Global Warming Science, or Pure Advocacy? Hadley Climate Research Unit Hacked

Exactly.

Global warming may very well be true, but you do not convince people of that by contantly moving the goal posts in your research and doing things like comparing all skeptics (many of whom are willing to listen and be convinced) to someone who believes the Earth is flat (as Al Gore famously did). You also don't let people like Al Gore become your defacto spokesperson, as he stands to make millions off green initiatives.

I think the problem is that this did become politicized. We're talking about sending trillions of dollars to some of the most backward and corrupt places on earth all in the name of global warming. People ought to sit up and question that, but nobody seems to. Or when they do, they are immediately typecast.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

jesus, what a bunch of pussy all you want to do is take cheap shots rather then have a serious argument.

 

I don't see why I should be drawn into a prolonged and formal debate over a topic I really don't care about much. What *does* concern me (and is the topic of this thread, coincidentally) is how there is evidence suggesting that it may be common for climate researchers to 'sex up' their data for political purposes. Furthermore, it's blatantly obvious that 'groupthink' exists within the climate research field, which aims to suppress any dissenting views.

 

I thought that you weren't supposed to interfere with formal debates.
Or has that rule been modified/rescinded?

 

Yes, isn't that the same thing that believers always do----imply?

But we are still talking about, maybe 60ppm of additional Co2, and how much of that is man caused?

Take your own advice, learn something about science, the studies from the Global Warming Political Religious Fanatics can not be replicated by others.

Yes, and references, and citations, and man wasn't now where on the scene, so where did all that Co2 come from?

Here is just one small item of nature that changes the warming and cooling in the northern hemisphere, on a decadal cycle is El Nino, and La Ninia, and can the GW alarmist do one small thing to affect that cycle? and control it's effects on warming and cooling?

Plant grow even better at higher levels of Co2, and produce even higher yields, meaning more food for the world.

Having been raised on a farm, and still having many relatives in farming, I can tell you we add Co2 to the field's as a fertilizer, from direct injection of Co2 to adding aglime.

 

In 2005 I remember towards the end of summer it hit around 120-125 ish degrees where I live. And thats the hottest year on record...

Look at austin.

2005, hottest day on record

This past summer we had 90 consecutive days of temperature above 100 degrees, (unprecedented)

A massive drought.

And something you may find interesting. The fall was ridiculously long this year. Hell, it didnt start going below 60-80 ish degrees until towards the end of november early december. Our winters usually start late october early november.

And it wasnt a gradual change, it was literally 70 degrees one day and 30-40 ish 3 days later.

 

Lots of people give rough numbers much of the time, it has nothing to do with their beliefs. Would 285-275 ppm be better for you?

About twice as much of it of that based on calculating back from all the coal, peat and oil burned since 1750, half of it was absorbed by natural carbon sinks while the other half represents the 90-100 ppm increase from the 275-285 ppm to todays 383 ppm.

Baseless claim, I keep citing just one example out of many of others replicating it by completely different measurements, are you telling me they are all part of one big conspiracy?

Volcanic emission, as I was eluding to early CO2 in our atmosphere is in a dynamic equilibrium with natural sources like volcanism and biological oxidation emitting CO2 and natural sources like carbonate formation and biological reduction absorbing CO2, humans have adding new sources of CO2 without corresponding sinks (In fact we have been destroying many of the sinks), resulting in a equilibrium shift.

I don't think gaia worshipping treehuggers would advocating geoengineering or instituting anything but a return to what was "natural" which El Nino and La Nina are considered to be. Also El Nino and La Nina pale in comparison to Global warming in effects caused.

The devil is in the details, how much will CO2 increase yields, how much will yields be reduce by changes in climate, the answers are not black and white but are not nearly as optimistic ad you project:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5782/1918

For example C4 plants show little to no increase performance via increas CO2, while C3 plants do show an improvement, up to 25-30% by estimated 2050 CO2 levels of 550 ppm in green house studies, but in open field trials get far lower results and show great variation in CO2 fertilization effect be varying soil moisture.

yes I have relatives in farming and no that is ammonia they inject not CO2 and aglime is for neutralizing soil pH not for adding CO2.

 

One group of researches do not speak for them all, as such you can't make such generalizations.

 

Really? then maybe you should really look to your self with that statement.

As, You would have the group that believes in Man Made Global Warmimg speak for everybody.

 

Yes, ammonia is also injected, now what is the make up of aglime and what does it release as it breaks down? Co2.

Now ask them about Lithovit.

 

That is not A group of researchers, that just about all climatologist.

 

Inconsequential, they don't added it for its CO2 byproduct they added it for the calcium, there had been no study showing the CO2 emissions form aglime benefit plant growth.

Again I never said CO2 does not increase plant growth but how much does it increase and how much decrease do we expect from global warming, for example we might get a 10-20% increase in production for C3 crops but we may lose 30% from droughts and crop land loss by 2050. Crops grew fine at 285 ppm and we achieve all of our increase growth with fertilizers and breeding. Also Lithovit is a new product few have heard of it.

 

I was stationed and lived in Texas for 3 decades, and in the summer, there were always stretches of 100+ temperatures that ran 20 or 30 day's at a time, and I have seen the temperatures drop 60 degrees in one hour, when a blue northerner rolled through.......and the hottest record temperature in Texas was 120 deg, F. Aug. 12, 1936 Seymour Texas,

1936, Hmmmm.

Now as to the drought, do you think that maybe El Nino has a effect on Texas rain fall?

As to temperatures......

Average high °F (°C) 60
Jan. (16c) 65F
Feb. (18c) 73F
Mar. (23c) 79F
Apr. (26c) 85F
May (29c) 91F
Jun. (33c) 95F
Jul. (35c) 96F
Aug. (36c) 90F
Sep. (32c) 81F
Oct. (27c) 70F
Nov. (21c) 62F
Dec. (17c) 79F

Averages are from the 30 year average at Camp Mabry, and records are from Camp Mabry and from previous climate sites, spanning from 1897 to present

 

Well the IPCC seems to have a answer, up to 550ppm:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report confirms that CO2 enrichment under field conditions consistently increases biomass and yields in the range of 5–15%, with CO2 concentration elevated to 550 ppm Levels of CO2.

 

I go to a University and study in the climatology department whose professors typically publish on quota. In the department there are specializations; hydro-climatologist, Paleo-climatology, and an atmospheric modeler who specializes in Meteorology and Modern Climatological physics (Who is the senior professor). There are also other doctorates around. Amongst them (probably about 7 or 8 experienced PhD's), I know of one who believes strongly in climate change, 2 or so are indifferent, 3 are against it, 1 has published strongly against it. I know at least 2 of them have signed the anti-consensus petition.

 

Really? citation please.

James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic ...
Jan 27, 2009 ... More evidence that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. ... that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. .... The AGW hoax cannot and will not be exposed until people takle the media. ...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-
declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/...ys-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

Dr. John S. Theon,

“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,”

“Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,”


Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes:

Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA,

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA,

Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut,

Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt,

Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA's Apollo 7,

Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA's Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center,

Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility


So Trippy, these people seem to think that the Models are usless and not repetable unless so much data is deleteded as to make them usless.

To me that says they are not repeatable, unless massaged beyond any usefullness.