Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Actually I don't think they even know that, ican, far from it. With all the evidence of fraud coming out, I would not trust the data very far at all. I think you have probably seen the information coming out of the group doing the survey of weather stations in the U.S., and it isn't pretty, ican. Here is a map, showing most of them with very unreliable siting standards and situations, from poor to worst, which means very likely up to 2 to 5 degrees C off, which is far more than the global warmers are claiming the temperatures have warmed. Situations are varied, including heater or air conditioner vents, parking lots, pavement, next to airplane runways where jet exhaust may be common, the list is long in regard to really questionable situations. It really does constitute a very serious flaw in their claims of conducting serious data collection for an issue considered to be this serious. It really is a pathetic bit of data collecting that is being done.

Which brings up another subject, I have not yet heard anything about the CO2 monitoring stations yet, ican, but seriously I have to wonder if those numbers being collected are being adequately monitored and double checked, because the political stakes are so high that I really am continuing to doubt the people doing it more and more all the time. Do you know anything about those CO2 stations, such as Mauna Loa, how good are the procedures for those samples and the testing procedures currently being employed? Just as an observation from a former guy that spent a long time in a science field, it seems a little weird to me that the numbers coming out of those stations are so perfectly incremental in terms of climbing a point or two every year, almost too perfect it seems to me, but so far I figure my suspicions are probably ungrounded, as surely there would be some backup in terms of who are running those tests and making sure they are done in a highly controlled and proper manner. But I do wonder about it because it would seem more logical for the numbers to be a little more erratic than they are? I could be wrong, but just wondering what others think?

Here are some examples of some weather station sites that are shown on the map in my above post.






http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

Hey ican, guess what, we may need to start checking this out, not only temperatures, but problems with CO2 monitoring. Here are these items from a simple web search, indicating changed numbers and missing data from Mauna Loa. You can read the whole article, but it does not gender much confidence in how the data is being collected and handled.

"It all started Sunday August 3rd when a revision of data was posted that showed a clear drop between January and July of this year. I did a story on the January to July trend reversal of CO2 at Mauna Loa, The post on that highlighted what the data published by MLO said at that time. What it said was that there was an unusual, never before seen in the history of the dataset lower CO2 PPM value in July than was measured in January.

.....

When I read that, I was simply floored. Here we have what is considered the crown jewel of all surface based CO2 measurement stations suddenly missing 20 days of data, and it was all due to a hard disk crash. In this day and age of cheap storage and RAID systems it seemed unfathomable that such a thing could happen, especially to something so important as this data

....."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/06/post-mortem-on-the-mauna-loa-co2-data-eruption/

The best editorial ever on "Global Warming" was written in the Wall Street Journal today-entitled-"The Copenhagen Concoction: Read below--

REVIEW & OUTLOOKDECEMBER 8, 2009.The Copenhagen Concoction
The U.N.'s climate confab runs into the reality of costs and science. .For months, the U.N. climate change summit that began yesterday in Copenhagen has been billed as the world's last best hope to match the scientific consensus on global warming with a policy consensus. But now it turns out there is little of either, and Copenhagen looks like it will go down as one of the more remarkable cases of political hubris in recent memory.

That's no bad outcome, given the ambitions of Copenhagen's organizers to impose heavy new carbon taxes on top of a struggling world economy. The Australian Senate last week defeated Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's cap-and-trade legislation, largely due to its job-killing potential in the coal-producing continent. Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister, said Thursday "there is no question of India accepting a legally binding emission reduction cut." China has promised to cut the rate of growth in its carbon emissions, which would nevertheless double over the next decade even on the most optimistic scenario.

As for the U.S., it has become clear even to liberals that it was not the Bush Administration alone that was standing in the way of a global climate deal. Last Thursday, nine Senators sent a letter outlining the terms of their support for cap-and-trade legislation, including that every other country enact and enforce carbon legislation of their own. And those were Democrats.

A delegate walks in front a light installation at the entrance of the Bella centre of the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.
.President Obama has promised an 83% cut in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (from their 2005 level) by 2050. But such extravagant pledges are only possible when everyone knows they won't happen. Yesterday's announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency that it will regulate carbon as a dangerous pollutant is an attempt to run around Congress in order to impress Copenhagen's conferees, but it is also deeply undemocratic and betrays the lack of broader public support. (See below.)

***
So what exactly is the point of Copenhagen? The question needs to be asked all the more insistently in the wake of last month's disclosure of thousands of documents and emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), long considered an authoritative center of temperature data, modeling and forecasts.

At a minimum, the emails demonstrate the lengths some of the world's leading climate scientists were prepared to go to manufacture the "consensus" they used to demand drastic steps against global warming. The emails are replete with talk of blacklisting dissenting scientists and journals, manipulating peer review and avoiding freedom of information requests.

Nor can the emails be dismissed as a handful of scientists showing their petulant streak. Scientific research must be subject to testing, verification and, if necessary, disproof. Otherwise, its conclusions are worthless. That's especially true if the basic data on which the climate records are based are deleted, as seems to have been the case with the CRU, or if the elaborate computer models used to forecast climate turn out to be poorly designed, as also seems to be the case.

The core question raised by the emails is why their authors would behave this way if they are as privately convinced of the strength of their case as they claim in public. The Earth's climate is a profoundly complex system, sensitive, dynamic and subject to a dizzying range of variables interacting in ways that remain poorly understood. Carbon dioxide is only one of those variables. Climate scientists failed to anticipate the absence of warming in the last decade, a point that Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, privately conceded in one of the disclosed emails was a "travesty."

.Given this, the public is entitled to wonder how exactly climate scientists can state with such certainty that temperatures have never been higher, or that they are sure to rise in the coming decade, to say nothing of the rest of the century. The public is also entitled to know how the climatologists can suggest the precise degrees by which the Earth will warm, or why a warmer Earth is, on balance, worse than a colder one. Is there a "correct" global average temperature?

The public also has a right to wonder whether the bulk of the scarce financial resources available to mitigate ecological risks ought to be devoted primarily to climate change rather than to other threats to the environment and public health. For several years, Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg has been convening meetings in Copenhagen of some of the world's leading economists to consider that very question. Overwhelmingly they have concluded that the world's dollars, euros and yen are better spent on tackling diseases such as AIDS or malaria or problems such as malnutrition and run-of-the-mill pollution than on hugely expensive (and dubiously effective) carbon-mitigation schemes.

This conclusion is only common sense: Given the choice between spending $100 to feed a hungry child in the present or combat a notional climate problem that might or might not have real consequences a century hence, most of us would surely choose the former. We would do so, moreover, with the confidence that the technologies of the future will be better suited to deal with whatever climate problems might then exist.

A typical retort is that "we can't afford to wait until it's too late," but one may as well ask whether the child in our example should go hungry while the developed world spends its money on global warming mitigation in the Third World. Yet that is exactly what the conferees at Copenhagen seem prepared to do, to the tune of billions of dollars per year.

Even if the Earth does warm by a degree or two this century, the world will be better able to cope with any consequences the more prosperous it is. The worst policy would be to impose higher energy and other costs that reduce global growth for decades. The proponents of cap and trade point to this or that study claiming that a tax on the world's main current energy supplies (oil, natural gas, coal) is cost free. But this also defies common sense. The Chinese and Indians don't believe it, and neither do middle-class Americans who can't easily afford hundreds of dollars a year in extra electricity or transportation costs.

Meanwhile, none of the "green" energy sources"wind, solar or biofuels"has so far proved even remotely efficient or scalable, while often entailing serious environmental consequences of their own. These industries exist mainly because governments have thrown tens of billions in subsidies at them, and still they can't compete with carbon sources.

Much of the momentum for Copenhagen is now driven by the alternative fuels industry and its investors, who stand to lose vast sums unless governments artificially raise the price of carbon. These include our friends at Kleiner Perkins, the ecoventure capital fund that includes Al Gore as a partner. And of course that part of the political class congenitally eager to redistribute taxpayer monies also wants to dispense "carbon credits" to friends and political donors.

***
By now, the idea that global warming represents the gravest threat to humanity has become totemic in much of the world, a belief invested with religious fervor and barely susceptible to rational discussion, let alone debate. Yet it remains telling how quickly a sense of reality has reasserted its cold grip in light of the choices Copenhagen now brings starkly into view.

Mr. Obama has delayed his trip to the conference until its final day, when he thinks he might salvage some kind of deal. Perhaps he will. Then again, Copenhagen is more likely to prove that it takes more than environmental faith and political opportunism to forge a genuine global consensus.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A20

After reading the last ten pages of this thread, I nominate the eminent Mr. Kuvasz' screed below as the most odorous piece of useless excrement on the topic. I would encourage Mr. Kuvasz to rebut the evidence listed by H2O, Ican and Okie rather than posting lugubrious nonsense.

Quote Mr. Kuvasz
'The whole post is well worth a read if you wonder what makes the global warming deniers tick. What makes it an unusual issue is that pissing off the liberals really is pretty much the only motivation, unlike others which have stronger cultural ties to traditional shibboleths.

"It's a temperament thing. There are people we run across in life who just hate earnestness and loathe anyone who gives a damn about anything.(They also like to hurt small animals and make fun of those less fortunate than themselves.) Most of those people join the conservative tribe. It's where they find their soul mates.

end of quote

While reading through this thread, I noted that the originator of the thread was the esteemed Mr. Blotham. I miss his posts. I do hope that he has not returned to Canada. He certainly won't get the medical care he needs in that country.

C'mon, its obvious sarcasm !! No-one is that stupid to say those things with the intent of them being taken as facts !

okie responded to me thusly




Okie, are you insane? I do not advocate abortions. I have never done so in public, ever. I spent several posts on a thread by finn debuzz illustrating my opinion on the topic from first irreligious ethical and moral principles that I believe abortion, the destruction of a potential sentient life form, to be morally wrong. If the only thing that you can use to attack me because I am an economic progressive is to lie completely about my position on socially liberal policies by presenting strawman arguments I never made instead of presenting a legitmate argument, you are a bigger ******* nitwit than I ever thought.

You have no intellectual power of discrimination. I don't hate you because of that fundamental flaw. I pity you, because it likely means that you would cheerfully eat a dog turd thinking that because it was brown and chewy you were eating a tootsie roll.

Personally, I am not a social liberal but an economic libertarian socialist (even though I own two companies). I do however recognize the capitalistic economic culture I live in and do my best to live up to my political philosophy, but I don't have much respect for traditional liberals because of their Petit-bourgeois affectations and sensibilities, and refusal to get in the face of right wing know-nothing reactionaries like you.

Consider this, liberals dislike me as much as you right wingers do, so I must be doing something right.

Hey dummy is there something you don't understand about quotation marks? I showed the links from which the remarks came. Posting the words of others on a topic of concern is not prima fascia evidence that I endorse completely the words I link to.

I did it to tweak your ******* beaks, and it seems with complete success.

As to refuting or rebutting the words of ideologically blinded non-scientists who know nothing about science or scientific method while I hold two MS degrees in chemistry and a PhD in organic chemistry, is like trying to teach your cat ancient Greek. It might happen, but its not likely worth the time. Besides, I spent several dozens of posts writing in support to the conclusions of the 2007 IPCC report over 600 pages and two and a half years ago on this thread. So you sir, are a johnny-come-lately to the topic on this thread. I just drop in to this thread from time to time to gawk at the neanderthals like you; kind of like going to a fair on the midway to look at the freak show and geeks.

Here's your homework, get back to me in a few years once you finish reading it. I don't waste my time talking to the completely uninformed novices.

http://www1.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm

... you know, come to think of it, I bet that I could teach my cat ancient Greek before you would be able to understand and crank through the IPCC reports.

So.....you are saying you really like me ? Sorry, but I am seeing someone. Besides, you seem a little egotistical..all those qualifications and you havent learnt how to be a human being. I try not to cite my qualifications...it just makes me look frightened.

Stinky, you're as wise as ever.

You could read the entire article okie rather than just picking out what you think is incriminating at the beginning.

kuvasz, no, I am not insane, I am simply making a common sense observation. Now, if you oppose abortion, good, and I extend my apologies to you. However, as a person that seems to be on the liberal side of issues most of the time, I hope you do realize that most liberals advocate abortion to be legal and okay with them, thus in doing so they have placed their stamp of approval on stamping out an offspring of theirs.

I realize there is a slight difference in actually doing it themselves and agreement with the legality, but if you consider here that the moral decision here hinges upon the fact that it is or is not considered a life, I think if it is considered a life, to consent to society doing it is the same thing as an endorsement of it. In other words, if a person believed that the robbery of another person should not be considered a criminal act, then that person is essentially saying that there is nothing wrong with robbery, it is only a personal decision. In other words, you could say you do not rob anybody and simply because you don't agree that robbers are commiting a crime does not mean you endorse robbery, but no that reasoning does not fly in my opinion. I am not saying that every personal decision that you make does not indicate that a law against it for everyone is proper, but in the case of life and death, I believe we as as society must make a decision about that, we cannot sit idly by and merely say that is someone elses decision. For example, if a mother kills a baby just born, that is murder, but if the mother kills a baby minutes before being born, then we have to make a decision and take a stand against that as well, in my opinion. Fact is, if a person is responsible for the death of a unborn baby during the act of violence against that person, can't that person be held accountable?

But back to the main point that I made, if liberals attempt to use the issue of saving lives to further their agenda of global warming to browbeat those of us that do not believe in the issue the same way, I think that is an obvious hypocrisy and therefore an invalid argument, simply because if you look at other issues such as abortion, liberals do not typically care about the human lives involved. My conclusion therefore is that the attempt to use the issue of potentially saving lives as I believe the article you posted attempted, kuvasz, is not at all valid. And actually, there is absolutely no evidence at all to indicate that the warming that we are supposedly observing will result in any loss of life over and above what would otherwise occur either with no warming or if the earth instead began to cool. In fact, cooling could instead cause more loss of life, through the reduction of the growth of food, and so forth. There is no way that any person can become some kind of fortune teller in regard to potential loss of life as regards to weather or climate. It is utter and complete nonsense, and for sure is not sound science.

If you would have read my posts with comprehension, you would understand the point. As I have pointed out, and I did read most of the article, I see not much to gender complete confidence in the data collection and evaluation. My entire point is that the process is under suspicion and we need to see more scrutiny of the data and techniques used, before everyone is justified in jumping on some political bandwagon as a result of the stuff being put out there. I am not making a flat out statement that the data are wrong, but I am saying that more credibility is needed, more independent confirmation is needed, and this becomes difficult when the people in charge deny access to the original data, and they also deny complete and full disclosure of all aspects of the operation.

And back to the point of the weather stations in the United States. It is totally obvious to anyone that has any sense at all, when they see the photos of many of the stations, it should be totally obvious that the people collecting the data do not have even enough sense to clean up their act in making sure the weather stations are sited properly. Whether this is simple negligence, intentional, or incompetence, I do not know, but it has to be at least one of the three and possibly some of all. If I was a science teacher and a student did a term paper using methods this shoddy and sloppy, I would give the student a low grade and tell them they could redo the project using better methodology to improve their grade, but I would certainly not take their results as anything credible enough to base any significant decisions upon. And that would be proper in high school and college, but these people are much higher on the scale than that, so the ramifications of it are even more crucial to demand some basic standards be achieved, otherwise they should be laughed out of town and a new crew be hired.

Kuvasz wrote:

As to refuting or rebutting the words of ideologically blinded non-scientists who know nothing about science or scientific method while I hold two MS degrees in chemistry and a PhD in organic chemistry, is like trying to teach your cat ancient Greek. It might happen, but its not likely worth the time. Besides, I spent several dozens of posts writing in support to the conclusions of the 2007 IPCC report over 600 pages and two and a half years ago on this thread. So you sir, are a johnny-come-lately to the topic on this thread. I just drop in to this thread from time to time to gawk at the neanderthals like you; kind of like going to a fair on the midway to look at the freak show and geeks.

end of quote




Marvelous-Then, with his obvious grasp of difficult Science, he can explain the following to us( using Science of course). No hedging. No BS.--A full explanation.


December 1, 2009
The Inquisition of Global Warming
By Debra Saunders

This just in from the Times of London: After the leak of highly embarrassing e-mail messages from the University of East Anglia's influential Climatic Research Unit, CRU has been forced to admit that it dumped "the original raw" climate data used to bolster the case for human-caused global warming, while retaining only the "value-added" -- read: massaged -- data.

In short, the CRU dumped the scientific data, but archived information that supports its conclusions. "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years," wrote Times environment editor Jonathan Leake.
****************************************************************

Now, I have three Masters Degrees-none of them in Science-nevertheless, I know that you do not THROW OUT YOUR ORIGINAL NOTES AND DATA ESPECIALLY WHEN YOUR THESIS IS CONTROVERSIAL AND UNDER ATTACK.

Kuvasz will never admit that the act of dumping the "original raw climate data"
is an act done by charlatans and liars.

Kuvacsz( the esteemed Scientist) thinks that we( the poor scientifically illiterate peons who are not worthy of sitting anywhere near his genius) cannot and have not read the findings of the IPCC. I have and have never had a response from Scientific Illuminati like Kuvasz.

Questions-Dr. Kuvasz-

Is it true that, according to the IPCC's 2007 Report( we do read them),sea levels will rise about a foot over the rest of the century?

Is it true, oh omniscient one, that since 1860, we have experience a sea level rise of about a foot. without major disruptions?

Is it true, oh wise one, that in April 2000, the text of the IPCC was supposed to read--"There has been a discernable human influence on global climate" but then the October draft stated: "it is likely that increasing concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have contributed substantially over the last 50 years but THEN, in the official summary( read by most reporters who were too lazy to go to the original data)-"MOST of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".

How can we be sure? If we are skpetical, we can and should examine the original data used to come to these conclusions. BUT THIS DATA HAS BEEN DUMPED.

I am sure that you cannot give a rationale for such a egregious act!!

massagetto, bernardo, genoves or whomever your mind believes you are this week, you write with such transparency that you look like a fool trying to get back on site with your insane posts. You and I had discussions on the report over two years ago and you ought to stop wasting my time to reiterate what I said then.

Get back on your medication, your sanity is once again slipping.

Maybe, massagatto found jesus. LOL

If you dont have the time where do you find time to post all your insults ? I would like an answer (even though it is a tough question) as you have given no reference to an alleged previous post.

If your aim is convince people your side of the debate has the most hysterical uninformed Nazis, then I congratulate you on winning.

Maybe ci laughs at their own jokes...this is probably important as it seems improbable that anyone else will.