Windmills along the lake

[SIKSUKR]

Oh this really changes my mind now.Why didn't you show me this in the past.All of us that have our head in the sand as you say have one thing you don't,our own opinions and thought process based on independent readings and studies.People like yourself are the real problem because they allow themselves to have their head stuck in the sand by other liberal media sources.

Again from me:There is no debate that the climate is changing.Its always changed since the earth was formed,millions of years before humans were on this planet.We've had everything from a firey hot atmosphere to a mile of ice on top of where we live today.The debate is whether it is manmade.I subscibe that our little tiny sample of climate is but a grain of sand in the solar sytem.

The only people that want to force everyone else to ignore reality by eviscerating all attempts to respond to the problems, as you accused others is yourself and others like you that call out other people that have differing opinions and chastize them.Your last post proves this.Typical liberal mentality,if you don't agree with me then I'll call you names to discredit you.

In short,thank you for confirming I have the correct vision and political persuasion.

[NoBozo]

It's SNOWING out again, Shed has a bad case of Cabin Fever and also the day off, and was reading old threads to keep his-self busy, and stumbled on to this one and it stirred up his emotions again. YUP: That splains it. NB

[SAMIAM]

You're right,NoBozo.....kinda fun to see people stirred up on both sides of an issue.Can't imagine what would happen if Don allowed political debate.

[ITD]

If all human caused global warming believers would practice what they preach by swearing off energy use (junk your car, disconnect from the grid) that would do more to lower co2 emissions than any cap and tax scheme. They could solve their "problem" and leave the rest of us alone.

[jrc]

I mean do we have to do this again?

Here a liberal news source interview of the 'father' of the AGW theory and he admits he cooked the books.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Game, set and match.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by jrc

I mean do we have to do this again?

Here a liberal news source interview of the 'father' of the AGW theory and he admits he cooked the books.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Game, set and match.

I read the article in your link and didn't see where Dr. Jones admitted to cooking the books. Could you please indicate where he does so?

Thanks

[jrc]

OK, this is the easiest piece:

"There is more than one "official" surface temperature record, based on actual land station records. There is the one we have developed in CRU, but there are also the series developed at NCDC and GISS. Although we all use very similar station datasets, we each employ different ways of assessing the quality of the individual series and different ways of developing gridded products. The GISS data and their program are freely available for people to experiment with. The agreement between the three series is very good."

Dr Jones' findings are not based on the actual land station records. It's based on data he modified from the real data. He freely admits he changed the actual land record to generate his "official" surface temperature record. That's cooking the books.

Their has never been an independent review of the real data. As a matter of fact if you check a few other sources, you will find that Dr. Jones claims that much of the real data is lost cannot be verified.

Reading further you see that there are three different datasets all derived from the lost real data. All different and only GISS allows anyone to see their data. If this is science and there is a scientific method of converting actual land station data to "official" surface temperature records, then this process would be open and repeatable.

So Dr Jones is 100% sure that we have global warming, he bases this on data that he won't show us, he admits it was changed from the original data using a method he won't tell us, and he claims he lost the original data.

[jrc]

here's another spot:

"The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were."


Confronted with differing data, tree rings vs instument data, he chose to use tree rings when that data supported his theory and instrument data when that supported his theory and a "trick" to hide the differences when they didn't agree. In science, when your data doesn't agree, you can't pick the data you like and use a "trick" to hide the data you don't. That's cooking the books.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by jrc

here's another spot:

"The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were."

This bit did make me uncomfortable, but it's difficult to make a complete assessment from a few lines of explanation. I wish I had time to search for peer-reviewed articles which might explain in full why the tree ring data is discarded during this period.

As for your other example, that doesn't bother me as much since their results are in agreement with those from two other organizations. There can be several paths to the same answer in science. More transparency in the methodology would be nice, however.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Rose

This bit did make me uncomfortable, but it's difficult to make a complete assessment from a few lines of explanation. I wish I had time to search for peer-reviewed articles which might explain in full why the tree ring data is discarded during this period.

As for your other example, that doesn't bother me as much since their results are in agreement with those from two other organizations. There can be several paths to the same answer in science. More transparency in the methodology would be nice, however.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Unfortunately Rose peer review is not to be for "poor" papers, we have to guess what makes a paper "poor".

"I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions. I undertook all the reviews I made in good faith and sent them back to the editors. In some e-mails I questioned the peer-review process with respect to what I believed were poor papers that had appeared. Isn't this called freedom of speech?"

The first part is the most damning. Some people believe that AGW means the end of the world as we know it, a tipping point that we cannot come back from, and yet the leading scientist will not show his work, will not tell us how he changed the raw data to make his charts and conclusions. The lives of 6 billion people are at stake. Does this sound credible? Remember he says he's 100% certain there is warming, he has zero doubt.

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

In short,thank you for confirming I have the correct vision and political persuasion.

The world is a strange place, isn't it. This is the very response I had previously (and still have) after reading the comments attacking the notion of human caused global warming. Amazing how people on the opposite sides of the issue can feel the exact same feeling. I can't imagine what I would do if I suddenly found myself in a conservative's body and mind - probably die of shock.

As to the numerous comments on how the amount of snow we have been having "disproves" global warming, that is, as usual, taking an instance and constructing a theory from it (or more likely taking a theory and finding an instance that supports it. The latest modeling suggests that the high temperatures in the higher latitudes (north of the Arctic Circle, its MUCH warmer than average) has the effect of pushing the airflow and precipitation down to our latitudes.

The difference between that and the theories here (lots of snow in the Lakes Region disproves global warming) is that the data supports the theory across the board. The idea that high snowfall this year in the Lakes Region disproving human caused global warming is like saying I found one four leaf clover in an entire field, therefore four leaf clovers are the norm everywhere.

But of course, I realize no scientific demonstration would possibly convince those not willing to look at the facts. Conspiracy theories are usually embraced because people have trouble thinking one person could have so much impact; likewise, anti-scientific attitudes are embraced because people have trouble imagining so much change will come from simple activities of driving to work, flying an airplane to a vacation, heating ones home. What many people fail to factor in is overpopulation, wasteful energy use, and the cumulative effects of 300 million people.

I say 300 million, not 7 billion, because lets face it - global warming is caused by excessive affluence, not by mere numbers of humans. Its the "McMansions" that people have to heat, its the excessive energy use for air conditioning, heating, spas, etc. etc. etc. The idea of helping raise the standard of the world will be disastrous (as we see in the way China and India are vastly increasing there energy use, their pollution (remember, China had to close down industry in most of the Beijing region to get air quality to an acceptable level) and their impact on global warming. The world would have a lot more "breathing space" (literally) were the super affluent be curtailed (as is happening in the Arab world right now).

[CateP]

Shed- I sent you a PM. Check your messages

[Yankee]

Shed,

The planet is still recovering from the last glacial maximum that reached its zenith around 20K years ago with the ice retreating from what we know as the US of A approx 12K years ago. Glaciologically speaking, we are still in the last ice age because the poles of our planet still remain covered in ice.

That human presence has had an effect on the planets climate there is no doubt. But to infer as you so vociferiously do that our civilization is the dominant cause is IMO a myopic viewpoint.

IMHO, the sun's varying intensity and our planets active vulcanism throughout Earth's history have and still dominate the world's climate. Before the Pleistocene age, the world was much warmer with much higher CO2 levels.