With Obama heading to Copenhagen, where he's expected to pledge some pretty big cuts in US carbon emissions, the ClimateGate story is an economic story as well as a political one. I said before that I don't think the emails refuted the notion that AGW is real, and happening. I still don't--the fact is, everything we know about carbon dioxide indicates that it has a greenhouse effect, because it is more efficient at passing sunlight through to the earth, than at allowing that energy to reradiate back into space as heat.
What's at stake is the degree of warming associated with our carbon dioxide emissions. In particular, to what extent the earth's many complex and not necessarily well understood feedback systems may mitigate (or exacerbate) temperature increases. I've long been skeptical of the more catastrophic scenarios, because all this carbon used to be in the atmosphere, which probably defines a ceiling on how bad it will get--a ceiling well below "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIEEEEEEEE!!!" That said, I wouldn't really want to live in the Jurassic, and not just because I'm afraid of hundred-foot lizards. (for example, I am also afraid of theBearing this in mind, I think most people--including me--missed the biggest part of the climate emails story. Sexing up a graph is at best a misdemeanor. But a Declan McCullough story suggests a more disturbing possibility: the CRU's main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish.
As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.
One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."
Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!"
The emails seem to describe a model which frequently breaks, and being constantly "tweaked" with manual interventions of dubious quality in order to make them fit the historical data. These stories suggest that the model, and the past manual interventions, are so poorly documented that CRU cannot now replicate its own past findings.
That is a big problem. The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming. If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-benefit analysis is totally worthless.
Obviously, this also casts their reluctance to conform with FOI requests in a slightly different light.
That's not reason to abandon efforts to control our carbon emissions--as I say, they're still very likely to be problematic. But if the model turns out to be as bad as initial reports seem to imply, we should probably hold off on policy recommendations until we have a slightly better handle on the likely outcomes.
the CRU's main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish.
a model which frequently breaks, and being constantly "tweaked" with manual interventions of dubious quality in order to make them fit the historical data.
The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming.
Can I ask who from CRU (or any other agency with relevant expertise) you contacted for the basis of these statements? Why kind of model do you believe these emails refer to?
Why
Should be "What", obviously.
The HARRY files referred to in the quote are for the Hadley CRU Temperature Series (aka CRUTEM) version 3. This is one of three historical temperature records that people rely on to say that the earth has heated up ober the last 100 years.
All three of these records are produced by complex programs that are not clearly documented and are certainly subject to errors (check the GISS y2000 problem). They also clearly require tweaking to get the "right" answer, this is illustrated throughout the HARRY document and in this email - http://di2.nu/foia/1252090220.txt
These historical records are then used to "train* the models that then predict the future warming of the planet. If the records are wrong then the models are mistrained and hence their predictions are likely to be off.
The .pro files in the quote on the other hand are about tree ring data processing. Directly they do not provide input for the models but they do provide the climate changers with their claims that the current warming is "unprecedented".
PS It should be noted that Declan McCullough makes a few mistakes (e.g. mistaking IDL for fortran) but that doesn't detract from the basic thrust of the article
I'm well-aware of what the emails cited actually referred to. My point was that Ms. McArdle did not.
This is one of three historical temperature records that people rely on to say that the earth has heated up ober the last 100 years.
It is one of the three instrumental records, along with GISTEMP and the NCDC/NOAA record, yes. These records are decidedly not the sole basis for our understanding that the Earth has warmed significantly over the last century and half. Additionally, for policy-level purposes, the differences among HadCRUT, GISTEMP, NCDC, and the satellite record (UAH or RSS) favored by "skeptics" are negligible.
These historical records are then used to "train* the models that then predict the future warming of the planet. If the records are wrong then the models are mistrained and hence their predictions are likely to be off.
This is basically untrue. Smaller-scale physical processes are parameterized with real-world data (e.g. behavior of evapotranspiration in certain situations), but GCMs are not "trained" with the instrumental record as characterized above. Perhaps you meant initialized? If so, differences in initialization choices aren't terribly relevant on end-of-century scales. The bulk of the uncertainty there lies in our inability to know what emissions path we'll choose.
they do provide the climate changers with their claims that the current warming is "unprecedented".
Dendroclimatology is a but a single branch of paleoclimatology, which is itself is not the basis for recommendations of greenhouse emissions reductions. Greater variability in the paleoclimatic record in fact would suggest a more highly sensitive climate system than currently assumed.
These records are decidedly not the sole basis for our understanding that the Earth has warmed significantly over the last century and half.
But 150 years (or even 1500 years) doesn't tell you much about historical temperatures since humans have been around, let alone what this means in geologic time. Was it AGW that melted the glaciers that covered the continent during the Ice Age or was it natural variability? If Ice Age pre-industrial humans started to cause AGW, nothing in Copenhagen would matter. The narrow focus on timeframe seems rather Creationist in scope (actually ironically Creationists give a wider timeframe)...if we are going to look at humans, we should look at what the environment was like before there were humans and how the environment changed throughout our entire evolution. Acting like pre-industrial humans weren't around during the Ice Age (just ignoring it alltogether) seems way too selective.
Additionally, for policy-level purposes, the differences among HadCRUT, GISTEMP, NCDC, and the satellite record (UAH or RSS) favored by "skeptics" are negligible.
Why should there be any differences at all? If we can't agree on what the global temperature is now with all our modern instruments, how can we know for certain what the temperature was in the past with proxies, let alone project the future temperature?
Dendroclimatology is a but a single branch of paleoclimatology, which is itself is not the basis for recommendations of greenhouse emissions reductions.
So looking at the long term historical record is not a basis for recommendations going forward? If you wish to hurry and spend trilliosn of dollars based on future predictions, shouldn't you have a thorough and full understanding of the past with high confidence?
Greater variability in the paleoclimatic record in fact would suggest a more highly sensitive climate system than currently assumed.
Greater variablity in the paleoclimatic record would suggest there's been wide-ranging variability even before humans learned to bang the rocks together.
" I still don't--the fact is, everything we know about carbon dioxide indicates that it has a greenhouse effect, because it is more efficient at passing sunlight through to the earth, than at allowing that energy to reradiate back into space as heat."
Sorry, but the only 'fact' I can detect is you are not a scientist. Atoms and Molecules do not 'pass sunlight, and there is no evidence CO2 hinders the radiation to space to any significant amount. NASA missions measuring radiation into space have seen the levels rise with temp and drop with temp - no dampening in the radiation. CO2 also is only a fraction of the so called GHG family coming in at less than 4%. The dominating 'gas' is H2O - aka water.
Also, the CRU data released indicates that today is not much warmer (and in many places cooler) than the 1940's. Which pretty much blows the whole CO2 hypothesis out of the water (so to speak).
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11466
Computer simulations are good for relatively short term predictions where all or at least most of the input data is known. However, in my estimation all the global warming computer models have the same fault which is covered by an old computer term GIGO. It stands for Garbage In, Garbage Out.
The prime mover in what brought me off the fence was when I read about the explanation for "hide the decline." Far from re-assuring me, the explanation sounded like what was done was bad science that didn't follow the scientific method. The hypothesis was that tree rings are an accurate temperature proxy, but instead thermometer data has shown that for decades tree rings under-report warming. Rather than going back to the drawing board by either changing the analytical formulas used on tree rings or ditching tree rings entirely, the bad analysis is kept with the incovenient portion of the data removed. This and other things said by CRU showed that they were making the data fit their hypothesis rather than practicing objective science. I don't think there was willful fraud but instead self-deception. They practiced Cargo Cult Science/Pathological Science. What I found particularly troublesome was far from being transparent, they used their involvement with the UN as a reason for not being transparent, which undermines the UN on multiple levels.
The real problem with ClimateGate is that it renders the entire argument worthless, because there is no way to know deception from fact. It no longer matters whether climatologists present real scientific fact or not, whether their models are adequate or not, their credibility is forever gone.
Once science crossed the seductive threshold of politics, its credibility had to be called into question. Once they conducted themselves in action as venal as demonstrated in the Climate Gate e-mails, any credibility was forever shot to hell.
I guess the same argument should be applied towards religion? All of you that disbelieve in the science that is being applied in order to save our planet from a very dim future, probably go to church and pray to your magical God that you truly believe in although you have not one shred of evidence to prove "any" God every existed at all. I'd place my money on the tree rings than magical Gods..
At least science has the balls to own up to the facts when they get them wrong, the rest of you just go on preaching away telling the masses to have faith. Faith, prayer, and religion never saved anyone. Than again, politicians and the Fox network never will either.
Precisely.
We are on the same page, Mark. Climate science is also religion. The difference, what the Global Warming Demagogues favor is a mass transfer of wealth from tax payers (e.g. cap and trade), whereas even the most religious are not seeking to direct tax dollars to their religion. We should be skeptical of evangelists that seek such massive monetary contributions.
Ah, Pascal's Wager. Even though it is difficult or impossible to prove with certainty the existence or non-existence of God, you bet against His existence.
Take two people. One believes in God and one does not. If God does not exist, then the believer tries to live a good life in relation to God, dies happy, and ceases to exist. The non-believer lives his life as he wishes and dies, and ceases to exist. However, if God does exist, then after death the believer continues his relationship with God forever. The non-believer, after death, is eternally separated from God and peace.
In both cases, the believer wins. The non-believer wins if God does not exist, but loses everything if God exists.
It's not a game of cards. It's your life.
You’re under the assumption that God cares if you believe or not. Maybe the believer loses for believing based on fears and to selfishly better his existence and not true belief. Your argument is nebulous at best; you could debate unprovable variables and scenarios until your blue in the face. Believe or don’t believe, do what make you happy.
You’re under the assumption that God cares if you believe or not. Maybe the believer loses for believing based on fears and to selfishly better his existence and not true belief. Your argument is nebulous at best; you could debate unprovable variables and scenarios until your blue in the face. Believe or don’t believe, do what makes you happy.
"In mathematical terms, if it were to be assumed that the existence of some god is certain, and if there are a number (n) of inconsistent faiths one could believe in, each with a corresponding Hell and no way to tell which one, if any, were true a priori, the probability of having chosen to practice the correct religion (through upbringing or by making Pascal's Wager) cannot be greater than 1/n.
Therefore, if there are only two inconsistent faiths, then the probability that a believer of either faith is correct is 1 in 2 (50% or 1/2). Four inconsistent faiths result in the probability dropping to 1 in 4 (25% or 1/4). If there are five mutually exclusive faiths, then there is only a 1 in 5 (20% or 1/5) chance that the correct religion would be chosen and its believer would go to that religion's Heaven rather than to its Hell.
In practice, there are hundreds of religions in existence, which makes it less than a 1% chance that the true religion would be chosen."
It's called the argument from inconsistent revelations (as propagated by Voltaire and later used by Diderot)... Look it up.
Christian Apologetics is an illogical joke; its fallibility lying not at the base of invalidity, but at that of an emotive unsoundness... Now that I think of it, perhaps you should take a class in Logic, as well - that is, of course, if you intend to keep throwing around regurgitated philosophical preponderances that you don't actually understand.
The Wager fails if you take out dichotomy and consider infinite possibilities . . . you believe in God, or don't believe in God, or believe in the 6 giant invisible rabbits that really created and run everything . . . if you believe in anything other than the 6 invisible rabbits, you'll never get really close the the rabbits in the after life . . . So non-believers and believers in one God are eternally separated from the 6 rabbits, but they are still much better off than the non-believer in Pascal's Wager, because the 6 rabbits are each and every one of them more compassionate than God. In fact, if we come up with innumerable ideas that are better than the non-believer-if-God-exists scenario . . . than only the most evil, selfish people could choose the God scenario.
Another way to spoil the Wager . . . If the non-believer is right, then everything is okay for everyone after death . . . doesn't matter really. If the believer is right, then billions suffer for eternity from the separation. So, since suffering is worse than non-suffering (in fact, such eternal suffering of billions is probably amongst the greatest evils imaginable) then the belief which says you must believe in God for some sort of salvation is worse than non-belief. Such a belief in light of the consequent suffering must be seen as an ultimate evil. IOW - with Pascal's Wager, belief (in God)is always evil, which God can not tolerate. So you must not believe in God (here and now) if you are to enjoy a relationship with God after life.
One possible exception someone just pointed out . . . it might be okay to believe in one God and that relationship as the only option for a decent afterlife IF and ONLY IF you are constantly praying that your belief is incorrect.
Ah, yes, indeed... Pascal's Wager. Let's try substituting "God" for "climate change" (AGW) in VermontTraveler's astute comment above...
"Even though it is difficult or impossible to prove with certainty the existence or non-existence of *climate change*, you bet against *its* existence.
Take two people. One believes in *climate change* and one does not. If *climate change* does not exist, then the believer tries to live a good *low-carbon* life in relation to *climate change*, dies *with a better, less impacted planet*, and ceases to exist. The non-believer lives his life as he wishes and dies *having enjoyed a hedonistic lifestyle, but leaving a much more resource-depleted planet planet for his/her descendants*, and ceases to exist. However, if *climate change* does exist, then after death the believer *has provided the chance, however slim, of a habitable planet for his children and his childrens' children, hopefully* forever. The non-believer, after death, *has helped reduce the habitability of the planet by his/her actions, and* eternally *reduced the chance for his/her descendants to enjoy a healthy planet and* peace.
In both cases, the believer wins. The non-believer wins if *climate change* does not exist, but loses *the planet for his/her descendants* if *climate change* exists.
It's not a game of cards. It's your life."
Well, I know which "life" I choose... living a happy, humble, low-carbon lifestyle, leaving the chance for a habitable planet for my children and their children... not a life aspiring to and acquiring bloated McMansions, gas-guzzling luxo-SUV's and jet-skis, and 30-mile each-way single-occupant vehicle commutes.
You begin by imputing religious motivations for which you have absolutely no evidence and which happens to be contrary to fact. So much for your beliefs.
Then, you claim that these scientists "owned up" when they were actually outed and hung by their own petard.
Is this the level of rationality you bring to your belief in anthropomorphic global warming? You demonstrate beautifully the fact that there is a mindless, herd instinct, religious aspect to the AGW movement that fosters the kind of duplicity revealed by ClimateGate.
Nah, the real problem with leak of emails is that it shows that scientists can be nasty people.
A smaller problem is it riles the tea-bagging douches like yourself another uneducated, ill-informed, misguided, irrational, baseless talking point with no substance to back up.
/sarcasm on
Simpleton, do I detect a hint of bias or animosity in your comment?
/sarcasm off
As we both know tea bagging is a sexual practice. The people you are attempting to insult refer to them selves as participants in a tea party, a reference to the famous Boston Tea Party that preceeded the American revolution. Both they and I reject your sexual practice reference as applicable. It would be similar to my refering to you as a scatologiphile with oral fixation.
I am both amused and disappointed that the members of the left leaning fascists party, now proclaiming them selves as "progressive democrats" consitently resort to ad hominum attacks when they cannot present facts to support their arguments. Also their habit of projection, or attributing to their enemies, the qualities or motivations they themselves possess is more than just a touch annoying.
With regard to the question of global warming, or since the warming so indicated does not seem to be applicable, the more broadly inclusive and nebulously defined term Climate change is now in fashion. It seems that the evidence as compiled in the studies referenced in the article are now, at a minimum suspect as to their accuracy and truthfullness. The vehamence with which the left defends this demonstrates not a dedication to truth, but instead reminds me of someone that has had their religion challenged. It has become an article of faith that man has caused global warming and to even question that will bring out similar reactions to that of an islamic fundamentalist to a christian or jew. I.E. they will try to cut your head off and them blame you for not believing in their faith.
It used to be that science would examine the evidence and attempt to draw conclusions. If the evidence is falsified or erroneous, discard the questionable material and then get more reliable evidence. Global warming seems to me to be a modern Piltdown Man, whose supporters, when unable to find additional evidence resort to fabrication.
And to those that would claim that as stolen material, the emails should not be allowed to be read. I would remind you that daniel elsberg stole the pentagon papers and released them to the newspapers. Do you question his motivations?
If, as seems to be indicated by what I have heard so far, the scientist in question fabricated evidence for their political or finacial gain, then their taint has spoiled all their evidence. Throw it out and start with fresh investigations, new evidences, and search for the truth without the apocalyptic hype of the "Global Warming" scare tactics.
I am now prepared to accept your insults and ad hominum attacks.
We, the American Taxpayer, have been ripped off. We have been paying for real scientific investigation but instead have been feed prefabricated stories and made up data. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't see how we as a society can rely on the IPCC published reports for any policy decision, they are all fiction. These people need to face criminal prosecution and be banned from any future government funded research work, these are far beyond misdemeanor offenses.
I'd say military expenditures for country's that aren't our enemies the rip-off, not the relative pittance spent on science, which in many cases benefits us far more than if the money were put elsewhere.
Yes, if we spent, on climate research, even 10% of one year's worth of what we spend to "defend" ourselves from each other on this planet, the scientists might actually have enough funding to understand the complexities of our planet's ecosystem and climatology. Then we might be able to make a much more confident, and indisputable, assessment of what is likely, or not, to happen.
Declan McCullough, eh? This is the journalist who makes a career inflating your fear of computer technology into Insurmountable Problems with Dire Impact. He did this in his reporting of Year 2000 remediation and he's now at it with climate change.
Good science must be peer reviewed. Good reporting must be second-sourced, and in the case of Declan McCullough, I recommend he be triple-sourced.
Yes, the climate change computer model is flawed, if only because is it incomplete. Evidence for the flaw includes the observated climate change happening faster than predicted by the model.
Evidence for the flaw includes the observated climate change happening faster than predicted by the model.
You're right. We're already cooling before the politicians got a chance to claim credit for it.
There are several problems with the current approach to global warming: First, is the general lack of recognition that climate change has been a constant part of the planet's history for the last 4.5 billion years and is not a recent phenomenon. Second, is the view that data for a couple of hundred years is climate data instead of aggregated weather data-- if you want climate data take a look over several hundred thousand years, at a minimum; if not several million years. What you will discover is that this current warming trend is not remarkable, but a fairly ordinary inter-glacial climatic event, much like the four that preceded it -- not the warmest or the coolest. Third, look at the reality of greenhouse gases. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and only about 1% as effective a greenhouse gas as the much more common water vapor.
One can really care about mother earth and still not believe in the global warming hype. There are many huge environmental problems right now that I think deserve more of our energy and money than global warming.
Should we control emissions and pollution, of course, should we spend
gazilions of dollars on something may be part of earth natural cycle
I am not so sure.
It doesn't really matter if we are democrats, republicans, left or right or whatever, humans typically are self righteous and like to find the evidence to support self interest or a pre-existing belief.
There are thousands of variables in global warming, many of them, poorly understood and I don't think it is possible to be so sure about it. Objective science does not exist and we need to be humble enough to be wrong. I may be wrong but for now that is what I believe.
I agree 100% with what you say. There is far more evidence of harm caused by other environmental things. Focusing on carbon emissions - to the point of reworking trillions of dollars of the world's economy - rather than other types of environmental concerns could actually end up hurting rather than helping. Rejecting global warming doesn't mean you reject the environment.
Hey Chris, how dare you come on here and make sense! We're trying to have an irrational argument from completely uninformed points of view.
Seriously though, I recycle, I drive a Prius, I do many things to take care of the Earth and believe others should as well. It just makes sense to minimize harm to the planet wherever possible. However, I don't think we should be frantically pushing legislation that could do serious harm to the U.S. economy when there are so many questions and so much doubt. I'm also a trained engineer and computer programmer who builds highly complex models and simulators. If half of what's said about the climatic change model in this article is true, then the model isn't worth the disk space it's taking up.
By the way, it's possible to be against the Cap and Trade bill and still be an environmentalist. It's also possible to believe that health care reform is needed, but be opposed to the monstrosity that the Democrats are trying to ram through Congress -- but that's another argument...
Maybe they should get some of those economic modelers. They seem to know their stuff....
Why do they call it Greenland?
So much for warming......................
This must be an ice age of sorts.......
What caused the warming so it was named Greenland? Elephant farts?
A sucker born every minute -- Al Gore has found most of them.
The people writing this software would also try to sell the Brooklyn Bridge.
Are you really that stupid or did you just not pay attention all through school?
They called it Greenland so people would go there instead of Iceland. Greenland is the icy one, Iceland is the green one. There was no warming involved.
I am so glad Al Gore doesn't have F students like you following him around!
People being led by Al Gore are being led by an "F" student. He received 5 "F's" in 8 classes at Vanderbilt Divinity School before bailing. Then he withdrew from Vanderbilt Law School. For the classes for which his grades are known at Harvard he tanked. He has not released his grades. Of course that's what I did also because I am crazy smart. Now, Greenland was settled during the medieval warm period. Then the little ice age occurred, the ice returned, and it was abandoned. Iceland lost half it's population during this frozen period.
Did he, I understood that there were several incompletes when he withdrew. That's not the same as taking a course and flunking it. After a year or so, the incompletes become F's, but again, it's not the same. Gore's grades were inconsistent in courses he completed . . . ranging from A's to D's. It might be more accurate to call him a lazy student. Though I don't think any of that really applies now. One's actions at 18-24 may not be at all related to one's actions later on, and people who have later been considered great leaders (or genius, in some fields) got poor marks in school. Hopefully you'll learn to think beyond this with Gore, and other politicians, since you do seem to have done a bit more research on Greenland.
A couple of thoughts, Susan, just in case you weren't being facetious - I've heard it was 'Groenland' (something like 'folk-land' or 'people's land') which was meant to attract settlers. Like Alison, that's what I was taught, though I just read it was also called 'Gruntland' (ground land) from which Greenland may also be a mistranslation. At any rate, it wasn't called that because it was significantly warmer or greener in human recorded history (though I've also read that the southern coastal areas may have been a little more moderate prior to the mini ice age).
As for Gore bringing out suckers . . . You're right on there !! Those who criticize him based upon unfounded rumor, misquotes, innuendo, bad reporting, bad science, or out-and-out lies are some of the biggest suckers on the planet. And you can bet they'll continue. The more often he's right; the more he's shown to be a thoughtful, educated, good, decent person, and a positive influence on the planet, the more they'll feel the need to criticize him . . . probably to convince themselves that they are not representative of the opposite charateristics.
"Recorded history" is a bit fuzzy, but there is considerable archeological evidence to support the conclusion that Greenland supported agriculture as far north as Disko Bay
in the 9th century.
See Schledermann, Peter; Crossroads to Greenland
Komatic Press 1990 Arctic Institute of North America, University of Calgary.
Thanks for the reference, I hadn't realized it was that far North. Wasn't it still only coastal?
Does this reference (or another perhaps) suggest that the country's name actually was indicative of it's relative agricultural fertility at the time? I thought the glacial ice sheet were significantly older, but I could be wrong about that. I was unaware that the name might actually have been due to it's agriculture, heavy forests, or abundant plant life, but I'd love to know if there are such references available, and if that was the case in the 9th century. There have been a lot of advances since I was in school.
Coastal. The interior of Greenland has been covered by a thick glacial ice sheet at least since the last ice age. But most of the evidence also suggests that the first Europeans to settle in Greenland went there because of "crowding"--in terms of available livlihood-
on the coasts they migrated from. They preferred to find new coastal areas to settle to moving inland and changing their way of life.
I believe I have seen an explanation of "Greenland" being "green" compared to Iceland, the stepping stone before it in an out migration from Europe. A lot of Iceland is bare volcanic rock, whereas the action of the glacier in Greenland resulted in it having much more soil along the coasts. If I find the reference I'll post it here.
Megan, If you read the emails you will find that the science they use is Bogus or even nonexistent. To deny that fact speaks volumes about your thought processes.
Actually if you read the emails, you would not be saying that.
The emails show NOTHING of the sort. Repeating what FOX News decided you should echo is not thinking, Pip.
Of the thousands of emails, the cretins showed a couple in which
a. Climate scientists spoke derogatorily of the deniers. This, while nothing to do with science is neither a crime, nor an issue, since the emails are NOT a scientific paper
b. Showed that ONE scientist used a "trick" to show present ONE piece of data in a particular way. The "trick" written about in the email is NOT deception, rather a technique.
c. One which said that it is a travesty only reflect frustration on part of the author in the same way a DA at the OJ trial complained that "it is a travesty that with DNA evidence the jurors acquitted OJ".
Given that you have shown NOTHING in over thousands of email that
a. proves that there was a conspiracy
b. proves that there is anything but global warming,
I suggest you get an education.
By attending high school first
Exactly. What is everyone so excited about? I mean, you only f*cked one sheep!
Yes, it was your mother, but that is still no way to talk about her, young man!
Stay in school
Does anyone think the vaccine research was any more unbiased or truthful? Or the health care data? Or the evidence for WMD's in Iraq? Or evidence against half the people they are torturing in the name of America? All of these are tentacles of the same creature: the Federal Reserve.
Indeed, the genius comes thru.
Just because there exists a conspiracy, everything accused of being a conspiracy is indisputably, conspiracy!
Stay in school!
Baaah!
You sound just like your mother.
In heat!
Stay in school!
As a matter of fact I scored 10 of 10 on the Queendom.com Spatial IQ test (160, 99.99%).
Or the research that says that the Earth isn't flat, that the Earth circles the sun, which is itself merely one of trillions of suns, or that planes can fly, or that anti-biotics work but can become less potent if used incorrectly, or that things . . . except PC's and iPods and those things involving programmers, of course . . . we're the only unbiased ones . . . Hey, it's all partially or directly the results of scientific endeavor.
Scientists in my experience tend not to be biased and dishonest . . . (especially if they honestly apply scientific method). Politicians may very biased, though often sincere (which doesn't mean they're not sincerely repeating falsehoods). Corporate Execs may be biased and insincere, based upon where profit lies, and I'd be more leary of the anti-GW statements that support corporate profits.
I've also read that the effects of GW have been intentionally understated, though that's not what your typical American media is going to report.
Here are the real threats to the world:
1) Genetically Modified food.
2) Fish farming
3) Plastic residues (see Great Pacific Garbage Patch)
4) Habitat loss for ecosystems.
5) Destroying Old Growth Forests and Rain forests.
6) Pharmaceutical Residues in the water supply.
7) Nuclear Waste.
8) Dick Cheney.
And they're talking about Carbon Dioxide?
Yes, because it is a real threat far more threatening than
1.
2.
6.
7.
8.
and is related to 2. 4. and 5.
Oh and I forgot:
9. Simpleton
That's ok, your mom did not.
I bet she still remembers it. Ask her when you get her alone tomorrow at Thanksgiving, goober!
Stay in school!
Make sure you get your swine flu shot, plus a booster, every year from now on.
1. Genetically modified foods (which incidentally is all you eat - we've been doing generic engineering on food since the dawn of times) will save the world, and among other benefits save > 1M children from blindness.
2. Fish farming: unless you don't like fish, when done responsible fish farms are a boon for the environment.
3. Nuclear waste as the byproduct of nuclear energy is what will deliver us from acid rain and dependence on fanatical regimes for a steady source of energy. Without nuclear, China will burn its coal and cover Asia in a cloud of soot that will make the US Northeast in the 70s look like a clear day in atop of Mount Washington.
I would put people who are illiterate about science and technology near the top of the list of threats to the world. Yes, I am looking at you.
I'm illiterate about science? That's funny because along with publishing 65 peer reviewed articles on health, and obtaining one US Patent, I have 30 years experience in my job (senior computer scientist). I have never had to put comments in my code that say "This is to fudge something". I don't use "tricks" to fight reality either. Genetically Modified food is poison and I'd rather see some children starve than all children be compromised. I plant only Heirloom seeds and I never needed pesticide in my garden. Fish farming will make all fish go extinct and I prefer wild Alaskan Salmon for Astaxanthin than FD&C Orange #5. As for nuclear waste, simply implying that it saved energy being made is not enough. I think if we are going to spend Trillions it should be on cleaning up all the rubbish (I don't mean you but that too).
I would think someone who "went to MIT" would know the difference between Hybrid seeds (crossing two seeds together in a controlled environment) and Genetically Modified Seeds (that mix animal and plant matter in ways nature never intended, while mixing in lots of unknown proteins). GM seeds have only been around since the Dawn of Ben, not the Dawn of Man. Then again, you probably are simply feigning ignorance on the subject as needed to support patenting GM seeds on one end and then obtaining GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status on the other. It's Heirloom seeds that been around since the beginning of time, and all the data on Genetically Modified seeds (almost exclusivly owned by Monsanto and Cargill) that shows it will "feed the world" is just more hooey from the same Oligarchs that are promoting Climate Control, Pelosi Care, and Mandatory Vaccinations.
Why fish farming?
Why isn't Barack Obama on the list?
What about abortion. That is killing more than all of the above.
I am good with 1,3,4,5,6,7 but 8 need to be changed. He is no longer in power.
I think fish farming because of some of the difficulty, particular with some disease that salmon in fish farms may have spread (though I can't remember the detail or get you a source at the moment, sorry). This may have more to do with the current state of fish farming than with its potential.
I understand you must feel strongly about a couple of other issues:
- Obama has not really been President long enough, or exercised personal power to such an an extent that any reasonable conclusion can yet be drawn about his 'danger' to the world. Cheney is believed to have wielded a great deal of power, sometimes acting in ways that cost lives and threatened peace, and perhaps in some cases in opposition to reason and information provided. In addition, people still listen to him, and we're still feeling the effects of that administration, so there is some basis (though I'd have to agree, thankfully, that he may not currently be representing that much danger.)
- The vast majority of abortions are natural (or committed by God, if you believe God designed the human body to work as it does). But what can we possibly do about this . . . we can't really fund not going to church or tell people to worship differently simply because evidence might point to a deity being some sort of horrific murderer. We could put money into scientific endeavors to decrease the incidence of various failures in the process of cell division, implantaton, etc., but I don't see those who claim that abortion is killing actively supporting that research currently. I realize that the belief that it is 'killing' a human being is deeply felt, but it is more a matter of faith, and difficult to support. In addition, even if it were, and we could significantly modify the way the human body works, it can not be proven that it currenlty represents a danger to the future of the planet. So, I don't think it can be added to the list as a definitive threat to the world.
The climate, like the brain, has a level of complexity that modern science is simply unable to deal with. All we know and understand are small, peripheral phenomenons that tell us very little about the larger picture.
I took a class on climate change at MIT, and one of our guest lecturer was the head of the Earth 'Science' department, and he basically told us 'anyone who claims global warming is happening for sure is either 1. lying or 2. doesn't know what they're talking about'.
It seems to me that we have a conspiracy between the scientists and the media to push a very specific agenda and view on what is happening:
1. Earth scientists push the idea that warming is happening because it keeps research dollars flowing their way and raises the importance of their research with the public and academia at at large.
2. The media push the idea that warming is happening because there the values of traditional liberals (Teddy Roosevelt) have been pushed to an extreme, that consumption is bad and that we all need to stop the capitalist machine and lower our standards of living.
This has become as close to a religion on the left as it gets. An unsubstantiated belief that has far reaching implication on how you live and you want to force others to live.
BigMountainBen
Who obviously doesn't want the mountains to melt, but isn't worried at all.
It's probably too much to hope for, but perhaps the release of
these emails, and the exposure of the siege mentality of the AGW
true believers, will lay to rest the myth that the science behind
the AGW claims is "settled" and that anyone questioning their claims
is an outlier or worse.
My personal favorite in this discussion is an author who holds
that there IS AGW, it's been going on in the background for about
8,000 years else we'd be going into an ice age now, and the important
greenhouse gas causing it has been methane produced as a byproduct
of irrigation for agriculture. Unfortunately, this view doe not give
any of our activists much to work with, but it does broaden one's
perspective.
look... I'm a meteorologist/oceanographer who works for an unsaid government agency that works extensively with meteorological,oceanographic /climatology models and we have a saying for model performance on what we use day to day on what are considered to be reliable models. Garbage in, garbage out.... enough said? these models being used have hardly been established as reliable considering the relatively short amount of time they have been performing and the amount of variables required in calculating the complex scenarios put forth in these studies, not to mention the lack of information. We as humans simply have not recorded enough information in the last 500-1000 years to compute a complex macro scale model into the long range climatological future of the world. Now we do know some things based on carbon dating ice layers etc etc, however we simply do not have all of the variables required for the equation and thats when we as scientists substitute "assumed" variables into the equation instead. Is this whole thing a crock of BS? no. Is it all exaggerated? Yes. Is it political? Somewhat, because certain unnamed politicians made it that way when they jumped the gun and exaggerated the situation and now they like anyone else in the situation would do are trying to save face. Is being kind to our planet a good thing? YES!! duh! It all comes down to taking care of the place in which you live, its not 2012 it's not the day after tomorrow, its just common sense, sometimes i forget that many people lack it.
Although I do not work in dealing with climate change etc. I have a few points to make:
As a mechanical engineer I work with thermal analysis programs almost every day. The programs I use are industry standards here in the U.S. and are used to prove out the theoretical thermal profiles of designs (PCB/LED primarily). Each simulation I do takes hundreds of inputs in an effort to give an accurate result. As one person here said " garbage in, garbage out". This is very true and makes me concerned with the accuracy of the models which are supposed to simulate a future earth with its billions of variables (known and unknown).
If the data used is being tweaked (as all data can be very easily) then these "scientists" arent really being scientists. They are making the data show changes that may not exist etc.
I will leave you with this one thought: If my simulations of a simple design with known variables cannot be accurate within a few degrees, how can a simulation of the earth possibly be accurate enough to show changes such as a few degrees in the earths temperature? That seems to me to be a logical impossibility...
The answers to your question "how can a simulation of the earth possibly be accurate enough to show changes such as a few degrees in the earths temperature?" can be found in the National Academies of Science report (2006) titled: "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years", which is available for free download here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
It's right and proper to question the models, the proxy data, the statistical analysis, and the rest. As more data comes in, new data sources, etc. that evaluation process will continue. That's science in action.
Thank you so much for providing this link. I have not had a chance to review this document however I will look at it as soon as possible.
I also looked into some other articles and data to look at surface temperature data and found that a recent and continuing audit of the thermal surface stations (which can be found here: http://www.surfacestations.org/) showed that a predominant number of stations in the US are not incredibly accurate (+- 2C).
Based on this information I still find it hard to believe that it can be determined that the earth's temperature has gone up
In all, I am not saying that our emmisions are not having an effect on the planets atmosphere. I just dont see hard scientific data that would be capable of actually determining the earths changing temperature, as well as a scientific manner to prove how much of an impact humans have had on this potential "warming".
This reminds me of the "scientific reports" that said there was no evidence that smoking caused cancer. Or that the swine flu was going to get us, or WMDs or, or...
Isn't lying to make money against the law?
Isn't there a law called RICO?
California on Tuesday released draft rules for its landmark greenhouse gas cap-and-trade plan that will be the most ambitious U.S. effort to use the market to address global warming.
Here is a video with Californian Dr. Ben Santer of the Livermore Laboratory explaining global warming. . The Science & Environmental Policy Project in 1996 accused Santer of altering the 1995 IPCC report on the science of climate change, deleting phrases that suggested scientific doubts about human influences on climate.. I wonder if this video was sent to the California Legislature so they could get a better grip on the "science". Santer wrote in an email leaked from the CRU as being tempted to "beat the crap" out of warming sceptic Pat Michaels
At 6.55 of the video things really get crappy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7zMQII8
sorry, bad link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7zMQII8qOo
Adding comments has been disabled for this video. LOL
I think all these points are moot.
Every life form on the planet impacts the environment. Allegedly our atmosphere was once very different, mostly CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses." Organisms evolved to consume the CO2 and their waste product was O2. They thrived in this atmosphere until they so polluted it with oxygen that they killed themselves off. During this time other organisms evolved to consume the O2, and those organisms found a balance. This is where we are today.
While it is very important for us not to pollute ourselves out of existence, I think it is MORE important that we be adaptable enough to deal with anything that comes our way. The greenhouse effect may be a huge threat to our existence, but it certainly will not be the last or greatest. If we are unable to adapt to what comes, we will end. We can hope that things will never change and we can all live in a static environment, or we can acknowledge that things always do and always will change and try to recognize and prepare ourselves to survive through those changes.
As a side note: I remember reading in Popular Science a few months ago that a company was testing a project where CO2 scrubbed from a coal power plant was piped to a nearby greenhouse. The results were a phenomenal increase in the growth rate of the plants inside the greenhouse (remember, plants breath IN CO2). So why can't we take our excess CO2 "waste" and sell it to greenhouses to help produce food for our ever growing (and ever hungrier) world population?
Amidst all this talk about "carbon capture and storage", I never hear anyone talk about the possible capital benefits of USING carbon/CO2. It seems like everyone wants to waste money bottling it up and sending it to the bottom of the ocean, or pumping it back into spent oil wells. Does no one remember that oil used to BE a waste byproduct from the processing of Kerosene?
Why do we do so much to try to eliminate our waste rather than acknowledging that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WASTE, there are only substances for which we have not YET found a use.
There is no place for fudge factors in scientific models. Coupled with poorly documented code, that's all I need to know about the validity of any predictions coming out of the mouths of people affiliated with that place.
From the sound of it, there's one guy maintaining this model with no, or very few, checks and balances. And, we're predicting the future of the world and wanting to allocate a huge chunk of the world economy based on the garbage that's coming out of this model. Give me a break!
I'm not claiming to know whether mankind truly has the ability to destroy the Earth. I'll gladly listen to anyone with an opinion and I welcome well-founded scientific research and theory on this topic. More than anything, I'm angry that these people who claim to be scientists have defamed their peers, most of whom are good, ethical people who practice the proven scientific methods and principles they learned in college.
Why not call it what it is, BS!
OMG SOLD my beach front--my oil stock,invested green with ALGORE. MOVED TO THE MTNS WHERE IT IS SNOWING LIKE CRAZY--A SURE SIGN THEY SAY OF GLOBAL WARMING--AN NOW THEY SAY THEY FUDGED THE NUMBERS--ALL THOSE NEWS PEOPLE WERE WRONG?
THE MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD DID TAKE PLACE? AND THY GREW BARLEY IN GREENLAND? OMG. I CAN KEEP BREATHING AND NOT FEEL GUILTY? WHAT ELSE?
DID THEY REALLY LAND ON THE MOON? OR WAS THAT MADE UP TOO.
THE SOLAR AND THE WINDMILL ARE NOT NECESSARY? OMG AND TO THINK I WAS READY TO OFF MYSELF IF IT GOT REAL COLD--ANOTHER SIGN OF GLOBAL WARMING. I DID NOT WANT TO FACE A SLOW DEATH AND PAYING FOR CAP AND TRADE. HMMMM WHERE DID THE MSM GO WRONG?? WHY IS BHO GOING TO DENMARK?
"WHY IS BHO GOING TO DENMARK?"
He's thumbing his nose at America, as usual.
Stay in the mountains, Rahm Emmanuel and his stooge are flushing America down the toilet. Anyone who dares to disagree with "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is going to be investigated by Congress and charged with Earth Crimes.
As a long-time computer programmer, and former grad student, I thought I'd toss in my two cents worth.
In the academic science world, grad students do the work, while the profs chase grant money. And grad students move on. Sometimes they stick around long enough to train -- or at least brief -- their successors, and sometimes they do not. The author of the HARRY_READ_ME document appears to have been handed a task well outside his capability, with very little guidance. This indicates a fundamental lack of seriousness on the part of his employers. It also raises the question of how they can possibly have any confidence in results produced by code that they did not write, do not understand, and have allowed multiple semi-skilled individuals to "debug".
Thanks for falling on your sword on this, Megan. There is enough there there to be worrisome and so I thought your first effort was disappointing. Now my faith has been restored.
I just love reading a long list of postings where people insult each other! But one issue continues to puzzle me. Why is it that people with a conservative political outlook tend to regard global warming as a hoax or deception whereas those on the liberal side regard it as fact? Why is this a political question? Either the climate is warming or it isn't and either the sea level is rising or it isn't. If things are indeed getting worse we should all be concerned. If not, we have other things to worry about. If the evidence is inconclusive, let's wait until we have better evidence. Politics should have nothing to do with it.
The short answer is that those on the liberal side want our country to act, without further consideration because they say there's no time to lose. AGW also turns out to provide a new rationale for an economic agenda that was discredited and supposedly buried about the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I doubt very much that this code we are (partially) examining here is even remotely the main model, or even close to the model in its current stage-of-development.
If it is, you can junk the entire process. In fact this university can KISS all of its grants goodbye. That is why I would be LEFT SLACK-JAWED if this was the Real McCoy.
I bet Congress can get thousands of independent (scientific) computer auditors or systems analysts who would tear this code-effort apart and in sworn testimony, verify as to its uselessness.
That is why I can NOT accept this code as being the CRU's current simulation model. For one thing the choice of coding language is a joke for any proper simulation given today's standards in the field. You wouldn't waste a supercomputer's time on junk like this.
Please don't jump on me -- as some other posters I am a programmer and a skeptic.
But there is no way IMHO that this can even remotely be related to the currrent model. It is FantasyLand to expect anything else to be Reality.
With the kind of money being spent, if this code is not more than 10 years old and only given to newbie-hires to play around with, then I would have turn over in my grave, assuming I were dead.
I can only assume that it is some kind of plaything given to newbies to prove themselves with, before they are trusted with the Real Thing.
You raise a fascinating possibility. I have long been an AGW sceptic, having searched in vain for evidence that the models have the predictive skill claimed of them. But sceptic though I was, I never dreamed that these models could be quite as ramshackle as they appear to be. The possibility that whoever leaked the documents chose a model that has been superseded by one which has none of its predecessor's shortcomings begs the questions:
• Was it done deliberately, to wave a red rag at people like me, get us all mired in schadenfreude, then deliver the coup de grace - the REAL code - exit deniers, irrevocably downcast...?
• Was it done deliberately, by a naive opponent of AGW who somehow got access to the files but lacked the knowledge to realise it was the wrong stuff?
There is a couple of objections to this idea:
In the many days that have passed since the leak, the principal players have had every opportunity, and every reason, to pull the rabbit out of the hat, and the clamour from the deniers has long past the point where its sudden appearance would achieve the desired “sting” effect. They have not repudiated the code in the leaked material, although they have promised to publish their own material “when permissions are received”. (Incidentally the unavailability of these permissions was cited as grounds for rejection of earlier FOI requests – is it now thought that this will change?)
An AGW sympathiser laying “bait” for deniers would have to be very devious indeed to include the emails, containing as they do much that discredits the correspondents. The last in the sequence is dated Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:44 -0000, and so far as I can see there is no point at which the narrative concerning the code and its shortcomings reveals a sudden upgrading of the model.
I think you may have to do some pre-mortem grave-turning....