Al Gore Lies About Gloabl Warming Scandal

[dogtowner]

Say, dogtowner, did you happen to notice the date on that link I found?

Here's a more up to date one:



2007 to be 'warmest on record'



So, no, the warming hasn't stopped. That last one was from 2007. Look for more in the future as well.

But, it is quite possible that warming might decrease, or at least slow down a bit, while CO2 increases. There are other factors, of course. The hypothesis is that CO2 is accelerating global warming, not that it is the only cause.

The part in the post I responded to said ti was close tothe record and this says 60% chance of exceeding 1998. I said its stopped and possibly dipped a bit which is what you are suggesting too.

The entire theory of CO2 being the boogieman is predicated on the notion that as CO2 increases, so does temp. Co2 has increased the last 10 tears, temp has not, its flat.

 

[PLC1]

The part in the post I responded to said ti was close tothe record and this says 60% chance of exceeding 1998. I said its stopped and possibly dipped a bit which is what you are suggesting too.

The entire theory of CO2 being the boogieman is predicated on the notion that as CO2 increases, so does temp. Co2 has increased the last 10 tears, temp has not, its flat.

How can 2006 be the hottest year on record if the warming has stopped?

 

[dogtowner]

How can 2006 be the hottest year on record if the warming has stopped?

your article said that it had a 60% chance of eclipsing 1998.
close but no cigar.

 

[MrSheepish]

To complete my response to dogtowner's accusations that scientists have been faking the data, here is the complete list of the four claims he made and my responses. Farther below in this post I have a summary of his accusations and those of Asur. Overall, I still don't see any evidence of scientists manipulating data in serious ways except possibly for the accusations of the conservative Russian economists - if they can be trusted and if there are no other explanations for why the scientists might have chosen to remove the data.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/read/3814/climategate-memo-shows-global-warming-stats-are-fake/

I don't believe this one at all. This is a link to a scientist or engineer who is ranting about his frustrations in being the first person to put a database in order and finding missing and partially corrupted files. Please. I have tried to do things sort of like this before, and I can tell you that there are problems like this in many databases without assuming foul play. I see no reason to assume dishonesty. You will note that the author of the actual source readme never says that he suspects foul play, but spends lots of time blaming bad software.

http://thehayride.com/2009/12/russians-confirm-east-anglia-cru-faked-climate-data/

This is an accusation of cherry-picking data, not faking data. I have not been able to find much detailed information about it, so I cannot conclude at this point whether it is valid or not. There are many reasons why scientists might choose to remove 40% of the temperature stations from their analyses. Maybe they determined some of the stations were unreliable or were not relevant to particular things they were studying. Also note that it is not impartial scientists who are claiming foul play. Rather it is Russian economists who contain prominent links on their homepage to the Cato Institute ... clearly an economic group with conservative leanings. So they aren't exactly an impartial group.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/new_zealand_climate_scientists.html

This accusation is obviously false. The blog goes through and finds that the the temperature trend only exists because of a correction the climate scientists made to the raw data. Instead of asking why the correction was made, they screamed "foul play, fabrication of data!" Turns out the temperature stations have not been in the same locations for the last 100+ years, so corrections have to be made to account for these differences. In particular, one of them was moved to a much higher elevation where it is significantly colder so that the temperatures have to be corrected upwards for comparison.

http://www.dailyillini.com/blogs/di...-trashed-raw-data-climate-change-under-attack

No examples of faked data here, just vague accusations.

Overall, between dogtowner and Asur, I can remember five serious accusations of scientists fabricating or distorting data. a) CRU scientists playing a trick to "hide the decline" in temperatures. b) Realclimate altering data. c) Data is altered because files in a database are messed up and don't agree with each other. d) Russian data was used selectively to create a false warming signal. e) New Zealand scientists manipulated data to create a fake warming signal.

a and e are obviously false accusations that only get any attention because the average person is ignorant of the science and statements have been taken out of context (in a's case). b is an accusation that Asur made but never even tried to back up despite my repeated requests, so I see no reason to believe it. c is almost certainly false. Files in databases have problems all the time without foul play being involved. d is the only one I am not sure about, but it is being made by what appears to be a biased source of people who have no scientific expertise, so I have no strong reason to trust it.

Overall, there is dishonesty among scientists just like there is dishonesty among people of every profession. For some reason many false claims of dishonesty are spreading about scientists recently, and you guys are choosing to believe them all without question, even when they are being made by groups that are being paid to undermine the science because it supports the Democratic agenda (many bloggers at conservative sites). I am sure that you will all ignore my studies here, just as you have ignored almost all the science I have explained to you because it undermines your certainty that the scientists are liars and global warming is a hoax. But if nothing else, I feel that I have closed the loop and have a better understanding of these issues myself.

Cheers!

 

[Gipper]

To complete my response to dogtowner's accusations that scientists have been faking the data, here is the complete list of the four claims he made and my responses. Farther below in this post I have a summary of his accusations and those of Asur. Overall, I still don't see any evidence of scientists manipulating data in serious ways except possibly for the accusations of the conservative Russian economists - if they can be trusted and if there are no other explanations for why the scientists might have chosen to remove the data.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/read/3814/climategate-memo-shows-global-warming-stats-are-fake/

I don't believe this one at all. This is a link to a scientist or engineer who is ranting about his frustrations in being the first person to put a database in order and finding missing and partially corrupted files. Please. I have tried to do things sort of like this before, and I can tell you that there are problems like this in many databases without assuming foul play. I see no reason to assume dishonesty. You will note that the author of the actual source readme never says that he suspects foul play, but spends lots of time blaming bad software.

http://thehayride.com/2009/12/russians-confirm-east-anglia-cru-faked-climate-data/

This is an accusation of cherry-picking data, not faking data. I have not been able to find much detailed information about it, so I cannot conclude at this point whether it is valid or not. There are many reasons why scientists might choose to remove 40% of the temperature stations from their analyses. Maybe they determined some of the stations were unreliable or were not relevant to particular things they were studying. Also note that it is not impartial scientists who are claiming foul play. Rather it is Russian economists who contain prominent links on their homepage to the Cato Institute ... clearly an economic group with conservative leanings. So they aren't exactly an impartial group.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/new_zealand_climate_scientists.html

This accusation is obviously false. The blog goes through and finds that the the temperature trend only exists because of a correction the climate scientists made to the raw data. Instead of asking why the correction was made, they screamed "foul play, fabrication of data!" Turns out the temperature stations have not been in the same locations for the last 100+ years, so corrections have to be made to account for these differences. In particular, one of them was moved to a much higher elevation where it is significantly colder so that the temperatures have to be corrected upwards for comparison.

http://www.dailyillini.com/blogs/di...-trashed-raw-data-climate-change-under-attack

No examples of faked data here, just vague accusations.

Overall, between dogtowner and Asur, I can remember five serious accusations of scientists fabricating or distorting data. a) CRU scientists playing a trick to "hide the decline" in temperatures. b) Realclimate altering data. c) Data is altered because files in a database are messed up and don't agree with each other. d) Russian data was used selectively to create a false warming signal. e) New Zealand scientists manipulated data to create a fake warming signal.

a and e are obviously false accusations that only get any attention because the average person is ignorant of the science and statements have been taken out of context (in a's case). b is an accusation that Asur made but never even tried to back up despite my repeated requests, so I see no reason to believe it. c is almost certainly false. Files in databases have problems all the time without foul play being involved. d is the only one I am not sure about, but it is being made by what appears to be a biased source of people who have no scientific expertise, so I have no strong reason to trust it.

Overall, there is dishonesty among scientists just like there is dishonesty among people of every profession. For some reason many false claims of dishonesty are spreading about scientists recently, and you guys are choosing to believe them all without question, even when they are being made by groups that are being paid to undermine the science because it supports the Democratic agenda (many bloggers at conservative sites). I am sure that you will all ignore my studies here, just as you have ignored almost all the science I have explained to you because it undermines your certainty that the scientists are liars and global warming is a hoax. But if nothing else, I feel that I have closed the loop and have a better understanding of these issues myself.

Cheers!

Dear Mr Sheeple, I really appreciate your hard work on this issue. I really mean really. But, why are you wasting so much time on an issue that is completely out of man's control? If the Earth is warming (big IF), it is warming due to natural causes and not from CO2 emitted by man.

So, I feel sorry for you. You obviously are an intelligent person. You should spend your time doing something productive. Like for example, promoting live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans...like I do. Just call me Mr. Happy.

"Time was, people warning the world "Repent - the end is nigh!" were snickered at as fruitcakes. Now they own the media and run the schools"

 

[PLC1]

Dear Mr Sheeple, I really appreciate your hard work on this issue. I really mean really. But, why are you wasting so much time on an issue that is completely out of man's control? If the Earth is warming (big IF), it is warming due to natural causes and not from CO2 emitted by man.

So, I feel sorry for you. You obviously are an intelligent person. You should spend your time doing something productive. Like for example, promoting live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans...like I do. Just call me Mr. Happy.

"Time was, people warning the world "Repent - the end is nigh!" were snickered at as fruitcakes. Now they own the media and run the schools"

Now, some of that actually does make sense. The Earth is warming no doubt, but there isn't anything we can do about it anyway, so why even waste bandwidth and time discussing it?

On the one hand, we have the alarmists who are certain that doomsday will arrive if we don't act to curb carbon emissions.

On the other hand, we have the headinthesanders who try their best to deny scientific observation and make absurd accusations that the scientific community is using global climate change to create a world government.

Meanwhile, we are going to have some places on Earth get wetter, others drier, some colder, others hotter, and we really don't know in any great detail what to expect.

And, of course, if the science community does actually come up with a probable scenario for a particular location, such as the prediction already made that Western Europe will get colder, it will be discussed and debated from a political perspective as proof of/against global climate change.

The only thing we know for sure from the discussion of global warming is that we seriously need to improve our teaching of science.

Since there isn't anything we can do to reverse climate change anyway, why bother? What difference do any of the belief systems that have arisen from what should be based on logic and fact matter anyway?

 

[MrSheepish]

Dear Mr Sheeple, I really appreciate your hard work on this issue. I really mean really. But, why are you wasting so much time on an issue that is completely out of man's control?

I'm glad you appreciate it. It's hard work cleaning up all of your false accusations.

If the Earth is warming (big IF), it is warming due to natural causes and not from CO2 emitted by man.

It must be nice living in a world where you can be so sure of yourself based on a complete lack of evidence. Where you can be caught making all kinds of mistakes, but still be so certain that you're right and all the people who disagree with you after having spent their lives studying something are probably liars. Personally, I do not decide I am sure of something unless I thoroughly investigate it first.

Just call me Mr. Happy.

You do seem happy, so I can't knock you on that! I just wish you didn't get your happiness from the spread of false information that defames the careers of honest people and confuses the public about an important issue.

 

[MrSheepish]

The only thing we know for sure from the discussion of global warming is that we seriously need to improve our teaching of science.

That is by far the strongest conclusion I have drawn from my debates in this thread.

Since there isn't anything we can do to reverse climate change anyway, why bother?

Of course there are things we can do about it! What ever gave you the idea that we couldn't? In terms of reducing the carbon footprint, there are smart ways to do it and there are stupid ways. Some of the approaches are extremely costly (building solar plants, hydrogen fuel cells, taxing carbon, restricting travel, etc. Others are quite cheap and effective: switching to nuclear power, educating people about smarter diets. Finally, if we fail to control the greenhouse gases and temperatures rise to dangerous levels, it most certainly can be reversed. There is always geoengineering to lower the planet's temperature, which can be done in a pretty cheap way, but which may have unpredictable side effects.

 

[Sihouette]

I was wondering what the naysayers think about The Sahara Project as a remedy?

Asur, Gipper etc.?, care to weigh in?

 

[dogtowner]

I was wondering what the naysayers think about The Sahara Project as a remedy?

Asur, Gipper etc.?, care to weigh in?

crank it up. cant hurt.

 

[asur]

The Sahara Project

Which one?

 

[asur]

Mr Sheepish - Yes, Russian data was used selectively to create a false warming signal.

We can continue Exhibit 13 and discuss how the Global Warming Hoaxers did so in other ways. If you examine another climate proxy the Gloabl Warming Hoaxers fabricated, the evidence again points to cherry picking and faulty science.

 

[PLC1]

That is by far the strongest conclusion I have drawn from my debates in this thread.



Of course there are things we can do about it! What ever gave you the idea that we couldn't? In terms of reducing the carbon footprint, there are smart ways to do it and there are stupid ways. Some of the approaches are extremely costly (building solar plants, hydrogen fuel cells, taxing carbon, restricting travel, etc. Others are quite cheap and effective: switching to nuclear power, educating people about smarter diets. Finally, if we fail to control the greenhouse gases and temperatures rise to dangerous levels, it most certainly can be reversed. There is always geoengineering to lower the planet's temperature, which can be done in a pretty cheap way, but which may have unpredictable side effects.

but, you see, we won't do any of those things. What we will do is to argue over whether what we can plainly see is real or an hallucination (melting ice caps, for example), and then fight over who needs to cut back on carbon emissions. In the unlikely event that we in the US could get our act together and create a smaller carbon footprint, China will take up the slack. Humanity has never, in all its history, ever had the degree of international cooperation a worldwide reduction in carbon emissions would require. If we did go that direction, then the naysayers would point to that cooperation and scream, "worldwide Marxist government! Run for the hills!"

Further, CO2 and methane emitted by human activities is only one of he causes of global climate change. The Earth undergoes cycles of warmer and cooler weather, which is the argument that the headinthesanders use after their argument that climate change is not real falls apart. They then say, "well, no one argued that climate change was not real (which they did, of course) but it isn't anthropogenic."

Which is partially true. It is only being accelerated by human activities.

Finally, even if mankind should discover cold fusion and abandon fossil fuels altogether tomorrow, the CO2 that has already been emitted would still be there. That carbon, along with natural warming, has already increased the other greenhouse gasses (eg. water vapor) and has started melting the tundra and releasing that methane and carbon dioxide. We could reduce the levels by planting trees and the like, but we won't.

So, my (admittedly cynical, but no doubt accurate) assessment of the situation is that humans can do little to mitigate global climate change, and will actually do less than the little that we could do.

So, get ready. Earth's climates are going to change, some places will get warmer, others cooler, some wetter, others drier. Sea levels will rise, but probably not as much as the alarmists are expecting.

And the headinthesanders will still claim that they were right all along, just as they always do.

 

[top gun]

Now, some of that actually does make sense. The Earth is warming no doubt, but there isn't anything we can do about it anyway, so why even waste bandwidth and time discussing it?

On the one hand, we have the alarmists who are certain that doomsday will arrive if we don't act to curb carbon emissions.

On the other hand, we have the headinthesanders who try their best to deny scientific observation and make absurd accusations that the scientific community is using global climate change to create a world government.

Meanwhile, we are going to have some places on Earth get wetter, others drier, some colder, others hotter, and we really don't know in any great detail what to expect.

And, of course, if the science community does actually come up with a probable scenario for a particular location, such as the prediction already made that Western Europe will get colder, it will be discussed and debated from a political perspective as proof of/against global climate change.

The only thing we know for sure from the discussion of global warming is that we seriously need to improve our teaching of science.

Since there isn't anything we can do to reverse climate change anyway, why bother? What difference do any of the belief systems that have arisen from what should be based on logic and fact matter anyway?

There's a multiple effect here that is very important to completely understand.

First off there is a provable direct link to carbon emissions and their effect on an environment. You can easily create a scale model test that shows this. The only reason that the pumping of millions of tons of CO2 into the environment daily is not an exact predictable as to catastrophic effect is because the planet tries to right itself through its ecosystem.

This is the same with water pollution. You can put a certain amount of pollution into our streams and the natural processes of the water filtering through the rocks and sediment and the organic components in the riverbed will eventually detoxify it. But there is a tipping point.

With the massive continual increase in CO2 output along with things like deforestation it's exactly like adding more pollution to the stream nd making the steam shorter. The bad effects build up. And that's what's happening.

Then you also have the more obvious effects of air pollution such as smog and multiple airborne chemical & gases hazards that affect breathing as well as other problems such as acid rain.

Then you also have fact that we need to be more fuel efficient & invest in green technologies anyway because things like oil are not infinite resources and can only go up in cost as supply ultimately dwindles.

To put it into very basic terms more of this...

not only cuts down on the building climate change & ozone layer depletion problem but also helps protect us from this...

which is a very good thing indeed.

 

[MrSheepish]

Mr Sheepish - Yes, Russian data was used selectively to create a false warming signal.

Mmm, hmmm. Because Russian economists with ties to the Cato institute say a minority of their temperature stations were excluded you just assume they are telling the whole story and that it was done for dishonest reasons.

We can continue Exhibit 13 and discuss how the Global Warming Hoaxers did so in other ways. If you examine another climate proxy the Gloabl Warming Hoaxers fabricated, the evidence again points to cherry picking and faulty science.

Another day, another accusation of fabricating data by Asur for which he provides no supporting evidence.