morano, Marc. James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic. EPW Minority Press Blog.http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320
• The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." King Alexander, Schneider, Bertrand. The First Global Revolution, The Club of Rome, United Nations, 1993 (Page 104)

Finally, I do not think or believe that science is “occult.” Science was manipulated by occult forces. That is what I meant. Science, as you know it, is a great tool, but it is not perfect as you stated for reasons you are aware of and some that could be elucidated later.
“* But some things are known, absolutely and completely - the spectral lines of hydrogen, for instance, are calculated with great precision by the maths of quantum chromodynamics.”
Then these would be classified as theories or laws under 99% precision based on the test used to produce the outcome.
Reply
11-18-2010, 11:05 AM,
#22
RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
Thanks, Darius, for your swift reply. It is sending me off on trails which I can compare with my own experience - Jaworowki's work on lead, for instance.
Rather like Oates to Scott - "I may be some time." Smile
Reply
11-18-2010, 02:38 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-18-2010, 03:11 PM by JazzRoc.)
#23
RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
(11-18-2010, 07:49 AM)sublimetruth.com Wrote: Concerning the statement of causative agents <snip> haven’t already observed.
Agreed.

Quote:I.G Usoskin, M. Schussler, S.K Solanki, K.Mursula. Solar Activity Over The Last 1150 Years: Does it Correlate With Climate? Department of Physical Sciences, 2005
[Image: solnote.jpg]

Quote:Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase: Another Global Warming Fraud Exposed, 21st Century Science, 1997
WIKI: However, Jaworowski's views are rejected by the scientific community. Increases in CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the Vostok core are similar for the last two glacial-interglacial transitions, even though only the most recent transition is located in the brittle zone. Such evidence argues that the atmospheric trace-gas signal is not strongly affected by the presence of the brittle zone. Similarly Hans Oeschger states that "...Some of Jaworowski's statements are drastically wrong from the physical point of view".
I profoundly agree with Jaworowski's earlier work on lead and reactor escapes, but also know that Oeschger's knowledge base on the climate was as monumental as Ernst Mayr's on evolution.

Quote:Humans are only responsible for .0038% of greenhouse gases.
That may well be true if you include water vapor. I am presently unable to verify it.

Greenhouse "misnomer":
Quote:R, Lee. The "Green House" Effect. Journal of Applied Meteorology Volume 12, 19 October 1972 and 9 January 1973
In spite of the evidence, modern textbooks on meteorology and climatology not only repeat the misnomer, but frequently support the false notion that the "heat-retaining behavior of the atmosphere is analogous to what happens in a green house" (Miller, 1966)
That's a straw man argument. In both cases heat is retained until the enclosed temperature rises enough to reradiate the heat and maintain a balance. The glass AND the "greenhouse gases" will finally radiate JUST AS MUCH ENERGY as they received. Just at longer wavelengths.
It's the TEMPERATURE RISE we are concerned with.

Quote:Morano, Marc. James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic. EPW Minority Press Blog.http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320
Politics.

Quote:The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." King Alexander, Schneider, Bertrand. The First Global Revolution, The Club of Rome, United Nations, 1993 (Page 104)
Nothing wrong with that. Once it was Nature. Then religion. Once reason attacked faith, and Man's numbers approached Malthusion proportions, man's behavior became the enemy. It's only natural. :lol:

Quote:Science was manipulated by occult forces.
It's a meaningless word to me - an atavism.

Quote:Science is a great tool
On a par with language?

Quote:under 99%
OVER.
You can add a decimal point and twelve consecutive 9s to it.
Reply
11-18-2010, 03:37 PM,
#24
RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
Yes, it's over 99%. I made a mistake. Additionally, I will show you other articles I have if I can locate them.

-Darius
Reply
11-18-2010, 04:02 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-18-2010, 04:20 PM by JazzRoc.)
#25
RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
(11-18-2010, 03:37 PM)sublimetruth.com Wrote: I will show you other articles I have if I can locate them.-Darius
Please do.
Where did you get that 0.0038% figure from? - Tony
Reply
08-08-2011, 09:02 AM,
#26
Tongue  RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
Quote:Satellite Data Blows Hole in Gobal Warming
by Mike Shedlock

Forbes Magazine reports New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds.

Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

Real-world measurements show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.


Will this stop the global-warming fear-mongers? Of course not. Worse yet, even if global warming was a genuine threat, the cap-and-trade measures proposed as solutions are downright idiotic.

The Wall Street Journal blasted Obama's cap-and-trade proposal in March of 2009 in Who Pays for Cap and Trade?

Cap and trade is the tax that dare not speak its name, and Democrats are hoping in particular that no one notices who would pay for their climate ambitions. With President Obama depending on vast new carbon revenues in his budget and Congress promising a bill by May, perhaps Americans would like to know the deeply unequal ways that climate costs would be distributed across regions and income groups.

Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing "polluters," not workers. Hardly. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity -- in this case the right to emit carbon -- and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Stating the obvious, Peter Orszag -- now Mr. Obama's budget director -- told Congress last year that "Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program."

An economy-wide tax under the cover of saving the environment is the best political moneymaker since the income tax. Obama officials are already telling the press, sotto voce, that climate revenues might fund universal health care and other new social spending. No doubt they would...

Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth -- but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street "green tech" investors who know how to leverage the political class.


Cap-and-trade confers benefit to existing polluters at the expense of new businesses who will have to buy credits from existing ones. It sets up lucrative trading schemes that will benefit Wall Street derivatives traders and those peddling otherwise economically nonviable clean energy schemes.

Cap-and-trade also benefits China, the largest, most flagrant producer of greenhouse gasses. China will not go along with cap-and-trade so driving up costs elsewhere only serves to drive business to China!

Finally, and as Forbes states, cap-and-trade is a tax on consumers who will have to pay for such nonsense.

If global warming is a problem, the free market (not derivative traders, not nonviable clean-energy schemers), will find a solution.

Fortunately cap-and-trade died in the US senate. Unfortunately, no amount of research is likely to stop GE and other beneficiaries (as well a misguided fools led by Al Gore) from pushing the idea.

Addendum:

Some people have attacked the credibility of the Forbes article. I knew in advance they would. They miss my point in writing.

My point is about the silliness of cap-and-trade as a solution. The Forbes article gave me a chance to reiterate those points and I took it. I side with the Wall Street Journal adding my own reasons as well.

My points are valid whether or not one believes in the merits of the Forbes article as presented.

Addendum II:

My friend "HB" writes ...

I have always said the global warming hysteria was essentially based on a hoax. Yet governments spend nearly $60 billion globally on such dreck every year!

What would you do if you were a climate scientist, employed in a discipline that received a few 100 thousand dollars per year of government research funding to study global warming?

If they admit it's a hoax, they are jumping off a huge gravy train.

Exactly. Money flows to those bound to a set of predetermined answers that dictate 1. global warming exists in a meaningful way and 2. something sensible can be done about it on the slim chance it does exist in a meaningful way.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2011/07/30/satellite_data_blows_hole_in_gobal_warming/page/full/

More on NASA data and all the rest in this thread...

Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=31158

It's not just the models it's the data and there is plenty of motive to fabricate/exaggerate them far more than from the oil companies who are already heavily invested in the green movement or will simply do a short sell in this corporate/government/NGO shell game.

On that note Forbes is advocating a pro-corporate view which polarizes the spectrum of debate. It's really up to consumers to support companies or provide for themselves directly or communally with a bit of information and far more personal responsibility rather than begging corporations and governments how to do things for them.
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
08-10-2011, 12:27 PM,
#27
RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
Best get back to first principles.

If you burn MORE carbon, you put MORE CO2 into the atmosphere. True?

If there is MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, then it retains and reradiates heat, causing the atmosphere to WARM. True?

ARE we burning more CO2? Yes?

Is the atmosphere warming? Yes?

Are there TIPPING POINTS (Arctic sea ice and polar land ice albedo, tundra methane, ocean clathrate methane) in the offing? Yes?

And YOU are stating that the IPCC's claims are all false, and there's NO global warming because they're all jobsworths? That so?

Bollocks. Just like 9-11, chemtrails, and all the other pseudosciences. Garbage. Crap.
Reply
09-28-2011, 06:07 AM,
#28
RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
You burn something it's bound to get hotter. The question is how much, where and what effect will it have? Based on that is our reaction options geo-engineering, new green energy, ration emissions, population reduction or simply move. As for how much the models have been inaccurate, factors have been ignored, the process has been largely opaque save for the climategate deal.

Solutions for assessing if this is an issue (or not), its impact and timeline:

* Release the source code for the modelling and data collection sensors
* Space out reading stations, account for altitude, don't manipulate models with disproportionate weighting algorithms
* Have a live feed of the readings for a real time audit
* Honour FOI requests, unlike in the past
* Encompass all factors, not AGW exclusively in the study - include rotting biomass, respiration, urban heating and the sun for starters
* Nail down those tipping points
* Don't put the thermometers right next to heating vents
* Maybe back up the source data so it doesn't get deleted because of lack of hard drive space

We paid for it. The science needs to be accurate, transparent and unbiased in order to make an informed decision and decide what resources to put towards it, keeping in mind there are other issues afloat that may be more pressing and need attention and effort.

Flashback:

Quote:Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails
November 24, 2009 11:40 AM
By Declan McCullagh

A few days after leaked e-mail messages appeared on the Internet, the U.S. Congress may probe whether prominent scientists who are advocates of global warming theories misrepresented the truth about climate change.

Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, said on Monday the leaked correspondence suggested researchers "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not," according to a transcript of a radio interview posted on his Web site. Aides for Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, are also looking into the disclosure.

The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it "relies on most heavily" when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

Last week's leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field's most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data ("have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots"), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

One e-mail message, apparently from CRU director Phil Jones, references the U.K.'s Freedom of Information Act when asking another researcher to delete correspondence that might be disclosed in response to public records law: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise." Another, also apparently from Jones: global warming skeptics "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." (Jones was a contributing author to the chapter of the U.N.'s IPCC report titled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.")

In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:

I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!

Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?...


As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!"

It's not clear how the files were leaked. One theory says that a malicious hacker slipped into East Anglia's network and snatched thousands of documents. Another says that the files had already been assembled in response to a Freedom of Information request and, immediately after it was denied, a whistleblower decided to disclose them. (Lending credence to that theory is the fact that no personal e-mail messages unrelated to climate change appear to have been leaked.)

For its part, the University of East Anglia has posted a statement calling the disclosure "mischievous" and saying it is aiding the police in an investigation.

The statement also quotes Jones, CRU's director, explaining his November 1999 e-mail,?which said: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Jones said that the word trick was used "colloquially as in a clever thing to do" and that it "is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward."

Also unclear is the ultimate impact of the leak, which came before next month's Copenhagen summit and Democratic plans for cap and trade legislation.

On one hand, over at RealClimate.org, Gavin Schmidt, a modeler for the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been downplaying the leak. Schmidt wrote: "There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research ... no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords."

On the other, groups like the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, the target of repeated derision in the leaked e-mails, have said: "We have argued for many years that much of the scientific case for global warming alarmism was weak and some of it was phony. It now looks like a lot of it may be phony."

ScienceMag.org published an article noting that deleting e-mail messages to hide them from a FOI request is a crime in the United Kingdom. George Monbiot, a U.K. activist and journalist who previously called for dramatic action to deal with global warming, wrote: "It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging."

Complicating matters for congressional Republicans who'd like to hold hearings is that East Anglia, of course, is a U.K. university. The GOP may intend to press the Obama administration for details on how the EPA came to rely on the CRU's predictions, and whether the recent disclosure will change the agency's position. Another approach lies in e-mail messages discussing grants from the U.S. Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to East Anglia; one says: "We need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn't make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven't spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious."

The irony of this situation is that most of us expect science to be conducted in the open, without unpublished secret data, hidden agendas, and computer programs of dubious reliability. East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit might have avoided this snafu by publicly disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5761180-504383.html

The science is not settled. Meanwhile government policy is going straight ahead based on the AR4 Report for Policy Makers

Related:

http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=30393
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=33842
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=30513
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=31158
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=35097
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=34916
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=31468
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=32274
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=30387
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=11408
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=35309
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=35244
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=35042
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=34487
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=33827
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=33325
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=32647
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=31626
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=31232
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=31195
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=30912
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=31153
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=30648
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=30524
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=472
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=217
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=1980
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=550
whew ..... too much, just search "global warming", "climate change", climategate
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
10-07-2011, 09:31 PM,
#29
RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
(09-28-2011, 06:07 AM)FastTadpole Wrote: You burn something it's bound to get hotter.
That's not the point at all, and I think you know this.

When you burn carbon you are increasing the "blanket" insulation of the Earth, preventing it from radiating the heat it has gained, both from solar radiation and its own radioactivity, back into space.
This blanket gets absorbed by the sea, but only if the sea remains cold.
But the sea is warming...
In other words, we are playing Russian Roulette. We are pulling the trigger, but the hammer has not yet fallen on the cartridge. OK so far.

Good situation...

Reply
10-08-2011, 12:24 AM,
#30
RE: Anthropogenic Global Warming - sublimetruth.com - Darius Alexander
RazzJoc said:
Quote:When you burn carbon you are increasing the "blanket" insulation of the Earth, preventing it from radiating the heat it has gained, both from solar radiation and its own radioactivity, back into space.
This blanket gets absorbed by the sea, but only if the sea remains cold.
But the sea is warming...

Where is the evidence that shows that to be what is happening?
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What happened to global warming? --- 18 4,336 02-28-2013, 07:38 PM
Last Post: macfadden
Wink Snow Proves Global Warming ( O RLY!? ) rsol 2 1,289 10-25-2012, 05:35 PM
Last Post: fireballs
  Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn explains the whole Global Warming aka Climate Change scam icosaface 3 2,829 05-11-2012, 02:17 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
  Warmlist - A Complete List of Things Caused By Global Warming / Climate Change SerialExpLain 32 9,216 11-16-2011, 06:13 AM
Last Post: icosaface
  Global Cooling and the NWO - Global Cooling on the Agenda of the Bilderbergs h3rm35 2 1,825 10-16-2010, 01:00 AM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  Scientists call for a global nuclear renaissance in new study nik 1 1,819 08-24-2010, 12:45 AM
Last Post: JazzRoc
Exclamation Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global war joeblow 6 3,280 05-10-2010, 01:44 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
Thumbs Up 75 Reasons to be Skeptical of "Global Warming" h3rm35 1 1,539 02-24-2010, 08:06 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  'Bin Laden' blames US for global warming TriWooOx 2 1,368 02-03-2010, 03:40 AM
Last Post: Genteel
  Top climate change adviser calls for honesty from scientists in global warming debate TriWooOx 0 983 01-27-2010, 08:24 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)