Hadley CRU files/emails hacked!

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

If you guys call us denialists, then we should call you delusionists. You know, since you maintain a fixed, false belief.

Edit: This post by Shawn shows a really good problem about you AGW people. I've made a few points in this whole thread - the science for AGW is shaky, the idea is based on something you can't conclusively prove, and asked why should we all overreact to something which isn't necessarily true. What do you do? You continue to insult me, and as soon as I start poking some holes in your ideas you put me on ignore. You're like a little kid who doesn't want to find out that there is no Santa Claus.

 

You wont have to wait for long

 

Who's laughing......

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

But... If you're seeing an abnormal ECG then you already have your proof. An abnormal ECG is infinitely more proof for an MI than anything AGW'ers have going for them. A better example would have been if you have a patient that presents with chest pain and dyspnea, you can assume the worst. But we can't deny the other possibilities for diagnosis! The same is true for AGW.

Human produced greenhouse gases *MAY* be contributing to warming of the planet, or it may merely be the normal cycle of things. We know the earth undergoes normal cycles of warming and cooling.

Scientifically, I can't see how I'm wrong. We don't have conclusive proof that human produced CO2 is causing global warming. That means, at best, we can only say that it MAY be contributing to global warming. But, it may not. We don't have proof. But we do know the earth warms and cools naturally.

People like Richard keep posting weird things, assuming that if we don't believe in AGW then we are pooping all over our planet and treating it like crap. Heck, I bet I do more to help the plant than half of the AGW people on this thread. And the fear mongering stuff like we will have 20-40 foot rise in oceans in 20 years is ridiculous.

 

CO2 traps heats, more CO2 traps more heat so adding CO2 to the system will trap even more heat (likely to some limit). Humans are adding more CO2 than the system can cycle so CO2 concentrations go up. There is no difference between human CO2 contributions and those from natural sources, they all add up to achieve a concentration level and the effects are the same.

We already know the science behind how greenhouse gases work. That is not in dispute and there are plenty of papers on the subject. We are, however, still learning about some of the other variables that can affect the total heat budget and final climate as well as the timelines involved for these variables to take affect. There is the possibility that CO2 could be overpowered by other feebacks or forcings and it may not be as powerful of a "greenhouse" contributor than we think. That is not the way it appears currently though and to toss the whole idea down the drain as rubish because the hypothesis is not 100% perfect is insane when one looks at the potential cost of such actions. There is more than enough data to point us in the direction of AGW and those who claim otherwise are not looking at the data or simply do not have the background to understand it OR they have another agenda and AGW doesn't fit into their scheme.........

Radioprius1, your posts are maniacal and you have zero interest in actually learning anything about this subject as is evident by your lack of proper questions, research, and constructive feedback on information you have already been given that illustrates the mechanisms behind global warming. Do everyone a favor and spend your time reading and learning about the subject or simply STFU (or go play touch bottom with your buddies in the political forum) because you are adding nothing to the discussion but maniacle ranting about no data when it is all around you if you cared to look.

 

We are also learning that there are plenty of "scientists" willing and eager to bend the "facts" to suit their "agenda" as demonstrated by the subject of this thread --- so ---- :focus:

 

And yet no AGW here has put up any data that can't be found in a 1st graders science book.

But I get it, my posts are nuts because I'm not drinking your koolaid. Sorry, I live in the realm of reality.

 

I've posted the appropriate links recently AND in the past. Go look for them. This is not a clearninghouse for scientific papers.

You do not live in reality. You make all kinds of rediculous posts about dancing and other BS that obviously have no scientific data to support the idea they cause global warming while you ignore all the evidence that support the idea that greenhouse gases cause and/or enhance global warming. To me that is just being assinine or ignorant. Reality? No, not even close.

 

The post about dancing is merely to show the impossibility of disproving that something is not causing something. I was asked for evidence to show that CO2 is *not* causing global warming. It's impossible to provide such evidence, just as it is impossible to disprove the existence of an invisible, undetectable unicorn standing right next to you.

The facts are that we don't know if human produced CO2 is accelerating global warming. Have we produced enough CO2? Is it in high enough concentrations? The data isn't sufficient. The proof isn't there. The AGW have models that predict all these horrible things, but look at the last 11 years.

The truth is that the AGW are using sensationalism and appealing to emotion to cause all this environmental hysteria. We are not on a catastrophic train wreck to hell.

AGW = hype.

 

F8L - I don't disagree with some of what you are saying. But to repeat something I posted on another thread, I see very big discrepancies in the argument that CO2 will cause catastrophic (or even significant) warming. The empirical evidence is pretty shaky, which leaves us relying on highly deficient models.

When you or someone else can adequately address the questions I raise below, you will move me and others out of the "skeptic" camp. Here is what I posted earlier:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

...First, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In the absence of other factors, it is generally acknowledged that a doubling of atmospheric co2 from about 280 ppm (pre-industrial) to 560 ppm (projected from ~ 2100 AD) would lead to a temperature increase of ~1-2 degrees C.

However, what the climate modelers have claimed is that other factors (feedbacks) will cause this rise to be more on the order of 3-6 degrees C. James Hansen a "pro" anthropogenic (manmade) global warming scientist & advocate has deemed anything above about 2 C to be "dangerous anthropogenic interference". That is, big trouble for the planet.

What has not been demonstrated is that the climate models are very robust. Yes, they have tweaked them to back test well, but they are also highly deficient in a number of key areas, including their treatment of water vapor and ocean circulation, to name a few. And it is not certain that the model "feedbacks" actually exist to the degree and direction as is presently modeled. In fact, some of the model inputs that would be key feedback mechanisms (such as aerosols - tiny soot if you will) have never been widely or consistently measured. So, without accurate source data, it would be reasonable to question how well the model "inputs" reflect reality, when reality is not empirically known.

In addition, the current "pause" in warming (not much warming over the past 5-10 years, depending on who you quote and what dataset is referred to) has been problematic for the modelers -- it is generally inconsistent with expectations.

Furthermore, although much/most of the 20th century "warming" (about 0.6-0.7 C) has been attributed to CO2 by the "warmists", there are a few problems.

• One is that from the period 1910-1940 there was a significant increase in temps (about 0.5 C) without any significant increase in CO2. So we know nature alone can alter climate dramatically in a brief period.
• Two, from approx 1945 - 1980 there was a quite dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 and yet temperatures fell over this period.
• Since around 2000, temps have remained stable and perhaps even declined despite a continued significant rise in CO2.

So only the period from ~1980 - 2000 would perhaps seem to confirm AGW (anthropogenic global warming) in that CO2 and temperature rise in lock step. The other periods, perhaps not.


Here is a look at temp. data from 1880-2000 that indicate the patterns I mention above.



But... if one looks closely at the more accurate satellite temp data from 1979-2009 (below), you see something interesting. From 1979-1997, there is barely any temperature rise (very minimal slope). In 1998 there was a strong El Nino and probably not coincidentally, a sharp spike in global temps. Temps since 1998 have generally declined, but they do appear to be at a higher plateau than prior to 1998. However, the slope of temperature increase since 1998 is minimal (perhaps even negative depending on the data and one's interpretation). So what you have is a "step change" in temperature post 1998.

Here is a jpg of satellite temp data from 1979 (when satellite measurement first started) to present so you can see the temperature patterns and appreciate the slope pre/post 1998 and the "step" to which I refer.





To date - nobody in all the discussion boards I've read and participated in over the past 5+ years has ever explained to me:

• What drove large temp increases early in the 20th Century in the absence of CO2 increases and why that same factor should be ruled out for later periods of temp increases
• What drove DECLINING temps from 1940-1980 during a period of rapid CO2 increases
• How CO2 drove a "step change" in temperature post 1998 (and why the more likely explanation, a strong El Nino, should not be considered as causal)
• Why CO2 has not driven continued temperature increases since around the year 2000.

While I do believe it is likely CO2 has some minor effect on temperatures, I think it is dramatically overstated.

So when someone can adequately answer these questions above, I will consider shifting my stance away from "climate skepticism".

 

Lastly, an observation on the scientists involved in the climategate scandal - it is really hard to backpedal after having shot oneself in the foot.

 

*crickets*

 

Yeah, some of us have lives outside of PC... I was conducting stream quality monitoring and habitat assessments today. Ohh yeah, that is science.


Tim, You know that I never claim catastrophic warming and adjectives of the sort so lets make sure we keep that straight. I am still at work right now but I am interested in talking with you about your questions. I'm not sure where you posted the above questions before but I'd be happy to look at them now.

 

Depends on your procedures.

 

Zing!

 

F8L,

He's going to hear a lot more crickets because nobody else is even bothering to listen to or respond to him anymore. ound:

 

That's hilarious I love the technique you guys have. Someone pokes a bunch of holes in your ideas and you put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la la la!" I'm so glad I haven't based my entire life around a lie.

 

I feel Tim is worth talking to as he brings up points worth researching. The other guys just rant and pretend to be interested when in reality they want to play the political game. They quickly end up on ignore.

 

Yeah, I guess when you count toilet flushes you get listened to and responded to more often. Good work by the way

 

You're going to need a modified, super-size-me ignore button after the email hacks