Humans are only behind a small percentage of all the CO2 that is let out in the atmosphere, but the thing is that the extra CO2 that we add to it is not part of a natural cycle that has always been going on.
Hmmm wishitwerewarmer responds to my responses to you and you reply to my responese to wishitwerewarmer. You aren't prepared to watch my video which disproves your initial assertion and I don't respond to sockpuppets.
@uknowispeaksense Why is it you think that a video of reptiles and bugs trying to adjust to climate change,(even though all species have had to do that since God created the earth) is proof that man has changed it?
I asked you to show me proof that MAN has changed the climate. I also told you that all ice cores show we were warmer than we are now.
So far you have failed to answer a single question. All you do is divert your answers to video's, and not one of them was relevant to the question
During the short Siberian summer on Russia’s Zhokhov Island, a Russian-American team of scientists found clues to the island’s warmer past. The team found the remains of houses built with driftwood, which had been carried downriver to the treeless coast from forests hundreds of miles to the south. The tree-line has moved hundreds of miles south, proving cooling.
@MrOTLChamp No dipshit. It means that here in Australia, the earth's relationship to the sun is a bit different to the USA and I like to sleep at nighttime. You see the earth spins on its axis in an east to west fashion giving the impression that the sun moves through the sky........ I figured since you resorted to juvenility by mucking around with my name that you must be very young and so need some basic science. Come back when you mature.
@uknowispeaksense Wait. You're not an alarmist, because they believe what they're saying. You are a propagandist. Someone that knows what he is saying is BS, yet continues to spew crap out of his pie-hole.
You know you are talking to a propagandist when they refuse to provide proof or refer to video's for their answer. (The video's never seem to correlate to the question)
But no surprise there! That's how some of these scientist work as well. I think they get it from the greenpeace hand book.
No, there's nothing wrong with my voice and what that has to do with understanding a line graph is beyond me but I'll play along. Which line graph? Be aware though, that I am humouring you here and I am prepared to look at any scientific evidence you have that disproves AGW. Are you prepared to offer me the same courtesy?
@uknowispeaksense The only science that shows the effects of AGW, are from models. All the scientist promoting the junk science, even know ALL the models are wrong.
Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
level clouds.
See if you can find a peer-reviewed paper that has not been debunked that doesn't involve a model?
@MrOTLChamp ok, you need to backtrack and watch the video I sent you the link to. here it is again. watch?v=_RIwsG_zcYI I am still waiting for your line graph by the way. I hope its got error bars.
@MrOTLChamp No, I would like to see the one you are using. You just need to tell which blogsite you got it from. I will take your silence on the topic of my video that you agree that the weight of evidence from natural systems in terms of range extensions and contractions contradicts your initial claim that "The only science that shows the effects of AGW, are from models." unless of course you are true to denier form and chose wilful ignorance instead.
@uknowispeaksense I'm getting a little tired of someone who can't speak for himself, and always has to have someone watch a video instead of saying what he means.
Here's a graph. If you don't like this one find another, I don't care. They all show the same thing..That it has been warmer before.
ht tp:/ /stevengoddard .files .wordpress . com /2011/05 /last_400000_ years. png
@wishitwerewarmer your address is wrong and I checked all the graphs at stevengoddard and couldn't find the one you are referring to. As for the rest, graphs produced in Excel by USAtoday don't really count and neither do graphs that are incorrectly labelled or have been altered from the original. But, even if it has been warmer before, that is completely irrelevant because the issue now is the rate of warming. Barring natural catastrophes 520MYA and 65MYA it is unprecedented.
@uknowispeaksense Prove the rate is unprecedented. That's a laugh. You are talking about this minute little warming in tenths of a degree over 150yrs?
LMAO you're smoking crack! Why can't you just pick a graph? I don't care where it's from. Geez, don't you get it?
As for the address I cut and pasted it from the address bar and I just checked it and it leads straight my video called "Undeniable evidence of climate change - range shifts" If you're genuinely interested you can find it on my channel.
The problem with this one particular discussion is this: Not all the experts agree!!
Plenty of experts, scientists with PhD.'s, do not agree that human beings or rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause the climate to change or that we need any change in energy policies. In order for a good policy to be enacted in this area, it must rest on proven scientific hypotheses.
But does how significantly does it affect the global pattern of warming/cooling? Cleaner energy is definitely the way to go for a cleaner world regardless...
@Huboons: Someone already explained to you that fossil fuel and the carbon present in our atmosphere from pre-industrial levels do not present the same ratio of istopes C13/C12 and C14/C12 to assume once again we cannot distinguish both. This "convenient" omîssion shows one thing: YOU ARE TRYING TO MISLEAD PEOPLE ON PURPOSE !!!!!!! YOU ARE A FRAUD.
@Huboons: When there is a flood, do you also say we cannot establish the increased water is from precipitation since you cannot distinguish them from the H2O in your pee? OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE TRYING TO MISLEAD PEOPLE BIG TIME - I hope anybody can see that.
@Huboons Whats wrong with socialism? Not accepting your claim that "has links to collectivist political groups whose goal is socialism through junk science"
But you might be confusing it with Communism. Every country in Europe has some form of socialism, and so does the USA...
Richard Alley is the host of the PBS series Earth: The Operators' Manual - an exciting new show on sustainability and climate change that travels the globe as it gives you practical knowledge and tips.
Go to EarthTheOperatorsManual (dot) com for TV air dates, info on the upcoming events, plus sustainability and climate change news (and new Richard Alley clips).
Also: Updates and news on facebook, and at Twitter: @earthtom.
Interesting that someone has been flagging perfectly reasonable responses as spam that aren't repeated ad nauseam, have no unnecessary caps, are not advertising anything and are on topic.
AGW contrarians, you will have to come up with some empirical data to back up your claims. So far your camp hasn't been able to produce anything. This debate is over.
By what method can a naturally occurring CO2 molecule be differentiated from a man made CO2 molecule? Additionally, if rising CO2 levels lead to warming why have global temperatures declined over roughly the last decade? Lastly, why have some leading climate researches felt it necessary to lie about the results of their research if the evidence is so overwhelming in favor of the "man as causal factor" in global warming (now branded climate change due to lowering temperatures)?
@Huboons By what method can a naturally occurring CO2 molecule be differentiated from a man made CO2 molecule?
The C13/C12 and C14/C12 isotopic analysis.
Additionally, if rising CO2 levels lead to warming why have global temperatures declined over roughly the last decade?
They haven't. 1998 was an outlier due to the strongest El Nino on record. The long-term upward trend continues. Last year was the warmest or one of the warmest on record globally depending which dataset you use.
@widebody123 "The C13/C12 and C14/C12 isotopic analysis" Please fully explain the science behind this analysis including all formulas used. If you cannot do this yourself that I take that as a tacit admission that you do not understand the science any more than I do and are simply taking this theory on faith.
"The long-term upward trend continues" The data I choose to believe (just as you choose to believe yours, not fully understanding it) indicates just the opposite.
@Huboons "Please fully explain the science behind this "
Fossil fuels have about a 2% lower C13/C12 ratio compared to the atmosphere, which means emissions from them have a 2% lower ratio. This means that burning fossil fuels increase C12 at a faster rate than C13, which means the C13/C12 ratio drops. The measured drop closely matches the timing and rate of emissions.
And fossil fuels have essentially no C14 in them, which means that they also drop C14 ratio by increasing C12 and C13.
@smartmusicfreak I find no reliable scientific source to back up what you are saying. The only people saying this are the same one whose careers depend on supporting man as causal factor theories.
@Huboons then what do you call "Lastly, why have some leading climate researches felt it necessary to lie about the results of their research if the evidence..."? The stolen private emails are not evidence of lying, especially when read in their full context. That makes your statement propaganda. Even if it was true it would still be propaganda. Instead of using science to discredit AGW theory, you're using the so-called 'climategate' garbage.
@uknowispeaksense "The stolen private emails are not evidence of lying" Yes, they are. There is no context in which altering or deleting data to support a theory that it would otherwise contradict changes that. And I'm not using that to discredit AGW, I'm using it to show that its supporters have just as much financial motivation to lie as anyone else, and that most people who subscribe to it have no more understanding of the science than I do, they simply choose to believe it.
@Aanthanur I'm not sure what your post is intended to convey. The article I read provides me one man's opinion who according to wikipedia is "A self-avowed "godless liberal." I am agnostic myself (I'll let you look that up) so I am also a skeptic. However his skepticism seems to end at AGW. He is also a biologist whose discipline could certainly benefit from the fund-raising opportunities provided by popular cults such as the green movement.
@Huboons sorry, for a short moment i thought you are interested in it, but obviously not. i mean you can also read one of the reports from the investigations in several countries that all found there was no wrong doing.
there is also peer reviewed papers that do explain in great detail what they did and why.the tree ring data is wrong.
but let me guess. you prefer to believe in some conspiracy based on a little quote from a mail about something you are wholey ignorant about.
@Aanthanur That is his own quote on Wikipedia. The point is, as a liberal collectivist he has an ideological bias, which is what the green movement is actually about, not the environment. Also comparing evolution, a theory which enjoys far more unanimity of support in the scientific community to AGW is laughable. The main difference is however that evolution biology doesn't provide quite the opportunity for wealth does it? Its hard to scare people into throwing money at evolution.
@Huboons ah ok, Well the scientific consencus of Evolution and AGW are almost identical.
and sure there is a lot of money to be made with evolution. Pharma is only one example, the new medicamentations or new antibiotica are based on that theory.
And with your logic here we should not believe one word of Evolutionary biologists as thei depend on the correctnes of the theory of Evolution. so they might well make up their evidence. what is the difference?
@Aanthanur "Well the scientific consencus of Evolution and AGW are almost identical" I don't buy that for a second. As far as believing in AGW unless you personally understand the science then you are simply taking someone's word for it. Someone who is trying to get funding or sell something. Also please name one drug that uses evolutionary science as part of its formula or creation.
@Aanthanur "There is no sign of a conspiracy of lieng scientists to get your tax money" That you even make that statement tells me you are not as up on the topic as you think you are.
@Huboons Then present the best cases, but something better than the hacked mails. I mean a real indication, not out of context quotes that you dont know what they talk about in detail.
@Aanthanur Sorry, you aren't any more interested in questioning AGW's validity than I am in blindly accepting it. You are basically telling me to support my argument without using the best evidence. You are welcome to your religion, I'm just not interested in joining.
@Huboons common now, present your best case, or did you meanwhile read the mails in context and realized that they do not say what you believed they say?
@Huboons Is there a god? Well, my MOM said, "We are not meant to know". The gist of this is that compared to we mortals, REAL climatologists are GODS. I certainly BELIEVE they are and so, it follows that we (you included) are not meant to understand them. Even if they move in mysterious WAYS. We should, instead, fear them for they are our BETTERS. We are mere Demigods. They are the real thing. And they are not a fizzy drink that truly stupid people on TV say they are, just to entertain US!
That is irrelevant to whether or not you're taking someone's word for it.
Whether or not people who understand empirical methodology accept AGW or not has no bearing on whether or not you're "simply taking someone's word". Accepting something that has made it through the scientific process is NOT "simply taking someone's word".
Do you have anything to say that's relevant to my point?
@mandangalo18 No actually its completely relevant. The scientific process does not end and there is hardly unanimity of opinion among those qualified to examine the evidence. If you don't fully understand every aspect of science related to the field and work any related calculations yourself, you are taking someone's word for it, just like any religious person has faith in what they are told about the nature of the universe. There is also plenty to gain financially if AGW is real.
By your logic, If you don't fully understand every aspect of science related to the field and work any related calculations yourself, you are taking someone's word for it when you deny it, and the only reasonable position for a layman is "unknown". Is your position on plate tectonics, gravity, electricity, and evolution "unknown"? Only if you care about logical consistency
Religious faith is fideistic, my acceptance of science is rational; the proposition is dis-analogous.
@mandangalo18 There are two positions, one that has faith that AGW is real, the other that is not. The burden of proof is on the side claiming it. Not only is it not settled science but the pro AGW side has been caught lying about its data, has links to collectivist political groups whose goal is socialism through junk science, and who are attempting to make billions in a rigged carbon trading market. You don't question. You have faith, you worship.
when you dodge questions and start talking about my person instead of any relevant argument, it makes your position look transparently feeble. You have a fundamental misconception about how the onus works. Maybe a book on informal logic can help you? peace.
@Huboons : How is it not settled when Harries demonstrated the increase spectral absorption at specific wavelength of man-made greenhouse gases???
When the knife, the blood type and the finger prints match the wound, you rather have a damn good argument to explain it's not the obvious suspect !!!!
Anyway: CO2 is a greenhouse gas (universally accepted) -those who want have to prove that (i) it is no greenhouse gas or (ii) that additional CO2 would not increase the greenhouse effect.
@nigelelsass "How is it not settled when Harries demonstrated the increase spectral absorption at specific wavelength of man-made greenhouse gases" - Since you cannot differentiate a naturally occurring CO2 molecule from any other kind this statement cannot be true. "CO2 is a greenhouse gas (universally accepted)" - false.
@nigelelsass The only scientists who claim these methods are self avowed greed cultists who are financially vested in AGW being real. You might as well be consulting the bible for how to tell the difference between molecules.
@Huboons : You mean like the post-doc atmospheric physicists from MIT I knew? get real man. The funding is not more or less vested than any other scientific topic.
Whether you like it or not, there are different isotopes... and I know that it is a major problem in your country as dating with some of them show the earth to be more than 6,000 years old. You live in the only country where opinions are above science and in which there is such a strong anti-intellectualism.
@nigelelsass "Whether you like it or not, there are different isotopes." No one is arguing that, just that you can use them to identify the source of the molecule. You can't.
Saying "we can't know the source of surplus atmo CO2 with reasonable certainty, because nobody has observed it directly" is like saying "we can't know the earth goes around the sun, because nobody has observed it directly." Both statements are equivalent and apt. All of science operates in inference. We infer the solar system based on mechanics/math/observation. The same is true for surplus CO2. We've ruled out everything else, and even further, the isotopic ratios are strongly indicative.
@abyssquick Well I'll give you credit for being rational for a green cultist, you at least acknowledge that you have at best correlation not causation for AGW. "We've ruled out everything else" This statement however is laughable.
By that standard any Ecologist is a "green cultist" (whatever that means). All of science operates through inference - cataloging evidence to processes far larger than human lifespan. The carbon cycle is one such process. It is considered a closed cycle, carbon stays relatively the same. We track large volumes of carbon through the atmosphere, ocean, soil, plants, animals. We know very much about the forms carbon takes. We have ruled out everything else. The carbon cycle is well understood.
Because you say so? Carbon is central to the chemistry of the entire planet. You honestly think we don't understand the carbon cycle? That we haven't calculated relative gigaton carbon flow amounts in earth systems with a high degree of confidence? We have, and have repeatedly. We understand the basic dynamics of the system, and we have accurate estimates for the average content of those natural cycles, to a degree resulting in predictability. It's accurate only because it's congruent.
Lame, maybe so. Probably he was addressing children and Tea Partiers. Because he didn't even start to mention (at least in this cut) the isotopic evidence.
@arneperschel Your obvious liberal slant is showing off your ignorance. If the evidence is so "rock solid" Then non-bias scientist like Dr. John Christy would also believe it. However the evidence for man-made global warming is so weak, that if it were introduced as evidence in court, it would get thrown out of court before it even started. Funny how you liberals completely ignore all the fraud associated with the warmist. Satellitegate, climategate, glaciergate, etc, etc, etc.
Hahahaha. Sorry, I'm too lazy to reply to that. I'm not going to convince you, anyway.
Hmm.. satellitegate... was that about Christy and Spencer saying for a decade that their microwave interferometer model showed troposheric cooling until someone else dug into the piles of data to find that they weren't accounting for the drag of the thin outer atmosphere? Is that what it was about?
@arneperschel No. It's about the satellites that the NOAA was using that had been recording higher temperatures due to malfunctioning sensors for 10 yrs. (averaging 10-15 degrees higher than actual temps) The NOAA didn't even bother to do anything about it until a citizen brought it to their attention. Because of the Freedom of Information Act, Cont...
@arneperschel ....cont. The NOAA are required to show their science behind the temperatures for the last ten years to see if those temps were averaged in with the global temps. To this day, the NOAA will not comply, and is being investigated. Just another obvious deception by these sudo-scientist. I'm sure you will ignore the fraud behind the science.
@arneperschel Respected American physicist, Dr Charles R. Anderson has waded into the escalating Satellitegate controversy publishing a damning analysis on his blog.
In a fresh week of revelations when NOAA calls in their lawyers to handle the fallout, Anderson adds further fuel to the fire and fumes against NOAA, one of the four agencies charged with responsiblity for collating global climate temperatures. cont....
@arneperschel In his post Satellite Temperature Record Now Unreliable Anderson’s findings corroborate my own that NOAA sought to cover up the “sensor degradation” on their satellite, NOAA-16. The U.S. physicist agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias.
Okay, I'll read it. So why are all the other temperature datasets in agreement that the Earth is warming? I'm talking about NASA, HadCRUT but also UAH and RSS.
@topologyrob Thats it? Thats all you have? LMAO. Just because he doesn't believe that human influence has had much affect on our temps. Doesn't mean he's bias. It just means he has an opinion. And I've seen enough evidence to agree with him. Especially with all the representations and falsified data that been happening. e.g. the "hockey stick graph" obvious fraud on Mann's part.
@MrOTLChamp Why would you think that's "all I have"? It's just a simple demonstration that the guy is happy to be closely associated with Exxon and their propaganda. In other words, bias. There you go. Plus the way he's so roundly debunked and dismissed by the discipline of climate science. You're on extremely thin ice mate - the facts are in. The hockey stick graph has been so often re-established that it's madness to hold your stance.
@topologyrob The hockey stick graph is a joke and I'll prove it.
The graph is mostly created from tree ring proxies. And the tree he used is called a bristlecone pine. This specific tree is UNAFECTED by temperatures, and therefore should never be used for temperature reconstruction. That's why it can't show the MWP and the LIA, which anyone with a brain knows occurred.
It's also the reason why he wouldn't give up his data for over 3 yrs. He knew it was BS for political reasons.
@MrOTLChamp At this point, after so much exoneration and reproduction of the results of Mann's pioneering work, all that it is appropriate to say to you is "don't be silly". I think that's what we need to start saying to people who obstinately deny the facts, and pretend they know better than mountains of scientific evidence.
@topologyrob Then you need to look it up rather just assume that it's correct. What I told is fact. Do some research and learn a little something. Are you saying the MWP, and the LIA didn't happen?
@MrOTLChamp What I say doesn't matter, it's what science says. And the evidence shows that the mediaeval warm period was not as hot as the latter part of the 20th century till now. Don't trust your own judgement - from all appearances, if Michael Mann was playing a Stravinsky concerto you'd be playing chopsticks. Slowly. Right hand only.
@topologyrob You don't even read the science...Stop pretending. Here's the science. All peer-reviewed.
with hundreds of citations to back it up. Geez, even the National Academy of Science has said the graph is wrong, not to mention the corrupt IPCC doesn't even use it anymore because they know it's wrong. Also the hockey stick graph from the tree rings stopped at 1980, then he added the instrument record on the end creating the blade of the stick. Cont...
@MrOTLChamp Mann himself knows the graph is flawed - it's early and provisional - but in essentials it's correct, as has been shown in at least 12 independent reproductions of the same curve with data coming from several fields. The hockey stick graph doesn't matter - what matters is the indisputable rise in global temperature that is taking place. To deny that is just silly.
@topologyrob So you found 12 scientist to agreee that the hockey stick is the truth? LMAO. Pretty low number considering that there are over 100,000 climate scientist. What happened to the 97% scientist concensus?
I've already shown plenty of more peer-reviewed papers showing that the hockey stick isn't even close to the truth. And backed up by hundreds of other citations.
So what was the reason Mann lied? AAAAAAAAh MONEY?
@MrOTLChamp No, silly. Not 12 scientists who agree - 12 reconstructions of the curve, using different measurements, different methods, all confirming the basic accuracy of Mann's graph. Yes, it had some inaccuracies - it was a provisional graph that has since been improved upon by these subsequent studies. But they refine it, they don't show it to be basically wrong. Of course he didn't lie, as has repeatedly been shown in court cases. So why can't you handle the truth? That's what's pertinent.
@topologyrob The only way to repeat those results, is to use the same poor quality tree. As I've stated before the tree is one of the worst types of tree's to construct accurate temperature data from. There's plenty of other sources of information out there that's far more accurate, and I have already shown the results from those. They all confirm the much warmer temps during the MWP and the Holocene period, and the cooler temps of the LIA. Manns graph can't show those temps. Wrong tree.
@MrOTLChamp Nonsense - the results have been replicated using completely different measurements. Only three of the twelve use those Yamal datasets. This is all public knowledge, so if you don't know it, stop commenting. There's nothing in the real scientific literature (ie reputable, peer-reviewed journals), the only place that counts, that supports what you're saying, sorry.
@topologyrob Same bullshit different day. Check this out. Steve Mcintyre tries to get the data that Crowley used to confirm Manns graph. And just like when everyone else tried to get info from Mann(which he refused for 3yrs) Crowley pulled the same crap. and after the data was finally obtained. Just like Manns graph it could not be replicated. here' the site; ht tp: / / climateaudit. org/ 2005 / 07/01 / the - crowley - mcintyre - letters / The graph is a fraud, period!
@MrOTLChamp You're really not sceptical enough - why would you trust a guy who's been repeatedly caught lying (McIntyre) over an awarded and much exonerated scientist like Mann (who the propagandists repeatedly try to blacken but who keeps coming out on top, like Galileo)? The brainwashers might think they're winning, but only if we blindly follow them - the truth wins eventually, as Mann shows.
@topologyrob First of all..Look who's calling the kettle black? The IPCC is a fraudulent political tool run by the likes of the WWF and greenpeace. The HadleyCRU, has been caught working with bad ethics and misrepresentation, and collusion, and the NOAA got caught using cooked data from the bad satellite sensors for ten years. And I've seen enough data to prove the MWP and the Holocene period were warmer. which proves the Mann graph is wrong. There's no other way to see it.
@MrOTLChamp Well, that's what propagandists say, though they never produce any reliable evidence. On the other hand, the guys who push the line you're pushing are so commonly shills for the fuel industries and never seem to have any real scientific publications behind them in the field they feel somehow qualified to dispute. Meanwhile, every scientific organisation in the world says the opposite of what they say, plus virtually all experts in the field. I think I know who to trust.
@topologyrob Well, since you can't read a graph or even form your own opinion. It would explain why you can't see having activist mixed in with, what is supposed to be a scientific organization. It's a lot like having corporations mixed in with governments. It creates a conflict of interest. And a bad environment to actually get the true facts, because they truth gets blurred by the push for activism.
@MrOTLChamp There's your problem - forming your own opinion. Will you be offering your personal views on neuroscience, advanced topology, particle physics and the best ways to phrase Siblelius' violin concerto while you're at it? There's a reason we have experts.
@MrOTLChamp What a load of nonsense - you're the one blindly following propaganda, pretending you know something. Your opinions mean nothing as you have no expertise - just as noone would listen to your pronouncements on neuroscience (assuming you're not an expert in that). The height of gullibility is to listen to the propaganda of lying corporate shills and to ignore the facts.
@topologyrob And then there's the totally blind sheep that ingore all the obvious fraud, and still believe everything they're told. You're a good sheep..Now pay your taxes for breathing.
@MrOTLChamp Sorry, but swallowing evidence-free accusations of fraud from lying propagandists does not make you a non-sheep or a sceptic. Quite the reverse.
There's no tax on breathing - breathing is part of a closed system. Burning fossil fuels is not.
@MrOTLChamp Climategate: there have been 9 inquiries into the the stolen CRU emails. All of them cleared the scientists of allegations of fraud. Satellitegate: seperate sensors used to measure the temperature of the Great Lakes are measuring too high when clouds are present. These data are not used in global temperature reconstructions. The hockey stick: there have been many 'hockey-stick' climate reconstructions produced by other researchers, using different data, and different analyses.
@hewhosits It's obvious that you just take everything that the government say's at face value. So, I'll take some time and show the emails to you, so you can actually see and understand them for yourself. We now encounter one of the most insidious red herrings in the climate debate: how many thousands of scientists “endorsed” the views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cont...
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.
Conclusion—Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you). Get those names! End QUOTE
This statement alone shows how ridiculous the “endorsement” process was from the very beginning. Signing a petition in support of an opinion—regardless of whether the signer has a PhD or not—is as scientifically meaningless as if these same people had voted Albert Einstein’s hairstyle as the most interesting in the history of science. It is nonsense, pure and simple.
This statement alone shows how ridiculous the “endorsement” process was from the very beginning. Signing a petition in support of an opinion—regardless of whether the signer has a PhD or not—is as scientifically meaningless as if these same people had voted Albert Einstein’s hairstyle as the most interesting in the history of science. It is nonsense, pure and simple.
@MrOTLChamp It's got nothing to do with the government. 9 investigations have cleared the scientists. Only one was a UK Government inquiry, and that was in response to the House of Commons inquiry.
Out of context quote mining can 'prove' anything you want it too.
The scientific evidence is multifaceted and overwhelming. You can hide your head in the sand if you want to, but I'd much rather face reality.
@hewhosits 1)Ttheir inquiry was only to determine if data had been manipulated. They were not looking into ethics by these scientist. you're pretending that the emails say something different then what you read, and it doesn't. The one email I showed you clearly shows how their consensus was manipulated to look like all these scientist agree. Fact is..not even half agree with the findings of the AR4 report. Cont....
@hewhosits 1) If the data was only for temps at the Greatlakes then why would they refuse to comply with the FOIA? 2) "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt" Really? So, making up a BS consensus is honest? 3) "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community" And this action is considered OK in the science community? Sure it is.
I have plenty of more emails that you cannot just explain away like you just tried.
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” … Cont...
...cont. This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, Cont...
....cont. and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
....cont. Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, Cont...
....cont. in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science—when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with the IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject. Cont...
When scientists color the science with their own personal views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics …. I find this extremely disturbing.
@MrOTLChamp This email you quote is a prime example of your absurd spin. This is to non-scientific academics who were looking for a scientific endorsement of a policy position on carbon controls, and Tom Wigley is quite right in advising them to get their science right. Where is the big conspiracy in a scientist telling non-scientists to get the science right? Isn't that what they should do?
@hewhosits By the way, not only are you going to be put to shame regarding the emails, but the "hockey stick graph I can prove is BS with many peer-reviewed papers from all the major continents showing the MWP was warmer than today.
@MrOTLChamp Didn't you lot say this in 2009 when the first batch of stolen emails were released? Here we are, 2 years and 9 inquiries later, and the science remains as robust as ever.
What is your obsession with the hockey-stick? Mann's report was 13 years ago. It has been superceeded since then. There have been many temperature reconstructions since then, from different research teams, using different analyses on different data sets, and they all produce hockey-sticks. Get over it.
@hewhosits You are an idiot in denial. Guess you're not intelligent enough to understand...And thats why you cling to your AGW hypothesis.
Those emals say more than you can comprehend.
The "hockey stick graph" has not been replicated. There are peer-reviewed papers of analysis of cores, stalagmites and peat bog, from all continents showing that the MWP was warmer than today, as well as clearly showing the LIA. Which the hockey stick eliminates. MWP and the LIA are a fact.
@MrOTLChamp Insults just serve to weaken your argument.
Who ever said the MWP or LIA never happened? If you think tha't what Mann's hockey-stick suggests then you don't undertstand it. Here are some more hockey-sticks for you - Crowley 2000; Briffa et al 2001; Moberg et al 2005; Thompson et al 2006; Mann et al 2008; Kaufman et al 2009; Tripati 2009; Thibodeau et al 2010; Kellerhals 2010; Kinnard 2011; Kemp et al. 2011; Pederson et al 2011; Leclercq and Oerlemans 2011; Spielhagen et al 2011.
@hewhosits . When Mann and briffa first created the hockey stick graph, they had request to view their data. They refused for 3 yrs to release the data. Many of your sited reports, those people did the same thing...Not releasing their supporting data to be verified. If there was nothing to hide, then there shouldn't have been a problem with complying with the FOIA. Also, not all your reports listed are temperature reconstructions. You should read them first.
@MrOTLChamp I know they're not all temperature reconstructions. I wrote they were all hockey-sticks. Mind you, most of them are temperature reconstructions and the others are closely related - glacier retreat, ice extent, CO2 forcing etc.
As for Mann, wouldn't it be great if some other research teams tried to reproduce his results using different data sets and different analysis techniques. That way we could clear up this 13 year old question. Oh wait, they have. Many, many times.
@MrOTLChamp I know they're not all temperature reconstructions. I wrote they were all hockey-sticks. Mind you, most of them are temperature reconstructions and the others are closely related - glacier retreat, ice extent, CO2 forcing etc.
As for Mann, wouldn't it be great if some other research teams tried to reproduce his results using different data sets and different analysis techniques. That way we could clear up this 13 year old question. Oh wait, they have. Many, many times.
@hewhosits It's also worth bearing in mind the research team don't generate all the dat they use. Much of them are generated by other agencies and used under licence. The UK Government inquiry concluded, "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". If people want the data they should have asked the agencies that generated them, not the research teams using them under licence.
Here's Africa: Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001. A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa. South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51.
@greiner3 Here's Antarctic Peninsula: Hall, B.L., Koffman, T. and Denton, G.H. 2010. Reduced ice extent on the western Antarctic Peninsula at 700-907 cal. yr B.P. Geology 38: 635-638.
@greiner3 Here's South America:Goni, M.A., Woodworth, M.P., Aceves, H.L., Thunell, R.C., Tappa, E., Black, D., Muller-Karger, F., Astor, Y. and Varela, R. 2004. Generation, transport, and preservation of the alkenone-based U37K' sea surface temperature index in the water column and sediments of the Cariaco Basin (Venezuela). Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18: 10.1029/2003GB002132.
@MrOTLChamp Good one. You use a 'cut and paste' job on a prestigious peer reviewed journal to make your point there IS 'proof' there is scientific doubt for Climate Change. If one references just your URL then what comes up are web sites that SHOW there is a lowering of temperature from the 'Little Ice Age' to the present. But the actual article shows this is not the case. Your evidence is based upon the controversial 'stolen' emails from Richard Alley a few years ago. PART 1
@greiner3 PART 2; I am looking up so much info in such a short time franme I did get the good Dr.'s name wrong above; the person who's emails were stolen is Dr. Phil Jones and not Dr. Alley. But if you care to look up Dr. Alley his work on this topic IS enlightening pertaining to the topic. Conservative anti-Global Change proponents harped upon Dr. Alley for his supposed discretions within these emails so as to cloud the issue of Climate Change. Next, PART 3
@greiner3 PART 3; Those who purport Dr. Jones' work are suspect on the face of it. They are ones who stand to gain financially from the clouding of ANY Climate Change. Follow the Money. The energy companies have billions of future revenue riding on the supression of GOOD science with regard to Climate Change via ads from these same energy companies; car companies because they are now mandated to provide much better fuel economy that will cost THEM billions of dollars in R&D; See PART 4
@greiner3 By the way, it doesn't matter if the emails were stolen or released by someone in the CRU. Phil Jones has said that those emails are legit. Therefore, what they say, is what they wrote. And those emails clearly show that those scientist involved, have an agenda to show warming, rather than to let the facts speak for themselves. In order for science to work, you cannot leave out studies just because you didn't like the results. The CRU and the IPCC should be shut down. PERIOD.
@MrOTLChamp WATCH & LEARN...Those STOLEN emails do not prove any fraud or wrong doing AT ALL! Again, you are BEING LIED TO! There have been at least 10 investigations into those STOLEN emails & NOT ONE has concluded any wrong doing! This video was before the investigations but it will still help you & others like you see that you are being LIED TO if you think those STOLEN emails prove fraud or wrong doing.
@Viracocha711 Sorry, there is noway I can come to that conclusion. I've read the e-mails. And it's very clear. Not to mention Dr. Christy has also confirmed that the language used is not some special scientific language that only scientist understand. "hide the decline" was just that, as confirmed by Dr. Christy. Dr. Christy has nothing to gain by revealing that. In fact, it cost him a lot of funding. But, something he's willing to risk.
@MrOTLChamp You are being misled! Dr. Christy is not exactly a reliable source & you should know that! YES, "Mike's NATURE Trick...To hide the Decline" is MOST CERTAINLY a mechanism used by scientist! It is in PUBLIC peer reviewed journal NATURE hence "Mike's NATURE Trick"! What cost Dr. Christy his funding is his poor science! He has not had to risk much of anything for a while because he has been shown to do poor science!
@Viracocha711 Working with 22 climate proxies, Neukom et al. (2011) reconstructed a mean austral summer (December-February) temperature history for the period AD 900-1995 for the terrestrial area of the planet located between 20°S and 55°S and between 30°W and 80°W -- a region they call Southern South America (SSA). Cont...
...The international research team -- composed of scientists from Argentina, Chile, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States -- write that their summer temperature reconstruction suggests that "a warm period extended in SSA from 900 (or even earlier) to the mid-fourteenth century," which coincided with the end of the Medieval Warm Period in the Northern Hemisphere. Cont....
...This warm period was about 0.17°C warmer than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period, despite the far lower atmospheric CO2 content of the Medieval Warm Period. This indicates that the planet's current -- but not unprecedented -- degree of warmth need not be CO2-induced.
@MrOTLChamp It wasn't warmer globally. It was warmer in some parts of the world, such as Greenland, due to increased solar output, during a period known as the Medieval maximum, a decrease in volcanic activity and a persistently positive North Atlantic Oscillation.
Goosse, 2006, doi:10.5194/cp-2-99-2006
Trouet, 2009, doi:10.1126/science.1166349
CO2 is not the only forcing of climate. And yes, it is CO2 induced if you look at the frequencies associated with the warming.
Humans are only behind a small percentage of all the CO2 that is let out in the atmosphere, but the thing is that the extra CO2 that we add to it is not part of a natural cycle that has always been going on.
gulbirk 1 day ago
@gulbirk What a great non-statement. LMAO
MrOTLChamp 1 day ago
Hmmm wishitwerewarmer responds to my responses to you and you reply to my responese to wishitwerewarmer. You aren't prepared to watch my video which disproves your initial assertion and I don't respond to sockpuppets.
uknowispeaksense 2 days ago
@uknowispeaksense Why is it you think that a video of reptiles and bugs trying to adjust to climate change,(even though all species have had to do that since God created the earth) is proof that man has changed it?
I asked you to show me proof that MAN has changed the climate. I also told you that all ice cores show we were warmer than we are now.
So far you have failed to answer a single question. All you do is divert your answers to video's, and not one of them was relevant to the question
MrOTLChamp 1 day ago
@uknowispeaksense And don't forget to show me how the minute rise in temps over the last 150yrs, is unprecedented.
All ice cores do prove that is wrong too.
MrOTLChamp 1 day ago
@uknowispeaksense William Fitzhugh
What clues did a 8,000-year house site hold?
During the short Siberian summer on Russia’s Zhokhov Island, a Russian-American team of scientists found clues to the island’s warmer past. The team found the remains of houses built with driftwood, which had been carried downriver to the treeless coast from forests hundreds of miles to the south. The tree-line has moved hundreds of miles south, proving cooling.
MrOTLChamp 1 day ago
Oops, the tree-line quote is wrong..There are no more tree's on this island.
MrOTLChamp 1 day ago
@uknowidon'tmakesense I'll just take your lack of response as meaning you have no answers for the crap you spew
MrOTLChamp 1 day ago
@MrOTLChamp No dipshit. It means that here in Australia, the earth's relationship to the sun is a bit different to the USA and I like to sleep at nighttime. You see the earth spins on its axis in an east to west fashion giving the impression that the sun moves through the sky........ I figured since you resorted to juvenility by mucking around with my name that you must be very young and so need some basic science. Come back when you mature.
uknowispeaksense 1 day ago
@uknowispeaksense Again failure for lack of evidence.
Just like the rest of you alarmist.
MrOTLChamp 1 day ago
@uknowispeaksense Wait. You're not an alarmist, because they believe what they're saying. You are a propagandist. Someone that knows what he is saying is BS, yet continues to spew crap out of his pie-hole.
MrOTLChamp 1 day ago
You know you are talking to a propagandist when they refuse to provide proof or refer to video's for their answer. (The video's never seem to correlate to the question)
But no surprise there! That's how some of these scientist work as well. I think they get it from the greenpeace hand book.
uknowispeaksense is a classic example.
MrOTLChamp 1 day ago
No, there's nothing wrong with my voice and what that has to do with understanding a line graph is beyond me but I'll play along. Which line graph? Be aware though, that I am humouring you here and I am prepared to look at any scientific evidence you have that disproves AGW. Are you prepared to offer me the same courtesy?
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense The only science that shows the effects of AGW, are from models. All the scientist promoting the junk science, even know ALL the models are wrong.
Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
level clouds.
See if you can find a peer-reviewed paper that has not been debunked that doesn't involve a model?
MrOTLChamp 1 week ago
@MrOTLChamp ok, you need to backtrack and watch the video I sent you the link to. here it is again. watch?v=_RIwsG_zcYI I am still waiting for your line graph by the way. I hope its got error bars.
uknowispeaksense 1 week ago
@uknowispeaksense Still waiting for an ice core graph? seriously? Just pick any graph from Antarctica, or the Arctic. We will use that one.
And you will see how much warmer it has already been, just in the last few thousand years.
MrOTLChamp 2 days ago
@MrOTLChamp No, I would like to see the one you are using. You just need to tell which blogsite you got it from. I will take your silence on the topic of my video that you agree that the weight of evidence from natural systems in terms of range extensions and contractions contradicts your initial claim that "The only science that shows the effects of AGW, are from models." unless of course you are true to denier form and chose wilful ignorance instead.
uknowispeaksense 2 days ago
@uknowispeaksense I'm getting a little tired of someone who can't speak for himself, and always has to have someone watch a video instead of saying what he means.
Here's a graph. If you don't like this one find another, I don't care. They all show the same thing..That it has been warmer before.
ht tp:/ /stevengoddard .files .wordpress . com /2011/05 /last_400000_ years. png
wishitwerewarmer 2 days ago
@wishitwerewarmer your address is wrong and I checked all the graphs at stevengoddard and couldn't find the one you are referring to. As for the rest, graphs produced in Excel by USAtoday don't really count and neither do graphs that are incorrectly labelled or have been altered from the original. But, even if it has been warmer before, that is completely irrelevant because the issue now is the rate of warming. Barring natural catastrophes 520MYA and 65MYA it is unprecedented.
uknowispeaksense 2 days ago
@uknowispeaksense Prove the rate is unprecedented. That's a laugh. You are talking about this minute little warming in tenths of a degree over 150yrs?
LMAO you're smoking crack! Why can't you just pick a graph? I don't care where it's from. Geez, don't you get it?
MrOTLChamp 2 days ago
@uknowispeaksense Your video address is wrong
wishitwerewarmer 2 days ago
@wishitwerewarmer I'm sorry, and you are?
As for the address I cut and pasted it from the address bar and I just checked it and it leads straight my video called "Undeniable evidence of climate change - range shifts" If you're genuinely interested you can find it on my channel.
uknowispeaksense 2 days ago
@Viracocha711 Retarded to facts are we?? Those so called investigations were handled funded and performed by those being accused of the fraud.
Adirtybird 2 weeks ago
The problem with this one particular discussion is this: Not all the experts agree!!
Plenty of experts, scientists with PhD.'s, do not agree that human beings or rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause the climate to change or that we need any change in energy policies. In order for a good policy to be enacted in this area, it must rest on proven scientific hypotheses.
ILIAD9 3 months ago
But does how significantly does it affect the global pattern of warming/cooling? Cleaner energy is definitely the way to go for a cleaner world regardless...
LiftYourSkinnyFist 6 months ago
@Huboons: Someone already explained to you that fossil fuel and the carbon present in our atmosphere from pre-industrial levels do not present the same ratio of istopes C13/C12 and C14/C12 to assume once again we cannot distinguish both. This "convenient" omîssion shows one thing: YOU ARE TRYING TO MISLEAD PEOPLE ON PURPOSE !!!!!!! YOU ARE A FRAUD.
nigelelsass 7 months ago
@Huboons: When there is a flood, do you also say we cannot establish the increased water is from precipitation since you cannot distinguish them from the H2O in your pee? OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE TRYING TO MISLEAD PEOPLE BIG TIME - I hope anybody can see that.
nigelelsass 7 months ago
@Huboons Whats wrong with socialism? Not accepting your claim that "has links to collectivist political groups whose goal is socialism through junk science"
But you might be confusing it with Communism. Every country in Europe has some form of socialism, and so does the USA...
tjockisgurra 8 months ago
Richard Alley is the host of the PBS series Earth: The Operators' Manual - an exciting new show on sustainability and climate change that travels the globe as it gives you practical knowledge and tips.
Go to EarthTheOperatorsManual (dot) com for TV air dates, info on the upcoming events, plus sustainability and climate change news (and new Richard Alley clips).
Also: Updates and news on facebook, and at Twitter: @earthtom.
Etheoperatorsmanual 9 months ago
Richard Alley is EPIC.
pdblouin33 9 months ago
Interesting that someone has been flagging perfectly reasonable responses as spam that aren't repeated ad nauseam, have no unnecessary caps, are not advertising anything and are on topic.
AGW contrarians, you will have to come up with some empirical data to back up your claims. So far your camp hasn't been able to produce anything. This debate is over.
wstevenschneider 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have no more time for trolls.
widebody123 1 year ago 2
By what method can a naturally occurring CO2 molecule be differentiated from a man made CO2 molecule? Additionally, if rising CO2 levels lead to warming why have global temperatures declined over roughly the last decade? Lastly, why have some leading climate researches felt it necessary to lie about the results of their research if the evidence is so overwhelming in favor of the "man as causal factor" in global warming (now branded climate change due to lowering temperatures)?
Huboons 1 year ago
@Huboons By what method can a naturally occurring CO2 molecule be differentiated from a man made CO2 molecule?
The C13/C12 and C14/C12 isotopic analysis.
Additionally, if rising CO2 levels lead to warming why have global temperatures declined over roughly the last decade?
They haven't. 1998 was an outlier due to the strongest El Nino on record. The long-term upward trend continues. Last year was the warmest or one of the warmest on record globally depending which dataset you use.
widebody123 1 year ago
@widebody123 "The C13/C12 and C14/C12 isotopic analysis" Please fully explain the science behind this analysis including all formulas used. If you cannot do this yourself that I take that as a tacit admission that you do not understand the science any more than I do and are simply taking this theory on faith.
"The long-term upward trend continues" The data I choose to believe (just as you choose to believe yours, not fully understanding it) indicates just the opposite.
Huboons 1 year ago
@Huboons "Please fully explain the science behind this "
Fossil fuels have about a 2% lower C13/C12 ratio compared to the atmosphere, which means emissions from them have a 2% lower ratio. This means that burning fossil fuels increase C12 at a faster rate than C13, which means the C13/C12 ratio drops. The measured drop closely matches the timing and rate of emissions.
And fossil fuels have essentially no C14 in them, which means that they also drop C14 ratio by increasing C12 and C13.
smartmusicfreak 1 year ago
"The data I choose to believe ... indicates just the opposite."
And where is this data?
"Phil Jones, Michael Mann both caught..."
Source?
smartmusicfreak 1 year ago
@smartmusicfreak I find no reliable scientific source to back up what you are saying. The only people saying this are the same one whose careers depend on supporting man as causal factor theories.
Huboons 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Huboons "I find no reliable scientific source to back up what you are saying."
tinyurl (dot) com / 4pzyc75
smartmusicfreak 1 year ago
@Huboons when you have to resort to propaganda to argue against science, you have already lost the argument.
uknowispeaksense 11 months ago
@uknowispeaksense I couldn't agree more.
Huboons 11 months ago
@Huboons then why do you do it?
uknowispeaksense 11 months ago
@uknowispeaksense I don't
Huboons 11 months ago
@Huboons then what do you call "Lastly, why have some leading climate researches felt it necessary to lie about the results of their research if the evidence..."? The stolen private emails are not evidence of lying, especially when read in their full context. That makes your statement propaganda. Even if it was true it would still be propaganda. Instead of using science to discredit AGW theory, you're using the so-called 'climategate' garbage.
uknowispeaksense 11 months ago
@uknowispeaksense "The stolen private emails are not evidence of lying" Yes, they are. There is no context in which altering or deleting data to support a theory that it would otherwise contradict changes that. And I'm not using that to discredit AGW, I'm using it to show that its supporters have just as much financial motivation to lie as anyone else, and that most people who subscribe to it have no more understanding of the science than I do, they simply choose to believe it.
Huboons 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Huboons you haven't read them have you?
uknowispeaksense 11 months ago 2
@Huboons BS, google "Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’"
Aanthanur 10 months ago
@Aanthanur I'm not sure what your post is intended to convey. The article I read provides me one man's opinion who according to wikipedia is "A self-avowed "godless liberal." I am agnostic myself (I'll let you look that up) so I am also a skeptic. However his skepticism seems to end at AGW. He is also a biologist whose discipline could certainly benefit from the fund-raising opportunities provided by popular cults such as the green movement.
Huboons 10 months ago
@Huboons sorry, for a short moment i thought you are interested in it, but obviously not. i mean you can also read one of the reports from the investigations in several countries that all found there was no wrong doing.
there is also peer reviewed papers that do explain in great detail what they did and why.the tree ring data is wrong.
but let me guess. you prefer to believe in some conspiracy based on a little quote from a mail about something you are wholey ignorant about.
Aanthanur 10 months ago
@Huboons and since when do agnostic use stupid phrases like *godless liberals* ?
Let me guess, Evolution is also a conspiracy and not a field of science huh?
Aanthanur 10 months ago
@Aanthanur That is his own quote on Wikipedia. The point is, as a liberal collectivist he has an ideological bias, which is what the green movement is actually about, not the environment. Also comparing evolution, a theory which enjoys far more unanimity of support in the scientific community to AGW is laughable. The main difference is however that evolution biology doesn't provide quite the opportunity for wealth does it? Its hard to scare people into throwing money at evolution.
Huboons 10 months ago
@Huboons ah ok, Well the scientific consencus of Evolution and AGW are almost identical.
and sure there is a lot of money to be made with evolution. Pharma is only one example, the new medicamentations or new antibiotica are based on that theory.
And with your logic here we should not believe one word of Evolutionary biologists as thei depend on the correctnes of the theory of Evolution. so they might well make up their evidence. what is the difference?
Aanthanur 10 months ago
@Aanthanur "Well the scientific consencus of Evolution and AGW are almost identical" I don't buy that for a second. As far as believing in AGW unless you personally understand the science then you are simply taking someone's word for it. Someone who is trying to get funding or sell something. Also please name one drug that uses evolutionary science as part of its formula or creation.
Huboons 10 months ago
@Huboons many scientific institues around the world have publicly state that AGW is a fact.
There is alot Sscientific material online, peer reviewed articles from respected scientific journals.
There is no sign of a conspiracy of lieng scientists to get your tax money, we face a real problem we have to solve.
Aanthanur 10 months ago
@Aanthanur "There is no sign of a conspiracy of lieng scientists to get your tax money" That you even make that statement tells me you are not as up on the topic as you think you are.
Huboons 10 months ago
@Huboons Then present the best cases, but something better than the hacked mails. I mean a real indication, not out of context quotes that you dont know what they talk about in detail.
Aanthanur 10 months ago
@Aanthanur Sorry, you aren't any more interested in questioning AGW's validity than I am in blindly accepting it. You are basically telling me to support my argument without using the best evidence. You are welcome to your religion, I'm just not interested in joining.
Huboons 10 months ago
@Huboons lol ok, then use the mails, when that your best case is....
Aanthanur 10 months ago
@Huboons common now, present your best case, or did you meanwhile read the mails in context and realized that they do not say what you believed they say?
Aanthanur 10 months ago
@Huboons Is there a god? Well, my MOM said, "We are not meant to know". The gist of this is that compared to we mortals, REAL climatologists are GODS. I certainly BELIEVE they are and so, it follows that we (you included) are not meant to understand them. Even if they move in mysterious WAYS. We should, instead, fear them for they are our BETTERS. We are mere Demigods. They are the real thing. And they are not a fizzy drink that truly stupid people on TV say they are, just to entertain US!
listen2meokidoki 10 months ago
@Huboons
You're not taking someone's word for it if you understand the methods of scientific empiricism.
mandangalo18 9 months ago
@mandangalo18 There are plenty of people who do understand them that call AGW hogwash.
Huboons 9 months ago
Comment removed
mandangalo18 9 months ago
@Huboons
That is irrelevant to whether or not you're taking someone's word for it.
Whether or not people who understand empirical methodology accept AGW or not has no bearing on whether or not you're "simply taking someone's word". Accepting something that has made it through the scientific process is NOT "simply taking someone's word".
Do you have anything to say that's relevant to my point?
mandangalo18 9 months ago
@mandangalo18 No actually its completely relevant. The scientific process does not end and there is hardly unanimity of opinion among those qualified to examine the evidence. If you don't fully understand every aspect of science related to the field and work any related calculations yourself, you are taking someone's word for it, just like any religious person has faith in what they are told about the nature of the universe. There is also plenty to gain financially if AGW is real.
Huboons 9 months ago
Comment removed
mandangalo18 9 months ago
@Huboons Who's word?
By your logic, If you don't fully understand every aspect of science related to the field and work any related calculations yourself, you are taking someone's word for it when you deny it, and the only reasonable position for a layman is "unknown". Is your position on plate tectonics, gravity, electricity, and evolution "unknown"? Only if you care about logical consistency
Religious faith is fideistic, my acceptance of science is rational; the proposition is dis-analogous.
mandangalo18 9 months ago
@mandangalo18 There are two positions, one that has faith that AGW is real, the other that is not. The burden of proof is on the side claiming it. Not only is it not settled science but the pro AGW side has been caught lying about its data, has links to collectivist political groups whose goal is socialism through junk science, and who are attempting to make billions in a rigged carbon trading market. You don't question. You have faith, you worship.
Huboons 9 months ago
Comment removed
mandangalo18 9 months ago
@Huboons
when you dodge questions and start talking about my person instead of any relevant argument, it makes your position look transparently feeble. You have a fundamental misconception about how the onus works. Maybe a book on informal logic can help you? peace.
mandangalo18 9 months ago
@mandangalo18 Translation: The burden of proof is on anyone who says Santa Clause doesn't exit.
Huboons 9 months ago
@Huboons : How is it not settled when Harries demonstrated the increase spectral absorption at specific wavelength of man-made greenhouse gases???
When the knife, the blood type and the finger prints match the wound, you rather have a damn good argument to explain it's not the obvious suspect !!!!
Anyway: CO2 is a greenhouse gas (universally accepted) -those who want have to prove that (i) it is no greenhouse gas or (ii) that additional CO2 would not increase the greenhouse effect.
nigelelsass 7 months ago
@nigelelsass "How is it not settled when Harries demonstrated the increase spectral absorption at specific wavelength of man-made greenhouse gases" - Since you cannot differentiate a naturally occurring CO2 molecule from any other kind this statement cannot be true. "CO2 is a greenhouse gas (universally accepted)" - false.
Huboons 7 months ago
@Huboons:
1) YOU CAN ESTBALISH IT RESULTS FROM HIGHER CONCENTRATIONS
2) YOU CAN ESTABLISH THE HIGHER CONCENTRATIONS ARE FROM FOSSIL FUELS (ration of C13/C12 isotopes)
3) That you do know acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas VIOLATES THE RESULTS OF THE Stefan Boltzmann law - Physics say "YOU ARE WRONG"
nigelelsass 7 months ago
@nigelelsass The only scientists who claim these methods are self avowed greed cultists who are financially vested in AGW being real. You might as well be consulting the bible for how to tell the difference between molecules.
Huboons 7 months ago
@Huboons : You mean like the post-doc atmospheric physicists from MIT I knew? get real man. The funding is not more or less vested than any other scientific topic.
Whether you like it or not, there are different isotopes... and I know that it is a major problem in your country as dating with some of them show the earth to be more than 6,000 years old. You live in the only country where opinions are above science and in which there is such a strong anti-intellectualism.
nigelelsass 7 months ago
@nigelelsass "Whether you like it or not, there are different isotopes." No one is arguing that, just that you can use them to identify the source of the molecule. You can't.
Huboons 7 months ago
Saying "we can't know the source of surplus atmo CO2 with reasonable certainty, because nobody has observed it directly" is like saying "we can't know the earth goes around the sun, because nobody has observed it directly." Both statements are equivalent and apt. All of science operates in inference. We infer the solar system based on mechanics/math/observation. The same is true for surplus CO2. We've ruled out everything else, and even further, the isotopic ratios are strongly indicative.
abyssquick 6 months ago
@abyssquick Well I'll give you credit for being rational for a green cultist, you at least acknowledge that you have at best correlation not causation for AGW. "We've ruled out everything else" This statement however is laughable.
Huboons 6 months ago
By that standard any Ecologist is a "green cultist" (whatever that means). All of science operates through inference - cataloging evidence to processes far larger than human lifespan. The carbon cycle is one such process. It is considered a closed cycle, carbon stays relatively the same. We track large volumes of carbon through the atmosphere, ocean, soil, plants, animals. We know very much about the forms carbon takes. We have ruled out everything else. The carbon cycle is well understood.
abyssquick 6 months ago
@abyssquick "We have ruled out everything else. The carbon cycle is well understood." Both false statements.
Huboons 6 months ago
Because you say so? Carbon is central to the chemistry of the entire planet. You honestly think we don't understand the carbon cycle? That we haven't calculated relative gigaton carbon flow amounts in earth systems with a high degree of confidence? We have, and have repeatedly. We understand the basic dynamics of the system, and we have accurate estimates for the average content of those natural cycles, to a degree resulting in predictability. It's accurate only because it's congruent.
abyssquick 6 months ago
This has to be the lamest video i've ever seen trying to prove Co2 as the culprit. haha LAME!
MrOTLChamp 5 months ago
@MrOTLChamp
Lame, maybe so. Probably he was addressing children and Tea Partiers. Because he didn't even start to mention (at least in this cut) the isotopic evidence.
Anyway, the evidence is rock solid.
arneperschel 4 months ago
@arneperschel Your obvious liberal slant is showing off your ignorance. If the evidence is so "rock solid" Then non-bias scientist like Dr. John Christy would also believe it. However the evidence for man-made global warming is so weak, that if it were introduced as evidence in court, it would get thrown out of court before it even started. Funny how you liberals completely ignore all the fraud associated with the warmist. Satellitegate, climategate, glaciergate, etc, etc, etc.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp
Hahahaha. Sorry, I'm too lazy to reply to that. I'm not going to convince you, anyway.
Hmm.. satellitegate... was that about Christy and Spencer saying for a decade that their microwave interferometer model showed troposheric cooling until someone else dug into the piles of data to find that they weren't accounting for the drag of the thin outer atmosphere? Is that what it was about?
arneperschel 4 months ago
@arneperschel No. It's about the satellites that the NOAA was using that had been recording higher temperatures due to malfunctioning sensors for 10 yrs. (averaging 10-15 degrees higher than actual temps) The NOAA didn't even bother to do anything about it until a citizen brought it to their attention. Because of the Freedom of Information Act, Cont...
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@arneperschel ....cont. The NOAA are required to show their science behind the temperatures for the last ten years to see if those temps were averaged in with the global temps. To this day, the NOAA will not comply, and is being investigated. Just another obvious deception by these sudo-scientist. I'm sure you will ignore the fraud behind the science.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@arneperschel
aaahh.. any source?
arneperschel 4 months ago
@arneperschel Respected American physicist, Dr Charles R. Anderson has waded into the escalating Satellitegate controversy publishing a damning analysis on his blog.
In a fresh week of revelations when NOAA calls in their lawyers to handle the fallout, Anderson adds further fuel to the fire and fumes against NOAA, one of the four agencies charged with responsiblity for collating global climate temperatures. cont....
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@arneperschel In his post Satellite Temperature Record Now Unreliable Anderson’s findings corroborate my own that NOAA sought to cover up the “sensor degradation” on their satellite, NOAA-16. The U.S. physicist agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias.
MrOTLChamp 4 months ago
@arneperschel
Okay, I'll read it. So why are all the other temperature datasets in agreement that the Earth is warming? I'm talking about NASA, HadCRUT but also UAH and RSS.
arneperschel 4 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Non-biased scientist like Dr John Christy? What a laugh
topologyrob 3 months ago
@topologyrob Dr. Christy is bias? Yeah sure. Just saying doesn't make it so. Go ahead and show me where please. I could use a good laugh.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths" (check who is behind that)
topologyrob 3 months ago
@topologyrob Thats it? Thats all you have? LMAO. Just because he doesn't believe that human influence has had much affect on our temps. Doesn't mean he's bias. It just means he has an opinion. And I've seen enough evidence to agree with him. Especially with all the representations and falsified data that been happening. e.g. the "hockey stick graph" obvious fraud on Mann's part.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Why would you think that's "all I have"? It's just a simple demonstration that the guy is happy to be closely associated with Exxon and their propaganda. In other words, bias. There you go. Plus the way he's so roundly debunked and dismissed by the discipline of climate science. You're on extremely thin ice mate - the facts are in. The hockey stick graph has been so often re-established that it's madness to hold your stance.
topologyrob 3 months ago
@topologyrob The hockey stick graph is a joke and I'll prove it.
The graph is mostly created from tree ring proxies. And the tree he used is called a bristlecone pine. This specific tree is UNAFECTED by temperatures, and therefore should never be used for temperature reconstruction. That's why it can't show the MWP and the LIA, which anyone with a brain knows occurred.
It's also the reason why he wouldn't give up his data for over 3 yrs. He knew it was BS for political reasons.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp At this point, after so much exoneration and reproduction of the results of Mann's pioneering work, all that it is appropriate to say to you is "don't be silly". I think that's what we need to start saying to people who obstinately deny the facts, and pretend they know better than mountains of scientific evidence.
topologyrob 3 months ago
@topologyrob Then you need to look it up rather just assume that it's correct. What I told is fact. Do some research and learn a little something. Are you saying the MWP, and the LIA didn't happen?
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp What I say doesn't matter, it's what science says. And the evidence shows that the mediaeval warm period was not as hot as the latter part of the 20th century till now. Don't trust your own judgement - from all appearances, if Michael Mann was playing a Stravinsky concerto you'd be playing chopsticks. Slowly. Right hand only.
topologyrob 3 months ago
@topologyrob You don't even read the science...Stop pretending. Here's the science. All peer-reviewed.
with hundreds of citations to back it up. Geez, even the National Academy of Science has said the graph is wrong, not to mention the corrupt IPCC doesn't even use it anymore because they know it's wrong. Also the hockey stick graph from the tree rings stopped at 1980, then he added the instrument record on the end creating the blade of the stick. Cont...
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Mann himself knows the graph is flawed - it's early and provisional - but in essentials it's correct, as has been shown in at least 12 independent reproductions of the same curve with data coming from several fields. The hockey stick graph doesn't matter - what matters is the indisputable rise in global temperature that is taking place. To deny that is just silly.
topologyrob 3 months ago
@topologyrob So you found 12 scientist to agreee that the hockey stick is the truth? LMAO. Pretty low number considering that there are over 100,000 climate scientist. What happened to the 97% scientist concensus?
I've already shown plenty of more peer-reviewed papers showing that the hockey stick isn't even close to the truth. And backed up by hundreds of other citations.
So what was the reason Mann lied? AAAAAAAAh MONEY?
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp No, silly. Not 12 scientists who agree - 12 reconstructions of the curve, using different measurements, different methods, all confirming the basic accuracy of Mann's graph. Yes, it had some inaccuracies - it was a provisional graph that has since been improved upon by these subsequent studies. But they refine it, they don't show it to be basically wrong. Of course he didn't lie, as has repeatedly been shown in court cases. So why can't you handle the truth? That's what's pertinent.
topologyrob 3 months ago
@topologyrob The only way to repeat those results, is to use the same poor quality tree. As I've stated before the tree is one of the worst types of tree's to construct accurate temperature data from. There's plenty of other sources of information out there that's far more accurate, and I have already shown the results from those. They all confirm the much warmer temps during the MWP and the Holocene period, and the cooler temps of the LIA. Manns graph can't show those temps. Wrong tree.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Nonsense - the results have been replicated using completely different measurements. Only three of the twelve use those Yamal datasets. This is all public knowledge, so if you don't know it, stop commenting. There's nothing in the real scientific literature (ie reputable, peer-reviewed journals), the only place that counts, that supports what you're saying, sorry.
topologyrob 3 months ago
@topologyrob Same bullshit different day. Check this out. Steve Mcintyre tries to get the data that Crowley used to confirm Manns graph. And just like when everyone else tried to get info from Mann(which he refused for 3yrs) Crowley pulled the same crap. and after the data was finally obtained. Just like Manns graph it could not be replicated. here' the site; ht tp: / / climateaudit. org/ 2005 / 07/01 / the - crowley - mcintyre - letters / The graph is a fraud, period!
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp You're really not sceptical enough - why would you trust a guy who's been repeatedly caught lying (McIntyre) over an awarded and much exonerated scientist like Mann (who the propagandists repeatedly try to blacken but who keeps coming out on top, like Galileo)? The brainwashers might think they're winning, but only if we blindly follow them - the truth wins eventually, as Mann shows.
topologyrob 3 months ago
@topologyrob First of all..Look who's calling the kettle black? The IPCC is a fraudulent political tool run by the likes of the WWF and greenpeace. The HadleyCRU, has been caught working with bad ethics and misrepresentation, and collusion, and the NOAA got caught using cooked data from the bad satellite sensors for ten years. And I've seen enough data to prove the MWP and the Holocene period were warmer. which proves the Mann graph is wrong. There's no other way to see it.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Well, that's what propagandists say, though they never produce any reliable evidence. On the other hand, the guys who push the line you're pushing are so commonly shills for the fuel industries and never seem to have any real scientific publications behind them in the field they feel somehow qualified to dispute. Meanwhile, every scientific organisation in the world says the opposite of what they say, plus virtually all experts in the field. I think I know who to trust.
topologyrob 3 months ago
@topologyrob Well, since you can't read a graph or even form your own opinion. It would explain why you can't see having activist mixed in with, what is supposed to be a scientific organization. It's a lot like having corporations mixed in with governments. It creates a conflict of interest. And a bad environment to actually get the true facts, because they truth gets blurred by the push for activism.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp There's your problem - forming your own opinion. Will you be offering your personal views on neuroscience, advanced topology, particle physics and the best ways to phrase Siblelius' violin concerto while you're at it? There's a reason we have experts.
topologyrob 3 months ago
@topologyrob You problem is, that you are a sheep who can't think for yourself, and must believe in every fairytale told to him. Baaa, Baaa.
Otherwise known as the mindless drone. I know our government could use a few more drones like yourself.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp What a load of nonsense - you're the one blindly following propaganda, pretending you know something. Your opinions mean nothing as you have no expertise - just as noone would listen to your pronouncements on neuroscience (assuming you're not an expert in that). The height of gullibility is to listen to the propaganda of lying corporate shills and to ignore the facts.
topologyrob 3 months ago
@topologyrob And then there's the totally blind sheep that ingore all the obvious fraud, and still believe everything they're told. You're a good sheep..Now pay your taxes for breathing.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Sorry, but swallowing evidence-free accusations of fraud from lying propagandists does not make you a non-sheep or a sceptic. Quite the reverse.
There's no tax on breathing - breathing is part of a closed system. Burning fossil fuels is not.
topologyrob 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp What fraud? Can you provide evidence of fraud?
hewhosits 3 months ago
@hewhosits I'll list them, and you go look them up.
Climategate 1, climategate 2, Satellitegate, The hockey stick graph by Mann. just to name a few
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Climategate: there have been 9 inquiries into the the stolen CRU emails. All of them cleared the scientists of allegations of fraud. Satellitegate: seperate sensors used to measure the temperature of the Great Lakes are measuring too high when clouds are present. These data are not used in global temperature reconstructions. The hockey stick: there have been many 'hockey-stick' climate reconstructions produced by other researchers, using different data, and different analyses.
hewhosits 2 months ago
@hewhosits It's obvious that you just take everything that the government say's at face value. So, I'll take some time and show the emails to you, so you can actually see and understand them for yourself. We now encounter one of the most insidious red herrings in the climate debate: how many thousands of scientists “endorsed” the views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cont...
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
QUOTE: Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions—
Distribution for Endorsements—
Cont...
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.
Conclusion—Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you). Get those names! End QUOTE
Cont...
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
CONCLUSION:
This statement alone shows how ridiculous the “endorsement” process was from the very beginning. Signing a petition in support of an opinion—regardless of whether the signer has a PhD or not—is as scientifically meaningless as if these same people had voted Albert Einstein’s hairstyle as the most interesting in the history of science. It is nonsense, pure and simple.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CONCLUSION:
This statement alone shows how ridiculous the “endorsement” process was from the very beginning. Signing a petition in support of an opinion—regardless of whether the signer has a PhD or not—is as scientifically meaningless as if these same people had voted Albert Einstein’s hairstyle as the most interesting in the history of science. It is nonsense, pure and simple.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp It's got nothing to do with the government. 9 investigations have cleared the scientists. Only one was a UK Government inquiry, and that was in response to the House of Commons inquiry.
Out of context quote mining can 'prove' anything you want it too.
The scientific evidence is multifaceted and overwhelming. You can hide your head in the sand if you want to, but I'd much rather face reality.
hewhosits 2 months ago
@hewhosits 1)Ttheir inquiry was only to determine if data had been manipulated. They were not looking into ethics by these scientist. you're pretending that the emails say something different then what you read, and it doesn't. The one email I showed you clearly shows how their consensus was manipulated to look like all these scientist agree. Fact is..not even half agree with the findings of the AR4 report. Cont....
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp 9 separate inquiries into the email faux-scandal.
"The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".
"this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
"Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
hewhosits 2 months ago
@hewhosits 1) If the data was only for temps at the Greatlakes then why would they refuse to comply with the FOIA? 2) "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt" Really? So, making up a BS consensus is honest? 3) "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community" And this action is considered OK in the science community? Sure it is.
I have plenty of more emails that you cannot just explain away like you just tried.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@hewhosits November 25, 1997: email 0880476729
Tom Wigley roundly criticises the eleven scientists seeking endorsement of their Statement. Cont...
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
....cont. Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” … Cont...
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
...cont. This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, Cont...
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
....cont. and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
Cont...
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
....cont. Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, Cont...
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
....cont. in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science—when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with the IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject. Cont...
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
...cont.
…
When scientists color the science with their own personal views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics …. I find this extremely disturbing.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp This email you quote is a prime example of your absurd spin. This is to non-scientific academics who were looking for a scientific endorsement of a policy position on carbon controls, and Tom Wigley is quite right in advising them to get their science right. Where is the big conspiracy in a scientist telling non-scientists to get the science right? Isn't that what they should do?
hewhosits 2 months ago
@hewhosits By the way, not only are you going to be put to shame regarding the emails, but the "hockey stick graph I can prove is BS with many peer-reviewed papers from all the major continents showing the MWP was warmer than today.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Didn't you lot say this in 2009 when the first batch of stolen emails were released? Here we are, 2 years and 9 inquiries later, and the science remains as robust as ever.
What is your obsession with the hockey-stick? Mann's report was 13 years ago. It has been superceeded since then. There have been many temperature reconstructions since then, from different research teams, using different analyses on different data sets, and they all produce hockey-sticks. Get over it.
hewhosits 2 months ago
@hewhosits You are an idiot in denial. Guess you're not intelligent enough to understand...And thats why you cling to your AGW hypothesis.
Those emals say more than you can comprehend.
The "hockey stick graph" has not been replicated. There are peer-reviewed papers of analysis of cores, stalagmites and peat bog, from all continents showing that the MWP was warmer than today, as well as clearly showing the LIA. Which the hockey stick eliminates. MWP and the LIA are a fact.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Insults just serve to weaken your argument.
Who ever said the MWP or LIA never happened? If you think tha't what Mann's hockey-stick suggests then you don't undertstand it. Here are some more hockey-sticks for you - Crowley 2000; Briffa et al 2001; Moberg et al 2005; Thompson et al 2006; Mann et al 2008; Kaufman et al 2009; Tripati 2009; Thibodeau et al 2010; Kellerhals 2010; Kinnard 2011; Kemp et al. 2011; Pederson et al 2011; Leclercq and Oerlemans 2011; Spielhagen et al 2011.
hewhosits 2 months ago
@hewhosits . When Mann and briffa first created the hockey stick graph, they had request to view their data. They refused for 3 yrs to release the data. Many of your sited reports, those people did the same thing...Not releasing their supporting data to be verified. If there was nothing to hide, then there shouldn't have been a problem with complying with the FOIA. Also, not all your reports listed are temperature reconstructions. You should read them first.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp I know they're not all temperature reconstructions. I wrote they were all hockey-sticks. Mind you, most of them are temperature reconstructions and the others are closely related - glacier retreat, ice extent, CO2 forcing etc.
As for Mann, wouldn't it be great if some other research teams tried to reproduce his results using different data sets and different analysis techniques. That way we could clear up this 13 year old question. Oh wait, they have. Many, many times.
hewhosits 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrOTLChamp I know they're not all temperature reconstructions. I wrote they were all hockey-sticks. Mind you, most of them are temperature reconstructions and the others are closely related - glacier retreat, ice extent, CO2 forcing etc.
As for Mann, wouldn't it be great if some other research teams tried to reproduce his results using different data sets and different analysis techniques. That way we could clear up this 13 year old question. Oh wait, they have. Many, many times.
hewhosits 2 months ago
@hewhosits It's also worth bearing in mind the research team don't generate all the dat they use. Much of them are generated by other agencies and used under licence. The UK Government inquiry concluded, "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". If people want the data they should have asked the agencies that generated them, not the research teams using them under licence.
hewhosits 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp I look forward to your PROOF of these peer-reviewed studies showing that the 'hockey stick graph' is not GOOD science.
greiner3 2 months ago
@greiner3
Here's Africa: Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001. A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa. South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@greiner3 Here's Antarctic Peninsula: Hall, B.L., Koffman, T. and Denton, G.H. 2010. Reduced ice extent on the western Antarctic Peninsula at 700-907 cal. yr B.P. Geology 38: 635-638.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@greiner3 Here's South America:Goni, M.A., Woodworth, M.P., Aceves, H.L., Thunell, R.C., Tappa, E., Black, D., Muller-Karger, F., Astor, Y. and Varela, R. 2004. Generation, transport, and preservation of the alkenone-based U37K' sea surface temperature index in the water column and sediments of the Cariaco Basin (Venezuela). Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18: 10.1029/2003GB002132.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Good one. You use a 'cut and paste' job on a prestigious peer reviewed journal to make your point there IS 'proof' there is scientific doubt for Climate Change. If one references just your URL then what comes up are web sites that SHOW there is a lowering of temperature from the 'Little Ice Age' to the present. But the actual article shows this is not the case. Your evidence is based upon the controversial 'stolen' emails from Richard Alley a few years ago. PART 1
greiner3 2 months ago
@greiner3 PART 2; I am looking up so much info in such a short time franme I did get the good Dr.'s name wrong above; the person who's emails were stolen is Dr. Phil Jones and not Dr. Alley. But if you care to look up Dr. Alley his work on this topic IS enlightening pertaining to the topic. Conservative anti-Global Change proponents harped upon Dr. Alley for his supposed discretions within these emails so as to cloud the issue of Climate Change. Next, PART 3
greiner3 2 months ago
@greiner3 PART 3; Those who purport Dr. Jones' work are suspect on the face of it. They are ones who stand to gain financially from the clouding of ANY Climate Change. Follow the Money. The energy companies have billions of future revenue riding on the supression of GOOD science with regard to Climate Change via ads from these same energy companies; car companies because they are now mandated to provide much better fuel economy that will cost THEM billions of dollars in R&D; See PART 4
greiner3 2 months ago
@greiner3 By the way, it doesn't matter if the emails were stolen or released by someone in the CRU. Phil Jones has said that those emails are legit. Therefore, what they say, is what they wrote. And those emails clearly show that those scientist involved, have an agenda to show warming, rather than to let the facts speak for themselves. In order for science to work, you cannot leave out studies just because you didn't like the results. The CRU and the IPCC should be shut down. PERIOD.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp WATCH & LEARN...Those STOLEN emails do not prove any fraud or wrong doing AT ALL! Again, you are BEING LIED TO! There have been at least 10 investigations into those STOLEN emails & NOT ONE has concluded any wrong doing! This video was before the investigations but it will still help you & others like you see that you are being LIED TO if you think those STOLEN emails prove fraud or wrong doing.
watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Viracocha711 3 weeks ago
@Viracocha711 Sorry, there is noway I can come to that conclusion. I've read the e-mails. And it's very clear. Not to mention Dr. Christy has also confirmed that the language used is not some special scientific language that only scientist understand. "hide the decline" was just that, as confirmed by Dr. Christy. Dr. Christy has nothing to gain by revealing that. In fact, it cost him a lot of funding. But, something he's willing to risk.
MrOTLChamp 3 weeks ago
@MrOTLChamp You are being misled! Dr. Christy is not exactly a reliable source & you should know that! YES, "Mike's NATURE Trick...To hide the Decline" is MOST CERTAINLY a mechanism used by scientist! It is in PUBLIC peer reviewed journal NATURE hence "Mike's NATURE Trick"! What cost Dr. Christy his funding is his poor science! He has not had to risk much of anything for a while because he has been shown to do poor science!
Viracocha711 3 weeks ago
@Viracocha711 Working with 22 climate proxies, Neukom et al. (2011) reconstructed a mean austral summer (December-February) temperature history for the period AD 900-1995 for the terrestrial area of the planet located between 20°S and 55°S and between 30°W and 80°W -- a region they call Southern South America (SSA). Cont...
MrOTLChamp 2 weeks ago
...The international research team -- composed of scientists from Argentina, Chile, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States -- write that their summer temperature reconstruction suggests that "a warm period extended in SSA from 900 (or even earlier) to the mid-fourteenth century," which coincided with the end of the Medieval Warm Period in the Northern Hemisphere. Cont....
MrOTLChamp 2 weeks ago
...This warm period was about 0.17°C warmer than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period, despite the far lower atmospheric CO2 content of the Medieval Warm Period. This indicates that the planet's current -- but not unprecedented -- degree of warmth need not be CO2-induced.
MrOTLChamp 2 weeks ago
@MrOTLChamp It wasn't warmer globally. It was warmer in some parts of the world, such as Greenland, due to increased solar output, during a period known as the Medieval maximum, a decrease in volcanic activity and a persistently positive North Atlantic Oscillation.
Goosse, 2006, doi:10.5194/cp-2-99-2006
Trouet, 2009, doi:10.1126/science.1166349
CO2 is not the only forcing of climate. And yes, it is CO2 induced if you look at the frequencies associated with the warming.
WaxItYourself 1 week ago