• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Most prominent global warming skeptic changes his mind

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
xBiffx said:
Temperatures rise and fall like the winter wheat. The only thing that these global warming alarmists are wrong on is the cause of this rise in temperature and not that it may be happening at all. They like to attribute it to man made evil corporations who just love spewing pollution into the air. Problem is, there was global warming long before the industrial revolution. How in the world are we still not in an ice age?...global warming.
Click to expand...

This does nothing to show that humans aren't the cause of current warming. Just because burning fossil fuel didn't change the climate in the past doesn't mean it can't change it out.

As soon as these "scientists" come up with facts that show this is man made global warming, then you will have a case. Problem is, there is no hard data to indicate this, only hysterical cultists running around trying to make a buck off the thing. CO2 classified as a pollutant is laughable since it still accounts for only 0.03% of air by volume. Oh yeah, plants need this to survive so lets start cutting down on their "oxygen" supply. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

Scientists have come up with facts showing that much of the current warming is man made. CO2 as a greenhouse gas might only account for .03% of the air but that number is meaningless without analysis. Have you looked up analysis for how much greenhouse effect CO2 has by volume? it might sound like very little, but you can't know if it has a huge effect or not unless you test it.


Well at least we will continue to see what happen over next 10, 50, 100, 1000 years.
 
shira said:
I find it very interesting that you're making this statement. Excuse me for questioning your intellectual honesty, but you were one of the loudest voices on these forums arguing that "ClimateGate" proved that a large portion of the claimed warming was based on manipulated data. And when SIX independent committees all concluded that the scientists of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia had done nothing wrong, you were one of the voices continuing to question the data.

And now we find that Muller's numbers EXACTLY match the numbers climatologists have been citing for decades. If ClimateGate was all you and the rest of the deniers stated it was, then we'd expect to see a significant REDUCTION in the claimed warming. In other words, here's definitive evidence that there was no fudging of data.

Yet how do you respond" Do you admit that you were wrong? Do you acknowledge that climate change deniers have taken a huge hit?

Of course not. In fact, not one denier who piled on in the various ClimateGate threads has made a post in THIS thread admitting their error. That deafening silence is a pretty telling statement about deniers' commitment to truth.
Click to expand...

Really shira? I've said several times on this forum that warming was going up and you know it. Those six "independent" committees that investigated "concluded" ? Really? What did they say about Jones e-mail saying he was destroying e-mails to avoid a FOI ? Really shira, what did those 6 investigations say about that one illegal and immoral action taken by the head of CRU ? Let me know when/if you find it. You say

"And when SIX independent committees all concluded that the scientists of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia had done nothing wrong"

Now back up that idiotic claim.
 
xBiffx said:
The fallacy in your own statements is so obvious and yet you choose to ignore it. How do we know we are producing more with the burning of fossil fuels than the rest of the earth's natural processes? Oh wait, you ignored this as known somehow. We don't know this at all.
Click to expand...

http://www.newscientist.com/article...man-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

"It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise."




fun little graph not in this article


global-carbon-budget-2000-2009-600w.jpg





And while yes when you look at it percentage wise it does equal roughly .04%, which considering the sear volume of the atmosphere then becomes significant.


And a rise such as this depicted in the graph below is quite unlikely to be seen in a natural cycle:


atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.gif
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
WRONG. See post #100
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32206726&highlight=briffa#post32206726
Click to expand...

How many freaking times do I have to debunk you miss understanding. That goes no where in the output it doesn't matter what they did if it doesn't do anything.

I will say it again and again, do you not understand that the code. The code you posted means nothing taking out of context, and since that is the only code, and is never used anywhere. The part where it would have been output was commented out.

I have lots of programs that have code like this in them, where the code is still there but it goes no where and if removed does nothing to the actual program.
 
Paul98 said:
How many freaking times do I have to debunk you miss understanding. That goes no where in the output it doesn't matter what they did if it doesn't do anything.

I will say it again and again, do you not understand that the code. The code you posted means nothing taking out of context, and since that is the only code, and is never used anywhere. The part where it would have been output was commented out.

I have lots of programs that have code like this in them, where the code is still there but it goes no where and if removed does nothing to the actual program.
Click to expand...
Please show me exactly where the output code was commented out in briffa_sep98_e.pro
 
shira said:
The typical knee-jerk reaction from someone with a jerking knee for a brain.

If you didn't revel in your imbecility, your know-nothingness, I'd provide a serious answer to your unserious question. But you're not worth even the minute I've already wasted on this post, and I'm not willing to waste another minute on you.
Click to expand...

Its not a knee jerk reaction its a extremely valid reaction. Almost every "solution" I've seen to global warming involves taxing people/companies more. That, in my opinion, completely invalidates the message. If we are truly the cause of climate change, then any solution should absolutely NOT involve transfer of wealth.

If a program were put in place to help curb global warming that all of the funds went to practical and measurable ways of controlling it, I might support it. However I have a strong feeling that any money collected in the name of global warming will go to more social spending and won't actually resolve anything but the funding problems of researchers and universities who would like some of that $$$.
 
Jaskalas said:
Skeptic?

Here’s is Prof. Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist, toward the conclusion of his 2003 paper on global warming data:


If that's a skeptic I'm a f'ing progressive.
Click to expand...

That was 2003. Then in 2004:
In a 2004 article, Muller supported the findings of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in which they criticized the research, led by Michael E. Mann, which produced the so-called "hockey stick graph" of global temperatures over the past millennium. In response, Mann criticized Muller on his blog RealClimate. Marcel Crok, a reporter for the Dutch popular science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, later did a story on the incident.
Click to expand...

Of course, what ideologues such as you are incapable of understanding - since ideology is driven by static dogma, not data - is that rational, truth-seeking individuals are constantly re-evaluating their beliefs in the face of the continually shifting scientific landscape. So if a scientist makes one statement in 2003, a conflicting statement in 2004, and yet another conflicting statement in 2011, you conclude there's something fishy about the scientist.

For you, everything is a religion.
 
shira said:
That was 2003. Then in 2004:


Of course, what ideologues such as you are incapable of understanding - since ideology is driven by static dogma, not data - is that rational, truth-seeking individuals are constantly re-evaluating their beliefs in the face of the continually shifting scientific landscape. So if a scientist makes one statement in 2003, a conflicting statement in 2004, and yet another conflicting statement in 2011, you conclude there's something fishy about the scientist.

For you, everything is a religion.
Click to expand...

How cute, when you quote jaskalas you make sure the quote by Muller he references is deleted. Typical.
 
monovillage said:
Really shira? I've said several times on this forum that warming was going up and you know it. Those six "independent" committees that investigated "concluded" ? Really? What did they say about Jones e-mail saying he was destroying e-mails to avoid a FOI ? Really shira, what did those 6 investigations say about that one illegal and immoral action taken by the head of CRU ? Let me know when/if you find it. You say

"And when SIX independent committees all concluded that the scientists of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia had done nothing wrong"

Now back up that idiotic claim.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate

Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
Click to expand...

Keep squirming.
 
So what do you plan to do about supposed Global Warming? Prove it will have any effect on our climate?

For instance, why did the last Ice Age Stop?
 
shira said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate



Keep squirming.
Click to expand...
"The panel did rebuke the CRU for their reluctance to release computer files, and found that a graph produced in 1999 was "misleading," though not deliberately so as necessary caveats had been included in the accompanying text.[106] It found evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them, though the panel did not ask anyone at CRU whether they had actually done this.[107]"
 
Demo24 said:
...
And a rise such as this depicted in the graph below is quite unlikely to be seen in a natural cycle:

atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.gif
Click to expand...

The problem I have with the chart above is the ice core data which shows steep increases in C02 long before modern man was around.

Before I am flamed here is my basic position on the subject. I am not and don't pretend to be an expert. I don't follow this branch of science that closesly. I believe the earth is warming and has been since the LGM (for this cycle). I believe man plays some part in the most recent warming however I don't claim to know to what extent. It could be large or it could be insignificant in scope as compared to past long term cycles.

500px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png
 
Looks like Temp Rises right before an ice age??? Maybe it is a Sun Cycle? Is there a way to measure solar radiation over time? Maybe it is dust and or Toxic fumes from volacano's?

How come we are looking 300,000 years back? Was there no ice before then or is it just more of the same?

What about Ocean Core Samples?
 
Last edited:
Doc Savage Fan said:
"The panel did rebuke the CRU for their reluctance to release computer files, and found that a graph produced in 1999 was "misleading," though not deliberately so as necessary caveats had been included in the accompanying text.[106] It found evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them, though the panel did not ask anyone at CRU whether they had actually done this.[107]"
Click to expand...

This can't be accurate. You could not possibly have an investigation and not determine why e-mails were purposefully deleted and why code - even commented out, if it was - would even be there in the first place.

Is what you just posted truly accurate, and all encompassing on the issue (i.e. not leaving other important quotes and/or context out)?

Chuck
 
Perknose said:
Typical of what, exactly, your dimbulb, conspiracy-minded hysteria? The forum software does that automatically.

Don't believe me?
Click to expand...

"Typical of what, exactly, your dimbulb, conspiracy-minded hysteria? The forum software does that automatically.

Don't believe me?"

OK, my mistake, but then i would have:

“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.”
 
chucky2 said:
This can't be accurate. You could not possibly have an investigation and not determine why e-mails were purposefully deleted and why code - even commented out, if it was - would even be there in the first place.

Is what you just posted truly accurate, and all encompassing on the issue (i.e. not leaving other important quotes and/or context out)?

Chuck
Click to expand...
I quoted Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate

Here we have an ethics investigation that finds evidence of highly unethical and illegal behavior and then asks no one at CRU about it. What a joke.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
"The panel did rebuke the CRU for their reluctance to release computer files, and found that a graph produced in 1999 was "misleading," though not deliberately so as necessary caveats had been included in the accompanying text.[106] It found evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them, though the panel did not ask anyone at CRU whether they had actually done this.[107]"
Click to expand...

I'll bet some CRU scientists cheat on their wives. I'll bet some cheat on their taxes. I'll be some are assholes. And some of these scientists probably treat climate-change deniers with the contempt they so richly deserve and would rather not waste even a single second of their valuable research time entertaining data requests from such nincompoops.

None of these personal failings having anything to do with whether the data was valid and measured temperature rise is accurate. Because it's now abundantly clear that the data is good and temperature rise accurately reported.

But what all the attacks on the CRU and your continued pursuit of the irrelevancies you've documented above demonstrate is that this has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with attempting to change the subject.

So tell me again how CRU scientists aren't as nice as you'd like them to be to climate deniers. Tell me a second time. Tell me a third time. And then tell me what this has to do with whether the data is good?

And tell me why it's still the case that not a single CRU attacker has made a post saying, "I was wrong about claiming that the data was fudged. I was wrong to claim in other threads that NASA was fudging results. I was completely wrong in questioning the data supporting the claim that temperature has risen significantly in the last 30 years. There's no data-fudging conspiracy."

But tell me again that CRU scientists aren't nice to climate-change deniers. I'm sure that has something to do with climate science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top