Global Cooling...I just can't take it any longer!

[Froze]

Ah, I see. That must be it: the vast majority are funded by the Federal Government. That must include climatologists in England, France, Japan, Togo, and everywhere else. My, I had no idea that are Federal Government funded research in so many countries in the world. Being government funded doesn't mean that a study is biased.

I couldn't help but notice the common political bias of your links. You should try providing some objective analysis and proof.

Your rant about scientists is quaint. Scientists don't claim to know everything. That's why research happens. That's why there's continuing studies into climate change. Moreover, scientists are aware of science's history, and scientists (and engineers, for that matter) know that often theories have to be revisited and hypotheses modified. That's part of the scientific method. As such, science is self-correcting. You can cherry pick all the examples you want of "science gone wrong", but in all the examples you've given, science self-corrected. Despite your screed against science, you depend on it every day, more than you can even imagine.

Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model

Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming

Future global warming from atmospheric trace gases

The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis

Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model

Global warming

A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems

Ecological responses to recent climate change

Global climate change and terrestrial net primary production

Climate Change, Human Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs

Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change

Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols

Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases

Sun and dust versus greenhouse gases: an assessment of their relative roles in climate change

Gee you listed a bunch of sites for it I guess I have to return the favor for those against:

The Global Warming Scam Thats hard proof if you know how to read graphs.

Climate Change Fraud - Because the debate is NOT over

Global warming fraud A law suit going against Al Gore and [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ]YouTube - Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman[/ame]

Global Warming Scam Exposed

Global Warming Denier: Fraud or 'Realist'? - ABC News The poor little Polar bear scam unveiled.

Senator to demand probe of global-warming 'fraud' A senator demanding a probe into the fraud.

William Hunt -- The Nonsense of Global Warming

Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warming -- Kerr 325 (5939): 376 -- Science Oh no not more scientists.

Global Warming — Blame sun for global warming By golly, it could be the sun.

Climate History 2.4 billion years of Earths track record is properly wrong too uhh?

3.2-Million-Year Temperature History from Tiny Fossils Polar ice caps typically wane? Yes they do.

Brightening Sun is Warming Earth From Harvard? My god!

The web is literally littered with thousands of studies against global warming being caused by man. So read the above sites instead of believing some cult blindly.

 

[alienator]

Actually, if you had actually bothered to read, the links I gave were to actual research done. They weren't links to political sites. They were apolitical.

Fox News? Uh-huh.

 

[Froze]

I read those links and far more then you could imagine because, like you, I once believed man was responsible for the warming up. Problem was the more I studied it the more I found out that man was not responsible for it. And if you at least have a partial scientific inquiring mind then you need to study like one and read both sides of the story, which I did and that's why my conclusions are such.

I listed both political, so you could understand why this is being forced on us and why there are some standing up against it; and I gave scientific ones as well so you could understand the other side of the argument.

Man cannot even forecast 100% accuracy the weather for tomorrow not alone 100 years in the future.

I gave you a site with 2.5 billion year historical evidence of temperature changes the earth goes through as a natural cycle and you obviously blew it off. The earth spends most of it's time in a tropic zone and we are currently in a partial ice age zone.

Then the earth has little tropic periods and little ice age periods. The last warming period we had, before this one, was between 900ad and 1400ad. During this time the ice flows in the N Atlantic melted all away and the Norwegians were able to sail unhindered by the ice and settled in a area where they could grow grapes, raise sheep and cattle because of the lush green pastor lands, they called this area Greenland. But then in 1400 the earth cooled down again and left Greenland frozen and barren. Now was that warming trend caused by man and his cars and factories etc?

You need to look at the historical evidence based on geological and human witness of all this to get a picture of what may be happening now. We are warming up I'm not disputing that, but we still are not as warm as it was between 900 to 1400.

Sudden climate changes in the recent geological record

Rapid Climate Change

The above sites are all very scientific which I provided because you didn't think I had enough. The last one is very long and intense with many links. But if you are like me and want know more then read them...if not, oh well!!

 

[Goose5]

I would settle for a good explanation for this email:

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.***>
To: ray bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.***>,mann@xxxxxxxxx.***, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.***
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.***,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.***


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) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.***
NR4 7TJ
UK

 

[alienator]

I would settle for a good explanation for this email:

Scientists talking via email. No trickery. There's no devious meaning to using the word "trick." Two independent investigations found no wrong doing or fraud. The Binomial Approximation is a great "trick" for solving polynomials with powers around 1. A great "trick" for approximating values for sine is to just use the angle in radians as the value for sine. There's "tricks" used for solving all manner of things. Likewise, there are "tricks" for doing statistical analysis. So what? "Real" bothers you, maybe? Why? It could easily be "real" vs. "simulated" or "real" as in raw data vs data that's been processed in some fashion.

Sorry that scientists don't always use strictly scientific terms, and I'm also sorry that their discussions don't always involve black and white terms with singular and unique definitions. Discussions such those in the "controversial" emails go on all the time in science and engineering.

Perhaps everyone's statements--scientists, housewives, plumbers, children, conspiracy theorists--should be taken out of context and evaluated as entities separate from any particular context. That's probably for the best. After all, we don't want people to think too hard.

 

[Goose5]

Interesting how most immediately defend "Mike's nature trick." That is one interesting part of this transmission. And, being that they were private emails one would tend to express their true thoughts. More interesting to me would be the passages:

...of adding real temps to each series...

Why would a climatologist want to add real temps to a series or study? If real temperature data are not used to begin with what exactly is?

...hide the decline.

Why would any scientist or climatologist want to hide anything? Just exactly how is hiding something part of any legitimate research? I can't wait for this response.

None are so humorless as the fanatically focused.

 

[alienator]

Interesting how most immediately defend "Mike's nature trick." That is one interesting part of this transmission. And, being that they were private emails one would tend to express their true thoughts. More interesting to me would be the passages:

Why would a climatologist want to add real temps to a series or study? If real temperature data are not used to begin with what exactly is?

Why would any scientist or climatologist want to hide anything? Just exactly how is hiding something part of any legitimate research? I can't wait for this response.

None are so humorless as the fanatically focused.

I see you come to troll. Enjoy your conspiracy delusions.

 

[Goose5]

The referee on the ice...

LIBERAL DEBATE TACTIC NUMBER TWO.

2. What you say is too close to the truth, therefore, here is a non-sequitur to change the subject. Perhaps you will just go away.

The troll card again. I just asked some questions. Why are asking questions considered troll like behavior on this board?
Sic semper liberalis. If you took away their shovels, they'd dig their hole deeper with their hands. It's a compulsion they cannot resist.

 

[alienator]

LIBERAL DEBATE TACTIC NUMBER TWO.

The troll card again. I just asked two questions. Sic semper liberalis. If you took away their shovels, they'd dig their hole deeper with their hands. It's a compulsion they cannot resist.

Hey, if I am going to be accused of being a troll I might as well have the fun of behaving like one. Don't you think?

Well, you are obviously trolling for a fight. You brought your agenda to the thread, and then through some statement about how a liberal must do this and that, thus casting any discussion as politically polarized.....you against the liberals. However in this case, you've got it all wrong in that I'm not playing a liberal I'm being me, objective scientist, reading an email between two other scientists. The mail was obviously one of several exchanged, so you insist that people make a value judgement on a limited pool of statements, all removed from their pertinent context.
Uninformed speculation is what you're hunting for.

Perhaps you should go hunt elsewhere, as you offer no real contribution to the forum in any particular manner.

 

[Goose5]

Another two minute minor.

Oh, my you profess to be a scientist? And, the second troll card played. How many troll cards do you have?

LIBERAL DEBATE TACTIC NUMBER 5.

Repeat the same lie over and over it magically becomes the truth.

Noted. The second evasion of three simple questions. Your credibility is quickly waning.

Hint:

Every scientist I have ever encountered has been very nice. They have never evaded a question. They have been very up front with their research on all counts.