Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[CAP1]

this almost seems to be turning into a personal argument between you guys.

 if we go back to the global warming part..........moray.....you present your arguments well, and you always try to be sure to cite a source for your information.

 the problem though, is that ever since it has been made public that the majority of the scientists that were crying doom and gloom about global warming, massaged their numbers to prove themselves right.....well.....that brings into question virtually everything you've linked to.

 i think that is part of what bodhi is getting at. it would seem that you are maintaining unquestioning loyalty to those that have pretty much lied outright to us all about global warming. in doing so, you are associating yourself with them, and that's another thing i think bodhi may be trying to get at.

[SirFrancis]

When I read this:

"The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders." -> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG

or this:

"UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters" -> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece

or this:

"What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU. " -> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html


or this (related to above) -> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/highnoon-eu-glacier-project.pdf

I will say, this is not science any more. GW or how they say now "climate-change", is just a nice way to make big money. 

and then this for Moray. Can you explain this?
 -> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html (Since 1998, according to NCDC’s own figures,  temperatures in the US have been dropping at a rate of more than 10 degrees F per century!)


Regards
SF

[Anaxogoras]

the problem though, is that ever since it has been made public that the majority of the scientists that were crying doom and gloom about global warming, massaged their numbers to prove themselves right.....well.....that brings into question virtually everything you've linked to.

How do you know it's a majority?  I once read a whole book about scientific fraud, its history, and the variety of shams that have occurred (most in medical science).  However, there were no examples of huge chunks of the scientific community being in cahoots to scam the public.  So, the burden of explanation is on you to explain how those you are referring to constitute a majority.  The burden is also on you to say that a majority of scientists accepted their data and its specific interpretations.

As a little side-point, who of all people may have massaged his data?  Mendel!  There is speculation that part of the reason for why his theory of inheritance went uncelebrated for decades was because no one could recreate the nearly perfect proportions of phenotypes that he published.  That is only the most famous example of dry-labing for what turned out to be a confirmable theory.

So, yes, many scientists have been crooked.  Others overemphasize the importance of their research to win grants.  But this has been going on for hundreds of years, and its only now that the public cries foul because they see something about to affect their daily lives.  It's a wonder that, in general, the scientists still manage to make progress...but only if...

[sluggish]

How do you know it's a majority?  I once read a whole book about scientific fraud, its history, and the variety of shams that have occurred (most in medical science).  However, there were no examples of huge chunks of the scientific community being in cahoots to scam the public.  So, the burden of explanation is on you to explain how those you are referring to constitute a majority.  The burden is also on you to say that a majority of scientists accepted their data and its specific interpretations.

As a little side-point, who of all people may have massaged his data?  Mendel!  There is speculation that part of the reason for why his theory of inheritance went uncelebrated for decades was because no one could recreate the nearly perfect proportions of phenotypes that he published.  That is only the most famous example of dry-labing for what turned out to be a confirmable theory.

So, yes, many scientists have been crooked.  Others overemphasize the importance of their research to win grants.  But this has been going on for hundreds of years, and its only now that the public cries foul because they see something about to affect their daily lives.  It's a wonder that, in general, the scientists still manage to make progress...but only if...

All of the studies show similar outcomes.  If one of the studies was shown to have fudged the numbers in order to achieve a similar outcome to the others, it stands to reason that ALL of the studies have similar number fudging...

[Anaxogoras]

All of the studies show similar outcomes.

One of the major motivations for why those scientists at the UK climate center fudged their numbers was to put one over on their colleagues who disagreed with the specific implications of their research, i.e. "your data doesn't support this."  A very similar motivation was to cover up lack of agreement among the scientists themselves.

[RTHolmes]

the majority of the scientists that were crying doom and gloom about global warming, massaged their numbers to prove themselves right

factually wrong.

If one of the studies was shown to have fudged the numbers in order to achieve a similar outcome to the others, it stands to reason that ALL of the studies have similar number fudging

logically wrong.

[CAP1]

How do you know it's a majority?  I once read a whole book about scientific fraud, its history, and the variety of shams that have occurred (most in medical science).  However, there were no examples of huge chunks of the scientific community being in cahoots to scam the public.  So, the burden of explanation is on you to explain how those you are referring to constitute a majority.  The burden is also on you to say that a majority of scientists accepted their data and its specific interpretations.

As a little side-point, who of all people may have massaged his data?  Mendel!  There is speculation that part of the reason for why his theory of inheritance went uncelebrated for decades was because no one could recreate the nearly perfect proportions of phenotypes that he published.  That is only the most famous example of dry-labing for what turned out to be a confirmable theory.

So, yes, many scientists have been crooked.  Others overemphasize the importance of their research to win grants.  But this has been going on for hundreds of years, and its only now that the public cries foul because they see something about to affect their daily lives.  It's a wonder that, in general, the scientists still manage to make progress...but only if...

re-read my statement. i didn't say the majority of scientists claimed or massaged anything.

 i said the majority of those claiming doom and gloom. 

[Toad]

It's kinda like slapping a mule upside the head. Sooner or later even the looniest of the climate warming groupies are going to notice the mile-wide money trail and the manipulations to lay track for the gravy train to come into the stations of the scientists that peddle this scam.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html

    can report a further dramatic twist to what has inevitably been dubbed "Glaciergate" – the international row surrounding the revelation that the latest report on global warming by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained a wildly alarmist, unfounded claim about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

    Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a "poor application" of IPCC procedures.

    What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.

Oh! Quelle surprise! The bad data comes from a scientist that works for Pachauri and the data has helped said scientist land a couple million bucks in grants for Pachauri and himself.

[CAP1]

It's kinda like slapping a mule upside the head. Sooner or later even the looniest of the climate warming groupies are going to notice the mile-wide money trail and the manipulations to lay track for the gravy train to come into the stations of the scientists that peddle this scam.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html




Oh! Quelle surprise! The bad data comes from a scientist that works for Pachauri and the data has helped said scientist land a couple million bucks in grants for Pachauri and himself.

darn!!!

was just comin here to add that. 

[MORAY37]

and then this for Moray. Can you explain this?
 -> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html (Since 1998, according to NCDC’s own figures,  temperatures in the US have been dropping at a rate of more than 10 degrees F per century!)


Regards
SF

I can say this... when putting in 1998 to 2009 in that site, I get the worst trend line I have ever seen. Somehow they've dissociated the trend line from the graph, and put it a full 2 degrees F under the mean values.  I'm at a loss to define what exactly they intend with that product.  It doesn't follow any statistical regression.  But I think an answer could be found at the top of the page.

Some of the following data are preliminary and have not been quality controlled.

Also, just noting that the United States isn't the "world".  It isn't even a "region" of the world.

United States total area: 3,537,441 square miles.

Earth total surface area: 196,940,400 square miles

3,537,441/196,940,400=.01796

The US compromises just under 2% (1.7%) of the planet.  And you are basing your entire opinion on that 1.7%, and negating the other 98.3?

Even if that data is correct...(and I would surely challenge the trend line data shown in that site....even the raw scaling of the graphs is suspect.  It seems like a coading error of some sort) you would be telling me the room is cold because you took a temperature reading at the AC vent.  Talk about manipulating data.

The GISS numbers don't agree, either.


And from the NCDC's own charts.  THEY don't agree with that either...




*EDIT*  What did you use for your "base period begin" line?  That makes the difference. It is intitialy set at year 1895, this would give you improper graphing.  Once I reset for that, I got a .23F cooling per decade trend in the US.  If I remove 2009 from consideration, it goes to a .15 F per decade warming trend.

Look up "shifting baselines"

This term was coined by fisheries scientist Daniel Pauly in 1995 to describes the tendency of people to think that the natural world that they have seen in their lifetime is "normal," when in fact the ecosystems are severely degraded and continuing to degrade. Over time, a baseline — like what makes a "good season" for Pacific salmon — can gradually shift, giving us a false perspective and affecting policymaking or individual actions.

If we know the baseline for a degraded ecosystem, we can work to restore it. But if the baseline shifted before we really had a chance to chart it, then we can end up accepting a degraded state as normal — or even as an improvement. For example:4

    * The number of salmon in the Pacific Northwest’s Columbia River today is twice what it was in the 1930s. That sounds great — if the 1930s is your baseline.
    * But salmon in the Columbia River in the 1930s were only 10% of what they used to be in the 1800s. The 1930s numbers reflect a baseline that had already shifted.

[Widewing]

Well, I'm more that just a AGW skeptic. I believe it to be the single greatest falsehood ever perpetrated on mankind.

Recall the term. "Big Lie"? It refers to a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". Who coined the term? Adolf Hitler in "Mein Kampf", in 1925.

I'll repeat that the AGW mafia may have done irreparable damage to the conservation movement. Those who do not believe in AGW often lump ecology minded people into the same group with the AGW advocates. This undermines to goal of protecting and preserving the various endangered eco-systems and many species of wildlife world wide. It may be guilt by association, but many in the "green" movement have embraced AGW purely on faith. A very bad way of looking at questionable science.

Clearly, the damage man has done to his local environment and to the wildlife population is staggering. While I do not believe that man is responsible for warming, I am appalled at what he has done to his planet.

Consider these numbers, relating to America alone. They are staggering in scope.

It is estimated that the population of Grizzly Bears in what are now the northwestern states was no less than 100,000 in the year 1500.

Frederic Wagner estimates that at the time Columbus arrived in the New World, there were between 5 and 10 million Buffalo in what would become the United States. Add to that 10 to 15 million Pronghorn, 2 million Big Horn Sheep, 5 million Mule Deer and 2 million Elk.

Predictions of Buffalo herd growth leads to current estimates that between 22 and 30 million Buffalo roamed the American plains as of 1800. By that time, the number of wild horses (originally released by or escaping from the Spanish) had grown to somewhere between 1 and 2 million. It was these horses that fostered the development of the plains Indian horse-centered cultures. In 1882, hunters in Montana shot more than 100,000 Bison. The next year, they shot only 6. Effectively exterminating the species in that territory.

It is generally believed that 24,000 Wolves were killed in the first 10 years of the 20th century in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. Today, there exists a tiny population of 1,500 Wolves, almost all of which resulted from their being reintroduced in 1996 as part of the Endangered Species Act.

Just stop and dwell on this massive destruction of wildlife for a minute. Then think about the fact that this slaughter continues in many parts of the world today.

Man may not be turning up the planet's thermostat, but he certainly has the ability to turn his planet into a barren cesspool. So, while we can point to AGW and argue that it's all lies and damned lies, never forget that we still have the power to destroy our environment and much of what lives on the earth, both on land and in the seas.

You can still be a fervent ecologist and a disbeliever in AGW.


My regards,

Widewing

[Toad]

if we had 100,000 grizzly bears in the northwestern states now, that would likely be a bad thing for people.

When it comes down to folks deciding if people should eat animals or if animals should eat people, they usually pick the former.

[bustr]

Widewing,

Fighting pollution, loss of habitat and species endangerment does not allow a leverage for a world wide rapid paradigm shift of any nature. These take time, money, and self interest by governments and the private sector. Much like Obama and the democrats having the majority in both houses in 2009, GW was a once in a century pivotal opportunity to enact rapid and substancial change upon the governments of the world towards the goal of a planet wide centralised governence under the banner of: "For it's own good."

Supporters of GW were acting in the same vein of global catasthrophic urgancy and global emergency as Obama and the democrats have conducted themselves over health care for the last year. In niether case will the world as we know it end by any stretch of the imagination, tomorrow, or even in our generation if the targeted populations reject thier messages and derail thier ambitious goals. In both cases the urgency has not passed the smell test but, instead has caused millions of adults on this planet to demand more proof than: "We are scientists and smarter than you." Or in Obama's case: "We are the government and smarter than you."

In both scenario the message is trust me with your future because I say I'm smarter than YOU. Progressive arrogence is again insulting average people and derailing both initiatives.

[batch]

first let me say we have kept this conversation away from politics and thats why its still open......... lets keep it that way

now on to my original thoughts:

*EDIT*  What did you use for your "base period begin" line?  That makes the difference. It is intitialy set at year 1895, this would give you improper graphing.  Once I reset for that, I got a .23F cooling per decade trend in the US.  If I remove 2009 from consideration, it goes to a .15 F per decade warming trend.

Look up "shifting baselines"

so what did you use for your "base period begin" line? and what would make you assume that its the correct base period to be using? just because the "accepted" base line is 1951-1980 or whatever does not make this correct instead merely "accepted" in the circles who need it for their conclusions

so I will simply go off what you used and assume your baseline is correct (though I doubt it)...... you came to a .23F cooling trend...... then you go on to say you find a warming trend if you remove 2009 from consideration......

why exactly would you remove 2009? did it not happen? does it not meet with desired conclusions? instead of removing 2009 lets remove 2006 and see what the trend becomes...... or maybe 2006 and 1998........

its this cherry picking of data that has given us all of these FALSE charts and alarmists theories to begin with

you can show all the charts you want but none of them contain any shred of accurate data.... it has all been cherry picked..... much like removing 2009 from consideration

this is why the number of reading stations has been greatly reduced around the world..... and amazingly only the stations in cooler regions are the ones eliminated......

for instance in Missouri..... there are now only 3 stations used when determining the temperatures for the entire state....... St Louis, Springfield, and Columbia.......... I can tell you with absolute certainty that the temperatures in northwestern MO are no where near the temperatures in St Louis......... nor are the temperatures in the bootheel...... yet the temperature in St Louis is used to determine the average for them both hundreds of miles away in rural areas....... the St Louis station btw is at Lambert Airport ...... which is above even the temperatures for locations just a few miles away 365 days a year....... so this must be the average temperature for the region?

hogwash

[SirFrancis]

Some of the following data are preliminary and have not been quality controlled.

oh, haven´t seen that. Thanks for the reply!

Regards
SF