reply to post by atlasastro
Sorry, but I asked the OP to point out where in the source article linked to the wikileaks cables, does it state that AGW is a hoax.
It was a simple question relating to a specific source that was used to make a specific statement.
That is where my answer best lies.
My point was to demonstrate to you that government policy designed to influence economics is going to inherently influence the culture of scientific
I guess I should apply this to your post and your reference to information systems. I am going to thank you in advance for allowing me to show
that the denial of global warming, and the opinion that it is a hoax, can be found within key "nodes" that statistically speaking present an
over-representation of doubt and skepticism in relation to the spectrum of the debate
Skepticism is the scientific default. Inconclusive data cannot be used to justify a conclusion that draws anything other than "inconclusive."
To reference the node based systems, major nodes have accepted the notion of global warming (the impending crisis - climate change is a given, the
climate has been changing for time eternal - to expect it to stop is naivete to the extreme) while many individuals have not accepted it and taken a
skeptical stance. This is akin to a virus infecting major cities and population centers but not affecting more isolated regions. Or the inverse - a
virus being treated and 'eliminated' from most major populations, but continuing to have small outbreaks in those areas from time to time due to
transmissions from more isolated regions that have not received the vaccine.
In either case - "global warming" is the positive that must be proven.
Lets apply the AGW debate to your analogy.
I like my analogy better, and it is far more relevant. You are confusing two different, but related systems. There are communication/information
systems that simply relay concepts and ideas. Then there are actual research/data systems, like universities. The two sit on a gray area where a
university acts as a credential for communication/information/distribution.
I understand that.
AGW is not limited to a single source.
The sources of data are confined to a few sources. Measurements of sea levels are largely done by satellite and the methods used for finding averages
are highly controversial. Ultimately - it all falls back on the physical measurements done at harbors to calibrate the formulas. The deal with that,
however, is a complete lack of consistency in reporting and quality control standards. The data must be filtered before it can even begin to be used
to draw any kind of conclusion - and you introduce bias the moment you do that. It also does not help that the "average" difference between any
given year is well within the margin of error for the set of data.
Temperature records fall into the same catch-22 where the two sets of data from satellites and ground stations appear to collaborate, but in reality,
the satellite data is derived from formulas inherently designed to give a similar result to the recorded data. Again - problems arise in consistency
of reporting, accuracy of instruments, and local issues. Temperatures in a city are going to be much warmer on the average than areas just half a
mile outside of the city - thereby creating a huge problem in the recorded statistics.
What it all amounts to is the recorded averages tend to rise and fall well within the margin of error for the data - which makes drawing conclusions
from it irresponsible from a scientific standpoint.
Here's some interesting reading: www.cato.org...
As pointed out by Ross Gelbspan in The Washington Post four weeks ago, some of these scientists, myself included, enjoy industry research support.
(In my case, 84 percent of my university research is funded by taxpayers.) His figures show an average of 835,000 per year to a few people. The U.S.
government spends $2.1 billion per year on global change research and it's hard to believe so much would be spent on researchers who would say "no
problem." Accepting Gelbspan's contention that there are 2,000 climate scientists (there are actually about 60 PhDs in climatology in the entire
United States), that's a cool million dollars per scientist, every year.
So, even as long as ten years ago - that's a very small group of people. Not a single source - but even all of these climate researchers didn't
agree back then.
The argument is simple and was summerised by another member MC_Squared, whom I will quote:
It can be broken down to a number of straightforward things:
Nothing involving a system as massive as the climate is simple. Chaotic systems behave in ways that are nearly impossible to predict and
extraordinarily difficult to model without direct experimentation. We simply do not have the capacity to experiment on a system of this scale, and
all of the models and predictions are subject to the problem of limited understanding of the factors involved. It is theorized that life created much
of the known compounds on the planet - even down to the mineral composition of many rocks and geological formations - something completely
unprecedented when the Earth was nothing more than a ball of rock-on-fire and gas.
But I'll play along.
1. The Greenhouse Effect is real.
Yes, it was not that great of a movie.
The problem with the Greenhouse Effect is the inherent problem with small-scale closed-system studies on macroscopic open systems. Demonstrating any
kind of causal relationship between various gas concentrations in the atmosphere and global temperature has not been accomplished outside of data-sets
consisting only of data within a 50 year time-span.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
So is water. It's even worse. And this is where our models break down. As global temperatures increase, the saturation point increases
considerably which allows for more water to evaporate and be contained within the atmosphere. However, this will also lead to more cloud formation
and precipitation - which work to reflect and attenuate sunlight. So, will more water make it warmer or act as a fail-safe? There is no real way of
knowing unless we try it.
3. Emissions are increasing.
Yes, they have increased a total of less than 1% of the total carbon emissions (including natural) over the past twenty years. Presuming our methods
of estimating all of the carbon activity on the planet are accurate enough to be considered worth the effort of writing a paper about it.
4. Anthropogenic Global Warming was predicted over 100 years ago based on the 3 above principles.
I predict it will start getting warmer again in another hundred years or so due to a close-call with a gamma-ray burst. Therefor, in a hundred years,
if temperatures start rising, it is because of the gamma ray burst that I predicted.
5. That prediction is coming true.
I'm sure mine will, as well. At some point close to the hundred year mark, temperatures will be warmer than they were the previous year on the
You're drawing a correlation where there is none. The current warming cycle was also predicted due to solar factors and cycles.
World War II saw a severely sharp rise in man-made CO2 emissions for several years leading up to and following. Rather than heating up - the world
Ice-cores show that CO2 lags temperature increases by well over 800 years where there is a correlation to be had at all.
The sun changes on cycles of 11, 22, 80, and 180 years, and even more. When the sun is more active it is warmer, and there are more sunspots and
solar flares. When the sun is warmer, the earth is warmer. Though the changes in brightness or irradiance during the 11-year cycles are small (0.1
percent), when the sun is more active there is more ultraviolet radiation (6 to 8 percent for UV up to a factor of two for extremely short wavelength
UV and X-rays; Baldwin and Dunkerton, 2004)(3) and there tends to be a stronger solar wind and more geomagnetic storms. Increased UV has been shown to
produce warming in the high and middle atmosphere (that leads to surface warming), especially in low and mid latitudes. This is has been shown through
observational measurements by Labitzke(4) over the past 50 years and replicated in NASA models by Shindell(5).
Increased solar wind and geomagnetic activity has been shown by Svensmark(6) and others to lead to a reduction in cosmic rays reaching the ground.
Cosmic rays have a cloud-enhancing property and their reduction during active solar periods leads to a reduction in low clouds, up to a few percent.
Low clouds reflect solar radiation, leading to cooling. Decreased low cloudiness means more sunshine and warmer surface temperatures. Shaviv (7) found
the cosmic ray and irradiance factors could account for up to 77 percent of the warming since 1900, and found the strong correlation extended back 500
Don't let science get in the way of your dogma, though.
You cannot reduce the entire debate down to one organization.
Actually, you can. The IPCC reports are the most heavily cited and centralized source for climate research and conclusions. Most of the research
into and out of global climate change come out of the IPCC or are funded by it.
I encourage you to read the IPCC reports - to sum it up - everything from floods to your headache are caused by global warming, and it's critical we
remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere post-haste.
But let's take a look at what the scientists that sit on the IPCC actually think:
In the end, 54 of the IPCC-ers completed the survey, including such alarmist big-wigs as the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Kevin
Trenberth and Tom Wigley. Trenberth and several other survey participants are lead authors of the IPCC report.
The survey results are quite illuminating about the much-touted “consensus.”
The responses to the survey’s first four questions were predictable -- 83% to 90% of the respondents favored the view that manmade carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions are driving global climate to unprecedentedly warmer temperatures and that limiting manmade CO2 emissions would reduce such climate
The responses to the last two questions, however, raise questions about the consensus’ credibility.
Less than 50% of the respondents said that an increase in global temperature of 1-degree Celsius -- twice the level of warming occurring during the
20th century -- is flatly undesirable. Half of the respondents said that such a temperature increase is desirable, desirable for some but undesirable
for others, or too difficult to assess.
Only 14% said that the ideal climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that there is no such thing as an ideal climate.
But if there’s no agreement on whether a target climate even exists, what precisely is the point of taking action on global warming?
Don’t forget that many scientists don’t participate in the IPCC because they perceive it as biased. The Pasteur Institute’s Dr. Paul Reiter,
for example, resigned from the IPCC because he and a colleague found themselves “at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative
pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of our specialty.” There’s also the Petition Project, where 19,000 scientists have
endorsed a statement questioning the scientific basis of climate alarmism.
The whole idea of a consensus in science is dubious. As economist John Kay recently wrote in an op-ed entitled “Science is the pursuit of truth, not
consensus” (Financial Times, Oct. 9), “Statements about the world derive their value from the facts and arguments that support them, not from the
status and qualifications of the people who assert them.”
- .pdf and list of questions asked with responses
Answer this for me then if Universities are in on it.
The problem is not exactly the universities. You don't read their actual research data. You read what someone compiles and extrapolates out of that
data. Even I do - we hardly ever look at the full set of collected data and read the opinion of the scientists who composed the paper; we simply read
the headline that picks and chooses what data from a university paper to display to us.
Example - the IPCC. You hardly ever come into contact with news articles about specific research papers that would so pique your interest as to look
at the actual data presented and the discussion of that data. You usually end up reading headlines that spawn from IPCC reports and initiatives.
Here's something worth noting, here:
Part 2 - Number of Reviewers and Comments
A total of 308 reviewers2 commented on chapters of Second Order Revision (SOR), i.e. the
penultimate draft, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than 3 chapters and just 5 on all 11
chapters (table 2 and figure 1).
At the other end of the scale, 143 reviewers (46%) commented on just one chapter and a further
71 (23%) on two. This would be fine if they were experts and provided numerous detailed
comments but 53 of these 214 reviewers (25%) made fewer than 5 comments and 28 of them
made fewer than 3. This raises the question of why they bothered to review any chapters and the
question of whether they examined other chapters but had nothing to say.
As noted above, the chapters of the Second Order Revision were subjected to attention by
different numbers of reviewers. One hundred reviewers examined chapter 2, which dealt with
changes to the atmosphere, but just 34 examined chapter 4, which discussed changes to snow, ice
and frozen ground.(table 3)
Reviewers commented on the chapter as a whole and then on each paragraph of the draft in
question. Most reviewers' comments fall into one of the following categories
- correction of typographic errors (spelling and punctuation)
- correction of grammatical errors
- suggested improvements (words or phrases)
- requests for clarifications, for more precise wording or for definitions
- corrections of references or suggestions of additional references,
- other corrections or clarifications (e.g. "Not all volcanic eruptions are climate-relevant.")
Forget any illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all chapters of the report and
providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. The true picture is closer to 65 reviewers for
any one chapter, with about half of those not commenting on any other chapter and one quarter
commenting on just one other. On top of that, about half of those reviewing this chapter made
very few comments.
You're looking at the single largest climate research symposium being virtually unregulated in the reports it releases.
The problem goes back to what I said earlier about science being a service. Universities get money for researching climate change. There are two
inherent problems, here. First - you don't want to tell a paying customer what they don't want to hear. If someone walks into a restaurant and
orders some weird combination of food that you find absolutely sick and repulsive - you don't tell them what they don't want to hear. You tell them
to have a nice day and please come back.
The other problem is inherent to climatology, itself. Climate research was virtually unheard of outside of meteorology thirty years ago. About all
people cared about with regards to climate research was how accurately one could predict the weather. Now, however, with the Climate Crisis - a
service provider has the ability to create demand for its services. Their publications can create a state of alarm and/or concern that creates
returning customers. Kind of like how the fortune teller will gaze into the crystal ball, give you vague warnings of bad things to come, and you keep
coming back for advice on how to survive in a world full of certain doom.
That's not to say that all research into the climate is subject to this form of corruption - but it is a factor that must be kept in mind -
particularly concerning that a lot of research is done by grads and undergrads but screened/groomed by department heads at universities - who don't
want to see their department evaporate from a lack of demand for it.
Then simply show a connection between the money and fraudulent work being published.
Should be simple.
It's pretty simple. Billions in government spending are going toward subsidizing industry changes and new markets that didn't exist prior to the
climate scare. Laws being written threaten to choke out all companies that cannot afford to make the shifts in industry processes mandated by the
government in the name of protecting the climate.
New markets are where the financial gains lay. The booming businesses are the first of their kind - they build the block before even walking around
it. This demand for "clean energy" and various "environmentally conscious" products is being driven by the alarm over climate change. Not that
these are an inherently bad thing - like any business, they will have lobbyists and others will offer stocks that various people across the world will
invest in. Anyone with stocks or connections to these businesses has a lot to gain through the climate alarm.
We see in the case of the IPCC - headed by politicians and a few scientists that write the report (and only a few seating members actually review and
critique the comments of the thousands of scientists across the planet involved in climate studies) and it is the one-stop-shop of climate research
cited by governments and text books as documented fact.
To say there is a "conspiracy to control the masses" is a bit more credit than is due. There is, however, a lot to be gained from these interests
perpetuating the alarmist state over the climate - and very little peer review done on the largest and most cited climate change report there is. The
content of those reports is mostly decided by a small base of people - very few of which are scientists.
The whole is a little greater than the sum of its parts, here.
We have been getting records from different countries from a number of methods that support the theory of AGW. Not only satellites.
(site has been referenced earlier)
The IPCC acknowledges no problems with the global data bases, stating urbanization has a negligible effect on global changes, and ignoring dozens
of peer review papers that show urban contamination is significant (in diverse areas including China, central Europe, and even Barrow, Alaska). During
the 20th century, the population of the world increased four-fold, from 1.5 billion to 6 billion. More and more areas are urbanized. Airports, once
rural, find cities growing around them.
The report ignores the fact that total global stations decreased by 66 percent after 1990, and there was a ten-fold increase in months with no
reported data from the remaining stations, mainly in the former Soviet Union and Africa. They also ignore the issue that the majority of world
stations may not meet World Meteorological Organization standards for siting instruments, a problem that has also been widely documented in peer
review journals. They ignore the half-dozen peer review papers suggesting that these problems could well account for 50 percent or more of the warming
shown for the world data bases.
It is just not possible to obtain a representative sample of the earth's surface as the beginning of
an attempt to discover average temperature. So what do they do? They take the measurements
made by meteorological stations and get an average from them. But these are nearly all near
cities and do not include most of the earth's surface. Such an average is worthless, and there is
no way it can be "corrected".
If you want a "global average" you must surely start with a "local average", but no actual
measurement of a local average temperature has ever been made; or at least published. What
do they use, then? They try to claim that they can show a sequence from 1850, so they are
forced to use the only measurements of temperature have been made since that time, and for
that matter, up to the present day in most places.
This involves only one temperature measurement a day, from a maximum and minimum
thermometer. So the only measurements you have are a daily maximum and a daily minimum
with an unrepresentative sample. It is assumed that the mean of these quantities represents
some sort of average. This was once believed in 1850; but not today. Modern statistics does not
recognise such an "average", which can depart from a genuine average by large and unknown
amounts, incapable of being calculated. A recent comparison I made for some New Zealand
weather stations (Gray 2007) shows that the error can be as large as 2.6ºC, much larger than
the claimed effects of greenhouse warming.
I encourage you to educate yourself further (read the rest of this paper) and deny ignorance. I'm not going to be so arrogant as to tell you that
you have to think the way I do to not be arrogant - or even come to the same conclusion - but you're obviously not aware of the criticisms against
the current global warming insanity.
We also monitor glaciers, the poles, the ocean temperatures, trends in local weather giving us a global perspective, the incidence of disease
in relation to warmer climate, cycles in seasons( spring getting earlier and earlier), plant and animal ranges shifting due to climate change,
droughts and fires growing and increasing due to temperature.
You've mentioned a lot - and I can deliver - but I won't excerpt anything, just list responses to your topic - this post is getting hideously
Glaciers/Ice melt: sites.google.com...
There is -no- evidence of substantial melting of the ice-sheets on a global scale. Period.
Ocean temperature? sites.google.com...
Your local weather comment is addressed by the above paper.
Incidence of disease? ... There are so many factors in that, it's not even worth debating over.
Changes in seasons? Really? Where's the meat and potatoes to that one? Seasons are marked by a number of things - not just temperature. The
cycles of plants are more heavily influenced by solar radiation than they are by temperature. Lately, trees have been budding earlier (probably a bad
thing, as it's still cold enough to kill the buds if it frosts) and dropping leaves later (so we're raking leaves for thanksgiving instead of
Plant and animal ranges? Again - a lot more to that than temperature. The department of conservation has more to do with, for example, deer
populations than temperature does - they issue licenses and tags for hunting. When they issue too few, populations end up being controlled by cars on
the highway and animal control authorities hauling them out of people's back yards.
Droughts and fires? Well - again, if you have an increase in solar radiation - you might have some of these. Isolating man as an influence is pretty
difficult... though there are a lot of people on the planet and urbanization is forcing them out of their natural habitat - forcing them to roast
marshmallows in territory they would normally never venture to.
So simply show fraudulent work being funded by these groups.
Yes, I have read many, many scientists say we should be concerned. That is what reasonable and responsible people normally do.
And yet most say the data is inconclusive and/or does not support the assertion that there is an impending crisis of any kind. The conclusion merely
comments on the importance temperature has in the stability of the analyzed system as a service to their customer.
Incorrect. The IPCC reports are perfect example of the kind of changes that are predictions related to impact.
Except they have no data to support their conclusions. In fact, most of the data - even from their own sources - contradicts their conclusion.
So far the data is showing that many, many, many, many, many, many scientists are correct.
You've apparently not done your homework - as demonstrated above.
The datat supports the observation in relation to human emissions of CO2. Physics supports the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse warming gas. Data
and observations show that warming is happening as a trend.
Satellites have been measuring the temperature since the late 70s. When compared to the average temperature records reported by weather stations
around the globe, the satellite temperature records stand in disagreement with the ground records beginning in the 90s and do not observe a similar
warming trend. Before the satellite records were released and included in major climate-change studies, they were 'reconciled' through entirely
unprecedented and baseless 'corrections.'
You can take any set of data and 'reconcile' it with any other set of data given enough artistic freedom. You invalidate the data in doing so - but
it looks good on paper.
This is backed up in my sources above. It's my turn to talk, the excerpt box can take a break.
False, the ice caps have not grown. This is a blatant lie.
*Snicker* Like a lamb to the slaughter. Already covered, I just had to highlight this for laughs.
A global trend in rising oceans, from melting Ice, is what makes people think it is related to global warming.
This is the problem - the proof is in the pudding.
If you have any substantial increase in the amount of water in the ocean - then you would see regions near the equator rise exponentially by
comparison to other areas of the globe. It would, also, not be an isolated event. Some little backwater island starts sinking because of rising
ocean levels, and the Panama Canal should be the first to know something is amiss.
Instead - there's no real support for any substantial increase or decrease in ocean levels. Satellites have only recently been able to monitor
levels within the sub-millimeter range as of late, and methods involving average wave height and factoring in seasonal events (storm activity, for
example - tidal effects of various gravitational bodies, etc) are unable to be used to demonstrate any kind of radical change at this point in time.
We would need to use satellite data over the next decade and compare it to data (using the same averaging methods) from recent times to draw any kind
of conclusions about whether or not there is a trend in the data.
You can't take harbor measurements and compare them to satellite measurements and make a conclusion based off of such small differences between the
two data sets. Only after you have compiled enough data over time using a new method can you begin to identify trends.
Fair point. Lets apply your fears of the above being true to AGW.
This sums it up.
The problem is that we have people planning to spend billions of dollars on radical measures, such as large carbon-scrubbing industries. You also
have businesses being arbitrarily restricted, entire industries being told how to operate by people with no understanding of the industry.
Alarmist states and extreme government and social reactions are -never- a good thing. I'm all for "Green" stuff. I'm not going to buy it until
it becomes cost-effective to do so - but I'm all for efficient use of resources. I'm a perfectionist and anything at or below unity is too wasteful
in my book, and we can do better (yes, I realize this would mean 'something from nothing' - and whether it's possible or not, it's my goal to one
day show thermodynamics who is who).
Your whole post was an exercise in the proliferation of dogma.
Your stance against science reminds me of those fundamentalists supporting creationism theory or Islamic fundamentalists that deny the Holocaust ever
happened and that is was manufactured by Zionists.
And, yet, the climate change alarmist state has been orchestrated and perpetuated by relatively few scientific and economic interests despite
criticism from the scientific community at large.
This all boils down to who has something to gain versus who does not. These scientists have nothing to gain from denouncing the alarmist state.
However, by making it an urgent and impending crisis, it has become a method of engineering responses from society at large. In the 80s - the world
was going to freeze. Governments even passed rationing laws on natural gas to ensure there would be enough to help us survive the almost certainly
approaching ice age. Now we are going to burn up and be able to fish from the Appalachian Mountains if we don't reduce CO2 emissions to
impractically low levels.
In both cases politicians and certain industry interests gained at the expense of the average person. Gas rationing was used by larger companies to
choke out smaller companies and to prevent start-up interest. Now, we have entirely new industries benefiting from a massive demand for incredibly
premature technology and solutions. Most of these "green" solutions will be entirely obsolete or in need of complete replacement within the next
ten years (well before they have "paid for themselves") and will end up being another scandalous subject akin to Enron.
Don't worry - you never stood a chance. I can retain most of what I read upon the first read. I read an average of three or four large research
papers of various subjects per week. You only stand a chance when I'm new to the subject - I'll overtake your knowledge and mastery within a week
(I can read substantially more than the average). Doesn't matter how many years you have. If I find a similarly experienced person to talk to,
I'll also absorb as many 'trade secrets' as possible.
Yes, that's me boasting - I like to do it from time to time, particularly when meeting someone who is assured of himself more than I am assured of
myself. Ever see the show "The Pretender" - I'm fairly close to that guy. What I don't already know, I can learn in a frighteningly short amount
of time. Though I'm not nearly as bad ass as he is.