Manipulated climate reports

[Tiger Moth]

Sorry, Michael Chrichton writes great novels. I really liked Andromeda strain. It's great that he's spent 3 years researching global warming. Most of the scientists who think that global warming is man-made have spent a little longer than 3 years not only researching but developing the knowledge base required to interpret the data. They have something called a phD which understandably is not as credible as being the author of Jurassic Park but it has to be worth something.

 

Michael Cricton has an MD, which is a scientific degree at least equivalent to a Ph'd He is without a doubt a genius level IQ. And, in his book, which you dismiss without having even read it, he presents a great deal of data from scientific reports which contradict the biased data selectively emphasized the the IPCC.

 

Here is one example from his book, using data from US NASA, during the period 1940 - 1970, CO2 levels went up but global temperatures went down. If increased CO2 correlates with increased temperatures, what is your explanation for this?

 

Many, many other equivalent references in Crichton's book, in many cases from the same sources used by the IPCC, which contradict current IPCC agenda.

 

I wonder what the ratio is of money spent by the IPCC on research that "proves" man is the cause for climate change vs money spent for research that "proves" man is not the cause of climate change.

 

Personally I give much more credibility to Crichton than I do to Al Gore (a man who when he ran for US Presidency changed his wardrobe several times because he couldn't decide on the image he was trying to portray).

[Guest]

Ok' date=' your article doesn't say that data was flawed, it merely says there was a 2 year data gap....also it states only a 10-30% increase as being attributed to the sun

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051001100950.htm

 

Here is an article stating the opposite....

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914095559.htm

 

[/quote']

 

What are you reading!? It specifically states that the data is flawed because 2 years of data is missing and they filled it in with inferior satellite data. That is not a flaw for you? That is not what I would call good data, good science, or a good theory coming from the data.

 

Then the other link says that they used even older satellite data to come to the conclusion that the sun as little or no effect. That is even worse science. But it must have kept their funding going. They tried their best, but even manipulating the data, still had to say that they saw some effects by the sun. That is hardly stating the opposite!

 

You're not the sharpest tool in the box are you Denarious...your link about Pre-historic CO2 was by a guy called Monte Hieb...here's some info about him....

 

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2005/01/a_day_of_pride.html

 

[color:red]"Name: Monte Hieb

Email: mhieb@mines.state.wv.us

Title: Chief Engineer

Organization: West Virginia Office of Miners Health Safety and Training

 

W VA economy is heavily weighted towards mining (this is where the infamous MTR technique is being practised, disastrously). and the coal mining industry is, shall we say, not exactly thrilled with any critique of fossil fuel use. he is (emphatically) not a climate scientist, plant or marine biologist, etc. -- though he does seem to be an enthusiastic amateur fossil-hound with a really nice web site on W VA fossils."[/color]

 

Yes, you guessed it...our man Monte works for a mining company...a FOSSIL fuel mining company...

 

You can find further info about him and the sources you quote here, Denarious....plus criticism of all of Montes flawed science...

 

http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm

 

Here's a severe rebuttal of Micheal Crichtons book 'State of fear', written by a real climate scientist....

 

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2004/story12-13-04b.html

 

Time to wise up and learn........

 

[Tiger Moth]

Are you speaking of yourself when you say, time to wise up and learn?

 

Are you a "real climate scientist"? Are you a scientist? Have you done original scientific research on the subject? Would love to see a reference to your work.

 

The "severe rebuttal" of Crichton's book that you reference is as slanted as it claims Crichton's book is. For example, the author provides the following as if it were a criticism of what Crichton has written even though it is actually entirely consistent with what he wrote: The first set of comments relate to the attribution of the recent warming trend to increasing CO2. One character suggests that, â??If CO2 didnâ??t cause the global cooling between 1940 and 1970, how can you be sure it is responsible for the recent warming?â? (paraphrased from p86). Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures do appear to have cooled over that period, and that contrasts with a continuing increase in CO2, which if all else had been equal, should have led to warming.

 

But were all things equal? Actually no. In the real world, there is both internal variability and other factors that affect climate (i.e. other than CO2). Some of those other forcings (sulphate and nitrate aerosols, land use changes, solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, for instance) can cause cooling. Matching up the real world with what we might expect to have happened depends on including ALL of the forcings (as best as we can). Even then any discrepancy might be due to internal variability (related principally to the ocean on multi-decadal time scales).

 

And, I should emphasize that Crichton was not attempting to write a definitive, scientific analysis of climate change. Rather, he was primarily pointing out that there isn't anything close to a definitive analysis. That is, the IPCC is presenting conclusions that are not definitive, as if they were.

 

It seems you are good at googling. But, are you simply a pedestrian parroting the popular opinion promoted by the IPCC?

[Guest]

I am a scientist, my degree was in a scientific field, therefore i'm fully aware of the criteria required to cite 'proof' of concept. You will no doubt be aware that 29,000 pieces of data were reviewed by over 2,000 scientists from around 100 countries, for the IPCC to publish their findings... They have as a result of this raised the probability to 90% that the current warming is human created/caused....the previous report cited an approx. 60% probability...a lot more data is available for them to review their previous findings and that has informed this change.

 

Michael Crichton writes fiction. End of.

 

Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, you are wrong...it's upto you if you want to accept it now or later...best of luck.

[Denarius]

You're not the sharpest tool in the box are you Denarious...your link about Pre-historic CO2 was by a guy called Monte Hieb...here's some info about him....

 

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2005/01/a_day_of_pride.html

 

[color:red]"Name: Monte Hieb

 

 

Email: mhieb@mines.state.wv.us

Title: Chief Engineer

Organization: West Virginia Office of Miners Health Safety and Training

 

W VA economy is heavily weighted towards mining (this is where the infamous MTR technique is being practised, disastrously). and the coal mining industry is, shall we say, not exactly thrilled with any critique of fossil fuel use. he is (emphatically) not a climate scientist, plant or marine biologist, etc. -- though he does seem to be an enthusiastic amateur fossil-hound with a really nice web site on W VA fossils."[/color]

 

Yes, you guessed it...our man Monte works for a mining company...a FOSSIL fuel mining company...

 

You can find further info about him and the sources you quote here, Denarious....plus criticism of all of Montes flawed science...

 

http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm

 

Here's a severe rebuttal of Micheal Crichtons book 'State of fear', written by a real climate scientist....

 

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2004/story12-13-04b.html

 

Time to wise up and learn........

 

This tool is sharp enough to recognize flawed data when it sees it. Too bad you cannot with your self-proclaimed superior scientific mind.

 

I asked several times, but you never proved anything with your ice samples. [color:red]Do you understand the principle that correlation is not causation?[/color] There may be a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but that does not mean that CO2 is the cause.

 

Was the data that I provided correct or not? Must be correct or otherwise you would not be trying to discredit its source, your only hope of trying to make the data go away. What were you expecting as the data source, the IPCC providing data that destroys their own theory? I personally find the material of the alarmists (Gore for one) to be the most questionable. You donâ??t think that they have any vested interests in their positions?

 

It is a sure sign that your case is lost when you have to resort to personal attacks/insults and attacks against data sources instead of the data.

 

 

[Denarius]

So what exactly is your point? That you believe that there is global warming and it is dangerous but it is being caused by something other than man? So what's the suggestion? That we just give up and let nature take it's course? That we divert resources to controlling the Sun? What exactly is the actionable step you are suggesting?

 

Man only adds a very small contribution to global warming, at the worst.

 

If you try to interfer with a natural process you may make things worse. Humans don't know enough about climate to start to tinker with it.

 

 

If a dozen doctors tell me that taking Ecstasy is bad for me and one doctor says there's no proof, I tend to believe the dozen doctors. I don't try and interpret scientific data on my own without the minimum level of required training. So Denarius, what exactly are your credentials?

 

This is ridiculous. If you want to see credentials for posts start your own board.

 

[Denarius]

I am a scientist, my degree was in a scientific field, therefore i'm fully aware of the criteria required to cite 'proof' of concept. You will no doubt be aware that 29,000 pieces of data were reviewed by over 2,000 scientists from around 100 countries, for the IPCC to publish their findings... They have as a result of this raised the probability to 90% that the current warming is human created/caused....the previous report cited an approx. 60% probability...a lot more data is available for them to review their previous findings and that has informed this change.

 

Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, you are wrong...it's upto you if you want to accept it now or later...best of luck.

 

 

It really irks you scientists that the general public can access information and make their own decisions now. You like the good old days when scientists said something it had to be believed without question. The tradition of hanging onto incorrect theories is still strong. It is still tough to admit when you are wrong isnâ??t it?

 

[Tiger Moth]

... They have as a result of this raised the probability to 90% that the current warming is human created/caused....the previous report cited an approx. 60% probability...a lot more data is available for them to review their previous findings and that has informed this change.

 

Michael Crichton writes fiction. End of.

 

The probability is either 0% or 100%. It is either true or it isn't. 90% is their estimate of the probability that their conclusion is correct.

 

Michael Crichton also writes non-fiction.

 

"End of" is not a sentence and does not convey a thought.

 

Since you are a scientist and since the 800,000 year ice core sample shows that climate change has been occuring during the entire period and since man produces a small % of CO2 produced, I would appreciate it if you would explain the conclusion that the current climate can be attributed to man and to the exclusion of the factors that produced climate change over the 799,900 years that preceeded industrialization.

 

Also, you previously provided a link to what you referred to as a "rebuttal" of Crichton's book, State of Fear. If you have not read his book, please explain how you determined that the "rebuttal" was valid.

[Guest]

I am a scientist' date=' my degree was in a scientific field, therefore i'm fully aware of the criteria required to cite 'proof' of concept. You will no doubt be aware that 29,000 pieces of data were reviewed by over 2,000 scientists from around 100 countries, for the IPCC to publish their findings... They have as a result of this raised the probability to 90% that the current warming is human created/caused....the previous report cited an approx. 60% probability...a lot more data is available for them to review their previous findings and that has informed this change.

 

Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, you are wrong...it's upto you if you want to accept it now or later...best of luck.[/quote']

 

 

It really irks you scientists that the general public can access information and make their own decisions now. You like the good old days when scientists said something it had to be believed without question. The tradition of hanging onto incorrect theories is still strong. It is still tough to admit when you are wrong isnâ??t it?

 

It doesn't irk me, it amuses me, it's such a ridiculous thing to write!!!...it amuses me even more when you state in a previous post how people resort to insults, when they are losing an argument and then do the very same thing.

 

Anyway, i'm all for educating people, i've spent much of my life doing so and i take the responsibility very seriously, but i find there are some who cling onto their 'beliefs' no matter what, even when faced with clear and obvious facts. You seem to be one of those. You require me to point you in the right direction, by proving something to you that you really should be doing yourself.

 

You've cited unreliable sources, interested parties and no data of value...in other words you have nothing....but still you cling to your point...if i have time i'll try to address your concerns, but shouldn't you be doing that yourself? You will find the 'correct' answers if you look....

 

 

[Guest]

You're not the sharpest tool in the box are you Denarious...your link about Pre-historic CO2 was by a guy called Monte Hieb...here's some info about him....

 

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2005/01/a_day_of_pride.html

 

[color:red]"Name: Monte Hieb

 

 

Email: mhieb@mines.state.wv.us

Title: Chief Engineer

Organization: West Virginia Office of Miners Health Safety and Training

 

W VA economy is heavily weighted towards mining (this is where the infamous MTR technique is being practised' date=' disastrously). and the coal mining industry is, shall we say, not exactly thrilled with any critique of fossil fuel use. he is (emphatically) not a climate scientist, plant or marine biologist, etc. -- though he does seem to be an enthusiastic amateur fossil-hound with a really nice web site on W VA fossils."[/color']

 

Yes, you guessed it...our man Monte works for a mining company...a FOSSIL fuel mining company...

 

You can find further info about him and the sources you quote here, Denarious....plus criticism of all of Montes flawed science...

 

http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm

 

Here's a severe rebuttal of Micheal Crichtons book 'State of fear', written by a real climate scientist....

 

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2004/story12-13-04b.html

 

Time to wise up and learn........

 

This tool is sharp enough to recognize flawed data when it sees it. Too bad you cannot with your self-proclaimed superior scientific mind.

 

I asked several times, but you never proved anything with your ice samples. [color:red]Do you understand the principle that correlation is not causation?[/color] There may be a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but that does not mean that CO2 is the cause.

 

Was the data that I provided correct or not? Must be correct or otherwise you would not be trying to discredit its source, your only hope of trying to make the data go away. What were you expecting as the data source, the IPCC providing data that destroys their own theory? I personally find the material of the alarmists (Gore for one) to be the most questionable. You donâ??t think that they have any vested interests in their positions?

 

It is a sure sign that your case is lost when you have to resort to personal attacks/insults and attacks against data sources instead of the data.

 

 

I really don't have the time to find links to articles to discredit your points of view...try doing it yourself...it's what others do. Your 'data' was flawed, as were the sources. The IPCC was previously cautious, as data was lacking and they were being responsible, scientists tend to do that you see....now there's improved data...therefore the 'official' line has changed. It demonstrates a responsible approach and is the correct thing to do...sensationalising is not something they have done....they are an independant body and take their role very seriously.

 

As regards your above points. I don't trust or believe Al Gore. I don't consider anyone with an agenda a reliable source, he is similar to Micheal Crichton and is sensationalising, probably for his own benefit, like Crichton. You should be mindful of a person (M Hieb) who works for a fossil fuel mining company and who isn't a climate scientist....there's an agenda there too....and it isn't one of public benefit...i'm sure you can work out what his agenda is, right?

 

Correlations are useful....they indicate something is happening. Who would dispute the correlation between alcohol consumption and road accidents? No one...i would hope....the more you drink, the more likely you are to have an accident, due to the effect alcohol has on reaction time and judgement. However, the alcohol doesn't directly 'cause' the accident, it effects brain chemistry, which in turn effects the individuals sensory awareness. Would you deny this? Can you understand the analogy i'm trying to create?

 

I will dig out some stuff on the ice core samples and CO2/Methane for you, if you want me to, but really, please look it up yourself, it's quite an educational experience.