Climate change frozen over?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stubeeef, Feb 16, 2010.

  1. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #1
    Phil Jones the architect of bad science for climate hysteria has had some confessions as of late. As I haven't seen anything about in PRSI I thought I would present it. I know there are so many here that still believe there is nothing to discuss.:p
    Who is Phil? link
    What is Phil confessing?
    and
    Lots more SHOCKING (only to the AGW fans) facts here
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    Maybe its worth reading the original Q&A, which doesn't "disprove" climate change at all.

    Btw the world was already industrialising at a pretty rapid pace by the 1860's.

    EDIT: The only point which event gets close to a "disproof" is:

     
  3. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #3
    It's chilly outside today,I told you climate change was a myth.
     
  4. stubeeef thread starter macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #4
    You make a very thin argument. If you believe AGW then your sarcasm is noted, if you do not believe in AGW than your statement is baseless.
     
  5. stubeeef thread starter macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #5
    Well for me, the point of hiding data, manipulating the unseen data, and lying gets beyond "close" and to the heart of disproof.
    This guy is one piece of work, and the fact that so many other reputable scientists used his/their data sets for conclusions that are WACKED is plain and simply criminal.
    The world is waking up, the question is simply>will the diehard "AGW Truthers" wake up too.
     
  6. pooky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #6
    Although it pains me to say so, you are right in this situation. The problem is the sweeping conclusions (i.e., all global warming theory is bogus) you are drawing from this one data point. This is especially ironic, since this is what so many climate change deniers accuse climate scientists of doing.

    This is probably going to be a post-and-run, since usually these just turn into pointless unproductive arguments, but let me offer my $0.02:

    The body of knowledge underlying climate science is too big and on too solid a foundation to be undermined by this one person. The assertion that the entire science relies on correlation is nonsense. There is a clear mechanistic theory that is very well supported that explains how CO[2] and other gases react in the atmosphere to regulate temperature. We have several data points that support the predictions of this mechanistic theory very well - Venus, Earth, and Mars.

    In short:
    1. We have a mechanistic theory based on well-known, supported relationships in physics and chemistry that posits a causal relationship between atmospheric temperature and atmospheric composition
    2. We have independent observations on 3 planets that support the relationship; on Earth we have a time series of observations
    3.We have a large number of people independently collecting observations and analyzing data sets. Most of these have mechanistic underpinnings.
    4. The majority of observations support the contention that rising CO[2] is affecting climate.
    5. Some observations do not support this contention. No model is perfect.
    6. Some people, including some prominent ones, do not support the general paradigm for various political, religious, social, economic, or personal reasons. Some people are just dicks. This is not news.

    From a scientist's perspective, this is pretty ****ing open-and-shut. Usually our conclusions are much shakier and based on much less data. This is how science is done. For something at a planetary scale, it doesn't really get much better than this. The only better data would be a before and after picture, which we may get around 2040 or so. Problem is, by then, there may not be much we can do besides saying, "Well, we sure ****ed that one up, eh?"
     
  7. stubeeef thread starter macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #7
    yes this would be a long drawn out unproductive argument during which the earth will not warm from the CO2 we produce doing it. I accept the fact your offer is worth $.02.
    Of course it is.
    Now that is the conclusion of conclusions isn't it. I would state that the open and shut-ness is dependent on who the scientist is (and where they get their funding).
    link for quote above and chart below
    on the attachment> blue is rapid cooling and red is sudden warming
    Please note the present temp line.
     

    Attached Files:

  8. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #8
    What I see coming from this "climategate" is that some factors are coming to light which seem to have been hidden: Bad data, insufficient data, and some suppression or ignoring of contrary data.

    In many areas, temperature measuring systems are located near sources of above-ambient temperatures. I've seen reports of everything from central A/C units to exposure to jet exhausts at airports.

    Both the Canadians and Russians have commented about the dearth of temperature measurements in the northern parts of those countries.

    I have read that NOAA has a network of ocean buoys which can measure temperatures at depth as well as near-surface. Allegedly, ocean waters are cooling to some slight degree, but this apparently hasn't been factored into the sofware.

    IOW, color me agnostic about the issue of warming or cooling.

    Which has not much to do with climate change, I guess. The climate has always followed some trend of change.

    Just one example of change: After being made aware by a comment from a local, 50-year resident, I also noticed a change in the vegetation in the Chisos Mountains of the Big Bend National Park. The tree line is moving upward. There is an open meadow where I once saw mostly Ponderosa Pines, some 38 years ago. This indicates an ongoing reducition in precipitation. That conclusion is supported by archaeological conclusions that this area has been drying for hundreds of years.

    As far as homo sap's CO2, one climatologist offered the comment that the reason that we pour beer into a frosted mug or add ice to a cola drink is to retard the loss of CO2. That is, natural global warming causes the loss of CO2 into the atmosphere; CO2 doesn't cause warming. Damfino.

    Bottom line? I'm dubious that the various calls for legislative mandates will solve the problem. What is obvious is that they will extend governmental power over people, raise the cost of living, and lower the material standard of living. I don't see those as Good Things.

    'Rat
     
  9. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #9
    This winter was the first ever snow free November on record (about 160 years) up here in the frozen North.

    My anecdote can beat up your anecdote.
     
  10. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    And who do they get their funding from? The oil companies?
     
  11. samiwas macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #11
    I don't have any facts or research to form my exact opinion on whether global warming is true or not.

    However, since the idea has at least spurred a lot of development into technologies and policies to reduce pollutants, I'm all for it. Take one drive through a city like Manila, Philippines, and see the result of complete lack of pollution control, and it's a real eye-opener. Why not strive to reduce CO2 emissions, even if they don't necessarily have a global warming impact?
     
  12. stubeeef thread starter macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #12
    If they get $$ from anyone that stands to gain from the outcome-then that needs to be known. If that money comes from Oil Companies-it is as bad as coming from those whoring for government grants. The problem then comes as where is a pure source-that is a problem.
    It seems that much is being uncovered lately to dispute and shed light on the bad science that has gone on. There are scientists that claim they couldn't get published and were ridiculed in the past for the mentioning that there might be doubt. There is a chasm seperating those that believe AGW with no question and will not hear otherwise, and a scientific community seeking truth regardless of the outcome>hence the letter to the UN. Those scientists just want some proof and are tired of statements like the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 and hockey stick graphs created in art class.
     
  13. stubeeef thread starter macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #13
    In many ways I totally agree. I think that reducing pollutants is awesome, I just don't want total control over the whole thing by "scientists" like Al Gore or Dr Pachauri. These people are dangerous IMHO. I don't want the garbage police, or helicopters flying over telling me my house IR signature is too off scale. It is a fine line between the benefits and the horrors unfortunately.
     
  14. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #14
    Without getting into the science behind global warming, I do have a couple of observations.

    First, why are some people so opposed to the idea of global warming? Is it purely a difference of scientific opinion? Is there really a huge split amongst scientists on the issue, and if so, shouldn't the debate be between people who actually know a thing or two about it? This debate seems to have taken on a political component.

    Ok, second. Politics. Democrats tend to support climate change reactions, and republicans don't. Is this just a difference of opinion about how to respond to the information being received from scientists? It doesn't seem like it. Republicans don't want to do anything that might hurt existing businesses. Stubeef, you sound like you think there is some conspiracy to somehow hurt you or the businesses in this country.

    Here's where I get confused. Let's assume the science is at best murky. Let's assume that implementing global warming responses would cost a bunch of money.

    What is the long term affect? Wouldn't investing in new technology create opportunities for new businesses? Wouldn't pollution be reduced? Wouldn't that reduce our dependence on middle east oil? Wouldn't that reduce the funding going to terrorists? Wouldn't that decrease our trade deficit, and increase our economy? Wouldn't our companies invest in green energy (e.g. BP investing in green energy research and development).

    We know there is only a finite amount of oil in the planet's crust. Wouldn't it be wise to look into green energy now, rather than waiting until the oil has run out?

    So, my question is even if the science is questionable, aren't the things proposed worth doing anyway?

    If you think no, why?
     
  15. stubeeef thread starter macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #15
    I don't want climate/green police, fat taxation, and the politicalizaton of this. I am not PRO pollutants, but I am not for global wealth redistribution either. Good intentions gave us Kyoto and that was a P.O.S. if you ask me and others. Sustainable energy is worth seeking, conservation is worth lauding, using these for political power is abhorrent. And yes that seems to be the goal. Otherwise why try and falsify data.

    Now I ask, why not drill in the Gulf of Mex? The chinese are. Why not build clean coal and nuke plants, others are. Define GREEN, all of a sudden it gets really interesting and political.

    It is very interesting to look up and see all the abandoned GREEN energy projects. Not very green if you ask me. To be fair there are plenty of abandoned non green plants around too-they just weren't as politically correct to begin with. How many pollutants are used to manufacture the avg solar panel? How much CO2 is allowed to be used to build a Solar Farm?
     

    Attached Files:

  16. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #16
    Using your example of earlier, if the so called "green-police" told you your house was not efficient enough, wouldn't you end up saving money?

    That being said, if society determined to start criminilizing certain behavior, then how is that different from any other determination regarding what should be or shouldnt' be legal? It's not. How would it be different as far as what you do? It wouldn't be. You either uphold the law, or you get charged.

    Political power? Who's gaining here? This isn't like abortion or flag burning or english as a national language where one party runs around yelling inflammatory things in order to get it's base all worked up and get them out to the polls to vote against their own self interests. Yes, some will benefit, and yes, there are some who will vote based on this issue, but how does green equate to political power? Regulatory power for the government? Please tell me you haven't bought into the whole democrats are part of some huge socialist conspiracy argument?

    Finally, there are tons of ways to generate green energy. Yes, defining green is an issue for disagreement. For example, clean coal is a misnomer. Coal is coal, there is no clean coal. The only part of coal that is clean are all the scrubbers and other technology that the so-called green police required to try to reduce polution. Can coal be clean, or at least cleaner? Probably. But if so, doesn't that just further the cause of the so-called green movement?
     
  17. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #17
    I'm surprised this is still being bandied about. However I'm not surprised it's being regurgitated by stubeef from freerepublic.
    There are a few things wrong with this. Firstly climate change is long-term trends. Not over 8 years. If you look at any long-term climate graph there are constant dips and troughs. This is due to short term and predictable weather patterns such as El Nino and La Nina (although we've never been able to account for all the variation). As such we take trends of many years - i.e.25 years and average out all the data points to determine the trend.

    The claim of "cooling" since 1995 is incredibly dishonest and an absolutely atrocious case of cherry-picking. 1995 was a "peak" year in temperatures. We're currently in a trough now with La Nina. This "cooling" claim is based on taking these two data points - 1995 and 2009 - and averaging them. It ignores all the data points in between. If you average them all out (I.e. 95, 96, 97 - 08, 09) you still get modest warming. And if you take the average over 25 years you get exactly the predicted warming.

    It's a bit complicated but once you understand it you'll see how dishonest and misleading the claims if the deniers are.

    Edit: here's the post I wrote with sources when this required debunking back in november.http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8882251&postcount=125
     
  18. stubeeef thread starter macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #18
    Not if I am fined, not if I am required to do mandatory improvements on their time line or more fines. and when is efficient enough, efficient enough? To the far extreme-it never will be efficient enough. I go to energy expos and there are people there claiming that they don't shower for weeks (they smell horrible) and people that do are bad.

    That paragraph scares the hell out of me and why I want the truth on AGW.

    Global political power via treaties like Kyoto are the worst kind (not the only kind). I don't get to vote on those. I get to vote for one of 2 idiots that I hope won't get bought off for crap like this. The radical left benefits, they get to say who can manufacture, or not, who can "pollute" or not, and the bueracracy is unfightable. Just months ago hundreds of politician were willing to march of a cliff for the IPCCs view of AGW. I know that AGW has made plenty of lefties millions of $$ and nobel prizes (which no longer have much prestige IMHO). I am sick of policy built on bull pelosi, kinda like going into Iraq based on WMD isn't it.

    There is a party line if I ever heard one. I am in sales and love it when a customer repeats back the marketing lines I have fed them. Welcome to the machine.
    Not if "there is no clean coal" can't have it both ways. I am not willing for a panel of "experts" coming up with the answer. With absolutes like there is no clean coal then who will bother to develope better technology.

    Develope the technology, if it stands on its own then do it, not because the UN Climate morons said I have to or that I can.
     
  19. stubeeef thread starter macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #19
    sources and links please.
     
  20. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #20
    If the truth was that AGW existed, you wouldn't believe it anyway.

    So, if there are regulatory agencies, only the radical left will be controlling them? Come on, you don't believe that. The people in charge will reflect the administration in power. (e.g. the Bush era interior department was run by oil co. types, not the radical tree hugger types).

    I'm in law, and using someone's argument to counter them is common.

    Clean coal is a marketing term. You should know that. It was created by the coal industry. Burning coal is a constant. It will release exactly the same stuff today as it did 100 years ago. The technology is getting better to catch pollutants and to catch CO2 releases and to then trap them. So, coal is coal. Making the burning of it cleaner is possible.

    Because the coal industry was so worried about developing pollution technology before there was regulation? Yeah, were car companies developing air bags and shoulder belts before regulation? Regulation often spurs development.
     
  21. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
  22. stubeeef thread starter macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #22
    Case closed. love how you phrased that.

    Yes I do, conservative administrations haven't been able to kill the "Education" dept or other bloated crap departments and they won't be able to control any others especially if part of an international group. Like the UN once you create it you suffer it forever.

    If making the burning of call cleaner is possible> what do you call that?

    It is a double edged knife it can spur or kill depending on the prevailing wind.
     
  23. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #23
    Sources are basic climate change science + here's a link to a previous post I wrote when needthephone tried to make the same claim back in November. This includes the GISS data graph + link to another (albeit more complicated) explanation by realclimate.
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8882251&postcount=125

    The cooling claim shows a horrible understanding of statistics as well as a cynical attempt to cherrypick data to mislead.
     
  24. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    So how should education be funded/conducted?

    Which are they?
     
  25. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #25
    I phrased it that way on purpose. You clearly don't think AGW was true, but in the event you're wrong, and are proven so, you still wouldn't believe in it.

    Nice to know that republicans want to kill the education department. What other bloated crap departments do you want to kill? I hope everyone's listening. The Bush administration touted its no child left behind, and their real intention was to kill education! I have no idea how to discuss serious issues with someone who is this radical. What do you want? Every governmental agency shut down? No UN? No police? No regulations? Seriously, you seem to be all up in arms about this because it's on Rush today, but what do you really want?

    Speaking of which... I find it hilarous that the right is yelling about how this is a power play by the democrats, yet, the only reason they are making a fuss is to try to gain power. It's clearly NOT because they disagree with less polution, less dependence on foreign oil, more development of business in this country. They are being opportunistic and attacking people's fear of smart people.

    I call that making the burning of coal cleaner, not clean coal. Coal is not clean, neither are dirty diapers, but you can wrap the diaper in a bag, put it in a diaper dandy, and not have to smell it. (edit) By the way, I'm from Illinois, where we have high sulfur coal, which is really dirty. We want coal fired energy as much as anyone. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it needs to be done correctly, not without regulation as my more radical friend here suggests.

    And you believe clean energy will kill development? If not, what's your point? Do you have one?
     

Share This Page