Climategate

[steelish]

In Houston this morning at 6:30 it was 54 degrees. Our normal daily temperature this time of year is 62. It is now 39. Tomorrow we will not get above freezing. I cannot recall ever having a prolonged hard freeze for this long and I am 65. I tend to agree with Ducan supporting the tilting of the earth's axis as the culprit having seen no indication of prolonged heat waves even where we are said to have a subtropical climate.

Ah, but have no doubt...the record lows will be attributed to the "Climate Change" debacle!

[DuncanONeil]

No one claimed the data is hidden or suppressed. What many of us are saying is that many of the scientists who rely upon the government for grants and funding have "twisted" the reports on the results to allow the government to continue with their scare tactics.

It certainly doesn't help the "Climate Change" cause that the most vocal supporter is Al Gore, a veritable nut job. Not only is he loony as a jaybird, he also stands to make a LOT of money from the "climate change" scare as long as he can keep the train moving forward.

Do not forget that that "twisted report" was compounded by destruction of the raw data used to produce it. As well as the "fudge factor in the model used to finalize the data.

As for Gore do not forget that he has brought up the several million degrees inside that planet as being an additional contributer to Global Warming!

[DuncanONeil]

Ah, but have no doubt...the record lows will be attributed to the "Climate Change" debacle!

That is one of the reasons that the term has been changed. Probably also to get around the inconvenience of the planet cooling.
Of course they also attribute the cooling to Global Warming, saying that; it many be colder here but that is because it is too much warmer elsewhere.

[leo9]

No one claimed the data is hidden or suppressed.

On the contrary, many people have said this and keep on saying it:

Do not forget that that "twisted report" was compounded by destruction of the raw data used to produce it.

Dudes, the raw data is in the public domain, all over the world. But if people look at the original figures they won't see what you want, so it's simpler to claim the figures don't exist.

What many of us are saying is that many of the scientists who rely upon the government for grants and funding have "twisted" the reports on the results to allow the government to continue with their scare tactics.

So when thousands of scientists who don't rely on government funding say the same thing, you have to invent other reasons why they're lying.

Scientists lost their funding and lost their jobs under the previous administration for reporting climate changes that Dubya didn't want to hear about. That's on the record. Show me one person who's lost grants or funding for attacking AGW.

And more to the point, not ALL scientists agree on this issue. There are many who refute the entire Global Warming/Climate Change issue.

There is always someone to put the contrary case, that's how science works. A says yes, B says no, the rest look at the evidence and a majority come around to one point of view. You can find scientists to claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that cold fusion works, and that evolution is caused by virusses from space. All of them will tell you that the reason the majority of scientist disagree with them is that they're in the grip of a vast conspiracy.

And these contrarians are not always harmless sideshows. When HIV deniers got the ear of the South African government, thousands of deadly ill people were denied life-saving drugs and told to cure themselves by eating beetroot.

No one has claimed that reducing carbon emissions will cause less plant growth. (at least, I certainly don't think that)

Duncan said exactly that, several times. If you're claiming it was a joke now you've been called on it, let him say so.

As for Gore do not forget that he has brought up the several million degrees inside that planet as being an additional contributer to Global Warming!

I haven't seen the original quote, but I would bet a lot of money that it's been misquoted, the way a perfectly true remark about his involvement in ARPAnet was twisted into "Gore claims he invented the Internet". Geography 101 will tell you that the Earth's internal heat is part of the world's thermal economy, so yes, it does contribute to climate change. Or do you know something about geophysics that I and Gore don't?

Sigh... I said I wouldn't get caught up in this. Being drawn in... Must resist... Sanity in danger...

[leo9]

But Global warming 40 years? What about the threat of an ice age, that was touted inside that 40 years??

My point exactly. There was a theory that predicted an ice age, and within a few years it became clear that the things it predicted were not happening, so it was forgotten like a million other theories that didn't work out. And there was a theory that predicted global warming, and year after year the things it predicted happened just like the figures said, so more and more scientists came round to it, until it changed from a crank theory to the accepted fact and the Bush administration had to start firing people for saying it. That's how science works: by the evidence.

Which is why scientists don't speak the language of politics, where evidence is less important than who owns the media.

[Thorne]

Geography 101 will tell you that the Earth's internal heat is part of the world's thermal economy, so yes, it does contribute to climate change.

The Earth's internal heat is a relative constant. If anything it is gradually decreasing over time, but so slowly as to be negligible in the short term.So, while the internal heat does contribute to global temperature, it is not driving climate change.

[leo9]

The Earth's internal heat is a relative constant. If anything it is gradually decreasing over time, but so slowly as to be negligible in the short term.So, while the internal heat does contribute to global temperature, it is not driving climate change.

I didn't say it is, and I would bet a lot that Gore didn't either. I said that it's part of the heat economy which you have to calculate to work out the theory of climate change.

[IAN 2411]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

But Global warming 40 years? What about the threat of an ice age, that was touted inside that 40 years??

I believe it was me that brought up that theory of the mini ice age in the next 10-20 years, and i watched a two hour Geographic program, and i have no doubt that the Scientists and oceanographers were telelling the truth as they see it. Is it because it goes against the global warming theory, that is getting certain peoples backs up that you cannot get it to sink in. It has taken years of green peace and save the earth organisations to spread the news, and now that everyone has jumped on the band wagon, no one wants to believe there is another theory. If you believe the scientists in the global warming because they are of great inteligence and learning, then why dont you believe the others, are they inferior and just mad?

Regards ian 2411

[leo9]

Quote:

I believe it was me that brought up that theory of the mini ice age in the next 10-20 years, and i watched a two hour Geographic program, and i have no doubt that the Scientists and oceanographers were telelling the truth as they see it. Is it because it goes against the global warming theory, that is getting certain peoples backs up that you cannot get it to sink in. It has taken years of green peace and save the earth organisations to spread the news, and now that everyone has jumped on the band wagon, no one wants to believe there is another theory. If you believe the scientists in the global warming because they are of great inteligence and learning, then why dont you believe the others, are they inferior and just mad?

Scientists make mistakes. Even brilliant scientists make mistakes. Newton believed in alchemy just as sincerely as he believed in gravity. Sir Fred Hoyle, whose theory that new species are created by virusses from space I quoted before, is a noted astronomer with some major contributions to cosmology.

The history of science as popularly taught gives the impression that someone comes up with a theory and that's it, it goes into the textbooks as a Law. They leave out the long process whereby the theory is tested by the rest of the scientific community, its reasoning examined, its predictions tested, before it is accepted by a majority of those who know the subject. There are usually some holdouts. A physicist said "Once we believed that light was waves, now we believe it is particles. The reason we all believe it is particles is that those who believed it was waves have died."

Popular history also leaves out that there are almost always competing theories. When Newton put forward his theory of gravitation, Descartes - a mathematician of equal standing - was advancing a theory that gravity was caused by whirlpools in the ether. Scientists didn't choose Newton's theory because they liked his politics (French scientists certainly didn't), but because it made clear predictions which clearly came true. Science is a communal work as well as a work of individual geniuses, and the job of the community is to sort out which genius is right.

Sometimes the test of the predictions takes time. The Theory of Relativity had to wait years for a solar eclipse to test the prediction that gravity bends light rays: when that was shown to be true, most sceptics came around. AGW had to wait decades for enough observations of the slow changes in atmospheric CO2 and air temperature to accumulate to convince the scientific community: and, as ever, there are holdouts. There would be even if the oil industry weren't pouring money their way, that's the nature of science.

As for mini Ice Ages, it's certainly the case that the Gulf Stream is weakening, and that if it fails completely it would have grave consequences for Europe and North America. That is one of the consequences of AGW which has been predicted as a possibility for decades and seems to be coming true. But the fact that AGW may freeze you and me doesn't alter the globe warming up overall. That's why they call it climate change: because the effects will be different in different places.

Have you ever had your car radiator freeze, and so the engine overheats? What would you say to a guy who said "Look, the engine's boiling, that can't be caused by freezing"?

[steelish]

On the contrary, many people have said this and keep on saying it.

I meant, no one in this thread that I know of has said that it is hidden or suppressed

[DuncanONeil]

"(Y)ear after year the things it predicted happened just like the figures said"

But that is not the case. And we still have to deal with the reports that purport to "prove" Global Warming" are based on data that was destroyed, and a mathematical formula that is being kept secret.

Add to that the 'science' of green house gases say that when they increase in the atmosphere more solar radiation is trapped in the atmosphere. Yet data reports that there is more radiation escaping to space than heretofore.

[DuncanONeil]

The Earth's internal heat is a relative constant. If anything it is gradually decreasing over time, but so slowly as to be negligible in the short term.So, while the internal heat does contribute to global temperature, it is not driving climate change.

Not according to Gore who has stated on more than one occasion the millions of degrees of heat internal to the Earth contribute to Global Warming.

[DuncanONeil]

I didn't say it is, and I would bet a lot that Gore didn't either. I said that it's part of the heat economy which you have to calculate to work out the theory of climate change.

Sorry but Gore did say that, at least twice. I heard him with my own little ears. And he got that data wrong as well. Both times!

[DuncanONeil]

"I believe it was me that brought up that theory of the mini ice age in the next 10-20 years"

No! we are talking about the 70s, dear!

[leo9]

I meant, no one in this thread that I know of has said that it is hidden or suppressed

No, you're right, Duncan said it was "destroyed." I guess he could have meant it was an honest mistake, not a deliberate act of suppression or concealment.

Was that what you meant, Duncan?

[DuncanONeil]

"no one wants to believe there is another theory. If you believe the scientists in the global warming because they are of great inteligence and learning, then why dont you believe the others, are they inferior and just mad?"

There are actually two things going on here. One there is global warming and then there is Global Warming. The first is the temperature of the planet seems to be increasing. The second, well, evil little man is deliberately destroying the planet by his pollution and use of fossil is the primary cause.

As to believing a theory. Those that worship in the church of Global Warming will accept nothing that goes against their patriarchs. Anyone that discounts their patriarchs is simply unable to see the truth as laid down by those august persons. If they will not belive they must be pilloried!

[DuncanONeil]

Popular history also leaves out that there are almost always competing theories. When Newton put forward his theory of gravitation, Descartes - a mathematician of equal standing - was advancing a theory that gravity was caused by whirlpools in the ether. Scientists didn't choose Newton's theory because they liked his politics (French scientists certainly didn't), but because it made clear predictions which clearly came true.
Sometimes the test of the predictions takes time. The Theory of Relativity had to wait years for a solar eclipse to test the prediction that gravity bends light rays: when that was shown to be true, most sceptics came around. AGW had to wait decades for enough observations of the slow changes in atmospheric CO2 and air temperature to accumulate to convince the scientific community:

Do you even understand what a "theory" is? A theory is not proven. Were that the case it would not be a theory!

As for mini Ice Ages, it's certainly the case that the Gulf Stream is weakening, and that if it fails completely it would have grave consequences for Europe and North America. That is one of the consequences of AGW which has been predicted as a possibility for decades and seems to be coming true.

Yes is it not interesting that Global Warming can cause us to freeze? They did not change the term to be more accurate, it was because they then can dismiss things like an inconvenient cooling (like the last 12 years). I also find it telling that the AGW crowd prefer to start their little experiment after the completion of the Little Ice Age of the 19th century.
At least you admit that AGW is not a fact in the last sentence

But the fact that AGW may freeze you and me doesn't alter the globe warming up overall. That's why they call it climate change: because the effects will be different in different places.

Again there is the primary reason that the title of this favorite disaster epic has been changed. To deal with the Inconvenient Truth that the planet is not following their game plan.

[/QUOTE]

[DuncanONeil]

I meant, no one in this thread that I know of has said that it is hidden or suppressed

I believe I did say the guys in Manchester destroyed their source data and that their model program has a formula for adjusting the data that is being held back from the peer community.

[leo9]

"(Y)ear after year the things it predicted happened just like the figures said"

But that is not the case.

So you keep saying. Thousands of weather stations around the globe say differently. One big conspiracy.

And we still have to deal with the reports that purport to "prove" Global Warming" are based on data that was destroyed, and a mathematical formula that is being kept secret.

What data? Reports from weather stations all over the world, all in the public domain? They managed to destroy all that? Wow, that is some conspiracy. And the "secret" formulae have been in science papers published over the past 40 years.

By the way, Steelish says that nobody on this thread has claimed that anything was hidden or suppressed. That nobody would be you, right?

Add to that the 'science' of green house gases say that when they increase in the atmosphere more solar radiation is trapped in the atmosphere. Yet data reports that there is more radiation escaping to space than heretofore.

Where is this data, and why, if that's the case, do the meteorologists say the last decade was the hottest on record? I forgot, they're all lying.

[Thorne]

I didn't say it is, and I would bet a lot that Gore didn't either. I said that it's part of the heat economy which you have to calculate to work out the theory of climate change.

I beg to differ, but you did say "it does contribute to climate change". As a relative constant it does not contribute to climate change, but it does contribute to the overall temperature of the planet. It could only contribute to change if it were changing, similar to the way the CO2 level is changing, or the methane level is changing, or the solar influx is constantly changing.

And for the record, despite what Al Gore says, the temperature at the core of the Earth in not several million degrees. It's about 13,000 degrees F.

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=DuncanONeil;835804]

Do you even understand what a "theory" is? A theory is not proven. Were that the case it would not be a theory!

Actually, in scientific terms, a theory is an hypothesis which has been shown, through testing and repeatability, to be consistent with observed reality. In other words, it's as close to 'fact' as you can get. The theory of relativity has been shown, through observation and experimentation, to be consistent with reality. The theory of gravity has been shown repeatedly to conform to observed phenomena. In science you don't get much better than a theory.

At least you admit that AGW is not a fact in the last sentence

I'm not sure that AGW would even qualify as a valid theory, since there seems to be so much scientific controversy over it. At best it may be classified an hypothesis, but I doubt that it has reached the validity of a theory.

[steelish]

I believe I did say the guys in Manchester destroyed their source data and that their model program has a formula for adjusting the data that is being held back from the peer community.

I must have completely missed that post or focused on something else within it. I didn't realize you mentioned that.

I do know that I've seen avoidance of peer reviews discussed elsewhere.

[leo9]

[QUOTE=Thorne;835822]

Do you even understand what a "theory" is? A theory is not proven. Were that the case it would not be a theory!

Actually, in scientific terms, a theory is an hypothesis which has been shown, through testing and repeatability, to be consistent with observed reality. In other words, it's as close to 'fact' as you can get. The theory of relativity has been shown, through observation and experimentation, to be consistent with reality. The theory of gravity has been shown repeatedly to conform to observed phenomena. In science you don't get much better than a theory.

I've often been struck by the similarities of style between AGW deniers and creationists, but I never expected to see this particular creationist specialty repeated here - "You call it a theory, that means it's not proved, ha ha!"

It is a depressing thought that the most highly educated culture in history, with more universities and more people in study than ever before, might walk cheerfully off a cliff because a majority of its citizens don't know or don't care about the basic principles of scientific method.

I'm not sure that AGW would even qualify as a valid theory, since there seems to be so much scientific controversy over it. At best it may be classified an hypothesis, but I doubt that it has reached the validity of a theory.

The comparison above is apt, because there is as much controversy about it as there is about evolution. Which is to say that the theory of the basic mechanism long ago passed enough empirical tests to satisfy the majority of specialists, but there remains a very large area of argument about exactly how and where that mechanism is being expressed, and there also remains a small group who, for ideological reasons or simple conservatism, can't accept the proofs that convince the rest: and by dishonestly conflating these two groups, it is possible to create the impression for outsiders that scientific opinion is divided.

The UEA's work is a case in point. What they were working on was not the basic principle of climate change, which they and all their peers take as long proved, but the detailed questions of exactly how and where and how fast the changes will happen: so even if every word of their reports were proved to be false, it would only change the details of policy. But the deniers constantly spin it as though the basic theory were being disproved, in the same way that creationists point to the faking of Piltdown Man as if it disproved the entire theory of human evolution.

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=leo9;836269]

I've often been struck by the similarities of style between AGW deniers and creationists, but I never expected to see this particular creationist specialty repeated here - "You call it a theory, that means it's not proved, ha ha!"

It is a depressing thought that the most highly educated culture in history, with more universities and more people in study than ever before, might walk cheerfully off a cliff because a majority of its citizens don't know or don't care about the basic principles of scientific method.

The comparison above is apt, because there is as much controversy about it as there is about evolution. Which is to say that the theory of the basic mechanism long ago passed enough empirical tests to satisfy the majority of specialists, but there remains a very large area of argument about exactly how and where that mechanism is being expressed, and there also remains a small group who, for ideological reasons or simple conservatism, can't accept the proofs that convince the rest: and by dishonestly conflating these two groups, it is possible to create the impression for outsiders that scientific opinion is divided.

The UEA's work is a case in point. What they were working on was not the basic principle of climate change, which they and all their peers take as long proved, but the detailed questions of exactly how and where and how fast the changes will happen: so even if every word of their reports were proved to be false, it would only change the details of policy. But the deniers constantly spin it as though the basic theory were being disproved, in the same way that creationists point to the faking of Piltdown Man as if it disproved the entire theory of human evolution.

I think we are in agreement, here. Like evolution, global warming is about as sure as can possibly be, the two theories agreed upon by virtually all qualified scientists. The mechanisms for both, however, are not so clear. In the area of evolution, survival of the fittest still remains classified more as an hypothesis, with some increasingly serious problems, but evolution still remains as a confirmed theory. Similarly, AGW is still being argued in the scientific circles, but global warming itself is virtually uncontested.

Among qualified scientists. The wishful thinking and ugly rhetoric of the political pundits have no place in the science of climate, just as the silly fairy tales and pulpit pounding of the biblical literalists have no place in the science of evolution.

[DuncanONeil]

What data? Reports from weather stations all over the world, all in the public domain? They managed to destroy all that? Wow, that is some conspiracy. And the "secret" formulae have been in science papers published over the past 40 years.The data that the "experts" in Manchester used to plug into their model with the hidden fudge factor. That data!

[leo9]

For those who are interested in reality: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...afrost-methane

This has been recognised as a theoretical risk for a long time, but nobody knew how soon, if ever, it would develop. The answer seems to be - if these readings aren't a blip - dangerously soon. Depending on how the curves develop, this either means we have less time than we hoped, or that it's already too late.

And for the rest, it's another lie from the vast global conspiracy of geographers, meteorologists, physicists, chemists, and scientists in general trying to drive us into a communist dictatorship.

[steelish]

I hear the end of life as we know it will occur on 12/21/12, so live it up while you can, people!

[leo9]

The data that the "experts" in Manchester used to plug into their model with the hidden fudge factor. That data!

Science is built on reproducible results. In politics or religion, when someone says that X is so, people decide whether to believe it according to how well it sits with their prejudices and whether the speaker has a charismatic delivery. Scientists, being human, are sometimes influenced by these things, but what they try to concentrate on is: can we try it ourselves (run the experiment, do the observations, crunch the numbers) and get the same answer? If the answer is yes, they believe it. If the answer is no – either because the original paper didn't give enough information, or because the results don't work out – then it doesn't matter how ideologically correct the source is or how persuasive the write-up, it will not stand.

For example, this is why nobody (much) believes in cold fusion any more. People wanted to believe the original paper – as my then wife wrote, “if this is true, the gods have forgiven us” - and a great many labs jumped to put together the device and see if it did what they said. And it didn't. No prejudice, no Big Oil conspiracy: it just didn't work.

The basic theory of greenhouse gas driven global warming does not depend on “secret” data or complicated formulae. The data are all in the public domain, and anyone with the patience can crunch the numbers and see what comes out. And over the decades a great many people have, and got the same answers, which is why they believe it. No politics, no conspiracy: it just works.

The fancy number-crunching comes when people try to go beyond predicting the general trends and try to find out what exactly it means for, say, Europe or North America; and for that, they must use fancy models with lots of special parameters to try to draw out the particular effects they are looking for. And if they are foolish enough not to publish the details of their models so that others can try it, they will not get much credibility. But the overall facts remain available to everyone, and no-one can destroy or suppress those, any more than you can suppress this morning's weather report.

[denuseri]

So all this el nino stuff has really been the earth working up to a really big fart?

lol

Sorry I had to go there.

I dont know how much of a problem its really going to be. There is no such thing as an endless cycle anyway when it comes to climatology. We also dont know how much methane is trapped in the crust, or in the sea floor (large methane emmissions have occured in the past from there as well periodically).

It is certianly something to look at. (IE keep an eye on)

Our main threat however isnt in the climate alone (which may or may not be within our power to fiddle with as of yet), its our massive unchecked population growth coupled with massive unrenewable rescource aquisition coming to a peak at a bad point for us survival wise which would be much harder at both signifigantly warmer or colder temperatures.

[leo9]

I hear the end of life as we know it will occur on 12/21/12, so live it up while you can, people!

So far as the economy and my advanced age allows, I do.

But see, this is the other important thing about scientific propositions: testability. There is no way to test a proposition based on prophecy... unless the innumerable previous predictions of the End can be counted as tests of the general principle of fortelling the world's future from An-Cie-Ent Prophecies, in which case it's well and truly exploded.

But a proposition based on a simple mathematical relationship can be tested by seeing whether the curve goes on heading the way it's predicted to. And if it does, you're entitled to extend it into the future with some confidence. Same as the rogue economists who extended the curve of unsupported debt and warned, a couple of years in advance, that the economy was heading for a cliff. If governments had dared to listen to them and do something about it, we wouldn't be in this mess.

But it was probably politically impossible for anything to be done: both the rich frauds and the suckers who thought they were getting rich would have rebelled. Any government that saw where things were heading probably judged that it was safer to just let things go smash, then nobody would blame them. And that's the method most of them are applying now.