what a joke. the fraud of Climate Change continues with bogus articles like this. Where is the data?? who do the research? how and when?
Utterly contemptible political agenda articles like this are criminal.
Climate change is nothing but a complete and utter fraud. Its over. Time to come up with a new fraud to get taxpayer dollars.

I certainly hope that you are right and Dr. Park is wrong, Tom. It says quite clearly in the article who did the research: “Jeffrey Park, professor of geology and geophysics at Yale University and director of the Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies.” He’s staking his professional status on the work. I can’t say I fully understand how they arrive at the conclusions — for example this seems to ignore the role of algae — but I am worried that it is another sign things are going wrong.

Climate change is really happening; just look at the polar regions. I only hope that it does get so bad that the earth, our only habitable place, does not boil off its water.

From the data available I can agree global warming is occuring. However, this has occured many times in Earth’s history. The question is, is mankind having an irreversable additional effect? The jury is still out.

Climate change fraud

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6634282/Lord-Lawson-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-UEA-global-warming-data-manipulation.html

Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data ‘manipulation’
Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.

Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

This morning Lord Lawson, who has reinvented himself as a prominent climate change sceptic since leaving front line politics, demanded that the apparent deception be fully investigated.

role of algae has been taken into account even that previous study. what you should see is that it’s a whole effect that is being looked at.

i completely believe this article … climate change is important and inevitable factor to look into.

Well, Tom, the scientists are reporting the data. Go read the original study if you want to know more, or contact the scientists themselves and ask them about their research.

The emails that were hacked were cherry-picked (meaning selected to misrepresent the facts), and therefore read out of context. The system was hacked by people who want to derail climate change legislation. There are lots of private business interests whose earnings will be lower if it passes. They have a vested selfish interest in keeping things the way they are. Why would you be so quick to want to quote them when study after study shows us the climate is warming more rapidly than any scientists even predicted? Also the geological record shows prior periods of warming and cooling, but nothing that has ever happened over such a short geological period of time until now. And why would the scientists want to “cook” their data anyway? Legitimate scientists have plenty to discover and report on without having to make up stuff. And there are plenty of scientists out there who would be overjoyed to report that the claims are overstated if the data warranted such a conclusion. They are as scared as anyone else at the prospects of climate change.

Have you looked at the data, the photos of the vanishing ice caps, the disruptions in wildlife breeding caused by weather changes? Birds hatching whose food is not there because the insects they eat are on a different schedule now? Animal ranges marching north with pests following? The loss of fresh water sources for the people living below the vanishing ice caps in places like Nepal? Do your homework and ask yourself why are you so invested in the idea that it can’t be true.

1. Academic do experiments, gather data, facts, number:

obersevation.

experiment

measurement (numbers)

2. Publish in paper or Digital for world to see, review.

redo experiment

replicate data.

true-false, this study may, may Not be valid, real-fake. truth depends on data, experiment.

Any analysis on global warming without a parallel investigation on the level of water moisture in the atmosphere will always be misleading and less than truthful. If we accept that polar ice caps have melted so much since the last ice age, then we have to also accept that the melting of the ice will have contributed to an increase in the amount of water in the atmosphere.

And if we add to that the release of water into the atmosphere from the lands due to deforestation which is estimated to be about 85% of original forests the amount added to atmospheric water should be substantial.

How come scientists are not including a very important variable in the atmosphere in their analysis?

From my understanding, some places will become drier and some will become wetter. Deforestation, from what I have read, has the opposite effect than what you propose. Trees and other plant material are directly responsible for adding a huge amount of water to the atmosphere. When the trees and other plant matter is removed, the area becomes drier. Not only is the air drier, but the soil dries out too. Some places become deserts because the average rainfall becomes so low. No water vapor, no rain. Even worse is the huge release of carbon dioxide from cutting down and burning trees. A soccer-field size of old growth trees is cut down every 60th of a second. Some estimates put the release of carbon dioxide as high as 1.5 billion tons per year.

If you have a theory or question such as yours – and it’s a very good question – then you might want to see if the answer is already addressed somewhere. Wikipedia’s entry for “deforestation” has a good description – and the authors site the original research if you want to see that too. Or you could directly contact the study’s authors and ask them if it’s a factor, and if so, how did they account for the effect in their study.

Scientists (at least most) are not stupid and they try to control for or adjust for as many variables as they can. If they don’t adjust for as much variability as they can, then their study results are less likely to be valid. Believe me, they would not want to report on it if they didn’t think it was meaningful or useful data. Often, in a scientific paper, doubts or extenuating factors are reported by the authors as future questions to be researched. This is basic scientific research methodology as briefly described in the note from Bill Clinton.

He states that experiments are confirmed through replication to see if the results still hold up and to explore other pieces of the puzzle. However this is not an experiment, because the scientists themselves are not systematically changing the variables one at a time to see the effect of these changes. In this case, the scientists are generating or collecting data for theories that take into account as many variables as they can. These theories or models are then tested against what they then predict will happen under shifts in the value of the variable or variables of interest. Because this is a complex problem on a global scale with many variables, and because the effects of these variables cannot be practically tested in a laboratory, assumptions have to be made (and stated in the original paper). Sometimes in research assumptions are incorrect in whole or in part. That’s why the validation by other researchers’s work is important.

There is plenty of evidence that the planet as a whole is warming and that massive changes are occurring world-wide. The changes the scientists study help them understand more of the picture about what climate change means for weather, food supplies, and species survival. I’m not a scientist, but I love science and there are plenty of valuable sites on the internet where you can read about how basic research is carried out and what conclusions you can and cannot draw from research studies of various kinds. Just be sure the site is respectable. Sites that end in .edu are good places to look for information. Hope this helps!