Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Alric, let's continue arguing by abstract:

ScienceDirect - Physics Reports : Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion

Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming Watts Up With That?

In the paper, he finds that there has been cooling since 2002

I think he definitely is overstating his case, but this peer reviewed publication is sure interesting!

 

NVP,

Another well thought out, mature learned comment, you must be so proud of your little grade three self!

"Unfortunately you still argue out of your rear."


PS So much for playing nicely with others!

 

Don't you have a Bingo game to go play at some rec center?

 

BFrom post #779 NVP writes :"Your graphic is basically a who's who of ClimateGate fraud. A good portion of those lines are by people who have either stepped down from their position (Jones) or are being investigated by their university (Mann.) Briffa is MIA. LOL.

I truly think this is among the most exciting times in science in the last 25 years. Every day more and more get's uncovered about this ridiculous hoax."

IOr from Post # 753

"I wanted to reply to your post where you said something to the effect of that you thought the leaders at Copenhagen all know AGW is a hoax. I am starting to believe that very strongly. The more I read about ClimateGate and all the commentaries on it, the more it seems that educated people had to know that it was a complete load of crap. "

NOr in #701

"Combining the inherit inaccuracies of computer climate models with the good probability of poor input data due to ClimateGate renders me useless in accepting their output as legitimate."

G# 692 "It is deceit through and through."

O# 662 "No matter how you look at it, it is deceitful, and this proof was uncovered in the CRU emails."


And that is just a random sampling from the last few days,

BINGO

PS See also post #851

 

Some of you may find this interesting, others may find it distressing.

It has been interesting to watch how Nevada Prius has gone from being a reasonable, reasoned, thoughtful contributer to this forum, and in the span of ~100 posts, has absorbed the vitriol and bile of his fellow deniers.

From Post #542 on December 16 which I believe was his first appearance :

"Let me start off by saying that I am *huge* supporter of global warming. I think the science isn't settled, but I think it's pretty obvious that we are experiencing warming, and that it may have devastating effects on our environment. "

To # 565 "Just a note again, I firmly believe that humans are contributing to change of temperature on earth. But I do not believe that things are as bad or as dire as Al Gore would have you believe.

I do not agree with you that global warming is "based on reproducible scientific experiments, the vast majority of them lead to conclusive proof!" The fact is there isn't conclusive proof of AGW. None. We have some pretty smart scientists doing a lot of studies and trying to reason a lot of things out, but there is not solid proof.

Where I come from the phrase "based on" means "firmly established." You said that global warming is "based on" reproducible scientific experiments, the vast majority of them leading to conclusive proof."

To #598 "And this is where some people will attack the messenger, Michael Crichton, instead of the message.

I agree with with Chrichton's message in that passage, and unfortunately we don't have some a team researching climate. We shouldn't be screwing around with data, we should be collecting all the data we have an examining it as a whole. If this science is being funded by the people then why can't we look into it? "

To # 662 "Alric, are you being intentionally thick or can you really not follow the messages in that post?"

To #693

"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."

To # 737

"We have the advantage of having facts on our side, and you have the disadvantage of having disingenuous scientists manipulating data in dubious ways on yours. "

#748 "Good riddance Although I'm sure you'll be back"

# 753 "(You can't get Alric to leave. "

# 838 "Unfortunately you still argue out of your rear."

I could have included more but I think you get the picture. Does anyone else see the pattern?

 

In re the Financial Post article.

While T. Corcoran indicates his objectivity by refusing to draw any conclusions about tree ring dendrochronology, he also admits that he hasn't read all the E-mails. In addition, there are experts who have already found in the E-mails pretty concrete evidence that the scientists producing papers and graphs for IPCC and other policy groups were privately not sure about the science thay publicly insisted was 'settled'.

There is plenty in the E-mails that indicts many of those involved in really unethical and unscientific behavior. I don't think any fair reader can deny that.

A full and impartial examination is in order. The potential for the need to re-examine damn near everything these guys produced was brought about by their own actions - they have no one else to blame.

I surely don't buy the meme that the E-mails and other leaked documents leave the science intact. In fact, my personal opinion is that Mr. Corcoran is too kind.

 

People who examine the evidence dispassionately can be converted from fantasy to reality:

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate scientists.
Boy, was I naive.
Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even outright fraud, I’ve been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those columns, I even wrote: “And see Real Climate (RealClimate) for global warming science without the political spin.”
In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists, concerned more with politics than with science.
My mistake was assuming only the purest of motives of the global warming alarmists, while assuming the worst of the skeptics. In fact, the soi-disant moralists of the global warming movement can also exploit their agenda for profit.
Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by top global warming scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in their favor, and did so shamelessly.
Yet still most media reports desperately minimize Climategate, saying that it doesn’t taint the massive research supporting global warming theory. To them I say, how do you know that? Have you investigated how much of that research was published due to the manipulation of these unethical and fraudulent scientists? Do you know how much research that goes against the global warming activist claims was unfairly suppressed?
Until all this is known, it’s not possible to say with any confidence how much of global warming theory will remain after all the fraud and deceit has been removed. And until climate science is cleaned up, it doesn’t deserve the worship so many in the media unthinkingly give its tainted practitioners.

From Global Warming Believer To Skeptic NCTimes.com Blogs

 

Boo!

 

"A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts."

"Climategate jolted me into confronting the massive fraud and deception by top global warming scientists, who were in a position to twist the peer-review process in their favor, and did so shamelessly. "

Are you asking us to believe that it was climategate that changed your mind about awg? I believe there was a previous poster who claimed that, until he was confronted with evidence that he had posted on this site anti global warming posts long before the release of the e-mails.

If memory serves, you have had a fairly long history on this site of arguing against awg that goes back many months, if not over a year.

 

OH MY GOD!

He was quoting an article! The article is linked in the post! If you ever actually read links instead of just trolling you would have seen that.

And please proof read, it is *A*G*W*. Not A*W*G*. I'm sure we all believe that American wire gauge (AWG) is a standardized wire gauge system used since 1857 predominantly in the United States for the diameters of round, solid, nonferrous, electrically conducting wire.

 

Dirty laundry. Yikes!

 

I just happen to be a licensed electrician, so I am very aware of the difference between AWG vs AGW. But please excuuuuuuuse me Mr. Perfection for having a typo!


PS I actually found another in one of my posts, where I said I was a big supporter of cap and trade. I neglected the word NOT. Let's hope you never make an error!

PPS. Why are you answering a question directed to someone else?

 

I'm saving Ufourya the trouble of having to reply to such a huge mistake.

 

Can you tell me where in that abstract it says there has been cooling since 2002?

 

Alric, Can you spell FAT CHANCE?

 

Ah, sorry, I actually read the paper I bought the PDF.

 

A very clear example of how the 'Hockey Team' went about (with the assistance of the editor of a 'respected journal') preparing a response to a paper which cast doubt on their models. The journal delayed the publication of a duly peer-reviewed paper for almost a year so the 'Team' could prepare its response. Then, in order to deny the authors of the first paper a response, they manipulated publication dates of the papers.

Thank God these E-mails were leaked. Without them the world would never have been aware of this collusion and the mendacity that was and is part and parcel of the 'climate science' that produced the 'consensus' of 'settled science'.

Please read it all. It is very clear. So clear that the authors, assuming the evidence will be so obvious, invite the reader to draw his own conclusions. Posting it here, I will, of course, predict that some here will draw a conclusion contraty to the evidence, or better yet rush over to realclimate to search for a rebuttal from the very perpetrators of this crime against honest science. I would even hazard the guess that it won't be read in its entirety before a defense is sought.

American Thinker: A Climatology Conspiracy?

[FONT=times new roman,times]We will let the reader judge whether this team effort, revealed in dozens of e-mails and taking nearly a year, involves inappropriate behavior, including (a) unusual cooperation between authors and editor, (b) misstatement of known facts, (c) character assassination, (d) avoidance of traditional scientific give-and-take, (e) using confidential information, (f) misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the scientific question posed by DCPS, (g) withholding data, and more.[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]*The team is a group of climate scientists who frequently collaborate and publish papers which often support the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. For this essay, the leading team members include Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Timothy Osborn, and Tom Wigley, with lesser roles for several others.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Truth seekers will enjoy and appreciate the article. Others should feel uncomfortable and outraged for what has been done to mislead them. I'm not holding my breath.[/FONT]

 

Well, obviously Trenberth doesn't think it is warming. Though admittedly he didn't state it in peer review, just in a Climategate email. Ah, the travesty.

 

If you have the PDF you can easily copy the text or figure that shows "cooling since 2002".

That paper does not seem to be about global warming at all. It discusses the effect of halogenated compounds on the ozone layer and cooling of the stratosphere where the ozone hole is. Nothing about global temperature.

Unless the body says different.

 

Watts Up With That (Best Science Blog 2008) reports on the paper:

Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000,” Lu said. “Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate.”
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

Since WUWT is not the propaganda wing of scientists with an agenda to mislead (RealClimate.org), we can assume they are reporting accurately.