Beck's "brand new reality" on climate change relies on distorting apparently stolen emails
Glenn Beck touted climate scientists' emails that were apparently stolen by hackers from the UK's Climate Research Unit (CRU) -- emails Beck claimed "someone released" -- to assert the existence of a "brand new reality" in which the fundamental legitimacy of global warming is in doubt. But in advancing his claims, Beck distorted the emails and took them out of context to suggest they indicated that climate change was a "scam," ignoring climate scientists' subsequent statements to the contrary.
Beck claims emails are a "potentially major scandal" indicating climate change a "scam"
Beck: Emails indicate "yet another brand new reality" for climate change. From the November 23 broadcast of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: A potentially major scandal is unfolding after someone released thousands of emails and documents sent between prominent scientists of global warming debate. The New York Times has verified that these emails are legitimate, which wasn't too hard because some of them were written by and to one of their reporters.
[...]
This is what appears to be going on behind the scenes and literally trillions of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are telling us. If your gut said, "Wait a minute, this global warming thing, it sounds like a scam," well, I think you're seeing it now. We told you this was going on, without proof, because we listened to our gut. You'd never believe me, but once again, here we are with yet another brand new reality.
NASA scientist: Emails do not show that "global warming is a hoax"
NASA's Gavin Schmidt: Critics "are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated that some of the stolen CRU emails "involve people" at Real Climate.
Beck takes Trenberth email of out context to suggest it undermines "so-called bulletproof consensus" behind global warming science
From the November 23 broadcast of Glenn Beck:
BECK: But first, let's start with the science that has been so settled for all these years. What do these guys saying behind closed doors about their so-called bullet-proof consensus? Well, Kevin Trenberth, he is a climatologist for the National Center for Atmospheric Research, he wrote, quote, "the fact is we can't account for lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't." Incorrect data? Inadequate systems? Yeah. Travesty, pretty good word for it.
Wired reports Trenberth's response to leaked email: "[B]loggers are missing the point he's making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on Trenberth's response to the leaked email:
But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he's making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article - An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) - actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.
"It says we don't have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures - including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators - that global warming is continuing," he says.
RealClimate.org on Trenberth's email: "You need to read his recent paper" for context. A November 23 blog post on RealClimate.org, purporting to "shed some light on some of the context which is missing in some of the discussion of various emails", said of Trenberth's email:
You need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth's energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes.
Trenberth email cited "my own article on where the heck is global warming?" in stating that "Our observing system is adequate" to identify current warming. Trenberth's October 12, 2009, email, which Beck quoted, reads:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***
Trenberth article indeed referred to what he called an "incomplete explanation" of short-term climate variations, and maintained that "global warming is unequivocally happening." In the article to which Trenberth referred in Wired, "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy," he wrote:
The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest since about 2000 (Fig. 1). Given that there is continual heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Fig. 1) and other greenhouses due to human activities, why isn't the temperature continuing to go up? The stock answer is that natural variability plays a key role and there was a major La Niña event early in 2008 that led to the month of January having the lowest anomaly in global temperature since 2000. While this is true, it is an incomplete explanation.
[...]
Given that global warming is unequivocally happening and there has so far been a failure to outline, let alone implement, global plans to mitigate the warming, then adapting to the climate change is an imperative. We will of course adapt to climate change. The question is the extent to which the adaptation is planned and orderly with minimal disruption and loss of life, or whether it is unplanned? To plan for and cope with effects of climate change requires information on what is happening and why, whether observed changes are likely to continue or are a transient, how they affect regional climates and the possible impacts. Further, to the extent that the global community is able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the climate change, then information is required on how effective it is. This article addresses vital information needs to help understand climate change.It is not a sufficient explanation to say that a cool year is due to natural variability. Similarly, common arguments of skeptics that the late 20th century warming is a recovery from the Little Ice Age or has other natural origins are inadequate as they do not provide the physical mechanisms involved. There must be a physical explanation, whether natural or anthropogenic. If surface warming occurs while the deep ocean becomes cooler, then we should be able to see the evidence. It may be that there is insufficient data to prove one way or the other, as is often the case in the deep past. However, since 1979 there have been instruments in space tracking the total solar irradiance (TSI)3,4, and so we know it is not the sun that has brought about warming in the past 30 years5. Hence a key issue is the extent to which we can track energy in the climate system.
Jones email Beck read was distorted, "pulled out of context"
From the November 23 broadcast of Glenn Beck:
BECK: How about Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia? "I have just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline." Yes, he is talking about a trick that another scientist previously used in a peer-reviewed journal to apparently hide the decline in temperatures. Incredible.
RealClimate.org: Jones' email "pulled out of context." In a November 20 post, Real Climate's staff, which is made up of several working climate scientists, cited Jones' 1999 email -- which Beck read -- as "[o]ne example" of "instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded 'gotcha' phrases [being] pulled out of context." Jones' November 16, 1999, email reads:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic.] from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
LSE Prof: Scientists use "trick" to mean "a clever way of doing something." A November 20 Guardian article reported that Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said of Jones' email: "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating. ... You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick."
RealClimate.org: "trick" Jones referenced is a method for making the "context of the recent warming ... clear" and isn't "problematic ... at all." Noting that "[s]cientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to a 'a good way to deal with a problem,' " Real Climate explained:
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.
RealClimate.org: "hiding the decline" refers to method that is "completely appropriate." Real Climate further explained:
As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Jones reportedly "explained he was not trying to mislead." The New Zealand magazine Investigate reported on November 20:
TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing hiding "the decline", and Jones explained he was not trying to mislead.
"No, that's completely wrong. In the sense that they're talking about two different things here. They're talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered -- but they're talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it's just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don't always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years."
Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words "hide the decline".
"That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?"
Beck did not mention that emails were apparently stolen by a hacker
Beck said that "someone released thousands of emails and documents," but did not note they were apparently stolen by hackers. On November 20, the UK Guardian reported that, "Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online." The Guardian further quoted a spokesperson for the University of East Anglia, where the CRU is located, as saying: "'We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all this material is genuine. This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and have involved the police in this inquiry.'"
---
7.8.96
Phyl:
Talked to Bert this morning and read the Club of Rome report, "The First Global Revolution." Agreed. Global warming is a crisis that we can use to impose Ken Lay's (ENRON) idea of "carbon taxes" and carry out Maurice Stong's vision of de-industrializing the west to make it economically infeasible to resist global governance. Problem is, the data doesn't support this claim. Guess that's where we come in. Let us see what we can do about fudging the numbers.
The 80-95% forcible population reduction proposed by Ted Turner, Prince Philip and others needs the veil of environmentalism. Transhumanist elitism, to say the least, will not be sufficient for getting the world to accept serfdom and extermination.
-Rachel
----
It's filled with over-the-top conspiracy theories that the likes of Glenn Beck will have a field day with. Then, at the key moment (in time for the Copenhagen Summit) we release info that this e-mail was a fraud. Come to think of it, this might be criminal conspiracy itself. DON'T DO IT.
________________________________________________________________
1) Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with
so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever. It is
impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall,
nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight. Indeed a single
tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century
temperature reconstruction.
2) The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a
lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of
his own work, where that work is the critical core of the
chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core
assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger
work - in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying
technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility
of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship
of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta's work, which is,
of course, the majority of such analyses.
As Corcoran points out, "the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are
sitting on firm ground."
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4) communication."
I can understand being skeptical about number three, and even number one (though I personally place some trust in computer models), but are you really saying that becuase they use DATA COLLECTION and COMMUNICATION they should be ignored? Data collection and communication. I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone in the world who does not depend on these two methods on a daily basis.
Would you like to clarify?
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
And Trenberth's response is that there are many signs of global warming, even if there isn't actual warming???????
So I guess what his email REALLY means is:
There isn't a lack of warming; it's downright toasty. We're accounting for it. It's neither good nor bad because we're objective. Our observing system is adequate.
Ah yes. I see it all so clearly now.
Does anyone on this site have an even half way good explanation for why we've had multiple ice ages and massive warming in the past, before the era of coal fired power plants and excessive cow farts????? This whole man-made global warming idea is arrogant and idiotic.
Climatologists have also explained the differences between previous warmer and cooler eras and how this episode of man-made warming is quite different.
The fact that you don't understand even that simple concept, that this rapid rise when there are 6 BILLION people on the Earth, many with significant investments in coastal property, is vastly different that slower climate changes when there were millions of nomadic people on the Earth, means that you're too dumb to have any serious conversation with!
Unlike Sarah Palin's attempts at humor, or was it Lynn Vincent, I can't tell, this is funny. It's also not true in any way shape or form.
You're right, Global Warming is indeed a LIE
Not exactly, it is a theory. It just happens to be a theory that any remotely respected climatologist supports. Furthermore, I would rather trust the person who makes it his/her career to study climate (and in fact would benefit immeasurably if s/he was the person who found some solid evidence debunking global warming theories) rather than trust a talking head with no measurable knowledge on the matter and whose sole interest is his own ledger balance (or political might... or ratings).
I guess not, given that you've already gotten two thumbs down. Good to know what some conservatives really think!
What's Stephen Hawking's agenda?
Bringing real science and facts into the polticial debate. You know, stuff the nutjobs can't understand so they just dismiss it as elitist mumbo-jumbo.
What dont I understand about this?
___________________________________________________
1) Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with
so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever. It is
impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall,
nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight. Indeed a single
tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century
temperature reconstruction.
2) The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a
lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of
his own work, where that work is the critical core of the
chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core
assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger
work - in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying
technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility
of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship
of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta's work, which is,
of course, the majority of such analyses.
As Corcoran points out, "the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are
sitting on firm ground."
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
And Trenberth's response is that there are many signs of global warming, even if there isn't actual warming???????
So I guess what his email REALLY means is:
There isn't a lack of warming; it's downright toasty. We're accounting for it. It's neither good nor bad because we're objective. Our observing system is adequate.
Ah yes. I see it all so clearly now.
Does anyone on this site have an even half way good explanation for why we've had multiple ice ages and massive warming in the past, before the era of coal fired power plants and excessive cow farts????? This whole man-made global warming idea is arrogant and idiotic.
You really have no understanding of the issues involved, do you?
The physical data drawn from direct observation - ice melts, changing weather patterns, sea levels, etc., etc. - says that warming is still increasing. But that's not reflected in the other set of observed data, the recorded temperatures of the past few years. When two sets of direct observations are saying something different, even if the difference is minor (as has been the "cooling" of the past couple of years, the "coolest" year of which was warmer than any year in the records before 1990 and was part of the warmest decade ever), you want to know why. That is the question he was discussing.
Now, the fact is that a combination of natural variability and remaining limitations on the gathering of temperature data (e.g., the lack of full standardization of location and equipment, which leads to larger-than-optimal error bars in the records) is more than enough to explain it. But you still want to know just what the variations are and how and why they are affecting the global mean temperature the way they do. Again and more precisely, that's what Trenberth was talking about.
So there was no "warming but no warming." It was more a matter of "the world is clearly still warming, a multitude of observations say so, so why isn't that reflected in global mean temperature?"
The answer, by the way, appears to be that most of the warming went into the oceans - while most of our temperature data comes from land-based measurements. If that's true - and it appears to be at this point - it means that global mean temperature actually understates the amount of warming going on.
Footnote: Before anyone jumps on the line about the limitations on gathering of temperature data - and you know you're out there - be aware that while this could have some effect on measuring what the global mean temperature is, because that temperature is based on a large amount of data from a large number of sites sufficient to smooth out variations, it has no impact on the recorded trend of that temperature. That is, it is, over time, going up. Period.
Now I'm going to sit by and watch as every global-cooling nut completely disregards your comment out of complexity.
Real science collects data, then plots it on a graph to look for a trend. Phony science tries to FIT data to an expected pattern that may or may NOT actually be there. We call this "cooking the data".
You mean what Glenn does on his board?
Really, you have a B.S. in physics? Then surely you must be familiar with the scientific method, whereby you develop a hypothesis (the earth is generally warming), you collect data (temperature over decades, centuries and millenia), and then analyze that data to draw a conclusion. If your hypothesis turns out to be partially true (the earth appears to be generally warming but we have these strange cool periods), don't worry, you don't fail, your experiment isn't over. You actually go back to your hypothesis and rethink it. That seems to be the step these guys are at in their correspondence. You then collect more data, and it looks like they're suggesting we go look in oceans to support the hypothesis. I don't have a B.S. in physics, but I did pay attention enough in university physics 1 to understand that much.
I would LOVE nothing more than to see the scientific report that disproves global warming. Please, direct me to it. I would love to not worry about my future children baking like Tombstone pizzas. Please, not some junk from Drudge or that libertarian bake-tank. Give me a peer-reviewed paper. Beck's smart in that respect (I said wha?!?!). He won't open himself up to that. He doesn't care about being right as long as you know that everyone else is wrong!
Completely irrelevant
Still, I have to admit that I don't care that they were hacked. That's not all that important to me. I mean, if these had been emails hacked from, I dunno, Exxon-Mobil and laid out some plan to finance nanny-nanny naysayer research in a conscious attempt to deceive people about the reality of global warming because corporate executives were concerned about the company's bottom line if people turned away from carbon-based fuels, I wouldn't be going "Oh no! Stolen emails! Don't look! Don't look!"
As for your spin, maybe you can take a shot at spinning some of the other emails. Give this one a shot. Notice the subject line: IPCC & FOI. Phil Jones coordinating the deletion of FOIA-related emails with Keith, Michael, Gene, and Caspar? My, my, now that would be a serious crime. Would the word "hide" be "taken out of context" were I to use it in this case? I wonder if this other FOIA-related email from later in that same year indicates Jones followed through with his deletions. Maybe I'm taking that out of context too. Oh and I guess this doesn't speak at all to the lack of transparency of data and methodology "deniers" have been complaining about for years.
Here's another you can ask your spin doctors to look at. In it Jones says, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Please provide me with the correct context if you have enough silk. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about the old "overwhelming consensus" and the "peer-reviewed literature" as does this email and this email. I'm sure with gate keepers like these and the thuggish "climate" they helped to set up, skeptical papers had no problem whatsoever getting printed.
There are plenty of other notable examples of some of the AGW All-Stars at work worthy of MMfA spin, but let's now turn our attention to the emails you actually did spin in this story.
First, the Kevin Trenberth email, but let's use the later email in the thread that includes the other Trenberth quote not included in the MMfA spin (it includes the other quotes but was sent two days later). Here are the two related quotes from the email:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
"How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!"
MMfA/RealClimate spin this by admonishing us not to take Trenberth's email comments "out of context" and to read Trenberth's paper. Now contrast the stark and honest language above from the email with this tempered excerpt from his paper:
"There must be a physical explanation, whether natural or anthropogenic. If surface warming occurs while the deep ocean becomes cooler, then we should be able to see the evidence. It may be that there is insufficient data to prove one way or the other, as is often the case in the deep past. However, since 1979 there have been instruments in space tracking the total solar irradiance (TSI)3,4, and so we know it is not the sun that has brought about warming in the past 30 years5. Hence a key issue is the extent to which we can track energy in the climate system."
Let's round out the picture with another quote from Trenberth, this one from his 2007 AGW debate with Bill Gray:
"Today's best climate models are now able to reproduce the observed major climate changes of the past century. When the models are run without human changes in the atmosphere, the natural forcings and intrinsic natural variability fail to capture the increase in global surface temperature over the past 35 years or so. But when the anthropogenic effects are included, the models simulate the observed global temperature record with impressive fidelity."
Trenberth's public/published statements don't seem to leave the impression that "[w]e are not close to balancing the energy budget" and "we can not account for what is happening in the climate system." He does admittedly concede there are shortcomings in the models in public, but the contrast in the public vs. private degree of confidence is large to put it lightly. Also contrast his private thoughts with the "science is settled" mantra we have been hearing about with AGW for years now. The evidence of AGW is publicly portrayed as "robust" and "unequivocal." In light of this email I would choose the adjectives "overblown" and "premature."
Now for the email about Phil Jones and "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline." As I explained to Lawrence in the Limbaugh email thread, Jones' claim that he couldn't remember the "exact context" of "hide the decline" is absolutely disingenuous. Unless senility has taken hold, Jones knows full well to what he was referring. Further, his claim that "they don't always have the last few years [s]o one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years" is laughable. All he needed to do was add "Yeah, that's the ticket" to the end of that to complete the comedy routine.
He and Mann and Briffa had the "last few years." The "problem" was the last few years of data showed temperatures going down instead of up. The "trick" was to "splice" on the instrumental data that shot to the moon instead and presto, you got your magic hockey stick (and subsequent hockey sticks) rather than a relatively unimpressive set of proxies.
The "trick" has since been used many times by these and many other scientists in their temperature reconstructions, hence the "completely appropriate" spin MMfA and RealClimate try to put on it (summed up with "they told us to do it" and "everybody else is doing it"). Now that the code used in these reconstructions has been "provided" for dissection, I guess (or hope) we'll soon see what exactly went into "Mike's Nature trick."
Until then, Cheers!
Maybe those kinds of sacrifices (becoming a third world hell-hole) are palatable to some people, but surely not in light of this type of scandal!
There is money to be made and jobs to be had in moving this country into the 21st century. But the oil and coal industry is so entrenched in the system, they are stopping that from happening. And THEY are the ones who are justifiably in fear for their jobs.
It's interesting to note that domestic use of pesticide/herbicide/fertilizer accounts for 25% of petroleum consumption. Of that, around 25% is used just to grow cotton. We could cut our petroleum needs by a sixteenth just by growing hemp rather than cotton, which is not native and does not do well here without a lot of expensive coddling.
Interesting that you should mention this here. PBS had a good documentary about a Canadian hemp program (currently in Federal Court) involving the Lakota Tribe raising industrial hemp in which the DEA swooped in and destroyed a perfectly good crop and in which the growers of this LEGITIMATE plant are now facing felony charges as well as lost revenue. You can read about it here if interested.
As long as the waste produced isn't in your backyard, you can feel good that you are doing something to help the environment.
Illustrates reasons why US plants close:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/172174-ge-to-close-its-only-u-s-solar-panel-factory
Talks about a new plant being built in the US:
http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/11/09/focus5.html
Production stats for major producers:
http://mokkikunta.blogspot.com/2008/12/photovoltaics-status-report-2008-60.html
I'm sure the Japanese and Europeans will find it humourous that you called them "Third-World".
The problem is not that we have too strict environmental rules, Japan's are tougher. The problem is we have no incentive to build them here, the market is sparse and the government isn't doing all that much to encourage it.
With the carbon tax and the cap-and-trade/carbon credit system, the big oil companies can put the coal industry out of business and implement global policies and regulations that can be used to suppress these alternative technologies we all want to see manifest that will end the big oil monopoly.
Don't believe a thing he says - he has never been honest here, and is open to all kinds of conspiracy theories and totally close-minded to all the evidence that debunks his tightly-held beliefs.
Then he accuses those of us who are open-minded of being afflicted with his same blindered behavior. It's a classic case of projection.
But in the beginning of his post above, he cites one person who doesn't come close to supporting what he suggests he supports. And remember, the spin here by Limbaugh and Beck has been that these emails throw GCC into doubt. However, these emails only reflect upon the people who wrote them. There is still no doubt that man-made global warming exists, that it's going to get worse, and that we should be seriously concerned about it. But the poster above wouldn't want you to know that. He distorts what someone said. From the first link he provided, here's MORE of what that guy said.
But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.
There's really not much here at all. But this denialist poster wants you to think that there is. He wants others to be convinced that there is something here.
You can't even figure out how to know what post I was replying to? How do you know how to type if you can't figure that out, for cripes sake?
But I guess you know that the shoe fits - that you too are not credible.
The most honest assertion in your post -- a sub-conscious projection at its finest.
Beck distorted the emails and took them out of context to suggest they indicated that climate change was a "scam," ignoring climate scientists' subsequent statements to the contrary.
And guess what other denialist posters continue to do here?
I don't "believe" that antibiotics are good things. Doctors know that they are. I go to them for advice.
WTF? Last time I checked Bush and Co. were hawks. Oh, that's right, it all started with Clinton, or was it Carter, oh, no gee golly I think I've read somewhere that Reagan even had a thumb in it.
Pre-Civil War "United States ARE" was common usage. Since then, the correct form has been "United States IS"
Could you support your notion of a cooling trend with some evidence please? Weather data? A nice graph or chart? Anything?
I haven't answered because you are "a really hardline nanny-nanny naysayer" who will take anything and everything in whatever way is necessary to confirm that the black helicopters really are flying.
Like the Holocaust deniers you increasingly resemble, no proof of global warming will ever be strong enough to be accepted, no counter-"proof" will ever be weak enough to be rejected.
Rebutting you can be fun but if done with the idea of convincing you of anything, it is a waste of time.
G'ardo said:
At least you are open and honest in your comparison of AGW skeptics to Holocaust deniers. I have seen many here fail to even admit that that is what they are doing by using the term "denier."
First, I don't speak for what others say and unlike him, I don't make presumptions about hidden dark meanings based on a single word.
And second, I didn't compare "skeptics" to Holocaust deniers, I compared the "hardline nanny-nanny naysayers" like G. to Holocaust deniers in a very specific way: Their contempt for standards of evidence and their eager embrace of any wisp of smoke that appears to their minds to support them.
On another front, he spews this:
You have "never seen a graph that 'hides the decline' indicated by some proxies" yet your link includes two of them. First, the hockey stick. How can you claim the decline is "right there" when the tree ring proxies are so obviously truncated
Oh, for pity's sake. Look at the graphs, you nitwit! The lines showing declines beginning about 1960 (or so) are right there! They are not "truncated," the papers which produced them were done in the late '90s and the early '00s and the data sets they had available ran until about 1998 or 1999 - so of course the lines ended by about 2000.
What was I just saying about evidence?
Finally, there was the frothing paranoia about the draft Copenhagen document. G. claims that I have "apparently conceded" that "the global taxation and the redistributionist agenda of the UN/IPCC" is "real." Which, of course, is complete nonsense. First just consider how the conspiracy keeps expanding. Global warming, it seems, is a myth pushed by (gasp) a cabal of thousands of scientists and dozens if not hundreds of scientific organizations, all somehow coordinated by (gasp!) the IPCC, which was founded not only by the World Meteorological Organization but by an agency of (GASP!) the United Nations! Omigod omigod omigod! And it's all for the purpose of a "redistributionist, western-punishing, economy-breaking, global-taxation agenda!" OMIGOD!
Um, there is no "global tax" here, real or proposed. The only thing being proposed is a call for the rich industrialized nations to agree to devote some small part of their GDPs (up to 0.7%) to assist poor nations in dealing with and adapting to climate change and to establish a mechanism to insure that monies intended for that purpose actually go to that purpose. There is no collection mechanism, no way to enforce any sanctions, and as a practical, living-in-the-real-world matter it comes down to voluntary actions by individual nations. A "redistributionist, western-punishing, economy-breaking, global-taxation agenda?" Baloney. Actually, let me change that 'cause I actually like baloney. How about, maybe, cooked (not raw) spinach?
One last thing:
The U.S. is already by far number one on the ODA [official development assistance] list
In absolute amounts, yes. It is also by far the world's biggest economy. Measured in terms of commitment, by what portion of our GDP goes to such assistance, the US is at or near the bottom. Our much-vaunted generosity isn't too bad on an individual level but on a national level it's a myth.
I will give G. this much, though: It's got more to go on than his nanny-nanny naysaying about global warming.
As for your response to me, we'll first skip the Holocaust issue and let your comparison speak for itself. About those graphs though. Try as you might to spin, I stand by my statements (though I should have known better you'd try this and acted more pre-emptively). You say:
"Oh, for pity's sake. Look at the graphs, you nitwit! The lines showing declines beginning about 1960 (or so) are right there! They are not 'truncated,' the papers which produced them were done in the late '90s and the early '00s and the data sets they had available ran until about 1998 or 1999 - so of course the lines ended by about 2000."
First let's again take the hockey stick. I said this in part about it:
"You have 'never seen a graph that 'hides the decline' indicated by some proxies' yet your link includes two of them. First, the hockey stick. How can you claim the decline is 'right there' when the tree ring proxies are so obviously truncated using 'Mike's trick' and thus do in fact hide the decline (remember that the blue line, if continued, would have turned downward rather than shot into space as does the red observed data line)?"
I suppose I should have realized it wouldn't be so obvious to everyone, thus allowing you to attempt to negate my claims with your dishonest Schmidt-esque "right there" response, but why don't you try the honest route and explain what people really are looking at when they look at Michael Mann's hockey stick you are referring them to on your blog?
What does the "divergence problem" Schmidt refers to on RealClimate (the maximum latewood tree ring density proxy decline) really look like when "Mike's Nature trick" isn't used? I admit I should have said "so obviously truncated and misleading," but please tell the folks here at MMfA if your linked hockey stick--the one where the truncated, yes truncated, blue line with the proxy data ending about 1980 with a small dip and rise (I wonder why they stopped there, and I'm guessing you know Mike's "heavy" excuse regarding updated proxies)--actually represents the true decline we are talking about (especially considering the weight given to the proxies with the "divergence problem" in creating the hockey stick reconstruction).
Since that was a ridiculous run-on sentence, to summarize does your hockey stick actually really show the MXD decline? And finally, please do share with us your thoughts on the nature and extent of the actual divergence with the most current MXD proxy data (the data itself, minus Mike's Nature trick).
Here's what I said about your spaghetti graph:
"As for the reconstructed temperature chart that 'clarifies' matters on your blog, it too hides the decline in that some of the series either truncate the data to not show the divergence, or again, 'Mike's trick' is used. Go ahead and dissect the reconstructions here if you'd like. As a heads-up, Mann, Briffa, Jones, Osborn, and the CRU feature prominently."
Where am I in error exactly? I suppose I should have said "and" instead of "or" but otherwise what's the problem? Dark blue Jones et al. (1998) used Mike's Nature trick; blue Mann et al. (1999) truncates and uses Mike's Nature trick; light blue Crowley and Lowery (2000) used Mike's Nature trick; lightest blue Briffa et al. (2001) truncated; yellow Mann and Jones (2003) do I even have to say it?; orange Jones and Mann (2004) starting to see a pattern yet?; add to those the black instrumental data from HADCRU...CRU...I've seen that acronym before. Well, whoever they are I am sure their science is 100% above board.
Now let's talk about your claims on Copenhagen (Dolly, you may want to avert your eyes). I must have taken your words "out of context" since you said the following in your response in the last thread:
"[T]he sections of the Copenhagen work draft you cite amount to establishing a mechanism among the rich industrialized nations to help the poor nations of the world contend with and adapt to climate change. Horrifying. Horrifying."
And in this thread you elaborate further:
"Um, there is no 'global tax' here, real or proposed. The only thing being proposed is a call for the rich industrialized nations to agree to devote some small part of their GDPs (up to 0.7%) to assist poor nations in dealing with and adapting to climate change and to establish a mechanism to insure that monies intended for that purpose actually go to that purpose. There is no collection mechanism, no way to enforce any sanctions, and as a practical, living-in-the-real-world matter it comes down to voluntary actions by individual nations. A 'redistributionist, western-punishing, economy-breaking, global-taxation agenda?' Baloney."
Let's parse, shall we?
"Um, there is no 'global tax' here, real or proposed."
Really? And here I thought you were literate. From page 43 of the treaty's negotiating text:
"41. [Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries' ODA targets.] [Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.] [This finance should come from the payment of the adaptation debt by developed country Parties and be based principally on public-sector funding, while other alternative sources could be considered.] [[Sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation] [Financial resources of the 'Convention Adaptation Fund'] [may] [shall] include:
(a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties] [from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to the Convention] [taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere];]
(b) [Auctioning of assigned amounts and/or emission allowances [from developed country Parties];]
(c) [Levies on CO2 emissions [from Annex-I Parties [in a position to do so]];]
(d) [Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties;]
(e) [[Levies on] [Shares of proceeds from measures to limit or reduce emissions from] international [aviation] and maritime transport;]
(f) Shares of proceeds on the clean development mechanism (CDM), [extension of shares of proceeds to] joint implementation and emissions trading;
(g) [Levies on international transactions [among Annex I Parties];]
(h) [Fines for non-compliance [of Annex I Parties and] with commitments of Annex I Parties and Parties with commitments inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Parties);]
(i) [[Additional ODA] [ODA additional to ODA targets] provided through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels (in accordance with Article 11.5 of the Convention).]]"
I wonder where I got that crazy global tax idea. If it looks like a tax...well, you know where I'm going with that. Here's what you say next:
"The only thing being proposed is a call for the rich industrialized nations to agree to devote some small part of their GDPs (up to 0.7%) to assist poor nations in dealing with and adapting to climate change and to establish a mechanism to insure that monies intended for that purpose actually go to that purpose."
A "call" you say? From page 38:
"30. Commitments made by Annex I Parties to support implementation of the Adaptation Framework through financial and technology transfer shall be legally binding, with provisions for a [monitoring, reporting and verification] mechanism to ensure compliance."
And it appears you set the proposed GDP upper limit a bit too low. From page 133:
"Alternative 1:
An assessed contribution from developed country Parties based on the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, respective capabilities, GDP, GDP per capita, the polluter pays principle historical responsibility of Annex I Parties, historical climate debt, including adaptation debt, amounting to [[0.5-1][0.8][2] per cent of gross national product] at least [0.5-1 per cent of GDP]]."
You then go on to say:
"There is no collection mechanism, no way to enforce any sanctions, and as a practical, living-in-the-real-world matter it comes down to voluntary actions by individual nations."
Let's go back to page 38:
"30. Commitments made by Annex I Parties to support implementation of the Adaptation Framework through financial and technology transfer shall be legally binding, with provisions for a [monitoring, reporting and verification] mechanism to ensure compliance."
And from page 135:
"Option 8 Agreed penalties or fines on non-compliance of developed country Parties with their commitments to reduce emissions and provide support in the form of financial resources, technology transfer and capacity-building."
And from page 145:
"(c) Define non-compliance parameters, penalties and fines, or a combination of the two or other as appropriate, and implement parameters and procedures defined by the COP to retrieve funds derived from fines and penalties; (d) Impose financial penalties, at a minimum of ten times the market price of carbon, for any emissions in excess of the level implied by the emissions reduction commitment."
And, as mentioned, were the U.S. to sign onto the treaty it would be "legally binding." And though I concede that initially signing it would have to be voluntarily, withdrawing from the treaty would take a minimum of four years from the date it was signed. And then you say:
"A 'redistributionist, western-punishing, economy-breaking, global-taxation agenda?' Baloney."
I think the excerpts above cover that pretty well, but let's first hammer the "western-punishing" point a bit. From pages 15-16:
"30. To this end, Annex I Parties shall ensure that [aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions] [their emissions] do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated to reflect the full extent of their [historical responsibility and an equitable allocation of the global atmospheric resource.] [historical climate debt taking into account:] (a) Responsibility of Annex I Parties, individually and jointly, for current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases; (b) The historical and current per-capita emissions originating in developed countries;"
Climate debt, eh? I wonder who will be getting the biggest bill. As for "redistributionist" there are many examples throughout the document but I think this one from page 122 does the trick rather well:
"17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:] (a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees; (b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures."
Lost opportunities? Dignity? I can't possibly see how that could get out of hand. Copenhagen, the gift that keeps on giving.
Now for your "last thing" about us greedy Americans and ODA. It's no surprise that you belittle our national commitments (thanks for at least acknowledging the generosity of Americans as individuals) even though they are nearly twice the amount of the next nearest country.
So who is at the top of the list as measured by percentage of GNI? Sweden, with about 1%. Those Swedes sure are generous I'm sure you're saying. Perhaps they are and they do enjoy a very high standard of living, but let's remember that ODA funding is committed by government, not by individuals. So why can Sweden's government be so generous? Perhaps this can shed a bit of light on that. Notice that little gem in the first paragraph?
"The tax rates in Sweden are commonly cited as among the highest in the world."
Add to the high rates of direct/indirect taxes paid by employees and employers a 25% value added tax (VAT) for most items (lower rates for food and some services) and one begins to see how the government can be so generous.
Setting aside the attribution aspect of the debate, whether "denier" or "believer," who do you think will provide a smoother and less punishing transition to a cleaner, more energy-efficient economy? Individuals in a free yet regulated market or huge controlling inefficient government bureaucracies imposing their will upon you with a heavy-handed approach?
I guess you know where I stand by the manner which I asked that (and this) question, but really, do you prefer a sane market-driven transition (private investment in alternative energy is already at an all-time high) or would you prefer to go down the road of Lord Smith of Finsbury?
Well, I'm officially out of time for the morning. Spent so much time on this novel I'll have to get to your new girlfriend and the others when I get home. Toddler-sitting this evening but hope to sink my teeth in again tonight if the opportunity arises. I will certainly check in though to see where you and your crew spin us to next. Until then, Cheers!
Actually, to leave this on a more friendly note, in case I do not get the chance to get back to this, I wish you and your family and friends a Happy Thanksgiving! Even you Dolly. I had to say this because my wife goes crazy in prepping for it and chaos may ensue over the next 30 hours or so. Despite our differences here on MMfA, I hope you all have a lot to be thankful for. I know I do and am quite grateful for it. Enjoy your holiday.
- Here is a link to the same graph with a list of the studies, dates, and authors. Note they were all published in peer-reviewed journals. Note also that the period of time each study examined is indicated. The lines on the graph are not truncated! Each ends where the period of time examined by that study ends. Claiming otherwise is either a)gross ignorance, b)deep paranoia, and/or c)a wild, unsubstantiated allegation probably based on a combination of a and b.
- What is proposed in the draft (you keep leaving out the part that it is a draft) is a treaty voluntarily agreed to, and written by, the participants. Describing the commitment for the rich nations to aid the poor nations in dealing with a problem of which those rich nations have been the main cause as a "tax" is at best grossly misleading. Calling it a "UN/IPCC" tax is black helicopter talk.
- For a lesson on generosity, I suggest you read Mark 12:41-44. Your religion (or lack of it) is irrelevant to this, it is the logic and the lesson that matters. Generosity it not measured by the gross but by the commitment.
I knew I could count on you for more spin. There is so much to correct on this MMfA thread and I wish I had had the time to counter all the fallacies, but since I consider you one of the high priests of the AGW cult on MMfA, I have decided to focus my attention on your scripture.
You may want to wait to read this until tomorrow because you are not going to like this, not one bit. Could even ruin the rest of your holiday. I almost let you slide after reading your preaching about charity, but hey, the truth is the truth and that's what's most important (sorry to have to dent the LarryEgo but you had your opportunity to come clean and chose not to do it). Besides, perhaps my deconstruction of your reconstruction drivel will help to start the reverse of the brainwashing of some of the less-entrenched in the AGW flock.
Here. Out of pity I'll give you a nice long preface so that hopefully your new girlfriend and the rest of your Inquisitor gang won't read too far to see what I have to say about your either a) gross ignorance, b) deliberate obfuscation, and/or c) unsubstantiated fantasy world probably based on a combination of a and b.
So here goes. First, for the sake of "the edification of others" I think it is important to point out that you, like many other AGW zealots here, have essentially said next to nothing about the contents of the emails (the all-too-often used "nothing to see here" defense--search "I've read them" and "world's foremost scientists").
So you have nothing to say about coordination of FOI obstruction and apparent follow-through; lack of data transparency and sharing of data for replication; manipulation of data; manipulation of the peer-review process and IPCC, journal gate-keeping to suppress skeptic papers, among other pathetic tactics designed to manufacture and maintain a "consensus"? Crickets on all of those I suppose, with the exception of your "hide the decline" "nothing to see here" nonsense? The reaction from the (cue Nelson from the Simpsons) "AGW-fraud deniers" (gotta love that gem *pats self on back*), both the scientists in question and their groupies, has mostly just been the old "taken out of context" screed and more of the same old "science is settled" garbage.
Speaking of garbage and lost causes, you might recall that I said I was more interested in learning what dissection of the code would yield than I was in the emails. Well it appears that now the CRU code/data files are starting to bear their rotten fruit (on that last one be sure to read the excerpts of the programmer's notes). I suppose I should expect more of the same garbage from you in response. Here's the full HARRY_READ_ME file in case you think McCullagh is making those quotes up or "taking them out of context." By the way, this is CRU code, you know, the "instrumental record" code you elevate, the station data about which Jones said, "I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." If you can't bring yourself to read it, here are some of Harry's greatest hits:
So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)
Back to the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that.
Ah, the good old instrument record. To quote you, "Naturally, given the choice between indirectly derived figures and actual observations, scientists will opt for the latter." Naturally. And why not? With Phil and Tom at the helm of the "flagship" of the "world's largest temperature data set" surely we can have full confidence in their numbers and "adjustments." I wonder where the IPCC is getting most of their information from. By the way, the U.S. stations aren't looking so hot either (well, actually they are looking too hot). Hmm. I digress.
***Dully, please stop reading here. Continuing will surely leave you in the fetal position using your "Larry's My Hero" cape to wipe away a torrent of tears***
All right. Now that I've sufficiently buried the lead, let's return yet again to your precious temperature reconstructions, "all published in peer-reviewed journals" as you so haughtily noted. Let's remind the folks here about what else you had to say:
Note also that the period of time each study examined is indicated. The lines on the graph are not truncated! Each ends where the period of time examined by that study ends.
Now Lawrence, this is where I had implored you to come clean and be honest about the original and subsequent hockey stick reconstructions. Unfortunately, you failed. You either lied or do not know what you are looking at.
I asked you to explain whether or not the hockey sticks actually really show the true MXD decline and sought your thoughts on the nature and extent of the real divergence according to current proxy data. So, do the All-Star reconstructions I cited show the true divergence or was the MXD decline truncated to "hide the decline" and employ "Mike's Nature trick?"
The answer to my question is a resounding NO. Here's a little hint Larry: the true MXD decline was not really that little dip followed by the MXD rise seen in many of the reconstructions. It wasn't that the lines didn't end "where the period of time examined by that study ends" (duh); it was that the MXD decline was routinely distorted and truncated so as to hide the true decline.
I could show you this from ClimateAudit to prove my point (read the whole thing but take a good hard look at the Briffa et al. 2004 chart), but I'm sure you or your girlfriend would cry bloody murder claiming "McIntyre doesn't have a leg to stand on." Before you move on though, at least take notice that the chart shows a continued decline after the decline and rise "hidden in plain sight" shown in the reconstructions. This Briffa chart alone shows they are truncated as they do not show the true decline that continued after the short uptick that ended around 1980 (or 1960 as you'll learn in a moment).
I know you're asking, "Is that all you got? McIntyre and some Briffa charts?" If that were the case, I'm sure you would be able to start spinning away and leave people reading this wondering who to believe, you, an ardent believer, or me, an equally ardent skeptic. The good news is, they don't have to rely on either of us for spin. They just have to go back to the CRU story, the story I warned in my initial post would not be going away "no matter how favorably you try to spin it."
Don't waste your breath dropping the "taken out of context" and "nothing to see here" lines. There will be no need for that. I guess I tipped my hand with the HARRY_READ_ME file above, but let's now turn our attention to the CRU data files regarding the climate model code files. In other words, let's have a real, unadulterated look at "Mike's Nature Trick" at work (remember these are actual quotes directly from the programmer's notes inserted in the code).
From the osborn-tree6\mann\ (as in Michael Mann) subfolder:
Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.
And also from the osborn-tree6\mann\ subfolder:
Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season (April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean). Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be, which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).
From the osborn-tree6\summer_modes\ subfolder:
The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.
And my favorite from the osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro file:
Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! [code removed] fudge factor
(cue Nelson from the Simpsons again) There are other examples but I think you see what's up (is it any wonder why Jones fought tooth and nail against releasing the code). Mike's Nature trick hides the decline in temperature starting in 1960 in these code examples (1976 in another and 1940 in yet another) and the "very artificial correction" was made.
So Phil Jones' use of "trick" and "hide" in the sinister sense were perfectly accurate and his interview claims that "they don't always have the last few years" and he couldn't "remember the exact context" of his "hide the decline" email comment are, as I said previously, 100% disingenuous. Schmidt's claim that the decline was "hidden in plain sight" (that you apparently bought) is also false and misleading.
The conclusion: most of the reconstructions use Mike's trick and therefore most reconstructions show an artificial increase in temperature. Science at work. Makes me think of the Menger quote: "If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything." I'm sure these revelations won't keep you and MMfA and the rest of the AGW fanatics from spinning away, but the reality is that the backbone of your theory has been thoroughly broken (it had already suffered many fractures) even if you haven't accepted that yet. In the coming months I expect the backbone to be shattered. I had been warning you and Dully for months with my "chip" references only to be met with rabid, faith-based fundamentalist defenses and her favorite standby, that I have been "serially-debunked." Oh well. Best of luck in rehab.
Let's quickly turn to your remaining points. You said:
What is proposed in the draft (you keep leaving out the part that it is a draft) is a treaty voluntarily agreed to, and written by, the participants. Describing the commitment for the rich nations to aid the poor nations in dealing with a problem of which those rich nations have been the main cause as a "tax" is at best grossly misleading. Calling it a "UN/IPCC" tax is black helicopter talk.
I have to confess I laughed when I first read this. I "keep leaving out the part that it is a draft?" I would have thought the nice blue treaty's negotiating textlink I use when I describe the treaty here and in other threads would have done the "trick." Say it with me: nuh-go-she-ay-ting text--that's the term I picked up from MMfA itself to describe it! And I thought I covered "voluntary" as well when I said, "I concede that initially signing it would have to be voluntarily."
As for your spin on "tax" and your predictable "black helicopter" reference yet again, give me a break. To not describe this as a tax is simply insane and I would bet that most people even here on MMfA would call it a tax. The language in the proposed document is perfectly clear and just because you and some feel-good AGW-believer heads-of-state agree to sign an extremely onerous treaty does not take away from the fact that it is a tax! Dear lord, where do you think the money comes from, Santa? And, since the UN will be collecting the tax based off CO2-mitigation "science" recommendations under the dictates of the IPCC, calling it a UN/IPCC tax is spot on.
Finally, we have your generosity lecture. My family and friends (I have a few believe it or not) regard me as one of the most caring and generous people they know. I have deep empathy for human and beast. I have in fact been mocked here for sharing that I have been live-trapping and releasing houseflies for years. I donate more really than I can afford to causes I care deeply about and certainly don't appreciate the likes of Henry Waxman and John Forbes Kerry dictating where my limited resources should go, especially since they will be going toward "combating" the ridiculous CO2 bogeyman. As an environmentalist myself for 20 years, I fear what effects this AGW debacle will have on the legitimate green causes I care about. And that has been the primary rub in all of this AGW gibberish for me all along. As I said in one of my posts here a while back:
The downside is that when AGW is exposed for being more political than scientific, the environmental movement that I am a part of will take it on the chin. The resulting erosion in public confidence for future environmental claims will cause people to not take them as seriously as they should, hurting the overall credibility and goals of every environmental organization. Another downside is the diversion of large amounts of resources from real environmental issues like habitat destruction and species eradication.
While I hope this post does not prove prophetic, I think chances are that it probably will. Hope you and your flock are happy. Oh, and to borrow a phrase from you, time to turn off the grill. You're done. Pleasant dreams.
Global climate change cause and effect is all theoretical. There should be tremendous scrutiny when changing public policy that will impact the poorest families in this country.
Most of the scientists I have met are human. They have to feed their families. Since politicians have gotten their hands in this, there are very few scientists willing to put their careers on the line to point out the flaws in this THEORY.
The political climate created in this debate has produced the most fear in the scientific community since the dark ages. Most of these same scientists would have agreed that the sun rotates around the earth in a different time.
Deliberately misstating an argument is what's dishonest.
I did not compare "compare scientific theory to the Holocaust." I compared the contempt for evidence on the part of the nanny-nanny naysayers to Holocaust deniers.
Global climate change is not "theoretical," not in the colloquial sense in which you appear to mean it. It is quite real and its initial effects are visible today. Spinning more paranoid tales about scientists too scared to speak out is just that: paranoia, the conviction that large powerful forces are out there concealing The Truth, which if only everyone saw it as clearly as you do, it would change everything!
Paranoia takes on no special meaning the way you state it. It is very tough to get research grants. It is impossible when you take a stand against the herd.
Science isn't a pure open exchange of ideas. It is a political monster with way too much money riding on the best, most horrific armageddon theory. Then you get the people to believe it and your free lunch goes on for life.
Guess you missed the fact that for the first time in recorded history you can cruise through the Arctic Circle.
However, the production of petroleum and the conversion of that into gasoline and the burning of gasoline to fuel automobiles still has a drastic effect on the United States. From a purely economic standpoint, the money we spend in one year on imported oil, $700 billion, is enough to fund the projected cost of the 'public option' for ten years.
Additionally, oil spills, the refinery process, and the act of burning fossil fuels all release toxic chemicals into our environment. Wouldn't it be nice if we could once more drink from streams rather than relying on massive manufacturing plants to produce clean drinking water? Wouldn't it be nice if the air were once more clean? Respiratory complaints have skyrocketed over the last century, such as asthma.
The process of creating a sustainable economy will produce a huge number of jobs. Converting existing homes to be more efficient and energy neutral will be a large boon to a faltering construction industry. 99% of existing homes are good candidates for increased efficiency. Building wind towers happens just about twenty miles from where I live, and they are doing a great business, despite how badly the economy overall is doing. Not to mention designing and building electric and hybrid electric cars, solar panel installation, etc.
This micro-generation of power would also protect us from terrorists. Firstly, having a widespread means of producing power means that terrorists can't knock out a couple of power plants and black out an entire region. Second, the less money we send to the Middle East, the less money they will have to cause mischief with. Where do you think Osama bin Laden gets his funding? From oil. Other countries, when they find out how much it helps our economy to use basically free energy, will want the solutions we develop if we are wise enough to put the money down and do the R&R now. As it is, we are currently lagging behind the rest of the world in sustainability. If you want America to remain predominant, then we must find solutions to the problems of dwindling fossil fuel supplies and pollution. We can find solutions. We are the only country to put men on the Moon. There is no problem we cannot overcome, but we need to summon the will to invest in the future.
So, global warming aside, there are other reasons, equally pressing, to pursue sustainability.
So, I guess the deniers are against national security. Nice.
The argument of cap and trade along with other means does force industries to look into more efficent ways of doing business - I am sure you can agree that that basis is a tight-rope walk.
I spoke with a gentlemen the other day and he quoted a book I have since forgot. He said that the author pictured his then infant daughter years down the road pleading with him (I am paraphrasing) "Dad, didn't you know we would need clean water to drink, and clean air to breath? Didn't you know we needed these things?" I am 25, I have only a small amount of college under my belt and I admit I did not finish. I don't feel that excludes me from the conversation though. I don't know enough to have a solid argument for or against global warming, so I lean on resources to gleen from and attempt to educate myself.
If the global warming argument can be set aside for a second. We still need clean air, we still need clean water. Eventually we will have to face the debate of population control as eventually there will be "too many people in the room". I feel that the green movement is "buying time" to continue the use of resources (even if at a slower pace). I feel the real argument must be made for community and regional self sufficiency. Focus on the basics, the essentials, and start the conversation that a growth economy, in general, is unsustainable.
Question of opinion (for all): Can capitalism and Degrowth work hand in hand? I think if we can focus on the good portions of capitalism, look at the benefits of degrowth, we can live on less financially...
Personally, I would be interested to see a "homestead" movement in my lifetime: Communities operating in sustainablity, where wealth is created not by the dollar but by relationships, assets, commodities. We work hard, play hard, and recieve more satisfaction out of life?
Perhaps I may be alone on this.
I BLAME THE SCHOOLS.
A LOT of the problems surrounding this debate stem from a complete lack of understanding of science in general. A lot of global warming deniers don't seem to understand the very basics of how science works. They come across a scientist questioning one little piece of data and try to use it to discredit the theory as a whole, when it actually does nothing of the sort. You see the beauty of science is it fluid nature. When you find that piece of data that doesn't fit, you find out why it doesn't fit and adjust the theory accordingly. That's how science works - it is always self-correcting.
As for the schools, I do blame them. I don't blame the individual teachers - I think they believe they are doing the right things. I blame this huge social experiment that is the modern school system that arose in the 1920s or so. Before that time, schools looked nothing like what we have now and they worked better. The rise of the factory model school - one where students were herded through specific grades and bits of knowledge were added at specific defined intervals - THAT is the problem.
First, kids are all different. I have three of them myself, and just as an example, my oldest learned to read on schedule at 6. My middle child self-taught at about 4. My youngest was very, very late - at 9 he could barely get through Go, Dog, Go, at 10 he was reading high school text books. The schools could only cope well with one of my three. The middle child was bored silly and the youngest would have been labeled LD and put in special classes had we not started homeschooling after the middle child got through 2nd grade and the oldest 4th.
Second, kids are all different. My mechanic needs a completely different knowledge set than my doctors need. The man who fixes my fireplace needs to know things my librarians don't. For 13 years, we funnel the same bits of knowledge into everyone's heads instead of giving them the capacity to explore the parts of the world they are interested in.
Oh, wait! Those are different facets of the same problem. My point is that in an effort to homogenize education, we have turned it into a series of rote memorization classes and have left out the bits that taught kids to think critically. We are dealing with that once again actually. We babysit a 3rd grader who goes to public school. We noticed this year that she can't reason her way out of a paper bag and nothing she is being taught at school is going to improve that. Fortunately, my mom is a retired special ed teacher, so she is tutoring her after school several days a week.
We are kind of off on a tangent here - this relates to the Global Warming thing in that the problems created by the schools lack of focus on critical thinking skills is having a profound effect on the climate debate.
As in Michael Mann, author of the now discredited 'hockey stick'.
These emails are proof that the leading scientific proponents of the man made global warming theory:
1: falsified data, erased data, and refused to provide data. They
simply cherry pick what data they like and discard what they
dont like.
2: attempted to keep those who oppose the AGW theory from publishing
papers or being peer reviewed
3: have committed a conspiracy to promote their political agenda.
This is a fraud, a hoax, and thankfully it is being exposed
for what it is.
And what I said above was a general comment about the science involved. One erratic piece of data does not negate the whole theory. It warrants study, but it does not negate the rest of the data.
As for scientific ignorance, I know that CO2 is exhaled by all animal life and is "inhaled" by all plant life. Putting a tax on this gas is an ideal way to manipulate and control human life.
By the way, get with the program. It's not "global warming" anymore. It's "climate change" (who can deny that the climate is changing?).
Paranoid. Conspiracy. Nutjob.
I can be pretty stubborn sometimes, but I have to hand it to you, friend. You just shut down my whole argument with this concise, highly focused stream of logic. Are you on your middle school's debate team?
I think Foghorn was being pretty generous spending three words on that.
How come only a handful only show a potential hoax?
I'm sure if we had that many emails from the Bush administration just prior to the Iraq war there would be more than 5 showing the deception that went down.
That's a very good point, Talisman.
I don't believe they even show a "potential hoax". My guess is that the 1.7 G of text was searched for keywords, and all they needed was a few lines with words like "trick" and "hide" to sucker the eager, drooling Global Warming Deniers.
I visited the bizarre world of freerepublic shortly after this story came out, and the comments there were even funnier than the deniers at this site (who, to their credit, actually make complete sentences, and find multiple denier sources, knowing that they'll be questioned).
The Freepers, in their bubble, took the selected words of the emails about science that they're about 20 years of school away from understanding, to declare "Game Over" on the subject of Climate Change.
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.
Any original thoughts, or are you just a propaganda replicating machine?
Faux New's Making the right wingers dumber by the minute!
The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.
This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.
Those formatting glitches always burn you, even if the sudden change in style doesn't.
I wish I had the patience to read through bull$#!t like that so I could pull off such a monumental burn.
Although, your burn is contributing to global warming.
You terrorist you.
I to believe in the truth and a thorough investigation is a good way to get there. I hope it happens. But I bet there is little or nothing to really investigate here. Why in the last 20 year of the Climate Change debate and all this talk of fraud and "hoax", this has been the first piece to actually spark an investigation?
I sometimes think that the we in the U.S. are being punished by God for something or other.
When there 97% of the scientists agree about dangers of global warming and 3% disagree, its easy to name a few from the 3%.
Just follow the money.
I don't think one climate measuring outfit alone could pull off a hoax on the world. There are too many others monitoring climate too. What about NASA or NOAA?
Specifically in regard to the "hiding the decline trick:"
When the global warming parishioners publish the source codes and all the base data for ANYONE to see and analyze, they may regain the high ground. Until that happens, they are just a bunch of con men.
I guess they'll just have to re-do them, now that the cat's out of the bag. Thanks, Beck.
Well, I guess it's for the best. Conspiracies cost a lot of money. And it takes too much time to send out all them holiday cards to so many co-conspirators.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
All they do is pretend that the ones that are actually studying global warming are scamming everyone.
I challenge the global warming deniers to come up with ONE peer reviewed study that confirms that global warming is a hoax. Just one..... anyone?
...The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Cheers Phil
A day late and a dollar short, that scientist should have employed a "handler" a.k.a. a SECRETARY to question, correct and type ALL emails prior to hitting the "send to hack land" button. Hackers are brilliant and resourceful and doing what they do best; HACK information.
Glenn Beck presented the climate information to get those brain cells working and getting people to QUESTION BOLDY. Does anyone recall Obama's promise of "under my plan, utility rates will...SKYROCKET"? Doesn't the Cap and Trade bill sound like that promise/threat coming to fruition? Has no one else HEARD several senators and representatives stating ON TELEVISION they do NOT read the bills (for any number of RIDICULOUS reasons)? Does no one else question what OTHER special interest surprises are contained within the Cap and Trade bill? Regardless of college degree or IQ scores, opinion and conjecture should NOT cost tax payers, at the very minimum, $150 PER MONTH.