Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[blackrock13]

Real simple, when there's billions of dollars on the line people will sometimes do strange things. And if they get caught fudging the numbers, they'll just simply say they made a mistake. I mean everyone makes mistakes, right??

Carbon credit trade worth $140 billion annually: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/european-fraudsters-steal-7b-in-carbon-credit-scam-1.853443

The fraud you're hi-lighting is a business/corporate fraud, not a research fraud.

How many times will research scientist cook their books, once, twice, all the time. Something tells me you're not self employed or work under contract. As such your reputation is all you have. Screw up once, get discovered, and it takes years to recover. That's all research scientists have, their reputation and their published works. It's not like they make millions. Money is not the prime motivation to research scientists. Error and failures in research will happen. Thomas Edison failed far more times than he succeeded.

 

[AK-47]

So you argument now has to rely on either:

a) one scientist made a mistake once and then thousands decided to risk their careers by backing that one scientist
b) every climatologist is fudging the numbers so they can get rich off of carbon credits

Do you know how IPCC collects their global surface temperatures, groggy??

Without copy/pasta or googling it, tell us in your own words how its done, please

 

[blackrock13]

Do you know how IPCC collects their global surface temperatures, groggy??

Without copy/pasta or googling it, tell us in your own words how its done, please

LOL, you make it sound like you know. Fat chance on that without a Google search.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Real simple, when there's billions of dollars on the line people will sometimes do strange things. And if they get caught fudging the numbers, they'll just simply say they made a mistake. I mean everyone makes mistakes, right??

Carbon credit trade worth $140 billion annually: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/european-fraudsters-steal-7b-in-carbon-credit-scam-1.853443

I wouldn't support a carbon credit trade even if it was proven that AGW is absolutely true, unless you have unanimous global accord or the consent of all major countries and your economy can support it.

 

[groggy]

Do you know how IPCC collects their global surface temperatures, groggy??

Without copy/pasta or googling it, tell us in your own words how its done, please

Yes.

They use as many sources as possible and compile the results.
From city run weather stations, to buoys in the oceans, to satellite imaging, to ice cores in glaciers, to tree rings, to historical records, sediment deposits and just about every option they can think of. They'll try to figure out how to cancel out the noise in the records, estimate how reliable they are, compare with other methods and results, and then try to chart it all out.
Its a massive job with a few different systems run by different agencies, and then the work by those agencies are compared and checked for reliability. The results are that it would be impossible to fudge unless every one of them are in on the fix.

Is your argument that every one of those records and record methods have all been fudged in some conspiracy by climatologists and that they are all in on some inside carbon trading scheme to get rich?

It really does sound ridiculous.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Gentlemen, those on both camps have credentials. It's so confusing out here.

 

[AK-47]

LOL, you make it sound like you know. Fat chance on that without a Google search

I do know. I read it a long time ago, and its a surprisingly simple process

Yes.

They use as many sources as possible and compile the results.
From city run weather stations, to buoys in the oceans, to satellite imaging, to ice cores in glaciers, to tree rings, to historical records, sediment deposits and just about every option they can think of. They'll try to figure out how to cancel out the noise in the records, estimate how reliable they are, compare with other methods and results, and then try to chart it all out

They take 3 basic temperature groups:

1. Surface temperatures from around the world.
2. Ocean temperatures.
3. Atmospheric temperatures (basically temps high in the sky).

They then combine all that into one big mathematical soup, and take an average global temperature from that. Then they compare all that data to the last x-amount of years in the past, and from there they conclude if earth is warming up or not.

Now let me ask you again, when IPCC compiles temperatures from deep in the ocean, or high in the sky, or some land station in Antarctica, how many people do you think are able to verify all that data to make sure IPCC didnt make a "mistake" along the way??

I'll let you think about that one

 

[blackrock13]

Gentlemen, those on both camps have credentials. It's so confusing out here.

It's not that confusing.

I've done an emergency tracheotomy, but no way do I consider myself qualified as a surgeon or able to advertise myself as one. I know when, where, why and how, but no way joe.

 

[blackrock13]

I do know. I read it a long time ago, and its a surprisingly simple process


They take 3 basic temperature groups:

1. Surface temperatures form around the world.
2. Ocean temperatures.
3. Atmospheric temperatures (basically temps high in the sky)..

Then they combine all that into one big mathematical soup, and take an average global temperature from that. Then they compare to the last x-amount of years in the past, and from there they conclude if earth is warming up or not.

Now let me ask you again, when IPCC compiles temperatures form deep in the ocean, or high in the sky, or some land station in Antarctica, how many people do you think are able to verify all that data to make sure IPCC didnt make a "mistake" along the way??

I'll let you think about that one

You read about it, wow. Aside from the three you mentioned, they take recording form all sorts of different elevations. The NOAA alone at one time used over 5000 stations worldwide, but technology has allowed fewer than 1500 to do the same job. Globally there are over 14,000 stations taking data.

I've done it, having monitored Davis and Spectrum stations hundreds of times.

What you call soup, professionals call an algorithm. Taking an average is only one very simple calculation. Don't forget a rolling means, or the classic triple exponential smoothing. The later is often used when dealing with seasonal changes.

I can't remember anyone on TERB claiming mistakes aren't made. No need to think about that one. The idea is to expect them, minimize them, and deal with them when they occur. Would you like a contact at McMurdo or Progress so you can ask them directly how they do it to minimize errors.

 

[AK-47]

I can't remember anyone on TERB claiming mistakes aren't made. No need to think about that one. The idea is to expect them, minimize them, and deal with them when they occur

Did you notice I put quotation marks around the word "mistake"??

What do you think I meant with those quotation marks, smartypants??

I've done it, having monitored Davis and Spectrum stations hundreds of times

LoL


.........................

 

[Moviefan-2]

He said he didn't know anything about the 'technical facts'.

Um... that actually proves that I'm right. He isn't quibbling with any one set of individual results. It is the entire approach of focusing on computer model predictions (rather than real-world evidence) that he is questioning.

Are you willing to bet on it?

the bet:
Michael Mann's data is publicly available.


Will you take it?
You'll have to buy two books, including:
http://www.amazon.ca/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Global-Warming/dp/1592570712/ref=pd_sim_b_2/179-8355621-9460133?ie=UTF8&refRID=1GRS7EAZSKKT9Y94RM52

I may be open to a bet, but your characterization of the bet is misleading. And you have the stakes backwards.

Let's start with the bet.

The bet is whether or not Mann willingly made the computer codes and all of the raw data available.

I'm not sure how you plan to fulfil this, but let's be clear on the required proof (Hint: That means you actually have to read this part, Groggy):

-- You would have to provide evidence from an impartial, third-party source (ie., not skepticalscience.com or realclimate.org) that all of the raw data and the computer codes were provided.
-- It has to be all of the raw data, not some data.
-- The source of your evidence cannot be Mann himself, given all the problems the fake "Nobel laureate" has demonstrated when it comes to providing accurate information.
-- It must be clear in the evidence that Mann turned over the data voluntarily, not through a Freedom of Information request.

Now, on to what is being waged.

I'm surprised you don't know this, but let me explain to you what "double or nothing" means. It means that if the person who lost the previous bet loses again, he owes twice as much. If the person who won the previous bet loses, neither party owes anything.

The wager:

If you win, neither of us owe anything.

If I win, you have to purchase the Delingpole book from the previous bet, and you have to make a $25 contribution to Mark Steyn to support his legal fight against Michael Mann:

http://www.steynonline.com/6159/stick-it-to-the-mann-and-win-one-for-free-speech

I will need a clear answer. You must post the following:

I, Groggy, accept the terms of the bet in the exact way they have been described by MF-2 in post 698, and I accept the wager exactly as it has been described by MF-2.

If you post the above sentence, we have a bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And still waiting for an explanation of how the IPCC has managed to force nearly the entire scientific community to publish false data.


Either the IPCC is leading some conspiracy or the evidence backs the anthropogenic global warming theory.

Still on that "conspiracy theory" kick, are you?

Here's what I find amusing, on reflection.

When I first posted comments about the IPCC's political agenda, you said it was a "conspiracy theory."

I then proved beyond any reasonable doubt that politics influences the IPCC's reports (the IPCC is public about that) and that many observers in some of the country's largest newspapers and elsewhere believe the IPCC is mostly influenced by a political/activist agenda (a "conspiracy theory" is supposed to be covert).

At that point, you said there's nothing wrong with politics influencing the IPCC -- so why did you initially claim it was "conspiracy" thinking?

Even more entertaining, you have referred to trash political propaganda such as the James Powell post and spoke about it as if it had actual academic merit (eg., post 604).

It has to be asked: Since you don't know the difference between political propaganda and academic research, how do you know that my comments about the IPCC's political agenda represent a "conspiracy theory"?

 

[blackrock13]

Did you notice I put quotation marks around the word "mistake"??

What do you think I meant with those quotation marks, smartypants??
LoL

Knowing you, it could mean anything, random error, honest mistakes, or on purpose, just to name three.I'm nor expert with statistical analysis, but it's obvious I know more than you.

As far as your LOL, you'er back to your default 12 year old response. You can't know otherwise, so you bray the usual shite.

 

[blackrock13]

Still on that "conspiracy theory" kick, are you?

Here's what I find amusing, on reflection.

When I first posted comments about the IPCC's political agenda, you said it was a "conspiracy theory."

I then proved beyond any reasonable doubt that politics influences the IPCC's reports (the IPCC is public about that) and that many observers in some of the country's largest newspapers and elsewhere believe the IPCC is mostly influenced by a political/activist agenda (a "conspiracy theory" is supposed to be covert).

At that point, you said there's nothing wrong with politics influencing the IPCC -- so why did you initially claim it was "conspiracy" thinking?

Even more entertaining, you have referred to trash political propaganda such as the James Powell post and spoke about it as if it had actual academic merit (eg., post 604).

It has to be asked: Since you don't know the difference between political propaganda and academic research, how do you know that my comments about the IPCC's political agenda represent a "conspiracy theory"?

It's you that initiated the conspiracy stance, not BC.

 

[basketcase]

Still on that "conspiracy theory" kick, are you?
...

I'm just trying to understand why you believe the majority of climate scientists have faked their results for political purposes. Whether or not they and their opponents are involved in politics, I'm involved in what the science says. You keep trying to change the topic to lobbying but that is besides the point.


The vast majority of scientific research backs anthropogenic climate change. Either they are correct or they're all lying. Since you clearly refuse to accept they are right, there's only one option left so yes, I call you a conspiracy theorist.


p.s. It has been clearly shown that the few who deny climate change have a pretty hefty political agenda yet you accept their views without question.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The vast majority of scientific research backs anthropogenic climate change. Either they are correct or they're all lying.

In fact, it's more likely the "vast majority" had no view one way or the other (as was the case in Cook's propaganda). Your latest piece of trash propaganda never says. It doesn't even indicate how many of the papers were actually addressing anthropogenic global warming.

It is unmitigated garbage. Yet you continue to cite it as if it has merit, and fail to recognize that it is political propaganda, not academic research.

As for the suggestion that I "accept" the politicized views of people who "deny" global warming, that is inaccurate. What I have accepted is the real-world evidence that showed the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

Let me try to explain the difference:

-- Real-world measurements of changes in the Earth's temperature = scientific evidence.

-- Bogus "consensus" numbers = political propaganda.

Science isn't about achieving a phony "consensus" or trying to use the bogus "consensus" as a substitute for evidence. It's about obtaining evidence from the natural world. I say we should reject political propaganda and focus on the evidence.

 

[blackrock13]

In fact, it's possible the "vast majority" had no view one way or the other (as was the case in Cook's propaganda). Your latest trash propaganda never really says. It doesn't even indicate how many of the papers were actually addressing anthropogenic global warming.

It is unmitigated garbage. Yet you continue to cite it as if it has some academic merit.

As for the suggestion that I "accept" the politicized views of people who "deny" global warming, that is inaccurate. What I have accepted is the real-world evidence that showed the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

Let me try to explain the difference:

-- Real-world measurements of changes in the Earth's temperature = scientific evidence.

-- Bogus "consensus" numbers = political propaganda.

Science isn't about achieving a phony "consensus" or trying to use the bogus "consensus" as a substitute for evidence. It's about obtaining evidence from the natural world. I say we should reject propaganda and focus on the evidence.

Say what? It possible that I'll have a long lost relative leave a million bucks to me, but not likely.

None of you equations make sense to anyone capable of using both sides of their brain.

Now science is about obtaining evidence form the real world, whatever that is. I thought it was about truth. The evidence is that 10,000+ scientist believe in AGW and about 24 don't. How's the reading of the list of papers coming?

 

[AK-47]

I'm just trying to understand why you believe the majority of climate scientists have faked their results for political purposes

If I can answer that, please.

Let me be real clear and say I dont know for sure if IPCC is fudging the books. But after Climategate (and what was even worse the way they tried to bullshit their way out of it) I simply can't trust these guys anymore.

Add to that the hundreds of billions of dollars the carbon credit trade is worth, not to mention the hundreds of $millions in grants awarded to green energy (like Solyndra...etc), and I become even more suspicious if global warming is as bad as they claim it to be.

Corruption happens. It happens in big business, it happens in government, it happens everywhere.
Why do you guys insist it could never happen at the IPCC??

 

[blackrock13]

If I can answer that, please.

Let me be real clear and say I dont know for sure if IPCC is fudging the books. But after Climategate (and what was even worse the way they tried to bullshit their way out of it) I simply can't trust these guys anymore.

Add to that the hundreds of billions of dollars the carbon credit trade is worth, not to mention the hundreds of $millions in grants awarded to green energy (like Solyndra...etc), and I become even more suspicious if global warming is as bad as they claim it to be.

Corruption happens. It happens in big business, it happens in government, it happens everywhere.
Why do you guys insist it could never happen at the IPCC??

Let me be really clear again, 10,000 climatologist researchers/scientists are all not going to prostitute themselves for a monetary reward that will be incredibly small for them, as they are at the end of the chain and the punishment when/if exposed would overshadow any of that reward.

Please show us where any member has said it would never happen, nor that it absolutely didn't happen at all. You are talking about a fraud perpetrated by 1000's of people inn this single case.

 

[basketcase]

In fact, it's more likely the "vast majority" had no view one way or the other (as was the case in Cook's propaganda). Your latest piece of trash propaganda never says. It doesn't even indicate how many of the papers were actually addressing anthropogenic global warming.

It is unmitigated garbage. Yet you continue to cite it as if it has merit, and fail to recognize that it is political propaganda, not academic research.
...

I see. Your way of dismissing the evidence is to pretend it's not there. I guess it is more logical that a conspiracy theory.



Of course you are still ignoring that the majority of scientists don't dispute anthropogenic global warming and if the science was bogus, the scientific community would be all over it. I guess we're still in the conspiracy range after all.