World's Source For Temperature Records Loses Or Destroys Data That Would Allow Review

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.
The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of "the science".
Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.​

In 2007, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, CRU initially said it didn't have to fulfil the requests because "Information accessible to applicant via other means Some information is publicly available on external websites".
Now it's citing confidentiality agreements with Denmark, Spain, Bahrain and our own Mystic Met Office. Others may exist, CRU says in a statement, but it might have lost them because it moved offices. Or they were made verbally, and nobody at CRU wrote them down.
As for the raw station data,

"We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."​

Canadian statistician and blogger Steve McIntyre, who has been asking for the data set for years, says he isn't impressed by the excuses. McIntyre obtained raw data when it was accidentally left on an FTP server last month. Since then, CRU has battened down the hatches, and purged its FTP directories lest any more raw data escapes and falls into the wrong hands.
McIntyre says he doesn't expect any significant surprises after analysing the raw data, but believes that reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific principle, and so raw data and methods should be disclosed.

This seems rather convenient. They receive FIOA requests, and their data goes missing, or they destroy it.

 

[fatherofcaitlyn]

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']This seems rather convenient. They receive FIOA requests, and their data goes missing, or they destroy it.[/QUOTE]

That is really a damn shame and will make it that much harder for people wanting to get off the carbon wagon to convince other people to do it, too.

 

[thrustbucket]

I didn't know there were that many people that still thought there was hard science behind the whole climate change scare anyway. What do they need hard facts for? They already have so much social momentum that whatever any facts showed would be ignored by most.

 

[lawdood]

*YAWN* more conspiracy theories by the right in the place of real facts and commons sense. Does it ever end?

 

[fullmetalfan720]

[quote name='lawdood']*YAWN* more conspiracy theories by the right in the place of real facts and commons sense. Does it ever end?[/QUOTE]
I would call global warming more of a conspiracy theory than an organization admitting that they either destroyed or lost data that would allow a review of their conclusions. However, once again, a faux-liberal says legitimate facts are a conspiracy theory to try to dismiss them.

 

[lawdood]

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I would call global warming more of a conspiracy theory than an organization admitting that they either destroyed or lost data that would allow a review of their conclusions. However, once again, a faux-liberal says legitimate facts are a conspiracy theory to try to dismiss them.[/QUOTE]

Right, when you can bring some REAL, OBJECTIVE facts to the table that say global warming isn't real, get back to me. Again, something goes against what you WANT to believe, and it takes little to no actual proof to believe it, that's the conservative way.

Hell, even the Pentagon released a report last week regarding global warming and it's potential national security threats. A report that's been worked on since the last Administration.

Really, trying to actually still defend this kind of stuff with few to no facts on your side other than some industry propaganda thats created to rile up the base and be spewed by the far right demagogues, makes the conservative movement just look plain silly.

The funniest part for me though is always that so many on that side take a book of fairytales with a talking snake and zombie spaceman as absolute truth but dismiss things out of hand that are actually proven facts. :lol:

 

[Ruined]

[quote name='lawdood']Right, when you can bring some REAL, OBJECTIVE facts to the table that say global warming isn't real, get back to me. Again, something goes against what you WANT to believe, and it takes little to no actual proof to believe it, that's the conservative way. [/QUOTE]

How about you bring some REAL, OBJECTIVE facts that demonstrate that humans actually have a definite, significant impact on said warming - which has been proven to be naturally cyclical in nature. There was an Ice Age, and last I checked there is no glacier outside my window.

 

[lawdood]

[quote name='Ruined']How about you bring some REAL, OBJECTIVE facts that demonstrate that humans actually have a definite, significant impact on said warming - which has been proven to be naturally cyclical in nature. There was an Ice Age, and last I checked there is no glacier outside my window.[/QUOTE]

The OVERWHELMING consensus of scientists hasn't been enough for you?

 

[fullmetalfan720]

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/co.../2009/08/july_2009_coolest_ever_in_midw.shtml
Coldest July ever on record. Yeah, that global warming is working real well right now.

Spoiler

EDIT: Here's a more recent one:

 

[fullmetalfan720]

[quote name='lawdood']The OVERWHELMING consensus of scientists hasn't been enough for you?[/QUOTE]
http://www.petitionproject.org/
31,478 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,478 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,478 American scientists are not “skeptics.”
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

 

[Ruined]

[quote name='lawdood']The OVERWHELMING consensus of scientists hasn't been enough for you?[/QUOTE]

Thanks for admitting you have no evidence.

 

[lawdood]

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']http://www.petitionproject.org/
31,478 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that looks like a real high level, reputable website. :lol: :lol: :lol:

PROTIP: Maybe an objective research level study you could link to?

 

[Trancendental]

Oh shit, I just heard Canadian statistician and blogger Steve McIntyre is not impressed.

 

[thrustbucket]

PROTIP: Maybe an objective research level study you could link to?

Are you a Mac user?

I love it. Classic argument with the far left:

Tell him he's wrong, he wants facts (the only fact they often have is popular opinion).
Produce the facts, he'll attack the source of the facts.

Ultimately what you have to conclude is that they won't recognize any source about any facts unless it comes from one of their favorite biased sources that's already convinced them otherwise, so you're wasting your time.

Since we've been through over a year of record low temperatures, the new global warming is now called "climate change". But I'm sure if next year it's warmer than this year, it will be back to being the global warming "crisis".

I just wish I could live another 150 years to witness how people then muse over all this guilt-driven climate panic we have today; I fully expect it will be their "they thought the world was flat!?" story.

 

[elcheap0]

Yes, some places have record cold temps. Amazing is it not? Global warming is just a crappy title, it really should be called "Human induced global climate change" or something. At least that would reflect that is it possible for our damages on a local level to have a global effect, while allow things like normal changes in local climate here and there.

 

[The Crotch]

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']
Coldest July ever on record. Yeah, that global warming is working real well
[/QUOTE]...

Seriously?

...

It's like, every ing winter someone thinks he's funny saying, "Boy, sure wish that global warming would hurry up!" 'cause it's -40 in La Ronge or some shit. Jesus. How does "long-term warming spanning the whole planet" somehow translate to "EVERY DAY RECORD HIGHS!" or some-such rot for some people?

...

I'm trying to figure out how to work a Don Cherry rant into this post, but it, only Spaz would get it.

EDIT: I am not a hateful person. I am not filled with rage. The language in my posts may lead some of you to believe that I am angry with you, but please, do not take it that way. With that in mind, I address...

[quote name='thrustbucket']
I love it. Classic argument with the far left:[/QUOTE]
Stop number one. Classic argument from you. Any time someone goes along with something, like, say, global warming, it's "far left". Buddy. No. I am really not trying to sound like a stuck-up foreigner talking about the "stupid Americans" (say it with a French accent for extra fun - "stu-peed ah-mhare-ee-khanz!"), but I have long since come to the conclusion that many people in your country haven't the in' foggiest what "left" and "liberal" actually are to the vast majority of the world. me, most Democrats would have a better chance at being elected as a Conservative than a Liberal over here, an' never you mind the NDP. "Far left" my eye.

I think I may have lost my point.

Uh... right. I ain't saying that the left on here doesn't have some attack dogs more interested in going after a person than an argument. I ain't saying that I've never slipped up and done it myself. But what I am saying is this: when you're about to complain about people attacking the source rather than the argument, don't use the scary buzzwords (how "left" and "liberal" became scary buzzwords, I know not) to describe your opponents. You look disingenous and/or like a knob.

"Deadly religion! Dangerous cult!" Remember all that?

[quote name='thrustbucket'] Tell him he's wrong, he wants facts (the only fact they often have is popular opinion).
Produce the facts, he'll attack the source of the facts.

Ultimately what you have to conclude is that they won't recognize any source about any facts unless it comes from one of their favorite biased sources that's already convinced them otherwise, so you're wasting your time.[/QUOTE]Online. in'. Petition. A nice looking one, admittedly, but you've gotta realize that it carries about as much weight as "Please put Earthbound on the Virtual Console".

And you know what? When someone like Fred Singer is included in your petition, then yes, I will attack the source, god dammit. Were he to say that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, I would invest in a pair of night-vision goggles.

[quote name='thrustbucket'] Since we've been through over a year of record low temperatures, the new global warming is now called "climate change". But I'm sure if next year it's warmer than this year, it will be back to being the global warming "crisis". [/QUOTE]Guess what? It's been referred to as "climate change" for years. But no, trying to get a more accurate name - maybe avoiding some of the knee-slappers from La Ronge, posts from fullmetal, or rants from Don Cherry - is just part of the Far Left conspiracy.

 

[Squall835]

[quote name='thrustbucket']Are you a Mac user?

I love it. Classic argument with the far left:

Tell him he's wrong, he wants facts (the only fact they often have is popular opinion).
Produce the facts, he'll attack the source of the facts.

Ultimately what you have to conclude is that they won't recognize any source about any facts unless it comes from one of their favorite biased sources that's already convinced them otherwise, so you're wasting your time.

Since we've been through over a year of record low temperatures, the new global warming is now called "climate change". But I'm sure if next year it's warmer than this year, it will be back to being the global warming "crisis".

I just wish I could live another 150 years to witness how people then muse over all this guilt-driven climate panic we have today; I fully expect it will be their "they thought the world was flat!?" story.[/QUOTE]

He's right to attack the graphs fullmetal posted, they only go back as far 1979. Look up a graph that goes back a few hundred years, what do those show?

 

[fullmetalfan720]

[quote name='Squall835']He's right to attack the graphs fullmetal posted, they only go back as far 1979. Look up a graph that goes back a few hundred years, what do those show?[/QUOTE]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Also:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
I guess the Martians love them their SUVs?

 

[thrustbucket]

[quote name='Squall835']He's right to attack the graphs fullmetal posted, they only go back as far 1979. Look up a graph that goes back a few hundred years, what do those show?[/QUOTE]

The only incontrovertible truth that exists where climate change is concerned is that climate changes.

How it changes, why it changes, and most importantly WHO or WHAT to blame for it's change is all over the map as far as proof goes.

 

[The Crotch]

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
I guess the Martians love them their SUVs?[/QUOTE]
...

Did you read your own link?

Eight-year-olds Dust storms, dude.

EDIT: Jesus, did you read any of the links? I'm going through these one-by-one, and your second article ends with the article's author admitting that he ed everything up.

Read the editor's notes, dagnabbit!

 

[fullmetalfan720]

[quote name='The Crotch']...

Did you read your own link?

Eight-year-olds Dust storms, dude.[/quote]
Or it could just be increased solar activity, as the same thing happened across the universe at the same time.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

EDIT: Jesus, did you read any of the links? I'm going through these one-by-one, and your second article ends with the article's author admitting that he ed everything up.

Read the editor's notes, dagnabbit!

"it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated."

Well it rose 10%.

 

[The Crotch]

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Or it could just be increased solar activity, as the same thing happened across the universe at the same time.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html
[/QUOTE]...

What in all of ing ?

...

Are you in high-school? Did your teacher tell you to do a report on climate change, but you're too lazy to actually read the articles, so you came online with a clever ploy to get other people to summarize them for you? If so, well done and mission accomplished.

If not, and you really are trying to convince me that the sun is responsible for warming across the solar system (not universe), then do not link me to a bunch of articles that say that increased solar activity is not a factor. Two of those three new articles have explanations for the warming that are totally ing different from your own. Why are you linking to things that work against your argument? Okay, admittedly, the Jupiter article is unclear as to the reasons. So here they are. Now just consider how far away Pluto and Triton are - if an increase in solar activity was responsible for the level of changes that we saw on them, then poor old Earth and nearby planets would be absolutely in' cooked already. And besides that, while some planets and satellites are warming, others, like Uranus, are cooling.

Anyway, the big problem with your argument here is that it ain't the damn sun! Since we all love graphs so much in this thread...

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Well it rose 10%.[/QUOTE]
First, what the hell'ya trying to argue? First you're saying that warming is occurring because of the sun, and now are you trying to say that it ain't happening? Your arguments are mutually exclusive, and it appears very disingenuous when you just throw them all in like this.

Second, a 10% increase was what was predicted by the High Priests of Global Warming, remember? This 10% increase is only ten percent more than the record god damn low. How the hell is that evidence that anthropogenic climate change climate change global warming ain't happening? This is the same bullshit, "Why, it's cold today. So much for global warming!" noise that you were on about earlier in the thread. Anomalies happen. It's the long-term trend that matters.

Dagnabbit.

EDIT: And while we're conversing here, Metal, I think I should do what I do with virtually all people in this subforum - nitpick the out of any famous quote they use. For example, your Jefferson quote has mysteriously had the line "which shall restrain men from injuring one another" cut from it - or so says Wikiquote, at least. The Kennedy quote is not actually referring to markets, but rather states, "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

 

[fullmetalfan720]

[quote name='The Crotch']...

If not, and you really are trying to convince me that the sun is responsible for warming across the solar system (not universe), then do not link me to a bunch of articles that say that increased solar activity is not a factor. [/QUOTE]
I link to these articles to show that other planets were warming during the same time as the Earth. Conclusions are debatable.

Two of those three new articles have explanations for the warming that are totally ing different from your own. Why are you linking to things that work against your argument? Okay, admittedly, the Jupiter article is unclear as to the reasons. So here they are. Now just consider how far away Pluto and Triton are - if an increase in solar activity was responsible for the level of changes that we saw on them, then poor old Earth and nearby planets would be absolutely in' cooked already.

Unless it is in remission.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/13/where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone/

And besides that, while some planets and satellites are warming, others, like Uranus, are cooling.

Perhaps Uranus is cooling because of its extreme axial tilt, which tends to cause extreme weather, or maybe because it was approaching its equinox?

Anyway, the big problem with your argument here is that it ain't the damn sun! Since we all love graphs so much in this thread...

First, what the hell'ya trying to argue? First you're saying that warming is occurring because of the sun, and now are you trying to say that it ain't happening? Your arguments are mutually exclusive, and it appears very disingenuous when you just throw them all in like this.

My argument is that it had been heating up in recent years, but a few years ago it started to cool down.

Second, a 10% increase was what was predicted by the High Priests of Global Warming, remember? This 10% increase is only ten percent more than the record god damn low. How the hell is that evidence that anthropogenic climate change climate change global warming ain't happening? This is the same bullshit, "Why, it's cold today. So much for global warming!" noise that you were on about earlier in the thread. Anomalies happen. It's the long-term trend that matters.

Dagnabbit.

Also, how is CO2 the cause of global whateveryouwanttocallit when it is essential for life, more of it is good, (as in more plant production) and it, unlike water vapor is an absolute failure at trapping heat? That simply does not make sense. Especially when you figure in that there is 800 years of lag time between heating and rise in CO2 naturally.

 

[Fanboy]

I like the fact that even the graphs are looking angrier as this thread progresses.

 

[The Crotch]

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I link to these articles to show that other planets were warming during the same time as the Earth. Conclusions are debatable.[/quote]You showed a bunch of articles that disagreed with you. It is not hard to find something online that 1: gets out the information that you want it to (other planets warming) and 2: doesn't completely take the piss out your main argument (It's the sun! Or not.)
[quote name='fullmetalfan720'] Unless it is in remission.[/quote]What the hell? How does that in any way address what I just said? If the Sun had heated up Pluto by a couple of degrees, the Earth would have been baked. "Remission" will not change that.

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/13/where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone/ Perhaps Uranus is cooling because of its extreme axial tilt, which tends to cause extreme weather, or maybe because it was approaching its equinox?[/quote]So increases in heat are due to the Sun being hotter, but decreases are relatively local events? This ain't a salad bar, man; can't just pick-and-choose what's most convenient for you.
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']My argument is that it had been heating up in recent years, but a few years ago it started to cool down.[/quote]Cooling caused by the solar "remission" of which you spoke earlier?

Bad news on that front. As was mentioned in a link that I'm pretty sure I put up last post, there is a ten-year lag between changes in solar activity and their effects on the Earth's temperature.
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']

Also, how is CO2 the cause of global whateveryouwanttocallit when it is essential for life, more of it is good, (as in more plant production) and it, unlike water vapor is an absolute failure at trapping heat? That simply does not make sense. Especially when you figure in that there is 800 years of lag time between heating and rise in CO2 naturally.[/QUOTE]
Okay, now comes the tricky part! Dueling (angry) graphs! Problem here is, the second graph you have up there shows something categorically different than what my, similar graph says. So, at the risk of summoning the unholy spirit of Doctor Mario Kart, I'm-a see if I can make any sense of this.

I'll be back in a bit to address that and the rest of the post.

 

[The Crotch]

Okay, this is probably a double post, butwhatever.

Anyway, the main source for most of what I've been saying sun-wise has been from a 2005 study by the University of Oulu in Finland.

Notably, at the end of the PDF I linked to earlier, they state: "[D]uring these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

Now, I look around, and I see a decent pile to back up that conclusion.

But try for the life of me, and I can not figure out where your graphs and such are coming from. I mean... follow the URLs, and yeah, I get to the site for the Oregon Institute of Medicine and Science, which I would mock vociferously were I not worried that that would be kinda hypocritical of me.

But that's about it. No mentions of any research or anything of that sort. Just some slides and a bunch of how-to guides on building militias, homeschooling children, and surviving nuclear war. Nor do I have any idea who did the research, as it appears to be well outside the field of all of the members of the institute. Most of them are chemists, though that has not stopped them from, as noted before, creating curriculums (curriculae?) for home-schoolers and banding together with those even more laughable than themselves.

Now, I know that I can't convince you that they are wrong by merely pointing out that everything else that they have done appears to be an enormous joke and there is a shitload of data out there that says that they are wrong.

...

Well, shit, I gotta go, and I didn't really come to any sort of conclusion on this. Nor did I address the other stuff that I said I would. Sorry 'bout this. I'll see what I can do when I get back.

 

[fullmetalfan720]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/sen_kerry_misfires.html

Senator John Kerry’s statement in early August 2009 about “global warming” before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he chairs, was false in every particular, leading him to draw the incorrect conclusion that “global warming” was a threat to national security. The Senator got every fact wrong –​

Wilkins Ice Shelf: Senator Kerry said the recent cracking of the thin “ice-bridge” linking the Wilkins Ice Shelf to the Antarctic Ice Shelf was caused by “global warming”. It was not: there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years.​

Arctic ice-cap: Senator Kerry said the Arctic ice-cap would vanish in summer by 2013 because of “global warming”. It will not, and, even if it does, “global warming” will not be the cause: there has been rapid global cooling for very nearly eight years.​

Polar bears: Senator Kerry said polar bears were under threat from “global warming”. They are not: their population has increased fivefold since the 1940s, and they survived the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when there was no summer ice in the Arctic.

Famine and drought: Senator Kerry said “global warming” would bring more famine and drought. It will not: “global warming”, if and when it resumes, would cause the space occupied by the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, reducing drought globally.

Pandemics: Senator Kerry said “global warming” would cause worse pandemics. It will not: so-called “tropical” diseases can flourish even in Arctic temperatures. It is inadequate public-health measures, not rising global temperatures, that spread supposedly “tropical” diseases.

Natural disasters: Senator Kerry said “global warming” would cause more natural disasters. It will not: hurricane activity is now at its lowest in half a century, despite warmer weather worldwide; and patterns of flood and drought are much as they always were.

Climate refugees: Senator Kerry said “global warming would cause human displacement on “a staggering scale”. It will not: the only significant cause of human displacement would be rapidly-rising sea level, but this is not happening and is not likely to happen.

Middle East water supply: Senator Kerry said “global warming” would shrink the water supply in the Middle East. It will not: water has been scarce there for 1000 years, and warmer weather is already moistening the atmosphere and greening hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of the Sahara.

Asian water supply: Senator Kerry said “global warming” would melt the Himalayan glaciers, drying up the water supply of a quarter of the planet’s population. It will not: it is Eurasian winter snow cover, not the glaciers, that supplies Asia with its water, and that shows no trend in 50 years.

Sea level rising 3 feet: Senator Kerry said “global warming” would raise sea level 3 feet. It will not: sea level rose 8 inches in the 20th century, is currently not rising at all, and will rise by little more than 1 foot in the 21st century.​

See, I just don't see how man made climate change is a reality, when it hasn't been going on for nearly 10 years. This either means it doesn't exist, or it really isn't worth worrying about. If it has been suppressed for the last 10 years by natural weather trends, with the amount of co2 has increased, how is it that we should even worry about it? Its like the idea of Peak Oil, it may make sense, to some, but its just fear mongering that never really happens.

 

[The Crotch]

Alright, I'm back, and... you've gone on, ignoring everything that I just said. Right. I'm not really sure what to make of your most recent post. Stuff like "there has been no statistically-significant 'global warming' for almost 15 years" is at odds with the very graphs that you posted earlier. Much of the rest is, "No, see, if there is warming, it'll be good!" which is not what I want to debate, really, because forecasting that sort of thing is an enormous pain in the ass. Let me just say that some places will get better, some places will get worse, and polar bears are already finding food sources other than seals (motherers eat a lot of birds these days).

What that last graph of sun-spot activities is supposed to prove - other than an apparent obsession with sun-spots on your part - is well beyond me.

EDIT: Whatever. I'll try to put together a better response anyway after my supper is ready.

 

[The Crotch]

Double posting again, but hey, whatever. I ain't done yet, and the fact that my computer is currently eight kinds of ed with a BlacK Screen of Death ain't getting in my way.

Now we're really getting somewhere. There's some substance to this new link. Substance in the form of an enormous mothering PDF for me to read. Substance sandwiched in between pointless attacks directed at John Kerry (and Al Gore, of course, and some vague left-wing conspiracy), but it, substance nonetheless. So lesse what we've got!

...

Actually, strip away the John Kerry reference, and it looks a lot like something that Monckton did in 2008 (a thorough critique of which can be found here, the core of which is that temperatures have not risen lately. As noted in the above link, this is a simple matter of cherry-picking and/or sloppy work complicated by the incredibly hot El Nino year of 1998. If you want the graphs for this, I'll bring some god damn graphs.

...

, accidentally hit post while still working on it. Consarnit!

Anyway, the new, John Kerry-centric PDF does have a pretty decent pile of new stuff. Some of it is correct (Some dry places are getting wetter.), some of it is incorrect (Glaciers an insignificant source of water? Orly?). The hurricane stuff in particular very off, and I have no idea where his information on the Wilkins Ice Shelf is coming from - last I checked, motherer was calving something awful.

Suffice it to say, he repeatedly makes a mistake that I have accused you, Metal, of (and this is definitely something that gets abused by both sides) - taking one or a couple of years of data as representative of a long-term tred. I really don't feel like doing a point-by-point on all 42 pages of the paper, so... let's just say that that covers a bunch of the stuff.

Probably the most interesting thing in the Monckton paper is the talk of the "missing sink", which has absorbed a good half of the carbon dioxide that we expected would be in the atmosphere today. Monckton goes on to say that even if all this greenhouse effect stuff was true, the missing sink meant that the actual temperature increase would only be half as bad as was expected.

There are a couple of problems with this.

First, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Most common? Sure. Most potent? Not by a of a long shot, thanks to Mr. Methane.

But even not taking other gases into account (and I have no real idea just how much they contribute, anyway), these sinks are temporary. The ocean is the single largest sink we have. As big of a knob as James Lovelock can be, he's right when he says that the planet has a lot of ways of dealing with temperature changes and CO2. But he is also right when he says that all of these... defence mechanisms... can easily be overwhelmed; nevermind the serious problems that the oceans go through in the meantime.

...

Okay, did I cover everything?