Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row

Heretic, the data you posted has a lot of maybe's in it. It is flawed science.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

You (and "others") base AWG on the fact that global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century. What you won't even consider is that 80% of that data was obtained from someone staring out a window and jotting down the temperature from a mercury thermometer. This occurred all over the world.

What exactly is the:
1. Human Error factor
2. Error factor concerning primitive instruments

So many questions.
And Al Gore, the inventor of the Internet, has all the answers. Is he a Democrat or a Republican, I forget.

Human error wouldn't give us physical signs of warming.

Try harder. Try again.

Tiger1 wrote:

Heretic, the data you posted has a lot of maybe's in it. It is flawed science.

Coming from someone who doubts evolution, too.

Scathing.

Heretic wrote:

Human error wouldn't give us physical signs of warming.

But Climatic Cycles would.

National Climatic Cycles...

Quote :

Rise of the Natural Climate Cycle Deniers
July 29th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Those who promote the theory that mankind is responsible for global warming have been working for the past 20 years on a revisionist climate history. A history where climate was always in a harmonious state of balance until mankind came along and upset that balance.

The natural climate cycle deniers have tried their best to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from climate data records by constructing the uncritically acclaimed and infamous “hockey stick” of global temperature variations (or non-variations) over the last one- to two-thousand years.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/rise-of-the-natural-climate-cycle-deniers/

Heretic wrote:

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

You (and "others") base AWG on the fact that global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century. What you won't even consider is that 80% of that data was obtained from someone staring out a window and jotting down the temperature from a mercury thermometer. This occurred all over the world.

What exactly is the:
1. Human Error factor
2. Error factor concerning primitive instruments

So many questions.
And Al Gore, the inventor of the Internet, has all the answers. Is he a Democrat or a Republican, I forget.

Human error wouldn't give us physical signs of warming.

Try harder. Try again.

Did you read the comments that have been posted after the article you cite and look at the references contained therein ? Seems there is hardly the consensus among scientists that has been suggested during this discussion.

Robin Banks wrote:

Heretic wrote:

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

You (and "others") base AWG on the fact that global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century. What you won't even consider is that 80% of that data was obtained from someone staring out a window and jotting down the temperature from a mercury thermometer. This occurred all over the world.

What exactly is the:
1. Human Error factor
2. Error factor concerning primitive instruments

So many questions.
And Al Gore, the inventor of the Internet, has all the answers. Is he a Democrat or a Republican, I forget.

Human error wouldn't give us physical signs of warming.

Try harder. Try again.

Did you read the comments that have been posted after the article you cite and look at the references contained therein ? Seems there is hardly the consensus among scientists that has been suggested during this discussion.

Which article are you referring to, Robin?

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Human error wouldn't give us physical signs of warming.

But Climatic Cycles would.

So first you argue there's no warming because scientists can't read thermometers, now you say the readings are fine and the recorded warming is natural?

Just going the rolodex of bullsh!t skeptic arguments, are we?

And Roy Spencer, the Heartland Institute's residence hack and creationist. Yuppers. That there's an honest scientist who doesn't let ideology influence his understanding of science. I love it when he argues that environmentalism is a religion (just like Darwinism!)

His ramblings are just a who's who of contrarian arguments too("it is happening but its natural", "hockey stick's been discredited", "it's not happening, it's just urban heat island effect", "models are wrong", "its a conspiracy for da monies"), though he conveniently fails to identify what the "natural" forcing actually is, instead just assuring us that It Is So. And the "it's natural" argument always fails since it consistently omits one important factor: none of them explain how or why an increase in greenhouse gases would not affecting the global climate right now, in contradiction to physics of our atmosphere.

Good try, Mr. Minor in Astronomy. Points for effort. Zero for substance.

Robin Banks wrote:

Did you read the comments that have been posted after the article you cite and look at the references contained therein ? Seems there is hardly the consensus among scientists that has been suggested during this discussion.

Yes, but you have to understand what the consensus is first. For that I suggest reading this, this or watching this:



Consensus doesn't mean unanimous. It never will because we simply cannot convince everyone. We still have people and organizations doubting evolution, heliocentrism, hell... the spherical earth. But the mere existence of skepticism doesn't make their arguments valid. And you'll be setting your standards pretty low if your using comments on a blog as your benchmark. The better place to look for valid skepticism would be in the peer reviewed literature where scientists actually have to have evidence for their theories before publishing. And like BWG mistakenly quoted on the first page, it isn't there.

But if you found any of the links particularly convincing in the comments of my article, I'd be more than happy to discuss them.

Heretic wrote:

Good try, Mr. Minor in Astronomy. Points for effort. Zero for substance.

The sky is BLACK. Agree?

Scorpion wrote:

Which article are you referring to, Robin?

This one.

Heretic wrote:

Good try, Mr. Minor in Astronomy. Points for effort. Zero for substance.

So, anyone who does not totally agree with YOUR theories is wrong! How narrow minded are you? That's a question, Mr. Science.
Ever consider starting your own country?

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

The sky is BLACK. Agree?

You've gone looney. :hehehe:

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

So, anyone who does not totally agree with YOUR theories is wrong! How narrow minded are you? That's a question, Mr. Science.
Ever consider starting your own country?

Creationists use that argument a lot in my discussions when they've run out of ideas; Maxx, too, in some of our more heated exchanges on his nonsense about 9/11. It's a particularly childish argument that really doesn't make any sense at all. Obviously none of them are my theories; I can't claim authorship for any of them: evolution, germ theory, plate tectonics, 9/11 wasn't an inside job, etc. Their validity isn't determined by agreement with me. That's just plain silly. The validity of a theory is determined by the evidence for it. And I know it's hard for you to hear (find a support group), but the scientific consensus on AGW is as sound as it is on evolution, atomic theory, germ theory, plate tectonics, 9/11, etc. Contrarians don't even have a well constructed counter theory. It's just a scattershot of nonsense thrown at the wall to see what sticks. You clearly demonstrated that on the previous page when you went from "it's not happening; scientist can't read thermometers" to "it is happening, it's just natural" in just a few posts. And none of poorly constructed arguments explain the breakdown in particle physics necessary for an increase in greenhouse gasses to not have an effect on global temperatures.

Robin Banks wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Which article are you referring to, Robin?

This one.

Yeah, well it looks like you're equating the scientific community with the commenters on a blog.

BTW - If you follow the links on that site, you'll see that they lead to articles and posts that debunk the deniers' arguments. There is nothing new here. These are the same lame arguments that the climate change deniers have been making for years.

Here's the bottom line, and the main reason that I consider this entire debate to be pointless. There is simply no doubt that there is a consensus among the scientists of the world regarding the impact of man on climate change. Even the US Military is preparing for the day when global water and food shortages begin in the not too distant future. Massive migrations of the earth's population are expected, and that will likely mean global conflict.

We no longer have the luxury of wasting time on those who refuse to accept the truth. IMHO. it's already too late to stop climate change. All we can hope to do at this point is mitigate the inevitable damage to our civilization. If we can at least reduce the damage caused by continuing CO2 emissions, then perhaps we can still save mankind, or at least a portion of it. That seems like a worthy goal, at least to me.

Science-gate

Quote :

Science stupid!! Science LIES!!

Heretic wrote:

Science-gate

Quote :

Science stupid!! Science LIES!!

(yawn)

S'ok. We weren't expecting you to find it funny.

A visual approach to the climate debate:



Covers just about everything.

How can anyone believe anything this guy spews? Lost a lot of credibility here...

Quote :

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

Al Gore's office admitted that the percentage he quoted in his speech was from an old, ballpark figure
Hannah Devlin, Ben Webster, Philippe Naughton in Copenhagen

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece

Which is why I always refer to the scientific literature in a debate on science. instead of some ridiculous politician...

Quote :

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

“Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.

He added: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,” he said. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.”

I liked the part how it accurately predicted how "skeptics" would use this to fuel their juvenile "it ain't happenin'" conspiracy theories. Ridiculous theories that exist in stark contrast to the very work they cite criticizing Gore.

Quite entertaining.

I never said it ain't happening. I only challenge the claims that mankind is responsible.

Well, you're "it's all human error" post did, though you quickly bailed on such a ridiculous argument. You then went on to cite an unidentified natural cycle. Natural cycles that would usually take thousands of years to raise global temperatures a single degree, but for some mysterious reason is now on track to do it in a mere 75 years (but still natural). All the while maintaining that increases in greenhouse gases are not having an effect on temperatures and that the entire scientific community is involved in a massive international conspiracy and coverup alleging so only for government funding and research grants, and in the case of American scientists over the past eight years, from a Republican/conservative administration.

It's all quite looney, but like I said, quite entertaining, too.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

I never said it ain't happening. I only challenge the claims that mankind is responsible.

Which also exposes the Climategate fiasco as the bullsh!t argument that it is, doesn't it? The scientists were allegedly altering data to show a warming signal that isn't there. But since even you agree there is...

Glad we can finally put that nonsense to rest.

Heretic wrote:

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

I never said it ain't happening. I only challenge the claims that mankind is responsible.

Which also exposes the Climategate fiasco as the bullsh!t argument that it is, doesn't it? The scientists were allegedly altering data to show a warming signal that isn't there. But since even you agree there is...

Glad we can finally put that nonsense to rest.

Wow. No comeback at all in almost 2 months. The silence speaks volumes, doesn't it?

It's pretty obvious who won this debate.

Well, if anything, it will serve as a fantastic example of how uninformed "skeptics" are about the science, as well as displaying their unwillingness or inability to lend any sort of critical analysis to their own arguments, opting instead to simply add to the echo chamber. I loved the CRU hacking incident for no other reason than the fact that it was so easy to expose both in any skeptic who rallied behind it as the End of AGW and Al Gore.