In fact the debate can be summed up like this for the pro-AGW bunch
1.] The scientists can do nothing wrong in this noble cause.
2.] They can lie, cheat, misrepresent, scheme and connive to delete inconvenient documentation illegally, scheme to to hatchet jobs on editors, talk about getting private investigators to dig up dirt on blog owners etc. etc. and it's all fine.
3.] They can trash their studies and evidence internally and talk internally about how science, data, facts all are shoddy. But in public, they will swear upon the science and close ranks for the " cause ", causing immense wastage of money and loss of lives due to ill conceived politicised decisions made due to their " science ". In fact they can become activists for promoting their trash knowingly and will be cheered on by their water carriers.
4.] There is everything wrong with people who point out malfeasance and they are the culprits.
5.] Anything the pro-AGW crowd do and any inane and stupid pro-AGW comments here will be cheered on unquestioned. Any anti-AGW comments will be analysed with forensic efficiency to find out the most teeny weeny spelling, grammar or context mistake.
6.] In short, there exists today in the pro-AGW supporting world, a shameless bunch of believers who will stoop to any levels in support of this factless faith based religion, even when it's high priests have been caught with their pants down, There will be no dissent tolerated and not a single word can be spoken or written against these high priests.
What a travesty! You can give people education, but truth, decency and honesty can't be taught. These have to come from within.
You can read and make up your minds on what kind of people today are involved in this scam disguised as science. Then you can form your opinions about people who blindly support these " scientists " and rail upon others who point out the inconvenient facts involved in this scam.
Tom Wigley of NCAR wrote an e-mail to Keith Briffa of the Yamal one tree fame in the year 2000 as follows
================================================
Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself. This is fine, but there is no need to try to fool others by making extravagant claims.
And yes, it was in the year 2000!! But what did these same " scientists " do after that? Strongly defended Briffa's Paleoclimate work and strongly defend " climate sensitivity " and use them till today in all their models, prjections, scenarios etc.!!
Climate sensitivity is the backbone and cornerstone of the CO2 = AGW theory and without that the theory is shot to pieces.
You can read the e-mail exchange in the below link.
Read it and weep. What's happening here today in climate science is a total fraud which is causing huge losses real time.
And we have " experts " here who will have a laugh no doubt at this board and criticise everything the messenger says, but stay totally mum about the frauds with no a word spoken.
I wonder how some people can look the mirror and how they can sleep well at night.
How do religions die? Generally they don't, which probably explains why there's so little literature on the subject. Zoroastrianism, for instance, lost many of its sacred texts when Alexander sacked Persepolis in 330 B.C., and most Zoroastrians converted to Islam over 1,000 years ago. Yet today old Zoroaster still counts as many as 210,000 followers, including 11,000 in the U.S. Christopher Hitchens might say you can't kill what wasn't there to begin with.
Still, Zeus and Apollo are no longer with us, and neither are Odin and Thor. Among the secular gods, Marx is mostly dead and Freud is totally so. Something did away with them, and it's worth asking what.
Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.
As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.
This week, the conclave of global warming's cardinals are meeting in Durban, South Africa, for their 17th conference in as many years. The idea is to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire next year, and to require rich countries to pony up $100 billion a year to help poor countries cope with the alleged effects of climate change. This is said to be essential because in 2017 global warming becomes "catastrophic and irreversible," according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency.
Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the climate apocalypse. Namely, the financial apocalypse.
The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won't be signing on to a new Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians won't make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they've spent it all on Greece.
Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent's heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. "Green" technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds.
All this has been enough to put the Durban political agenda on hold for the time being. But religions don't die, and often thrive, when put to the political sidelines. A religion, when not physically extinguished, only dies when it loses faith in itself.
That's where the Climategate emails come in. First released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the "hide the decline" emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those of us who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place.
But the real reason they mattered is that they introduced a note of caution into an enterprise whose motivating appeal resided in its increasingly frantic forecasts of catastrophe. Papers were withdrawn; source material re-examined. The Himalayan glaciers, it turned out, weren't going to melt in 30 years. Nobody can say for sure how high the seas are likely to rise—if much at all. Greenland isn't turning green. Florida isn't going anywhere.
The reply global warming alarmists have made to these dislosures is that they did nothing to change the underlying science, and only improved it in particulars. So what to make of the U.N.'s latest supposedly authoritative report on extreme weather events, which is tinged with admissions of doubt and uncertainty? Oddly, the report has left climate activists stuttering with rage at what they call its "watered down" predictions. If nothing else, they understand that any belief system, particularly ones as young as global warming, cannot easily survive more than a few ounces of self-doubt.
Meanwhile, the world marches on. On Sunday, 2,232 days will have elapsed since a category 3 hurricane made landfall in the U.S., the longest period in more than a century that the U.S. has been spared a devastating storm. Great religions are wise enough to avoid marking down the exact date when the world comes to an end. Not so for the foolish religions. Expect Mayan cosmology to take a hit to its reputation when the world doesn't end on Dec. 21, 2012. Expect likewise when global warming turns out to be neither catastrophic nor irreversible come 2017.
And there is this: Religions are sustained in the long run by the consolations of their teachings and the charisma of their leaders. With global warming, we have a religion whose leaders are prone to spasms of anger and whose followers are beginning to twitch with boredom. Perhaps that's another way religions die.
The fatal mistake was in making much of PROOF, in the first place. Risky, that..... Religions soldier on easily without proof, but here, the original apostles were so vain they thought they could blamelessly predict actual things. Based on what should have remained squishy dogma, most of it from the sixties, vast extrapolations were pronounced solely on the overconfidence of interconnected magical thinking.
Through mere association with science, blowhards envisioned themselves as having been infected with genius.
The Brothers Grimm could not have knitted such an epic FAIL. Hubris, Money, and pretensions to intelligence have worked a brand of evil as before, as when "Wolf" boy bores the guardians, and eventually actual bad things happen, and the culture is unprotected.
Climate is important. Those who would turn it into some sort of payday have knitted themselves a garment of ennui.
Nothing is more poisonous to a crusade than falling out of "fashion".
Gore's legs have given out, as with all old men, but especially those with pretensions to accomplishing more than their fathers, who actually did do something of importance, and reasonable good.
I'd like some more heat. Sod the species which can't take it, and those who don't have the sense to move further onshore when the seas get a bit deep.
Gore was nothing more than a thief of DOOM. He made poor use of it, and his legacy will be as those before, of Snake Oil, Bridges for Sale, and Swampland.
Here in SA the doomsayers and their media acolytes are in full cry while cosying up to the bottoms of delegates at the COP17 farce, claiming thirteen of the last fifteen years to have been the hottest ever (hockey stick, anyone?). Unfortunately Joe Average sees this and falls for it hook line and sinker - Hey, it's on TV so it must be true. No counter arguments allowed by the media and those who feed them this stuff. If you have any doubts about the politics involved, take a careful look at those attending this thing...
The latest piece of hypocrisy coming from a university that has spent $1/2million in an attempt to prevent the freedom of information act applying to M. Manns email yet released another (skeptical) researchers emails to Greenpeace without a murmur, and secondly, did their best to cover up their football coach's habit of sexual impropriety with boys in the shower room that eventually came out into the open and caused the Penn State President Graham Spanier to be fired from his $813,000/year job, not because of any personal role in the Sandusky football scandal, but because of negligence on his part in ensuring that the allegations were properly investigated. This was not the only case in which Spanier failed to ensure proper investigation of misconduct allegations. Spanier had falsely reported to the Penn State trustees and the public that the Penn State Inquiry Committee had properly interviewed critics and had examined the Climategate documents and issues “from all sides”.
On Tuesday, November 29th, in a seminar organized by Penn State University and the University of Washington on the ethical dimensions of climate change join us to look at two issues.
One, an ethical analysis of the climate change disinformation campaign. We will examine whether this is a new kind of crime against humanity?
Second, we will look at the piratical significance for negotiations in Durban if climate change is understood to create human rights violations. Tuesday, November 29th, 1PM – 5PM,The University of Kwazulu-Natal,Howard College Campus Howard College Lecture Theater
Donald A. Brown Associate Professor Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law, Director,Collaborative Program on Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change, Rock Ethics Institute, Penn State University
claiming thirteen of the last fifteen years to have been the hottest ever (hockey stick, anyone?).
It's actually 12 of the last 15 years. But do you have any proof that they're incorrect? It's worth noting that GIS, UKMO and JMA all agree with that number, by the way, despite their use of different calculation methods.
If the claim is that thirteen of the last fifteen years have been the hottest ever then, yes, I'd dispute it. The ice core records seem to show cycles with the temperature reaching higher levels than just now.
It's worth noting that GIS, UKMO and JMA all agree with that number, by the way, despite their use of different calculation methods
And if you don't do mystical calculations, the raw data tells a different story.
I don't see how anybody can say that conclusions can be drawn from the surface temperature record.
Quote:
If the claim is that thirteen of the last fifteen years have been the hottest ever then, yes, I'd dispute it. The ice core records seem to show cycles with the temperature reaching higher levels than just now.
You mean this Greenland record? Complete the MWP too!
Christain, X-axis are the calculated year right to left descending. First label is 1914. Stuff in red and brackets are negative years, i.e. BC. The actual raw data is BP.
jcbmack, Sciolistes, gg, Thanks guys, now more baffled than ever. I now at least 'understand' the X-axis (I love the four-decimal precision). But what's the Y-axis about?
Does anybody hasve a link to the origin of this marvelous graph?
Sorry guys... as an engineer I do have a background in reading graphs..... If a graph suddenly jumps from very noisy to very 'quiet', and the average also suddenly jumps, I start by querying the data and measurement techniques, rather than suspecting an underlying phenomenon (like the arrival of the Vikings.....).
What is the meaning? I supose I failed to mention that it is a temperature reconstruction. X is year, Y is temp. It doesn't show AGW because civilisation is only on the far left side. It does show a steady decrease in climatic temperature from around 4500 BC. It also shows massive climatic swings that far exceed anything thay say we are expriencing today due to CO2.
Yes, nowadays for our resident expert it is " science by inference ". Throwing in an inane statement that means nothing. We are steadily warming from LIA. So what's the point of that statement? Where's AGW there?
And none of these are warmer than 1998. And 1934 was warmer than 1998 until GISS decided to " adjust " 1934 temperature downwards in the 21st century. So what's the big deal with today's temperatures then? There've been hot years and cold years throughout earth's history naturally.
And by the way, as expected there's no beep about the egregious and downright criminal behaviour of the scientists, as one comes to expect from resident pro-AGW " authorities " here. That's true to form, as usual.
