Copenhagen - U.N. Climate Conference. Dec.7-18,2009

Given the current scandal from Hadley CRU involving their emails and data, Copenhagen should be canceled until a full investigation is completed and any questionable temperature "results" are reassessed.

As discussed in the emails, the data has been manipulated, hidden, and falsified in order to support the political cause of global warming at the expense of science.

For much more info, go to http://news.google.com/ and type in "climategate".

Better yet, go to www.bing.com and type in "climategate".

 

Here is a video about Copenhagen's collapse.

 

Do you really think it will die easily with trillions of $$$$$ at stake.

 

Copenhagen maybe - AGW - not yet. But the tide is turning, although it will have to overcome huge vested interests.

 

comment deleted

 

And potentially trillions of $ to be made by industrial giants now positioning themselves to cash in on carbon trading.

 

It would be better to spend the money on weapons to blow them all away.:alien:
(not really my opinion but the way some think.)

 

That seems a bit over the top.

Let's start from the science first.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the earth warmed up in the 20th century. Quite a bit, and quite rapidly, by recent (last 800,000 year) historical standards. Nothing about the media-generated "scandal" changes that. None of the hype you guys are blowing changes that.

If you don't like the Hadley data, then use the NASA GISS. If you don't like GISS, then use the satellite data. Now that most of the major bugs have been worked out of the satellite data, it is largely in agreement with the ground-based data.

For those of you who are slow, I'll point it out in detail. If you think, for whatever whacky reason, based on no evidence whatsoever that I have been able to find (other than innuendo from the press), that the Hadley people distorted the temperature data, then whom do you claim has, independently, messed up the satellite data to exactly the same degree so that they two data sources, when properly analyzed, show such nice agreement on their overlap?

And, gosh, if you don't like any of those sources, use, lets see: borehole reconstructions of surface temperatures; equivalent reconstructions from ice core temperatures; use the recent review of thousands of articles on changes in the biosphere showing that the great preponderance of changes is in the direction of warming; look at the individual-site new all-time-highs versus new-all-time-lows to see that the preponderance of changes is in the direction of warming; look at average mass balance of glaciers worldwide, or look at estimated ice mass of the north polar ice cap (acknowledging, as always, that the science clearly says that antarctica should remain cold long after the rest of the earth has warmed.)

Do I need to go on? You guys can blow smoke all day long, but the argument that there's something seriously amiss with the basic evidence is just foolishness. It ignores the fact that the Hadley data were completely of a piece with all the rest of the direct and indirect indicators of temperature change.

So, point 1, despite whatever nonsense you want to propagate, the world is warming up, and the evidence showing that is both broad and deep.

Point 1.1, the demonstrably man-made changes (GHG, particulates, aerosols, land-use changes) appear both necessary and sufficient to explain the warming. If you posit some alternative mechanism, you need to explain (e.g.) why C02 isn't a greenhouse gas, and why all the various models have calculated things incorrectly. The most clever of the denialsts (e.g., Roy Spencer) will at least do that much.

Point 2: If you think that the Hadley group grossly distorted their global warming model to get the results they wanted, for whatever whacky reasons you may have, then you need to explain why their results are completely in line with a dozen or so other, independent general circulation model analyses. Whom do you think went and distorted all the other models so that they would generally agree with the supposedly "tainted" Hadley results?

Just to be clear, if you'd bother to read the last IPCC report, you'd see that they list 23 models that they used, based in more than a dozen different institutions. Modeling groups were located in US, Britain, Japan, Germany...

Norway, Canada, France, Australia ...

Korea, China, Russia ...

Some are academic institutions some are government agencies, some its tough to tell.

Do you get the point here? It's not like this work lives and dies based on a single group's estimates.

There is substantial variation in how these entities went about constructing and parameterizing their general circulation models, and there is variation in the resulting fit and prediction. But there is broad agreement on the main results, and broad agreement between that body of work and the output from the Hadley center.

So, step away from the hype for a minute, take a deep breath, and look at the entire spectrum of information available. Given all that, how lunatic would it be to cancel an international treaty conference, at the last moment, based on this blog-'n'-media-generated hype?

If you want to see an informed, calm discussion of the whole Hadley mess, go read Realclimate.org. The first thing the Hadley hackers did was to try to post it there, and when Realclimate foiled that by shutting down their server, only then was the information posted elsewhere.

 

Hey, and just for fun, since some people here are so fond of looking at monthly data, and so fond of playing connect-the-dots with individual datapoints rather than estimating a trend properly, and since some folks here are so fond of the Spencer/Christy interpretation of the satellite data, found here:

Latest Global Temperatures Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

what the hey, let's play connect-the-dots with the most recent posting of the Spencer/Christy monthly average satellite data. That way I can mock all three bad habits as once.





Oopsy! Connecting the dots this month gives a "trend" of 0.22 degrees C/decade (.50 - (-.15))/(2009 - 1979), then times 10 to express it per decade. That exceeds what the evil Hadley data show. That exceeds what the only slightly less evil GISS data show. It must therefore also be evil, because we know that the globe is cooling! ALL of the data sources must be tainted, because they are all showing warming! ITS AN INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY!

Seriously, if the UAH data are a harbinger, there's a fair chance that the annual average from GISS is going to set a record this year. If not, it'll almost certainly rank in the top 5 or so. Wonder if anybody will pay attention to the hard data? Nah, it's much more fun to blather about the Hadley email.

 

I stopped reading your post after you started speaking in a condescending manner. If you want people to listen to you or even both to read over what you wrote then you need to learn how to communicate effectively. You came across as pompous and it completely turned me off. It kind of reminded me of some Star Trek dork correcting someone about wookies or whatever. Have a good day!

 

Green is the new Red....

 

This might come as a surprise

" Top expert hopes Copenhagen summit fails"
...
"
James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies since 1981, said attempts to forge a global deal on cutting emissions after the Kyoto treaty expires were based on a "fundamentally wrong" approach.

"I would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right track because it's a disaster track," he told The Guardian newspaper ahead of the December 7-18 summit.

Hansen is highly sceptical about a favoured measure of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, a cap-and-trade system under which a progressively stricter 'right to pollute' is exchanged in a carbon market.

Instead, he has previously argued for a direct tax on fossil fuels as the only realistic way to achieve the necessary cuts...."

I imagine he would not be opposed to some progress with REDD, but I don't know whether the Guardian interview touched on that.

 

Gee Chogan, then why did the UK MET OFFICE JUST DECIDE TO REWORK 160 YEARS WORTH OF CLIMATE DATA AND SPEND 3 YEARS DOING IT?

Because it is all no big deal, right? LOL.

As for NASA GISS, they are now being sued because they too have evaded FOI requests for the past 2 years and will not release source data. Why do you think that might be?

And the satellite data? Interesting you should bring that up. It shows virtually no warming trend from 1979 - 1997 and again no warming trend from 2002 - 2009.

So I guess all that CO2 only caused warming for 3-4 years out of 30?

 

And yes -- if you want to read a bunch of propaganda, look no further than realclimate. Isn't it obvious? I mean just read the Climategate emails:

In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below) have recently got together to build a new 'climate blog' website RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days at: RealClimate
.................................................................
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org] any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
..................................................................
think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone


You can find more about realclimate bias simply by googling, looking through the Climategate emails, etc.
​

 

"We'll censor anyone who doesn't agree with us!"

 

Hello, Pot, meet Kettle!

 

December 7th, 2009…a day that will live in hypocrisy Watts Up With That?

 

Once again, the claims made based on the emails don't agree with reality. A speculative comment about "holding up comments" does not equate to censorship. Furthermore, the website speaks for itself. Every time I go to RC there are "skeptics" in the comments, many of whom are responded to directly.

Claims of censorship don't seem to pass the laugh test.

 

That won't stop liars like radioprius1 and many others here from trying to spin it into something it isn't though. It's not surprising really. They don't have anything going for them, so they continue to make stuff up.