Where is defense of guys manipulating data in favor of global warming? Do we have "consensus" Global Warming was ho

Frying Pan wrote:

Show/tell us what part of the web page proves the earth is not warming........................................................................................

didnt think so

And yet, the evidence is supposedly "so overwhelming" that the earth is warming as a direct result of human activity that the actual data and statistics have to be massaged and fudged (and the original temperature data thrown out so it is non-reviewable) to attempt to "prove" it; i.e., to show warming where none was occurring and where supposed actual temperature measurements were trending downward or were flat.

This massaging of data and fudging of the statistical evidence to produce a desired outcome or chart is commonly called fraud. In a business, it would be called "cooking the books", and roundly condemned.

However, this begs some larger questions: Do we have reliable temperature data? If so, where is it? If not, how can we even verify that we have a "global warming" problem?

Lastly, the question is not that the Terran ice sheets from the last ice age have retreated and that the oceans have risen by a few hundred feet as a direct result of warmer temperatures. After all, Terra has cooled and warmed many, many times over the past 4.5 billion years.

I wouldn't say that either of those graphs prove your point. Your graph shows that for over a decade the global temperature has been higher than the average. Yes, last year was lower. Natural variation is normal. The long term trend is upward and the yearly averages are all above normal. Further, the five-year averages are showing an even stronger upward trend.

You are linking the Huffington Post and a guy from Comedy Central? Seriously? This is the best "scientific" evidence you've got? That is hysterical.

Frying Pan wrote:

Show/tell us what part of the web page proves the earth is not warming........................................................................................

didnt think so

I believe the point was about the e-mails/trickery of the scientists in question, not the actual warming trend. It has been shown that the graphs were indeed manipulated and data were left out and changed to suit the hockey stick shape of the supposed incline.

What??? wrote:

You are linking the Huffington Post and a guy from Comedy Central? Seriously? This is the best "scientific" evidence you've got? That is hysterical.

For starters.

BL Z Bub.. wrote:

good ole Jon Stewart skewers the deniers / birthers / deathers / creationists / flat earthers

ah the beauty of facts...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/jon-stewart-on-climategat_n_376672.html

Are you stupid? Those aren't "facts" you are citing. You just cited a comedian for "facts?" That is laughable.

Also, I don't think he is as against the deniers as you may think. He admitted the scientists had practiced dishonesty, he just decided to make fun of senator Inhofe because, well, he's senator Inhofe.

I agree natural variation is normal - which is the entire point. One that seems to be lost on those who insist that people cause global warming.

Your statement that the yearly averages are all above normal is incorrect. They are all above an arbitrarily set baseline. Had the baseline been set 0.4 degrees higher, they'd be below "normal". The fact of the matter is, there is NO normal.

I also agree that the long term trend is up. It should be. The world is emerging from the Little Ice Age that ended in the early 1800's. The world is finally returning to temperatures we last saw 1000 years ago. A time when there wasn't any industry emitting CO2.

BTW, my original post was in response to someone who insists the world has gotten warmer in this decade. It hasn't.

Precious Roy wrote:

What??? wrote:

You are linking the Huffington Post and a guy from Comedy Central? Seriously? This is the best "scientific" evidence you've got? That is hysterical.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

For starters.

Also laughable. That's not scientific, that's an interest group trying to dumb down the actual science to present the public with an idea of warming.

shut up wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

For starters.

Also laughable. That's not scientific, that's an interest group trying to dumb down the actual science to present the public with an idea of warming.

And just what is wrong with the analysis? Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about the science and can only attack the messanger.

By the way, realclimate is a website run by climate scientists and not an interest group:

Disclaimer

The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions.

RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked.

MarathonMind wrote:

There is no doubt that we have been in a warming trend. The evidence is in all the receding glaciers and ice sheets. That is undeniable... for sane people anyways.

Then tell me why Phil Jones at East Anglia University whose research was the main conduit to the IPCC, had to falcify, suppress, and manufacture data? It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. This is known as "peer review".

Not allowing peer review is an absolute farce. For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

As someone already posted on another thread, and I think is worth repeating:

Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? Scientists will claim the former, but here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data.

This is why peer review is needed and scientific debate from both sides of the table must be heard. Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Al Gore diminish themselves by cutting off ALL debate.

Incredible that people are willing to justify the manipulation of data. Truth must be sacrificed to the great good, I guess.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Your statement that the yearly averages are all above normal is incorrect. They are all above an arbitrarily set baseline. Had the baseline been set 0.4 degrees higher, they'd be below "normal". The fact of the matter is, there is NO normal.

I also agree that the long term trend is up. It should be. The world is emerging from the Little Ice Age that ended in the early 1800's. The world is finally returning to temperatures we last saw 1000 years ago. A time when there wasn't any industry emitting CO2.

BTW, my original post was in response to someone who insists the world has gotten warmer in this decade. It hasn't.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the baseline is arbitrary. It's the 100 year average if I remember right. Now, if you want to argue 100 years is arbitrary, that's fine, but you'd be hard pressed to find a baseline that doesn't suggest warming.

When 2009 ends it will almost surely show warming for the decade. You're basing your conclusion on the year 2008, which was the exceptional year, not the norm, according to those graphs.

BL Z Bub.. wrote:

again...there are far more scientists who do not but into the official 9/11 story than deny global warming. I am assuming you all buy into the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense also right?

CLAIM: These scientists worked to suppress evidence and deleted emails.

TRUTH: Thousands of emails from over 13 years were stolen, and edited, and have been taken out of context for those with a political agenda

There hasn't been one claim by those scientists that their emails were edited. They've said that they were genuine.

The only conspiracy here is that which the GW cult has propagated.

ANY baseline is arbitrary. The satellite data baseline is 1979 to 1998, just 20 years. Since the planet is billions of years old, that's like picking 1 point and saying, "that's the correct one". Declaring any baseline as "normal" doesn't make sense.

I never said there isn't a warming trend, there is. We're still coming out of an ice age. But the 10 years since 1998, is down. That's not based on 2008 alone, that's based on the intervening 10 years. Just like the 35 years from the early 40's to the late 70's was down, even though evil humans were pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Global temps and CO2 concentrations are both at the low end of historic levels when you consider the geologic life of the planet. The planet warms and it cools. It's been doing it for billions of years. It didn't start with James Watt. More importantly, there's nothing people can do to stop it, no matter how many trillions of dollars are wasted trying.

Roy, I read the analysis you linked to. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you ignore the Vostok Ice Core data.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperature-and-co2-concentration-in-the-atmosphere-over-the-past-400-000-years

As the graph shows, when temperature rises (usually abruptly), CO2 rises. As temperature falls, CO2 falls though usually with a lag. In a few instances (for example the last 10,000 years) CO2 continued to rise even though temperature had stopped or even started to fall. This flies in the face of the theoretical discussion from Real Climate.

Also note, temperature never rose endlessly despite rising CO2. And none of the past warming periods were caused by human activity. But yet, they happened.

The only problem with the Real Climate theory is that the data doesn't support it.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

ANY baseline is arbitrary. The satellite data baseline is 1979 to 1998, just 20 years. Since the planet is billions of years old, that's like picking 1 point and saying, "that's the correct one". Declaring any baseline as "normal" doesn't make sense.

I never said there isn't a warming trend, there is. We're still coming out of an ice age. But the 10 years since 1998, is down. That's not based on 2008 alone, that's based on the intervening 10 years. Just like the 35 years from the early 40's to the late 70's was down, even though evil humans were pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Again, if you're trying to show an increase, even an arbitrary baseline makes sense. It's not important to know "how much" extra it is, just whether or not it's going up.

Where's the graph to show that other years in the last decade are not higher than a decade ago. The graph he linked certainly showed that.

How do you falsify receding glaciers and disintegrating ice sheets?

or atmospheric carbon?

Human causation is not a given, but the fact that there has been warming cannot be disputed.

Hey there folks. Question from a novice--what exactly is the science of global warming, or how quickly should it be taking place? It seems if all the carbon soaks in the heat of the sun, the earth would heat up pretty damn fast compared to pre industrial times. If it's happening, wouldn't it happen much faster? Just wondering. -1othie