Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Global Warming Officially a Fraud

Emails obtained by hacking a British University show a suppression and manipulation of data intended to hide the fact that the planet has not warmed in the last 15 years, but has in fact been cooling for the last nine.



"Even alarmist Tim Flannery, confronted on Lateline with the emails of the global warming conspiracy, concedes holes in the “science is settled” argument and admits to what he didn’t before:

We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate...We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend."




and...




"Lord Monckton says those implicated by the leaked emails are “crooks”:

The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up…

(P)rocurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers. "


and...


"The Australian goes in longer, and a fraction harder:

About 1000 emails and 3000 documents have been posted on websites and seized on by climate change sceptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence."

This is data from the Climate Research Unit.




More here:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andre...y_news_spreads/

Exaggeration and quotes out of context.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

bullcrud - gavin is trying to do damage control - unfortunately (for him) it's akin to trying to weld together the Titanic just after it hit the iceberg.

I think he's starting to give up though - the following quote was pulled from Fiend's link - and is one of the comments, in which gavin replied.




What are the other warmists saying? Ever heard of George Monbiot?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...mate-scientists


These are quotes taken out of context you say? Here's the whole bloody email where Jones told people to delete all emails related to the AR4 report - to get around a Freedom of Information Act request http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt
Care to explain how this could be taken out of context????




These guys have given science a black-eye. Applying "tricks" into order to "hide the decline". Ensuring certain papers don't get into AR4, "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !". Deciding that journals who publish papers that they don't agree with should no longer be considered a legitimate peer-reviewed journal, and that they should "encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal". Oh yeah, this sounds like the scientific method that I was taught!!

This is nothing more than scientific fraud, and should be treated as such.

And let's be clear - the people implicated in this just aren't a "few" rogue scientists. These are THE people who have been developed long term climate records (1000 AD - present day). The very records that have "proven" that the current temperatures are well beyond what the globe has experienced over the past 1000 years.

Tell me - what happens if it turns out current temperatures are not out of line with historic variability??
It's a rhetorical question - don't bother answering.

Unofficially melting glaciers..

Yup - and those glaciers have been melting for about 13,000 years. You know - the ones that once covered much of Canada in ice, whose thickness was measured in kilometers???

If they're melting, then we are observing global warming, not cooling. Tree stumps dated to 7000 years old are popping up where glaciers have retreated to historic minimum.

Yes, I agree........climate has some fairly significant variability. Glad we can agree on that. Forest's become glaciers, glacier's melt and become forests again.

Now - any response to climate researches deleting emails to circumvent a freedom of information act request?

....But really; an FOI request for the IPCC?
What FOI request started this? Who was it for, and what information was sought? Who filed the FOI?
===

Over 12 years of emails, and this is all the hackers/denialists can come up with? Where are the grand conspiracies, the leftist streams of funding, the marching orders from Al Gore?
Why haven't these guys stopped pretending to save civilization from itself, and fled to their Swiss chalets to finally enjoy their secret bank accounts.

Gee, I can't imagine why these guys would be defensively emailing about their "hockey stick;" it not as if they've been under a microscope for years now - and the overall resulting "hockey stick" is still as valid and robust.
Fortunately, there are other hockey sticks to look at -that are unrelated to the proxies used by Mann's study- and they tell the same story about anthropogenic influence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever
Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph
A new analysis creates a better look at rising temperatures:
"...but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts." -SciAm, Nov. 2009

samwise - you're conveniently forgetting that there is much more involved than deleting information related to a FOI request (which btw is an illegal act in the UK).

As far as this "new" approach - it has not yet been peer reviewed. It's only been submitted to a Journal. Perhaps you should wait until it's been reviewed. Preferably by people other than Jones, Mann, Briffa, et. al., who have pledged to "redefine what the peer-review literature is" if need be.

Since Mann was quoted saying the paper was "promising", it indicates he's already peripherally involved(perhaps as a secondary contributor, or a reviewer). I'm sorry - anything this crew touches is questionable. That's one of the penalties for committing scientific fraud.

The point isn't that the glaciers have been melting, but the rate at which they have been melting in recent years. I think you know this.

If Global Warming were indeed real, we should surely expect to see continued warming as CO2 emissions continue to rise. But we have not. In fact the scientific models singularly failed to predict that we would see a reduction in temperatures.

Why?

Because they have been fed erroneous data.



It is not the emails that damn the CRU (used by the IPCC).

Look at what one programmer said of his three year mission to unsuccessfully make sense of the CRU's data.


So far, most of the Climategate attention has been on the emails in the data dump of November 19 (see here, here, and here), but the emails are only about 5 percent of the total. What does examining the other 95 percent tell us?

Here’s the short answer: it tells us that something went very wrong in the data management at the Climatic Research Unit.

We start with a file called “HARRY_READ_ME.txt.” This is a file containing notes of someone’s three-year effort to try to turn a pile of existing code and data into something useful. Who is Harry, you ask? Clearly, a skilled programmer with some expertise in data reduction, statistics, and climate science. Beyond that I won’t go. I’ve seen sites attributing this file to an identifiable person, but I don’t have any corroboration, and frankly the person who wrote these years of notes has suffered enough.

The story the file tells is of a programmer who started off with a collection of code and data — and the need to be able to replicate some results. The first entry:

1. Two main filesystems relevant to the work:

/cru/dpe1a/f014

/cru/tyn1/f014

Both systems copied in their entirety to /cru/cruts/

Nearly 11,000 files! And about a dozen assorted “read me” files addressing individual issues, the most useful being:

fromdpe1a/data/stnmon/doc/oldmethod/f90_READ_ME.txt

fromdpe1a/code/linux/cruts/_READ_ME.txt

fromdpe1a/code/idl/pro/README_GRIDDING.txt

(yes, they all have different name formats, and yes, one does begin ‘_’!)

Believe it or not, this tells us quite a bit. “Harry” is starting off with two large collections of data on a UNIX or UNIX-like system (forward slashes, the word “filesystem”) and only knows very generally what the data might be. He has copied it from where it was to a new location and started to work on it. Almost immediately, he notices a problem:

6. Temporarily abandoned 5., getting closer but there’s always another problem to be evaded. Instead, will try using rawtogrim.f90 to convert straight to GRIM. This will include non-land cells but for comparison purposes that shouldn’t be a big problem … [edit] noo, that’s not gonna work either, it asks for a “template grim filepath,” no idea what it wants (as usual) and a serach for files with “grim” or “template” in them does not bear useful fruit. As per usual. Giving up on this approach altogether.

Things aren’t going well. Harry is trying to reconstruct results that someone else obtained, using their files but without their help.

8. Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy — naming two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!! Re-ran anomdtb:

Okay, this isn’t so unusual, actually, but unless you document and describe your file structure, it’s pretty much opaque to a new reader. Still, Harry presses on:

11. Decided to concentrate on Norwich. Tim M uses Norwich as the example on the website, so we know it’s at (363,286). Wrote a prog to extract the relevant 1961-1970 series from the published output, the generated .glo files, and the published climatology. Prog is norwichtest.for. Prog also creates anomalies from the published data, and raw data from the generated .glo data. Then Matlab prog plotnorwich.m plots the data to allow comparisons. First result: works perfectly, except that the .glo data is all zeros. This means I still don’t understand the structure of the .glo files. Argh!

Poor Harry is in the first circle of programmer hell: the program runs fine; the output is wrong.

He presses on:

17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered that a sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative! Key output from the debug statements:

some test output…

forrtl: error (75): floating point exception

IOT trap (core dumped)

..so the data value is unbfeasibly large, but why does the sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!

This is not good — the existing program produces a serious error when it’s run on what is supposed to be the old, working data. Harry presses on, finding a solution to that bug, going through many more issues as he tried to recreate the results of these runs for the data from 1901 to 1995. Finally he gives up. He has spoken to someone about what should be done:

AGREED APPROACH for cloud (5 Oct 06).

For 1901 to 1995 – stay with published data. No clear way to replicate process as undocumented.

For 1996 to 2002:

1. convert sun database to pseudo-cloud using the f77 programs;

2. anomalise wrt 96-00 with anomdtb.f;

3. grid using quick_interp_tdm.pro (which will use 6190 norms);

4. calculate (mean9600 – mean6190) for monthly grids, using the published cru_ts_2.0 cloud data;

5. add to gridded data from step 3.

This should approximate the correction needed.

Catch that? They couldn’t recreate the results, so they’re going back to their published data for the first 95 years of the 20th century. Only …

Next problem — which database to use? The one with the normals included is not appropriate (the conversion progs do not look for that line so obviously are not intended to be used on +norm databases).

They still don’t know what to use for the next several years. Harry gives up; it’s easier to write new codes.

22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim’s labyrinthine software suites – let’s have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

This kind of thing is as fascinating as a soap opera, but I want to know how it comes out. Near the bottom of the file, I find:

I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can’t get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections – to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.

The file peters out, no conclusions. I hope they find this poor guy, and he didn’t hang himself in his rooms or something, because this file is a summary of three years of trying to get this data working. Unsuccessfully.

I think there’s a good reason the CRU didn’t want to give their data to people trying to replicate their work.

It’s in such a mess that they can’t replicate their own results.

This is not, sadly, all that unusual. Simply put, scientists aren’t software engineers. They don’t keep their code in nice packages and they tend to use whatever language they’re comfortable with. Even if they were taught to keep good research notes in the past, it’s not unusual for things to get sloppy later. But put this in the context of what else we know from the CRU data dump:

1. They didn’t want to release their data or code, and they particularly weren’t interested in releasing any intermediate steps that would help someone else

2. They clearly have some history of massaging the data — hell, practically water-boarding the data — to get it to fit their other results. Results they can no longer even replicate on their own systems.

3. They had successfully managed to restrict peer review to what we might call the “RealClimate clique” — the small group of true believers they knew could be trusted to say the right things.

As a result, it looks like they found themselves trapped. They had the big research organizations, the big grants — and when they found themselves challenged, they discovered they’d built their conclusions on fine beach sand.

But the tide was coming in.



From here:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-computer-codes-are-the-real-story/2/

The data is such a mess and appears to be made up. No wonder they never released it. Shame.

Obama is just about to tax America through the nose to 'save the planet'. We are all going to be taxed because of this horrendous fraud whatever country we live in.


Thanks to the crooked scientists involved, when this finally hits the public consciousness, trust in science will be dealt a crippling blow.

"If Global Warming were indeed real, we should surely expect to see continued warming as CO2 emissions continue to rise."

That's the comic book version of it. GW theory has never predicted that temperatures are expected to rise every year; rather it's an inter-decadal trend.

GW theory has not successfully predicted anything as yet. The Climate change models have not successfully predicted anything yet. In fact they have been demonstrably incorrect.

The issue here is that one of the providers of the data that GW theory rests upon has been found out to be incompetent and dishonest and as some of the emails show, politically driven.

If this does not bring climate change science into a state of suspicion then I don't know what will.

There has been clear suppression of science that has dared to disagree with the received wisdom. Science as faith.

The fact that the planet has not been warming over the last 15 years, but has been cooling RAPIDLY over the last nine has been suppressed. That is criminal.

As for the comic book theory - if CO2 is responsible for warming, why would you expect to see such cooling whilst greenhouse gases are still rising? Surely there is either a connection with CO2 or there isn't. Why does the global temperature move in the opposite direction when GGs are intensifying in the atmosphere?

"if CO2 is responsible for warming, why would you expect to see such cooling whilst greenhouse gases are still rising? "

1. Nobody claims that CO2 is the only thing driving climate change.

2. The trend is over the long term, not over periods of less than 10 years.

3. This is because "correlated" does not mean "is directly proportional to."

One small correction - it's whether the rate at which they are melting is greater than the rate at which they've melted previously. And since we have no idea on the actual rate of melt prior to the 1900's or so - we have no idea if the recent melt rate is out of line.


But enough of this - I'd like you to explain how this following email could be taken "out of context" as you suggested. After all, these emails are what the OP first posted on.

It's unclear. They're deleting emails related to AR4. No idea what the contents might have been. Was that in any of he other emails?

More bad science...

'The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend.... But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result.'

There seems to be a pattern appearing.

TFF,

You may not have an issue with 15 years of non-warming but certainly one climatologist (who I assume is more qualified to comment) sees real problems with it. From one of the leaked emails...


'Another shows a climatologist from the U.S. admitting it was a travesty that the lack of global warming in recent years could not be explained.'

Ha! I wonder if they were speculating on some AR4 adjustment, and then realized they were "barking up the wrong tree." That would be cause enough to delete emails; not wanting to be reminded about their baseless or laughable speculations.

Probably though, the referenced emails were just some very disparaging (of obscene) comments about "CA" and McIntyre personally; as he was requesting lots of information related to AR4.

Was anything ever deleted? Wouldn't deleted emails still be on the server?

Wow Soc'07, now it's 15 years of cooling!?
===




Are they accounting for all the unexpected melting of ice during this same period?
~

p.s. I don't know if the quoted website has valid information, but even this denialist site doesn't talk about 15 years of "non-warming."

Satellite data doesn't say, temperature of oceans increases in undiminished rate - and thermal capacity of oceans is 5.000 x higher..

Did you look at the subject line? "IPCC&FOI"
They are deleting emails with regard to the IPCC AR4 report, in order to keep things from being released by a FOI.

Not only is this unethical, it's actually illegal in the UK


And yes - emails have been deleted. From another one of Jones' leaked emails


http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=940&filename=1228330629.txt

Looks like the knives are coming out for Jones and Mann - and not by "skeptics"
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/



this is a particular important section of his statement

Now this is one climate scientist I have respect for. Unfortunately this statement and article probably just cost him his funding, or any future papers ever being published.

"Now this is one climate scientist I have respect for. Unfortunately this statement and article probably just cost him his funding, or any future papers ever being published."

Speculative - and not likely given recent events.

Can I ask what events you speak off? Surely it's not the recent release of emails - after all, you've called them "exaggerations and quotes taken out of context". Or are you changing your tune?

Changing my tune? The emails seem to be serious. I never indicated they weren't. The exaggerations refers to the claims about this being the death knell for AGW. Most of the quotes are out of context.

I feel certain that if there was something sinister about the context in those snippets that they are circulating around the internet, then the denialists would include enough text to prove it. As it is they only put up equivocal phrases, such as where somebody has "deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all" of something.
If it were data, I'm sure we'd hear about it; even if it were data from some corrupted file, or outdated file, or....
Have you ever tried to send data to somebody with a different email browser. It can take several tries before you find the right trick to get a readable file.

If the context wasn't harmless, I'm sure they would have included it, but we can only speculate on what they deleted.
My guess would be somebody deleted emails ranting about what a pain in their aspirations that McIntyre guy is, but that guess is just based on some of the more complete emails I've seen.

*sigh* -- you want more emails?


http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt
For the less educated - this "hide the decline" is speaking to tree ring proxies giving a decline in temperatures - during a period in which we know global temperatures increase. Obviously this begs the question on how accurate the tree ring proxies are.
Questions that Jones and Mann didn't want. Therefore they applied a "trick" to "hide the decline".

Let me know if you want to read another email about them keeping certain peer-reviewed articles out of the IPCC process, or another one of them conspiring to destroy a entire journal because it accepted articles which they didn't want published.

How global warming skeptics are falsifying data...

Yup - people manipulate data, cherry-pick certain periods, just to show what they want to. Doesn't matter which "side" they're on - it's all poor science.

Dr Peiser, Mike Mann and Phil Jones - are all cut of the same cloth. They give science a bad name



How is this related to Mann and Jones, and their attempts to disregard freedom of information requests, change the definition of peer reviewed articles, or manipulate data(of which trillion dollar policy decisions are being made)?

Just trying to keep this on topic

Yeah, well, hmmm, what else could it be?!

And where have we heard this whole "exaggeration and quotes out of context" argument used equally [in]effectively before?

You're a hoot.

Don't pollute.

C'mon, let's see some more of that ol' boot, scoot, n boogie.

Canuck & Socrates

You are on track, the right track, on this thing. Don't mind much about TFF.

Aside from being fallible, and pretty long on that, he's long on bark and short on science, and been that way for years on this and assorted other topics.

Sock puppets are seldom correct, informative, or even amusing.

As is typical, denialists are stoking people's sense of righteous indignation so they jump to conclusions before they even understand what's going on. This is because like every other kind of denialism, their rejection is not based on science, but on collecting zingers against the guys actually doing research.

It could be there's something serious here. We won't know till we take the time to follow through. Here's a pretty reasoned response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

Currently it's just a bunch of numbskulls repeating the same crap over and over on every forum they can find.

The Globe and Mail is about as mainstream as you can get in Canada.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/worl...article1389842/

To those that said they were first "exaggerations and quotes out of context", the IPCC has started an inquiry, specifically with regard to the hockey stick results, and the practices of Mann and Jones distorting the peer review process. The University of East Anglia has also done the same, looking at whether Freedom of Information Act obligations have been broken. They also ordered the head of the CRU (Jones) to step down on Wednesday.

Climate scientists (pro-AGW) are saying this has set the science back 20 years. Monbiot has stated that all scientific work Mann and Jones has done is tarnished, and shouldn't be relied on.


This story has legs a mile long. Apparently the only people who think the statements in these emails were "taken out of context" are the sheeple who were at the end of the line when critical thinking skills were being handed out. The IPCC, the CRU, and even individual climate scientists know how bad this is.

TFF

Rush , beck , and their types are there only for the attention they can get out of whatever they can find that attracts people who are gullible enought to think the way they want you to think that they think about issues.

and their reason is solely for the money making aspects of the followers of their type of thinking.

they rant and they rave constantly about things they know nothing about.

anybody that does not believe that global warming is real is uninformed to say the least.

they are blind and those who lead them are also blind and lost , they choose to think using other peoples purchased thoughts and not using their eyes to see the reality and the overwelming climatic changes that are approaching their own doorsteps.

where is their version of the IPCC and who funds their version?

and some tracks lead to nothing , if your destination is to a world that cannot support human life because we cant live on magma , then I suppose he is on the right track.

I gave my explanation of why the earth is cooling here on this forum , it is because the ice is melting causing the earth to cool through depressurization.

thats the way it is , choose to believe it or not.

Legs a mile long? Here's one leg that gets knocked out from under your wildest dream.

http://cop15post.com/2009/12/08/news/opening-address-rounds-on-climate-sceptics/



I'm sure that CRU and even individual climate scientists also know how lame this all is, and these legs are.

~

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but in the U.S. there is a group of people who feel "with every fiber of their being" that that governments should be weak and should not be able to "tell private citizens what to do."

Anyone should be able to do anything he wants to do so long as he doesn't punch someone else in the nose, so to speak. That is their starting position and their end position.

This conviction drives everything they think they know about science and how it works - first they make their political decision and then they go about trying to justify their belief with science - elevating any bit of "information" they hear that supports their view and rejecting outright whatever disagrees. Simultaneously, they assert that the actual scientists are just trying to justify governments controlling the world.

One of my friends pointed me to an article by Gary Sutton in Forbes yesterday. The gist of the article was that scientists USED TO be absolutely certain that we were going to get global cooling. However, this is a red herring:
http://www.youtube.com/potholer54#p/search/0/EU_AtHkB4Ms

In any case, the Sutton article was otherwise seriously flawed:
Mr. Sutton quoted the NSB in two ways that made it appear that they said something they didn't say:
1) He made it appear that NSB were very certain of their results when they weren't; and
2) He left out the crucial point in the very next sentence indicating human interference could alter the observed pattern.

Here's the original quote you can't find in the article.
"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."

And here's the part he left out (very next sentence):
"However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."

I also tried to check on the quote he used from Science about predicting "a full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," but there is no issue for March 1, 1975. I tried searching "full-blown" and "ice age" on ebsco-host for the entire month @ Science, but no luck. I'm now browsing JSTOR which is tedious, but would be easier if Mr. Sutton had provided a citation instead of a vague (and incorrect) reference. My best guess is that he has mangled whatever was in the article. (In fact, he refers to Science, but was it in a letter to the editor, an editorial, an actual article? We don't know and Mr Sutton doesn't care or appear to know the difference.)
Already this article is being cited frequently around the net - these guys get hold of this tripe and unthinkingly spread it around.

Of course, he ends with the obligatory "Carthagia delenda est" talking about how the recent climate-gate scandal shows the whole thing is a hoax. No surprise that a denialist with such a sterling record in the rest of his article would be poking the equine - with a wet noodle.

As with other kinds of denialists, these particular denialists don't actually care what the facts are. They don't want people to stop and think. They want action - as quickly and as unthinkingly as is humanly possible.

This sums up the idiocy of the "climate change is a hoax" argument nicely.

What if all the things the East Anglia scientists are accused of is true? What if the worst interpretation of every single email is correct? What if they are guilty of every sin they are accused of? What if all their research is invalidated because they can't be trusted? What does the rest of the available data tell us?

Why just some East Anglia scientists should be responsible for it? Why not NASA scientists, for example?
Or whether glaciers started to grow or something?
What if the best interpretation of every single email is correct?

I think we should solve this debate once and for all , nip it in the bud.

get two identical stadium sized teraniums.
get 100 people who believe in global warming.
get 100 people who dont.

allow them to choose the power systems they want to use to power their teranium.

they can grow gardens or they can choose canned foods or both.
they can grow trees or they can use scrubbers or both.

the only thing they cant choose is the type of power system.
gas , natural gas , oil burning boilers , etc for those that dont believe global warming is real.

and

solar , geothermal , alternate , etc for those that do believe that global warming is real.

1 mature tree can supply the oxygen for 10 people , so they each get only 10 mature trees.

those who use gas , oil , natural gas , etc
must find ways to deal with the carbon monoxide and ways to scrub the excess co2 generated from their choice of power supplies.

each teranium must maintain a minimum of 100 kw power output from their power generating systems.

to account for 1 kw for each persons daily energy usage.

no one can enter or exit the teraniums for any purpose for 1 year.

emergency oxygen supplies can be taken in for the purpose of
emergencies , medical , etc.

the skin of each teranium wouild be clear to allow the sun light in.


this would not cost no more than apx 200 million and that would supply wages for the participants of apx 50,000 each for the year.

the answers to many of our questions could be found out through this experiment , and ways to deal with the problems encountered could be found.

I think it would be a usefull expenditure of government funds , much better than wasting the money allready being spent on junk science.

I would imagine that finding the 100 believers would not be a problem at all.

but finding 100 non believers would be extremely hard.

it would be a put up or shut up scenario that they know would defeat their cause.

but wouldnt it be nice to watch all the oil company executives
volunteering for the experiment. LOL

I don't know what I did to make the repeated post.

That's very good Paul. I don't think if people thought their lives were at stake they'd be so philosophical and argumentative about climate change. As long as it's other people's lives, it's all right.

Somehow, I think those who know what a "terrarium" is will be the ones to live. "teraniums" get millions of degrees down there.

How global warming skeptics are faking data.

Another popular cheat is to present derivation instead of real trend ..

Science denialism works differently. Creationists are unmoved by the wealth of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence for evolution. Global-warming denialists are unimpressed by mountains of climate data. Denialists ignore overwhelming evidence, focusing instead on a few hoaxes, such as Piltdown Man, or a few stolen e-mails. For denialists, opinion polls and talk radio are more important than thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. ... If denialists had evidence disproving global warming or evolution, they could submit it to scientific conferences and journals, inviting analysis by scientists. But, knowing their arguments don't hold water, they spread misinformation in arenas not subject to expert scrutiny: mass-market books, newspapers, talk radio, and blogs.

Recently another "evidence" suported by "trends of trends" has given. It seams, the presentation of temperature differences and anomalies instead of real trends is favorite cheat of GW skeptics...

Zephir, your faith in the scientific community is touching.

Peer review is a crock when it comes to Climate Change. Many scientist have been unable to get their work peer reviewed, because the peer review process is dominated by like minded individuals who think that it is a crime to entertain doubts. This is why they use the pejorative term 'Deniers' - so we can associate them with Holocaust Deniers.

It is a variation on Godwin's law.

I see we have posted graphs above showing the DENIER'S dirty cover up of Global Warming.

Go here to see the IPCC's dirty cover up of the Middle Ages warming period:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

There is nothing extraordinary about what we are experiencing. Oh sorry, the extraordinary thing we are experiencing is being rinced of our tax dollars by the scientific gravy train. At least people in the Middle Ages didn't have that problem.



And as for the joke at the top. What an ignorant, simplistic view of the issues. Fit only for a cartoon.

The world faces many problems and we need to attack the real ones. Money for developing countries is being diverted to bogus carbon projects as we debate this issue.

There is certainly a reason to do away with AGW theory if it is incorrect.

Glad you made the analogy, Z (AGW & Evolution).

Actually, the same tactics as were highlighted in those "few hacked emails" are employed by the evolutionary camp -- subjectively fudging data, preventing other scientists from publishing in "peer-reviewed Journals," which are in turn reviewed only by "peers" that buy into the reigning paradigm, including only selected data points/sets that will help the cause in their published work, ignoring/discarding/sweeping under the rug data that may even remotely conflict with the desired result(s).

And it goes on and on.

But you are entirely welcome to continue deluding yourself, just wish you would do less with regard to infecting others with your delusions.

Thanks Zephir,
All good points.

The over-reaching proclamations of a few contrarians seem fairly lame when stood up against the continuing "official statements" released by all the scientific and social organizations around the globe, supporting the notion that climate change is a problem --and worth fixing-- regardless of those tangentially diversionary emails.

Just try googling: "scientific misconduct" pharmacology
...or "scientific misconduct" economics, or "scientific misconduct" anthropology, or "scientific misconduct" physics, or "scientific misconduct" examples, or....
...to see what science can be like, under any microscope....
...but do these denialists say that all of medicine or technology must therefore be a hoax?

It's hard to find it even worth countering the lame claims,
but....

I liked Socrates2007's point about:
"The world faces many problems and we need to attack the real ones. Money for developing countries is being diverted to bogus carbon projects as we debate this issue." -Soc'07

So, "bogus" or not, the carbon projects should provide education, health, security, equity, and sustainable development for the participants.
What's the problem?
===

Socrates'07,

What about the: MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS....
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/global.shtml
Are these real enough problems for us, or are you thinking 'not enough SUV's to choose from' as our main problem?

1. Global Partnership
2. End Poverty and Hunger
3. Universal Education
4. Gender Equality
5. Child Health
6. Maternal Health
7. Combat HIV/AIDS
8. Environmental Sustainability

Doesn't it seem as if the first seven goals would be met by just solving the eighth goal; a large part of which is related to restoring water quality and mitigating climate change (via goal #1) by "universally" educating everyone about the choices for healthy and valuable (poverty-fighting), soil-restoring, carbon-sequestering, water-cleansing, life-preserving, biodiversity-enhancing, pursuits... and lifestyles.

It would sure be a lot cheaper than trying to tackle each goal separately.

~

I'm going to build a wind power system this summer , I have thought about the type of wind turbine I would like to build.
the large wind turbines seem to have avoided the use of wind , mostly evident by the narrow blades and the number of blades -> 3
as pictured below.
also if you will notice the blades are tapered so that they get narrower and narrower as they get further out along the radius where the torque available to the shaft would be greatest.
what a waste of energy.


the older wind mill blades seemed to focus on the power of the wind a lot more as the blades would capture more of the wind energy.



it seems as if the new wind power has focused on ineffiecient use of the wind , and if you will notice the old wind mills have a shaft that leads to ground level where the work is performed.

and not atop the tower.

the older wind mill has 18 blades the newer wind turbine has 3.

the older wind mill has wide blades where the newer wind turbines have narrow blades.

from the pictured old windmill the working surface of the area where the wind would perform work on the blades is 100 %

and the newer wind turbine appears to have a working surface of only 5%

I'm not sure why they build such inefficient wind turbines
unless they are getting government grants and this was a stipulation in the grants.

to not compete with oil.



the older wind mills were picturesque and normaly you didnt see but one on a farm or ranch.

perhaps the intention of using the 3 blade designs was to litter the land with wind turbines so that their appeal was lessened , or to make people think that they would need 50 in their yard to use wind power as pictured below.



anyway which design would you think would be better for both energy and appearances?

In fact, the concentration of egocentric asocials is much higher in scientific society due the positive correlation of Asperger's syndrome or bipolar disorder and intelligence. Whether does the Sheldon character from "Big Bang Theory" sitcom appear so improbable for you? It's in fact the stereotype of highly intelligent scientist!

For further reading: Philip Tetlock Any individual expert is likely to be wrong. This is because just the experts are trained to occupy specialized, i.e. biased view of reality. Even Albert Einstein, the relativist never accepted the concept of quantum mechanics. He spent whole rest of his life by finding of errors in quantum mechanics.

We can say, individual scientists are always wrong, because they're trained for it. You can believe me, because I'm an expert to asocial traits of science..;-)

It is not scientists being wrong that bothers me. It is when they suppress the truth.

The climategate emails uncovered the dishonest means by which they tried to expunge the medieval warming period from the records.

It is a disgraceful abuse of their position.

It was warmer than it is now and yet there was no industry. You can understand why they felt the need to deny it. It is very embarrassing.

Just like the fact that Greenland used to be farmed and the Romans used to grow grapes in England.

Maybe climate scientists are just historical illiterates.

What we are seeing is just the natural temperature cycle of the planet. But people here have commented that it doesn't matter if it isn't true because it will force the planet to deal ecological issues. I always thought science was the search for the truth. Maybe that was in a better age.

This is what scientists are doing all the time. The people, who fighted against Galileo weren't alliterated trolls, they were most educated specialists of their era: Tycho de Brahe, Orazio Grassi or Christoph Scheiner were all active astronomers with many own findings. Contemporary scientists are just continuing in their traditions.

You may be interested to read that one of the first inquiries into Climategate has cleared the science, even if it says that the researchers may have broken the law trying to avoid having to share the data:

Climategate researcher's science cleared, data sharing questioned

And another inquiry also cleared the science last week, but this time advocated that the researchers bring in scientists from other disciplines, such as statistics. It was headed up by a former chairman of Shell, and I would be surprised if he were biased towards hyping up climate change. It's mentioned about halfway down this article:

Hot water awaits?

and the actual report is here:

UEA Report

An example of a lie by wikipedia.org is the leaving out of the inconvenient part of this graph



from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

where the hockey stick part of the graph, near the present age, is missing.

This is roughly what it should look like;



-----------------------------


Above is an animation of continental "drift" due to the collision written about at: http://preearth.net/

Where did you get your extra data? From the Vostok cores? Are you saying that 'hockey stick' shows the CO2 increased 1000 years ago, so is therefore not caused by burning fossil fuels?

Clearly you can't represent the most recent 100 years on that graph because the line would be much narrower than a pixel.

I think the above chart in the previous years to the oil age shows increasing CO2 due to increasing life forms and decreasing volcanic activity.

temperatures increase due to the increase in CO2.

the dust is the result of volcanic activity
that follows methane releases
that are the result of lowered sea levels - normaly
because of the decreased temperatures
due to the lowered amount of life forms.
due to the decreased temperatures.
due to increased volcanic activity.
due to methane releases.


following every decrease in dust
there is a increase in CO2
followed by a increase in temperature.

as in today it looks as if methane releases stopped the last ice age apx 10,000 - 20,000 years ago
according to the chart.

we are currently warding off a new ice age , using pollution.

but we are not maintaining it properly.

we are causing too much extra CO2 by burning fossil fuels which is melting the ice caps.

this melting in turn is slowing the earths rotation gradually , because the melted water moves
outward from the center of rotation.

this slowing is heating the earth more from within gradually , because the earths core spins
faster than the rest of the earth.

this extra heat will cause more volcanic action and life will decline.

the volcanic action will bring on the next ice age causing life to decline greatly , because of the decreased temperatures.

then after a hunderd thousand years or so , the sea levels will be just right and the pressures will be just right and there will be a worldwide massive methane release again and the ice age will stop.

life will once again begin to thrive.

and they will most likely make the same fatal mistakes we have.

but people live through ice ages as they have in the past.

their bones and bodies change with the changing environment.

such as this man , 30,000 years ago


cro magnun man
who was alive close to the begining of the end of the last ice age.

or this man apx 50,000 years ago.


Homo sapiens neanderthalensis , also living durring the last ice age.

or this man ,Homo sapiens (archaic)



who lived 250,000-500,000 years ago.

or this man , Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster)



living 1.7 million years ago.

and this child , Taung Child


who lived apx 2-3 million years ago.

this child was found in a cave as are many fossils
which is most likely where people lived durring ice ages.

and durring ice ages , most of the surface of the earth is
swept into the sea by glaciers , or by the torrential rains following the methane releases.

wipping their slate clean.

and is most likely why we never find fossils with larger brain cavities.

our bones and bodies learn to adapt , but our minds are affected by the changes in temperatures and we loose information.

A modern childs skull



lived just before the next ice age.

notice the large brain cavity in the modern child skull.

large brain cavities denote warmer climates and smaller brain cavities denote colder climates.

That's an interesting new spin on it. Can you quantify it?




I think we're far better equipped to survive an ice age than ever before. We're no longer hunter-gatherers who'll die off as soon as the trees stop making fruit. We're even moving beyond traditional farming where we'd die off as soon as our crops stop growing. All we need is energy and building materials. Then we can provide ourselves with loads of food, warmth, etc. And because it'll happen gradually, we'll have time to adjust our industry for the new requirements.

What we can do about it:
i. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle Less production and
consumption will reduce air pollution.
ii. Reduce or eliminate the use of products made with
or which contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's)
iii. Maintain and dispose of your air conditioners and
refrigerators properly
iv. Reduce your vehicle pollution
v. Use clean fuels such as CNG (compressed natural
gas), LPG (liquid propane gas), reformulated, or
"clean" gasoline, which is becoming more widely
available, if it is an option.
vi. Reduce consumption of electricity which is
produced in a non-environmentally safe manner.
vii. Consume less pesticide-dependant foods.
viii. Use propane or natural gas grills, if possible, as
they pollute less than charcoal with lighter fluid.
ix. Use low or no VOC (volatile organic compound)
products. instead use water based paints, glues
etc.
x. Landscape with native plants
xi. Compost your household, kitchen and yard wastes.
_________________________

"It is not scientists being wrong that bothers me. It is when they suppress the truth"

This is what scientist are doing all the time to discover more to know the truth.