You’ve been told time and time again that your “science” and talking points about Mt. Kilimanjaro’s snow and glaciers melting because of Man Induced Warming aren’t worth more than a bucket of spit, so, here’s some more reality for you to chew on
Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste — a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize — about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming.
Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) — a governmental body — shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.
The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of “a natural process of dry and wet periods.†The present melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.â€
Well, the clear cutting of the forests that surround the mountain certainly do not help, but, it’s not because of Al Gore blaming “global warming” in his hysterical (and disingenuous) movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” This is an inconvenient truth for Al, who will surely just say the researchers are in the pocket of Big Oil or something. Even other believers in AGW think Al is full of it.
Elsewhere, the UN IPCC is in full denial about ClimateGate, standing behind the words that governments have approved. LOL
JoNova has what the real hockey stick looks like, without the tricking out by Mann, along with lots more data that makes our current warming period look, well, like just another normal period caused by nature.
Now the climahysterics are using the “Fake but accurate” defense, and Greenie Watch beats them like a rented mule.
Just working from memory, I believe the clear-cutting of forests below Kilimanjaro began about 150 years ago… and the loss of rainforest is also a loss of a major amount of precip in the local microclimate. So Yes, one can say environmental damage, in terms of loss of rainforest. And of course it just happened to occur in conjunction with the Earth rising out of the Little Ice Age over the same period of time.
One does not need a ‘rise in greenhouse gases’ due to industry, to account for it.
1Yes, it is unfortunate that Gore highlighted this controversial example in his film. However, :
1. The study that was referenced by Crichton did not say what he claimed about deforestation being the cause of melting at Kilimanjaro. This is a great example of you kool-aid drinkers just taking statements by talking heads at face value and running with it.
2. This myopic focus on Kilimanjaro ignores the FACT that ice caps, glaciers, ice sheets, and sea ice are melting all around the world. In addition, sea levels are rising in line with IPCC projections. While you focus on one example, you ignore the vast amount of evidence around you that points to warming as a result of human activity.
Listen. There’s no doubt that Gore was misleading in his movie. I’ll give you that. He was trying to draw attention to this issue, so he picked the most extreme examples to use to make his point, some of which happened to be questionable, such as Kilimanjaro, Katrina, and the thermohaline circulation. I agree that he should have emphasized the uncertainty surrounding some of the claims that he made.
The main thing I think he should have done differently was he should have focused on the big picture, rather than specific, anecdotal evidence. There is so much data available now, which points to receding glaciers, rising sea levels, melting sea ice, etc., that a strong case could be built by putting all of these pieces of evidence together.
So, please look at the big picture. By focusing on this one issue, you’re missing the larger body of evidence, which points to warming.
Did you guys catch that? I admitted that Gore was misleading. :P
So in other words, you admit Gore was full of crap, but it’s okay because he was “drawing attention” to the issue. Much like your stance on ClimateGate, where you are more than willing to give these so-called scientists a pass on faking the data, hiding the decline by fudging numbers, misleading everyone on the planet, crushing debate not by actually debating, but by getting them effectively blacklisted, “discarding” raw data to avoid FOIA requests, and seeking to redefine the peer-review into a pseudo-intellectual circle-jerk that could wind up costing TRILLIONS, decimating even some of the largest economies in the world.
And again, you are completely missing the point.
1: The CRU provides a HUGE chunk of the information that ALL the AGW crowd uses; data, models, etc.
2: The CRU got caught lying through their teeth, faking data, which means their figures and models are now WORTHLESS.
3: Considering how extensively these figures and models were relied on, the entire theory of AGW, as it stands, is now suspect.
4: Until a full investigation is completed BY NONPARTISAN OUTSIDE SOURCES, not ONE THIN DIME of tax revenue should be put towards this scam, not ONE SINGLE POLICY regarding AGW should be enacted, and every law and regulation created based on this fraudulent data should be immediately halted, if not completely erased, except those monies, laws, and regulations needed to investigate this matter.
TFMo,
First of all, the data in question at the CRU is primarily temperature data. No one in the scientific community (skeptics included) disputes the FACT that the planet is warming, and for good reason. The temperature data from CRU is consistent with that of other independent analyses, such as those provided by NCDC and GISS.
Secondly, 95% of CRU’s data is readily available. The remaining data is not available only because of non-publication agreements with various National Meteorological Services. They are now working to be freed from these, so they can provide all data.
Do you know what “decline” was being referred to in the statement “hide the decline”? This was in reference to the well-known issue of divergence, which means that tree-ring data did not line up well with the more accurate instrumental temperature data after 1960. The unfortunate phrase was describing the process of combining the two sets of data, in order to provide a seamless graph of temperature.
Nothing in any of the stolen material indicates that any of the peer-reviewed publications from CRU aren’t of the highest quality and integrity. Your exaggerations do nothing to disprove that fact.
It’s not surprising to me, by the way, that you won’t provide any specific examples of manipulated data, and the specific research that it negates, preferring instead to talk in generalities about “fudging numbers”, and claiming that these fictional numbers call all figures, models, and even the theory of AGW as a whole, into question. As with everything else, you have no specifics because you (A) don’t understand the issue, and (B) are relying solely on partisan talking points for your information, rather than an in-depth, reasoned, objective analysis of the situation.
You still haven’t even addressed the issue of all of the evidence that I’ve referred to in comments to this post. I assume that’s all tainted by the CRU situation as well?
Please try to look at the bigger picture, specific about your claims, and provide some evidence to back them up. Broad generalizations don’t cut it.
For one, I don’t have to provide the data; it’s already been provided. Two, if even ONE decimal point is out of place in these things, the entire thing falls apart. Substantially more than one decimal point was altered, as admitted in the e-mails. Three, peer review means a hell of a lot less when these so-called scientists are refusing to provide data to peers that might GASP disagree with them or find fault with their numbers. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the purpose of a peer review? To go over ALL the data and the conclusion to see if it adds up?
What they have done, again, by their own admission, is NOT PEER REVIEW. It’s a circle-jerk, with data sent only to those people they know will NOT report an error if it means refuting their theory. This becomes a question of INTEGRITY, and these douchenozzles have been clearly shown, by their own words and actions, to have none.
If I form a theory that all flies are wingless, then alter the data to fit my theory, then my work is fraudulent. If others take my fraudulent work and use it in THEIR work, then THEIR work becomes worthless. If I refuse to submit my findings to people I know will not back me up, then I am not undergoing an honest peer review. I’m committing fraud, again, and this time I have accomplices. That my accomplices are willing to lie for me calls THEIR integrity into question.
If the science is so settled, then why did these people feel it necessary to screw with the numbers, delete e-mails, toss out data, refuse honest peer review, blacklist dissenters, and refuse debate? Why are officials refusing to investigate? Why is Copenhagen still a go when there is a legitimate question whether or not this is a scam? If this is as settled as they would have us believe, then why aren’t they silencing the dissenters with actual FACTS, instead of all the cloak and dagger bullshit?
And even if this AGW crap was real and happening EXACTLY as we are being told, then why is that NONE of the plans to fix it will have ANY EFFECT? If we are going to be burning 468 PPM of CO2 by the end of the century, that’s 7 trillion tons, as per the IPCC. It’s supposed to cause approximately 7 degrees of increase in temperature. Which means to remove ONE degree, we have to cut 1 trillion tons of CO2. It will take more than THIRTY YEARS of ZERO CO2 emission to remove that ONE degree of temperature. No fossil fuels, no coal, no oil, NOTHING. We would have to be living in caves for thirty years for ONE DEGREE. To remove all seven degrees of warming, we’d have to be in those caves for more than TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS, Reasic. Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cap and Trade, NONE of these plans are going to do a blessed thing, but they will wind up costing close to 150 TRILLION DOLLARS.
These are not the actions of honest people, Reasic. Hiding and stonewalling and all this skulduggery is what liars do. Ridiculously expensive fixes that do not, by any stretch of the imagination, fix ANYTHING is snake oil. Maybe when you’ve figured that out, your words might have some weight. Until then, you’re little more than a fart in the car.
American Power tracked-back with, ‘Global Warming Fraud an Attack on Humanity’.
Ugh… TFMo, your responses are so difficult to respond to, because you fill them with so much misinformation, it’s hard to figure out where to begin. I’ll do my best.
1. This is not as simple as whether “one decimal point was altered” or not. In some cases, the raw data alone is more misleading than a manipulation. I’ll give two examples. First, there is the example already given of a temperature station that moved uphill. The elevation change caused a shift downward in temperature. The only way to correct the record, and bring them together is to shift the data after the move upward. Second, there is the issue of the urban heat island effect, which you “skeptics” so often complain about in temperature data. That can be be eliminated by comparing urban stations to nearby rural ones, and shifting downward where necessary. To make the simple argument that a single adjustment to the data renders everything invalid is extremely naive. I’m sorry, but as in every other case, you must dive MCUH deeper in order to find the truth.
You seem to have also shown your lack of understanding of the peer review process. Peer review doesn’t mean that every yahoo, scientist or not, who wants to play with the data gets to do so. This is a waste of scientists’ time and energy, putting together data sets for some screwball with an agenda, whose only going to misrepresent the research in order to post a misleading blog at ClimateAudit or WUWT. If a scientists’ work could not be replicated, it would not be published in a prestigious science journal. If there is a true scientist who has an alternative hypothesis that he would rather test, he should be more than able to develop his own methods, gather his own data, and write his own paper to submit for publication.
You continue to talk in generalities about these emails. It’d be a lot easier for me to determine the validity of your claims if you’d provide specific quotes from emails to back them up. Then I would at least have the context available. For instance, there is a big difference between someone “blacklisting dissenters”, and getting frustrated and annoyed at deniers who are only trying to spin their work into saying something that it doesn’t.
Please provide your source for the discussion on CO2 concentrations and temperature increases. I’m not aware of any projections of a 7 degree increase, based on a CO2 concentration of 468 ppm. You also seem to be referring to the concentration as a total amount, rather than a net amount. The earth can absorb CO2 back out of the atmosphere. We just have to reduce the amount we are emitting, because the planet cannot keep up. The 468 ppm is not a total amount of carbon to remove. You also seem to be saying that temperature increase is directly proportional to the increase in greenhouse gases, which is patently false. The linear increase in temperature is tied to a doubling of CO2 concentration. Like I said, there are so many errors here, I don’t know what to do with it, other than throw the whole thing out. Maybe if you could provide a link to your sources, I could figure out where you’re getting this from.
Raw data is more misleading than adjusted figures…or perhaps the raw data is not following their desired conclusion? If the actual facts do not support your hypothesis, common sense tells us there is much more wrong with the hypothesis than the facts, don’t you think? But no, you don’t. Here’s a thought: how about using the uphill data as uphill data and using the downhill data as downhill data? How about not cherry-picking the tree samples, and use ALL the tree data? How about not excluding the Medieval Warming Period, which appeared in the first IPCC report, but was mysteriously absent in the next two?
Take a thousand numbers, any thousand numbers, as big or as small as you want to make them, and add them together. Now take those same numbers and add a decimal point on any one number (ex: make 2109 into 210.9) Your total is going to be significantly different. We call this MATH. One small adjustment changes the outcome. They made adjustments based on what they BELIEVED, not on facts.
Finding the truth is a waste of time? Having others review your work to make sure you didn’t screw up is a waste of time? Apparently these hacks felt that way. The logical result of your argument is that the “scientists” hand-picked their peers. Given how much money is involved, I can see why they would only want peers who would agree with them looking at their work.
I’m quite aware of how peer review is SUPPOSED to work, Reasic. It’s the beginning stage, rather than the final stage, of the whole process. The peer review you are defending is akin to a wife asking her husband if these pants make her look fat.
Putting together data sets…I would think that it would only have to be done ONCE. You are implying, by your statement, that scientists are supposed to be sending different data to different people. In the accounting world, this is called Cooking The Books. Compile your data into ONE set, then send it out. Given that at some point these people are SUPPOSED to compile their data, I don’t see why this should be such a huge inconvenience.
I had to go looking for my information. You want answers, go find them. I don’t possess some hidden code or arcane ceremony to gather information; you have at least as much access to this information as I do.
For instance, there is a big difference between someone “blacklisting dissentersâ€, and getting frustrated and annoyed at deniers who are only trying to spin their work into saying something that it doesn’t.
Try looking in the leaked e-mails. And again, if the science is as settled as you lefties like to claim, then dissenters don’t matter, do they? The truth is plain to see, isn’t it? All the numbers add up, it’s an inescapable conclusion, right? Why, it shouldn’t take even two minutes to shut down the argument IF YOUR ARGUMENT IS VALID, RIGHT? Why not release the data to every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there? Facts remain facts, whether someone agrees or disagrees, right? Why not take up a few of these debate challenges? If you guys are so sure of your position, why, you wouldn’t even need to prepare, right? Just show up, hand over the facts, and you’re home in time for your favorite NBC sitcom.
You also seem to be saying that temperature increase is directly proportional to the increase in greenhouse gases, which is patently false. The linear increase in temperature is tied to a doubling of CO2 concentration.
Now you’re not even trying. In case you hadn’t heard, CO2 is now considered a GHG. And your side has been touting that the increase in temperature is a result of the increases in human-caused GHGs. And the figures I quoted come from the UN, which comes from the IPCC reports, which relied heavily on the CRU. Even using the “facts” presented by YOUR side, this is a farce. So are you arguing with the UN’s findings, or just with the rules of mathematics?
I’m quite aware of the effect of the placement of a decimal. The question is whether it’s relevant, or a red herring, much like many of your other arguments. Where has anyone in this situation misplaced the decimals in thousands of numbers, as in your example? Or is this simply another game of causing just neough doubt that you can derail the whole thing over nothing? If you had actual science on your side, you wouldn’t need to conjure up such scenarios to make your case.
The publishers pick the reviewers, not the scientists submitting the paper.
I think you’re confusing two different situations with the CRU data. Generally, when scientists research a topic, they gather their own data. There is research being done at CRU in addition to the temperature data compilations. There are also several other concurrent temperature data compilations being conducted, all of which agree with CRU data.
Why do you conservatives always think you can put the burden of proof on the opposing side? If YOU make a claim, YOU have to back it up. If you’re claiming that the emails say they threw data out, then the least you could do is provide the specific quote that says what you think it says. It is paramount that YOU provide YOUR evidence, so that I can see the specific evidence that you believe supports your case. It’s entirely possible that you’ve misread the email, or taken it out of context. But, if you’d just rather drink kool-aid, be my guest. It certainly won’t make your arguments any more valid.
Here’s the problem. People like you, who don’t understand the science, try to make everything out to be way too simple. The fact of the matter is that reality is complex, especially when dealing with scientific issues, such as global warming. It is not scientists’ jobs to get into petty debates with every Tom, Dick, and Harry who disagrees with them. That is a waste of time. They have published their papers, and the vast majority of the data is readily available. Reasoning with the irrational is a lost cause.
Sorry to have confused you. My point was not to differentiate between GHGs and CO2. I was differentiating between a linear and non-linear relationship between the increase and temperature and CO2 concentration.
Again, I asked for specific sources (quotes, links, anything) to back up your shoddy math in your last comment. Where are you getting that 468 ppm of CO2 = 7 degree increase? Where are you getting that removing 1 trillion tons of CO2 would result in a one degree temperature decrease?
To expand on the linear vs. non-linear issue, if a doubling in the concentration of CO2 = an increase of 1 degree, then a quadrupling equals an increase of 2 degrees.
Here’s a good reason why it’s so important that you provide your own sources, TFMo. I just looked at the IPCC AR4 report, and it looks to me that their projections for 2100 are between a 2 and 4 degree temperature increase. I need to know where you get your 7 degree figure.
Reasic, it’s not that damn hard to find. There’s this crazy, Matrix-like utility, totally mind-blowing, that searches through various pages on the internet, then provides links to those pages. It’s called GOOGLE.
And just through that mystical portal, I’ve found in the past year the UN, IPCC, CRU, and all the rest of these AGW doomsayers have NO consensus on how much the temperature is supposed to rise by the end of the century. I’ve found anywhere from 2 degrees to 15.
Let’s assume that AR4 has it right. Two to four degrees. That is NOTHING compared to the MWP. In fact, were our temperatures rise by that amount, we’d be doing dandy. You seem to forget that we are in far, far greater danger if the world COOLS, rather than warms. More people die annually from exposure to COLD than from heat. Plants tend to do much better in warmth than in cold; this is why we bring plants IN during the winter, and set them OUT when it warms. More plants mean more CO2 can be removed, since plants use that to produce oxygen, which WE need to survive. It also means more food for the herbivores, which means more food for the rest of the planet. That’s pretty good news for the people starving around the world, don’t you think?
Lol. Are you serious? Of course there’s no consensus on projecting into the future. What do you think they are, soothsayers? It all depends on which of the various possible scenarios we end up following. The IPCC report alone contains 5 or 6 scenarios, each with their own projections. What I need to know is specifically where you got the idea that 468 ppm CO2 will equal a 7 deg. increase. Sure, I can Google, but I already have my own sources, and they don’t concur with your info. Either you’re just making stuff up, or you got your info confused from a source. Either way, you’re wrong.
And yet again, you seem to have adopted a very simplistic and myopic view. This time, it is of what a warming planet might be like. Sure, some locals may be a little better off. However, the good does not outweight the bad. If sea levels were to rise only a couple of feet, it would cost trillions of dollars to various economies, and drive people in low-lying areas inward, putting a strain on resources in those areas. There would also be extinctions of various species, more severe weather patterns, and a reduction in the production of crops in already poor areas. Have you read through the IPCC Working Group II report, which describes the various consequences of global warming? This is certainly not as simple as “plants are better off in warmer weather”.
Of course there’s no consensus on projecting into the future. What do you think they are, soothsayers?
Uh, no, actually. THEY are claiming they are soothsayers. They do have one “consensus” though: it’s going to get warmer and it’s all Man’s fault.
Along with that horrible deadly oppressive 2 degrees melting ice, it also increases EVAPORATION. You also don’t take into account the COOLING effects we are having on our environment, or the natural cooling that takes place in nature, or the fact that more than 90% of the CO2 introduced into the environment daily comes from NATURE; evaporation from the sea and lakes, from animals, from decomposition, from EXHALING.
If some people wind up having to move a little further inland, then I guess they’ll just have to move (and there is likewise no true consensus on how much, if at all, the sea levels will rise.) A very simple truth about life on this planet: if you live near water, you can expect flooding at some point. If you live in Tornado Alley, expect a tornado. If you live on the West COast, expect earthquakes. If you live in Hawaii, expect lava. If you don’t like these things, THEN DON’T LIVE IN THESE AREAS. If you live in an industrialized nation, earn some damn money and move. If you live in a non-industrialized nation, it’s actually easier; there’s nothing keeping in place, and walking is free. It’s not like the Trail of Tears; a couple of miles is sufficient.
We, as all living things have done in the history of our planet, survive by ADAPTING. If you don’t adapt, you die. If an animal’s habitat is flooded out or burns down, it doesn’t try to change the planet, it moves to a new location. And considering how some of you lunatics are claiming that we need to reduce the population to fight AGW, why are you even worried about people dying along the coasts? Isn’t a lower population one of your “solutions”?
And once again, the changes these environuts are promoting will not do a damn thing to help our situation, whether you buy AGW or not. The various AGW plans will cost those trillions you’re so worried about, but will not do a blessed thing to help. By taking that money and frittering it away on utterly pointless and useless measures, it keeps those funds from being available for REAL solutions should disaster strike.
And once again, if I can find this information, so can you.
Ha. No, in the part of my response that you conveniently clipped out, I explained that they provided several scenarios, each with its own projection (range of temperature).
Ah, yes, the evaporation, which ends up in the atmosphere and causes MORE warming. That’s called a positive feedback. How does that help your case?
Okay, please explain for me the elusive cooling effects that the world’s climate scientists have forgotten in their calculations, but which you are privy to. I’m all ears.
This is a good example of where deniers go wrong. The thing is, I HAVE considered this. I looked into it, and found that the reality is more complex. While it is true that the human emissions are much smaller than natural emissions, what YOU haven’t considered is natural SINKS, which absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Before the industrial age, the earth was largely in equilibrium (at least for the past 800,000 years or so). Then, we started introducing more CO2, eventually at such a fast pace that the natural sinks could not keep up. The increase in CO2 is almost entirely caused by humans, and this has been proven two ways — through carbon isotopes, and measuring CO2 in the ocean, which is increasing when it should be releasing CO2 as it warms. So, you found some cute little red herring that you think I haven’t considered, when the reality is that you stopped at your little red herring instead of considering the rest of the story. Look it up.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
I’m not going to respond to your nonsensical downplaying of the threat of global warming and the proposed solutions, when you have demonstrated time and time again that you don’t even have the first clue about the problem itself in the first place.
And AGAIN, no explanation for how you came up with a 7 degree increase for a concentration of 468 ppm. What is this, the fact-free zone? Can you, Teach, or Otter really not simply provide a simple link to a site that supports your claim? Do you not see the trend developing of you deniers not having any evidence to support your claims?