Climategate

[leo9]

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By JONATHAN PETRE

And this shows just how wrong journalists can get it when they try to translate scientific language into journalese without understanding. (I'm doing Mr. Petre the courtesy of assuming it was an honest mistake and not deliberate distortion.)

If you read the actual text of the interview (which is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm , and I am following normal fair-use practioce, as well as good netiquette, by giving a link rather than cut and paste the whole text) you will find that what he says is that the increase in temperature (which is clear in the figures) is not quite "statistically signignificant". Which is to say that even though it's right there in the data, as a conscientious scientist he has to allow that it might be pure coincidence that every successive reading is higher than the last. That is a completely different thing from saying there has been "no warming", which would obviously be nonsense with the rising figures there for all to see.

The problem seems to be that the media, which wouldn't give the job of football correspondent to someone who never learnt the rules, happily give the job of "science correspondent" to journos who flunked Science 101.

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing

Again, this sounds most impressive if you don't have the actual facts available. If you bother to check:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...t-weather-data
you will find that, after the hooraw suggesting that all the weather records in the world had been somehow deleted by one obscure British scientist, what's actually gone missing is the readings from a bunch of weather stations in northern China. (And if the Chinese don't have copies, they're not the bureaucratic state I take them for.)

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Hold the front page! A journalist has just discovered what's in every elementary climatological textbook! World shaking admission!

It's this sort of invincible ignorance that makes the discussion so difficult. One has to educate people from scratch while they try to find a catch in everything one explains.

My conclusion...even the top scientists cannot agree, therefore why can't we take a step back and finish the investigation before spending trillions more on a project that will have profound effect on the country and our children's future?

Because in the meantime the disaster is already happening:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...cts-tajikistan

And while climate change deniers were having lots of fun about the blizzards in Washington, the Winter Olympics have been having to truck in snow so the ski slopes won't be grass.

The investigation is finished, it was finished years ago. It's the political fight that is never going to be finished so long as Big Oil has a million to spare for PR.

[DuncanONeil]

I did read the text of the interview. I also have a modicum of understanding of scientific methods and numbers.
Basically Mr Jones sounded a lot like a lawyer in his answers. They all came across like; "yes, but ..."
In other words having to admit the truth, but trying to mitigate the damage to themselves.

In part you are correct about generic weather data. But in terms of a conclusion drawn from a study, or experiment, your are off base. If an experiment is conducted, and result arrived at, the rule of repeatable is not predicated on start all over from scratch. Some other person is to be able to, with the data, or materials, used reproduce the result. In this case if the missing data was from China one can not reproduce the results of East Anglia, as you do not know where in China to look. I know! I know! Your position is to just go get data and run your own analysis. But people have done that and achieved different results. That is the issue here. What kind of scientist makes little effort to protect all aspects of his data for peer review. Don't you find that a bit suspicious?

I note you make no reference to Mr Jones admission that the planet has been cooling since 2002. Even though that is a small number statistically, you claimed that the mere fact of an increasing number is enough validity to claim a disastrous increase in global temperature, yet choose to ignore the opposite data. Shows a disposition to believe a certain outcome. Kind of like a high school project. No project is permitted to disprove a hypothesis, all projects must prove hypotheses true. Not how science really works!
An open mind is a prerequsite for scientific study!

And this shows just how wrong journalists can get it when they try to translate scientific language into journalese without understanding. (I'm doing Mr. Petre the courtesy of assuming it was an honest mistake and not deliberate distortion.)

If you read the actual text of the interview (which is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm , and I am following normal fair-use practioce, as well as good netiquette, by giving a link rather than cut and paste the whole text) you will find that what he says is that the increase in temperature (which is clear in the figures) is not quite "statistically signignificant". Which is to say that even though it's right there in the data, as a conscientious scientist he has to allow that it might be pure coincidence that every successive reading is higher than the last. That is a completely different thing from saying there has been "no warming", which would obviously be nonsense with the rising figures there for all to see.

The problem seems to be that the media, which wouldn't give the job of football correspondent to someone who never learnt the rules, happily give the job of "science correspondent" to journos who flunked Science 101.

Again, this sounds most impressive if you don't have the actual facts available. If you bother to check:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...t-weather-data
you will find that, after the hooraw suggesting that all the weather records in the world had been somehow deleted by one obscure British scientist, what's actually gone missing is the readings from a bunch of weather stations in northern China. (And if the Chinese don't have copies, they're not the bureaucratic state I take them for.)
Hold the front page! A journalist has just discovered what's in every elementary climatological textbook! World shaking admission!

It's this sort of invincible ignorance that makes the discussion so difficult. One has to educate people from scratch while they try to find a catch in everything one explains.
Because in the meantime the disaster is already happening:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...cts-tajikistan

And while climate change deniers were having lots of fun about the blizzards in Washington, the Winter Olympics have been having to truck in snow so the ski slopes won't be grass.

The investigation is finished, it was finished years ago. It's the political fight that is never going to be finished so long as Big Oil has a million to spare for PR.

[denuseri]

I have no problem with continuing to reaserch the real cuases of climate change.

Ive allways been a proponent of more reaserch.

As for some of the projects....well, some of the projects in question, (like reducing or eliminating our dependence on non-renewable rescources) in my opinion are still just as nessesary for the furture of our specieis as a whole regardless of the cuases of global climate trends becuase there are larger issues looming over the horizon conserning them in regards to population expansion vs resource aquisition.

Also I do believe, given sufficient time, we as humans can and will impact the enviroment in such a mannner that we will wish we did change how we conduct our stewardship of the earth sooner rather than later some day.

Additionally, I see no reason good enough to support a position that promotes polution of our enviroment soley for the sake of corporate greed without regard for the wellfare of everyone involved.

The planet certianly isnt going to give us any second chances, and I don't see a viable place to expand into floating nearby that we can just fly over too any time soon.

[steelish]

I have no problem with continuing to reaserch the real cuases of climate change.

Ive allways been a proponent of more reaserch.

As for some of the projects....well, some of the projects in question, (like reducing or eliminating our dependence on non-renewable rescources) in my opinion are still just as nessesary for the furture of our specieis as a whole regardless of the cuases of global climate trends becuase there are larger issues looming over the horizon conserning them in regards to population expansion vs resource aquisition.

Also I do believe, given sufficient time, we as humans can and will impact the enviroment in such a mannner that we will wish we did change how we conduct our stewardship of the earth sooner rather than later some day.

Additionally, I see no reason good enough to support a position that promotes polution of our enviroment soley for the sake of corporate greed without regard for the wellfare of everyone involved.

The planet certianly isnt going to give us any second chances, and I don't see a viable place to expand into floating nearby that we can just fly over too any time soon.

On all of this, I agree wholeheartedly. The project I am referring to is Cap and Trade and of course the multitude of stifling federal regulations placed upon manufacturers.

[DuncanONeil]

Cap and trade is a very bad idea. Does nothing to change anything. Will do little more than raise the cost of everything. Likely put many companies out of business.

If anything we should be encouraging business. They are the ones that come up with new ideas!

On all of this, I agree wholeheartedly. The project I am referring to is Cap and Trade and of course the multitude of stifling federal regulations placed upon manufacturers.

[steelish]

cap and trade is a very bad idea. Does nothing to change anything. Will do little more than raise the cost of everything. Likely put many companies out of business.

If anything we should be encouraging business. They are the ones that come up with new ideas!

exactly

[symphony]

I beg to differ!! Top scientists do agree, science is not cut and dry and you will NEVER get an 100% concencus, I study climate and geology at university and I can tell you that 95% of scientists agree that the climate is warming and that we are either contributing or causing this. the problem is that the media gives the 5% and the 95% equal(ish) air time which makes people think that there is large disagreements.

We should currently be swinging back to a cooler period due to molanchovich cycles and we arnt.

I ask you does it really matter weather there is a concencus about weather its all our fault or just partly our fault the fact is that its happening.

We must spend money now as we need to level off our emissions 2015 to prevent a 2 degree warming which would cause food shortages and mass migrations causing huge strains on people.

look it up if you dont believe me and please dont google it. Try looking in journals and scientific publications. The news doesnt speak the truth all the time now does it!

[DuncanONeil]

Please read message #194 & 195!!

I beg to differ!! Top scientists do agree, science is not cut and dry and you will NEVER get an 100% concencus, I study climate and geology at university and I can tell you that 95% of scientists agree that the climate is warming and that we are either contributing or causing this. the problem is that the media gives the 5% and the 95% equal(ish) air time which makes people think that there is large disagreements.

We should currently be swinging back to a cooler period due to molanchovich cycles and we arnt.

I ask you does it really matter weather there is a concencus about weather its all our fault or just partly our fault the fact is that its happening.

We must spend money now as we need to level off our emissions 2015 to prevent a 2 degree warming which would cause food shortages and mass migrations causing huge strains on people.

look it up if you dont believe me and please dont google it. Try looking in journals and scientific publications. The news doesnt speak the truth all the time now does it!

[steelish]

the problem is that the media gives the 5% and the 95% equal(ish) air time which makes people think that there is large disagreements.

And my point is...in the US they report it as if 100% of the scientists agree.

[leo9]

And my point is...in the US they report it as if 100% of the scientists agree.

Except for the Murdoch outlets, which report it as if 50% of the scientists disagree. As I have observed elsewhere, the abysmal standard of science reporting - which is almost entirely written from the point of view of politics, with zero concern for facts - on all sides of the media, is part of the problem.

[DuncanONeil]

Did not quite realize how extensive his holdings were.
Most of them are without the US.
But there are a few here that actually fall with in the purview of MSM.

Aside from that many of the corporate heads of the rest of the MSM outlets come down on the conservative side of the spectrum, yet the news produced is often not.

Zero concern for facts? On all sides? So you take the position that the right lies, yet you choose to believe reports from the left? In spite of the assertion that they all have "zero concern for the facts". Do you write for Al Gore?

Except for the Murdoch outlets, which report it as if 50% of the scientists disagree. As I have observed elsewhere, the abysmal standard of science reporting - which is almost entirely written from the point of view of politics, with zero concern for facts - on all sides of the media, is part of the problem.

[DuncanONeil]

And my point is...in the US they report it as if 100% of the scientists agree.

And I think the ratio is not quite so far apart. Nor do we know which portion of the ratio applies to which side!

[steelish]

Maybe in the UK the news doesn't "report" on global warming/climate change, but in the US we are bombarded daily with it!

[steelish]

Here is a claim that global warming is causing an increase in fog around LA

and interestingly enough, here is a claim (a mere 7 months later) that global warming is causing a DECREASE in the fog surrounding LA


Give me a break

[symphony]

i did read them, thats why i posted.
When did i say that they diddnt report in the uk. blatently i said they did, but it is not always advisable to believe it without checking their sources... but i see im not going to get anywhere, and im wasting my time.

[DuncanONeil]

When even the Guru of AGW says that the only consensus is that there is no consensus, why is it that the AGW crowd continues its mantra of gloom and doom? Why do they continue to trot out draconian measures to alter something that they do not yet understand?
This is like the Government demanding that the auto industry, I'm sorry the auto division of Government, reduce fuel consumption in cars. How did they do that? Mandate a fleet wide average, without consideration to any other business concern. The result? Not fuel efficient cars people buy, but a large segment of the fleet that has a high, tested, fuel consumption and everything else. What do the people buy? Largely everything else. Market forces would be a better engine of innovation that a mandate from some outsider. The Smart Car is making inroads in the US for a number of reasons, I can give you mine. I am not currently in the market for a car but the price, economy, safety, and difference of the car is large in my mind. Although I really would prefer one of the companies other models. Provided the EPA doesn't screw it up. When I first found the Smart it was reported at 60 mpg, by the time it passed US regs it was a mere 40 mpg.
Wandered a bit at the end there!

i did read them, thats why i posted.
When did i say that they diddnt report in the uk. blatently i said they did, but it is not always advisable to believe it without checking their sources... but i see im not going to get anywhere, and im wasting my time.

[steelish]

The actual text (which I did read) also states that the periods of 1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998 & 1975-2009 all had similar warming trends. These are things the mainstream media fails to report.

[leo9]

The actual text (which I did read) also states that the periods of 1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998 & 1975-2009 all had similar warming trends.

Interesting, thanks for noting that. 1860 fits the theory, but I didn't realise they had pushed the data back that far.

These are things the mainstream media fails to report.

The BBC will be fascinated to learn that they are now a fringe medium.

[steelish]

Interesting, thanks for noting that. 1860 fits the theory, but I didn't realise they had pushed the data back that far.
The BBC will be fascinated to learn that they are now a fringe medium.

in 1860 there were no SUVs...no industrialization. It "fits the theory" hmmm?

[denuseri]

Thats becuase there is allmost no pre published peer review or scource checking going on anymore (for journalists) and the journalists (sophists by any other name) not to mention college proffessors and more than a few scientists (keep peer review but still no ethics) are more worried about alcaim, ratings, money and pushing their own political social agendas, then they are about ethics and objectivity.

[MMI]

The Industrial Revolution in Great Britain can be traced back to the 1600s if not earlier. By the mid 19th century, it was well under way, and the steady growth of factories, heavy industry and steel mills in rapidly developing urban areas all had their effect on the atmosphere. In larger cities, the English fog had become the smog for which the country was once so notorious. No heavy traffic as such, but coal fired steam engines of all kinds were to be found, while gas supplies, when they began to be distributed throughout towns and cities, did not take the form of "clean" natural gas, but were made from coal, wood and other similar materials.

I don't know if that helps it "fit the theory," but to a simple chump like me, it looks like it.

[Thorne]

I don't know if that helps it "fit the theory," but to a simple chump like me, it looks like it.

While that would have had localized effects, certainly, it's doubtful that there would have been global effects, at least the kinds of effects we are seeing now. There simply weren't enough industrialized cities for that.

[DuncanONeil]

Then how do you account for the apparent cooling after 1880?

The Industrial Revolution in Great Britain can be traced back to the 1600s if not earlier. By the mid 19th century, it was well under way, and the steady growth of factories, heavy industry and steel mills in rapidly developing urban areas all had their effect on the atmosphere. In larger cities, the English fog had become the smog for which the country was once so notorious. No heavy traffic as such, but coal fired steam engines of all kinds were to be found, while gas supplies, when they began to be distributed throughout towns and cities, did not take the form of "clean" natural gas, but were made from coal, wood and other similar materials.

I don't know if that helps it "fit the theory," but to a simple chump like me, it looks like it.

[MMI]

Yeah. I think you're right.

I withdraw that suggestion.

[denuseri]

Burning fires of allmost any kind release carbon into the air peeps.

And lets not forget the additonal build up can be gradually accumulated, though even with all the open pit burning that was done for strip mining from the 17th century until the 19th took over with oil, I don't think human interaction alone explains how the climate is currently tipping into a diffinitive rapid warming cycle.

Its probabely a combination of solar positional, /distance and intensity, volcanic emmissions (both terestrial and subsurface benthic kinds), sea floor particulate release, and human interaction.

Which is of course besides the point.

Even if we don't know whats cuasing it to happen, or how much we have contributed; we still need to stop doing the things that are going to surely fuck us and our posterity down the road now while we can.

[DuncanONeil]

I do not always agree with what you say but even when I do you method of stating is by far the most civilized.

Now you said; "I don't think human interaction alone explains how the climate is currently tipping into a diffinitive rapid warming cycle." But it seems that such a statement no longer fits the facts at hand. The premiere AGW guru Mr Jones has admitted that the planet is experiencing a cooling trend in existence since 2002. Greenhouse gases are supposed to trap extra-planetary radiation within the atmosphere. Yet there have been reports that a increase in the rate of radiation escaping the atmosphere is being recorded.

Burning fires of allmost any kind release carbon into the air peeps.

And lets not forget the additonal build up can be gradually accumulated, though even with all the open pit burning that was done for strip mining from the 17th century until the 19th took over with oil, I don't think human interaction alone explains how the climate is currently tipping into a diffinitive rapid warming cycle.

Its probabely a combination of solar positional, /distance and intensity, volcanic emmissions (both terestrial and subsurface benthic kinds), sea floor particulate release, and human interaction.

Which is of course besides the point.

Even if we don't know whats cuasing it to happen, or how much we have contributed; we still need to stop doing the things that are going to surely fuck us and our posterity down the road now while we can.

[steelish]

Don't forget that those "warming periods" were followed by cooler times. During the early 70s we were all warned that the next ice age was coming.

Florida is in it's coldest winter in history, record snowfalls in DC, extreme cold in the Northeast and midwest, etc. Seems like it might be a cooling trend starting...maybe? Won't Al Gore feel foolish if the next 10 to 15 years are cooler.

[denuseri]

All while the glaciers have gotten smaller than they have been in thousands of years and at a faster rate than any evidence we have today of their history can account for.

[DuncanONeil]

However those very glaciers are remnants of the last ice age! Remember how Greenland got its name? Even that was after the last ice age. It should be clear that these things as well are on some cycle that is currently beyond our ken.

All while the glaciers have gotten smaller than they have been in thousands of years and at a faster rate than any evidence we have today of their history can account for.

[steelish]

Actually, there is evidence that the glaciers have gotten smaller before in history, then built back up. I will hunt for it.

(and I am speaking of evidence that a scientist submitted...not something that someone suspects)