IPCC Statement on Stolen Emails

Environment • Views: 3,042

The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued a statement about the stolen CRU data, defending the scientists and their work, and condemning the criminal(s) who stole and cherry-picked the data: Working Group I Statement on Stolen Emails.

Statement by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, United Kingdom

Bern, 4. December 2009

Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) firmly stands behind the conclusions of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the community of researchers and its individuals providing the scientific basis, and the procedures of IPCC Assessments.

Comments on blogs and in the media about the contents of a large number of private emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, United Kingdom, have questioned both the validity of the key findings of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) and the integrity of its authors. IPCC WGI condemns the illegal act which led to private emails being posted on the Internet and firmly stands by the findings of the AR4 and by the community of researchers worldwide whose professional standards and careful scientific work over many years have provided the basis for these conclusions.

The key finding of IPCC AR4, “The warming in the climate system is unequivocal […] “, is based on measurements made by many independent institutions worldwide that demonstrate significant changes on land, in the atmosphere, the ocean and in the ice-covered areas of the Earth. Through further, independent scientific work involving statistical methods and a range of different climate models, these changes have been detected as significant deviations from natural climate variability and have been attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases.

The body of evidence is the result of the careful and painstaking work of hundreds of scientists worldwide. The internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges, many of whom have dedicated their time and effort to develop these findings in teams of Lead Authors within the production of the series of IPCC Assessment Reports during the past 20 years.

The IPCC assessment process is designed to ensure consideration of all relevant scientific information from established journals with robust peer review processes, or from other sources which have undergone robust and independent peer review. The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as by governments. Consequently, there is full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of published literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views.

In compliance with the procedures of IPCC, the conclusions of AR4 have undergone scrutiny in the form of several stages of reviews by peers and governments, have been revised and refined to take into account these review comments, and have finally been approved word by word by the governments of the world.

Every layer in the process (including large author teams, extensive and multi-step reviews, independent monitoring of review compliance, and plenary approval by governments) plays a major role in keeping IPCC assessments comprehensive, unbiased, open to the identification of new relevant literature, and policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. Therefore, no individual scientist in the IPCC assessment process is in a position to change the conclusions, or to exclude relevant peer-reviewed papers and scientific work from an IPCC Assessment Report.

In conclusion, IPCC WGI firmly stands behind its unique procedures and behind the scientific community and their collective work which has been, and continues to be, the basis of unbiased, open and transparent assessments of the current knowledge on the climate system and its changes.

Of course, that’s what you’d expect from these evil tricksy scientists, isn’t it?

Yes, that’s sarcasm, in case you were wondering.

Jump to bottom

143 comments
1 Girth  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:36:03pm

But, but...Al Gore!

2 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:36:22pm
The body of evidence is the result of the careful and painstaking work of hundreds of scientists worldwide. The internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community

If folks are actually interested in seeing some of this evidence for themselves, I recommend The Discovery of Global Warming. This will not only give you information on the science, but a sense of the history involved as well.

But the quote above is the long and the short of it. These emails change nothing about the data collected from all over the world by many different scientists, and put through peer review. AGW is real, no matter how many emails they steal.

3 Soap_Man  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:41:37pm

I think one of the biggest problems these scientists are facing with this "scandal" is that the explanation is much more complicated than the attack.

The deniers can say "Hey! Look at this one email! They're lying! See!" The scientists responses to those charges have been long and relatively complicated (because they need to be.)

For conspiracy-minded people who can't wrap their heads around the details of AGW, and for those who have already made up their mind that AGW doesn't exist, it is easier to take the "they are full of it" route. Changing those minds using somewhat complicated scientific evidence is a tall hurdle.

4 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:42:53pm

NO! NO! NO! It's a commie pinko plot designed to take away all of our candy bars and rock 'n roll music! If Gorebul Warming is real, why is it so cold outside right now, huh?

What's that you say? "Winter"? No! Lalalalala, I'm not listening, lalalala.

:stamping feet:
/

5 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:45:30pm

In somewhat related news:

Today in Denmark there was an "Alternativ Klimakonference" featuring (link to the program. .DOC format) the usual suspects: Monckton, Singer, Pielke Sr., etc.

This conference is hosted by none other than the populist right-wing Danish People's Party noted for, among other things, their dislike of all things about immigrants.

Expect the usual groups here in the US to pimp the stuff (such as videos) that are being presented at this "alternative" conference. Remember though the political group behind this conference, and then it will make sense why their political counterparts in this country embrace the same deniers.

6 The Curmudgeon  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:47:12pm

When the dust settles, assume no Blue Dress shows up, this will be back where it always should have been -- a debate over the politics of the solution.

7 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:47:28pm

re: #3 Soap_Man

I think one of the biggest problems these scientists are facing with this "scandal" is that the explanation is much more complicated than the attack.

The deniers can say "Hey! Look at this one email! They're lying! See!" The scientists responses to those charges have been long and relatively complicated (because they need to be.)

For conspiracy-minded people who can't wrap their heads around the details of AGW, and for those who have already made up their mind that AGW doesn't exist, it is easier to take the "they are full of it" route. Changing those minds using somewhat complicated scientific evidence is a tall hurdle.

Advanced science does not really readily lend itself to snappy comebacks.

Is there a profession of being a PR person for scientists?

8 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:47:53pm

Hooray for the IIPCC. Seeing the awful media coverage over this, it wouldn't have surprised me if they caved somewhat to wingnut pressure.

9 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:48:50pm

re: #6 The Curmudgeon

When the dust settles, assume no Blue Dress shows up, this will be back where it always should have been -- a debate over the politics of the solution.

What would the blue dress have on it this time? Polar bear fur?

10 [deleted]  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:49:42pm
11 Gus  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:50:33pm

re: #5 freetoken

In somewhat related news:

Today in Denmark there was an "Alternativ Klimakonference" featuring (link to the program. .DOC format) the usual suspects: Monckton, Singer, Pielke Sr., etc.

This conference is hosted by none other than the populist right-wing Danish People's Party noted for, among other things, their dislike of all things about immigrants.

Expect the usual groups here in the US to pimp the stuff (such as videos) that are being presented at this "alternative" conference. Remember though the political group behind this conference, and then it will make sense why their political counterparts in this country embrace the same deniers.

Wiki Quotes of the Danish People's Party

12 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:51:39pm

re: #11 Gus 802

Good job.

Remember this when Monckton, Singer, Pielke Sr., and the like get serious airplay by the right-o-sphere in this country.

Birds of a feather deny together.

13 Interesting Times  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:52:06pm

re: #2 Sharmuta

AGW is real, no matter how many emails they steal.

Beautiful bumper sticker material right there (even rhymes :) ) Though I'd change AGW to Global Warming or Climate Change, since the acronym AGW probably wouldn't register as easily.

Come to think of it, terms like "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" aren't the best ways, IMO, to describe what's happening - they sound too innocuous at first, making them easy targets for disingenuous talking points (e.g. "what do you mean, "Global Warming?" It snowed here yesterday!"). Others have suggested something more dramatic, like Climaticide or Climate Chaos (the latter is especially appropriate for the wild, manic-depressive swings we're seeing nowadays. Where I live, the normally hot, humid summer was wet and cool, while in November, it didn't snow at all - something that hasn't happened since record-keeping started back in 1837!)

On another note, my favorite moron (or is that "morano") argument of the deniers is, how can carbon dioxide emissions be bad when they occur in nature? Poop occurs in nature as well, but do you want bits and pieces of it floating in your drinking water? o_O Too much of anything, natural or not, makes bad things happen.

14 Guanxi88  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:52:51pm

re: #11 Gus 802

Wiki Quotes of the Danish People's Party

I'm reading through these, and don't have a problem with anything up until you get to the first quotation mark. It's all downhill from there.

15 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:53:10pm

re: #10 Soul Discretion

And you're a lying sock puppet who sneaked back in after being previously banned. Bye now!

16 Gus  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:53:10pm

re: #12 freetoken

Good job.

Remember this when Monckton, Singer, Pielke Sr., and the like get serious airplay by the right-o-sphere in this country.

Birds of a feather deny together.

Thanks. There's one in there that should raise the ire of more than a few people.

17 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:54:02pm

re: #16 Gus 802

Thanks. There's one in there that should raise the ire of more than a few people.

To say the least.

18 Soap_Man  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:55:14pm

re: #7 SanFranciscoZionist

Is there a profession of being a PR person for scientists?

Actually, there is. A friend of a friend works PR for one of the national labs here in Illinois. But I'm assuming that, no matter how good she may be at her job, it would be difficult to some up with a snappy sound bite to advocate advanced scientific research.

19 recusancy  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:57:28pm

re: #3 Soap_Man

I think one of the biggest problems these scientists are facing with this "scandal" is that the explanation is much more complicated than the attack.

That sums up how a lot of liberals have felt about a range of issues over the last decade or so. Nuanced and detailed statements almost always lose over sound bites and easy to digest straw men. It's extremely frustrating.

20 Big Steve  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:57:50pm

re: #7 SanFranciscoZionist

Advanced science does not really readily lend itself to snappy comebacks.

Is there a profession of being a PR person for scientists?

Kirk Vonnegut's first job was as a PR man for GE Labs in Schenectady.

21 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:58:12pm

Screw it. I say let the deniers deny, and the skeptics... um... skept. Let's ride this mudball we call Earth right into ruin. After the whole shit-house goes up in flames, I will build a post-apocalyptic empire and round up all the denier's daughters to keep for my amusement.

Bwahahaha!
///

22 Soap_Man  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:58:43pm

re: #15 Charles

And you're a lying sock puppet who sneaked back in after being previously banned. Bye now!

Sneaking into a site just to write one pissy comment that will be immediately deleted seems like a tremendous waste of time. But that's just me.

23 recusancy  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:59:04pm

re: #7 SanFranciscoZionist

Is there a profession of being a PR person for scientists?

There's needs to be if there isn't. Problem is, PR costs money. Science isn't always well funded.

24 Guanxi88  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:00:25pm

re: #19 recusancy

That sums up how a lot of liberals have felt about a range of issues over the last decade or so. Nuanced and detailed statements almost always lose over sound bites and easy to digest straw men. It's extremely frustrating.

Must be so difficult, having to explain your positions to the benighted masses.

25 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:00:45pm

The IPCC is in denial.

The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons. Emerson, -Ralph Waldo Emerson

26 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:00:48pm

re: #22 Soap_Man

Sneaking into a site just to write one pissy comment that will be immediately deleted seems like a tremendous waste of time. But that's just me.

But they do it constantly, and some of them do it over and over and over. Some of these obsessed freaks have registered more than 20 times.

27 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:02:41pm

re: #25 Bagua

The IPCC is in denial.

The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons. Emerson, -Ralph Waldo Emerson

And if they said nothing, I'm sure you'd take their silence as an admission of guilt.

28 Stanghazi  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:02:55pm

re: #26 Charles

But they do it constantly, and some of them do it over and over and over. Some of these obsessed freaks have registered more than 20 times.

How about the obsession of being online enough to SEE 20 registration opportunities!

29 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:03:34pm

re: #13 publicityStunted

I'm sorry if my sentiment was too cliche for your tastes. I'm trying to reach out to folks who still need to do some reading on the subject. They're not stupid people, they've just been listening to propaganda, but can otherwise be reasoned with. Treating people with respect and offering a good link can work wonders at times.

30 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:04:25pm

re: #26 Charles

That must be what angry people do when they no longer have the ability to, um, masturbate.

31 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:05:19pm

re: #25 Bagua

The IPCC is in denial.

And your reasoning behind this is?

32 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:05:23pm

re: #27 McSpiff

And if they said nothing, I'm sure you'd take their silence as an admission of guilt.

Don't put words into my mouth, I never said that.

33 Guanxi88  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:06:17pm

re: #21 Slumbering Behemoth

Screw it. I say let the deniers deny, and the skeptics... um... skept. Let's ride this mudball we call Earth right into ruin. After the whole shit-house goes up in flames, I will build a post-apocalyptic empire and round up all the denier's daughters to keep for my amusement.

Bwahahaha!
///

So, you're a Mason, too, huh?

34 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:06:40pm

re: #32 Bagua

Don't put words into my mouth, I never said that.

I assumed you chose that quote for a reason.

35 Big Steve  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:07:37pm

re: #26 Charles

Some of these obsessed freaks have registered more than 20 times.

that's disconcerting...

36 Soap_Man  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:07:54pm

re: #26 Charles

But they do it constantly, and some of them do it over and over and over. Some of these obsessed freaks have registered more than 20 times.

They need a hobby. Too much free time it seems.

37 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:08:06pm

re: #31 Obdicut

And your reasoning behind this is?

Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

The IPPC AR4 will be in limbo until this re-exmination takes place and either confirms or falsifies the key data used in IPCC AR4

38 osprey34229  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:08:07pm

Try this
AGW = Church of Climatology
facts = tea leaves
AGW scientist = tea leaf readers
Algore = Elmer Gantry
$$$ = sacrament
I = denier
you = ??

39 Four More Tears  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:08:56pm

re: #26 Charles

But they do it constantly, and some of them do it over and over and over. Some of these obsessed freaks have registered more than 20 times.

I'm trying to imagine how bad it would be if this site had open registration.

40 djughurknot  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:09:07pm

I just don't get it. People try to invoke Occam's razor, saying that the science is too convoluted to be a plausible explanation. They say that it is too complex to grasp fully. After spending a few months learning about natural earth processes and how the atmosphere is related to the Atlantic ocean conveyor, it seemed absurdly simple. Couple it with the observable effects of ozone and CO2 and sunlight, and it's hard for me to square the observations with anything else. Much simpler than "teh sky gods will save us so it doesn't matter"!!1!

I can't believe we're trying to force a spin on observable, detectable phenomena. As though it carries some moral value. Ick.

my 2 cents.

41 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:09:33pm

re: #33 Guanxi88

So, you're a Mason, too, huh?

Shhh! If you give me away, I'll no longer get my regular payment of Masonic Doubloons.

42 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:09:53pm

re: #37 Bagua

You're quoting the Times Online. Have you noticed that all of the sources being quoted against the IPCC are the Telegraph, the Times Online, et al? Why do you suppose that is?

Do you think you might want to research that story a bit more, in case the Times Online isn't being totally forthcoming and unbiased?

43 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:10:06pm

re: #34 McSpiff

I assumed you chose that quote for a reason.

No need to make assumptions when one can simply read and ask questions.

44 Guanxi88  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:10:24pm

re: #41 Slumbering Behemoth

Shhh! If you give me away, I'll no longer get my regular payment of Masonic Doubloons.

You get doubloons? All I seem to find are poltroons. Can't spend 'em, can't give 'em away at gun-point, even.

45 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:11:05pm

re: #43 Bagua

No need to make assumptions when one can simply read and ask questions.

Why bother? You're one of a dying breed here. I really couldn't care less what you think of the IPCC or any other scientific body.

46 brookly red  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:11:39pm

re: #37 Bagua

Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

The IPPC AR4 will be in limbo until this re-exmination takes place and either confirms or falsifies the key data used in IPCC AR4

I saw that too & while I don't think it can be done overnight 3 years seems like a long time...

47 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:12:33pm

re: #37 Bagua

The IPPC AR4 will be in limbo until this re-exmination takes place and either confirms or falsifies the key data used in IPCC AR4

That is just wrong.

48 Soap_Man  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:12:46pm

re: #46 brookly red

I saw that too & while I don't think it can be done overnight 3 years seems like a long time...

I don't know, 160 years is a lot of data...

49 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:13:02pm

At least the deniers aren't calling everyone else "Gaia worshippers". Anyone remember those couple of years when that was popular and everyone repeated that over and over and over?

50 Gus  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:13:31pm

re: #5 freetoken

In somewhat related news:

Today in Denmark there was an "Alternativ Klimakonference" featuring (link to the program. .DOC format) the usual suspects: Monckton, Singer, Pielke Sr., etc.

This conference is hosted by none other than the populist right-wing Danish People's Party noted for, among other things, their dislike of all things about immigrants.

Expect the usual groups here in the US to pimp the stuff (such as videos) that are being presented at this "alternative" conference. Remember though the political group behind this conference, and then it will make sense why their political counterparts in this country embrace the same deniers.

Conference is organized by a group with the nebulous name of Europe of Freedom and Democracy.

Europe of Freedom and Democracy

This groups includes several ultra nationalist organizations:

Dansk Folkeparti
True Finns
Mouvement pour la France
LAOS
Lega Nord - Umberto Bossi
Order and Justice
Reformed Political Party
Slovak National Party - Ján Slota
United Kingdom Independence Party

I think this story has legs.

51 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:14:47pm

re: #42 Obdicut

You're quoting the Times Online. Have you noticed that all of the sources being quoted against the IPCC are the Telegraph, the Times Online, et al? Why do you suppose that is?

Do you think you might want to research that story a bit more, in case the Times Online isn't being totally forthcoming and unbiased?


That is nonsense, The Times and the Telegraph are not at all sceptic on AGW. (With that said, I am suspicious of all MSM news sources.)

And I think it is you who "might want to research that story a bit more." The are simply reporting what the MET Office is doing.

52 Frogmarch  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:14:53pm

This is interesting. Extracting oil through oil sands is, apparently, bad for the environment.

So too is most mining.

53 Gus  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:15:06pm

re: #50 Gus 802

Slovak National Party

The Slovak National Party (Slovak: Slovenská národná strana, SNS) is a political party in the Government of Slovakia. The party characterizes itself as a nationally oriented, conservative, centre-right party based on the European Christian system of values.[3] However it is frequently described as ultra-nationalist,[1][4][5] right-wing extremist,[1][6][7][8] far-right,[9] (because of its offending and often racist[10][11][12][13] statements about the Hungarians, the Roma, Jews and homosexuals).


The ultra-nationalist[1][4] SNS is known for its inflammatory rhetoric against the Roma and Hungarians.[19] The Party of European Socialists, considered SNS as a "political party which incites or attempts to stir up racial or ethnic prejudices and racial hatred."[14] The party's leader Ján Slota, referred to by Earthtimes as "a xenophobic politician who has stirred anti-Hungarian sentiments",[20] said the best policy for dealing with the Roma was "a long whip in a small yard."[21][22] He is quoted as saying "we will sit in our tanks and destroy Budapest"[21] and questioning if homosexuals are normal people[23]. Slota stated that "The Hungarians are a cancer in the body of the Slovak nation."[24] Slota called the fascist leader Jozef Tiso "one of the greatest sons of the Slovak nation"[1] and on February 17, 2000, 40 of the 41 city council members in Žilina, where Slota is mayor, voted to dedicate a plaque honoring Tiso.[1] In a move that was described as absurd by a Slovak journalist, SNS demanded the seat of deputy prime minister responsible for human rights and national minorities. The party did not manage to obtain the seat.[18]
54 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:15:37pm

re: #42 Obdicut

You're quoting the Times Online. Have you noticed that all of the sources being quoted against the IPCC are the Telegraph, the Times Online, et al? Why do you suppose that is?

Do you think you might want to research that story a bit more, in case the Times Online isn't being totally forthcoming and unbiased?

The Times has already published at least one completely false article about this -- the one about the CRU destroying data, that turned out to be a blatant distortion of the truth. No data was destroyed by the CRU.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that the article about "reviewing 160 years of climate data" is another gross distortion.

55 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:15:49pm

re: #44 Guanxi88

I get a special dispensation. I was one of our order who collaborated with the Zionists to help build their gravity machine.

56 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:15:58pm

re: #45 McSpiff

Why bother? You're one of a dying breed here. I really couldn't care less what you think of the IPCC or any other scientific body.

They why the snarky riposte if you care less what I think? In fact your responses indicate you care very much.

57 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:16:36pm

re: #50 Gus 802

I think this story has legs.

Yes it does, but then again in this country the Gary North - Lew Rockwell axis has been one of the stronger "AGW is a hoax" voices, yet that hasn't deterred many from jumping in with them.

The political/social reasoning behind the connections is pretty straightforward. In this country the resistance to any effort to address AGW comes from the same crowd that resists, for instance, the Law of The Sea Treaty.

58 Linden Arden  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:16:36pm

This situation with the anti-science denialists reminds me of how Piltdown Man "discredited" Natural Selection.

Bad data should be tossed and not used to obfuscate further research.

59 Guanxi88  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:16:38pm

re: #52 Frogmarch

This is interesting. Extracting oil through oil sands is, apparently, bad for the environment.

So too is most mining.

Well, yeah! Oil sands are tar, more or less, mixed with sand and small aggregate. Gotta use a lot of heat and a lot of water to get it into anything like usable condition. Hell on the environment, that stuff.

As for mining in general - yeah, it's apt to be a bit rough on things.

60 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:17:17pm

re: #47 freetoken

That is just wrong.

How so?

The Hockey Team™ at CRU and their temperature graphs are key to the IPCC AR4.

61 brookly red  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:17:25pm

re: #48 Soap_Man

I don't know, 160 years is a lot of data...

Maybe, but I was kinda hoping they could wrap it up before our next election cause I have a feeling it might be issue.

62 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:17:38pm

re: #56 Bagua

They why the snarky riposte if you care less what I think? In fact your responses indicate you care very much.

I care about those who could possibly be mislead by you, and I care about the reputation of this site. So I'll continue to do my thing, assuming you continue to do yours. Cheers.

63 Guanxi88  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:17:56pm

re: #55 Slumbering Behemoth

I get a special dispensation. I was one of our order who collaborated with the Zionists to help build their gravity machine.

Yep, those residuals and royalties - they do add up.

64 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:18:28pm

re: #51 Bagua

That is nonsense, The Times and the Telegraph are not at all sceptic on AGW. (With that said, I am suspicious of all MSM news sources.)

Why do you say that? I've seen about ten articles cited here by deniers from the Times Online and the Telegraph.


And I think it is you who "might want to research that story a bit more." The are simply reporting what the MET Office is doing.

They're getting more accurate. They're zeroing in on the trend more precisely. It is entirely wrong to say that the The IPPC AR4 will be in limbo.

This is being done in the name of openness:

The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.

And of course, they're immediately being attacked for doing it, as though it shows that they're weak and uncertain.

65 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:18:28pm

re: #40 djughurknot

After spending a few months learning about natural earth processes and how the atmosphere is related to the Atlantic ocean conveyor, it seemed absurdly simple.

I have to agree. Once I started looking at the scientific information available to me, it didn't take long for the issue to make a lot of sense. "Absurdly simple" is about right.

66 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:19:55pm

Gah, messed my formatting to hell. Apologies. Cleaned up:

That is nonsense, The Times and the Telegraph are not at all sceptic on AGW. (With that said, I am suspicious of all MSM news sources.)

Why do you say that? I've seen about ten articles cited here by deniers from the Times Online and the Telegraph.

And I think it is you who "might want to research that story a bit more." The are simply reporting what the MET Office is doing.

They're getting more accurate. They're zeroing in on the trend more precisely. It is entirely wrong to say that the The IPPC AR4 will be in limbo.

This is being done in the name of openness:

The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.

And of course, they're immediately being attacked for doing it, as though it shows that they're weak and uncertain.

67 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:20:15pm

re: #62 McSpiff

I care about those who could possibly be mislead by you, and I care about the reputation of this site. So I'll continue to do my thing, assuming you continue to do yours. Cheers.

No, you are being needlessly insulting, I back up all of my statements and claims and I don't "mislead" anyone.

68 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:20:23pm

re: #60 Bagua

The Hockey Team™ at CRU and their temperature graphs are key to the IPCC AR4.

Bagua - you've attempted over the last few months to moderate your anti-AGW stand... yet you continue to throw out silly arguments.

The Scientific Basis for the IPCC work goes far, far beyond the CRU temperature reconstruction. Indeed, there are two other temperature reconstructions (GISS, NCDC) that many of us think are superior to that of CRU's to begin with.

69 Pythagoras  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:20:39pm

re: #40 djughurknot

I just don't get it. People try to invoke Occam's razor, saying that the science is too convoluted to be a plausible explanation. They say that it is too complex to grasp fully. After spending a few months learning about natural earth processes and how the atmosphere is related to the Atlantic ocean conveyor, it seemed absurdly simple. Couple it with the observable effects of ozone and CO2 and sunlight, and it's hard for me to square the observations with anything else. Much simpler than "teh sky gods will save us so it doesn't matter"!!1!

I can't believe we're trying to force a spin on observable, detectable phenomena. As though it carries some moral value. Ick.

my 2 cents.

The key to the debate is not whether the last century or so has been warming -- that is beyond question -- it's whether the recent warming is unique. If it isn't, then global warming is not an urgent problem.

We know that the north Atlantic area was warmer when the Vikings colonized Greenland, but was the whole world? Different proxies yield different results. For example, if you just study the location of the tree-line, the world was warmer 1000 years ago. The Wilson, Hendy & Reynolds stalagmite study show that New Zealand was warmer 1000 years ago. There are dozens of studies showing the same trends.

But dozens of other studies do not agree.

This is the real debate.

70 recusancy  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:21:11pm

re: #65 Sharmuta

I have to agree. Once I started looking at the scientific information available to me, it didn't take long for the issue to make a lot of sense. "Absurdly simple" is about right.

Which is why An Inconvenient Truth is such an important film. If people could just get past the fact that a left leaning politician had to be the one to put it in such simple and graphical light.

71 Soap_Man  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:21:22pm

re: #61 brookly red

Maybe, but I was kinda hoping they could wrap it up before our next election cause I have a feeling it might be issue.

If they go out of their way to get it done before an election, they will only give further ammunition for deniers that the scientists' actions are political. Furthermore, if they analyze 160 years of data in, say, 6 months, the deniers will scream that it was "rushed and sloppy."

Assuming the story is accurate, which it might not be, 3 years is an amount of time that can assure people on the fence that they are leaving no stone unturned, so to speak.

72 Gus  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:21:58pm

re: #50 Gus 802

National delegations to EFD:

Dansk Folkeparti - [Link: www.danskfolkeparti.dk...]

Λαϊκός Ορθόδοξος Συναγερμός (Laikos Orthodoxos Synagermos) - [Link: www.laos.gr...]

Mouvement Pour la France - [Link: www.pourlafrance.fr...]

Lega Nord - [Link: www.leganord.org...]

Partija Tvarka ir teisingumas - [Link: www.tvarka.lt...]

ChristenUnie - Staatkundig Gereformeerde Parti - [Link: eurofractie.sgp.nl...]

Slovenská národná strana - [Link: www.sns.sk...]

Perussuomalainen - [Link: www.perussuomalaiset.fi...]
Timo Soini MEP - [Link: www.timosoini.fi...]

UK Independence Party - [Link: www.ukip.org...]

Group organizing meeting with:

Professor Roger A. Pielke Sr., Colorado Universitet.
Professor Ole Humlum, Oslo Universitet.
Pofessor Henrik Svensmark, DTU.
Lektor Bjarne Andresen, Københavns Universitet.
Seniorforsker Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, DTU.
Lord Moncton, tidligere rådgiver for Margeret Thatcher.
Professor Fred Singer, Virginia Universitet.
Professor Roger A. Pielke Sr., Colorado Universitet.

73 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:23:32pm

re: #67 Bagua

No, you are being needlessly insulting, I back up all of my statements and claims and I don't "mislead" anyone.

Your claims have been discredit for months at best, years at worst. Countless people have attempted to explain this to you, link you to sources where you can do your own research, etc. You cherry pick your sources, claim scientific consensus where there is none, claim a lack of scientific consensus where there is one.

So feel free to feel insulted.

74 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:23:39pm

re: #69 Pythagoras

No one is debating natural causes of climate change, and that they can be local. This one happens to be global, and it's not naturally occurring, it's occurring because of our increased CO2 emissions. They've looked to see if it's something else, and ruled those factors out.

75 lostlakehiker  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:23:58pm

re: #38 osprey34229

Try this
AGW = Church of Climatology
facts = tea leaves
AGW scientist = tea leaf readers
Algore = Elmer Gantry
$$$ = sacrament
I = denier
you = ??

I suggest a new plan. Let reality win. discovery of global warming
AGW=observable reality
facts=facts
AGW scientists=mortals subject to the usual failings of mortals, but with the saving grace that when one errs, the other will gleefully correct him.
Algore=oh, never mind. He's not relevant.
$$$=some people don't believe that the world holds any other bad thing than to lose money.
you=insufficiently well informed. Please do read the link.

76 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:24:00pm

re: #72 Gus 802

Summarily... it's the usual suspects. Mix a handful of old guys with "Ph.D" after their name and a strangely accented fellow with "Lord" before his name, and you have a potent elixir for the right-o-sphere to drink.

77 brookly red  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:25:49pm

re: #71 Soap_Man

If they go out of their way to get it done before an election, they will only give further ammunition for deniers that the scientists' actions are political. Furthermore, if they analyze 160 years of data in, say, 6 months, the deniers will scream that it was "rushed and sloppy."

Assuming the story is accurate, which it might not be, 3 years is an amount of time that can assure people on the fence that they are leaving no stone unturned, so to speak.

Well you maybe right about the timing but you do seem to suggest that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Either way we will see in 3 years.

78 Gus  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:26:13pm

re: #76 freetoken

Summarily... it's the usual suspects. Mix a handful of old guys with "Ph.D" after their name and a strangely accented fellow with "Lord" before his name, and you have a potent elixir for the right-o-sphere to drink.

This time it's a collection of the usual suspects from two different camps. Collectively we're starting to see the deniers join forces with nationalist/nativist/far-right European parties.

79 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:26:41pm

re: #66 Obdicut

Why do you say that? I've seen about ten articles cited here by deniers from the Times Online and the Telegraph.

Because I've been reading both papers daily for the last couple of decades. You are judging them based upon ten recent articles. They are simply not sceptic on AGW just because they are reporting ClimateGate.


They're getting more accurate. They're zeroing in on the trend more precisely. It is entirely wrong to say that the The IPPC AR4 will be in limbo.

Disagree. Major chapters of the AR4 where based upon the Hockey Team at CRU and their data. Those chapters will be in limbo until the MET finishes its re-evaluation


This is being done in the name of openness:

No, this is being done because the "openness" was forced upon them by the CRU hackers.

The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.

I too am confident of that. I am not saying the data will be falsified, my point is that it is suspect at this point, as the MET clearly agrees.

And of course, they're immediately being attacked for doing it, as though it shows that they're weak and uncertain.

Nope, that is your spin. I applaud the MET response. They are showing that they get the message.

80 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:27:17pm

re: #72 Gus 802

National delegations to EFD:

Group organizing meeting with:

Professor Roger A. Pielke Sr., Colorado Universitet.
Professor Ole Humlum, Oslo Universitet.
Pofessor Henrik Svensmark, DTU.
Lektor Bjarne Andresen, Københavns Universitet.
Seniorforsker Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, DTU.
Lord Moncton, tidligere rådgiver for Margeret Thatcher.
Professor Fred Singer, Virginia Universitet.
Professor Roger A. Pielke Sr., Colorado Universitet.

It's a who's who of European far right parties, jumping on the anti-AGW bandwagon with the craziest and most dishonest of the denial industry shills.

81 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:27:28pm

re: #79 Bagua

Disagree. Major chapters of the AR4 where based upon the Hockey Team at CRU and their data. Those chapters will be in limbo until the MET finishes its re-evaluation

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you say stuff like "Hockey Team"?

Seriously, dude.

82 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:27:58pm

re: #81 Obdicut

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you say stuff like "Hockey Team"?

Seriously, dude.

Hockey Team is how they refer to them selves.

83 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:28:52pm

re: #78 Gus 802

In this country it has been the Inhofe - Rockwell axis that is most vested in spreading denial and obfuscation. For religious/ideological reasons they have been at this for years. It's a natural progression for the European xenophobic right to join forces with them.

84 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:29:00pm

re: #73 McSpiff

Your claims have been discredit for months at best, years at worst. Countless people have attempted to explain this to you, link you to sources where you can do your own research, etc. You cherry pick your sources, claim scientific consensus where there is none, claim a lack of scientific consensus where there is one.

So feel free to feel insulted.

So you say, yet all you have is vague allegations and insults. I discuss facts and data, you are only interested in character assassination.

85 Gus  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:30:32pm

re: #80 Charles

It's a who's who of European far right parties, jumping on the anti-AGW bandwagon with the craziest and most dishonest of the denial industry shills.

I wonder if anyone is taking note? They're so bust barking about the CRU emails and here they are going to a conference with this group full of sinister parties. The Slovenka group is lead by a Ján Slota

86 lostlakehiker  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:30:46pm

re: #69 Pythagoras

The key to the debate is not whether the last century or so has been warming -- that is beyond question -- it's whether the recent warming is unique. If it isn't, then global warming is not an urgent problem.

We know that the north Atlantic area was warmer when the Vikings colonized Greenland, but was the whole world? Different proxies yield different results. For example, if you just study the location of the tree-line, the world was warmer 1000 years ago. The Wilson, Hendy & Reynolds stalagmite study show that New Zealand was warmer 1000 years ago. There are dozens of studies showing the same trends.

But dozens of other studies do not agree.

This is the real debate.

Say this warming is not unique. Still, most of the time, the earth doesn't warm like it is currently. Most of the time, the temperature goes sideways. So yeah, IF this warming isn't unique, it might have a natural cause. But this warming might well be because of the CO2. After all, CO2=greenhouse gas, there's more of it, and things heat up. That's what the lawyers call a prima facie case.

87 Guanxi88  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:30:52pm

I'll tell you what was the cause of my (former) skepticism on this issue:

Every proposed solution to it was indistinguishable, except in name, from the standard Leftist and Statist wish-lists that we all see from time to time. If the proposed solutions actually attempted to address the problem or mediate the effects, there'd be fewer folk raising a squawk about the underlying phenomenon. But as it is, it all looks very much like a nice tax-hike and revenue generation system in a green wrapper.

88 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:31:43pm

re: #85 Gus 802

Oh, I suspect that Malkin, HotAir, etc will notice. Indeed, I expect them to pimp this "alternative" conference, or at least the outcome of it.

89 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:32:04pm

re: #68 freetoken

Bagua - you've attempted over the last few months to moderate your anti-AGW stand... yet you continue to throw out silly arguments.

The Scientific Basis for the IPCC work goes far, far beyond the CRU temperature reconstruction. Indeed, there are two other temperature reconstructions (GISS, NCDC) that many of us think are superior to that of CRU's to begin with.

Well now it is you who are being silly freetoken, the CRU data is key to the IPCC AR4, this is not in dispute. It is one of three major temperature reconstructions and therefore one leg of the stool has been kicked out.

It is denial to say otherwise.

It is simply ridiculous to assert that the IPCC AR4 can stand when one of its major sources is called into question.

90 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:32:20pm

re: #75 lostlakehiker

I suggest a new plan. Let reality win. discovery of global warming
AGW=observable reality
facts=facts
AGW scientists=mortals subject to the usual failings of mortals, but with the saving grace that when one errs, the other will gleefully correct him.
Algore=oh, never mind. He's not relevant.
$$$=some people don't believe that the world holds any other bad thing than to lose money.
you=insufficiently well informed. Please do read the link.

Nice link! Folks should start here:

Introduction: A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science

91 brookly red  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:32:29pm

re: #86 lostlakehiker

Say this warming is not unique. Still, most of the time, the earth doesn't warm like it is currently. Most of the time, the temperature goes sideways. So yeah, IF this warming isn't unique, it might have a natural cause. But this warming might well be because of the CO2. After all, CO2=greenhouse gas, there's more of it, and things heat up. That's what the lawyers call a prima facie case.

/I liked that better before you brought the lawyers into it.

92 lostlakehiker  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:32:31pm

re: #87 Guanxi88

I'll tell you what was the cause of my (former) skepticism on this issue:

Every proposed solution to it was indistinguishable, except in name, from the standard Leftist and Statist wish-lists that we all see from time to time. If the proposed solutions actually attempted to address the problem or mediate the effects, there'd be fewer folk raising a squawk about the underlying phenomenon. But as it is, it all looks very much like a nice tax-hike and revenue generation system in a green wrapper.

Agreed. The politics obscures peoples' understanding of the science.

93 Gus  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:32:41pm

re: #88 freetoken

Oh, I suspect that Malkin, HotAir, etc will notice. Indeed, I expect them to pimp this "alternative" conference, or at least the outcome of it.

Spencer would fit right in.

94 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:34:17pm

re: #84 Bagua

So you say, yet all you have is vague allegations and insults. I discuss facts and data, you are only interested in character assassination.

...the same way the truthers used facts and data.

95 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:34:25pm

re: #79 Bagua

Because I've been reading both papers daily for the last couple of decades. You are judging them based upon ten recent articles. They are simply not sceptic on AGW just because they are reporting ClimateGate.

Every article they print about 'climategate' is a denier- ready article. They're acting as though it's an enormous deal and desperately puffing to keep the controversy alive.


Disagree. Major chapters of the AR4 where based upon the Hockey Team at CRU and their data. Those chapters will be in limbo until the MET finishes its re-evaluation

Gee, maybe they could just use some of the mountain of other data and other models to fill that bit in, you think?

96 Soap_Man  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:34:43pm

re: #77 brookly red

Well you maybe right about the timing but you do seem to suggest that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Either way we will see in 3 years.

I'm not suggesting the outcome is a foregone conclusion, but I'm willing to bet the re-examination of existing data will not produce any wildly different conclusions.

97 brookly red  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:37:41pm

re: #96 Soap_Man

I'm not suggesting the outcome is a foregone conclusion, but I'm willing to bet the re-examination of existing data will not produce any wildly different conclusions.

On that I do agree.

98 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:38:09pm

re: #94 McSpiff

...the same way the truthers used facts and data.

What ever, that is just name calling, "Truther", "Denier", "Witch."

99 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:38:40pm

re: #89 Bagua

... one leg of the stool has been kicked out...

This is so silly. There is no "stool", Bagua. It is a creation of your own mind.

Or perhaps that of Ed Morrisey's.

Nevertheless, prattle on. I stayed out of your mess with LVQ as that was clearly a personal issue thing... however, your history of postings on AGW here do not indicate someone who has a good grasp of science, or scientific reasoning. That is why you were so easily taken in by the dowser (remember that?)

The basis for AGW does not rest upon, and did not start with, any given temperature reconstruction. Temperature reconstructions are simply a test of ideas, not the basis for the idea behind AGW.

100 brookly red  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:41:39pm

re: #98 Bagua

What ever, that is just name calling, "Truther", "Denier", "Witch."

/you left out "enemy of the people", that's my favorite...

101 Frogmarch  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:41:59pm

re: #59 Guanxi88

'tis. I cringe when I think of what mining for gold does to the environment.

102 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:42:16pm

re: #98 Bagua

What ever, that is just name calling, "Truther", "Denier", "Witch."

If you've somehow managed to avoid the copious amount of evidence that Charles has supplied to you and all other readers, managed to avoid the hundreds of replies to you clearly and respectfully out lining your lack of grasp on how science is conducted in general than I'm not going to have much sympathy for you. If you don't like being compared to 9/11 deniers, young earth creationists and other fringe pseudo-scienticsts... stop acting like one.

103 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:42:46pm

re: #95 Obdicut


Every article they print about 'climategate' is a denier- ready article. They're acting as though it's an enormous deal and desperately puffing to keep the controversy alive.

Again, you've read 10 articles, I've read them for decades, they are not sceptic on AGW, not by a long shot. Those papers are decidedly pro-AGW, always have been. The most they have allowed is the occasional skeptic opinion piece.


Gee, maybe they could just use some of the mountain of other data and other models to fill that bit in, you think?


Gee, maybe you could stop using your little catch phrases like "mountains of other data"?

The CRU data is the shaky leg under those "mountains" of data.

104 Guanxi88  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:43:36pm

re: #101 Frogmarch

'tis. I cringe when I think of what mining for gold does to the environment.

Well, if you don't like the cyanide leaching process, there's still a few places that do mercury amalgam recovery.

honestly, it's a miracle there's anyplace left here that isn't utterly poisoned.

105 osprey34229  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:43:46pm

# 75
try this
It's the A part of the AGW equation that's in question
facts = facts = faith based
I know where I stand = prove it'
You = ??

106 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:44:58pm

re: #7 SanFranciscoZionist

Advanced science does not really readily lend itself to snappy comebacks.

Is there a profession of being a PR person for scientists?

Whatever Carl Sagan's and Isaac Asimov's roles were, would be a good definition.

107 Guanxi88  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:46:43pm

re: #106 The Sanity Inspector

Whatever Carl Sagan's and Isaac Asimov's roles were, would be a good definition.

Sagan - bless his burgundy turtleneck sweater - sparked my first interest in real science.

108 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:47:43pm

re: #103 Bagua

Gee, maybe you could stop using your little catch phrases like "mountains of other data"?

The CRU data is the shaky leg under those "mountains" of data.

This is not true, though. Insisting it over and over won't make it so.

109 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:49:25pm

re: #99 freetoken

This is so silly. There is no "stool", Bagua. It is a creation of your own mind.

Or perhaps that of Ed Morrisey's.

Freetoken, you said above:

The Scientific Basis for the IPCC work goes far, far beyond the CRU temperature reconstruction. Indeed, there are two other temperature reconstructions (GISS, NCDC) that many of us think are superior to that of CRU's to begin with.

Thus there are three major temperature reconstructions, GISS, NCDC and CRU, thus a "stool" or "tripod" accurately describes something with three legs holding it up.

And rather than just insult me, why not respond directly to my assertions?

It is a simple fact that the IPCC AR4 relies heavily on the CRU data and authors. It is now in doubt until questions about those sources are clarified. It is not possible to keep denying this.

110 lostlakehiker  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:50:10pm

re: #102 McSpiff

If you've somehow managed to avoid the copious amount of evidence that Charles has supplied to you and all other readers, managed to avoid the hundreds of replies to you clearly and respectfully out lining your lack of grasp on how science is conducted in general than I'm not going to have much sympathy for you. If you don't like being compared to 9/11 deniers, young earth creationists and other fringe pseudo-scienticsts... stop acting like one.

The case for AGW is strong. It's not as strong as that for an old earth. re: #105 osprey34229

# 75
try this
It's the A part of the AGW equation that's in question
facts = facts = faith based
I know where I stand = prove it'
You = ??


The thing about proof is, I can't prove anything to you if you won't engage and think about the reasons I offer. Did you read the link? Or even look at it? I'm not actually a climate scientist. But I do read about their work and it sounds like what I recognize in my own line of work as good thinking. The discovery of global warming: I can lead the horse to water, but I can't make him drink. Look it over at least, and then we can talk some more.

111 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:50:58pm

re: #108 Obdicut

This is not true, though. Insisting it over and over won't make it so.

LOL

That is funny coming from someone who just insists the same things over and over and posts the same link.

112 Frogmarch  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:53:34pm

re: #104 Guanxi88

Well, if you don't like the cyanide leaching process, there's still a few places that do mercury amalgam recovery.

honestly, it's a miracle there's anyplace left here that isn't utterly poisoned.

ugh.
It's a big mystery why we all have cancer. Not.

113 swamprat  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:54:42pm

What people don't realize is that Global Warming postulates a trend, not a swift upward lunge. If we have 3, or even 10 years of cooler weather, that does not "disprove" GW. Further, if we have 10 years of warmer weather, that does not "prove" it. GW is tracked by centuries. If any of you have worked on a crane moving really large masses of steel or concrete, you know how deceptive slow inertia can be. I suspect earths atmospheric chemistry to be (ahem): worlds more difficult to calculate. Another point that seems to be missed by both sides is the simple fact of plain old HEAT that is generated when carbon dioxide is produced; we burn, drive, eat,... if fact everything we do, that produces CO2, comes with a caloric price tag. I have never seen this aspect brought into the calculations, but I don't see how it could fail to make a difference. While I do not fail to see some humor in some of the more outrageous GW postulates, I am not above reason. And reason demands that an entire line of scientific inquiry not be abandoned because of a carefully timed and laboriously engineered "scandal" served up to an uneducated public on the 6-o'clock news.

114 Guanxi88  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:57:48pm

re: #112 Frogmarch

ugh.
It's a big mystery why we all have cancer. Not.

A little side research I've been doing, on my own. Related.

Polonium 210 in tobacco smoke is cited as the single largest source of radiation exposure for Americans. Seems that the rock phosphate used to fertilize the fields is slightly contaminated by uranium and other naturally occurring radioactive elements.

Well, a peculiarity of tobacco is that it seems to concentrate these substances in its leafy tissues. There are patented processes for removing or reducing the presence of Polonium in tobacco, in an effort to reduce the harm.

Reynolds' technologists in the '70's noted the lower rates of carcinomas among smokers in areas where tobacco fields were not fertilized with rock phosphate, and made the connection then, but it was two decades or so before anyone could figure out what to do about it.

115 lostlakehiker  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:01:27pm

re: #113 swamprat

What people don't realize is that Global Warming postulates a trend, not a swift upward lunge. If we have 3, or even 10 years of cooler weather, that does not "disprove" GW. Further, if we have 10 years of warmer weather, that does not "prove" it. GW is tracked by centuries. If any of you have worked on a crane moving really large masses of steel or concrete, you know how deceptive slow inertia can be. I suspect earths atmospheric chemistry to be (ahem): worlds more difficult to calculate. Another point that seems to be missed by both sides is the simple fact of plain old HEAT that is generated when carbon dioxide is produced; we burn, drive, eat,... if fact everything we do, that produces CO2, comes with a caloric price tag. I have never seen this aspect brought into the calculations, but I don't see how it could fail to make a difference. While I do not fail to see some humor in some of the more outrageous GW postulates, I am not above reason. And reason demands that an entire line of scientific inquiry not be abandoned because of a carefully timed and laboriously engineered "scandal" served up to an uneducated public on the 6-o'clock news.


While I like your point about momentum, it so happens that the direct heat generated by burning the coal is irrelevant. It does indeed warm the earth, but by too little to be of any consequence. All human energy production, from whatever source, is tiny compared to the sunlight we get daily. The reason the CO2 matters is because you burn a lump of coal once and that produces a bit of heat, but then it sits there in the atmosphere for a long time*, trapping heat that would otherwise more easily escape into space. It's like printers and cartridges. The real expense of having a printer is in the cartridges. Only with CO2, more so.

*Actually, an individual CO2 molecule may be broken up by some life process fairly soon, in a matter of years. The trouble is that the leaf that captured it soon falls, and oxidizes that winter. So then it's right back in the air, instead of nicely trapped miles below the earth in some coal vein.

116 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:05:15pm

re: #111 Bagua

LOL

That is funny coming from someone who just insists the same things over and over and posts the same link.

What link? You mean to www.skepticalscience.com ?

I insist that AGW is real because it is, and that that site answers all challenges in an easy to understand way, because it does.

117 Interesting Times  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:10:50pm

re: #29 Sharmuta

? I meant what I wrote as a compliment, not a criticism. Is "bumper sticker material" considered an insult here? When I use it, I mean an effective, memorable saying worth repeating.

118 goddamnedfrank  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:16:25pm

re: #89 Bagua

Well now it is you who are being silly freetoken, the CRU data is key to the IPCC AR4, this is not in dispute. It is one of three major temperature reconstructions and therefore one leg of the stool has been kicked out.

It is denial to say otherwise.

It is simply ridiculous to assert that the IPCC AR4 can stand when one of its major sources is called into question.

You can be so dishonest sometimes Bagua. In this thread you specifically said that if we were to concede and throw out the CRU data that you would not follow up with this specific kind of "one of few" attack against NASA's GISTEMP.. Now you are doing exactly that, even though those other records support identical conclusions, and even though all the attacks against CRU rely on the deliberate misinterpretation of stolen private correspondence. GISTEMP isn't one leg of a stool, it is a pillar that supports the same logical conclusions. It seems that your desire to throw out the CRU data was always an avenue to attack the IPCC conclusions that are self-evident based on several datasets. Your insistence that the entire report be thrown out because the IPCC arbitrarily picked CRU for most citations is the worst kind of pedantic obstructionism.

119 djughurknot  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:16:26pm

re: #65 Sharmuta

Yep. Funny what a bit of learnin' and study can do for a body, no?

re: #69 Pythagoras


We know that the north Atlantic area was warmer when the Vikings colonized Greenland, but was the whole world? Different proxies yield different results. For example, if you just study the location of the tree-line, the world was warmer 1000 years ago. The Wilson, Hendy & Reynolds stalagmite study show that New Zealand was warmer 1000 years ago. There are dozens of studies showing the same trends.

But dozens of other studies do not agree.

This is the real debate.

As for you- way to look at data sets and anecdotal evidence stretching back a paltry millennium. Oh wait- I guess that's a full sixth of existence, huh? Maybe post some of these reputable "studies" you refer to?
Also, yeah- I guess those ice cores from 10,000 years ago have no bearing, nor does the millions-o-years fossil record...

Real debate, my foot.

/HMPH.

120 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:16:37pm

re: #116 Obdicut

What link? You mean to www.skepticalscience.com ?

I insist that AGW is real because it is, and that that site answers all challenges in an easy to understand way, because it does.

Yes, you have posted that same link dozens of times.

And as to your straw man, I also insist that AGW is real, what is suspect at this point is the historical temperature reconstruction work done at CRU.

121 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:17:38pm

re: #120 Bagua

Yes, you have posted that same link dozens of times.

And as to your straw man, I also insist that AGW is real, what is suspect at this point is the historical temperature reconstruction work done at CRU.

That's not true. Not a single reputable scientist is disputing their historical temperature work.

122 Pythagoras  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:18:05pm

re: #86 lostlakehiker

Say this warming is not unique. Still, most of the time, the earth doesn't warm like it is currently. Most of the time, the temperature goes sideways. So yeah, IF this warming isn't unique, it might have a natural cause. But this warming might well be because of the CO2. After all, CO2=greenhouse gas, there's more of it, and things heat up. That's what the lawyers call a prima facie case.

On this, we agree precisely. My goal is not to show that the recent warming isn't anthropogenic; obviously some of it is.

The reason AGW is "urgent" is that we're about to hit a "tipping point" where the temperature is going to do more than rise a little bit. The current global temperature is not, yet, viewed as worse than it was 100 years ago. But if it rises suddenly and uncontrollably so that the polar ice caps melt and sea level rises a lot, then the warming becomes a problem.

But if it was warmer a thousand years ago and it didn't tip then, we don't yet have a problem. Global warming could need bold action eventually, but the statements that we only have a few years to fix the problem depend on it being warmer now than in the middle ages.

123 djughurknot  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:21:02pm

Uh oh. I'm posting on an empty stomach again.

I'd better go fix that before I make a complete mockery of myself.

/ad hominem isn't nice.

124 Pythagoras  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:22:48pm

re: #119 djughurknot

As for you- way to look at data sets and anecdotal evidence stretching back a paltry millennium. Oh wait- I guess that's a full sixth of existence, huh? Maybe post some of these reputable "studies" you refer to?
Also, yeah- I guess those ice cores from 10,000 years ago have no bearing, nor does the millions-o-years fossil record...

Real debate, my foot.

/HMPH.

If studies looking back a millennium show that the earth was warmer 1000 years ago, how can studies of earlier eras refute that?

125 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:23:42pm

re: #118 goddamnedfrank

You can be so dishonest sometimes Bagua. In this thread you specifically said that if we were to concede and throw out the CRU data that you would not follow up with this specific kind of "one of few" attack against NASA's GISTEMP.. Now you are doing exactly that, even though those other records support identical conclusions, and even though all the attacks against CRU rely on the deliberate misinterpretation of stolen private correspondence. GISTEMP isn't one leg of a stool, it is a pillar that supports the same logical conclusions. It seems that your desire to throw out the CRU data was always an avenue to attack the IPCC conclusions that are self-evident based on several datasets. Your insistence that the entire report be thrown out because the IPCC arbitrarily picked CRU for most citations is the worst kind of pedantic obstructionism.

And you can be so insulting sometimes Frank.

Nothing I said was an "attack" on NASA's GISTEMP. That temperature reconstruction is one of three cited by the IPCC. Thus, my statement about one leg of the stool being suspect is accurate.

Now, call one of the legs a "pillar" if you will, but everyone who is familiar with the IPCC AR4 knows that the CRU data is fundamental to the report.

My observations about the CRU temperature reconstruction is exactly that, about the CRU data. That you automatically assume this is somehow an "attack" on the GISTEMP shows a dishonest attack on me.

That you acknowledge that the IPCC arbitrarily picked CRU for most citations indicates that most of the citations are now in limbo until the CRU re-evaluation is complete.

126 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:27:46pm

re: #121 Charles

That's not true. Not a single reputable scientist is disputing their historical temperature work.

Then why is the MET Office re-examining the data upon which it is based?

However, I agree it is too early to "dispute their historical temperature work", at this point I am not disputing its accuracy, merely saying it is in limbo until the MET Office concluded it re-examination.

127 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:28:21pm

re: #126 Bagua

Then why is the MET Office re-examining the data upon which it is based?

Politics.

128 djughurknot  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:29:06pm

re: #124 Pythagoras

yay- watch me not read the original comment properly. Now I get to see if I was flailing at nothing.

*rereads*

129 nomra  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:34:06pm

re: #121 Charles

That's not true. Not a single reputable scientist is disputing their historical temperature work.

Right, because if a scientist does dispute it, they are no longer reputable.
That's circular reasoning Charles.

130 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:34:40pm

re: #127 Charles

Politics.

I agree the decision is partly political, but then the IPCC AR4 is itself a political document.

131 lostlakehiker  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:45:16pm

re: #122 Pythagoras

On this, we agree precisely. My goal is not to show that the recent warming isn't anthropogenic; obviously some of it is.

The reason AGW is "urgent" is that we're about to hit a "tipping point" where the temperature is going to do more than rise a little bit. The current global temperature is not, yet, viewed as worse than it was 100 years ago. But if it rises suddenly and uncontrollably so that the polar ice caps melt and sea level rises a lot, then the warming becomes a problem.

But if it was warmer a thousand years ago and it didn't tip then, we don't yet have a problem. Global warming could need bold action eventually, but the statements that we only have a few years to fix the problem depend on it being warmer now than in the middle ages.

Not so fast there. If it was warmer a thousand years ago and it didn't tip then, we may still have a problem. THIS time, along with whatever temperature we reach, we have a forcing mechanism that wasn't in force last time to the same extent, and it keeps pushing. Today's temperatures cannot as easily drift back the other way.

As to having "only a few years", all this is incremental. We've already hit some tipping points. Various amphibian species are going extinct, for example. At any given date in the future, there will be an opportunity to change the course of the rest of the future. But the longer we wait, the more of the bullet we're going to have to bite.

To strike an analogy, suppose you've been diagnosed with cancer. It doesn't spread like wildfire, not overnight. You can put off the operation for a week, or two weeks, or a month. Or longer. But each delay cuts into your chances.

The analogy is a bit strained, because this climate thing won't kill us. Not as a species. We can screw the pooch completely, ignore it until it's too late to avoid a tropical climate at Anchorage, and lose billions of people, and come out at the other end with a rebuilt civilization and a bright future. Not everything rides on getting this right.

132 Pythagoras  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:47:39pm

re: #128 djughurknot

yay- watch me not read the original comment properly. Now I get to see if I was flailing at nothing.

*rereads*

I know the "empty stomach" comment you made earlier was less than serious but it is a symptom of hypoglycemia. I had a classic case of it and am now waging a vigorous fight against letting it evolve into type-II diabetes. I recommend reading up (say, on Wikipedia or Web-MD). Catch this early and smart and you've dodged a huge bullet.

133 Pythagoras  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:57:57pm

re: #131 lostlakehiker

Not so fast there. If it was warmer a thousand years ago and it didn't tip then, we may still have a problem. THIS time, along with whatever temperature we reach, we have a forcing mechanism that wasn't in force last time to the same extent, and it keeps pushing. Today's temperatures cannot as easily drift back the other way.

As to having "only a few years", all this is incremental. We've already hit some tipping points. Various amphibian species are going extinct, for example. At any given date in the future, there will be an opportunity to change the course of the rest of the future. But the longer we wait, the more of the bullet we're going to have to bite.

To strike an analogy, suppose you've been diagnosed with cancer. It doesn't spread like wildfire, not overnight. You can put off the operation for a week, or two weeks, or a month. Or longer. But each delay cuts into your chances.

The analogy is a bit strained, because this climate thing won't kill us. Not as a species. We can screw the pooch completely, ignore it until it's too late to avoid a tropical climate at Anchorage, and lose billions of people, and come out at the other end with a rebuilt civilization and a bright future. Not everything rides on getting this right.

Your reasoning is sound. Since high CO2 makes the current scenario different from 1k years ago, the fact that it didn't tip then does not prove it won't tip this time.

For what it's worth, the tipping mechanisms mentioned, say, here:

[Link: www.pnas.org...]

are almost all totally a function of temperature or humidity. CO2 does not play a direct role.

But, basically I concede the point -- a warmer MWP does not PROVE that we're not about to hit a tipping point.

I would, however, claim that the burden of proof belongs with the people who claim we must make major changes to prevent their predicted catastrophe.

134 goddamnedfrank  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 5:11:02pm

re: #130 Bagua

I agree the decision is partly political, but then the IPCC AR4 is itself a political document.

In the past when it suited your goals you argued the exact opposite:

I am absolutely "seriously"arguing that it is not the case that the IPCC deliberately misstated the scientific consensus to pander to politics.

The IPCC is very clear and very specific in defining the language they use in their report on the scientific consensus. Perhaps they will change this in the next report, but for now this is the consensus. And notice that they say "very likely" which equals > 90%, they do not say the term they identify as >99%. They most definitely do not use Certain 100% as "everyone knows" that would be contrary to science.

This is what I mean, one second the IPCC is supposed to represent the scientific consensus and is not a political compromise, the next second it is "in limbo" because one of its legs has been kicked out by thieves who have misrepresented stolen private correspondence, and the second after that it is a "political document" when that assertion aligns with a political inquiry of CRU.

I'm not going to say that the IPCC cannot in theory be both a political document and represent the true scientific consensus, but I do not think both assertions can be true in today's world. I think it was always a political compromise with foot-draggers that have now proven that they aren't beneath misrepresenting stolen emails to further their dishonest agenda.

135 djughurknot  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 5:11:24pm

re: #132 Pythagoras

yeah- I'm pretty sure I've got the hypoglycemia; had it for at least 7 years- I can either get insanely angry or pass out depending on the mood and time since last meal. Worse case scenario is I just get completely incoherent, and that's a known trait of mine. I think we just witnessed one and three in action.

I just ate a PB sammich and a bowl of mac and cheese. I should be fine now.

136 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 5:17:05pm

re: #129 nomra

Right, because if a scientist does dispute it, they are no longer reputable.
That's circular reasoning Charles.

Bullshit. "Circular reasoning" is the nonsense you've been dumping into every climate change thread like a right wing parrot.

Not a single reputable scientist disputes the historical temperature data -- that's a fact. The people who are arguing about it are either 1) not scientists at all, or 2) not climatologists, or 3) dishonest shills for energy industries.

137 lostlakehiker  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 5:19:08pm

re: #133 Pythagoras

Your reasoning is sound. Since high CO2 makes the current scenario different from 1k years ago, the fact that it didn't tip then does not prove it won't tip this time.

For what it's worth, the tipping mechanisms mentioned, say, here:

[Link: www.pnas.org...]

are almost all totally a function of temperature or humidity. CO2 does not play a direct role.

But, basically I concede the point -- a warmer MWP does not PROVE that we're not about to hit a tipping point.

I would, however, claim that the burden of proof belongs with the people who claim we must make major changes to prevent their predicted catastrophe.

Yes and no. The people arguing for action now need only convince the jury that big problems are a reasonable possibility. That would make precautions prudent. We don't have to prove that big problems are inevitable. We shouldn't claim that we know for sure that they are, when really, that cake isn't iced yet.

138 Bagua  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 5:23:02pm

re: #134 goddamnedfrank

This is what I mean, one second the IPCC is supposed to represent the scientific consensus and is not a political compromise, the next second it is "in limbo" because one of its legs has been kicked out by thieves who have misrepresented stolen private correspondence, and the second after that it is a "political document" when that assertion aligns with a political inquiry of CRU.

I'm not going to say that the IPCC cannot in theory be both a political document and represent the true scientific consensus, but I do not think both assertions can be true in today's world. I think it was always a political compromise with foot-draggers that have now proven that they aren't beneath misrepresenting stolen emails to further their dishonest agenda.

No Frank ( BTW is it ok with you to shorten your nic to Frank? )

It is not one second and the next, the ClimateGate revelations and the MET’s actions and Prof. Jones stepping aside are a major new developments. As those now under a cloud of controversy are key authors of the IPCC AR4, naturally it is in limbo until those questions are resolved.

Prior to the CRU hack I accepted the IPCC as an honest appraisal of the scientific consensus. I will no longer champion the IPCC AR4 as I did at the time of that comment of mine you cite. I have new information now and my opinion has changed.

139 djughurknot  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 5:23:25pm

also, lostlakehiker made pretty much the points I wanted to, but more succinctly, and more coherently than I was mustering.

I would also point out that we ought to be looking at timescales of millions of years, not hundreds and thousands. The average CO2 levels of recent millennia, as shown by ice cores, were much lower than those of, for example- the Eocene, or other "hot" periods.

Do we really want to be recreating an atmosphere similar to a time when crocodiles swam the arctic? And knowing what we know about the interaction and staying power of CO2 in the upper atmosphere/ozone layer, is it something we want to downplay? If, decreased ozone leads to fewer reserves of freshwater (due to glacial melt) which are dumped into the ocean, decreasing salinity and disrupting temperature regulation, doesn't that follow that we run the risk of serious climate disruptions? After all, that brings up questions of messing with ALBEDO and feedback loops.

Just the spectre of freshwater disruption ALONE is enough to demand behaviour modification, let alone a potential hot world or iceball earth.

140 Pythagoras  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 5:57:06pm

re: #135 djughurknot

yeah- I'm pretty sure I've got the hypoglycemia; had it for at least 7 years- I can either get insanely angry or pass out depending on the mood and time since last meal. Worse case scenario is I just get completely incoherent, and that's a known trait of mine. I think we just witnessed one and three in action.

I just ate a PB sammich and a bowl of mac and cheese. I should be fine now.

Read up! This is easily controlled but you need to avoid things that'll spike you blood sugar. Also, for some, alcohol can be a big problem. Don't just say, "I'll get around to it later." As you read and think, you'll understand your body better and better all the time. Informed people live longer and live happier.

By the way, one thing that helps that you may not read is weightlifting. Muscles are sugar vacuums. Stay away from really heavy weights for a year or two until your bones and connective tissue build up. But you can make lots of progress with lots of reps.

141 Pythagoras  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:14:13pm

re: #137 lostlakehiker

Yes and no. The people arguing for action now need only convince the jury that big problems are a reasonable possibility. That would make precautions prudent. We don't have to prove that big problems are inevitable. We shouldn't claim that we know for sure that they are, when really, that cake isn't iced yet.

We have reached a near consensus. My position is that since the proposed tipping point mechanisms do not seem imminent, only limited action is warranted. If only the current proposals were limited action! (And simply transferring trillions of dollars from one country to another does not attack the problem anyway.)

Frankly, I think the better argument is limited resources. Even if AGW is complete bunk, that doesn't mean we should piss away the entire planet's supply of fossil fuels in one century. Same holds for pollution, landfills, recycling, etc. We are trashing the planet, even if we're not frying it. The AGW stuff turns a rock solid argument into a weak one. And now with this EAU-CRU flap, the whole cause of environmentalism could be set back a generation.

142 jonmayer  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 12:06:28am

go science!

143 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:42:45am

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh