World may not be warming, say scientists

[Munky]

Sorry but if present observed climate data is bunk, so are your charts and conclusions.

What's bunk are the ridiculous conclusions being drawn from present data... not to mention data-tampering.

 

[Ozoned]

Sorry but if present observed climate data is bunk, so are your charts and conclusions.

I am an undecided. Please post something that will help me decide, just as commondreamer did.

Thanks!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Which scientists have migrated?

- wolf

Start with Dr John S. Theon (former chief at NASA) and Jim Hansen's old boss. Then try Dr. Jason Kirkby (CERN) who's one of the top particle physicists in the world. There was a list of a few thousand scientists floating around somewhere...I'm sure you can find it.

 

[werepossum]

I saw an advert for a tee shirt that reads "AL GORE DIDN'T INVENT THE INTERNET, HE INVENTED GLOBAL WARMING." I thought it was amusing.

 

[commondreamer]

I saw an advert for a tee shirt that reads "AL GORE DIDN'T INVENT THE INTERNET, HE INVENTED GLOBAL WARMING." I thought it was amusing.

Did you see the information, the data?

We seem to be cooling at this time, sorry for the info, very unfortunate

 

[werepossum]

Did you see the information, the data?

We seem to be cooling at this time, sorry for the info, very unfortunate

I did see the data you posted, they were awesome, thanks.

Climate models are pretty much like economic models - excellent for predicting things that have already happened. We live on a very, very complicated rock and at the moment no one is near understanding it. Oddly, the meteorologists seem much closer than the climatologists, correctly predicting trends that climatologists get wrong, then blame on localized phenomena.

 

[woolfe9999]

Start with Dr John S. Theon (former chief at NASA) and Jim Hansen's old boss. Then try Dr. Jason Kirkby (CERN) who's one of the top particle physicists in the world. There was a list of a few thousand scientists floating around somewhere...I'm sure you can find it.

Jasper Kirkby is presumably who you are referring to. About 10 years ago he said something to the effect that cosmic rays might be "most to all" of the reason for GW. More recently, he said something to the effect that it will probably turn out to be one factor of many. If Kirkby flipped after climategate, or flipped at all, I might have missed a more recent article about him.

Theon, a retired NASA scientist - he is a skeptic. However, I don't see him on record prior to last month.

In case there is confusion about my question - there has been an assertion that scientists have been rapidly migrating from believer to skeptic in the very recent past, and most particularly since "climategate." Those are the names I'm looking for.

- wolf

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

First you need a legit problem, before you can discuss Pile.

Looks like the Met Office thinks there's a legit problem that needs to be addressed.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022410_metproposal.pdf

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Jasper Kirkby is presumably who you are referring to. About 10 years ago he said something to the effect that cosmic rays might be "most to all" of the reason for GW. More recently, he said something to the effect that it will probably turn out to be one factor of many. If Kirkby flipped after climategate, or flipped at all, I might have missed a more recent article about him.

Theon, a retired NASA scientist - he is a skeptic. However, I don't see him on record prior to last month.

In case there is confusion about my question - there has been an assertion that scientists have been rapidly migrating from believer to skeptic in the very recent past, and most particularly since "climategate." Those are the names I'm looking for.

- wolf

Yes...I meant Jasper..thanks.

It appears that I didn't explain myself very well previously…let me clarify. There has been a pronounced migration away from FUD and political spin by the science community since Climategate. If you follow these things, you've recently seen numerous 'spin science' studies (many of which are non-peer reviewed and used by the IPCC in violation of their own rules) exposed for what they really are (politically motivated FUD)...from polar bear population scares, to greatly exaggerated glacier melt, bogus predictions of increased intensity of natural disasters, and massive sea level rise predictions. You may have recently seen an AGW scientist who came forward to say his work was twisted by the IPCC. You see major temperature data manipulation issues in Australia and New Zealand being exposed to the light of day, not to mention the Climategate issues and what was being done by the IPCC inner circle in regard to falsifying tree ring proxy data, manipulating the peer review process, ignoring FOIA requests, manipulating and deleting (or losing) key data, and God knows what else.

The data and it's manipulation as well as the lack of transparency in this field has always been controversial from Day One...today I see in the news that there are efforts underway to reanalyze the surface temperature data and make it available to everyone in a common databank, that data adjustment methods will be fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny, the use of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent groups using independent methods, comprehensive audit trails to deliver confidence in the results, and robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and geographical in homogeneities. Here's an executive summary of the changes being proposed by the Met Office to WMO. This proposal is a direct result of Climategate and a necessary first step in rebuilding the trust and credibility in this 'political tainted' field of science...trust and credibility that was totally destroyed by an inner circle of people who effectively controlled the IPCC. Here's an executive summary of the Met Office proposal. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022410_metproposal.pdf

Bottom line...I believe what we're now seeing is a significant turning point in this field of science as a direct result of the Climategate fallout and a migration of the scientific community away from unsubstantiated FUD and politics. It's as if the scientific community finally woke up and realized that many of their practices were actually contrary to good science. How did it ever get this messed up in the first place? Go figure.

 

[monovillage]

"On the Credibility of Climate Research" is an interesting article written by Dr. Judith Curry and sent to numerous blogs for comment.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/...te-research-part-ii-towards-rebuilding-trust/

She asked for comments and input from different blog authors, so far a number of skeptic and lukewarmer sites have responded, nothing from the establishment ones. This response by Thomas Fuller has links to different blogs.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Envi...Curry-and-the-Credibility-of-Climate-Research

An interesting read (at least to me)

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"On the Credibility of Climate Research" is an interesting article written by Dr. Judith Curry and sent to numerous blogs for comment.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/...te-research-part-ii-towards-rebuilding-trust/

She asked for comments and input from different blog authors, so far a number of skeptic and lukewarmer sites have responded, nothing from the establishment ones. This response by Thomas Fuller has links to different blogs.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Envi...Curry-and-the-Credibility-of-Climate-Research

An interesting read (at least to me)

Excellent article! A must read for anyone legitimately interested in the subject.

 

[HumblePie]

Jasper Kirkby is presumably who you are referring to. About 10 years ago he said something to the effect that cosmic rays might be "most to all" of the reason for GW. More recently, he said something to the effect that it will probably turn out to be one factor of many. If Kirkby flipped after climategate, or flipped at all, I might have missed a more recent article about him.

Theon, a retired NASA scientist - he is a skeptic. However, I don't see him on record prior to last month.

In case there is confusion about my question - there has been an assertion that scientists have been rapidly migrating from believer to skeptic in the very recent past, and most particularly since "climategate." Those are the names I'm looking for.

- wolf

Ahh... but the list continues...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

This needs to be updated though. The list has been getting larger and larger recently.

Basically, the lie about "the entire scientific community is behind global warming" is about as bunk as most of the conclusions of climate data (unskewed and skewed) the supporters of it are pushing.

Since I am seeing a growing number of scientists from the community starting to flip from supporting man made AGW to being skeptical, I guess I am not doing the correct "layman" thing since there are still scientists that support the views of AGW and Al Gore?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Raw Data

'Adjusted' Data

"The adjusted urban data set’s and raw urban data set’s rates of temperature increase are the same. This suggests the consequence of the NCDC’s protocol for adjusting the data is to cause historical data to take on the time-line characteristics of urban data. The consequence intended or not, is to report a false rate of temperature increase for the Contiguous U. S."
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/temperature_trends.html

 

[monovillage]

Here's a good quote about climate scientists from an article in Forbes.com and it's so nicely worded.

"Now, as the theory of man-made global warming unravels, scientists are suddenly and devastatingly revealed as fallible, mendacious, self-seeking, criminally secretive, furtively trying to hide their errors, debasing the system of peer review of scientific papers and conspiring to conceal the truth from once highly respected professional publications. The image of the scientist who puts the pursuit of truth before anything else has been shattered and replaced by a man on the make or a quasi-religious enthusiast who wants to prove his case at any cost. Science is becoming the tool of campaigning warfare, in which truth is the first casualty."

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0315/opinions-paul-johnson-barack-obama-current-events.html

 

[Narmer]

Here's a good quote about climate scientists from an article in Forbes.com and it's so nicely worded.

"Now, as the theory of man-made global warming unravels, scientists are suddenly and devastatingly revealed as fallible, mendacious, self-seeking, criminally secretive, furtively trying to hide their errors, debasing the system of peer review of scientific papers and conspiring to conceal the truth from once highly respected professional publications. The image of the scientist who puts the pursuit of truth before anything else has been shattered and replaced by a man on the make or a quasi-religious enthusiast who wants to prove his case at any cost. Science is becoming the tool of campaigning warfare, in which truth is the first casualty."

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0315/opinions-paul-johnson-barack-obama-current-events.html

Yep. There is strong groupthink and heavy pressure to tow the line, lest you want to lose your position and reputation and be ostricized. I never understood why scientists are so passionate about something when they should always have a critical eye and be full of self-doubt.

 

[monovillage]

Institute of Physics submission to the U.K. Parliamentary Committee which is investigating Hadley CRU Climategate emails

"1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.



2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. " ....................

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_cru_inquiry.cfm

 

[WHAMPOM]

What's bunk are the ridiculous conclusions being drawn from present data... not to mention data-tampering.

If the present (tampered)data leads to ridiculous conclusions, what faith do you have in Past Climate Charts drawn up from even more questionable data?

 

[Atheus]

Here's a good quote about climate scientists from an article in Forbes.com and it's so nicely worded.

"Now, as the theory of man-made global warming unravels, scientists are suddenly and devastatingly revealed as fallible, mendacious, self-seeking, criminally secretive, furtively trying to hide their errors, debasing the system of peer review of scientific papers and conspiring to conceal the truth from once highly respected professional publications. The image of the scientist who puts the pursuit of truth before anything else has been shattered and replaced by a man on the make or a quasi-religious enthusiast who wants to prove his case at any cost. Science is becoming the tool of campaigning warfare, in which truth is the first casualty."

So science is bad... and what would you replace it with exactly?

 

[monovillage]

So science is bad... and what would you replace it with exactly?

I've never said, and the post did not say that science is bad. What it does say is that bad science is bad, junk science is bad, advocacy science is bad. Read the quote, it specifically mentions the faults in climate science. Here's a short quote for you.

"criminally secretive, furtively trying to hide their errors, debasing the system of peer review of scientific papers and conspiring to conceal the truth from once highly respected professional publications."

Here's an example of advocacy science. "Whaling speeds up Climate Change"

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Res...16/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[sandorski]

I've never said, and the post did not say that science is bad. What it does say is that bad science is bad, junk science is bad, advocacy science is bad. Read the quote, it specifically mentions the faults in climate science. Here's a short quote for you.

"criminally secretive, furtively trying to hide their errors, debasing the system of peer review of scientific papers and conspiring to conceal the truth from once highly respected professional publications."

Here's an example of advocacy science. "Whaling speeds up Climate Change"

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Res...16/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Irony is strong.

 

[NeoV]

the final take-away from this thread is that the funding done to keep the anti-GW crowd believing any little tid-bit they are fed is working

 

[Amused]

So science is bad... and what would you replace it with exactly?

Hardly. To take that from his quote is just silly.

It says what we all should already know. That science, no matter how objective it tries to be, it done by humans who are just as biased, subjective and prone to corruption as the rest of us. That science is as corruptible as religion when the masses are told they are too stupid to understand and to just have faith in the preists... I mean scientists.

It means that we SHOULD question everything.

 

[Amused]

Irony is strong.

Only with you.

 

[Amused]

the final take-away from this thread is that the funding done to keep the anti-GW crowd believing any little tid-bit they are fed is working

Talk about irony...

 

[Shuxclams]

I say we wait and see. Let's keep polluting, over fishing, drill as much Oil as we can and burn it just to keep the price high and start using all sorts of chemicals for no reason at all. Let's really show those un-Americana idiots on the left that humans are incapable of changing the environment. God made it for us to use so let's use it!


SHUX

You all realize your pawns of Big Business right?