Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Paradoxium]

Climate Change Data Dumped

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

They have no excuse dumping the raw data at all. Be it pro-AGW or skeptic. It's just common sense. Say in the scenario if the program that compiles the data and spits it out had a algorithm problem (WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE THE CASE), they can update and recompile the data. This is a purely methodical issue. It also allows them to audit and recheck their information to make sure it is rock solid. You simply do not leave this much room for error.

 

[bell110]

If the data I was looking at went against the result that I had wanted...I would have realized that the result i wanted was obviously not supported by this science.

But that is clearly NOT what the "trick" was used for. It was used to make the data more "clear". And the fact that they are not only not trying to hide or deny any of it, but are actually say that is was the appropriate course of action make me believe that what they did and what you think they did, are two very seperate issues.

The data says that the earth has cooled since 1960...well...we should just get rid of that info and threaten anyone who brings it up. Its the hockey stick argument all over again...no...it wasnt warmer in the past, just look at this chart! What? Oh yeah, I rigged the chart to not show that it actually was hotter in the past...I took that info out of the data stream...but the chart!!!!!

Also...this is NOT just about emails. You forget (or brush aside) that we have the data codes as well. The codes say very, very clearly that it is rigged information. The CODE ITSELF that is USED TO DETERMINE RESULTS shows that it is rigged to ignore data that goes against their desired outcome. There is no defense for that.

I don't see anything saying very, very clearly that it's rigged information. Where are you getting your information

Global warming science is about control because...um...HAVE YOU NOT HEARD OF THE PROPOSED CARBON TAXES?????? This worldwide tax scheme that controls every aspect of carbon emission with taxes that...wait for it...CONTROLS LIVES AND BUSINESS...and wait for it again...GOES TO PROFIT THOSE WHO INVENTED THE LIE. Yu are well aware of these talks to tax the world on carbon emissions...and you know well that that will control everyone...you simply "removed that data" because it doesnt go with your argument.

Calm down, sparky. Climate scientists don't create taxes, they are not going to control jack ****, and the "profit" isn't going to go to them. You are making things much more complicated than it really is. You are honestly sounding like one of those people that think the Free Masons control the world.

You know how when people look for signs from God, they find them. That is where you are at right now. You're looking so hard for something to prove that climate science is wrong, that you're jumping on any little thing possible. Just chill for a bit and see how things play out.

Your questions makes no sense whatsoever. Are you talking about the sum squared variable going negative or the general output. The thing is dated, from 2006-2009.

HARRY_READ_ME was a critique by Harry of all the bugs in the program. He is critiquing it because he wants to use the program. This program has already been in use to generate data for the scientific community. Their way of "dealing with the bugs" was to manually tweak the code for each instance to cook up an output they want to compensate the bugs. Kind of like a program that adds variable together, but with the wrong answer. So if you input (Lets assume they variables A + B = C) 1(A)+1(B) it becomes 3(C). Instead of fixing the code, they simply insert a line of C = C-1 to get the 2. But obviously if you insert other numbers the output would not be correct. Multiply this problem a couple hundred times and we have a nightmare. This is with no audit trail anywhere. This is all according to Harry. Then you get stuff like this:This leaves TOO MUCH ROOM for human error.

The code indicates it is not even professionally done. And their use of .dtb and .dts indicates it is incredibly out of date. It's technically similar to like those data card/tapes in the 70s. It's definitely not SQL.

Then you have this problem: since they got rid of the old raw data, they can no longer feed in a corrected program to output a new dataset.

As of right now, if someone wanted to replicate the data to vindicate or debunk them, they can't since they got rid of the raw data (or some of it). If the CRU is forced to release this program for inspection/investigation they would get KILLED. The longer they hold out on this investigation, the more time they can have to cover up this crap. If there is any solid smoking gun it is here. And it has mostly to do with incompetence which is kinda ironic for all things to be nailed on.

Do you have a link to any of that information? Even if that is all true A) It doesn't mean there is some nefarious conspiracy to dupe the world, and B) Doesn't mean global warming isn't real. This is one organization out of who knows how many. It's pretty much universally believed that humans have a part to play in the shaping of our environment, and quite frankly, it would be ignorant to think that we don't. I find it higly unlikely that all these scientist would go along with this crazy scheme. To use what BlackLantern said before, why would all these people risk their reputation on a lie?

The pro-fraud crowd has one argument on their side "it was obtained by hacking"...as if that somehow justifies the billions spent and millions of lives lost over this fraud.

My hope...and belief...is that this wa actually leaked from someone on the inside. Someone who decided that they no longer wanted to take part in the scam. Someone who knew that if they came forward their lives would be ruined (as many threats are made in the emails to those who go against the fraud).

It's funny. I think there was a lot more solid information that Sadam did not have WMDs, yet Republicans didn't want to hear it. And how much they wanted to protect the emails in the Plame affair, an actually
real conspiracy. Personally, I think the whole Climategate think makes them look really silly. They just keep digging their hole deeper.

 

[Handsome Rob]

They have no excuse dumping the raw data at all. Be it pro-AGW or skeptic. It's just common sense. Say in the scenario if the program that compiles the data and spits it out had a algorithm problem (WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE THE CASE), they can update and recompile the data. This is a purely methodical issue. It also allows them to audit and recheck their information to make sure it is rock solid. You simply do not leave this much room for error.

Agreed. I may not be a big city scientist *snapping suspenders*, but I do know that in order for a study to be trusted, you ought to be able to take the same data under the same conditions and get basically the same result. In other words, you should be able to replicate the study. Since we can't do that, we're supposed to automatically trust them simply because they say to?

 

[Paradoxium]

It's the HARRY_READ_ME file. Just Google it, and use string searches to corroborate the quotes I cited. My issue is not about Global Warming, it is AGW and it as a basis for carbon credits. Especially in a middle of a gigantic recession. I've said before I am not a litter bug and an incredibly energy efficient guy in personal practice.

 

[BlackLantern]

I think that the Earth has been around so much longer than humans, and will be around long after we're gone

whatever the truth is needs to come out, maybe this whole mess is a step in that direction

 

[bell110]

I think that the Earth has been around so much longer than humans, and will be around long after we're gone

whatever the truth is needs to come out, maybe this whole mess is a step in that direction

No one is arguing that. Everyone knows that the Earth goes through warming and cooling periods. But, how much of an effect are we having on it now. To think that we don't have any effect, I think is just putting your head in the sand.

 

[BlackLantern]

i agree with you and im all for finding more environmentally friendly ways to do things...what I dont support are the people who try to use global warming as a way to scare people into it

 

[Handsome Rob]

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

It mentions the Harry Read Me file, Paradoxium.

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.


The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.


Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.


Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.


The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.


There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.


They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.


This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.


But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.


In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.


What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.


The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.


Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.


The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

 

[Carcharodon]

Agreed. I may not be a big city scientist *snapping suspenders*, but I do know that in order for a study to be trusted, you ought to be able to take the same data under the same conditions and get basically the same result. In other words, you should be able to replicate the study. Since we can't do that, we're supposed to automatically trust them simply because they say to?

You're absolutely right.

 

[Carcharodon]

Ok, you are correct to say it is conjecture. There is absolutely no proof either way. Tell me, why do the majority of stories run with hacker instead of a "hacker or whistleblower"?

You're asking me to get into the minds of the media. I've NEVER understood the media.

 

[Heretic]

You're adorable.

Question: do you believe that our carbon emissions are having no effect on the environment whatsoever?

Hmmmm....I dont know. Seeing as to how your only proof that it does came from thsi band of now admitted frauds, then you dont have any proof either.


Again, the entire argument for climate change is based on what is very obviously a scam. What they're asking is to accept that they disregarded data...accept that they invented new data to prove their point...threatened anyone who tried to reveal the truth...rigged peer reviews to support their rigged statistics...I am supposed to accept ALL of that...yet STILL believe their science?????? If you believe it, you are a fool. There is no science left to believe.

What I am saying is this. Let's arrest everyone who committed this fraud...and start over with new technology and new studies. According to the perpetrators of this fraud, the earth has actually been cooling since 1960 which forced them to insert fake data. So...I have no clue what the truth is because the science is tainted.

However...CLEARLY our water is filled with chemicals, CLEARLY waste is being dumped in our oceans and landfills. CLEARLY there are some very real and very serious environmental issues that need to be addressed. All of the effort put towards going along with a fraud for the past few decades could have been spent fixing those problems...and people who are true environmentalists will shake off the scam artists who have co-opted their movement and get back to cleaning up the planet.

 

[SuBe]

Climate change data dumped

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

Continued http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

 

[Heretic]

Just because they threw away evidence, rigged the data so that it would ignore temperatures that disproved the global warming theory, completely made up new data when they couldnt delete enough to make it work, altered the peer review concept so that only people who agreed with them were allowed, and threatened anyone who dared point out that their data was wrong doesnt mean that their findings were wrong, does it?

I mean...global warming must be real...the charts and graphs that these guys came up with after all of that says its true!

 

[Dark Helmet]

Okay so 2012 & The Day After Tomorrow type stuff will not be happening any time soon. How will most of Humanity get wiped out then ?

 

[BlackLantern]

Gremlins

 

[SuBe]

Okay so 2012 & The Day After Tomorrow type stuff will not be happening any time soon. How will most of Humanity get wiped out then ?

Over Taxation.

 

[VampElvis]

Manbearpig!!!!!

 

[BlackLantern]

Meghan McCains boobs

 

[VampElvis]

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Hurricane seasons ends, one of calmest since 1990s[/FONT]
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091130/D9CA2G4O2.html

Al Gore could not be reached for comment.......

 

[Heretic]

Meghan McCains boobs

Death by Motorboating?

 

[Heretic]

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Hurricane seasons ends, one of calmest since 1990s[/FONT]
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091130/D9CA2G4O2.html

Al Gore could not be reached for comment.......

See...you need to look at the Pro-fraud crowds point of view. Al Gore's new book has a picture of earth with hurricanes digitally added to make things look scary. It really doesn't matter what the science says, Photoshop on a book cover says otherwise. Are you going to believe hard science, or a book cover that's been heavily manipulated and digitally reworked?

The argument is settled. Al Gore was right.

 

[BlackLantern]

Death by Motorboating?

There are worse ways to go

 

[Heretic]

Are there better?

 

[Paradyme]

Gibbs: Despite research dispute, 'climate change is happening'

The White House on Monday made exceptionally clear that it wants nothing to do with the furor over documents that global warming skeptics say prove the phenomenon is not a threat.

Despite the incident, which rocked international headlines last week, climate science is sound, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed this afternoon, and the White House nonetheless believes "climate change is happening."

"I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," he said during Monday's press briefing.

Climate change skeptics have asserted over the past week that the publication of more than 1,000 private e-mails and documents once housed in the University of East Anglia's computer system refutes most modern global warming evidence.

The documents, unearthed by a blogger who hacked into Climate Research Unit's (CRU) private system, have since touched off an international debate over the veracity of those scientists' works.

But the dispute is proving especially troublesome for the Obama administration as it prepares to head to Copenhagen next week for a climate change summit -- a forum the president will attend.

Not only has the White House faced criticism from the left for offering too few concessions ahead of the meet, it is now fielding dissatisfaction from the right for participating in a summit sponsored in part by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- one of the research organs touched by the CRU spat.


"I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this," responded Gibbs to questions about those scientists' credibility.

Nevertheless, congressional Republicans this week hope to ramp up their criticism of both global warming policy and the science that informs it.

Most vocal seems to be Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe demanded on Friday a hearing into the IPCC's research to determine whether it "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."

"[T]his thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with," he told reporters, noting it was "interesting" the e-mails surfaced before the Copenhagen summit.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-research-dispute-climate-change-is-happening

...

 

[BlackLantern]

I don't think it's an issue of if there is a change, I think the debate is what is the exact impact we are having