Climategate 2.0

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by fragment

You can only conclude stuff like this if you know something about the source of the data, how it was gathered, when it ends, yada yada.

Yabut, the scientists have been shown to be conspiring with government to hide the data.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by davidm

Stop right there, liar. Post proof or retract. A chart showing cooling from ONE weather station will not do.

[Sauron]

Ah.

The author of this Forbes piece? Mr. James Taylor (not he of "Fire and Rain" fame)?

A shill for the Heartland Institute:

Senior Fellow, Heartland Institute
Managing Editor of Environment & Climate News, Heartland Institute publication

In the past, Taylor has served as a legal analyst for Defenders of Property Rights, an intern at the Cato Institute, and a member of the Federalist Society. Taylor is also managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a Heartland Institute publication.

Taylor previously served as managing editor of CCH Incorporated's disability law publications, where he became a nationally known expert and frequent speaker on a variety of employment law topics. Prior to that he was a legal analyst for Defenders of Property Rights. While at Syracuse University College of Law, he was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and founder and editor-in-chief of the Federalist Voice. Taylor is an active contributor to a weekly column on climate change issues on Forbes.com. His satirical blog posts reference global warming as alarmism and liberal propaganda.

B.A. Dartmouth College J.D. Syracuse University

The Heartland Institute itself?

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group's lack of credibility:

"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."[1]

Keep knocking them out of the park, Jerome.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Ari

Ok Jerome, here's your chance to show off Climategate the upgrade in all its glory. I didn't pay attention to climategate 1.0 but now that they've shaken it down and released an upgrade I might give it a go. While I accept global warming I also believe scientists can screw up, make mistakes and lie so while I'm skeptical, I can see how it could happen.

What would convince me to look more into this upgrade are full quotes and context showing hiding of data and other wrong doing. I want to really see what these scientists are saying and how they mean it. Context is everything. I also want to see similar views from different scientists or those that have large pull in climate science.

Then it is time for you to do some researching for yourself. I commend your willingness to look into the facts.

[Ari]

Since you brought up Climategate 2.0 I assumed you would have already done the research and could provide at least a few pieces of evidence. I read the article and found its use of quotes to be questionable, I assumed if there was more detailed and damning evidence surely you would have seen it.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

It also shows that the current temperature is not rising in relation to the increase of the CO2, ...

Okay, I'll grant you this (up to a point*) provided you acknowledge that your graph shows that the pattern of global warming and cooling cycles has been broken. That is, it shows there is no reason to believe anyone who says that global warming is the result of natural processes that have nothing to do with human technological development. Or in other words, your graph shows precisely what you AGW deniers want to deny.

*Two caveats:
Firstly, it doesn't show anything about the last 100 years very clearly because the time axis is far too long. If you were hoping to make a point about the apparent lack of correlation recently between CO2 levels and Antarctic temperatures , you made a spectacularly poor choice of graph.

Secondly, it suggests that CO2 levels and Antarctic temperatures are not connected by the same processes as they have been in the past, but it doesn't show that warming isn't happening, or that the rise in CO2 levels is not going to cause warming that can be avoided if we find a way to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in time.

... thus either the methodology of recent data collection does not correlate with data collection about the past,
you use these technical terms like someone who wants to sound knowledgeable but doesn't really understand what they are saying, Jerry. I guess you mean that methodological changes cause errors. Sometimes they do, but scientists are good at identifying and correcting these errors, and there is no reason to believe that they haven't done that in this case.

... or the CO2 increases do not cause warming.
Actually, it is precisely because the CO2 is caused by human activity and not by natural warming that the pattern has changed. That CO2 causes warming is a truth acknowledged by even the most AGW-skeptical climate scientists, I think.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Then it is time for you to do some researching for yourself.

Why?

Ari isn't claiming that the overwhelming consensus of science is wrong; you are.

Why should Ari invest time an energy exploring whether or not your claims are correct? Especially since obviously haven't done that yourself, already?

Nice try.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Firstly, it doesn't show anything about the last 100 years very clearly because the time axis is far too long. If you were hoping to make a point about the apparent lack of correlation recently between CO2 levels and Antarctic temperatures , you made a spectacularly poor choice of graph.

Oh, JEROME is very, very careful about just which graphs he will tout as undeniable evidence and which he will ignore and/or claim are incorrect or incomplete. For example, the source of the graph he displayed is the virtual Global Climate Change exhibit hosted on the Marian Koshland Science Museum website. The very next page of that same exhibit presents this graph:

A smaller portion of the previous data set with the focus on a much more brief period of time, the past 1,000 years or so. Which, of course, very clearly shows exactly what he claims the parent graph does not.

I wonder how he'll choose to ignore this one?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Care to explain what data this graph is showing? What is its source and more important, how many sources is the data taken from? Eh, liar?

[davidm]

While we’re waiting for more lies from Jerome, I thought it might be amusing to point out something about the person whose name is on the chart that Numb Nuts posted. His name is Joe D’Aleo, and guess what, kids? He is a signatory to the “Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,” which states:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

Hey, Numb Nuts, how old do you think the earth is again?

[Kyuss Apollo]

I'm so going to laugh when the ice caps melt and say "I told you so."

[davidm]

Debunking Joe D’Aleo 1

Debunking Joe D’Aleo 2

[SR71]

Originally Posted by davidm

Care to explain what data this graph is showing? What is its source and more important, how many sources is the data taken from? Eh, liar?

D'Aleo is the perennial arctic weather station cherry picker. Here is what NASA saw this year. This just in.., The Northwest Passage opened up. Second graphic down for vid.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...1-ice-min.html

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Ari

Since you brought up Climategate 2.0 I assumed you would have already done the research and could provide at least a few pieces of evidence. I read the article and found its use of quotes to be questionable, I assumed if there was more detailed and damning evidence surely you would have seen it.

You should go find the full text of the e-mails yourself, if some one else gives it to you there will just be questions of it's origin. It is always best to see first hand information.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by davidm

What is its source and more important, how many sources is the data taken from? Eh, liar?

The sources are on the graph. You have the ability to check the data yourself from the information presented on the graph.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

The sources are on the graph. You have the ability to check the data yourself from the information presented on the graph.

Why don't you tell us in your own words what you think this graph that you always trot out by the liar D'Aleo shows, Numb Nuts? Hmm?

Is this reading from two weather sources, one, three? Where does the data originate? Do you even know? Anyone can post a chart. I want to know if YOU know where the data was taken, and how?

Everyone should always realize something very important about this chart. It starts in the year 1998, and ends in 2008. Irrespective of the source of this data, and whether or not it is complete data from a lot of different weather monitoring sites or just one or two (in which case the data is meaningless), 1998 was the hottest year on record. I don't know without checking whether the later years not included in the chart -- 2009, 2010 and this year -- were hotter than 1998. But they are not included in the chart, so even if those years were hotter, those temperature spikes would not be recorded.

Therefore, because 1998 was the hottest year ever recorded, naturally the temperature line will decline relative to 1998. What is important is whether that line measuring average temperature is increasing relative not to 1998, but to all other years and decades. And, of course, it is.

No scientist ever claimed that under global warming, that it is getting hotter and hotter every year, in a straight upward climb. There will be variations; i.e., there will be up and down changes in weather. the key is the long-term trend, which, after all, is climate. And climiate change is what we are talking about, not year-to-year local weather variations.

It is also a fact that overall, the years from 2001 to 2010 were the ten hottest ever recorded.

Of course, it also helps to consistently bear in mind, in discussions like these, what a serial liar Jerome Numb Nuts is.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, Numb Nuts, how old do you think the earth is again?

Mildred still believes it is flat.

--J.D.

[Jerome]

davidm,

you can get all of that information from the sources presented on the chart.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by davidm

Therefore, because 1998 was the hottest year ever recorded

Recorded by what method over what period of time?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

“Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming”

[SR71]

Check out my hockey stick collection.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by SR71

Check out my hockey stick collection.

Wasn't that the first fraud exposed?

[Qingdai]

Hey, look. Jerome's posting stuff.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Wasn't that the first fraud exposed?

Hockey stick re-re-re-re-confirmed for the however manyeth time. No fraud, just facts, Jerome. Funniest part is, the Koch brothers partially funded the study. Bet they have buyer's remorse. Chortle.

Cooling the warming debate: Major new analysis confirms that global warming is real

Global warming is real, according to a major study released Oct. 20. Despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1°C since the mid-1950s.

[Pan Narrans]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

That graph could be used in a course on Dishonest Data Representation.

Note that each year on the x-axis occurs twice, making it look on a casual glance like it spans a longer time period than it actually is. Here's a tip: climate trends don't usually show over ten-year periods.

Also, the graph takes 1998 as its starting point, which happens to be one of the warmest years in recent decades. It is usual practice to take the beginning of a decade (so years like 1971, 1981 etc.) as the starting point of a graph. It shouldn't matter, though, because climate trends will be visible if you choose a long enough time period.