Earth climate significantly more sensitive to CO2 than previously thought

[shira]

If you don't mind:
- dumping raw data so no one can prove your scientific claims
- trying to circumvent Freedom of Information Act requests
- manipulating programs/data to fit your desired outcome
- trying to rewrite the process of peer-review
- discrediting those who don't necessarily agree with your findings
and if you don't mind:
- lying to redistribute wealth on a global scale
- lying to maniupulate world markets
- lying to enrich yourself and your colleagues
- lying to tax the hell out of everyone on the planet

then yes, I guess there is nothing, nada, zilch in the emails to discredit the CRU data

The emails are out there. I've read them. Now it's your turn. Start downloading, little boy.

Edit: The fact you make these claims PROVES you haven't read anything but the out-of-context verbiage and overblown rhetoric being hyped by the climate-deniers.

 

[fskimospy]

So...in your mind...a source is noncredible if they believe that God created our universe and the laws that govern it. Seriously?

No. That's strike two. How is this so difficult for you?

Creationism as it is defined in reference to a debate on evolution refers to the belief that god created life substantially in the form that we see it today. Such a belief is in opposition to all evidence on the manner by which life arrived in its current form and to hold such a belief requires putting dogma before scientific evidence. When someone shows a willingness to do that, their scientific analysis cannot be trusted and therefore they are not a credible source.

Hope that clears things up for you. This is your second attempt to twist my words in an effort to fit me into some atheistic religion hating mold in about a week. Please stop.

 

[shira]

So...in your mind...a source is noncredible if they believe that God created our universe and the laws that govern it. Seriously?

In anyone's mind, a source is non-credible when they make pronouncements about scientific theories but their views swayed non-scientific influences, such as religion or self-interest.

 

[shira]

Oh, and to sum up:

Thanks again, you circle-jerking fools, for providing such a cogent refutation of the scientific study reported in the OP.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

In anyone's mind, a source is non-credible when they make pronouncements about scientific theories but their views swayed non-scientific influences, such as religion or self-interest.

Couldn't agree more. But this requires evidence that their "non-scientific influences" have in fact influenced their professional credibility. To automatically assume a person has no credibility based solely on whether or not they believe in God is bigotry...pure ugly bigotry.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oh, and to sum up:

Thanks again, you circle-jerking fools, for providing such a cogent refutation of the scientific study reported in the OP.

ROFL...thanks for sharing your perspective.

 

[fskimospy]

Couldn't agree more. But this requires evidence that their "non-scientific influences" have in fact influenced their professional credibility. To automatically assume a person has no credibility based solely on whether or not they believe in God is bigotry...pure ugly bigotry.

Yeah you're right it would be. I'm not aware of anyone on here that holds that view though, are you?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yeah you're right it would be. I'm not aware of anyone on here that holds that view though, are you?

Well...I'm certainly confused...did you or did you not make a statement regarding Lucy Skywalker's credibility solely based on her being a creationist?

 

[Robor]

It would be incredibly ironic if all kinds of plants and trees started dying because the leftists capped CO2 and denied them what they needed to live and grow. Of course, it would be a tragic and dangerous side effect, which is about par for the course for leftist policies.

Maybe then the brainwashed zealots would realize that it has been about political control all along and has nothing to do with saving the planet. Unfortunately, it would probably be far too late at that point...

Never mind the fact that even with the best effort we wouldn't begin to come close to cutting CO2 to the degree in your imaginary scenario. Feel free to spew more nonsense though. It makes your argument very strong.

 

[Patranus]

The emails are out there. I've read them. Now it's your turn. Start downloading, little boy.

Edit: The fact you make these claims PROVES you haven't read anything but the out-of-context verbiage and overblown rhetoric being hyped by the climate-deniers.

1. Briffa says he tried hard to balance the needs of the IPCC and science, which were not always the same.(1177890796)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=794&filename=1177890796.txt

2. Giorgio Filippo (University of Trieste) says that IPCC is not an assessment of published science but about production of results. Says there are very few rules and anything goes. Thinks this will undermine IPCC credibility. Says everyone seems to think it's OK to do this.(0968705882)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=186&filename=968705882.txt


3. IPCC review editor John Mitchell says that the issue of why proxy data for recent decades is not shown (he says it's because they don't show warming) needs to be explained. Also says that Mann's short-centred PC analysis is wrong and that Mann's results are not statistically significant.(1150923423)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=694&filename=1150923423.txt


4. Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt


5. Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709).
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=146&filename=939154709.txt


6. Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt


7. Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=32&filename=872202064.txt


8. Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt


9. Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1045&filename=1255100876.txt


10. Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=319&filename=1054736277.txt


11. Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1067&filename=1257546975.txt


12. Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1016&filename=1254108338.txt


13. Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1039&filename=1254756944.txt


14. Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=485&filename=1106338806.txt


15. Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees Mann’s reconstruction has “probable flaws”.(1024334440)
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=272&filename=1024334440.txt


16. Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones concurs. Says he will boycott the journal and resign from RMS if they don’t back down.(1237496573)
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=967&filename=1237496573.txt


17. Mann et al plot to have Tom Saiers (UVA) ousted from a position with journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) for allowing a piece critical of Mann’s work to be published (1106322460).
Mann refers to GRL leak being plugged after Saiers is ousted.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=591&filename=1132094873.txt


18. Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=878&filename=1210367056.txt


19. Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=813&filename=1188557698.txt


20. Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=136&filename=938018124.txt


21. Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=914&filename=1219239172.txt


22. Revkin says Mann method can work only if certain assumptions are made. Quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=432&filename=1096382684.txt


23. Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”.(1089318616)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt


24. Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1057&filename=1255553034.txt


25. Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1003&filename=1249503274.txt


26. David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index to a more recent one. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because “the impression of global warming will be muted.”(1105019698)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=462&filename=1105019698.txt


27. confidential REALLY URGENT Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says “Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can.” (1054756929)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=321&filename=1054756929.txt


28. Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt

Want to help me narrow it down to a "top 10" list?

 

[fskimospy]

Well...I'm certainly confused...did you or did you not make a statement regarding Lucy Skywalker's credibility solely based on her being a creationist?

Maybe you can explain the source of your confusion.

Are you still confused as to the definition of creationist as it pertains to the evolution debate? My statement as to credibility had literally zero to do with belief in god as the creator of the universe and the laws that govern it. It has to do with the rejection of objective scientific fact.

This has already been explained to you, and yet you soldier on. Want me to make you a pop-up book?

 

[fskimospy]

Patranus, if you want to try and fool someone into thinking that you actually read all those emails, it's probably best to wait more than 28 minutes before copying and pasting your reply from somewhere else.

(not to mention, none of your links work)

 

[werepossum]

Oh, and to sum up:

Thanks again, you circle-jerking fools, for providing such a cogent refutation of the scientific study reported in the OP.

You honestly want a cogent refutation of a scientific study that says the climate may be 30% to 50% more sensitive to CO2 than thought now? Even though the current models aren't working and predict a much hotter world than we currently have due to CO2? Just out of curiosity, how can you see a study that says something "may" be off 30% to 50% - in the opposite direction from their models' current error - and then demand we all accept this "science" as settled?

Dude, you are more rabid about your religion (CAGW) than any fundamentalists I've ever met; they might try to convince me but at least they don't just childishly demand I see things their way.

And sorry, but "circle-jerking fools" vote Democrat, not Republican, and are therefore probably big believers in CAGW if only out of enlightened political self-interest.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No. That's strike two. How is this so difficult for you?

Creationism as it is defined in reference to a debate on evolution refers to the belief that god created life substantially in the form that we see it today. Such a belief is in opposition to all evidence on the manner by which life arrived in its current form and to hold such a belief requires putting dogma before scientific evidence. When someone shows a willingness to do that, their scientific analysis cannot be trusted and therefore they are not a credible source.

Hope that clears things up for you. This is your second attempt to twist my words in an effort to fit me into some atheistic religion hating mold in about a week. Please stop.

Sigh...I'm not trying to twist your words...I'm trying to understand them. You're so defensive lately. A creationist believes "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing". It appears that you've poured in additional meaning into the term that's unfounded in fact in regard to Lucy Skywalker.

 

[Robor]

Patranus, if you want to try and fool someone into thinking that you actually read all those emails, it's probably best to wait more than 28 minutes before copying and pasting your reply from somewhere else.

(not to mention, none of your links work)

LOL... Pwned! :awe:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Maybe you can explain the source of your confusion.

Are you still confused as to the definition of creationist as it pertains to the evolution debate? My statement as to credibility had literally zero to do with belief in god as the creator of the universe and the laws that govern it. It has to do with the rejection of objective scientific fact.

This has already been explained to you, and yet you soldier on. Want me to make you a pop-up book?

Please link the information you found that proves Lucy Skywalker has rejected objective scientific fact. This will clear the matter up for me. Thanks...a pop-up book would be nice.

 

[Patranus]

Patranus, if you want to try and fool someone into thinking that you actually read all those emails, it's probably best to wait more than 28 minutes before copying and pasting your reply from somewhere else.

(not to mention, none of your links work)

I am sorry my links were incorrectly inserted. Links have been fixed.
Now, try educating yourself for once in your life and read the evidence.

 

[fskimospy]

Sigh...I'm not trying to twist your words...I'm trying to understand them. You're so defensive lately. A creationist believes "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing". It appears that you've poured in additional meaning into the term that's unfounded in fact in regard to Lucy Skywalker.

That's because I never made that statement in regard to Lucy Skywalker. Not only would it be impossible to know our good friend Lucy's religious convictions, but my earlier post clearly referenced the author of the OP-ED (Christopher Booker) who is a creationist through and through. Your first clue that I didn't mean someone named 'Lucy' would have been my use of the pronoun 'he'.

As for your definition of creationism, it's cherry picked to use an alternate definition that's obviously not used in the context of my statement. Booker has quite clearly attacked evolution in the past, and so labeling him as a creationist would obviously be in that context. Creationism in those terms means something quite different than simply that god created the universe, and there's no way you don't know this. If you don't think that's the case by all means go up to a religious evolutionary biologist and tell him because he believes god made the universe that he shares the same label as Ray Comfort. See how many times he punches you.

If your intentions were innocent, all I can tell you is that I never have these problems with anyone else on this board like I have them with you. There is not one single other member who so consistently manages to take my statements in ways that have so little bearing on their actual meaning. If everyone else can figure them out, I don't think the problem is on my end.

 

[yuppiejr]

The CRU scandal isn't about bad science. Not in the least. READ the full set of emails. The quote-mined emails are about how a few scientists responded to a man they view as an unqualified antagonist. It has NOTHING whatever to do with the validity of the CRU data. Anyone suggesting otherwise is lying or misinformed or both.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

The validity of the CRU data is in question because all that is available is "value added" interpretations of the original data which was discarded... There is no way for objective peer review to occur as a result.

Add to that the outright admission of fraud and manipulation of data per the leaked emails to fit a specific conclusion and you have effectively destroyed the credibility of anything the CRU touched.

Again, the same people who scream and yelled about the lack of transparency into the intelligence gathering efforts pre Iraq war to discover WMD's are now giving a pass to this sort of fraud just because it's a pet issue on the left? Hypocrites.

 

[MrEgo]

It would be incredibly ironic if all kinds of plants and trees started dying because the leftists capped CO2 and denied them what they needed to live and grow. Of course, it would be a tragic and dangerous side effect, which is about par for the course for leftist policies.

Plants and trees existed before the industrial revolution I thought? I could be wrong.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

I propose that Algore kindly shut his mouth and that will significantly reduce the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Oh, and he could try and actually live what he preaches and stop having a larger carbon footprint than most third world countries, what with his huge CO2 emitting mansion in Tennessee, private jumbo jet, fleet of SUVs, etc.

 

[Patranus]

I propose that Algore kindly shut his mouth and that will significantly reduce the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Oh, and he could try and actually live what he preaches and stop having a larger carbon footprint than most third world countries, what with his huge CO2 emitting mansion in Tennessee, private jumbo jet, fleet of SUVs, etc.

Do as I say not as I do.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's because I never made that statement in regard to Lucy Skywalker. Not only would it be impossible to know our good friend Lucy's religious convictions, but my earlier post clearly referenced the author of the OP-ED (Christopher Booker) who is a creationist through and through. Your first clue that I didn't mean someone named 'Lucy' would have been my use of the pronoun 'he'.

As for your definition of creationism, it's cherry picked to use an alternate definition that's obviously not used in the context of my statement. Booker has quite clearly attacked evolution in the past, and so labeling him as a creationist would obviously be in that context. Creationism in those terms means something quite different than simply that god created the universe, and there's no way you don't know this. If you don't think that's the case by all means go up to a religious evolutionary biologist and tell him because he believes god made the universe that he shares the same label as Ray Comfort. See how many times he punches you.

If your intentions were innocent, all I can tell you is that I never have these problems with anyone else on this board like I have them with you. There is not one single other member who so consistently manages to take my statements in ways that have so little bearing on their actual meaning. If everyone else can figure them out, I don't think the problem is on my end.

I have indeed made a mistake...I see now that you were clearly talking about Christopher Booker...not Lucy Skywalker. Please accept my apology.

In regard to the word 'creationist'...it means different things to different people...but I believe I have accurately reflected the base meaning. You have poured additional meaning into the word which is common usage...and I will not venture to argue whether Christopher Booker falls within your definition or not. Again...my misunderstanding is clear and my apology is sincere.

 

[StageLeft]

Why is it that things are ALWAYS worse than previously thought, getting warmer faster, everything worse, more awful, more dire?

 

[IGBT]

the usual eco-KOOK alarmist BS drum beat. tomorrow they'll come up with yet another alarmist Revelation from their voodoo "science".