# The Factual Argument Against Global Warming, Cap and Trade, and the Copenhagen Treaty **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2010, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049 "2010-03-19T19:13:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/41 "2010-03-20T07:23:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No need to, enough people can see that you are not capable of even pointing out where \*\*jshore \*\*is wrong, it just shows that it is safe to ignore your points until better evidence appears that you can weight evidence properly. This is illogical, why has jshore not published his criticism? If it is so valid then surely he would want to get it published so you can use it to take down Douglas’s work. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is no evidence, just opinion and emails devoid of context. People can make up their own minds. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meaningless, the fact remains that the contributors of RealClimate do manage to publish in the most prestigious journals. No - Relevant. What is prestigious is subjective and thus a meaningless argument with science. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > No he can’t. Try reading his website. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > He was incapable of even changing the official position of the scientific organization that published his papers. What? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Before digging your hole more, you need a cite for your accusation that all that came only after Climategate broke. You can clearly see there is no “[data sources](http://web.archive.org/web/20080502020628/http://www.realclimate.org/)” link in 2008. Here is the [post](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/) where they announce it. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > You also need a Cite for the declaration that Dr. Jones got caught illegally refusing FOIA requests. > > The last one is peculiar because the investigation has not been completed and in any case data was released or it could be obtained elsewhere. [Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece) (The Times, UK, January 28, 2010) > [@](#): > > The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt. The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach. You need to get up to speed big boy. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/42 "2010-03-20T07:27:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Uh no, in reality your side is the one that has virtually nothing, it needs to convince enough people in scientific organizations to declare that AGW is not happening, last time I checked you can not find any scientific organization whose position is that we should not worry at all. Maybe you can? Can you provide me with a survey or poll of any scientific organization’s membership body in support of the organization’s position statement released by the handful of council members regarding global warming? Surely you can find at least one! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/43 "2010-03-20T07:59:33Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > This is illogical, why has jshore not published his criticism? If it is so valid then surely he would want to get it published so you can use it to take down Douglas’s work. Still not even a guess on why he could be wrong? Pathetic. > [@Poptech](#): > > People can make up their own minds. After seeing the reply by Dr. Santer I have confidence on what others will think. > [@Poptech](#): > > No - Relevant. What is prestigious is subjective and thus a meaningless argument with science. That still leaves out the fact that guys like McIntyre are unable to convince many even in the organizations that publish his papers. > [@Poptech](#): > > Try reading his website. Maybe you do not know this, but Climate Audit has been found even in this forum to be an unreliable echo chamber. > [@Poptech](#): > > What? I will leave that as your homework. Check where the papers of McIntyre were published, then look for the official Position on climate change that the scientific organization that controls the journal has. > [@Poptech](#): > > You can clearly see there is no “[data sources](http://web.archive.org/web/20080502020628/http://www.realclimate.org/)” link in 2008. Here is the [post](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/) where they announce it. Talk about digging more! Check the links that they posted, those organizations had the data up already for a while. Of course this is another example of not paying attention. > [@Poptech](#): > > [Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece) (The Times, UK, January 28, 2010) > > You need to get up to speed big boy. As much as you want to, the reality is that Phil Jones is only likely to get pie in his face, but not much will happen to him, and the science was not affected. > **[Phil Jones survives MPs' grilling over climate emails | Fred Pearce](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry)** > > Fred Pearce: Commons committee tiptoed round embattled scientist and sidestepped crucial questions > **[What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?](https://skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html)** > > Earlier this week, the servers at the University of East Anglia were illegally hacked. Emails dating back to 1996 were stolen and leaked onto the web. Phil Jones, the director of the Climate Research Unit, has confirmed the emails are not forgeries... > [@](#): > > Some of the emails must be embarrassing for the authors. One email responds in poor taste to the death of a well known skeptic. There’s scathing discussion of skeptics such as Steve McIntyre and Roger Pielke, including imaginings of violence. However, the crucial question is whether these emails reveal that climate data has been falsified. The most quoted email is from Phil Jones in 1999 discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine): > > ``` > "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." > > ``` > > What do the suggestive “tricks” and “hiding the decline” mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? “Mike’s Nature trick” refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The “trick” is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. > > The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature. > > In the skeptic blogosphere, there is a disproportionate preoccupation with one small aspect of climate science - proxy record reconstructions of past climate (or even worse, ad hominem attacks on the scientists who perform these proxy reconstructions). This serves to distract from the physical realities currently being observed. Humans are raising CO2 levels. We’re observing an enhanced greenhouse effect. The planet is still accumulating heat. What are the consequences of our climate’s energy imbalance? Sea levels rise is accelerating. Greenland ice loss is accelerating. Arctic ice loss is accelerating. Globally, glacier ice loss is accelerating. Antarctic ice loss is accelerating. > > When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments, a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. To focus on a few suggestive emails while ignoring the wealth of empirical evidence for manmade global warming is yet another repeat of this tactic. As for that reporter in the Times, you need to get to speed on what that hack is up to: [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global\_warming/leakegate/](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/leakegate/) ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/44 "2010-03-20T08:02:26Z")
**GIGObuster** , I was in the middle of addressing your post point by point when it hit me that we would both be wasting our time. I don’t really disagree with you all that much, and you have an almost uncanny knack for misunderstanding me. Maybe it’s my fault, but you always seem to miss the point of what I’m saying. Hell, sometimes I look at a rebuttal from you and think “isn’t that just what _I_ said?” Some advice to you, for what it’s worth: don’t put words in other people’s mouths. It’s really annoying. This sort of thing for example: **“And if there is an item that makes me trust your points even less is that it seems that you are accepting what the researchers on his list are saying.”** I’d mentioned Patrick Moore as a _rebuttal to the OP_ who seems to believe in a conspiracy of misanthropic environmentalists. I thought pointing out that a person on his own list was a founder member of one of the largest environmentalist groups in the world might make him think twice. And I mentioned Nir Shaviv “has a nice summary on his website of the problems _as he sees them_”, which he does. “As he sees them” is a qualifier, by the way. It means I don’t necessarily agree with him. You came back with cites attacking Nir Shaviv’s _cosmic ray research_, which I never mentioned, attacking the credibility of Lindzen, who I not only didn’t mention but who I think is plain wrong, and attacking the credibility of Ball, who I also never mentioned, probably because I’ve never heard of him. That’s not very fair of you, casting aspersions on the trustworthiness of my points (and by association, me) by attacking points I never made. I know you’re passionate on this subject, but try not to patronise and belittle so much and you may well win over a few waverers. I can see you have your hands full at the moment. Good luck. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/45 "2010-03-20T08:14:16Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Can you provide me with a survey or poll of any scientific organization’s membership body in support of the organization’s position statement released by the handful of council members regarding global warming? Surely you can find at least one! You can not be that ignorant! > **[Scientific consensus on climate change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)** > > There is scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,: 8 : 11  and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,: 10–11  with a significant supporting ro Nearl... > [@](#): > > National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states: > > ``` > An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1] > > ``` > > No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007.[2] Some organisations hold non-committal positions. > [@](#): > > Statements by dissenting organizations > > With the release of the revised statement[84] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[2][85] > > Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include opinions that the earth has not warmed, or that warming is attributable to causes other than increasing greenhouse gases. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/46 "2010-03-20T08:18:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Still not even a guess on why he could be wrong? Pathetic. So we have established you have no published criticism of Douglas. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > After seeing the reply by Dr. Santer I have confidence on what others will think. Of course you do but so do I. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > That still leaves out the fact that guys like McIntyre are unable to convince many even in the organizations that publish his papers. Why are you creating strawman arguments? Prove that McIntyre has not convinced many members of the NAS to his points about Mann’s papers. McIntyre makes no claims of any intent to change the position statements of any scientific organization’s position statement created by a handful of the organizations council members. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Maybe you do not know this, but Climate Audit has been found even in this forum to be an unreliable echo chamber. No it is hasn’t. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > I will leave that as your homework. Check where the papers of McIntyre were published, then look for the official Position on climate change that the scientific organization that controls the journal has. I will leave you to your own absurd strawman arguments. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Talk about digging more! Check the links that they posted, those organizations had the data up already for a while. Of course this is another example of not paying attention. Can you even follow a discussion? **RealClimate** did not have those links up! > [@GIGObuster](#): > > As much as you want to, the reality is that Phil Jones is only likely to get pie in his face, but not much will happen to him, and the science was not affected. His credibility in the science community is forever ruined. Then of course you link to the cartoonist site [skepticalscience]… > [@GIGObuster](#): > > As for that reporter in the Times, you need to get to speed on what that hack is up to: That does not prove the statement made as untrue. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/47 "2010-03-20T08:19:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You can not be that ignorant! Apparently you can, “Can you provide me with a **survey or poll** of any scientific organization’s **membership body** in support of the organization’s position statement released by the handful of council members regarding global warming? Surely you can find at least one!” I didn’t ask you for the position statements I want evidence of support from the membership body, you see all those were created by just the handful of council members of each organization. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/48 "2010-03-20T09:18:00Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > So we have established you have no published criticism of Douglas. When does one know when someone really has no point? When they assume that all others will ignore how incapable they were to reply to posted criticism. Yes it was math, but not math that could be impossible to understand by a person that claims to be up to speed on this. > [@Poptech](#): > > Can you even follow a discussion? **RealClimate** did not have those links up! That is like saying that “we climate audit followers are so inept can we not find those links unless RealClimate posts them”. As I researched the controversy, it is clear that on many occasions the scientists referred guys like McIntyre to those sources. And almost all already existed before 2008. > [@Poptech](#): > > His credibility in the science community is forever ruined. And? That does not change the science. > [@Poptech](#): > > Then of course you link to the cartoonist site [skepticalscience]… And not dealing with any of the science mentioned and linked does demonstrate your fortitude against evidence.. Not. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/49 "2010-03-20T09:21:35Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Apparently you can, > > “Can you provide me with a **survey or poll** of any scientific organization’s **membership body** in support of the organization’s position statement released by the handful of council members regarding global warming? Surely you can find at least one!” > > I didn’t ask you for the position statements I want evidence of support from the membership body, you see all those were created by just the handful of council members of each organization. :rolleyes: In that same article: > [@](#): > > STATS, 2007 > > In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[89] [90] ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/50 "2010-03-20T12:32:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > When does one know when someone really has no point? When they assume that all others will ignore how incapable they were to reply to posted criticism. Yes it was math, but not math that could be impossible to understand by a person that claims to be up to speed on this. You are not criticising me you are critising Dr. Douglas who has published his paper in the refereed literature. If the criticism had any validity then he would publish it, the fact that he does not shows it does not. Send the criticism to Dr. Douglas and I would be willing to hear his response. He is more than capable of defending his work, don’t be afraid. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is like saying that “we climate audit followers are so inept can we not find those links unless RealClimate posts them”. As I researched the controversy, it is clear that on many occasions the scientists referred guys like McIntyre to those sources. And almost all already existed before 2008. No that is like saying that RealClimate only decided that data availability was important AFTER climategate. The information McIntyre requested in regards to various papers had nothing to do with what was available online. Your lies about this are pathetic. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And? That does not change the science. Really? It makes anything based on CRU data questionable, it makes any chapters in the IPCC authored by the scientists involved questionable. It does more to discredit the so called science than you believe. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And not dealing with any of the science mentioned and linked does demonstrate your fortitude against evidence.. Not. Am I supposed to get my science from a cartoonist? Is this where you go? To cartoon land? ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/51 "2010-03-20T12:34:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :rolleyes: > > In that same article: Ah yes, the “survey”, 12,000 Members - American Meteorological Society 58,000 Members - American Geophysical Union **70,000 Members - Total** - Only **0.007%** of the membership body were polled. - Only **0.005%** of the membership body believe human-induced warming is occurring - Only **0.005%** of the membership body agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. That is the best you can do? Wikipedia links? ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/52 "2010-03-20T14:11:59Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Why exactly is it so hard for people to link increased CO[sub]2[/sub] to industrialization? It’s not hard, and no-one disputes it. What’s hard is for the alarmists to come up with any actual evidence that it has the major effect on climate and will have the disastrous effects they claim. _That’s_ where the actual debate lies. **ETA** : Actually, some cranks do dispute that, but no-one with any decent scientific credibility and reputation does. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/53 "2010-03-20T15:43:58Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Ah yes, the “survey”, > > 12,000 Members - American Meteorological Society > 58,000 Members - American Geophysical Union > **70,000 Members - Total** > > - Only **0.007%** of the membership body were polled. > - Only **0.005%** of the membership body believe human-induced warming is occurring > - Only **0.005%** of the membership body agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. > > That is the best you can do? Wikipedia links? You demanded just one survey, what you demonstrated here is 1. you do not keep your word. 2. you do not look at the citations. 3. you are not not be trusted on your say so’s ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/54 "2010-03-20T16:30:37Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > You are not criticising me you are critising Dr. Douglas who has published his paper in the refereed literature. If the criticism had any validity then he would publish it, the fact that he does not shows it does not. Send the criticism to Dr. Douglas and I would be willing to hear his response. He is more than capable of defending his work, don’t be afraid. Meh, you are just showing to all that indeed you have no clue on even why you are wrong on that item. > [@Poptech](#): > > No that is like saying that RealClimate only decided that data availability was important AFTER climategate. The information McIntyre requested in regards to various papers had nothing to do with what was available online. Your lies about this are pathetic. Besides not being kosher, saying that I’m lying is not a valid debating tactic. The link to real climate was produced to show that organizations have produced the data before, what is clear is that deniers have not been able to use it properly or they continue to convince their followers that they do not need to explain it properly because they already have an echo chamber that never wonders why they do not show any progress in convincing other scientists to come up and oppose the official positions of their organizations regarding AGW. [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global\_warming\_totally\_disprov.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov.php) [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre\_misunderstood\_somehow.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow.php) > [@](#): > > With “specifically said the opposite” McIntyre refers to comment 254 (yes, 254 comments in!) in the discussion where he says: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked. > > > > ``` > > This isn’t the opposite of saying that Briffa deliberately cherry picked, since it is consistent with McIntyre believing that Briffa was guilty of fraud but had been subtle about it. In any case, what McIntyre says in the post is more important than stuff buried deep in comment threads and there we see > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > The [image above] is, in my opinion, one of the most disquieting images ever presented at Climate Audit. ... > > > > I hardly know where to begin in terms of commentary on this difference. > > > > it's very hard to think up a valid reason for excluding Khadyta River, while including the Taimyr supplement. > > > > ``` > > As well as this: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Sure enough, there was a Schweingruber series that fell squarely within the Yamal area - indeed on the first named Khadyta River - russ035w located at 67 12N 69 50Eurl . This data set had 34 cores, nearly 3 times more than the 12 cores selected into the CRU archive. > > > > ``` > > And yet, in his new post: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > I did not propose the results of these sensitivity studies as an "alternative" and "more robust" chronology. I am not arguing that the Yamal versions using the Schweingruber data provide the "correct" climate history for the region. > > > > ``` > > Poor misunderstood McIntyre. How is it that this keeps happening? > > RealClimate comments: > > > [@](#): > > > > So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever. … > > > > ``` > > The timeline for these mini-blogstorms is always similar. An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing, and it is instantly 'telegraphed' across the denial-o-sphere while being embellished along the way to apply to anything 'hockey-stick' shaped and any and all scientists, even those not even tangentially related. The usual suspects become hysterical with glee that finally the 'hoax' has been revealed and congratulations are handed out all round. After a while it is clear that no scientific edifice has collapsed and the search goes on for the 'real' problem which is no doubt just waiting to be found. Every so often the story pops up again because some columnist or blogger doesn't want to, or care to, do their homework. Net effect on lay people? Confusion. Net effect on science? Zip. > > > > Having said that, it does appear that McIntyre did not directly instigate any of the ludicrous extrapolations of his supposed findings highlighted above, though he clearly set the ball rolling. No doubt he has written to the National Review and the Telegraph and Anthony Watts to clarify their mistakes and we're confident that the corrections will appear any day now.... Oh yes. > > > > ``` > > Well, if McIntyre won’t do it, maybe Roger “middle ground” Pielke Jr will demand that Watts and co correct the record. Let’s see: > > > [@](#): > > > > Gavin’s outright lie about McIntyre is an obvious attempt to distract attention from the possibility that Steve may have scored another scalp in the Hockey Stick wars. Rather than distract attention from McIntyre, Gavin’s most recent lie simply adds to the list of climate scientists behaving badly. When will these guys learn? > > There is one minor mistake in the RealClimate post. In his post McIntyre did not “declare” that Briffa cherry picked, rather he strongly implied it. In his post Briffa says “implication” without being denounced by Pielke, so the entire basis of Pielke’s accusation of dishonesty is just the use of the word “declares” instead of “implies”. I do think that is an error, but it makes no substantive difference and Pielke has no basis at all for his claim that it was deliberate. > > Look at what happened here. Faced with baseless accusations of fraud in the Telegraph and National Review, Pielke pored over the RealClimate post until he found a single word he could object to and wrote a post accusing Gavin Schmidt of lying. Not one word about the claims of fraud that McIntyre’s post spawned. > > And if you think that Pielke is likely to behave like a decent human being and apologize, you don’t know him. > [@Poptech](#): > > Really? It makes anything based on CRU data questionable, it makes any chapters in the IPCC authored by the scientists involved questionable. It does more to discredit the so called science than you believe. [http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement](http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement) > [@](#): > > 1. The FOI request was responded to in full > > The FOI request from Douglas Keenan was responded to by the university in full in 2007. The data used in the 1990 paper were indeed sent to Mr Keenan, including both the locations of the stations and the station temperature data for China, Australia and western parts of the former Soviet Union. For China, the data covered the period 1954 to 1983. The data were also uploaded onto the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) website. > > 1. The accuracy of the data and results was confirmed in a later paper > > Prof Jones embarked on a study in 2007 which was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2008. In this later study, CRU researchers worked with a Chinese colleague (Dr Q. Li) from the China Meteorological Administration (CMA) in Beijing. Dr Li had been assessing the consistency of 728 Chinese temperature series and his work was published in China in 2007. This improved CMA data was adjusted to account for changes in location of stations. > > CRU requested this improved CMA data for the stations that had been used in the 1990 study, and they were incorporated into the 2008 paper. > > Figure 6 from this study (see below) shows the comparisons (as anomalies from the 1954-1983 period) between the averages of the 42 rural and 42 urban sites used in 1990 compared with averages from the same stations from the CMA network. The dashed lines are the averages for the rural and urban sites in eastern China from the 1990 paper. The solid lines are the averages from the same stations from the CMA network. It is clear from the graph that the trends of the CMA data for both the rural and urban networks agree almost exactly with the results from the 1990 paper. > [@Poptech](#): > > Am I supposed to get my science from a cartoonist? Is this where you go? To cartoon land? Besides demonstrating to others how illogical you are on this item, you are still only showing to others that even simple explanations linked to research are too hard for you to explain away. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/55 "2010-03-20T16:50:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, you are just showing to all that indeed you have no clue on even why you are wrong on that item. Wrong about what? Where is your buddies published criticism? Does posting someone’s rant about a paper in a forum usually work with the uninformed? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Besides not being kosher, saying that I’m lying is not a valid debating tactic. I say you are lying when you do, it is called honesty. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > The link to real climate was produced to show that organizations have produced the data before, what is clear is that deniers have not been able to use it properly or they continue to convince their followers that they do not need to explain it properly because they already have an echo chamber that never wonders why they do not show any progress in convincing other scientists to come up and oppose the official positions of their organizations regarding AGW. Did the link go up right after climategate? Using the available data was never an issue. You do not even undersand the debate. What McIntyre was requesting was NOT available and has nothing to do with what is on the RealClimate link. Are you even aware of the papers the data, methods and sourcecode was requested for? I don’t even understand the Yamal tangent. It is almost as if you never honestly looked at this and are desperately using Wikipedia and alarmist sites to hack together some form of desperate criticism. Your knee-jerk attacks on McIntyre are pathetic and ignorant of the issues - Very Revealing. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/56 "2010-03-20T16:52:58Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Your lies about this are pathetic. > [@Poptech](#): > > I say you are lying when you do [Do not call other posters liars in this forum.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448632) This is a formal warning not to do this again. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/57 "2010-03-20T17:01:36Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Did the link go up right after climategate? You keep using too much straw. > [@Poptech](#): > > Using the available data was never an issue. You do not even undersand the debate. What McIntyre was requesting was NOT available and has nothing to do with what is on the RealClimate link. Are you even aware of the papers the data, methods and sourcecode was requested for? > I don’t even understand the Yamal tangent. It is almost as if you never honestly looked at this and are desperately using Wikipedia and alarmist sites to hack together some form of desperate criticism. Your knee-jerk attacks on McIntyre are pathetic and ignorant of the issues - Very Revealing. > **[McClimategate continues: Yet another false accusation from McIntyre and...](https://deepclimate.org/2010/03/10/mcclimategate-continues-yet-another-false-accusation-from-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/)** > > How do they get away with it? That’s the inevitable question as I examine one of the most specious – and despicable  – “climategate” allegations from contrarians, name… [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre\_had\_the\_data\_all\_alon.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_had_the_data_all_alon.php) > [@](#): > > One of McIntyre’s repeated complaints about Briffa was that he refused to release his data. For example, in his post Fresh Data on Briffa’s Yamal #1: > > > [@](#): > > > > A few days ago, I became aware that the long-sought Yamal measurement data url had materialized at Briffa’s website - after many years of effort on my part and nearly 10 years after its original use in Briffa (2000). > > > > I am very grateful to the editors of Phil Trans B (Roy Soc) - at long last, a journal editor stood up to CRU, requiring Briffa to archive supporting data. > > This got turned into statements like this one, from Tom Fuller: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > The data, which the scientists had refused to release for a decade, came to light when the Royal Society of London demanded they archive their findings before publishing their latest paper. > > > > ``` > > But now McIntyre has admitted that he had the data all along. The data wasn’t Briffa’s and back in 2006, Briffa referred McIntyre to the original source: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Steve these data were produced by Swedish and Russian colleagues - will pass on your message to them] cheers, Keith > > > > ``` > > When a reader asked him why he didn’t just get the data from the original sources, McIntyre dropped a bombshell: > > > [@](#): > > > > In response to your point that I wasn’t “diligent enough” in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I’d had since 2004. > > He had it all along and despite writing thousands and thousands of words about Yamal somehow somehow failed to mention this until now. Truly I am in awe of McIntyre’s ability to make mountains out of molehills. > > The only substantive point that McIntyre made was the sample size was small, but Deep Climate reports that you get the same results with a larger sample: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Now comes new evidence that McIntyre's accusations were completely false. And not only that, one of the Russian researchers who actually control the raw tree-ring data that McIntyre was mistakenly hounding Briffa for, has apparently confirmed that utilization of a newer more complete Yamal data set has no substantial effect on Briffa's Yamal temperature reconstruction. > > > > ``` Very revealing indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/58 "2010-03-20T17:08:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [10 | March | 2010 | Deep Climate](http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/10/)… > > [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/)… [The Yamal implosion](http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html) No I understand the Yamal debate I don’t understand your injection of it. You have been injecting tangents and strawman positions as soon as your old talking points get shot down. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/59 "2010-03-20T17:17:48Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > [The Yamal implosion](http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html) > > No I understand the Yamal debate I don’t understand your injection of it. You have been injecting tangents and strawman positions as soon as your old talking points get shot down. There is no need to analyze much, McIntyre had the data (a big refutation of one of your main points) and still he continued to demand it and not use it properly. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049/60 "2010-03-20T23:31:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Most of it is crazy indeed. > > [http://www.bloomsburypress.com/books/catalog/merchants\_of\_doubt\_hc\_104](http://www.bloomsburypress.com/books/catalog/merchants_of_doubt_hc_104) > [Resilience Alliance - Document Not Found](http://rs.resalliance.org/2010/03/05/naomi-oreskes-of-merchants-of-doubt/) > > Long videos, but it is a history that no true skeptic should ignore. I am aware of Merchants of Doubt. It is frequently brought up by AGW advocates to discredit contrary views. Also, from your side of the argument, all scientists who disagree with the IPCC and mainstream views on this subject are bought off by Big Oil and corporate interests. By the way, you shouldn’t EVER equate skepticism of the IPCC with those denying a link between smoking and cancer. The science of climate change, the history of changing weather patterns, the myriad factors that influence changing global temperature, the task of separating natural cycles related to changes on the Sun (we are currently experiencing a significant solar minimum) from the effect that human activity has is one of the most complex scientific endeavors one could make. Not to mention the hubris necessary to think we can project long term warming trends decades into the future when weather men can barely predict the weather even a week into the future. Also, assuming climate change is indeed real, the task then becomes what steps would it take to really reduce world temperatures drastically over the next few decades, given that populations continue to increase in numbers, and poorer countries are looking to become industrialized and raise their standard of living. To really effect the temperatures significantly, it would require a significantly reduced population, and a dramatically reduced standard of living for people throughout the industrialized world. Cap and Trade WILL NOT affect a significant change in world temperature over the next few decades. Look through these links: > **[Cap And Trade - Bad Medicine For A Sick Economy](https://rense.com/general86/captrade.htm)** [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100001151/cap-and-trade-which-part-of-we-cant-afford-it-doesnt-obama-understand/](http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100001151/cap-and-trade-which-part-of-we-cant-afford-it-doesnt-obama-understand/) An important point in this link is this passage: “According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.” www.ees.ufl.edu/homepp/zoltek/Junk%20Science.doc > **[Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) -...](https://www.masterresource.org/climate-policy/part-i-a-climate-analysis-of-the-waxman-markey-climate-bill-the-impacts-of-us-actions-alone/)** > > Editor Note: Using mainstream models and assumptions, Mr. Knappenberger finds that in the year 2050 with a 83% emissions reduction (the aspirational goal of Waxman-Markey, the beginning steps of which are under vigorous debate),... So basically, IF this legislation is successful and run halfway competently, we can expect to see global temperature rise between 0.05ºC and 0.112ºC less than if we did nothing. There are many other resources out there that confirms these figures. This is IF we reduced carbon emissions 80% over 2005 levels! We are talking about a statistically insignificant difference. Now, what we DO know for certain is that this is a huge tax, will reduce peoples standard of living, make certain corporations and vested interests vast fortunes, and give bureaucrats massive power to regulate every aspect of human behavior. Why is it you can only see the ulterior motives of the “skeptics”? Even if some scientists are bought by Big Oil and have an agenda, it pales in comparison to the lucrative emerging carbon credit market. The prospects for making money are endless. What about the bankers who have financed this movement? What do you think their agenda is? If you actually took the time to read my initial post, you would see that it is the creation of a world bank. This has been documented so many times. You really need to open your eyes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-factual-argument-against-global-warming-cap-and-trade-and-the-copenhagen-treaty/533049.md?page=4)