Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[nightrider]

It is hard to say I haven't yet found an article about it that actually gives a context for what the source code is for.

 

Even if the progrmme gives suspect outputs and we have to discard a couple fo studies because of it, it won't discount all the other studies showing warming and the impact of CO2.

 

 

 

It is not a matter of desperation it is simply looking at the facts of the case and evaluating the claims. The one piece of research they spoke about suppressing was a work of fiction that should never have got through any review process. What concerns me more is that it was ever published, a view shared by half the editorial board for the journal that resigned over it. From the content of the emails I have seen CRU have been shown to be scholarly and professional in refuting everyone else.

 

.

 

But they admit they are trying to stop publication of a paper they cannot find anything wrong with at first (NB this might not be the one you refer to above) - i.e. they assume it is wrong before they even review it, because it refutes their official method.:

 

kay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I

got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and

Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims

that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression)

is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main

whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper.

Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the

column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims.

If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to

review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It

won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically,

but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies,

without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a

practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of

their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show

how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced.

Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into

the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course).

[convert]

...Or the Trenbirth email about not being able to account for recent surface global cooling...(most scientists account for it in terms of El Nino effect.) ...

 

You can't even get your 'facts' right about this one Wildcat.

 

El Niño-Southern Oscillation is a periodic change in the atmosphere and ocean of the tropical Pacific region. It is defined in the atmosphere by the sign of the pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia, and in the ocean by warming or cooling of surface waters of the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean. El Niño is the warm phase of the oscillation and La Niña is the cold phase.

 

So the El Niño effect was mainly observed in the 'record' year that was 1998 (although that is disputed, probably 1934 was warmer), whereas the recent cooling is partially explained by the La Niña effect.

 

 

Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation

 

What Trenberth, was referring to was the fact that NONE of the models have, or currently are able to account for the Earth's Energy balance inequality. The fact that according to ALL their models the Earth shouldn't have cooled as much as it has in the last decade.

 

The only conclusion that I can draw from Trenberth's (Please try and get his name right if you're going to reference him) statement is that the science is far from settled, although they may be a consensus amongst some scientists.

 

 

2/10 must try harder.

[JIbbo]

An utterly ridiculous conspiracy that involves more than 95% of the scientists that have any expertise in the subject.

 

 

 

And involves the claim that the US Govt under George Bush was funding researchers fabricating evidence to increase taxation.

 

As Conspiracy theories go the ones against the human impact in climate change have to be about as preposterous as it is possible to imagine.

 

Nature has a good article on the subject:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

 

Wildcat take a look at the following !

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/#more-13783

I

n fact, the 1990 First Assessment Report used this schematic IPCC 1990 Figure 7c (courtesy of Climate Audit) to represent last millennium’s dramatic temperature swings.

 

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/lambh23.jpg

 

But this image of a fluid climate system subject to abrupt and natural up-and-downturns made unprecedented 20th century warming about as marketable as Florida swampland. And opportunists who depended on the aberrance of post-industrial revolution warming in order to condemn and control mankind’s CO2 emissions soon recognized that perhaps the LIA but most certainly the MWP simply had to go.

 

The 'Hockey Stick Graphs'

 

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-20.gif

 

The ACTUAL Raw data........

 

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_mobergnh2.gif

 

now tell me the data hasn't been fudged.

[convert]

What about the Polar bears, I hear the envirolentalists cry, 'You're killing them with your cars" they rant.

 

Maybe not, It would seem that, from an estimated population of 5000 back in the 1950's, the latest population estimates say the current figure could be as much as 25,000

 

 

“In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it’s 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent.”

 

Now let's not get excited and say that because Polar bear numbers have gone up, and temperature has gone up; that Global Warming is the fault of the Polar bear.

 

More than likely the 'greens' have already ensured the future of the Polar bear, by campaigning against seal pup clubbing. Hence Mr Polar bear has a much more abundant source of food..

[BasilRathbon]

Amazingly despite all the evidence the Labour government are still lying to us.Grinning goon David Milliband is desperately trying to convince us that global warming is still happening, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=151222574

 

As if that wasn't enough, The Guardian - aka the Labour Party newsletter - has a front page today prattling on about how climate change really is quite a serious problem, no honestly! Perhaps someone ought to tell their editor to google "climate gate" as it seems he's missed out on the news of late.

[truman]

Amazingly despite all the evidence the Labour government are still lying to us.Grinning goon David Milliband is desperately trying to convince us that global warming is still happening, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=151222574

 

As if that wasn't enough, The Guardian - aka the Labour Party newsletter - has a front page today prattling on about how climate change really is quite a serious problem, no honestly! Perhaps someone ought to tell their editor to google "climate gate" as it seems he's missed out on the news of late.

 

You may find this amusing..especially the comments..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/06/gordon-brown-climate-change-copenhagen

[Funky_Gibbon]

Perhaps someone ought to tell their editor to google "climate gate" as it seems he's missed out on the news of late.

 

Whilst you're at it, tell them to look up "David Icke". For some reason the global conspiracy involving the lizard men and the Illuminati isn't making the front page of the Guardian.

 

If you want your news based on stupid conspiracy theories, opinionated bloggers, deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and people being funded by vested interest to repeat all of the above then by all means type "climate gate" into google.

[truman]

Whilst you're at it, tell them to look up "David Icke". For some reason the global conspiracy involving the lizard men and the Illuminati isn't making the front page of the Guardian.

 

If you want your news based on stupid conspiracy theories, opinionated bloggers, deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and people being funded by vested interest to repeat all of the above then by all means type "climate gate" into google.

 

What do you make of this...from one of the emails

 

"...Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I

almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will

show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year

extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we

believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fk-all about what

the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know

with certainty that we know fk-all)..."

 

Have you read any of them..?

[convert]

Whilst you're at it, tell them to look up "David Icke". For some reason the global conspiracy involving the lizard men and the Illuminati isn't making the front page of the Guardian.

 

If you want your news based on stupid conspiracy theories, opinionated bloggers, deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and people being funded by vested interest to repeat all of the above then by all means type "climate gate" into google.

 

Funny enough they don't. However, David Icke isn't taking my hard earned cash in green taxes is he.

 

The only conspiracy that I can see is one to manipluate data to a pre-agreed agenda, an attempt to control the peer review proccess and silence the voices that question the dogma of MMGW. A Conspiracy to evade FOI requests, and to greenwash the public.

 

As has been said, read the emails and look at the model code (Just this alone will have most people gasping in shock at the blatant fudge factors used by the CRU to 'influence' the IPCC and gain funding for themselves).

 

PS I get no funding from big oil, in fact I probably contribute quite heavily to their funds.

[shefflad26]

I have no idea how