climate change whos paying?

Did you read past the headline?

"COPENHAGEN – Tens of thousands of protesters marched through the chilly Danish capital and nearly 1,000 were detained Saturday in a mass rally to demand an ambitious global climate pact, just as talks hit a snag over rich nations' demands on China and other emerging economies."

show me some current accepted data that dissproves climate change.

not whacky webpages that are inaccurate or out of date.

show me the csiro reports, australian academy of science papers, nasa papers etc.

show me the evidence or shut up

Because they believe that the proposed actions are't good enough.

Try reading through the previous 3 threads on this same subject or reading a popular science magazine's guide.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

There's a lot of information to cover.

They seem to be well informed. How do they get the information before it is relased.

They read the news. (Past the headlines )

Despite all the information, data, evidence and reports, I don't believe anybody has conclusive proof that human activities affect climate and therefore there is no reason or excuse for the introduction of a raft of taxes allegedly levied to combat climate change, or for rationing resources.

The whole thing is an attempt at a huge tax grab and subordination of the sovereignty of democraticly elected governments to a non elected U.N. committee in furtherance of the aims of an elitist group who only have their own interests at heart and not humanity as a whole.

Oh, ok then.
I guess you can lead a horse to water.....

yes, that's right... lets wait until things are a bit warmer and you're convinced.

If there is a 'huge tax grab' then I presume it will be re-distributed somehow.. based on this thread, spending some of it on the public understanding of science would be a good idea...

Hi Gestalt, I was intrigued by the graph that you presented in that it seems to show an alarming increase. I did a bit of a google search to see if I could find the original source to see where and how they are gathering their data.

I found this:

www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

(This article shows your original graph and the one that preceded it, from the same source - NASA)

It shows that NASA themselves produced a graph of the very same data in 1999 that showed a certain result, and then reworked the same data to show the alarming graph that you provided.

How can that be?

How can scientists go back and re-evaluate their data and then expect it to be believed. What is to stop them to doing this again if they decided they must have gotten it wrong and add another bias to it?

Just for the record, I think conspiracy theorists are a bit out there. I think they tend to latch on to some things and ignore others, and generally try to ignore good science all together. Unfortunately we are seeing this kind of approach on both sides of the global warming debate.

My own 'guess' is that we are going through a cycle and that man has very little (although not nothing) to do with it. I think trying to reduced the amount of reliance of fossil fuels is a great idea, although I am not yet convinced about (significant) man-made global warming.

If you can offer any pointers to some good articles on some good science looking at this it would be appreciated.

I suspect that a lot of scientists are trying to skew their results according to popular opinion. Intentionally or not. Scientists are human too.

I think your very phrase above is why a lot of scientists will err towards results that show man made global warming. No one wants to be ridiculed for getting it wrong (even if they may in fact be wrong).

I remember as a school kid doing a science class where we had to burn something and then weigh it afterwards to see if it was lighter or heavier. My group of 3 were the only ones in the class to find it weighed MORE than before, at which point everyone else except the teacher laughed at us. We were the only ones that got it right. How has everyone else got it wrong? Poor science, or they molded their results to fit their expected outcome? - Not really relevant to this debate, I just felt like sharing

Yeah, a bit like:-

Kid1. What does your Dad do?

Kid2. He is an accountant. He manipulates figures to produce a desired result that his bosses want. What does your Dad do?

Kid1. Oh he does the same thing except he is a scientist and he manipulates data to produce a desired result that his bosses want.

logicalscience.com/2020/02/how-to-boost-productivity-in-the-workplace/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

and also with specific comment on the revised graphs.

taken from geotimes in 2007

Error in NASA climate data sparks debate

Due to an error in calculations of mean U.S. temperatures, 1934, not 1998 as previously reported, is the hottest year on record in the United States. NASA scientists contend that the error has little effect on overall U.S. temperature trends and no effect on global mean temperatures, with 2005 still the hottest year worldwide by far, followed by 1998. The data corrections have added new fuel to the climate change debate, however - and could spell more public relations woes for NASA.


The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA measures long-term changes in global surface temperatures using raw data collected at thousands of stations around the world (called the Global Historical Climatology Network, or GHCN). The raw temperature data are then corrected to account for a number of factors, including differences in the time of day of measurements between stations, and differences between rural stations and urban stations (which tend to be hotter, due to the so-called "urban heat island" effect).


On Aug. 4, however, the well-known climate change skeptic and former mining executive Steven McIntyre - who previously challenged climatologist Michael Mann's 1998 finding that temperatures have increased rapidly since 1900 A.D., compared with the previous thousand years, forming a distinctive "hockey stick" temperature pattern - observed a strange jump in the U.S. data occurring around January 2000. He sent an e-mail to NASA about his observation, and the agency responded with an e-mail acknowledging a flaw in the calculations and thanking him for his help, he says. By Aug. 7, he says, the agency had removed the incorrect U.S. data from the GISS Web site and replaced it with corrected numbers for all 1,200 stations.


The issue didn't end there, however. The corrections made almost no difference to global temperature trends, NASA reported, while U.S. mean annual temperatures from 2000 to 2006 were all reduced by about 0.15 degrees Celsius. Most significantly for climate change skeptics, however, the year 1934 now edges out 1998 as the hottest year in the United States.


McIntyre wrote about his findings in his blog ClimateAudit, dubbing the incorrect data a "Y2K" error and setting off a heated back-and-forth debate that gained traction in the blogosphere. In addition to noting the altered U.S. data, McIntyre also cast doubts on NASA's methods of collecting data and on its transparency, claiming that the old data should have been kept up on the Web site for comparison, and NASA should have alerted the public to the changes. Furthermore, he says, he had asked repeatedly to see the "source code" NASA uses to calculate its numbers, and had been repeatedly denied. "Certainly I think the way they handled it was inappropriate," he says. "I've got experience in public companies and if you have some bad news or adverse results you have to announce them."


Climate scientists, however, are asserting that the uproar over the data corrections is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot. NASA GISS scientist Jim Hansen, who helped devise the algorithm used to correct for the various climate factors, wrote in an Aug. 10 e-mail that the errors were introduced when the U.S. stations switched between two different datasets in 2000, with the faulty assumption that the second dataset also included the necessary corrections, an error that was recognized and fixed, Hansen said. Acknowledging that 1934 now appears to have been slightly hotter than 1998 in the United States, he noted that the difference in the mean between the two years, of 0.02 degrees Celsius, was and always had been smaller than the uncertainty, although their relative positions are now flipflopped. Globally, however, the changes had no effect on rankings, and 1998 was still by far the warmest year on record before 2005, he says. "For two days I have been besieged by rants that I have wronged the president, that I must 'step down,' or that I must 'vanish,'" he wrote.

Gavin Schmidt, a NASA GISS scientist who created the blog RealClimate along with Michael Mann, posted in an Aug. 10 column that the furor is "ado over nothing." He says that despite the fact that the corrections don't alter the global trends, he has fielded hundreds of comments by confused and sometimes irate posters on his blog about the issue. "There are two factors that make it an interesting story," he says. "One is the little guy telling NASA that something is wrong - that has a lot of resonance. And then there's the more politicized issue, which is, 'how can we twist this to prove global warming is fake?'"


Although some people who have learned of the data errors are genuinely confused, Schmidt says, others "are being deliberately manipulative." The question of NASA releasing its source code is a case in point, he says, as both the raw data and the correction algorithms are actually freely available from NASA, and therefore anyone wanting to check NASA's numbers has all the necessary information to reproduce its results. As for McIntyre's question about whether NASA is concealing something by overwriting the old online data with the new, he says, "the whole analysis gets redone every month. That's a completely standard procedure."


McIntyre's Web site, meanwhile, is receiving more hits than ever as the controversy expands, and went down for a few days this week to move to a new server to accommodate the extra traffic. McIntyre says his goal is to push NASA to be more "forthcoming" about its adjustments. "What they should have done, what I would have done in their shoes, is say, 'we acknowledge this particular error, we don't think there are others, but we've put it all online and any interested parties can look at it,'" he says. "If they'd done that, they would have avoided much of the present controversy."


Schmidt, however, sees the situation differently. "If you can reframe this as a freedom of speech issue, or a nondisclosure issue, you can get people to say it's an outrage," he says. "That kind of stuff is a deliberate political tactic. There is a very vocal group of people who so desperately wish that global warming would just go away that any of these tactics are fair game."

Trant I will try and read these articles completely, but my first thought when I started reading the first was that the author appears to be the same author of the 'Hockey Stick' graph, which itself appears to be a bit dodgy. The 'Hockey Stick' graph takes very uncertain data and appends data from a completely different source, which funnily enough shows that the climate is rocketing up in temperature. It only seems to show this alarming trend in the new data that was appended though. Surely not an example of good science there.

The same guy appears to have gone on to a climate-based career, probably from his viewpoint on this climate change. How do I trust the conclusions from someone that has produced a paper that seems quite flawed?

Gestalt, the first one from CSIRO doesn't really look at whether the climate change is man made, it just starts out with the presumption that it is and that the climate is increasing in temperature.

This article appears to be more about what the effect of global warming will be on Australia, not on whether there is global warming, or whether it is definitely caused only by man.

The article summary even effectively states that it is looking at the expected results of climate change based on the premise of it being man made.

I don't think anyone will argue that a warming planet will cause change, just as a cooling planet would also cause change.

I need to look at these articles in depth to do them justice, but I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, other than my viewpoint is one of slight skepticism. Certainly posting URLs of articles that may or may not be related are not going to help. We can all use a search engine, well maybe not some :) , but it is more important to actually understand the science behind the articles.