AGW science falling apart

[Guest]

There was a good debate on the SMH site last Friday between Lord Moxham (?) and some professor from the UNSW. You can see the closing statements on the site.

Interesting thing was that man attributes 39% of the total of CO2 emissions. The other 61% is from natural sources.

[Guest]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate...0%94-part-one/


Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part One)

Chris Horner filed the FOIA request that NASA didn't comply with for two years. Now we know what took so long. (Click here for the NASA files. This is Part One of a four-part series.)

February 17, 2010 - by Christopher Horner Page 1 of 2 Next -> View as Single PageIn August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and RealClimate.org co-founder).

I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.

NASA stonewalled my request for more than two years, until Climategate prompted me to offer notice of intent to sue if NASA did not comply immediately.

On New Year’s Eve, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with the documents I requested in August 2007.

The emails show the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and suspect data management and integrity of NASA, wildly spinning in defense of their enterprise. The emails show NASA making off with enormous sums of taxpayer funding doing precisely what they claim only a “skeptic” would do. The emails show NASA attempting to scrub their website of their own documents, and indeed they quietly pulled down numerous press releases grounded in the proven-wrong data. The emails show NASA claiming that their own temperature errors (which they have been caught making and in uncorrected form aggressively promoting) are merely trivial, after years of hysterically trumpeting much smaller warming anomalies.

As you examine the email excerpts below, as well as those which I will discuss in the upcoming three parts of this series, bear in mind that the contents of these emails were intended to prop up the argument for the biggest regulatory intervention in history: the restricting of carbon emissions from all human activity. NASA’s activist scientists leave no doubt in their emails that this was indeed their objective. Also, please note that these documents were responsive to a specific FOIA request from two years ago. Recent developments — combined with admissions contained in these documents — beg further requests, which have both been already filed and with more forthcoming.

Furthermore, on January 29, 2010, CEI filed our appeal of NASA continuing to improperly withhold other documents responsive to our FOIA requests. In this appeal we informed NASA that if they do not comply by the twentieth day, as required by law, we shall exercise our appellate rights in court immediately.

________________________________

Under Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA shepherds a continuing public campaign claiming clear evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) — climate change induced by human beings. The documents released via the FOIA request, however, contain admissions of data unreliability that are staggering, particularly in light of NASA’s claims to know temperatures and anomalies within hundredths of a degree, and the alarm they helped raise over a mere one degree of claimed warming over more than an entire century.

Dr. Reto Ruedy, a Hansen colleague at GISS, complains in his August 3, 2007, email to his co-worker at GISS and RealClimate blogger Gavin Schmidt:

[The United States Historical Climate Network] data are not routinely kept up-to-date (at this point the (sic) seem to end in 2002).

This lapse led to wild differences in data claimed to be from the same ground stations by USHCN and the Global Climate Network (GHCN). NASA later trumpeted the “adjustments” they made to this data (upward only, of course) in extremely minor amounts — adjustments they are now seen admitting are well within any uncertainty, a fact that received significantly less emphasis in their public media campaign claiming anomalous, man-made warming.

GISS’s Ruedy then wrote:

[NASA’s] assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data … may not have been correct. … Indeed, in 490 of the 1057 stations the USHCN data were up to 1C colder than the corresponding GHCN data, in 77 stations the data were the same, and in the remaining 490 stations the USHCN data were warmer than the GHCN data.

Ruedy claimed this introduced an estimated warming into the record of 0.1 deg C. Ruedy then described an alternate way of manipulating the temperature data, “a more careful method” they might consider using, instead.

Chris Horner filed the FOIA request that NASA didn't comply with for two years. Now we know what took so long. (Click here for the NASA files. This is Part One of a four-part series.)

February 17, 2010 - by Christopher Horner <- Prev Page 2 of 2 View as Single PageAlthough in public he often used his high-profile perch for global warming cheerleading, former New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin privately wrote that he was worried about the integrity of the ground stations. When still at the Times he wrote to Hansen on August 23, 2007:

i never, till today, visited http://www.surfacestations.org and found it quite amazing. if our stations are that shoddy, what’s it like in Mongolia?

Sadly, although Andy wrote many pieces touting as significant what we now know NASA admits as statistically meaningless temperature claims, he did not find time to write about data so “shoddy” as to reach the point of “amazing.” That is what advocacy often entails: providing only one side, and even a far less compelling side, of a story.

———————————————

In an August 14, 2007, email from GISS’s Makiko Sato to Hansen, Sato wrote that his analysis of a one degree warming between 1934 and 1998 might in reality be half that amount:

I am sure I had 1998 warmer than 1934 at least once because on my own temperature web page (which most people never look at), I have [image/information not visible in document]. … I didn’t keep all the data, but some of them are (some data are then listed, with 1934 0.5 deg C warmer than 1998)

As AGW proponents only claim a one degree warming over the past century, the magnitude of a .5 degree Celsius problem in their calculations is tremendous.

Sato continues:

I am sorry, I should have kept more data, but I was not interested in US data after 2001 paper.

Sato is referencing the paper by Hansen, et al., in which Hansen’s colleagues remind him 1934 was indeed listed as being a full half-degree warmer than 1998 — which is shown in their emails as being what the data said as of July 1999 (their paper described 1934 as only “slightly” warmer than 1998, p. 8). Still, throughout these emails Hansen later insists 1934 and 1998 are in a statistical tie with just a 0.02 Celsius difference and even that their relationship has not changed. For example, Hansen claims in an email to a journalist with Bloomberg: “As you will see in our 2001 paper we found 1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over 1998. We still find that result.” The implication is that things had not changed when in fact NASA had gone from claiming a statistically significant if politically inconvenient warmer 1934 over 1998, to a tie.

Regarding U.S. temperatures, Ruedy confessed to Hansen on August 23, 2007 to say:

I got a copy from a journalist in Brazil, we don’t save the data.

——————————————–

The Ruedy relationship with a Brazilian journalist raises the matter of the incestuous relationship between NASA’s GISS and like-minded environmental reporters. One can’t help but recall how, recently, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of glacier shrinkage in the Himalayas was discredited when found to be the work of a single speculative journalist at a popular magazine, and not strict peer-reviewed scientific data. The emails we obtained include several instances of very close ties and sympathetic relationships with journalists covering them.

The same can be said of NASA’s relationship vis-a-vis the IPCC, whose alarmism NASA enabled. One NASA email implicitly if privately admits that IPCC claims of accelerating warming — such as those by IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri or UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon — are specious. Yet NASA has never publicly challenged such alarmism. Instead, it sat by and benefited from it, with massive taxpayer funding of its rather odd if growing focus on “climate.”

In an August 15, 2007, email from Ruedy to Brazilian journalist Leticia Francisco Sorg, responding to Sorg’s request for Ruedy to say if warming is accelerating, Ruedy replied:

“To observe that the warming accelerates would take even longer observation times” than the past 25 years. In fact, it would take “another 50-100 years.”

This is a damning admission that NASA has been complicit in UN alarmism. This is not science. It is debunked advocacy. The impropriety of such policy advocacy, let alone allowing unsubstantial scientific claims to become part of a media campaign, is self-evident.

End of Part One

[Rocky Rhodes]

Big Oil have funded leading climatoligists at UAE Hadley Climate Research Unit.
That is a fact they tell us that themselves. What we don't know is how much?
Yet you say its a few thousand dollars with absolutely no evidence to back up your claim.

My position is that I believe in global warming and that it is not man made although due to recent evidence that has come to light regarding the global temperature datasets being tampered with and manipulated I have doubts about that now.

That was an obvious hypothetical to say having names on a list is not exactly a big deal if we don't know the details of it. But paying $100,000 plus to spread propaganda is a big deal IMO. It explains why there are so many anti-GW articles out there.

My position is that I believe in global warming and that it is not man made although due to recent evidence that has come to light regarding the global temperature datasets being tampered with and manipulated I have doubts about that now.

Amazing. Believing and doubting in the same sentence. I thought you were an expert on the subject yet you stumbled on the simple question. Either you believe it or you don't.

So all bureau of meteorologies around the world (every country and all cities) have been tampering data for the last 50 yrs even well before this has become political? Extremely unlikely.

Now let's get to the key issue, is man-made global warming (AGW) real or not or even a part of the global warming problem. Can you present your case with one or two of your strongest points why you believe AGW is false? And we don't need more articles. Use your own reasoning...

[Guest]

UN Climate Boss bails out of the IPCC

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225831996900

UN top climate change boss quits post
Arthur Max in Amsterdam From: The Australian February 19, 2010 12:00AM

YVO de Boer, the top UN climate change official, announced last night that he was resigning after a tumultuous four years in the job, marked by the failure to convince governments to agree on a post-Kyoto deal and revelations of a series of blunders in the UN's 2007 report on climate change.

His departure as head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change takes effect on July 1, five months before 193 nations are due to reconvene in Mexico for another attempt to reach a binding worldwide accord on controlling greenhouse gases.

Mr de Boer is known to be disappointed with the outcome of the last summit in Copenhagen, which drew 120 world leaders but failed to reach more than a vague promise by several countries to limit carbon emissions. However, he denied that his decision to quit was a result of Copenhagen.

Mr de Boer will become a consultant on climate and sustainability issues for global accounting firm KPMG and will be associated with several universities.


"Copenhagen did not provide us with a clear agreement in legal terms, but the political commitment and sense of direction to a low-emissions world are overwhelming," he said. "This calls for new partnerships with the business sector and I now have the chance to help make this happen."

In recent weeks he came under pressure to sack embattled UN climate change scientist Rajendra Pachauri over his handling of an exaggerated claim about glacial warming in UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007.

Mr de Boer had maintained the credibility of the IPCC, which Mr Pachauri chairs, remained intact despite its admission it had erred by predicting Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 if global warming was not checked.

Mr de Boer said last night he believed global talks "are on track", although it was uncertain that a full treaty could be finalised at the next summit in November.

The partial agreement reached in Copenhagen, brokered by Barack Obama, "was very significant", he said. But he acknowledged frustration that the deal was merely "noted" rather than adopted by all countries.

The media-savvy former Dutch civil servant was credited with raising the profile of climate issues through his press encounters and his lobbying of world leaders.

But his travel and frenetic diplomacy failed to bridge the suspicions and distrust between developing and industrial countries that blocked a final agreement at Copenhagen in December.

People who know him say he was more disheartened by the snail-paced negotiations than he was ready to admit.

Mr de Boer, 55, was appointed in 2006 to shepherd an agreement to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions an average 5 per cent. He said the high point of his efforts was the agreement by developing countries, reached at the 2007 conference in Bali, to join efforts to contain global warming in return for financial and technical help from the wealthy nations.

The Bali meeting was so intense that during its final meeting, when he was accused of mishandling the arrangements, Mr de Boer left in tears. He returned to an ovation.

AP

[Guest]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcptn
Big Oil have funded leading climatoligists at UAE Hadley Climate Research Unit.
That is a fact they tell us that themselves. What we don't know is how much?
Yet you say its a few thousand dollars with absolutely no evidence to back up your claim.

My position is that I believe in global warming and that it is not man made although due to recent evidence that has come to light regarding the global temperature datasets being tampered with and manipulated I have doubts about that now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky Rhodes
That was an obvious hypothetical to say having names on a list is not exactly a big deal if we don't know the details of it. But paying $100,000 plus to spread propaganda is a big deal IMO. It explains why there are so many anti-GW articles out there.

We are talking about 2 of the biggest oil companies in the world in BP and Shell funding the UAE CRU which boasts supposedly leading climate scientists in the world. I doubt the funding would have been less than the measly $100,000 that Exxon Mobil gave to a couple of Free Market Think tanks who held a seminar with global warming sceptics.
Government funding of man made global warming advocates has run into billions over the past 3 decades. 80 billion alone by the US government.


http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/pit...eless-insults/
Pitman Paid $190,000 a year to throw baseless insults

Last week a paid public servant spoke untruths, but instead of being exposed by the media, he was aided by our taxpayer-funded public broadcast network. Andy Pitman spoke about the socio-economic position of a group he avoids, and let down UNSW, abused the title “Professor”, and misled the public.
The journalists allowed the baseless smears to be broadcast without question, not just once, but twice.

Professor Andy Pitman on ABC Radio: Eleanor Hall interviews Andy Pitman on glaciers.http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/aud...tman-extra.mp3

Robin Williams thought it was so “useful” he rebroadcast the same factually incorrect, irrelevant material on his “science” show. Oops.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow...10/2805143.htm


It’s hard to cram more anti-truths into one declaration:
“My personal view is that climate scientists are losing the fight with climate sceptics. That the sceptics are so well funded, so well organized, have nothing else to do, they kind of don’t have day jobs, they can put all of their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the public, whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and this isn’t one of them. All of the efforts you do in an IPCC report is done out of hours, voluntarily, for no funding and no pay, whereas the sceptics are being funded to put out full scale misinformation campaigns…”
Let’s correct the six seven-delusion paragraph

1. Skeptics are well funded?
The misinformation helps to sell out the nation that supports them, to a corrupt foreign committee whose recommendations will mainly end up profiting large financial houses.

Let’s put a perspective on just how spectacularly wrong these claims on ABC radio are. ExxonMobil paid all of $23 million to skeptics worldwide in total, over ten years. In the same period, the US government alone was spending around $2 billion a year on climate scientists. And if you include other climate industry players, from 1989-2009, the total funding is $79 billion dollars. Hence believers of the big-scare could dip into a pot that was at least 3,500 times as large as anything the skeptics of the same scare could draw from. (All this info comes from my Climate Money paper).
If there was any equivalent funding for skeptics, Greenpeace would have found that paper trail and the scare-friendly press would have told you all about it. Big-Oil could hardly hide $79 billion now could they?
Andy Pitman earns far more from his beliefs than this skeptical advocate and infinitely more than most skeptics (who earn nothing) while he postulates on things he has done no research on and misleads the public. (Take me to court Andy. I don’t mind discovery of documents, but I don’t pander to bullies’ requests in public.) Most skeptical scientists are those no longer in the pay of government or other alarmist organizations, free to speak up without losing their jobs. They are mainly retired.
In reality it can cost money to be an active skeptic. To print out handouts, to organize speeches at local community halls, to do mail outs to our representatives, or to pay for transcripts of interviews that misrepresent the science. It says a lot that there are so many people willing to put themselves out, money and time-wise, in order to save us from the scare with no evidence.
Pitman has received over $6 million in grants – obviously not paid to him personally, but paid into accounts he controls–for research he directs. Presumably he also earns at least the base salary of a UNSW Professor, I gather, $190,000 a year. For a science PhD that’s not bad, especially if you throw in multiple overseas trips with all expenses paid, and the odd-rock-star-radio interview with no hard questions. It’s a wicket worth defending.

2. Skeptics are “well” organized?

Organized how exactly? With no PR department, no union, no association, no office, no UN agency, usually no budget, and … though you can see how we fund national multi-million dollar televised Ad campaigns like “Think Climate, Think Fraud”, oh that’s right … that was Kevin Rudd: “Think Climate, Think Change” (give us your money). That cost Australian taxpayers $13.9 million dollars.

Pitman cries poor while his scare campaign team includes the major western governments, the UN, the banks, big oil (they always funded alarmism more, and now don’t fund skeptics), the green movement, the alternative energy suppliers, the reinsurance industry, and many businesses. About all the skeptics have is donors on blogs and a few dedicated organizations of like minded people, such as the indefatigable Heartland (which is in turn funded mostly by private donations, with no more than 5% from any single corporation). Skeptics are tiny voices against vast machines.
Pitman wouldn’t recognize a genuine grassroots movement if it mowed him down.

3. Skeptics are misleading the public?

Misleading? You mean like climate scientists who are using tricks to “hide the decline”, removing data from 75% of worldwide temperature stations, ignoring the best ocean temperature network data, colluding to keep contrary papers out of publication, avoiding FOI requests, abusing statistics to make scary hockey sticks no matter what data you feed them, and ignoring the masses of data and analysis (much of it peer-reviewed) that undermines the carbon dioxide theory of global warming? Or, how about putting most “official” thermometers next to airport-tarmac or air conditioner outlets, or pretending that one tree in far north Russia can measure global temperatures?

Strangely, it’s not skeptics who howl that “only peer review counts” while at the same time pretending that speculative information from the WWF, Greenpeace and a student’s paper of mountaineering anecdotes were peer-reviewed research by hundreds of experts.

4. “Explaining science is not my job”.

According to the UNSW Guidelines, it is. It’s what Professors are paid to do: to foster leadership and excellence in their academic area within the university and the community. As it happens, over the last 18 months, I’ve asked Pitman in writing to publicly name any misleading points from the Skeptics Handbook. He has refused.

[Guest]

5. I, Andy Pitman, volunteer to help the IPCC

As Andrew Bolt so aptly pointed out, Andy Pitman’s grants list includes around $60,000 in funding “for costs incurred as lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.
That’s not most people’s idea of volunteer work.

6. Skeptics don’t have day jobs

Pitman, contradicting himself suddenly, claims many “fully funded” climate skeptics don’t have day jobs, and for once he’s half-right, but scores an own goal by using the truth. Most active skeptics don’t have day jobs, precisely because there aren’t any paid climate skeptic positions to have. Many skeptics are retired, because no one else has time to audit the IPCC “for fun”.

Many skeptics are retired, because no one else has time to audit the IPCC “for fun”.

As far as I know (correct me if I’m wrong), total ARC grants specifically available for research aiming to disprove the theory of AGW in 2010 are exactly $0.00, as has been the case since time began. (That’s another scandal, for another day.)

Who should be protecting Australia from paying reparations based on bogus science? When the bogus science is climate science, Andy Pitman ought be high on that list. Instead, he helps to sell out the nation that supports him to a corrupt unaudited foreign committee whose recommendations will mainly end up profiting large financial houses.

7. An ad hominem attack is “scientific”?
Notice how we’re not talking about climate science? Why, on a planet that goes around the sun, is a professor of science launching ad hominem attacks? A science undergraduate should grovel with embarrassment for making this mistake. High school debaters have stronger reasoning skills. Yet, the science reporters on the ABC don’t even blink.

So what if I was paid, oh, let’s say, $190,000 a year, by… an oil sheik (I’m not). But if I was, how would that change the satellite recordings that I write about from Universities on the other side of the world from me? What kind of conspiracy theory do you have to hold in your head to nullify the evidence with any information about funding? I’m a commentator forgoodnesssake, I don’t even collect, hold or publish results from the sediments, corals, ice cores, pollen, diatoms, boreholes, or tree rings that I talk about.
“Rabid” is the word for this reasoning.

Aren’t we all grown up enough now to attack the ball and not the man? (Which goes for Penny Sackett too, our Chief Scientist, who said that exact thing tonight on The 7.30 Report. Where was Sackett last week? Did she miss the chance to admonish Pitman for attacking skeptical scientists?)

Look Mum. No logical errors here

Lest anyone think I’m committing the same logical error as Pitman by pointing at his vested interests, let’s put a razor fine point on it. He claims we are winning the debate because we have so much funding. We claim he’s losing because he has no evidence. At no point have I ever said his science is wrong because he is paid.
So why post about his funding?

One: To show that he’s not only illogical, but spectacularly wrong as well. It’s a baseless smear campaign.

Two: The $6 million in research grants vs the $0 in skeptical grants tells us nothing about the atmospheric climate, but shows that there is a Gravy Train, and he is on it. And he’s the one who suggested that people’s opinions were affected by funding. Go soak in that irony.

Three: If people are going to try to bully and smear us, it helps to make it painful for them, by pouring the truth right back at them.
Since he effectively said “follow the money”, I just said, “ok”. And did I mention that the carbon market was worth $130 billion last year?

Speaking of money, who is paid to audit the IPCC?

Officially, no one is. No agency, no institution, no government department. Information from that UN conglomerate committee controls global markets, and yet answers to no elected government, no ASIC, no SEC, no ACCC. Nothing. There ought to be teams of skeptical scientists paid to check on the alarmists, but no one at all is checking, except a few unpaid scientists and bloggers.

The bottom line
Pitman peddles misinformation about science and misinformation about skeptics. He could start by apologizing to the Australian people who pay his salary. Then he could say thanks to the Australian scientists working pro bono to do part of his job for him.
What a sad week for Australian science, a dismal day for Australian universities, and a low point for the ABC.
It’s not so hot for taxpayers either, we’re funding someone who throws baseless speculation and insults back at the same Australian citizens he’s supposed to serve.
…

Quote:

[melon....]

AGW is dead and buried.

The cash cow needs a facelift. Africa can get ****ed as far as Im concerned, and im surprised the believers dont feel the same. Copenhagen debarcle showed AGW for what it truely is - a socialist plan to redistribute wealth.

And teh greedy little afro ****s started arguing about the amounts. Dead Give away.

The priests dont know and dont care about climate. but they know how to create a new currency that will level things out. **** socialism.

[Guest]

"My position is that I believe in global warming and that it is not man made although due to recent evidence that has come to light regarding the global temperature datasets being tampered with and manipulated I have doubts about that now."

Rocky Rhodes posted
"Amazing. Believing and doubting in the same sentence. I thought you were an expert on the subject yet you stumbled on the simple question. Either you believe it or you don't.

So all bureau of meteorologies around the world (every country and all cities) have been tampering data for the last 50 yrs even well before this has become political? Extremely unlikely.

Now let's get to the key issue, is man-made global warming (AGW) real or not or even a part of the global warming problem. Can you present your case with one or two of your strongest points why you believe AGW is false? And we don't need more articles. Use your own reasoning...[/QUOTE]

* I never claimed to be an expert on anything. That is your judgement.
* I have about a 95% belief that global warming is not significantly contributed to by man
* The doubt is that maybe there is no warming due to recently revealed evidence that temperature datasets have been tampered with.

There are 3 global temperature datasets that are used by all climate scientists. They are located at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Goddard Institute of Space Studies. All 3 have had allegations that the temperature data have been manipulated and corrupted. Any climate science that uses any of these sources is irrelevant.

That is my strongest point refuting claims that man significantly contributes to global warming if there is any.

[Guest]

AGW is dead and buried.

The cash cow needs a facelift. Africa can get ****ed as far as Im concerned, and im surprised the believers dont feel the same. Copenhagen debarcle showed AGW for what it truely is - a socialist plan to redistribute wealth.

And teh greedy little afro ****s started arguing about the amounts. Dead Give away.

The priests dont know and dont care about climate. but they know how to create a new currency that will level things out. **** socialism.

Did you hear yesterday that KRUDD says we are going to increase our aid funding to Africa from 4 billion to 8 billion a year. Part of that 100 billion of funding promised at Copenhagen imho (or funnelled away to help setup the proposed global government body in the draft Copenhagen Treaty).

[melon....]

Did you hear yesterday that KRUDD says we are going to increase our aid funding to Africa from 4 billion to 8 billion a year. Part of that 100 billion of funding promised at Copenhagen imho (or funnelled away to help setup the proposed global government body in the draft Copenhagen Treaty).

Wong still believes our beachside suburbs will wash away.

What the ****. I hope Australians arent THAT stupid.

[Guest]

I hope Australians arent THAT stupid.

They are and if you want proof check out the below load of paranoid conspiracy moronic bullshit.

AGW is dead and buried.

The cash cow needs a facelift. Africa can get ****ed as far as Im concerned, and im surprised the believers dont feel the same. Copenhagen debarcle showed AGW for what it truely is - a socialist plan to redistribute wealth.

And teh greedy little afro ****s started arguing about the amounts. Dead Give away.

The priests dont know and dont care about climate. but they know how to create a new currency that will level things out. **** socialism.

Chook.

[Rocky Rhodes]

"My position is that I believe in global warming and that it is not man made although due to recent evidence that has come to light regarding the global temperature datasets being tampered with and manipulated I have doubts about that now."

Rocky Rhodes posted
"Amazing. Believing and doubting in the same sentence. I thought you were an expert on the subject yet you stumbled on the simple question. Either you believe it or you don't.

So all bureau of meteorologies around the world (every country and all cities) have been tampering data for the last 50 yrs even well before this has become political? Extremely unlikely.

Now let's get to the key issue, is man-made global warming (AGW) real or not or even a part of the global warming problem. Can you present your case with one or two of your strongest points why you believe AGW is false? And we don't need more articles. Use your own reasoning...

* I never claimed to be an expert on anything. That is your judgement.
* I have about a 95% belief that global warming is not significantly contributed to by man
* The doubt is that maybe there is no warming due to recently revealed evidence that temperature datasets have been tampered with.

There are 3 global temperature datasets that are used by all climate scientists. They are located at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Goddard Institute of Space Studies. All 3 have had allegations that the temperature data have been manipulated and corrupted. Any climate science that uses any of these sources is irrelevant.

That is my strongest point refuting claims that man significantly contributes to global warming if there is any.

But those temperature datasets just prove Global warming, nothing to do with whether it's man made or not. And you told us you believe in Global warming therefore you must believe in those figures.

You sound totally confused man.

For the AGW debate i expected to hear some scientific reason not the simple collection of temperatures (i.e Global warming figures).

I will give you another go, can you give one strong reason against AGW rcptn?

[Rocky Rhodes]

AGW is dead and buried.

The cash cow needs a facelift. Africa can get ****ed as far as Im concerned, and im surprised the believers dont feel the same. Copenhagen debarcle showed AGW for what it truely is - a socialist plan to redistribute wealth.

And teh greedy little afro ****s started arguing about the amounts. Dead Give away.

The priests dont know and dont care about climate. but they know how to create a new currency that will level things out. **** socialism.

If that is the case then why is your beloved libtard hero leader spending 3.2 billion to reduce greenhouse emissions? Spending 3.2 billion to achieve nothing? What next, another 3.2 billion to upgrade santa's toy factories in the north pole.

If you are right, your libtard hero is an complete idiot. Turnball was a total believer in AGW as well.

[Guest]

But those temperature datasets just prove Global warming, nothing to do with whether it's man made or not. And you told us you believe in Global warming therefore you must believe in those figures.

You sound totally confused man.

For the AGW debate i expected to hear some scientific reason not the simple collection of temperatures (i.e Global warming figures).

I will give you another go, can you give one strong reason against AGW rcptn?

Your easily confused man

I believe in the figures but I'm starting to doubt those really show global warming given the evidence that is starting to come out.

The strongest reason that I can give that significant man made global is not real is that the 3 global datasets used in all climate science were manipulated rendering it all useless because if you use dodgy data in your modelling then your conclusions are not relevant. I have provided information on this several times.

Go Back Re Read and Learn if you want

[Guest]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate...inglepage=true


Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part Two)

Horner looks further into the NASA emails, and finds stunning examples of politicized science and institutional hypocrisy. (This is Part Two of a four-part series. Read Part One here.) Update: Don't miss Chris Horner's PJTV interview here.

February 18, 2010 - by Christopher Horner (On December 31, 2009, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute with the documents I requested from them with an FOIA in August 2007. My request asked NASA to release their internal discussions regarding errors of theirs materially effecting their temperature claims caught by Steve McIntyre. NASA had stonewalled my request for more than two years.)

Dr. James Hansen has an extraordinary history of alarmism and dodgy claims: He has testified in support of the destruction of private property in the name of global warming alarmism and referred to coal rail cars as the equivalent of Nazi death trains, all while insisting that any president named George Bush was muzzling him. He has proven himself a global warming zealot leading a taxpayer-funded institute.

On August 11, 2007, James Hansen emailed the New York Times’ Andrew Revkin:

As for the future in the US, you can look for the warming to become more obvious during the next decade or two.

However, observations and projections in the refereed literature which take into account the past decade of no warming, shifts in oceanic currents, and other, obviously dominant climate “forcings” have since turned the other direction.

Getting it dead wrong is close enough for government work, and it’s pretty clear that Hansen is only protected and still employed because he is a government employee who gets things wrong in a way that supports a politically favored agenda. Hansen’s nuttiness is acceptable nuttiness. He is a sacred cow despite years of questionable practices and avocations.

——————————————-

Spinning madly in his defense during the August 2007 kerfuffle started by Steve McIntyre, Hansen repeatedly dismisses that NASA had ever presented 1934 as being warmer than 1998. In the process, he serially refers to a 2001 paper with other NASA colleagues of which he was lead author.

Ruedy wrote to Hansen on August 23, 2007, apparently seeking to stop their office’s highest-profiled scientist from continuing to embarrass himself — and them:

The US temperature graph in our 1999 paper, based on GHCN data, shows 1934 0.5C warmer than 1998; 1998 was in 5th place behind 1921, 1931, 1938, 1953.

In the corresponding graph in our 2001 paper, now based on the carefully corrected [euphemism alert!] USHCN data, 1934 and 1998 are in first, 1921 in third place (NOAA who provided the USHCN data had 1998 slightly ahead of 1934).

The US table we had posted during all of 2006 showed 1998 and 1934 even at 1.24C (I got a copy from a journalist in Brazil, we don’t save the data).

In fact, the paper referenced here, Hansen et al. (2001), showed 1934 a whopping half a degree warmer than the next closest year, 1998.

After being embarrassed internally, Hansen says:

I think we want to avoid getting into more and more detail about ranking of individual years.

Yes. I suppose he would feel that way.

Not only was data maintenance not all that great a concern — despite NASA’s pronouncements of certainty and integrity, historical and otherwise — Hansen and NASA spent a good portion of August 2007 attempting to completely rewrite history. Particularly their own.

Ruedy emailed a NASA PR person named Leslie McCarthy, copying Hansen, on August 10, 2007. Ruedy advised McCarthy of the spin they would use to combat Steve McIntyre:

[McIntyre] concentrates on US time series which US covering less than 2% of the world is so noisy and has such a large margin of error that no conclusions can be drawn from it at this point.

The error Ruedy refers to is 0.5 Celsius, per Ruedy himself in his August 10, 2007, email to Kris French of National Geographic. In that email, Ruedy slurs McIntyre as a “global warming denier.”

Hansen emailed Dr. Donald E. Anderson, program manager at Earth Science Enterprise NASA Headquarters, on August 14, 2007:

If one wished to be scientific, instead of trying to confuse the public … one should note that single year temperatures for an area as small as the US (2% of the globe) are extremely noisy.

By this Hansen implicitly assesses NASA’s longstanding practice of touting temperature anomalies, U.S.-only and smaller than this, as being unscientific and designed to confuse the public. NASA had for years made great hay of U.S.-only temperatures as being somehow meaningful when a warming was claimed, even when that warming was less than the amount they now dismiss as meaningless. He pitched a directly contrarian perspective when U.S.-only temps threatened warming claims.