Faking results?

txmxer wrote:

[i]Nerd wrote: You didn't answer my question.[/i] and you haven't answered my questions. Nerd wrote: Right, you didn't answer it. And now you're not gonna. [b]You[/b]...

Nerd wrote: You didn't answer my question.

and you haven't answered my questions.


Nerd wrote: Right, you didn't answer it. And now you're not gonna.

You haven't read the emails, yet you think what you have read - emails mostly out of context - is enough to proclaim there is nothing there.

Okay. As long as you know you're making a leap of logic and faith.



The questions I asked are fundamental to AGW science. Since you don't know that, we know you know nothing about the science end of this debate. You are political only. The only answers you get to those questions are ranges. Why? Because we don't know. Those ranges are significantly larger than the warming.

BTW, it's about -18 degree C. There is about 30 or so degrees warming attributable to our atmosphere...which includes CO2 content. Of that, it's only a fraction that's attributed to CO2. But, now all of the sudden, it's the driver.

As far as the question about the IPCC data and methodology? Trade SECRETS. The researchers don't want to share the data. That's not peer review. It's bullshit.

Nerd wrote:

If you think asking the temperature of the planet "without an atmosphere" has anything to do with the science of climate change, you're out of your...

If you think asking the temperature of the planet "without an atmosphere" has anything to do with the science of climate change, you're out of your mind.

txmxer wrote:

ok. You win. You are obviously well educated on the subject. or not. You know little. The reason it's fundamental because your little example starts with...

ok. You win. You are obviously well educated on the subject.

or not. You know little.

The reason it's fundamental because your little example starts with what the nominal temperature of the earth is without an atmosphere...then attempts to figure out how much of that heat influx is retained due to the atmosphere. So, now we have a total heat energy retained without excess CO2. Then climate scientist ask the question: How much more heat is retained due to CO2? It's a fraction of the total. The ratio of heat retained due to CO2 versus the amount of additional CO2 is not particularly well balanced. That's why it's illogical to assume that additional CO2 is the root cause of the observed heat gain....oh...but, there's still the problem of the data....that they had to do that "trick" on to make it show the temperature rise.

What they are saying about the "trick" is that the data did not support what they believe to be happening. So they tweaked the data series to make the results match the models.

CR250Rider wrote:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public...

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data,
possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information,
organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data,
private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications
discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.
In other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW is written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

CR250Rider wrote:

way to sidestep the issue, why not just delete the thread like usual ?
hide behind your bully pulpit, hahahahahaha

CR250Rider wrote:

i never stated it was written by me, did I? where is the original Bill Sparkman thread where you were dead wrong? I have no respect...

i never stated it was written by me, did I?

where is the original Bill Sparkman thread where you were dead wrong?

I have no respect for your tactics.

but im sure you knew that, as you obviously know everything

CR250Rider wrote:

i could have just as easily regurgitated the thought, but why waste my time? you are still sidestepping the topic here. BB owns you again, lol...

i could have just as easily regurgitated the thought, but why waste my time?


you are still sidestepping the topic here.


BB owns you again, lol

TXmxer, too

CR250Rider wrote:

more sidestepping, thanks for making my point.

your turn

CR250Rider wrote:

why bother when you haven't read ALL the emails

you simply said that without reading EVERYTHING so you cannot comment.

more sidestepping, btw

Nerd wrote:

Nobody looked up Project Steve yet?

Nerd wrote:

Let's talk about the science of it, huh? There is an atmosphere on earth. I'm going to quote somebody I know: There is a gray box...

Let's talk about the science of it, huh?

There is an atmosphere on earth. I'm going to quote somebody I know:

There is a gray box, which represents the earth's surface. Specifically, a region encompassing the atmosphere, the ocean, the soil, and the top few meters of bedrock. This overlaps substantially with the biosphere but is not necessarily the same, so rather than possibly misuse the term (or some other) I'll invent my own and just keep calling it the "gray box."

The gray box contains a certain amount of heat.

There are two significant heat influxes to the gray box: solar radiation, and heat conducted and convected to the surface from the earth's interior.

There is one significant heat efflux from the gray box: radiation into space.

(There are in addition a number of other heat influxes, which I judge to be insignificant. These include kinetic energy of meteors, tidal friction, radiation from the moon and other astral bodies, and nuclear reactions occurring on or near the surface.)

Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere decreases the rate of thermal radiation into space.

Therefore, additional heat will accumulate in the box and its temperature must increase.

"But it's more complicated than that," say the "global warming skeptics." And then proceed to describe all kinds of things going on inside the gray box. Ocean currents, water vapor, ice, plant cover, soil microbes, and so on endlessly.

And I think, no it's not more complicated than that. Heat in > heat out means temperature goes up.

If anyone wants to convince me that AGW is not a real concern warranting measures to reduce it, they must show compelling evidence of one or more of the following hypotheses:

1. That greenhouse gases are not accumulating in the atmosphere due to manmade causes.

2. That greenhouse gases do not decrease the thermal radiation efflux from the gray box.

3. That something will cause (or is causing) a decrease in heat influx (either solar radiation or heat from the earth's interior) to the gray box that balances the expected decrease in heat efflux.

4. That despite an accumulation of heat energy inside the gray box, its temperature will not rise.

5. That an increase in the temperature in the gray box is not a concern.

Number 1 appears to be contradicted by direct measurements.
Number 2 appears to be contradicted by basic rules of optics.
Number 3 requires a complete description of the mechanism, and strong evidence confirming that it exists.
Number 4 appears to be contradicted by basic laws of thermodynamics.
Number 5 requires addressing each of the obvious expected consequences of a temperature increase including melting ice, shifting climate zones, redistribution of fresh water supplies, and threats to locally adapted flora and fauna, in a quantitative way.

Number 5 is the only one that requires looking in detail inside the gray box. So, the best chance for making a convincing argument for #5 would be to work with and build upon the expertise and tools developed within the field of climatology.

The problem for most "AGW skeptics" is that they dismiss climatology in the mistaken belief that climatologists being wrong about aspects of climatology would somehow argue in favor of hypotheses 1, 2, 3, or 4. This is futile because nothing we don't know (or might be wrong about) concerning what happens inside the gray box can refute "Heat in > heat out means temperature goes up."

Abandoning the discipline of climatology leaves them with only handwaving of the "maybe the heat only heats up things whose temperature doesn't matter" or "maybe the temperature increase will be so slow that we won't notice" variety to bring to hypothesis 5.

Nerd wrote:

Nobody looked up Project Steve yet?

CR250Rider wrote:

i can't believe you got me to look up Project Steve. Project Steve is about something totally different (evolution) Are you trying to tie the theory...

i can't believe you got me to look up Project Steve.
Project Steve is about something totally different (evolution)
Are you trying to tie the theory of evolution to global warming.

sidestepping & hijacking the topic is the same as conceding the opposing point.

(you do win on wasting my time, though)

Nerd wrote:

Let's talk about the science of it, huh? There is an atmosphere on earth. I'm going to quote somebody I know: There is a gray box...

Let's talk about the science of it, huh?

There is an atmosphere on earth. I'm going to quote somebody I know:

There is a gray box, which represents the earth's surface. Specifically, a region encompassing the atmosphere, the ocean, the soil, and the top few meters of bedrock. This overlaps substantially with the biosphere but is not necessarily the same, so rather than possibly misuse the term (or some other) I'll invent my own and just keep calling it the "gray box."

The gray box contains a certain amount of heat.

There are two significant heat influxes to the gray box: solar radiation, and heat conducted and convected to the surface from the earth's interior.

There is one significant heat efflux from the gray box: radiation into space.

(There are in addition a number of other heat influxes, which I judge to be insignificant. These include kinetic energy of meteors, tidal friction, radiation from the moon and other astral bodies, and nuclear reactions occurring on or near the surface.)

Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere decreases the rate of thermal radiation into space.

Therefore, additional heat will accumulate in the box and its temperature must increase.

"But it's more complicated than that," say the "global warming skeptics." And then proceed to describe all kinds of things going on inside the gray box. Ocean currents, water vapor, ice, plant cover, soil microbes, and so on endlessly.

And I think, no it's not more complicated than that. Heat in > heat out means temperature goes up.

If anyone wants to convince me that AGW is not a real concern warranting measures to reduce it, they must show compelling evidence of one or more of the following hypotheses:

1. That greenhouse gases are not accumulating in the atmosphere due to manmade causes.

2. That greenhouse gases do not decrease the thermal radiation efflux from the gray box.

3. That something will cause (or is causing) a decrease in heat influx (either solar radiation or heat from the earth's interior) to the gray box that balances the expected decrease in heat efflux.

4. That despite an accumulation of heat energy inside the gray box, its temperature will not rise.

5. That an increase in the temperature in the gray box is not a concern.

Number 1 appears to be contradicted by direct measurements.
Number 2 appears to be contradicted by basic rules of optics.
Number 3 requires a complete description of the mechanism, and strong evidence confirming that it exists.
Number 4 appears to be contradicted by basic laws of thermodynamics.
Number 5 requires addressing each of the obvious expected consequences of a temperature increase including melting ice, shifting climate zones, redistribution of fresh water supplies, and threats to locally adapted flora and fauna, in a quantitative way.

Number 5 is the only one that requires looking in detail inside the gray box. So, the best chance for making a convincing argument for #5 would be to work with and build upon the expertise and tools developed within the field of climatology.

The problem for most "AGW skeptics" is that they dismiss climatology in the mistaken belief that climatologists being wrong about aspects of climatology would somehow argue in favor of hypotheses 1, 2, 3, or 4. This is futile because nothing we don't know (or might be wrong about) concerning what happens inside the gray box can refute "Heat in > heat out means temperature goes up."

Abandoning the discipline of climatology leaves them with only handwaving of the "maybe the heat only heats up things whose temperature doesn't matter" or "maybe the temperature increase will be so slow that we won't notice" variety to bring to hypothesis 5.

CR250Rider wrote:

AGAIN, you continue to hijack and sidestep.

stay on topic.

CR250Rider wrote:

the topic was not global warming theory, but rather: [i][b]Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation...

the topic was not global warming theory, but rather:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data,
possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information,
organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data,
private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications
discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.
In other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW is written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.


AGAIN, arguing the theory of AGM is not the topic here, but nice try sidestepping and hijacking the topic.

Nerd wrote:

If you think asking the temperature of the planet "without an atmosphere" has anything to do with the science of climate change, you're out of your...

If you think asking the temperature of the planet "without an atmosphere" has anything to do with the science of climate change, you're out of your mind.

txmxer wrote:

ok. You win. You are obviously well educated on the subject. or not. You know little. The reason it's fundamental because your little example starts with...

ok. You win. You are obviously well educated on the subject.

or not. You know little.

The reason it's fundamental because your little example starts with what the nominal temperature of the earth is without an atmosphere...then attempts to figure out how much of that heat influx is retained due to the atmosphere. So, now we have a total heat energy retained without excess CO2. Then climate scientist ask the question: How much more heat is retained due to CO2? It's a fraction of the total. The ratio of heat retained due to CO2 versus the amount of additional CO2 is not particularly well balanced. That's why it's illogical to assume that additional CO2 is the root cause of the observed heat gain....oh...but, there's still the problem of the data....that they had to do that "trick" on to make it show the temperature rise.

What they are saying about the "trick" is that the data did not support what they believe to be happening. So they tweaked the data series to make the results match the models.

Nerd wrote:

So no comments on my long post, huh?

I love how you talk about wanting to deal with the science, but then avoid the science.