Since a certain Leftist blogger has his panties in a wad over my lack of links in my blog posts, I decided to acquiesce for at least one blog post and show some links.
Yeah, what a whiner I am, requesting sources and bullshit like that.
So, Mr. Leftist Blogger who claims to be my only reader (which will come as a shock to the people who actually read my posts),
Lindaman wrote this post on:
Now of course, not every reader of a blog is going to leave a comment. However, this particular posting, given the subject matter, would have been ideal for at least one of his readers to state they read his blog.
Five days later:
don't say I didn't warn you.
Erm... I thought you were against biased and/or partisan links? PopularTechnology is just a blog with only a handful of articles, mostly about software. And the specific link you posted was just a bitchfest. In fact, it sounds like the author tried to post something on RC's comment section and he got shot down, so now he's crying about it.
But let's pretend that it's a legitimate scientific site. How does that link prove Mann did something unethical? How does that prove the manmade global warming data is a fraud? Instead of hard data, I'm just seeing the same old "Guilt By Association" fallacies that right-wingers love to use. I'm shocked he doesn't say Ayers is involved in some way. It also brings up the upside-down proxy data error. What's wrong with the upside-down proxy? The values are the SAME.
The second link is from Investigate Magazine, which is a right-wing conservative christian website. Again, I thought partisan links weren't allowed?
Dr. Korhola is entitled to his opinion. Regardless, how does that prove the manmade global warming data is a fraud? CRU isn't wrong. See the collections of every other aggregator of meteorological data. It's much, much easier to confuse than it is to elucidate. This is why denialists and creationists seem "convincing" to an audience that is unfamiliar with the scientific processes being attacked.
Climate science: The long term global warming trend continues in the year 2008.
Denialist: But 2008 was colder than 2007! And in the US temperatures were basically average!
Public: Hmmm, that fellow from Oklahoma has a point...
Climate science: 2008 was one of the warmest years ever recorded globally, and the long term trend (which requires at least 20 years of data, preferably 30 to make meaningful statements about temperature trends) is still strongly one of warming. In 2008, the Pacific Ocean region known as "Nina4" experienced a once-in-20-year bout of cooling, probably due to natural variation of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, which lead to North American temperatures lower relative to both their expected climatology and that of the rest of the globe. Absent the increased warming due to enhanced GHGs, the cooling would have likely been far more dramatic, thus confirming rather than refuting the existence of global warming...
Public: *eyes glaze over*
Denialist: See, that egghead says cooling proves warming, LULZ! It's a fraudspiracy!
Public: Well, that didn't make sense to me either, I supposed that Oklahoma fellow is on to something. And I hear these climate guys use "tricks" to confuse us. Given that one side said it's a real and urgent problem while the other said it's a hoax, I'll split the difference and believe it may be real but probably nothing to worry about any time soon...
It isn't just climate scientists studying this issue anymore. Biologists are studying what the impacts are already on ecosystems, particularly in the oceans. Microbial ecologists are studying how industrial pollution increases the levels of methanogens at contaminated sites and how that influences the production of atmospheric methane. Why are global ocean minimum zones expanding and what impact will that have on oceanic ecosystems? What impact will increasing acidification of global oceans have? etc. I don't need to rely on CRU for the following: 1) C02 and other greenhouse gasses have significantly increased in our atmosphere. 2) No known natural cause can account for it. 3) Human activities can quite easily account for it. 4) C02 is a greenhouse gas. 5) The laws of physics demand the increased greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere will result in increased temperature barring some other forcing (for example increased dust) that cancels it out. 6) Temperatures have been trending up since the mid-19th century. It's simply nonsense to even remotely fathom that tens of thousands of scientists are in on an elaborate hoax. And yes, that is what it would require. Heck if we are to doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas then you might as well include the entire chemistry community in the fraud, as chemists very, very big on knowing what frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that molecules absorb and emit.
It isn't just about CO2 production and global mean temperature trends. The scientists aren't alarmists, they are providing data for governments to act on. Unfortunately that has political ramifications which is what made this a mess in the first place. If we had more rational people in government able to look at issues logically, evaluate the science and their options, and implement solutions we could already have been well on our way to dealing with some of these problems. But those sorts of people typically don't become politicians. Rational people are not going to get through to the AGW people. They will see any attempt at "explaining" the misquoted emails as CYA maneuver. The best thing to do is ignore them and continue researching climate change. Denialists: Just show us the real data. You can't brush it all off as "apologist spin", you're doing the same thing that the Creationists do. You're just doing it with a different issue is all. Just show the data. We're intelligent people, we can read. As opposed to people like you, who are apparently advancing the argument that a couple of ambiguous emails disprove all scientific knowledge.
I don't want "skeptical" commentary either. This is how denialists operate. It's the complete opposite of how scientists work. Just the data, plain and simple, in its proper context.
And what raw data have been "lost" or "deleted" in the sense that they are no longer held by the institutions responsible for them?
The "trick" in question is a tool known to modelers as applying a correction factor to modeled data using real measured data. They were applying statistical methods in order to make a smoother line, in a completely normal way. WHY is this so difficult to comprehend? The "nature trick" claim is certainly evidence... that some denialists have limited vocabularies. I always find it curious that deniers so often exhibit both a mind-blowing overconfidence alongside a complete lack of anything remotely resembling proof.
Briefly, these emails aren't an expose of any conspiracy. They're the pitiful result of desperate misinterpation, and more a sign of the deniers' endangered stance than the systematic subversion of mainstream scientific research. A vast conspiracy would HAVE to be required. CRU does not have sole custody of temperature readings. They are just one research group among many. The only way to get rid of the increasing temperature is to prove fraud that is FAR more widespread. And in any event, your fellow cranks ARE most definitely making that claim. It is claim that is made all over the place. The politicians in your camp (especially Inhofe) claim it. The groups organized against GW often claim it. Your side is claiming far more than mistaken science. Your side systematically claims that it is a hoax. CRU, if they are all frauds, includes dozens of scientists plus who knows how many graduate students and technical staff for over a decade. But eliminate everything that this group has done and the case for climate change is still pretty much the same because others have duplicated their efforts and any such group would also have to be on the hoax unless climate change is real. Now if there was something there about faking CO2 readings, the radiative properties of greenhouse gases, the isotope studies that pins the CO2 increases to fossil fuel burning, and stratospheric cooling (which is, so far as I can tell, a feature of AGW), then I would say there is something there.
I want to hear you say it. Tell me that humans belching pollutants and CO2 into the atmosphere has no effect. Tell me that the 97% of climatology scientists, and the vast majority of chemists, biologists, and other scientists around the entire world, is part of a vast conspiracy and is deliberately lying about manmade Gobal Climate Change.
And tell me why they're all doing it. What would they ALL have to gain? I have nothing to gain from it, I'm not getting grant money. I would LOVE for the deniers to be correct. I'd be ECSTATIC if Global Warming was fake, because it would mean the world is safer for us and for our future generations. I would LOVE for Global Warming not to be affected by human beings, because it would weigh less on our consciences. I WISH you guys were right. There's nothing I would want more. But just because I WANT it to be true, doesn't make it true. I have to accept the reality of the situation. The data shows Global Warming is real, and the evidence shows mankind is a part of it.
How did this scientific field -- exclusive of all others -- get infiltrated exclusively by cabalists hell-bent on profiteering off this scheme? How did they take over an existing field -- because climatology has been around much longer than cap-and-trade and carbon credits -- without anybody noticing, and without the old guard doing anything as they slowly got cycled out over time? How do they deal with regular, well-intentioned scientists accidentally entering this particular field; how do they force them to maintain their silence? How do they buy off the "lesser" scientists who don't own corporate shares? All of these are necessary for your conspiracy to even begin to make the slightest bit of sense. Start answering them.
Hmmm...seems RealClimate.org has a problem telling the truth...just like my Leftist Blogger friend does.
You keep saying they're lying, but can't state specifically what the lies are, because you'd have to prove they were lies. And you can't do that. You just SAY they're lying with nothing to back it up, just like you say a certain Leftist blogger lies, without stating what the lies are.
You've got nothing. No data was falsified. You'll get over it.