Al Gore Lies About Gloabl Warming Scandal

[Pidgey]

Are you against green energy? Against cap and trade? Perchance are you a shareholder in a big stinking filthy or dangerous coal, oil or nuke company?

Oh, forget that as an excuse--anyone can sell stocks in one company and buy those of another if they thought it was going to outperform the other. He probably just doesn't want his energy costs to rise exponentially. I'd personally feel a lot better about investing in green energy companies if they didn't keep falling into BS like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/science/earth/19mojave.html?_r=2&ref=science

Gotta' wonder what that was all about. Kinda' smells like some kind of rat there...

 

[Pidgey]

Well... we just took a hit to the coral reefs in Florida:

http://www.physorg.com/news184044612.html

Don't know if y'all are aware of this, but the northern line above which you can't (commercially) grow oranges in Florida keeps moving south, too.

 

[Pidgey]

CRAP! What's this ****!?!:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=a0UcUCxePopI

GET YOUR #@&% ACT TOGETHER, OBAMACO!!!

 

[MrSheepish]

Exhibit 14: One Tree - The Global Warming House is built on Sand!

Can you spot the crazy tree below?


It is reported this single tree(YAD061) is a pillar of Global Warming alarmism.

Asur, earlier in this thread you posted a CRU e-mail where you claimed that the scientists were manipulating data because they were ignoring the tree-ring data and using more accurate methods of measuring temperature instead. Now you are claiming that the CRU scientists use of tree rings from a single study is the foundation of much of global warming understanding. Have you thought about just how much these two accusations contradict each other?

In a broader sense, the reality is that scientists base almost none of their conclusions about recent temperature trends upon tree ring data, much less on the results of this study of a handful of trees in Russia. If this study is completely wrong, then who cares? Tree rings have been shown to be inaccurate proxies for temperature in recent times, which is why they are generally not used when reconstructing average temperatures in recent history. Conclusions in the IPCC reports are based much more heavily on satellite measurements, weather station measurements, and oceanic measurements, all of which are in good agreement with one another, and are consistent between all parts of the world, showing a long-term warming trend. I've already pointed this out a number of times. If you want to cast doubt upon global warming conclusions in an honest way then these are the types of measurements that you need to find problems with, not tree rings.

 

[Pidgey]

Try not to confuse things--those tree ring studies were mostly used to flatten the past proxy record to produce the hockey stick, not to affect the modern temperature record.

 

[asur]

Mr Sheepish wrote -

Asur, earlier in this thread you posted a CRU e-mail where you claimed that the scientists were manipulating data because they were ignoring the tree-ring data and using more accurate methods of measuring temperature instead.

Show me where I stated this?

It was stated that Global Warming Hoaxers are manipulating data.

I am not sure what you are referring to, otherwise?

 

[asur]

Pigey wrote -

those tree ring studies were mostly used to flatten the past proxy record to produce the hockey stick, not to affect the modern temperature record

Can you explain further?

This tree ring result showed cyclical temperatures and yes there were pre-1800 tree ring data indicating warm temperatures.

 

[dogtowner]

Pigey wrote -


Can you explain further?

This tree ring result showed cyclical temperatures and yes there were pre-1800 tree ring data indicating warm temperatures.

and so they had to be set aside. never mind that it was the majority of them.

 

[Pidgey]

In order to make the most recent cyclical warming look much worse than it really is, they figured that they needed to statistically get rid of the Medeival Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. That is, they needed to "flatten out" the worldwide temperature anomalies of the past. That's what produced the infamous Hockey Stick.

Therefore, they cherry-picked what they could that would support recent warming while possibly showing a somewhat flatter yesteryear. The tree rings and other such "proxy" data is used to reconstruct the past, not so much of today's temperatures. That other proxies like delta 18O and cave formation (stalagmites and stalactites) data show otherwise is conveniently swept under the rug or kept repressed by BigEnvironment blood money.

Don't get me wrong, we ARE ****ting in our own nest and that's going to come back and bite. Big time. However, the crap they're proposing to do is simply going to make some other folks rich, the poor poorer, and nothing whatsoever done about cleaning things up.

 

[asur]

Pidgey wrote -

The tree rings and other such "proxy" data is used to reconstruct the past

Yes, well they used fossilized tree ring samples, but Briffa's faulty study suggests much higher recent temperatures from more recent or living trees. Are you suggesting these older tree ring data values misrepresented temperatures somehow?

 

[MrSheepish]

Mr Sheepish wrote -

Show me where I stated this?

It was stated that Global Warming Hoaxers are manipulating data.

I am not sure what you are referring to, otherwise?

See message 87 of this thread and my response in message 88, the second e-mail in your list.

 

[MrSheepish]

In order to make the most recent cyclical warming look much worse than it really is, they figured that they needed to statistically get rid of the Medeival Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. That is, they needed to "flatten out" the worldwide temperature anomalies of the past. That's what produced the infamous Hockey Stick.




Therefore, they cherry-picked what they could that would support recent warming while possibly showing a somewhat flatter yesteryear. The tree rings and other such "proxy" data is used to reconstruct the past, not so much of today's temperatures. That other proxies like delta 18O and cave formation (stalagmites and stalactites) data show otherwise is conveniently swept under the rug or kept repressed by BigEnvironment blood money.

Ahhh, Pidgey. Did you forget our long conversations about this back around message 76? The ones where you basically said these same things, but I pointed out that many different kinds of proxies have been used in many different parts of the world, all of which basically agree that the Medieval Warming Period was small compared to today's warm temperatures, and all of which produced a "hockey-stick" shape? You may recall that I repeatedly asked to see the data you were using to support your claims to the contrary. Did you think I would forget and let you start repeating these claims that fly in the face of all the evidence we've looked at here without providing your own data to back them up? Still waiting.

 

[Pidgey]

Well, that's kinda' the thing with both cherry-picking AND holding the keys to the kingdom, now, isn't it? Abusing the "peer review process" to sanitize which data is and isn't published in the right circles kinda' clinches it. And that's pretty much the whole point of this thread as it's simply bringing up the fact that wheels are starting to come off of the wagon. Publicly and messily.

Personally, I tend to think that the Vostok record for the last half-million years demonstrates a relatively stable "heartbeat" characteristic that many seem to ascribe to the Milankovich cycle. However, that just doesn't speak to me intuitively--not to the extent that the Vostok cores reveal, anyhow. No, it's gotta' be solar in origin, which is probably why they're ramping up the instrumentation watching the sun in a big and quiet way.

In any case, what you'd see at the beginning of the slide into an ice age would a breakdown in the circumpolar winds and more longitudinal atmospheric flows. In the short term, this will cause Arctic warming and ice loss at first, but then the inevitable slide to more and more precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere and the shortening of the agricultural season. In short, what we've been seeing and have microscopically seen historically in the Schwabe and Hale cycles. There's a heckuva' lot more to the sun and our relationship with it than the TSI crap that you're likely to bring up.

 

[MrSheepish]

Well, that's kinda' the thing with both cherry-picking AND holding the keys to the kingdom, now, isn't it? Abusing the "peer review process" to sanitize which data is and isn't published in the right circles kinda' clinches it. And that's pretty much the whole point of this thread as it's simply bringing up the fact that wheels are starting to come off of the wagon. Publicly and messily.

Sorry, I keep thinking that maybe you can provide me with a significant example of the cherry picking being performed by this vast conspiracy you constantly refer to. As in, will you ever tell what this real temperature data is that you keep saying the scientific community is ignoring?

Personally, I tend to think that the Vostok record for the last half-million years demonstrates a relatively stable "heartbeat" characteristic that many seem to ascribe to the Milankovich cycle. However, that just doesn't speak to me intuitively--not to the extent that the Vostok cores reveal, anyhow.
No, it's gotta' be solar in origin, which is probably why they're ramping up the instrumentation watching the sun in a big and quiet way.

In any case, what you'd see at the beginning of the slide into an ice age would a breakdown in the circumpolar winds and more longitudinal atmospheric flows. In the short term, this will cause Arctic warming and ice loss at first, but then the inevitable slide to more and more precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere and the shortening of the agricultural season.

I'm curious about this. Can you explain why you think that having less circulation of air between the polar and equatorial regions would cause Arctic warming? I would naively expect the opposite.

In short, what we've been seeing and have microscopically seen historically in the Schwabe and Hale cycles. There's a heckuva' lot more to the sun and our relationship with it than the TSI crap that you're likely to bring up.

You don't think that there's even a small chance that the gas which has made the surface of Venus hot enough to melt lead might be responsible for the earth's temperatures having reached their highest values in tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of years at the same time as humans started filling the atmosphere with this gas?

And since you're so sure that the sun is responsible, can you suggest a possible mechanism? It would have to be one that is occurring without increasing the sun's total irradiance or its sunspot number, both of which have been about flat over the last several solar cycles.

 

[asur]

Mr Sheepish - I see what you referenced.

manipulating data because they were ignoring the tree-ring data and using more accurate methods of measuring temperature instead.

I didn't suggest that we should pick tree rings over thermometer readings.
But if tree samples were available then use them. Note Briffa had more trees available, but choose to ignore them.

Thermometer readings would be preferred if all the data came from thermometer.

It would be faulty science to needlessly mix tree rings with thermometer readings in the same study. But that is what the Global Warming Hoaxers were doing to create a result that fit their agenda. Then they hid the fact, because they knew it looks bad on both counts.

So three errors were commited by the CRU political scientists in this case you reference.

1) Mixing apples with oranges is bad science
2) Hiding the fact they mixed apples with oranges is devious.
3) Mixing apples and oranges to create a desired result is bad science.

Next case please!