The CRU emails

[Savok]

I try not to come in here (as I'd have a stroke within an hour) but I couldn't help but see the response on those leaked/hacked emails pretty much detailing how we've been lied to for years about Climate Change and how the world was ending tomorrow. But.... nothing, you all seem awfully quiet on the possible death of the great Global Warming scam.

I realize governments and large chunks of the media have been trying their hardest to ignore this, but come on, we're the Internet, we're better then that. These are essentially the Nixon tapes of the 21st century.

[Zero]

Source?

Also it's Thanksgiving weekend on the correct side of the Earth which is why there's not a whole lot going on in here.

[Savok]

Source? Dude this shit has been going over a week.

Long story short, a 168Mb zip file of emails from the heart of the CRU made it onto the Internet, it's chock full of their internal correspondence. Here's a column (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_warming_conspiracys_most_damning_emails/) from Andrew Bolt going over some of the early finds. I say early because it's 168Mb of fucking emails, it's a god damn mountain of information.

[Generation ABXY]

I've always thought AGW was a scam, Savok, and I don't imagine the people who really buy into it are going to be so easily swayed, so I didn't think there was much to say. I'm reluctant to say it's vindicating, too, because I've also supported reasonable changes to our lifestyle (that is, a push towards renewable energy, but not charging fees for failing to use technology that barely exists).

[diablopath]

So wait, are they saying global warming doesn't exist at all?
Or that we just aren't as responsible for it as they suggested?

[Hawkzombie]

I've always thought AGW was a scam, Savok, and I don't imagine the people who really buy into it are going to be so easily swayed, so I didn't think there was much to say. I'm reluctant to say it's vindicating, too, because I've also supported reasonable changes to our lifestyle (that is, a push towards renewable energy, but not charging fees for failing to use technology that barely exists).

True, but in Australia it's getting hit the worst because of it. They've got kids in school (grade school) that are feeling suicidal because they think their carbon footprint is hurting the earth. They've got guys trying to push huge environmental taxes, which do nothing but punish people for doing what they're already doing, NOT big businesses. It's a mess down there. Reasonable change is good, even recommended, but the fact they've not only been covering up information and cherry picking data but also ignoring the fact that temperatures have (on average) been COOLING...it's pretty damming.

I never bought into it as well, but there are people who are using it less for the environment and more for political clout. That to me is wrong, so anything that 100% disproves it is good in my book.

As for why everyone seems so quiet about it....we all kinda figured it was like that -anyway-...so why get worked up about being right in the first place? I just hope this causes people to think about WHY they're going green as well as how they are, and not just automatically start doing it without researching the hows and whys. Hell, recycling programs actually cause more waste in some cases than they recycle. (Trucks use fuel, energy to run the plants, etc)

So wait, are they saying global warming doesn't exist at all?
Or that we just aren't as responsible for it as they suggested?

Mostly that it's the second one was what I got from looking over it. Also, that the cooling and warming seems more natural than we first thought as well. From what I can tell, we're having an impact, but that's only in the fact we're depleting non-renewable resources...not baking the planet.

[diablopath]

Mostly that it's the second one was what I got from looking over it. Also, that the cooling and warming seems more natural than we first thought as well. From what I can tell, we're having an impact, but that's only in the fact we're depleting non-renewable resources...not baking the planet.

This has been the assumption I've been operating under for a year or two now. Shit, I thought this was the general consensus on the matter.

[Generation ABXY]

Oh, don't get me wrong, Hawkzombie, anything that removes the axe over our head is good in my book, too. But around here, I know we have a few devout believers...

[Panthera]

I try not to come in here (as I'd have a stroke within an hour) but I couldn't help but see the response on those leaked/hacked emails pretty much detailing how we've been lied to for years about Climate Change and how the world was ending tomorrow. But.... nothing, you all seem awfully quiet on the possible death of the great Global Warming scam.

I realize governments and large chunks of the media have been trying their hardest to ignore this, but come on, we're the Internet, we're better then that. These are essentially the Nixon tapes of the 21st century.

Frankly, it's because the leak didn't show lies. It didn't show a conspiracy.

Here's a great writeup: http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886

[Panthera]

More commentary, somewhat more polite:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/26/807934/-Michael-Mann-Responds-to-CRU-Hack

[Bandango]

Can anyone track down the original zip file for me? I'd be interested in perusing these in context.

[Savok]

This isn't a lie? (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_what_a_great_trick/)

And you're linking to Daily fucking Kos, come on.

Recycling in this country is bullshit too, half of it ends up in landfill anyway because it's too expensive to process.

[Savok]

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

Of note, George Monbiot is shaken (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/dismayed_and_shaken/), the original moonbat.

[Hemalin]

This isn't a lie? (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_what_a_great_trick/)

And you're linking to Daily fucking Kos, come on.

Recycling in this country is bullshit too, half of it ends up in landfill anyway because it's too expensive to process.
It's not the whole truth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_Problem) The "trick" was to add the thermometer records to address the divergence problem.
The divergence problem is the disagreement between the temperatures measured by the thermometers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermometer) (instrumental temperatures) on one side and the temperatures reconstructed from the widths of tree rings on the other side, in the northern forests.
While the thermometer records indicate a substantial warming trend, many tree rings do not display a corresponding change in their width.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_Problem#cite_note-Darrigo-0) A temperature trend extracted from tree rings alone would not show any substantial warming. The temperature graphs calculated in these two ways thus "diverge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diverge)" from one another since the 1950s, which is the origin of the term.
Along with the advantages of dendroclimatology are some limitations: confounding factors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding_variable), geographic coverage, annular resolution, and collection difficulties. The field has developed various methods to partially adjust for these challenges.

[Panthera]

This isn't a lie? (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_what_a_great_trick/)

And you're linking to Daily fucking Kos, come on.

Recycling in this country is bullshit too, half of it ends up in landfill anyway because it's too expensive to process.

All four of my links addressed that.

Shit like this is why I can't take AGW skeptics seriously.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Update us when the leaked emails prove that global warming is a scam and erases the mountains of evidence contrary. I'm inclined to believe the empirical evidence provided by hundreds and thousands of scientists worldwide until there is data suggesting anything else.

[alienmastermind]

On the side of AGW : Scientists.
Against: Michelle Malkin, and the guy that wrote Westworld.

I'm still on the fence.

[boratika]

Can anyone track down the original zip file for me? I'd be interested in perusing these in context.

Just a heads up, these are illegally acquired and distributed emails, so it might not be a good idea for someone to link them for you.

[Savok]

Just a heads up, these are illegally acquired and distributed emails, so it might not be a good idea for someone to link them for you.
Actually that's up for debate. There's word they were on an open FTP server because of a Freedom of Information Act case. See the CRU has been trying to block the release of their figures, if the science is good why won't they let anyone see the data? They talk about destroying the data rather then let anyone look at it.

Anyway, we have more skeptics then I figured, good to see not everyone drank the kool-aid.

EDIT: Also the mountain is shrinking now (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/new_zealands_man_made_warming/).

[ShivaX]

Put me in the boat of skeptical, but somewhat hopeful.

I hope global warming isn't real and its just a natural cycle and maybe our data was manipulated or otherwise skewed. But I'm also of the mind that we should probably cut emissions and the like anyway, because even if things aren't bad now I'm pretty sure once the Third World gets fully industrialized it will be if we don't do something.

Best case scenario I can see is that we might have bought ourselves a few decades to fix things instead of it already being too late. Or maybe the Earth can magically fix everything we do, but I tend to doubt that since we can actually do pretty serious things to the entire planet and its atmosphere as it is (I wish I could find my source, but it was something I saw on the Universe about I think it was a single shuttle launch and how much it screwed with the atmosphere or magnetic field of the earth).

[Hemalin]

See the CRU has been trying to block the release of their figures, if the science is good why won't they let anyone see the data?
Evidence: This thread and all others like it on the internet. People who don't understand how the science works, taking things out of context and getting caught up on "tricks" or "cleaning up code" and it completely detracts from the actual science that is going on. Skeptics are welcome to research climate change as they see fit, showing everyone that they've just had their weather stations too close to air conditioners. That is provided, of course, that it actually based on science.

[Savok]

So we should annihilate our economies just in case carbon, the thing everything alive is made out of, is poison. Also no one is allowed to see the evidence in case someone says it's wrong.... well I'm going to back away slowly now.

Hey imagine if the courts worked like that? You aren't allowed see the evidence, just take our word for it he's guilty.

[txshurricane]

What an inconvenient truth.

[Superman's Dead]

What an inconvenient truth.

I laughed really really hard.

Whether or not any of the science is good or not, this is still allegedly evidence of professionals trying to cover things up so that they'll paint a better media picture. I think. That's what I got from the news stories, at least. And that's what's scary to me.

(Really really really hard)

[Narradisall]

Meh,

I'd actually give a shit if these scientists could actually come up with a sensible solution to global warming.

Most people seem to fall in the two camps of devout believers or cynical skeptics, and niether are willing to budge on the issue. Short story, we get nowhere.

[Hemalin]

Here's another link that you probably should read. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/)




Hey imagine if the courts worked like that? You aren't allowed see the evidence, just take our word for it he's guilty.
That already happens to a degree. People get their understanding of DNA from CSI so they get confused when these experts try to explain how it actually works.

[Panthera]

Meh,

I'd actually give a shit if these scientists could actually come up with a sensible solution to global warming.

Most people seem to fall in the two camps of devout believers or cynical skeptics, and niether are willing to budge on the issue. Short story, we get nowhere.

I think even though there's a general agreement that this is happening, there's enough room for debate on the specifics to drive a bus through and there's a fuckton of science to be done. That doesn't sound like 'devout belief' to me, that sounds like healthy science.

And that's not even getting into policy issues.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

I would like the people that seem to think this is the death knell of the theory of global warming (which even if CRU manufactured all their data- which they didn't, and lied about everything they've ever concluded- they haven't, wouldn't mean a thing to the theory. CRU is ONE organization studying this, out of hundreds) to listen to this segment of the podcast The Skeptic's Guide To The Universe which does a great job of explaining a lot of this. It is a lot of things taken out of context. It some embarrassing statements made by scientists (scientists write informally and emotionally as we all do in private exchange). But there is nothing that shows their science is wrong.

Starts at 33:30ish.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=227

The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe is a skeptical (i.e. drawing conclusions based on empirical evidence) podcast headed by Dr. Steven Novella (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/bios.aspx?stevennovella) of the Yale University of School of Medicine. He does a very good job of showing how GW deniers are running with this when there isn't anything to run with.

[Narradisall]

snip

*shrug* If you wish to be pedantic about the wording.

My point was of the two camps I've met, one side tends to outright deny everything pointing towards it, and the other tend to hold it up as some sort of new religion.

Your talking from the pov of people that look at the scientific evidence, weighing up both the fors and againsts and making a decision based on that. That camp imo is even smaller than the other two.

[ShivaX]

Your talking from the pov of people that look at the scientific evidence, weighing up both the fors and againsts and making a decision based on that. That camp imo is even smaller than the other two.

And because of the other two camps it makes it even harder for those who would be in the objective camp to get any solid information since both the other sides tend to be skewing all the data to make a political point.

[Serapth]

There are things I don't understand here... like, why the average global temperature is going down but the polar icecaps ARE melting.

I hate these types of points though... I really hate when something becomes so stratified, that even questioning it labels you a nutjob on oneside or the other. Hell, I hate it when it comes to so many other "nutjob" questions... questioning the scope of the holocaust, questioning the motivation behind Pearl Harbour, questioning the moonlanding or 9/11... They day people stop asking questions, no matter how batshit insane, is the day humanity retards itself.

Some of the greatest developments in human history came from nutjobs that questions "the truth".

[TheEpicOfTyler]

There are things I don't understand here... like, why the average global temperature is going down but the polar icecaps ARE melting.

I'm not sure what you mean by the average global temperature is going down, if you could provide a source for that, it would be appreciated.

However, the polar ice caps melting are a big factor due to the Earth's albedo (which is the amount of of sunlight it reflects back into space [Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo)]). The ice caps and sea ice are very important to the Earth's albedo, they are white and frozen and snow covered almost continuously (and even more so in the winter with sea ice) and they bounce almost 100% of the sunlight that hits them back into space.

When the ice caps and sea ice are melting, it starts a positive feedback loop where the ocean absorbs the sun's heat because it's not bounced back by the ice. This in turn melts more ice, opening more ocean for the sunlight to become trapped by, which in turn melts more sea ice and the polar caps.
[Link (http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/polar/ice_albedo_feedback.html&edu=high)]

So it is easy to see how even if your assertion is true (which I would like to see, I tried to find data, but could not) that the globe is cooling, the ice caps would continue to melt.

It's also worth noting that the feedback loop is antagonized further by fossil fuel burning, as a lot of the dark pollutants released into the air tend to settle in the extreme polar regions making the ice and snow less white, and not reflecting as much sunlight. [Link (http://www.polar.ch2m.com/arlss_reports/arlss_projectsdetail.aspx?cbpropnum=0612636)]

Both of these things are important because as the ice caps melt, the sea level rises, and with no ice caps and sea ice to bounce away the sun's energy, the sea becomes warmer. This endangers life that is more reliant on colder temperatures (ocean and land), or the sea ice (see polar bears) to survive.

Hope I've shed a little light for you. :)

[Serapth]

I'm not sure what you mean by the average global temperature is going down, if you could provide a source for that, it would be appreciated.


Just look up your region on this graph. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=historical+mean+temperature) In my case ( area ) it was showing the current year ( for today ) temp is 4 degrees below the average. I only checked a few other locations, but all actually showed lower cases.

At a macro level, there is this graph. Keep in mind, I just did a rapid search on google and discounted any url's that seem to have a radically biased agenda based on the URL ( www.stopglobalwarming.com/ for example, would be disgarded ). By no means, comprehensive evidence, but when you look at farmer almanac data, the temperature in most regions, is actually down. I of course look at the world relative to my location, and where I live, at least recently, there is no evidence to show that things are getting warmer.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif


However, the polar ice caps melting are a big factor due to the Earth's albedo (which is the amount of of sunlight it reflects back into space [Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo)]). The ice caps and sea ice are very important to the Earth's albedo, they are white and frozen and snow covered almost continuously (and even more so in the winter with sea ice) and they bounce almost 100% of the sunlight that hits them back into space.

When the ice caps and sea ice are melting, it starts a positive feedback loop where the ocean absorbs the sun's heat because it's not bounced back by the ice. This in turn melts more ice, opening more ocean for the sunlight to become trapped by, which in turn melts more sea ice and the polar caps.
[Link (http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/polar/ice_albedo_feedback.html&edu=high)]

So it is easy to see how even if your assertion is true (which I would like to see, I tried to find data, but could not) that the globe is cooling, the ice caps would continue to melt.

It's also worth noting that the feedback loop is antagonized further by fossil fuel burning, as a lot of the dark pollutants released into the air tend to settle in the extreme polar regions making the ice and snow less white, and not reflecting as much sunlight. [Link (http://www.polar.ch2m.com/arlss_reports/arlss_projectsdetail.aspx?cbpropnum=0612636)]

Both of these things are important because as the ice caps melt, the sea level rises, and with no ice caps and sea ice to bounce away the sun's energy, the sea becomes warmer. This endangers life that is more reliant on colder temperatures (ocean and land), or the sea ice (see polar bears) to survive.

Hope I've shed a little light for you. :)

Thanks for the information.

[Ancalagon]

Good read on the subject (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/)

[Narradisall]

And because of the other two camps it makes it even harder for those who would be in the objective camp to get any solid information since both the other sides tend to be skewing all the data to make a political point.

I'm actually watching something on tv atm about it all. It's worrying that both sides claim they have completely different stats on the exact same thing.

I mean what do people expect to come from the Cophenhagen summit? We reduced out CO2 by 0.5% last year (UK) and we contribute about 2% of the worlds CO2. Going swimmingly so far.

People make it sound like the worlds temperature hasn't shifted by large amounts in the past either. CO2 probably isn't helping, but its not the be all and end all. Either way we're not doing bugger all to tackle it anyway.

Sometimes I think it would be more effective to deal with climate change for me to learn to build an ark.

[Hawkzombie]

This has been the assumption I've been operating under for a year or two now. Shit, I thought this was the general consensus on the matter.

Same here, honestly. I always thought (personally) there was never enough hard, factual evidence on EITHER side of the fence to prove or disprove it, and that people accepting it as a solid truth were not only selling themselves short but also pretty much saying 'science is awesome so long as we don't have to prove it'. Personally, even if it does end up being true, I won't really believe either side again, as so many half truths and 'omissions' of facts happen so commonplace it's insane.

You'd think people would just live a little cleaner and be a little more conscious of their actions without holding 'THE PLANET IS DYING QUICKLY AND IT IS OUR FAULT' over their heads. Dunno why the sudden race to go green, honestly.

Oh, don't get me wrong, Hawkzombie, anything that removes the axe over our head is good in my book, too. But around here, I know we have a few devout believers...

See, I can understand believing in the principal of it. The theory seems sound: We're creating too much waste, and it's causing the planet to react. But it's the fact there is no concrete proof of our involvement in it that gets me skeptical over it all, one way or another. I try and live a little cleaner and greener, but I don't go out of my way.

But Australia, Jesus...it's like a new religion over there. It's not so much something debated as mandated.

[boratika]

At a macro level, there is this graph.http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

I feel the need to address this graph, because it just sent my spidey senses all kind of tingling.


Firstly, there's no source listed for this data.


Secondly, the y-axis isn't labelled. Now that may sound petty, but it essentially mean the graph contains no data. Further than that though, if you look at the base-line, it is labelled "57°F normal". There's just something about that, that isn't quite right. Then if you look at the right most peak and trough, they are labelled "58.3°F" and "58.3°F" and "54.3°F?" respectively. If you measure them both, you'll notice that it is not to scale (or maybe that's why there's a ? in there...) It's just a little sloppy for a graph, something a climatologist or a meteorologist should have had so much experience with in an analytical context, such errors would be like forgetting to breath.

So I thought I'd look up their qualifications. From the Long Range Weather about page (http://www.longrangeweather.com/About-Us.htm):

Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades. Cliff Harris' long-range weather forecasts have been used by high-ranking government officials and quoted in USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Wall Street Digest, Farm Journal, Top Producer, Successful Farming, Futures Magazine, The Boston Globe and many other publications. He also provides several weekly local and national radio weather broadcasts to various stations throughout the country. As one of the partners of Harris-Mann Climatology, Cliff provides daily weather updates to hundreds of subscribers through DTN, Farm Dayta, the Internet and various local media. His weather and commodity forecasting success rate is approximately 75% and he accurately predicted the current prolonged cycle of global weather "extremes" in 1966. Since age 11, he has compiled nearly 100 weather scrapbooks that detail major events throughout the U.S. and the world on a daily basis. Cliff operates a weather station in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and writes a popular weekly column called 'Gems' for the Coeur d'Alene Press. He has been quoted in CNN and "Not by FIRE, but by ICE" by Robert W. Felix. Cliff and his wife Sharon have been married for 43 years and have 2 children, 3 grandchildren and 2 toy poodles.

Okay, straight of the bat, weasel words in the first sentence. Doesn't say who has been rating him as one of “the top ten climatologists”, or by what metric they are judging. The nest thing that jumped out at me was that there is no mention of what his qualifications are or where he got them. Neither is the any mention of working at any academic institute or private institution of any relevance. In fact, it really only mentions media mentions of him and that he operates a weather station. Really not much of anything there.

There is mention of Not by FIRE, but by ICE. Perhaps you should google the book and author and make up your own mind about the implications of touting your having been quoted in it.

So on to the other guy:

Randy Mann of Harris-Mann ClimatologyMeteorologist Randy Mann has been recognized by the American Meteorological Society since 1988. As a partner of Harris-Mann Climatology, he provides some of the daily weather information, computer graphics and maintenance for the company. Randy has also had an extensive background in television and radio weather production, and has provided on-air television weather forecasts to KCPQ in Tacoma, Washington; KCRA-TV in Sacramento, California, WPTZ-NewsChannel 5 and was Chief Meteorologist for WVNY Channel 22 and WEZF Radio in the Burlington/Plattsburgh area. He currently provides on-air weather forecasts for KREM-2 in Spokane, Washington and is currently the Chief Meteorologist for the Coeur d'Alene Press weather page. He also writes a weekly weather column for the Valley Edition of the Spokesman Review. In the past decade, Randy has also designed other weather-related publications that include two North Idaho weather calendars, the International Traveler's Weather Guide, Tom Loffman's Sacramento Weather Guide, the Vermont Town and Weather Almanac (7 Editions), the award-winning 1997 Frederick County Weather Almanac and the 1998, 1999, Year 2000 and the 2001 Frederick County Weather Almanacs. He has been married to his wife Sally for over 15 years.

Again, no mention of qualifications. He is apparently “recognized” by the American Meteorological Society, but what that specifically means is not explained. It doesn't say that they recognised him for something in particular. For all the information given, it may well only mean he has been a member for that period. From the AMS Membership Dues and Classifications page, there is this class of membership listed:

“Associate Members are persons who are interested in the atmospheric sciences and the advancement, objectives, and goals of the Society. No formal educational or professional qualifications are required.”

So this can't be considered evidence of qualifications. From this information, he appears to be a TV Weatherman and weather enthusiast, but not an actual meteorologist (despite having been granted the title by a TV station.)


So what are their formal education backgrounds? Well, I couldn't find what Mann's was, I came across this from an article in the Spokesman Review (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=176325) (a publication Mann writes for):

Harris is not a trained scientist – he studied insurance law in college – but he has one of the most extensive collections of private weather records in the Northwest, and he's built a successful business off his long-range weather predictions. He also writes a popular weekly weather column for the Coeur d'Alene Press.

Interesting.



By I'm diverging from the graph, so I'll get back to that.

The y-axis labelling (or rather lack of) is interesting and caught my eye initially, but the labels on the x-axis are perhaps more interesting and contain some clues.

First you have the time frame. Why only go to 2400 BC? Data from much earlier is just as accurate.

If you look at the labeling, other than volcanoes, you have for example

The Nomanic Time (Era of Great Migration)
Hebrew Exodus From Egypt
Grecian Empire
Birth of Christ
Roman Empire


So, I'll just assume that first one's meant to be the Nomadic Time, (rather than referring to the Scythians) and I'm not sure whether it is meant to be bold or not. It may well refer to the period that the Hebrew people were nomadic on a biblical timeline.

Also, you may wish to search for Grecian Empire and see what you get.

Which brings me finally to this bit in the previously mentioned article in the Spokesman Review:

Harris, who began studying the weather when he was 9, said he bases his predictions on a wide array of scientific sources and historical records. He's also a devout Christian and believes the Bible is loaded with clues on predicting the weather.
"I do believe in a period of extreme global warming. That will be in the tribulation period. That's when the real global warming will come in," he said. "Those of us who are believers, we're looking forward to it."

[Crowe]

But Australia, Jesus...it's like a new religion over there. It's not so much something debated as mandated.

Somebody could of told me!!! I've barely heard a thing about it. But you may be talking about parliament, and it seems to me the only time most australians only give a shit about the government is election time. Or we just understand they are full of shit.

[Savok]

You don't watch TV I take it? Every night there's some prick telling us how to live. Then there's the TV ads telling us how doomed we are if we don't all live in caves.

As for the government, if this ETS gets through you're going to feel it, it's going to be brutal and it will serve absolutely no purpose. This attitude of not giving a shit is what got Rudd elected in the first place, how quickly Whitlam is forgotten.

[alienmastermind]

So we should annihilate our economies just in case carbon, the thing everything alive is made out of, is poison. Also no one is allowed to see the evidence in case someone says it's wrong.... well I'm going to back away slowly now.

Hey imagine if the courts worked like that? You aren't allowed see the evidence, just take our word for it he's guilty.

Carbon-based emissions aren't just carbon.

I figured a Vulcan would know that. :)

Also, eating Carbon would probably kill you. Taking only in Carbon Dioxide is poisonus. Carbon, while it exists in nature, is one of many things that occur naturally that's pretty poisonous. Like arsenic.

I'm still on the fence, but not because carbon's not a poison. Nor carbon dioxide. But I wonder if the global warming people are saying that all the CO2 in the air is poisonous. Or, are they saying it's trapping ultraviolet radiation within the ionosphere causing a Greenhouse Effect? As I recall it's the latter.

Carbon Dioxide is expelled by our bodies because we could go into narcosis if it builds up too much in our bloodstreams.

I will say that global climate shift has been recorded, but there's still a margin of error as in any science. I live far enough inland not to worry about it anyway. :)

[Panthera]

Which means that zombie games are just practice for us uplanders to fend against the incoming hordes of coastal refugees.

[txshurricane]

Which means that zombie games are just practice for us uplanders to fend against the incoming hordes of coastal refugees.
Don't worry, we'll leave the lefties and the global warming followers alone. We want braaaains worth harvesting. :p

[Wraith]

Climate Scientist Steps Down (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125970198500271683.html) (NY Times)The British scientist at the heart of a scandal over climate-change research temporarily stepped down Tuesday as director of a prominent research group amid an internal probe that follows the release of hacked emails involving him and other scientists.

The University of East Anglia in the U.K. said Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit, had decided to step aside from the director's post.

...

In one email, Dr. Jones suggested to Dr. Mann that they should try to keep out of scientific journals the research of scientists who challenge the idea of man-made global warming. We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" the email says.

The East Anglia institute that Dr. Jones headed has become a key player in building evidence for the U.N.'s argument that humans are behind global warming. In statements released by the institute in recent days, Dr. Jones has defended the integrity of the institute's scientific work, while saying that he and his colleagues "accept that some of the published emails do not read well."

On Tuesday, Dr. Jones said the East Anglia institute couldn't continue to do its work with him as its director amid the controversy. "What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible," he said in the statement. "After a good deal of consideration," he wrote, he decided to step down from the director's job pending the investigation.

[Tel Prydain]

The big deal about these e-mails is this: These guys are a big part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change... who are a big part of the push behind the climate scare. And they create the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global "consensus view" on climate science.

IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth to the rest of the team:
“. . . where the heck is global warming? . . . 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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

Seriously? These are the guys driving the insane measures being taken in Austrlia and New Zealand?

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the report:
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Jon Stewart added his 2c:
http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/12/03/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-takes-on-climate-gate-scandal/

[Hemalin]

. . . where the heck is global warming? . . .
Nice selective quoting there. You might want to look at what was taken out of that quote.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Have these changed science yet? No? Ok.

Actual good reads on the subject.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/11/30/the-global-warming-emails-non-event/

[BlackPete]

There are things I don't understand here... like, why the average global temperature is going down but the polar icecaps ARE melting.

I'll see your science and raise it:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2009/12/warmest-decade-on-record-are-you-concerned.html

http://www.hindu.com/seta/2009/12/10/stories/2009121050101500.htm

YMMV.

[Savok]

Guess they never saw Al Gore's new film where he proclaims white carbon (from things like jets and outdoor heated swimming pools) to be our saviour and black carbon (from things like diesel and biofuel) the true evil. But he also says the Climategate emails are 10 years old... so High Priest Gore may have lost his marbles, or more likely never actually had them to begin with.

Lets put aside the "science" for a moment and ask a few questions. First, when you watch the weather report on TV, are they ever actually right? Second, why do they keep lying and fiddling the data? And lastly why do they need to traumatise children (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/out_of_the_mouths_of_babes_come_a_conniving_adults _words/)?

[Crowe]

Guess they never saw Al Gore's new film where he proclaims white carbon (from things like jets and outdoor heated swimming pools) to be our saviour and black carbon (from things like diesel and biofuel) the true evil. But he also says the Climategate emails are 10 years old... so High Priest Gore may have lost his marbles, or more likely never actually had them to begin with.

Lets put aside the "science" for a moment and ask a few questions. First, when you watch the weather report on TV, are they ever actually right? Second, why do they keep lying and fiddling the data? And lastly why do they need to traumatise children (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/out_of_the_mouths_of_babes_come_a_conniving_adults _words/)?

Herald Sun having a dig at The Age, that 17 year old could write a better article than all Herald Sun writers combined.

As for climate change, I have no idea what to believe. We are in the midst of a long drought at the moment but it may just be a natural cycles. Time will tell I guess.

[Savok]

Yet a 10 year old private school student could do better then all the Age writers combined. The 17 year old must be a prodigy to the Age.

Droughts breaking/broken in a lot of areas, has been for awhile. They've been lying about the rainfall figures. Half the time it rains around here the weather bureau says we got no rain when it actual fact it rained so much the backyard flooded again.

[Crowe]

Yet a 10 year old private school student could do better then all the Age writers combined. The 17 year old must be a prodigy to the Age.

Please tell me that was a criticism of The Age for being The Age and not in defense of the Herald Sun.

[Savok]

The Age for being The Age. I hate all the media in this country.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Guess they never saw Al Gore's new film where he proclaims white carbon (from things like jets and outdoor heated swimming pools) to be our saviour and black carbon (from things like diesel and biofuel) the true evil. But he also says the Climategate emails are 10 years old... so High Priest Gore may have lost his marbles, or more likely never actually had them to begin with.

Lets put aside the "science" for a moment and ask a few questions. First, when you watch the weather report on TV, are they ever actually right? Second, why do they keep lying and fiddling the data? And lastly why do they need to traumatise children (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/out_of_the_mouths_of_babes_come_a_conniving_adults _words/)?

Do you understand any of the things that you rally against in these posts? Do you understand the concept of global dimming? [link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming)]

Do you understand that weather and climate are not the same thing?
Weather: the state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture, pressure, etc.

Climate: the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
[link (http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2009/08/04/weather-vs-climate/)] [link (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/travel-outdoors/green-glossary-climate-weather.html)] [link (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html)]

You have asserted that people have tampered with data, but have no evidence.

You've already put science aside in every single post in this thread. You post as if this is the nail in the coffin of AGW when it's more like a nail driven into a tree that stood next to a tree that was cut down and made into a coffin for something else.

You can't put science aside on this issue. You can't combat it or refute it without science. GW wasn't an idea that sprang up to spite those titans of industry in the oil and coal business. It was born of observations from scientists of long ago who's observations were correlated and peer-reviewed. The mountains of evidence we have today sprang from those initial observations and subsequent hypothesis formed from them. The evidence wasn't discovered by accident, people made hypothesis based on existing observations and data and found them to be true, and they were found to be true again and again.

Science is not good or evil, it doesn't have a political agenda.

[DangerousDaze]

You have asserted that people have tampered with data, but have no evidence.

Here you go. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/)

[Savok]

No evidence? It's the fucking emails, what the fuck else does "hide the decline" mean? They delete (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_what_a_great_trick/) anything they don't like.

No I don't talk much about the details of the science. Are you a climate scientist? Do we even have the unaltered raw data to analyze ourselves? All we have is what we're told by proven liars.

And no, science isn't supposed to be political, which is why this may end very, very badly for all of us. If the science was sound they wouldn't be trying to hide the fucking data now would they? Open your eyes, this whole thing has become a religion and anyone who doesn't believe in the angry gaia god must at least say they do if they want work (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_rounding_up_a_posse_at_gunpoint/).

[Ink Asylum]

No evidence? It's the fucking emails, what the fuck else does "hide the decline" mean? They delete (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_what_a_great_trick/) anything they don't like.

Here's one possible explanation: (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/)

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

[Panthera]

No evidence? It's the fucking emails, what the fuck else does "hide the decline" mean? They delete (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_what_a_great_trick/) anything they don't like.

FFS, is that all you've got? Hide the decline again? We already covered this shit on the last page. Maybe if you actually stopped drinking from whatever shit river you're getting this stuff from for a few moments and maybe try a bit of water from the tap once in a while you'd have a better perspective.

[DangerousDaze]

FFS, is that all you've got? Hide the decline again? We already covered this shit on the last page.
I'll post this (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/) again because it looks like you missed it.

Start with a raw data set, apply a homogenising function, end up with "high quality" data. The problem is that if you recreate the homegenisation function yourself based on the published algorithm and apply it to the same raw data set you don't end up with the published result.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Here's one possible explanation: (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/)

I wouldn't bother, I've already posted several links in this thread with the same type of information. I don't think they've read or listened to any of it.


No I don't talk much about the details of the science. Are you a climate scientist? Do we even have the unaltered raw data to analyze ourselves? All we have is what we're told by proven liars.

And no, science isn't supposed to be political, which is why this may end very, very badly for all of us. If the science was sound they wouldn't be trying to hide the fucking data now would they?

No, I am not a climate scientist. I haven't decided what to study yet, I am leaning towards environmental biology at the moment. Why? My lack of certification as a climate scientist doesn't prevent me from understanding the scientific method. Maybe me not being a climate scientist will make my arguments stronger to you? They are apparently the boogeyman.

I don't have the raw data. I don't own it and therefore don't have the rights to release it to the public. The same can be said for the CRU. Their conclusions aren't drawn from only the data they've personally collected. It is put up against data sets from all over the world that have been lent to them by other universities and scientific bodies.

I'll post this (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/) again because it looks like you missed it.

Start with a raw data set, apply a homogenising function, end up with "high quality" data. The problem is that if you recreate the homegenisation function yourself based on the published algorithm and apply it to the same raw data set you don't end up with the published result.

Here you go. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/)

Here you go.

Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php)

Oh, this isn't the first time he's been completely wrong? (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate_fraudit.php)

[DangerousDaze]

Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php)

Let me say it again.

Start with data X. Apply function f. Result is homogenised data Y.

All climate science is performed on the homogenised results and Eschenbach's position is that the homogenisation function is faulty.

The link you posted attempts to disprove that position by simply bringing in a second set of homogenised data (set Z) and saying "it's the same as the first set of homogenised data therefore Eschenach is wrong". That is logically false.

The problem is that without total transparency of the raw data set X and the homogenising function f there can be no faith in any of the homogenised results. Science isn't about "smoke and mirrors" it's about demonstrating evidence.

So why are the climate scientists so unwilling to provide that transparency? CRU used a variety of excuses to deny access to the raw data (e.g. "You're not an academic") until forced to admit that they don't actually have it any more.

I'm sorry, but I'm still very much on the fence here. Until they publish the raw data and the exact homgenisations such that I can recreate and verify the results for myself I will be suspicious.

[Hemalin]

I'll post this (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/) again because it looks like you missed it.

Start with a raw data set, apply a homogenising function, end up with "high quality" data. The problem is that if you recreate the homegenisation function yourself based on the published algorithm and apply it to the same raw data set you don't end up with the published result.
The problem is that that guy arbitrarily adjusts the graph without bothering to actually look at all the data points. His whole argument against the homogenized data is that it "looks funny." From Tyler's link:A change in the type of thermometer shelter used at many Australian observation sites in the early 20th century resulted in a sudden drop in recorded temperatures which is entirely spurious.
So he arbitrarily adjusted the pre-1940 data downward once and says that when the scientists adjusted the post-1940 data upwards several times and declares that doesn't look right with no evidence to back him up.

[DangerousDaze]

Let's look at the homogenisation function. Its base case should be "in the absence of any information to the contrary, leave the raw data unchanged." That is to say, the homogenised result should be the same as the measured (raw) input unless there is a solid reason for adjusting it. I hope we can both agree on that.

It's right to adjust the temperatures around '41 because there is a justifiable reason related to an historical fact - the station move - but what's the reason for adjusting the post-41 numbers upwards?

This is what I mean by transparency - unless there is a solid reason for adjusting those numbers upward they should be using the raw measurements. It's not beholden on Eschenbach to prove that the numbers shouldn't be adjusted, it's the other way around.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Old bump... but - http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/31/climate.change/index.html?hpt=T2

The UK scientist at the center of the "Climategate" controversy over leaked e-mails has been cleared of hiding or manipulating data by a parliamentary committee.

Much of the controversy focused on one particular e-mail that Jones sent relating to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. He wrote: "I've just completed 'Mike's Nature trick' of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ... to hide the decline."

But the Commons committee cleared him of malpractice here too, concluding: "On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails -- "trick" and "hiding the decline" -- the committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

They are also being told to release all their raw data and methods.

[DangerousDaze]

I'm glad that they will no longer be allowed to hide. From now on they'll have to "show their working".

I'm disappointed that the "trick" has been glossed over. The response always seems to be "it sounds bad taken out of context, but in context it's just a clever and valid use of statistics". The reality is that no matter how bad it sounds out of context, when you know the real context it's exposed as an appalling con.

I didn't expect anything else from one day of interviews conducted by politicians.

[Siraris]

This was such an asinine argument. If I referred to a shoddy way of coding something as a "hack", someone who has no clue as to the meaning of the term could easily think I was doing something subversive.

[DangerousDaze]

This was such an asinine argument. If I referred to a shoddy way of coding something as a "hack", someone who has no clue as to the meaning of the term could easily think I was doing something subversive.

If I looked at your code and found that you clearly were doing something subversive and that it was easy to prove even to a layman then you'd quite rightly be castigated for it.

The trick (actually two tricks, one by the CRU and one by the IPCC) is really a con trick.

In order to understand temperatures in the dim and distant past before the invention of thermometers we need to look at indirect effects of temperature (so called proxies). A common one is tree rings; during a warm year tree rings are wider than during a cold year.

The problem is that after 1960 tree ring data shows temperature to be declining quite rapidly, which is "inconvenient" data to plot on a chart where you want to show temperatures increasing.

The IPCC's solution to this thorny issue was simply to draw the tree ring line until it disappears under another line in 1960 and then simply stop drawing it at that point. To the casual observer it looks like the line just mingles in with a bunch of other lines trending upwards.

The CRU's solution (the infamous "trick") was to start with the IPCC's idea of snipping off the decline they didn't like, and then grafting on thermometer data which trends upwards. So now they have a line on a graph marked "tree ring data" that is tree ring data right up until the point that it doesn't fit their theory and then secretly becomes something else entirely.

Are either of these valid statistical mechanisms? Of course not. If the decline was caused by faulty data then fair enough, but the data isn't faulty, it is what it is.

If the world is warming but the tree ring proxy says otherwise then what they should have done was to say that the tree ring theory is no good and discarded all of it.

[J Arcane]

People do realize this is only one study, right?

[DangerousDaze]

People do realize this is only one study, right?

Are you saying it's acceptable for scientists to fraudulently misrepresent their findings so long as it's in just the one study? How do you explain the review body concluding that this was acceptable science when it so clearly isn't?

[Panthera]

Are you saying it's acceptable for scientists to fraudulently misrepresent their findings so long as it's in just the one study? How do you explain the review body concluding that this was acceptable science when it so clearly isn't?

Because you're tediously misrepresenting the issue, not only for its significance but for its facts.

[J Arcane]

Are you saying it's acceptable for scientists to fraudulently misrepresent their findings so long as it's in just the one study? How do you explain the review body concluding that this was acceptable science when it so clearly isn't?
No, I'm saying that treating this issue as the magic smoking gun that "proves" that climate change was a conspiracy all along by ignoring the entire body of climatology is as intellectually void as anything these guys may or may not have done.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/04/15/climategate-inquiry-no-scientific-misconduct-from-squeaky-clean-researchers/

A second inquiry has cleared the CRU of all wrong doing suggesting only that work more closely with a wider group of statisticians.

“We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.”

They also say that though they are not thrilled with their statistician methods, the conclusion of their research is not effected by not using the most current statistical methods.

[DangerousDaze]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/04/15/climategate-inquiry-no-scientific-misconduct-from-squeaky-clean-researchers/

A second inquiry has cleared the CRU of all wrong doing suggesting only that work more closely with a wider group of statisticians.



They also say that though they are not thrilled with their statistician methods, the conclusion of their research is not effected by not using the most current statistical methods.

These were the people who looked into the science "in detail". They took just three weeks to produce a report that was a whole five pages long. Five pages, to judge the quality of science at the CRU. And they didn't interview any of the critics.

I've already described the "trick" above. The fact that anyone can find that scientific is absolutely beyond me.

One more whitewash to go.

[DangerousDaze]

Because you're tediously misrepresenting the issue, not only for its significance but for its facts.

Sorry it's so tedious for you. Truth is like that, sometimes.

/edit - here's a blowup of the IPCC graph in question:

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e304/Dangerousdaze/fig2-21blowup.gif

See that green line? It looks like it disappears under the other lines and trends upwards. But it doesn't. It should trend downwards because that's what the data actually does, but it's hard to do that because it's actually been snipped at a convenient point.

If you're happy with that, fine. I'm not.

[Savok]

World's built on lies and propaganda now, most seem to prefer is that way.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

How many times do they have to be cleared of any wrong doing before you're ready to admit there was none? You have a bias and any conclusions that do not meet that bias, you are going to cast aside.

The CRU and other climatology bodies have been very upfront about the divergence problem. Tree ring data correlates with other historical temperature info up until 1960 at which case it is no longer reliable for some reason. They don't include it because nobody knows why.

You can remove tree rings if you'd like. It isn't the only data set used to look back at temperatures historically.

I recommend you read this paper and come back to this discussion if this is your main problem with the IPCC/CRU.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/

[Generation ABXY]

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e304/Dangerousdaze/fig2-21blowup.gif

See that green line? It looks like it disappears under the other lines and trends upwards. But it doesn't. It should trend downwards because that's what the data actually does, but it's hard to do that because it's actually been snipped at a convenient point.


So, what does it look like if you keep going with the green line? Or do we not know?

[DangerousDaze]

Tree ring data correlates with other historical temperature info up until 1960 at which case it is no longer reliable for some reason. They don't include it because nobody knows why.
Honestly, listen to yourself - "for some reason"? They say it's unreliable purely because it doesn't tell the story they want it to tell. The data is what it is and should be plotted accordingly. Either that or it should all be rejected as unsound. And I'm accused of bias?

So, what does it look like if you keep going with the green line? Or do we not know?
This is the original chart showing the complete data:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e304/Dangerousdaze/before.jpg

You can see the green line trending down there. The IPCC just cut it off (see the graph blowup in my post above) but the CRU replaced the data they didn't like with other data that had nothing to do with tree rings, but supported their confirmation bias (there's that word again).

This is what was published after "Mike's Nature Trick":
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e304/Dangerousdaze/after.jpg
Notice that the green line, plotted from Keith Briffa's tree ring study, doesn't go down any more - it goes up! :) It goes up because that bit isn't tree ring dataany more - it's some other data that they've grafted in.

The two reviews (there will eventually be a third) have both said that they find nothing wrong with this. Make your own mind up.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

I say for some reason because nobody knows why. There is not a scientific consensus on why the tree ring data is not consistent.

What you fail to acknowledge is that if you remove the tree ring data (which is consistent with the rest of our data until 1960) then nothing changes. Read the link I just asked you to and you'll see that the tree ring data is irrelevant at this point. There was a period in science when tree ring data was important to our understanding of historical temperature records, that time is past, it is no longer necessary as we have other sources of data that go back much further than our tree ring data, and that is more solid than tree ring data.

AGAIN, science and climatologist have been very up front with the divergence problem, I'll make it more clear for anyone else who's confused by all the other lines of evidence in your figures.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Briffa-tree_ring_density_vs_temperature_1880-2000.jpg/800px-Briffa-tree_ring_density_vs_temperature_1880-2000.jpg

THE TREE RING DATA DIVERGES UNEXPECTEDLY FOR UNKNOWN REASONS AROUND 1960.

Theories include stress on the trees due to the higher global temperatures, another is global dimming and atmospheric pollution having an unforeseen effect on tree ring growth.

We do not know why it has changed, it is no longer reliable data. Take it away from the figures you have above, it changes nothing.

[DangerousDaze]

I say for some reason because nobody knows why. There is not a scientific consensus on why the tree ring data is not consistent.

Consistent with what? Again, it is what it is. Use it. Don't hide it, or replace it with something else (especially don't replace it with something else!) That's all I'm saying.

[TheFlyingOrc]

IPCC AR4 used about 30% non-peer reviewed science. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/14/ipcc-ar4-also-gets-a-failing-grade-on-21-chapters/)

You want some lies? I got your lies. The IPCC report is filled with "evidence" from magazines and newspapers. Shameful.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Bump.

Third inquiry.

Conclusion of the Investigatory Committee as to whether research misconduct occurred:

The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University.

More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.

The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous.

http://live.psu.edu/story/47378

Climategate is dead. Move on.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Bump.

Third inquiry.



http://live.psu.edu/story/47378

Climategate is dead. Move on.

IPCC report still filled with non peer reviewed science, dude.