Climate Change - Is the Tide Turning?

@cecila:

Excellent link again, thanks:
On Nov. 20, 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents were hacked from the CRU server and posted to the Internet. They date back as far as March 1996.

In particular, skeptics have seized on one e-mail from 1999 written by CRU director Phil Jones regarding a study published in Nature by Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann.

Jones writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Click to expand...

This seems to be the basis for this whole "scandal". Hoax of the millenium indeed.

Still no sign of that oh-so-easy to find, peer reviewed paper with deliberate lying either, Jim.....
 
Robert said:
Jones writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Click to expand...
This seems to be the basis for this whole "scandal". Hoax of the millenium indeed. [/quote]
The problem is people assume an agenda then read in the agenda where there is none. If you assume your co-worker is an a-hole even when he's nice you typically continue to assume he's just being a more clever a-hole.

There are some other emails in there too of question. Emails read outside of the individuals and situation one can only assume the context. One such email was from Jones that mentioned that data from FOIA requests should have the data destroyed. This was clearly an email out of frustration. What you actually find in the emails is no one agreed and no one admitted to doing any such thing. Missing data wasn't done due to FOIA requests. What is clear is the scientists are frustrated having to deal with the politics.

GW is politically charged this isn't the scientist's forte. Could you imagine if anyone who had a paper 'disproving Newton or Einstein' was carried in the press and Fox TV as true?
 
metalman said:
How would CO2 get to 20k feet?
CO2 is heavier then the other components of air. Makes a poor greenhouse at ground level, and plants keep absorbing it.
Click to expand...
Okay so we showed you SO2 makes it from China to the US. SO2 a higher atomic weight, therefore heavier, isn't only at ground level. Clearly CO2 in the atmosphere is not only at ground level.

To your claim that plants keep absorbing it. They do, do a point. Recently Knorr 2009 released a new paper about the absorbtion rate of CO2 on the planet. It was a measured change of CO2 in the atmosphere. It was a study of Greenhouse gases since 1850. Nature's rate of absorption remained constant. The airborne fraction remained level at around 43%. Man has greatly increased their rate of CO2 production in the last 100+ years. Which in turn has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not too suprising the 2007 IPCC had this rate at 46%. This study covered rates of absorption for the planet. So not only plants, as you indicated, but other things absorb it too, for example algae and oceans.
 
And so it begins....

Now they say we may be heading for a period of global cooling and that global warming may be quit for the time being? So which is it? :?

Regards,
Ltstanfo
 
ltstanfo said:
And so it begins....

Now they say we may be heading for a period of global cooling and that global warming may be quit for the time being? So which is it? :?
Click to expand...

I'm always sceptical of Daily Mail articles. Sure enough by the second paragraph it is already telling lies:
global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading after that fabricated nonsense.

-EDIT-
Just in case you don't already know, the Daily Mail is a sensationalist, right wing tabloid.
The satirical site, The Daily Mash, that I sometimes link to is a send up of the Daily Mail. Think homophobia, scaremongering over immigration, terrorism, etc. Sometimes good for a laugh but not much else.
 
Robert said:
I'm always sceptical of Daily Mail articles. Sure enough by the second paragraph it is already telling lies:
global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

But that was the claim of the champion of global warming, Mr Nobel Prize winner Al Gore.
 
redrumloa said:
Robert said:
I'm always sceptical of Daily Mail articles. Sure enough by the second paragraph it is already telling lies:
global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

But that was the claim of the champion of global warming, Mr Nobel Prize winner Al Gore.
Click to expand...

So? Al Gore is hardly "global warming orthodoxy".
The quote says it's one of "global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs". This is absurd.
 
I love this part:

In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.

Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.

'This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’
The longer the cold spell lasts, the harder it may be to persuade the public of that assertion.
Click to expand...

Hmm, a few = 3 so 2000 + 3 = 2003. Did it stop snowing in Britain in 2003? That means it is not snowing this year 2010? How much of your tax dollars went to this ****sucker to indocrtinate your youth?
 
Robert said:
So? Al Gore is hardly "global warming orthodoxy".
The quote says it's one of "global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs". This is absurd.
Click to expand...

Bullspit! They are indoctrinating our public school children with Al Gore's nonsense! "An Inconvenient Truth" movie is being shown as part of their science class!
 
redrumloa said:
I love this part:

In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.

Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.

'This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’
The longer the cold spell lasts, the harder it may be to persuade the public of that assertion.
Click to expand...

Hmm, a few = 3 so 2000 + 3 = 2003. Did it stop snowing in Britain in 2003? That means it is not snowing this year 2010? How much of your tax dollars went to this ****sucker to indocrtinate your youth?
Click to expand...

I actually agree with his main point - snow has become increasingly rare here, hence the fuss when we actually get a real winter. Time has proved him more or less correct in my opinion.

He says three weeks of cold weather doesn't change anything and I also agree with that.

You seem to be arguing against the use of the word 'few'. In the UK 'few' does not neccessarily mean three. However, even assuming it does, climate change won't stop freak weather events. If anything they'll be more likely so your point is entirely hollow.
Unless, of course, you think he really meant that after three years it would never, ever, EVER snow in the UK again?
He never said that but hey, why let the facts get in the way of an over-the-top rant?

As for 'indoctrinate youth'? Your hyperbolic over-statements regarding this topic are getting boringly predictable.
 
@Robert

I just checked Websters and it does not agree with me that few=3. Growing up I was taught couple=2 and few=3. Websters defines it as "not many but more than one". One things is clear, a few does not mean a dozen or more. Do your kids know what snow is?

As for indoctrinate

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indoctrinate

[in-dok-truh-neyt]

–verb
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1620–30; in- 2 + ML doctr?n?tus ptp. of doctr?n?re to teach; see doctrine, -ate 1

Synonyms:
1. brainwash, propagandize.
Click to expand...

The term fits, period. Even you appear to agree that Al Gore is no scientist and his claims are ridiculous, so why are our tax dollars paying for public schools to force children to watch his movie as science fact? It is propoganda, our children are being indoctrinated.
 
They are indoctrinating our public school children with Al Gore's nonsense! "An Inconvenient Truth" movie is being shown as part of their science class!
Click to expand...
Science education should both be what science is and what the current understanding of science. Science is determined by neither democratic decision of the masses nor Sparta's who shouts loudest. I'm not sure which you want. It appears you don't want scientists in the field establish the leading paradigms of their field. What does the understanding of climate look for the leading scientists in the field, climatologists? 1% of climatologists disagree the planet is warming. Extended to all published scientists this is a disagreement of 11%. Where a warming planet idea is losing most is public opinion with 48% disagreement, not science. LINK

Science is never 100%. That's it's job to continue criticizing and building' it's understanding of the universe. It does it very well.

At times there may be an explaination that gets upheaved due to a better understanding of science. Darwin shoved Lamarck out of the way. Darwin is there but the concepts are so expanded one could argue it's not Darwinian. Contraction theory was moved out by Plate Tectonics. Newton's Gravity, while still used, isn't as exact as Einstein's, whose is still not exact at the microscopic.

My answer here is yes the schools should be 'indoctrinating' the students science with the accepted scientific theories of the day. In addition it should be 'indoctrinating' strong critical thinking thinks which reject 'orthodoxy' if better evidence is uncovered.
 
faethor said:
My answer here is yes the schools should be 'indoctrinating' the students science with the accepted scientific theories of the day. In addition it should be 'indoctrinating' strong critical thinking thinks which reject 'orthodoxy' if better evidence is uncovered.
Click to expand...

So you think the kids should be taught:

1)North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013
2)The core of the earth is several million degrees?

Plus all this:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4515

Fake science being taught as fact, or do you want to stand up for Gore's "facts"?
 
So you think the kids should be taught:
Click to expand...
The scientific process with it's built in skepticism along with the present understanding of the universe as defined by the current scientific theories.

As for the Gore film -- would this not be a good movie to help students use their critical analysis skills? What is a scientific truth? What's a political arguement? What's hyperbole? Take the "North Pole free of summer ice by 2013" -- Students can learn how to track down the science which leads to this statement. Learn the factors which are claimed to lead up to the event. They can build small models of those factors occurring over time and see how they relate. And when they get to 2013 and this does or does not happen they would net the result of critical understanding.

"The core of the earth is several million degrees" -- AFAIK this was a Nov 2009 statement not from the movie.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4515
Click to expand...
Again the populism of democracy is not and should not be determining factor in science. These are charges and even if found true by the courts hold no sway in determining scientific acceptance. All we need is another Galileo facing the Inquisition. :roll:
 
redrumloa said:
As for indoctrinate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The term fits, period. Even you appear to agree that Al Gore.......
Click to expand...

You know well I was not referring to Mr. Gore. You used it in reference to a scientist saying (correctly, as far as I can see) snow would become rare.

How much of your tax dollars went to this ****sucker to indocrtinate your youth?
Click to expand...

That is ridiculous. It's hyperbole. It's absurd and it's impossible to take seriously.
 
redrumloa said:
Robert said:
So? Al Gore is hardly "global warming orthodoxy".
The quote says it's one of "global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs". This is absurd.
Click to expand...

Bullspit! They are indoctrinating our public school children with Al Gore's nonsense! "An Inconvenient Truth" movie is being shown as part of their science class!
Click to expand...
indoctrination happens in religion class - by definition the kids are told they HAVE to believe the fairly tales because the nun SAID SO.

no using one's brains in there

in science class one is SUPPOSED to think. Gore is just a guy with an opinion, which he is is entitled to like everyone else. The film is a jumping off point. Used in a classroom it just brings up issues for discussion. the end.

Hopefully, all the children in science classes are being taught to reason and think.

I never think about Gore. I always find it hysterical when others get so upset with him. He's not a scientist. He can make films. After all, isn't That the American Way? Be ambitious and make something and then make money???
Are we just jealous, red?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top