Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Undoubtedly.
But independently of their machinations or lack there of.
There is something to be skeptical of.

If you cannot see it.
Well.

This whole scene is exactly the same as the UFO situation. Government and connected officials has its position strongly staked out from the beginning and any scientist with a finger in the wind, such as Carl Sagan was, learns to not buck the system. So it becomes a political game, not real Science.

(For readers thinking I have violated Sagan's integrity, I suggest that they read William Poundstone's authorized biography of Sagan and trace Sagan's career as he switched sides and become the government's pet boy for keeping the keeping real science out of the UFO debate. He did an excellent job of it.)

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I don't know where your from but here in America we are inundated with lie after lie from the current administration and have purity much walked away from believing anyone about anything unless we can prove it to our selves in a way that use's common sense, and reasoning mixed with some logic.
As long as the corrupt control freak's are in charge this will continue, lies and deception are all these types have to further there agenda of controlling the ignorant mass's of which there are plenty ... at least in America.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

If you haven't noticed, they call it "climate change" now for a reason... because the anthropogenic part has fallen apart. Now it's just "climate change", and since the planet has warmed more in some places, and cooled more in others, they can't really call it "global warming" anymore, because it's not just warming by itself.

This is not correct.

Frank Luntz was behind the change in terminology during the Bush administration. From The Guardian:

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

Words such as "common sense" should be used, with pro-business arguments avoided wherever possible.

The environment, the memo says, "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable".

So it's not correct because of one person? LOL

Just because one person is behind a change in terminology doesn't mean it gets adopted by the masses. In order for that to happen, it has to be accepted on some level and socialized that way.

Please show me in some documented way, the chain of events leading up to today, of how this one person has changed the acceptance of the terminology across just about every social network, news station, talking heads, politicians, etc.

Frank Luntz is a nobody, and the Guardian giving him credit for changing a globally accepted term is quite the stretch, at best.

This is at best misleading. Climate models are always approximations, not falsifiable experiments. Climate is an enormously complex system and highly susceptible to short term variations and given the level of noise, ten years is an absurdly short period of time for assessing the utility of the models.

You are indirectly stating the same points that I have so there must not be anything misleading about what I said if you are echoing it.

Yes, climate is enormously complex, that's the problem. You can't model it properly.

Your argument that ten years is an absurdly short period of time to assess models is completely false, and unless you work in the field of data modeling, I can assure you that 10 years is a VERY LONG TIME to work on a model. I can properly verify and validate any data model for chemistry and physics.... why is that? Those models aren't being refined anymore, new ones are added as additional experiments and OBSERVATION produce repeatable, mathematical results (since we use math to describe nature).

Why do you think there are packaged software applications that are used by elementary school kids to model chemical and physical reactions? Because the variables are well understood, reliable and produce repeatable results.

Therefore, those models are used for just about every engineering job you can imagine.

Can anyone say the same for a weather or climate model? Why are they always being refined?

No.

Why have they been worked on for DECADES and still can't accurately predict either?

Because models are not APPROXIMATIONS, they are used for PREDICTING OUTCOMES based on a set of INPUTS.

Please don't mislead people into thinking that a model which uses the KNOWN laws of physics and can produce a repeatable outcome based on the data you give it is anything like a climate model. We've gone to the moon and mars and put satellites to the extremes of our solar system based on THOSE models. We can't predict if it will rain today with weather models, and climate models are just an extrapolation of the weather over an extended period of time.

The shortcomings of models doesn't mean that CO2 levels aren't increasing steadily (who is refuting this?), that human activity isn't responsible for this increase or that the long-term result won't be warming of the planet.

Yes, actually. Those shortcomings do mean exactly that.

You don't seem to understand that just about everything in climate science today is based on models.

There is no proof that human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. Until we can identify every CO2 source, every sink, accurately measure absorption and emission and sequestrations, etc, it remains disproven and speculative. As you mentioned yourself, it's too complex to model it correctly, so you can't reliably base ANY decisions on the models UNTIL they are more correlated to OBSERVATION and MEASUREMENTS, which it is NOT.

It's very easy to MAKE the model show temperature sensitivity to CO2 changes, which is why some may THINK that CO2 will lead to increased warming.... even though the entire historical record (with exception of 1-2 isolated events) shows that temperature has always risen before CO2.

I encourage you and the OP to read what Mr. Pielke has said about global warming himself. Here are some of the take home points from a report he delivered to the US House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform in 2006 (PDF here):

1. Human-caused climate change is real and requires attention by policy makers to
both mitigation and adaptation – but there is no quick fix; the issue will be with us
for decades and longer.

....

Interesting that he's the very first source cited to kick off this denial thread and yet... dun dun dun... "human-caused climate change is real and requires attention"

This is typical behavior for someone who can't debate the merits of the subject matter and has to resort to attacking the individual contributors character.

Do humans chop down forests? YES.
Do humans pave millions of black roads? YES.
Do humans pollute? YES.
Do humans farm and build everywhere? YES.

Do all of the above things cause changes to the local climate, which could lead to larger changes? SURE.

Does this mean that CO2 is the cause of that change?

Absolutely not.

Why can't he (Pielke) or anyone else be referring to these activities?

Without predictability, global warming falls apart, period.

It's the same reason people still bring an umbrella to work, even though the forecast says "slight" chance of rain. If the weather could be accurately predicted, so could the climate.

~Namaste

The thing is that 'Global warming' hasn't been about the 'science' for the last 2 decades.

The only thing it is about is the politics now.

Fact:

The US government already has the power to 'REGULATE' business.

They ALREADY have laws they have written-( The Clean Air Act)

They ALREADY have an organization that makes up it's own rules (EPA).

Why people are going on and on about 'global warming' now is beyond ludicrous.

Pay attention to global warming people.

It shows us ALL who the real NEOCONS are.

They are trying to control the entire PLANET now.

Yeah it's a hoax because what they are saying now is the government needs MORE power, and what they have done with the previous legislation has not been 'working'.

The Clean Act has been a 'failure'.

The EPA has been a 'failure'.

But they need MORE power, and control over our lives.

Yeah It's a hoax.

a reply to: neo96

Yes it is a hoax, along with the claims about Russia, ISIS, and every other dam thing they do.

Do not limit yourself to believing it is not all part of the same cloth, to obfuscate and limit data, across the board.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lanisius

Who in their right mind would fall for government(s) financially backing scientists that advocate AGW and use data collected via computer modeling as proof?

Who in their right mind would ignore actual science and listen to denial and obfuscation of facts by organizations funded by energy (oil) companies?

Who in their right mind would believe actual science is being done anywhere within reason ?

And how is stopping to think about any of it going to do something about "It".

Unless you PERSONALLY evolve and realize that you are being lied to on a far grander scale than you believe, you will make ZERO difference.

Those of us who can actually see what to do, well, we are waiting (barely hanging on) to see if anyone has the gall, the cahones to DARE to be all , to take a step beyond the norm.

It is quite sad watching the apparent brilliant minds wallow in the mud, never looking for the truth.

When Al Gore won the Nobel peace prize for his fear mongering report.. I lost all interest in the global warming debate.. Then news of carbon credits and various environmental footprint taxes were being discussed. I knew it was a shame.. that being said.

I do believe our current civilisation is by far the worst of all.. we do need to change and get in a more balanced and harmonious relationship with our environment.

Excellent work Op, there are quite a number of great replies also..

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
There is no proof that human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. Until we can identify every CO2 source, every sink, accurately measure absorption and emission and sequestrations, etc, it remains disproven and speculative. As you mentioned yourself, it's too complex to model it correctly, so you can't reliably base ANY decisions on the models UNTIL they are more correlated to OBSERVATION and MEASUREMENTS, which it is NOT.

WRONG, please read the relevant information about carbon isotopes. The carbon cycle is why we can date organic material ie the amount of c14 decreases with age. Fossil fuels when burnt produce CO2 with no c14. The measurement of the various amounts of isotopes in CO2 allows us to determine the source of the CO2:

Man made due to fossil fuel burning

It's very easy to MAKE the model show temperature sensitivity to CO2 changes, which is why some may THINK that CO2 will lead to increased warming.... even though the entire historical record (with exception of 1-2 isolated events) shows that temperature has always risen before CO2.

True but fails to understand the difference between a trigger and a feedback mechanism. In the past CO2 rises were not a trigger but simply due to feedback hence the lag. Man in his infinite wisdom has created a situation where CO2 is a trigger.....we will be well screwed once the CO2 feedback kicks in.

So yet again a nice long AGW reply which fails miserably to understand some basics of climate science.

Don't forget about zoology......although most skeptics ignore that completely!

The way to have a conspiracy without anyone knowing its a conspiracy (even those working for the government) is a need to know basis and compartmentalization. You get only your piece of the conspiratorial puzzle, but not a piece so big that you can put the whole puzzle together. You then pass it up to a higher rank than you who puts more and more together and passes it up. At the top....they already know about the conspiracy, because they are in on it and sworn to an oath, usually in some club like the Freemasons or Skull and Bones....or the illuminati. Everyone below them....number in the hundreds of thousands and just take orders.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Frank Luntz is a nobody, and the Guardian giving him credit for changing a globally accepted term is quite the stretch, at best.

If you believe that Frank Luntz is a nobody, then you haven't been paying attention. Do you also believe that George W. Bush is a nobody? This was your original statement of opinion that's was supposed to bolster your argument and it's simply NOT TRUE:

If you haven't noticed, they call it "climate change" now for a reason... because the anthropogenic part has fallen apart. Now it's just "climate change", and since the planet has warmed more in some places, and cooled more in others, they can't really call it "global warming" anymore, because it's not just warming by itself.

Frank Luntz is the spin master behind changing terminology to reframe many politicized issues — for example the "estate tax" being called the "death tax" and healthcare reform efforts "the government takeover of healthcare" and so on. Here are some more links relevant to the change in terminology to "climate change" :

Global warming vs. climate change, taxes vs. prices: Does word choice matter?
WHAT’S IN A NAME? GLOBAL WARMING VERSUS CLIMATE CHANGE
Global warming vs climate change
Rational Wiki: Frank Luntz
Mediate - Fox News’ Frank Luntz: Successfully Inserting Opinion in Opinion Research
All the President's Spin: George W. Bush, the Media, and the Truth

Why do you think there are packaged software applications that are used by elementary school kids to model chemical and physical reactions? Because the variables are well understood, reliable and produce repeatable results.

What you're doing is creating a false equivalence. You're pretty smug for somebody who doesn't appear to understand the difference between deterministic and stochastic modeling or discrete and continuous data.

This is typical behavior for someone who can't debate the merits of the subject matter and has to resort to attacking the individual contributors character.

Yeah. We're all familiar with ad hominem attacks and that's what this thread is ALL about. Ironically, if not surprisingly, this statement of yours is an example of one.

There is no proof that human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. Until we can identify every CO2 source, every sink, accurately measure absorption and emission and sequestrations, etc, it remains disproven and speculative. As you mentioned yourself, it's too complex to model it correctly, so you can't reliably base ANY decisions on the models UNTIL they are more correlated to OBSERVATION and MEASUREMENTS, which it is NOT.

Not only is it a practical impossibility to account for every molecule of CO2, it's completely unnecessary. Simply accounting for the bulk of variables suffices to make reasonable approximations. You're setting an impossibly high standard. In a not-so-roundabout way, you're forcing a requirement that climate scientists prove a negative. That is, that they prove that some unidentified sequestration doesn't exist which is like saying:

Just because human beings are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't mean that unicorns aren't eating it all up!

It's the same reason people still bring an umbrella to work, even though the forecast says "slight" chance of rain. If the weather could be accurately predicted, so could the climate.

I think you've hit upon the crux of the problem. You don't seem to understand the difference between climate and weather. One thing that forecasting of both have in common is that it's INHERENTLY PROBABILISTIC (see I can put things in caps too) but they're worlds apart in terms of sensitivity to short-term variations (noise).

One wouldn't need to predict the precise temperature on January 1, 2016 in New York, NY, USA to know with an extremely high degree of certainty that it will be less than the temperature on August 1, 2016 in New York, NY, USA.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

It's very easy to MAKE the model show temperature sensitivity to CO2 changes, which is why some may THINK that CO2 will lead to increased warming.... even though the entire historical record (with exception of 1-2 isolated events) shows that temperature has always risen before CO2.

I didn't mean to let this slide by without comment. First I'd like to point out for all of your railing against the use of proxies (I mean, PROXIES), you're quick to accept them when you feel it's expedient because obviously, you didn't hop into your time machine and journey into the past to take MEASUREMENTS and make OBSERVATIONS.

There's a couple of reasonable (and not mutually exclusive) explanations for the often cited criticism that CO2 lags temperature historically.

1. CO2 increases were in fact, not lagging temperature increases at all and the correlation of proxy data from different parts of the world (unintentionally or by cherry picking) can be used to construct cool graphs that show whatever you want.

2. Orbital forcing led to a release of CO2 from the oceans kick-starting a positive feedback loop. That is, that the oceans warmed up, CO2 was released, CO2 created additional warming (radiative forcing) which increased ocean temperatures and released more CO2 into the atmosphere and so on.

a reply to: theantediluvian

First things first:

You need to be able to verify whether the historical raw temperature data is actually correct in order to stake a claim that any of the current climate change is "unprecidented".

And since decades upon decades of historical raw temperature data has gone missing, this cannot be done. It cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven.

Therefore, any further arguments on this subject are completely moot.


So since there is not enough true historical raw data to work with, climate science has ceased to be science and has become nothing better than climate supposition.

Non-verifiable data fails the most basic of scientific methodologies.

Period.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
There is no proof that human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. Until we can identify every CO2 source, every sink, accurately measure absorption and emission and sequestrations, etc, it remains disproven and speculative. As you mentioned yourself, it's too complex to model it correctly, so you can't reliably base ANY decisions on the models UNTIL they are more correlated to OBSERVATION and MEASUREMENTS, which it is NOT.

WRONG, please read the relevant information about carbon isotopes. The carbon cycle is why we can date organic material ie the amount of c14 decreases with age. Fossil fuels when burnt produce CO2 with no c14. The measurement of the various amounts of isotopes in CO2 allows us to determine the source of the CO2:

Man made due to fossil fuel burning

It's very easy to MAKE the model show temperature sensitivity to CO2 changes, which is why some may THINK that CO2 will lead to increased warming.... even though the entire historical record (with exception of 1-2 isolated events) shows that temperature has always risen before CO2.

True but fails to understand the difference between a trigger and a feedback mechanism. In the past CO2 rises were not a trigger but simply due to feedback hence the lag. Man in his infinite wisdom has created a situation where CO2 is a trigger.....we will be well screwed once the CO2 feedback kicks in.

I would recommend you go back through and re-read a few things first. I'm very well aware of how fossil fuel carbon is identified, I have already state in other posts how much of it is relative to the other carbon mixed in the atmosphere.

Mauna Lao does not identify different isotopes. It's mixed CO2. The argument was on the reliability of the data and how it is used in models.

I also never brought up carbon isotopes and their increase or decrease in the atmosphere. We can measure C14 as a way of identifying carbon that ALSO comes from fossil fuels, not solely... because it also comes from atomic bomb testing we did in the 1950s-1960s, and it also comes from cosmic rays striking the atmosphere and converting N14 to C14. The sun protects us from cosmic rays, as does the magnetic field of the earth, both of which have shown a decrease - the suns activity and sunspot output is at a major low, and the magnetic field of the earth is measurably weaker than it has been in decades. I suppose you will say both are negligible, but there are plenty of studies that disagree and show that there are other data points that impact the C14 measurements.

The EFFECT CO2 has on the climate, is what is in question, not what isotope we use to identify it.

The amount of CO2 that composes the atmosphere is roughly 3%. Water vapor and the other gases make up the rest. Of the 3% that is in the atmosphere from ALL sources, C14 derived from humans is approximately .03% of the total CO2 in the entire atmosphere. This is not substantial enough to cause the OBSERVED changes in climate.

Your relationship between a trigger and a feedback is lacking in evidence, because while you acknowledge that temperature triggered CO2, that does not imply that the relationship is inverted. That would have created a feedback loop which never happened.

So yet again a nice long AGW reply which fails miserably to understand some basics of climate science.

Don't forget about zoology......although most skeptics ignore that completely!

Since you are so well versed in climate science, show us all where CLOUDS are factored in to climate change, since they are the single largest contributor to warming AND cooling? I'm sure you've got a graph, or a paper, or something you can reference?

You know, since man, and your infinite wisdom, can enlighten all of us?

Yet another drive-by response, with no depth, no revelations and no substance that fails miserably to take an objective, non-biased look at opposing points of view.

~Namaste

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

It's very easy to MAKE the model show temperature sensitivity to CO2 changes, which is why some may THINK that CO2 will lead to increased warming.... even though the entire historical record (with exception of 1-2 isolated events) shows that temperature has always risen before CO2.

I didn't mean to let this slide by without comment. First I'd like to point out for all of your railing against the use of proxies (I mean, PROXIES), you're quick to accept them when you feel it's expedient because obviously, you didn't hop into your time machine and journey into the past to take MEASUREMENTS and make OBSERVATIONS.

There's a couple of reasonable (and not mutually exclusive) explanations for the often cited criticism that CO2 lags temperature historically.

1. CO2 increases were in fact, not lagging temperature increases at all and the correlation of proxy data from different parts of the world (unintentionally or by cherry picking) can be used to construct cool graphs that show whatever you want.

2. Orbital forcing led to a release of CO2 from the oceans kick-starting a positive feedback loop. That is, that the oceans warmed up, CO2 was released, CO2 created additional warming (radiative forcing) which increased ocean temperatures and released more CO2 into the atmosphere and so on.

Where did I "accept" proxies? I don't think I took a position either way, so you are trying to paint me into something I'm not. Please show me where I was biased one way or the other. I accept their use when used properly, there is a difference.

Predicting future climate to base international policy and law from is not one of them.

And your two "reasonable" explanations... are certainly "reasonable", and once said "reason" is applied, neither can be proven, so they are moot. The second is a more likely explanation, but not for every instance where CO2 lagged temperature.

Off-topic, but for the record, I use CAPS when I don't want to add 7 extra characters to bold something that needs emphasis... you know, less keystrokes = less energy, so I'm reducing my carbon footprint.

Smug I am?

I'm Kettle, nice to meet you Pot.

~Namaste

a reply to: theantediluvian

Trying to prove that one man can cause a change in terminology on every continent on the planet is just silly and completely off-topic. The "spin master", as though that somehow is supposed to give him power over me and my understanding of things.

You have no way of proving that he is responsible for anything that has to do with climate change, and linking me background on the guy is not going to convince me of that. I know who he is, and I know what he does. What you're saying is pure conjecture and speculation on your part.

Here is some factual data on "terms" used thanks to Google Trends:



A nice graph that shows how global warming is decreasing over time, and climate change is increasing. Notice how climate change has "followed" global warming but recently global warming has decreased significantly in searches?



Another showing how "anthropogenic" fits in. Wow, notice that interesting sharp increase in 2007, right around the same time the IPCC report was released and publicized?

So while you attribute it to "spin doctors" and one man with seemingly infinite propaganda control, I attribute it to people's searches and what they believe is the right "term" to look for answers to their questions.

You're pretty smug for somebody who doesn't appear to understand the difference between deterministic and stochastic modeling or discrete and continuous data.

In one sentence, you are both calling me smug (ad hom) and insulting my intellectual abilities and my degree of knowledge in a specific field, without knowing who I am, my experience, where I've been, or the work I do. Nice display of character.

If I don't understand the difference, please show me where that "appeared" in something I said rather than simply trying to insult or imply something.

You don't seem to understand the difference between climate and weather.

I guess NOAA doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather either.

From NOAA:

Climate is the weather in a location averaged over a long period of time.

Your example of the temp on 1/1/2016 vs 8/1/2016 in NY is completely irrelevant.

A "high degree of certainty" is not evidence enough of being correct unless it has a statistical probability associated with it to show that the uncertainty that remains is not by chance. Key assumptions are well understood up-front. A margin of error goes along with it.

Where is that present in climate science? In the studies themselves? Where is the certainty in the accuracy of the data?

You're right with probability, it works with degrees of certainty...

There was a high degree of certainty that stress is what caused ulcers for over a hundred years, until observation and evidence provided enough to determine that is was caused by H. Pylori.

There was a high degree of certainty in Greek times that the liver was what pumped blood through the entire body, until it was discovered in the 1600's that it was the heart.

There was a high degree of certainty in the medical field that there was no need to wash your hands before surgery so we practiced it and killed who knows how many people until germ theory was understood in the 1800s.

There was a high degree of certainty that the continents didn't move until early this last century.

WHOOOOPS!

Of course, there will be mistakes and changes along the way... but to believe that we should make life-changing decisions on a hunch or a probability that has inaccurate data supporting it is not "reasonable".

Let's keep talking about not needing to be precise and how well our degrees of certainty and consensus has worked out for us in the past....

~Namaste

a reply to: CranialSponge

I don't know why you've put "unprecidented[sic]" in quotes. I didn't make any claims about climate change being unprecedented but since we're going this route, let me offer you an analogy:

If my house was struck by lightning and burned to the ground ten years ago, there's a precedent for my house burning to the ground. That doesn't mean that if I start a bonfire in my living room and burn my house to the ground tomorrow, I'm somehow not responsible.

That the CRU hasn't maintained historical raw station data for surface temp is unfortunate but they're not the repository for this raw temp data let alone the source. They're not presenting the raw data, they're presenting their analysis so I'm not sure why they are obligated to maintain the raw data. The same can be said of the GISS. Unfortunately, I'm going to be walking out the door shortly, so I don't have a lot of time to devote to this at the moment but my understanding is that the raw data in both cases originates primarily from among others, the GHCN and USHCN datasets which are in fact, available via NCDC, in both raw and quality-controlled versions.

If you reread the OP, there is an excerpt from a Brietbart article by well known denier, James Delingpole, which references a blog post by Steven Goddard who *gasp* says he did his own analysis of the raw data that you're claiming doesn't exist. I'm guessing he got it from the NCDC, here.

The biggest issue isn't really that there is missing data, it's in how the data is analysed or in the case of the CRU and GISS, precisely which raw data they used (though this is actually referenced in publications so this is actually a lot to do about nothing). The methodology used to analyze the data set is actually the biggest point of contention. That's why the question exists, "how did you arrive at this conclusion?"

The real questions are not why the CRU doesn't have the raw data archived but if they're being forthright about the source of their data and as with the GISS, if the method they use to correct for temporal and spatial inconsistencies (quality control, smoothing, whatever) is sound (HadCRUT3/HadCRUT4, GISTEMP) and has been changed to fit political agendas.

I do know that there have been/are efforts to independently verify at least the resultant GISTEMP data set and one of these projects can be found here.

So ultimately, sources of raw data do in fact exist and that renders your statement itself moot.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I'll likely come back to this later as I'm currently pressed for time, but let me address a few things briefly:

I'm Kettle, nice to meet you Pot.

You started it!

Of course, there will be mistakes and changes along the way... but to believe that we should make life-changing decisions on a hunch or a probability that has inaccurate data supporting it is not "reasonable".

I agree with this statement but I'll add that the art of denial is one of inserting doubt by any means. What would otherwise be seen as improved methodology or reluctance to admit to unexpected results, which very well could themselves be in error, is painted as conspiratorial suppression and revision intended to push a political agenda.

The simple truth is that the radical changes that many proponents have suggested are politically and often, in purely practical terms, infeasible. The flip side of that is doing nothing at all carries a potentially worse hazard. Ironically, I think that my view of the situation isn't terribly different from Mr. Pielke's as expressed in the report I linked to. What makes the most sense to me is to begin efforts to do what mitigation we can reasonably do and relentlessly pursue ever more sustainable and less impacting technology, while climatologists continue to increase their understanding of the factors impacting climate and improve the accuracy of their climate models.

In my opinion, there's no reason other than the force of competing political agendas to either hop on the Al Gore and friends carbon-credit bandwagon or throw in with the Koch and friends funded Heartland Institute fossil-fuels-are-gifts-from-God camp.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The OP argument centers on the idea that there is no raw data at the CRU. Therefore, everything they say is wrong. However, there was only collected data. The raw data was held at individual sites globally, collected at various levels before being forwarded and collected again at national and international levels.

Did you deliberately exclude the relevant information from the CRU in regards to these requests?

We receive numerous requests for these station data (not just monthly temperature averages, but precipitation totals and pressure averages as well). Requests come from a variety of sources, often for an individual station or all the stations in a region or a country. Sometimes these come because the data cannot be obtained locally or the requester does not have the resources to pay for what some NMSs charge for the data. These data are not ours to provide without the full permission of the relevant NMSs, organizations and scientists.

They (CRU) are working with the best data they have available. If you'd like to study the climate yourself, then please, by all means, obtain the data from the thousands of global sites and publish your paper. I would love to read it. Instead, this is one huge ad hominem OP based on a blog post from five years ago.

If AGW wasn't real and never occurred we wouldn't have 97% of scientific papers saying it.

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
-Tolstoy

a reply to: links234

If AGW wasn't real and never occurred we wouldn't have 97% of scientific papers saying it.

Fallacious thinking at it's finest.........

“The security provided by a long-held belief system, even when poorly founded, is a strong impediment to progress. General acceptance of a practice becomes the proof of its validity, though it lacks all other merit.”
- Dr. B. Lown, invented defibrillator