Clmategate prof admits no warming since 1995(dailymail.co.uk)
dailymail.co.uk
Clmategate prof admits no warming since 1995
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
2 comments
It's significant because we've spent billions (and almost spent trillions) on a problem that doesn't exist - AGW. And this is from one of the leaders of the movement that created a false impression of that problem.
That is a very, very dramatic claim, and one that requires extraordinary amount of evidence. In order to say that AGW does not exist, the burden of proof is very much on you-- the body of scientific evidence confirming AGW is extensive and well-confirmed. You cannot simply say that because fighting AGW is expensive, it can't exist, which is in essence what is being done.
By the way, citing the Daily Mail doesn't count as providing an extraordinary amount of evidence. The Daily Mail has made their position on this issue very clear, and has shown that they will lie and cheat to embarrass scientists at every turn. Since their reporting here does not cite original sources, the article simply cannot be taken at face value. Even if they were being completely honest here, one scientist saying something to a reporter does not contradict the massive body of peer-reviewed studies demonstrating AGW. What it would show at the absolute worst is that you have a scientist that is willing to say stupid shit in front of a microphone. In order to support your claim, you would need at the very least to show that long-term warming has not occurred, or that if it has, it is completely natural. Since both such claims run counter to all that we know about the climate, you would need a lot of data on temperature records, CO2 levels, etc. and to convince us as to why all collected data is invalid.
By the way, citing the Daily Mail doesn't count as providing an extraordinary amount of evidence. The Daily Mail has made their position on this issue very clear, and has shown that they will lie and cheat to embarrass scientists at every turn. Since their reporting here does not cite original sources, the article simply cannot be taken at face value. Even if they were being completely honest here, one scientist saying something to a reporter does not contradict the massive body of peer-reviewed studies demonstrating AGW. What it would show at the absolute worst is that you have a scientist that is willing to say stupid shit in front of a microphone. In order to support your claim, you would need at the very least to show that long-term warming has not occurred, or that if it has, it is completely natural. Since both such claims run counter to all that we know about the climate, you would need a lot of data on temperature records, CO2 levels, etc. and to convince us as to why all collected data is invalid.
It's AGW that is the extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary proofs. Ridiculously bad computer models with 'adjusted' data from cherry picked stations are not proof of anything, so we have no idea what our net contribution is to the temperature. And (if we can ever prove it), whether it will continue and if it is harmful.
That's quite the contortion. The computer models are not "ridiculously bad," and there is absolutely no credible evidence (that is to say, there's no evidence outside of the Daily Mail) to even suggest, much less prove, deliberate tampering of data. Moreover, that there is harm caused by the changes in our climate has also been very well established. I have little patience for continually rehashing the same unfounded assertions, so please be so kind as to show us the evidence of tampering. In other words, put up or shut up.
Here is the most recent example of someone looking into the GISS data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/11/giss-adjustments-in-au...
The models have obvious warming biased 'adjustments' built into them and there is no model, which when given the correct inputs at a point in time would successfully predict the climate for a following period of time. The 'Hockey Stick' graph, which eliminates the Midieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age is the most obvious sign of how bad the models are.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/11/giss-adjustments-in-au...
The models have obvious warming biased 'adjustments' built into them and there is no model, which when given the correct inputs at a point in time would successfully predict the climate for a following period of time. The 'Hockey Stick' graph, which eliminates the Midieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age is the most obvious sign of how bad the models are.
Thank you for citing your claims. Now I am not familiar with the particulars of the alleged manipulations by GISS in Australia, but I would note a few things. One, the analysis in your citation was missing any sort of error analysis, and so it is impossible to formulate a statistical hypothesis test of the claimed manipulations. Being a personal blog, I wouldn't expect more, but without that sort of detailed statistical analysis, the claims have very little weight to them. Second, climate change is not my area of scientific expertise, and so if there are errors in his analysis, I am not likely to notice them; thus, I refer you to a group of people who have expertise in this area: http://www.realclimate.org/. Third, even if the alleged claims are true, they are far from showing a systemic error in all climate data. Our understanding of climate change is far broader than GISS's efforts, even though they are important in that understanding. In any field of study, there will be errors and failures of the review process, and so to conclude anything about the validity of climate data as a whole would require some sort of evidence that the alleged manipulations are occurring on a large scale and across organizations. This has not been provided, and thus your earlier assertions are still not backed up by evidence.
On the issues of the the Hockey Stick, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, there is decidedly more to say that has been said by people much smarter than I. In particular, the scientists at realclimate.org have prepared excellent resources for those interested in learning more about these topics. For instance, with respect to the MWP, their guide available at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/mediev... cites studies which show that the MWP is at least partially an effect of strong regional variations in temperature. Moreover, the same guide cites a review that provides evidence that the MWP is not an anomalous warming period. They have a similar guide for understanding the LIA available at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/little....
Finally, I would refer you to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-... for more on the Hockey Stick, since you haven't provided me with any specifics on your claims that it has been manipulated to hide the MWP and LIA. In lieu of more specific claims, I think that the best I can do is to refer you to that comprehensive guide.
On the issues of the the Hockey Stick, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, there is decidedly more to say that has been said by people much smarter than I. In particular, the scientists at realclimate.org have prepared excellent resources for those interested in learning more about these topics. For instance, with respect to the MWP, their guide available at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/mediev... cites studies which show that the MWP is at least partially an effect of strong regional variations in temperature. Moreover, the same guide cites a review that provides evidence that the MWP is not an anomalous warming period. They have a similar guide for understanding the LIA available at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/little....
Finally, I would refer you to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-... for more on the Hockey Stick, since you haven't provided me with any specifics on your claims that it has been manipulated to hide the MWP and LIA. In lieu of more specific claims, I think that the best I can do is to refer you to that comprehensive guide.
Some of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia discussed how to manipulate discussion on realclimate.org by passing AGW-supportive comments through moderation quickly while allowing AGW-skeptical ones to linger indefinitely.
Is it responsible to keep assuming, then, that the ideas presented at RealClimate.org are a legitimate indicator of the state of scientific opinion on this topic? Can you provide links to other sources?
You should also moderate your tone. A lot. I've been reading and talking to people about global warming since the early 90s, and I'm strongly predisposed to take scientists at their word. If the stridency in your writing can make me want to close my laptop and take a nap, it's certain to stir up angry feelings in people who vehemently oppose to the idea of global warming. They will respond in kind, HN will get a little less civil, hence a little less useful for everyone. And you will bear part of the responsibility.
Is it responsible to keep assuming, then, that the ideas presented at RealClimate.org are a legitimate indicator of the state of scientific opinion on this topic? Can you provide links to other sources?
You should also moderate your tone. A lot. I've been reading and talking to people about global warming since the early 90s, and I'm strongly predisposed to take scientists at their word. If the stridency in your writing can make me want to close my laptop and take a nap, it's certain to stir up angry feelings in people who vehemently oppose to the idea of global warming. They will respond in kind, HN will get a little less civil, hence a little less useful for everyone. And you will bear part of the responsibility.
The plague of climate denialism on HN seems to be getting much worse as of late. Why does trash like this keep getting upvoted?
Because stuff like this
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article702...
is now pouring out, and realclimate.org is implicated in the climategate scandal, so you might want to go somewhere else for unbiased information
"Unbiased information." That's a good one. Why I linked to realclimate.org is because, unlike so many denialist sites, they cite the actual studies and the data that are the basis of our understanding. In that sense, realclimate.org is one of the absolute least biased sites you can possibly refer to: they are biased only in that they accurately and dutifully report on the data.
By the way, when you refer to "the climategate scandal," you really don't do yourself any favors. There is no "climategate scandal" other than that a well-coordinated group of hackers (in the negative sense of the word) committed criminal acts in order to embarrass scientists and undermine the perceived validity of their work. Indeed, in that sense, "climategate" is much like the Watergate scandal, and you seem to be throwing your lot in with the villains of this story. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't evil, manipulative or duplicitous, but merely ignorant. There's many good (read, well-cited) sources dedicated to debunking the poisonous myth that is "climategate," such as http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/12/the_climategat.... For more general information, please see http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to....
By the way, when you refer to "the climategate scandal," you really don't do yourself any favors. There is no "climategate scandal" other than that a well-coordinated group of hackers (in the negative sense of the word) committed criminal acts in order to embarrass scientists and undermine the perceived validity of their work. Indeed, in that sense, "climategate" is much like the Watergate scandal, and you seem to be throwing your lot in with the villains of this story. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't evil, manipulative or duplicitous, but merely ignorant. There's many good (read, well-cited) sources dedicated to debunking the poisonous myth that is "climategate," such as http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/12/the_climategat.... For more general information, please see http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to....
That article is about one of the IPCC authors validating a 'denialists' claim. It is the climategate scientists that broke the law, but the statute of limitations had expired (it is only six months, the law is seriously flawed), so they haven't been prosecuted. Here is another example of someone going directly from the raw data and finding no warming
http://www.bestinclass.dk/index.php/2010/01/global-warming/
Dude, calm down. Missionary zeal on a topic this contentious makes you look like a conspiracy nut. Be happy that reasoned skepticism is respectable again, and don't try to force other people to change their minds at a pace of your choosing.
I was just getting interested, and that was never five minutes.
The quote actually is: "He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend."
Also I wonder how many people will read it to the end instead of just the headlines.