Is Manmade Global Warming Real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inego_de_Loyola
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Calliso said:
Ok looking at this post I realize it came off as rather harsh. You might not be a troll but calling scientists evil is going rather over board and automatically makes people want to look away. Not to mention the email thing never showed that there was any fraud on the scientists part.
Click to expand...
Only Climategate 1 was investigated.

I gave you Senate Reports to investigate what they say. What do you call claiming a “consensus” when none existed? Is that a fraudulently made claim?

“The scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, may have violated federal laws.”

“• Many of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy also wrote the IPCC’s science reports.”

“• In short, the CRU emails reveal scientists who worked together on the major reports that form the so-called “consensus.” The emails show that there is no consensus and that EPA’s endangerment finding should be scrapped.”

It took Climategate 2 to review just how deep this went.
 
Calliso said:
Been going through this thread a little bit and saw this post. The old its UHI argument doesn;t really hold up to the evidence.

skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm
Click to expand...
🙂 I know you believe in AGW.
I’m not here to change your personal beliefs.

They your beliefs in AGW ] are not important to me, really. 🙂 I don’t see myself as your “Climate savior” or your enemy.😉

I will challenge what you present to support your statements 🙂
The old its UHI argument doesn;t really hold up to the evidence.
Click to expand...
Is not the argument.

UHI IS real…IS MAN MADE:)

The argument is and always has been ] HOW MUCH it contributes to the overall land based temperature sets.

IPCC based on… Jones P.D., Groisman P.Y., Coughlan M., Plummer N., Wang W.-C., Karl T.R. (1990), “Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land”, Nature, 347: 169-172.

Wang W.-C., Zeng Z., Karl T.R. (1990), “Urban heat islands in China”, Geophysical Research Letters, 17: 2377-2380…

say it’s not noticeable.

We now know, these TWO papers…have no data / evidence - AT ALL.

Shown both in this report AND Climategate 1 and 2 They discussed not having the data ]

informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf

I will give you a friendly hint about trying to use Mr John Cook to debate.

Look at the page you listed…The comments are from Feb 2008.

What he is allowing you to do - is debate with out dated material - and at many times - debunked material.😦
On average, the total temperature increase over South Korea was about 1.37°C; the amount of increase caused by the greenhouse effect is approximately 0.60°C, and the amount caused by urban warming is approximately 0.77°C.”
Click to expand...
cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=24538066

Here are Numerous papers ALL going against the IPCC claim

c3headlines.com/global-warming-urban-heat-island-bias/

Mr Cook Thinking the Science as settled ] does his readers a disservice IMO.

SCIENCE has come far since 2007 IPCC - 2008 debate.

I hope this helps.
 
kimmielittle said:
Once again…you way step, over the line.

If you don’t like what, as a Scientist. he wrote…debate him / her in courtesy.

You Ma’am… can not judge who is…or isn’t a climate scientist…Your Hero. Mr Hansen. is an Astronomer…by degree. Mr Schneider was an Mechanical Engineer… by degree. …The VERY DEGREE THIS POSTER HAS:shrug:🤷

This thread is about the “Science” surrounding the AGW - CAGW claims…NOT your Philosophical views. You started a thread for that 🙂 ]

Please debate the Science:)
Click to expand...
I judge whomever I want as a climate scientist. And it seems to me they would have had to do enough climate science to get published in peer-reviewed journals (on the topic of climate science). Practicing climate scientists have come from various fields, but they have done substantial studies in climate science itself over the years and decades.

Even most geologists are NOT climate scientists. Weathermen and meteorologists are NOT climate scientists.

What I’ve found is those who are most educated in some field that might tangentially touch on some of the basic science concepts behind climate science tend to be the greatest skeptics. It’s sort of like they have their noses bent out of shape by their “brothers-in-science” who have actually chosen to enter climate science and actually do climate science research.

So I am least likely to believe those types of folks. As soon as I hear someone saying, “I’m a physicist” or engineer or statistician AND “I know about climate science better than the climate scientists,” I think…turn the channel. Don’t waste any time with those folks. Let me hear the science instead from “the horse’s mouth,” not the well-educated (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and much knowledge is even more dangerous) climate science wannabes.

So again, I suggest turn to the journals (the top tier science journals) and you will learn much about climate science. I can explain the basics with my limited knowledge, but if you don’t believe me, then go to the real climate scientists…don’t go to the wannabes who are not doing research and publishing in the area of climate science. That’s just the wrong place.

I do not have to debate climate science. If you want a debate, contact the climate scientists. I humbly defer to them.
 
The point on UHI I was trying to make isn;tthat it isn;t human caused. Yeah it is and I can understand the concern that it would have a major effect which is what I was debating with that poster. Not that it has no effect at all but the idea that it is the cause or the majority of the case for global warming. Also I thinkthat article I read was actually updated in 2010 so the original article might have been 2008 but he and his contributers do update their articles. Also one thing to consider when it comes to uhi is it isn;t the temperature that matters but the trend. Because yes typically the actual temp will be hotter in a urban area. But once again what matters is the trend. But tomorrow I might take a closer look for more updated stuff.
 
kimmielittle said:
Provide the claimed death threats. …
Click to expand...
Here are a few, just to one climate scientist, Michael Mann (Mann, The Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars, p. 209):
  • “You and your colleagues who have promoted this scandal ought to be shot, quartered and fed to the pigs along with your whole damned families.”
  • “You should know the public will come after you.”
  • “Six feet under, with the roots is were you should be doin your magic, how come know one has [edited] you yet, i was hopin i would see the news and you commited suicide.”
  • Some white powder sent to him in an envelope – which the FBI investigated (luckily turned out to be cornstarch)
Now you may brush these off, but I myself have received death threats (from a student’s friend/relative who was trying to get me to make her F grade into an A). I had to take those horrible things the person threatened seriously…which made me drive looking into my rearview mirror, which could have caused an accident. It also made me purchase a cell phone, and caused great upheaval in my life for a month or so. The other faculty he threatened caved in and gave the student an A – he had threated to go after her small children, even naming their day care center. The dean was also threatened. I told him even if they kill me I will not change the grade – he took care of it by giving my student an incomplete.

I did get the police involved, bec we sort of were able to figure out who it was to some extent, but the police unfortunately botched it. The culprits were Christians.

You may all downplay death threats, but they are very very serious from the receiving end, even if they are just idle threats.

I’ve also heard of other climate scientists being threatened.
 
Calliso said:
Oh sheesh the email stuff again lol. The scientists were cleared in multiple investigations no evidence of fraud or tampering of data was found. Really though I am guessing this post is just trolling I mean it can;t be serious right? But in case someone takes you seriously here is a couple links I think they should read.

skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm
skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm
skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm
skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm

Well ok that is far more then a couple but it should show that your post is false.
Click to expand...
Here are some more sources re both the IPCC & the hacked emails, including the recent release (from those 2009 hacked emails – not from a new hack):
Prudent consideration of these should at least lead laypersons to consider that what the climate scientists say is correct.

Also, prudent consideration should be given to the possibility that consensus arises from the fact that there is an underlying reality to what they are studying, and not just some conspiracy of 1000s of scientists.
 
Climate “scientists” are intentionally lying. They are merely trying to fund their wallets. As a meteorologist of 32 years I believe I have a bit of knowledge of climate. Most scientists do not believe the liberal fraud being perpetrated on the world.
 
adoglover1956 said:
Climate “scientists” are intentionally lying. They are merely trying to fund their wallets. As a meteorologist of 32 years I believe I have a bit of knowledge of climate. Most scientists do not believe the liberal fraud being perpetrated on the world.
Click to expand...
Sigh and do you have any evidence of this? And no climate gate doesn;t count that has been cleared a bunch of times already. Oh and most scientists I doubt it. Really the BEST I have seen people come up with is that 31,000 scientist list in the oregon insitutute of science and that list consists of mostly non climate scientists and even if you think all are valid it is still only a fraction of the total amount of scientists.
 
Calliso said:
Sigh and do you have any evidence of this? And no climate gate doesn;t count that has been cleared a bunch of times already. Oh and most scientists I doubt it. Really the BEST I have seen people come up with is that 31,000 scientist list in the oregon insitutute of science and that list consists of mostly non climate scientists and even if you think all are valid it is still only a fraction of the total amount of scientists.
Click to expand...
Yes I do but AGW lap puppies just brush it off. And YES…I’ve been a meteorologist for 32 years. I can with great confidence say that out of the hundreds of mets that I know…only a handful believe in AGW. But I’m sure you know better. And just what is your profession?
 
And yes climategate counts. It’s doesn’t count for the psuedo scientists and their misguided followers.
 
adoglover1956 said:
Climate “scientists” are intentionally lying. They are merely trying to fund their wallets. As a meteorologist of 32 years I believe I have a bit of knowledge of climate. Most scientists do not believe the liberal fraud being perpetrated on the world.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting, we had a meteorologist come give a talk a month ago. He admitted he was not a climate scientist, but had made a point to study climate science in his spare time, and he basically accepted everything the climate scientists are saying.

I also know another meteorologist – a hydrologist working for the NWS – who was fired in the 1990s for trying to warn people about greater flooding in the upper midwest projected with climate change. He was dead on; greater flooding ensued and people in many places just weren’t prepared enough for it. He was fired after working many decades for the NWS, just a couple of year before being eligible for pension, bec he dared to say the “CC” word.

The problem about accusing people of lying and fraud is that if you are wrong, then it becomes a serious matter.

And it could contribute to unbalanced people lobbing death threats…and maybe even carrying them out. And, of course, there are those victims present and well into the future who are being and will be harmed by AGW.

Much better to err on the side of prudence and mitigate AGW, and not be in the business of dissuading people from doing so.
 
lynnvinc said:
That’s interesting, we had a meteorologist come give a talk a month ago. He admitted he was not a climate scientist, but had made a point to study climate science in his spare time, and he basically accepted everything the climate scientists are saying.

I also know another meteorologist – a hydrologist working for the NWS – who was fired in the 1990s for trying to warn people about greater flooding in the upper midwest projected with climate change. He was dead on; greater flooding ensued and people in many places just weren’t prepared enough for it. He was fired after working many decades for the NWS, just a couple of year before being eligible for pension, bec he dared to say the “CC” word.

The problem about accusing people of lying and fraud is that if you are wrong, then it becomes a serious matter.

And it could contribute to unbalanced people lobbing death threats…and maybe even carrying them out. And, of course, there are those victims present and well into the future who are being and will be harmed by AGW.

Much better to err on the side of prudence and mitigate AGW, and not be in the business of dissuading people from doing so.
Click to expand...
The greater flooding that ensued was merely variations that are common in short term climate. It’s no different than having a string of years that are snowy in the north followed by a string of years with little snow. BTW…after those floods…a drought occurred. It all balances out.

Who is the person that was fired? I have a hard time believing that you could be fired from the NWS for expressing an opinion. I work for the NWS…for 21 years.
 
I am not a climatologist or a meteorologist, but I do write hard science fiction, and I’ll tell you: we need to get over ourselves. It is doubtless a comforting thought to believe that we can drastically effect the planet’s atmosphere. Only…the thing masses 5 quadrillion metric tons. Even if we output a billion tons of greenhouse gas a year, it would take 50,000 years to change the composition of the atmosphere by 1%.

Relatedly, we’re never going to be able to terraform. And if we could, we’d never need to.
 
lynnvinc said:
New Special Report of the IPCC just out on “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation”

See: ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/
Click to expand...
I’ve tried and tried to get you to actually read - what you link to - in what you think supports your argument:)

Did you actually READ it?

IN CHAPTER 4.
"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"
Click to expand...
"The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados"
Click to expand...
"The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"
Click to expand...
It The report ] even takes care of tying up a loose end that has allowed some commentators to avoid the scientific literature…
**
“Some authors suggest that a (natural or anthropogenic) climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses (e.g., Mills, 2005; Höppe and Grimm, 2009), but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research.”**
Click to expand...
The last statement by the OFFICAL IPCC… Kinda puts Stefan Rahmstorf’s latest Alarmist Claims book you peddle, in deep question.
 
lynnvinc said:
The problem about accusing people of lying and fraud is that if you are wrong, then it becomes a serious matter.
Click to expand...
ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!!

You quoted some statements in Mr Mann’s book.

In that VERY SAME book Mr Mann states:
Not only had their apparently been64 substantial undisclosed collaboration between the WR authors and Stephen McIntyre, as hinted at earlier–something Wegman had denied in his testimony under oath in Congress
Click to expand...
Mr.Mann claims Mr.Wegman denied something, under oath, that was true.

That is, he accuses Mr.Wegman of perjury. In what is almost a passing comment, Mr.Mann accuses Mr. Wegman of committing a felony that could land him in jail for years. Not only is this a serious accusation, but if untrue, it is libel.

With that in mind, it’s important to read Mr. Mann’s note #66:

ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/109h/31362.txt

Specifically, the following exchange between Rep. Stupak and Mr. Wegman:

He uses this as proof:
Mr. Stupak: Did you or your co-authors contact Mr. McIntyre and get his
help in replicating his work?
Dr. Wegman. Actually, no…
Click to expand...
This seems to give clear support to Mann’s claim. However, given the seriousness of the accusation, the ellipsis at the end should be investigated. Mann’s link leads to the transcript of the testimony where Wegman’s full answer is found:
DR. WEGMAN. Actually, no. What I did do was I called
Mr. McIntyre and said that when we downloaded his code we
could not get it to work either, and it was unfortunate that
he was criticizing Dr. Mann when in fact he was in exactly
the same situation. Subsequently, he reposted his code to
make it more user friendly and we did download it
subsequently and verified that it would work.
MR. STUPAK. And then after you re-downloaded and verified
it worked, did you have any further contact with
Mr. McIntyre then?
DR. WEGMAN. Well, as I testified last week, Dr. Said and
myself had gone to one of the meetings where he was talking,
and we spoke with him but did not identify who we were at
the time. This was early in the phase. Subsequently, I had
had no contact with him until basically last week.
MR. STUPAK. Okay. Any of your co-authors that you know of,
Dr. Said or any others, have contact with Mr. McIntyre other
than that one time at this convention or wherever he was
speaking?
DR. WEGMAN. One of my graduate students, John Rigsby, who
did the code for us, worked the code for us, did have some
interaction with him in order to verify some of the details
of the code.
MR. STUPAK. So you, Dr. Said and this Mr. Rigsby would be
the people who had contact with Mr. McIntyre then?
DR. WEGMAN. That is correct, yes.
MR. STUPAK. Thank you. Nothing further.
Click to expand...
The quote Mr, Mann offers is deliberately deceptive.

By only quoting two words from Mr.Wegman, Mr,Mann gives the impression Mr.Wegman answered no. Mr Wegman did not answer no.

Had he included only ten more words, anyone reading his book would have seen Mr, Wegman was not guilty of a felony. Instead, Mr.Mann removed almost all of a lengthy and detailed answer, giving readers the impression Mr,Wegman committed perjury.

Honest broker???

Smoke and Mirrors - follow the pea.
 
Calliso said:
Sigh and do you have any evidence of this? And no climate gate doesn;t count that has been cleared a bunch of times already. Oh and most scientists I doubt it. Really the BEST I have seen people come up with is that 31,000 scientist list in the oregon insitutute of science and that list consists of mostly non climate scientists and even if you think all are valid it is still only a fraction of the total amount of scientists.
Click to expand...
And the best you can come up with is the 97% figure.

Where did that come from? …Wait for it 75 polled out of 77 people.
How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position. [1]
Click to expand...
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
Click to expand...
The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.
Click to expand...
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
Click to expand...
fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/
Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers were then satisfied with their findings [2]. Are you?
Click to expand...
 
Calliso said:
Sigh and do you have any evidence of this? And no climate gate doesn;t count that has been cleared a bunch of times already. Oh and most scientists I doubt it. Really the BEST I have seen people come up with is that 31,000 scientist list in the oregon insitutute of science and that list consists of mostly non climate scientists and even if you think all are valid it is still only a fraction of the total amount of scientists.
Click to expand...
Why not do your own research into Climategate 1 and 2 🙂

ecowho.com/foia.php?search=

foia2011.org/

No, I don’t think they were cleared. Pal-review is the same as Penn State investigating Sandusky in 1998

ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2010/2010-07-01-091.html

The USA Senate didn’t clear CRU - Climategate
In its examination of the controversy, the Minority Staff found that the scientists:
Click to expand...
  • Obstructed release of damaging data and information;
Click to expand...
  • Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions;
Click to expand...
  • Colluded to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
Click to expand...
  • Assumed activist roles to influence the political process.
Click to expand...
DOWNLOAD LINK
 
lynnvinc said:
Here are some more sources re both the IPCC & the hacked emails, including the recent release (from those 2009 hacked emails – not from a new hack):
Click to expand...
You call it a “hack” …funny no police agency has. They were definitely “released”…but unless you are FOIA 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top