Climate change science update...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

    Not to mention that those data sets have problems and are caught up in their own scandals.

    Vlad


    Famous weather scientist: Climategate 'tip of iceberg'
    'Conspiracy would become manifest' if all climate research e-mails unveiled
    Posted: December 08, 2009

    By Bob Unruh
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily


    The Colorado scientist described by the Washington Post as "the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert" says the "Climategate" e-mails from the United Kingdom that revealed possible data manipulation are evidence of a conspiracy among "warmists," those who believe man's actions are triggering possibly catastrophic climate change.

    "The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years," said Colorado State University's William Gray.

    His annual hurricane forecasts are the standard for weather prognostications. His work pioneered the science of forecasting hurricanes, and he has served as weather forecaster for the U.S. Air Force. He is emeritus professor of atmospheric science at CSU and heads the school's Department of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project.

    Gray was referring to e-mails and other information obtained by a hacker and posted on a Russian web server that included interactions among the world's most influential climate-change scientists.

    One e-mail said: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

    Another expressed internal doubts: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

    Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change

    Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re (Assessment Report 4)? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis."

    Gray said, "This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the U.S. and of foreign governments were ever made public."

    His comments are posted at Climate Depot.com as world leaders are conferencing in Copenhagen to discuss taking drastic economic measures to curb "global warming."

    Gray warns that the likely agreements coming out of Copenhagen, the cap-and-trade bill before Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency's decision announced this week to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant "represents a grave threat to the industrial world's continued economic development."

    "We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth," Gray said. "Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country's sovereignty."

    He said he probably would have been concerned about the possibility people are causing serious global climate degradation "had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events."

    "There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide … induced global warming disaster," he said. "These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards.

    "These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation."

    Gray said there still hasn't been an "honest and broad" scientific debate on the influence of CO2 on global temperature, contending the present models presented by scientists are flawed.

    He cited a global warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, and that's "not a consequence of human activities."

    "The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate," he said.

    Gray launched the practice of seasonal hurricane forecasts. After the 2005 Atlantic season, he said he was stepping down from the primary authorship of the CSU report, turning over those duties to Philip J. Klotzbach.

    He's long described global warming as a hoax, telling the Post three years ago, "I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."


    University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit


    Myron Ebell of the GlobalWarming.org website, where "cooler heads prevail," said the e-mails obtained from the University of East Anglia were "shocking."

    "It's kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the scientific community than in the political community," he said.

    The documents, he said, "raise a huge number of questions about the integrity of a lot of people in the alarmist community."

    "What I've seen there is a very strong effort to manage the issue by scientists and not as a scientific issue. It's very improper," he said. "One of the criticisms is that we need scientists to be scientists, and policy can be handled in public debate."

    Phil Jones, head of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, confirmed the documents appeared authentic. He has temporarily stepped down while an investigation is taking place.

    Despite the advocacy of a financially vested former vice president, Al Gore, and others, public opinion about whether mankind is causing an ultimately catastrophic rise in global temperatures is shifting.

    U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has urged members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of nearly 32,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who believe humans likely have little or nothing to do with any "global warming."

    The Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered, has steadily grown without any special effort or campaign.

    But in the last few years, and especially because of the release of Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," the campaign has been reinvigorated.

    "Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary moviegoers and to public-school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," project spokesman and founder Art Robinson has told WND.

    Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, cofounded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later cofounded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

    Paul later cited the petition results in statement to Congress.

    "Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas," Paul said. "They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters."

    The petition states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

    Robinson has warned of serious political and economic consequences of assuming "global warming" results from mankind's actions.

    "The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he told WND.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118432

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

      So what do you figure will happen at Copenhagen? The polluting nations will give the others some money and they'll go away for a few years?

      Do you think the PM will try to shut down the oil sands? How about coal mining? Even if he makes an agreement like that there is the notwithstanding clause.

      A resource economy with no pollution is certainly a target. Then it could be argued if we didn't sell the polluting resources to other nations they wouldn't have it to use in polluting.

      Do you smoke? I hope you don't mind me asking.
      Gary Ruben
      CC - IA and SIM

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

        Originally posted by Gary Ruben View Post
        Do you smoke? I hope you don't mind me asking.
        If you set me on fire, I would certainly smoke.

        If you mean tobacco smoke, I have not inhaled it voluntarily for over forty years.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

          "This Is How You Fuel a Community of Climate Deniers"

          Comment


          • #95
            Anatomy of Gray

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray
            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_Gray
            Last edited by Benoit St-Pierre; Saturday, 12th December, 2009, 12:48 AM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

              Originally posted by Ed Seedhouse View Post
              If you mean tobacco smoke, I have not inhaled it voluntarily for over forty years.
              I would consider that not smoking.

              In the graph you posted, if they had data going back to the beginning of time, the Zero line might have been either higher or lower and the current temperatures might be above or below (warmer or colder) the current short term temperature range.
              Gary Ruben
              CC - IA and SIM

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

                Originally posted by Gary Ruben View Post
                In the graph you posted, if they had data going back to the beginning of time
                The beginning of time!! My, you don't ask for much, do you?

                At the beginning of time, just under 14,000,000,000 years the entire observable universe was nearly infinitely hot.

                At the beginning of the Earth, the planet was molten, which I would assume if plotted would result in a cooling trend.

                But a few billion years ago the entire planet was covered from pole to pole in thick ice. Measure the trend from then and a straight line best fit will show constant rising.

                If we go instead back to the end of the last ice age, we will find that there weren't many people taking the temperature of the earth back then! There were also rather few satellites doing measurements, as there are now.

                Such data as are available (tree rings and ice cores largely) show that the average temperature since that time was lower than it is now.

                Today we not only have better measurements so we can plot the recent rise in temperature rather well, but we can also measure the C02 in the atmosphere rather well and can see that it is the causal mechanism behind the recent rather drastic warming.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Climate change science update...

                  Please stop being such an alarmist with terms like "radioactive nuclear blast crater". I have seen enough of the emails to know that they are just back and forth banter between humans, from one research place. If you think they have any bearing on changing the whole picture then you probably also believe in Santa Clause.

                  Two questions for you:
                  1) In Readers Digest September/2009 the worlds funniest Croatian joke was published:

                  "A concerned police officer approaches a boy crying in front of a newstand.
                  "What's wrong?" he asks.
                  "Superman isn't out yet!"
                  "I'll handle it," the cop assures him.
                  "Hey Superman!" he shouts.
                  "Come on out! We won't hurt you!"

                  I am missing the humour in this, perhaps there is some cultural thing I am missing; perhaps you could explain.

                  2) As a Croatian doctor, you must be aware of the hippocratic oath "Do no harm."
                  So doing no harm to one person (a patient) is the backbone of medicine. How about doing no harm to our life support system (the planet). I think it was Stalin who said that the death of one person was a tragedy; while the death of millions is a statistic.

                  You still have not commented on the ocean acidification problem; which may be shown over time to be a more severe problem than warming. The oceans are a under-recognized issue in climate change, below is some reference material for you to educate yourself with...
                  http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sy...ur_oceans.html

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Climate change science update...

                    Vlad, a little bit of enlightenment for you and others is never a bad thing, so here goes...

                    Question: What causes the seasons?
                    Answer: The tilt of the earth relative to its orbital plane around the sun.

                    With no tilt, each latitude would get the same amount of sun year-round (i.e. no seasons). As tilt increases, the seasonal variation increases, up to a point. We are presently at tilt angle of 24.5 degrees or so, tilt varies from around 22 to 25 degrees with a period of 41,000 years as one of the Milinkovich cycles (the others are A}eccentricity of oval orbit of earth around sun from e=0 (perfect circle) to e=0.06 (slightly elliptical) over a 100,000 year period) and B} the precession of tilt direction (i.e. direction of North in sky moves in circular pattern over 23,000 years.

                    Thus, lower tilt means less seasonality while higher tilt means more seasonality. More seasonality means hotter summers and colder winters. i.e. more oscillation

                    Hopefully you can recognize Milinkovich's work, even though he was a Serbian scientist.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

                      Originally posted by Ed Seedhouse View Post
                      The beginning of time!! My, you don't ask for much, do you?

                      At the beginning of time, just under 14,000,000,000 years the entire observable universe was nearly infinitely hot.

                      At the beginning of the Earth, the planet was molten, which I would assume if plotted would result in a cooling trend.

                      But a few billion years ago the entire planet was covered from pole to pole in thick ice. Measure the trend from then and a straight line best fit will show constant rising.

                      If we go instead back to the end of the last ice age, we will find that there weren't many people taking the temperature of the earth back then! There were also rather few satellites doing measurements, as there are now.

                      Such data as are available (tree rings and ice cores largely) show that the average temperature since that time was lower than it is now.

                      Today we not only have better measurements so we can plot the recent rise in temperature rather well, but we can also measure the C02 in the atmosphere rather well and can see that it is the causal mechanism behind the recent rather drastic warming.
                      Wonderful! The climate warms and the climate cools. A snapshot of a short period is not useful. We've gone from what you admit was a molten planet to burning some oil, gas, coal, etc.

                      There's big money in this global warming scare and some people and governments seem to be cashing in. Grants, taxes, products.

                      A few years ago they started selling toilets which used half as much water as the regular ones. The problem is if you want to keep the pipe going to the street sewers clear you have to flush anything other than flud twice. If you don't the pipe gets plugged with paper and other stuff and you need a plumber to clear it through.

                      Now that wasn't bad enough. They sent a letter say because of the decrease in water useage they weren't getting enough revenue to run the utility. So they pretty much doubled the water and sewage rates. Those are separate items around here.

                      Big money in conservation.
                      Gary Ruben
                      CC - IA and SIM

                      Comment


                      • Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

                        No one is disputing that the climate warms and the climate cools.

                        What is important is how quickly we are changing the atmospheric composition and ocean chemistry and global temperatures.

                        Global warming scare? Surely you can realize that more greenhouse gases leads to a larger greenhouse effect...What could be simpler?

                        Flush the toilet twice when you take a sh***. Not a tough solution. You will use less water the other 9/10 times you use the can....Since they doubled the rates aren't you glad you are paying the same as before since you are using less water. Feel sorry for the guys who are not saving water and paying double.

                        Are you against conservation since you see it as big money? What is wrong with capitalism if it points us in a direction to reduce our impact on the environment?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

                          Originally posted by Gary Ruben View Post
                          Wonderful! The climate warms and the climate cools. A snapshot of a short period is not useful. We've gone from what you admit was a molten planet to burning some oil, gas, coal, etc.
                          Well, right now the evidence shows it is warming inconveniently fast and going inconveniently high. Inconvenient from the viewpoint of we short lived humans. It doesn't matter at all to the Earth as a whole, but then the Earth won't mind in the least if we persnickety humans disappear.

                          I however, have a different viewpoint and would like to see civilization continue without too much disruption.

                          Scientists have a pretty good (though indirect) knowledge of the global temperature for the last 10,000 years or so.

                          There's big money in this global warming scare and some people and governments seem to be cashing in. Grants, taxes, products.
                          Hmm -- know anybody who has become a billionaire from scientific grants? And what government is taking in a lot of money from fighting global warming? The ones I know of are taking in big money by exacerbating the problem!

                          Comment


                          • What If It Was a Hoax?

                            Thomas Friedman speaking of USA, or, for that matter, any political power that has no oil for sale:

                            If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.
                            Source : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/op...dman.html?_r=1

                            Comment


                            • Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

                              Originally posted by Paul Beckwith View Post
                              Are you against conservation since you see it as big money? What is wrong with capitalism if it points us in a direction to reduce our impact on the environment?
                              I gave you a legitimate example where conservation and environment (or so they say) is costing people money and you continue to push your point of view. Everyone made money except the homeowner or renter. The unit prices for water and sewage doubled. Plumber won. Hardware sellers won because so many people bought into it.

                              In another post somewhere I replied to you using low enriched uranium processes and availabilty but received no reply. Is this an area of global warming you don't understand?
                              Gary Ruben
                              CC - IA and SIM

                              Comment


                              • Re: Not all Science is One-Sided

                                Originally posted by Ed Seedhouse View Post
                                Well, right now the evidence shows it is warming inconveniently fast and going inconveniently high. Inconvenient from the viewpoint of we short lived humans. It doesn't matter at all to the Earth as a whole, but then the Earth won't mind in the least if we persnickety humans disappear.

                                I however, have a different viewpoint and would like to see civilization continue without too much disruption.

                                Scientists have a pretty good (though indirect) knowledge of the global temperature for the last 10,000 years or so.

                                Hmm -- know anybody who has become a billionaire from scientific grants? And what government is taking in a lot of money from fighting global warming? The ones I know of are taking in big money by exacerbating the problem!
                                The chart didn't show that, did it Ed. The chart showed around 150 years. Now if that chart had shown 10,000 years accurately we might see a different picture. You're using scare tactics that civilization won't survive. Short "snapshot" graphs and those leaked emails are not helpful to your cause.

                                Most of those people of whom you write haven't become billionaires because they don't have what it takes. I'd say most are lucky to find people to give them grants. What you want to look for is anyone who might have become a billionaire by using the information the scientists churned out to make consumer products.
                                Gary Ruben
                                CC - IA and SIM

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X