Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[AnnaG]

I'll give an example of sensationalism to stir up the mud: in the article by Mark Steyn I saw this bit;

3) The Settled Scientists have attempted to (in the words of one email) “hide the decline”—that’s to say, obscure the awkward fact that “global warming” stopped over a decade ago.
Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

Yet I didn't see any mention of the fact that the last decade has been the warmest decade for a very long time according to the data.
If you want the facts, look at the data, don't listen to Ronny the Reporter, Peter the Politician, or Donald the Denier, or Geoffrey the GW alarmist, etc.

 

[Mowich]

This was also in the article by Mark Steyn. So much for data.

'Yet perhaps the most important revelation is not the collusion, the bullying, the politicization and the evidence-planting, but the fact that, even if you wanted to do honest “climate research” at the Climatic Research Unit, the data and the models are now so diseased by the above that they’re all but useless. Let Ian “Harry” Harris, who works in “climate scenario development and data manipulation” at the CRU, sum it up. Mr. Harris was attempting to duplicate previous results—i.e., to duplicate all that science that’s supposedly settled, and the questioning of which consigns you to the Climate Branch of the Flat Earth Society. How hard should it be to confirm settled science? After much cyber-gnashing of teeth, Harry throws in the towel:


“ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently—I have no memory of this at all—we’re not doing observed rain days! It’s all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I’m going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?



“OH F–K THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”



Thus spake the Settled Scientist: “OH F–K THIS.” And on the basis of “OH F–K THIS” the world’s enlightened progressives will assemble at Copenhagen for the single greatest advance in punitive liberalism ever perpetrated on the developed world."

 

[AnnaG]

This was also in the article by Mark Steyn. So much for data.

Ah, but the CRU was only one source of the data.

 

[Tonington]

Ah, but the CRU was only one source of the data.

Zigactly! CRU has problems, there's no question about that. Their system is old, and a patchwork of code. But most of it's data is the same data that GISS uses, only with different treatments of data, and they both come out with the same answer. Undoubtedly it would be a good thing if their data was modernized. I bet that ends up occurring as a result of all this. Messy code shown to the world. Fix it up damnit! No small feat, but the problem only gets worse as time marches on.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I'm blown away that this Thread is on page #103. Forgive me for not
reviewing all 103 pages, as this might already have been covered &
answered already, but how would this fit into the discussion?

Based on data From: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html

Based on data from From: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2453.html

This I'm assuming isn't weather, but climate. Is this N.O.A.A. a notorious source
for funky data and involved in this Email Leaking/Hacking Climategate thing?

We as Humans are pigs and need to clean up out act with respect to pollution,
and I don't think anyone is arguing that, but are these above graphs just more
junk like much of the information floating around from the outside extremes of
this argument?

 

[JLM]

The climate is changing. The jury is still out on whether we are warming or cooling so to call it 'global warming' is just aping the media.

As to what we can do about climate change - absolutely nothing. What we can do is try to clean up the pollution in our own backyards so to speak. We can work to clean up our water, air and land.

The idea that man can 'change' the climate is not only ridiculous but another example of people buying into media hype without taking the time to research the subject.

You are batting 1000 Mowich, time to abandon all this scientific technology and the studies and graphs and charts until they are coming out the ying yang. Far too many statistics (which I've said before are absolutely useless) which mainly contradict other statistics. I say we each just start doing the right things to clean the mess up, recycle, turn off some lights, turn the thermostats down a couple of degrees, use the outside clothes line, walk to the corner store- and one other thing people don't do much anymore, use the darning needle and sewing machine to repair clothes instead of throwing them in the garbage can at the first small tear. It's the waste that's killing us, which is easily figured out without David Susique having to tell us, oh yeah and then there's that Watson jerk who goes around minding other people's business and blowing up their boats

 

[Tonington]

This I'm assuming isn't weather, but climate. Is this N.O.A.A. a notorious source
for funky data and involved in this Email Leaking/Hacking Climategate thing?

NOAA is part of the US Department of commerce. They are not involved with CRU, who are part of the British meteorology program.

I saw these graphs earlier today, on this blog:
the Foresight Institute » Some Historical Perspective

There's a few things to note. It's one record, from one place on Earth. So you can't really say anything about hemispheric-wide conditions. Second, it's using strawmen all over the place. Like this:

For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.

Nobody says that CO2 is the only thing that can account for recent warming, though in the latter part of the 20th century, and into the 21st, you can't get the warming we have experienced without human influence.

We're not going into an ice age. We've stopped it. The changes in orbital forcings which dominate the glacial cycles are smaller, and require more time than the human forcing on the climate.

 

[AnnaG]

I'm blown away that this Thread is on page #103. Forgive me for not
reviewing all 103 pages, as this might already have been covered &
answered already, but how would this fit into the discussion?

Based on data From: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html

Based on data from From: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2453.html



This I'm assuming isn't weather, but climate. Is this N.O.A.A. a notorious source
for funky data and involved in this Email Leaking/Hacking Climategate thing?

No. That would involve the CRU, not NOAA.

We as Humans are pigs and need to clean up out act with respect to pollution,

and I don't think anyone is arguing that, but are these above graphs just more
junk like much of the information floating around from the outside extremes of
this argument?

No, the data you accessed is not from the CRU.
The CRU was not using bad data. They were simply mishandling it. NOAA and the others probably have NOT been mishandling data.

 

[AnnaG]

You are batting 1000 Mowich, time to abandon all this scientific technology and the studies and graphs and charts until they are coming out the ying yang. Far too many statistics (which I've said before are absolutely useless) which mainly contradict other statistics.

Unless the statistics were accurately described in the parameters. For instance, one could say that there are about 45,000 people in the USA named "Jim Smith". And the statistician can add the margin of error, describe how the stats were obtained, etc. If stats were useless then some fool could come along and say those people were actually called "Fred Brown". People that can understand stats would not say that stats in general are useless.

I say we each just start doing the right things to clean the mess up, recycle, turn off some lights, turn the thermostats down a couple of degrees, use the outside clothes line, walk to the corner store- and one other thing people don't do much anymore, use the darning needle and sewing machine to repair clothes instead of throwing them in the garbage can at the first small tear.

Yup.

It's the waste that's killing us,

Along with a couple other things like attitude and greed.

 

[AnnaG]

We're not going into an ice age. We've stopped it. The changes in orbital forcings which dominate the glacial cycles are smaller, and require more time than the human forcing on the climate.

Yeah. Basically that's saying the cycle quit cycling.

 

[Tonington]

Far too many statistics (which I've said before are absolutely useless) which mainly contradict other statistics.

Yes you've said so. But you haven't offered anything better. How do you do a test for significance? Significant results are what science uses, and they've worked just fine at producing the technology that you are using right now.

If I perform an experiment, how am I to know that next time I perform the experiment, the optimum treatment won't be something that was not optimal last time under the same conditions? I need to use statistics with sufficient power.

Anyone can make assertions. Whether or not they are good assertions depends a great deal on what those assertions are based on....a good working knowledge of what statistics allows is crucial to understanding why your assertion that statistics are useless, is ignorant, and wrong.

 

[AnnaG]

Got any stats to show whether stats are good or bad? lol

 

[JLM]

Yes you've said so. But you haven't offered anything better. How do you do a test for significance? Significant results are what science uses, and they've worked just fine at producing the technology that you are using right now.

If I perform an experiment, how am I to know that next time I perform the experiment, the optimum treatment won't be something that was not optimal last time under the same conditions? I need to use statistics with sufficient power.

Anyone can make assertions. Whether or not they are good assertions depends a great deal on what those assertions are based on....a good working knowledge of what statistics allows is crucial to understanding why your assertion that statistics are useless, is ignorant, and wrong.

You don't do any tests for significance. If you clean up your act, the results present themselves, less sickness among humans and lower life, less expense for hospitalization, longer life expectancy, less expense hauling away garbage, breathing the air is easier, less water needs boiling, more fish in streams, etc. etc. etc.

 

[JLM]

Unless the statistics were accurately described in the parameters. For instance, one could say that there are about 45,000 people in the USA named "Jim Smith". And the statistician can add the margin of error, describe how the stats were obtained, etc. If stats were useless then some fool could come along and say those people were actually called "Fred Brown". People that can understand stats would not say that stats in general are useless. Yup. Along with a couple other things like attitude and greed.

I should have said "stats are useless for anyone but the collector of the stats", especially if we're not cognizant of what the input was.

 

[Tonington]

You don't do any tests for significance. If you clean up your act, the results present themselves, less sickness among humans and lower life, less expense for hospitalization, longer life expectancy, less expense hauling away garbage, breathing the air is easier, less water needs boiling, more fish in streams, etc. etc. etc.

How much do we need to clean up our act? How do you know when the manufacturing line is producing at optimal efficiency? How do you know that the machine packaging cherry tomatoes isn't cheating one way or the other? How do you know that a new treatment is better than an old one for a disease? How do you know that a new heat treatment method is better than the old one for airplane turbine parts?

How can you answer any of these questions without tests of significance?

 

[AnnaG]

You don't do any tests for significance. If you clean up your act, the results present themselves, less sickness among humans and lower life, less expense for hospitalization, longer life expectancy, less expense hauling away garbage, breathing the air is easier, less water needs boiling, more fish in streams, etc. etc. etc.

Most of which you wouldn't know a danged thing about if it wasn't for stats.

 

[AnnaG]

I should have said "stats are useless for anyone but the collector of the stats", especially if we're not cognizant of what the input was.

That's because a stat is only as good as the description of what the stats are about. Lousy description, lousy stats. Good description, good stats.

 

[JLM]

That's because a stat is only as good as the description of what the stats are about. Lousy description, lousy stats. Good description, good stats.

I guess we may not all be on the "same page" on this one, which may be my fault. My original suggestion was the we just start changing our behaviour and worry about the stats. as they aren't necessary. Take your house which hasn't been repaired or cleaned for years. You don't need stats to fix leaks, remove dirt, clean the gutters, overhaul the furnace, remove the garbage, do some painting. Getting into more complicated things like measuring efficiency of a machine, some test may be needed or you could compare monthly invoices for the operation of the machine. The ONLY point I was trying to make was we don't need stats in order to start improving our environment.

 

[Walter]

NOAA and the others probably have NOT been mishandling data.

Probably not because what government agency would mishandle data.

 

[Ron in Regina]

NOAA is part of the US Department of commerce. They are not involved with CRU, who are part of the British meteorology program.

I saw these graphs earlier today, on this blog:
the Foresight Institute » Some Historical Perspective

There's a few things to note. It's one record, from one place on Earth. So you can't really say anything about hemispheric-wide conditions. Second, it's using strawmen all over the place. Like this:

Nobody says that CO2 is the only thing that can account for recent warming, though in the latter part of the 20th century, and into the 21st, you can't get the warming we have experienced without human influence.

We're not going into an ice age. We've stopped it. The changes in orbital forcings which dominate the glacial cycles are smaller, and require more time than the human forcing on the climate.

So NOAA is a reputable source for the raw data, & somebody cherry-picked
the two sources (southern Greenland but at a high altitude, and the spot down
in Antarctica for the really old data) to present the graphs I posted to back their
agenda in order to display the information they had predetermined as their
desired result to reinforce their position. If other source locations of data
didn't fit their preconceived idea, they would be edited out or not used.
That makes sense to me as I can see how that could happen. ;-)

I wasn't even looking at CO2 this afternoon, but just ended up finding
something on long range temperatures. Strangely enough, I didn't
start out looking for this info, as I was searching for info on the
Canadian Wheat Board, but one link leads to another &
there I was. Nature of the Internet. :lol:

I was on a Saskatchewan site called "small dead animals" but ended
up (if not on the link you posted) on an identical site or something
very close to it.