Climate Change Skepticism

[ScottSA]

All deversionary talk - no one wants to see their precious bank account drop by even 5 bucks in order to clean up this looming global environmental disaster - it gets down to your money and the money that trickles down from oil companies - imagine the Don Valley Parkway - or the 401..remove all the cars and in their place take a bucket of oil with a towel in it and light that baby up - now stand back and look at the millions of buckets of buring oil blowing up filth - mulitply this scene daily by every city in the world - and don't tell me there is no over load of CO2...this is the reality - a billion smoldering fires on earth like a billion smudge pots buring in an orange grove attempting to change the climate to ward off the frost..

.This is a disaster - and you greedy delluded fools will live in this dream till it is a night mare - the car culture not to mention the coal fired plants in Chinas have to be stopped - I mean the fires have to be put out and a readjustment has to be made or we will destroy the miracle and the heaven called earth - then we will die ...to me death is not an option - or is extinction - but to you who can not live a day with out spending 200 dollars - death and destruction seem to be an option - you are delluded - poverty breeds mental illness - so does extreme wealth - no one is immune to this insantity.

Oops, you forgot to pay your taxes, so I guess that means you won't be helping out with this Big Huge Nasty Mean Crisis!!!!!!! of Epic Proportions HAaAALp!!!!11!1!1!1!1! either, eh?

[noahbody]

You don't have to be a scientist to see that the land is sick - just a man of the land - a layman with experience within the natural world can call a spade a spade as far as climate destruction...

A man of the land might have called for another ice age not too long ago.

[White Doors]

A man of the land might have called for another ice age not too long ago.

This winter is starting to feel like it!

[margrace]

You know you all could be DEAD right, will that do you any good or your grandchildren for that matter. There are a lot of problems in this world and we need to look at them, not quibble about how something is worded.

[stevoh]

You are trying to mask your AGW sentiments in neutral language.

Believe what you like.

Give it up.

Never.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Climate change hysteria meets all the requirements of a good lefty platform:

Big Idea (really big - like as in worldly)

Not disprovable (or provable)

Feel good factor (The surface appearance of trying to help people)

Government intervention is required

Childeren are mentioned

Adopting the idea automatically makes you a better person than those who don't

If you look back throughout history, lefty platforms have all of the above in common.

[stevoh]

The link describes a chart with many different temperature series that is in the IPCC report. One of these series only goes up 1960. McIntyre went back and looked at the original paper containing the data and confirmed that the IPCC deleted the data from 1960 to 2001. He reconstructed the chart with the complete data set and produced this. The green line is the data that was truncated.

McIntyre raised this issue with the IPCC before the latest report was released.

Basically, the IPCC refused to explain why the data was deleted from the IPCC report.

You don't need to be a scientist to understand the data was truncated in order to deceive the public. If the IPCC thought the series was unreliable they should have deleted the entire series - truncating it shows an extreme lack of professionalism.

This kind of unprofessionalism in the IPCC is not an isolated incident. At this point in time I have absolutely no confidence in the IPCC and the small group of scientists who are on the core team. These people cannot be trusted. Unfortunately, these people have managed to fool a lot of people. I find it frightening.

I decided to look into this in more detail. Why are the last 40 or so years of the tree ring data removed from that chart? Is there a scientific explanation, or a deliberate attempt to deceive the public?

So, lets not mess around, lets look at the source of the tree ring data, Briffa, and find out his reasons for not including the data. Here is a paper by Briffa and three other associates that look into the tree ring data:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/soap...ffa_GPC2003.pdf

Lots of interesting information in the paper, but, for the purposes of this discussion, I will focus it on the period after 1960, the period of contention.

In section three, a chart titled "50 Newton Masked Temperature" shows the global temperature average, and the temperature scales indicated through tree ring analysis. The chart covers the period from 1860 to 2000. In the first 100 years of the chart, the tree ring data and the temperature data has an approximate match. However, in the last 40 years, the global temperature has gone up, but the latest global tree ring data indicates the temperature has gone down.

This is consistent with what McIntye claims.

In section 4, titled "an inconsistency with the relationship of tree ring density and temperature", Briffa clearly defines and discusses this anomaly, and comes up with several hypothesis as to why it is occuring. He then comes to this conclusion:

The above facts seem to support an inference that

some slowly varying factor began to exert a very

widespread negative influence on the trend of these

MXD data from around the middle of the 20th

century, with effects at higher frequency also becoming

noticeable in some high-latitude regions. For the

time being, we circumvent this problem by restricting

the calibration of the density data to the period before

1960. This reduces the potential overlap between

temperature observations and density measurements

and means that less data can be reserved for independent

tests of the validity of predictive equations. This

situation is far from ideal, but the alternative, using

data after 1960 and thus incorporating non-temperature-

related bias when fitting regression equations as a

function of density variability, would invariability

produce earlier estimates of past temperature that, to

some extent, too warm.

This is a very complete explanation for why the data is not included. Basically, we know from historical temperature records from both instrumental and other sources that historically, tree ring data is a reasonably accurate indicator of temperature trends. However, since 1960, a yet unknown additional factor is influencing tree ring growth. Briffa's position, outlined above, is that we can use the tree ring data pre-1960 as it aligns reasonably well with known temperature measurements in recent history, and other temperature scales prior to instrumental temperature measurement. We can discard the data post-1960 because there is some non-temperature related influence now corrupting the data. He is quite clear that this is a less than ideal situation, but that this was better than introducing a non-temperature induced bias.

The worst I see the IPCC guilty of in this specific case is not giving McIntyre the reasons for the deletion of the post 1960 data (assuming McIntyre is being truthful). Scientifically, Briffa felt he had valid reasons for not including that data, and he is clear and open in both the reasons why and suggesting that further analysis is necessary.

Make your own mind up about whether the data inclusion/deletion was a valid choice on the part of Briffa. But know that no large scale conspiracy from the IPCC caused that data removal, it was entirely Briffa's choice. His reasons are clearly and openly defined.

Edited December 14, 2007 by stevoh

[MMT]

I have spent a far amount of time over the years ploughing through scientific papers and legal decisions regarding everything from the heath effects of tasers and aboriginal rights to the effect of fire on steel and the science of evolution. Although my reading does not make me an expert on these diverse topics I feel it has allowed me to distinguish between opinions that are pure hogwash and those that have significant merit.

In the last couple weeks I have taken the time to go through a lot of material written by climate change sceptics and, much to my surprise, I found that the scientific arguments are sound and the responses to those arguments by the global warming establishment have ranged from inadequate to nonsensical. Before I started my research I had assumed that the 'scientific consensus' was basically right and that CO2 was causing the planet to warm and the only real issue to discuss was how we were going to spread the pain of carbon emission cuts. I am no longer convinced that there is any connection between the CO2 level rises and the apparent warming trend that we have seen over the last few years.

...

I leave this rant with a final thought: science does not work by 'consensus' - science works through scepticism and by constantly challenging the widely accepted views. Anyone who tries to dismiss alternate scientific views by claiming it violates the current 'consensus' simply demonstrates that they don't understand science.

Do you know about theory that the global warming is caused by changes of the Earth magnetic field?

The magnetic field is getting weak, the poles are migrating, so the Sun's radiation penetrates easier to the polar regions and these regions are being heated much more than it was in the past.

It's not a human-action cause. Moreover, mankind can't do anything about it (can't change this process I mean).

[Riverwind]

Briffa's position, outlined above, is that we can use the tree ring data pre-1960 as it aligns reasonably well with known temperature measurements in recent history, and other temperature scales prior to instrumental temperature measurement.

The fact that the data aligns to the temperature record before 1960 does not provide any insight into its accuracy over the entire history of the period. McIntyre et. al point out that it is quite possible that the alignment pre-1960 was a statistical fluke and the divergence is evidence that the entire data set should be discarded as unreliable. There are other examples where tree ring data that does not match the record is quietly discarded in favour of data that does. Cherry picking data like this produces a statistically invalid result. Fior that reason tree ring data is a very poor proxy when analyzing long term temperature trends - yet that is the data which the IPCC insists on using to make its case (mostly likely because it produces results that support the IPCC claim that current warming trends are unusual).

Make your own mind up about whether the data inclusion/deletion was a valid choice on the part of Briffa. But know that no large scale conspiracy from the IPCC caused that data removal, it was entirely Briffa's choice. His reasons are clearly and openly defined.

I have to disgree. When I first presented the data from Loehle analysis the first thing you looked at was the correspondence with the recent temperature trends. In fact, you rejected his data because you thought there was little correspondence. Omitting the Briffa data from IPCC report without explanation in the report created the illusion that the Briffa data was more reliable that it actually is. For that reason, I feel the omission was deliberate attempt to deceive even if Briffa thinks there was a valid reason for omitting it.

I also suspect that you would agree with me if the Biffa data cast doubt on the CO2 hypothesis.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Here is another analysis that casts some serious doubt on the reliability the information provided by agencies pushing the CO2 hypothesis (NASA in this case).

It appears that NASA released a new set of data that calculated surface temperatures using new methodology. They did this without explaining what or why they did it. The only reason we know about it is because people like McIntyre are validating the data and discovered the change. It appears this new data makes the recent surface record hotter when compared to the 1930s so it now allows GW advocates to claim that hottest years on record occurred in the last 10 years instead of being split between the 1930s and today. In his op, McIntyre points out that anyone who manipulated financial data in that way would likely be going to jail.

It is important to note that McIntyre does not claim that the new way of calculating surface temperatures is statistically invalid (largely because NASA has not provided him with the algorithms used). He only has a problem with the way these kinds of changes are introduced.

This story is quite disturbing because it illustrates how statistical manipulations of the data can affect the trends produced. More importantly, the people who have control over this data are not accountable to anyone and free to do whatever they want. The person in charge of this dataset is a long time proponent of the CO2 hypothesis and has a huge conflict of interest.

I don't believe we should be making the kinds of decisions that we are being asked to make based on data that could be manipulated by people with an agenda. This example is proof that some people are willing tweak the data in ways that benefits their point of view (note tweak does not imply the data is fraudulent - it is scientific equivalent of spin doctoring).

This website provides access to the raw data. They claim that the majority of weather stations in the US show a cooling trend since the 1930s and those that show a warming trend are obviously affected by urban sprawl. Note that randomly looking at the raw data does not allow one do draw any statistically valid conclusions, however, it does cast some considerable doubt on the reliability of the manipulations done by NASA.

Note that asking independent data 'auditors' to produce a statistically valid analysis of the raw data is not trivial would take a considerable amount of funding. That said, this cost would be trivial compared to the cost of CO2 emission reductions.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

The fact that the data aligns to the temperature record before 1960 does not provide any insight into its accuracy over the entire history of the period. McIntyre et. al point out that it is quite possible that the alignment pre-1960 was a statistical fluke and the divergence is evidence that the entire data set should be discarded as unreliable.

I agree with you on this. But, in this specific case, I see no reason to believe the omission was a deliberate attempt to deceive. It has a scientific basis, and the scientist associated with the data is quite open about his reasons for omission.

There are other examples where tree ring data that does not match the record is quietly discarded in favour of data that does. Cherry picking data like this produces a statistically invalid result. Fior that reason tree ring data is a very poor proxy when analyzing long term temperature trends - yet that is the data which the IPCC insists on using to make its case (mostly likely because it produces results that support the IPCC claim that current warming trends are unusual).

I can only assess one data source at a time, as you know, this kind of analysis takes a while. If I find an example of cherry picking that is suspicious due to its lack of scientific support, I will let you know. This isn't one of them however.

I have to disgree. When I first presented the data from Loehle analysis the first thing you looked at was the correspondence with the recent temperature trends. In fact, you rejected his data because you thought there was little correspondence.

True, and I did find it a bit odd that you were so willing to accept Loehle's data and analysis when it disagreed with instrument based data trends, but are so willing to dismiss Briffa's when it does the same thing.

Omitting the Briffa data from IPCC report without explanation in the report created the illusion that the Briffa data was more reliable that it actually is. For that reason, I feel the omission was deliberate attempt to deceive even if Briffa thinks there was a valid reason for omitting it.

Briffa's explanation is clear and open. The fact that McIntyre was left out of the explanation loop is hardly an indicator of deliberate deception. And that's a key point here. McIntyre is hypothesizing that the fact that HE was not given this information means we as the public were deceived. We weren't, I found the explanation within an hour of Google searches, Briffa is not hiding anything.

To me, that re-assures me that the IPCC is doing what it is supposed to, reflect the science. They should not be in the position of rejecting or accepting information based on their own biases, they should be in the position of accepting or rejecting information based on the scientists recommendations. In this case, the scientist recommended not including that portion of the data, and it is reflected in the report.

I see no evidence for this specific case where cherry picking took place, and I see evidence of scientific reasoning being used to decide whether or not to use that data. We may not agree with the reasons that Briffa decided to keep the data, but his reasons were not related to deliberate deception. And the IPCC report merely reflects that decision.

[Riverwind]

True, and I did find it a bit odd that you were so willing to accept Loehle's data and analysis when it disagreed with instrument based data trends, but are so willing to dismiss Briffa's when it does the same thing.

Loehle data basically matched the instrumental records. The differences could easily be explained by problems with resolution. The Briffa data diverges completely from the actual records. There is no comparison between the two cases.

Briffa's explanation is clear and open.

It was published in 2003 - two years after the IPCC report was released with the missing data. You have not demonstrated that this information was disclosed in a timely manner. I read the IPCC report and found no mention of the missing data. I feel that is a clear example of deliberate manipulation on the part of the IPCC. I am surprised that you bend over backwards to defend them.

To me, that re-assures me that the IPCC is doing what it is supposed to, reflect the science. They should not be in the position of rejecting or accepting information based on their own biases, they should be in the position of accepting or rejecting information based on the scientists recommendations.

The IPCC is *not* an independent body that objectively assesses research. The IPCC is made up the scientists that did the research in the reports. They have a clear bias toward research that supports their views. Edited December 15, 2007 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

Loehle data basically matched the instrumental records. The differences could easily be explained by problems with resolution. The Briffa data diverges completely from the actual records. There is no comparison between the two cases.

So, Loehles data that shows a downward trend at 1970 is valid, and Briffa's that shows the same is invalid? I reject both. Perhaps some personal bias inserted here? At least be consistent. As you say, if one chart is rejected because it does not match known recent temperature trends, then all that meet that criteria should also be rejected.

It was published in 2003 - two years after the IPCC report was released with the missing data. You have not demonstrated that this information was disclosed in a timely manner. I read the IPCC report and found no mention of the missing data. I feel that is a clear example of deliberate manipulation on the part of the IPCC. I am surprised that you bend over backwards to defend them.

It happens to be the first document I was able to locate that explains Briffa's position. This does not mean that Briffa was not equally open about the discrepancy in the first case.

The IPCC is *not* an independent body that objectively assesses research. The IPCC is made up the scientists that did the research in the reports. They have a clear bias toward research that supports their views.

So, the data in the IPCC report reflects the reseach of the scientists who created the report? Isn't that how it is supposed to work? I have only looked into the Briffa case, and have found nothing untoward there. How about an example of the IPCC cherry picking data that has no scientific basis?

[Canuck E Stan]

So, the data in the IPCC report reflects the reseach of the scientists who created the report? Isn't that how it is supposed to work? I have only looked into the Briffa case, and have found nothing untoward there. How about an example of the IPCC cherry picking data that has no scientific basis?

Read the following letter(just this week) from 100 Scientists about the IPCC report.

Don't fight,adapt

An Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations published: Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Written by over Signatories(over 100 world scientists)

Sent during this weeks climate-conference in Bali.

These scientists are telling us something,we should heed their concerns because at this point it's the right thing to do.

(Added quote)

Edited December 15, 2007 by Canuck E Stan

[Riverwind]

So, Loehles data that shows a downward trend at 1970 is valid, and Briffa's that shows the same is invalid?

Now I am really confused. Loehle's data only goes up to 1980 and the temperature record does have a dip in the 70s which matches his data. The Briffa data goes up to 2000 and drops off rapidly and then increases slightly in the 90s. Loehle used *all* of the data he had from many different types of proxies. Briffa uses one type of proxy and excludes data which suggests that his entire series is suspect. There is no comparison between the two.

In my opinion, Loehle's analysis is very robust because it uses many different types of proxies and finds that they produce a very similar temperature response over time - this suggests that his results are reasonably close to reality. Briffa's analysis depends on a single type of proxy and his own data suggests that the relationship to temperature is inconsistent at best - yet this is the data that IPCC chooses to accept as legitimate. I smell a rat.

So, the data in the IPCC report reflects the research of the scientists who created the report? Isn't that how it is supposed to work?

Ah no. It is supposed to reflect the current state of scientific knowledge regardless of who produced it. Unfortunately, the IPCC is dominated by scientists that believe in the CO2 hypothesis and have no particular interest in looking at research that casts doubt on this hypothesis. This bias is evident when you look at their rebuttals of the research done by McIntyre and others.

I have only looked into the Briffa case, and have found nothing untoward there. How about an example of the IPCC cherry picking data that has no scientific basis?

All data cherry picking has some pseudo scientific rational. I don't find Briffa's excuse very compelling even if he dressed it up is scientific language. The IPCC should have either tossed the data out as inconclusive or printed the entire trend with Briffa's explanation for the inconsistency. Printing the truncated trended made the data look more meaningful than it was. Edited December 15, 2007 by Riverwind

[jbg]

Climate change hysteria meets all the requirements of a good lefty platform:

1. Big Idea (really big - like as in worldly)
   
2. Not disprovable (or provable)
   
3. Feel good factor (The surface appearance of trying to help people)
   
4. Government intervention is required
   
5. Childeren are mentioned
   
6. Adopting the idea automatically makes you a better person than those who don't
   

If you look back throughout history, lefty platforms have all of the above in common.

Exactly why I call myself a leftist. My leftist causes have included:

1. Equal civil rights for blacks;
   
2. Rights of Jews to return to and settle in Zion;
   
3. Opposition to entry into wars we have no intention to win, such as Viet Nam;
   
4. Non-preferential equality of opportunity for all
   

[Riverwind]

A good explaination on why the climate models produced by GW alarmists likely exaggerate the effect of CO2 induced warming.

This article is based on science in a peer reviewed paper that was published this month. It is simply another example of good research being done by scientists that rejects the so-called consensus.

A short summary:

Current climate models do not model the effect of precipitation on the greenhouse effect. They rely on averages which do not take into account the dynamic nature of the weather systems that affect our environment. Evidence suggests that precipitation provides a negative feedback that reduces the effect of any cooling/warming trend.

Aside: I have noticed that scientists that publish anti-GW papers now include disclosures that explain all of their sources of funding. These disclosures make it clear that previous attempts to discredit them by claiming they were funded by "big-oil" were pure fabrications.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

This paper is a well written summary of the arguments against CO2 induced global warming.

It is long but I recommend to anyone who still believes that the science is 'settled'. It probably won't change your mind but it will at least teach you that this issue is extremely complex and cannot be reduced to simple slogans.

The part about the economic assumptions built into the IPCC models is interesting too. Apparently the per capita GDP for North Korea and Libya will exceed that of the US in 2100 (at least according to the IPCC).

Edited December 21, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

These scientists are telling us something,we should heed their concerns because at this point it's the right thing to do.

And even more scientists (ones that are actually working in the field and not long retired and not doing research like Tim Ball) signed a list declaring that immediate action is needed.

It seems Harper listened to those people instead because they signed the Bali declaration and now have to show what they are doing in 2009, the year of the election.

[Riverwind]

And even more scientists (ones that are actually working in the field and not long retired and not doing research like Tim Ball) signed a list declaring that immediate action is needed.

The trouble is those scientists are promoting a hypothesis that does not match the historical record.

I suppose I better repeat the argument because it appears you don't bother to follow links.

GW alarmists claim that rising CO2 levels will cause the temperature to rise 3 to 10 degrees over the next 100 years. This claim is based on the assumption:

1) Increasing CO2 levels cause the temperature to rise a little;

2) A small increase in temperature will trigger positive feedbacks that amply this temperature rise;

3) No negative feedback mechanisms exist that will limit this rise in temperature.

The historical record from ice core data shows that CO2 rose rapidly after something (presumably the sun) caused the temperature to rise. GW alarmists claim that the rise in CO2 triggered a positive feedback and that caused the temperature to rise much higher and much faster than it would have if the only effect was the sun.

Unfortunately, something stopped the CO2 from rising and the temperature leveled off somewhere close to the current temperature. GW alarmists try to explain this by claiming that CO2 reaches a saturation point where further increases in concentration don't affect the temperature. Unfortunately, the temperature and CO2 concentration today already exceeds the temperature and CO2 concetration in the historical record which means we should have already reached the saturation point and further CO2 emissions cannot possibly induce significant temperature increases in the future.

GW alarmists could come up with a new hypothesis that explains why the saturation point for CO2 is higher today that it was in the past. There could be other processes at work which we do not understand.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

The trouble is those scientists are promoting a hypothesis that is falsified by the historical record. Any scientist that does not agree is in denial and should be ignored until they can come up with a new hypothesis that cannot be falsified.

I'm afraid that is your opinion. It isn't shared by the majority of scientists. For this reason, the Tories haven't embraced your position.

[Riverwind]

I'm afraid that is your opinion. It isn't shared by the majority of scientists. For this reason, the Tories haven't embraced your position.

Because the public has been duped by the scientists peddling this false hypothesis and politicians have been forced to respond. That does not mean it is right. One would hope that science will win out but history shows us that humans can be quite irrational. It would help if people like you would open your mind and recognize that what you have been told could be very wrong. Edited December 16, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Because the public has been duped by the scientists peddling this false hypothesis and politicians have been forced to respond. That does not mean it is right. One would hope that science will win out but history shows us that humans can be quite irrational.

Once again, it is your opinion that they've been duped or are peddling a false hypothesis. The Tories have signed on to Bali along with the U.S. There is no longer any national government skeptical of the science.

[Riverwind]

Once again, it is your opinion that they've been duped or are peddling a false hypothesis. The Tories have signed on to Bali along with the U.S. There is no longer any national government skeptical of the science.

It is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of many scientists who have been bullied into silence by the media and AGW alarmists. A few couragous ones are now flighting an uphill battle trying to educate the public about the facts but people like you don't want to hear what they have to say and prefer to hold onto their delusions. Normally, I would not have a problem with people believing in a fantasy but in this situtation the people who believe in the fantasy are trying to force everyone to make sacrifices that are incredibly expensive and are unnecessary. Edited December 16, 2007 by Riverwind

[ScottSA]

Once again, it is your opinion that they've been duped or are peddling a false hypothesis. The Tories have signed on to Bali along with the U.S. There is no longer any national government skeptical of the science.

Nonsense. You know it very well. It's a political football, like the fake ozone "crisis" or the Y2k "crisis" or the old growth "crisis." Or, for that matter, like the "brutal Afghan winter" or "Iraq spiralling into civil war," or any number of media fed frenzies western society seems willing to buy into at the drop of a hare-brained thesis.