Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

Marc Morano
Climate Depot
Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )

Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.

‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’

[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]

Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.
.....................

www.prisonplanet.com... ve-to-sign-kyoto-protocol.html

Here are the statements by Dr. John Christy who happens to be a Climatologist and was trying to warn people years ago as to what he wtinessed the IPCC policy makers" wanted to do to coerce all nations into accepting the Kyoto Protocol.

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
............

www.dailymail.co.uk...

It wasn't a mistake like the IPCC policy makers, and some others are claiming, including those people who still believe in AGW after we have found concrete and danming evidence that shows it is nothing more than a scam...

Dr Murari Lal has admitted that they included the unfounded claims to pressure nations, and politicians into accepting the Kyoto Protocol...

Of course NOW that we found out this "error" this scientist is trying to come clean before this was found out through an investigation....

Not only have the IPCC "policy makers" which includes scientists who back the AGW have used dubious tactics which include false reports, and rigged data, but we also know the main proponents of the AGW scam have been using similar tactics...

Are people still so blind that they will continue to believe the lie that AGW is?...

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea.

Dear Colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
.............

www.tsaugust.org...

Like him there have been several "real scientists" who have been saying the same thing, and not policy makers, or environmentalists which are trying to pass as Climate Change experts...

BTW, many other scientists are waking up recently, and some others have known it for a long time.

Here is another article, a recent one in which hundreds of scientists are abandoning the AGW SCAM, because that is what AGW is...

Scientists abandon global warming 'lie'
650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference

WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.

Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.
.......

www.globalresearch.ca...

reply to post by Aim64C


Yeah right...

I love how you are blasting out a pile of completely misinformed/disinformed nonsense in every post, and then trying to blame it on other people's reading comprehension when you get called out for it.



I can't wait to see you backpedal your way out of this latest round of horribly ignorant sh**-talking then:

All of man's CO2 contributions to the atmosphere account for an incredibly small portion of the CO2 in the air. We have been trying to catch up to Mt. St. Helens since the 1700s (and it blew up decades ago).

Ok...

From USGS:

CO2 emission events

Mount St. Helens, 18 May 1980 0.01 Gt

versus

Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected) 35.0 (Gt/y)

and just for good measure:

Global volcanic emissions (highest preferred estimate) 0.26 (Gt/yr)

So, I dunno, apparently I don't possess the math skills of someone with your obviously supreme intellect, but it seems to me you're a tad off on your numbers there oh wise one. You want to explain "eviscerate" that please?



Similarly the rest of your hand-wavy diatribe is just more meme-laced, ignorant prattling:

I mentioned CO2 content separate from the issue of waste heat. Technically - the heat we generate through waste and climate control -does- warm the planet. It's quite a simple concept.

So why mention it at all in the first place? It is completely insignificant and has absolutely NOTHING to do with this conversation. You throw in some totally pointless off-topic red-herring about waste heat, and then try to chastise others when they notice how pointless and off-base it is?


But back on topic...

When a volcano randomly goes "kaboom" - it is not a set of carbon or ash emissions that the "balanced sinks" are ... well... balanced to deal with.

If carbon emissions and their sinks were balanced, CO2 levels, through history, would have remained consistent.

[mumbles about merely average people attempting to think and being so arrogant as to believe they are capable of it.]

Already pointed out how completely ridiculous and wrong the volcano meme is, but again, instead of immediately resorting to paltry childish insults (which speak more about your impressive mental sophistication than even your math skills) - maybe you should focus on looking up actual facts first.


If you did that you might notice pre-industrial CO2 has been remarkably stable since the end of the last ice age - only rising slowly and steadily by 20ppm in 10,000 years. Plenty of random "kabooms" in that time frame have happened with no effect. Likewise for the last 500,000 years CO2 has risen and fallen by 100ppm - but that signal is noticeabely periodic, driven by known and explainable forcings (i.e. predictable), and takes tens of thousands of years to progress. Hardly the "chaotic" system you are now trying to run and hide with.



So let's see then - on the one hand we have a natural current system that consistently takes 100,000 years to move CO2 by 100pm, and on the other we have a man-made period that has managed to suspiciously do the same damage (more actually) in about 150, pushing atmospheric concentration to the highest level it's been in over half a million years.

But yeah, anyone who sees something fishy about that simply lacks the amazing deductive nonlinear ninja skills you must possess I guess...



So I can't even be bothered having this discussion with someone like yourself. It's one thing dealing with the climate denialists who avert basic facts and science because of their blind political ideologies, but it's a whole other waste of brain cells trying to bother with egomaniacal internet trolls here to fulfill some even bigger desperate delusion of their faux-intellectual superiority.


You are quite frankly just another extremely transparent case of a Dunning-Kruger climate denier. One of the best I've seen on here in a long time in fact. Absolutely NO knowledge of the subject in question, yet convinced you already know more than everyone anyway. That's the difference between your "hubris" and mine. Mine is based on a legitimate technical background in the field, while yours comes from some over-inflated confidence from reading a denier website.



Your feeble attempts to intellectually bully me and others on this would be much, much more impressive if you had the slightest clue what the hell you're even talking about.

reply to post by mc_squared

Already pointed out how completely ridiculous and wrong the volcano meme is, but again, instead of immediately resorting to paltry childish insults (which speak more about your impressive mental sophistication than even your math skills) - maybe you should focus on looking up actual facts first.

Numbers are useless if you don't know how they are generated:

www.freerepublic.com...

A major issue regarding the IPCC approach to linking climate and CO2 is the assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the level of atmospheric CO2 was in an equilibrium state of about 280 ppm, around which little or no variation occurred. This presumption of constancy and equilibrium is based upon a critical review of the older literature on atmospheric CO2 content by Callendar and Keeling. (See Table 1). Between 1800 and 1961, more than 380 technical papers that were published on air gas analysis contained data on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Callendar [16, 20, 24] Keeling and the IPCC did not provide a thorough evaluation of these papers and the standard chemical methods that they deployed. Rather, they discredited these techniques and data, and rejected most as faulty or highly inaccurate [20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27]. Though they acknowledge the concept of an 'unpolluted background level' for CO2, these authors only examined about 10% of the available literature, asserting from that that only 1% of all previous data could be viewed as accurate (Muentz [28, 29, 30], Reiset [31], Buch [32]).

THE CHALLENGE OF THE MAIN STREAM VIEW ON THE HISTORICAL DATA

During my own review of the literature, I observed that the evaluation of Reiset's and Muentz's work by Callendar and Keeling was erroneous. This made me investigate carefully the criteria that were used by these and other authors to accept or to reject such historical data. The data accepted by Callendar and Keeling had to be sufficiently low to be consistent with the greenhouse hypothesis of climate change controlled by rising CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning. Callendar rejected nearly all data before 1870 because of "relatively crude instrumentation" and reported only twelve suitable data sets in 20th century as known to him [20] out of 99 made available by Stepanova 1952 [18].

The intent of these authors was to identify CO2 determinations that were made using pure unpolluted air, in order to assess the true background level of CO2. Callendar set out the criteria that he used to judge whether older determinations were "allowable" in his 1958 paper [20] which presents only data that fell within 10% of a longer yearly average estimated for the region, and also rejected all measurements, however accurate, that were "measurements intended for special purposes, such as biological, soil air, atmospheric pollution".

Which is why you don't even understand the argument set before you. You're arguing with numbers that have their legitimacy drawn into question.

www.anenglishmanscastle.com...

The graph in this link tells an interesting story - showing the difference between direct chemical measurements of Northern Hemisphere atmospheric content and the IR spectrograph methods used to sample ice-cores, with several data points provided in the 1815-1957 era for comparison.

There deviation noticed is well outside the margin of error for both sources - which draws into question the ice-sampling methods and their relevance to global CO2 levels.

www.biocab.org...

Of course, this is interesting:

Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. Recent investigations have shown that the current change of climate is part of a larger cycle known as climatic lowstand phase which precedes a sequential warming period known as transgression phase. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the Earth is actually cooling, in the context of the total geological timescale, and that the current change is equivalent to a serial climate phase known as lowstand.

Then, you read stuff like this:

www.sciencedaily.com...

If you'll notice, we are always "behind the curve." We're always trying to figure out why things happened the way they did - just when we figure that out, we come to the realization that our observational methods were flawed, and all conclusions drawn from those methods now drawn into question.

I can't wait to see you backpedal your way out of this latest round of horribly ignorant sh**-talking then:

Ah, good. I was hoping someone would pull out the real figures on that. Made-ya-source!

This isn't the first time I've debated climate change.

It's really a good laugh, the websites you denialists ACTUALLY POST HERE trying to show us "evidence" and "science".

You're posting links to infowars/prisonplanet, right-wing political blogs, denier websites, and cherry-picked news articles (that don't even say what you seem to think they say). How stupid can you people be??

This is a excellent piece on tree ring data for 2000+years from the Chinese without the hockey stick and it shows a prediction of of cooling until the 2060s ..
Chinese 2485 year tree ring study shows shows sun or ocean controls climate, temps will cool til 2068

A blockbuster Chinese study of Tibetan Tree rings by Lui et al 2011 shows, with detail, that the modern era is a dog-standard normal climate when compared to the last 2500 years. The temperature, the rate of change: it’s all been seen before. Nothing about the current period is “abnormal”, indeed the current warming period in Tibet can be produced through calculation of cycles. Lui et al do a fourier analysis on the underlying cycles and do a brave predictions as well.
wattsupwiththat.com...

reply to post by the2ofusr1


Awwww - not more pamphlet science thinking again. Don't you realise that authoratative pronouncements can only come from IPCC blessed sources - everything else is just redneck oil funded blogs.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood
Ya man ...I am waiting for my petro check to come in ...Xmas is commin yaknow eeehaw

reply to post by Aim64C


Uh-huh, I'm the one who doesn't understand the argument set before me. Let's see -

This isn't the first time I've debated climate change.

And yet up until a minute ago you thought Mount St. Helens released more CO2 in one eruption than humans had in over 300 years. Lulz.

You're arguing with numbers that have their legitimacy drawn into question.

By some stray paper from the notoriously biased Energy & Environment - the same journal that once published a "peer-reviewed" argument against global warming based on the idea the Sun was made of iron.



Ernst Beck's methodology here uses a series of corrupted and archaic analyses that have been widely discredited for over 70 years. Remote positioning and IR spectroscopy for modern day air sampling is FAR more accurate, and has shown an explicitly smooth curve since its inception. A trend that is completely backed up further down the road by ice-core samples (which are analysed by a variety of different methods). This trend can clearly be seen in the "interesting graph" from your own link.


So when you write stuff like this:

There deviation noticed is well outside the margin of error for both sources - which draws into question the ice-sampling methods and their relevance to global CO2 levels.

It's utterly evident how completely backwards your deductive reasoning is (along with whatever wannabe "skeptics" starred that post). Because ice core records evidently correlate, independently, with modern sampling methods - and thus draw YOUR source into question, not the other way around.


On top of that, modern analysis also shows the distinctive seasonal signal generated by NH vegetation cycles:



This is something that is periodic and predictable, something that once again refutes your unfounded claim that the process is chaotic, and something Beck's unrealistic reconstruction fails to produce.





So you're seriously going to make this your climate skeptic weapon of choice?? Even most denial-y of deniers wouldn't touch it with oven mitts and a 20-foot pole.




But I love the approach - you think just because you can find something out there that brings the supposed "legitimacy" of the numbers into question, that makes your source automatically valid, huh? I can find documents that question the roundness of the Earth too. So I guess that means the science isn't settled there either:

Globe-shaped Earth theory is a hoax!



This is the absolute typical climate denier mentality though -

Step 1: Accumulate a gish gallup of cherry-picked sources no matter how unreliable they are, whether it's discredited papers, unqualified blogs, or hack scientists with well-known ties to the fossil fuel industry.

Step 2: Throw it all into your skeptical stew without applying even a modicum of critical thinking, or, you know - actual skepticism to it (gets a free pass because it's already the one *claiming* to be skeptical). Stir pot, declare victory.

Step 3: Get debunked by facts and aforementioned critical thinking.

Step 4: Refuse to acknowledge Step 3 (i.e. be a denier), or at the very most downgrade from "victory" to some delusional re-evaluation of what just happened. E.g. your own failure to present a valid argument here means the science must indeed *not* be settled.

Step 5: Move the goal posts, find a new meme, repeat Step 1.





This isn't the first time I've debated climate change either.

Here is a great video showing whats really up with most of the emails as most of them are from the same batch already released.

Peter Sissons: The BBC AGW 'Propaganda Machine'

He spent 40yrs as a TV journalist and details just how Biased the BBC's coverage of Climate Change is:

For me, though, the most worrying aspect of political correctness was over the story that recurred with increasing frequency during my last ten years at the BBC — global warming (or ‘climate change’, as it became known when temperatures appeared to level off or fall slightly after 1998). From the beginning I was unhappy at how one-sided the BBC’s coverage of the issue was, and how much more complicated the climate system was than the over-simplified two-minute reports that were the stock-in-trade of the BBC’s environment correspondents.

These, without exception, accepted the UN’s assurance that ‘the science is settled’ and that human emissions of carbon dioxide threatened the world with catastrophic climate change. Environmental pressure groups could be guaranteed that their press releases, usually beginning with the words ‘scientists say . . . ’ would get on air unchallenged. On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid. On one occasion, after the inauguration of Barack Obama as president in 2009, the science correspondent of Newsnight actually informed viewers ‘scientists calculate that he has just four years to save the world’. What she didn’t tell viewers was that only one alarmist scientist, NASA’s James Hansen, had said that.

My interest in climate change grew out of my concern for the failings of BBC journalism in reporting it. In my early and formative days at ITN, I learned that we have an obligation to report both sides of a story. It is not journalism if you don’t. It is close to propaganda. The BBC’s editorial policy on climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’. The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus. Read more: biasedbbc.proboards.com...

or Roy Spencer speaking about the IPCC

Unfortunately, there is no way to “fix” the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.

wattsupwiththat.com...

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
It's really a good laugh, the websites you denialists ACTUALLY POST HERE trying to show us "evidence" and "science".

You're posting links to infowars/prisonplanet, right-wing political blogs, denier websites, and cherry-picked news articles (that don't even say what you seem to think they say). How stupid can you people be??

i actually feel sorry for you.

on the last page i posted some choice quotes from the emails talking about avoiding FOIA requests, deleting data, and reducing past heat cycles to make the present one look higher. one email admitted that the sun could account for ALL the climate change we've seen.

care to explain how deleting files and manipulating data is scientific? i thought not.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


They are so heavily indoctrinated by the MSM they refuse to hear the truth.

The wheels are off the AGW bus, and many of the scientists are trying to figure out how to salvage their careers, it's why so many have turned in the last 12 months. They must realize that those who hold firm will be left holding the bag.

2 years ago a thread like this would have been eviscerated, but the curtain has been pulled back and the sham exposed. All that is left defending it are a few hardcores and a few ignorant internet scholars.

reply to post by mc_squared

Uh-huh, I'm the one who doesn't understand the argument set before me. Let's see -

You talk too much.

And yet up until a minute ago you thought Mount St. Helens released more CO2 in one eruption than humans had in over 300 years. Lulz.

And listen too little.

This is all a game to me, if you haven't realized by now. I already know all I need to know about the issue of climate change to make my determination that still stands after reading all of the sources of proponents and considering their evidence.

Remember my statements before? You are but an animal to me - and I love 'terrorizing' pets (#ing their minds).

Thus, my comments are always directed at eliciting a specific reaction out of you - or administered as a sort of test.

Would you go for the low-roll if I gave it to you, or just continue preaching? Because you're blatantly ignoring the much more challenging issues I've presented. Which is how I can determine what is and is not above your intellect. When I give you a low-roll, you pounce on it. When I give you something that requires some thought - you preach.

By some stray paper from the notoriously biased Energy & Environment - the same journal that once published a "peer-reviewed" argument against global warming based on the idea the Sun was made of iron.

Which has... what relevance to the presented data?

Ernst Beck's methodology here uses a series of corrupted and archaic analyses that have been widely discredited for over 70 years.

I'm sure you can support this accusation.

I can. But can you?

Remote positioning and IR spectroscopy for modern day air sampling is FAR more accurate

Now, pet, I'm going to see just how much you know about science.

How is it that a process can be determined to be more accurate in determining the value of an unknown? If I don't know how much CO2 is in the air... how am I to determine if the method is that much more accurate than a previous method? ... Moreover... how do you know how much CO2 is in the air if you don't have an accurate way of measuring it? ... how can you have a chicken coop without chickens... and did the chicken or the egg come first?

While the method is more accurate - we are splitting hairs. Chemical analysis is accurate to within 3% - which, at 500 ppm, is 15ppm possible deviance. While not very accurate for comparing day-to-day changes... it should certainly track well with large trends, should it not?

and has shown an explicitly smooth curve since its inception.

Which... of course, proves it is accurate.

Not what you meant, of course - but the way you tied it into your sentence made it seem that way.

A trend that is completely backed up further down the road by ice-core samples (which are analysed by a variety of different methods). This trend can clearly be seen in the "interesting graph" from your own link.

Which begs the question of why there is such a discrepancy between the two sets of data.

It's utterly evident how completely backwards your deductive reasoning is (along with whatever wannabe "skeptics" starred that post). Because ice core records evidently correlate, independently, with modern sampling methods - and thus draw YOUR source into question, not the other way around.

I guess you had to stop to mark your territory, behavior to be expected, I suppose.

Back on track:

Where do ice cores come from? The poles... right.

Where does the data from these chemical analysis come from? .... All over the place - IE - "more global."

Which is why we see such a vastly different picture when looking at these data. Ground-layer measurements vary widely with local influences. Influences that... for whatever reason, are presumed to not take effect at the polar caps.

I'm drawing into question the entire concept of polar ice cap measurements having direct relevance to global atmospheric CO2.

But I love the approach - you think just because you can find something out there that brings the supposed "legitimacy" of the numbers into question, that makes your source automatically valid, huh? I can find documents that question the roundness of the Earth too. So I guess that means the science isn't settled there either:

Like I said. You talk too much, and get too wound up. At this rate, I'm going to give you an aneurism, and it will highly amuse me.

I'll go ahead and prove to you what I mean:

www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be...

There's an analysis of Beck's work that demonstrates why it is somewhat flawed.

www.biomind.de...

Here, we see the influence of local factors in the ground layers. Of course, this concept is largely ill-identified and has yet to be incorporated into current models of climate behavior.

reply to post by Aim64C

You are but an animal to me - and I love 'terrorizing' pets (#ing their minds).

Thus, my comments are always directed at eliciting a specific reaction out of you

Thanks for coming out and admitting you're flat-out trolling



But it's funny to see that you apparently think you're toying with me, or that I'm the one "preaching". When you can't seem to respond to anything without immediately resorting to childish insults, condescending rhetoric, and empty boasting about your (still-yet-to-be-seen) mental prowess.

Meanwhile the only thing that might be giving me an aneurysm here is listening to the pathetic excuses you have lined up every time you get caught making another demonstrateably dishonest or ignorant statement. "Oh you just don't know how to read", "I only said that to see if you were paying attention", "I'm testing you lololol"...

You're standing there trying to hide behind the Emperor's new clothes, and it's pretty damn embarassing to be a part of honestly.

So this conversation is unfortunately far too lame, even despite the slight bemusement I still get out of seeing yet another climate denier fall in over their head, and desperately grasp at anything they can to mend a broken ego, or restore some of their quickly crumbling paradigm (seen this movie way too many times though).



But since you're asking for it, "master" - sure, I'll break this last one down for you:

Now, pet, I'm going to see just how much you know about science.

How is it that a process can be determined to be more accurate in determining the value of an unknown?

First off - ever consider the fact that a process can still be calibrated against a known? See sir, in science this is called a "control", and it's pretty much a staple in any proper analytical experiment! Do I get a cookie now?


...
But really I don't even need to explain the benefits of IR absorption techniques over wet chemistry since you and your own link already acknowledged it is indeed more accurate. So ultimately this breaks down to a case of robustness - what data doesn't make the cut - and why. And there are plenty of reasons why Beck's does NOT:

1. Location, location, location

While you're focusing on the fact that wet chemistry methods are still accurate "up to 3%", you completely fail to realize there are bigger issues here that are not instrumental, but meteorological. People like Callendar and Keeling already established over 50 years ago that where you take your sample is absolutely critical to making an accurate assessment.

Air quality is easily corrupted by proximity to industrial sources. This is exactly why Keeling set his station up in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

While Beck's paper seems to acknowledge this problem of contamination, his assessment makes absolutely no effort to filter any of it out. He merely decides that Callendar and Keeling were cherry-picking to serve an agenda (I guess Al Gore must've gotten to 'em!) and so defiantly throws everything at the wall instead, and tries to justify it by claiming his data correlates to "sunspots and moon phases". My professional scientific rebuttal to this would be something along the lines of --> WTF? and LOL!


2. Testability

Here's another thing I knows about science: when your method can make predictions that are matched, especially against other independent lines of evidence - it makes that method look good. Conversely, the opposite is true. So if Beck's assertion of such drastic natural fluxes was correct, this would leave an extremely noticeable signal in other proxy indicators like C-13 ratios, which it absolutely does not.

Meanwhile, when you look at something like Callendar's so-called "cherry-picked" analysis in 1957, he uses it to come up with a base value of 290ppm at the turn of the century. This is remarkably close to what ends up being verified decades later by ice core data. That kind of correlation makes his approach and the ice cores look mighty respectable.


3. Coherence

So on top of that, ice cores also correlate well with each other, and with concurrent observations. Etheridge et al (1996) proved how robust they are by showing that the same amount of CO2 exists in the firn as it does in the ice where air bubbles become trapped. They demonstrated that ice core concentrations overlapped with actual atmospheric ones by 20 years, within an uncertainty of 1.2ppm. Kinda puts the whole thing to bed, really.

reply to post by Aim64C


...
But ultimately all this comes down to some basic common sense in my book. Here you have 3 data sets - 2 of which are modern, correlate just about perfectly with each other, and have proven to be robust. The other one is outdated, with widely known shortcomings, and sticks out like a sore thumb. You want to accept that it's perfectly reasonable for the last 50 years of advanced air sampling to exhibit a consistently steady curve, one completely in line with anthropogenic emissions. But exactly before that technique was developed, it just *happened* to be erratically bouncing around all over the place? Amazing coincidence that is.

It comes down to a pretty simple concept really, one that precludes science even, but you seem to be having a lot of trouble grasping. Obviously it must be because your amazing intellect is so above mine, I can't possibly communicate it eloquently enough to reach your glorious level.


Maybe this might help though:

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Clearly, you haven't even read the link...because if you did, you'd see proof that the original (and this) scandal aren't really scandals at all. But who cares about facts, right?

Obviously you don't care about facts...



We have done entire threads about this and posted hundreds of peer reviewed reserch paper, plust what the REAL scientists have to say.

We also prooved that the "mayority" of the IPCC so called "expert scientists were nothing but policymakers, and people who had NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER ON CLIMATE CHANGE... Their governments just decided to add them as experts to further their agendas...

This is a 100% total lie.

You can see the affiliations for the IPCC scientists listed and look up their thousands of papers in peer reviewed journals.

Besides, 'policymakers' wouldn't even have remotely sufficient technical ability to write the reports as they are. People who don't know science can't even BS science well.

Have you read them?

Let's start here with the scientific report.

www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch...

Scientists have reported pressure occaionally from government officials (usually from China and USA)----always this pressure is in the direction of attempting to minimize the strength of the findings and projected impact.

If I don't know how much CO2 is in the air... how am I to determine if the method is that much more accurate than a previous method? ... Moreover... how do you know how much CO2 is in the air if you don't have an accurate way of measuring it?

Oy vey.

How about this: you create a gas sample from first principles where you know exactly how much CO2 is there? This isn't my field at all but one could imagine complete combustion of a known amount of purified hydrocarbon on a platinum catalyst or something. Somebody probably started doing things like this in the 1880's with a continual development for a long time. We also have good idea about infrared scattering and absorption because we also know that molecules are made out of atoms which obey quantum mechanics, so there's forward ways of calibrating measurements as well.

Physical chemists have been interested in measuring all sorts of things for at least 100 years with a variety of analytical techniques and virtually all of them had their basis developed and calibrated before anybody other than a few eggheads thought one bit about global warming from greenhouse effect. There's a widespread body of physical science and chemistry which has proved enormously successful in measuring and predicting all sorts of effects. It just so happened that some planetary scientists didn't turn off their brain and knowledge of physics when it came to something which could have major implications to society.


It's idiotic to attack rock solid sound measurements.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

They are so heavily indoctrinated by the MSM they refuse to hear the truth.

The wheels are off the AGW bus, and many of the scientists are trying to figure out how to salvage their careers, it's why so many have turned in the last 12 months. They must realize that those who hold firm will be left holding the bag.

2 years ago a thread like this would have been eviscerated, but the curtain has been pulled back and the sham exposed. All that is left defending it are a few hardcores and a few ignorant internet scholars.

edit on 9-12-2011 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)

Does Al Gore have to give back his ill-gotten gains?

I guess ignoring the sun was an immature act.