Snowguy, you've presented a lot of scientific evidence, but have you presented any to suggest why a vast community of scientists from across the world (including all major national science academies and around 90% of scientists in the field) are collaborating to fabricate a massive amount of evidence and research and are deceiving the entire world? In short: what evidence do you have to back up your allegations of a global conspiracy of scientists?
Why would I argue that there was a conspiracy when there is none?
There are, however, more than a few instances of cherry picking and fudged data in order to make your hypothesis appear correct when an objective look at the data collected might show no such evidence to back up the AGW hypothesis, or at best, a less extreme version of that presented by the original scientists.
This happened with the hockey stick graph produced by Michael Mann. His proxy data did, in fact, show a hockey stick. No conspiracy there.
But he made a big mistake: He grafted together proxy data with instrumental observations of global temperature.
He first argued this wasn't a problem because the instrumental data and his proxies (which went to year 1980) showed a good correlation during the time period they were both shown on the graph (1880-1980)... but it is misleading at least because it might make the average viewer of the graph assume if there were proxy data after 1980, that it too would show the huge jump in global temps in the instrument record after 1980.
But it turns out Michael Mann used a "trick" to make the two datasets correlate. This became known in "climategate" as "Mike's Nature Trick".
The proxy data showed a sudden, large rise in global temperatures from 1910-1940 or so.. just like the thermometer records. But then showed a large drop in temperatures after 1940 to the levels seen in 1910 by the endpoint in 1980... so global temperatures spiked upwards for 30 years, then back down to their starting point in the 30 years after the peak.
But the thermometers showed no such fall.. instead showing temperatures falling only slightly from 1940-1980 before rising rapidly again from 1980-2000.
So, Mike deleted the proxy data from 1960-1980 and instead used the figures recorded by thermometers in place of the proxy records in order to erase the big decline in temperatures after 1940 in the proxy data. By using thermometer data, the big rise in temps from 1910-1940 still shows up in the proxy data.. but the dip afterwards is much smaller.. appearing to correlate well with the thermometer data (because it USES the thermometer data!)... thus...
hiding the decline.Michael Mann tried to pass off his "hiding the decline" comment in one of his e-mails by saying what he meant by "decline" was the alleged, but unsubstantiated claim that proxy data "declines" in accuracy for some unexplained and apparently unknown reason after 1960.... because almost all proxy data that shows data up to present shows a bigger decline in temperatures from 1940-1980 than is recorded by our thermometers, and generally shows only a slight warming after 1980.. but not to the levels seen in 1940.
Until the 1990s, the global instrumental record actually showed this. It showed a rapid warming from 1910-1940 and then a cooling from 1940-1975 nearly as big as the warming from 1910-1940. This graph was employed by media outlets in the 70s as proof that cooling was here to stay and that an ice age was potentially imminent. But numerous adjustments to the records over the years have slowly erased this cooling after 1940... mostly by adjusting temperatures around 1940 downwards while adjusting temperatures after 1970 upwards.. so the warming trend appears larger.
Scientists claim these adjustments are merely to remove outliers by averaging any one station with anomalies of nearby stations.. up to 1200km away. But if it's merely to remove outliers, why do 4 out of every 5 adjustments increase the warming trend? Wouldn't you expect it to be half and half?
In combination with poorly sited weather stations and the lack of accounting for the urban heat island effect on the increasingly relied on urban stations to compile the global temperature... there's actually a chance that a not tiny portion of the warming since 1950 hasn't actually even occurred. The proxy data and the satellites corroborate this. The satellites measure the temperature of the entire atmospheric column.. but we only have data back to 1979.
Alarmists like to dismiss satellite data as somehow inferior.. or claim they have a "cool bias"... which was true.. orbital decay introduced a known cooling trend into the data.. but has since been corrected.
Back to tree rings as proxy records for temperature. "Denialists" like me think there is a combination of reasons quality goes down after 1960.. one is.. tree rings are simply not good proxies of temperature. They are, however, good proxies of growing season precipitation.... and also of CO2 levels. This is especially true of the tree species employed in the hockey stick graph which grow at very high elevations and are specifically evolved to grow very slowly regardless of temperature. But when exposed to higher CO2 concentrations, grow much faster simply due to the "fertilizing" effect of more available CO2. So in this case, his tree rings were a better proxy of CO2 concentration than anything else.
The reason they have to use the argument that the quality or accuracy declines for some reason is that the proxies don't show the recorded warming by our thermometers in the late 20th century. And if they can't catch this warming period, then they probably missed other ones in the past.. and the usefullness of proxies to determine past temperature gets called into question.
But that's just one particular issue. Michael Mann is now a well known public figure and does have an outsized influence on climate science.. as was seen in his e-mails. There were conspiracies by him and a few other high profile climate scientists not only to discredit any scientist that brought forth evidence against established climate science theory... but to blacklist journals and editors that would publish their work. The method? Sully their reputations by claiming they're just agents for "fossil fuel companies".
Of course it wasn't a global conspiracy. But there was definitely a "damage control" element to climate science... where contrary evidence was lambasted or not allowed. Which is why I think it has become more of a dogmatic, nearly religious issue than a scientific one.
If the theory of anthropogenic global warming is so solid and sound... why can't they explain the lack of warming in the past 15 years? Why, even when the planet was warming... wasn't it warming the way the models said it should have.. warming most where CO2 concentrations were increasing most? (the mid-troposphere) Why has water vapor dropped if one of the basic elements of greenhouse theory is that water vapor increases with co2?
There are prominent scientists with the IPCC that admitted there were a few model simulations that took natural factors into account that said the planet could "stagnate" for another 5 years.. and that that worried him. That if the planet were to stagnate even for 5 more years, it would be a game changer in the climate science community.. and they'd have serious questions about the models and the very basis of their greenhouse theory.
But for a denialist like me who believes the changes in solar activity are the main driver.. I believe the planet will stagnate, and even cool substantially for at least another 15-20 years.
Obviously if that happens... it's all she wrote for the greenhouse super sensitive earth theory.
But either way, we're gonna find out.
Poll
