Russian hackers expose global warming fraud

Good Vibes wrote:

That is a good point. There are lots of people making a lot of money on propped up, subsidized green companies at the expense of the common man who suffers from higher prices and a weaker economy. But these global warming zealots could care less about the common man's struggle to provide for his family.

Yeah, all those green companies making perhaps 0.1% of what the big oil, coal, natural gas, auto and electric power companies are making. No doubt their few billions easily trumps BIG FOSSIL'S TENS OF TRILLIONS.

Good thinking there, partner!

Just so we're clear on this, your view seems to be that one big tree in northern Siberia died around 1930 resulting in oceans warming, satellites detecting a reduction in outgoing radiation at specific frequencies known to be absorbed by CO2, and probably an ice-free Arctic summer in our lifetime. Further, anyone who doesn't buy into this dead tree theory is a cultist.

I think we can agree that between you and I at least one of us is indeed a whack job.

Citizen Runner wrote:

Just so we're clear on this, your view seems to be that one big tree in northern Siberia died around 1930 resulting in oceans warming, satellites detecting a reduction in outgoing radiation at specific frequencies known to be absorbed by CO2, and probably an ice-free Arctic summer in our lifetime. Further, anyone who doesn't buy into this dead tree theory is a cultist.

I think we can agree that between you and I at least one of us is indeed a whack job.

Just to be clear on this, we aren't debating whether the world is getting warmer. It obviously has been getting warmer for about two centuries. We aren't debating whether CO2 contributes to warming. It and all green house gases do.

My position is: *the extent of the positive forcing of CO2 that the very foundation of climate change is unproven.* Thus, your three points are irrelevant. the IPCC/Mann/Jones positive forcing model predicts a steady increase in temperature. That did not occur from 1940 to 1970. It has not occurred from 1997 to 2013. Mann et al attempted to hide the decline from 1940 to 1970.

At best, man-caused global warming is still unproven. At worst, it is a fraud.

Putting together the historical temperature of the world is complicated. You have many sources for temperature data, and almost none of them us the same method or have the same margin of error. You can't just lump them together without first equalizing there range and accuracy.

They used data records that were measured by mercury thermometers that were accurate to plus or minus 1 degree, sometimes 2 degrees. Sometimes alcohol thermometers, sometimes metric readings, sometimes ice core measurements, and yes, sometimes tree rings.

A particular kind of tree growing at high altitude gave skewed data because of a biologic abnormality. I don't remember the details, something about that tree rings are narrower in colder years, except this type of tree had fatter rings in colder years, or something.

The "trick" that the right wing extremists blew up about was a clever mathematical way of dealing with the skewed data from the tree ring record from a particular species of tree that didn't exhibit normal growth behavior.

The lobbyists that the petro-chemical industry pay to lie to the public made sure this non-story made headlines around the world.

How old are you? If you were born in April 1985, you have never lived in a month where the planet's temperature was colder than average.

We are on a streak of 335 consecutive months of warmer than average temperatures. Assuming no pattern and true randomness, whether a monthly temperature is higher or lower than average is a 50-50 proposition. Take a coin and try to flip heads 335 times in a row.

The planet is getting warmer. We can debate what is contributing to the cause, but it can't be denied. By reasonable people.

fisky wrote:

My position is: *the extent of the positive forcing of CO2 that the very foundation of climate change is unproven.* Thus, your three points are irrelevant. the IPCC/Mann/Jones positive forcing model predicts a steady increase in temperature. That did not occur from 1940 to 1970. It has not occurred from 1997 to 2013. Mann et al attempted to hide the decline from 1940 to 1970.

At best, man-caused global warming is still unproven. At worst, it is a fraud.

Can you name a major law that began removing tons of sulfate aerosols from the atmosphere that took effect somewhere in the neighborhood of 1970?

Can you deny that sulfate aerosols reflect sunlight and help lower global temperatures?

There are many factors at play, but I disagree with your thesis that "at best, man caused global warming is still unproven". More like, our knowledge of this phenomenon is incomplete.

Hockey stick my ass wrote:

"But the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so broad and deep that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument."

That is the opinion of a hack New York Times writer. There is no broad and deep consensus on this, in fact it is quite the opposite.

"Consensus" is being promoted by Al Gore, who is not a scientist, he is the fat star of a crockumentary Inconvenient Truth, which has been thoroughly debunked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warminghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.htmlhttp://www.petitionproject.org/

Shut up racist! Al Gore invented the internet!

#savemanbearpig

We should talk about CLIMATE CHANGE and not global WARMING. Just to all these people who write about "We had so much snow, coldest days ever". This happening is exactly in line with a changing climate with more extreme weather conditions!

Good example are hurricanes and storms which happen more frequently and are getting stronger as well.

Overall rising temperatures also can lead to colder weather in some regions, just read about it.

Guppy wrote:

Looks like I was a bit slow.

Most global warming apologists are.

52.43 wrote:

We should talk about CLIMATE CHANGE and not global WARMING. Just to all these people who write about "We had so much snow, coldest days ever". This happening is exactly in line with a changing climate with more extreme weather conditions!

Good example are hurricanes and storms which happen more frequently and are getting stronger as well.

Overall rising temperatures also can lead to colder weather in some regions, just read about it.

You just said an outright law. An outright law. You said hurricanes and storms happen more frequently and are getting stronger as well. That is wrong. Since 2000 there has only been 1 (Charley) hurricane to hit America as either a Cat 4 or Cat 5. People predicted after Katrina (Cat 3) that more and more major hurricanes would strike. But not one (4 or 5) has struck the US since Charley in 2004. So over the last 17 years or so (the same length of time the Earth has not warmed) we have had 1, I repeat 1, major hurricane strike the US. MOST of the worst hurricanes to hit the US were prior to 1970. So please don't make up stuff willy nilly when the facts don't support. They had to make up the "Superstorm" name for Sandy because it was not powerful enough to be labelled a hurricane.