• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

10 Questions for Al Gore.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tommy Allison
  • Start date Start date
Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Roro said:
. I would like to have "it's the sun, stupid" tattooed across Al Gore's forehead. The sun drives the temperature of the earth.
:frown:
Click to expand...

The thing is that there have been numerous studies that say it isn't the sun. I could find a number of more articles that support this if you want.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm


And the warming due to CO2 isn't about it's relative percantage of the gas in the atmosphere, it's about it's warming potential. Methane has a much higher warming potential than CO2 for example. So if methane is released into the atmosphere, we had probably be more concerned even though it isn't a major atmospheric gas.
http://www.climatechangesask.ca/html/learn_more/Emissions/Warming_potential/

Now you may think that I'm banging the AWG bell. But I'm merely pointing out that it does seem to be supported, .... that is,... depending what you look at. What bias you want to believe, because I know someone else might throw out some other links to stuff that says these scientific studies are bogus.

So what is the average informed person supposed to think?? We have at least two sides screaming at each other and you are probably convinced one way or another. But I'll tell you, I follow this topic and I can't tell. And that is an honest answer.

We need to get the politics out of the equation. We need to get scientists together with all their data and hash it out. NO POLitics!! Lock the people that really know something about the topic in a room and don't let them out until they reach a verifiable conclusion. Meanwhile all we see is bantering, petitioning, challenging people to debates, etc. All which do no good to get at the heart of the matter. What good would a debate with Al Gore do?? Nothing!! He's not a scientist. As far as I'm concerned, he can bang the drum (poorly) but he has no business in debating a scientific problem.

Meanwhile I'm quite confident people have their minds made up based on what they want to hear or what type of political party they favor.
 
TClaeys said:
Methane has a much higher warming potential than CO2 for example. So if methane is released into the atmosphere, we had probably be more concerned even though it isn't a major atmospheric gas.
Click to expand...
Ban beans.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
TClaeys said:
The thing is that there have been numerous studies that say it isn't the sun. I could find a number of more articles that support this if you want.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm


And the warming due to CO2 isn't about it's relative percantage of the gas in the atmosphere, it's about it's warming potential. Methane has a much higher warming potential than CO2 for example. So if methane is released into the atmosphere, we had probably be more concerned even though it isn't a major atmospheric gas.
http://www.climatechangesask.ca/html/learn_more/Emissions/Warming_potential/

Now you may think that I'm banging the AWG bell. But I'm merely pointing out that it does seem to be supported, .... that is,... depending what you look at. What bias you want to believe, because I know someone else might throw out some other links to stuff that says these scientific studies are bogus.

So what is the average informed person supposed to think?? We have at least two sides screaming at each other and you are probably convinced one way or another. But I'll tell you, I follow this topic and I can't tell. And that is an honest answer.

We need to get the politics out of the equation. We need to get scientists together with all their data and hash it out. NO POLitics!! Lock the people that really know something about the topic in a room and don't let them out until they reach a verifiable conclusion. Meanwhile all we see is bantering, petitioning, challenging people to debates, etc. All which do no good to get at the heart of the matter. What good would a debate with Al Gore do?? Nothing!! He's not a scientist. As far as I'm concerned, he can bang the drum (poorly) but he has no business in debating a scientific problem.

Meanwhile I'm quite confident people have their minds made up based on what they want to hear or what type of political party they favor.
Click to expand...

Didnt you read my previous post? AGW is dead. The hoaxers have been busted. The facts are in, the scare is over. Hackers have exposed them for what they are. (allegedly)
I have been reading the emails and documents all morning. It doesnt look good for the AGW folks. the 61 mb zip file can be found all over the place now. it is called FOI2009.zip

check out The Rules Of The Game.
 

Attachments

I must admit I don't know either. I tend to try to put forth the negative sentiment because the global warming agenda, complete with it's cap & trade tax, seems to be being jammed down our throats. I think it is especially humorous that folks seem to think we can tax ourselves out of global warming.

Just found another source that has an interesting spin on the issue: fraud with the statistics. I know this is a conservative mag, but even the source seems to admit the emails here are real:

American Thinker Blog: Scientific scandal appears to rock climate change promoters
 
pixelsmith said:
Didnt you read my previous post? AGW is dead.
Click to expand...

Apparently you already know it couldn't have been taken out of context right?? That kind of stuff never happens.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-hack

Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context.

“There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax,” he told Threat Level. “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.”
Trenberth agrees.

“If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists,” he says. “The unfortunate thing about this is that people can cherry pick and take things out of context.”
 
TClaeys said:
Apparently you already know it couldn't have been taken out of context right?? That kind of stuff never happens.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-hack

Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context.

“There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax,” he told Threat Level. “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.”
Trenberth agrees.

“If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists,” he says. “The unfortunate thing about this is that people can cherry pick and take things out of context.”
Click to expand...

riiiiiight.... i read them. i know better.
 
I downloaded all 62 mb. These guys would have you believe they are taken out of context. Hardly. There are some real smoking guns in here. It's going to take awhile to go through all 1000+ emails, but rest assured they're not going to get by saying these are 'out of context' even though that's their spin on it. It's way more than that.
 
Schuyler said:
I downloaded all 62 mb. These guys would have you believe they are taken out of context. Hardly. There are some real smoking guns in here. It's going to take awhile to through all 1000+ emails, but rest assured they're not going to get by saying these are 'out of context' even though that's their spin on it. It's way more than that.
Click to expand...

absolutely.

buh bye AGW... we hardly knew ye.

an great site that gives the meat of the emails altho, out of context. - Bishop Hill blog - Climate cuttings33
 
Well I'll tell you, if this turns out to be true it is a big deal for sure, ... I think. It would really underscore a lot that has been talked about right here at the Paracast. The suppression of data, misleading data, a push for not peer reviewing, and so forth. It's right out of a novel.

As I've been leaning towards AGW I certainly don't mind being wrong. I'll may have to eat some crow I think, but that's fine so long as the truth comes out. I mainly have been persuaded in the whole thing by the larger scientific bodies and the data. I'm not sure the whole connection with East Anglia and everyone else. I don't know how all of the reports were put together for the IPCC and for other independant researchers across the globe. In other words I can't follow the whole flowchart as to how everything is connected from East Anglia outwards.

So two questions in turn....
1. How does one go about verifying the truths of all these emails when apparently the data had been somehow "corrupted"??

(I've read a few of the emails after my first post and it's hard to imagine a scenario where these emails are taken "out of context" as Pixelsmith and Schuyler have noted quite correctly in my opinion. Sorry bout that, but the article I referenced was one of the first few I stumbled upon so I quoted from it. But from some of the ones I read, it seems pretty plain that they manipulated the data among other things)

2. Is this going to change things politically or is the political war over and decided already?? I just have a hunch that thus might not even make a difference. Could this whole thing become suppressed, downplayed, never proven to be "true", or any other usual suspect you might expect from government entities??

Guys, if this turns out to be true, ... then I'm just wrong. And while it is a little upsetting to be wrong, I'd rather be wrong a thousand times and have the truth emerge than be wrong and think I'm right. So, even though I've been bringing up a lot of stuff in favor of AGW, I might just be wrongly informed (by a lot of the "scientific world"). You live and you learn right?? What can I say??:confused:

And BTW, the scientists that have done this despicable act (if true) should be punished to the highest extent of the law, whatever law that might be. Move them to Antarctica for the rest of their lives.
 
If I can reply just briefly for now and more comprehensively later, from what I can tell here are several 'smoking guns' here. The one that has become most famous is the 'trick' email where the fellow says he applied 'Mike's trick' on the data. They are already defending this by saying the word 'trick' is used differently in scientific circles and that it is benign and taken out of context. So they're attempting to get out of this by re-defining the word 'trick.'

But when you look at what they actually did, the 'trick' turns out to be a statistical manipulation to 'smooth' and 'normalize' the data. By itself this is perfectly legitimate and you see it all the time. For example, when unemployment figures are 'seasonally adjusted' to account for crop harvesting, this is an example of normalizing the data. Few people would say that is an unreasonable 'trick.'

Now, what was the manipulation? They took data that clearly showed a cooling trend and 'normalized' it so that the same data showed a warming trend. the actual graph shows this clearly. The real data shows cooling; the 'normalized data shows warming.

I will grab that graph and show you more about this later, though it may not be today.
 
mbh99smooth_no_inst.jpg

This is the graph in question. Below is an excerpt from a much larger article located: Page not found Watts Up With That?

But there is an interesting twist here: grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually the original “Mike’s Nature trick”! Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC over here. (Note: Try not to click this link now, CA is overloaded. Can’t even get to it myself to mirror it. -A)
When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).


And here's the original email. I've underlined bolded the important sentence. Notice that it's not the word 'trick' here that is the issue. The phrase "hide the decline" is where they really get caught. The decline they're talking about is the one in the graph at the beginning of this post.



From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
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 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.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
 
As I see it, Al Gore is nothing but a 'trick', in the sense that the word is commonly used in these parts.
I hope he chokes on a baby.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
One of the big issues with climate change has been the data used to reconstruct the past because, obviously, we did not have accurate thermometers in 1000 AD. Scientists have extrapolated data from dendrochronology (tree-ring data) ice cores, corals, and 'the historical records. One of the criticisms has been that scientists grafted these two completely different data sets together to create their historical climate graphs. They deny this, but, of course, they did. There's one graph. How else could they have done it?

The point is that we are asked to believe that they can get extremely accurate portrayals of the actual temperature, to less than a degree of accuracy, by measuring the thickness of an ice core year by year, or looking at a tree ring's thickness (which is more a function of wet and dry) 1000 years ago. Pretty mean trick if you can do it, and once a tree ring s concerted to a data point on a graph, you can't tell the difference. Further, just like numbers on a spreadsheet that go ten places past the decimal, you can very precisely be quite wrong. But it looks good.

Another criticism of Global Warming is the actual location of the data collectors. In a study nearly complete of over 1200 data collection points, many have been shown to be near heat producers such as air conditioning vents, being in the middle of cities which are warmer with reflective heat anyway. As much as two degrees can be attributed to the mis-placement of the sensors. That's here: Page not found Watts Up With That?

A third--and this is another smoking gun--is that Global Warmists have actively tried to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period (MWP):

mwp.jpg


You can see why they want to get rid of it. It blows their whole trip. The thing is, they've done so overtly. One of the released emails (which I can't find at the moment) says thy need to make it disappear, and this article: American Thinker: UN Climate Reports: They Lie discusses the issue.


During testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing on Climate Change and the Media in 2006, University of Oklahoma geophysicistDr. David Deming recalled “an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change” who told him that "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." In June of this year, Deming identified the year of that email as 1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month’s Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report.
Click to expand...

Global Warming Is a Fraud by David Deming
 
There's now a search engine up for the hacked emails. here's one I just found. I know it's a hassle to read though these with quotes of quotes, but the interesting thing in this one is that "Phil" says he would "hide" behind intellectual property rights rather than give out data to a skeptic and also that he would destroy the daa before releasing it. I've underline/bolded the relevant passages.

Search link: Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

From: Phil Jones

To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: For your eyes only
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:46 2005

Mike,
It would be good to produce future series with and without the long
instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long
measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least
back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key
warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg
reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all
years are cold between 1500 and 1750.
Away Feb 6-10 and 12-20 and 22-25 (last in Chicago - on the panel to
consider the vertical temp work of CCSP).
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 02/02/2005, you wrote:

Thanks Phil,
Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be very careful in the future
what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory
so that Tim could access the data.
Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going
to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights
issues, so it isn't clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.
I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor
comments). It looks very good at present--will be interesting to see how they deal w/
the contrarian criticisms--there will be many. I'm hoping they'll stand firm (I believe
they will--I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)...
Will keep you updated on stuff...
talk to you later,
mike
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling
them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere
to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right
emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the
main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems
the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed.
Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert
by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:41 02/02/2005, you wrote:

Phil--thought I should let you know that its official now that I'll be moving to Penn
State next Fall.
I'll be in the Meteorology Dept. & Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and plan
to head up a center for "Earth System History" within the institute. Will keep you
updated,
Mike

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, U.Va. | 404 Error (Page Not Found)</mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx></p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
 
This is just a short update as I continue to plow through the massive amount of material here.

E-MAILS:

This is by far the easiest to go through even though there are over a thousand. I've read probably 20% of them so far. Much of them are nothing special, but the BIG news from the emails is that they show a concerted and consistent pattern of deception. Essentially a few climatologists have managed to completely control the information process for climate change. They did this by taking over the 'peer review' process. As you all know, scientists' papers must be published in a peer-reviewed journal to have any scientific clout. There few dozen researchers managed to ensure that all their papers were peer reviewed by their buddies who believed as they did. Not only that, when a journal did not play nice with them, they would go after the journal. They did this through 'editorial boards' and in at least one case, got an editor fired. They 'went after' anyone who did not agree with them and froze out people from the peer review process, then claimed they hadn't gone through peer review.

The emails show a consistent disdain for anyone not in their own little circle. In many cases they refer to others as 'amateurs' or even 'civilians.' Their most vitriolic name calling, however, was reserved for climatoligists and other scientists who actually know their stuff, and disagree with them. In one case they exult over the death of one of these guys.

There are several emails which indicate they were cooking the data. i posted some of that above. In more than one case they mention 'hiding' or avoiding a 'decline' (in temperature.) And, of course, they nail themselves to the wall proving they were hiding data from FOIA requests even to the point of deleting data.

But that ain't the half of it...then there are

DATA FILES:

These are harder to decipher, but they include the actual climate data as well as documented computer programs. In the comments to the programs it is obvious that certain algorithms were used, once again, to avoid showing a decline. See, for example, The Devil's Kitchen. An example:

The hacked e-mails were damning, but the problems they had handling their own data at CRU are a dagger to the heart of the global warming “theory.” There is a large file of comments by a programmer at CRU called HARRY_READ_ME documenting that their data processing and modeling functions were completely out of control.

They fudged so much that NOTHING that came out of CRU can have ANY believability. If the word can be gotten out on this and understood it is the end of the global warming myth. This much bigger than the e-mails. For techie takes on this see:
Click to expand...

What this shows is that they lost data and reconstructed it synthetically. The problems with the data files are ENORMOUS and show clearly that the programmers themselves did not understand the programs they worked on.
 
Schuyler- you seem to have a handle on this more than anyone else so far here. How is it do you think that all these other independant scientific organizations have come to the same conclusions (AGW). Like all the academies of science, the EPA, the Meteorological Society, NASA, and others across the globe?? Are they using "tainted data" or do they independantly go out and make their own measurements??

I'm not exactly sure what to think of the whole thing just yet. It certainly seems some people will be in hot water to say the least, but it still is confusing. How deep does this go into the scientific community?? It would seem some organizations would be unaffected. I surely hope that an investigation will be underway soon.

And do you hear it?? The creationists will be using this to say that science has undermined theology. Evolution cannot be true.
 
Back
Top