New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

[machinehead]

Only kidding on that last one.

[Kezardin]

This article isn't proof, one way or t'other, but may be of interest

[SecretMaster]

The central focus of that whole "doctored data" scandal from two years ago was precisely because the researchers edited their data to highlight and support their conclusion that human beings are causing the global climate to destabilize in heat up.

Except they didn't. Every "denier" went into a tizzy with the climate-gate scandal over nothing. If you take anything without it's full context it can be dangerously misconstrued. The only problem with the CRU was it's poor handling of data sharing. I think there were three or four separate investigations that found the CRU had no wrong-doing. Furthermore even if they did "make-up" their data, that is one data set out of literally hundreds.

My whole fight against climate change believers has always been the poor methods the researchers use and weak-minded politicians trying to enact legislation based on inaccurate and shoddy pseudo-science.

Again what poor methods? That whole post I made earlier was meant to show you exactly how this field of study came about, based on replicable empirical data. If you actually took the time to read even a handful of the papers published, and read them well, you wouldn't be questioning the methodologies. Labeling all the work done by individuals as "poor" without even seriously looking at it is dishonest.

Our climate records do not go "way way back". 350 years (and I am being generous here, because there aren't records for climate or weather patterns in South America from the mid 1700s, for example) compared to the entire lifespan of the planet is most definitely insignificant. Incomplete data gives incomplete results.

Except you can infer the climate decently through various observations. Of course we will never actually know, but our knowledge on physics, chemistry, and biology lets us know that the data is good enough. If the data was completely wrong, well then our world would come crashing down because so much technology functioning on the same premises exists today and still functions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

Just read the wiki primer on it. It's really fascinating stuff.

My other claim about climate change has also been that its adherents believe in it with almost religous fervor. They can't prove to anyone else that what they believe is true but they do try to proseletyze to anyone who will listen. *shrug*

That's true of any group. There are "science!" zealots, there are religious zealots, etc. I think a vast number of individuals (such as myself) do speak out against statements that are blatantly false. There are extremely weak arguments presented by the majority of the conspiricists out there. When rebutted with evidence that shows they are wrong, and asked for a better response, they simply get blathering that amounts to nothing.

There are valid criticisms to make about climate science. Nearly all "deniers" are just that, deniers who will never budge from their positions. "Skeptics" are a good thing, skepticisim in science is crucial. Skeptics consider the information given, and give constructive feedback. Skeptics can be reasoned with, and ultimately swayed one way or another. But most skeptics are you know, usually scientists who know what they are talking about. Unlike nearly all deniers.

is discussion also highlights a point I was making elsewhere--for every scientific study I can find that disproves global warming someone else can find a scientific study that supports it. Which study do we believe? As with most things, we all have to choose for ourselves what we will believe.

I promise you, you cannot. Give me 10 published papers that you have actually read through and in the paper they explicitly say "global warming does not exist." Papers by different authors, and not the same person publishing the same thing year after year. Also if it so common to find such papers, exclude the one published by the Heartland Institute, which was so blatantly wrong and politically biased it should be a crime. If you can that, we'll start from there.

This article isn't proof, one way or t'other, but may be of interest

I admit I skimmed through the article, I might re-look at it more thoroughly later. I think the main point to keep in mind however is that media coverage =! scientific majority. Believe me or look it up yourself, as our understanding of the planet has progressed, the belief in heading towards a cooling spell has consistently been a very minor viewpoint. The whole topic of media portrayal of science deserves its own thread, and is something most of us (and by us I mean those who are in academia) have a lively debate about constantly. If you are interested I have some good reads for you.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by SecretMaster Except they didn't. Every "denier" went into a tizzy with the climate-gate scandal over nothing. If you take anything without it's full context it can be dangerously misconstrued. The only problem with the CRU was it's poor handling of data sharing. I think there were three or four separate investigations that found the CRU had no wrong-doing.

I think it was slightly more than nothing and it wasn't just the deniers as you put it.

Referring to requests for climate data from critics, CRU Director Phil Jones wrote in 2005 that “I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

Labour MP Graham Stringer asked Jones why he refused to comply with requests to share data to which Jones answered:

“Because all he [a skeptic] wants to do is find something wrong with it.”

Well that's certainly an acceptable reason to not share data. NOT. That's the whole point of peer review - to make your data available to others for systematic scrutiny.

Even the House of Commons in their summary agreed with that:

'However, a culture of withholding information””from those perceived by CRU to be hostile to global warming””appears to have pervaded CRU’s approach to FOIA requests from the outset. We consider this to be unacceptable.'

Almost 80,000 scientists from the Royal Insitute of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics who submitted their own reports to Parliament in which they raised serious concerns over Jones’s and the CRU's conduct. Here is the report from the Institute of Physics of February 2010

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ata/uc3902.htm

In particular, note these sections:

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

and later:

"There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation."

The Royal Society of Chemistry's report is here:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ata/uc4202.htm


So while the House of Commons might have given him a "get out of jail" free card, the greater scientific community didn't.

[SecretMaster]

Maybe I'm being dense but I think we are saying the same thing. In regards to the tampering and deliberate altering of data, it wasn't demonstrably shown that the CRU actually did that.

The big issue (and maybe I downplayed this with my post) was the really bad handling of data sharing. As the reports seem to say, most individuals weren't happy that the CRU outright refused to share data with anyone. That is a big issue of contention. There were some additional concerns about the statistical rigor of the data, but I think that was something along the lines of using inappropriate analyses. However I don't think actual manipulation of data, as Azred is saying, actually occured.

[robertthebard]

I can sum up everything I believe about climate science in one question:

If they were so convinced they were right, why'd it change from Global Warming to Global Climate Change?

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by robertthebard I can sum up everything I believe about climate science in one question: If they were so convinced they were right, why'd it change from Global Warming to Global Climate Change?

Research, my friend.

Global Warming refers specifically to temperatures rising. Global Climate Change refers to temperature increases AND everything that greenhouse gases affect. It is more general, and as a result is used more often to encompass the many facets of the issue. But both terms are still in use.

[Azred]

But the generic term "climate change" gives people the ability to claim that anything that happens is proof that they were right, whether all the ice melts or we have a mini ice-age.

I have read some of the articles and studies and they all do the same thing--they begin with the premise that human beings are causing a problem and then show how the data proves their point.

The weather will take care of itself; we are not capable of wildly influencing it no matter how much our over-inflated senses of ego tell us otherwise.

[SecretMaster]

Originally Posted by Azred But the generic term "climate change" gives people the ability to claim that anything that happens is proof that they were right, whether all the ice melts or we have a mini ice-age. I have read some of the articles and studies and they all do the same thing--they begin with the premise that human beings are causing a problem and then show how the data proves their point. The weather will take care of itself; we are not capable of wildly influencing it no matter how much our over-inflated senses of ego tell us otherwise.

Give specific examples of "articles and studies." Actual things we can discuss, not just some wave of your hand that is supposed to support whatever you are saying. I think you have gross misunderstanding of the entire process. If you have indeed read papers and articles and came to that conclusion, let us both come to that conclusion; I'm willing to keep an open mind about such things. But my suspicion is that you aren't understanding the proper context and have misunderstood various aspects.

Also I don't think it is hubris to say we are capable of altering the climate on a global scale. Human's have already altered a significant number of systems on this planet already. We've significantly altered the lithosphere, biosphere, arguably the hydrosphere. Humans have completely altered the nitrogen cycle around the world, we're accelerating the extinction of species to historic levels. We've dramatically altered the natural landscapes all over the world, and a lot of natural ecosystem processes have completely changed due to humans.

When we inhabit a large chunk of the habitable land on this planet, and people think we aren't capable of altering large scale processes, that is a bad argument. We have already, and climate, which is dependant on so many variables, can also be affected (and data is pointing in the direction that we are doing so).

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Research, my friend. Global Warming refers specifically to temperatures rising. Global Climate Change refers to temperature increases AND everything that greenhouse gases affect. It is more general, and as a result is used more often to encompass the many facets of the issue. But both terms are still in use.

It is also a catch-all to say, "See, we were right." no matter what happens. I lost my website, so I can't link the photos of snow in April I had posted before. The thing is, despite climate scientist's claims, these kinds of fluctuations have been happening since I can remember. I can remember working in shorts and a t-shirt in January, and needing a coat in May, all in Kansas, and all before all the alarmist science that runs rampant where climate is concerned.

What ever happened to the "worst year for hurricanes ever" that we were supposed to have due to "climate change"? I don't recall there being an abnormally large number of hurricanes since Katrina. Did I miss something? We haven't had an abnormal number of tornadoes here, despite claims that we would. However, climate scientists can point at the tornadoes we have had and say "See, we were right.", despite the fact that there have always been tornadoes in KS. I was in at least one hurricane when I lived in Florida, in the 60's.

They have generalized their science enough that any severe storm that comes up can support their claims, and frankly, that's not science. What I find ironic is that one can bash the source of the article in the OP as having an agenda, all the while ignoring the agendas of science that supports the belief that mankind is the sole cause of climate change. Who pays those scientists? People like Al Gore? How much money has he made being a doomsayer?

The truth is somewhere in the middle of what the extremist on either side would have us believe. We can't help but affect our world, but I sincerely doubt that measuring the length of time it takes a person to blink comparatively is really a good standard to measure climate change against. Afterall, at one time in the not too distant past, the place I live now was an ocean floor. As far as we know, there weren't any people driving around in gas guzzler cars that cause the icecaps to melt, so it must have occured naturally. Let's not forget that at another point in geological history, the ice cap extended to at least as far south as I live, and according to a special I watched on the Discovery or Science Channel, at one time the whole planet was a ball of ice. There weren't any people around to do that either.

Conservation is a good thing. Trying to terrify the masses into doing it with poor science is something else entirely.