Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

your denials are based on conspiracy theories, tabloid blogs, denier websites, quote mining, and general lack of scientific knowledge...actual hard evidence? zero...

and yet... he keeps up the charade - the "Concern Troll" charade. Standard operation has the Concern Troll grudgingly acknowledging there has been warming (while at the same time adamantly stating, without foundation, that we're in a cooling phase now), suggesting mankind has had a contribution... but, but, but... "what about natural variations and influences"! Dammit, don't you guys get it!!! It's the sun... it's the clouds... it's cosmic rays... it's water vapour... it's aerosols... it's volcanoes... it's albedo... it's ozone... it's CFC's... blah, blah, blah.

yup, it just can't be CO2... it just can't be mankind's fossil fuel contribution - that's just sooooooo unnatural, don't ya know!

of course, Simple has his own variant on the charade, as he likes to parrot the "30 year cycle" meme

[waldo]

So why not open up the data to scrutiny? why delete it, and refuse FOI requests?

what data are you speaking to when you suppose a lack of openness? What data are you speaking to when you suppose data has been deleted? What FOI requests do you refer to when you suppose they've been refused?

specifically to FOI... unless I've missed something, this is my understanding of the current state of "fact" concerning the East Anglia University, and the earlier claim from the U.K. Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) that UEA breached the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) - the formal statement from EAU:

3.7.6 On 22 January 2010, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) released a statement to a journalist, which was widely misinterpreted in the media as a finding by the ICO that UEA had breached Section 77 of the FOIA by withholding raw data. A subsequent letter to UEA from the ICO (29 January 2010) indicated that no breach of the law has been established; that the evidence the ICO had in mind about whether there was a breach was no more than prima facie; and that the FOI request at issue did not concern raw data but private email exchanges.

what's missing in all the denialsphere and British tabloid nonsense concerning FOI is that UEA didn't do anything without the direct consultation and advice of the ICO. We could have a very long discussion on the antics of Steve McIntyre concerning FOI - it certainly would be most illuminating - after you, alphonse!

[Keepitsimple]

you're a babbling idiot - if you actually took your head out of Anthony Watts' ass, you'd find out what model and supporting data is available... what temperature related data/processes is available. But no... you'd sooner rely upon the "knowledge and insights" of a TV weatherman over the world's scientific consensus.

Thank you for your kind insight. Do you consider The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and the Royal Statistical Society (RSS)to be "TV Weathermen"?

Now - I'll ask again: I am not a scientist and obviously, neither are you. I have explained my position many times. Your position is what exactly? Is it exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? What is your position on AGW Waldo - in a sentence or two?

Edited March 8, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Simple, every time you beak off about UHI... or missing stations... or urban versus rural... or the myriad of other unsubstantiated, without foundation claims that would presume to challenge the surface temperature records, that is you parroting your favoured go-to denier "blog scientist" - none other than TV weatherman Anthony Watts... your go-to guy!

you're a clown, nothing else but.

[wyly]

and yet... he keeps up the charade - the "Concern Troll" charade. Standard operation has the Concern Troll grudgingly acknowledging there has been warming (while at the same time adamantly stating, without foundation, that we're in a cooling phase now), suggesting mankind has had a contribution... but, but, but... "what about natural variations and influences"! Dammit, don't you guys get it!!! It's the sun... it's the clouds... it's cosmic rays... it's water vapour... it's aerosols... it's volcanoes... it's albedo... it's ozone... it's CFC's... blah, blah, blah.

yup, it just can't be CO2... it just can't be mankind's fossil fuel contribution - that's just sooooooo unnatural, don't ya know!

of course, Simple has his own variant on the charade, as he likes to parrot the "30 year cycle" meme

they make the most absurd claims on pure speculation such as cosmic rays but ignore massive amount of evidence for CO2

it's like having a murder victim stabbed to death there's a suspect standing over the body covered in blood, a knife in his hand and they want to pin it on a suspect in Australia because he possibly passed through the area a decade ago...

[jbg]

you're a babbling idiot - if you actually took your head out of Anthony Watts' ass, you'd find out what model and supporting data is available... what temperature related data/processes is available. But no... you'd sooner rely upon the "knowledge and insights" of a TV weatherman over the world's scientific consensus.

Does that include the spoliated East Anglia climate data?

[Keepitsimple]

Simple, every time you beak off about UHI... or missing stations... or urban versus rural... or the myriad of other unsubstantiated, without foundation claims that would presume to challenge the surface temperature records, that is you parroting your favoured go-to denier "blog scientist" - none other than TV weatherman Anthony Watts... your go-to guy!

you're a clown, nothing else but.

Thank you once again for your kind thoughts. While it's true I think there may be problems with measuring land temperature stations, my latest posts have dealt with the fact that the CRU - and by extension, the IPCC, are under significant pressure to adhere to a stricter code of scientific conduct. You refuse to even acknowledge that such criticism even exists. My previous post pointed out the latest complainants - or do you consider The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and the Royal Statistical Society (RSS)to be just another group of deniers?

Now - I'll ask again: I am not a scientist and obviously, neither are you. I have explained my position many times. Your position is what exactly? Is it exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? What is your position on AGW Waldo - in a sentence or two?

[waldo]

Does that include the spoliated East Anglia climate data?

you could presume to make your case for 'spoilation', in general... without regards to SOX - or... you could start by suggesting what governance applies for SOX to UK companies, let alone UK educational institutions... and then you could make your specific case for 'spoilation'. Please proceed.

[waldo]

and yet... he keeps up the charade - the "Concern Troll" charade. Standard operation has the Concern Troll grudgingly acknowledging there has been warming (while at the same time adamantly stating, without foundation, that we're in a cooling phase now), suggesting mankind has had a contribution... but, but, but... "what about natural variations and influences"! Dammit, don't you guys get it!!! It's the sun... it's the clouds... it's cosmic rays... it's water vapour... it's aerosols... it's volcanoes... it's albedo... it's ozone... it's CFC's... blah, blah, blah.

yup, it just can't be CO2... it just can't be mankind's fossil fuel contribution - that's just sooooooo unnatural, don't ya know!

of course, Simple has his own variant on the charade, as he likes to parrot the "30 year cycle" meme

they make the most absurd claims on pure speculation such as cosmic rays but ignore massive amount of evidence for CO2

it's like having a murder victim stabbed to death there's a suspect standing over the body covered in blood, a knife in his hand and they want to pin it on a suspect in Australia because he possibly passed through the area a decade ago...

Now - I'll ask again: I am not a scientist and obviously, neither are you. I have explained my position many times. Your position is what exactly? Is it exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? What is your position on AGW Waldo - in a sentence or two?

Simple, let's see... it's not natural... it's not the sun... it's not the clouds... it's not cosmic rays... it's not water vapour... it's not aerosols... it's not volcanoes... it's not albedo... it's not ozone... it's not CFC's... and it's most certainly not the Australian suspect you'd like to pin this on

now - you can say you've stated your position... many times. You can keep saying that till you're 'blue in the face'. It doesn't really matter since your principal focus remains on your true agenda. Cast doubt, cast uncertainty, denigrate the IPCC any/every way, link to wild-ass claims from your tv weatherman and your other go-to denier "blog scientists"... do all of it... over and over again. Just don't bother to actually look at any of the science - just ignore the science, Simple... you're certainly good at that.

[Keepitsimple]

now - you can say you've stated your position... many times. You can keep saying that till you're 'blue in the face'. It doesn't really matter since your principal focus remains on your true agenda. Cast doubt, cast uncertainty, denigrate the IPCC any/every way, link to wild-ass claims from your tv weatherman and your other go-to denier "blog scientists"... do all of it... over and over again. Just don't bother to actually look at any of the science - just ignore the science, Simple... you're certainly good at that.

It's a simple question so - I'll ask again: I am not a scientist and obviously, neither are you. I have explained my position many times - I believe in continuous Climate Change, I believe that our planet has been undergoing a net increase in warming for several centuries, I am fairly convinced that the planet warms and cools in roughly 30 year cycles - superimposed upon longer cycles that I do not understand, and I am sceptical that humans have caused the majority of warming. Your position is what exactly? Is it exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? Is it that only humans can cause warming. If you killed every human on the planet, would all warming stop? What is your position on AGW Waldo - in a sentence or two?

Edited March 8, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

It's a simple question so - I'll ask again: I am not a scientist and obviously, neither are you. I have explained my position many times - I believe in continuous Climate Change, I believe that our planet has been undergoing a net increase in warming for several centuries, I am fairly convinced that the planet warms and cools in roughly 30 year cycles - superimposed upon longer cycles that I do not understand, and I am sceptical that humans have caused the majority of warming. Your position is what exactly? Is it exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? Is it that only humans can cause warming. If you killed every human on the planet, would all warming stop? What is your position on AGW Waldo - in a sentence or two?

you certainly are taking your parrot act to a new high, Simple. I've asked you to put your scientific basis for 30 year cycles forward... still waiting. You won't get any answers when you keep beaking off about Armegeddon, doom, Suzuki nut, horrifies, etc., etc., etc. Nice try, though Simple!

[jbg]

you could presume to make your case for 'spoilation', in general... without regards to SOX - or... you could start by suggesting what governance applies for SOX to UK companies, let alone UK educational institutions... and then you could make your specific case for 'spoilation'. Please proceed.

I cited to that link not because of the applicability of Sarbanes-Oxley but to explain to people what spoliation is. Obviously you don't want to address the substance of my point which is that East Anglia destroyed data that didn't fit the desired consensus.

[waldo]

you could presume to make your case for 'spoilation', in general... without regards to SOX - or... you could start by suggesting what governance applies for SOX to UK companies, let alone UK educational institutions... and then you could make your specific case for 'spoilation'. Please proceed.

I cited to that link not because of the applicability of Sarbanes-Oxley but to explain to people what spoliation is. Obviously you don't want to address the substance of my point which is that East Anglia destroyed data that didn't fit the desired consensus.

thanks for acknowledging SOX has no direct compliance applicability for UK companies, let alone UK educational institutions. As I said, you could make your specific case for 'spoilation' in regards East Anglia University. Please proceed... while you're doing so, please draw emphasis on what you might presume to imply as might reflect upon the greater scientific community.

[Keepitsimple]

you certainly are taking your parrot act to a new high, Simple. I've asked you to put your scientific basis for 30 year cycles forward... still waiting. You won't get any answers when you keep beaking off about Armegeddon, doom, Suzuki nut, horrifies, etc., etc., etc. Nice try, though Simple!

It's a simple question so - I'll ask again: I am not a scientist and obviously, neither are you. I have explained my position many times - I believe in continuous Climate Change, I believe that our planet has been undergoing a net increase in warming for several centuries, I am fairly convinced that the planet warms and cools in roughly 30 year cycles - superimposed upon longer cycles that I do not understand, and I am sceptical that humans have caused the majority of warming. Your position is what exactly? Is it exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? Is it that only humans can cause warming. If you killed every human on the planet, would all warming stop? What is your position on AGW Waldo - in a sentence or two?

[waldo]

Simple, stalking doesn't become you - nor does crying!

[jbg]

thanks for acknowledging SOX has no direct compliance applicability for UK companies, let alone UK educational institutions. As I said, you could make your specific case for 'spoilation' in regards East Anglia University. Please proceed... while you're doing so, please draw emphasis on what you might presume to imply as might reflect upon the greater scientific community.

Spoliation refers to the deliberate destruction of evidence. That seems to have occurred at East Anglia.

Why?

[waldo]

Spoliation refers to the deliberate destruction of evidence. That seems to have occurred at East Anglia.

Why?

there seems to be no substantiation for your claim of deliberate destruction of 'evidence'.

why?

(while you're at it, you could better define what you mean by "evidence")

[Shady]

you're a babbling idiot - if you actually took your head out of Anthony Watts' ass

There's the sunny disposition of the AGW true-believers that'll surely win the hearts and minds of the undecided public.

[waldo]

There's the sunny disposition of the AGW true-believers that'll surely win the hearts and minds of the undecided public.

really? How does it compare to your outright lying... do you feel warm and fuzzy to have had someone create a thread dedicated to your "intellectual dishonesty"? It's clear you're very concerned about the, as you say, "hearts and minds of the undecided public"... obviously... that's why you're so forthright in linking to those completely unbiased British tabloid sources of yours - right?

Shady... winning the hearts and minds - one fake and fabricated British tabloid story at a time!

[Shady]

Shady... winning the hearts and minds - one fake and fabricated British tabloid story at a time!

Not true. You do realize that every newspaper or news organization in Britain isn't a tabloid? You do realize that right? You do realize the BBC is much different than a tabloid newspaper. Your intellectually dishonest behavior tries to lump all British media under the tabloid characterization, as to attack the messenger, because of its truthful message regarding the corrupt IPCC.

Well, after their recently discovered unscientific behavior, it's become pretty clear that the EAU, Jones, et all, fall under the category of British tabloid sciencists. Because that's what they amount to.

[sunsettommy]

William Ashley at post #4 writes:

Global Warming is Real - explain the disappearance of the ice in the artic and subartics.

There are huge global effects.

It has been recovering for two years now and several published "peer reviewed" science papers explained that it was the increased influx of warm north Atlantic water and "unusual winds" that pushed more ice out the Arctic region than usual.

Here is a link to examine (I have many more like it at my climate forum):

DMI

There you can look up temperatures records from 1958 to now,note that the BLUE line is at the freezing level.

Here you can see the trend since 2002 in a chart:

DMI CHART

Deniers ought to be shot unless they can explain the disappearance of the worlds ice.

Boooooooo!

The last 10,000 years has been very bizarre in terms of the last half million, with a marked increase in the last 200. This is not normal with the rest of the cycle.

What are you talking about?

[Guest TrueMetis]

William Ashley at post #4 writes:

It has been recovering for two years now and several published "peer reviewed" science papers explained that it was the increased influx of warm north Atlantic water and "unusual winds" that pushed more ice out the Arctic region than usual.

Here is a link to examine (I have many more like it at my climate forum):

DMI

There you can look up temperatures records from 1958 to now,note that the BLUE line is at the freezing level.

Here you can see the trend since 2002 in a chart:

DMI CHART

Totally useless to post links about artic temperature when we are talking about global temperature.

[Alta4ever]

what data are you speaking to when you suppose a lack of openness? What data are you speaking to when you suppose data has been deleted? What FOI requests do you refer to when you suppose they've been refused?

specifically to FOI... unless I've missed something, this is my understanding of the current state of "fact" concerning the East Anglia University, and the earlier claim from the U.K. Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) that UEA breached the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) - the formal statement from EAU:

what's missing in all the denialsphere and British tabloid nonsense concerning FOI is that UEA didn't do anything without the direct consultation and advice of the ICO. We could have a very long discussion on the antics of Steve McIntyre concerning FOI - it certainly would be most illuminating - after you, alphonse!

On January 28, 2010, the Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA and Jones had breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. In one e-mail, Professor Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also told a colleague that he had persuaded the university authorities to ignore information requests under the act from people linked to a website run by climate sceptics. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

Your scientists aren't trust worthy

Keep worshiping at the alter let not your fanaticism be swayed. You have more in common with Young earth creationists then you care to believe.

[sunsettommy]

William Ashley wrote at post #12:

Is this sarcasm? http://www.planetwat.../JClimate/9.pdf

http://maps.grida.no...hange-scenarios

Did you even look at the link?

There are modeling projections starting from year 2030!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

This is not good science at all,since it can not be verified for 30 years!

I could just as easily write up a bunch of charts and starting with the year 2100 project that the world will be quickly covered in ice in a 20 year period.

This is Jeanne Dixon crap and that is why I laughed out loud.

You appear totally out of touch with reality if not. Read much about the north west passage clearing up

It is open for a short time in some years.There is no trend of it clearing up at all.Most of the shrinkage was from the ATLANTIC side of the Arctic,which is a long way from the "North West Passage" area.

Read much about the melt over the last 50 years?

What melt are you referring to?

Here is a LINK to a presentation that seems to show that actually not much shrinkage has been ongoing since the 1950's.It is being discussed at my forum and soon may have an update on the drift errors that might be cause of some of the shrinkage being overstated.

The link found in the first post is a 23 page PDF worth reading since it appears there is an uncorrected satellite drift error is making the ice cover in the Arctic appear smaller that it really is.

Since 1970 the earth ocean tempeture has increased by around 6 degrees. This scale of change

is dramatic.

Since 2003 it has been slightly cooling according to the ARGOS project.

Please provide citation for your remarkable claim.

The rest of your post I will ignore.

[sunsettommy]

Totally useless to post links about artic temperature when we are talking about global temperature.

He brought up the Arctic,a regional climate setting.