Top 10 Global Warming Myths

[Crabtownboy]

There is no 95 or 97% consensus, its a myth

It is a myth, a very destructive myth that there is no climate change.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Oh I forgot, the government has to use a sledgehammer to make evil corporations fall in line. You do realize Businesses fall all over themselves trying to appear as 'Green' as possible.

It is great that enough consumers are now aware of the environmental impact of the corporations they spend money on to be able to hold them accountable for their practices. Corporations need to at least maintain the appearance of caring for the environment. Maybe you are too young to remember but this is a recent phenomenon. This was not the case in the 70s and 80s when the acid rain issue was at its height.

Even if the emphasis on environmentalism in consumers and corporations was present back then, the fear of damaged reputation would only really change the behaviour of a few offenders. Regulation and potentially hurting their bottom line is needed to motivate most corporations. That is understandable to some extent because their first responsibility is to their shareholders, not their consumers or their communities.

 

[Gold Dragon]

There were news media hysterics none the less. Perhaps it was warranted seeing the effects in China of ignoring the problem.

There were and are still hysterics from left leaning sources on these topics, just like the hysterics from most of the articles carpro and RevMitch cut and paste.

The reason is because of how our cultures and minds work. We read and respond to news that emotionally charges us and only have the attention span to read about oversimplified problems and answers. Truth is however often much more mundane and complicated which is hard to communicate in a few hundred words in a way lay people can understand and will want to read. Social media exacerbates these issues.

And our brains give us a hit of dopamine every time we read something that reinforces our preconceived ideas. It is much harder to critically challenge views that we already hold by investigating primary source material and rethinking our understanding of the world.

And that is why I commend you for your post showing a willingness to consider evidence and challenge your personal views on the matter.

 

[ChrisTheSaved]

I will just drop this off here

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

 

[Gold Dragon]

I will just drop this off here

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

This snopes article directly addresses the falsehoods in this daily mail article with direct quotes from primary sources.

NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data

 

[HankD]

There were and are still hysterics from left leaning sources on these topics, just like the hysterics from most of the articles carpro and RevMitch cut and paste.

The reason is because of how our cultures and minds work. We read and respond to news that emotionally charges us and only have the attention span to read about oversimplified problems and answers. Truth is however often much more mundane and complicated which is hard to communicate in a few hundred words in a way lay people can understand and will want to read. Social media exacerbates these issues.

And our brains give us a hit of dopamine every time we read something that reinforces our preconceived ideas. It is much harder to critically challenge views that we already hold by investigating primary source material and rethinking our understanding of the world.

And that is why I commend you for your post showing a willingness to consider evidence and challenge your personal views on the matter.

There is no denying some of the benefits of the push to control pollutants.

I can remember as an engineering student in San Jose CA (several decades ago) the mountains could not be seen for the smog.

Today they are clearly beautiful. I attribute this to the work of cleansing the gasoline engine emissions with the invention of the catalytic converter, green mufflers, etc...

HankD

 

[ChrisTheSaved]

This snopes article directly addresses the falsehoods in this daily mail article with direct quotes from primary sources.

NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data

To believe this Snopes article you have to ignore the fact we have the climate gate emails which shows they were lying to people in their own words. Also, we have to ignore the fact they have been wrong on every single prediction they have made-every single one....

 

[Gold Dragon]

To believe this Snopes article you have to ignore the fact we have the climate gate emails which shows they were lying to people in their own words. Also, we have to ignore the fact they have been wrong on every single prediction they have made-every single one....

It is interesting you are able to connect the hacking of emails of the climate research unit in the university in east anglia in the U.K. with this story about the national oceanic and atmospheric administration which is a department of the US government. All environmentalists must use the same e-mail server.

Both the daily mail and snopes do not make reference to the CRU emails.

Also I have read the hacked CRU emails when this first occurred. Skeptics have tried to take them out of context and make them say something they didn't. Fortunately that is easily refuted if you just read the emails in their context and understand the peer review process.

 

[ChrisTheSaved]

I have read them and the scientist involved have even apologized for their actions...what is this about context? You mean it doesn't fit your agenda. No one is saying men cannot effect their environment. Only that most of the BS they spout is...well it's BS.

 

[Gold Dragon]

There is no denying some of the benefits of the push to control pollutants.

I can remember as an engineering student in San Jose CA (several decades ago) the mountains could not be seen for the smog.

Today they are clearly beautiful. I attribute this to the work of cleansing the gasoline engine emissions with the invention of the catalytic converter, green mufflers, etc...

HankD

I found these two articles from Carnegie Melon University that were quite informative about the history, politics and technology of the catalytic converter.

Innovation and Technology Policy: Lessons from Emission Control and Safety Technologies in the U.S. Automobile Industry

What is interesting about the 1970 CAA and the 1966 MVSA regulations is that regulatory outcomes were different. The history of the development of emission control technologies for automobiles reveals that the 1970 CAA led to the introduction and implementation of emission control technologies for automobiles in the 1970s (Mondt 2000; NESCAUM 2000). Resistance to the 1970 CAA from automobile manufacturers was severe. Lee Iacocca, Executive Vice President of Ford, made a statement to the press in 1970, which 12 claimed that the amendments to the Clean Air Act could do “irreparable damage to the American economy [which] exemplifies automakers’ resistance to the regulation” (Iacocca 1970). Nevertheless, the 90% pollutant reduction requirement in automobile emissions eventually led the auto industry to come up with catalytic converters designed for automobiles (Mondt 2000; Lee, Veloso et al. 2003).

Implementing Technology-Forcing Policies: The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Introduction of Advanced Automotive Emissions Controls

Specifically, the legislation required 90 percent reductions from 1970 standards in HC and CO for 1975, and the same level of NOx reductions for 1976. Despite industry protests, the technology-forcing emission standards of the Muskie bill made their way into law with overwhelming congressional support. Although President Nixon opposed the bill, he recognized that a veto would be overridden with relative ease, so he signed the Clean Air Act Amendments into law on December 31, 1970 (Davies and Davies, 1975).

The catalytic converter was not a new technology; the devices had been used in factories since the early part of the century. The major problem facing catalyst adaptation to the automobile was that, unlike industrial machines, cars are constantly adjusting operating power. Automakers had been experimenting with prototypes since 1959. EPA had also been experimenting with the devices, and the technical staff was able to equip its own vehicles built with carburetors and no on-board electronics that met the standards for 50,000 miles (Austin, 2001). In effect, the EPA technical staff had erased the industry’s information advantage, and consequently put itself in a favorable position to force the installation of catalytic converters. Although Congress set performance standard, EPA was pushing a de facto technology standard, at least for domestic producers.

GM and Ford were also convinced that the catalytic converter could provide major emissions reductions. In 1970 GM president Ed Cole promised to put catalytic converters on all 12 GM vehicles if EPA took steps to make unleaded gasoline available. However, making the catalytic converter operational would require significant fixed costs (R&D), and yearly variable manufacturing and installation costs. The initial estimates for meeting the 90 percent reductions were $860 per vehicle (Mondt, 2000). Thus, each year the standards were pushed back the industry stood to save more than $5 billion per year in equipment costs alone. Without obvious performance benefits, companies were reluctant to equip the entire fleet with the devices.6 Not surprisingly, by 1973 GM was expressing public opposition to implementation of the 1975 standards.

In response to regulatory pressure, GM and Ford continued R&D on catalyst technologies and continued to set up production facilities to manufacture the equipment. It did not appear, however, that the two companies were competing to meet the standards as a means to raise their rivals’ costs. As a result the competitive pressures driving the development and diffusion of catalytic converters was not particularly robust. In absence of competition, EPA would have to make a credible threat to enforce the HC and CO standards by the 1975 deadline.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I have read them and the scientist involved have even apologized for their actions...what is this about context? You mean it doesn't fit your agenda. No one is saying men cannot effect their environment. Only that most of the BS they spout is...well it's BS.

When I initially responded to your post, I had not followed up from the original e-mail hack in 2009 for a while. At that time I reviewed the e-mails and wrote a long post here on this forum explaining the context and misrepresentations of the e-mails. The independent investigations were underway at that time and I was pretty sure nothing would come of it.

I haven't really kept up with the issue until now and was wondering if something else had come up that i wasn't aware of. I am always open to reevaluating my view with new information.

I looked for this apology that you are talking about and could not find it. If you are referring to Phil Jones, he has been exonerated of any wrong doing by the British House of Commons and in this BBC interview explains the context of the e-mails in question which are pretty much what I was saying when the hack first came out.

If there is some information I am not aware of, I am more than happy to consider it and review my position. Thanks in advance.

Also even if all your accusations of Jones and CRU were true, that has no relevance to the NOAA unless you apply the fallacy of guilt by association.

 

[Matt Black]

I will just drop this off here

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

If you believe what you read in the Daily Wail, then I have a bridge to sell you...

 

[Gold Dragon]

Here is the report on the investigation conducted by Sir Muir Russell again saying the same thing.

The Independent Climate Change Email Review

In both reports, the one fault they did find that was that Jones and East Anglia did not share some protocols and datasets that were requested by parties that they perceived were hostile climate skeptics who were not interested in honest scientific inquiry.

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
...
We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced. Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. However, climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data) and full methodological workings (including the computer codes). Had both been available, many of the problems at UEA could have been avoided.
...

The actual data itself, their protocols, methodologies and findings were above reproach.

 

[Revmitchell]

No they weren't in fact they have worked to hide background data and actual temperature records. Further:

"But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand."

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

 

[Gold Dragon]

No they weren't in fact they have worked to hide background data and actual temperature records. Further:

"But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand."

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

CRU responded to the findings of the inquiries and the data is now available for you to look at. Part of the issue was that not all of the data was theirs and they needed to get permission to release it. Now they have that. Feel free to uncover the conspiracy.

History of the Climatic Research Unit

UEA was quick to set up two independent inquiries and related investigations were initiated by the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology and other bodies in the USA. The main outcome of these inquiries was that CRU's scientific work, peer-review and IPCC work was beyond reproach:

• "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact" (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee)
• "we saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit" (Lord Oxburgh Science Assessment Panel)
• "their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt" (Sir Muir Russell Independent Climatic change Emails Review)

They did find that CRU could have been more open when dealing with some requests for data and some Freedom of Information requests. CRU already made much of our data holdings freely available. In the first two months after the hacked email controversy began, we released most of the underlying station temperature data used in the construction of the global temperature record jointly with the Met Office Hadley Centre. We then jointly continued our efforts to obtain permission from the originating National Meteorological Services to release the remainder, and in July 2011 almost all the station data (the only exceptions were a few stations in Poland) were made available. The station data for the new CRUTEM4 dataset were made available when the paper was published in spring 2012, and the paper provided numerous links to websites and reports to document the sources of the station temperature data that we used.

 

[Revmitchell]

CRU responded to the findings of the inquiries and the data is now available for you to look at. Part of the issue was that not all of the data was theirs and they needed to get permission to release it. Now they have that. Feel free to uncover the conspiracy.

Ummm...that should have been what was planned to begin with before making claims and asking the world to live by them. Releasing so called facts and data after it was discovered they withheld it makes the data suspicious at best. Sorry I don't trust them.

 

[Revmitchell]

CRU responded to the findings of the inquiries and the data is now available for you to look at. Part of the issue was that not all of the data was theirs and they needed to get permission to release it. Now they have that. Feel free to uncover the conspiracy.

Ummm...that should have been what was planned to begin with before making claims and asking the world to live by them. Releasing so called facts and data after it was discovered they withheld it makes the data suspicious at best. Sorry I don't trust them.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Ummm...that should have been what was planned to begin with before making claims and asking the world to live by them. Releasing so called facts and data after it was discovered they withheld it makes the data suspicious at best. Sorry I don't trust them.

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers.

 

[Revmitchell]

"But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand."

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

 

[Revmitchell]

"The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports."

 

[Revmitchell]

"The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports."

 

[Gold Dragon]

I want to thank ChrisTheSaved and RevMitch for bringing this topic up again for me. Being lazy I would not have researched the fallout of this this whole email hack that happened in 2009. But I find it terrible that there are so many good folks who are being mislead by easily refutable falsehoods and that motivates me to find the truth and expose the lies.

"But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand."

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I'll have a quick look but based on past experience with your "sources" it won't take long to refute.