I see some posts about Michael Mann, but if this has not been posted, it's a good watch on climate change vs. those that do not accept:

TEDxPSU - Michael Mann - A Look Into Our Climate: Past To Present To Future - YouTube

Sorry if it's been posted.

You may want to refer to the first post in this thread. Mann is both a fraud and a flim flam artist, his "science" was discredited by actual data.

See also: Hockey Stick graph-Mann's famous blunder in the world of climate prediction, long since regarded as pure fiction and again, proven incorrect by actual data.

Believe whatever you like, but we are better served by actual science than grant grubbing and emotional causes.

Hurricane experts admit they can?t predict hurricanes early; December forecasts too unreliable

We cant model the climate 9 months out but we can 50 years out right?

Climate is the same thing as hurricanes? Did you really just make that jump?

Computer models cant predict the weather 9 months out but you guys think they can predict the temperature 50 years out. Talk about leaps.

So you dont think hurricanes are part of the climate of the SE region of the US or say any Island in the Caribbean? Interesting.

slow learners
 

Depends on what kind of 'cooked up 'numbers are being put into the computer and it only took these guys 20 years to figure it.:eek:



Ally

THIS JUST IN>>>


Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly greenhouse gas - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent
Drat you, Nature!!

The important question is, how can we blame Bush?

The solution is obvious, we must kill Gaia before she kills us.:D

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

This is just one of the many feedback systems that is so troubling.

Depending on what article you read, methane is 20 to 25 times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon. As the environment warms, the permafrost is melted releasing more methane which warms the environment further melting more permafrost, etcetera.

If you haven't watched the "How it all Ends" series I linked to eariler, the gradual change in climate we used to believe would take place over hundreds of years isn't the concern. It is the cataclysmic and sudden shift from feedback loops becoming their own self sustaining engine that will get us.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that a nuke in the hands of Islamic "fundamentalists" is gonna get us first.

I saw that movie. We take over Mexico and live happily ever after.

Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov't Help Hide Climate Data? | Fox News


Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov't Help Hide Climate Data?


Are your tax dollars helping hide global warming data from the public? Internal emails leaked as part of “Climategate 2.0” indicate the answer may be "Yes."

The original Climategate emails -- correspondence stolen from servers at a research facility in the U.K. and released on the Internet in late 2009 -- shook up the field of climate research. Now a new batch posted in late November to a Russian server shows that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit refused to share their U.S. government-funded data with anyone they thought would disagree with them.

Making that case in 2009, the then-head of the Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones, told colleagues repeatedly that the U.S. Department of Energy was funding his data collection -- and that officials there agreed that he should not have to release the data.

“Work on the land station data has been funded by the U.S. Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn’t be passed on. I got this [agreement] in 2007,” Jones wrote in a May 13, 2009, email to British officials, before listing reasons he did not want them to release data.

Two months later, Jones reiterated that sentiment to colleagues, saying that the data "has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

A third email from Jones written in 2007 echoes the idea: "They are happy with me not passing on the station data," he wrote.

The emails have outraged climate-change skeptics who say they can't trust climate studies unless they see the raw data -- and how it has been adjusted.

"In every endeavor of science, making your work replicable by others is a basic tenet of proof,” Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and climate change blogger, told FoxNews.com. “If other scientists cannot replicate your work, it brings your work into question.”

Is the Department of Energy to blame? The Climategate emails reveal correspondence only between Jones and his colleagues -- not between him and the DoE.

"What’s missing," Watts said, "is a ... directive from DoE that they should withhold station data gathered under their grant. The email may be there, but ... still under lock and key.”

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wants that key. He recently filed Freedom of Information acts with the DoE, requesting the emails they exchanged with Jones.

"So far no administration department has bothered to respond, indicating they … believe the time bought with stonewalling might just get them off the hook for disclosure," Horner told FoxNews.com.

"Not with us, it won't," he said.

The Department of Energy has until December 29 before it must legally respond to Horner's request.

When contacted by FoxNews.com, DoE spokesman Damien LaVera declined to comment.

However, climate change researcher and blogger Steve McIntyre forwarded FoxNews.com an email exchange from 2005 in which climate scientist Warwick Hughes asked an official at a DOE lab if he could get the data that the government paid Jones to collect.

"I am asking you to provide me with the following data … DoE has been funding [the data] since the 1980s," Hughes noted in his request.

But Tom Boden, of the DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, told Hughes at the time that the DOE itself did not have the data, and that "you will need to contact Phil [Jones] directly. I spoke today with the DOE program manager who indicated Phil was not obligated under the conditions of past or present DOE proposal awards to provide these items."

McIntyre said he himself later had a similar exchange with the DOE, after which "I suggested that they amend this as a condition of further financing."

"I was surprised that the new emails show them actively taking the opposite approach," he added.

Asked about the connection with the Department of Energy, Simon Dunford, a spokesman for Jones’ Climatic Research Unit, told FoxNews.com that Jones has changed his tune since the emails were made public.

"Prof Jones has already accepted he should have been more open, and has since made all the station data referred to in these emails publicly available," Dunford told FoxNews.com.

Watts said that while much of the data itself is now available, the methods of adjusting it -- statistical modification meant to filter anomalies, "normalize" the data, and potentially highlight certain trends -- remain a secret.

"Much of climate science, in terms of the computer processing that goes on, remains a black box to the outside world. We see the data go in, and we see the data that come out as a finished product -- but we don’t know how they adjust it in between.”

Watts said he would like to be given the adjustment formulas to make his own determination.

"The fact that they are trying to keep people from replicating their studies -- that's the issue," Watts noted. "Replication is the most important tenet of science."

As if you have exclusive insight to the facts or justification to define "two" in Orwell's equation:rolleyes:....in philosophy, religion, ethics or politics.

It is a good thing we aren't talking about any of those subjects, but why don't you educate us on climate science?

1. Why are Mann, Jones and others hiding data, falsifying data, and presenting false conclusions?

2. What is the correct temperature for the Earth?

3. What percentage of climate change in the past was caused by man, and what percentage by natural cycles?

4.What effect would the UN proposals or cap and trade have on the climate?
What are the costs/benefits of these proposals?

Looking forward to your answers.:D

I'll bet one of those Climate Scientists could answer the question. You know those guys who discovered a science 25 years ago and have done nothing but profit off of it for the last 24 years.

Much like the alchemy "scientists" in midieval Europe knew how to turn Iron in to gold for the right price.

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

LeftWing -

I don't know if you've noticed or not but jungle isn't interested in any answers that challenge his world view. Over the past few years, I've pointed to many resources on the subject and I don't believe he even clicks on the links because he keeps asking the same questions.

He's a crank who has bought into the anti intellectual perversion of politicizing physics. If jungle and his team were in charge, we'd still be living in caves and bleeding people to make them well.

Unwinding "Hide the Decline" - YouTube

Global Warming: It's Not About the Hockey Stick - YouTube

Of course, I am a crank, but I find it somewhat disturbing that you cannot answer simple questions in plain English.
Go ahead, give it a try, answer those four questions if you can. Try to be honest just this one time.:D

removed

removed

removed

removed

Just how far ?:D

wishful thinking
 

I'd agree that it would be nice if this were true. However, it is demonstrably false. Not a bad point to argue if you can sneak it in, but very naive if that is what you actually think.

WW

boys behaving badly
 

Perhaps not representative of climate science but, like it or not, these emails are all that most people know about climate scientists. It is not a pretty picture.

WW

Irony
 

Accusations of editorial misconduct and cliquish slander. A list of complaints very similar to those leveled against a certain group of climate scientists.

WW

Al Gore made a lot of money off that same jump.

WW

oversold
 

It would be a bit more believable if it was written as a "sudden shift". Cataclysmic seems a bit over the top--like you're trying too hard.

Every day the temperature increase is an order of magnitude higher than that of the most pessimistic climate science projections. If the positive dynamic feedback was a simple as you've claimed we'd see runaway temperatures today.

Thus, either there is also negative feedback (attenuating the GHG effects), or the positive feedback is incompletely understood. Or both.

Off the air for a few days. best to all.

WW

that's half of us
 

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

Global warming is a national defense issue:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Climate Change and National Security - YouTube

N2264J,
I see you are back to just posting links and avoiding questions, so please educate us and answer these questions that Jungle asked.

1. Why are Mann, Jones and others hiding data, falsifying data, and presenting false conclusions?

2. What is the correct temperature for the Earth?

3. What percentage of climate change in the past was caused by man, and what percentage by natural cycles?

4.What effect would the UN proposals or cap and trade have on the climate?
What are the costs/benefits of these proposals?

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

James Balog at TED:

James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com

AND we're off......


So I assume it was mans fault 10,000 years ago when the ice melted over North America and receded north to form the Great Lakes?????????


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes
The Great Lakes are estimated to have been formed at the end of the last glacial period (about 10000 years ago), when the Laurentide ice sheet receded.


The earth has been here for billions of years. It heats up, it cools down. If you try to keep it at one temperature you will find that:

A: YOU CAN'T

B: If you did you would probably cause more animals to go extinct than if you left things to God(yes I said God :D)

really extreme ice loss
 

More than one way to skin a cat !:)
TransCanada May Shorten Keystone XL - Bloomberg

Good to see they have options. The US would be foolish to give up that source of oil.

After all the hand wringing that went on about this I would,nt be surprised if the Canadians thought twice about any future ventures down here .
There are times when we are our own worst enemy and this is one of those times .

Obama’s Keystone Denial Prompts Canada to Look to China Sales - Businessweek

Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com

Awaiting the alarmist reaction to this money quote:

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

Also from he article.

"The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere."

Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
 

So out of an organization of 48,000, you think 16 resigning from APS is significant enough to hang your
hat on? You're going to get smug about less than one tenth of one percent of one organization?

I have you beat. 31,487 scientists do not agree with you and have signed a petition here.

Global Warming Petition Project

Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

I guess the science isn't "settled" now is it?

Ten, I looked up a few from my state....a Vet, Pharmacist, radiology etc:rolleyes:

Not hanging my hat on the number of scientists, I am hanging my hat on the content of the article. Isnt that what a scientist would do? Or would he like you recite dogma and ignore the content of the article?

It only takes one scientist to be right. Did most of the plant and animal life evolve when CO2 levels where higher or not? Keep reciting your Dogma; CO2 is a pollutant, Man is bad. CO2 is a pollutant, Man is bad, CO2 is a pollutant, Man is bad.

Why does everyone think that just because the earth once had high CO2 levels or there were ice ages in the past that this would be OK again? What matters is not the way the earth was before, but the way it is now. Our society is dependent on this current climate. Just because the Sahara used to be a rain forest, the Midwest used to be under the sea, and Europe used to be covered in ice does not mean it would not be disastrous if that happened again.

I don’t have a dog in this fight because I don’t listen to a pilot’s view on science just as I would listen to scientist’s views on landing. There are a lot on APC who like to criticize others for believing in climate change by saying they are just regurgitating reports from scientists who have an agenda, but are they not doing the same thing? There is money to be made on both sides of this debate, so there are a lot of half-truths and misconceptions on both sides.

One of my favorite APC arguments against climate change is when people find specific examples of record snow fall amounts in months or areas that don’t normally see that much snow. If anything that supports climate change because high atmospheric moisture content supports the argument that the atmosphere is warming and the climate is changing. And even if you take the examples where posters just report record cold spells in winter, then how would you explain the incredibly warm winter the Northeast is experiencing now? Normally this time of year the streets have 2-foot snow banks on the side and it is painfully cold. So far, it has only snowed 3 times (including a strange storm in October) and the snow has always melted the next day. For the majority of January, the temperatures have been in the mid 50s!