Thread: How the Media Actually Portrays AGW

Similar to the hockey stick graph, where they alter the data to make it look like its never been higher than now.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

It is true. CO2 level are nowhere near all time highs. About 200 ppm is not even the highest in the last 200 years.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Ord2.png

You are showing a graph with CO2 in the 100's of ppm and ignore data where levels were 20x that high (b/c it does not fit your ideology).

I don't think anyone is altering data if Ordovician data is not presented. During that time 450 Ma ago Sun output was 4% weaker than today and continents were located on the Southern hemisphere, close to where Antarctic is nowadays. So if not for very high Co2 concentration, it would probably have been constant ice age instead a very short one seen in the graph above (when CO2 was below 3000ppm). All possible variables must be taken into calculations, we really would not want those high CO2 concentrations today. As poster above says, we should not ignore data even if it does not fit own ideology...

JohnLocke, you have posted twice that CO2 levels were as high (strike that, you actually claim they were higher than they are now) within the last 200 years. I asked for your source.

Where is it?

JL

Did you actually read the site that you posted?

They state

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

They go on to say

We often hear claims from climate contrarians that climate scientists are guilty of what they describe as "pal review." The conspiracy theory goes something like this - climate scientists conduct biased research with the goal of confirming the human-caused global warming theory. They then submit their biased results to a peer-reviewed journal with friendly editors ("pals") who pass their paper along to friendly reviewers (other "pals") who give their fraudulent work the green light for publication. Thus, the contrarians argue, the preponderance of peer-reviewed literature supporting human-caused global warming is really just a sign of corruption amongst climate scientists.
However, while climate contrarians are never able to produce any evidence to support their conspiracy theory, John Mashey has thoroughly documented a real world example of true pal review. Contrary to the standard conspiracy theory, the pal review did not involve mainstream climate scientists, but instead the climate contrarians themselves.

You should also red

10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Just to keep things simple, here is a list of the most popular climate denier arguments with links to their responses

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics ranked by popularity

John you are making false argument # 29 Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

Which incidentally debunks your assertion and explains the graph that you posted above.

Finally there is also

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
Which debunks your other common assertion.

Originally Posted by jpn

JohnLocke, you have posted twice that CO2 levels were as high (strike that, you actually claim they were higher than they are now) within the last 200 years. I asked for your source.

Where is it?

The internet skeptic, Global Warming Panel w/the Internet Skeptic pt 1 - YouTube

Originally Posted by RDK

JL

Did you actually read the site that you posted?

No. I was just looking for the graph showing CO2 levels not over the 400K years alarmists often use with the levels graphed over 400 M years. For non-alarmist data I generally refer to:

www.stopdumbingdown.com
Global Warming Hoax: News
HYSTERIA
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
The Man-Made Global Warming Hoax
Facts about Climate Change Science and Ocean Acidification, truth from consensus and climate change skeptics
Jeremy Clarkson targeted in manure dump protest by climate campaigners | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption is the greatest scam in history! « The Technology of Business & the Business of Technology
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why
http://www.nipccreport.org/aboutNIPCC.html
10 mins to Expose Global Warming Scam? - YouTube
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? – Telegraph Blogs
Home Page
The 800 year lag – graphed « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax
Archived Blog: Inside the Climate Fraud
Climatologists Reject Media Claims of Global Warming Consensus | Heartlander Magazine
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4 - YouTube

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

No. I was just looking for the graph showing CO2 levels not over the 400K years alarmists often use with the levels graphed over 400 M years. For non-alarmist data I generally refer to:
.......

I only looked at about half of those sites but they all exhibited the fallacies debunked here.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

You might have a little better luck arguing science instead ideology.

Here is a hint, if you heard it on Fox News it moist likely is not science.

Ha! I and others asked IF everything the alarmists are saying is true, then what? Then the ideology reveals itself. I am arguing science and you keep arguing false science proven wrong over and over and over again. You do not think skeptics of AGW are correct but the skeptics of the skeptics. (A poll must have shown the word skeptic plays with the electorate. LOL) Here is some science. Alarmist predictions that proved false.

From just 2008 Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

1. OUR CITIES WILL DIE OF THIRST
2. OUR REEF WILL DIE
3. GOODBYE, NORTH POLE
4. BEWARE HUGE WINDS
5. GIANT HAILSTONES WILL SMASH THROUGH YOUR ROOF
6. NO MORE SKIING
7. PERTH WILL BAKE DRY
8. ISLANDS WILL DROWN
9. BRITAIN WILL SWELTER
10. WE'LL BE HOTTER

SPEAKING of the Met, it has so far predicted 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007 would be the world's hottest or second-hottest year on record, but nine of the past 10 years it predicted temperatures too high.

In fact, the Met this month conceded 2008 would be the coldest year this century.

That makes 1998 still the hottest year on record since the Medieval Warm Period some 1000 years ago. Indeed, temperatures have slowly fallen since around 2002.

As Roger Pielke Sr, Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University's Department of Atmospheric Science, declared this month: "Global warming has stopped for the last few years."

Lesson: Something is wrong with warming models that predict warming in a cooling world, especially when we're each year pumping out even more greenhouse gases. Be sceptical.

Those, then, are the top 10 dud predictions of that hooting, screaming and screeching tribe of warming alarmists. Look and laugh.

And dare to believe the world is bright and reason may yet triumph.

NOAA’s magic wand waves away 2000-2009 cooling, FALSE ALARM: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Global Warming is Misleading, Exaggerated, or Plain Wrong » NOAA’s magic wand waves away 2000-2009 cooling

By Paul MacRae, August 5, 2010

The recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration claims that surface temperatures have increased in the past decade. In fact, the NOAA report, “State of the Climate in 2009,” says 2000-2009 was 0.2° Celsius [1] warmer than the decade previous. However, the report’s summary, as shown in Figure 1 below, shows a decadal increase of only .2° Fahrenheit (.11°C) based on 20th century temperatures.

The press release was so splashy it made the front page of Toronto’s Globe and Mail with the headline: “Signs of warming earth ‘unmistakable’.”

Of course, given that the planet is in an interglacial period, we would expect “unmistakable” signs of warming, including melting glaciers and Arctic ice, rising temperatures, and rising sea levels. That’s what the planet does during an interglacial.

Furthermore, we’re nowhere near the peak reached by the interglacial of 125,000 years ago, when temperatures were 1-3°C higher than today and sea levels up to 20 feet higher, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself. In other words, the Globe might as well have had a headline reading “Signs of changing weather ‘unmistakable’.”

Similarly, the NOAA report laments: “People have spent thousands of years building society for one climate and now a new one is being created – one that’s warmer and more extreme.” The implication is that we can somehow freeze-dry the climate we’ve got to last forever, which is absurd.

Sea levels have risen 400 feet in the past 15,000 years, causing all kinds of inconvenience for humanity in the process-and all quite naturally. As the interglacial continues, sea levels will rise and temperatures will increase-until the interglacial reaches its peak, at which point the planet will again move toward glacial conditions. To think that we can somehow stop this process is insane.

Even die-hard alarmists admitted 2000-2009 cooling

But what about the NOAA claim that the surface temperature increased .2°C during 2000-2009? Although they did everything possible to hide this information from the public, media, politicians, and even fellow scientists, by the late 2000s even die-hard alarmists were eventually forced to accept that the surface temperature record showed no warming as of the late 1990s, and some cooling as of about 2002. In other words, overall, for the first decade of the 21st century, there was no warming and even some cooling.

One of the consistent themes in the Climategate emails was consternation that the planet wasn’t warming as expected by the models (that is, as Figure 1 shows, about half of the .2°C per decade expected by the climate models). For example, as early as 2005 the then-head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Phil Jones, wrote in an email: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

Fellow Climategate emailer and IPCC contributor Kevin Trenberth wrote to hockey-stick creator Michael Mann in 2009: “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” [italics added] Note the date: 2009, the last year of the decade. As far as Trenberth knew-and he should have known as a leading IPCC author-the planet hadn’t warmed for several years up to that time.

Even Tim Flannery, author of the arch-alarmist The Weather Makers, acknowledged in November 2009: “In the last few years, where there hasn’t been a continuation of that warming trend, we don’t understand all of the factors that creates Earth’s climate, so there are some things we don’t understand, that’s what the scientists were emailing about. … These people [the scientists] work with models, computer modeling. When the computer modeling and the real world data disagree you have a problem.”

September 12, 2007 - 300 Scientists Refute Global Warming, GLOBAL WARMING


From Global Warming Prophecies, Globalwarming predictions by edgar cayce

- Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet (6 meters)
- Devastating coastal areas worldwide
- The Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in summer before 2050
- Record Low Temperatures in 2010-2011.

Global Warming Scientists Computer Generated Predictions Have Been Proven Wrong by Real World Empirical Measurement: Part 4 Western Slope Sierra US,

Another computer model generated scientific prediction of global warming turns out to be wrong. “The analysis of snowfall data in the Sierra going back to 1878 found no more or less snow overall – a result that, on the surface, appears to contradict aspects of recent climate change models. Sierra Snowfall Is Consistent for 130 Years

“John Christy, the Alabama state climatologist who authored the study, said the amount of snow in the mountains has not decreased in the past 50 years, a period when greenhouse gases were supposed to have increased the effects of global warming…” February 15, 2012 Peter Fimrite, SF Chronicle

Do you remember the polar bears were supposed to be going extinct? Canada's growing polar bear population 'becoming a problem,' locals say - Orlando Seminole County Environmental News | Examiner.com. Despite being proven wrong so often, your belief that the science supports your religion/politics is surprisingly strong, albeit irrational and delusional.

Lots of opinions and blog stuff there, not so much science.

Just to show, here is some science.

Climate Sci. Journals

Originally Posted by RDK

I only looked at about half of those sites but they all exhibited the fallacies debunked here.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

You might have a little better luck arguing science instead ideology.

Here is a hint, if you heard it on Fox News it moist likely is not science.

None of what is presented on that site is actual science. Their own explanations are easily debunked by any number of comments on each explanation.

In short, the site essentially makes assertions, provides a few unrelated graphs, says "See! We said so", and ignores data which does not support their fantasy.

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

None of what is presented on that site is actual science. Their own explanations are easily debunked by any number of comments on each explanation.

In short, the site essentially makes assertions, provides a few unrelated graphs, says "See! We said so", and ignores data which does not support their fantasy.

I wonder why the only major political party that supports the idea that global warming is a hoax is the Republican Party in America? I wonder why even the conservative party in the UK acknowledges (see link in my post above) what every nationally-recognized scientific organization with a position on the subject says about global warming--that it's real and it's created in significant part by human activities?

Seems like the only large organizations on Earth that believe that NASA and NOAA and almost all climate scientists on Earth are engaging in an elaborate hoax are the fossile fuel industry and the Republican Party in America. Fascinating, isn't it?

Originally Posted by jpn

Seems like the only large organizations on Earth that believe that NASA and NOAA and almost all climate scientists on Earth are engaging in an elaborate hoax are the fossile fuel industry and the Republican Party in America. Fascinating, isn't it?

From wunderground.com, a site created in part by a fervent believe in global warming:

Inconsistencies in NCDC Historical Temperature Analysis?

Ken looked at entire years of data from the 1920s and 1930s for numerous different states and found that this ‘cooling’ of the old data was fairly consistent across the board. In fact he produced some charts showing such. Here is an example for the entire year of 1934 for Arizona:

Weather Extremes : Inconsistencies in NCDC Historical Temperature Analysis? | Weather Underground

Imagine that. The NOAA is 'cooling" older data. What does this do? It makes for a steeper rise in temperature. In addition to the NOAA massaging temperature data, both the GISS and CRU are also massaging data and the result is almost always worse warming. Meanwhile, the thousands of climate scientists who look at this massaged data say that there is warming. I wonder if they realize that the data has been tampered with?...


Fascinating indeed.

Kramer

Originally Posted by kramer

From wunderground.com, a site created in part by a fervent believe in global warming:


Imagine that. The NOAA is 'cooling" older data. What does this do? It makes for a steeper rise in temperature. In addition to the NOAA massaging temperature data, both the GISS and CRU are also massaging data and the result is almost always worse warming. Meanwhile, the thousands of climate scientists who look at this massaged data say that there is warming. I wonder if they realize that the data has been tampered with?...


Fascinating indeed.

Kramer

I don’t know if you read the site you linked, but it explains very well what has been done and why. In this case, instead of simple arithmetic mean (old way of calculating Arizona tempertures) they have used weighting when calculating averages. I mean, in historical Arizona data 35% of data is collected from hottest areas which comprise 13% of the total area, so a correction must be made. Otherwise historical data would give skewed, too warm averages. This is in no way tampering with data, original data is still there for anyone to see.

Analogical example of what was done: If you have two cubes, one has a volume of 1.0dm3 and density of 1kg/dm3, and the other one has a volume of 0.5dm3 and density of 2kg/dm3. How do you calculate average density?

You don’t calculate it: (1.00kg/dm3 + 2.00kg/dm3) / 2(total amount of cubes) = 1.50kg/dm3
You do calculate it: (1.00kg/dm3 x 1.0dm3 + 2.00kg/dm3 x 0.5dm3) / 1.0dm3 + 0.5dm3 = 1.33kg/dm3

First calculation example represents simple arithmetic mean (every historical temperature recording from Arizona would be given equal weight). Second calculation is weighted average which takes into account the volume of cubes (distribution and locations of temperature recording stations), giving the correct answer to the question. I don’t understand how this could be considered to be tampering or massaging data in any way?

If you disagree, I would gladly hear why and what would be the right way to do the calculations in your opinion?

You are right, it is fascinating.