Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

To The Global Warming Fraud Deniers: Cap and Trade is Dead

Recs

34

December 03, 2009 – Comments (44)

It's darn cold in Chicago. I was NOT ready for December in the Midwest.

I have to admit to playing a little set-up game with the liberals on CAPS. I knew about the CRU source code for days before I posted Meet Harry the Programmer.  While I sat on that story, working out the best way to inform a CAPS community that might not be familiar with the nuances of Fortran or data collection of the sheer incompetence of CRU programmers, I ran a bunch of stories giving the CAPS community the complete background of climategate. 

Some CAPS members only get their news from CNN or MSNBC. As I pointed out in The Inconvenient Leak, those two networks had completely buried the story.  By the time "Climate Gate" was a more searched subject on Google than "Global Warming," CNN.com had run one story on it, buried in the "Wired" section. MSNBC was sporting a big fat zero.

This turned out to be advantageous to me.  The fraud deniers walked right into a trap.  They were completely unaware of the totality of the incompetence at CRU, and if you followed the comments in the multiple Climate Gate posts over the past week and half, were totally caught off guard by the revelations I posted on Monday.  Many of whom were eager to label me a "denier" and a "propagandist" have completely disappeared from the Climate Gate debate.  Only one hard core graduate student from South America remains to push his Fraud Denying nonsense on my posts. (And he has yet to address the programming issues that I and other bloggers described in Meet Harry.  He can't.)

Meanwhile, the first nail in the Cap and Trade coffin has been set. The Australian parliament voted down thier climate fraud bill on Tuesday.  Dr. Phil "$22.6 million" Jones has stepped down. Penn State professor Michael "Anti-Capitalist" Mann is under investigation.  Young AGW scientists are questioning their science as never before, finally admitting that there is no scientific consensus on man made global warming.

The boondoggle has yet to be fully exposed.  In the coming months there will be more revelations showing how climate scientists build the models that promote alarmism.  I for one am excited. 

David in Wrigleyville

44 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On December 03, 2009 at 10:12 AM, DaretothREdux (36.24) wrote:

David,

Only one hard core graduate student from South America remains to push his Fraud Denying nonsense on my posts.

Don't worry he will be along soon to post pretty pictures here as well I am sure.

Young AGW scientists are questioning their science as never before, finally admitting that there is no scientific consensus on man made global warming.

I suspect his argument will go something like this:

Your wrong! (insent wiki link) Look at all these scientists who agree (insert random liberal article link). Look at my pretty pictures!

(pretty graph #1)

(pretty graph #2)

How can you deny the results?!?

Dare

Report this comment
#2) On December 03, 2009 at 10:16 AM, 100ozRound (29.38) wrote:

Dare

Pretty graph 1 is inconsistent with pretty graph 2

and they both contradict your wiki link.

Get your facts right!!!

Report this comment
#3) On December 03, 2009 at 10:24 AM, john0sullivan (< 20) wrote:

 

The medical profession has confirmed that a mind-altering toxin contained in a variant of fudge distributed by a United Nations policy group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was the cause of a brain infection afflicting a large body of scientists. The sickness has been traced back to a climatologists’ hockey team playing for the UN. Doctors have dubbed this new disease Climate Warming Syndrome (CWS).

 

In leaked secret emails a few insiders from the hockey-playing elite admitted that for over two decades they privately suspected the fudge to be the cause of the malady. However, it now appears they publicly denied there was any problem to safeguard the reputation of the team. Doctors have now identified a range of symptoms for CWS including an overt green complexion, an irrational hatred of mankind and a Tourette syndrome-like verbal abuse of anyone who uses fossil fuels. Threats of violence may also occur. It was via the Internet on Friday November 20th 2009 that an incredulous world first learned that CWS had not only been spreading among scientists but the offending fudge had been unequivocally identified and a cure found by British scientists working at the UK's Climate Research Unit (CRU). A vast community of Internet surfers has quickly sought to memorialise these profound events by naming them, ‘Climategate.’

 

Leaked documents have confirmed that the researcher accredited with this groundbreaking development was once a keen hockey player himself. The man, a self-taught computer programmer affectionately known to colleagues as ‘Harry' solved the fudge problem in a sudden eureka moment while sat at his computer chewing on some fudge.

 

Harry is fast becoming a folk hero for solving one of the great mysteries of modern science. Since the story first broke the scientific community has started to come clean that CWS was indeed blighting much of their work and that swallowing the foul fudge brought on this dreadful malaise.

 

Meanwhile, epidemiologists and clinicians have been quick to identify the hallucinogenic properties of the offending fudge to further unravel the mystery. Incredibly, the fudge has been found to contain a psychotropic substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in changes in perception, mood, consciousness and behaviour leading patients to feel delusions of grandeur and a sense of spiritual purpose in their lives.

 

It appears lone-wolf Harry, wiling away his time in the CRU laboratory experimented with a process known as ‘cognitive dissonance’ and shocked himself out of the effects of the psychotropic intoxicant, a drug now known to cause the hallucinogenic appearance of a mythical beast known as, ‘Man-Bear-Pig’ (MBP). Other experts who have replicated Harry’s experiments confirm that it’s the efficacy of the cognitive dissonance reasoning process, itself, that acts as the cure. Apparently, most recovering ‘addicts’ (for this fudge-eating was clearly an addiction) soon notice a change starting with improvements in the appearance of their eyes that soon lose their tainted green discolouration.

 

Other convalescing climatologists, that body of scientists most infected, are reporting the same side effects as Harry. Symptoms include anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states that torment the patient. Epidemiologists have confirmed the name ’Climate Warming Syndrome’ (CWS) as a fitting epithet for the fudge-induced malady. Both ‘Climategate’ and ’Climate Warming Syndrome’ (CWS) have fast entered common usage giving a new handle on what was one of the great mysteries of our time.

 

Of course, like any serious disease, there will always be patients who won’t respond well to treatment. Those worst cases permeated with the deepest shade of green are believed to be James Hansen, Michael 'upside down' Mann and Phil Jones whom, its feared, may all need to be quarantined in isolation for several years.

 

Report this comment
#4) On December 03, 2009 at 11:09 AM, DaretothREdux (36.24) wrote:

100ozRound,

They don't contradict! Your name is a contradiction...don't you realize all 100oz coins must be square?

See look again:

(Pretty chart #1)

(Colorful graph #3)

Can't you see the truth? How can you continue to deny with such overwhemling evidence?

Dare

 

Report this comment
#5) On December 03, 2009 at 11:10 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Climategate: it's all unravelling now.

These things move faster in the Internet age.  Don't mess with the Internet Gods!

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#6) On December 03, 2009 at 11:29 AM, 100ozRound (29.38) wrote:

I think that you flipped colorful graph #3 upside down to trick me didn't you.  And you're making up evidence to support your conclusion...

I'm leaving this thread because I'm tired of being insulted by those less inferior than me

 

Mike in Wonderland


Report this comment
#7) On December 03, 2009 at 11:37 AM, kdakota630 (29.71) wrote:

I'm leaving this thread because I'm tired of being insulted by those less inferior than me.

LOL!!!

Report this comment
#8) On December 03, 2009 at 11:41 AM, devoish (96.42) wrote:

Nice December day in NY City as its 60 degree, shirt sleeve weather here. I suppose the Chicago temps will get here sooner or later now that we've had our second frost of the year...

David, I know you want to intrpret any event as a victory over the left but in this case Austrailia's vote is also a victory for the left.

Even James Hansen thinks Cap and Trade will not work.He has irked some environmentalists by espousing a direct carbon tax on fuel use. Some see that as a distraction from rallying support in Congress for cap-and-trade legislation that is on the table.

He is scathing of that approach. "This is analagous to the indulgences that the Catholic church sold in the middle ages. The bishops collected lots of money and the sinners got redemption. Both parties liked that arrangement despite its absurdity. That is exactly what's happening," he said. "We've got the developed countries who want to continue more or less business as usual and then these developing countries who want money and that is what they can get through offsets [sold through the carbon markets]."

For all Hansen's pessimism, he insists there is still hope. "It may be that we have already committed to a future sea level rise of a metre or even more but that doesn't mean that you give up.

"Because if you give up you could be talking about tens of metres. So I find it screwy that people say you passed a tipping point so it's too late. In that case what are you thinking: that we are going to abandon the planet? You want to minimise the damage."

Report this comment
#9) On December 03, 2009 at 11:45 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

# 6 - That had to be a mistake or the funniest purposely self deprecating thing I have read this month. I vote for mistake.

Report this comment
#10) On December 03, 2009 at 11:47 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

devoish,

I think you know that there are quite a few things we agree on, and that most importantly, we both want a more peaceful world.  The methods we support are often at odds, but that is what makes these debates fun.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#11) On December 03, 2009 at 12:09 PM, 100ozRound (29.38) wrote:

Dakota and Cato - I was wondering if anyone would catch that! 

Good eyes!

Report this comment
#12) On December 03, 2009 at 12:37 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

David,

Don't fire up the hibachi yet ... and don't underestimate the Progressives in their long-term approach to encroaching incremental socialism.

AGW and Cap & Trade are not dead yet - the trouble with CRU is now the elephant in the room for "Progressives" - but they will not give up.

Eternal vigilance is our required role. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. (Love that quote from Tennyson).

Known as aspiring blogger nzsvz9

Report this comment
#13) On December 03, 2009 at 1:07 PM, DaretothREdux (36.24) wrote:

nzsvz9,

On! On! Liberty Soldier!

Dare

Report this comment
#14) On December 03, 2009 at 1:20 PM, dudemonkey (37.63) wrote:

So I was thinking of buying more shares in Petrobras but I can't tell how to value the business during a time of oil price volatility, what do you guys think?

Oh, my bad.  I thought this was an investing website.

Report this comment
#15) On December 03, 2009 at 1:28 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

#14 - Well, TMF is featuring quotes from Buffett regarding sex and investing. When in Fooldom do as the Fools do. :)

Report this comment
#16) On December 03, 2009 at 1:32 PM, DaretothREdux (36.24) wrote:

Who let dudemonkey into grandma's cough medicine again? If I've told you once, I've told you a 1000 times....some people just can't hold their liqour....

Dare

Report this comment
#17) On December 03, 2009 at 1:43 PM, DaretothREdux (36.24) wrote:

Come one, come all to dudemonkey's blog!

Recieve great investment advice like don't buy gold above $800! (on April 1st, 2009)

Find such gems like: It's going to be time to short gold and gold miners soon as all this additional gold enters a market that is seeing reduced demand.

Remember such classics as...

My guess is that gold will continue to go up, but it will be far outpaced by the growth in other commoditied.  I like gold, I think it makes sense to have some in your portfolio, but I think the time to be scooping up fistfuls of gold is long passed.  I'm going long on some other commodities.

What great "investment" advice! If only you had listened to the dude! You would never want to see gains as miserable as this!

Dare

 

 

Report this comment
#18) On December 03, 2009 at 2:02 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@whereaminow,
"And he has yet to address the programming issues that I and other bloggers described in Meet Harry.  He can't"
You're right, I can't address the programming issues. My coding skills are limited to simple batchs and scripts.
Qualified people looked at the programming issues and say that it's much ado about nothing.

"finally admitting that there is no scientific consensus on man made global warming."
Wishful thinking.

"The boondoggle has yet to be fully exposed.  In the coming months there will be more revelations showing how climate scientists build the models that promote alarmism.  I for one am excited."
Yawn:

"Science and science institutions should be transparent, but they are not a 24-hour help service for climate sceptics who lack fundamental scientific and technical skills." - Thomas Stocker, University of Berne [1]
"Given the overwhelming scientific evidence for climate change, we should deal less and less with climate sceptics. Otherwise we should also deal with folks who think Elvis Presley is still alive, that Earth is less than 6,000 years old and that we cannot possibly have descended from monkeys." - Eric Rignot, University of California, Irvine [1]
"It is important that scientists make their studies completely transparent, but the least ethical way to accuse others is to highlight a sentence and ignore the context in which this sentence has been written." - Guy Brasseur, National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado [1]

"The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall. To these denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.
This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails."
[2]
"If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden." [2]
"The UEA responded too slowly to the eruption of coverage in the media, but deserves credit for now being publicly supportive of the integrity of its scientists while also holding an independent investigation of its researchers' compliance with Britain's freedom of information requirements" [2]
"In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such circumstances that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally, and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science." [2]

1- Battle lines drawn over e-mail leak. Nature News.
2- Climatologists under pressure. Nature Editorial.

Report this comment
#19) On December 03, 2009 at 2:09 PM, dudemonkey (37.63) wrote:

Come one, come all to dudemonkey's blog!

So taking things out of context to confirm your emotional responses is your only technique.  Looking forward to future nuggets of wisdom.

Report this comment
#20) On December 03, 2009 at 2:28 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@john0sullivan,
"The medical profession has confirmed that a mind-altering toxin contained in a variant of fudge distributed by a United Nations policy group"
Those socialists of the UN must also have a time machine; there's no other possible explanation for the poisoning of:
- Joseph Fourier
- John Tyndall
- Svante Arrhenius
- Roger Revelle
- Charles Keeling

@DaretothREdux,
"Don't worry he will be along soon to post pretty pictures here as well I am sure."
Well, if you don't like graphs from peer-reviewed papers I can also try with abstracts of those same papers (and many others) or equations of radiative physics and geochemistry. Perhaps links to lectures from the world's top colleges are more to your liking. What do you prefer?

@dudemonkey,
"So taking things out of context to confirm your emotional responses is your only technique."
Get used to that (response #25)

Report this comment
#21) On December 03, 2009 at 2:43 PM, DaretothREdux (36.24) wrote:

What do you prefer?

Option C:

Your plan to reduce carbon emissions without taking away people's freedoms. ;-)

Dare

Report this comment
#22) On December 03, 2009 at 2:53 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

I'd prefer hard data - unabridged and unaltered - which shows the truth about the ever-changing climate. See whereaminow's NIWA New Zealand example (led by a former CRU member) - which is critical scientific peer review. The with data manipulation and after without data manipulation graphs are stunning indictments of the AGW assertions as fact.

The problem with accepting any abstracts, lectures, and politicians views of supposed AGW is that it's based on the false claims of the perpetrators of the fraud. It too is flawed.

Independent research aside from what was done by CRU.

And I am not a denier (grin) - as independent analysis of the NZ data shows there is no global warming - so there is no global warming to deny. What should be said is that the CRU proponents of AGW are frauds. We're the honest ones - we did NOT manipulate, alter, withhold, misrepresent, or dodge review of our thoughts - they are here out in the open. CRU are frauds.

Known as all-around honest guy nzsvz9

Report this comment
#23) On December 03, 2009 at 3:04 PM, dudemonkey (37.63) wrote:

Your plan to reduce carbon emissions without taking away people's freedoms. ;-)

Now this is the kind of idea that I think almost everyone can get behind.  I think you are mistaking some of us for being proponents of cap and trade, which I don't believe there is much support for around here (or many other places, for that matter).  I can't speak for anyone else, but the burr under my saddle is NOT opposition to cap and trade, it's the attempt to discredit the science by using propeghanda tactics.  And if you read carefully through the things I've said, you should see an admission that I'm not a climatologist so I have not actually put forth a solid opinion.  I suspect that the science is correct, but I don't know and I'm pretty sure that you don't, either, since I don't figure you for a scientist.

I hate the idea of cap and trade.  I love the idea of science over political ideology.

Hopefully this helps defuse some of the confusion and maybe reduces the need for all the trolling we're seeing in these threads.

Report this comment
#24) On December 03, 2009 at 3:16 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

dudemonkey,

I'm not a scientist either, but I am a computer systems engineer by trade (at least, that's what my title says) and I can see a load of crappy programming a mile away.  Propaganda, my ass.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#25) On December 03, 2009 at 3:32 PM, dudemonkey (37.63) wrote:

I'm not a scientist either, but I am a computer systems engineer by trade

Who cares about crappy programming?  We're talking about science here.  Most programming seems crappy to anyone other than the person who wrote it.  I was a programmer for 10 years before moving into business analysis, and it's always been that way and it's always going to be that way.  It's why programmers rarely ever get promoted.

What you are doing is totally propeganda.  You have an opinion and you are presenting only facts that support the opinion that you already had.  You are "setting traps" for people, carefully coordinating the presentation of information, and attacking the PEOPLE involved and not debating the SCIENCE.  Those are  propeganda techniques.  Absolutely. It becomes impossible to have an actual discussion when someone is totally convinced of thier own correctness despite the fact that it's not based on evidence.

I've tried.  I'm sorry I tried.  I thought you were better than that and I'm disappointed to realize that my assessment of you was so off-base. 

I'll know better next time.

Report this comment
#26) On December 03, 2009 at 3:38 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

dudemonkey,

There is never any reason to think that I'm better than "that", whatever "that" is.  I'm sure I never gave anyone the impression that I could reasonably identify what "that" is, and how I was superior to "that."

So is this the last time you are going to complain about user content on a user-controlled site?  If so, that would be a heavenly relief.

Please take your anger elsewhere.  If you are looking for sympathy, it's in the dictionary between sh*t and syphillis.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#27) On December 03, 2009 at 4:21 PM, dudemonkey (37.63) wrote:

Well, I apologize if I made you think that I was at any time angry or upset.  Not my intention. I'm trying to look at this rationally because I agree with you that this is an important issue and my position is that it's one that should not be polluted with emotion or ideology.

Report this comment
#28) On December 03, 2009 at 4:25 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

dudemonkey,

I don't take any of this nearly as seriously as my writing indicates.  If there is one thing that I absolutely believe, it's what I wrote a while back about the ones who love you: they are all that matters.

Now, I'm having fun here.  If I wasn't, I wouldn't be spitting out these posts. 

Maybe if the Bears were having a better season, I wouldn't be talking climatogoly so much. Who knows.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#29) On December 03, 2009 at 5:09 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

At least Jon Stewart is covering it

 

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Scientists Hide Global Warming Data
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

Report this comment
#30) On December 03, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Turfscape (42.81) wrote:

whereaminow wrote:
"Maybe if the Bears were having a better season, I wouldn't be talking climatogoly so much. Who knows."

The Bears would be having a much better season if global warming wasn't melting their ice so much!

 (C'mon...that's funny. You KNOW that's funny...not as funny as watching Jay Cutler floundering on the field...but funny nonetheless)

Report this comment
#31) On December 03, 2009 at 5:29 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@DaretothREdux,
"Option C:
Your plan to reduce carbon emissions without taking away people's freedoms. ;-)"

- If you're not interest in knowing the physical science (as my reading of your statement indicates me, feel free to correct me) why do you argue about it with people that know what they're talking about?
- Let's assume for argument's sake that enacting climate policy leads to a reduction in people's freedoms and/or the installation of a worldwide socialist government. Is it fair to deny/attack/misrepresent/ignore the conclusions of a physical science just because you don't like the probable policy implications of such conclusions?
- Let's talk about what are the real policy outcomes. Economists of all ideological stripes agree that people respond to incentives (do you agree with this?). Economists also recognize the existence of market failures caused by a handful of factors, among them the lack of clear and/or enforcement of property rights, information asymmetry, etc. Does the atmosphere has a property rights scheme? If you agree with all of these facts you'll recognize that the atmosphere is a commons and as such it's subject to the tragedy of the commons problem.
So what do economists propose to resolve these dilemmas? Creating new property rights or taxes (which are revenue neutral) intended to correct the externalities and internalize the social/environmental costs. With these instruments, all of the costs existent in a market transaction become visible to the market agents and they act accordingly because there's an economic incentive to do so (e.g., become more energy efficient, switch energy sources, change consumption patterns, promote technological innovation).
In the case of climate change, the externality is the emission of GHG (CO2, CH4, N2O, HCFCs, HFCs, SF6, tropospheric O3) and so we have to account for this non-market activity because the physical science tell us that above a certain threshold (2 ºC approx.) climate change is harmful to the economy, human wellness and ecosystem stability.
So, what freedoms will you lose if a carbon price signal enters the economy? You will be able to drive your SUV, eat tons of meat and use coal-based energy but at a higher cost. Meanwhile, people will react to the price signal and they will:
* insulate their homes.
* install solar water heaters, heat pumps and/or an efficient boiler.
* buy energy-efficient appliances.
* demand fuel-efficient vehicles.
* live closer to work to reduce commuting distance.
* demand low-carbon energy sources from their utility.
* demand public transport.
* eat a less fossil fuel intensive diet.
What's wrong with that? What freedoms will be lost?


@nzsvz9,
"I'd prefer hard data - unabridged and unaltered - which shows the truth about the ever-changing climate"
There you go: data, code and documentation, all freely accessible. Climate models, raw instrumental data, processed temperature datasets, paleoclimatic data, reconstruction of past temperatures, cryosphere data, satellite data, etc.

"See whereaminow's NIWA New Zealand example (led by a former CRU member) - which is critical scientific peer review. The with data manipulation and after without data manipulation graphs are stunning indictments of the AGW assertions as fact."
That's pure BS. The NZ Climate “Science” Coalition is full of it.

"The problem with accepting any abstracts, lectures, and politicians views of supposed AGW is that it's based on the false claims of the perpetrators of the fraud. It too is flawed."
There are two problems with this assertion:
- It implies that I've sourced scientific data from political sources. Please show me the evidence backing up your statement.
- It also implies a general break up of the scientific process (peer-review and such) in Earth science. The logical end of this premise is a worldwide conspiracy on part of a cabal of very influential scientists or a sudden irruption of incompetence from Earth scientists. Do you believe that?

"Independent research aside from what was done by CRU."

OK: the HadCRU reconstruction of global average temperature anomalies replicated by NOAA's NCDC, NASA's GISS and the Japan Meteorological Agency. Convincing?

Report this comment
#32) On December 03, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Turfscape (42.81) wrote:

I wrote:
"...not as funny as watching Jay Cutler floundering on the field...but funny nonetheless"

Full disclosure: Long Packers!

Report this comment
#33) On December 03, 2009 at 5:42 PM, kdakota630 (29.71) wrote:

whereaminow

I read about the Jon Stewart thing, so I had the wife DVR it for me.  I hope it's the right episode.  Those damn Comedy Central clips aren't viewable in Canada.

Turfscape

The Bears would be having a much better season if global warming wasn't melting their ice so much!

LOL!  Classic!

Report this comment
#34) On December 04, 2009 at 11:17 AM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

lucas1985, 

@nzsvz9 "See whereaminow's NIWA New Zealand example (led by a former CRU member) - which is critical scientific peer review. The with data manipulation and after without data manipulation graphs are stunning indictments of the AGW assertions as fact."

@lucas1985 That's pure BS. The NZ Climate “Science” Coalition is full of it.

Ad hominem attack. Attacking the person(s), instead of the content of the disucssion at hand.

Known as full of it nzsvz9-er

Report this comment
#35) On December 04, 2009 at 4:55 PM, MGDG (34.80) wrote:

Lucas's graphs are actually quite useful. If you look at the graph for the Temperture Departure Index at the bottom of post #31, you'll see where starting in 1880 we had a downtrend ending in 1910. The uptrend that began ended in 1943, followed by sideways action for 35 years.

It was here in 1979 I went long the Temperature Departure index, using the ETF (HOT). In 2005 the rising temperature was on the news daily and I thought the trade was getting too crowded. I figured we were at least due for a pullback, so I sold HOT and bought the inverse ETF (COLD).

In 2007 it broke below the lower Trendline, so I doubled up on the trade using the 2X inverse ETF (ICE). This trade is working well and I'm waiting to see if it will find support at the 1999 low. If it does, I will close these positions and go long again.

Report this comment
#36) On December 04, 2009 at 11:53 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@nzsvz9,
"Ad hominem attack. Attacking the person(s), instead of the content of the disucssion at hand."
Oh dear, take a look at the provided link. Is that so complicated or you're just lazy? Am I asking too much of you?

"The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), accused last week of fiddling the long term New Zealand temperature record to create spurious warming, has released information showing that the attack mounted by the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition and Climate Conversation Group has no merit.
The NIWA announcement shows that the warming trend in the long term record is also found when weather stations with long term records that require no corrections are used. From the release:
    Dr Jim Salinger has identified from the NIWA climate archive a set of 11 stations with long records where there have been no significant site changes. When the annual temperatures from all of these sites are averaged to form a temperature series for New Zealand, the best-fit linear trend is a warming of 1°C from 1931 to 2008. We will be placing more information about this on the web later this week."
"The NIWA release cites emails to CSC members Vincent Grey and Warwick Hughes in July 2006, which provided all the references required to calculate the necessary adjustments themselves. In particular, all the information about the station site changes has been publicly available since 1992 and details of the methodology since 1993!
So where does this leave Treadgold and the CSC? They have published a report, issued press releases and made blog posts that misrepresent the facts, and have shown themselves incapable of conducting good science. They have proven themselves morally and ethically bankrupt, and should — if they had any decency — withdraw and apologise. But I won’t be holding my breath."


And what about the other points you raised? Have they been answered?


@MGDG,
"Lucas's graphs are actually quite useful. If you look at the graph for the Temperture Departure Index at the bottom of post #31, you'll see where starting in 1880 we had a downtrend ending in 1910. The uptrend that began ended in 1943, followed by sideways action for 35 years."
In addition to the long term warming trend (from GH-induced radiative forcing) natural variability and other forcings (solar cycle, aerosols, volcanic eruptions) that augment or flatten the trend so you don't get a steady, constant rise of temperature.

Report this comment
#37) On December 05, 2009 at 1:16 PM, john0sullivan (< 20) wrote:

I couldn’t resist a satirical poke at Monbiot (Dec 4) in the UK’s Guardian.

 

( see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/04/debate-climate-sceptics?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments )

 >

>

Mr Monbiot, bravo to you, sir!

 

You made a mug of that old fart, Lawson by ridiculing him with HadCRUT3 temperature series wheeze! I literally wet myself when I read your ‘Guardian’ piece where you say, “What it actually shows is that eight out of the 10 warmest years since records began have occurred since 2001.” Corker! Mum’s the word now on that ‘reconstructed’ 1000 year record set ; )

 

No one came back at you with the 12 Oct 2009 email, either. You know the part - where that dullard, Trenberth says to Mann, “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…. Our observing system is inadequate.”  Idiot!

 

Trenberth and Jones are too much of a liability now.  I’m starting to like that ‘apology’ you made more and more. I think I see where you’re taking this one ( thinking: sacrifices for the cause). The team talk in the locker room is Jones and Trenberth are plum scapegoats – throw them out and keep the integrity of the team intact, right? We may do something about this on RC. MM was wondering if you’d be up for more flim-flam in case someone does another ‘Trenberth’?

 

Btw, SM and his team of holocaust deniers over on CA and WUWT haven’t yet chewed over the lost 800+ ground- based climate-measuring stations from the official GIStemp. We might want to cull another set of ‘cold’ ground-based stations and augment the HadCRUT3 with a slew from China near some power stations (UHI?). Any thoughts?

Regards,

GB

   Report this comment
#38) On December 05, 2009 at 3:58 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@john0sullivan,
"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. Our observing system is inadequate."

"Trenberth: You need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth’s energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes." [1]

Keep distorting and misrepresenting.

Report this comment
#39) On December 05, 2009 at 11:47 PM, angusthermopylae (39.98) wrote:

MGDG,

I feel like such an idiot for missing this play.  But I can't remember:  Is COLD in the commodities or bonds?

(Although it may have dropped to OTC lately...)

Report this comment
#40) On December 06, 2009 at 2:17 PM, john0sullivan (< 20) wrote:

@ #38 No, it is you and your ilk who misrepresent. Let me give you FACTS now, So please pay attention.There has been no global warming in Britain for 351 years. That’s according to the Central England Temperature (CET) record, which was started recording ground temperatures here in 1659 and is maintained by the UK Met Office.

 http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/01/british-record/

FACT: UK summer temperature in the 18th century was 15.46 degC while that for the 20th century was 15.35 degC – which is COOLER! Your alarmist climatologists admit in private global temps haven’t increased in 11 years. They culled over 800 'cold' weather stations from the global data-why do that? To make the Earth appear to get warmer! Climategate is the beginnning of the end of junk science. Its all a con by tax hungry politicians who want to create one world government. Go read and learn for yourself - don't be spoonfed by green goon websites.

Report this comment
#41) On December 06, 2009 at 2:22 PM, john0sullivan (< 20) wrote:

@#38 - some more FACTS, buddy...

No warming in New Zealand since 1850 either. Go Google New Zealand’s National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA). Thier database is available online, holds all New Zealand’s climate data, including temperature readings, since the 1850s. Anybody can go and get the data for free. That was done by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (http://nzclimatescience.net/) and reported in a recent paper edited by Richard Treadgold.

They found that the raw data, when plotted, showed that New Zealand average temperatures have been remarkably constant, way back to the 1850’s. But the official graph produced by NIWA and provided to the IPCC showed significant “global warming” because the original data has been adjusted and strangely most of the adjustments create the warming trend. The NZCSC paper comments:

“We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2-it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.”

In an interesting coincidence, the original graph was prepared by Dr Jim Salinger when he worked at the Climate Research Institute at the University of East Anglia, which is now the centre of much attention because of what appears to be “adjustments” to CRU data and reports.

Report this comment
#42) On December 06, 2009 at 2:54 PM, MyDonkey (< 20) wrote:

David,

You say there is no scientific consensus on man made global warming. However, this site says: "There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." In other words, anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It goes on to say: "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion." and then it lists the consensus groups and their statements.

When you claim that AGW is a "fraud", you're implying that all these scientific groups are wrong, and that you know more about climate science than the scientists themselves. Why should I accept the dissenting opinion of a non-scientist (you) with no expertise in climatology? If there is any uncertainty in the issue of AGW, wouldn't I be wiser to give the benefit of the doubt to people who know what they're talking about?

Report this comment
#43) On December 06, 2009 at 4:05 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@john0sullivan,
"There has been no global warming in Britain for 351 years. That’s according to the Central England Temperature (CET) record, which was started recording ground temperatures here in 1659 and is maintained by the UK Met Office.
 http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/01/british-record/ "

* Area of the UK: 243,610 sq km [1]
* Area of Earth's land: 148.94 million sq km [2, 3]
* Total Earth's area: 510.072 million sq km [2, 3]
So you make claims of global trends using an area equal to 0.164% of the land surface and 0.048% of the Earth. Beautiful.
Let's also see the CET record:
"The series is useful to climate researchers because the trends in temperatures since the mid-17th century can be followed. It shows that temperatures fell during the period roughly 1650-1700 and then rose sharply in the early 1700s. During the 18th and 19th centuries, a cool period which coincided with snowy winters and generally cool summers, the temperatures fluctuated widely but with little trend. From 1910, temperatures increased slightly until about 1950 when they flattened before a sharp rising trend began in about 1975. Temperatures so far in the current decade (years 2001-2008) are remarkably different in all seasons from the long-term average."

Summary: you're not even wrong.


"Your alarmist climatologists admit in private global temps haven’t increased in 11 years. They culled over 800 'cold' weather stations from the global data-why do that? To make the Earth appear to get warmer! Climategate is the beginnning of the end of junk science. Its all a con by tax hungry politicians who want to create one world government. Go read and learn for yourself - don't be spoonfed by green goon websites."
Since when the science journals like Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and others are "green goon websites"?
As for your conspiracy claims: yawn.



"They (NZCSC) found that the raw data, when plotted, showed that New Zealand average temperatures have been remarkably constant, way back to the 1850’s. But the official graph produced by NIWA and provided to the IPCC showed significant “global warming” because the original data has been adjusted and strangely most of the adjustments create the warming trend."
Rebutted talking point:
"1. Warming analysis is backed up by other observations
The warming of New Zealand over the 20th Century shown by NIWA’s analysis of long-term measurements from seven weather stations is backed up by data from other locations.
(a) measurements from ships
A paper published in 1995 identified an upward trend of about 0.7°C from 1900 to 1993 in night time minimum air temperatures measured from ships over the ocean surrounding New Zealand. That trend is similar to the trend from the seven-station land network over the same period. Also, sea surface temperatures measured from the same ships warmed by 0.6°C in that period. This analysis has been further extended, and published in a 2003 paper by Folland et al.
(b) measurements from climate stations which have never been shifted
Dr Jim Salinger has identified from the NIWA climate archive a set of 11 stations with long records where there have been no significant site changes. When the annual temperatures from all of these sites are averaged to form a temperature series for New Zealand, the best-fit linear trend is a warming of 1°C from 1931 to 2008. We will be placing more information about this on the web later this week.

2. Ignoring major changes in site location will produce wrong results
We again reiterate that for the longer “seven station” time series, adjustments to account for significant site changes are necessary in order to provide a meaningful estimate of New Zealand temperature trends.
For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made in Thorndon at three metres above sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved to Kelburn at 125 metres above sea level. The Kelburn site is on average 0.8ºC cooler than Thorndon because of the extra height above sea level. So, the raw data need to be adjusted to ensure we are comparing apples with apples.
By the same token, if the climate station had been moved the other way – from Kelburn down to Thorndon – the raw data would then give too warm a reading and would also need to be adjusted.
NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally-accepted techniques to make adjustments for changes such as movement of measurements sites.

3. NZ Climate Science Coalition disingenuous
For more than two years, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition members have known of the need to adjust the “seven station” data. They have had access to:
    * the raw data
    * the adjusted data (anomalies)
    * information needed to identify the adjustments made by Dr Salinger
    * information needed to develop their own adjustments.

However the NZ Climate Science Coalition paper collated by Richard Treadgold (25 November 2009), and the media release issued by the Coalition on 26 November, were based on analysing the “seven station” data without any adjustments at all for site changes. This is why NIWA Chief Climate Scientist Dr David Wratt expressed his disappointment with the coalition statements, in NIWA’s media release of 26 November.
(a) Coalition told in 2006 of need to take account of site changes
NIWA advised NZ Climate Science Coalition member Dr Vincent Gray of the need to calculate appropriate adjustments to account for significant site changes in an email to him dated 19 July 2006, pointing out problems with graphs he had produced without any such adjustments. We advised him that over the period covered by his analysis the Hokitika site moved from the town centre, to the edge of town, then the airport. We also advised him there had been several site changes in Auckland and Dunedin, and told him about the 120 metre change in the height of the Wellington measurements.
(b) Methodology for adjusting data publicly available
The methodology for adjusting for site changes in the NZ temperature record was published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Climatology in 1993. NIWA referred Dr Vincent Gray of the NZ Climate Science Coalition to this paper on 19 July 2006.
(c) Unadjusted (raw) data publicly available
NIWA’s unadjusted climate data is available to anyone at no charge, through web access to the NIWA climate database. This has been the case since 1 July 2007.
(d) Adjusted series provided in 2006
NIWA provided Dr Salinger’s adjusted temperature series (anomalies compared with 1961–1990 averages) for each of the seven stations, to NZ Climate Science Coalition member Warwick Hughes on 19 July 2006. Information about changes to the seven station sites is documented in a publicly-available report published by the NZ Meteorological Service in 1992, and much of this information is also available from the metadata in the climate database."
[4]


Conclusion: regurgitating ignorant and unscientific talking points makes you look like a fool.


1- United Kingdom's area. The CIA World Factbook.
2- Earth's facts. The CIA World Factbook.
3- Surface area of our planet covered by oceans and continents. PhysicalGeography.net
4- New Zealand temperature rise clear. NZ's National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research.

Report this comment
#44) On December 06, 2009 at 4:33 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@MyDonkey,
"When you claim that AGW is a "fraud", you're implying that all these scientific groups are wrong, and that you know more about climate science than the scientists themselves. Why should I accept the dissenting opinion of a non-scientist (you) with no expertise in climatology? If there is any uncertainty in the issue of AGW, wouldn't I be wiser to give the benefit of the doubt to people who know what they're talking about?"
Exactly. We don't have the time, the money or the interest to become polymaths (i.e. experts in a vast range of fields). We do this on a daily basis; when we've a health question we don't go to learn medicine. Instead, we go to see the doctor because we trust his expert credentials and his scientific judgement. We should do the same in climate science; see here, here and here *

* Disclaimer: I'm not advocating blind trust on experts. Experts are human beings and as such they have values, feelings, agendas and they're not always right. We should also be critical of elites, no matter if they're meritocratic and scientific. That said, to engage in critical analysis of expert advice we need to adquire the relevant knowledge and challenge them in the proper forums: scientific publishing, scientific conferences, scientific seminars. We don't challenge experts parroting carefully crafted soundbites in the Internet.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement