Looking for Global Warming in Minnesota

Wieder gut gemacht! Action sings louder than words. Danke!

Bill,

If there is so much evidence then it should be very easy for you to list two or three landmark anti-AGW papers that show how a natural force is causing the warming in the past 30 years and how ridiculous increases in GHGs have no significant role.

"The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, it's that they know so many things that just aren't so.“ -- Mark Twain

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -- The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You have the horse before the cart here. Al Gore and his fellow socialists came up with this silly theory in contradiction to what observation, history and common sense tell us. The burden of proof is entirely on those pushing this nonsense, and they haven't even come close to making a compelling case for anthropogenic global warming.

You might want to read some of the information in the links I provided earlier; you might be amazed not only at how little support their is for their hypothesis, but at the weight of evidence for natural and cyclic climate variation.

Or if it's easier to have someone else do your thinking for you, just keep believing in what the CRU is telling you.

Me? I prefer looking at some real scientific and historical data (not flawed theories, flawed models and more than a little anti-capitalist animus), thinking for myself and using a little common sense, which is what you'll find at those links.

Some of you may have heard or will hear about a computer hack of the Climate Research Unit in England. This is one of the world's major sources for climate data and research.

The news varies depending on the political views of the organization but some blogs and newspapers/television claim that this hack has revealed that human caused global warming has been faked. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is my opinion:

To date, there has not been a single credible journal article that shows a natural cause for the modern day warming while also showing how record high greenhouse gas concentrations are not significant.

NOT ONE.

Do people really believe that the scientists at CRU are able to squelch every scientist on the planet who tried to publish this landmark anti-AGW paper? Is there no sense of the low probability and the large scale of this conspiracy for this to be true?

If one throws out the HadCRU data and all papers by these folks, there is still a mountain of evidence for AGW.

Do the rapidly melting ice sheets and glaciers have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

Do the various climate models that show GHGs as the dominant forcing mechanism have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?

Do the GISS, UAH, RSS data that show global warming of approximately 0.2C per decade over the past 30 years have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy? Certainly Spencer and Christy who run UAH and are well-known skeptics of AGW would not align themselves with AGW and yet their satellite-derived measurements track reasonably with GISS, RSS, and HadCRU. (BTW, 2009 will likely end up being a Top 10 or Top 5 warmest year since 1850)

Does the ocean read these emails and magically increase its heat content?

Does the cooling stratosphere (even accounting for ozone loss) read the emails and join in on the hoax?

Do the plants and animals read these emails and decide to die off and/or change their migratory habits so that they can support the conspiracy?

I could go on ad infinitum.

For quite a long time, we have known that a doubling of CO2 will warm the climate at least 1C and there is fairly good certainty that the resulting feedbacks will produce at least 2C additional warming with 3C more likely. We are also measuring CO2 increases of 2 ppm and climbing (except last year where there was a slight decrease due to the global recession) and we have levels that have not been seen in the past 15 million years.

Are we to conclude that these emails deny all of this evidence?

There are many scientists from many fields that have published data that show the effects of global warming and why humans are the primary drivers of this warming. These scientists include some of the obvious: climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, modelers, and oceanographers. Some less obvious include: biologists, marine biologists, zoologists, chemists, astrophysicists, economists, environmental politics reasearchers, and others. I am quite confident that MANY of these folks have NEVER spoken to the CRU folks nor emailed them.

It is obvious that pre-Copenhagen, the tried and true method of “if one does not like the message then attack the messenger or redirect the conversation” practiced by Big Tobacco and now ExxonMobil and their front groups (Heartland Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc.) is alive and well.

Scott A. Mandia – Professor, Meteorologist, Concerned Citizen
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warm...

ProfMandia, you are the modern incarnation of a Flat-Earther now known as a Hot-Earther.

"not been a single credible journal article that shows a natural cause for the modern day warming"? I suppose if you consider anything that isn't spun (like the data from CRU) to back fanciful claims of anthropogenic global warming "not credible," then your statement would be accurate. Since that is not the case, your statement is pure, 100% unadulterated bull.

There is nothing but conjecture and flawed computer models (and a broken hockey stick) to support the socialist vehicle of AGW, but a mountain of scientific and historical data which clearly shows climate change is a natural and cyclic phenomenon going on for hundreds and thousands of years.

I would encourage you to set aside your gargantuan pitcher of Koolaid and begin with a simple but fairly comprehensive analysis of why the hypothesis of AGW is total malarky: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/10/taking-actio... And you can find even more here: http://www.dakotavoice.com/tag/global-warming/.

The days of pushing this socialist sci-fi contrivance on people in order to tax them more and take away their freedom are almost over. You and your kind will soon be recognized by all as either some of the most gullible, or deceptive, people in human history.

So true, but unfortunately I fear, the lemmings are off and running over the cliffs and there's no stopping them. The Al Gore's and George Soros' of the world are going to make a real $$$ killing off the panic. By the time real scientists figure out what's really happening to the weather (maybe in a hundred years if we don't freeze to death) Climategate and the Great Global Warming Hoax is going to change everything! More taxes! Higher prices! And less of everything for everyone except the super rich. Well, things like this happen. Remember Greece, Rome, The British Empire and every other great civilization has fallen along the way. Things are really no different now then they were then. The more complicated life gets the more likely it is that people will believe anything some bozo politician from Tennessee says. For myself, I sure hope the Heatwave theory IS right. Somehow, however I think our "finest" minds have got it all backwards. I'd much rather be on the beach getting some sun in Nome, Alaska, than freezing my toes off in the middle of August down in the "sun" belt of the Gulf Coast. Cheers!

It is understandable that many people have latched on to the emails, but in their defense the people at CRU indicate that the emails are ‘without context’ or somehow ‘normal banter’ in a scientific institution.


The program code however is different.


It is the actual program code, the modeling code that contains the most damaging evidence. I am not talking about the 'comments' in the code but rather the actual computer program source code itself.


Unlike comments and emails the computer code can only be interpreted in one way. Unlike the comments and the emails the computer code is whole unto it self and requires no external context.


So now everyone has the code.


However now CRU have somehow ‘lost’ the world’s raw climate data that they used in their modeling.


It may have been necessary for them to have lost the raw temperature data. If the raw temperature data was available then they might be asked to reproduce Exactly The Same Results, in front of skeptical witnesses, as they had used in their peer-reviewed publications that were distributed to the world. This might have been impossible without using some infected modeling code, which an investigating scientist might discover.


If the results can not be reproduced the paper that used the results should be withdrawn. Then every paper that cited that paper, and so on until the whole web of pseudo-science that can be traced back to the original fabrication has been purged from the libraries.


It is not scientific unless an independent body can reproduce the results.


For information on the possible code infection see:


Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.


http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline...