Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Climate deal falls short of expectations - - POLITICO.com

Shhhhhhhh... don't tell Fibber about this, he'll be so disappointed.

The climate deal reached between U.S, China and other great powers on Friday night is so vague, hastily hatched and non-binding President Obama isn’t even sure he’ll be required to sign it.


“You know, it raises an interesting question as to whether technically there's actually a signature… It's not a legally binding agreement, I don't know what the protocols are,” said a bleary-eyed Obama, before hopping in Air Force One for the trip back to Washington.


Even as he left, it wasn’t clear that the pact Obama described as “meaningful” would even pass muster with the European Union – or attract enough votes with the 193-nation COP 15 conference to become an official declaration.


"It’s a catastrophe," said Dan Joergensen, a member of the European delegation. "We’re so far away from the criteria that was set up in order to call it a success, and those weren’t really that ambitious to start with."...

 

@Nevada,

Dispute this while you are at it:

Brendan Demelle | Statisticians Confirm: No Global Cooling Despite Skeptic Spin

___________________

And here is the full article that you say goes against my general argument. I'll leave it to the sorry readers of this thread to decide if this supports the notion that AGW is a threat. At the rate we are (not) curbing emissions we'll be damn lucky to keep the warming below 3.6 degrees F. Imagine the infrastructure costs alone in having to deal with only a 20-30 feet rise in sea level.

from washingtonpost.com

 

I am disappointed, but just so you're clear. There is no legally binding treaty yet, NOT because anyone involved at COP15 disputes the science of AGW. The dispute is over who's going to pay for the mess we are in. It's a dispute largely between the developing nations who haven't yet polluted much but will at ever increasing rates vs. the developed world that has got us into this sorry state.

So enjoy your hollow and temporary little victory because nobody that matters hears your message and you will never stop the pro-AGW movement and all of it's socialist agendas. . There will be a binding treaty!

Muahahahahahahahahaha!

 

Wrong how? Not only not showing the recent Briffa data is unimportant it probably would have been incorrect to show. As that paper demonstrates.

 

Unequivocally, Briffa's data has been manipulated to show greater warming. Look at the before and after graphs. These graphs were used on published papers that policy makers use to make decision. If someone passes legislation based on deceitful, falsified data then the whole world loses.

As Ufourya said, this is where you will now change the subject, move the goalposts, etc.

Edit: Also, if you consider that Mann and friends attempted to stonewall other scientists from being published, then they altered the entire world's of understanding for climatology.

 

"he could sell ice to eskimos", may not be a valid saying soon.
This just struck my on the way to work today.

 

I will attack both the source and the content. First, the article. It was written by Seth Borenstein who is as biased against denialists as you can possibly be. There is even a movement to have him fired because he used derogatory language in his AP articles. (I emailed the Associated Press because I strongly believe that journalists should not be pushing a personal agenda. They should report facts, not opinion.)

Second, the content. Note that this entire process involves cherry picking start and stop points. Starting off around 1998 throws things off because of a very strong El Nino (that means, look at the years immediately following the El Nino, you can see why those lines would trend upwards. They are skewed by a low starting point). I've plotted trend lines until now starting from 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.



This shows a cooling trend over the last 9 years (8 years in the GISSTEMP data.) You are free to visit woodfortrees.org yourself and plot these lines so you can see the data for yourself.

In addition, climatologists agree with me:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." - [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trenberth"]Kevin Trenberth[/ame]


I've pasted the entire email below, it is too good to pass up.

 

Ok. Show me how they did this. Don't go and copy a whole blogpost and say "here". In your own words, what is your understanding of what happened.

I say that because no one has alleged that. Not even climateaudit. The whole issue is not showing the most recent Briffa data and probably with good reason.

 

Uh, no. Please review the graphs.

You can be as purposefully thick headed as you like, but you can not deny that this is conclusive proof of deceitfulness and data manipulation.

 

Yes. What the graphs show is only the most recent Briffa data not plotted. That's all. What do you see?

 

I see the Briffa data line truncated before it has run its sourse and then the truncation is cleverly (or deviously) covered by a couple of other lines.

 

Am I really supposed to spend the next half hour constructing a post to you that conclusively demonstrates that you are 100% wrong? Only to have you follow it up by changing the subject, and then bringing this one up again in a couple of weeks? You have not been able to show any errors in the demonstrations that the "hide the decline" was deceitful. You merely change the subject and beat around the bush. You know, just because some data is presented in a deceitful manner does not mean the whole of global warming is wrong. It just means we need better mechanisms for ensuring the validity of our science. Is it really that hard for you to admit that?

Ufourya predicted your actions to a T.

If you read the blog posts by Steve McIntyre (by the way, 5 of his papers are referenced in the IPCC report, he's also the guy who busted Mann for using the upside down Tiljander data) you can clearly see that he chronicles emails between Briffa and the team and you can see how Briffa's reconstruction changed shape multiple times in order to present a nice and tidy picture of warming. There are actually multiple versions of the CRU's molestation of Briffa's data.

It is deceit through and through.

You have had this spelled out to you multiple times. If you are being intentionally thick headed then please stop. If you truly can not follow an entire post and understand it then there is no point in posting to you anymore.

Honestly this reminds me of Shawn Clark, who right before he gets crushed in a post puts someone on ignore. That is truly anti-intellectual. I sincerely hope that you are open minded enough to remain cautiously skeptic of things you read.

 

Re COP15 and whatever schadenfreude the failure affords.

The main players at COP15 are all aware that AGW is a hoax. They don't care what the truth is as long as they can fool enough people into believing that some wealth-distribution scheme will magically save the earth from the (mostly non-existent) damage that humans do by burning fossil fuels. They push the scam for political ends and for reasons of greed.

Al Gore doesn't believe any of the &*^% that he promulgates - his lifestyle pretty much proves that for anyone with the eyes to see. The carbon trading schemes he stands to profit from are invisible to the believers.

Yet, some people are always easily led and fooled. That's why we have the word 'fools' and apply it to the same. Some people who are ignorant of history and economics will even cheer on totalitarianism and hate capitalism. They hate the very system that has been proven to provide a level of prosperity unmatched by any other. A level of prosperity where the 'poor' in USA have more freedom and material wealth than the 'rich' in many other countries. They love and cheer on a system that leads to misery, poverty and enslavement - but at least they all share them equally (except for the elite of the party, and the most elite - the politburo).

As I said, words have meaning.

 

For perhaps the first time in history, I actually agree with Ufourya,

"Yet, some people are always easily led and fooled"

 

Exactly! A line truncated after we have the instrumental record making recent proxy measurements less valuable.

And here it is. A Nature paper by Briffa himself nonetheless that explains how the tree rings he studies may overestimate temperature resulting in higher proxy temperature data.

Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes : Abstract : Nature

"The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated."

"During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen."

It appears that if anything past temperatures were likely lower than currently estimated.

 

You haven't done that. All you have done is the denialist trick of saying: "X is true because of this blogpost that I am linking here".

My argument shows, with data and references, that your blogpost is wrong. Data was not manipulated and there is probably a good reason for not including in the graph in the first place.

 

I see a bunch of colorer lines on a graph that say absolutely nothing about the reality of global warming. He said/she said blah, blah blah,,,,
All this has the net effect (regardless of the truth) of serving to obfuscate not illuminate.

Move on!

 

You have no argument. You posted and quoted an abstract of a paper. In no way have you addressed the graphs and emails in question. You have accomplished nothing.

Thank you for admitting you are not capable of reading a graph.

Did you ever find the conclusive evidence you claimed existed in support of anthropogenic global warming? Or can you finally admit that you made such an egregious error?

 

NevadaPrius, in another stellar example of keeping it civil says,

"Thank you for admitting you are not capable of reading a graph."

Are you suggesting that this tiny portion of this graph should tell me anything? Talk about context,, or lack there of!

As I said, I see squiggly little colored lines! The graph posted shows no context what so ever, in any axis,,, Like I said, move on!

 

NP
While you can pick nits all you wish, argue semantic differences, I stand by my basic premise, which is: Climate models, which because they are inherently predictive, are subject to wide variation in conclusion(s), the basic science that these models and predictions are based on come from many thousands of individual studies (most of which are peer reviewed and are in essence reproducible (assuming for example the ice that we are testing is still there!)). Many of these studies have been on going for decades. What you are asking me to believe in your own twisted logic, is that because of this perceived "doctoring" of data in a small number of e-mails, you are calling into question all the basic science that has been done in the last several decades.

You call for transparency and to which I agree. I ague that the vast majority of basic research is available to read, analyze, report on etc. to those that have the inclination, desire, time, energy to do so.

I am the first to admit, that I don't have the time, energy, desire, inclination(or training/education) to analyze ALL the data. I dare say no one here does. ( I can already see this being quoted as evidence that I don't know what I am talking about!) I have relied on the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists (as mentioned many times before) to influence my opinion. Like I said, who are you going to believe? The vast majority of climate scientists OR some small number of contrarians (who of course have a right to say and opine what they wish, even if they are proved to be wrong) aided and abetted by industry/ lobbying/talk radio/talk Tv "fair and balanced" talking heads?

So you can ridicule me repeatedly over and over over some perceived semantic difference but that and $.50 gets you a cup of coffee.

You asked me earlier in a post that has been deleted why I was so quick to point out "reading errors" of others. The answer is I am quick to point out the hypocrisy of certain posters. If you had been following these threads as long as I have, you would know that there has been some vile, hateful, and truly nasty things that have been thrown at me (and others) in this forum. I have (unlike others) never complained, never "reported" a post to the mods. I have never called anyone names, and only rarely thrown personal insults, although people have chosen to read things that way. I did suggest that someone should "bend over and jump" which was reported to Mommy and Daddy as encouraging someone to commit suicide. (Once again, the concept of imaginative metaphor escaped this person!)

So when folks say things like "If I am the biggest liar in the world, if what I say is true, why won't you believe it", I have no problem showing how absurd these folks are. When some poster has accused me of posting "lies" like you have been here, and someone misquotes " 30,000 studies" and writes "30,000 scientists", if it is fair for the goose, it is fair for the gander for me to point out ones inability to read. (there is one poster here who is constantly admonishing folks to read, and yet just as constantly is not bothering to read, or is reading incorrectly what has been written).

When I omitted the critical word "most" in one of my many posts, you guys were all over it like flies on,,,at least I owned up to it and admitted that I had made an error. When was the last time any of you have admitted an error of any kind?