Did I miss the thread about the CRU Fraud?

[notyoueither]

My personal favorite are the folks who accept that human-influenced global climate change is real, but think it's a good thing because it will stave off a natural ice age. Talk about glass-half-full thinking!

Canadians?

[Berzerker]

My personal favorite are the folks who accept that human-influenced global climate change is real, but think it's a good thing because it will stave off a natural ice age. Talk about glass-half-full thinking!

We wont know that for a few thousand years, and I sure hope we can "pollute" ourselves out of a full blown ice age. But what I do believe is a warmer world with more arable land and fresh water is preferable to a cooler world with expanding ice sheets poised to plow up major cities. Did you know a town in Europe was bulldozed by an advancing glacier during the little ice age just 3-4 centuries ago?

And the global warming crowd insists on claiming the warming trend we've seen since the end of the little ice age (an abnormally cold snap within an interglacial period) is proof of global warming

A warming trend that occurs over a 150-year time frame is legitimate evidence of a changing climate. An eleven-year trend is not, especially when you cherry-pick your starting year. This really isn't that hard to understand.

Both are meaningless without context, and both cherrypick a starting date. Neither is proof of AGW (or cooling)... Temps have gone up ~1 1/2 F over the last 150 years, so what? We were freezing our butts off 200 years ago! Okay, so we hit a cold snap for ~500 years and we've been coming out of it for 100 years. Before that we had a nice warm period of about 500 years, so nice Vikings settled in Greenland. I expect the world to warm up coming out of a cold snap, it has done that countless times before and with or without people around to record temperatures.

Any claims that the warming is unprecedented are bogus, we know from the start of the little ice age and from the data climate can change very fast, less than a lifetime. Some data suggest the end of an interglacial period ~110-120 kya (?) was so abrupt ice age like conditions (trees in France) took < 5-10 years to show up in the record. One or two degrees in a century is not an aberration, temps in N America climbed into the double digit range and killed off the megafauna and dipped 4-8 degrees during the little ice age (and probably more during the younger/dryas). I'd expect elevated CO2 levels to warm us a bit but I dont consider it a driver of climate. CO2 increases naturally as the world warms up and decreases naturally as the world cools.

[SpencerH]

This graph shows pretty clearly why using 1998 as your starting year is a stupid idea.

Drake, I'd love to hear your interpretation of that graph.

[KrazyHorse]

Spencer, I see a distinctive warming trend on the graph, and it's pretty apparent that it's statistically distinguishable from 0. Appears to be about 0.3C over 30 years.

That the trend over those 30 years is due to the greenhouse effect is not apparent, obviously, without further data.

[KrazyHorse]

Anyhow, this is a purely academic discussion, as there is no doubt in my mind that atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to rise to levels completely unheard of since the beginning of photosynthesis on the Earth.

Nova Scotia will be the new Florida

[Lorizael]

But Florida will be the new Atlantis.

[KrazyHorse]

Fine with me. The highest point in the entire state of Florida is 345 feet above sea level. Stupid flat ****ers.

[Drake Tungsten]

Spencer, I see a distinctive warming trend on the graph

QFT

[HalfLotus]

CRU head Phil Jones steps down:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6940704.ece

"The announcement came even as the climate change economist Lord Stern of Brentford warned that preventing global warming could be twice as expensive as previously thought and that Britain would have to incur billions of pounds of debt to cover its share of the cost. "

Expect him to "hide the decline" of his employment opportunities. Yuk, yuk.

[Drake Tungsten]

Jones only stepped aside temporarily while an investigation is conducted. He'll be back.

[HalfLotus]

Even if he's not criminally indicted for destroying data requested by FOIA - which there is strong evidence of in the emails - the disgrace is enough to make him change jobs, and maybe professions.

edit: I would expect maximum damage control from alarmist institutions, which is far more important to them than some shmoe's job.

[KrazyHorse]

Will that be before or after the CIA releases documents proving that 9/11 was perpetrated by members of the US government and the gold standard is reintroduced?

[KrazyHorse]

I think HalfLotus literally believes in EVERY CONSPIRACY THEORY.

I'm impressed with his dedication to tardedness.

[Lorizael]

Even if he's not criminally indicted for destroying data requested by FOIA - which there is strong evidence of in the emails - the disgrace is enough to make him change jobs, and maybe professions.

edit: I would expect maximum damage control from alarmist institutions, which is far more important to them than some shmoes job.

So, if you're all conspiracy-oriented and such and don't just believe what you're told like the rest of us sheep do, wouldn't you suspect that it's possible that people who would hack into a university's email server might also forge incriminating documents?

[HalfLotus]

So, if you're all conspiracy-oriented and such and don't just believe what you're told like the rest of us sheep do, wouldn't you suspect that it's possible that people who would hack into a university's email server might also forge incriminating documents?

It's obviously possible, but no one at CRU has alleged that, which I would expect them to do right away if that were the case. I don't think there's any doubt on either side of the issue that the emails are authentic.

Also it was more than an email server. Source code and annotations from the climate modeling was also released. The same models and data which they refused to release previously, which isn't very scientific since hypotheses and theories rely on replication of experiments and findings.

But I guess alarmists are so awesome that the Scientific Method doesn't apply to them.