Climate change data dumped

lovuian · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2009 8:16 pm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

more
Sure throw away vital data for more room that makes sense
And people wonder why we don't trust these agencies of government or academia

Pilrig · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2009 10:33 pm

lovuian wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

more
Sure throw away vital data for more room that makes sense
And people wonder why we don't trust these agencies of government or academia

"The revised figures were, kept but the originals - were dumped to save space"

As we say in Scotland; "Aye, right !" :roll:

rain · **Posted:** 29 Nov 2009 11:48 pm

Quote:

more
Sure throw away vital data for more room that makes sense
And people wonder why we don't trust these agencies of government or academia

Do you know the legislation ,processes and policies surrounding the destruction of these records?
It's not a trust issue it's either a legal requirement or not.
Even copies of the actual data destruction would have been logged.
Here's an example of the guidelines implemented by "Academia".
Government records have legislation requirements attached to their handling.

http://www.researchdata.monash.edu.au/g ... nning.html

Quote:

Staff directory | A-Z index | Site map Search
Guidelines:
Data management planning
Ownership, copyright and IP
Ethical requirements
Durable formats
Storage and backup
Sharing data and controlling access
Documentation and metadata
Retention and disposal
Secure destruction
Deposit in a repository or archive
Quicklinks:

Contacts
FAQs
News
Policies
Resources
Services

Monash University > Research data management > Guidelines
Data management planning
At the design phase of a research project, researchers should undertake a process of decision-making and documentation of key research data management activities.

Introduction
It is common overseas for funding agencies to require a formal data management plan as part of the funding application process.

While this is not yet common practice in Australia, it is likely in the near future that the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council will require greater evidence of data management planning.

The Australian Code for Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) requires aspects of data management such as ownership, ethics, and retention and disposal to be well-documented by researchers.

In many cases, these documentation requirements are met through mechanisms like funding applications and agreements, contracts, employment agreements, memoranda of understanding, and human ethics applications and management procedures in the academic unit. Other requirements - for example, secure storage and backup of digital data - are not currently well-documented and this can cause problems as personnel, technologies and research processes change over time.

Data management planning at Monash University
Monash University encourages all researchers (including higher degree students) to undertake data management planning at the start of each research project.

Any individual or group that wants to self-assess data management practices and try to improve them might also benefit from a data management planning process.

The Library provides two research data planning checklists:.

•Research Data Planning Checklist (Staff) - coming soon
•Research Data Planning Checklist (Higher Degree by Research Student) - May 2009 consultation draft (Word doc 221 KB)
This checklist will guide you through a comprehensive planning process that covers all the aspects of data management covered by the Code for Responsible Conduct of Research and the Monash University Research Data Management Policy (draft).

The checklist has been designed so that you can easily identify which policies, procedures and guidelines apply, and find out where to go within the University for further advice. Support to complete the checklist is also offered as part of the Library's research data advisory services.

Benefits of data management planning
A data management planning process ensure that all aspects of data management are holistically explored at the start of a project. Short-term and long-term aims can be balanced, so that decisions made early in a project do not negatively impact on the ability to find and use the research data in future.

The process will also help you to identify Monash University data management services and tools, such as those provided by the Library and the Monash eResearch Centre.

A data management planning process is particularly important in the context of collaborative research projects. You may identify areas of potential difficulty of conflict, and these can be resolved with your colleagues and collaborators before they escalate into issues. Clarifying ownership of data, and ensuring early agreement on technical standards and frameworks across institutions, are an important part of establishing trust and ensuring that a project runs smoothly.

Lodging data management plans
There is no internal requirement for Monash University researchers to centrally lodge a data management plan.

You should retain a copy of the completed checklist for yourself. You may find the checklist useful as a discussion document when talking to collaborators and to Monash academic and professional staff about your data management needs.

The Australian Code for Responsible Conduct of Research requires aspects of data management such as ownership, ethics, and retention to be well-documented by researchers.

While there is currently no national requirement to lodge formal data management plans, it is very likely that ARC and NHMRC will require greater evidence of data management planning in future. By building data management planning into your research projects now, you will be well-prepared for any future changes to policy and processes at Monash University and in the wider research environment.

Ongoing review
Your data management requirements may change as your research progresses: policies, legislation, personnel and technologies all evolve, and refinements to research methodologies are common. Refer to your checklist regularly and update it as required.

Contacts at Monash University
•Monash Research Graduate School
Holds regular workshops on data management planning for higher degree students as part of the exPERT seminar programme.
•University Library
Provides support for researchers who are completing the checklist. The Data Management Coordinator can also tailor meetings and workshops for groups of researchers on request.
Sources and further information
•Australian Research Council and National Health and Medical Research Council. Australian Code for Responsible Conduct of Research (2007).
Send an email inquiry to the University's Data Management Coordinator.

lovuian · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2009 2:03 am

this is the same excuse NASA gave

Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits

http://www.canada.com/life/Moon+landing+tapes+erased+NASA+admits/1797298/story.html

rain · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2009 4:14 am

Sorry, but I don't see the connection. If you've ever worked in an area that required the handling of sensitive documents you would understand how important security is taken. Just because SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) destroyed documents doesn't mean anything. They did so in a legal and secure manner. Unless you are claiming otherwise? Academia and Governments do not have endless funds for storage unless you are willing to have your taxes and school fees raised of course.

Quote:

this is the same excuse NASA gave

Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits

http://www.canada.com/life/Moon+landing ... story.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936328.ece

Quote:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

rain · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2009 4:32 am

BTW you should be able to tell by the way I'm mounting a defence Lov I've worked in this area and there is no conspiracy, it's neccessary. Few people understand the care and security measures that are taken to prevent data abuse. While the NASA tapes were obviously a mistake, Universities and public institutions do not have the room nor the funding to keep all documents. You should try and understand what measures are in place before any conclusions are made.

We're lucky enough to be on a free forum and I always feel a little bit guilty about how much work and money goes into this forum by Andrew. Seeker1 pointed out to me it costs money to keep servers, etc... going. I'm not sure if Moderators are free but we can a little bit dismissive sometimes of the work that goes on behind the scenes.

Which reminds me Thank-you to Andrew and the Moderator for your ongoing support and a safe, secure arcadia discussion zone that provides us with access to all this information for us to enjoy. I greatly appreciate it.

TCJ · **Joined:** 22 Sep 2008 3:15 pm **Posts:** 1566

As this dated, lengthy and detailed paper report on climate change shows, new data must be collected as technology and understandings improve.
The anti-climate change crowd uses the problems of old inaccuracies to throw out the baby with the bath water and say it's all hoaxed by self serving institutions. Serious business, like a war!

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 136&page=1

lovuian · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2009 6:52 am

Rain
I understand your point
it just seems a shame they threw it out
this is information that can help the computer models predict
in the next week at Copenhagen the WORLD is going to talk about the effects of the Artic's ice melting and Antartica's ice melting...obviously satellite pictures isn't telling the whole story

I just find the timing disturbing

Guess we shall see what happens on this

yes NASA apologized on its error

Seeker1 · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2009 1:51 pm

rain wrote:

Seeker1 pointed out to me it costs money to keep servers, etc... going.

Yep.

Anyway, people are claiming this is proof the climate change scientists are "conspiring" to deceive the public; no, read in context, the emails that were hacked & stolen from the CRU servers merely show an internal argument about how to discuss the data & the issue with the public.

Global warming is real. Short term cooling trends occur within longer term warming ones, and the planet has not stopped warming. And it is anthropogenic. The weird thing about the deniers who claim there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect is without it we can't explain the temperature of Venus. Venus is anomalously hot, the only thing that explains its temperature is its greenhouse effect. Weird how it works on Venus but wouldn't work here.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm

BTW, if it was all solar variation, then the rest of the solar system should be getting warmer, too. It isn't. Short term polar ice cap trends on Mars do not prove a systemwide phenomenon. Only 6 of 100 bodies in the solar system show similar warming trends to Earth. Uranus is actually getting cooler. Read the blog RealClimate.

The ice core data show that yes, the planet has gone through periods of cooling and heating before, and yes of course there are such natural cycles. However, they may be due more to eccentricity in the Earth's orbit than solar variation. And in any case, what they also show is our current warming trend is anomalous in both speed and intensity, compared to the last few hundreds of thousands of years.

Seems to me there's only one possible explanation -- human activity, whether we like it or not.

jabberwock · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2009 4:34 pm

If it meant savin' face for Al Bore it all makes sense. He is makin' obscene bundles of money off of this scam. How much he has to divvy up is the dark side of the coin we'll never see. IMHO

Pilrig · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2009 7:59 pm

lovuian wrote:

this is the same excuse NASA gave

Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits

http://www.canada.com/life/Moon+landing+tapes+erased+NASA+admits/1797298/story.html

The landings took place, no question about that.

lovuian · **Posted:** 30 Nov 2009 9:04 pm

One of the greatest moments of mankind and they erased the original tapes

to save space :roll:

Wombat · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2009 4:45 am

This thing seems to be rife in the climate science community. If science fails to respond is it the end of scientific credibility? Or just that of climate science?

From: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... e-deepens/

Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 26th, 2009

"Wow! The scandal just gets juicier and juicier. Now it seems that the Kiwis may have been at it too – tinkering with raw data to make “Global Warming” look scarier than it really is. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That; Ian Wishart)
The alleged villains this time are the climate scientists at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA) – New Zealand’s answer to Britain’s Climate Research Unit. And to judge by this news alert by the Climate Science Coalition of NZ, both institutions share a similarly laissez-faire attitude to scientific accuracy.
Compare and contrast these two graphs and you’ll see .

This is the graph from NiWA’s website, showing mean annual temperature over New Zealand from 1853. Note the dotted straight line showing the upward trend. Worrying, isn’t it? Almost enough to make you fall in love your flickery, yellowy new eco-light bulbs, recycle your kids and commit yourself to a binding agreement at Copenhagen.
Now have a look at this analysis of the raw data taken from exactly the same temperature stations.

Can you see the difference? I can – and I know as little about science as Al Gore. But lets allow the experts at Climate Science Coalition of NZ to explain:
Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.
Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?
Why does NIWA’s graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!
Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been adjusted?.........."

Read the conclusion for yourself at the above hyperlink.

Do you believe it?

Regards to all

Wombat.

PS It's not really about belief!

lovuian · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2009 5:39 am

Wombat those are really interesting graphs
you hit on it
What's up with the data?

I'm not sure we know all the reasons the Artic is melting and Antartica is melting

there maybe other factors
Is there a smoke screen?
if your asking me the data has been tampered with and yes the science community will have lots of explaining to do

Warning as giant icebergs are spotted heading towards coast of New Zealand

[url]http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230463/Shipping-warning-groups-icebergs-spotted-floating-New-Zealand-Australia.html#ixzz0YPf6EHpe[url/]

n parts of Antarctica, the yearly rate of thinning from 2003 to 2007 was 50 per cent higher than it was from 1995 to 2003.

The more the ice melts, the more water surrounds and eats away at the remaining ice.

'To some extent it's a runaway effect. The question is how far will it run?' said Hamish Pritchard of the British Antarctic Survey.

'It's more widespread than we previously thought.'

Read more: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worl ... z0YPff8aGZ

richard.webster · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2009 8:11 am

Wombat wrote:

Can you see the difference? I can – and I know as little about science as Al Gore. But lets allow the experts at Climate Science Coalition of NZ to explain:
Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.
Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?
Why does NIWA’s graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

Very interesting, and contrasting, graphs.

As for the UEA e-mails, I'm afraid I can't go along with an earlier, if I may say, highly generous interpretation that this was merely an internal discussion about how to present the information to the public. It seems more like an attempt to manipulate data in order to get it to support their particular side of the argument.

At the very least, they have some explaining to do.

Wombat · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2009 8:52 am

Apologies for the length of this post.

Lovuian wrote:

Quote:

n parts of Antarctica, the yearly rate of thinning from 2003 to 2007 was 50 per cent higher than it was from 1995 to 2003.

The more the ice melts, the more water surrounds and eats away at the remaining ice.

'To some extent it's a runaway effect. The question is how far will it run?' said Hamish Pritchard of the British Antarctic Survey.

'It's more widespread than we previously thought.'

The following studies put the statement about the “rates of thinning” into perspective. There is considerable variation from year to year. The “rates of thinning” statement is based on selective data, it would seem. The trend is up. The following is summarized from: Taylor, G. Antarctic Temperature and Sea Ice Trends over the Last Century. From:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarct ... _final.pdf

1. Zwally, et al (2002) used “a systematically calibrated and analyzed data set for 20.2 years (1979–1998).” They report that the total Antarctic sea ice extent increased by 11,180 ± 4190 sq. km. per year.

2. Vyas, et al (2003) used data from several satellite platforms (Nimbus-7, DMSP and OCEANSAT-1) to estimate trends in sea ice around Antarctica. They found decreasing sea ice in the Weddell Sea, increases in the Ross Sea, and insignificant changes elsewhere. For the continent as a whole there has been an increase in sea ice, a “weak but consistent increasing trend of approximately 43,000 sq. km. per year.”

3. Liu, et al (2004) report that total Antarctic sea ice (the area covered by at least 15% ice concentration) has increased significantly since 1979, by about 13,295 sq. km. per year.

4. Cavalieri, et al (2004) extended the analysis of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice variability from two to three decades (1973–2002). They found that the Antarctic sea ice extent decreased dramatically over the period 1973–1977, then gradually increased. Over the period 1979-2002, Antarctic sea ice extent increased by 0.11 ± 0.05 million sq. km. per decade.

5. Antarctic Sea Ice Area Anomalies, 1978-2005, from NSIDC (2006) shows the annual variability in the Antarctic area along with the 30 year trend.

Conclusion: The data clearly show that Antarctica as a whole is seeing increases in sea ice extent in recent decades, in spite of what climate models suggest should be occurring: steady warming. There are regional differences, with Weddell Sea ice extent decreasing and Ross Sea ice increasing, but overall the pattern is clear: there is more ice, not less, surrounding Antarctica.

Zwally, H.J., Comiso, J.C., Parkinson, C.L., Cavalieri, D.J. and Gloersen, P., 2002.Variability of Antarctic sea ice 1979–1998. Journal of Geophysical Research, VOL. 107, NO. C5, 10.1029/2000JC000733, 2002

Vyas, N.K., Dash, M.K., Bhandari, S.M., Khare, N., Mitra, A. and Pandey, P.C. 2003. On the secular trends in sea ice extent over the antarctic region based on OCEANSAT-1 MSMR observations. International Journal of Remote Sensing 24: 2277-2287.

Liu, J., Curry, J.A. and Martinson, D.G. 2004. Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea ice variability. Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2003GL018732.

Cavalieri, D.J., Parkinson, C.L. and Vinnikov, K.Y. 2003. 30-Year satellite record reveals contrasting Arctic and Antarctic decadal sea ice variability. Geophysical Research Letters 30: 10.1029/2003GL018031.

But I keep an open mind on this. After all the science is not settled.

Regards to all

Wombat.

Seeker1 · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2009 1:55 pm

Wombat wrote:

Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

BTW, RealClimate is sensitive to the claim that climate scientists are hiding or manipulating data.

For the curious, they've put up a Data Sources page.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

If you're curious, have at it. I've looked through some of the data -- IMHO, the problem is that looking at regional data may not be the best way to get a handle on the situation as regions will vary (yes, during warming, some can and will get cooler) ... the only way to look at it is to look at global average temperatures.

That's where the pattern comes out.

The hockey stick is real. No matter how you massage the data.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ntroversy/

Wombat · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2009 4:22 pm

Seeker1 wrote:

Quote:

BTW, RealClimate is sensitive to the claim that climate scientists are hiding or manipulating data.

Well, of course they would be. They get a dis-honourable mention in the leaked/hacked CRU documents.

To elaborate:

We have all seen some of these leaked/hacked CRU documents. Well, here’s a few that relate to RealClimate and Professor M Mann for you to consider.

In 1047388489txt Professor Michael Mann discusses how to destroy an academic journal that has published sceptics' papers.

In 1054736277txt Prof Mann tells Professor Phil Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period.

In 1102687002txt Gavin Schmidt launches RealClimate to the climate warmist community. In this email he says:

“In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below) (the list includes Prof M Mann) have recently got together to build a new 'climate blog' website: RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days…
The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly 'bombshell' papers that are doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or events.
We hope that you will find this a useful resource for your own outreach
efforts. For those more inclined to join the fray, we extend an open
invitation to participate,……”

Realclimate is partly Prof M Mann’s plaything.

In 1139521913.txt Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at RealClimate. He makes the point that RC (RealClimate) will:

“combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont' get to use the RC comments as a megaphone”.

Now, Seeker1, I consider you to be a professional. So let me ask you: does that sound like an unbiased site from which objective information on Global Warming theory might be accessed? Including on the Hockey Stick graph - which as I understand it, Prof M Mann developed?

Regards to all

Wombat.

lovuian · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2009 7:22 pm

Wombat is this your George Taylor of that report
George Taylor
Background

Taylor denies the realities of human-induced global warming and has been a controversial figure in his home-state of Oregon where he is a faculty member at Oregon State University.

Taylor is also the “State Climatologist,” but the Oregon State Governor’s office has stated: “George Taylor doesn't represent the governor's office, and he doesn't represent the state of Oregon.”

Taylor is listed as a “scientific advisor” to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, an organization that has received funding from ExxonMobil and the Western Fuels Association.
Links to the oil industry

An August 2005 news article reports that, “Taylor himself has supplemented his government salary with oil money.” Taylor is listed as a “scientific advisor” to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, an organization that has received funding from ExxonMobil and the Western Fuels Association. Taylor has also been paid to write articles for Tech Central Station (TCS), an organization that has also received money from ExxonMobil. Until very recently, TCS was run by Washington lobby/PR firm DCI Group and was the centre of controversy over a YouTube Al Gore spoof video they produced and posted under the guise of 29-year old amateur filmmaker.

“Taylor's colleagues at Oregon State's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences have grown frustrated over the years with what they consider his misunderstanding of climate-change facts. On multiple occasions, faculty members found it necessary to correct statements in Taylor's regular 'Weather Matters' column in the Corvallis Gazette-Times.” (source)

Phillip Mote, the climatologist for neighboring Washington State, ”surmises that Taylor is guilty of looking only at data that support his views, while discarding the rest. You can only come to that conclusion if you handpick the climate records," said Mote. He also says that, “while his Oregon counterpart is a good friend [Taylor’s] dead wrong about global warming.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1062

Helhain Glacier is melting at a doubled rate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8boXO3Y0UOU

The Glaciers of Greenland are very important because that puts more fresh water and decreases salinity

The conveyor belt stopping

Serendipity · **Joined:** 20 May 2008 3:32 pm **Posts:** 2894

Okay...so what happens when the conveyer stops and we are hit with a solar storm at the same time?

Or is the gradual dissapearance of the magnetosphere causing the warming by letting in more radiation?

Ugh!

(I'm suppose to be putting up Xmas decorations)

Pilrig · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2009 8:06 pm

lovuian wrote:

One of the greatest moments of mankind and they erased the original tapes

to save space :roll:

A bit like the BBC and HL's Chronicle series. I exaggerate as we've seen on Raven's site these tapes still exist. But the BBC had a terrible reputation in the 60s and 70s for erasing whole programmes and series from their tapes so they could re-use them.

Seeker1 · **Posted:** 01 Dec 2009 9:29 pm

Wombat wrote:

Now, Seeker1, I consider you to be a professional. So let me ask you: does that sound like an unbiased site from which objective information on Global Warming theory might be accessed? Including on the Hockey Stick graph - which as I understand it, Prof M Mann developed?

Strange. I was just asked this question by a student today. More or less (but in a different context).

I'll answer it the same way I did, more or less ... of course they're not unbiased. No one in science does anything unless they want to prove or discover something, and we all have paradigms about what we think will be proven or can be discovered. They guide your research whether you're researching global climate, vampire manifestations, strange French villages, fundamental physical particles, or human behavior. I believe they have a definite position in the global warming debate. I also believe that is the position supported by the more overwhelming amount of evidence. They can be forgiven for arguing about how to present their data in the best possible light. We all know how skeptics and critics can act when they want to be rude and refuse to accept that ambiguity doesn't mean there's no there there. Non?

Perhaps there is a conspiracy making major scientific bodies of the world all take the wrong position. Perhaps this sinister coverup of the data is so pervasive and all-powerful that they've managed to convince everybody here of its validity. Perhaps roscoe's all powerful occult theocracy is guiding it. But you know what I tend to think of such bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

Who are the major dissenting scientific organizations? The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. That's it.

Who agrees with the scientific consensus? Almost every major climatological organization and international scientific society.

Greenhouse gasses cause warming on other planets. We know Venus' temperature is caused by its greenhouse effect. What magic makes Earth immune to phenomena found on other planets? The ONLY question is worth asking what is human beings' contribution to greenhouse gasses, and while I agree scientists continue to argue about the extent of our contribution, ALL agree the amount is NOT negligible, therefore something can and should be done.

I believe these are the parameters of the debate for every scientist taken seriously on the subject.

1) The EXTENT of the current warming phase we're in (not IF it's occurring)
2) The LEVEL of anthropogenic contribution (not IF there is one)
3) To what EXTENT there are countervailing factors (i.e. as the planet warms, will increased cloud cover compensate?)

Are there natural cycles in the Earth's climate? Yes, Virginia, there are. But the problem is the current warming phase we're observing is anomalous. It is unlike any previous phase we can see in the historical data. It might be due to solar variation. But if so, the rest of the solar system should also be getting warmer. It isn't. Uranus is getting colder. (sorry if saying that sounds funny). To me, the logical conclusion is that there is one obvious factor possible:

Arcadia Discussion Zone

Climate change data dumped

Who is online