NASA: six decades of a warming earth

[Lagboltz]

Whats the margin of error on the study upon which the rise in temps was stated ?

"The Earth's average surface temperature rose by 0.74±0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13±0.03 °C per decade, versus 0.07±0.02 °C per decade)."

 

[steveox]

What about Earth Temps 10,000 years ago?

Cars,Air Conditioners and and factories weren't invented then

 

[GBFan]

What do you think is the agenda of the 800 scientists of the IPCC, and what would be detrimental to their purposes? Do you have a solid basis for that feeling?

You then mention industries. Don't you think oil and coal industries would even have a clearer hidden agenda?

In your final paragraph you discount the statistics of the scientific investigations - over nine thousand studies. Did you read the wikipedia article on GW?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Do you discount all the statistics there as wishin' and hopin'? What is your argument against the statics shown in the wiki article? The surface temperature and CO2 climate cycles shown in wiki were over millennia. Be sure and look at those. What drives your personal opinion against all that scientific investigation?

It seems that drivers for many who discount GW are short term economics. Don't you think that might drive your personal opinion on the science aspect?

First, I thought it made clear that I recognize climate changes. I simply question whether they are 1) permanent, or 2) human caused.

Of course the oil and coal industries have an agenda ... duh! But, then, the oil and coal industries aren't the ones making the decision. As for the IPCC agenda ... what happens to the IPCC if it's determined the climate change is a natural, cyclical activity? What happens to the environmental scientists if it's determined that it is not caused by humans, and can't be undone.

They have no incentive to find the answer ... they only have incentive to find an answer that fits their own agenda. Hardly what I would call an unbiased arbiter.

 

[GBFan]

"The Earth's average surface temperature rose by 0.74±0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13±0.03 °C per decade, versus 0.07±0.02 °C per decade)."

Frankly, that means nothing ... unless you can put it into context to all the other warming cycles throughout millenia. There nice numbers, but they prove nothing.

 

[Lagboltz]

What about Earth Temps 10,000 years ago?
Cars,Air Conditioners and and factories weren't invented then

I agree.

 

[Lagboltz]

Frankly, that means nothing ... unless you can put it into context to all the other warming cycles throughout millenia. There nice numbers, but they prove nothing.

Dogtowner asked for the margin of error and I gave it to him.

 

[Lagboltz]

First, I thought it made clear that I recognize climate changes. I simply question whether they are 1) permanent, or 2) human caused.

Of course the oil and coal industries have an agenda ... duh! But, then, the oil and coal industries aren't the ones making the decision. As for the IPCC agenda ... what happens to the IPCC if it's determined the climate change is a natural, cyclical activity? What happens to the environmental scientists if it's determined that it is not caused by humans, and can't be undone.

They have no incentive to find the answer ... they only have incentive to find an answer that fits their own agenda. Hardly what I would call an unbiased arbiter.

Yes, I already know you recognize GW, but you did not give a critique on the scientific methodology that led you to disbelieve the AGW conclusion – only a vague comment on the previous 100s of years and that “they don't have sufficient scientific proof”. It's all there in the references I cited.

As far as the IPCC agenda, why do you think they want to find an answer that fits their own agenda, and why do you think these 800 scientists have an agenda. You call them hardly unbiased, as though you were sure they have a predetermined agenda. Do you think these 800 scientists are less honest than scientists in other areas of science?

 

[GBFan]

Yes, I already know you recognize GW, but you did not give a critique on the scientific methodology that led you to disbelieve the AGW conclusion – only a vague comment on the previous 100s of years and that “they don't have sufficient scientific proof”. It's all there in the references I cited.

As far as the IPCC agenda, why do you think they want to find an answer that fits their own agenda, and why do you think these 800 scientists have an agenda. You call them hardly unbiased, as though you were sure they have a predetermined agenda. Do you think these 800 scientists are less honest than scientists in other areas of science?

I think their actions speak for themselves ... deleted emails, falsified reports, destroying data that disagreed with their agenda ... yeah, I think they've been less than honest.

No GW crisis, no funding ... no funding, no job .. THAT is an agenda.

 

[Lagboltz]

I think their actions speak for themselves ... deleted emails, falsified reports, destroying data that disagreed with their agenda ... yeah, I think they've been less than honest.

No GW crisis, no funding ... no funding, no job .. THAT is an agenda.

Of the 800 scientists, how many do you think falsified reports, destroyed, data etc? How many of the 9200 peer reviewed studies do you think were compromised.

Your statement “No GW crisis, no funding ... no funding, no job” is really bad guessing from your gut. The IPCC website states,
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a huge and yet very small organization. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors, contributors and reviewers. None of them is paid by the IPCC.”

Finally if you look at the data, even a 5 year sliding average of the curves show ups and downs, so it would take at least 10 years from now to get adequate statistics to show that there was no crisis if that were indeed the case. Do you think the alleged dishonesty would go on very long after that?

If scientists could unequivocally see in the data that there was no crisis you can bet most will bail out and try to be the first to publish new results.

 

[GBFan]

Of the 800 scientists, how many do you think falsified reports, destroyed, data etc? How many of the 9200 peer reviewed studies do you think were compromised.

Your statement “No GW crisis, no funding ... no funding, no job” is really bad guessing from your gut. The IPCC website states,
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a huge and yet very small organization. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors, contributors and reviewers. None of them is paid by the IPCC.”

Finally if you look at the data, even a 5 year sliding average of the curves show ups and downs, so it would take at least 10 years from now to get adequate statistics to show that there was no crisis if that were indeed the case. Do you think the alleged dishonesty would go on very long after that?

If scientists could unequivocally see in the data that there was no crisis you can bet most will bail out and try to be the first to publish new results.

How many? Who knows? But, here's what we do know .. the East Anglia University, who acted as the primary data management source for the IPCC, intentionally screened collected data, and removed all data that did not correlate to their preconceived notion. They claimed it was 'anomalous data'. Further, they deleted thousands of emails that discussed the data correlation process and subsequent findings, which didn't come to light until AFTER a Freedom of Information request from English newspapers.

When the IPCC produced its findings, they relied heavily on data collected at a series of Chinese observation sites in the early 1990's, and then extrapolated that data forward. However, China has since admitted that large portions of the data was fabricated. If you remember, they claimed that the Himalyan glaciers would disappear by 2035. We know today that glaciers are receding at a significantly slower rate than they did in the late 80s. Further, this is the same group that predicted that the Arctic ice would disappear before 2014 - we now know that the Arctic ice actually increased. This is also the same set of scientists that had to be taken before the court of public opinion before they would admit that the Earth is actually in a cooling cycle for the past 10 years.

My point is simple - just because they have the word 'scientist' on their business card, doesn't mean they are immune to the human condition. Given the lack of scientific credibility of their reports, the obvious, and proven impact of politics, and serious questions about the rigor of their scientific processes, I don't think we should risk the nation's economy on the less than credible chance they might be right.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Just say it, you don't believe it because if you do you have to actually admit something has to be done about it...and you don't want to...

knowing republicans though they would try to sell it as a good thing then.

 

[GBFan]

Just say it, you don't believe it because if you do you have to actually admit something has to be done about it...and you don't want to...

knowing republicans though they would try to sell it as a good thing then.

Why don't you go sit in the corner, and let the adults have an adult discussion?

 

[Lagboltz]

"

How many? Who knows? But, here's what we do know .. the East Anglia University, who acted as the primary data management source for the IPCC, intentionally screened collected data, and removed all data that did not correlate to their preconceived notion. They claimed it was 'anomalous data'. Further, they deleted thousands of emails that discussed the data correlation process and subsequent findings, which didn't come to light until AFTER a Freedom of Information request from English newspapers.

When the IPCC produced its findings, they relied heavily on data collected at a series of Chinese observation sites in the early 1990's, and then extrapolated that data forward. However, China has since admitted that large portions of the data was fabricated. If you remember, they claimed that the Himalyan glaciers would disappear by 2035. We know today that glaciers are receding at a significantly slower rate than they did in the late 80s. Further, this is the same group that predicted that the Arctic ice would disappear before 2014 - we now know that the Arctic ice actually increased. This is also the same set of scientists that had to be taken before the court of public opinion before they would admit that the Earth is actually in a cooling cycle for the past 10 years.

My point is simple - just because they have the word 'scientist' on their business card, doesn't mean they are immune to the human condition. Given the lack of scientific credibility of their reports, the obvious, and proven impact of politics, and serious questions about the rigor of their scientific processes, I don't think we should risk the nation's economy on the less than credible chance they might be right.

East Anglia CRU
That was a manufactured “crisis” that was debunked in 2009. These are excerpts from wiki:

"By 2011, nine separate investigations by the British government and multiple independent ethics committees had been completed. None found any evidence of fraud or manipulation of data. The CRU data was also independently replicated."

"... a new analysis of temperature data by the independent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group, many of whom had stated publicly that they thought is was possible that the CRU had manipulated data, concluded that "these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

"Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report, however, stated, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations."

Himalayan glaciers
In chapter 10 of the IPCC report the Himalayan glaciers were predicted to disappear by 2035. That was a one sentence error in a 3000 page document that the IPCC acknowledged four years ago, and removed from the report.

China's 1990's data
Was contaminated by urban warming and removed in 2009. Many Chinese publications are not peer-reviewed.

You say there is a lack of credibility of the reports basing your opinion on two flaws and one hoax five years ago out of 9200 research studies. None of these problems affected the final IPCC conclusion concerning GW. The next IPCC report will be published soon. Some results were leaked which stated that the certainty of GW is even stronger than the last report.

Will there be errors in the new IPCC report? I wouldn't be surprised. Will the blogosphere, Fox news, and Sara Palin perhaps distort and shout any new errors to the world? You betcha. Will people still believe that the integrity of the report is compromised even if errors are discounted or removed? No doubt about it.

Sharon Begley said, "one of the strongest, most-repeated findings in the psychology of belief is that once people have been told X, especially if X is shocking, if they are later told, 'No, we were wrong about X,' most people still believe X."

You are frightened by a potential economic condition and are willing to risk a run-away warming as we approach the tipping point, because of two errors that were resolved five years ago. I am not willing to take that risk. The stakes are way too high.

 

[GBFan]

"
East Anglia CRU
That was a manufactured “crisis” that was debunked in 2009. These are excerpts from wiki:

"By 2011, nine separate investigations by the British government and multiple independent ethics committees had been completed. None found any evidence of fraud or manipulation of data. The CRU data was also independently replicated."

"... a new analysis of temperature data by the independent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group, many of whom had stated publicly that they thought is was possible that the CRU had manipulated data, concluded that "these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

"Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report, however, stated, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations."

Himalayan glaciers
In chapter 10 of the IPCC report the Himalayan glaciers were predicted to disappear by 2035. That was a one sentence error in a 3000 page document that the IPCC acknowledged four years ago, and removed from the report.

China's 1990's data
Was contaminated by urban warming and removed in 2009. Many Chinese publications are not peer-reviewed.

You say there is a lack of credibility of the reports basing your opinion on two flaws and one hoax five years ago out of 9200 research studies. None of these problems affected the final IPCC conclusion concerning GW. The next IPCC report will be published soon. Some results were leaked which stated that the certainty of GW is even stronger than the last report.

Will there be errors in the new IPCC report? I wouldn't be surprised. Will the blogosphere, Fox news, and Sara Palin perhaps distort and shout any new errors to the world? You betcha. Will people still believe that the integrity of the report is compromised even if errors are discounted or removed? No doubt about it.

Sharon Begley said, "one of the strongest, most-repeated findings in the psychology of belief is that once people have been told X, especially if X is shocking, if they are later told, 'No, we were wrong about X,' most people still believe X."

You are frightened by a potential economic condition and are willing to risk a run-away warming as we approach the tipping point, because of two errors that were resolved five years ago. I am not willing to take that risk. The stakes are way too high.

Yeah, what was I thinking? It's all true .. it's those damned Republicans, led by the anti-Christ, Sarah Palin, who want to destroy the world ... it's a conspiracy.

Sorry, you just lost your credibility.

You're not willing to take the risk ... and I'm not willing to knowingly destroy this economy, and this country, on scientific data that is questionable, at best, and intentionally manipulated, at worst. .. especially when we know, going in, that we can't have any measurable impact on it.

'Tis a conundrum, isn't it?

 

[steveox]

Just say it, you don't believe it because if you do you have to actually admit something has to be done about it...and you don't want to...
knowing republicans though they would try to sell it as a good thing then.

Why don't you go sit in the corner, and let the adults have an adult discussion?

He should