mustang84

The global warming scam unravels

30 posts in this topic

Note: No, this does not mean that we should stop investigating alternative energy and sustainable design, but it's about time these guys were exposed for the frauds that they are.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.....;/16/do1610.xml

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than being worried about climate change, I think we should be worried about the loss of wildlife habitat and rainforests.

Interesting read, though.

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of wildlife, what happened to all the honeybees? My Dad did beekeeping as a side hobby in the '70s-80s...most are gone from Ohio from what I've read.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone just push Al Gore off a cliff and into obscurity already?

Let's get it over with... honestly.

I'm sure a few leftist pu$%ies & anti-gun-Nazis would cry but most

of us would be happy if the world forgot all about him and he live out

his life in obscurity & died as the pathetic, loser hypocrite that he is.

Edited by Sixty8panther
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of wildlife, what happened to all the honeybees? My Dad did beekeeping as a side hobby in the '70s-80s...most are gone from Ohio from what I've read.

Colony collapse has been in the news for the last couple of years. I'm sure its just another left-wing conspiracy. :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HA-ha

[/nelson]

Didn't see this one coming... :rolleyes:

I'm glad I can do my part in helping the environment with my WOT burnouts.

Bring on the global cooling!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where there is a real crisis is in scientific objectivity.

For far too many scientists politics have become more important than the truth.

Just like senators.

And the media.

These times are best summed up by one word: Bull$h!.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of wildlife, what happened to all the honeybees? My Dad did beekeeping as a side hobby in the '70s-80s...most are gone from Ohio from what I've read.

Honey bees are not wildlife—they are domesticated insects. No-one knows what's going on, but I suspect inbreeding.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honey bees are not wildlife—they are domesticated insects. No-one knows what's going on, but I suspect inbreeding.

Actually, they are both.

The wild populations have been devastated by a mite that infects their breathing apparatus.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science puts forth theories in order to find the truth. Its not political. Its the right wing religious zealots in this country that have to make everything political. With that being said, I would like to point out that The Daily Telegraph is one of the most conservative news organizations in the UK.

The religious right screams "the world is flat" and then argue that some scientific study found a perfectly flat part of the world someplace.

The consequences of global warming include more erratic weather such as terrible snowstorms, huge hurricanes, etc. Its not just about the earth getting hot. This article is a fluff piece at best. It just serves to confuse the feeble minded.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science puts forth theories in order to find the truth. Its not political. Its the right wing religious zealots in this country that have to make everything political. With that being said, I would like to point out that The Daily Telegraph is one of the most conservative news organizations in the UK.

The religious right screams "the world is flat" and then argue that some scientific study found a perfectly flat part of the world someplace.

The consequences of global warming include more erratic weather such as terrible snowstorms, huge hurricanes, etc. Its not just about the earth getting hot. This article is a fluff piece at best. It just serves to confuse the feeble minded.

Although your language was polarizing, I have to agree with you. I found very little substantiated facts in that article, and it was written with an obvious slant. Doesn't pass my BS detector.

Knowing what I know, and knowing what the climate has become over the past 100 years, the trends of the polar ice caps, the issues with water currants along the Pacific coast leading to decreased seafood harvesting, and the more extreme weather that has occurred...Hello, global warming exists.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although your language was polarizing, I have to agree with you. I found very little substantiated facts in that article, and it was written with an obvious slant. Doesn't pass my BS detector.

Knowing what I know, and knowing what the climate has become over the past 100 years, the trends of the polar ice caps, the issues with water currants along the Pacific coast leading to decreased seafood harvesting, and the more extreme weather that has occurred...Hello, global warming exists.

Yes, something is definitely going on. Obviously, all the human-created pollution that has happened in the last 200 or so years has had a negative impact on the environment.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that human pollution shouldn't be reduced, or that alternative energy sources shouldn't be used, but the last time I checked, the Earth goes through NATURAL heating and cooling cycles...it's just what it does...for example...Wyoming used to be a prehistoric sea...that's why there are fossilized sharks teeth everywhere, it also used to be a thriving jungle full of plants and animals...hence so much coal...but, it was also covered in huge masses of ice...all of this BEFORE automobiles, coalfired power plants, etc...we should just learn to deal with the fact that Earth has many weather patterns and cycles, and then do our best to minimize the impact we do have on it...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, something is definitely going on. Obviously, all the human-created pollution that has happened in the last 200 or so years has had a negative impact on the environment.

Clearly. You can feel it when you breathe, or even when you're just outside and your eyes burn. That isn't good. The wildfires made the whole damn city smell of smoke last week.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying that human pollution shouldn't be reduced, or that alternative energy sources shouldn't be used, but the last time I checked, the Earth goes through NATURAL heating and cooling cycles...it's just what it does...for example...Wyoming used to be a prehistoric sea...that's why there are fossilized sharks teeth everywhere, it also used to be a thriving jungle full of plants and animals...hence so much coal...but, it was also covered in huge masses of ice...all of this BEFORE automobiles, coalfired power plants, etc...we should just learn to deal with the fact that Earth has many weather patterns and cycles, and then do our best to minimize the impact we do have on it...

But there's nothing natural about all the pollution we pump into the atmosphere.

Did you know that the ozone layer is a lot less effective than it used to be (excluding the hole)? Baby boomers had much less UV intensity back in the 50s and 60s. Are you going to tell me that more intense global UV light exposure won't have any climatic effects? It isn't natural.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"Obviously, all the human-created pollution that has happened in the last 200 or so years "<<

By "or so", do you mean instead 100 years? I'm not aware of any measureable human contribution to atmospheric contaminants in the 1800s, esp 1800-1850.

>>"The wildfires made the whole damn city smell of smoke last week."<<

WTH does wildfire smoke have to do with "global warming" ?

>>"But there's nothing natural about all the pollution we pump into the atmosphere."<<

And the core question remains and will remain : what is the effect and how can it be measured independantly from the Earth's natural cycles?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"Obviously, all the human-created pollution that has happened in the last 200 or so years "<<

By "or so", do you mean instead 100 years? I'm not aware of any measureable human contribution to atmospheric contaminants in the 1800s, esp 1800-1850.

I presume you have heard of the 'Industrial Revolution'.... lots of coal-fired plants polluting in the 19th century..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

Fact is, scientists still have a pretty feeble understanding of how the earth works, but they want to pretend they do. That's a pretty crappy foundation for making major political decisions. I personally agree with the thought that it's just better to not pollute as much, but we still really don't know to what extent our pollution has on the environment. It may be very noticable... or it may not. We don't know, because we have a feeble understanding of how the earth works. The earth is often pretty resilient.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although your language was polarizing, I have to agree with you. I found very little substantiated facts in that article, and it was written with an obvious slant. Doesn't pass my BS detector.

Sorry about the polarizing language. Its just when I read that global warming is a scam it really boils my blood.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry about the polarizing language. Its just when I read that global warming is a scam it really boils my blood.

and it boils my blood when people are truly convinced that it's gospel truth and we're all gonna die if everyone doesn't start riding bicycles everywhere. We just don't know what's going on well enough yet to predict with any real accuracy what's going to happen, or understand to what degree our pollution affects global temperatures. It is certainly worth studying, but some politicians have grabbed ahold of it and are squeezing every last drop of fear they can out of it to push their agendas.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, wildfires would probably block as much sunlight (lowering temperatures) as it would create CO2 (raising temperatures.) Volcanoes spew a lot of nasty CO2 but usually result in a net cooling of Earth's temperatures.

As to the remarks about human activity, if my memory serves me correctly, the greater London, England area had a lot of pollution problems before 1850. The amount of coal that city was burning in and around it would have put out more pollutants (and CO2) than the city probably emits today. The affect to the planet may have been negligible, but certainly the seeds of man's impact on Mother Earth were sewn in the first half of the 19th Century. By the end of the 19th Century, many European cities (and some American) were total cesspools of filth and pollution.

I have serious doubts about this Global warming thing. There is just too much we don't know. Observing the smog over L.A. from Malibu last year, common sense dictates humans are having some sort of impact, but climatologists are sending out mixed signals as to what, exactly, is happening and why.

(By the by, Montana and Saskatchewan being at the bottom of the ocean has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with plate tectonics.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I ask 'Biz is that we continue research on a peer reviewed scientific basis with an open mind.

If global warming is real, then great we change the way we live and get on with it.

If Global warming is not real, well, then, there is a lot we don't know about the earth and we are still learning.

If global warming is real and it is as bad as some people say that it is you and your Boyfriend can tan under a palm tree in toronto in December.

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"The wildfires made the whole damn city smell of smoke last week."<<

WTH does wildfire smoke have to do with "global warming" ?

Well, what do you think? Burning forests, sparked by humans in the vast majority of cases (Tea fire was caused by a smoldering campfire that was not properly extinguished), put a &#036;h&#33; ton of carbon in the air, just like wood burning, volcanic eruptions, coal-powered factories, and any other method of combustion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have serious doubts about this Global warming thing. There is just too much we don't know. Observing the smog over L.A. from Malibu last year, common sense dictates humans are having some sort of impact, but climatologists are sending out mixed signals as to what, exactly, is happening and why.

This is a very valid point. The question, though, is more of an issue with quantifying effects than the existence of effects.

What we know: the earth's climate has been increasing gradually over the past millenia; we are, geologically speaking, still leaving an ice age. That said, corresponding with the industrial revolution, the average annual increase in global temperatures has been escalating at a faster rate.

The ozone layer is earth's natural defense against increased UV radiation, which causes warming. Since the industrial revolution, the amount of greenhouse gases as increased dramatically, leading to massive ozone depletion.

Since legislation in the 1970s and the banning of the use of many CFCs and aerosol products in the 1980s, the ozone hole has begun to shrink. Logically, there is a relationship between the hypothesis that CFCs and other pollutants may have had a deleterious effect on the ozone layer, to legislation being enacted to combat this, and then a subsequent reversal of the deterioration of the ozone layer. With China's (and SE Asia in general) industrialization in the last decade, though, this may no longer be the case. Jury's still out.

We may not yet understand the exact mechanics of what is occurring, but scientists do see the relationships between some human activity, and some climate effects. It's kinda like hurricanes: we know a lot about hurricanes...what causes them, what feeds them, and what kind of damage they inflict. But we still don't quite understand how they move. We cannot yet predict with any certainty where and when they shift direction, or where they make landfall. We don't even know exactly when they will gain or lose strength. But we still know, despite that, that hurricanes exist, and what their effects are on the territory they pass through.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I ask 'Biz is that we continue research on a peer reviewed scientific basis with an open mind.

If global warming is real, then great we change the way we live and get on with it.

If Global warming is not real, well, then, there is a lot we don't know about the earth and we are still learning.

If global warming is real and it is as bad as some people say that it is you and your Boyfriend can tan under a palm tree in toronto in December.

Chris

That would be nice! Actually, global warming has been good for Ontario. 100 years ago, for the Santa Clause Parade (held last weekend, BTW), Santa originally was pulled on a real sleigh because there usually was enough snow in downtown Toronto to do just that. These days, it is very rare to have any significant snow fall in Toronto before mid-December. In fact, I'd say 7 of the last 10 Christmases have been 'green.' The Great Lakes used to freeze completely over; now even Lake Ontario doesn't.

I do agree with you: even if what we are currently doing is not overly harming the environment, China and India's economic rise will completely destroy the planet. Can you imagine China with the same per capita penetration of gasoline powered cars as North America? Ouch.

Therefore, research needs to continue. Personally, I hope we see quantum-singularity powered cars before I die.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Loading...