It is simply a lie to claim that the entire theory of anthropogenic temperature increase rests on one data set. But let's look at the detail of this.
Let's look at that. First, your assertion that there is a claim that "the entire theory of anthropogenic temperature increase" about anything is a strawman - no such claim was ever made.
The assertion is that the historic global temperature data used to create UN policy was compiled by CRU, and it is the basis of today global warming evidence, and they make the claim that the raw historic data the US paid them to compile isn't available so it can't be peer reviewed. There exists today no reliable records of global surface temperature for reconstructing past global temperatures.
TO that end, let's look at what this data set represents -
Quote:
The area of CRU's work that has probably had the largest international impact was started in 1978 and continues through to the present-day: the production of the world's land-based, gridded (currently using 5° by 5° latitude/longitude boxes) temperature data set. This involved many person-years of painstaking data collection, checking and homogenization. In 1986, this analysis was extended to the marine sector (in co-operation with the Hadley Centre, Met Office from 1989), and so represented the first-ever synthesis of land and marine temperature data - i.e., the first truly global temperature record, demonstrating unequivocally that the globe has warmed by almost 0.8°C over the last 157 years.
The data set is the "first ever", and now the Global Historical Climatology Network is the foundation for reconstructing past global temperatures... and guess where they got their data? Yuppers, they use CRU's data set
Quote:
Global Long-term Mean Land and Sea Surface Temperatures
Estimates of mean monthly global surface temperatures are given below with respect to the 20th century average (1901-2000). The figures are based on 1961-1990 estimates from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (UEA-CRU). The recently derived 1961-1990 global monthly surface temperature averages represent, in our opinion, the best absolute estimates of global mean temperature and were compiled at UEA-CRU by M. New, P.D. Jones, D.E. Parker and others.
I think it's appropriate at this juncture to point out that "facts", as you refer to them, are not available.
The surface history data, paid for by the U.S. Department of Energy, compiled by Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, was the source of authority for the IPCC's warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.
From the article: Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
When pressed for the data by Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, who requested the raw data from Jones, Jones responded:
"Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data."
In scientific research, if you can't guarantee the trail of the empirical evidence back to the original source, it's considered tainted and your conclusions are void. Since the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is the source of authority for all the data used (the exception is satellite data, which only goes back about 20 years) to determine historic global temperature baselines, that research is tainted.
itistoday, I agree with your assertion that people are throwing around the word "facts" as if they knew what they were talking about, yet no verifiable facts exist. Scientists may or may not have it wrong, it's impossible to tell if you don't have a verifiable trail of evidence and if you don't make the evidence available for peer review.
Your last sentence is partially correct, but your repeated assertion is not. The work by Phil Jones is not the most current version of the data that is currently used in most temperature reconstructions. The data used is based on the work of Rayner and colleagues in 20 September 2005, "Improved Analyses of Changes and Uncertainties in Sea Surface Temperature Measured In Situ since the Mid-Nineteenth Century: The HadSST2 Dataset".
Also, the recent IPCC report had a thorough description of the issues (section 3.B.3) fully acknowledging that these corrections are a work in progress. And that is indeed the case. The collection and digitization of the ship logbooks is a huge undertaking and continues to add significant amounts of 20th Century and earlier data to the records. This dataset (ICOADS) is continually growing, publicly accessible, and the impacts of the bias adjustments are continually being assessed.
Your last sentence is partially correct, but your repeated assertion is not. The work by Phil Jones is not the most current version of the data that is currently used in most temperature reconstructions. The data used is based on the work of Rayner and colleagues in 20 September 2005, "Improved Analyses of Changes and Uncertainties in Sea Surface Temperature Measured In Situ since the Mid-Nineteenth Century: The HadSST2 Dataset".
Yes, my repeated assertion is correct.
IPCC AR4 (the latest report from the IPCC) still used CRU's historic global data to arrive at it's conclusions.
HADSST 2 is sea surface temperature data, not global surface data.
To all the nutjobs out there claiming there's a global socialist conspiracy to help GE or China, or whatever:
You should be aware that the politicization of the global warming issue is a particularly American phenomenon. You've been told in the USA to hate Al Gore and what he represents, and so you do. I'm sure you have a conspiracy theory about why he was awarded a Nobel prize too. You think the global warming issue is a left-wing one. You are mistaken.
Just as in the American debate on health care (reinventing the wheel!), the American right wing is isolated in comparison to its European and Asian counterparts. Your fear of "socialist" whatever is simply a Cold War tactic used by the Republicans to drum up support for their pro-industry, pro-fossil fuel positions.
Many (most?) European conservatives fully support their national health systems, and fully realize the need for action to slow down or reverse climate change. So Apple won't lose out if you nutjobs object to their admirable statement in withdrawing from the Chamber of Commerce, because it will only be a small percentage of Americans who object.
It is the left who took the weather and politicized it.
Do any of you rabid leftists in this thread question the leftist prescriptions for global warming? Of course not, because those prescriptions reflect your existing worldview, with or without a climate "emergency." For example:
1. Massive govt intervention into and control of the economic engines of production.
2. Huge taxes on and control of companies and individuals.
3. The destruction of the US status as a global superpower through phony one-sided climate treaties and the like.
Hence, global warming "crisis" equals socialism. Get it?
Additionally, you have sought to curtail debate on your "scientific" theories by calling the matter "settled science" and saying those who disagree with you only watch and regurgitate Fox news! Ha ha. Pathetic arguments, naturally, and good evidence of why you seek to have no debate -- your position cannot withstand it. You people are a joke.
The real question is why you insecure self-loathing leftists can't just work on fixing your psychological infirmities. Believe me, you'd be a lot happier than using successfully some vehicle, weather or otherwise, for grabbing control and power over the rest of us.
The real question is why you insecure self-loathing leftists can't just work on fixing your psychological infirmities. Believe me, you'd be a lot happier than using successfully some vehicle, weather or otherwise, for grabbing control and power over the rest of us.
The discussions have run far afield of Apple's position with the USCOC and the AI thread. If you have an interest in further productive discussions on climate-related findings, methods, datasets used, datasets' accessibility/variability, Patrick Michaels' credibility/funding, etc., I suggest continuing it here.
HADSST 2 is sea surface temperature data, not global surface data.
Yes, that is correct.
One final comment before moving the discussion to another forum. There is a larger issue here than accessibility, e.g., the GISTEMP data set. This takes public domain data provided by Met Services, homogenizes it and makes a correction for urban warming based on nearby rural stations. The method was amply described in a number of publications and lots of intermediate data was provided through the web interface. Good right? But the descriptions of the algorithms were deemed insufficient, and a number of people complained that the full code wasn't available implying GISTEMP was somehow hiding some secret manipulations. Now the code isn't particularly pretty, but it worked. So in response to that pressure, it was put online. Finally, the secrets were going to be exposed! Except that interested parties perused it briefly, found one formatting error, and then ? nothing. McIntyre et al got quietly bored and noisily departed to find another ruse to feed their denyosphere. People still blog that the data and code aren't available.
Some unnamed requestors have established themselves to be keener on political point scoring than in doing anything productive with the data. Reality is not the point. I share a desire for open science and transparency, but these antics are troublesome because they transmit the wrong signal. Politically driven demands for more code, data, residuals, notes, and background have become insatiable. [BTW, the service is not funded to accommodate the current level of unregistered requests] When the people that provide the most, end up being attacked the most, it doesn't benefit the cause people claim to espouse. I can only speculate about that as a possible reason for rejection to those cited in Michaels' article. But, when you hear demands for more openness, observe what those folks have done with what is already available and judge for yourself whether it is genuine, or merely grandstanding.
IMO, nothing appears more egregious to deniers and delayers than irrelevant errors in data sets; utilizing them for an inflated "Aha!" on the news' cycle. Yet, nothing is less important to them than finding, or even acknowledging, the significant well-documented falsehoods and data-skewing by fellow deniers, delayers, or anybody who publishes anti- and pseudo-scientific views.
Hmmm, this thread is more interesting as a study of human behavior than as a scientific debate.
The only explanation for a left/right divide on the subject of climate change, is that a significant percentage of people have their critical thinking skills overruled by propaganda and/or peer pressure.
In other words a surprisingly large percentage are complete idiots. They may even be correct on this particular issue, but merely by accident.
Another phenomenon I find strange is the amount of denial going on. Scientists have been proven wrong in the past, even vast majorities of scientists. However, this isn't the argument being made by many of those claiming that climate change doesn't exist. It seems that some people are not only denying that climate change is happening, but also denying that there is a near scientific consensus on the subject. Their contrarian position would be more convincing if they weren't also insisting that it wasn't the contrarian position.
It is the left who took the weather and politicized it.
Oh you're back? I'm still waiting to hear an explanation of your socialist conspiracy theory. Whatever happened to that?
Quote:
Do any of you rabid leftists in this thread question the leftist prescriptions for global warming? Of course not, because those prescriptions reflect your existing worldview, with or without a climate "emergency." For example:
1. Massive govt intervention into and control of the economic engines of production.
Wake up! Look at what your uncontrolled "engines of production" have caused! Diabetes in children, the fattest, unhealthiest humans on the planet, pollution that's destroying what's left of your environment, a food system that created e coli in hamburgers, spinach, in places that have never seen the bacterium before! Hundreds if not thousands of dead humans from said contamination. The USDA and regulatory bodies are *not* intervening in all of this because they're in the pockets of a handful of companies *and run by them*.
For reference, read Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma" and see Food Inc.
Quote:
2. Huge taxes on and control of companies and individuals.
Liberals want to tax the rich, not Americans. If Americans can be defined as the lower 95%, that is. Obama lowered taxes for 95% of individuals and businesses, you know, the people that actually needed to have their taxes lowered.
Companies need to be controlled to some extent, *to allow for a competitive market*. if you don't realize that then you shouldn't be using a Mac, after all, it was *because* of regulatory bodies that Microsoft was prevented from completely wiping out what was left of Apple.
Quote:
3. The destruction of the US status as a global superpower through phony one-sided climate treaties and the like.
The destruction of the US status of a global superpower was helped more by the republicans than by any one body. Thanks to you republicans and to Bush, the US has over a trillion dollar deficit and is bleeding cash like there's no tomorrow on wars, ignorance, and through its so-called health care system.
Quote:
Hence, global warming "crisis" equals socialism. Get it?
You don't know what socialism is. Socialism *can* mean governmental regulation of companies, but that in of itself doesn't qualify it as socialism. The fact that these are privately owned companies already disqualifies it as basic socialism. Further, as the wiki points out, the word "socialism" can mean several different things, and there are different kinds socialism (some of which aren't all that bad). I'm pretty sure none of them fit with what policy-makers are attempting to do with regards to global warming, but if you could be more specific, it would certainly help your case.
Quote:
The real question is why you insecure self-loathing
Self-loathing? I loath people who refuse to read a fucking book, to watch movies that don't contain twenty thousand explosions but ask their audiences to question what they've been told. I loath people who don't *listen* to criticism, who hate and completely misunderstand science, who allow themselves to be brainwashed by their parents, by their preachers, by the animated box that tells them constant, repeated lies, and tells them that they need to consume massive amounts of crap that they don't need.
I loath a culture where ignorance is treated as a virtue and the intellectuals are considered "snobs". I loath people who refuse to address valid points brought up against them in a debate, who make outrageous claims without providing any citations or references to back them up.
And I especially loath people who consider protecting the environment a waste of time or some sort of activity that is beneath them or pointless or "uncool". People who figuratively and literally shit all over the place that provides them with the air that they breath, the animals that they slaughter, the medicine that they consume, all with complete disregard and respect for it. It's the same place where *I* live too!
Righteous? Outraged? Earnest? Perhaps, but self-loathing we are not.
Quote:
leftists can't just work on fixing your psychological infirmities. Believe me, you'd be a lot happier than using successfully some vehicle, weather or otherwise, for grabbing control and power over the rest of us.
You are so delusional it boggles my mind. Are you pulling our leg?
Liberals are *historically* and *factually* the ones that are at the forefront of extending freedoms and liber-ties to those without them.
Liberals are the ones that are trying to make sure the government doesn't take away your rights, but *expands* them to you and other people.
Liberals are the ones that fought conservatives to get black people out of slavery.
Liberals are the ones that fought conservatives to get women the vote.
Liberals are the ones that have been fighting to protect those who need protection and are without freedoms. The uninsured, the homeless, and those who prefer to have sex with members of the same sex.
Liberals, by definition, are open-minded, welcoming.
Conservatives, by definition, are close-minded, stuck in their ways, and against any change whatsoever from the status quo.
And you're proud to be a conservative? Are you equally proud of your ignorance?
Hmmm, this thread is more interesting as a study of human behavior than as a scientific debate.
As I tried to point out earlier, there should be no scientific debate in this thread. We are not scientists studying the phenomenon, we don't know what we're talking about, as such we shouldn't be debating it. But what we *can* do, is, as you point out, is point to the existing consensus among scientists, which, as you also point out, could be wrong! (And the scientists aren't denying that!)
As I tried to point out earlier, there should be no scientific debate in this thread. We are not scientists studying the phenomenon, we don't know what we're talking about, as such we shouldn't be debating it. But what we *can* do, is, as you point out, is point to the existing consensus among scientists, which, as you also point out, could be wrong! (And the scientists aren't denying that!)
I wholeheartedly reject the notion that only scientists are allowed to evaluate and discuss science. Blindly accepting any consensus or contrarian view is a recipe for ignorance.
I would perhaps agree with a lesser assertion, that non-scientists frequently espouse ridiculous and annoying viewpoints. They're also frequently wrong about factual issues.
However the solution isn't to discourage scientific discussion. The exact opposite is the solution to the ignorance of climate change. While I certainly don't have the inclination to argue with people who already turn a blind eye to science, hopefully someone else does...
I wholeheartedly reject the notion that only scientists are allowed to evaluate and discuss science. Blindly accepting any consensus or contrarian view is a recipe for ignorance.
I would perhaps agree with a lesser assertion, that non-scientists frequently espouse ridiculous and annoying viewpoints. They're also frequently wrong about factual issues.
Sorry, let's not misunderstand each other, I agree with you that everyone should be allowed to "evaluate and discuss science", certainly. What I think is dangerous and a waste of everyone's time is when a non-expert tries to pose as an expert on a subject.
The science of climate research is complicated as hell. The data is enormous. I'm fairly sure that no one posting in this thread has the data, and that none of them have spent the time studying it seriously, or even are in possession of the requisite knowledge to begin to understand the problem should they obtain said data.
And yet they'll readily post graphs and make statements such as "CO2 does not lead temperature, the sun is what is responsible for the recent warming, man-made global warming is a lie."
Those kinds of statements are not helpful to anyone's understanding as they are not backed up by anything other than the author's personal fancy, which as you point out, is nothing more than what's been told to them by various unscientific sources with political agendas to push.
That is the sort of discussion that I think we shouldn't be having.
Oh you're back? I'm still waiting to hear an explanation of your socialist conspiracy theory. Whatever happened to that?
Wake up! Look at what your uncontrolled "engines of production" have caused! Diabetes in children, the fattest, unhealthiest humans on the planet, pollution that's destroying what's left of your environment, a food system that created e coli in hamburgers, spinach, in places that have never seen the bacterium before! Hundreds if not thousands of dead humans from said contamination. The USDA and regulatory bodies are *not* intervening in all of this because they're in the pockets of a handful of companies *and run by them*.
For reference, read Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma" and see Food Inc.
Liberals want to tax the rich, not Americans. If Americans can be defined as the lower 95%, that is. Obama lowered taxes for 95% of individuals and businesses, you know, the people that actually needed to have their taxes lowered.
Companies need to be controlled to some extent, *to allow for a competitive market*. if you don't realize that then you shouldn't be using a Mac, after all, it was *because* of regulatory bodies that Microsoft was prevented from completely wiping out what was left of Apple.
The destruction of the US status of a global superpower was helped more by the republicans than by any one body. Thanks to you republicans and to Bush, the US has over a trillion dollar deficit and is bleeding cash like there's no tomorrow on wars, ignorance, and through its so-called health care system.
You don't know what socialism is. Socialism *can* mean governmental regulation of companies, but that in of itself doesn't qualify it as socialism. The fact that these are privately owned companies already disqualifies it as basic socialism. Further, as the wiki points out, the word "socialism" can mean several different things, and there are different kinds socialism (some of which aren't all that bad). I'm pretty sure none of them fit with what policy-makers are attempting to do with regards to global warming, but if you could be more specific, it would certainly help your case.
Self-loathing? I loath people who refuse to read a fucking book, to watch movies that don't contain twenty thousand explosions but ask their audiences to question what they've been told. I loath people who don't *listen* to criticism, who hate and completely misunderstand science, who allow themselves to be brainwashed by their parents, by their preachers, by the animated box that tells them constant, repeated lies, and tells them that they need to consume massive amounts of crap that they don't need.
I loath a culture where ignorance is treated as a virtue and the intellectuals are considered "snobs". I loath people who refuse to address valid points brought up against them in a debate, who make outrageous claims without providing any citations or references to back them up.
And I especially loath people who consider protecting the environment a waste of time or some sort of activity that is beneath them or pointless or "uncool". People who figuratively and literally shit all over the place that provides them with the air that they breath, the animals that they slaughter, the medicine that they consume, all with complete disregard and respect for it. It's the same place where *I* live too!
Righteous? Outraged? Earnest? Perhaps, but self-loathing we are not.
You are so delusional it boggles my mind. Are you pulling our leg?
Liberals are *historically* and *factually* the ones that are at the forefront of extending freedoms and liber-ties to those without them.
Liberals are the ones that are trying to make sure the government doesn't take away your rights, but *expands* them to you and other people.
Liberals are the ones that fought conservatives to get black people out of slavery.
Liberals are the ones that fought conservatives to get women the vote.
Liberals are the ones that have been fighting to protect those who need protection and are without freedoms. The uninsured, the homeless, and those who prefer to have sex with members of the same sex.
Liberals, by definition, are open-minded, welcoming.
Conservatives, by definition, are close-minded, stuck in their ways, and against any change whatsoever from the status quo.
And you're proud to be a conservative? Are you equally proud of your ignorance?
Ha ha ha! What an ignorant idiot. You better go now, I think Oprah is on soon.
The discussions have run far afield of Apple's position with the USCOC and the AI thread. If you have an interest in further productive discussions on climate-related findings, methods, datasets used, datasets' accessibility/variability, Patrick Michaels' credibility/funding, etc., I suggest continuing it here.
I refer you to my original post, which I which I repost here:
Apple, the beneficiary of competing well in what has been up to now one of our least regulated and, thus, most successful, industries, is far too political -- and, given the above, hypocritically so.
They have put the odious, loud, idiotic, and self-serving Al Gore on the board, donated lots of money to support gay marriage, and now this.
Socialist climate change theories remain highly controversial and much debated. For Apple to, once again, take a leftist political position at the expense of alienating a good percentage of the buying public is simply stupid.
Steve Jobs' ill-considered and pseudo-intellectual forays into the political extensions of his former hippie days should by now have matured logically. As they have not, he should stay focused on what he is good at, and that is not political thought and discourse.
As an Apple fan and investor who has evangelized Apple products for many years, this "me generation" "self-congratulating" baby-boom nonsense simply makes my job more difficult.
Ha ha ha! What an ignorant idiot. You better go now, I think Oprah is on soon.
You know what, I think you may be right. I may have a screw loose, I actually thought I'd get a better reply from you... don't know what I was thinking.
I loath people who refuse to read a fucking book, to watch movies that don't contain twenty thousand explosions but ask their audiences to question what they've been told. I loath people who don't *listen* to criticism, who hate and completely misunderstand science, who allow themselves to be brainwashed by their parents, by their preachers, by the animated box that tells them constant, repeated lies, and tells them that they need to consume massive amounts of crap that they don't need.
I loath a culture where ignorance is treated as a virtue and the intellectuals are considered "snobs". I loath people who refuse to address valid points brought up against them in a debate, who make outrageous claims without providing any citations or references to back them up.
And I especially loath people who consider protecting the environment a waste of time or some sort of activity that is beneath them or pointless or "uncool". People who figuratively and literally shit all over the place that provides them with the air that they breath, the animals that they slaughter, the medicine that they consume, all with complete disregard and respect for it. It's the same place where *I* live too!
By the way, have you seen photos of the Mall in Washington, DC after the "Earth Day" celebrations and the Obama inaugural? It looked like WWIII. How about after the 9/12 tea party last month? Not a single piece of garbage.
I live in Washington, DC (i.e. behind enemy lines). It is you and yours who have been shitting all over MY backyard all these years.
What a self-important, pseudo-intellectual buffoon.
IMO, nothing appears more egregious to deniers and delayers than irrelevant errors in data sets; utilizing them for an inflated "Aha!" on the news' cycle. Yet, nothing is less important to them than finding, or even acknowledging, the significant well-documented falsehoods and data-skewing by fellow deniers, delayers, or anybody who publishes anti- and pseudo-scientific views.
Inflated "Aha's" are a consequence of inflated claims that there is scientific consensus about the causation and correlations concerning the anthropomorphic contribution to climate change.
For instance, the whole "sea level increases will kill THOUSANDS" kind of news reporting leads to that kind of skepticism. If you stand on a beach you'll die of old age long before a sea level increase gets your shoes wet. Likewise the claim that the polar bear is endangered. The population of polar bears has gone from about 5000 in the '50's to 25000 and rising today. The "consensus" was that commercial shipping was going to be traversing the northwest passage by now. Etc...
Even using the word "deniers" to identify those who want considerably more investigation before policy is created encourages folks to correct every mistake made. Folks insist that there is no time to wait, disaster is imminent! Trouble is, policies like those proposed by Kyoto are basically useless for achieving any climate change. The only thing I see cap and trade policy actually accomplishing is wealth redistribution. Cost benefit analysis needs to be promoted and it needs to be transparent. What good will be accomplished and what will it cost? Put some CPU cycles to that and disseminate the info, THEN folks can make enlightened decisions.
As long as the media continues to publish exaggerated claims by politicians and "scientists", you'll have folks pulling the "Aha's!".
By the way, have you seen photos of the Mall in Washington, DC after the "Earth Day" celebrations and the Obama inaugural? It looked like WWIII.
I'll have to take your word on that, and if it's true then that's very hypocritical of them.
Quote:
I live in Washington, DC (i.e. behind enemy lines). It is you and yours who have been shitting all over MY backyard all these years.
Sorry, I don't frequent D.C., nor does my family, so I don't see how that could be true. I'm also pretty good about cleaning up after myself (and sometimes I even pick up the shit other people have left behind, only so much I can do though).
Quote:
How about after the 9/12 tea party last month? Not a single piece of garbage.
Again, I'll have to take you at your word on that one.
I'll have to take your word on that, and if it's true then that's very hypocritical of them.
Sorry, I don't frequent D.C., nor does my family, so I don't see how that could be true. I'm also pretty good about cleaning up after myself (and sometimes I even pick up the shit other people have left behind, only so much I can do though).
Again, I'll have to take you at your word on that one.
I have photos of all of it, but can't post them here, unfortunately.
Comments
It is simply a lie to claim that the entire theory of anthropogenic temperature increase rests on one data set. But let's look at the detail of this.
Let's look at that. First, your assertion that there is a claim that "the entire theory of anthropogenic temperature increase" about anything is a strawman - no such claim was ever made.
The assertion is that the historic global temperature data used to create UN policy was compiled by CRU, and it is the basis of today global warming evidence, and they make the claim that the raw historic data the US paid them to compile isn't available so it can't be peer reviewed. There exists today no reliable records of global surface temperature for reconstructing past global temperatures.
TO that end, let's look at what this data set represents -
The area of CRU's work that has probably had the largest international impact was started in 1978 and continues through to the present-day: the production of the world's land-based, gridded (currently using 5° by 5° latitude/longitude boxes) temperature data set. This involved many person-years of painstaking data collection, checking and homogenization. In 1986, this analysis was extended to the marine sector (in co-operation with the Hadley Centre, Met Office from 1989), and so represented the first-ever synthesis of land and marine temperature data - i.e., the first truly global temperature record, demonstrating unequivocally that the globe has warmed by almost 0.8°C over the last 157 years.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
The data set is the "first ever", and now the Global Historical Climatology Network is the foundation for reconstructing past global temperatures... and guess where they got their data? Yuppers, they use CRU's data set
Global Long-term Mean Land and Sea Surface Temperatures
Estimates of mean monthly global surface temperatures are given below with respect to the 20th century average (1901-2000). The figures are based on 1961-1990 estimates from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (UEA-CRU). The recently derived 1961-1990 global monthly surface temperature averages represent, in our opinion, the best absolute estimates of global mean temperature and were compiled at UEA-CRU by M. New, P.D. Jones, D.E. Parker and others.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ies/index.html
So, do a little more checking before you accuse someone else of telling lies.
I think it's appropriate at this juncture to point out that "facts", as you refer to them, are not available.
The surface history data, paid for by the U.S. Department of Energy, compiled by Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, was the source of authority for the IPCC's warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.
From the article: Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
When pressed for the data by Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, who requested the raw data from Jones, Jones responded:
"Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data."
In scientific research, if you can't guarantee the trail of the empirical evidence back to the original source, it's considered tainted and your conclusions are void. Since the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is the source of authority for all the data used (the exception is satellite data, which only goes back about 20 years) to determine historic global temperature baselines, that research is tainted.
itistoday, I agree with your assertion that people are throwing around the word "facts" as if they knew what they were talking about, yet no verifiable facts exist. Scientists may or may not have it wrong, it's impossible to tell if you don't have a verifiable trail of evidence and if you don't make the evidence available for peer review.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...WI5OWM=&w=MA==
Your last sentence is partially correct, but your repeated assertion is not. The work by Phil Jones is not the most current version of the data that is currently used in most temperature reconstructions. The data used is based on the work of Rayner and colleagues in 20 September 2005, "Improved Analyses of Changes and Uncertainties in Sea Surface Temperature Measured In Situ since the Mid-Nineteenth Century: The HadSST2 Dataset".
Also, the recent IPCC report had a thorough description of the issues (section 3.B.3) fully acknowledging that these corrections are a work in progress. And that is indeed the case. The collection and digitization of the ship logbooks is a huge undertaking and continues to add significant amounts of 20th Century and earlier data to the records. This dataset (ICOADS) is continually growing, publicly accessible, and the impacts of the bias adjustments are continually being assessed.
Your last sentence is partially correct, but your repeated assertion is not. The work by Phil Jones is not the most current version of the data that is currently used in most temperature reconstructions. The data used is based on the work of Rayner and colleagues in 20 September 2005, "Improved Analyses of Changes and Uncertainties in Sea Surface Temperature Measured In Situ since the Mid-Nineteenth Century: The HadSST2 Dataset".
Yes, my repeated assertion is correct.
IPCC AR4 (the latest report from the IPCC) still used CRU's historic global data to arrive at it's conclusions.
HADSST 2 is sea surface temperature data, not global surface data.
To all the nutjobs out there claiming there's a global socialist conspiracy to help GE or China, or whatever:
You should be aware that the politicization of the global warming issue is a particularly American phenomenon. You've been told in the USA to hate Al Gore and what he represents, and so you do. I'm sure you have a conspiracy theory about why he was awarded a Nobel prize too. You think the global warming issue is a left-wing one. You are mistaken.
Just as in the American debate on health care (reinventing the wheel!), the American right wing is isolated in comparison to its European and Asian counterparts. Your fear of "socialist" whatever is simply a Cold War tactic used by the Republicans to drum up support for their pro-industry, pro-fossil fuel positions.
Many (most?) European conservatives fully support their national health systems, and fully realize the need for action to slow down or reverse climate change. So Apple won't lose out if you nutjobs object to their admirable statement in withdrawing from the Chamber of Commerce, because it will only be a small percentage of Americans who object.
It is the left who took the weather and politicized it.
Do any of you rabid leftists in this thread question the leftist prescriptions for global warming? Of course not, because those prescriptions reflect your existing worldview, with or without a climate "emergency." For example:
1. Massive govt intervention into and control of the economic engines of production.
2. Huge taxes on and control of companies and individuals.
3. The destruction of the US status as a global superpower through phony one-sided climate treaties and the like.
Hence, global warming "crisis" equals socialism. Get it?
Additionally, you have sought to curtail debate on your "scientific" theories by calling the matter "settled science" and saying those who disagree with you only watch and regurgitate Fox news! Ha ha. Pathetic arguments, naturally, and good evidence of why you seek to have no debate -- your position cannot withstand it. You people are a joke.
The real question is why you insecure self-loathing leftists can't just work on fixing your psychological infirmities. Believe me, you'd be a lot happier than using successfully some vehicle, weather or otherwise, for grabbing control and power over the rest of us.
...
The real question is why you insecure self-loathing leftists can't just work on fixing your psychological infirmities. Believe me, you'd be a lot happier than using successfully some vehicle, weather or otherwise, for grabbing control and power over the rest of us.
The discussions have run far afield of Apple's position with the USCOC and the AI thread. If you have an interest in further productive discussions on climate-related findings, methods, datasets used, datasets' accessibility/variability, Patrick Michaels' credibility/funding, etc., I suggest continuing it here.
Yes, my repeated assertion is correct.
...
HADSST 2 is sea surface temperature data, not global surface data.
Yes, that is correct.
One final comment before moving the discussion to another forum. There is a larger issue here than accessibility, e.g., the GISTEMP data set. This takes public domain data provided by Met Services, homogenizes it and makes a correction for urban warming based on nearby rural stations. The method was amply described in a number of publications and lots of intermediate data was provided through the web interface. Good right? But the descriptions of the algorithms were deemed insufficient, and a number of people complained that the full code wasn't available implying GISTEMP was somehow hiding some secret manipulations. Now the code isn't particularly pretty, but it worked. So in response to that pressure, it was put online. Finally, the secrets were going to be exposed! Except that interested parties perused it briefly, found one formatting error, and then ? nothing. McIntyre et al got quietly bored and noisily departed to find another ruse to feed their denyosphere. People still blog that the data and code aren't available.
Some unnamed requestors have established themselves to be keener on political point scoring than in doing anything productive with the data. Reality is not the point. I share a desire for open science and transparency, but these antics are troublesome because they transmit the wrong signal. Politically driven demands for more code, data, residuals, notes, and background have become insatiable. [BTW, the service is not funded to accommodate the current level of unregistered requests] When the people that provide the most, end up being attacked the most, it doesn't benefit the cause people claim to espouse. I can only speculate about that as a possible reason for rejection to those cited in Michaels' article. But, when you hear demands for more openness, observe what those folks have done with what is already available and judge for yourself whether it is genuine, or merely grandstanding.
IMO, nothing appears more egregious to deniers and delayers than irrelevant errors in data sets; utilizing them for an inflated "Aha!" on the news' cycle. Yet, nothing is less important to them than finding, or even acknowledging, the significant well-documented falsehoods and data-skewing by fellow deniers, delayers, or anybody who publishes anti- and pseudo-scientific views.
On topic, good job Apple!
The only explanation for a left/right divide on the subject of climate change, is that a significant percentage of people have their critical thinking skills overruled by propaganda and/or peer pressure.
In other words a surprisingly large percentage are complete idiots. They may even be correct on this particular issue, but merely by accident.
Another phenomenon I find strange is the amount of denial going on. Scientists have been proven wrong in the past, even vast majorities of scientists. However, this isn't the argument being made by many of those claiming that climate change doesn't exist. It seems that some people are not only denying that climate change is happening, but also denying that there is a near scientific consensus on the subject. Their contrarian position would be more convincing if they weren't also insisting that it wasn't the contrarian position.
It is the left who took the weather and politicized it.
Oh you're back? I'm still waiting to hear an explanation of your socialist conspiracy theory. Whatever happened to that?
Do any of you rabid leftists in this thread question the leftist prescriptions for global warming? Of course not, because those prescriptions reflect your existing worldview, with or without a climate "emergency." For example:
1. Massive govt intervention into and control of the economic engines of production.
Wake up! Look at what your uncontrolled "engines of production" have caused! Diabetes in children, the fattest, unhealthiest humans on the planet, pollution that's destroying what's left of your environment, a food system that created e coli in hamburgers, spinach, in places that have never seen the bacterium before! Hundreds if not thousands of dead humans from said contamination. The USDA and regulatory bodies are *not* intervening in all of this because they're in the pockets of a handful of companies *and run by them*.
For reference, read Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma" and see Food Inc.
2. Huge taxes on and control of companies and individuals.
Liberals want to tax the rich, not Americans. If Americans can be defined as the lower 95%, that is. Obama lowered taxes for 95% of individuals and businesses, you know, the people that actually needed to have their taxes lowered.
Companies need to be controlled to some extent, *to allow for a competitive market*. if you don't realize that then you shouldn't be using a Mac, after all, it was *because* of regulatory bodies that Microsoft was prevented from completely wiping out what was left of Apple.
3. The destruction of the US status as a global superpower through phony one-sided climate treaties and the like.
The destruction of the US status of a global superpower was helped more by the republicans than by any one body. Thanks to you republicans and to Bush, the US has over a trillion dollar deficit and is bleeding cash like there's no tomorrow on wars, ignorance, and through its so-called health care system.
Hence, global warming "crisis" equals socialism. Get it?
You don't know what socialism is. Socialism *can* mean governmental regulation of companies, but that in of itself doesn't qualify it as socialism. The fact that these are privately owned companies already disqualifies it as basic socialism. Further, as the wiki points out, the word "socialism" can mean several different things, and there are different kinds socialism (some of which aren't all that bad). I'm pretty sure none of them fit with what policy-makers are attempting to do with regards to global warming, but if you could be more specific, it would certainly help your case.
The real question is why you insecure self-loathing
Self-loathing? I loath people who refuse to read a fucking book, to watch movies that don't contain twenty thousand explosions but ask their audiences to question what they've been told. I loath people who don't *listen* to criticism, who hate and completely misunderstand science, who allow themselves to be brainwashed by their parents, by their preachers, by the animated box that tells them constant, repeated lies, and tells them that they need to consume massive amounts of crap that they don't need.
I loath a culture where ignorance is treated as a virtue and the intellectuals are considered "snobs". I loath people who refuse to address valid points brought up against them in a debate, who make outrageous claims without providing any citations or references to back them up.
And I especially loath people who consider protecting the environment a waste of time or some sort of activity that is beneath them or pointless or "uncool". People who figuratively and literally shit all over the place that provides them with the air that they breath, the animals that they slaughter, the medicine that they consume, all with complete disregard and respect for it. It's the same place where *I* live too!
Righteous? Outraged? Earnest? Perhaps, but self-loathing we are not.
leftists can't just work on fixing your psychological infirmities. Believe me, you'd be a lot happier than using successfully some vehicle, weather or otherwise, for grabbing control and power over the rest of us.
You are so delusional it boggles my mind. Are you pulling our leg?
Liberals are *historically* and *factually* the ones that are at the forefront of extending freedoms and liber-ties to those without them.
Liberals are the ones that are trying to make sure the government doesn't take away your rights, but *expands* them to you and other people.
Liberals are the ones that fought conservatives to get black people out of slavery.
Liberals are the ones that fought conservatives to get women the vote.
Liberals are the ones that have been fighting to protect those who need protection and are without freedoms. The uninsured, the homeless, and those who prefer to have sex with members of the same sex.
Liberals, by definition, are open-minded, welcoming.
Conservatives, by definition, are close-minded, stuck in their ways, and against any change whatsoever from the status quo.
And you're proud to be a conservative? Are you equally proud of your ignorance?
Hmmm, this thread is more interesting as a study of human behavior than as a scientific debate.
As I tried to point out earlier, there should be no scientific debate in this thread. We are not scientists studying the phenomenon, we don't know what we're talking about, as such we shouldn't be debating it. But what we *can* do, is, as you point out, is point to the existing consensus among scientists, which, as you also point out, could be wrong! (And the scientists aren't denying that!)
As I tried to point out earlier, there should be no scientific debate in this thread. We are not scientists studying the phenomenon, we don't know what we're talking about, as such we shouldn't be debating it. But what we *can* do, is, as you point out, is point to the existing consensus among scientists, which, as you also point out, could be wrong! (And the scientists aren't denying that!)
I wholeheartedly reject the notion that only scientists are allowed to evaluate and discuss science. Blindly accepting any consensus or contrarian view is a recipe for ignorance.
I would perhaps agree with a lesser assertion, that non-scientists frequently espouse ridiculous and annoying viewpoints. They're also frequently wrong about factual issues.
However the solution isn't to discourage scientific discussion. The exact opposite is the solution to the ignorance of climate change. While I certainly don't have the inclination to argue with people who already turn a blind eye to science, hopefully someone else does...
I wholeheartedly reject the notion that only scientists are allowed to evaluate and discuss science. Blindly accepting any consensus or contrarian view is a recipe for ignorance.
I would perhaps agree with a lesser assertion, that non-scientists frequently espouse ridiculous and annoying viewpoints. They're also frequently wrong about factual issues.
Sorry, let's not misunderstand each other, I agree with you that everyone should be allowed to "evaluate and discuss science", certainly. What I think is dangerous and a waste of everyone's time is when a non-expert tries to pose as an expert on a subject.
The science of climate research is complicated as hell. The data is enormous. I'm fairly sure that no one posting in this thread has the data, and that none of them have spent the time studying it seriously, or even are in possession of the requisite knowledge to begin to understand the problem should they obtain said data.
And yet they'll readily post graphs and make statements such as "CO2 does not lead temperature, the sun is what is responsible for the recent warming, man-made global warming is a lie."
Those kinds of statements are not helpful to anyone's understanding as they are not backed up by anything other than the author's personal fancy, which as you point out, is nothing more than what's been told to them by various unscientific sources with political agendas to push.
That is the sort of discussion that I think we shouldn't be having.
Oh you're back? I'm still waiting to hear an explanation of your socialist conspiracy theory. Whatever happened to that?
Wake up! Look at what your uncontrolled "engines of production" have caused! Diabetes in children, the fattest, unhealthiest humans on the planet, pollution that's destroying what's left of your environment, a food system that created e coli in hamburgers, spinach, in places that have never seen the bacterium before! Hundreds if not thousands of dead humans from said contamination. The USDA and regulatory bodies are *not* intervening in all of this because they're in the pockets of a handful of companies *and run by them*.
For reference, read Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma" and see Food Inc.
Liberals want to tax the rich, not Americans. If Americans can be defined as the lower 95%, that is. Obama lowered taxes for 95% of individuals and businesses, you know, the people that actually needed to have their taxes lowered.
Companies need to be controlled to some extent, *to allow for a competitive market*. if you don't realize that then you shouldn't be using a Mac, after all, it was *because* of regulatory bodies that Microsoft was prevented from completely wiping out what was left of Apple.
The destruction of the US status of a global superpower was helped more by the republicans than by any one body. Thanks to you republicans and to Bush, the US has over a trillion dollar deficit and is bleeding cash like there's no tomorrow on wars, ignorance, and through its so-called health care system.
You don't know what socialism is. Socialism *can* mean governmental regulation of companies, but that in of itself doesn't qualify it as socialism. The fact that these are privately owned companies already disqualifies it as basic socialism. Further, as the wiki points out, the word "socialism" can mean several different things, and there are different kinds socialism (some of which aren't all that bad). I'm pretty sure none of them fit with what policy-makers are attempting to do with regards to global warming, but if you could be more specific, it would certainly help your case.
Self-loathing? I loath people who refuse to read a fucking book, to watch movies that don't contain twenty thousand explosions but ask their audiences to question what they've been told. I loath people who don't *listen* to criticism, who hate and completely misunderstand science, who allow themselves to be brainwashed by their parents, by their preachers, by the animated box that tells them constant, repeated lies, and tells them that they need to consume massive amounts of crap that they don't need.
I loath a culture where ignorance is treated as a virtue and the intellectuals are considered "snobs". I loath people who refuse to address valid points brought up against them in a debate, who make outrageous claims without providing any citations or references to back them up.
And I especially loath people who consider protecting the environment a waste of time or some sort of activity that is beneath them or pointless or "uncool". People who figuratively and literally shit all over the place that provides them with the air that they breath, the animals that they slaughter, the medicine that they consume, all with complete disregard and respect for it. It's the same place where *I* live too!
Righteous? Outraged? Earnest? Perhaps, but self-loathing we are not.
You are so delusional it boggles my mind. Are you pulling our leg?
Liberals are *historically* and *factually* the ones that are at the forefront of extending freedoms and liber-ties to those without them.
Liberals are the ones that are trying to make sure the government doesn't take away your rights, but *expands* them to you and other people.
Liberals are the ones that fought conservatives to get black people out of slavery.
Liberals are the ones that fought conservatives to get women the vote.
Liberals are the ones that have been fighting to protect those who need protection and are without freedoms. The uninsured, the homeless, and those who prefer to have sex with members of the same sex.
Liberals, by definition, are open-minded, welcoming.
Conservatives, by definition, are close-minded, stuck in their ways, and against any change whatsoever from the status quo.
And you're proud to be a conservative? Are you equally proud of your ignorance?
Ha ha ha! What an ignorant idiot. You better go now, I think Oprah is on soon.
The discussions have run far afield of Apple's position with the USCOC and the AI thread. If you have an interest in further productive discussions on climate-related findings, methods, datasets used, datasets' accessibility/variability, Patrick Michaels' credibility/funding, etc., I suggest continuing it here.
I refer you to my original post, which I which I repost here:
Apple, the beneficiary of competing well in what has been up to now one of our least regulated and, thus, most successful, industries, is far too political -- and, given the above, hypocritically so.
They have put the odious, loud, idiotic, and self-serving Al Gore on the board, donated lots of money to support gay marriage, and now this.
Socialist climate change theories remain highly controversial and much debated. For Apple to, once again, take a leftist political position at the expense of alienating a good percentage of the buying public is simply stupid.
Steve Jobs' ill-considered and pseudo-intellectual forays into the political extensions of his former hippie days should by now have matured logically. As they have not, he should stay focused on what he is good at, and that is not political thought and discourse.
As an Apple fan and investor who has evangelized Apple products for many years, this "me generation" "self-congratulating" baby-boom nonsense simply makes my job more difficult.
Grow up, Apple. Grow up, Steve
Ha ha ha! What an ignorant idiot. You better go now, I think Oprah is on soon.
You know what, I think you may be right. I may have a screw loose, I actually thought I'd get a better reply from you... don't know what I was thinking.
I refer you to my original post, which I which I repost here:
It's like watching a child proudly show you the shit he smeared all over the wall...
I loath people who refuse to read a fucking book, to watch movies that don't contain twenty thousand explosions but ask their audiences to question what they've been told. I loath people who don't *listen* to criticism, who hate and completely misunderstand science, who allow themselves to be brainwashed by their parents, by their preachers, by the animated box that tells them constant, repeated lies, and tells them that they need to consume massive amounts of crap that they don't need.
I loath a culture where ignorance is treated as a virtue and the intellectuals are considered "snobs". I loath people who refuse to address valid points brought up against them in a debate, who make outrageous claims without providing any citations or references to back them up.
And I especially loath people who consider protecting the environment a waste of time or some sort of activity that is beneath them or pointless or "uncool". People who figuratively and literally shit all over the place that provides them with the air that they breath, the animals that they slaughter, the medicine that they consume, all with complete disregard and respect for it. It's the same place where *I* live too!
By the way, have you seen photos of the Mall in Washington, DC after the "Earth Day" celebrations and the Obama inaugural? It looked like WWIII. How about after the 9/12 tea party last month? Not a single piece of garbage.
I live in Washington, DC (i.e. behind enemy lines). It is you and yours who have been shitting all over MY backyard all these years.
What a self-important, pseudo-intellectual buffoon.
It's like watching a child proudly show you the shit he smeared all over the wall...
Itwasyesterday
IMO, nothing appears more egregious to deniers and delayers than irrelevant errors in data sets; utilizing them for an inflated "Aha!" on the news' cycle. Yet, nothing is less important to them than finding, or even acknowledging, the significant well-documented falsehoods and data-skewing by fellow deniers, delayers, or anybody who publishes anti- and pseudo-scientific views.
Inflated "Aha's" are a consequence of inflated claims that there is scientific consensus about the causation and correlations concerning the anthropomorphic contribution to climate change.
For instance, the whole "sea level increases will kill THOUSANDS" kind of news reporting leads to that kind of skepticism. If you stand on a beach you'll die of old age long before a sea level increase gets your shoes wet. Likewise the claim that the polar bear is endangered. The population of polar bears has gone from about 5000 in the '50's to 25000 and rising today. The "consensus" was that commercial shipping was going to be traversing the northwest passage by now. Etc...
Even using the word "deniers" to identify those who want considerably more investigation before policy is created encourages folks to correct every mistake made. Folks insist that there is no time to wait, disaster is imminent! Trouble is, policies like those proposed by Kyoto are basically useless for achieving any climate change. The only thing I see cap and trade policy actually accomplishing is wealth redistribution. Cost benefit analysis needs to be promoted and it needs to be transparent. What good will be accomplished and what will it cost? Put some CPU cycles to that and disseminate the info, THEN folks can make enlightened decisions.
As long as the media continues to publish exaggerated claims by politicians and "scientists", you'll have folks pulling the "Aha's!".
By the way, have you seen photos of the Mall in Washington, DC after the "Earth Day" celebrations and the Obama inaugural? It looked like WWIII.
I'll have to take your word on that, and if it's true then that's very hypocritical of them.
I live in Washington, DC (i.e. behind enemy lines). It is you and yours who have been shitting all over MY backyard all these years.
Sorry, I don't frequent D.C., nor does my family, so I don't see how that could be true. I'm also pretty good about cleaning up after myself (and sometimes I even pick up the shit other people have left behind, only so much I can do though).
How about after the 9/12 tea party last month? Not a single piece of garbage.
Again, I'll have to take you at your word on that one.
I'll have to take your word on that, and if it's true then that's very hypocritical of them.
Sorry, I don't frequent D.C., nor does my family, so I don't see how that could be true. I'm also pretty good about cleaning up after myself (and sometimes I even pick up the shit other people have left behind, only so much I can do though).
Again, I'll have to take you at your word on that one.
I have photos of all of it, but can't post them here, unfortunately.