Hiding evidence of global cooling?

[Angel Emfrbl]

If the world is getting warmer, why is England getting colder apart for summers?
Or are we just strange like that?

OT: If this is true, ha! Some fool is about to be sacked somewhere.

The melting ice cools the warm waters in the sea around the UK, the warm waters kept us warm in winter.

I don't know, we get here on average: 3-4 dry summers. After that its one very wet summer. And the cycle repeats itself. The same goes for winters; a few wet ones then a VERY cold but not that wet one. If you want snow, the cold but not wet one is most likely when it falls. Of course, all this weather is subject to change depending on which way God feels like making the wind blow. :-/

 

[R Man]

If you think global warming is a myth, you should have been in Adelaide last march. One whole week of +40 degrees C, surrounded by a couple of weeks of over 30 would change your mind.

PS: Scientists dislike the term global warming. They use climate change, because the change brought about by not only CO2 but also all the Methane our cattle pumps into the air dose not just heat, it throws systems outta whack.

Its true that there are natural changes in the environment, but these are usually slow, steady, and take several centuries to make themselves felt, unless something really dramatic happens.

 

[Arcticflame]

Oh great. Just what we need, another scandal that whether true or not, does nothing to change the balance of the weight of evidence in favour of global warming.

I hate the type of battle that whether won or not, it just muddies the water, leading to no clear cut resolution, leading to the ones who want nothing done to be successful at... getting nothing done.

I don't even care if global warming is true or not, I want funding pushed away from coal and oil anyway, simply because it makes more sense to fund cleaner fuels and power sources anyway, even ignoring global warming entirely.

Also, come to Australia if you don't think global warming is happening, we seem to have a record heat wave every year now, as well as the fact we are biting the bullet for the hole in the ozone layer you dumped on us. Send me some money for the skin cancer I'll be getting due to you guys, ok?

 

[Mertruve]

The destruction and hiding of evidence of data that did not support global warming claims.

WTF? The global temperature stats were always updated even on Wikipedia and they clearly show that the world is getting cooler since 1988. What was hidden?

 

[Low Key]

If you think global warming is a myth, you should have been in Adelaide last march. One whole week of +40 degrees C, surrounded by a couple of weeks of over 30 would change your mind.

PS: Scientists dislike the term global warming. They use climate change, because the change brought about by not only CO2 but also all the Methane our cattle pumps into the air dose not just heat, it throws systems outta whack.

Its true that there are natural changes in the environment, but these are usually slow, steady, and take several centuries to make themselves felt, unless something really dramatic happens.

And you should come visit Minneapolis, where the winters normally hit -30F (-34C). If the globe is getting warmer, we sure aren't feeling it. I also love how you say the CO2 us humans and the cattle we keep is throwing the system out of whack, yet the two ice ages this earth has experienced happened before the industrial age.

 

[Arcticflame]

If you think global warming is a myth, you should have been in Adelaide last march. One whole week of +40 degrees C, surrounded by a couple of weeks of over 30 would change your mind.

PS: Scientists dislike the term global warming. They use climate change, because the change brought about by not only CO2 but also all the Methane our cattle pumps into the air dose not just heat, it throws systems outta whack.

Its true that there are natural changes in the environment, but these are usually slow, steady, and take several centuries to make themselves felt, unless something really dramatic happens.

And you should come visit Minneapolis, where the winters normally hit -30F (-34C). If the globe is getting warmer, we sure aren't feeling it. I also love how you say the CO2 us humans and the cattle we keep is throwing the system out of whack, yet the two ice ages this earth has experienced happened before the industrial age.

I don't understand, you seem to be under the impression that because there have been ice ages in the past, this shows that global temperatures cannot be influenced by humans.
If you actually did some research, you would see that scientists acknowledge that global temperatures change independent of human influence, however many scientists are proclaiming that we are accelerating the change. That's the crux of the matter.

You also seem to be under the impression that the earth globally has to get warmer for climate change to be true, this is not the case, the proposed model in fact projects that there are wild variances in temperatures, exaggerated winters as well as summers. Basically it projects the earth going a bit haywire.

 

[kaziard]

Mr. Mann?

Truth be told I could care less either way, doubt the effects of global warming/cooling will take effect until I'm long dead anyways.

And really now, Mr. Mann? What kind of a name is that? Max's name sounds realer than that.

i know 2 (unrelated) people with that surname lol, in other news, considering i wasnt paying attention to GW in the first place im not really phased.

 

[RetiarySword]

There has been no proof that the e-mails were genuine. It was just a hack from a bunch of clueless morons. People can go out and do their own research, but they are too lazy.

 

[Inverse Skies]

On Thursday afternoon, it was announced that hackers had stolen e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. These e-mails included conversations from scientists around the world. And what were they discussing? The destruction and hiding of evidence of data that did not support global warming claims.

Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.
These e-mails were hidden illegally, contrary to the UK's Freedom of Information Act.

<url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/?feat=home_top5_read>Source

This is almost enough to make me one of those crazy conspiracy theorists.

You're a sceptic too! That's fantastic! I like you even more now!

I think what initially was a plausible theory which required some scientific investigation has been turned into a mass scare campaign, with green groups, politicians and the media all using it to further their own agenda. The science was always shaky from the start, but instead of there being legitimate debate about it sceptics have been covered up in the mass outcry from green groups which has stifled research suggesting otherwise.

It's simply a ridiculous scenario where a man (Tim Flannery) whose expertise is mammals can be named Australian of the year for writing a book called "The Weather Makers" despite having no skills in climatology! Madness! That's the sort of rubbish which discredits global warming, yet it's far too easy for left groups to sneer and call conservatives "dinosaurs" or out of touch for simply raising a voice to the contrary. It's sad when a scare campaign has that much power behind it, especially over a still unproven theory.

 

[Low Key]

If you think global warming is a myth, you should have been in Adelaide last march. One whole week of +40 degrees C, surrounded by a couple of weeks of over 30 would change your mind.

PS: Scientists dislike the term global warming. They use climate change, because the change brought about by not only CO2 but also all the Methane our cattle pumps into the air dose not just heat, it throws systems outta whack.

Its true that there are natural changes in the environment, but these are usually slow, steady, and take several centuries to make themselves felt, unless something really dramatic happens.

And you should come visit Minneapolis, where the winters normally hit -30F (-34C). If the globe is getting warmer, we sure aren't feeling it. I also love how you say the CO2 us humans and the cattle we keep is throwing the system out of whack, yet the two ice ages this earth has experienced happened before the industrial age.

I don't understand, you seem to be under the impression that because there have been ice ages in the past, this shows that global temperatures cannot be influenced by humans.
If you actually did some research, you would see that scientists acknowledge that global temperatures change independent of human influence, however many scientists are proclaiming that we are accelerating the change. That's the crux of the matter.

You also seem to be under the impression that the earth globally has to get warmer for climate change to be true, this is not the case, the proposed model in fact projects that there are wild variances in temperatures, exaggerated winters as well as summers. Basically it projects the earth going a bit haywire.

People keep telling me this, but I have yet to see anyone post any sources to these claims. With the current situation at hand, you'd be hard pressed to have me actually believe whatever you post as well. Maybe if the powers that be didn't lie to get more money out of the deal, more people would be apt to believe these theories. Yes, that's all they are at this point, theories.

As far as I'm concerned, this whole climate change bullshit is exactly that, but anyone who cares what kind of world their children will live in should be mindful of the stuff they put into the air. This is not because the earth will fry by our own doing, but because of the health risks of inhaling CO2 and other emissions. If that's not good enough for you, then I guess you'll have to take your soapbox elsewhere.

And if you aren't familiar with Minnesota winters, -30F isn't out of the norm. I live in the coldest state in America. It's always been that way. FYI, most of the record temperatures in this state were set between 30-100 years ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Minnesota_weather_records], most closer to 100 years. What's even funnier is that is the same story for the rest of the world [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records].

 

[Arcticflame]

People keep telling me this, but I have yet to see anyone post any sources to these claims. With the current situation at hand, you'd be hard pressed to have me actually believe whatever you post as well. Maybe if the powers that be didn't lie to get more money out of the deal, more people would be apt to believe these theories. Yes, that's all they are at this point, theories.

Once again, it's not max and min temperatures which are the key. It's variance in temperatures and the average temperatures during certain periods. As well as global trends towards warming, not a trend the other direction.

And you seem to be under the impression that a few scientists discredited equals the whole body of work put out by the many scientists worldwide working on climate change theories being thrown out the window.

You have to realise here, that this is not a global think-tank, or some weird religious cult, but millions of individuals working in the vague bounds of the same field, but using many different methods. A few scientists fudging facts (If they even did, which hasn't been proven), does nothing to disprove the large weight of evidence towards climate change.

Yes, that's all they are at this point, theories.

In science, a theory is a well tested explanation that holds true to a large number of data sets. Huh?

Maybe if the powers that be didn't lie to get more money out of the deal, more people would be apt to believe these theories.

Source please, not sure what to say to that except it isn't really of much debatability.

People keep telling me this, but I have yet to see anyone post any sources to these claims.

I may have made a small error on my wording there, the crux of the matter is not the widely varying change in temperatures being exaggerated (Although it is still a projected outcome), The crux of the matter is the global average temperature increasing, not weather patterns.

Climate is not weather. Climate is an overall measurement, not a day by day coverage.

And if you aren't familiar with Minnesota winters, -30F isn't out of the norm. I live in the coldest state in America. It's always been that way. FYI, most of the record temperatures in this state were set between 30-100 years ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Minnesota_weather_records], most closer to 100 years. What's even funnier is that is the same story for the rest of the world [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records].

Your source on weather records are not helpful to any discussion, day by day is useless to a discussion on climate, heat waves and seasonal temperatures have more relevance as they remove some of the random factors of weather from the records, however they still obviously contain a random factor.


What is amusing however is that the records that are the most helpful (more long term records) actually put weight behind my argument (But I will still put emphasis on the fact that weather events do not climate science make). I'll take all the longer term records from your source:

Most in one year: 74 - 2001
Most precip in a year: 1991
Most rain in one month: 2007
Most snow: 1949 - 1950
Longest dryspell November 9, 1943 - January 26, 1944

Basically, 3 of these events have happened in past 20 years, the other two in the mid 20th century, not at all as biased towards the early 20th century as you made it out to be.


All of which is besides the point, as much as it would support what I say, it isn't hard science. What is the hard science is that while the days might be colder or warmer than the last, the trend is that each of the ten hottest years on record occured in the last 15, the last 25 years has contained 20 of the hottest years on record, as well as every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917, and the same for 56, 76, and 92. This particular piece of evidence gotten from here

Ignoring these statements I've made about global warming, which can put climate change in a biased light, the fact remains that the trend (Which some people were reporting has been one of cooling, wtf?) is that the globe is getting warmer. That is irrefutably what the evidence says.

As far as I'm concerned, this whole climate change bullshit is exactly that, but anyone who cares what kind of world their children will live in should be mindful of the stuff they put into the air. This is not because the earth will fry by our own doing, but because of the health risks of inhaling CO2 and other emissions. If that's not good enough for you, then I guess you'll have to take your soapbox elsewhere.

It's not entirely good enough, it's hardly your fault global warming is occuring of course, but it does require people's opinions to have something done about it, without popular opinion being behind climate change theories, nothing will change, and climate change will continue.
I'm not happy with the media's take on climate change either, it's brainless tripe a lot of the time, stupid things that won't change anything, I disagree with the Emissions trading scheme, I don't think government's are attacking climate change the right way, and I don't think simply putting taxes on things will solve any problem. What it requires is sacrifice by industry in terms of cutting profits in order to reduce emissions, and that won't occur unless public opinion hurts industry enough to make the change.

 

[Skeleon]

And really now, Mr. Mann? What kind of a name is that?

We have a whole city with that name.

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

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

didn't they believe in the 70's that the world was cooling?
[sup]Just sayin'[/sup]

 

[neoontime]

Global warming is just something to scare kids like the bogeyman or Michael Jackson. (cookie for reference) For all we know the warming could just be a natural thing.

And yet you state the obvious

 

[Ultrajoe]

As somebody else has said, I don't think any Australian with working skin is going to argue against climate change. I know all you guys with your snow and 'winter' are having a grand old time debating if or if not the temperature is going up, but down here the heatwaves are killing our old people and children. Just saying that if you could decide then that would be fucking ace.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I really couldn't care less about whether Global Warming is real or not, but saying it is and getting people to believe you is a good thing, regardless of whether it exists. I mean (not trying to sound like some nut-job greenie) if people lower carbon-emmissions, recycle water, *insert earth-friendly act here and recycle, then how is that a bad thing.

And yes, all of that is basically the 'means to an end' argument applied to global warming.

 

[Viivrabe]

i never believed in the global warming crap to beguine with.
if you look at the earths geographical history in fast foreword the poles have been growing and shrinking since there formation, let me put it this way... planet gets hot ice melts cooling it off, water refreezes when it cools down enough, starts to heat up cycle repeats

recorded history is to short to determine what is normal weather, climate change is enevatable, and is a gradual change its not going to be like in the day after tomarow
"Boom!! o no the climate changed were all going to die."

the earth itself changes distance from the sun all the time, the easiest thing to point out is summer winter, but that is not the limit, the extent or the extremes of the changes.

wile our increase in CO2 output will have an effect on the climate it wont have nearly the effect that say Mt. Saint Helans, or even Vesuvius did. predictions indicate that if all the CO2 released by human technology were to no longer continue to be produced it would take 100-300 years to return earths atmosphere to "normal" a long time by human life standards but not by any other standard, after all humans have been around for several thousand years

im all for better resource management and more efficient waste management (including air pollution) because places like rural china were smog is more common than fog, and people are exposed to so much poison that there lives are forever cut short after a few months.

 

[Puzzles]

If you think global warming is a myth, you should have been in Adelaide last march. One whole week of +40 degrees C, surrounded by a couple of weeks of over 30 would change your mind.

Uhh wasn't that due to raging bushfires? I don't think your countryside being on fire counts as global warming, even though it technically is warmer.

As for Climategate, this is fucked. It sounds as if they have some escalation of commitment or something. As if they commited to global warming being real, and didn't want to admit a mistake.

Anyway, I'll join the conspiracy theory.

 

[Low Key]

**Wall of text**

1. Theories are proven wrong all the time. Again, that is why they are theories.

Spoiler: Exhibit A

The Law of Fixed Proportions states that chemical elements combine with each other in simple integer ratios by weight. It is based upon such facts as: carbon dioxide is made from 3 parts carbon and 8 parts oxygen. The Atomic Theory of Matter attempted to explain why this is true. The Quantum Mechanical Theory of Atomic Structure explains why it is only approximately true, and also why and when it is demonstrably false.

2. Weather is directly affected by climate.

Spoiler: Exhibit B

While you may have posted some some recent precipitation numbers, we have only been collecting them for maybe a couple of hundred of years at the most. Also, while I may have posted recent tempuratures, they have only been measured since the early 1600s. For all we know, temperatures and precipitation might have wildly fluxuated prior to their invention perhaps indicating the climate was out of control. We simply don't have the data to claim humans today affect the grand scheme anymore than they did thousands of years ago.

3. The powers that be get rich lobbying for regulation.

Spoiler: Exhibit C

1. USA Today article [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm]
2. Al Gore's stock holdings [http://www.junkscience.com/oct07/al_gore.html]
Considering Al Gore is one of the main proprietors of anything regarding climate change around the world, I believe these links should show you he gets rich while others suffer from the laws and regulations he lobbys for. Forcing such laws and regulations on people drives the price of energy up. If someone owns stock in said energy, that person makes more money.

Spoiler

It's not entirely good enough, it's hardly your fault global warming is occuring of course, but it does require people's opinions to have something done about it, without popular opinion being behind climate change theories, nothing will change, and climate change will continue.

I'm not happy with the media's take on climate change either, it's brainless tripe a lot of the time, stupid things that won't change anything, I disagree with the Emissions trading scheme, I don't think government's are attacking climate change the right way, and I don't think simply putting taxes on things will solve any problem. What it requires is sacrifice by industry in terms of cutting profits in order to reduce emissions, and that won't occur unless public opinion hurts industry enough to make the change.

The main thing wrong with this statement are the billions of dollars needed to research renewable, or more importantly, clean burning energy. There is also a matter of trillions of dollars needed to implement such research so it will seamlessly intregrate itself into businesses and private homes. It's just not feasible at this point in time. Car manufacturers still haven't gotten it down and they have been working on it for 30 years. Wind turbines only work when it's windy, we'd need more solar panels than there is space on this planet to run the infrastructure we have today, and damming up rivers would cause hundreds of millions of people to relocate because of flooding while not providing adequate power.

Quite frankly, cutting profits to reduce emissions is the last thing this world needs right now. Practically every country is slammed with a dire financial situation. Cutting profits would only mean more people jobless and many more people homeless and starving. What's more important to you, clean energy or human survival? The former may affect the latter hundreds of years down the road, but if we don't worry about survival right now, no one will be talking about clean energy again in our lifetime.