Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Quote from gwb-trading:

Why don't you read the actual emails and try to make the same claims. Being 'cleared' by a bunch of committees funded by govenment global warming grants is completely meaningless - pure whitewash of scientific fraud, not only demonstrating a complete lack of integrity but is completely shameful.

About 30 years from now 'global warming' will be viewed as one of the biggest scientific frauds ever perpetuated upon society. Unfortunately during the past decade it has caused billions of dollars in mis-directed public spending ($22.3 Billion of U.S Federal spending in 2012) on items such as carbon-credits. It is simply a matter of time until 'global warming' is viewed the same way as global cooling alarmism from the 1970s is viewed today.
More...



So you are admitting to being crazy enough to think that there is a widespread conspiracy going on and also that you don't have the intellectual honesty and rigor to actually learn the truth. Preferring instead to continue being ignorant and deluded for ego and ideological reasons.

Saying the committees are all funded by government global warming grants is delusional and completely untrue. These were the comittees

4.1 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
4.2 Science Assessment Panel
4.3 Pennsylvania State University
4.4 Independent Climate Change Email Review
4.5 United States Environmental Protection Agency report
4.6 Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce
4.7 National Science Foundation

I have read the actual E mails and when read in context there is nothing there pointing to fraud at all and they are speaking about how to best present the data for clarity. Saying they are something else is simply wrong.

And that's what the eight committees also concluded.

You are simply deluded and ignorant and prefer to be that way. That's no way to go way through life.
 
Former Republican House Science Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert called the attacks a "manufactured distraction", and the dispute was described as a "highly orchestrated" and manufactured controversy by Newsweek and The New York Times. Concerns about the media's role in promoting early allegations while also minimising later coverage exonerating the scientists were raised by journalists and policy experts. Historian Spencer R. Weart of the American Institute of Physics said the incident was unprecedented in the history of science, having "never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance."[37] The United States National Academy of Sciences expressed concern and condemned what they called "political assaults on scientists and climate scientists in particular".[38]
 
Exonerated...exonerated by whom by what for what? Just using that word reveals a story or reeking of propaganda.

The emails speak for themselves... they were not exonerated from creating the emails.

There is no exonerating... there is just a plain simple review of the emails.

Read them for yourself.




Quote from futurecurrents:

Former Republican House Science Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert called the attacks a "manufactured distraction", and the dispute was described as a "highly orchestrated" and manufactured controversy by Newsweek and The New York Times. Concerns about the media's role in promoting early allegations while also minimising later coverage exonerating the scientists were raised by journalists and policy experts. Historian Spencer R. Weart of the American Institute of Physics said the incident was unprecedented in the history of science, having "never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance."[37] The United States National Academy of Sciences expressed concern and condemned what they called "political assaults on scientists and climate scientists in particular".[38]
More...
 
you don't get exonerated from reality......

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate
269 comments, 10 called-out Comment Now
Follow Comments
A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.
 
when you combine this with the fact that

CO2 alos keeps the suns energy out...

you realize you have a complicated greenhouse system which NASA is still trying to figure out.





Quote from futurecurrents:

Another way we can see the effects of GHG's is by measuring the upward radiation leaving earth.

The following chart shows the reduction in radiation leaving the earth during the period 1970 to 1996. As the levels of GHG's have gone up there has been reduction of IR at the wavelengths associated with the various GHG's
This reduction of outgoing radiation has resulted in the warming of the earth over that period. As if a blanket has gotten thicker or a greenhouse more glass.

This is further empirical evidence of the increasing warming effect of the increasing GHG's of which CO2 is one.



harries_radiation.gif
More...
 
Quote from stu:

No. I don't.
I mean THE scientific facts.
More...

But...but...there are so many and worse, so many different conclusions being drawn. You worship at the alter of the facts that suit your belief and ignore all else.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

So you are admitting to being crazy enough to think that there is a widespread conspiracy going on and also that you don't have the intellectual honesty and rigor to actually learn the truth. Preferring instead to continue being ignorant and deluded for ego and ideological reasons.

Saying the committees are all funded by government global warming grants is delusional and completely untrue. These were the comittees

4.1 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
4.2 Science Assessment Panel
4.3 Pennsylvania State University
4.4 Independent Climate Change Email Review
4.5 United States Environmental Protection Agency report
4.6 Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce
4.7 National Science Foundation

I have read the actual E mails and when read in context there is nothing there pointing to fraud at all and they are speaking about how to best present the data for clarity. Saying they are something else is simply wrong.

And that's what the eight committees also concluded.

You are simply deluded and ignorant and prefer to be that way. That's no way to go way through life.
More...

So the Penn State Committee which including Dr. Mann and others that participated in the emails - 'cleared' the researchers. This is the same university that allowed Jerry Sandusky to abuse young boys for decades and covered it up.

Nearly all these entities are funded with government money - either directly as branches of the government or by funding via grants.

Unlike the alarmists, I have taken the time to review the raw data in detail. The bottom line is there is minimal evidence of man-made warming in the global data, and many of the data sets (such as East Anglia) pushed by climate change researchers do not pass basic mathematical fraud evaluations.

Calling AGW out as not scientifically valid is not a question of ego or ideology - as someone with an extensive scientific and engineering background, the lack of integrity demonstrated by these researchers is offensive to anyone involved in a scientific endeavor and undermines the entire profession - it is just a matter of 20 years before the entire 'global warming' swindle implodes and these researchers are a world-wide laughing stock which unfortunately reduces the credibility of other legitimate scientists.

Politically driven science like "climate change" is no more justifiable than the religious clowns who want to put "intelligent design" in science text books.
 
nice article on the history of the earth as related to warming and cooling events..
and a great set of charts... in one big image...


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...ization-over-the-last-18000-years/#more-97612

Conclusions

In general, the best times for man in the last 18,000 years are the warmer periods. The times of the disruption of civilization are the cooler and more arid times. This is quite consistent and since we have not seen unusual warming in the present warm period, relative to other warming events in the last 18,000 years, it seem doubtful that this warming period will be a problem for man to adapt to. Much of the last 18,000 years is characterized with much more rapid sea-level rise than we see today and this has caused a lot of disruption as it will in the future. But, the current rise in sea level is very slow relative to sea level rise during most of man’s civilized period. Our current warming and the current rate of sea level rise are very unspectacular.

In the words of Professor Steven Mithen, 2003 in “After the Ice…2” (page 507)

“The next century of human-made global warming is predicted to be far less extreme than that which occurred at 9600 BC. At the end of the Younger Dryas, mean global temperature had risen by 7°C in fifty years, whereas the predicted rise for the next hundred years is less than 3°C. The end of the last ice age led to a 120 meter increase in sea level, whereas that predicted for the next fifty years is a paltry 32 centimeters at most,…”

================================================================

Andy May is a Petrophysicist residing in The Woodlands, Texas
 
Eight independent committees absolve the scientists of fraud but the denialist morons like gwb and jerm insist it's all a conspiracy to cover it up.

Then they say that temperature records which involve thousands of instruments and readings is fraudulent. That NOAA NASA and the Japanese Met Society etc all are in on it and have conspired - using different sources - to come up with the same temp readings and trends.

What can one say about that except they simply are fucking crazy.

Not to mention if one reads the E mails in context they are nothing.

Once again the denialists try to say black is really white and up is down.

How can one argue with nutjobs like that?
 
OK, let's get back on track...


We know by lab experiments that CO2 is transparent to shorter wavelengths but absorbs than re-radiates the longer infrared wavelengths.

Satellites and ground instruments can see these effects. On the ground we see increased levels and in space we see decreased flux at these wavelengths.

We know that during the 26 year period between 1960 and 1996 that the radiant heat from earth at these wavelengths decrease as the levels of GHG's increase, meaning the heat was captured by the GHG's and added to the temperature of the earth.

We know CO2 is responsible for 10 - 24 % of the earth's greenhouse effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top