Climate Change V - More Evidence of Fraud

Arts & Sciences Science & Nature
21

Further climate change fraud (mistake - of course) uncovered:

Map-makers admit Greenland gaffe

Published on Thursday 26 January 2012 00:38
The 2011 version of the map, left, which incorrectly showed ice-loss

“IT APPEARED to provide incontrovertible proof that global warming was accelerating faster than even the most doom-laden scientists had predicted.
There was considerable alarm when the word’s most authoritative atlas printed a map which showed that Greenland was rapidly turning green.
However, experts from around the globe pointed out that the cataclysmic chart had no scientific support and was contradicted by all of the most recent satellite images.
Now the Scottish map-makers responsible for the disappearance of 115,830 square miles of polar ice have admitted publicly they were wrong.”
ending with:
"Dr Liz Morris, of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, said: “This was a really bad mapping error. If 15 per cent of ice was lost, then sea levels would have risen by one metre, and that hasn’t happened.”

Another…OOOOPS!

Mick, I am glad to see you are coming around to the truth… :thumbsup:

22

[quote]Nope. I am a steadfast advocate of research and use of what are now considered “alternate” energy generating devices.
I am pro-Solar, pro-Tide power, pro-GeoThermal and pro-wind power.

I even had my own wind-generator at my house back in the early-mid '8os. My PG&E electric bill was reduced to nil and even had credits to my account due to my low usage and electric power returned to the grid. Received a California tax-credit for installing that puppy.
So no, in my personal case, I am very in favor of improving the efficiency of existing energy technology while developing new devices and technology.

I am also pro-nuke and like big V-8 motors…[/quote]

OK, I think I know where you’re coming from. But in that case, I really don’t get why it’s soooo important for you that global warming isn’t happening. After all, if CO2 emissions aren’t causing any damage, why shouldn’t we just carry on regardless? Why bother with (for example) wind power, which doesn’t really breakeven on energy balance or cost?

There are probably three or four people on the planet with intellects large enough to more-or-less grasp what’s going on with the climate. All the rest of us, including you and me, aren’t even close to understanding how it works; and in that case, we can’t draw any meaningful conclusions from random data (such as no apparent increase in temperatures over the last 10 years). I know enough about control systems theory to appreciate that that particular observation means absolutely nothing. We all know about the ice-loss business (it was made public about a year ago, no?) but the fact is that ice is being lost. Does it really surprise you that we don’t have a good enough model to predict exactly when and where it’s going to be lost? If there’s a strong possibility it’s due to human action, that’s all we need to know.

Incidentally, everyone keeps going on about average temperatures. One of the predicted effects of climate change was increasing unpredictability and more extreme weather. If you have a farm, the average rainfall (or temperature) over the year is almost irrelevant. What matters is that it’s regular, without extended periods of drought or flooding.

Not picking on you, I just really want to know what your aim is in trying to discredit some widely-accepted conclusions. I’d be the first to admit that it’s not necessarily right just because everyone says so; but in this case, the hidden subtext of the deniers is that we can carry on making a mess of the planet, and everything’s going to be just fine. Anyone living in Taiwan can see that it won’t.

23

Finley -
O.K., as the expression goes, take a knee.
(pardon my excerpting your comments - I will try to keep your original gist as much as I can)

My position on this - from the beginning has been - Lets see the data and lets see how it has been interpreted.
I was, initially, attempting to look at it from a neutral position. As it progressed, it became patently clear that this scenario has, and continues, to be politically motivated and manipulated. This has caused flags to go up in my personal evaluation.
There have been completely natural temperature fluctuations occurring through-out the known and recorded history of this planet (as well as before recording) - as I see it, this recent hoopla has been financially and politically motivated from the beginning.

The brouhaha over “CO2” came into it late in the game. IMO, CO2 is good - we need more of it. Plants love it. Greenhouses pump in extra CO2.

[quote=“finley”]There are probably three or four people on the planet with intellects large enough to more-or-less grasp what’s going on with the climate. All the rest of us, including you and me, aren’t even close to understanding how it works; and in that case, we can’t draw any meaningful conclusions from random data (such as no apparent increase in temperatures over the last 10 years).[/quote]I respectfully disagree with this comment.
Interpretation of data by numerous sources has made this scenario completely understandable by those in the ‘general public’…IMO.

This has been shown to be false. While some melting has occurred - polar, and in other areas, ice has reformed and continues as “normal.”

Its has also been shown that the “widely-accepted conclusions.” were reached through manipulation of data and were done for solely financially motivated reasons and extreme cases of CYA when this falsification came to light. I accept that - others chose to not accept the facts.

Here is where that false premise comes into play - It is wrong to make this assumption. Try working without this assumption as to the “motives” of the ‘deniers.’
I am a “Conservationist”…not an “Environmentalist.” I, personally, believe i the use and maintenance of the ‘environment.’
IMO, it is this approach which better maintains the planet for mine and future generations.

Hope this clarifies things a bit… :thumbsup:

(note I did not mention…algore…algore…algore…even one time)

24

Sure. The instinctive reaction of any politican or businessman to a genuine crisis is to think “how do I make money out of this?”. But that doesn’t mean the problem isn’t there. It just means the policy decisions are designed to exploit it rather than fix it. Going back to the CFC alert in the 1980s, the climate threat was real and 99.9% certainly caused by CFC pollution. Yet there were still people who said “yeah, no big deal”, or “what a load of bollocks”, or “we can’t stop using CFCs anyway”, or it’ll be “too expensive” to use alternatives. Well, the CFC ban came and went, and eventually even fourth-world countries like China got with the programme. Surprise - the replacement technologies/chemicals are no more expensive, and more-or-less as effective, as CFCs. There is no downside to assuming that climate change is real and will cause problems, just as there was no downside to assuming CFCs were dangerous. If you can think of one, post it here.

That’s a complete oversimplification, and it makes my point that few people really understand the issues. CO2 is only good if there is enough vegetation to make use of it. Forest coverage is decreasing and emissions are increasing. Nobody’s quite sure how ocean ecosystems will react to the increase, but it seems possible that bad stuff will happen. Another parallel: we are polluting the environment with a great deal of phosphate runoff. Well, plants need phosphorus, so that’s good, right? No, because it causes rampant algal growth which absorbs oxygen from the water it grows in, thus killing off everything else.

It’s common knowledge there has been some fiddling with source data; probably more than we’ll ever know about. Even so, for every lab that cooked the books to secure a bit more grant money, there must surely be ten others that didn’t. Even if we assume that the majority of the scientific community are bent, then logically we can’t rely on the naysayers any more than we can rely on the mainstream (they are, presumably, subject to the same temptations). We’re then back where we started: the best option is to act in a way that we know will minimize the impact of human actions.

Yet you still haven’t described what those motives are. What are you (in the plural) trying to achieve? If this thread is purely about scientific integrity, fine, but I find it strange that you would focus on this particular issue.

I don’t really see the difference. Whether one calls oneself a Conservationist or an Environmentalist, the goal is to achieve human aims without causing irreparable damage. At the moment we are using energy/resources to no particular purpose and emitting pollution (of many different kinds, CO2 being only one of them) at a rate that the planet clearly cannot deal with.

25

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
My position on this - from the beginning has been - Lets see the data and lets see how it has been interpreted.
I was, initially, attempting to look at it from a neutral position.[/quote]

wow, i’d really like to see the evidence for that.

26

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
Another…OOOOPS!

Mick, I am glad to see you are coming around to the truth… :thumbsup:[/quote]

I’ve always been open to skeptical opinions and give more weight to those from scientists who show they have integrity in their research, and a lot less to the likes of Lord Monckton who blatantly falsify their work or twist facts and figures to meet their goal. But there are some very well respected scientists, who bring up valid points of contention.

But your example of the Atlas mistake, what are you trying to prove exactly? That it wasn’t a mistake and part of some conspiracy? Can you prove that, or substantiate that in any way, because you know how 9/11 conspiracy theorists operate right? They say things like “the BBC reported the collapse of tower 7 before it happened” and when you ask if they really think the BBC was part of some conspiracy, and how stupid that sounds they reply “Hey, I’m just saying it happened and adds weight to the overall argument there needs to be an investigation to clear things up”

So you just put up a mistake (or was it deliberate) by a publication owned by, wait for it… Rupert Murdoch, of all people. What do you think it means TC? Can you shine some light on the issue as to how the owner of Fox news is somehow involved in the conspiracy, or were you just putting it out there, like conspiracy theorists like to do, something for us to think about, another piece in the puzzle.

You say you will believe the data if its shown to you, but also say you think the data that supports global warming is falsified. :saywhat:

27

Actually CO2 was identified as a greenhouse gas in the 19th century, when anthropogenic global warming was predicted. The three key predictions made concerning anthropogenic global warming in the 1950s, have all come true. There’s nothing better in science to validate a model, than repeatedly confirmed predictions.

28

Great Hoaxes and Conspiracies:

Global Warming
Obama is a Muslim and Purposely Trying to Bring Down the USA
911 Was in Inside Job
Evolution
The Lunar Landing was Faked
etc.

29

[quote=“TaipeiDawg”]Great Hoaxes and Conspiracies:

Global Warming
Evolution[/quote]

The problem is that your claims lack evidence. For those interested, the science behind the understanding of anthropogenic global warming is nearly 200 years old. See [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/nicotine-and-agw-teach-the-controversy/56981/2 post[/url], and the next few posts (note that not a single AGW ‘skeptic’ presented any rebuttal of these facts).

30

This global warming controversy could be more effectively analyzed if weather stations around the globe would provide full data on average daily temperatures in their locations for the last 25,000 years.

A comparison of all the data, from prehistoric times to the present, should reveal the truth of the matter.

This is my 2 cents.

31

[quote=“Hartzell”]This global warming controversy could be more effectively analyzed if weather stations around the globe would provide full data on average daily temperatures in their locations for the last 25,000 years.

A comparison of all the data, from prehistoric times to the present, should reveal the truth of the matter.

This is my 2 cents.[/quote]

Hah, you think it would be that easy to convince the denialists. You forget.

The Urban heat island effect, i.e. the stations report higher warming, because cities have grown around the stations and are warmer.

It’s natural and we have been warming since the last interglacial period.

They are fudging the figures and falsely reporting the temperature to get more grant money.

Cosmic space rays, sun spots and pixie dust.

32

When you say it came in late in the game, what time period are you talking about?

33

[quote=“Hartzell”]This global warming controversy could be more effectively analyzed if weather stations around the globe would provide full data on average daily temperatures in their locations for the last 25,000 years.

A comparison of all the data, from prehistoric times to the present, should reveal the truth of the matter.[/quote]

We don’t need all the weather stations around the globe to provide full data on average daily temperatures in their locations for the last 25,000 years. We already have palaeo-climatology records from ice core samples and sedimentary facies, dendro-climatology records from tree ring samples, and sclero-chronology records from coral samples, which provide a reliable indicator of climate changes and global temperature changes over the last 100,000 years (even longer in the case of ice core samples and sedimentary facies). Much longer than your suggested 25,000 years.

34

Or perhaps it might be useful for one person to explain how all these well meaning efforts will serve any benefit other than as delusional indulgences to pay for pope gores next mansion. But one can already hear the indignant squeal: but we have to do something to which one could easily riposte: but why? So? Why?

35

In some ways, I think the cave people 25,000 years ago were a hell of a lot brighter than the climate change supporters on this forum, in government, in academia (no surprise there) or in special-interest groups/businesses. Although the world has been cooling and warming naturally for millions of years, you probably didn’t see cave people walking from continent to continent spending shit loads of public money with absolutely nothing to show for it except hot air from free dinners, producing useless publications that no nobody reads, and showing hypocrisy by wasting lots of CO2 emissions from their luxury transport flying to these events.

They were far too smart and honest for that.

36

So much for leaving god behind. The new faith demands excommunication for heretics. Yet again man dreams of his garden of eden. Al replaces adam; gaia maia mayan calendars are the new eve. Instead of an apple and snake we have keys and a new suv.

37

and home-delivered pizza.

You forgot the pizza.

38

Ahh, I wouldn’t be surprised… there’s always two sides to every story. :unamused: Thanks for sharing.

39

Quite right zender. Let’s not forget the pizza. One imagines an intensely self absorbed debate to follow: what ones favorite topping tells about one. Of course saying this would be a gross violation of the pretense that all posters have equally valid views. One would not want the deathly silence of the ows thread to spread. Nice…

I mean how could they know they were being motivated by the same ad slogans and cheap jingoism that these intellectual bright lights decry among suburban housewives. One can well imagine the pique and discomfiture once any sort of attempt was made to find any discernible motive or cause in what was nothing more than the superbowl equivalent of our very own concerned citizen revolutionaries. Now back to choosing a toilet tissue brand that reflects the personality traits revealed by my pizza topping preference quiz.

40

It has been explained to you, but you simply refuse to believe it because you simply don’t care. Your view of the world is an infantile self-indulgent fantasy, completely unassociated with reality.