The small makeup room off the main floor of KUSI’s studios, in a suburban canyon on the north end of San Diego, has seen better days. The carpet is stained; the couch sags. John Coleman, KUSI’s weatherman, pulls off the brown sweatshirt he has been wearing over his shirt and tie all day and appraises himself in the mirror, smoothing back his white hair and opening a makeup kit. “I kid that I have to use a trowel, to fill the crevasses of age,” he says, swiping powder under one eye and then the other. “People have tried to convince me to use more advanced makeup, but I don’t. I don’t try to fool anyone.”
Coleman is seventy-five years old, and looks it, which is refreshing in the Dorian Gray-like environs of television news. He refers to his position at KUSI, a modestly eccentric independent station in San Diego whose evening newscast usually runs fifth out of five in the local market, as his retirement job. When he steps in front of the green screen, it’s clear why he has chosen it over actual retirement; in front of the camera he moves, if not quite like a man half his age, then at least like a man three quarters of it. His eyes light up, and the slight stoop with which he otherwise carries himself disappears. His rumble of a voice evens out into a theatrical baritone, full of the practiced jocularity of someone who has spent all but the first nineteen years of his life on TV.
By his own rough estimate, John Coleman has performed more than a quarter million weathercasts. It is not a stretch to say that he is largely responsible for the shape of the modern weather report. As the first weatherman on ABC’s Good Morning America in the late 1970s and early ’80s, Coleman pioneered the use of the onscreen satellite technology and computer graphics that are now standard nearly everywhere. In 1982, chafing at the limitations of his daily slot on GMA, Coleman used his spare time—and media mogul Frank Batten’s money—to launch The Weather Channel. The idea seemed quixotic then, and his tenure as president ended a year later after an acrimonious split with Batten. But time proved Coleman to be something of a genius—the channel was turning a profit within four years, and by the time NBC-Universal bought it in 2008 it had 85 million viewers and a $3.5 billion price tag.
Those were the first two acts of Coleman’s career. On a Sunday night in early November 2007, Coleman sat down at his home computer and started to write the 967 words that would launch the third. “It is the greatest scam in history,” he began. “I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming: It is a SCAM.”
What had set him off was a football game. The Eagles were playing the Cowboys in Philadelphia on Sunday Night Football, and as a gesture of environmental awareness—it was “Green is Universal” week at NBC-Universal—the studio lights were cut for portions of the pre-game and half-time shows. Coleman, who had been growing increasingly skeptical about global warming for more than a decade, finally snapped. “I couldn’t take it anymore,” he told me. “I did a Howard Beale.”
Skepticism is, of course, the core value of scientific inquiry. But the essay that Coleman published that week, on the Web site ICECAP, would have more properly been termed rejectionism. Coleman wasn’t arguing against the integrity of a particular conclusion based on careful original research—something that would have constituted useful scientific skepticism. Instead, he went after the motives of the scientists themselves. Climate researchers, he wrote, “look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.”
This is the Columbia Journalism Review for god's sake.
Learn the difference between 'titled' and 'entitled.'
#1 Posted by Jim Hilley, CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 02:14 PM
Some things should be taken by faith. Matters of science should not be. Gravity is a certainty, but other matters such as global warming and evolution are theories for which a goodly deal of evidence may exist but not such certainty as to warrant that scientists embrace creeds about them. Is CJR or its writer giving imprimaturs or nihil obstats about what constitutes a scientific expert? I suggest that years of exposure to a given field may make one an expert even if there isn't a college degree that goes with that expertise. The late Walter Cronkite's expertise in covering space flight comes to mind.
#2 Posted by Patrick Cloonan, CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 02:23 PM
You were so close to pinning down the real issue here and explaining the contrarian nature of the meteorology community and climatologists and the legitimacy of their concerns.
Mathematical models are models, whether they are forecasting short term phenomenon or long term phenomenon. It doesn’t matter if you are modeling long term climate change, short term weather systems, flow around a heat exchanger, chemical interactions inside a catalyzed petroleum cracking unit, velocity of a coal particle in a furnace or any of the thousands of applications that computer modeling of dynamic physical systems is used for. The longer out into the future a time dependant model looks, the less accurate it is because errors from one iterations carryover to the next iterations, and there are always errors. The accuracy of any model is based on two things: the soundness of the code and the quality of the inputs. Weather forecasting software has the benefit of highly accurate data from dozens of sources and a code that is constantly revised based on known deviations from previous models. Even with this (good date, lots of real world feedback) models fail regularly and meteorologists rely on a great deal of interpretive work and forecasting intuition to predict the weather.
This explains why meteorologists (and engineers I might add) are so skeptical of climatologists. We use mathematical models on a daily basis and see firsthand what the real world limitations are. Climatologists don’t.
Climatologists lack those two key fundamentals of good modeling and they are trying to predict deviations in multi-thousand year climactic cycles caused by CO2 and other GHG’s. Their inputs are based (with the exception of the past 150 years) primarily on proxy data of unknown accuracy. And since the models look at time spans of tens or hundreds of years, they get very little real work feedback to compare their results to.
Based on the limitations of these models, how the hell can any one say that they are 90% certain that the earth will warm 3.2degress Celsius by 2100? What the hell could they possibly base that level of certainly on? For example, out of the dozens of feedback loops so critical to the accuracy of climate models, only a small portion of them can be directly measured. This means that these feedback loops, essential to the completeness of the model, cannot be independently verified and errors in them propagate with an unknown level of bias throughout the entire model. Right there climatologists have introduces dozens of errors into their models, and what compounds this, is that they cannot quantify those errors with any degree of accuracy.
You should sit down sometime and talk with people who use these tools on a daily basis (as well as the people at places like ANSYS, Inc who work on code) to get a better understanding on what’s wrong with them.
#3 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 02:41 PM
Shorter answer: Because they are not scientists.
Longer, somewhat snarkier answer: Because they're not scientists; they're TV personalities.
#4 Posted by Robert S., CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 03:21 PM
Pace Mr. Cloonan, but Walter Cronkite would have been the first to challenge your well-intended contention that his passion for -- and knowledgeabilty about -- manned spaceflight would have qualified him to discourse on astronautics at the scientific level. Walter was a journalist who boned up on his subject to an exceptional degree before he reported on it, consequently earning the enduring trust of his audience.
This all goes to support the point that the writer is making about presenting objective peer-reviewed evidence vs rendering an opinion. I spent a decade as a production executive at CBS News, but I would never refer to myself as a journalist; yet I do comment regularly on the craft because that associative experience has made me more newsmedia savvy than my average reader. But for me to attempt to write a "scientific" disertation on the subject would be a reach far too far.
#5 Posted by Art Kane, CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 04:50 PM
"By his own rough estimate, John Coleman has performed more than a quarter million weathercasts."
How is that even possible?
He would have to be doing at least 10 broadcasts a day, everyday for more than 50 years.
#6 Posted by Chris W., CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 04:56 PM
Mr. Homans: What is Al Gore's degree in? What about Leonardo DiCaprio?
#7 Posted by Jim S., CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 06:54 PM
Even without picking on first commenter Jim Hilley for failing to capitalise God, his philistinism shines through.
'Entitled' has a variety of meanings, the oldest of which is 'to give something a title'. Only from being given the title were other accoutrements awarded by right (entitlements) that now give the modern commonest sense. The prefix "en-" refers to the act of bestowing: thus can nouns be 'enfranchised' or 'enabled' as well as 'entitled' (given the vote, means or title respectively).
Whilst I tend to reserve the longer 'entitled' for the act of a monarch ennobling a Duke or Earl or similar ('granting them a title') there is nothing wrong with using it to refer to the state of being of a book or article that was 'given its title' by its author.
For those who like to read beyond the AP stylebook - that miserable little volume - one might begin with some Geoffrey Chaucer (at least the first fragment is translated by him) from a little work entitled 'The Romaunt of the Rose', Fragment C, lines 7105-7107:
"Entitled was in such manere
This book, of which I telle heere.
Ther nas no wight in all Parys"
There was nothing wrong with the CJR's use of the word 'entitled' in this piece, save that it was perhaps a little grand for a description of an article in a 1955 edition of 'TV Guide', but that's just snobbery on my part.
#8 Posted by Greg C, CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 07:47 PM
"But that hardly explains why so many meteorologists have disregarded the mountain of evidence of global warming that has already occurred—or why, in the case of the hard-line skeptics, they are so fixated on proving a few data sets’ worth of tree-ring and ice core measurements wrong."
Charles Homans needs to get a clue about the difference between "warming" and man-made warming. Then he might actually be intellectually ready to understand why the tree-ring data are important.
But actually taking skeptical arguments seriously might make Homans persona non grata with his left-wing employers at Washington Monthly. Safer to stick with the politically correct message while presenting an facade of objectivity.
#9 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 10:34 PM
Well Greg, they don't have much go on to begin with and then even that nit is wrong. That's a skeptic trend all across the Web. That Nawlin's weather droid is scary. In the end this all about their politics. If the weathercasters are Republicans, they won't buy global warming. Hard political ideology removes the need for critical though. After all, you have a platform to rely on. Who needs facts?
#10 Posted by Mark York, CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 10:37 PM
No Bradley, the so-called skeptical arguments are false and easily proven so. NASA and every scientific organization in the world has done it over and over. Here's a newsflash from a journalist with science training and a long history working in a scientific field: to be taken seriously you have actually have a legitimate argument. Get one and report back sans the cry me a river discrimination meme. That's a just a lame special pleading you aren't entitled to.
#11 Posted by Mark York, CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 10:44 PM
Mark,
Your science training could use a refresher course -- the burden of proof is on those who propose a theory.
And in the wake of Climategate, this "trust me, we're scientists" act has grown stale. What do you think of Michael Mann hiding his "dirty laundry"? Does that make him the kind of climate scientist we should trust?
But since you say the skeptical arguments are so easily disproven, what about the fact that CO2 levels have historically increased only after hundreds of years of warming? Where is your proof that CO2 has anything to do with that warming?
#12 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 10:50 PM
If you have any doublts about Global Cooling, look outside. You don't have to be a scientist to realize they are scammers.
#13 Posted by Mr. Crowley, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 04:55 AM
Here's something for the "skeptics" (I've yet to encounter a genuine one in the wild - all of them are either a) religiously anti-left b) armchair amateurs with megalomania c) otherwise politically or emotionally biased) to look at - a skeptical account of the invented "Climategate" outrage.
http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
"The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings."
In short - touting "Climategate" as a blot on the work of ALL climate scientists the world over is like waving a hot summer as proof of AGW - it's a sign of STUPIDITY and a LACK of skeptical faculties.
The people who desperately try to use "Climategate" as something more than an anecdote are knowingly dishonest, show no good faith, and are obviously more stupid than the people they try to besmirch. Skeptics, they are not.
Applying skepticism to science is like moisturizing water, so the "skeptics" apparently don't even understand the semantics involved. It's either good science (which by definition must be skeptical) or it is not good science. Well, the science so far is good and I still see no reason not to let climate scientists and economists dictate what we may or may not do. This is not because I dislike freedom and take authority for granted, but because I love meritocracy and the ambition of man to triumph in the face of his weaknesses and challenges.
#14 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 05:35 AM
"If you have any doublts about Global Cooling, look outside. You don't have to be a scientist to realize they are scammers."
See, there's still stuff like this.
And we are supposed to respect Crowley's bumf? Perhaps we should base all our policy decisions on the observations of street-level citizens?
Since old Mrs. Flannegan just saw a few teenagers key a car, this means that the damages from teenager sabotage are in excess of 50 million euroes. The government of Ireland will react accordingly and order a curfew and 40 million euroes to be spent on addressing the problem. Thank goodness we listened to Mrs. Flannegan instead of those effete scientists with their "perspective" and "quantitative and qualitative studies". Who needs knowledge and study when we can just ask people like Crowley, who instantly know the score by looking out the window.
We are a pathetic species indeed. Cats and dogs are irrational and driven by instincts, but not even they are DUMB enough to look at a coming snowstorm and come to the conclusion that said snowstorm means things will never be warm some other time.
Did the surly and accusatory Mr. Crowley ever apply any skepticism to his own thinking and, um, impressive methodology? No. He is not a skeptic, and in my life I've yet to encounter a climate "skeptic" who actually demonstrates adequate skepticism.
#15 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 05:45 AM
The proceedings of the Third International Conference on Climate Change, June 2, 2009 in Washington, DC http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/proceedings.html are very interesting. In the video of a speech by Patrick Michaels, Ph.D. he notes that the American Meteorological Society was having their lunch in the same building. They were having their Summer Policy Colloquium, including lectures by government global warming proponents and a workshop on "How To Make Legislation on Climate Change."
The Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago, Illinois on May 16-18, 2010 http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicago/index.html should prove even more interesting in the wake of Climategate.
#16 Posted by Wayne B, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 06:40 AM
Ah the Heartland fellows. Who are responsible for the following idiocy:
that ozone depletion is nothing to worry about
that smoking doesn’t cause cancer
that second-hand smoke is nothing to worry about anyway
and now that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nothing to worry about.
How's that for a track record, Wayne? Perhaps you should show some humility in the future. Also, trying to pretend that the CRU hack is more than an anecdote reflects poorly on your capacity to apply "skepticism", seeing as a skeptical look at the incident does not impinge the credibility of the main corpus on which people like me base their views and positions. Again, you are not a skeptic.
Once again - there are no AGW "skeptics" as far as my experience goes- they are either
a) infatuated with an undeveloped vision of a flawless market and show a zealot's hatred of anyone who damages the vision (libertarians, the Heartland fools, the Cato institute)
b) so in thrall of a hatred of the left that no lie is too small to defend in order to spite them (James Delingpole, Monckton, some of the people here in the comments section)
c) paid to lie or otherwise enjoy some kind of beneficial (financial, emotional) arrangement from visiting conferences where the main feature are a bunch of intellectually mediocre people putting scare quotes around "consensus" and babbling about the invented "ice age scare". (meteorologists and the odious pile of arrogance the article discusses at length)
d) pathetic plebeians and average folks who have surrendered to the kind of folksy arrogance and complete relativism Palin espouses.
Not one person I've seen here provides even a glancing reason to reconsider - there are no actual AGW skeptics.
I don't trust the scientists because they have diplomas or lab coats. I do so because they have shown a capacity to winnow themselves and their work with the same tenacity that the military does. They are, simply and honestly, superior.
I rip words of Nietzsche from their context, sexism and all:
"We know very well how science strikes those who merely glance at it in passing, as if they were walking by, as women do and unfortunately also many artists: the severity of its service, its inexorability in small as in great matters, and the speed of weighing and judging matters and passing judgment makes them feel dizzy and afraid. Above all they are terrified to see how the most difficult is demanded and the best is done without praise and decorations. Indeed, what one hears is, as among soldiers, mostly reproaches and harsh rebukes; for doing things well is considered the rule, and failure is the exception; but the rule always tends to keep quiet. This "severity of science" has the same effect as the forms and good manners of the best society: it is frightening for the uninitiated."
#17 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 06:59 AM
Wow, a long piece trying to discredit people the author disagrees with. This is the state of American journalism? A sorry state indeed.
The issue here is that literally hundreds of people who work in the field of weather every day disagree with what politicized science is telling them. Rather than say they are ignorant, perhaps looking at what they say might be wiser.
For example, look at the read me file among the ClimateGate information. Forget the e-mails for a second. This file alone shows how flawed the science that resulted really was. Software that didn't work, couldn't work with other software and data either flawed or thrown out.
Reading that file alone should inspire those who do believe global warming is a major threat to do something to combat the marketing problem other than yell. There should be an open and interactive vetting process of ALL the data they rely on. They want a global commitment to fixing a problem when a huge chunk of people no longer believe them.
So, fix that. Convince people. Not with anecdotes, but with raw original (and undeleted) data and e-mails. Let other scientists look at that data. Let skeptical organizations see what's going on behind the scenes at all these organizations. If it's an honest and legit process, you will convince a lot of skeptics. If it's not, then too bad.
#18 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 07:52 AM
I think those who advocate the theory that carbon dioxide is the cause of man made global warming, should practice what they preach and stop exhaling.
#19 Posted by bob marks, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 08:19 AM
I'm more of a behaviorist than a climatologist, and the thing that strikes me most about these comments and the original article, is how much time is spent by those who support AGW in the act of ad hominem attacks against those who reject AGW. My first thought, if the AGW proponents feel that they have to convince their audience that their opponents are evil incarnate before they can convince them of the results of their research, then the AGW supporters science must be very weak. If you want to convince reasonable people, you will have to quit acting like kids on the school yard first. Stick to your science, and leave the personal attacks out of the equation.
#20 Posted by William Epperly, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 08:20 AM
"Wow, a long piece trying to discredit people the author disagrees with"
Why else would anyone try to discredit someone? And why is it somehow uncouth or unbecoming of a journalist to discredit people who actually spread untruths?
See, you don't want to challenge the assertion that the target is wrong and worthy of discredit... So, if a journalist is never allowed to depict a liar as a liar, how exactly are the liars supposed to be challenged?
Seeing as anyone who attacks your darling contrarians are by default bad or immoral for doing so, you've effectively created a catch 22 - either we leave the man alone uncontested and uninvestigated (at which point you can say "neener neener you can't defeat his arguments you are running scared) or we actually investigate him, criticize him for his faults and lies, at which point you then scream "You can't handle disagreements! You have it in for him, that means his lies aren't lies because *you* uncovered them!"
If you think we can't see through that ploy, then you are as stupid as you think we are.
"The issue here is that literally hundreds of people who work in the field of weather every day disagree with what politicized science is telling them."
Working at a Kindergarten doesn't make you a child psychologist or a pediatrician, Dan. Also, the "science" is not telling them anything - scientists are. And since the scientists work in the field they are talking about, that means that what they say is worth more than what the meteorologists think. Climatologists don't pipe up about the work of meteorologists, do they?
Goodness gracious, now the meteorologists somehow think they have default credibility in another field, and you enable them (funnily enough, I often hear the "skeptic" argument "We can't predict the weather properly, so how can we predict the climate?!?!!?", showing that meteorologists either serve as incompetent accomplices to the hated climatologists or as their betters, depending on what stupid argument the "skeptics" want to make). Complete relativism.
"Rather than say they are ignorant, perhaps looking at what they say might be wiser."
What do you think the above article just did, pedant?
"Software that didn't work, couldn't work with other software and data either flawed or thrown out."
See, the onus is on you to actually show that, as the scientists worked, actual reality was not properly accumulated and summarized in data/report form. Logistics, sir, logistics. You've never had computer issues, I take it? Lucky man.
"Reading that file alone should inspire those who do believe global warming is a major threat to do something to combat the marketing problem other than yell."
Marketing is exactly what AGW proponents should focus on, because those who value the *appearance* of being right always trumps those who value being right as an *ideal*. Scientists often forget how stupid people can be, probably because they are not stupid themselves (notice I said scientists - academics are sometimes another matter).
"Not with anecdotes, but with raw original (and undeleted) data and e-mails."
Tall order coming from a person who is himself inflating an anecdote and projecting through it.
Actual skeptic? Nah. But the same extreme arrogance and hatred often exhibited by skeptics? Definitely not shown, and for this I respect and hark to parts of what you say.
#21 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 08:32 AM
When the computer program a "scientist" writes contains a "fudge factor" (labeled as such in the code comments) in order to provide a "VERY ARTIFICAL [sic] CORRECTION for decline" (also taken from the code comments) in order to craft a "hockey stick" increase in global temperatures, any reasonable person would question the value of his "science".
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
#22 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 08:40 AM
"is how much time is spent by those who support AGW in the act of ad hominem attacks against those who reject AGW."
Seeing your hectoring and sanctimonious comment right underneath the genius "bob's" demand that AGW proponents should stop breathing is the most delicious irony. Such a perfect illustration of the two-faced impression one gets from the skeptic crowd - one half weeping about insults and besmirching, the other half spreading it unendingly.
"My first thought, if the AGW proponents feel that they have to convince their audience that their opponents are evil incarnate before they can convince them of the results of their research"
"evil incarnate"? How about vulgar buffoons without good faith? Coleman speculates arrogantly and without evidence about people he has never met. May we not accost him for such failings? Is such nastiness too harsh on your eyes? I say thee "BAH!"
"Stick to your science, and leave the personal attacks out of the equation."
Under no circumstances - if attacks on a person's work based on reasoning is separated from attacks on his/her character based on mere observations of their character, you may not complain for a second. If a man's reasoning is sound and accountable and his indictment of another is worthy of taking into account, then any insults he levers at the person cannot under any circumstances weaken the indictment.
You are practicing "Calvinball", Epperly - setting up disingenuous and arbitrary rules in order to lecture and control your opponents.
The article contains examples of Coleman being flawed in argumentation (claiming authority beyond his accomplishments and studying) and in spirit and mind (hypocrisy, bias, projecting, arrogance, bad faith) - but these two indictments are evidenced *separately*. Stop whining.
Let's see: Relativism, concern trolling, disingenuous and weak attempts to make justified attacks on a person discrediting of the person delivering them instead, and a failure to understand that both ad hominem and more reasoned criticism can both fit in a worthy text (a man can be a vulgar buffoon and still be correct, and the evaluations should be separate, of course). Psychoanalyze that.
I Repeat: I have not encountered any sincere AGW skeptics in my life.
#23 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 08:52 AM
Wow Alex,
So a kindergarten teacher is not an expert in childhood developement? And a builder is not an architect, but the builder knows when the "model is off". As such what should be and is can often times be miles apart and so you will have to excuse those of us who don't believe the sky is falling.
#24 Posted by Dan Hooker, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 09:09 AM
The reason why there is such a strong skepticism of the man made global warming crowd is directly related to their front man Al Gore (who is neither a meteorologist nor a climatologist, but is a journalist.) Whenever a skeptic raises legitimate questions like, “what provisions have you made for sunspot or solar flare activity in your modeling,” the response is “I don’t have to answer that, the science is settled.” That is not a scientific argument. When another scientist makes a FOIA request to NASA to release the raw data, NASA in turn fights the request for over two years. If the science was so settled, wouldn’t NASA want to open up the data to show the world how real and dire the situation is.
Instead it is these so called climate scientists that are resorting to anecdotal and non scientific means to further their agenda. No rational person wants to see the world destroyed if in fact man is causing it; on the other hand, no rational person wants millions of humans to suffer severe economic damage because an acorn fell on Chicken Little’s head.
#25 Posted by Gene Craig, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 09:15 AM
you try and discredit the weatherman for spending no time in climatology, but the savior and pusher of this climate change agenda for many years now has been al gore...how long has he spent in climatology? let's also talk about how his main motives are in using government regulation to make money for companies he is both invested in and of which he is on the board.
i am no scientist but i think it is a little conceited to think that humans can cause this kind of change on the earth.
#26 Posted by jon h, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 10:47 AM
"So a kindergarten teacher is not an expert in childhood developement?"
Perhaps where you are from. But there are different frames of time, different types of work and different focuses from where I see it. You know what the analogy was meant to illustrate, so don't resort to pedantry. Also, it's "Axel", if you would.
"And a builder is not an architect, but the builder knows when the "model is off"."
Architects study physics, chemistry and other subjects so they don't design things that won't stand.
What we have here are builders looking at a building they didn't work on, making boisterous and self-congratulatory claims about its stability while claiming a secret cult of thousands of scientists have joined together to erect faulty buildings, for some unspecified reason. Probably out of jealousy or a sense of inferiority.
"Whenever a skeptic raises legitimate questions like, “what provisions have you made for sunspot or solar flare activity in your modeling,” the response is “I don’t have to answer that, the science is settled.” "
That's a lie, of course. All scientists are skeptics themselves, and cannot avoid criticism of and questions about their work by pointing at the quality of other, related works. What happens all the time is that some "skeptic" picks up some report and makes poor criticism of it, at which point he is shown that he has to put the report back where it was, thus settling it once again.
"Instead it is these so called climate scientists that are resorting to anecdotal and non scientific means to further their agenda."
Incredibly general and unfounded statement. No good faith. Murmuring of some ephemeral "agenda" makes you look like quite the alarmist, fella.
"no rational person wants millions of humans to suffer severe economic damage because an acorn fell on Chicken Little’s head."
Ah yes, the AGW proponents are Chicken Little's, while the people screaming about scientist conspiracies, "agendas" and plots to destroy economic growth and harm millions of human beings are not being alarmist. More delicious irony for someone of my heightened perspective and skeptical capacity to appreciate.
Not even the CIA could create such a conspiracy.
Just for starters - please provide at least one shred of evidence that suggests some political agency managed to force the people in charge of the following institutions to agree that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities". Speculation is not acceptable, of course. Any whining and pathetic attempts to dismiss these institutions or something, and I'll post even more institutions.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Once again: from my POW, there are no sincere AGW skeptics. All are either marketers or addicts to the serotonin releases given by biases, partisan hatred or cognitive dissonance.
#27 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 11:01 AM
This argument really goes no where. Now after the recent outing of the "scientist" e mails, where they change number to support their theory, the whole thing becomes a question again.
One thing I learned when working on my Masters was that you always read a study with a critical eye and always look for the BIAS.
Then you look to see who is going to profit from this study, and how the study will change society.
Looks to me that Al Gore, and his cronies, have made a financial killing in the enviromental carbon footprint sales. Also several people in the UN are scrambling to obtain power over any Nation they can and push a World Government.
One thing I did learn ....just follow the money and power.
#28 Posted by Alex, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 11:02 AM
"but the savior and pusher of this climate change agenda for many years now has been al gore...how long has he spent in climatology?"
Do you honestly think I would be this smug and convinced if I had Al Gore's slideshows to rely on? He is a marketer - I approve of what he is doing (unless he skirts the truth) but he didn't persuade me.
"let's also talk about how his main motives are in using government regulation to make money for companies he is both invested in and of which he is on the board."
Which is one of the reasons I don't rely on him for any of my claims. Now kindly do some journalism and check to see if the thousands of scientists the world over who agree with him have stocks in his kind of companies or something. Anyone is capable of any kind of hidden agenda - what "skeptics" provide are baseless speculation about the motivations of the scientists who dare to say things the "skeptics" don't want them to say. "It *could* just be a scam - that means there *is* a scam" etc.
"i am no scientist but i think it is a little conceited to think that humans can cause this kind of change on the earth."
A few decades before the 40's you'd be hard pressed to find anyone imagining an aircraft-carried bomb capable of snuffing out hundreds of thousands of people in one go.
Read up, think for yourself: http://skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm
You "skeptics" fancy yourselves the new Dick Tracys, so snoop ahead.
#29 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 11:12 AM
"Also several people in the UN are scrambling to obtain power over any Nation they can and push a World Government."
And there's tinfoil-wearing Alex with the "NWO" alarmism - that means I can put an "X" on that square as well!
I have a BINGO!
What do I win? A sense of relief over not being insulated enough to believe that the UN is pushing a frigging "NWO". "X-Files" was a good show, but it's still fiction.
#30 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 11:18 AM
Axel Edgren is a perfect example of a trend that I find so infuriating. Not one of his lengthy diatribes addresses the key issue raised by meteorologists, that is, the questionable accuracy of climate models. Mike H's comment goes to the heart of the matter. Instead of addressing the issue, Mr. Edgren continues to hammer the argument that there are "No sincere AGW skeptics."
I'm a center-left liberal who STRONGLY believes that we need to dramatically change the way we produce and consume energy. From all I have read, it seems certain that pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere is warming the planet. However, the more I read about climate change, the more instances I find of proponents shouting down anyone who raises any scientific questions about the models and their conclusions. I find that trend truly disturbing. The questions of "how much warming?" and "what will the impacts be?" are completely based on climate models that aren't provably more accurate than the meteorological models whose inaccuracies we all love to bemoan. But I guess to folks like Axel Edgren, I'm just an evil concern troll, my concerns couldn't possibly be genuine.
News flash: if you want to actually pass climate change legislation, you need a public relations plan more sophisticated than "The science is settled and if you question it you are a villain."
#31 Posted by Alpine McGregor, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 11:32 AM
Alpine, you made my point exactly. Axel has not responded with one bit of science. Let me throw a few questions at you Axel and let me see if you can find ANY scientist on the Al Gore side of the fence that has addressed these issues with real scientific data.
1. Sun Spots - Climatologist for over 100 years have compared sunspot activity with climate changes. Science has shown that there is a direct correlation with sunspots and increase in temperatures. Last year we had an extended period of ZERO sunspot activity. That has translated to the extreme cold that we are now experiencing. How does that affect account for in these global warming models?
2. We have had a long history of ice ages and warming periods. These things occurred long before man started driving cars, producing electricity and flying airplanes. Why do we thing that now we could either prevent or cause another one of these cycles.
3. We humans inspire oxygen and expire co2. Plants inspire co2 and expire oxygen. This is a natural symbiotic relationship. If there is an abundance of CO2, then the flora will increase and consume the excess. Have the climatologists accounted for this in their model?
4. Your dear NASA has also observed planetary warming on mars and Venus at the same time as they claim that we have had warming on our native orb. What coal fired power plants on Venus are causing the Venusians global warming problem?
I will patiently await your reply. My guess is you will not use facts but personal slurs to argue your positions.
#32 Posted by Gene Craig, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 12:02 PM
I have to disagree with the statement that a post graduate degree is a 'requirement' for (academic) scientific research. I have worked in a science field my entire life and have no degree at all. Scientific method is not a mystery. It is a process. And it can and has been taught to many including children. While it may be useful at times to have such 'credentials', proper method can be applied and accurate, credible and comprehensive data ending in the same conclusion happens every day. When it comes to the point that we are talking about "Global Warming", a project of considerable proportions, funding becomes an issue. When governments fund research many times they want ridiculous prerequisites to 'qualify' the DoE up front. But considering the results and the process of the AGW research so far it would seem that any measures taken to prevent a "scam" were less than effective, eh?
#33 Posted by Ruler4You, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 12:40 PM
As it is said, Weathermen are always wrong. If I am concerned about my health would I take the advise of a Poet or that of a Doctor.
#34 Posted by Springman, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 12:51 PM
Fact: It was 4.4 deg warmer 1100 years ago. Unless you are claiming that was from Al Gore flying around the world on his jet then it's more then settled - That's CHECKMATE! - Oh, and you've been caught trying to hide this one to - so, oops - now you're known lairs and cheats.
Or are you saying your perfect climate is how it was back a 100,000 years or so ago when Chicago was under 2 miles of ice? Oops, CHECKMATE AGAIN!
Oh and warming has been happening on Mars so Oops, - unless Al's been running his 100 ft boat on Mars - that's Strike Three!!! How about this, just look up - no really, look up but try not to stare. See anything that might play a roll in climate change? Can you do anything about - hmm, so no way to tax the masses into oblivion. . . Well, I'm sure you can come up with something - asteroids maybe? I'm sure it will just be a CRYSIS if we don't all immediately turn over our lives, freedom, future and wealth to you. Hurry up, the debate is over! Ok, so you probably can't fool anyone old enough to remember the new ice age scam in the 70's and now this global warming scam but you've got all the mush brained kids in school! Kids tell your stupid parents about the pending asteroid doom!
#35 Posted by E. Vattal, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 12:56 PM
Springman, your argument is fallacious. “Weathermen are always wrong” is an absolute lie. Weathermen are sometimes wrong, true. (They are especially wrong when I plan to go fishing) Doctors are sometimes wrong, also true. Your quip implies that poets are as good at doctoring as weathermen are at tomorrow’s forecast, nonsense!
Maybe you should say self serving scientists cannot be trusted. I would rather get my facts from Yeti than a politician.
#36 Posted by Gene Craig, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 01:08 PM
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. This article is riddled throughout with it.
I don't need to have a PhD in a physical science to know that scientists should calibrate their instruments and site them properly. Climate scientists do not. The incompetence is staggering. Anthony Watts has shown that almost 90% of the US monitoring stations fail basic scientific standards. The author here says the problems are accounted for. Rather than simply accept this BS, he should ask some simple questions about the process. If he has a brain, he'll quickly figure out that the NOAA answer is ridiculous. Their claim to be able to weave gold out of their measurement garbage is more egregious than that of the original alchemists.
With a well-established track record of gross incompetence spiced up with instances of outright fraud, the notion that anyone should defer to the judgments of climate scientists is ludicrous. Find some that actually employ the scientific method and perhaps we can talk.
#37 Posted by stan, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 01:11 PM
This was an outstanding article. It's been quite a while since I've seen the CJR, and I had forgotten how good you can be. Thank you for researching, writing, and publishing this important article.
To boil the article down to its essentials:
1. Meteorologists forecast the weather, not the climate. They have an instantaneous focus, and aim for a far higher level of precision than climatologists.
2. Because precise weather forecasts are frequently wrong, some meteorologists doubt than climate forecasts can be right.
3. Skeptical meteorologists miss the precision issue. Climatologists aren't forecasting weather, but rather climate trends. If meteorologists were climatologists, they could simply forecast the arrival of winter and be right.
4. In daily life, meterologists can have an inflated sense of their scientific expertise, leading them to be too confident about their opinions and too broad in their conclusions.
5. Meterology is strongly near-future-oriented, making meterologists susceptible to overlooking climate changes that have already taken place.
I would prefer that the proponents of climate change theory be wrong. The implications of their work are very worrisome. But the more I read and hear on the subject, the more I am convinced that they are on the right track.
I don't see a whole lot of downside, and in fact quite a bit of upside, to following the advice of the climate change theorists. Even if they are wrong about climate change, reducing pollution and the use of hydrocarbons will deliver a wide variety of benefits.
The worst aspect of the debate is the tendency of the skeptics to descend into ad hominem attacks on Al Gore, who has been nothing more than a messenger. I'd be the first to agree that Gore has a pedantic air about him that I find a bit offputting, but people ought to be able to look past that and consider the underlying information. I was no fan of Ronald Reagan's personality either, but the man did bring some worthwhile ideas to the table.
I remember the "ice age" hysteria of the 1970s. It turns out that this was a media artifact, a misinterpretation of climate science of the time. Climatologists were not predicting a new ice age; the media of that era pounced on a small portion of their work and ran with it. For skeptics to be denouncing climatology on this basis is wrong.
#38 Posted by CWP, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 01:35 PM
To Patrick:
so by your reasoning, if I would at a physics lab, or veterinarian's office, or physician's office LONG enough, I know quantum physics, can operate on your pet or diagnose and treat your disease.
Amazing. And here I thought a few degrees of study in your chosen field were needed. I could have saved myself about $100k in student loans for my undergrad, masters and doctoral degree.
So you equate the education and training of scientists with specialization in their field with someone with a journalism degree and some years experience in broadcasting the weather.
Critical thinking. It's cool. Try some.
#39 Posted by Pk baldwin, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 01:46 PM
@stan, the inaccuracy of weather stations doesn't doom climate change theory.
There are two reasons for this. First, weather station data is one of many data sets that have been used in the theory and modeling. The climatologists also look at ice cores, tree cores, glacier patterns, and a variety of other data and indicators.
Second, the general direction of inaccuracy is known, and can be adjusted for. In the 1980s, I had reason to look closely at the data used by economic policy makers to analyze and forecast the economy. At close range, much of the data was (and is) inaccurate. I brought this to the attention of a talented corporate economist, and he said, "Yes, you are right. But we know that it's inaccurate. The issue is whether the inaccuracy has changed over time, and my reading of the stats says that the same inaccuracies you see now were present 40 years ago."
Climatologists err when they become too specific in their predictions. For instance, we cannot know if Hurricane X was "caused by global warming." On the other hand, if the glaciers of the Himalayas have shrunk by 25% in the past 35 years, that's something that we can reasonably ascribe to climate change, if we have a theoretical framework to fit it into.
#40 Posted by CWP, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 01:47 PM
Well CWP, if you want to reduce pollution you better look at the insane plans Gates and others have proposed for pumping massive amounts of pollution into the atmosphere. And that's not byproduct pollution - no, that's pollution made for no other purpose but to pollute! See you can't have it both ways - clean or really dirty. Most sane people want it clean but the problem the climate alarmist have now is that natural sources "pollute" far more then man made sources and people laugh at you when you talk about capping farts n-stuff. Besides how long before the rubes figure out the earths biomass ratio to plant life has been and will always remain in balance? (doesn't work otherwise) So stay on the stick CWP your side is about to start promoting pollution - you know, quick to save us!
#41 Posted by E. Vattal, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 01:53 PM
@Mike H, if climatology were a brand new science, and if climate change theory was the brainchild of a couple of people, I'd be more receptive to your point. But there are too many people, from too many discipliines, working independently, who have reached similar conclusions, to dismiss their conclusions on the basis that the data isn't precise enough.
I think you're making the same mistake as the meteorologist skeptics. Your argument is that, because engineers and short-term weather forecasts are judged (fairly, I might add) against a very high expectation of precision, that the same expectations should apply to climatology.
If climatologists were to build a bridge, or forecast the weather in Chicago on January 14, 2016, then their data sets should be examined microscopically. But that's not what they are doing. They are forecasting broad trends. A different standard of accuracy should be applied.
#42 Posted by CWP, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 01:56 PM
@ E Vittal, it's interesting that you should mention the idea of pumping smog components into the upper atmosphere to counteract global warming. My understanding is that this won't work, because it would destroy the ozone layer. I think the correct approach will be to reduce carbon output. The question is whether we can do that in time to head off catastrophe. By the time the effects of climate change are obvious to the man on the street, it could be too late to do anything about it.
Again, why the resorting to ad hominems? Gates, Gore, etc.? I really don't care who the ideas come from.
#43 Posted by CWP, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 02:01 PM
CWP, I know billions of people share your opinion of how horrible the world would be if it was but a few degrees warmer just like it was 1100 years ago! Or, even half that amount. Yup, that's what they are thinking right this instant! I must be the fool on this issue. . you're right.
Who needs all that farmland opening up on the plains of Canada and Greenland - And just who would like to cut their heating needs in half? The HORROR of it all is so clear. . . Never mind that 98.8% of all greenhouse gas is water vapor it's all our fault. BAD US - why don't you prove your point by holding your breath and we will see if it helps any?
#44 Posted by E. Vattal, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 02:13 PM
CWP you make a great summation of the article. Some of us are trying to point out some of the things the article is missing.
To boil the article down to its essentials:
1. Meteorologists forecast the weather, not the climate. They have an instantaneous focus, and aim for a far higher level of precision than climatologists.
True
2. Because precise weather forecasts are frequently wrong, some meteorologists doubt than climate forecasts can be right.
Likewise a Meteorologist is proven right or wrong almost instantly. We will have to wait a few hundred years to see if a climatologist is right. You imply that a meteorologist can be wrong but a climatologist cannot.
3. Skeptical meteorologists miss the precision issue. Climatologists aren't forecasting weather, but rather climate trends. If meteorologists were climatologists, they could simply forecast the arrival of winter and be right.
If climatologists would stick to forecasting climate trends then that would be the end of it. Climatologists have moved into the world of managing climate trends. That would be equal to meteorologists attempting to stop hurricanes or make it rain.
4. In daily life, meteorologists can have an inflated sense of their scientific expertise, leading them to be too confident about their opinions and too broad in their conclusions.
In daily life climatologists have an inflated sense of their expertise, that if their instruments are off, they can feel what the measurement should have been. Also, if their models do not show what they want it to show, they will jimmy the data until it does and destroy the evidence. TV weathermen get better ratings when there is severe weather. If he manipulates his models to sensationalize his forecast, it won’t be long before no one will watch him. A climatologist can do that and he will be dead and gone before anyone finds him out.
5. Meteorology is strongly near-future-oriented, making meteorologists susceptible to overlooking climate changes that have already taken place.
Climatologists are overlooking climate changes that have taken place over the millennia. They ignore the cause and effect of those changes because it does not suit their current agenda.
Why is the current climate the best one to have? Who is to say that sea levels 100 feet higher would not serve the planet better? How about sea levels 100 feet lower?
The arrogance of man is astounding.
#45 Posted by Gene Craig, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 02:16 PM
*Coleman wasn’t arguing against the integrity of a particular conclusion based on careful original research—something that would have constituted useful scientific skepticism. Instead, he went after the motives of the scientists themselves. Climate researchers, he wrote, “look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.”*
I don't know why the author finds this extraordinary.
This has been the modus operandi of so-called climate-change researchers all along - as revealed in the climategate emails, which are by the by, not just about `a few data sets on tree rings'
This `evidence' is that which underpinned the global warming hypothesis - which is what it remains now that the `evidence' for it has proven to be a fraud.
ps - the global-cooling deniers need not bother with `other c-c institutes state the global warming is real'; these other institutes are implicated in the CRU frauds and misreprentations.
Although the author of this piece apparently has received the urgent memo from the real world, all global warming `evidence' is now considered suspect unless and until it is reviewed by a third-party group of auditors.
#46 Posted by R.B. Glennie, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 02:44 PM
@ axel -
*In short - touting "Climategate" as a blot on the work of ALL climate scientists the world over is like waving a hot summer as proof of AGW - it's a sign of STUPIDITY and a LACK of skeptical faculties.*
I guess, Axel, you're saying that Al gore and the other climate-change hysterics are Stupid and Lack Scepticism, bec. they constantly pointed to hot summers as `proof' of global warming... remember the heat-wave of 03?
#47 Posted by R.B. Glennie, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 02:57 PM
@R.B. Glennie
"I guess, Axel, you're saying that Al gore and the other climate-change hysterics are Stupid and Lack Scepticism, bec. they constantly pointed to hot summers as `proof' of global warming... remember the heat-wave of 03?"
Okay, could you please proofread your posts?
Anyway: Yes I am. They are not allowed to tout anecdotes as evidence. What they are allowed to do is give it its due weight in discussions - very low. But they have more under their belt, unlike the hysterics waving the "Climategate" flag.
#48 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 03:11 PM
@stan
"I don't need to have a PhD in a physical science to know that scientists should calibrate their instruments and site them properly. Climate scientists do not."
Yeah see when you make accusations you basically have to ensure they can be upheld in court. You are merely slanderous.
"Anthony Watts has shown that almost 90% of the US monitoring stations fail basic scientific standards."
No he hasn't: http://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
"While urban areas are undoubtedly warmer than surrounding rural areas, this has had little to no impact on warming trends."
ALSO: "A good companion piece would be NOAA’s analysis responding to criticism from Anthony Watts/Heartland Institute that most US weather stations were suboptimally sited. NOAA took all 1200+ stations and took the 70 that Watts et al judged to be “good or best”, and showed that both sets of data gave essentially the same surface temperature trend. The .pdf of the NOAA analysis is here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf "
You fail, try again. Look how Watts gladly associates himself with the Heartlanders despite their proven lies about tobacco smoking and cancer. What a "skeptic", eh?
"Find some that actually employ the scientific method and perhaps we can talk."
See, you are making demands without performing anything yourself. You won't even link up properly, show anyone how to follow your alleged reasoning. The NOAA defended themselves, and you dismissed them without even showing any criticism or looking at what they did - you just shouted "humbug" and ignored them. That's very pathetic.
There are no actual AGW skeptics.
#49 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 03:24 PM
It seems pretty clear to me why weathermen don't trust the corrupt data bases of the CRU and the GISS, or the corrupt men who put them together, for the absurb idea that a computer model could tell what the climate will be 100 years from now when computer models can't tell what the weather will be next month. Who predicted this 3 months ago?
http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif
Axel Edgren is a Character right out of Atlas Shrugged, who sees the problem not with corrupt data, corrupt scientists and corrupt politicians, but the problem to him is how to get weathermen to brain wash the rest of us into believing the scam, so they can all cash in. Looters, Moochers and Whiners.
Who is John Galt?
Q. E. D.
#50 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 03:25 PM
@Gene Craig, yes, the climatologists might be wrong. After all, science marches on. But what if they are essentially right? Big problem, wouldn't you agree? On the other hand, if they're wrong and we reduce carbon emissions in response to an illusory threat, what will we have lost?
In the industrialized West, we'd have electric cars, less mining of coal, energy from renewable sources, and better conservation of water. In the industrializing world, there wouldn't need to be any replacement. They'd install the new stuff from the get-go. Much of which would come from the West, at a profit.
Seems to me that we win either way. If the climatologists are right, we avert catastrophe and win. If they're wrong, there was no catastrophe to avert and we still win. On the other hand, if we do nothing and the climataologists are right, we're screwed in a major way. If we do nothing and the climatologists are wrong, I'm not sure we're any better off than we were.
Take climate off the table for a minute. World oil production is at or near the peak anyway. The Age of Petroleum is going to fade no matter what.
#51 Posted by CWP, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 03:28 PM
"the global-cooling deniers need not bother with `other c-c institutes state the global warming is real'; these other institutes are implicated in the CRU frauds and misreprentations."
Global cooling? Now your contrarianism is forcing you to embarrass yourself.
You haven't actually given me an example of how all those institutes are implicated. You have obviously not looked at the link from factcheck I posted.
You are most definitely not a skeptic.
Due punishment: I'm posting more institutions of people of superior schooling and awareness who all disagree with you and whom you can't implicate in ill doings:
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organisations to US Congress states:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
#52 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 03:30 PM
Correction, the Atlas Shrugged character is Charles Homans, who wants weathermen to help brain wash us while the world is in in the deep freeze. Axel is just a Kool aid drinker, who can't use simple logic.
Where is John Galt?
#53 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 03:31 PM
Oh how swell now the objectivists are here. Now things will get less partisan and hateful for sure...
#54 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 03:33 PM
Those who deny climate change are acting as if we're being required to give up our way of life. Actaully, those who are sounding the alarm are trying to preserve it.
What does it matter whether a car is powered by gasoline or electricity, as long as it gets you there? If your house is heated and cooled by a ground-source heat pump, is it any hotter or cooler? If the extra electricity needed to power those things comes from windmills and solar cells, is it not still electricity?
I do think that some of the proponents of climate change theory are overbearing and patronizing. I grant that one. But then, there are a lot of people whose manner I don't like but who I still listen to. If the climatologists are right, wouldn't it be something if a historian from 2150 looked back and said that nothing got done because a bunch of Americans thought Al Gore was a prig?
A lot of the changes they're suggesting are pretty easy things. They cost a bunch of money up front but pay for themselves over time. We ought to be doing them anyway, but now we've got all the more reason to.
#55 Posted by CWP, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 03:44 PM
With the recent 'Climategate' revelations in which the leading 'scientists' who subscribe to global warming caused by man have been proven to change data, delete data that does not fit their wishes, attempt to silence those who do not accept global warming, and other such actions how can any of us believe what they say. Until there is a complete review of all available date and reconcilliation between tree rings and other sources, such as historical references to a 400 hundred yeard warming several hundred years back, the 'science' of climatology must not be considered a science at all but a religion with no proof. We should all step back from the hype and demand unbiased individuals without funding from prejudiced sources research all available information and present recomendations to the public. Until that is completed anyone who believes the promoters of climatology are basing their belief on theories with not proof. The e-mails form 'Climategate' show that cleary.
#56 Posted by Marty Dailey, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 03:46 PM
With the recent 'Climategate' revelations in which the leading 'scientists' who subscribe to global warming caused by man have been proven to change data, delete data that does not fit their wishes, attempt to silence those who do not accept global warming, and other such actions how can any of us believe what they say. Until there is a complete review of all available date and reconcilliation between tree rings and other sources, such as historical references to a 400 hundred yeard warming several hundred years back, the 'science' of climatology must not be considered a science at all but a religion with no proof. We should all step back from the hype and demand unbiased individuals without funding from prejudiced sources research all available information and present recomendations to the public. Until that is completed anyone who believes the promoters of climatology are basing their belief on theories with not proof. The e-mails form 'Climategate' show that clearly.
#57 Posted by Marty Dailey, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 03:46 PM
With the recent 'Climategate' revelations in which the leading 'scientists' who subscribe to global warming caused by man have been proven to change data, delete data that does not fit their wishes, attempt to silence those who do not accept global warming, and other such actions how can any of us believe what they say. Until there is a complete review of all available date and reconcilliation between tree rings and other sources, such as historical references to a 400 hundred yeard warming several hundred years back, the 'science' of climatology must not be considered a science at all but a religion with no proof. We should all step back from the hype and demand unbiased individuals without funding from prejudiced sources research all available information and present recomendations to the public. Until that is completed anyone who believes the promoters of climatology are basing their belief on theories with not proof. The e-mails form 'Climategate' show that clearly.
#58 Posted by Marty Dailey, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 03:53 PM
The religious order of climate alarmist are about to make a massive switch from - cleaner, cleaner, cleaner - to pollution on an unimaginable hellish and global scale. "Why?" because there is no there, there in the cleaner argument any longer. When people can take equipment designed to measure the emissions of what the alarmist call pollutants from a volcano and measure X times more emissions into the atmosphere in one afternoon then since the dawn of man's industrial revolution - that argument is over for good. When others can measure the emissions from a family pet and declare it's 3 times worse then the family car - that argument is over for good. And what solution is there to that is there anyway? Plant and animal life live in a balance. Exterminate or restrain one plant or animal life form and you just open up a nitch for a competitor with no net change. So what, you propose massive equal extermination of all life forms? And you would have to repeat it every so often because plants seed and animals breed. Yeah, that's not going to fly. So,here we go, from now on the argument will not be we need less pollution it's will be we need hellish amounts of pollution. "The Right Kind" My guess is that's not going to fly either - but it's coming folks count on it! It's all about control.
#59 Posted by E. Vattal, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 03:58 PM
Okay CWP, I will bite. What if the particular climatologists (I make that distinction because there are Climatologists that think man made GW is bunk) that you speak of are right. In fifty or so years we will have warmer temps less polar ice and higher sea levels. We have had that before and we will have that again. If you have a house on the coast you may think about selling at some point and buying new ocean front property in say. Oklahoma. Also, if you believe that GW will wipe off large populations of humans, then duh problem solved. Less humans= less GW. The earth still survives. By the way, lest you think I am heartless, read on to the end of this diatribe.
As for your fossil fuel/electric car crapolla, you have now stepped into my realm. You say world production is at its peak. That is one you just pulled out of your arse. In 2009 there were massive finds of petroleum all over the world. Some of the richest finds were in the Gulf of Mexico, Montana, and Brazil. We are talking HUGE amounts of petrol.
But let’s just say you are right and we begin rapidly running out of oil gas and coal. The technologies to capture, wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, methane ice, bio fuels etc will continue to develop and improve. They are already becoming marketable on their own merits and will continue to do so. As one resource becomes scarce, another resource is developed. (Seen any natural latex tires lately? How about whale oil lamps?)
What is heartless is what the global warming alarmists are trying to do. If in fact, cap and trade is passed, and some of the global treaties are signed, millions if not billions will die. Why? Because the energy to produce all the stuff that feeds the world will become too expensive, food will become more scarce and expensive. You cannot throw that much of a monkey wrench into the system and expect that everything will run just fine. That is not fear-mongering, it is fact. We began to see a taste of this last year when oil broke over the $150/bbl mark.
If you want to guarantee massive suffering and famine, then go on with your tax the hell out of coal agenda. You may deem that an okay price to pay to make sure that people don’t lose their beachfronts, but I don’t. This is why you have to be 100% sure that man made GW is real. You also better be darn sure that it is really CO2 that is causing the problem. If it is say… cow farts and you stop co2 emissions but don’t extinguish all cows, then you have killed a bunch of people in the early 2000 teens and then killed a bunch more people when GW happens anyway.
What we are seeing from our current political climate is rash decisions made with no willingness to debate the facts. Open the books, bring out the raw data, and show us how you come to your conclusions. If your facts are sound and your methods are true, then by all means lets save the planet. But when someone hides their facts and their methods, I tend not to believe their conclusions. I am just funny that way.
#60 Posted by Gene Craig, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 04:14 PM
I observe a split in the ranks of the denialists. One segment, exemplified by the TV weathermen featured here, deny outright that any climate change is occurring. That's because they are trained to have a time horizon of no more than a week or so.
Another segment is acknowledging the fact of climate change, which is becoming increasingly apparent all around us. They argue that human activity has nothing to do with it, but that any change is entirely natural. I foresee that segment further splitting between those who argue for natural causes, and others who will call climate change, and especially the negative effects of it, the judgment of a righeous god.
It's going to be similar to the European response to the plague in the Middle Ages. There were early doctors and scientists who groped for causes and remedies, and there were others who saw divine intervention.
#61 Posted by CWP, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 04:24 PM
I see the Left is still sucking the AGW teat in spite of Climategate. La-la-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you! Filthy lying maggot swill. And the putrid stench passed off as "Law Enforcement" can't be bothered to investigate the fraud which has wasted hundreds of millions of tax dollars. The Major Unpleasantness is coming, and you won't like it.
#62 Posted by Mark, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 04:26 PM
axel -
*Global cooling? Now your contrarianism is forcing you to embarrass yourself.
You haven't actually given me an example of how all those institutes are implicated. You have obviously not looked at the link from factcheck I posted.*
If 1998 was the hottest year on record, there is global cooling obviously.
It doesn't matter if you attempt statistical rhetoric like, `the 2000-2009 decade [not a decade, but nevertheless] was the warmest on record.'
the planet is cooling.
further: Factcheck. So what? I must have missed that, but I've never seen anyone appoint them as the arbiter of truth.
Clearly, the piece there has no idea what he or she is talking about.
About the most hilarious part is at the end when s/he says that the climategate emails `have the public confused', since only 25% of respondents in one survey believe that global warming is a problem.
I'm surprised it's that high, and the reason is simple: the planet is cooling.
come back when you have something substantive to say, Axel, not just global-cooling denial.
You either haven't looked at any of the emails; or you have, and are lying now.
Either you are ignorant or dishonest.
#63 Posted by R.B. Glennie, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 04:31 PM
I missed this gem:
*The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. ...*
Was this before or after the fraudulent work of the CRU was revealed?
it is, in any case, just an appeal to authority: it's like saying `Genesis Verse 2' says, no more.
it's not science; it's anti-science.
When you have some facts to present, why don't you start commenting.
#64 Posted by R.B. Glennie, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 04:33 PM
@Gene Craig, the same guy who correctly called the peaking of U.S. production (notwithstanding the Alaska discoveries) has predicted the near-term peaking of world production. Yes, there have been big new discoveries, but existing large fields are in increasingly steep decline. No one will know the peak on the day it happens, but I think it's going to happen pretty soon.
You are a tad bit blithe about the issue of sea level rises, given that so much of the earth's human population lives near coastlines. And if they all move to Oklahoma, where are they going to find any water? Oklahoma, and in fact much of the Great Plains, is locked in a long-term drought masked by increased depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer, and resulting dropping of water tables.
The Himalaya glaciers provide water to 3 billion people. If they disappear, it's going to be a problem. It will also be a problem if the Colorado River keeps drying up. Starting this year, Arizona will see the first reduction of allocations. It's a harbinger of things to come. And there are 100 million Mexicans living in a place with a growing water problem. We can't build a big enough wall to keep 'em out if they start moving. Not even the Minuteman Militias can handle it.
I am not as far apart from you on the substitution side of things. I happen to think that the revival of classical economics was a positive contribution of the Reagan years. That said, there has always been a role for governments to play in moving things along.
I'm not sure about cap-and-trade or the specifics of any other proposals. But I think that the denialists are increasingly desperate and absurd. Evidence of human-caused climate change has accumulated. To the extent that you offer nothing but invective, it shows that you really don't have any defense against the facts on the ground, in the water, and in the air.
#65 Posted by CWP, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 04:37 PM
*Okay, could you please proofread your posts?*
Get right on that teach.
*Anyway: Yes I am. They are not allowed to tout anecdotes as evidence. What they are allowed to do is give it its due weight in discussions - very low. But they have more under their belt, unlike the hysterics waving the "Climategate" flag.*
There is no climate science, period.
Whatever `findings' any climate-scientists has come up with, have been irredeemably spoilt by the fraudulent practices at CRU, and that implicate the much broader range of c-c scientists that you keep implicating as `proof' that global-cooling doesn't exist.
Anecdotes is all that the hysterics relied upon before the weather stopped cooperating with them and became cool.
#66 Posted by R.B. Glennie, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 04:38 PM
*I remember the "ice age" hysteria of the 1970s. It turns out that this was a media artifact, a misinterpretation of climate science of the time. Climatologists were not predicting a new ice age; the media of that era pounced on a small portion of their work and ran with it. For skeptics to be denouncing climatology on this basis is wrong.*
Fail!
In fact, scientists focussing on the climate WERE convinced that the planet was cooling, whatever trash articles in the Skeptical Inquirer have to say.
In fact, the very article in question undermines its own premise (ie. no consensus about global cooling) in the 1970s when it states that `the prevailing view at the time was that the planet was cooling.'
Garbage, garbage, and more garbage.
#67 Posted by R.B. Glennie, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 04:42 PM
Alternative energy sources are not "crapola." Several of them work well. Photovoltaic panels are one of them. Another is wind. The U.S. is blessed with a lot of windy places and a lot of sunny places. Also, ground-source heat pumps have been used for a long time in some places, and their could easily be expanded to reduce energy consumption for HVAC purposes by 30%-40%.
The issue with all of those technologies is that there is a considerable installation cost. A new oil or gas furnace, installed, costs $5,000 or $6,000. A ground-source heat pump, which requires both a heat exchanger and the digging of 75 feet of trench, 6 feet deep, costs $15,000 to $20,000. This is where government can play a role, by subsidizing the heat pumps and financing it with a sharing of energy cost savings.
There is also a role for nuclear. There are new technologies than can quintuple the amount of energy extracted from uranium. The reactors are in place, so there's every reason to use the new technology. It's not as if we'll go entirely to renewables in the near term. But the transition needs to be speeded up. Government has made infrastructure investments in the past; this would be just another form.
Despise Al Gore to your heart's content. He's not exactly my favorite politician either. But that's beside the point. Look at the realities, and deal with them, or the realities will deal with us.
#68 Posted by CWP, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 04:50 PM
"If 1998 was the hottest year on record, there is global cooling obviously."
*Laughter*
http://skepticalscience.com/1998-DIY-Statistics.html
They take you by the hand and show you why you are wrong. To prove you clicked the link, you will have to tell me who wrote it and how many images of graphs he posted. Then you will show me how you can still hold the position that 1998 was the hottest year (never mind the fact that 1998 was at the end of El Nino and the start of La Nina - you failed to point that out, showing you for the amateur you are).
"Once you count for the El Nino and solar cycles then you can see that something with a period longer than 10 years (and from that graph, longer than 60 years) is warming us. The rest of this site shows a lot of the evidence as to why scientists believe this effect is greenhouse gases, rather than anything else."
There are no sincere AGW skeptics.
"Factcheck. So what? I must have missed that, but I've never seen anyone appoint them as the arbiter of truth."
Did you or did you not click the link? Factcheck are independent investigators. I have to ask because I think you are a troll at this stage. Their workings are there - but all you do is bandy about your convictions. Weak.
"You either haven't looked at any of the emails; or you have, and are lying now."
Yeah, factcheck went through the emails. You aren't showing your work, so all your claims are defunct.
"Was this before or after the fraudulent work of the CRU was revealed?"
Even if we removed the work of the scientists you accuse and removed all the work that featured the data you claim is useless, I would still have a foundation to stand on. Also, you have yet to show how the illegal CRU hack actually shows any skirting or avoidance of scientific winnowing, so your claims are in bad faith.
There are no actual skeptics among the AGW "skeptics".
"Whatever `findings' any climate-scientists has come up with, have been irredeemably spoilt by the fraudulent practices at CRU"
You've yet to explain what the e-mails showed. Factcheck has looked through them and can't implicate any scientists, not even the ones conversating. You are still not talking in good faith and are also being arrogant and slanderous.
There are no AGW skeptics worth listening to. None of them knows how best to focus their minds for the improvement of society, and none of them are ready to do the necessary work to found their accusations on.
"Anecdotes is all that the hysterics relied upon before the weather stopped cooperating with them and became cool."
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
"The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino."
It will never be a hot year everywhere for a good while, and there will be no comparatively cooler years over the whole planet. You are not thinking well or thoroughly - I'm still your superior.
Me, the author of the piece and CWP are the most skeptical people here.
#69 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 04:55 PM
CWP
By your logic, you want to keep people from dying from the plague, by starving them to death first.
BTW- Global warming yes or no is not a popularity contest. It either is or isn't happening. If it is happening it either is or is not manmade.
Let's take the side that it is happening and it is manmade. If everyone in the world does not believe it is happening, it does not change the fact that it is.
As a skeptic, I am not for or against. I just want the truth. I am convinced that the ones behind the manmade GW agenda are not interested in the truth. They are interested in furthering the agenda, truth be damned. The evidence for that is what we now know as "Climate gate," and those who will not reveal facts and data. I have not seen one person in the manmade camp that continues to argue with the facts. We get personal insults like; “Tin foil hat wearing." "Conspiracy Theorist" "Flat earthers,” and my favorite is "The science is settled."
Science is not settled on anything. We discover new stuff all the time that changes the way we once considered things to be.
Several of us "skeptics" have listed a number scientific concepts that could either be causing global warming naturally, causing us to miss-interpret the data, or otherwise blow holes in the manmade co2 gw theory. None of you pro warming guys have come back with any refutations or actual facts or data. You guys are the ones running on faith and not facts. Get some irrefutable facts and get back to us.
#70 Posted by Gene Craig, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 04:56 PM
The only religion being spoken here is the unshakable faith in A.G.W. "Al Gore's Whopper" even after all the natural historical climate facts are documented and explained - and all the natural emissions facts are demonstrated vs man's - plus the exact same changes on other planets are shown. And even after the repeated and widespread systematic FRAUD on behalf of the AGW people is laid bare for all to see.
Shameless, True Cool-Aid Drinking Faithers. . .
How about this one last point: We are 10,500 years into this inter-glacial period. The avg interglacial period is 10k with a few (but not many) going a little beyond that. Ice ages last 100k- 150k years on avg. Now realizing that we are likely in our last century or two of so called balmy weather, what are the chances in 150 years people will be complaining that we gave them a few extra shirt-sleeve weather days each summer?
ZERO - ZERO - ZERO
#71 Posted by E. Vattal, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 04:56 PM
Okay I read Mark Richardson’s web page. It is very interesting and it drives my point even further. Once you take your raw data and you adjust for shade, sun, earth’s tilt (that is seasons for those of you that are meteorologists or don’t have a PHD in something), El Niño, la Nina you have barely begun. Now you have to adjust for Volcanic activity, population of cud chewing creatures, population of flora, solar magnetic pole reversals, earth magnetic polar reversals, simultaneous earth and solar magnetic polar reversals, meteor splash downs (how big was the meteor?), wildfires, air pollution, tsunami’s, elliptical solar orbit’s, solar flares, sun spots, and solar winds, then you divide by pi and that concludes that without a doubt man made global warming exists and it is specifically caused by CO2. Wow I am impressed at what computers can do now.
The guys who started this crap were armed with a powerful TI-50 calculator at the time. Yep the science is settled and I am just a rube.
#72 Posted by Gene Craig, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 05:25 PM
@Gene Craig, I don't think you're a skeptic. I think you're a denialist. You don't think the climate is changing, and you have nothing but invective and personal attack against those who do.
#73 Posted by CWP, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 06:32 PM
I am a successful contrarian investor. I bet in favor of Reagan's policies in 1982, and in favor of Clinton's policies in 1993. I bet against the Internet bubble in late 1999, and I bet against the U.S. dollar after Bush took office in 2001. Along the way, I studied AGW as a potential contrarian bet.
One of the things I did was read "The Skeptical Environmentalist," by Bjorn Lomberg. I thought it was politically tendentious junk. It was interesting to me that Lomborg eventually abandoned his denialism. His subsequent arguments against doing anything about AGW are just as flawed as his original denialism, but at least he recognizes the reality of warming.
In any case, I am thoroughly familiar with the pitfalls of conventional wisdom and the power of group-think. But a smart contrarian is a careful contrarian. Most of the time, the consensus ("conventional wisdom") is correct. To make a contrarian bet and win, you need to be well-versed in the subject and not swayed by emotions, so you can find that one-quarter or so of situations when the crowd is wrong.
I don't think AGW is one of those situations. There is simply too much evidence, from too many disparate sources, to dismiss it. "Climategate" is a tempest in a teapot; the e-mails show scientists reacting to willful ignorance, and occasionally going too far in doing so. Nothing in "Climategate" even remotely disproves the AGW theory. It's simply too strong.
The worrisome thing that is that pro-AGW bets will only work if we do something about it. If we don't handle it, then short of buying up land in northern Saskatchewan, there isn't a whole lot of upside here. Ordinarily, I'd laugh at Gene Craig and E. Vattal and tell them to buy a house in Tampa, but the stakes are just too high.
Frankly, I don't think there's a whole lot of time left to deal effectively with AGW. The climate models are proving to be conservative. There are synergistic effects at play. For instance, when you thaw out the permafrost, you release methane. This is already happening; I have been to Siberia and seen lakes bubbling there with methane being released. I've been to the suburbs of Beijing that are being abandoned because of the megadrought there.
Tucson, Arizona will be one of the first big U.S. cities to go, followed by Phoenix and Las Vegas. The drowning of the big cities of the East Coast will probably be a 22nd Century phenomenon, but you never know. What really worries me most is what happens as the Himalayan glaciers dry up. They support most of the great rivers of Asia, which support billions of people.
The U.S., Europe, Japan, China, India, and Brazil hold the future in their hands, and of those, the U.S. has the most clout. It is very worrisome to see the political system in deadlock in the face of this clear long-term threat to our civilization. People never think it can happen to them, until it's too late.
#74 Posted by CWP, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 07:15 PM
By the way, no trend line goes in the same direction all the time. There are cycles within cycles, and reversals within trends. The key is that the links between atmospheric CO2 and warming have been proven; the links between industrialization and CO2 generation have been proven; and the links between industrialization and warming have been documented.
Of course industrialization isn't the only factor in climate change or we'd never have had any ice ages. But the change since WWII has been too great to ignore by world historical standards. If we don't do something about this, we're going to Darwin ourselves back into the Stone Age.
This has happened to other civilizations for different reasons, but the underlyhing reality is the same: We are outstripping the carrying ability of the environment.
#75 Posted by CWP, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 07:54 PM
CWP
Nothing in "Climategate" even remotely disproves the AGW theory. It's simply too strong.
If carbon dioxide is driving warming, as AGW theory claims, why does the geologic record show temperatures rising hundreds of years before CO2 levels start rising? How do you know the cause and effect is not reversed?
Since AGW theory is so strong, I'm sure you'll have no trouble providing incontrovertible evidence.
#76 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 09:53 PM
Opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one. Axel Edgren is bang on. Those that align themselves in the ludicrous "skeptical" side of the equation are anything but true skeptics. Climatologists throughout the world have been studying this notion of global warming/climate change for not just the last few years, but the last few centuries. Here is a timeline of the theory when it was one: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/climate-change/a-climate-change-timeline/article1383242/
Any short-sighted notion of denial is just that and simply not worth responding to.
#77 Posted by J-M, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 10:30 PM
Well, that's twice I've asked the AGW crowd this question: How do we know for sure that CO2 is driving warming now, since historically C02 increases have lagged warming by hundreds of years?
Since Axel and J-M are so certain of AGW theory, I eagerly await their proof.
#78 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 10:39 PM
A little off topic, but for those interested here is a link to an article reviewing the practices of Lawrence Solomon on wikipedia:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx?CommentPosted=true
I'm with the skeptics. When dealing with people with a clear agenda and a demonstrated willingness to silence skeptics it's always best to be wary and look for independent confirmation.
#79 Posted by Graham, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 11:14 PM
Another interesting read: Richard S. Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, on climate change:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
#80 Posted by Graham, CJR on Fri 8 Jan 2010 at 11:58 PM
Infant Erin Ugg Boots
#81 Posted by ugg boots, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 12:09 AM
If one must have an advanced degree in climatology to intelligently discuss the issue, as the author suggests, then I guess we can ignore Al Gore and every politician that wants to impose a global warming agenda.
Isn't it interesting that the global warming crowd has had to recharacterize its argument to account for the frigid weather over the last few years. We're now suposed to refer to global warming as "climate change."
#82 Posted by Big J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 01:00 AM
Hello. I'm one of about two dozen meteorologists where I work. Most if not all of us believe AGW is at least exaggerated. You would be wise to speak with NASA scientist Dr Roy Spencer and MIT professor Richard Lindzen. Ask them about "positive feedback." Jason
#83 Posted by Jason, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 01:24 AM
Fascinating article - thank you Charles Homans! And wouldn't it be nice if we could hold a rational discussion in the comments - which, obviously, isn't possible at present. Maybe just have a comment-form checkbox for "global warming: yes or no", and let us filter on that...?
#84 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 02:49 AM
It may take some time to them to accept the harsh reality of climate change. Climate change is a slow phenomena. It took years to reach this point.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Force-Factor-Reviews---Do-Force-Factor-Supplements-Work?&id=2921490
#85 Posted by Nelson, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 05:31 AM
R U ready for the coming Ice age? Since the 1890's the media and alarmists have predicted an Ice Age twice, and burning up twice, here comes the ice age again...by the way, John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar (look up the definition of a Czar) went with the ice age theory earlier in his career and Obama today has the CIA spying on ice bergs again.....look back at the predictions by Holdren of 1 Billion people dieing in an Ice age in 2020, and you will see why the skeptics are rolling their eyes globally, while the Kool-aid drinkers don't know whether to get a swim suit or make fur coats out of all the Polar Bears Al Gore killed off. The new animal Du Jour by the way is the Iguana, not the Polar Bear, so all you PC freaks now need to change your mantra please. Iguanas are falling out of the trees like rain because they are cold blooded and loose their grips in the cold weather the new ice age is bringing in...any body seen John Galt anywhere yet? Get some popcorn, this should be a great movie in Mexico City!
http://www.iceagenow.com/
Meteorologist predicts global cooling
Fears of imminent ice age to replace warming alarm?
Posted: January 09, 2010
12:00 am Eastern
Accuweather meteorologist Joe Bastardi
Fears of a new ice age not seen since the 1970s are arising in the aftermath of the "Climategate" scandal that has cast doubt on the legitimacy of scientific research forming the basis for the theory that mankind is causing an ultimately catastrophic rise in temperatures worldwide.
Accuweather meteorologist Joe Bastardi has produced a video suggesting the current frigid conditions in North America, Europe and Asia are very similar to the weather patterns in the 1970s that produced fears a new ice age was imminent.
In the video, Bastardi explains his theory that "weather goes in a lot of cycles, and we're going to see a lot more of the cold trending here over the next 20 or 30 years."
Previously reported was that President Obama's science czar John Holdren was among the scientists who predicted 1 billion people would die in "carbon-dioxide induced" famines in a coming new ice age by 2020.
In the 1970s, Holdren's theme was that government-mandated population control was essential to prevent "eco-disasters" such as the forecast ice age. Today, Holdren urges immediate passage of the Obama administration's cap-and-trade legislation to control carbon emissions before it is too late to save the planet from "global warming."
Malthusian population alarmist Paul Ehrlich in his 1986 book "The Machinery of Nature" announced Holdren's prediction that 1 billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster."
Holdren based his prediction on a theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would lead to global cooling, with a consequent reduction in agricultural production causing widespread disaster.
On pages 273-274 of "The Machinery of Nature," Ehrlich explained Holdren's theory by arguing "some localities will probably become colder as the warmer atmosphere drives the climactic engine faster, causing streams of frigid air to move more rapidly away from the poles." (Emphasis in original text.)
The movement of the frigid air from the poles caused by global warming "could reduce agricultural yields for decades or more – a sure recipe for disaster in an increasingly overpopulated world," Ehrlich wrote.
Holdren and Ehrlich previously articulated the theory in their 1973 textbook "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions" in which they argued on page 198 that the main effect of carbon-dioxide-induced global warming "might be to speed up circulation patterns and to bring arctic cold farther south and Antarctic cold farther north."
CIA predicted new ice age in 1970s
A 1977 book, "The Weather Conspiracy: The Comin
#86 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 05:49 AM
Axel, By the way, Factcheck.org is owned and run solely by the Annenberg Foundation. Members of it's Board include Omaba and Terrorist Wild Bill Ayers, who helped bomb an NYC police station and the Pentagon, and right after 9/11 wrote an OPED saying he regretted he didn't make more bombs and kill more people. I would not put any large stock into what is said in Wikipedia, who allowed climate posts to be scrubbed of all mentions of the Medieval Warming Period and skeptical posts about AGW, or Factcheck.org, which is a propaganda arm of the Socialists that want carbon taxes to gain global power, as clearly stated by some members of the EU recently. Gordon Brown of the UK even wants to create a global Enviro police force!
Axel, explain to the herd about the Medieval Warming Period, and how the CRU co-conspirators from EAU and Penn State, et al. tried to hide it? What does it do to your AGW theory caused by CO2, Hmmmm?
Then explain how a teen aged girl from Canada busted James Hansen of NASA for fudging his GISS data inputs. Hansen has been caught several times since then manipulating data, embarrassing NASA, but bringing in millions in budget money to study the hysteria manufactured hoax that we are all gonna die from AGW.
Then explain the alarmists latest ploy, "Well, we can't tie the freezing weather to climate because weather is localized." Huh? Climate is localized also, which is why Antarctica has historically had the opposite trends as North America. So the idea that a "Global" computer model can tie together all the micro climates and weather patterns and predict 50 to 100 years from now what will happen (when no one predicted today's weather patterns just 3 months ago) is patently absurd! At least according to your own Kool-aid drinker alarmist crowd now.
Give it up, come over to the snow board crowd! Save the Iguanas for a change!
Who is guarding the guards?
Who is John Galt?
#87 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 06:12 AM
Anna, What is rational about imposing carbon taxes to the tune of trillions in the end, harming poor people the most, in order to enrich and empower the EU and the UN? The head of the UN climate panel owns a company in India that stands to make billions of $$$ from carbon trading! Albert Gore Jr.'s net worth has gone from 7 Mil to more then $ 110 mil since he left the Vice Presidency, mostly due to Big Green and Carbon trading companies.
CO2 is the plant food we will need to feed the estimated extra 3 billion people that will be here by 2050. What is rational about converting to Hydrogen fuel cells that emit water vapor, water vapor being more than 90% of green house gases? And Hydrogen is just a battery to store energy, much less efficient than a regular electrical battery. Why not just use electrical batteries and improve on them. Hydrogen is highly explosive. What is rational about switching to that? What is rational about exponentially ramping up electrical waste, when we currently can't recycle what we have, and the heavy metals are polluting water tables around the world as it is? Where do you think the Electrical power to charge the batteries comes from anyway? What do power plants run on? Want to switch to nuclear power? That waste sticks around for more than 25,000 years! No one can safely dispose of it. How is all that rational?
This CO2 hoax has been driven by media hysteria, grant money, and calculating politicians and their business cronies utilizing the Cascade Theory to make the majority of people believe the science is sound and settled, when clearly rational minds can see that it is neither settled nor clear. Since the Globe has not been warming for more than a decade now (take a look out side your windows please), what is rational about rushing via the Cascade Theory to implement Trillions in Carbon taxes, when both the CRU and GISS data bases have been corrupted (which all Alex's so called "facts" are based on), and when no computer model to date can properly reverse engineer backwards to match previous climate changes?
Hey is a rational Challenge. Use any climate computer model to predict what will happen in 2011. Remember the extreme hurricanes were we supposed to have in 2009! the USA had Zero land falls in 2009. Repeat ZERO!
You want rational, get the CRU data base redone with "real" data this time including the Medieval Warming Period, and exclude tree ring data, which any rational scientist will tell you is dubious at best. Since the globe is clearly not warming currently there is plenty of time to do this. If the co-conspirators working on the CRU database had not deleted so much of the data, it would of course be easier to rebuild it, but then we would catch them in their lies and manipulations also.
Here is a rational question for you. If we are all gonna die, like Albert Gore Jr. says, wouldn't he give up his 4 mansions, his limos and flying around on private jets? And if it is was really true, why would he invest in a boat named the BS-1? How rational is that?
Who is Guarding the Guards?
Where is John Galt when we need him anyway? Save the Iguanas!
#88 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 06:40 AM
Alex, Here is your X-files.
Listen to the President of the EU himself talk about how we need a global governance now because of AGW (ie., he needs taxes to have power and the EU has the established Carbon Trading facility). These carbon trades stand to grow in net worth from current billions to trillions if Carbon Taxes are enacted globally, and enforced by Gordon Brown's Enviro Police.
The new EU President, Herman Van Rompuy, has proclaimed 2009 as the “first year of global governance.” During Rompuy’s intervention as President on November 19th, he stated,
“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”
From the BBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXWeOa-FuyM&feature=player_embedded
I can give you the URLs to validate the Head of the UN Climate Panel's company in India stands to make billions if you like? Ready for snowboarding yet? Look out side your windows.
Who is Guarding the Guards?
Who is John Galt? Save the Iguanas!
#89 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 07:02 AM
CWP:
If climatologists were to build a bridge, or forecast the weather in Chicago on January 14, 2016, then their data sets should be examined microscopically. But that's not what they are doing. They are forecasting broad trends. A different standard of accuracy should be applied.
No, CWP, I think you're goofing here. This particular mistake is common in this whole "climate" discussion. And, I personally think, is something we all do because of the way our minds work. Rather like the logical equivalent of optical illusions.
Please bear with me. I'm neither word-smith nor teacher. I'll try to explain.
I'm a bird. Tweet. :) I really, really care about the what the wind will do 10 seconds from now. I build a bunch of computers and gather a lot of data and, viola, I get pretty good predicting the wind 10 seconds out. Not so good 10 hours out. But there it is. You can't have everything.
On the other hand, I'm very, very good at predicting the weather. In fact, I rarely am wrong about it. The weather is almost perfectly predictable. 10 seconds - no minutes - out.
So - and here's where I mislead myself - I think weather must be predictable 10 days out. After all, it's a glacially slow process and very, very predictable as we birds all know.
Yes, climatologists are forecasting broad trends. But broad trends are only broad from the point of view of meteorologists - not climatologists. If, let's say, "climate" doesn't happen in any interesting way in under 50 years, then a 50 year time frame is not "broad." It is, in fact, instantaneous. The shortest period of time possible. By definition.
We must remember not to trick ourselves by switching the scale of things inside our thoughts without realizing we are doing so. Remembering this does not come naturally.
To your other point that, what the heck, even if "global warming" is bogus, we can get a lot of good things from the green tech, etc. etc. So, where's the down side?
Is that a good summary?
Well, the issue isn't whether a green electric car is a "good thing". It's whether that electric car is better than the alternative. That's a higher bar to jump. And as a contrarian investor (a person after my own heart), I'm guessing you'd rather not have someone else decide the answer to that question for you.
#90 Posted by Felix, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 07:21 AM
Since Anna wants a rational discussion (Not much about man made global warming and imposing Trillions of $$$ taxes is rational), here is a rational topic for discussion.
What is a climatologist? Scientifically, rationally speaking, what is a climatologist?
I believe if Charles Homans took the time to investigate this, he will be shocked as will most of you AGWist proponents. Perhaps this is why the smoke and mirrors game of blaming weathermen for not drinking the Al Gore Kool-aid?
According to CNN, Daryl Hanna is a Climate expert. Albert Gore Jr. certainly thinks he is an expert.
But from a scientific rational perspective, what is a "climatologist" exactly? What skills does one need scientifically to be a "scientific expert climatologist"? Hmmm.
Let's list them all out, correct me if a leave about 20 or 30 scientific disciplines and field out please;
Computer programing
Statistician
Chemistry
Physics
Astrophysics (I was amazed to find out due to climate studies we only just found out the link between Cosmic Rays and cloud formation! Cool! or Warm! or, we don';t know yet?)
Meteorology
Archeology
Paleontology
Geology
Geophysics
Biology
OK, I know I've left most of the fields out, but you get the point. The idea that there are single "climate" climate experts is patently absurd. As absurd as thinking a simple computer model can globally predict the climate 50 to 100 years from now, when the existing models can't backwards calibrate to known climate variations properly. One computer model didn't even perform as well as another that was run with a random number generated data base!
Charles, if you want to make all the weathermen climate experts, first start by making the climatologists experts in all fields needed to be "an expert". You should be through about, ohhhh 2100, when we can see if those computer models are correct or not.
If you AGWers are correct, where's the warming? The Globe has been cooling for over a decade now. Where's the heat? Show us the heat! We have all been putting out a bunch of hot air CO2 this last decade. So, where's the heat?
Who is John Galt? Is he still hiding from all the Looters, Moochers and Whiners?
#91 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 07:30 AM
Felix, "So What the Heck, let's impose Trillions in taxes for some bogus Hoax because we might get some cool gadgets?"
If they are such cool gadgets, they will get made anyway, whether you believe in some hoax or, not.
The issue is really, you and your herd want to call the plant food we need to boost crop efficiencies by at lest 30% by 2050 to feed all the world's poor and starving a pollutant for no good rational sound scientific reason.
Your arguments and statements are starting to leap of the pages of Atlas Shrugged just like Charles Homan's article.
However, your statements and arguments are rational if you just want to empower the Looters, Moochers and Whiners of the world. Because who knows, they might come up with a cool gadget if we give them Trillions of tax dollars.So, just admit to your real agenda, and you will become "rational", and make Anna happy again.
Save the Iguanas! John Galt is texting now......
#92 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 07:44 AM
CWP, here is a real easy thing to do, with out imposing Trillions of taxes on those who can least afford it. And all you NASA fans will love it, as it is a NASA suggestion. The Only trouble with it is it will not make Billions for the Looters, Moochers and Whiners on the Cap and Trader band wagon.
Remove Soot from the atmosphere! It is proven, it works and it does wonders for the inhabitants of the country (look at the difference between 1900 and today in London for example), and it is easy to implement. We don't need the EU, the UN or Al Gore to do it. (Perhaps that is the biggest problem implementing this easy fix, yes?)
Step 1) Use cleaner fuel for power generators, Natural gas where possible, Oil or Clean Coal technology where not. Current Gas to Liquids shows great promise, Qatar Airlines is switching to it because if it's low soot factor. Not because Al Gore wants to tax them.
Step 2) Introduce low tech bio-methane generators for cooking with, see the CNN piece on one in Cairo, very cheap & easy to implement. Daily kitchen waste generates 1-2 hours cooking gas, and the final residue waste is high grade organic fertilizer. This will take the poor off of burning wood, coal and animal dung for cooking and warmth (although they will not need to stay warm now since "scientifically" we SUV drivers are burning up the planet). Which removes a lot of soot from the Atmosphere. Also, educate the poor away from Slash and Burn farming.
Step 3) Implement Diesel filters. This is mainly for local city governments to implement, and city dwellers will love it. Although, some international co-operation will be required for international train, vessel and truck routes. But they aren't that expensive to install and they make a huge difference in air quality. One of the arguments from Copenhagen was the Danish conveniently excluded all their polluting shipping industry from the Denmark "data", because it was out there some where in the ocean, not in Denmark.
So, there you have it, an (almost) rational idea, cheap and easy to implement, AND recommended by NASA and other reputable agencies globally. It is scientifically sound and verifiable, and it works universally every where it is implemented.
So why aren't you AGWers on this" remove the soot" band wagon, Hmmmm? Why do you want to start taxing plant food, when there are much easier steps to start with while we sort out the corrupt GWing data bases? Especially since the planet has been cooling for the last decade? Why the speed to force Trillions of taxes on everyone, when there is no sound rational reason yet to do so? If your real agenda is to save the planet from extinction?
Inquiring rational minds would like to know.
#93 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 08:36 AM
Hey Felix, " To your other point that, what the heck, even if "global warming" is bogus, we can get a lot of good things from the green tech, etc. etc. So, where's the down side? "
If I come over the warmer side, and we tax the begessus out of the world for trillions of dollars to get a few gadgets that are cool, in spite of the hoax.....can I finally get the air cars that you guys were promising me back in the 1980's?
#94 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 08:46 AM
Here is your Cascade Theory in Practice with AGW, and why the Hoax is so rampant; note the similarity to Charles Homan's attempt to portray Weathermen as Buffoons and Climatologist as "experts";
[ Intellectuals, of course, have expertise — highly specialized knowledge of a particular subject. The problem, according to Sowell, is that they think their superior knowledge in one area means they have superior knowledge in most other areas.] [ Climatologists have a background in one or maybe several scientific fields, but not even close to all that is needed to understand the complex nature of the earth's climate. In steps the "intellectuals, like Albert Gore Jr., and the Intellectual wannabe's from Hollywood, and you have your self a Cascade Theory AGW hoax. Which is by the way man made! Besides, we all know the climate changes, so why not just blame it on "people" and make them feel so guilty they will pay us money?]
What makes" Intellectuals and Society" even more withering than Johnson’s historical-biographical work is that Sowell approaches his subject as an economist, analyzing the incentives and constraints intellectuals face. Sowell defines intellectuals as an occupation, as people whose “work begins and ends with ideas.” This includes academics, especially those in the humanities and social sciences, policy wonks, and, to a certain extent, journalists. This distinguishes them from occupations in which the work begins with ideas and ends with the application of ideas. Physicians or engineers usually start with ideas about how to approach their work, but eventually they have to put them into practice by treating patients or constructing bridges.
As a result, intellectuals are free from one of the most rigorous constraints facing other occupations: external standards. An engineer will ultimately be judged on whether the structures he designs hold up, a businessman on whether he makes money, and so on. By contrast, the ultimate test of an intellectual’s ideas is whether other intellectuals “find those ideas interesting, original, persuasive, elegant, or ingenious. There is no external test.” If the intellectuals are like-minded, as they often are, then the validity of an idea depends on what those intellectuals already believe. This means that an intellectual’s ideas are tested only by internal criteria and “become sealed off from feedback from the external world of reality.”
An intellectual’s reputation, then, depends not on whether his ideas are verifiable but on the plaudits of his fellow intellectuals. That the Corvair was as safe as any other car on the road has not cut into Ralph Nader’s speaking fees, nor has the failure of hundreds of millions of people to starve to death diminished Paul Ehrlich’s access to grant money. They only have to maintain the esteem of the intelligentsia to keep the gravy train running.
Intellectuals, of course, have expertise — highly specialized knowledge of a particular subject. The problem, according to Sowell, is that they think their superior knowledge in one area means they have superior knowledge in most other areas. Yet knowledge is so vast and dispersed that it is doubtful that any one person has even 1 percent of the knowledge available. Even the brightest intellectuals cannot possibly know all the needs, wants, and preferences of millions of people. Unfortunately, they have considerable incentive to behave as if they do.
Sowell notes another important distinction between intellectuals and other professions. “There is a spontaneous demand from the larger society for the end products of engineering, medical and scientific professions,” he writes, “while whatever demand there is for the end products of linguists or historians comes largely from educational institutions or is created by intellectuals themselves.” Members of other professions can achieve fame and fortune by finding ways to meet the demand for their end products. But for i
#95 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 09:59 AM
Hot Air Deluxe:
Record low temperatures in Cuba - 8 Jan 10
Sweden braces for near-record cold - 5 Jan 10
Deep freeze to continue across Europe - 7 Jan 10
Britain paralysed by snow and freezing weather -
Facing coldest winter in 100 years - 5 Jan 10
Record snowfall in Beijing could push up food prices - 4 Jan 10
Record snowfall in Seoul - worst since 1951 in Beijing - 4 Jan 10
Some Nebraska cities cut off - 8 Jan 10
131-year low in Key West - 8 Jan 10
Brutal cold hits Midwest, heads South - 7 Jan 10
Blizzard warning - South Dakota - 6 Jan 10
Record snow in Burlington, VT - 2-3 Jan 10
Snow drifts more than two stories tall
6 Jan 10 - Amtrak "Train From Hell" Delayed Almost 24 Hours
Millions across US endure record-setting cold
8 Jan 10 - Threatens $300 million worth of crops, from strawberries
and citrus fruits to tomatoes and green beans
Picture worth 100o's of words : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8447023.stm
7 Jan 10 - Earth’s north magnetic pole is racing toward Russia at almost
40 miles a year.
Solar Geomagnetic Activity at all-time Low -
Only "zero" could be lower
Anyone with an understanding of climate history from the remote past knows that many of the developments that preceded past ice ages mimicked many of those we are seeing today — increases in violent weather, widespread deforestation by fire, increased volcanic activity — and all are warning signs that an ice age, little or great, is in the cards.
History shows that the planet has undergone ice ages on a regular schedule, 90 thousand years of glaciation followed by an inter-galacial period of 10 to 12 thousand years. The last ice age ended about 10 thousand years ago. Clearly, we are due for a new one any day now.
There are big bucks to be made in the global warming scam — government and privately funded grants available for touting the alleged heating of Mother Earth. Attacking the hoax doesn't pay well.
Who is John Galt?
#96 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 10:16 AM
The AGW theory advocates here have repeatedly failed to answer a basic question at the heart of the theory they endorse with such certitude. I have posed it three times (and now four):
"How do we know for sure that CO2 is driving warming now, since historically C02 increases have lagged warming by hundreds of years?"
#97 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 10:22 AM
here is an Atmospheric Expert and Dr. Niel Frank PHD, ex Hurricane center Director for NOAA:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/03/dr-neil-frank-on-climategate-you-should-be-steamed/
Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”
Climategate revelations Tip of giant iceberg
Atmospheric scientist Dr. William Gray
13 Dec 09 - (Excerpts) - Dr. William Gray, a renowned long range hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University wrote an op-ed for ClimateDepot.com on Tuesday.
Gray states that the last century's global warming of about 1 degree F is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe's deep ocean circulation.
The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years, according to Gray.
Other points that Gray makes.........
--There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO2) induced global warming disaster.
--Restricting CO_2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate.
--The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO2 are badly flawed.
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/12/climategate_revelations_are_bu.html
Where is John Galt? Is he saving the Iguanas yet?
#98 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 10:29 AM
Bradley, I hear that like Iguanas, AGWers taste like Chicken, when confronted with real science. Don't hold your breath, their agenda is not about science or saving the planet. It's about looting with taxes, getting rich with carbon trading and getting more power. And the Hitchhikers like the Greenpeacers posting here are trying to Mooch off the Looters with guilt. Greenpeace recently rejected a great idea as bad, which is taking recycled plastic and turning it into fuel, utilizing more than 80% of the waste plastic. Why do you think Greenpeace is against this initiative, which took no guilt money or tax money to innovate? Hmmm?
PS, don't forget that less than 1/2 of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere actually stays in the atmosphere foe any period long enough to do anything. And what is the % of CO2 in the Atmosphere compared to a real green house gas, like Water Vapor?
#99 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 10:39 AM
Albert J.
I hear you, loud and clear. Watching the AGW poseurs here duck a simple question that they supposedly should be able to knock out of the park is hilarious. They really don't understand the theory they're supporting. I'm sure some are frantically trying to research an answer to avoid being totally discredited. Good luck with that!
I write about science a lot, and used to be an AGW believer. I even wrote articles excoriating skeptics as corporate shills, like this one.
But more recently I've had doubts, because of competing explanations of warming that did not involve CO2, such as Henrik Svensmark's sun-based model.
And Climategate was the last straw. I read hundreds of the emails. I saw the smoking gun that doubts about AGW were being suppressed, in violation of all principles of good science. Here's one about the deliberate suppression of "dirty laundry" relating to the tree ring data by Michael Mann. So in private the leaders of AGW were admitting to problems with the evidence, while telling the public (who pays their wages) the science was settled.
That the AGW crowd would dismiss such blatant violations of scientific ethics says a lot about their willingness to subordinate science for political ends.
And for the fifth time I'll ask the AGW crowd here to give me a conclusive answer to this simple question, one that goes to the heart of the theory they claim to understand so well:
"How do we know for sure that CO2 is driving warming now, since historically C02 increases have lagged warming by hundreds of years?"
#100 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 11:09 AM
"And for the fifth time I'll ask the AGW crowd here to give me a conclusive answer to this simple question, one that goes to the heart of the theory they claim to understand so well: "How do we know for sure that CO2 is driving warming now, since historically C02 increases have lagged warming by hundreds of years?""
And for the fifth time you show me that your skeptical faculties are only employed to a certain limit.
http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
"CO2 causes temperature rise AND warming causes CO2 outgassing from oceans. This feedback system is confirmed by the CO2 record. In the past, the amplifying effect of CO2 feedback enabled warming to spread across the globe and take the planet out of the ice age."
It is clear to me none of your statements or positions are the results of investigations in good faith or otherwise justified in tone or content.
There are no humble or sympathetic AGW skeptics.
"The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature."
Once again - you are childishly quick to judge. This is a game to you, and a sport to me.
There are no AGW skeptics who aren't in it for judgmental satisfaction or the fake sensation of trumping infuriatingly superior people.
I will always be able to claim the higher ground. I will always be your superior in terms of skepticism. My reasons to doubt myself and mistrust you "skeptics" grow every day - soon I will be able to safely ignore you without culpability.
But for now, I am benign and remain hopeful some of you will learn humility.
#101 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 11:54 AM
See, Albert J, you speculate.
You resort to anti-left bigotry - implicating people of rank and hidden designs, without showing proof.
Lazy sophistry, just like what your messiah, Rand, offered the world.
Conspiracies, concepts such as parasitism bandied about, wild rhetoric. Facts? No, an AGW proponent can not offer facts, because he is connected to a conspiracy somehow.
If one were to enter an objectivist's mind and replace the world "left-winger" with "Jew", you would have a nazist.
Basically, if I am such an evil hippie insect, intent on destroying the growth and ambition of my superiors - why would you even bother to question me or demand answers to some of your concerns?
Why not act on the ramifications of your "philosophy", and slay me like the parasitic insect you are convinced I am?
Also, Albert J apparently thinks a cold winter is more than an anecdote in the proceedings. Lol. I guess that means he'll swing right back to my position the instant we get a hot summer.
#102 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 12:04 PM
How a tiny blog and a collective of climate enthusiasts broke the biggest story in the history of global warming science – but not without a gatekeeper of the climate establishment trying to halt its proliferation.
It was triggered at the most unlikely of places. Not in the pages of a prominent science publication, or by an experienced muckraker. It was triggered at a tiny blog – a bit down the list of popular skeptic sites. With a small group of followers, a blog of this size could only start a media firestorm if seeded with just the right morsel of information, and found by just the right people. Yet it was at this location that the most lethal weapon against the global warming establishment was unleashed.
The blog was the Air Vent. The information was a link to a Russian server that contained 61 MB of files now known as Climategate. Within two weeks of the file’s introduction, the story appeared on 28,400,000 web pages.
Not entirely the “death of global warming” as many have claimed – what happened with Climategate is much more nuanced and exponentially more interesting than the headlines convey. What was triggered at this blog was the death of unconditional trust in the scientific peer review process, and the maturing of a new movement – that of peer-to-peer review.
This development may horrify the old guard, but peer-to-peer review was just what forced the release of the Climategate files – and as a consequence revealed the uncertainty of the science and the co-opting of the process that legitimizes global warming research. It was a collective of climate blogs, centered on the work of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, which applied the pressure. With moderators and blog commenters that include engineers, PhDs, statistics whizzes, mathematic experts, software developers, and weather specialists – the label flat-earthers, as many of their opponents have attempted to brand them, seems as fitting as tagging Lady Gaga with the label demure.
This peer-to-peer review network is the group that applied the pressure and then helped authenticate and proliferate the story.
Now, as expected, the virtual organism that is the global warming establishment resisted release of the weapon. At the first appearance of the Climategate files, which contained a plethora of emails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, the virtual organism moved to halt their promulgation. Early on, a few of the emails were posted on Lucia Liljegren’s skeptic blog The Blackboard. Shortly after the post, Lucia, a PhD and specialist in fluid mechanics, received an email from prominent climatologist Gavin Schmidt from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). It said in part, “[A] word to the wise… I don’t think that bloggers are shielded under any press shield laws and so, if I were you, I would not post any content, nor allow anyone else to do so.”
#103 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 12:08 PM
Axel
"CO2 causes temperature rise AND warming causes CO2 outgassing from oceans. This feedback system is confirmed by the CO2 record. In the past, the amplifying effect of CO2 feedback enabled warming to spread across the globe and take the planet out of the ice age."
Funny you should post that -- I read it earlier this morning. It is a statement of belief. It doesn't say how we know that CO2 is causing warming.
The Skeptical Science post also says:
To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:
*
Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
*
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
*
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
Disingenuous, because the burden of proof is not on me to "disprove'" the role of CO2 in warming. It is your burden to prove it.
The second bullet point is especially noteworthy: "CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone."
Where is the research showing that CO2 is amplifying the warming? Let's see something quantifiable.
Where is the research showing that all other explanations for warming, such as changes in ocean currents, or solar-mediated changes in cosmic rays, has been ruled out?
Show me the research, not just a collection of talking points.
#104 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 12:10 PM
I wonder why it is I have never met a pleasant objectivist.
i think it must be very painful to be an objectivist - here you sit with all the answers, the perfect, ironclad route to a perfect world. But people persist in trying different things, paying their taxes and often voting for social spending, forsaking the true and narrow.
Anyway, as for your self-righteous screed about the 1970 ice age theory (like Rand, you are in desperate need of an editor): http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
"1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based with the majority of scientific papers predicting warming. The notion that the 1970s scientific consensus was for impending global cooling is incorrect. In actuality, there were significantly more papers in the 1970s predicting warming than cooling."
Again, from my own personal experience: There are no objectivists capable of thinking "well" (it's funny, philosophy is the "love of thinking" - so why are the followers of the "ultimate philosophy" often so lapsing in judgment and skepticism). Also, there are no serious skeptics who operate out of a genuine desire to see society pick the best route. They want to win at the expense of anyone and everything else.
Not once have I seen a post written by a skeptic that had a proportional sense of humility or good faith to it. Most of you are, I suspect, simply anti-left bigots or incredibly boring men frightened by the changes in the world around you. So far, I have not seen one skeptic going beyond the grumpy, wounded, egocentric and intellectually sedate contrarianism of Jeremy Clarkson.
#105 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 12:14 PM
Axel,
"The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature."
That wasn't was I referred to. I am perfectly aware of the divergence issue. My point was quite different -- that Mann had knowledge his tree ring residual data was flawed. Mann wrote, and I am bolding the smoking gun:
Tim,
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks
back to:
AD 1000
AD 1400
AD 1600
I can't find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you'll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to dig them up. In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600--its pretty clear that key predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably larger uncertainties farther back...
You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files.
I can't even remember what the other columns are!
Let me know if that helps. Thanks,
mike
p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things...
If you hand only followed my link, you'd have saved yourself from yet another inaccuracy.
#106 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 12:25 PM
"Funny you should post that -- I read it earlier this morning. It is a statement of belief. It doesn't say how we know that CO2 is causing warming."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html#How_do_we_know_that_humans_are_the_major
"Natural changes alone can’t explain the temperature changes we’ve seen. For a computer model to accurately project the future climate, scientists must first ensure that it accurately reproduces observed temperature changes. When the models include only recorded natural climate drivers—such as the sun’s intensity—the models cannot accurately reproduce the observed warming of the past half century. When human-induced climate drivers are also included in the models, then they accurately capture recent temperature increases in the atmosphere and in the oceans. [4][5][6] When all the natural and human-induced climate drivers are compared to one another, the dramatic accumulation of carbon from human sources is by far the largest climate change driver over the past half century."
"Disingenuous, because the burden of proof is not on me to "disprove'" the role of CO2 in warming. It is your burden to prove it."
It's like this, see. We have an energy imbalance across the globe. When trying to figure out why, the chemical and physical qualities of CO2 are what fits the bill. "Skeptics" blame other things ("hahahaha i just thought of the SUN I BET you scientists never thought of the SUN HAHAHAHAHA"... Wait, you have already? And put it in your models?") but so far CO2 is simply the only explanation. Seeing as warming can cause economic damage, curbing CO2 is a good idea.
We are warming. People like me have - according to scientific criteria - the best explanation as to why. People like you... Well, you are politically, economically or motivated motivated contrarians who generally hate people like me.
#107 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 12:31 PM
Axel,
It's like this, see. We have an energy imbalance across the globe. When trying to figure out why, the chemical and physical qualities of CO2 are what fits the bill.
Where is the peer-reviewed research proving that? All you're doing is linking to AGW-supporting sites, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists. FYI, that is not peer-reviewed research.
What I'm asking you is for the specific, peer-reviewed scientific papers that conclusively show that CO2 is mainly responsible for past warmings, and that all other causes have been ruled out.
#108 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 12:40 PM
There you go Axel, use that circular logic of the Looters, Hitch hiking Moochers and Whiners. Avoid at all costs answering some simple logical questions by bringing up Bigotry, Nazis and Jews like your kind always does. You forgot homophobic, dude! All of which has so much to do with the freezing weather out side. I know, you don't have to provide any facts or science, all that has already been decided, and besides, it's your Religion now.
What do you mean no proof. I gave you the video of the EU president talking about using Copenhagen to to kick start global governance (with taxes and Gordon Brown's call for Global Environmental Police) and I gave you his direct quote. You can't read/listen now? What else do you want?
Science, Explain simply;
Where is the evidence of Plant food causing any more warming than is normal after a Glacial period?
Explain why there has been no warming the past decade in spite of increased CO2 in the Atmosphere (look out your window please).
Explain the Medieval Warming Period and how it blows away all your AGWing theories? No SUVs back then as I recall. Yet it was warmer than today.
Explain how a computer model that could not predict this winter weather 3 months ago, can predict what will happen 100 years from now.
Care to comment on what a "climate expert" is? How many disciplines does it take to be one, and how does one splice together all the interactions of the micro climates to come up with anything close to a "global" commuter model? And if the computer models are so great, how come none of them, like Zero, can backwards calibrate to pre-existing climate data? Hmmmm bright one? Enlighten us ooh hippie dippy Green Peace poster man! We are waiting (not).
See, I can recite science and facts all day. Just because you fit in to the typical category of Looters, Moochers and Whiners doesn't make you a bad person, just an ill informed person carried around by the rest of us. The majority of the world is made up of Looters, Moochers and Whiners. That is who they are, deal with it. Maybe some day you will see the light and grow up to become a Doer and provider of actual goods and services. Who knows?
No need to get snippy about who you are. You can always change if you apply yourself.
Look in the mirror and embrace your self, and go be the best Looter or Moocher you can be! Be Happy man! Life is too short.
PS, Not one AGWer has answered Bradley, why not? Not one of you can say why we shouldn't start with removing soot from the atmosphere when it's proven and cheap, why not?
And Axel, why do you think you have entered my mind? You could not even get in the door with your cowardice. I don't think you are an evil hippie dippy. I think you are a simple minded brainwashed Kool-aid drinker. You are not cleaver enough to be as Machiavellian as you make your self out to be. Stop kidding yourself and go backt to Mooching, you need to warm up. You must be shivering, standing on the corner begging all day. If you get hungry, Iguanas taste like Chicken, and they are falling out of the trees now like rain. From the cold weather. Here is your "proof" by way of a falling Iguana video;
http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20100108/NEWS06/100108037/1002/rss
But Hey, who is John Galt anyway?
#109 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 12:46 PM
Albert J.
Not one of you can say why we shouldn't start with removing soot from the atmosphere when it's proven and cheap, why not?
A recent NASA study about glacier and snow melting in the Himalayas concluded that soot, not carbon dioxide, is the main culprit.
"Over areas of the Himalayas, the rate of warming is more than five times faster than warming globally," said William Lau, head of atmospheric sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "Based on the differences it’s not difficult to conclude that greenhouse gases are not the sole agents of change in this region. There’s a localized phenomenon at play."
#110 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 12:52 PM
"I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things..."
"Smoking gun"? Goodness gracious, Bradley is narrating his own "discoveries" like one of those melodramatic, hard-boiled detectives.
"Steve McIntyre has published allegations - twice now - that an internal IPCC authors' debate about the inclusion of Briffa's tree-ring reconstruction in a key figure from the 2001 WG1 Third Assesement Report was driven by concern about the post-1960 "decline" in tree-ring widths, a decline that showed a marked divergence with the instrumental tempertaure record. McIntyre even claims that lead author Michael Mann worried that showing the series with this decline would give "fodder" to "skeptics".
"But even a cursory examination of the emails in question shows that the discussion was really about other aspects of the reconstruction, specifically obvious discrepancies between Briffa's reconstruction and the other two under consideration over the major part of the reconstruction's length. Thus, once again, McIntyre's speculations are shown to be utterly without foundation. Even worse, McIntyre left out intervening sentences within the actual proffered quotes in what appears to be an unsophisticated attempt to mislead."
In short, Mann was loathe to be transparent on the matter because he couldn't trust people like you to be honest and skeptical - in the same sense that a black man in the 1950's might be worried of wearing good, expensive clothes because he knows people will have it in for him and accuse him of buying the clothes with stolen money despite his innocence. Well, Mann was proven right - rather than investigate whether faulty data was entered into a report, you tried to pick up the conversation and wave it around angrily in an attempt to smear Mann (and, by your own mutilated logic, all climate scientists everywhere).
More here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_misunderstood_somehow.php
and here: http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/
How can you still be so bad at this? The answer is simple - I see this as sport, you see it as a game. I seek to allay my doubts and yours, you seek to ignore any doubts you have of your own position while throwing out the first thing that comes to your mind in order to try and break me. But I have so much info and data on my side, and so far there is not one solid indictment of any scientist, let alone the whole climate scientist community.
You know what the best part is? Even if I were to roll over and dismiss everything the CRU scientists whose emails were hacked had *ever* written, I would still have a towering corpus of information and solid work behind me. Not to mention all the examples of contrarian institutes being debunked or shown dishonest that I could throw at your camp.
With every passing interaction I have with you "skeptics", the less worried I have to be that I am wrong. I'm a 21-year old man with a broadband connection, and that's all I need to know more than most men I see in this comments section. Am I arrogant? Yes, but if the "skeptics" I see here only showed some humility, good faith and self-mastery, I would have responded in kind, and I might have removed the mocking quotation marks. But I really only see denialists and contrarians here. Like always.
#111 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 01:01 PM
There's also a peer-reviewed study by researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography -- no hotbed of AGW skepticism -- which says we can delay taking action on CO2 for 40 years, by other mitigation measures, such as reducing soot.
So even if one accepts AGW, the rush to immediately reduce CO2 is not necessary to forestall
global warmingclimate change.#112 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 01:03 PM
Goodness gracious, Albert, you are in pain.
A deep breath, a glass of water, then do click on all the links I provided. You see, I understand some of your concerns are justified! The left has done much ill over the course of history and might be doing so now!
I have offered up sources of information that account for past warming periods, how "plant food" can still be harmful etc. Yet alas, you seem satisfied with looking down on me, assuming me a moocher who seeks to hamper and spite the entrepreneurs and corporations you care for so much.
Well, I'm not interested in proving myself incompatible with the prejudices you have of me. I am a grown man, and I know I would be forsaking my honor if I tried to prove I am not a moocher or looter to the random, right-wing screamers I regularly encounter. It's simple, you are bigoted against me. Should a woman devote any time to prove to an employer that she is not an emotional, irrational pile of hormones tending to hysterics, like he thinks? No. So why should an AGW proponent like me have to prove to an angry objectivist like you that I am neither a loocher or a mooter, the way your cult leader Rand would make me out to be? Simple, because objectivism is a cult of self-righteousness, megalomania and ideological hatred and bigotry.
Learn some good faith man. Oh, and maybe stop writing your posts like you are trying to beat out the word-count of Galt's thundering speech. Just a tip.
#113 Posted by Axel edgren, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 01:11 PM
Axel
"Smoking gun"? Goodness gracious, Bradley is narrating his own "discoveries" like one of those melodramatic, hard-boiled detectives.
So you don't think a scientist hiding "dirty laundry" -- his words, not mine -- is unethical? That says a lot about your attitude toward science.
"But even a cursory examination of the emails in question shows that the discussion was really about other aspects of the reconstruction, specifically obvious discrepancies between Briffa's reconstruction and the other two under consideration over the major part of the reconstruction's length. Thus, once again, McIntyre's speculations are shown to be utterly without foundation. Even worse, McIntyre left out intervening sentences within the actual proffered quotes in what appears to be an unsophisticated attempt to mislead."
That is assertion, not evidence. I've read the Climategate emails, and gave you a link to the one in question. And McIntyre is irrelevant -- Mann is deliberately hiding data from skeptical consideration.
In short, Mann was loathe to be transparent on the matter because he couldn't trust people like you to be honest and skeptical - in the same sense that a black man in the 1950's might be worried of wearing good, expensive clothes because he knows people will have it in for him and accuse him of buying the clothes with stolen money despite his innocence. Well, Mann was proven right - rather than investigate whether faulty data was entered into a report, you tried to pick up the conversation and wave it around angrily in an attempt to smear Mann (and, by your own mutilated logic, all climate scientists everywhere).
So in your book it's right for scientists to hide "dirty laundry" because it might be used against them? Skeptical consideration is essential to science. Slandering skeptics by comparing them to racists is pathological.
You know what the best part is? Even if I were to roll over and dismiss everything the CRU scientists whose emails were hacked had *ever* written, I would still have a towering corpus of information and solid work behind me.
I'll take you up on that.
Now let's see you, without reference to anyone whose emails appear in Climategate, cite peer-reviewed papers that conclusively answer my question:
"How do we know for sure that CO2 is driving warming now, since historically C02 increases have lagged warming by hundreds of years?"
#114 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 01:17 PM
If we cannot predict weather features such as the Arctic oscillation or an El Niño under current climate, how can anyone credibly claim we have predictive skill decades into the future from both natural and human caused climate forcings? The short answer is that they cannot. Except silly people like Axel. Since the data used in the computer models you are citing is tainted from both CRU and GISS data bases, as Climategate and a teen aged girl from Canada proved. What now AXEL, my man?
But since you love computer models Axel, here you go," Proof"....as much as any computer model is proof. Live by computer models, die by them (you did ask me to slay you, yes?):
Perhaps most interesting is the application of this analysis to the prediction of future climate change, something GCM climate modelers have been attempting for the past 30 years with little success. Figure 3 from the paper illustrates the prediction for temperatures to 2100 following from our structural break model, the assumptions of continuous underlying warming, regime-shift from 1978 to 1997, and no additional major regime-shift. The projections formed by the presumed global warming trend to 1978 and the trend in the current regime predicts constant temperatures for fifty years to around 2050. This is similar to the period of flat temperatures from 1930-80.
What is even more encouraging is that, even though temperatures resume their upward climb after 2050, the predicted increase for the rest of the century is only about 0.2◦ C above present levels. That is around one tenth the increase generally bandied about by the IPCC and its minions, who sometimes predict as much as a 6°C rise by 2100.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/stat-model-predicts-flat-temperatures-through-2050.html
Think I''l get my swim trunks ready now, based on Axel's predictions.Shall I sell my snowboard now or later? Bet those Iguanas will be glad to thaw out if Axel is right! As my PHD statistician friend always says, "How do you want the graph and data to look?"
To Heck with Jim Taggert! Where is John Galt?
#115 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 01:19 PM
Albert J.
Well, Axel just dug himself a real big hole by saying he could dismiss everything from the Climategate scientists and still have "a towering corpus of information and solid work behind me."
I actually feel sorry for Axel, because in his rampant insecurity, he felt compelled to state he's a "I'm a grown man", just after saying, "I'm a 21-year old man with a broadband connection."
But I don't feel sorry enough to release Axel from his boast. I'm still awaiting his "towering corpus," of peer-reviewed research, without reference to Climategate scientists.
#116 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 01:32 PM
Axel, some more Plant Food science for you dude;
In a new technical paper to be published in the journal ‘Energy and Fuels’, Robert Essenhigh from Ohio State University, throws doubt on this consensus. Using the combustion/chemical-engineering Perfectly Stirred Reactor (PSR) mixing structure, or 0-D Box, as the basis of a model for residence time in the atmosphere, he explains that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are likely to have a residence time of between 5 and 15 years. He further concludes that the current trend of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is not from anthropogenic sources, but due to natural factors.
Abstract here;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/carbon-dioxide-in-atmosphere-5-15-years-only/
But don't let facts destroy your dogma now! Chin up, ready, Smile, now Mooch!
Text just in from John Galt, "who is Axel Edgren?"
#117 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 01:37 PM
Such unbelievable haughtiness and arrogance.
http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Now, that is just the article. It relies on studies by some scientists whose works are linked. So, they are the sources to my claim that CO2 lagging temperature doesn't shake my position.
What you have to do is this. Look for the scientists sourced in the article in the email cache. Them being *mentioned* by someone else is not incriminating. Them working at East Anglia is not incriminating. What you need to show is the people from that article *involved in correspondence* that actually shows they are involved in *avoidance of scientific scrutiny and process*.
You will not find anything, Fikes.
#118 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 01:43 PM
Bradley, he will have to humble off with his other green peacers and find another post now darn it!
What know one is admitting yet, as you are making the point, is that all the "facts" and "data" trend analysis and computer modeling the Axels of this debate use are done almost exclusively from the corrupted EAU CRU and the Corrupted NASA GISS data bases.
Whoops!
Here's a buck for latte, Axel. Smile and the whole world smiles with you!
I'm not sure Angelina is right to play Dagny.
#119 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 01:45 PM
Albert J.
No fair citing peer-reviewed research!
In order to
descend tomeet Axel's standards of scientific accuracy, you must prove AGW is wrong, using only such totally unbiased sources as the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace.#120 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 01:45 PM
Axel,
I'm asking for links to specific peer-reviewed papers. Don't make me guess by sending me to a link where you say the work is. Cite the papers themselves. Even if you can't link to the entire paper, you can at least link to the abstract. Even a press release on the paper will be enough.
What you have to do is this. Look for the scientists sourced in the article in the email cache. Them being *mentioned* by someone else is not incriminating. Them working at East Anglia is not incriminating. What you need to show is the people from that article *involved in correspondence* that actually shows they are involved in *avoidance of scientific scrutiny and process*.
Yes, only the actual scientists who have sent or received emails count. But you should first vet the scientific papers to make sure none are involved. I'll trust, but verify.
Now let's see those peer-reviewed papers that answer my question:
"How do we know for sure that CO2 is driving warming now, since historically C02 increases have lagged warming by hundreds of years?"
#121 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 01:56 PM
Axel, we haven't even gotten to "Hide the Decline" yet. It is as significant to your claims as is the Medieval Warm Period is. because this is the period of declining temperatures after WW II (that evil period when Doers defeated Nazi Fascism and used Capitalism to raise the standard of living of the world and to defeat Communism by Industrialization) that shows a large increase in Carbon Dioxide emissions, while the temperatures significantly declined. The decline was simply deleted by the CRU bunch on purpose. As per their correspondence.
You can see graphs un-hiding the decline here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/
Notice on both Hide the decline graphs and the unhide the decline graph above, Michael Mann, et al., just ignore the Medieval Warm Period, for the same reason as the decline data was deleted. it's Inconvenient to the template of AGWing.
Need More Proof? Got Milk? For the Latte?
John G.
#122 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 02:11 PM
I just noticed this walkback in Axel's latest:
What you need to show is the people from that article *involved in correspondence* that actually shows they are involved in *avoidance of scientific scrutiny and process*.
But Axel first said:
You know what the best part is? Even if I were to roll over and dismiss everything the CRU scientists whose emails were hacked had *ever* written, I would still have a towering corpus of information and solid work behind me.
So Axel has admitted that he can't produce his "towering corpus" if he dismisses "everything the CRU scientists whose emails were hacked had *ever* written". He wants me to prove they were involved in chicanery. And as Axel will be the judge of that, I predict he'll be very lenient on them.
Of course, some of the most damning Climategate emails, such as by Michael Mann, were not written by CRU scientists. Mann is at Penn State. So that leaves Axel another way out. If Axel excluded all the scientists who took part in the Climategate emails from his evidence, he would be utterly lost. But Axel made his boast in anger; he really didn't think he'd have to follow through. So there's no point holding him to the letter or spirit of his boast.
Anyway, I have yet to see Axel cite any peer-reviewed papers -- from Climategate scientists or not -- that conclusively answer my question:
"How do we know for sure that CO2 is driving warming now, since historically C02 increases have lagged warming by hundreds of years?"
#123 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 02:25 PM
OK; I can no longer go on with this - I write comments, the moderator says "Waiting for approval and posting" but what I have written never shows up. I can't work under those circumstances.
#124 Posted by Axel Edgren, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 02:36 PM
Hey Axel, while you fix your latte, let's have some scientific fun, OK?
1) How big is the Atmosphere? What is it's mass and it's volume? Of what value is quoting % volumes of gases if the Atmosphere is Dynamic and changes sizes like a bubble? Do we know if it does? Or not?
2) Of course there is a slow warming trend over time, every inter glacial period warms up, and we are at the probable end of one now, and due for cooling, since the last glacial period was about 10,000 years ago. Archeological digs show evidence of not only Roman but prehistoric relics in passes in the Alps now melting, where our ancestors had free passages previously because there were no glaciers there back then. This must be the only generation that is afraid of warming. As this warming takes place, the temperatures of oceans gradually rise also. Since CO2 is mainly in the oceans, do not warming oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere? How can you accurately calibrate the difference in the two types of CO2? Natural and man made? Since we don't know what the mass and volume of the Atmosphere was 500 or 1 million years ago?
Your proofs sir, while I text John Galt back please.
#125 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 02:38 PM
Axel,
OK; I can no longer go on with this - I write comments, the moderator says "Waiting for approval and posting" but what I have written never shows up. I can't work under those circumstances.
I'm sorry to hear this; the discussion was just getting interesting. Perhaps another time.
#126 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 02:40 PM
Here is the primary point we bigoted skeptics are trying to make. You “man is killing the earth” warmers want to impose draconian taxes and demand a surrender of a significant portion of my civil liberties based on some flimsy logic and do not want to delve into the details of fact. When you are caught red handed cooking the books, you will not acquiesce to an open review. We want us all to just “Trust Me.” The onus is on the “Warmers to prove the CO2 is the enemy.
I can provide you more scientific evidence that there is a God than you can provide proving that CO2 is destroying the earth. If I applied your tactics, I would demand that you all immediately bend down and pray to God almighty and give 10% of your income to the world church. Secondly, I would demand that all countries submit to global enforcement of God worship at point of arms. I assure you, that the world would not give in to that demand. So don’t expect us to bend over and take it, because a bunch of proven liars say the sky is falling.
#127 Posted by Gene Craig, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 03:06 PM
Mr. Fikes asks: "How do we know for sure that CO2 is driving warming now, since historically C02 increases have lagged warming by hundreds of years?"
padikiller notes: Excellent question, but actually, we need to ask a more fundamental one, namely: "Is atmospheric man-made CO2 really rising at all"?
It would appear that we may have been given regular doses of a load of crap from the AGW "scientists" for a very long time.
"To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
#128 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 03:06 PM
Alex, here is Atlas Shrugged from 1957 and current events from today for your comparison, it will not be like the Hide and Unhide the Decline graphs, these two coincide exactly.
Today's current events;
Back in the 1980's, when Dr.James Hansen [NASA GISS, and the author of your energy imbalance] was predicting an ice age, Dr. Gray stated that there would be warming. Gray was right and Hansen was wrong, but for some reason, (perhaps due to Gore becoming VP,) Hansen was rewarded for his incorrectness as Dr. Gray was frustrated in his efforts to gain funding.
Hansen then switched over to predicting warming, but Dr. Gray stated the warming was only a cycle, and cooling would return. It now looks like once again Dr. Gray was right and Hansen was wrong.
It is my understanding that NASA turned down eight separate requests from Dr. Gray for the funding needed to research the AMO and other cycles. He wanted to better understand components such as Thermohaline Circulation, but instead we have spent millions, perhaps billions, on having Hansen fudge surface temperature data and build computer models which don't work.
Originally I felt that Dr. Gray was perhaps too bitter about how funding was allotted, but the revelations of Climategate now show he, if anything, likely understated how badly the rot of politics had infiltrated the science at NASA.
The most ironic thing of all is watching Hansen awake to the fact he has been a dupe, used by the likes of Gore. When Hansen was collecting $350,000 from the wife of Senator John Kerry, (D MA,) he may have actually thought they cared about his crusade, but they didn't and they don't. All the compromises Hansen made for money and power are coming back to haunt him, as he is reduced to selling his book on late night talk shows.
Dr. Gray didn't compromise, and he has paid the political price. Irascible, hot-tempered, out-spoken, and as honest as the day is long, he annoys the heck out of Alarmists. However Alarmists strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel, when they pick on old Dr. Gray. Soon they too will awake to the facts Hansen is awaking to.
Atlas Shrugged, 1957, Part II, Chapter 1;
Part II, Chapter 1, Atlas Shrugged, Circa 1957
The Title of the Book’s jacket was “Why Do You Think You Think?”.[ The book was written by Dr. Floyd Ferris and published by the State Science Institute.]
from the book....
“Thought is a primitive superstition. Reason is an irrational idea. The childish notion that we are able to think has been mankind’s costliest error.”
“The more we know, the more we learn we know nothing.”
“Only the crassest ignoramus can still hold to the old fashioned notion that seeing is believing. That which you see is the first thing to disbelieve.”
“The latest scientific discoveries-such as the tremendous achievements of Dr. Robert Stadler-have demonstrated conclusively that our reason is incapable of dealing with the nature of the universe. These discoveries have led scientists to discoveries which are impossible., according to the human mind, but which exist in reality nonetheless. If you have not yet heard it, my dear old fashioned friends, it has now been proved that rational is insane.”
“Do not look for common sense.’ To demand ‘sense’ is the hallmark of nonsense. Let us break the chains of the prejudice called Logic. Are we going to be stopped by a syllogism?”
“So you think you are sure of your opinions? You cannot be sure of anything. Are you going to endanger the harmony of your community, your fellowship with your neighbors, your standing, reputation, good name and financial security for the sake of an illusion? For the sake of the mirage of thinking you think? Are you going to run the risks of court disasters-at a precarious time like ours-by opposing the existing social order in the name of those imaginary notions of your
#129 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 03:18 PM
Axel -
*http://skepticalscience.com/1998-DIY-Statistics.html*
I see, you are just from another astroturf organization - financed by Soro or some other billionaire no doubt - who are trying to appropriate the term `sceptic' from the actual sceptics who have questioned global warming all along (which didn't include myself)
*To prove you clicked the link, you will have to tell me who wrote it and how many images of graphs he posted.*
which is funny Axel, bec. I actually can't find anyone who authored this piece; I see a refernce to `Tamino' but no first name, credential (as tho. these mean anything now). That's great work!
As for the `evidence' you presented, no evidence of global warming can be taken at face value any more until independent scientific auditors review ALL such research.
*Did you or did you not click the link? Factcheck are independent investigators. I have to ask because I think you are a troll at this stage. Their workings are there - but all you do is bandy about your convictions. Weak.*
"Garbage is foreover" indeed. The author of this piece doesn't know what he or she is talking about clearly; as I said, s/he made the statement that only a minority now are falling for g-w hysteria, saying it was bec. of the sceptics `confusing' the public; how is this statement even warranted?
*Yeah, factcheck went through the emails. You aren't showing your work, so all your claims are defunct.*
I'm sorry, where you there when `fact check went through the emails'? Clearly they didnt
*Even if we removed the work of the scientists you accuse and removed all the work that featured the data you claim is useless, I would still have a foundation to stand on. Also, you have yet to show how the illegal CRU hack actually shows any skirting or avoidance of scientific winnowing, so your claims are in bad faith.*
The emails are replete with the `skirting or avoidance of scientific winnowing.'
*You've yet to explain what the e-mails showed. Factcheck has looked through them and can't implicate any scientists, not even the ones conversating. You are still not talking in good faith and are also being arrogant and slanderous.*
You are acting in bad faith. the emails clearly show a pattern of deceipt, fraudulence, arrogance and libel. NO more `global warming' research can be trusted until ALL of it is reviewd by ind. scientific auditors.
*http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm*
thanks, you've put the same link as you had before, but as I said, no such `evidence' can be trusted before a review. Are you afraid of such a reveiw and what it will find?
*It will never be a hot year everywhere for a good while, and there will be no comparatively cooler years over the whole planet. You are not thinking well or thoroughly - I'm still your superior.*
Yes, indeed, `arrogance' personified. The attitude which
*Me, the author of the piece and CWP are the most skeptical people here.*
again, a transparent attempt to appropriate the word `sceptic' when you are clearly nothing of the sort - you and you're astroturf `sceptical science' buddies who can't even manage to put their name on a blog post purported to be `research'.
#130 Posted by R.B. Glennie, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 05:03 PM
CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere and is insignificant by definition. It has nothing to do with anything. Zero, zip, nada!
Water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas. It has 200 times as many molecules as CO2 and each absorbs IR energy from sunlight six times better than CO2 for a net effect that is 1200 times greater than CO2. Or we can say, water vapor is responsible for 99.9% of all atmospheric heating.
Carbon is 84% of all petroleum fuels. Controlling and taxing carbon will transfer more political and economic power than anything since the Magna Carta, 800 years ago. It is just that simple: Follow the money and power.
Albert Gore, Jr. took one science survey course at Harvard the year he flunked out. He got a "D" in it and was so turned off by it he registered in the school of Divinity at Vanderbilt, flunked out of that the went into journalism. We think that explains a lot.
#131 Posted by Adrian Vance, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 05:09 PM
Hatten av, Alex Edgren! I am sorry to butt in... People seem to understand your decleration of willingnesss to be disproved of your opinion and your devulgeriance of personal informaion as a sign of weakness - and not a strength.
Albert J,
You are crazy. How can you cite a text that clearly show that you have no sense of taste, no independent thinking and the most obvious evidence: can't fit a story with its message? For me who have no pride or emotions invested on either side can only see your citation as suicide for your only line of agrumentation. Of all the texts and all the part of text - you could not have choosen worse...
#132 Posted by BlackElvis, CJR on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 07:07 PM
The problem with tv "meteorologists" who think that they know more about climate science than climatologists do boils down to two words: Dunning Kruger
And just for grins, here's some video footage of one of those skeptical tv meteorologists (the weatherperson footage starts about 1:35 into the video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32YKaPxAxwA
#133 Posted by caerbannog, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 01:23 AM
Adrian Vance is another Dunning Kruger case.
Apparently, he does not know that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is highly temperature dependent, while the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is (to a first order) temperature *independent*. That's a critical distinction that causes the two gases to play very different roles with respect to greenhouse warming.
As one travels up in the atmospheric column, the water vapor concentration drops rapidly, while the CO2 concentration remains nearly constant. So at high altitudes, CO2 absorbs much more IR than water vapor does. Ditto for high latitudes -- the atmosphere is so cold over the poles that there's much less water vapor there. That magnifies the importance of CO2 in polar regions.
Take these factors into account, and it's easy to see that CO2 is a much more important greenhouse gas than Adrian's completely incorrect claims would suggest.
#134 Posted by caerbannog, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 02:01 AM
This is how the Human Cascade Phenomena works now through the global 24/7 media to distort and bend information to fit agendas, which ends up as crusades based on emotions and templates of agendas, not based on science. After Eugenics, one of the first to employ techniques was Rachael Carson fanatics banning DDT for no sound reason, and condemning millions of poor to death by malaria every year. For which the fix is nets. The net result of nets is, most of them end up as wedding veils and fish nets. And based on these "Cascade Events", we make Trillion dollar bets?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html
#135 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 07:36 AM
Yo Black Elvis, Typical, this is why the new Left is in love with Atlas Shrugged, you all just don't get it. What you pass off as science and logic is emotions, laced with some science bits here and there to make it seem scientific. Like deleting inconvenient data to "Hide the Decline". Why else is there such a hard core press to suppress real debate and true scientific skepticism by people like you? What is it you all are afraid of, the Truth as scientifically delineated?
You fool yourselves with mantras like, "We don't need science, we have consensus", or," We have all the science, you guys just listen to right wing talk radio, so we don't need to prove anything". Or, it's for the greater good, so what if it's really a hoax?
You make my point absolutely clear, thank you very much for showing up, as predictable as it is.
Go look for John Galt, he will explain it all to you. Or, try saving the Iguanas for a switch from Polar Bears, now that the globe is cooling off for awhile.
#136 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 07:53 AM
PS, Axel and Black Elvis, if you all can prove with in an acceptable error band of say less than 8% (most science is not absolute, to allow for infinity) that HUMANS are the cause of" accelerating" warming (every one knows the climate is changes and that there is currently a gradual normal warming trend over all happening, in spite of the current cooling reversal), then I'm on board with you AWGers. What sane rational person would not be?
So just prove it. Show us that there is a 92% chance if we don't take drastic action today, that 90 years from now will be too late to undo what humans are doing and have done, AND that it is due to HUMAN emitted CO2 to validate Carbon taxes is a valid route to take.
Then, remove all the Billions to be made on Cap and Trade of carbon, and put 100% of the profits from all Carbon Taxes and Carbon Trades into a Global fund for the poor people of the world to provide clean water, shelter, clothing, food, jobs and educations for the poor. Put your AGWing money where your AGWing emotions are leading you. I expect you both to show up at Mexico City with the plan all worked out, AFTER you prove there is even a problem caused by humans and that problem is specifically human caused CO2 emissions.
All you have so far is speculations and assumptions. Here is Crazy for you Black Elvis, "Logic and Philosophy is empty with out scientific concrete evidence." Who said that one?
Albert Einstein said it when he was describing Galileo as the father of modern science, for going against the consensus of the time, against the Aristolean Philosophers who claimed, quite logically, that velocity is directly proportional to weight. When he dropped a 10 Lb weight and a 1 Lb weight from the leaning tower of Pisa of course he proved them wrong. But the Aristoleans claimed victory anyway. You know why? Because the 10 Lb weight hit inches before the 1 Lb weight (but if they were correct in theory the 1 Lb weight should be 10 times behind the 10 Lb weight). They never forgave Galileo for showing up their ignorance and inability to validate theory with scientifically measurable quantifiable proof. Does that maybe look like what's happening with this Cascade manufactured AGWing event so far? If you could prove it concretely, there would be no debate, we would move into solving the problem mode.
Galileo's experience s a lot like the Inquisition you AGWers are putting AWGing skeptics through. How's it feel now the shoe is over on your foot, over on "consensus" side? AGWers don't need real science, the logic of humans being guilty of pillaging and plundering planet earth makes sense. Like velocity being directly proportional to weight made sense at the time of Galileo.
So prove it. Man up and show the world the facts, Jack. Not the What ifs, the well we think this might happen if, The trend seems to be this or that, The possibilities are like this, Well, it's for the greater good any how so science doesn't matter anyway.....
This is Trillions of dollars in taxes you and the poor have to pay. Doesn't bother me, I've got my finances set already. You can pay taxes through the nose if you want to. But don't you think you owe it to your neighbors to think this through a bit more scientifically? It is several Trillion dollars you and the poor of the world can't afford to pay right now.
Go BBQ an Iguana and chew on it a bit, and when you have the concrete proof of AGWing, and the plan to save the world, get back to me. In the mean time, call me crazy (oh right, you already did), but I'll stick with Albert Einstein; the world is in great hands already. "God does not play dice with the Universe!" Remember that one Black Elvis?
#137 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 08:41 AM
Post PS to Axel and Black Elvis,
If you want to use real science lads, don't forget to redo the corrupt CRU and GISS data bases, which are so far gone as to throw doubt on anything that utilized them before, now or in the future.
Then don't forget to constrain all the unknowable's, like the previous masses and volumes of the earth's atmosphere in years backwards, the exact amounts of Human versus Natural CO2 emissions and how you separate the two, and so on. And be transparent with your "assumptions" and inferences about temperatures in past history since we have no records before the thermometer was invented. Don't forget to have your work reviewed and accepted now, since we can no longer trust the old peer review system due to corrupt scientists like Hansen selling out their integrity for fame and fortune. Please now utilize an approved transparent Peer-to-Peer review system.
How is that plan to save the world accounting for all the different aspects of Human nature coming along guys? I wish you all the best in your future endeavors. If you can pull this off you will indeed be some great world leaders, so we are all counting on you both!
No pressure by the way, it's only the entire future of humanity and the world resting on your 2 shoulders now. I'm sure it's nothing for a couple of bright young lads like you guys.
#138 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 12:13 PM
Albert J,
You just too funny. You argue that I cant have an opinion on your snip of itterature sice science are opinions and opinions are science... That IS crazy and on so many levels. Though all I did was pointing out that you did a horrable job advancing your arguments with the selcted qoute. Instead of adressing it you instead demonstrate this flaw in your style of argumentation by making a series of horrific quotes that somehow should support claims that are so poorly linked to the discussion at hand that I am a shamed for you. Anyway, you don't need my approval for your wacky ideas as they are clearly the brainchild of fiction and the result of artistic ambitions.
This is what science look like:
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.swf
#139 Posted by BlackElvis, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 12:25 PM
I think any "local weatherman" is more scientist, than any of the "highly educated" criminals at CRU or similar establishments in US.
#140 Posted by crusader, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 04:17 PM
In case anyone is interested, here is the UN's web site and their agenda for global environmental governance for your handy reference;
http://www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/
http://www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=7RzudGTFKRI%3D&tabid=341&language=en-US
#141 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 04:26 PM
Elvis,
Thanks for the great "science" lesson, only it is very slow uploading. I fell asleep during the introduction. What does it say and where is all the peer to peer review back ups and annotations please?
Where are the concrete actual scientific proofs that humans are causing the earth to warm at a rate faster than normal that will harm the planet because of human carbon dioxide emissions, and what do you propose to do about it when you finally do get the proof (if ever?)
#142 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 04:43 PM
Elvis,
I'll draw you a picture.
Current events = James Hansen, NASA, GISS data base. Since the 1980's he has been 1800 degrees out of phase with reality and facts, claiming an ice age was coming in the 1980s, and then to curry favor with Al Gore and Liberals in Congress to get budget money for NASA, he started claiming not just a warming trend while the earth has taken a pause and has been slightly cooling for the past decade, but he claimed a "dangerous" warming trend. He manipulated the GISS data to make it fit his agenda, and was first exposed for doing it by a teen aged Canadian girl. He has done it several times since then embarrassing NASA but still bringing in the budget money. He is now relegated to trying to sell his book on late night TV circuits, because Gore, Kerry and the rest of the Looters are through with their useful idiot, James.
That relates to the excerpt from 1957 fiction how you say? The excerpt is from a fictional "scientist's " book. He, like James Hansen in real life, also sold out his integrity and tried to convince the masses through the State Science Agency, which is funded with Mooch money from the Looters, that you don't need logic or concrete proof because it's all for the greater good of the masses. Like James Hansen did in real life.
The AGWing Cascade event started on the pretext to save the planet with the real agenda to get tax mooch money which comes from taxes which comes from looters in Congress and international looters. Looters by definition don't produce anything of value, they just take money away from those who do produce things and services. Moochers hitch hick off the Looters and provide pseudo science cover for the Looters to implement legal pick pocketing legislation. Just like the current AGWing scam.
PS, You still have not provided any proof of AGWing due specifically to human CO2 emissions, nor have you come up with a plan to erase it yet, if in fact it does exist. Therefore, like the rest of the AGWing skeptics, I assume you have bought into the State Science Agency Kool-aid, set up by the moochers and the looters.
Prove me wrong, let's see the hard proofs.
If you still can't figure it out, try buying the cliff notes. Hope the Iguana was done. They aren't good rare.
#143 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 05:19 PM
Here is some hard science for you. CO2 has a specific gravity of 1.52 which means that it is 152% heavier than air. It sinks to the ground when it is released. It is absorbed by plants and trees. This is why it is used in fire extinguishers and spooky ground fog. We have had an increase of 80 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years. The fractional equivalent of that is 8/100.000ths of 1%. Now do you really think that this trace amount can cause global warming? This is a trace amount by any reasonable judgement. The government even has levels of trace amounts rat droppings that can be in our food.This is just part of a whole refutation article that I have written. If you would like ot read it, just email me and I will send it to you.
#144 Posted by John Wilder, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 06:36 PM
Good article, mostly lousy comments (Axel, you're a secular saint).
Funny how the more they shout, the more unhinged the denialist crowd sound.
The world is bigger than the USA. The science is not dependent on Al Gore. Your obsessive shouting is giving me a headache and wasting everybody's time.
You credulous, anti-science, self-proclaimed "skeptics" were wrong about tobacco, wrong about asbestos and you're wrong about this. My heart bleeds for your privilege and your wallets.
#145 Posted by milgram, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 08:44 PM
It's not the meteorologists who need to be informed/indoctrinated, but those climate scientists who do not have a degree in meteorology or physics. Without these, the "climate scientist" is poorly informed.
The climate models, all 16 of them, are fatally flawed and have not even been able to predict the cooling trend of the past 8 years, and no warming since 1998. They all use a climate sensitivity of between 2.5 and 4, while Professor Richard Lindzen, MIT and Dr. Roy Spencer, U. of Alabama have shown that it should be less than 1 . They also show that more radiation escapes to space than the models predict. The models also use (misuse) water vapor, using it to amplify the meager warming by CO2. Clouds and precipitation actually offset this assumed warming.The modelers call it a positive feedback when it is actually neautal or negative. (The warming does not go out of control). The models also do not include any solar effects, ocean oscillations or volcanic activity. It has recently been shown that the sun has more effect on temperatures than previously thought. Especially geomagnetic effects. The geomagnetic index is now at a historic low. Could that be the reason for the worldwide cold weather?
CO2 also has its limitations. Papers recently by several Physicists show that since CO2 only captures infrared radiation in a very narrow band, it absorbs all the radiation it can at about 250-300 parts per million (ppm). Higher concentrations of CO2 have little effect.
I happento be a 79 year old scientist with a degree in Physics and a masters degree in Meteorology, MIT, and retired chief meteorologist for a private weather service and WFSB-TV. in Connecticut.
Early on, James Hansen and others jumped the gun in making wild predictions of ocean rise and temperature rise caused by rising CO2, then saying the science was settled before doing any basic research on why cycles of warming and cooling have happened for thousands of years. The medieval warming from 950-2050 when the Vikings inhabited and did farming in Greenland followed by the little ice age in the 17th and 18th centuries. That research is now being done by the non-government independent scientists (skeptics). and re-writing the science books. The entrenched global warming scientists are loathe to admit that they are wrong. It has become more political than science. Better get used to the words clobal cooling. The oceans have just about stopped rising and the Antarctic ice cap is growing thicker.
#146 Posted by James Macdonald, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 08:55 PM
So Elvis, are these scientists wrong?
‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.
'These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’
Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with ‘hate emails’.
He added: ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.
Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.
He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.
Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.
'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.
‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’
As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a ‘blip’ of no long-term significance.
Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just 4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term ‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still warming.
The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cGWMNvZK
Inquiring minds would like to know, if the science is settled and there is no room for discussion and debate, why all these scientists are skeptical? More than 31,000 of them signed a petition as skeptics of your AGWing "thoery".
Where's the proff to take it from theory to fact?
#147 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 09:15 PM
Milli-gram, got any science? Or is it all settled already, so we should just trust you?
Thanks James Mac, a very concise piece. Finally some actual science we can evaluate.
#148 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 09:28 PM
Love the looooong diatribes above, by both sides!!! One simple question: If CAGW is real, why have the other planets been warming in unison with the Earth? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh?
Yes, Axel, et al, I am gloriously a skeptic! Axel, I want YOUR answer to this simple question...
#149 Posted by DDodd, CJR on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 10:29 PM
This somewhat condescending piece is nevertheless worth scanning because of its focus on Joe Coleman and meteorologists in general. Homans points out (rightly) that meteorologists such as Joe Coleman have great credibility with the public but are really not research scientists. He points out (rightly) that meteorologists are awed by the difficulty of predicting weather even a week in advance and so are skeptical about climate predictions over much longer time frames, while climate scientists in general are not so awed. But he comes careening off the rails when he says, “But in fact, the basic question of whether rising greenhouse gas emissions will lead to climate change hinges on mostly simple, and predictable, matters of physics.” This is pure nonsense and betrays his ignorance of the science.
Roger W. Cohen
Fellow American Physical Society
#150 Posted by Roger Cohen, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 12:29 AM
1) Climate is usually defined as "average weather over 30 [or 50] years." Climate IS weather; how could it possibly be anything else.
2) The idea that climatology is completely independent of processes known and analyzed by meteorology is simply absurd.
3) One keeps reading that "the evidence for human-caused [CO2-driven] warming is overwhelming." But if one ACTUALLY READS the IPCC's 4AR, WG 1, Ch 9 -- "Attribution", the only relevant chapter -- there is no evidence there, and no citation of any articles presenting actual evidence. Twenty years ago, we heard "our computer models can't match the warming without including anthropogenic CO2." Two decades and a hundred billion dollars later, we read in 4AR, "our computer models can't match the warming without including anthropogenic CO2." Meanwhile, ALL the measurements of actual predictions by these silly models have proven false, while scientifically illiterate journalists like the author of this piece simply accept the tendentious armwaving of such as the CRU clique as gospel.
If you want to know why journalism has such a bad reputation with the public at large, you need look no further.
#151 Posted by Craig Goodrich, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 08:54 AM
On the Cloud Ship, Lollypop...Was this your idea Elvis?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/5987229/Cloud-ship-scheme-to-deflect-the-suns-rays-is-favourite-to-cut-global-warming.html
#152 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 10:02 AM
Axel, here's an AWG popsicle for you;
http://www.compeaus.com/_frozen/frozen_videos.html
#153 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 11:43 AM
Simpler answer: TV meteorologists are hired and paid to forecast the weather and the accuracy of their assessments are known within days. The job requirements do not entail any obvious ideological bias. Climate scientists are drawn from the ranks of the academy and are hired and paid to prove that global warming (aka climate change) is a problem. Their assessments will not be known for decades and the job requirements necessarily involve an ideological bias. It doesn't take a four thousand word article to state the obvious.
#154 Posted by AvisaMe, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 01:06 PM
On reflection perhaps this is a more constructive contribution -
There's an interesting contrast with the UK. We don't have the same problem of weathermen talking nonsense about climate change. I think that's probably because most of them work for the Met Office and that (I believe) works on climate as well as weather.
But there are 2 retired TV science popularisers (Johnny Ball & David Bellamy) who are climate change conspiracists. That seems to fit with the article's suggestion of the over-extended sense of their own expertise.
(Sometimes I wonder if this relatively recent phenomenon (popping up after the oil companies could no longer be seen to publicly back the anti-science pressure groups) was the result of a deliberate shift in strategy by the anti-science PR effort. Persuade influential, science-associated people to front their nonsense for them. Looks so much more convincing than the American Petroleum Institute doing it....)
#155 Posted by milgram, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 01:20 PM
Is anyone else sick to death of Axel?
#156 Posted by bigcasino, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 04:14 PM
I live in New England - the weather pattern here has certainly changed over the past 40 years or so. I remember winters with 5 foot snow banks - building huge snow forts with tunnels - skiing on local 'hills' (which have now closed down due to lack of snow). If there isn't global warming going on - something certainly is..
Formax FD 6100
#157 Posted by Kathy, CJR on Mon 11 Jan 2010 at 09:10 PM
@Kathy: A lot of things have changed in 40 years, but reduced snowfall is not one of them. 2008 broke all standing snow records in New England (I know, I had to shovel; the stuff). I'm tempted to suggest you might want to watch meteorologists more often, but that would be snarky.
Personally I bemoan the loss of wildlife; geese and ducks used to cover the sky. More than anything, the focus on AGW is a dangerous distraction from the very real effects of pollution on local environments.
#158 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 12 Jan 2010 at 03:52 PM
This analysis is incredibly on-point to our situation in Wisconsin.
The most popular "weatherman" in Milwaukee was elected to the state Assembly a few years ago and since then has focused on almost nothing else but uncovering the "climate change hoax." He also publishes monthly attacks on climate change advocates and policies to reduce CO2. Here is an example of this month's missive.
http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/jan10/jan12/0112jotthotair.pdf
#159 Posted by dma, CJR on Tue 12 Jan 2010 at 04:58 PM
As a weatherman ( actually AMS sealed with a BS in meteorology) I find it frightening that so many of my colleagues can dismiss global warming so out-of-hand. Every bit of evidence points to humans increasing greenhouse gases and hence temperatures. What's more debatable is what the actual effects will be and I imagine this is what creates much of the skeptisism from weathermen. When a study comes out and says the Earth will warm 3.8 degrees or sea level will rise 4.5 ft I know many of us roll our eyes. We know short-range models have a high degree of inaccuaracy, how are such long-range models going to make such precise measurements?
We have about 100 years of good data. That's not nearly enough for an actual picture of our climate. Ice cores and tree rings can give an outline on ancient climatology, but they don't paint in the details.
When people point to a heat wave for, or a cold blast against, I point out that's weather. That's like looking at one game the Yankees played badly in July and extrapolating they must have stunk last year (when they went on to win the world series).
Right now we have 100 years of data. That's just one game in the season.
All that said, what's the real argument here? Whether you BELIEVE in global warming or not you should be on board with limiting pollution. Less human CO2 is a good thing no matter you believe.
#160 Posted by DMB, CJR on Tue 12 Jan 2010 at 05:49 PM
http://notyourstogive.com/
and for Milli-gram and the UK media;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242599/Families-forced-pile-rubbish-outside-homes-FIVE-WEEKS-snow-suspends-services.html
#161 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 12 Jan 2010 at 05:50 PM
Charles Homan's Article HOT AIR has several perspectives. If you are an AGWer, It is about how weathermen are not competent enough to know about Climate, but think they are. So to save the world we need to educate weathermen so they can get the word out. If you are a layman Skeptic, Homan's piece is about HOT AIR, and the fact that weathermen don't want to become "Useful Idiot" spokesmen for the Propaganda arm of the State Biased Media. If you are a real scientist, and haven't sold your soul at the Crossroads, like James Hansen of NASA did, then you see it as a debate of the informed with facts versus the manipulators with biased and twisted facts. The Climate is a hugely complex system involving every discipline of science, which makes it very interesting to study.
But, all that aside, if you AGWers really care about saving the world, how about putting the HOT AIR issue aside until Mexico City when it's warmer outside and put your efforts towards helping solve a real "man made" catastrophe? Which nature in the form of an earthquake just made extremely worse last night. 80% of people in Haiti live below the poverty level. 4.5 million in Haiti live on less than $1 per day. So even if you only give up one Latte per day and send that money monthly to a charity of your choice helping in the relief efforts (maybe start by investigating the International Red Cross for starters), it will make a big impact today in people's lives.
#162 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 13 Jan 2010 at 03:37 AM
"There is one thing which I will call your attention to, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Davy Crockett, 1832
#163 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 13 Jan 2010 at 03:50 AM
Jessica Biel's trek up Mt. Kilimanjaro took a turn for the worse as a blizzard hit the hikers.
Biel, 27, is on the hike along with actors Emile Hirsch and Isabel Lucas, and a blizzard hit them on the fifth day of their journey.
An executive with the UN Foundation, Elizabeth Gore, said: 'It's pretty gnarly. The visibility is only 10 feet in front of you.
'And it's cold. I've got six layers on.'
#164 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 13 Jan 2010 at 09:58 AM
Real data is missing from these discussions, but that's OK as most of us are not scientists, particularly climate scientists. But if you study the stock market you can understand the difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE. The math is similar for many physical processes, and some models of pricing over time. Is the the POWER LAW or statistics of extreme values, not the NORMAL distribution where all data is independent of the other data. As we all saw, economic models and risk models which used the normal (bell curve) assumptions to make predictions UNDERESTIMATED the RISK to our money! That is because the guys with the fast computers (humans) were trying to predict risk based on assumptions like "the best hint of what is coming is where you are today...plus or minus a few standard deviations." Nobody can predict weather precisely. But they can predict CHANGES in the weather for SHORT PERIODS OF TIME based on sensor data. Climate is all about the real long term impact of those CHANGES which tend to CLUSTER (are not random or just seasonal), so while someone may say that the model shows a 3.2degree increase in the AVERAGE temp of the plant in 2100, the question we should ask them is how OFTEN will we get SUDDEN vs MILD changes and is that percentage of sudden changes INCREASING during our reign on earth due to something we may have added to make the weather behavior change faster. Just my opinion. Same question for your stock advisor. Does the recent crisis make future time period between crises shorter? I think the last two decades show bullt into our financial markets a LONG TERM MEMORY much like the Great Depression did for investors now long dead or very old. So some of that conservatism (and less leveraging with other people's money) will perhaps get coded in rules, but it will also be encode in the global brain of the market. That is why without INSIDER knowledge, it is almost impossible to "beat the market." Climatologist have insider knowledge. Weathermen are day traders. Sometimes they are RIGHT and that is when you hear them roar.
#165 Posted by Mike Clayton, CJR on Wed 13 Jan 2010 at 07:44 PM
To read up on the physics of climate behavior, remember that CHANGE is triggered by RARE EVENTS like Volcanic action above and under the sea which can add heat to the ocean or sulphur compounds to the air which COOL the planet and have caused ice ages in past.
Human impacts are not rare events in near time, but are rare in geological time, and they can move the system in a direction where OTHER rare events occur more frequently, like glacier melting, which can be self-feeding until another major volcanic eruption (or government geo-engineering...as proposed in Foreign Affairs a few months ago) causes cooling. I am betting that SOMEONE will test this geo-engineering idea out, and screw up "weather patterns" trying to fix a "climate problem."
The "statistics of extreme values" with power law models shows that BUBBLES are inevitable with unsustainable trends, but the frequency of variations or mini-bubbles tends NOT to be random, but clustered in time, just as cyclical stocks may appear predictable to some extent, but the peaks or valleys, or volatility indexes will be auto-correlated or clustered in time groups over the years, not random. That means RISK in the stock market and RISK in climatology are both UNDERSTATED by earlier simplified models. Given that scenario, what is the really conservative thing to do? China has just surpassed the US in greenhouse gas production. Bechtel et al built 50+ coal plants in China per year. Human activity does make a difference in POLLUTION which SEEMS to have an impact on CLIMATE (increasing temp) by not perhaps on local short term WEATHER. Just as a few market mini-bubbles are already showing hypergeometric trending, unsustainable. In the long run, science will prevail and corrective actions may, as in market failures, be extremely costly.
http://videolectures.net/risc08_sornette_fcrm/
#166 Posted by Mike Clayton, CJR on Wed 13 Jan 2010 at 10:38 PM
Once you read this, it should be clear what is driving AGWing [as opposed to what is driving the Climate] to the most causal of observers; except those stuck down in Middle Earth by Circular Logic. AGWing is trying to force a change in the wealth and power structure of the globe, not stop climate from changing. Unless you are stuck in Middle Earth, how silly is trying to STOP the climate from changing in the first place? Climate, Stop Changing darn it You Lilliputians in Middle Earth really need help. Look what your AGWing dogma got you to believe you could do! Stop the Climate from changing. Look behind the curtain at what your puppet masters are really doing here;
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article203407.ece
Most Sovereign Wealth from Energy
US fund company State Street Global Advisors said today that it had identified 37 major sovereign wealth funds across the world worth $3 trillion, of which more than two-thirds came from oil and gas interests.
News wires Thursday, 14 January, 2010, 01:13 GMT
All of the 37 had at least $3 billion in assets and eight had more than $100 BILLION, it said.
SSGA said its study of the companies, many of which it does business with, showed about 70% of the wealth held by the state-sponsored funds came from oil and gas revenues. Only 13 of the 37 SWFs were not based on commodity wealth.
Asia had the largest number of SWFs at 13, but the 10 funds based in the Middle East had nearly half the wealth, or 46%, between them.
SSGA said SWFs were now coming under closer scrutiny at home as well as abroad and in turn were becoming more focused on their own internal governance.
It said, however, that one issue still to be addressed by the funds is to what extent they will become active shareholders in any companies they invest in. "It is possible to foresee that SWFs will gradually evolve to more closely resemble their large institutional peers e.g. large public sector pension funds and endowment funds, in terms of active ownership and the exercise of shareholder rights," State Street said, reported Reuters.
#167 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 14 Jan 2010 at 09:24 AM
Middle Earth has finally collapsed upon it's self into a Black Hole of Secular Circular Logic. Beware all you 'Secular Saints', you don't get sucked into the Black Hole now. Middle Earthers are suicidal for something that does not exist. The Puppet masters are done with the Lilliputians, now that the masters realize there is only enough wealth left for them after the big Collapse. You've been used (Stalin's term for you was 'Useful Idiots'). Utopia has died...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6977817/Avatar-fans-suicidal-because-planet-Pandora-is-not-real.html
#168 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 14 Jan 2010 at 11:30 AM
More HOT AIR, the definition of 'Crony Capitalism is found below. Read it slowly Elvis, and read my lips;
Washington, DC - In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.
"It's outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project.
Professor Mann is currently under investigation by Penn State University because of activities related to a closed circle of climate scientists who appear to have been engaged in agenda-driven science. Emails and documents mysteriously released from the previously-prestigious Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom revealed discussions of manipulation and destruction of research data, as well as efforts to interfere with the peer review process to stifle opposing views. The motivation underlying these efforts appears to be a coordinated strategy to support the belief that mankind's activities are causing global warming.
"It's no wonder that Obama's stimulus plan is failing to produce jobs. Taxpayer dollars aren't being used in the ways most likely to spur job creation. The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to reward a loyalist in the climate change debate. Nor was the stimulus sold as a way to promote the Obama Administration's position on the global warming theory. This misuse of stimulus money illustrates why tax cuts are a better way to stimulate the economy than letting the government decide where to spend taxpayer dollars. As is often the case, political considerations corrupt the distribution of government funds," said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the National Center's Project 21 black leadership network.
"Mann's credentials as a climate change alarmist seems to fit the political criteria for stimulus funds sometimes known as 'Obama money'," added Deneen Borelli.
Mann is a central and controversial figure in climate change research. Mann's so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting temperature changes over a 1000 year period was used as evidence in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 report to demonstrate that carbon dioxide from industrial activity is causing global warming. Mimicking the shape of a hockey stick, the graph showed a long time period of stable temperatures (the shaft) followed by a rapid rise in temperatures (the blade) during the last hundred years.
Critics of the hockey stick claim Mann manipulated data to eliminate periods of time such as the medieval warming period and the little ice age to eradicate the visual impact of natural global temperature variation. The emails from Climategate reveal that the inner circle of climate scientists were troubled by the methods Mann used to produce the graph.
"It's shocking that taxpayer money is being used to support a researcher who seemingly showed little regard to the basic tenes of science - a dispassionate search for the truth," said Tom Borelli.
The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a conservative, free-market think-tank established in 1982. It receives less than 1% of its revenue from corporations.
#169 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 14 Jan 2010 at 11:50 AM
Axel, just in case as a 'Secular Saint' you didn't figure out what 'Crony Capital'ism' is, here it is again morphed for you, pay attention;
Detroit — Nancy Pelosi toured the Detroit Auto Show this week, surveying her new domain: the auto industry. Billions in taxpayer dollars have been lavished on Detroit to keep the Democratic unions happy and to develop the electric cars Washington has picked out for the peasants. Of course, upstart automakers from Pelosi’s home state of California are also on the taxpayer-funded gravy train, in an attempt by Golden State pols to shift America’s auto center from the Midwest to Silicon Valley — but Tesla and Fisker don't make cars for the common folk.
The Ford Motor Company does, though, and plenty of them: Ford is the most successful Detroit automaker this year. And as it happens, Ford did not take a bite from Queen Nancy’s bailout apple — and she is not amused.
#170 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 14 Jan 2010 at 11:55 AM
'Splain to us all you AGWers, what this has to do with science and climate? Looks like a high stakes Global Poker game to 'lil 'ol me;
The failure of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen is a historical watershed that marks the beginning of the end of climate hysteria. Not only does it epitomise the failure of the EU’s environmental policy, it also symbolises the loss of Western dominance. The failure of the climate summit was not only predictable — it was inevitable. There was no way out from the cul-de-sac into which the international community has manoeuvred itself. The global deadlock simply reflects the contrasting, and in the final analysis irreconcilable interests of the West and the rest of the world. The result is likely to be an indefinite moratorium on the international climate legislation. After Copenhagen, the chances for a binding successor of the Kyoto Protocol are as good as zero.
The extent of the debacle and the shift in the balance of geopolitical power was demonstrated by the fact that the final accord was made without the participation of the European Union. The exclusion of Europe is a remarkable symbol of the EU’s growing loss of influence, a green bureaucracy that was not even asked whether they agreed with the non-binding declaration of China, India and the USA. Although the Copenhagen conference was held in a European capital, the negotiations and the final result of the conference were totally outside European involvement.
Climate poker
The visibly shaken EU leaders had to admit that they were taken by surprise and had been outmanoeuvred by China, India and the USA. US president Obama and the leaders of India and China had left Copenhagen long before the European heads of state were forced to agree with an accord which had been reached without their input. A rejection of the Asian-American Copenhagen Accord would have been an option, were it not that it would have pushed the EU into the extremist corner of Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe.
The failed climate summit caused a tectonic shift in international relations and left behind a new political landscape. After Copenhagen, green Europe looks rather antiquated and the rest of the world looks totally different. The principles on which Europe’s climate policies were founded and which formed the basis of the Kyoto Protocol have lost their power while the EU itself lost authority and influence.
True-blooded advocates of Realpolitik who hardly exist in the climate policy debate, had warned for a long time that Copenhagen would fail to bridge the divergent interests of the West and the developing countries. For political realists, it is no surprise whatever that all key decisions were postponed indefinitely. What is more, there is little doubt that China and India are the big winners of the Copenhagen climate poker. The two emerging superpowers managed to win new strategic allies, even among Western nations. China’s and India’s strategy to align themselves with other developing countries in opposition to protectionist threats by the U.S. and the EU proved itself as very successful. In the end, their persistent No even forced the Obama administration to join the anti-green alliance.
#171 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 14 Jan 2010 at 12:02 PM
There's more at the door, there's more!
America sees a diminished role for the United Nations in trying to stop global warming after the "chaotic" Copenhagen climate change summit, an Obama administration official said today.
Jonathan Pershing, who helped lead talks at Copenhagen, instead sketched out a future path for negotiations dominated by the world's largest polluters such as China, the US, India, Brazil and South Africa, who signed up to a deal in the final hours of the summit. That would represent a realignment of the way the international community has dealt with climate change over the last two decades.
"It is impossible to imagine a global agreement in place that doesn't essentially have a global buy-in. There aren't other institutions beside the UN that have that," Pershing said. "But it is also impossible to imagine a negotiation of enormous complexity where you have a table of 192 countries involved in all the detail."
Pershing said the flaws in the UN process, which demands consensus among the international community, were exposed at Copenhagen. "The meeting itself was at best chaotic," he said, in a talk at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "We met mostly overnight. It seemed like we didn't sleep for two weeks. It seemed a funny way to do things, and it showed."
The lack of confidence in the UN extends to the $30bn (£18.5bn) global fund, which will be mobilised over the next three years to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
"The UN didn't manage the conference that well," Pershing said. "I am not sure that any of us are particularly confident that the UN managing the near-term financing is the right way to go."
But we should let the UN handle the less important stuff, like peacekeeping, nuclear disarmament, terrorism, etc.?
#172 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 14 Jan 2010 at 12:04 PM
And finally, have a greaaaat Weekend of Global Warming because;
Bogus jobs kill real jobs. At Madrid's King Juan Carlos University, for instance, a study found that in Spain — the very country Obama has held out as the exemplar of greening (and with only a 19-plus percent unemployment rate!) — every green job created had destroyed 2.2 jobs in other sectors of the economy.
#173 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 14 Jan 2010 at 12:08 PM
Black Elvis, are you going to stand for this? Why, this is just outrageous!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6968020/Avatar-hit-by-claims-of-racism.html
Critics claims the story of a white US Marine who saves an alien race perpetuates the "white Messiah fable" and suggests that non-whites are primitives incapable of helping themselves.
Especially since we all know Axel is the 'Secular Messiah' now!
#174 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 14 Jan 2010 at 12:15 PM
Thanks. That was well worth reading. For Mike H, who asks reasonable questions based on his comparison of models between the two disciplines, I think the following link is enlightening: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
#175 Posted by Al (not THE Al), CJR on Fri 15 Jan 2010 at 03:58 AM
Adrian Vance is another Dunning Kruger case.
Apparently, he does not know that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is highly temperature dependent, while the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is (to a first order) temperature *independent*. That's a critical distinction that causes the two gases to play very different roles with respect to greenhouse warming.
As one travels up in the atmospheric column, the water vapor concentration drops rapidly, while the CO2 concentration remains nearly constant. So at high altitudes, CO2 absorbs much more IR than water vapor does. Ditto for high latitudes -- the atmosphere is so cold over the poles that there's much less water vapor there. That magnifies the importance of CO2 in polar regions.
Take these factors into account, and it's easy to see that CO2 is a much more important greenhouse gas than Adrian's completely incorrect claims would suggest.
Posted by caerbannog on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 02:01 AM
Water vapor is 3% of the atmosphere over 90% of Earth, never less than 1% over deserts and often 4% in temperature declines.
CO2 is an insignificant "trace gas" in every reference, but carbon is the key to great political power through taxing and regulation. That is what drives anthropogenic global warming, not the physics.
John Tyndall invented air analysis and concluded "Water vapor is the principle gas in atmospheric heating..." Svante Arrenhius, Sweden's greatest chemist wanted to heat Sweden with CO2 additions to air and gave up because it was not a good IR absorber. His paper was once on the NASA "On The Shoulders of Giants" website, but has been taken down. James Hansen says "Man made CO2 stays in the atmosphere 400 years," in violation of the fact that all molecules are the same regardless source. What is he calling for? Tiny pilots, Divine or Satanic intervention?
#176 Posted by Adrian Vance, CJR on Fri 15 Jan 2010 at 12:27 PM
It is very clear why the war on Meteorologists by the AGWer propagandists like Charles Homans, et. al., - because it is the new 'pivot' from the current AGWer play book found here;
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1596985380/ref=nosim/nationalreviewon#reader_1596985380
"There is a clear attempt to establish 'truth' not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD
Professor of Meteorology, M. I . T.
The play book was first exposed brilliantly by Michael Crichton in 'State of Fear', where all extreme weather and natural catastrophes [still waiting for the blame for Haiti on AGWing to come out soon] is blamed on AGWing. Until the current freeze in the northern hemisphere, LOL. Whoops. Need a new play book AGWers!
So, new play book is to blame the meteorologists for not repeating the big lie; don't investigate any thing scientifically. After all, it's for the ' greater good' according to our Secular Saints, right? And what the heck, according to the same Saints, even if AGWing is not true, after we tax everyone with Trillions of Carbon taxes we didn't need, at least we will get some really cool gadgets.
Plus, then the Secular Saints can become part of Gordon Brown's 'Green Shirts', the new Global Enviro Police, and see what it means to have power for the first time in their lives. We all know they would never abuse their new found power....not our new little 'Green Shirts' Axel, Black Elvis and Milli-Gram.
#177 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 16 Jan 2010 at 07:52 AM
I'm waring you Secular Saints to pick up on the ' Save the Iguana' Cause Celeb, before you go down in flames (pun intended). Your plays books are opened, your agendas are well known and your collusion is about to be blown wide open very soon, see below, for the perverbial ' Tip of the Iceberg' (more intended puns).
Unfortunately you may never get to experience power as a 'Green Shirt', because the AGWer ship is going down soon.
The very unfortunate unintended consequences will be very good scientists and science material becoming suspect because of your nonsense now. We can only hope to find a different mechanism or set of such to over ride the damage done to science by 'Agenda Driven' Science.
Here is the beginning of the Hansen-NASA GISS Climategate, the North American version......
Take a gander at this e-mail from the New York Times's Andrew Revkin to James Hansen — included below one of Hansen's missives messaging Andy's late entry into the fray with an apologia for which NASA's Reto Ruedy later gushed in thanks (causing Andy to despair, in apparent further apology that he couldn't do more, that the issue had become difficult for him to ignore). The thread is dated August 23, 2007:
" i never, til today, visited http://www.surfacestations.org and found it quite amazing. if our stations are that shoddy, what's it like in Mongolia?"
Oh, dear. Quite amazing — yet not quite newsworthy. Surface Stations is the brainchild of 25-year-veteran meterologist Anthony Watts, who created it to survey and catalog the quality of the sites that collect U.S. temperature data. Surface Stations propelled Watts's other site — Watts Up With That? — to its initial prominence, on the way to becoming the most heavily trafficked "climate" site and its selection as best science blog in 2008. So why should a Times environmental reporter bother with publicizing the work of a man so many (too many?) people were discovering on their own?
Speaking of crummy data and Mongolia — among other neighboring locales — some amazing discoveries have trickled into the open that will also receive a further airing shortly. Who knew that, for example, tiny China needs only 35 stations to tell us the country's surface temperature within a hundredth of a degree . . . such that more than 350 could be closed? We know the China data is valid.
Hansen, incidentally, merely agreed with Revkin that it would be good to improve station data, but plowed forward with his newfound obsession about the impropriety of focusing on U.S. temperatures, and individual years no less, which is really just a distraction. Because, you know, NASA would never do that.
That's just a taste of the fun stuff. The more serious issues will be aired later.
#178 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 16 Jan 2010 at 08:05 AM
For those of you Secular Saints still stuck in Middle Earth due to Circular Logic, here is a door way out, before it's too late.
This Scientific Evidence debunks any' man made' contribution to GWing, including any plant food emissions into the atmosphere (yes, we know the new play book pivot is sea critters can't make sea shells now, but this thread is about AGWing and meteorologists not getting on board to the big lie);
From the most in depth and contiguous Climate-TEMPURATURE data base available today, the Central England Temperatures data bases (CET), which is so far un-molested by James Hansen, Michael Mann, et. al,:
Based on the trends analysis done by Luboš Motl (read link), global warming during the first decade of the 21st century was somewhat similar to global warming trends of the 18th century. In fact, as his analysis shows, the 18th century warming was actually more robust than the current warming. His trend analysis work did not reveal any "man-made" signal confirming that human CO2 was causing "accelerating" temperatures.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/cet-temperatures.html
Whoops! 'Save those Iguanas' is looking pretty good right about now, hey Axel?
#179 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 16 Jan 2010 at 08:17 AM
My greatest apologies to all concerned, I had not seen this Secular Saint blaming Haiti on AWGing. Sorry for my hasty remarks earlier, I should know better by now!
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/pact_with_gaia/
Actor Danny Glover believes that the Haitian earthquake was caused by climate change and global warming.
PS, this leaps off the pages of ' State of Fear' as earlier described.
#180 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 16 Jan 2010 at 08:22 AM
Here is a 'drop-in' fuel, meaning no engine reconfigurations have to be done, no infrastructure has to be redone, plus this is RENEWABLE BIOMASS, so why is the government blocking funding for the research and development and why aren't you AGWers on board?
Is it because of 'Crony Capitalism' because this process doesn't support those businesses involved with Big Green, Algore, the UN or the EU?
http://www.bellbioenergy.com/
Save those Iguanas now.
#181 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 16 Jan 2010 at 08:41 AM
"The problem is an unequal distribution of wealth, plain and simple."
Michael Moore, 2009
'Crony' Capitalists that back AGWing;
Michael Moore, Moore himself is one of these ultra-wealthy few, with a net worth exceeding $50 million. On November 1, 2005, World Net Daily reported that the anti-capitalist Moore -- who had proudly declared "I don't own a single share of stock!" -- in fact owned tens of thousands of shares in U.S. stocks. Most notably, Moore owned more than 2,000 shares in Halliburton -- the gas and oil company he excoriated in his film Fahrenheit 9/11.
Albert Gore Jr., who's father voted against the Civil Rights act, his net worth due primarily to 'Big Green' is > US$ 110 million, plus a boat named the BS-1
Bill and Hillary Clinton, net worth > US$ 110 million
George Soros, net worth > US$ 1 Billion
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House, > US$ 90 million
Dr. R.K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC at the UN, hold's 47% equity in TERI, the so called 'Not for profit Org', http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/tag/pachauri/
We could go on for ever....if you don't 'get it' by now, you never will. You are stuck in Middle earth due to Circular logic.
#182 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 16 Jan 2010 at 08:56 AM
Who is the scumbag author of this piece of garbage? Weather people don't believe in climate change because it isn't true! Unbelievable! Has this moron not read about "climate gate" where the scumbag scientists that created this fraud were caught RED HANDED faking the data?! To attack the credentials of the weather men when most idiotic global warming alarmists are holding up garbage articles from people completely outside of the scientific field all together like Naomi Oreskes as "proof" of the global warming scam? Unbelievable that idiots like this author are given a platform to broadcast their misinformation at all. Educate yourselves, read a book with real documentation on scientific proof like "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" by Christopher Horner or check out The Petition Project: http://www.petitionproject.org/ Thank god our TV weather people aren't going along with this giant scam fraud no matter what the reason our their qualification
#183 Posted by Don Mason, CJR on Sat 16 Jan 2010 at 01:30 PM
Axel and all you other Secular Saints; in case you can't quite grasp what the Circular Logic is that keeps you trapped in Middle Earth, here is one of many great examples below. I'm sure it seems 'logical' to you in Middle Earth that you don't need 'real' science [in fact you believe due to manipulation of the CRU and GISS data sets you have 'real' science and that skeptics are the pseudo-scientists], because only your handlers know the truth, and besides, 'it's for the greater good'. But in practice, here is what is really going on 'behind the curtains' of 'Circular Logic', whether applying it to AGWing, or many other popular 'Cause Celebs';
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/joe-biden-update.html
Joe Biden update: He meets on transparency today. But the meeting is closed.
The LA Times is hardly a right wing outpost. You've been 'had' Axel. Escape from Middle Earth. Walk off the Circular Logic plantation and use your head, think for your self.
#184 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 17 Jan 2010 at 04:54 AM
Wow, imagine this! And you heard it first right here;
Taxpayers' millions paid to Indian institute run by UN climate chief
Millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money is being paid to an organisation in India run by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial chairman of the UN climate change panel, despite growing concern over its accounts.
Can you spell 'Crony Capitalism' now Axel?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7005963/Taxpayers-millions-paid-to-Indian-institute-run-by-UN-climate-chief.html
#185 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 17 Jan 2010 at 10:15 AM
What is the average age of the climatologists who reject anthropogenic climate change (since the lead example here is in his 70s)? My examination of climate science skeptics vs. IPCC scientists found that the former tend to be significantly older, as based on the year of their last degree awarded. They also tend to have fewer relevant publications and lack experience in a climate science field.
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/12/who-are-climate-change-skeptics.html
#186 Posted by Jim Lippard, CJR on Mon 18 Jan 2010 at 10:09 AM
Jim,
I'd bet these older anti-AGW scientists are also a lot less likely to be the focus of academic misconduct investigations and whole lot less likely to be the recipients of millions of dollars in IPCC grants, too...
You think?
Funny how the choice of metrics changes the perspective, huh?
Indeed, as Michael Mann proves, an AGW proponent can both be under investigation for misconduct and also still receive six-figure grants.
#187 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 18 Jan 2010 at 10:58 PM
If anyone is sincerely interested in understanding some of the science behind the belief that CO2 being released into the atmosphere by humans is causing global warming, I suggest you take a look at The Discovery of Global Warming at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ (aip is, BTW, the American Institute of Physics).
#188 Posted by Tina, CJR on Thu 21 Jan 2010 at 12:39 AM
Mike H: You are making an entirely fundamental mistake regarding your argument against modeling. First of all most climate scientists are VERY familiar with meteorological models since they have been running them for about 20 years. Second, the propagation of errors in the model is irrelevant for predicting climate. You're confusing weather and climate. The model can be 100% wrong on the weather and predict the climate with near-perfect accuracy. That is not a contradiction at all. Your arguments are pretty much nonsense, and have been taken into account by climate modelers for over a decade now. You make is sound as if there is no way to verify climate models and their biases and errors. Again, that is nonsense....we've been running verifications for well over a decade.
#189 Posted by Edwin, CJR on Fri 22 Jan 2010 at 01:10 AM
like evolution, global warming is a FACT. it doesnt matter what the skeptics say, the FACT remains. the temperature is going up, the earth is warming. this has been recorded. glaciers are melting, also well documented. spring is arriving earlier and fall later which has also been well recorded.
so say al gore this and al gore that and pretend the researchers are getting rich and are marxists or whatever in your fantasy worlds. these are all what children start screaming when they have no argument. believe whatever you believe, it doesnt change FACTS.
also, learn something or 2 about the scientific definition of "theory" and computer modeling. so many illiterates...
#190 Posted by reality, CJR on Fri 22 Jan 2010 at 04:27 PM
"...warming trends were far more dependent on the water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, he told them, and the appearance of an uptick in global temperatures was the result of the declining number of weather stations in cold rural areas.
These theories were not only contradictory of each other, but had also been considered and rejected by climate researchers years ago. "
Put up or shut up. Which of his theories was rejected by climate researchers years ago?
The theory that water is a more potenet greenhouse gas than CO2 has been rejected? I'm pretty sure that's a pillar of climate consensus. The warming caused by CO2 causes more water in the air, which amplifies the effect of the CO2.
Climate researchers rejected any impact from biasing of stations in cold rural areas years ago? How many years ago? I don't recall reading a rebuttal to that theory in the journals years ago. I don't remember reading that theory years ago, even.
And how are those two statements contradictory?
Your polemic is weak. You discredit yourself more than your targets.
#191 Posted by Duncan, CJR on Fri 22 Jan 2010 at 04:52 PM
The earth is indeed warming, and has done so ever since the Little Ice Age ended.
Take a look at this link, they ignored northerly temperature monitoring stations in Canada and just concentrated on more southerly ones (in order to make the conclusion that the earth is warming). Global warming (as caused by CO2) is junk science. The earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling. Better global warming than global cooling, people will starve if the earth cooled. Global warming will allow some countries to have a longer growing climate.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canadian+weather+data+being+ignored+researchers+allege/2466343/story.html
#192 Posted by observer, CJR on Fri 22 Jan 2010 at 04:54 PM
To describe climatic warming in global terms is wrong. Climate has always been--and always will be--a regional phenomenon. In some areas (Los Angeles) the night time temperatures have progressively risen since the advent of automobiles and asphalt (for obvious reasons.) For less than obvious reasons the glaciers have retreated in Alaska during the same period.
#193 Posted by ralph, CJR on Fri 22 Jan 2010 at 09:05 PM
Reality needs a "reality" check. There are huge leaps of faith for "Evolution" as the "Origin of the Species" to be taken as fact. Fact number 1) reality....how do you accidentally get 'life' from the 'inanimate' scientifically, Huh? Show us in a laboratory how it's done, will you? Until you do that, "Evolution" as the 'origin of the species' is just a Theory, a mostly debunked one at that. If by "Evolution" you mean that 'species can learn', well, Duh! What does that have to do with the Hoax of AGWing and weathermen not wanting to become propagandists for climate alarmists? Who is John Galt?
#194 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 24 Jan 2010 at 05:14 AM
Reality: Here is AWGing falling apart at the seams, along with your statements as "facts" (In 'Reality', your statements are just opinions, not facts Reality,and your opinions are based on emotions, not based on science); latest climate headlines read...Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up
Al Gore's office admitted that the percentage he quoted in his speech was from an old, ballpark figure,....U.N. Panel's Glacier-Disaster Claims Melting Away. Today, the IPCC issued a statement offering regret for the poorly vetted statements. "The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures," the statement says, though it goes short of issuing a full retraction or reprinting the report.Who is John Galt?
#195 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 24 Jan 2010 at 05:26 AM
'Reality'; FACT must be substantiated with concrete evidence, be repeatable, measurable and stand up to peer-to-peer review. So far, the only FACT Al Gore can produce is, "We're all gonna die if we don't pay his companies Trillions in Carbon taxes". Show us conclusive evidence based on FACTS that humans are going to burn up the planet with man made CO2. On Evolution, please show us all the first FACT needed for 'Evolution as Origin of Life" to go from Theory to established FACT. Show us all how you get from rocks/gases/organics to "life" in a laboratory. And show us that it can be repeatable, measurable and pass peer-to-peer review. PS, if you can do that, we have a Nobel prize waiting for you. I hear a possibility that Al Gore's Nobel and Oscar is to be un-awarded soon. You state opinions based on emotions, not FACTS. Man up, show us the FACTS dude! Who is John Galt?
#196 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 24 Jan 2010 at 07:09 AM
PS, 'Reality', Albert Einstein and Nils Bohr debated Accidental'ism versus a Creator/Observer for 30 years. Your kind called Albert Einstein 'senile' in his old years. Care to bet on who wins the debate now that finally technology has caught up with the debate? Nils Bohr claimed his Standard Model of Physics was complete and that we could have an accidental Cosmos without an original Observer/Creator to start up the Uncertainty Principle (the U. P. is well proven FACT in physics by the way). Albert Einstein said wait a minute, back up the truck. You can't have a Cosmos where the Uncertainty Principle is proven without having also an Original Creator/Observer. The current Grid Model proves with in 90% that Albert Einstein wins the debate dude. You and the Secular Saints loose the debate finally, scientifically. The LHC will only take it from 90% to 98% proof. "God does not play dice with the Universe", is now science FACT. Accidental'ism is subservient to coherence, you loose the debate. Life didn't come from nothingness and random chaos. You loose the debate based on scientific FACTS.
#197 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 24 Jan 2010 at 07:21 AM
FACT?????BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers. From the Daily Mail
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
Chilling error: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrongly asserted that glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035
Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.
According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.
Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.
#198 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 24 Jan 2010 at 07:28 AM
Here's another FACT, Reality: The Australian provides more background on the discovery of the IPCC’s misstatement of glaciation trends and also speculates about the impact of Glaciergate (it seems the suffix, like the poor, will always be with us). A key passage:
Fred Pearce, a British environmental journalist who has found himself at the centre of the Glaciergate row, agrees with Cogley's prediction and says the stakes are now dangerously high for Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC.
"People who want to undermine the science on climate change will be crawling over the report looking for another mistake like this and if they do find another one it will be curtains for Pachauri," Pearce says. "The way he has handled this glacier issue means he's now a sitting duck if anything else turns up."
Having accused the Indian government of peddling "voodoo science" when it criticised the IPCCs glacier claims, Pachauri this week was forced into a humiliating apology and admission that instead of being solid, peer-reviewed science the 2035 claim had actually been "cut and pasted" from a WWF (formerly world wildlife fund) campaign document that, in turn, was based on a single-source news article written by Pearce in 1999.
#199 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 24 Jan 2010 at 07:36 AM
FACTS based on Dr. James Hansen, who was discredited first by a Teenage girl from Canada, Reality??? From the UK Telegraph Jan 22nd, James Delingpole; James Hansen: Would you buy a used temperature data set from THIS man? Let’s have a closer look at the character and motives of the man in charge of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), Dr James Hansen. Last year, he was described by his former course supervisor at NASA, Dr John Theon, as an “activist” and an embarrassment.
Or as the Great Booker puts it:
" If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)"
Now reader Michael Potts has drawn my attention to yet further evidence of Dr Hansen’s radical, virulently anti-democratic instincts. He has lent his support to an eco-fascist book advising on ways to destroy western industrialisation through propaganda, guile and outright sabotage.
In a scary new book called Time’s Up – whose free online version titled A Matter Of Scale you can read here – author Keith Farnish claims:
"The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization."
Like so many deep greens, Farnish looks forward to the End Times with pornographic relish (masquerading as mild reasonableness):
" I’m rarely afraid of stating the truth, but some truths are far harder to give than others; one of them is that people will die in huge numbers when civilization collapses. Step outside of civilization and you stand a pretty good chance of surviving the inevitable; stay inside and when the crash happens there may be nothing at all you can do to save yourself. The speed and intensity of the crash will depend an awful lot on the number of people who are caught up in it: greater numbers of people have more structural needs – such as food production, power generation and healthcare – which need to be provided by the collapsing civilization; greater numbers of people create more social tension and more opportunity for extremism and violence; greater numbers of people create more sewage, more waste, more bodies – all of which cause further illness and death."
He believes – as the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt does – that mankind is a blot on the landscape and that breeding (or for that matter, existence) should be discouraged:
" In short, the greatest immediate risk to the population living in the conditions created by Industrial Civilization is the population itself. "
#200 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 24 Jan 2010 at 07:44 AM
Where have all the Secular Saints gone, long time, missing....Secular Saint Axel says , " There are no AGW skeptics worth listening to. None of them knows how best to 'focus' their minds for the improvement of society, and none of them are ready to do the necessary work to found their accusations on." Shall we ban DDT for the benefit of society Axel, and give the poor dieing by the millions every year from Malaria nets instead? Very Focused Axel. Most of the nets end up as fishing nets and wedding veils. For the betterment of society, as long as you fools aren't the ones dieing because DDT was banned fo no good scientific reason.
Thus Axel the Secular Saint claims to be superior to skeptics. Case closed, don't need no stinkin' science, don't let facts get in the way of AGWing Dogma or Accidental'ism Dogma now. Perhaps the Supreme 'Superior' has something to say in the end Axel? Perhaps you are not actually the Center of the Universe? But I suppose it didn't occur to you to calibrate your assumptions with science. There can't possibly be 6 billion centers of the Universe, hence I'm absolutely sure you personally are not the center (and hence superior to no one). It is your 'Superiority Complexes' demonstrated on this thread that is the root cause of your Fascist ideational tactics. You might want to take a look in the mirror as to where you AGWers are heading.You are the future 'Green Shirts" of the Algore clan.
Who do you think made the rules necessary for your precious 'Science' to work anyway Axel and Secular Saints? Hey? And who makes sure the rules are maintained and arbitrated daily, huh? Who makes sure the oxygen molecules are evenly distributed in your room at night so you don't suffocate when they 'arbitrarily decide' to accumulate in the corner in your virtual reality random chaos Universe, huh?
Pretty silly of you to buy into that Accidental'ism nonsense now isn't it, hey? Who is John Galt?
#201 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 24 Jan 2010 at 11:13 AM
This is what you jokers from the AGWing clan got out of Jokenhagen (so how do you propose to save the world from AGWing now???;
The Indian and Chinese governments have had a rethink on signing the Copenhagen Accord, officials said on Saturday, and the UN has also indefinitely postponed its Jan 31 deadline for countries to accede to the document.
An Indian official said that though the government had been thinking of signing the accord because it “did not have any legal teeth and would be good diplomatically”; it felt irked because of repeated messages from both UN officials and developed countries to accede to it.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has written to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon seeking a number of clarifications on the implications of the accord that India -- with five other countries -- had negotiated in the last moments of the Copenhagen climate summit in December, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“That letter, and the defeat of the Democrats in the Massachusetts bypoll, has forced the UN to postpone the deadline indefinitely,” an official said. “With the Democrats losing in one of their strongholds, the chances of the climate bill going through the US senate have receded dramatically.
“So if the US is not going to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent, which was a very weak target anyway, why should we make any commitment even if it does not have any legal teeth?” the official said.
China also appears in no mood to sign the accord.
“With the deadline postponed, we are not going to sign now,” said a Chinese official now here to take part in the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) meeting to chalk out a climate strategy.
The meeting of the four environment ministers Sunday is likely to end with the announcement of a fund they will set up to help other developing countries cope with the effects of climate change, said an official of the environment ministry.
Only four countries -- Australia, Canada, Papua New Guinea and the Maldives -- have signed the Copenhagen Accord so far, though Brazil, South Africa and South Korea have also indicated their willingness to do so.
Though Australia and Canada have signed, they have not indicated the greenhouse gas emission reductions they are committing under the accord -- something developed countries are supposed to do.
#202 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 25 Jan 2010 at 05:30 AM
"An Extreme claim demands 'extreme evidence' to back it up!"
Carl Sagan
"And a solution that involves 'significant uncertainty' is not a solution."
Albert J.
"You're all gonna die!"
Albert Gore Jr.
Where is John Galt?
#203 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 25 Jan 2010 at 09:14 AM
"Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!"
Gomer Pyle
From The Sunday Times, January 24, 2010, UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri 'got grants through bogus claims'
The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion's share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.
It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus. The revelation comes just a week after The Sunday Times highlighted serious scientific flaws in the IPCC's 2007 benchmark report on the likely impacts of global warming.
The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 - an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report.
Since then, however, The Sunday Times has discovered that the same bogus claim has been cited in grant applications for TERI.
One of them, announced earlier this month just before the scandal broke, resulted in a £310,000 grant from Carnegie.
An abstract of the grant application published on Carnegie's website said: "The Himalaya glaciers, vital to more than a dozen major rivers that sustain hundreds of millions of people in South Asia, are melting and receding at a dangerous rate.
"One authoritative study reported that most of the glaciers in the region "will vanish within forty years as a result of global warming, resulting in widespread water shortages."
The Carnegie money was specifically given to aid research into "the potential security and humanitarian impact on the region" as the glaciers began to disappear. Pachauri has since acknowledged that this threat, if it exists, will take centuries to have any serious effect.
The money was initially given to the Global Centre, an Icelandic Foundation which then channelled it, with Carnegie's involvement, to TERI.
The cash was acknowledged by TERI in a press release, issued on January 15, just before the glacier scandal became public, in which Pachauri repeated the claims of imminent glacial melt.
It said: ""According to predictions of scientific merit they may indeed melt away in several decades."
The same release also quoted Dr Syed Hasnain, the glaciologist who, back in 1999, made the now discredited claim that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035.
He now heads Pachauri's glaciology unit at TERI which sought the grants and which is carrying out the glacier research.
Critics point out that Hasnain, of all people, should have known the claim that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 was bogus because he was meant to be a leading glaciologist specialising in the Himalayas.
Any suggestion that TERI has repeated an unchecked scientific claim without checking it, in order to win grants, could prove hugely embarrassing for Pachauri and the IPCC.
The second grant, from the EU, totalled £2.5m and was designed to "to assess the impact of Himalayan glaciers retreat".
It was part of the EU's HighNoon project, launched last May to fund research into how India might adapt to loss of glaciers.
#204 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 25 Jan 2010 at 09:42 AM
Axel, herebelow is all your "cool gadgets" we get from Trillions of tax dollars. Geee, I wonder why it's being spent inefficiently, let me see now....don't need no stinkin' science anyway, we get cool gadgets, right?
Pivot to Economic Illiteracy by Chris Horner
It's silly season in the run-up to this week's State of the Union address, in which President Obama will do everything he can to pretend that "green" bills are really "jobs" bills; consider that the cap-and-trade bills offer two years of assistance for the workers that piece of legislation would put out of work.
So it came to pass that five Democrat senators have — per today's Greenwire, just sent a letter to Obama boasting of their pet projects' inefficiency, naturally in the context of calling for more taxpayer subsidies. Signed by Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Greenwire writes that the letter "highlights that solar technology 'creates more jobs per megawatt of energy produced than any other form of energy.'"
That's the thing about "green jobs." They require more man-hours per kilowatt hour (or similar measure of energy created). Our five Democratic senators seem not to notice that this the definition of "inefficiency." Which is why, as the same story notes, Obama recently said that until his most recent infusion of subsidies the wind and solar industries were "about to collapse."
Such a bargain. Can't imagine why there is insufficient private capital to keep these bubbles afloat. But wait til these mostly temporary jobs are unionized — as is the objective of the "blue-green alliance." Talk about a race to the bottom currently underway for biggest entitlement boondoggle ever.
#205 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 25 Jan 2010 at 10:29 AM
Oh Please of Secular Saints, say it aint' so, what do we do now? Black Elvis, Reality Check, Axel-rod and Milli-gram, please save us from all this madness! What ever will we don now, "Save the Iguanas" won't cut it for long! Oh Lord of Chaos, please save us! Maybe if we sacrifice a Tree, a Hurricane or a Glacier, maybe a Polar Bear, this madness will cease!
From The Sunday Times, January 24, 2010, UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters
THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.
It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.
The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.
Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, has suggested British and overseas floods — such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 — could be linked to global warming. Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."
Last month Gordon Brown, the prime minister, told the Commons that the financial agreement at Copenhagen "must address the great injustice that . . . those hit first and hardest by climate change are those that have done least harm".
The latest criticism of the IPCC comes a week after reports in The Sunday Times forced it to retract claims in its benchmark 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035. It turned out that the bogus claim had been lifted from a news report published in 1999 by New Scientist magazine.
The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC's 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".
It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: "One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."
The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.
When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."
Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.
The claim will now be re-examined and could be withdrawn. Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a climatologist at the Universite Catholique de Louvain in Belgium, who is vice-chair of the IPCC, said: "We are reassessing the evidence and will publish a report on natural disasters and extreme weather with the latest findings. Despite recent events the IPCC process is still very rigorous and scientific."
Where is John Galt?
#206 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 25 Jan 2010 at 10:37 AM
Inspector Renault from Casablanca:
"I'm Shocked! Shocked! to find stupidity and corruption at the United Nations"
Where is John Galt?
#207 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 25 Jan 2010 at 10:51 AM
Hot Air Update for all you Secular Saints and AGWers;
"Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the US public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey. Since 2007, when the item was first included on the priorities list, dealing with global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom. Even so, the percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference [to the AGWing Hoax]."
Save those Iguanas!
#208 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 26 Jan 2010 at 11:48 AM
It just keeps coming....
Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
"I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol," Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. - (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot's full report. )
Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces "a document designed for uniformity and consensus." Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs "an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed," Christy said. "If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required," he added.
'The reception to my comments was especially cold'
Has Anyone any where seen John Galt? How about Ellie Light?
#209 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 26 Jan 2010 at 01:35 PM
AGWing is now officially Toast! In a recent poll it was Dead LAST in items of priority to worry about in the USA. and now your AWGing clan has lost Davos. You didn't even make the top 6 concerns! The next convention changed from Mexico City to Cancun, so it's officially just a party stop from now on, nothing serious to worry about.
The program at Davos. Sure, it's still rife with the words "climate change" but generally in the context of energy — specifically, how to get continued financing for the "green" energy projects all of these participants leapt into when they saw their pals in government taking your billions and transferring them to these inefficient "investments." But then I viewed the proceedings. After a few minutes of PC-babble, World Economic Forum executive chairman Klaus Schwab reported on the relative importance given to various issues: water is first, and the "greatest threat facing mankind" . . . doesn't even make the top six.
When you've lost Davos — on a pet project of wealthy elites and rent-seekers — you might want to tell your clients to short the thing.
Just in case you are heavily invested in ALgore Green stocks or Carbon Trades, you might want to quietly DUMP them all!
Anybody find out who Ellie Light is yet?
#210 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 27 Jan 2010 at 10:54 AM
Charles Homans, this explains exactly why you AGWers are anti-meteorologists; Because they busted your scam and Hoax wide open.
The Science & Public Policy institute, SPPI, has a new and lengthy PDF report — bringing together material from Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, and other sources — that addresses various temperature-data issues and controversies. It's a 6MB download, but a summary:
Authors veteran meteorologists Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts analyzed temperature records from all around the world for a major SPPI paper, Surface Temperature Records – Policy-driven Deception? The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant “global warming” at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of “global warming”.
That is to say, leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century.
First, they called it “global warming”. Then they noticed there had been no warming for 15 years, and cooling for 9, so they hastily renamed it “climate change”. Then they noticed the climate was changing no more than it ever had, so they tried “energy security”, and even named a Congressional Bill after it. Then they noticed that most Western nations already had bountiful energy security, in the form of vast, untapped domestic supplies of oil, gas, coal, or all three, so they switched to “ocean acidification”.
This is the new phantasmagoric for the tired, old scare whipped up by the NRDC and the environmental extremist movement for their own profit at our expense. The world’s corals, they tell us, will be eaten away by the acidified ocean within not more than ten years hence. Shellfish will be no more, their calcified carapaces and exoskeletons dissolved by the carbonic acid caused by our burning of fossil fuels. The oceans will die. Sound familiar?
Yet, as the indefatigable Craig Idso here demonstrates, the scientific consensus — if science were done by consensus at all, which it is not — is that the rising “ocean acidification” scare is just more piffle.
#211 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 27 Jan 2010 at 11:04 AM
AGWers and Secular Saints, meet your new enemy: Bill Gates. From Climate Progress, Bill Gates disses energy efficiency, renewables, and near-term climate action while embracing the magical thinking of Bjorn Lomborg (and George Bush)
Coincidentally, Gates is funding geoengineering research.
UPDATE: Gates is . . . unconcerned.
#212 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 27 Jan 2010 at 11:17 AM
We found 'Ellie Light', now if we can just find John Galt!
A male health-care worker who appears to be Ellie Light – the letter writer whose name appeared in dozens of newspapers nationwide praising President Obama – also is a diarist for the far-left Daily Kos website and an online friend of an individual tied to a radical pro-Obama group associated with William Ayers' Weathermen terrorist organization.
Winston Steward, 51, of Frazier Park, Calif., told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer he made up the name "Ellie Light" to protect himself from criticism.
Perhaps Winston Steward also helped the CRU 'Hide the Decline' and James Hansen hide the Medieval Warming Period?
Is Axel, aka, Milli-gram, aka Reality-check, aka Black Elvis really Winston?
Stay tuned! Meanwhile, save those Iguanas!
#213 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 28 Jan 2010 at 07:44 AM
What's the matter with all you Secular Saints and AGWers out there? Stop drinking Lattes and get out there and save the world! And the Iguanas! People are dieing! We're all gonna die! The Children, the Children!
Climate change advocates must match the intensity of conservative “tea party” activists, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said Wednesday.
“I want you to go out there and to start knocking on doors, and talking to people and telling people, ‘This has to happen,’ ” Kerry said in a speech at a climate and energy forum hosted by labor, farm and environmental groups.
“If tea party folks can go out there and get angry because they think their taxes are too high, for God's sakes a lot of citizens ought to get angry about the fact that they are being killed and our planet is being injured on a daily basis by the way that we provide our power and our fuel and the old practices,” Kerry added.
Kerry is trying to craft a compromise climate and energy bill with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).
#214 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 28 Jan 2010 at 07:53 AM
From the 'State of the Confusion' speech last night: 28 January 2010
President Barack Obama appeared to back away from creating a market in planet-warming emissions in his State of the Union speech yesterday in a bid to save the stalled climate change bill, while reaching out to Republicans by promoting nuclear energy and offshore drilling.
Call your brokers now, SELL, SELL, SELL. I hear there is a good deal on Al's boat, the BS-1!
Who is John Galt?
#215 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 28 Jan 2010 at 09:03 AM
From the Times of London: Science chief John Beddington calls for honesty on climate change, An excerpt:
The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.
John Beddington was speaking to The Times in the wake of an admission by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that it grossly overstated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were receding.
Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.
He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues.
Try honesty? How revolutionary.
#216 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 28 Jan 2010 at 09:50 AM
Poor Silly Secular Saints and Alarmists of the World, please take note! NB: you can't 'pivot' when you are in Middle Earth utilizing nothing but "Circular Logic'! Circular Logic is eternally pivoting already silly!
Here's a money line from President Obama's global warming riff during the "State of the Confusion" speech, right from Secular Saint Axel's mouth;
"even if you doubt the evidence [for Man-made global warming], providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future. Because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the world."
Now, put aside the rather thin empirical or even theoretical evidence for his economic hypothesis, and recall then-senator Tim Wirth's eerily similar formulation in 1988 — the very same year he helped invent global warming as a policy issue with his "stagecraft" hearing featuring James Hansen, with Al Gore accompanying him on the Alarmacord:
“try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Twenty-two years. Still waiting for warming. Still using the threat as the vehicle for Alarmist's agenda. And with rhetoric either cribbed or so closely paraphrased Wirth ought to demand a script credit. The very boldness of these fresh ideas and approaches send a thrill down my leg. Axel can demand copy rights!
Save the Iguanas!
#217 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 28 Jan 2010 at 09:58 AM
What? Water vapor (clouds) causes Global Warming? Isn't the by-product of Hydrogen Fuel cells water vapor?
Water vapour a 'major cause of global warming and cooling'
By David Derbyshire, Last updated at 7:47 AM on 29th January 2010
Climate scientists have overlooked a major cause of global warming and cooling, a new study reveals today.
American researchers have discovered that the amount of water high in the atmosphere is far more influential on world temperatures than previously thought.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246904/Water-vapour-responsible-slowdown-global-warming.html#ixzz0e0xRYRQ2
#218 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 29 Jan 2010 at 10:13 AM
Well, OK, now I'm convinced!!!!
If Osama Bin Laden believes in AGWing, then count me in now!
#219 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 29 Jan 2010 at 10:35 AM
The media sense blood in the water now, and besides, they need to pivot because the Hoax is exposed, so AGWers and Homans, how's it feel to be on the 'wrong side of sceince' now, hey?
UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article, The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.,,,
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent and Rebecca Lefort
Published: 9:00PM GMT 30 Jan 2010
#220 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 31 Jan 2010 at 06:39 AM
Just in from the 'Hot Air' Blog:::Minnesota wind turbines won’t work in cold weather, posted at 12:00 pm on January 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Minnesota invested itself in alternative energy sources years ago, and so the revelation that the state spent $3.3 million on eleven wind turbines hardly qualifies as news. However, the fact that they don’t work in cold weather does. KSTP reports that none of the wind turbines work, prompting the Twin Cities ABC affiliate to dub them “no-spin zones.”
#221 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 31 Jan 2010 at 08:21 AM
I have flown various aircraft around the world for the last 41 years. Each aircraft i have flown is equipped with at least two temperature sensors. I have also read detailed weather reports for thousands of locations as part of my job requirements.
Does this make me a climatologist? No absolutely not.
It does however qualify me to say that climatologists who believe in AGW are liars and frauds. I challenge the public to read these AGW studies and ask the simple questions. Would a tree ring study that rejects 11 trees from the data set and includes only one (that particular tree indicated possible warming) be accepted by my 8th grade science teacher?
Would that teacher accept temperature data that rejects high latitude and high elevation data and accepts lower latitude and elevation data. Would that get an A or an F?
Would a study that rejected rural temperatures, yet included urban temps in Russia, be accepted as valid by my 8th grade teacher?
Or would this so called scientist be traveling to school on the short bus.
The AGW "climatologists" could not graduate from junior high school using their scientific methods.
#222 Posted by CNW, CJR on Sun 31 Jan 2010 at 10:07 AM
Of course it’s not about the fact that ‘scientists’ at EAU and the CRU ‘hockey stick’ bunch compromised science and their own integrity by conspiring to manipulate data, hide and destroy data, and cherry pick data to fit a pre-determined agenda to scare people into believing what is ultimately a ‘pseudo science’ HOAX, man made global warming.
It’s about the fact that some ‘spies’ uncovered the conspiracy that matters here!
Scientist: Climate Docs Maybe Stolen by Spies, Monday, 01 Feb 2010 07:02 AM
Britain's former chief science adviser says the theft of climate e-mails from the University of East Anglia in southern England may have been the work of spies.
He also speculated that the hacking may have been the work of U.S.-based lobbyists.
#223 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 1 Feb 2010 at 08:17 AM
'Save those Iguanas' must be looking pretty good as an alternative to AGWing by now, yes?
The White House has dropped projected revenues from a "cap-and-trade" mechanism to fight climate change from its new budget, an administration official said, bowing to the possibility that the US Congress may not pass it.
#224 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 1 Feb 2010 at 09:35 AM
Connect the dots, in teh same paper the Guardian: 1 Feb 2010;
How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies,
Claims based on email soundbites are demonstrably false – there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation
Thenalso, 1 Feb 2010; Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws,
Exclusive: Key study by East Anglia professor Phil Jones was based on suspect figures.
A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.
It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist.
Wang said: "I have been exonerated by my university on all the charges. When we started on the paper we had all the station location details in order to identify our network, but we cannot find them any more.
Days after receiving the request for information from the British climate change sceptic David Holland, Jones asked Prof Mike Mann of Pennsylvania State University in the United States: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise.
"Can you also email Gene [Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist in Boulder, Colorado] and get him to do the same ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann, also from Boulder] to do the same."
Any one seen John Galt?
#225 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 2 Feb 2010 at 06:48 AM
It seems there will never be a shortage of flat-earthers, no matter how far we progress. There will always be Puritans who think fire is magic, and not a chemical reaction. That anyone would take the opinions of "TV weathermen" as fact would be a lot funnier if it wasn't so sad and pathetic.
#226 Posted by Greg Smith, CJR on Tue 2 Feb 2010 at 02:27 PM
Grego!!!! sweetybaby!!!!!!
Your "flat-eathers" are calling for proper scientific procedures and processes to be followed if we are going to believe your "OMG the sky is falling scenarios."
Making statements like the hurricanes are going to be "gigantic" and "the glaciers are melting" (of course, to be accompanied by the short film of the ice calving from a glacier. BTW a normal process that occurs with EVERY GLACIER that ends at the sea.) I included this fact because you obviously don't know very much about anything.
Well hunnychild, it sounds a lot like the "flat-earthers" are sane and the climate scientists are hysterical little children, who are having a major kaniption because the adults aren't falling for their BS.
Temperature isn't rocket science sweety. And these guys certainly aren't rocket scientists. The question now, is if they are really scientists at all?
Also, there is a little question about your deductive reasoning.
#227 Posted by CNW, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 12:41 AM
Greg Smith (Jones, etc.), look in the mirror, and you will see not only Flat Earth, but Circular logic Middle Earth also. Why are AGWers so afraid of real science now, hey? What makes climatologists any more qualified than weather men? No one climatologist is fully qualified in the 20 some odd scientific disciplines it takes to figure out the climate drivers and historical data any way.
Riddle me this Smith-Jones, and see if you aren't really on the wrong side of science, acting as a 'Green Shirt' AGWer Inquisitor (consensus, don't need science because it's de-facto fact, repeat the Big Lie, attack the messenger, pivot the message, all the ideational Fascist tactics employed by AGWers so far to avoid via circular logic confronting the real hurdles below making yuor AGWer Theory less than fact):
Here is a list of serious hurdles AGWing needs to climb successfully before Theory and consensus becomes scientific fact;
1) How come the Medieval Warming Period was as warm or warmer than today without industrialization CO2 emissions?
2) How come after WWII, with a huge industrial spurt and exponential growth in CO2 emissions, there was a cooling trend for many years?
3) How come we have been on a cooling trend for the last 10 years, longer if we eliminate the 1998 El Nino affect?
4) How can you apply any credibility to any computer model when the CRU and GISS data bases can no longer be trusted?
5) How can you apply any credibility to any computer model when none can accurately reverse calculate correctly climate for the last 1 million years or predict the weather 3 months from now? In fact, a computer model with a data base of random numbers predicted more accurately then some of those AGWers base their conclusions on!
6) How will you constraint the difference between normal warming and man made warming? What are the errors involved ins such constraints?
7) What is the volume and size of the atmosphere now? What was it 50, 100 years ago?
8) How is the % sampling smoothed over the entire atmosphere, and what are the errors involved in the 'smoothing'?
9) How much radiation is captured as CO2 emissions continue to rise? Current research suggests this is far from linear and may even level off in affects for temperatures.
#228 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 07:11 AM
Greg-Gary Smith-Jones etc, in case you got lost in Flat and Middle Earth, here are today's head lines;
Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review
A close reading of the hacked emails exposes the real process of science, its jealousies and tribalism
Read more: doubts about "hockey stick" graph revealed
No apology from IPCC chief Pachauri for glacier fallacy
Both Russian and Chinese temperature data sets are being doubted now. Much of the data has disappeared.
Anyone seen John Galt lately?
#229 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 07:23 AM
Bye Bye AGWing!
The Emerging Post-Climategate Consensus [Edward John Craig]
It has been an interesting couple of days for the Guardian's Fred Pearce.
On February 1, he wrote a piece called "How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies." No surprise there, considering Pearce is an environmental writer at the left-wing Guardian and someone inclined to slap the title The Last Generation: How Nature Will Take Her Revenge for Climate Change on his latest book — a volume blurbed by Gaia fantasist James Lovelock thus: "We are now at war with Gaia and have no chance whatever of winning. Fred Pearce's scholarly and thoughtful book analyzes the battlefield and will guide us in a sensible retreat to the place where we can negotiate a peace." So that all fits, right?
But, uh, then — in short order — came these Pearce entries (still in the Guardian, mind you):
Feb. 1: "Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege"
Feb. 1: "Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws"
Feb. 2: "Controversy behind climate science's 'hockey stick' graph"
Feb. 2: "Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review"
Feb. 2: "No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy"
Don't stop now, Mr. Pearce — you're on a roll.
#230 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 07:35 AM
In discussing Climategate in the Financial Post, Kevin Libin notes not only the financial interests but the ideological blinders that can interfere with purely scientific inquiry.
[T]he events that have now been dubbed "Climategate" provide an important public service, reminding us that scientists, too, can be close-minded and crooked.
Environmental alarmists have long insinuated as much, baselessly smearing critical scientists — the esteemed MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen; former National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz — as corrupt industry shills. James Hoggan, the chairman of the David Suzuki Foundation, calls skeptics "fake" scientists peddling "deception." But having implied that scientists can be led astray, why assume only IPCC types are immune? The climate panic is, after all, rather big business itself (as Weaver's publisher knows). The CRU alone lured $22 million in research grants; Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund raised almost a half-billion dollars last year; Al Gore made a mint investing in CO2-reducing firms.
It's naïve to presume that nowhere could there be vested interests in this great slush of shekels. But it isn't just money that can blind scientists to truth; they are, like us, mere emotional and fallible mortals. As David Resnik, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences bioethicist, has written, universities promote ethical research codes precisely because biases exist (though such codes are only as good as those upholding them). Bias happens, too, "when researchers fail to critically examine their work because they want to believe that their research is accurate," Resnik notes. Or where they see only "what they want or expect to see."
#231 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 07:42 AM
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled "Global Warming: The Other Side," presents evidence that our National Climatic Data Center has been manipulating weather data just as the now disgraced and under investigation British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The NCDC is a division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Its manipulated climate data is used by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which is a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. John Coleman's blockbuster five-part series can be seen at www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html.
The Coleman documentary presents research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo. During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their lost made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. That means data loss was not simply the result of station closings but deliberate decisions by CRU to ignore them in order to hype their global warming claims. D'Aleo and Smith report that our NCDC engaged in similar deceptive activity where they have dropped stations, particularly in colder climates, higher elevations or closer to the polar regions.
#232 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 07:46 AM
Crony capitalism = the following;
Mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake. Therefore, many people who recognize the scientific fraud underlying global warming claims are likely to defend it anyway. Automobile companies have invested billions in research and investment in producing "green cars." General Electric and Phillips have spent millions lobbying Congress to outlaw incandescent bulbs so that they can force us to buy costly compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). Farmers and ethanol manufacturers have gotten Congress to enact laws mandating greater use of their product, not to mention massive subsidies. Thousands of major corporations around the world have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions including giants like IBM, Nike, Coca-Cola and BP, the oil giant. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Dell have vowed to become "carbon neutral."
Then there's Chicago Climate Futures Exchange that plans to trade in billions of dollars of greenhouse gas emission allowances. Corporate America and labor unions, as well as their international counterparts have a huge multi-trillion dollar financial stake in the perpetuation of the global warming fraud. Federal, state and local agencies have spent billions of dollars and created millions of jobs to deal with one aspect or another of global warming.
It's deeper than just money. Schoolteachers have created polar-bear-dying lectures to frighten and indoctrinate our children when in fact there are more polar bears now than in 1950. They've taught children about melting glaciers. Just recently, the International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit that their Himalayan glacier-melting fraud was done to "impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."
#233 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 10:14 AM
Cosmic Ray Theory of Climate Control:
It is most interesting to see interdisciplinary real science being applied in the Cosmic Ray Theory (by the way a Theory with only 1 abnormality to explain over 1 million years of climate history, unlike AGWers models and data bases now in question).
Interesting also that scientists didn't even know how clouds were formed until this research took place, just a few years ago.
Is there global warming? Yes, it appears to be following previous trends in history, with a cooling period now in affect for the next 20-30 years. Is there abnormal accelerating Global Warming due to human emitted CO2? There seems to be no "peer-2-peer concrete evidence" of this yet. There is significant doubt on a lot of work done so far because of the corrupted CRU and GISS data bases utilized in the majority of the research so far however.
Is there a current cooling trend in spite of "increased human emitted CO2" over the last decade? Yes, there is a slight cooling now for the last 10 years, longer if you exclude the 1998 El Nino year, and cooling appears to be with us for the next 20-30 years.
Did the Medieval Warming Period get as warm as today with industrial CO2? Yes it did.
Did AGWers try to take out every mention of this MWP in Wikipedia? Yes they did. Why would they do that?
Is there a reliable computer model that can predict weather & micro-climate patterns accurately for the next 6 months? No, none exist today. If you have one, sign up for your Nobel prize and commercialize it, because every weather prediction service will pay big bucks for it.
Did the Industrial growth after WWII produce a significant increase in warming corresponding directly to the amount of increased CO2? No, there was a cooling trend.
We can write an Encyclopedia about what is wrong with the AGWer "Theory". Guess what, that makes it suspect. That's science, deal with it! Live by science, die by science. Get over it. Even Galileo got his Tidal theories wrong.
#234 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 12:21 PM
Waiting for that peer-2-peer reviewed computer model that can accurately predict the weather and micro-climate patterns 6 months for now you AGWers!
I have a buyer locked in and ready to spring big $$$ for this.
Come on, let's have it! Ready to invest heavily in this...need to act now!
#235 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 3 Feb 2010 at 01:24 PM
Feeding on their own!
Greenpeace UK is putting pressure on IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri to resign over Glaciergate.
#236 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 4 Feb 2010 at 04:05 AM
Obama's Secret Slush Fund
President Obama and Budget Director Peter Orszag have thrown transparency out the window and created a black box for taxes and spending on climate change hidden inside the administration's 2011 budget.
The big news in last year’s budget release was the revelation that the Obama administration planned to use cap-and-trade to raise $646 billion dollars over ten years to finance its big spending programs. At the time I wrote here in the Fox Forum that estimate was a lowball of what actually constituted the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, something White House economist Jason Furman later admitted when he revealed the real revenue would likely be triple the official estimate. So the first thing I checked in this year’s budget was how much revenue was expected from the cap-and-trade energy tax, to which the president reiterated his commitment in his State of the Union address last week. The surprising answer is the budget actually has, literally, a blank line for the cap-and-trade tax. A black box. A slush fund. A secret budget-within-the-budget. Talk about a lack of transparency.
#237 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 4 Feb 2010 at 04:17 AM
10's of thousands of dissenting scientists have signed the Petition Project now which states: " There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
#238 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 4 Feb 2010 at 08:58 AM
Can you say, "Agenda Driven' science?
Among the original e-mails hacked from East Anglia and posted online was, "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
#239 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 4 Feb 2010 at 09:04 AM
Chris W wrote, "He would have to be doing at least 10 broadcasts a day, everyday for more than 50 years," I don't know about 50 years worth but, if you count each camera appearance, my local guys can rack up a half dozen appearances in a newscast, counting teasers, forecast, and reminders. ;-)
#240 Posted by Tom Hubbard, CJR on Sat 6 Feb 2010 at 10:16 PM
*ahem* There are certainly more classes of scientists in the world than climatologists and meteorologists!! Astrophysicists have recently been weighing in, and emphasizing the potential role of solar variability in the heating and cooling cycles of the planet.
Past cooling appears to coincide with solar minimums, but the climatology community appears to discount this physical phenomena nearly completely. Advanced research into cloud production from greater cosmic radiation during a minimum is ongoing at CERN in Europe ("CLOUD" project), looking to shed light on this.
Please watch this excellent speech given at CERN:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
#241 Posted by CRS, Dr.P.H., University of Illinois, CJR on Sun 7 Feb 2010 at 02:31 AM
Having [for the time being until technology caught up with his ideational experiment] lost the famous 'Box of Light" debate with Nils Bohr at the 1930 Solvay Conference, Albert Einstein declared to his diner guests including George Bernard Shaw (who was Master of Ceremonies for the night), "...the existence and destiny of our people depends less on external forces than on us remaining faithful to the moral traditions which have enabled us to survive thousands of years despite the fierce storms that have broken over our heads." Then Einstein went on to heap praise on those 'of noble spirit and with a strong sense of justice' who had devoted their lives to uplifting human society and liberating the individual from degrading oppression.
Now physics is not sure where they are. GPS has so far proven Einstein was right and Bohr was wrong concerning the box of light experiment. But perhaps it is just an issue of where to draw the Macro/Micro line. Perhaps that line in the end is just imaginary anyway. And where does current GPS analysis leave General Relativity and the Uncertainty Twins; Energy and Time?
But, Einstein's words certainly apply to AGWing as much today, as they applied to the Socialist Fascism he directed them at in 1930. Isn’t it a bit ironic the Socialist Fascists of today claim to be on the correct side of science, just as they did in the 1930’s? Notice how Eugenics, very much in vogue in the 1930's, has crept back into the debate at Copenhagen?
#242 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 7 Feb 2010 at 03:59 AM
We can assume everyone has seen pics of the West Wing of the White House buried in snow today.
And of course computer models just 15 months ago 'accurately' predicted all this snow in Washington DC, yes? or did they now?
RFK, Jr. 15 months ago: Global warming means no snow or cold in DC
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who flies around on private planes so as to tell larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the planet, wrote a column last year on the lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C.
In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.
And you AGWers want the world to believe you can predict what the climate will be in 50 or 100 years from now?
#243 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 7 Feb 2010 at 11:40 AM
Reality Bites! The so called 'consensus' is draining away, even in the UK, AGWer central.
perhaps it's due to all the great scientific arguments by Secular Saints like Axel, Black Elvis, Milli-gra, John Smith and BioLuminescence-Headlines from today;
How our belief in climate change is draining away as number of doubters rises by 10% in three months. A growing number of Britons are sceptical about global warming, a poll has revealed.
The great global warming collapse, As the science scandals keep coming, the [hot] air has gone out of the climate-change movement.
#244 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 8 Feb 2010 at 03:18 AM
Don't forget to check out the funny 'Green Shirt' satires in the Audi Super Bowl commercials on YouTube.
Audi 2010 Green Car Super Bowl Commercials
#245 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 8 Feb 2010 at 04:59 AM
I'm melting,,,,melting....melting..........
Wicked Witch from Oz
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, move along, nothing to see here, move along.
The Wizard of Oz
A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.
Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.
The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.
This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035.
#246 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 8 Feb 2010 at 05:13 AM
Live by Tree Rings, Die by Tree Rings;
Winston Wheeler, a researcher at the University of Arizona, collects wood samples from a dead tree that is partially submerged in Lake Bosumtwi, Ghana. Lake mud and the ancient trees provided evidence of at least six “megadroughts” in West Africa in the last 3,000 years.
Wow, and not an SUV in site in Africa 3000 years ago. Hmmm? Ahh, yes, I need to modify this per the AGWers new pivot, sorry. Not an SUV in Africa 3000 years ago THAT WE KNOW ABOUT! Maybe one exists and we just haven't uncovered the missing 'link' yet. We need to err on the side of caution just in case! For the greater good! For the Children! Need not Greed! For each according to his ability and to each according to his need!
#247 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 8 Feb 2010 at 05:27 AM
All 'Gates' lead to the IPCC.
First there was Climate Gate, showing that the peer review process has descended into a criminal farce of scientific malpractice where adjusting and hiding data was de-rigueur. Hello Fraud. ClimateGate also spread to the US, where 75% of worldwide data is systematically ignored or “adjusted” until it tells the right story.
Then there was PachauriGate, showing that the man in charge of the IPCC was chairman of boards of companies that profit handsomely as the scare-factor is ramped up.
Along comes GlacierGate: about the IPCC “accidentally” using a WWF report instead of peer reviewed science papers. After calling a 60 page Indian Govt report on glaciers “voodoo science” they were forced to apologize for that “one paragraph that was wrong”. Then Donna LeFramboise in just one day of hunting, found 16 other references in the IPCC 4th report to the “scientific journal” called “WWF”. Proving that really, the big safety-mechanism of the IPCC reputation was not in its exhaustive reviews but was in the way it made its documents so big, so dull and so unreadable, that hardly anyone actually … reads them. Call it the thousand-page-cloak-of-invisibility.
Camouflage for poor science, poor standards, bad logic, and too many vested interests to name.
Now there is AmazonGate. The IPCC fabricates disastrous claims about the Amazon forest, and references a document written by activists that doesn’t even support the claim.
Will 40% of the Amazonian forests react drastically to even a slight change in rainfall? Is there a tipping point for the Amazon? The reference turns out to be an Australian forest specialist, who works for not just the WWF, but also for the World Conservation Union, and who according to his CV mostly works in Australia and Asia, and not the Amazon. His co-author is a journalist who’s worked on Greenpeace campaigns and for the WWF. Then, to top it off, the assertions that the IPCC attributes to them can’t even be found in the report that they wrote.
All Gates lead to humiliation and embarrassment for the followers of the great cult of the carbonistas.
And we haven’t yet got even close to the scandal of the faulty assumptions that led to the faulty models and alarmist predictions in the first place, or the even bigger scandal of how the observational evidence that proves the assumptions false is and was ignored by the IPCC.
#248 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 8 Feb 2010 at 06:15 AM
Since this rift started as a dis' of meteorologists because they refused to keep repeating "The Big Lie', let's take a look at what Climatologists do with their grant money. Species-Gate (Wow, there is really a 'Climate Change' Chair!, next we will have a 'Revolving Earth' Chair!)...SpeciesGate.
Climatologist Extraordinaire: Prof. Barry Brook, who is he? It appears he holds the Sir Hubert Wilkins 'Chair of Climate Change' and notes his works as “My research focuses on global environmental change: human impacts on natural systems, in all its manifold forms”, he lists;
* Director of Climate Science, Environment Institute
* Climate and Energy blog/website: BraveNewClimate
He leads a research staff of 7 and they supervise 8 PhD students who are currently researching the following:
- Demography and control of disease-carrying tropical mosquitoes in northern Australia.
- Factors controlling population size and extinction risk.
- Population dynamics of small mammals in Kakadu National Park.
- Does the inclusion of fine scale information to coarse parameter models improve population viability forecasts for small coastal and arid mammals?
- Conservation status of Corucia zebrata in the Solomon Islands. (a skink)
- The interactive effects of habitat degradation and climate change on Southeast Asian and Australian birds.
- Impact of climate change and habitat fragmentation on the herpetofauna of Southeast Asia.
-Demographic impacts of future sea-level rise on Adelaide: a case study for Australian populations.
These all appear to be valid research if one is to take the word of Professor Norman Meyers who has stated:
If we do not do more, Myers says, the planet will continue to lose around 50 species per day compared to the natural extinction rate of one species every five years. He projected this rate in the late 1980s to much criticism, but the figure is now widely accepted by scientists. “The whole thing is taking place in what you might call a flickering of an evolutionary eye,” said Myers. “It’s hard to keep up with unless we damp down on some of the causes of the evolution.”
Which means we must have lost approx 365,000 species since 1990, mind you, it’s hard to actually ascertain how many species there are because it appears no one actually knows.
Further investigation shows that here in Australia we have lost the following species recently:
Birds – last mainland bird extinction was 1920s – the Robust White eye.
Amphibians – possibly 4 haven’t been recorded in the last 30 years.
Reptiles – 3 mainland, 1 Norfolk Island
Mammals – the last recorded extinction was the pig footed bandicoot in the 50s
Invertebrates – 6 possibly – the last in 1996.
It is also interesting to note that main donations of funds for Professor Myers work is the World Wildlife Fund, the Royal Society, NASA. Say no more! Check him out in Wikipedia along with the list of exint species in Australia. It appears the AWGers need to scrub more than just the Medieval Warming Period from Wikipedia!
#249 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 8 Feb 2010 at 07:25 AM
Below is why the current US Congress is trying to block Natural Gas exploration via legislation against fracturing, necessary to extract gas from shale and coal beds. So they can make Wind and Solar more competitive-and enrich their buddies, not so they can save the world. ‘Crony Capitalism’ and ‘Monopoly Science’.
Pulitzer-prize winning energy author Daniel Yergin noted in the Wall Street Journal recently that the natural gas revolution has surged from 1990, when natural gas was about 10 percent of total U.S. energy production, to today, when natural gas is around 40 percent, and growing fast, with shale gas largely responsible.
"Proven U.S. natural gas reserves have risen to 245 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2008 from 177 Tcf in 2000, despite having produced nearly 165 Tcf during these years," Yergin and his co-author Robert Ineson wrote. "In the lower 48 states, thought to be in decline as a natural gas source, production surged an astonishing 15 percent from the beginning of 2007 to mid-2008. This increase is more than most other countries produce combined."
Peter Huber of the Manhattan Institute has written an important analysis in which he argues that natural gas is a "carbon strategy that we can afford."
Huber argued that oil's share of the U.S. energy market peaked just shy of 50 percent in 1977; today oil's share of the U.S. energy market is under 40 percent.
"Gas and coal grabbed half of what oil lost," Huber wrote. "Uranium took the rest. Oil now depends on transportation for over 70 percent of U.S. demand."
#250 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 02:50 AM
Vote now, who will win the Media battle over the Winter Olympics, AGWers or Skeptics?
AGWers will claim no snow because of AGWing. Skeptics will point out weather does nor equal climate, nor is there any evidence that man made CO2 stopped Vancouver Snow, and dumped all on the East Coast instead.
Skeptics will point out the Carbon Foot print of making and then trucking in all the 'man made' snow. AGWers will say it's for the greater good, each according to his ability, each rewarded according to his need. It was for the greater need, the greater good, the Children of the world needed the Olympics to go on. We have to do something, right? Besides, look at all the cool gadgets we will get.Like 'green' cars that can't brake.
Get ahead of the curve, vote now for the winner, and vote often! AGWers vote really often, with the help of ACORN!
#251 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 04:38 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration on Monday proposed a new agency to study and report on the 'changing climate'.
As soon as this is approved, they plan to set up an agency to watch the Earth Revolve also.
Following on will be setting up stadiums around the nation so people can observe the sun rising, and then setting again.
#252 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 01:16 PM
Meet your New American "Green Shirts" at the 'Apollo Alliance', a radical and terrorist clearing house:
The Apollo Alliance, whose board members include a slew of radicals, was instrumental in helping draft a "clean technology" bill being pushed by U.S. senators.
The Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology Act of 2009, or IMPACT, was sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and is also being promoted by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. The act seeks to establish a $30 billion revolving loan fund to help small and mid-sized manufacturers retool their factories to produce "clean technologies" and become more energy efficient.
The Apollo Alliance claims it was founded in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks "to catalyze a clean energy revolution in America."
Among its board members are a grouping of radicals, including:
* Van Jones, President Obama's controversial former "green jobs czar" who resigned in September after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization and signed a statement that accused the Bush administration of possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Jones also called for "resistance" against the U.S.
Green For All, a group co-founded by Jones, is a formal backer of Brown's IMPACT Act.
Jones himself decried the Apollo Alliance mission as "sort of a grand unified field theory for progressive left causes."
* Joel Rogers, a founder of the socialist New Party. President Obama was a New Party member. In an interview, New Party co-founder and Marxist activist Carl Davidson previously recounted Obama's participation with the New Party.
* Jeff Jones, a founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist group who spent time on the run from law enforcement agencies while his group carried out a series of bombings of U.S. government buildings.
Jones joined the Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, from which the Weathermen splintered in the fall of 1965. Two years later, he became the SDS' New York City regional director, a position in which he participated in nearly all of the group's major protests until 1969, including the 1968 Columbia University protests and the violent riots that same year at the Democratic National Convention.
In 1969, Jones founded the Weathermen with terrorists William Ayers and Mark Rudd when the three signed an infamous statement calling for a revolution against the American government inside and outside the country to fight and defeat what the group called U.S. imperialism. President Obama came under fire for his longtime, extensive association with Ayers.
Jones was a main leader and orchestrator of what became known as the Days of Rage, a series of violent riots in Chicago organized by the Weathermen. The culmination of the riots came when he gave a signal for rowdy protestors to target a hotel that was the home of a local judge presiding over a trial of anti-war activists.
Jones went underground after he failed to appear for a March 1970 court date to face charges of "crossing state lines to foment a riot and conspiring to do so." He moved to San Francisco with Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn. That year, at least one bombing claimed by the Weathermen went off in Jones' locale at the Presidio Army base.
Jones' Weathermen took credit for multiple bombings of U.S. government buildings, including attacks against the U.S. Capitol March 1, 1971; the Pentagon May 19, 1972, and a 1975 bombing of the State Department building.
Now, let's go save the world!
#253 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 05:18 AM
Daughter blames mother for global warming
By Dr. Paul Donohue, SPECIAL TO THE POST-DISPATCH, 01/27/2010
Dear Dr. Donohue — My daughter complains that I flatulate more often than most individuals. Furthermore, she claims that the gas an individual passes contributes to global warming. I don't know if I am physically able to keep my gas to myself to go green. Is my daughter really right?
Is your daughter for real? No human can stop the production of intestinal gas. Every human passes gas, including your daughter. People do so from 10 to 20 times a day.
#254 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 12:13 PM
The global-warming thrill ride looks to be coming to an end, undone by the same politically motivated serial exaggeration and moral preening that discredited previous apocalypses. On the heels of the East Anglia University “Climategate” scandal have come a series of embarrassing retractions from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding some of the most loudly trumpeted signs and wonders of global warming, such as the ludicrous claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear within 30 years, that nearly half of the Amazon jungle was at imminent risk of destruction from a warming planet, and that there was a clear linkage between climate change and weather-related economic losses. The sources for these claims turned out to be environmental advocacy groups — not rigorous, peer-reviewed science.
To be sure, these revelations do not in and of themselves mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is false. But this is probably the beginning of a wholesale revision of the conventional wisdom on climate change. One of the central issues of Climategate — the veracity and integrity of the surface-temperature records used for our estimates of warming over the last few decades — is far from resolved. The next frontier is likely to be a fresh debate about basic climate sensitivity itself. There have been several recent peer-reviewed papers suggesting much lower climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases than the IPCC “consensus” computer models predict. And alternative explanations for observed climate change in the Arctic and elsewhere, such as shifts in ocean currents and wind patterns, should receive a second look.
Dissenters who pointed out these and other flaws in the IPCC consensus were demonized as deniers and ignored by the media, but they are now vindicated. (The American media are still averting their gaze, though the British press — even the left-wing Guardian and the Independent — is turning on the climate campaigners with deserved vengeance.) The IPCC is mumbling about non-specific reforms and changes in the process shaping its next massive climate report, due out in three or four years. The IPCC should emulate a typical feature of American government commissions and include a minority report from dissenters or scientists with a different emphasis. But the next IPCC report may not matter much: With the collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen process and the likely rejection of cap-and-trade in Congress, climate mania may have run its course.
#255 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 01:31 PM
WASHINGTON, DC - Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, responded to Penn State's announcement today concerning its investigation into possible research misconduct by Dr. Michael Mann.
Penn State's internal inquiry found further investigation is warranted to determine if Dr. Mann "engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities."
"I want to commend Penn State for recognizing the seriousness of the allegations leveled at Dr. Mann by launching an initial inquiry into whether he committed research misconduct," Senator Inhofe said. "As the University moves to the next phase of its investigation, I believe the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation should also commence an investigation to examine possible violations of federal laws and policies governing taxpayer-funded research.
"The stakes involved here are enormous. The scientific work in question is part of a larger enterprise behind federal climate change policies that will cost American consumers trillions of dollars. So when we learn, as we did last week, that the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report included serious errors, raising questions about the integrity of its work, we need to reassure the American people that their tax dollars are supporting objective scientific research rather than political agendas."
#256 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 02:46 PM
Sen. Inhofe’s Family Builds Igloo for Global Warming Spokesman Al Gore in Snow-laden D.C.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
They added signs to the snow dwelling that read, “AL GORE’S NEW HOME!” and “HONK IF YOU (LOVE) GLOBAL WARMING.”
Beeep Beeep!
#257 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 11 Feb 2010 at 11:36 AM
It isn’t the snow outside that has discredited global warming. It’s the chill the warmists alarmists have imposed on scientific inquiry. They are acting as enforcers of orthodoxy, not seekers of truth.
Scientists who disputed the manmade-global-warming hypothesis were not surprised by what the East Anglia e-mails revealed. It’s an open secret that academic institutions have been inhospitable to heretics on this question for some time. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at Harvard, told Commentary, “These are not ambiguous. They’re talking about suppressing other scientists. But there’s no surprise. Those of us who are in the field have seen this. The only surprise is that someone actually got hold and sorted these documents.”
Not only did scientists twist the peer-review process, manipulate data, and attempt to suppress dissent, they also destroyed records — is this the scientific method for which liberals are going to the barricades?
The entire superstructure of climate alarmism rests on data that are doubtful and possibly fraudulent. The Science and Public Policy Institute has evaluated surface-temperature records and found, among other things, that 1) instrumental data from the pre-satellite era are virtually useless; 2) fewer than 25 percent of the 6,000 temperature stations that once existed are still operative; 3) comprehensive ocean data have been available only since 2003 and have shown no warming; and 4) higher altitude, higher latitude, and rural stations were the most likely to be lost, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
As John Hinderaker of the Power Line blog has reported, the U.N. IPCC report itself does not even accurately represent the views of the scientists who signed it. Key sections expressing caveats and acknowledging countervailing evidence were altered after the purported authors had put their names to it.
#258 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 09:05 AM
New Paper in Science: Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher while CO2 was lower:
Pending confirmation of the study's findings, it might be time to rehearse the walk-back on sea-level rise: Fine. So maybe there isn't a direct connection between rising CO2 concentrations and civilization-destroying sea-level rise. But no climate progressives have ever argued that there was. It's ocean acidification that has always been our principal concern — our only one, really, when you rethink about it.
Expect a peer-reviewed report on ocean acidification as the number-one threat to the Maldives to go into production immediately.
#259 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 09:38 AM
Forecasters said currently there is snow on the ground in some part of every state except Florida, which is expected to get a couple of inches in the panhandle on Friday.
Let's hear it for snow in all 50 states at the same time! Whooo Hoooo!
#260 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 12:08 PM
NYTs and Time may be repeating the Big Lie (AGWing caused these blizzards), but science does not agree. Professor of Climatology at Winnipeg University, Dr. Tim Ball explains, the Northern Polar Cold air cap is pushing father south now, similar to during the 1770's during the American Revolution (Valley Forge, etc.). This is due to the global cooling we have been experiencing (in spite of increased CO2 outputs) for about a decade now. The reason Vancouver is minus snow now is because of the waves in the jet streamer, discovered by Rossby and the B-52 bombers in WW II. Rossby waves in the atmosphere are easy to observe as (usually 4-6) large-scale meanders of the jet stream. When these loops become very pronounced, they detach the masses of cold, or warm, air that become cyclones and anticyclones and are responsible for day-to-day weather patterns at mid-latitudes. If you look them up in Wikipedia you will see why the East is blanketed in snow, while Vancouver is not.
#261 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 12:51 PM
Is that the sound of the "Pension Bubble" bursting now?
[W]hy are the media so invested in the warming notion, given the countervailing evidence, the fact that the last climate theory (the global cooling scare of the 1970s) was so quickly disproven, and that it is self-evident that CO2, that most persecuted of molecules, is essential for life[?]
Well, the BBC, a prime proponents of warming theory, or AGW, has heavily invested its pension fund in the theory, and thus have had a major non-scientific reason for their bias. As revealed this weekend in The Express:
"The corporation is under investigation after being inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage of climate change is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. The £8billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to reverse an estimated £2billion deficit. Concerns are growing that BBC journalists and their bosses regard disputed scientific theory that climate change is caused by mankind as 'mainstream' while huge sums of employees’ money is invested in companies whose success depends on the theory being widely accepted. The BBC is the only media organisation in Britain whose pension fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which has more than 50 members across Europe."
The IIGCC is an interesting group. As their website explains:
"The IIGCC is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4 trillion."
Wait. . . . I hate to be a skeptic, but did they just say . . . “Four Trillion Euros”?
They did. The Chairman of IIGCC investment group is Peter Dunscombe, who also happens to be the BBC’s Head of Pensions Investment.
#262 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 13 Feb 2010 at 05:10 AM
The strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed.
By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they've discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe. As Mr. Mead succinctly puts it: “Skeptics up, Obama down, cap-and-trade dead.” That also goes for Canada, whose climate policies are inevitably tied to those of the United States.
“I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper skepticism,” says John Beddington, the chief scientific adviser to the British government. He is a staunch believer in man-made climate change, but he also points out the complexity of climate science. “Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.” In his view, it's time to stop circling the wagons and throw open the doors. How much the public will keep caring is another matter.
#263 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 13 Feb 2010 at 07:48 AM
Industrialization and SUVs 81,000 years ago? Let's see you AGWers defend this one;
A team of scientists around the geochemist Jeffrey Dorale, from the University of Iowa, claims the Mediterranean some 81,000 years ago stood a full meter higher than it does today.
The results were published in the journal Science on Friday. Dorale and his team won't speculate why sea levels were so high back then -- or why, in fact, they seemed to surge all of a sudden -- but they believe their findings have "major implications for future concerns with sea-level change," according to the Science Web site.
Mallorca is a good place to study these changes because the island barely moves, the scientists say. It's tectonically stable, and the buildup or melting of glaciers hasn't raised or lowered the island. The stalagtites and stalagmites, moreover, have have collected deposits of calcite from the ocean, and these deposits give up secrets like rings in a tree. Dorale's team dated the deposits by measuring the radioactive decay of uranium traces. "We've reconstructed sea levels with a high degree of precision," Dorale told SPIEGEL ONLINE.
Dorale and his co-author, Bogdan Onac at the University of South Florida, realize their work may be controversial. If the scientists are right, and the sea was really one meter higher 81,000 years ago than it is today, a number of questions present themselves. In those days the atmosphere would not have contained so much carbon dioxide. So how important is CO2 in global warming?
#264 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 14 Feb 2010 at 07:33 AM
They have turned on you Warmer Alarmists, what will you do with out your Allies in the media to get the 'Big Lie' out there repeatedly, hey? from the UK Times, Alarmist Central London;
In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.
It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.
The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.
These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.
Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.
“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”
The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.
Science baby, science!
#265 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 14 Feb 2010 at 09:31 AM
Ahh, You Secular Saints must be up in arms, your heros are all busted for lying and distorting the truth for your agendas. The cause of warming is lost. Save those Iguanas from Global cooling! Wait until it comes up Life it's self can not magically just appear randomly. Man, that will really destroy your secular world!
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995. Whooops!
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
#266 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 15 Feb 2010 at 02:56 AM
Facts are stubborn things- John Adams
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Temperatures rise and bullshit flies. Fly monkeys fly!
#267 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Wed 17 Feb 2010 at 11:02 PM
Be all that you can be. Be a consultant to ADVOCACY GROUPS!
The United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer has resigned to join a consultancy group as an adviser, the UN climate secretariat said today, two months after a disappointing Copenhagen summit.
#268 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 10:04 AM
@albert J
Nice of you to post some of his comments, but I noticed you didn't post a link. Luckily, I have a link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/85116...
...and here are some more of his comments since you conveniently left them out.
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D.
I - Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?
#269 Posted by srichey, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 06:09 PM
The typical argument besides all the CO2 pivots, now that it's well known and established that there really is no peer-2-peer reviewed data that supports the 'humans are definitely guilty' AGWer theory, is the 'attack the messenger' strategy. This piece above is a great example of attacking meteorologists for them daring to point out how inaccurate all the climate and meteorological computer models are. Now we get the 'they are NOT scientists, so what do they know' attacks. Well, who are the attackers making these attacks? Turns out they are media advisers, not scientists themselves, LOL. Like Kevin Grandia at the HuffPo.
So who is Grandia to speak so authoritatively about science?
Kevin has nine years of experience in communications with the last three spent entirely in the area of new media. Kevin is also the Director of New Media at Hoggan & Associates and is well-known for his expertise in the areas of social media marketing, online communications, blogging, search engine optimization . . .
Prior to DeSmogBlog, Kevin served as a communications advisor in the areas of health care, Canadian heritage and Asia-Pacific trade. Kevin’s areas of expertise also include government relations, crisis communications, event planning and media relations.
But it's okay. Kevin has been trained by Al Gore. That's a true BS degree in anyone's book.
#270 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 09:01 AM
Srichey, we are still waiting for you AGWers to post some peer-2-peer reviewed data that shows absolutely if we don't carbon-tax people for Trillions of $$$ for putting plant food into the atmosphere, that we will have catastrophic events globally. Prove it. It's your theory! It is not for Skeptics to disprove your theory, this is science dude. You AGWers need to prove your theory. We have poked enough holes in it to make your theory Swiss cheese, now prove it. No more 'he thinks, or this what might happen maybe ifs. Prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt please. With real science, not hersay or corrupted data bases and skewed cherry picked statistics.
Remember, what you AGWers must prove is that 'man made CO2 emissions are causing greater than normal warming that will be catastrophic', not all your pivot tangents. We are waiting. No one disputes that on average and on trend the global temperatures are rising. So what? They have done so for millions of years and declined also. The climate changes, the sun rises and sets, So?
PS, if AGWing was true, why is there;
* a warmer period than now with less CO2 during the MWP?
* No hot spot for GHGs over the equator?
* no real delineation between normal an industrial CO2 emissions, so how can you even begin to make the claim, since the 'Hot Spot' evidence is missing above?
* during a spurt of Industrial growth after the end of WWII * historically, CO2 vs. temperature lags by hundred's of years, what's up with that? If there was a direct correlation between man made CO2 wouldn't we be seeing an increase in the last 12 years and after II? Hmmm?
And so on and so forth. We showed you ours, now show us your great peer-2-peer reviewed data that proves 'humans are guilty' and too much plant food will burn us all up please.
Mark A York, waiting for your proof humans are guilty of putting too much plant food into the air from you also. This URL you gave conveniently both "hides the decline" with the infamous now discreditied hocky stick, and it leaves out the Medieval Warming Period silly. Give us something besides Dr. Hansen's corrupted GISS data, dis-proven by a teen aged Canadian girl years ago. And in any event, where is the proof humans are guilty or that CO2 even caused this, huh? This graph doesn't prove AGWing, silly. Look at the graphs that go back millions of years, you will see much higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations than today, which is way before you were ever driving an SUV and using your carbon-petroleum based Computers to perpetuate Hoaxes on the internet, driven by carbon based energy and built with carbon based products. PS, you killed your AGWer theory with that NASA GISS graph by the way. See the Decline that wasn't hidden after WWII? Hmmm, more CO2 in huge amounts after WWi ended, and temperatures decline, Hmmmm? What's up with that if AGWing is a proven theory? This could not happen this way if human produced CO2 is casing run away warming as you AGWers claim is true.
Perhaps you both are not scientists, but media specialists? PR experts? Get your facts straight and come back any time. Truth is always welcome here. But leave your agendas at home please. This is science, not feelings.
#271 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 09:54 AM
PS, Srichey, Mark York and all you AGWers, I'll give credit where credit is due.
You certainly have a great deal of "Faith" in your religious affirmation that humans are guilty, no matter what the facts are, I will hand you all that. You never seem to give up in spite of the overwhelming evidence now that human CO2 output has nothing or very little to do with climate at the moment.
So the question is, where is the tipping point at which you give up the ghost on your religious beliefs of 'faith based AGWing'? How many corrupt officials, grant money scams, corrupted data bases, lost data, cherry picked skewed graphs and statistics, hiding of inconvenient facts, companies with their pension funds invested in carbon trading, and declines in global temperatures in spite of increased CO2 output will it take before you admit this was all an agenda driven hoax, regardless of good intentions, etc.?
#272 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 10:08 AM
None other than the venerable Dalai Lama ignoring the 'garbage' of AWGing now exiting from the back of the White House;
http://www.gettyimages.co.nz/detail/96834730/AFP
#273 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 10:16 AM
Don't get me wrong – I'm not saying people should have free reign to trash the environment. I agree that too much of Western society is caught up with excessive consumerism. We chose a "green" lifestyle because we believe we should be good stewards of our resources (plus it's cheaper).
But I cannot and will not endorse such statements as "Human suffering is much less important than the suffering of the planet" (David Brower, former head of the Sierra Club and founder of Friends of the Earth) or "We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox" (Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First!, whose primary goal is cutting the world's population by 90 percent), or a statement uttered at one of Earth First!'s gatherings: "Optimal human population: zero."
Winston Churchill said, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." It seems the human-haters, of which a large part of AGWers are, fit this definition.
#274 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 11:00 AM
Have you noticed the Alarmist pivot right out of Michael Crichton's ' State of Fear' from AGWing over to'Climate Change'? Of course the climate is changing. Now prove humans emitting plant food in the atmosphere is making the climate change accelerate out of control past a catastrophic tipping point as Alarmists claim!
Not this drivelish non-scientific Media spin: "The evidence of and threats posed by a changing climate are right before our eyes," said Catherine Milbourn, EPA spokeswoman. "That science came from an array of highly respected, peer-reviewed sources from both within the United States and across the globe."
The Environmental Defense Fund is leading the defense of the EPA's findings, arguing that critics are deliberately ignoring science to set back efforts to tackle climate change. "The EPA's decision is based on a 200-page synthesis of major scientific assessments," said the Fund, denying the work was simply attributable to the IPCC.
#275 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 21 Feb 2010 at 12:31 PM
Eat your heart out Green Peace!
ARLINGTON - How would you like to buy gasoline made from $30 domestic coal versus $75 imported oil?
Researchers at the University of Texas at Arlington say they've found a practical way to make synthetic crude from inexpensive coal that's common in Texas.
People have been turning coal into oil for 100 years or more, but researchers at UTA say they've invented a better way to do it.
It is so much better that they expect to sign a deal with an oil company within weeks.
"This is East Texas lignite coal. We go from that to this really nice liquid," said Professor Brian Dennis of a light synthetic crude, easily refined into gasoline.
Professor Dennis and a team of scientists have been working on the process for about a year-and-a-half.
"I had the idea for this while I was walking to my car," he said. "I ran back to the lab and I started drawing it out in my notebook."
They only showed News 8 an early model reactor which doesn't look like much. The current reactor design is secret, extremely efficient, and emits no pollution, the UTA scientists said.
"We're improving the cost every day. We started off sometime ago at an uneconomical $17,000 a barrel. Today, we're at a cost of $28.84 a barrel," said engineering dean Rick Billo.
That's $28 a barrel versus $75 we pay now for imported crude.
Texas lignite coal is dirt cheap - less than $18 a ton. A ton of coal will produce up to 1.5 barrels of oil.
UTA researchers expect micro-refineries to be built within a year, turning coal into cheap oil and producing new jobs.
#276 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 21 Feb 2010 at 12:40 PM
Mojib Latif, a climate physicist at the Liebniz Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Kiel in Germany and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, produced evidence predicting two decades of natural global cooling caused by cyclical changes in the atmosphere and ocean currents in the North Atlantic, known as the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation.
Speaking at the World Meteorological Organization's World Climate Conference 3 in Geneva, Switzerland, Latif produced slides that documented cooling temperatures that could be a 10 to 20 year phase into the future.
Three big corporations – oil multinational giants BP and ConocoPhillips, along with heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. – have declared that they will not renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, the Wall Street Journal reported.
The move is important, given that the U.S. Climate Action Partnership was created to be a broad business-environmental coalition that had been working to support Washington-directed moves to cap emissions of greenhouse gases.
#277 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 23 Feb 2010 at 07:33 AM
Any of you AGWers care to explain how below statement from Prof. Jones can be possible and we experienced global cooling after the Industrial spurt at the end of WW II, and we have been cooling for last 10 years with another 10-20 years cooling predicted? How can humans be guilty if your CO2 theory is correct, but the globe cools during increased output by humans of CO2/ Hmmmm?
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
I'm confident he is protecting his grant money, and who cares what he thinks anyway. Where's the scientific proof to explain 'why' increased CO2 output from humans causes cooling after WW II and also now currently, not warming, and how that fits into AGWing?
Inquiring minds would like to know please? Thanks to Mark A. York for providing the link to the GISS graph with the now discredited Hockey Stick, which also shows the 'global cooling' after WWII with dramatically increased human CO2 outputs. Prof. Jones confirmed the hockey stick is now discredited when he categorically stated, " that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."
Facts are stubborn Things. 'John Adams & Mark A. York'
#278 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 23 Feb 2010 at 08:01 AM
Mathematical models are models, whether they are forecasting short term phenomenon or long term phenomenon. It doesn’t matter if you are modeling long term climate change, short term weather systems, .... The longer out into the future a time dependant model looks, the less accurate it is because errors from one iterations carryover to the next iterations, and there are always errors.
That's true if the problem is basically an initial value problem, such as weather forecasting, but climate modelling is basically a boundary-value problem. Climate models aren't trying to tell the difference between 15 July 2090 and 18 July 2099, they're trying to tell the difference between July in the 2090s and July in the 1990s.
#279 Posted by Harold Brooks, CJR on Tue 23 Feb 2010 at 08:07 AM
Apparently this is Albert J's thread and padikiller has the others on climate change reportage around here. Tell me Albert do they assign cyber territories back at the wingnut hive? E-mailed assignments from Anthony Watts, the dropout weatherman? Sceptics' complaints are all interchangeable so it doesn't matter. It's all just thread pollution. Maybe we should tax them by the word?
What you will need is some other theory that actually explains the warming quantitatively without CO2 in play. You can't but it's fun to watch you folks twist in fallacious knots trying. Then it gets old fast.
#280 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Tue 23 Feb 2010 at 03:09 PM
Perhaps Albert should do some splainin?
"Recorded temperature decreases in the 1950-70s as a result of man-made aerosol and sulfer emissions after WWII. Slowed due to air pollution laws that limited their emissions in the 80s and 90s, but also because of warming effect of CO2 (emitted at the same time) which takes longer to kick in.
Now that we have reduced SO2 emissions, but a lot more CO2 emissions, the global cooling is over-run by global warming."
All you have is easily debunked nonsense. Go away and get educated.
#281 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Tue 23 Feb 2010 at 03:56 PM
That's true if the problem is basically an initial value problem, such as weather forecasting, but climate modelling is basically a boundary-value problem. Climate models aren't trying to tell the difference between 15 July 2090 and 18 July 2099, they're trying to tell the difference between July in the 2090s and July in the 1990s.
Harold, I would imagine that computing power is pretty much the same in either short term metrological models or climate models. If you are performing x number of calcs for a metrological model, wouldn’t it be safe to assume that you are also performing some number close to x for a climate model as well? Grid resolution and the number of iterations (I assume) would likely be pretty close for either since you would want to maximize available computations ability. An issue with boundary conditions for climate modeling is irrelevant because no one (not many) seriously questions the validity of most current climate data. Its all in the progressive iterations from node 1 to node 1,000,000.
If you cannot quantify and verify the uncertainty in your models calculations, what good is it?
#282 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 23 Feb 2010 at 04:13 PM
Mark A. York, where is your peer-2-peer reviewed conclusive evidence that man made CO2 is causing catastrophic CO2 runaway warming. As for where is the proof non man made natural causes like the Sun, sub sea volcanism, El Nino, clouds, and cosmic rays, that science is well established, and if you look at ice core data you will see clearly the warming and cooling trends, of which we are now in a natural warming trend falling the last min-ice age. No one is claiming long term we aren't in a warming trend, even though we have hit a spell of cooling from the last 9-10 years through the next 10-20 years, which even Prof Jones now admits to. What we skeptics are claiming is not whther the climte will change or not, or not that the globe on average is warming, which it is in a natural trend. What we are arguing is, there is absolutely no conclusive proof that man made CO2 is contributing to a run away warming that will lead to catastrophic events, as you AGWers claim. now prove it please!
This is science, not 'feelings'. It is incumbent on you AGWers to prove your theory, not on skeptics to disprove it, although we have on many occasions. You just refuse to acknowledge the facts. The hockey stick is bogus. There is a Mdeiveal Warming period warmer than today. There is no green house gas hot spot over the equater like there should be if your theory is correct. Teh Himalaya galciers are not disappearing in 30 years like you claimed. The sea levels are not raising due to warming at catastrophic rates like you claimed.
I can make up as many counter theories to your theories about why cooling after WWII and for the last 9-10 years and now, but where is the scientific proof humans are guilty of either? You need to prove it, it's your theory, defend it with facts not made up drivel and pseudo science, driven by a media with vested interested in Carbon trading and scare mongering for ad revenues.
ISN'T IT INTERESTING YOU JUST SOLVED GLOBAL WARMING MARK! SO NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, HUMANS ACCORDING TO MARK A. YORK CAN COOL AND WARM THE GLOBE AT WILL NOW.!!!!!! Whoo Hhoo, problem solved, we can all go home now. Whew, I was really worreied the world was coming to an end soon because I drive an SUV. Man, thank you Mark A. York! You just solved it all for us now.
Anyway, back to reality, where is you peer-2-peer data and proof? I don't need to disprove AGWing, you need to prove it.
How do you explain the MWP being hotter than now with less man made CO2?
Where is the GHG hot spot over the equator, which has to be there for your theory to be correct?
Where is the proof your theories about cooling after WWII is correct? Andyou theories don't add up anyway because if we humans caused cooling after WWII but reduced these causes in the last 10 years plus increased CO2 since then, how come we aren't warming now? You trap your self every time you make something up.
How about trying the truth, the facts. WHY ARE YOU AGWers IN SUCH A HURRY TO END THE WORLD? You should be happy we aren't burning up, yes? can you say, "Agenda Driven 'Scientific' Theories"?
#283 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 05:45 AM
Before reading the comments below, you need to put history into perspective. This is relevant to the debate in climate, because many see the HOAX of AGWing as another Liberal Fascist attempt to take control of our lives via imposed carbon taxes and the Green Shirt police called for by UK Pm Gordon Brown. The President of the EU last year stated clearly that AGWing is the first important step to Global Governance, you can see him say it on YouTube. The history of Liberal Socialist Fascism is well documented the recent book 'Liberal Fascism'. So now that you have the proper context;
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is comparing climate change skeptics to those who disregarded the Nazi threat to America in the 1930s, adding a strident rhetorical shot to the already volatile debate over climate change.
"It reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place," said Sanders, perhaps the most liberal member of the Senate, during a Senate hearing Tuesday. "During that period of Nazism and fascism's growth-a real danger to the United States and democratic countries around the world- there were people in this country and in the British parliament who said 'don't worry! Hitler's not real! It'll disappear!"
The irony! It was Liberal Socialists who embraced Fascism with Mussolini and Hitler in the beginning, LOL. Just like it is AGWers who are on the wrong side of science and can't "Big Lie" their way out now the media have turned on them, LOL. The true deniers are calling the ones pointing our the real facts the 'deniers', very humorous. But it doesn't work without the media repeating the' Big Lie' of AGWing constantly for you, so sorry, your theory is now toast. Give up the ghost and move on the the next Liberal Socialist scam for mooching and looting. Carbon Trading is dead. MOVEon.org, LOL
#284 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 05:59 AM
According to Water C. and JFK Jr., we can't build a wind farm near their yachting digs off the East Coast, it might look bad, so NIMBYism of course. But turtles? You Green Peace'rs must have hired Mark A. York as a media consultant, yes?
BrightSource Energy Inc. on Monday landed preliminary approval for a $1.37 billion loan guarantee from the federal government to help finance construction of a big solar energy complex in the Mojave Desert.
"This is a major milestone in getting this project built," said Keely Wachs, a spokesman for BrightSource Energy.
Oakland-based BrightSource has been seeking state and federal approval for the solar project that would rise in the desert in the Ivanpah Valley.
"The loan guarantee commitment," said John Woolard, BrightSource's CEO, "serves as a tremendous validation of our technology, the BrightSource team's ability to execute, and the Ivanpah project's role in meeting our nation's large-scale renewable energy needs.
The project, though, has been beset by environmental protests and demands the vast solar plant be relocated.
Some environmental groups fear that project — which would theoretically create "green" energy — could imperil 26 desert tortoises that have been found at the site, along with desert plants.
#285 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 06:11 AM
Before you AGWers waste a bunch of time prying for really bad hurricanes, the latest pivot strategy for AGWing to scare people with since winter didn't work out too well for you;
Roger Pielke Jr. excerpts from a study on tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons) recently published in Nature Geoscience. The bottom line? There has been no significant increase in cyclone activity beyond that which is attributable to natural variation.
In terms of global tropical cyclone frequency, it was concluded that there was no significant change in global tropical storm or hurricane numbers from 1970 to 2004, nor any significant change in hurricane numbers for any individual basin over that period, except for the Atlantic (discussed above). Landfall in various regions of East Asia during the past 60 years, and those in the Philippines during the past century, also do not show significant trends.
The data on the Atlantic does show an increase in activity, but is judged to be unreliable pre-1944, before the development of airborne observation and imaging of tropical storms.
The paper concludes:
. . . we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data.
Q. E. D.
#286 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 06:15 AM
In addition to the voluminous evidence that continues to accumulate for the occurrence of higher-than-present temperatures during the Roman Warm Period of 2000 years ago and the Medieval Warm Period of 1000 years ago, a growing body of evidence is beginning to indicate there was a period of time some 500 years ago when temperatures were also warmer than they are currently.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/l/summaries/littlemwp.php
References:
Baedke, S.J. and Thompson, T.A. 2000. A 4700-year record of lake level and isostasy for Lake Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research 26: 416-426.
Barron, J.A. and Bukry, D. 2007. Solar forcing of Gulf of California climate during the past 2000 yr suggested by diatoms and silicoflagellates. Marine Micropaleontology 62: 115-139.
Bartholy, J., Pongracz, R. and Molnar, Z. 2004. Classification and analysis of past climate information based on historical documentary sources for the Carpathian Basin. International Journal of Climatology 24: 1759-1776.
Blundell, A. and Barber, K. 2005. A 2800-year palaeoclimatic record from Tore Hill Moss, Strathspey, Scotland: the need for a multi-proxy approach to peat-based climate reconstructions. Quaternary Science Reviews 24: 1261-1277.
Büntgen, U., Esper, J., Frank, D.C., Nicolussi, K. and Schmidhalter, M. 2005. A 1052-year tree-ring proxy for Alpine summer temperatures. Climate Dynamics 25: 141-153.
Carrara, P.E., Trimble, D.A. and Rubin, M. 1991. Holocene treeline fluctuations in the northern San Juan Mountains, Colorado, U.S.A., as indicated by radiocarbon-dated conifer wood. Arctic and Alpine Research 23: 233-246.
Chen, J., Wan, G., Zhang, D.D., Chen, Z., Xu, J., Xiao, T. and Huang, R. 2005. The 'Little Ice Age' recorded by sediment chemistry in Lake Erhai, southwest China. The Holocene 15: 925-931.
Chuine, I., Yiou, P., Viovy, N., Seguin, B., Daux, V. and Le Roy Ladurie, E. 2004. Grape ripening as a past climate indicator. Nature 432: 289-290.
D'Arrigo, R., Mashig, E., Frank, D., Jacoby, G. and Wilson, R. 2004. Reconstructed warm season temperatures for Nome, Seward Peninsula, Alaska. Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2004GL019756.
D'Arrigo, R., Mashig, E., Frank, D., Wilson, R. and Jacoby, G. 2005. Temperature variability over the past millennium inferred from Northwestern Alaska tree rings. Climate Dynamics 24: 227-236.
Dean, J.S. 1994. The Medieval Warm Period on the southern Colorado Plateau. Climatic Change 25: 225-241.
Eronen, M., Zetterberg, P., Briffa, K.R., Lindholm, M., Merilainen, J. and Timonen, M. 2002. The supra-long Scots pine tree-ring record for Finnish Lapland: Part 1, chronology construction and initial inferences. The Holocene 12: 673-680.
Fleitmann, D., Burns, S.J., Neff, U., Mudelsee, M., Mangini, A. and Matter, A. 2004. Palaeoclimatic interpretation of high-resolution oxygen isotope profiles derived from annually laminated speleothems from Southern Oman. Quaternary Science Reviews 23: 935-945.
Gray, S.T., Graumlich, L.J., Betancourt, J.L. and Pederson, G.T. 2004. A tree-ring based reconstruction of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation since 1567 A.D. Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2004GL019932.
Helama, S., Lindholm, M., Timonen, M., Merilainen, J,. and Eronen, M. 2002. The supra-long Scots pine tree-ring record for Finnish Lapland: Part 2, interannual to centennial variability in summer temperatures for 7500 years. The Holocene 12: 681-687.
Holmgren, K., Karlen, W., Lauritzen, S.E., Lee-Thorp, J.A., Partridge, T.C., Piketh, S., Repinski, P., Stevenson, C., Svanered, O. and Tyson, P.D. 1999. A 3000-year high-resolution stalagmite-based record of paleoclimate for northeastern South Africa. The Holocene 9: 295-309.
Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001. A preliminary 3000-year reg
#287 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 06:23 AM
Harold, what difference does it make about the differences between weather forecasting and climate forecasting when there are more basic problems???Like;
1) Neither models work accurately very far into the future, none of the AGWing climate models predicted the cooling this winter or over the last 10 years, nor did any weather models, in fact we have Mark A. York's Hochky stick claiming the exact opposite from Climate models thanks to Prof. Jones and Dr. Mann and Dr. Hansen;
&
2) The main inputs to these models, the EAU CRU data based and the NASA GISS data base are corrupted, cherry picked, manipulated, data is 'lost' and can never be verified and some data is 'hidden' to meet a predetermined outcome?
#288 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 06:40 AM
"I can make up as many counter theories to your theories about why cooling after WWII and for the last 9-10 years and now, but where is the scientific proof humans are guilty of either?"
It's called the Clean Air Act in this case. That's the scientific reason this period is a brief blip in the long term warming. It may be news to you but we measure things like black carbon and CO2 emissions. We know natural CO2 from man-made by the Suess Effect. Carbon dating. Duh. Look it up Mr. Bi-polar.
Random news story:
'Temperatures during the past decade have been the highest recorded
Last year was tied for the second warmest year since modern temperature record keeping began, and was the hottest in the southern hemisphere, according to a new analysis for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Reaffirming the warming trend, NASA confirmed that globally, temperatures during the past decade have been the highest recorded, although the agency noted that accurate instrumentation to chart weather and climate patterns only became widely available in 1880.
In that time, average global temperatures have risen about 1.4 degrees F. (0.8 C), according to the agency. Almost half that increase has occurred in the past 30 years, after a lull in the middle of the 20th Century.
The new analysis was performed at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. In a statement released by NASA, institute Director James Hansen said the data contradict some widely publicized doubts about global warming.
"In the last decade, global warming has not stopped," he said.
Global temperatures during 2009 were fractionally lower than 2005, the hottest overall year on record, according to the report. Last year's heat tied several other years from 1998 to 2007 in the rankings.
In the NASA statement, Hansen said it is more important to look at the trend that at any given year, when variable climate cycles can skew the data."
And you clearly have made up everything, but this is fact. You are obviously seriously disturbed. I recommend getting help. Barring that, go drive your SUV off a cliff and do the world a real favor.
#289 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 01:16 PM
Here's the assessment of the sceptics.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:3gtWwaN9-k0J:www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx%3FpaperID%3D883%26fileName%3DPsych.20090100004_39584049.pdf+%22Unskilled+and+Unaware+of+It:+How+Difficulties+in+Recognizing+One%27s+Own+Incompetence+Lead+to+Inflated+Self-Assessments%22&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
#290 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 04:01 PM
Urgent, Urgent, we need to know the where abouts of Albert Gore Jr. as soon as possible. We need to move him to the Souther Hemisphere before the huge blizzard hits this weekend, or due to the well known and scientifically established 'Al Gore Affect' (where ever he goes in the winter a Blizzard shows up). The science is settled, there is no time or need for any debate, we need to act now before the world ends as we know it. If you can't find him, please check on his new boat, the BS-1 please! Information can be found about the Al Gore Affect here:::: http://www.compeaus.com/frozen.html,,,
Here comes the Blizzard, and it's snowing in Houston again the third time this year, normally Houston get's one light dusting every 15-18 years;
Strengthening Northeast Storm to Cause Immobilizing Blizzard, Damage
2/25/2010 4:08 AM:::
A strengthening storm will take aim at the Northeast with immobilizing blizzard conditions in some areas and disruptive snow, a treacherous wintry mix, flooding rain, and battering waves in others. Not only will travel be severely impacted by the storm, but serious property damage can occur.
As the storm intensifies, the winds across the mid-Atlantic and Northeast will strengthen later today and tonight. Wind gusts could even reach hurricane-force in some areas. Widespread power outages can occur.
Downed trees, trash cans, and shingles will be among the debris that will litter some neighborhoods.
The heaviest snow, 1-2 feet, will be immobilizing from the Poconos and Catskills through a stretch of Upstate New York, including Syracuse. The Green and White Mountains in New England will also be buried by a paralyzing 1-2 feet of snow.
A broad area of 6- to 12-inch snowfall will fall from northern New Brunswick to central New Jersey, much of Pennsylvania, northeastern Ohio and southern Ontario. New York City and Philadelphia are among the cities that lie within this zone.
Some communities in upstate New York and New England have already been buried by 1-2 feet of snow from a storm over the past couple of days.
#291 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 05:27 AM
What planning, what follow through, its such a great thing to see a plan come to fruition! I'm sure now we can save the world by imposing Carbon taxes on those least able to afford them with wonderful results!
California’s weatherization program has finished retrofitting just 12 houses out of a planned 43,400 homes statewide, despite receiving $93 million in federal stimulus funds for the program.
A just-released Department of Energy study shows that only five states are behind California in retrofitting.
#292 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 05:48 AM
Glug glug glug...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/telnaes/telnaes02122010.html
#293 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 12:34 PM
No consensus on why Earth hasn't warmed since 1998, says noted climatologist
"There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998, or in 2005 according to one U.S. analysis.
#294 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 01:32 PM
That is two data points: peaks in two specific years. I can play that card too. Let's try months shall we.
"It's not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite challenging to find places that haven't warmed in the past 50 years," veteran Australian climate scientist Neville Nicholls told an online climate science media briefing.
"January, according to satellite (data), was the hottest January we've ever seen," said Nicholls of Monash University's School of Geography and Environmental Science in Melbourne.
"Last November was the hottest November we've ever seen, November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen," he said of the satellite data record since 1979."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100225/ts_nm/us_climate_warming
"The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said in December that 2000-2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850, and that 2009 would likely be the fifth warmest year on record. WMO data show that eight out of the 10 hottest years on record have all been since 2000."
You don't know what a trend is Mr. King Cherry-picker. Hottest decade since measurements began in 1850. Reality. Deal with it, denier.
#295 Posted by mark A. York, CJR on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 04:21 PM
"No consensus on why Earth hasn't warmed since 1998, says noted climatologist
"There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth"
cite your quotes:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE61N0TR.htm
"The decade 2000-2009 was the hottest since 1850 as a result of warming through the 1980s and 1990s which has since peaked, says the World Meteorological Organisation.
British Hadley Centre scientists said last year that there was no warming from 1999-2008, after allowing for extreme, natural weather patterns. Temperatures should have risen by a widely estimated 0.2 degrees Centigrade, given a build up of manmade greenhouse gases.
"Solar might be one part of it," said the Hadley's Jeff Knight, adding that changes in the way data was gathered could be a factor, as well as shifts in the heat stored by oceans.
The sun goes through phases in activity, and since 2001 has been in a downturn meaning it may have heated the earth a little less, scientists say.
"We've not put our finger precisely on what has changed," Knight said. "(But) If you add all these things together ... there's nothing really there to challenge the idea that there's going to be large warming in the 21st century."
Melting Arctic ice was evidence for continuing change, regardless of observed temperatures, said Stein Sandven, head of the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Norway.
"The long-term change for the Arctic sea ice has been very consistent. It shows a decline over these (past) three decades especially in the summer. In the past 3-4 years Arctic sea ice has been below the average for the last 30 years.""
#296 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 04:23 AM
"There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth"... ...British Hadley Centre scientists said last year that there was no warming from 1999-2008... ...Temperatures should have risen by a widely estimated 0.2 degrees Centigrade, given a build up of manmade greenhouse gases. ...."Solar might be one part of it,... ,,,,changes in the way data was gathered could be a factor, as well as shifts in the heat stored by oceans..The sun goes through phases in activity, and since 2001 has been in a downturn meaning it may have heated the earth a little less, scientists say. "We've not put our finger precisely on what has changed," Knight said. "(But) If you add all these things together ... there's nothing really there to challenge the idea that there's going to be large warming in the 21st century."
padikiller notes: "Should"? No "consensus"? "If"? "May"? "Not put our finger precisely" on it? "Might"?
Yeah.. You AGWists have some rock-solid science in the glove!... No escaping this kind of ironclad logic, is there?
I especially like Jeff Knight's spin... To paraphrase "we have no consensus, and don't really know why the Earth is heating up like the AGW models predict... But 'there's nothing there to challenge' AGW.".
The new AGW "scientific" standard! Instead of demanding proof in support of a theory from data, we demand that data refute our theory! This new standard will make science a LOT more fun! Let's try it out:
1. We haven't precisely determined why no Sasquatch monsters have been found in Central Park, but looking at the data, there's nothing there to challenge the theory that we'll find a bunch of them by the ice rink next week.
2. We haven't precisely determined why we haven't detected the space alien mothership, but there's nothing in the data to challenge our prediction of an alien invasion next year.
This new standard falls right into line with the "barely statistically insignificant' standard so ardently advocated here!
AGWism is a laugh a minute!
#297 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 08:19 AM
For a guy who isn't at all concerned about accuracy or ethical lapses when it involves right wing rat f*ckers and ACORN,
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_ethics_of_undercover_journalism.php#comments
you sure make a big deal of them when it involves science you don't like.
Just remember, the same weasel techniques you're using to emphasize the "qualified" parts of qualified climate findings, which are the kind of findings responsible scientists issue, are the ones used by smoking causes cancer jerks
http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/resources/docs/gallery_advertising.htm
Yeah, it took 60 years to "prove" smoking causes cancer, but the relation between cancer and smoking was pretty clear to begin with.
As is the relationship between melting ice and green house gasses even during a solar minimum.
#298 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 11:30 AM
On the topic of denial industries, I didn't need to read this:
http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?printable=true
:(
#299 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 11:43 AM
padkiller; these pseudo scientific arguments of the AGWers are all just pivots and tangents to distract from the fact that there are 2 cooling periods since WWII when we had great out put bursts of man made CO2, one right after WWII, and one the last 15 years (if you remove the 1998 El Nino affect the graphs really get messed up for AGWers), and the result was cooling, not warming-so there goes the entire CO2 AGWing theory, up in Hot Air. Plus there are at least 2, maybe 3 warmer periods since Roman times with out any industrialized CO2 outputs. You can hide one decline, but not two. You can remove one warming period before Industrialization from Wikipedia but not 3.
AGWers are busted any way they turn and no mater how many pseudo scientific reasons they come up with.
Save the Iguanas! From Global Cooling!
#300 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 11:48 AM
In the pad killer tradition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txYH8RCC-Qk
#301 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 11:54 AM
So many repeated lies... so many...
During the industrialization period humans pumped out a lot of CO2, but they also pumped out a lot of SO2. SO2 reflects sunlight, which is why the geoengineering side of the anti-environmental crusade wants to pump sulfur into the upper atmosphere instead of doing any regulation of emissions.
"out put bursts of man made CO2, one right after WWII, and one the last 15 years (if you remove the 1998 El Nino affect the graphs really get messed up for AGWers), and the result was cooling, not warming-so there goes the entire CO2 AGWing theory, up in Hot Air."
Can you show a formula or a mechanism of how increased CO2 equals cooling? Or document the cooling?
"Plus there are at least 2, maybe 3 warmer periods since Roman times with out any industrialized CO2 outputs."
Go on, prove that.
OH, but wait. In order to prove that you have to use the techniques of climate investigation that you claim are unreliable when it comes to current prediction. So sad for you that your crack pot theories are more fragile than any from the AGW side.
#302 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 12:09 PM
My post from another thread on this site:
I'm not a "Denialist"...
I'm a "Demanderist"...
Show me the following evidence and I'll trade my home equity for carbon credits forthwith:
1. The specific AGW model that accounts for all of the global warming up to 1995 and also accounts for the lack of warming since then, while CO2 concentrations have increased the whole time.
2. Peer-reviewed and independently corroborated proof that lowering atmospheric CO2 concentrations to a specific level will result in a specific average global temperature - meaning that there exists a particular CO2 concentration that will hold temperatures steady.
3. The rates, to within a 50% margin or error, at which CO2 is respectively absorbed by and released by, the Earth's oceans, which hold more than 50 times the CO2 than the atmosphere holds.
4. An AGW model that accounts for the elevated temperatures of the Medeival Warm Period, the depressed temperatures of the the Little Ice Age, the most global warming trend that ended in 1995 and also accounts for the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all of these periods.
#303 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 01:33 PM
Thimbles wrote: "Yeah, it took 60 years to "prove" smoking causes cancer, but the relation between cancer and smoking was pretty clear to begin with."
padikiller responds: AGW does not suffer the comparison to tobacco=caused illness.
It was easy enough to correlate lung cancer and smoking from observation. More smokers got cancer than non-smokers. The more smokers smoked, the more frequently they got cancer. The evidence overcame skepticism and the opposition of tobacco companies.
The same crap is happening now with "medical marijuana" and its proven detrimental impact on health (though I notice an inexplicable reluctance among liberals to note the money-grabbing similarities between "Big Tobacco" and the Medical Marijuana movement).
The correlation just isn't there between CO2 and temperature... And none of the "tricks" used by AGWists can make such a correlation appear out of thin air. CO2 has risen every one of the last 15 years- but there has been no warming over the same period, even though the AGW models predicted a 0.2 C increase.
The data just doesn't support the AGW silliness. There is no reliable AGW model. PERIOD.
The only way that AGWists can get the job done is through fraud...
We'll just pretend the Medeival Warm Period didn't happen. We'll use tree ring data when it promotes AGW, but we'll substitute in other data to "hide the decline" when the tree ring data breaks bad on us... We'll compare data sets on our graph, but when one of these sets starts to to show cooling, we'll just lift up the pen on that data set and continue graphing the remaining ones that show warming.. We'll use "very artificial" "fudge factors" as coefficients in our already cherry-picked data sets to program our computers to make a scary "hockey stick" graph.. We'll ignore the fact that the Earth stopped warming in 1995, and we'll conspire to slime, harass and intimidate who bothers to point this lack of warming out to us. We'll take World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace press releases and incorporate them as "scientific findings" in our UN-chartered climate change report. We'll ignore our mistakes and hide them even when they are pointed out to us so that we can glide through our climate summit without any nasty questions. We'll collude to keep our data hidden.. We'll conspire to avoid FOIA laws.. We'll corrupt, lose, or destroy our raw data sets....Etcetera... Etcetera... Etcetera....
There is simply no scientific basis for AGWism.
#304 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 02:00 PM
All of those contentions are proven.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
All the data sources are here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
"But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:
Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases."
The sad fact pdiddy is you can't handle the truth and can't come up with a scientific explanation that refutes AGW as much as you'd like to. There isn't one and the best minds in the world know it. Of course as we've painfully seen here under your private bridge, you are no candidate for membership.
Here's your sign.
#305 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 02:25 PM
"We'll ignore the fact that the Earth stopped warming in 1995, and we'll conspire to slime, harass and intimidate who bothers to point this lack of warming out to us."
Slimer meet thyself. Hottest decade ever. How is that cooling? You must have early onset Alzheimer's. However this continued defaming is getting old. All you have is disproven myths and slander. Someone will sue. I mean you're hanging around Columbia U. where the Goddard Lab is shouting defamatory language about the top scientists there. Figure, as one prominent conservative columnist once told me, that it will cost you $75K to pony up. You aren't trained in the word game and certainly not in the sciences. Back off.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
#306 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 02:42 PM
padikiller wrote previously: "We'll ignore the fact that the Earth stopped warming in 1995, and we'll conspire to slime, harass and intimidate who bothers to point this lack of warming out to us."
Dr. York hyperventilates in obfuscation:" Slimer meet thyself. Hottest decade ever. How is that cooling?"
padikiller keeps it real: Dude, learn English...
A "lack of warming" isn't "cooling".
Nice try, Professor, but no cigar this time, either. Nobody is claiming that there has been significant recent global "cooling" (there has been cooling since 2002 - just not statistically significant cooling).
What I wrote was the truth... Namely that there hasn't been any significant WARMING since 1995.
The AGW models call for a 0.2 C rise over the last 15 years... And there has been 0.0 C rise. Zippo. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Rien.
This is called R-E-A-L-I-T-Y.
Try it sometime, "Doc".
#307 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 04:03 PM
What are the variables? Solar radiation? Atmospheric composition? Ocean composition? Glacial melts? You can't pick up the ocean and analyze it to perfect accuracy. Same with the atmosphere. The Sun has been in a solar minimum phase.
You are pretending that these things have been perfectly quantified and that there is no excuse for the models 100% prediction of all things.
Predictions are made on known information and there is some information that we don't know. That affects the results, it does not negate or reverse them. Note you haven't come up with any better models since you introduced your Ouija board into the discussion months ago.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/lets_get_this_party_organized.php
My challenge came long before yours, so why should anyone bother with yours when you keep ducking mine?
#308 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 04:56 PM
"Namely that there hasn't been any significant WARMING since 1995."
Bullshiite. More dodge and weave semantical shell-gaming
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade
Jan. 21, 2010
2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.
"The AGW models call for a 0.2 C rise over the last 15 years... And there has been 0.0 C rise. Zippo. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Rien."
Cite the model for that assertion. It's false.
Never get in a pissing match with a skunk. That's what this is.
#309 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 05:16 PM
Thimbles has a point. Well many actually. That thread tells the tale of preordained canned ideology that is so obvious from the piltdown man from Lynchburg, who asks, yet again:
"What percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere will do right by the planet?"
As I've said, 350 ppm. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20081208/
Like all the rest, it's an answer you won't accept when experts do. That's called denial. You can tell an honest question. This character has none.
#310 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 05:27 PM
Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
Link to this page: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm
The skeptic argument...
'Phil Jones said that for the past 15 years there has been no "statistically significant" warming. The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.' (Daily Mail)
What the science says...
When you read Phil Jones' actual words, you see he's saying there is a warming trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period.
A headline in the Daily Mail claims that Phil Jones, ex-director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, said 'there has been no global warming since 1995'. Not only did Phil Jones not say these words, this interpretation shows a poor understanding of the scientific concepts behind his words. To fully understand what Phil Jones was saying, one needs to read his actual words and understand the science discussed. Here is the relevant excerpt from the BBC interview:
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
Phil Jones is saying there is a warming trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period. To demonstrate this, look at the HadCRUT temperature record from 1995 to 2009. The linear trend is that of warming. However, the temperature record is very noisy with lots of short term variability. The noisy signal means that over a short period, the uncertainty of the warming trend is almost as large as the actual trend. Hence it's considered statistically insignificant. Over longer time periods, the uncertainty is less and the trend is more statistically significant.
#311 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 06:03 PM
It must be getting really embarrassing by now for you AGWers. First one of your Yahoos blames the earthquake in Haiti on Global Warming not 48 hrs after the earth quake. Now another Yahoo of yours is claiming this January is the Hottest January on record, LOL! And PS, a warming globe does not mean man made CO2 is the guilty party either. Except even Professor Jones says the planet has not been warming for the last 15 years. You AGWers need to get all your Yahoos on the same page, it will make the 'Big Lie' easier to repeat.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/160556
WEATHER: HOTTEST JANUARY EVER SAY CLIMATE EXPERTS
CLIMATE scientists yesterday stunned Britons suffering the coldest winter for 30 years by claiming last month was the ¬hottest January the world has ever seen.
The remarkable claim, based on global satellite data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.
At the height of the big freeze, the entire country was blanketed in snow. But Australian weather expert Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, said yesterday: “January, according to satellite data, was the hottest January we’ve ever seen.
“Last November was the hottest November we’ve ever seen. November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen.” Veteran ¬climatologist Professor Nicholls was speaking at an online climate change briefing, added: “It’s not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite challenging to find places that haven’t warmed in the past 50 years.”
His extraordinary claims came after the World Meteorological Organisation revealed 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850.
But UK forecaster Jonathan Powell, of Positive Weather Solutions, said: “If it is the case and it is borne out that January was the hottest on record, it is still no marker towards climate change.
“It’s all part of a cyclical issue and nothing should be read too deeply into that.
“It’s been the coldest for 30 years in Britain but we predicted that and climate change always tends t o throw up anomalies. It’s all in line with predictions and I won’t be sold on climate change at all. The data is either faulty or manufactured to make it look like it shouldn’t.”
The Met Office yesterday revealed it would re-examine 150 years of world temperature records to restore faith in its data in the wake of a number of high-profile blunders dubbed “climategate”.
Scientists advancing claims of man-made climate change were humiliated when emails emerged suggesting researchers at the University of East Anglia had been selective with weather data.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also wrongly claimed the Himalayan glaciers could melt away in 25 years. Most scientists have said it will take 300 years for the glaciers to disappear.
Following the embarrassing revelations, the Daily Express published a dossier of 100 reasons why the rise in world temperatures is natural and not caused by man.
The report, by the European Foundation, dismissed suggestions that raised levels of carbon dioxide would bring difficulties, saying it would encourage crop yields and support food production.
#312 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 07:38 PM
Well, they didn't make a mistake with "all" glaciers did they?
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/sum08.html
Wingnut news reports making wild assertions don't account for much in he scientific world.
Snowing in wagga wagga disproves nothing except in the minds of the insane, where everything is a conspiracy.
All the data are available, but it requires math and reading skills to use. Sadly, quickie news reports are much easier to comprehend for those easily duped.
#313 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 09:02 PM
Mark A. York, Enough with the glaciers and the weather down under. Where is the proof that humans are guilty of putting out too much plant food into the atmosphere and as Al Gore put's it, "We're all gonna die!"
Hmmm? there are literally 100's of thousands of glaciers, some grow some melt. They have been for millions of years now. So what? The passes in Europe are melting and opening up just like they were in Roman times. Before SUVs. Archeologists are now understanding why there were Roman road houses in these passes, and finding artifacts once covered by glaciers going back further than Roman times also. This must be the first generation scared of a warming climate! And not scared of Polar Bears who eat humans for a living.
Your play book right out of Michael Crichton's 'State of Fear' is getting ol (blame all catastrophes and the weather on AGWing). Do you have any actual peer-2-peer data and facts that support humans are guilty of anything.
It must be very depressing living inside your head waking up every morning looking so some small evidence that humans are guilty of destroying the planet. We must pay and pay big time! Taxes, Big Taxes. We are all guilty!
Let me be the first to say it now, all these earthquakes are the fault of human caused AGWing, and they are intensifying because of our human greed! We're all gonna die! The only thing you can do to save the world it to deposit $ 50,000 each into my Swiss bank account. Wait, Libya just declared war on the Swiss, better make that a Cayman Island account, yeah, that's the ticket! And save the Iguanas from the AGCing also!
#314 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 03:45 AM
Mark A. York, try your great Math and Science skills on these;
Climategate, Glaciergate, Hansen-GISSgatem Hide-the Decline-gate, speciesgate, wethaergate, hurricanegate, sealevelrisinggate, we'rallgonnadiegate, cronycapitalismgate,
So what does all that add up to? A man made catastrophy is what it adds up to, We have wasted $ billions and millions of man hours on psuedo sceintific scae mongering by you Green Peacers who can't argue with facts, so it the old, dodge the issues, assasinate the messenger fascist tactics of old.
I see you can't really come up with any peer-2-peer reviewed scientific data to support man made Global Warming due to too much plant food in the air. So you are back to blaming glaciers melting (something they haev done for millions of years) on people again. Same as your comments for the weather, it doesn't matter whether glaciers in Wagga Wagga melt or not. That has nothing to do with proving people are guilty of runaway Global Warming due to plant food excess.
My how convenient of you finally after 15 years of blaming all weather phenomena on AGWing, to now set the record straight. Weather and global climate are two different things. You might even want to consider real science now, and admit also that 'Global Climate' is silly, since it is really a series of interactive micro-climates tied together. For instance, Antarctica traditionally has the opposite climate trends as North America, but even in Antarctica, there are different micro-climates. So the whole idea of treating climate as some global average is silly from the very start. But of course, you needed to do this to scare people needlessly into Trillions of $$$ of carbon taxes to enrich your crony interests, yes?
Like I said, every time you make something up and try to sound 'scientific' you trap yourself. Come back when you have some peer-2-peer reviewed facts that actually have to do with humans being guilty of too much plant food. Inquiring minds are waiting (not, because none exists today).
Meanwhile, save those Iguanas from Global Cooling! We certainty are glad Mark A. York solved Global Warming by showing how humans caused global cooling after WW II, so now what's the next cause du joir to scam Money from the innocent, since Mark saved the world from burning up?
#315 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 12:42 PM
You mean to tell me all those school children cried themselves to sleep after being scared by Albert Gore Jr. that the Polar bears were all dieing because mommy abd daddy drove SUVs, and nowwe find out Polar Bears already survived Global Warming 1000's of years ago"
Polar Bear-gate;
It means polar bears have already survived a global warming that affected the northern hemisphere from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago, when the Greenland ice sheet and the Arctic ice cap were smaller than now. Professor Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum in London, an expert in ice ages, said: “Early polar bears would not have had all the specialisations of modern animals and we know nothing about their behaviour.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/genetics/article7043956.ece
Save the iguanas from global cooling, it's the only Looter, Moocher, Whiner cause left! Anyone seen John Galt?
#316 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 12:49 PM
Just a quick catch:
Padkiller: "Nice try, Professor, but no cigar this time, either. Nobody is claiming that there has been significant recent global "cooling" (there has been cooling since 2002 - just not statistically significant cooling)."
YOU GET THE CONCEPT!! Oh Hallelujah. Now unless you are a cynical bastard troll you will never again mention that there has been no warming, significant or otherwise, since 1995 - according to Phil Jones. Because we know you understand the concept of statistical significance, you use it to defend your cooling points, you're just being mendacious when you pretend to be ignorant.
Have a nice day all.
#317 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 12:50 PM
"So what does all that add up to?"
A political smear by morons.
Yes Thimbles. As Rex said to Audrey, "By George I think he's got it."
No statistically significant cooling indeed!
#318 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 01:08 PM
Since Mark A. York can't come up with any proof, let's debate Albert Gore Jr, shall we? Here is what Albert Gore Jr. (proud new owner of the boat the BS-1) now claims. Notice he stays away from Polar Bear-gate and no where is any proof that humans are guilty of anything - Postal stamp prices went up at the same time CO2 levels did, shall we reverse Global Warming by lowering postal stamp prices?
Where is the specific proof humans are guilty of runaway global warming due to too much plant food in the air that will cause all of these catastophies (and notice the distortions and out and out lies also by Algore)?
'Here is what scientists have found is happening to our climate: man-made global-warming pollution traps heat from the sun and increases atmospheric temperatures. These pollutants — especially carbon dioxide — have been increasing rapidly with the growth in the burning of coal, oil, natural gas and forests, and temperatures have increased over the same period. Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting — and seas are rising. Hurricanes are predicted to grow stronger and more destructive, though their number is expected to decrease. Droughts are getting longer and deeper in many mid-continent regions, even as the severity of flooding increases. The seasonal predictability of rainfall and temperatures is being disrupted, posing serious threats to agriculture. The rate of species extinction is accelerating to dangerous levels."
Sea-level-gate proves that is baloney, they are not rising at some catastrophic rate above normal. Galcier-gate proves that is baloney, same with hurricane-gate I posted proof scientific peer-2-peer data disproves any contributions to hurricane intensity due to humans.
If GHGs were doing what Algore claims, there should be a hot spot over the equator, there is noe. Boom, no man made Global warming. Sea Ice-gate, the arctic ice remelted to levels of 30 years ago, boom shot that down also. When did plant food become a pollutant? Just because some Algore crony declared it so does not make it scientifically so. Where is the proof that plant food is a pollutant? There is none. Boom, AGWing is dead in the Sea Ice. Almost all our ice covered regions are melting? Any sceintific proof of this? It hought not, no more than the Polar Bears are drowning. Albert, look outside your window, you are currently snowed in by 2 feet of snow! But hey, Drive by the Senator's Igloo in Wash. DC in honor of you and honk if you Love AWGing! Beeep Beeep!
#319 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 01:11 PM
Thimbles wrote: ...you will never again mention that there has been no warming, significant or otherwise, since 1995
padikiller: More prevarication!
What are you babbling about? I never said " that there has been no warming, significant or otherwise, since 1995". I merely stated the plain truth: namely that whatever warming has occurred since 1995 is too small to have any scientific significance. Just as the global cooling that has been observed since 2003 is too small to have any scientific significance.
This lack of global warming is inconsistent with AGWism, because the AGW models predict a 0.2 C rise in the average global temperature over the last 15 years - and this simply hasn't occurred.
Phil Jones has acknowledged it. And even AGWist extraordinaire Keith Trenberth has been forced to concede that there is a "lack of consensus" (his words, not mine) over the failure of the AGW models to account for the lack of warming in the last 15 years.
It's Reality, Dude. It isn't going anywhere, no matter how you try to misconstrue it..
#320 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 01:17 PM
And yet the facts keep proving you wrong.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Dunning-Kreuger is a tough wall to break. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
#321 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 01:21 PM
It isn't me that's "proven wrong" here, Doc, if anyone is:
It's your buddies Phil Jones and Keith Trenberth...
Preach to them," Doc"
#322 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 02:28 PM
In a galaxy far away a sceptic asks:
"4. I don’t see any way to make a case that warming is *accelerating* in a statistically significant way, and yes I’ve been through all the trend analysis stuff, and understand inherent variability masking the trend, etc, etc. Is there a good argument for this?"
[Response: Easy. Global warming over the last century was about 0.07 deg C/dec. Over the last 30 years, double that. That is an acceleration and it is significant. - gavin]
Padikiller flogs the same lie repeatedly, and in vane. "because the AGW models predict a 0.2 C rise in the average global temperature over the last 15 years - and this simply hasn't occurred."
Oh yes it has. Refusing to accept that is denial. Saying it doesn't make it so.
I've refuted this several times. Are you deaf?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
"January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s."
Stick a fork in him. This pdiddy denier is well-done, but like the chicken without a head, keeps running.
#323 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 03:01 PM
"Sea-level-gate proves that is baloney, they are not rising at some catastrophic rate above normal. Galcier-gate proves that is baloney, same with hurricane-gate I posted proof scientific peer-2-peer data disproves any contributions to hurricane intensity due to humans."
In sea-level-gate (??) an ipcc study was retracted because it was too conservative. The guy claimed sea levels where the maximum rise was about a meter and the minimum was about a foot.
The paper was wrong. The paper that corrected it predicted a sea level minimum of about a meter and a maximum of about two.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
So you are claiming a correction that doubles the predicted sea level rise is proof that there's none. Don't. It's dumb.
In glacier-gate (?? the standard for gates used to be Nixon. Now it's someone's husband saying "yes dear" when asked if he took out the trash.) the Himalayan glaciers were claimed to be gone in 2035. That figure was off by about three hundred years.
But a figure of "300 years" is not the same as a figure of "never". Vastly different in fact. So different that the Indian government is trying to take climate action with or without the global community and the Indian scientific community is doing independent research to make accurate assessments of the problem.
Hurricane gate needs it's own post because of the 2 link spam filters.
#324 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 10:10 PM
In hurricane-gate you have the ipcc making statements like "There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases in tropical SSTs. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. "
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-1-3.html
A scientist by the name of Les Hatton agrees "Taken separately, there is strong evidence that the Atlantic is becoming more active in both number of hurricanes and number of major hurricanes (these are defined to be ≥ 3 on the Saffir-Simpson scale), but there is no equivalent evidence in any of the published data areas that this is true elsewhere. Indeed there is weak evidence (at around the 10% level that the total number of hurricanes worldwide has decreased but this may simply because 2008-2009 were relatively quiet years). This will be analysed further as more data becomes available."
http://www.leshatton.org/Documents/Hurricanes-are-not-getting-stronger.pdf
And has problems with some of the statements and conclusions.
But, *to be continued*
#325 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 10:16 PM
His statements are not all that different than those made in the report, for instance:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.3.html
"Changes in tropical storm and hurricane frequency and intensity are masked by large natural variability. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation greatly affects the location and activity of tropical storms around the world. Globally, estimates of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes show a substantial upward trend since the mid-1970s, with a trend towards longer storm duration and greater storm intensity, and the activity is strongly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature. These relationships have been reinforced by findings of a large increase in numbers and proportion of strong hurricanes globally since 1970 even as total numbers of cyclones and cyclone days decreased slightly in most basins. Specifically, the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes increased by about 75% since 1970. The largest increases were in the North Pacific, Indian and Southwest Pacific Oceans. However, numbers of hurricanes in the North Atlantic have also been above normal in 9 of the last 11 years, culminating in the record-breaking 2005 season."
What the scientists are saying is that the increased ocean heat will lead to increased precipitation which, in a tropical storm, makes it more intense. More energy means more intensity. We are seeing indications of that, but not enough to constitute proof yet.
Again, what the denialists do is take any doubt and pretend it proves their assumptions, whether or not the doubt supports their assumptions.
"HaHA! You had to retract an ocean study! Oceans aren't rising!"
"No that's not what.."
"HaHA! You had to retract a specific glacier claim! Glaciers and ice shelves aren't threatened!"
"No, now hold on.."
"HaHA! You may have to adjust your wording on hurricanes! Hurricanes and tropical storms aren't real!"
"Wha? Okay. Whatever."
"HaHA! You're mother's so fat, the shadow of her ass causes significant cooling!"
"Okay. That's enough..."
"HaHA!..."
and so on.
For a thread title containing the words "hot air" there sure seems to be a lot of it in this thread.
#326 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 28 Feb 2010 at 10:31 PM
Well folks, I'm batting 1000, it took less than 48 hours for Hollywood yahoos to blame the Haiti earthquake on AGWing, and as I also predicted, it took the President of Bolivia less than 24 hours to blame humans for the quake in Chile, "humans are destroying the environment, the earth is mad at us!", he claims.
So, following on, let me now expose the newest 'Human Hater' play book to you all before they even get a chance to launch the next round. The media are beginning to 'shape the landscape' and lay out the possibilities that somehow earthquakes are getting more frequent and stronger. This then 'has to' be due to humans, we are always guilty. Ergo, the (pseudo) logic will be put forward by the Human Haters that earthquakes are becoming more frequent and violent because of Oil & Gas drilling around the globe. You heard it first here! Save those Iguanas! Cool, win/win/win, get those dirty dawg oil companies that provide inexpensive fuel to save lives and provide robust economies back, tax carbon even more and stop capitalism - the scourge of humanity. Wow! This one can't miss, I tell you!
Big quake question: Are they getting worse?, Seismic shockers are to be expected, but planet seems to be more active;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35618526/
Albert Gore Jr gained a lot of weight at the same time humans were emitting more CO2. Ergo, if Algore looses weight, we can reverse AGWing! That's a simpler fix than Mark A. York's fix without messing around with ozone layers!
#327 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 12:48 PM
Thimbles, Mark, Axel, secular saints, give it up with your circular logic already and come back with some real peer-2-peer reviewed science that proves humans are guilty of something that is causing run away global warming at rates that will lead to catastrophic events if we don't tax carbon for Trillions of dollars to make Algore even richer than his net worth of $ 110,000,000 and the president ot the IPCC's company Billions in carbon trades.
Switch to earthquakes already AGWing is already lost! Save the Iguanas from Global Cooling!
#328 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 12:53 PM
Do you AGWers even know where Electrical power comes from and how it's generated?
Hearings at the Senate Appropriations Committee for Energy and Water Development on "Electric Vehicles in the Light Duty Auto Sector" have revealed that the electric vehicle, or E.V., market is lining up for government bailouts.
One suggestion was for the federal government to buy fleets of E.V.s to jumpstart an industry where the first generation of electric cars is expected to be able to travel only about 100 miles on a charge.
That means electric vehicles may be best adapted for governmental use, for instance where U.S. Postal Service trucks travel less than 18 miles a day and return to a central depot that could accommodate E.V. charging.
#329 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 12:55 PM
Irrefutable fact - There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. Period.
Phil Jones says so. Keith Trenberth says so. NASA says so.
Morons like Dr. York attempt to dodge this reality with silliness with straw men.. Like "the last decade was the hottest on record".
So what? The point is that the average global temperature hasn't increased significantly since 1995.
You can run the regression yourself. Here is the data from the NASA dataset:
Year Annual_Mean
------------------
1995 .37
1996 .29
1997 .39
1998 .56
1999 .32
2000 .33
2001 .48
2002 .56
2003 .55
2004 .48
2005 .62
2006 .54
2007 .57
2008 .43
2009 .57
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
#330 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 12:56 PM
AGWing ideologues, he is too generous;
Professor Will Alexander, a South African scientist working with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, published a statement in which he declared "the total and irretrievable collapse of the whole global-warming issue."
Declaring the IPCC to be a "worthless carcass," Alexander wrote that continued global warming will not result in predicted catastrophic consequences because "there is no believable evidence to support these claims."
In an obvious reference to global-warming ideologues, Alexander wrote, "There will no doubt be those who will continue to preach the climate-change gospel, but their support will soon collapse as their fraudulent science continues to be exposed."
#331 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 12:58 PM
U.N. scientist admits no global warming since 1995
The United Nations position was undermined when professor Phil Jones, a climate scientist at the center of the Climategate revelations, told BBC that the data behind the famous "hockey stick graph" used by climate-change advocates to support the global warming theory has been lost.
Moreover, Jones admitted there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 15 years, according to the Daily Mail.
Then, on Feb. 19, U.N. Climate Chief Yvo de Boer resigned in the wake of the failure of December's U.N. Climate Summit in Copenhagen to produce a new climate accord among the 120 nations in attendance.
In what should be viewed as an admission that the science behind global warming is seriously flawed, the World Meteorological Organization has agreed to accept a proposal presented by Britain's Meteorological Office that it's time to start over by collecting more precise temperature data under conditions of greater transparency.
Still, Fox News reported that the United Nations has remained resistant to accept the demise of global warming as "junk science," with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon continuing to urge environment ministers to reject attempts by skeptics to undermine efforts at climate-change agreements aimed at controlling carbon dioxide emissions.
Ban Ki-moon still insists global warming represents a clear and present danger, Fox News reported.
In this, the U.N and the Obama administration appear fundamentally in agreement that even one of the most severe winters in the United States and Europe for decades will not dislodge global-warming orthodoxy.
Documented is the Obama administration's ideological determination to impose burdensome carbon curbs on the U.S. economy through regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clear Air Act, if Congress refuses to pass less economically onerous measures through a cap-and-trade scheme under the administration's proposed legislation.
Even with Al Gore reduced to an object of ridicule, Climategate does not appear to have dislodged the ideological fervor of the United Nations or the Obama administration to pursue carbon taxes under regulatory schemes, regardless of whether the science behind the global warming theory is valid.
#332 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 01:01 PM
Thimbles, Axel, Mark Black Elvis, AKA Green Peace & Human Hater Association,
Riddle us this;
3 warming periods before industrialization in the last 2000 years alone warmer than now (before I drove my big SUV around town), Roman, Medieval and another closer period according to Tree ring and ice core data, plus two declines in global mean temperatures since WWII with CO2 still rising both times.
Provide the world with Peer-2-Peer reviewed data and facts please explaining each one of these 5 clear mis-fits to your 'humans are guilty' of emitting too much plant food into the air AGWing theory please?
Other wise you are the only ones spewing 'Hot Air' (and making your so called AGWing worse by the way if you really believe in this HOAX).
By the way, every 2 Google searches wastes enough energy to heat some poor person's tea pot. The computers, the cars you drive, the gum you chew, the IVs that save lives everyday, the ambulances that save lives every day, 1/2 the operating rooms that save lives every day are all made mostly out of PETROLEUM products!
Even worse than that, the straws you suck your lattes out of and the lids that keep them hot are made from Petroleum too!
But wait, it's even worse than you thought!
The discovery of Petroleum in Texas at the turn of the 20th century at Spindle Top saved the whales from being hunted to extension for whale oil. OUCH!
Texans and Oil saved the whales from extinction, what have you Yahoos done for Mother Earth lately huh? Human haters.
#333 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 01:17 PM
Albert J, I don't believe Carbon Dioxide created earthquakes. The Climatologists you all are relying on for your claims of "insignificant warming" are not claiming greenhouse gasses are causing earthquakes, the only one I've seen claiming a connection between earthquakes and global warming is Bill O'Reilly:
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/10/25/climatology_theory_for_robber_barons_needing_fuel_is_a_part_of_the_natural_cycle_too.php
But if you want to play these games, okay.
A lot of Christian denialists believe in the rapture and think people walked with dinosaurs. By your rhetorical rules, you too must believe these things and I can ridicule you for your belief in Krypton Jesus flying from the sky shooting laser beams from his holy eyes at the folks who don't know the magic incantation "I accept Krypton Jesus as my personal Lord and Master into my heart!"
Go ride a dinosaur, you looney bin for the lord crusader.
#334 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 01:26 PM
Isn't it interesting to see all the AGWers out following their Dear Leader's instruction from his tweets lately? The plan is, lay low, then come out strong in the spring, follow my (Al Gore's) OP-Ed piece in the NYTs and hit all the sites with the 'Big Lie' (AGWing). Concentrate on hurricanes now, winter is almost over. Scare, Scare, Scare, andremember the mantra now, say it with me now, "We're all gonna die!"
You Human Hater guys & gals are so predictable, it's truly funny to see you dance to the Goracle's puppet strings, LOL
Honk if you Love Global Warming! Beeep Beeep.
#335 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 01:28 PM
By the way, before you all waste too much of your 'Hot Air" from AGWing on hurricanes because of the Goracle's Tweet'ed call to arms;
The Times of London is catching up on the news: "UN's climate link to hurricanes in doubt."
Research by hurricane scientists may force the UN’s climate panel to reconsider its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an increase in the number of tropical storms.
The benchmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that a worldwide increase in hurricane-force storms since 1970 was probably linked to global warming.
It followed some of the most damaging storms in history such as Hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans and Hurricane Dennis which hit Cuba, both in 2005.
The IPCC added that humanity could expect a big increase in such storms over the 21st century unless greenhouse gas emissions were controlled.
The warning helped turn hurricanes into one of the most iconic threats of global warming, with politicians including Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, and Al Gore citing them as a growing threat to humanity.
The cover of Gore’s newest book, Our Choice, even depicts an artist's impression of a world beset by a series of huge super-hurricanes as a warning of what might happen if carbon emissions continue to rise.
However, the latest research, just published in Nature Geoscience, paints a very different picture.
Ohh Shucky darns....
#336 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 01:39 PM
In Case you Goracle Tweet followers think the worst is over and it's safe to come out adn play AWGing again, welcome to just the 'tip of the icebreg'! Judicial and Political 'Hot Air';
There are a series of Freedom of Information Act requests pending with NASA, DoE and its appendage the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), EPA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These all are in various stages of undress, from waiting on an initial determination (EPA — seeking internal discussions of how and why they arrived early on at the aggressively pushed talking point that Climategate e-mails were "hacked," a defensive and unsubstantiated political explanation what more likely was a leak), to waiting for the resolution of complaints against NASA for withholding "McIntyre" and RealClimate-related documents, to waiting for the clock to strike to exercise appellate rights with the judicial branch.
Oh, and with one other taxpayer-funded agency at the heart of Climategate flatly stating that the taxpayer may not see what the taxpayer has paid for, if this particular agency has it. We shall see.
Honk if you love Global WARMING! bEEEP bEEEP! Inquiring minds can't wait for the real melt down of AGWing!
#337 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 01:45 PM
Thimbles blabs: "A lot of Christian denialists believe in the rapture and think people walked with dinosaurs"
padikiller notes: So do a lot of the Christian AGWists...
What is your point here?
#338 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 02:42 PM
"Morons like Dr. York attempt to dodge this reality with silliness with straw men.. Like "the last decade was the hottest on record".
Effing morons like you can't do the math. Period.
#339 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 04:44 PM
1995 -.37
2009 -.57
Where I come from that's a significant increase. In fact it is to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
#340 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 05:14 PM
padkiller asks an obvious question: What is your point here?
Thimbles gives an obvious answer: When you make your points based not on what speaker says but on some fringe absurdity, you are not arguing with the person, you're arguing with his caricature.
Now we can yelp about eachother's caricatures all day but for what purpose? It's not like the conflict will increase understanding and reveal truth if all we exchange are lies and misunderstandings.
Only complete idiots believe that green house gases are responsible for earthquakes. If the people who you're talking to don't believe it, it's a cheap tactic to pretend they do so you call them idiots over it.
#341 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 07:08 PM
Cherrypicking, Illustrated
Playing by Dr. York's rules:
1944 .19
1976 -.16
Where I come from... That's a significant 32 year decrease...
1900 -.07
1976 -.16
Where I come from... That's a significant 76 year decrease...
1998 .56
2009 .57
Where I come from, that is an entirely insignificant increase...
The Earth is more than 4 billion years old. The Earth's climate is an incredibly complex and thoroughly chaotic system (indeed the branch of mathematics that we call "chaos" was born in climate study).
No AGW miodel clomes close to both explaining past temperatures and accurately predicting future values.
When Keith Trenberth says that "there is no consensus" with regard to the AGW models failures to deal with the recent lack of warming... He is not lying and he is not wrong...
When Phil Jones says that the Earth hasn't warmed significantly in the last 15 years- he isn't lying and he isn't playing Dr. York's "cherrypicking" game- he is stating the truth..
#342 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 07:27 PM
On the contrary. That is idiocy personified. I proved without a doubt that the temperatures increased from 1995-2009. Unequivocally.
"When Phil Jones says that the Earth hasn't warmed significantly in the last 15 years- "
That is Not what Jones is saying. That assertion is a canard cherry pick.
So if the period is just shy of 95 percent confidence, as it is. Where does the 94.9 go? Poof in you math. You sir, are an ignoramus. Proven. Fact.
"Given that the change of 5‐year‐mean global temperature anomaly is almost 0.2°C over the past decade, we can conclude that the world has become warmer over the past decade, not cooler."
James E. Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf
In the end Thimbles, they are idiots. Showing that is the point. I'd say we've done it enough at this point. A moderator should end it by banning the bs from this clown. That's my hope. Goodnight and good riddance.
#343 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Mon 1 Mar 2010 at 10:20 PM
Here is a new one for you Mark A. York, blame the lack of economic recovery on Global Warming, even I didn't see this one coming, LOL. See, you AGWers can teach an old dawg new tricks after all!
WASHINGTON, March 1 (Reuters) - White House economic adviser Larry Summers said on Monday winter blizzards were likely to distort U.S. February jobless figures, which are due to be released on Friday.
AP from the White House.... "The blizzards that affected much of the country during the last month are likely to distort the statistics. So it's going to be very important ... to look past whatever the next figures are to gauge the underlying trends," Summers said in an interview with CNBC, according to a transcript.
#344 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 2 Mar 2010 at 04:50 AM
Mark A. York and Thimbles, (or should we say Mann and Co.), make my points for me yes! We must have hit some realy sore points LOL! Don't you just hate it when teh other side gives away your play book before you even get to call an audible at the line of scrimmage! But, I'll make it up to you guys ina bit, I'll give you the Skeptics play book just to make it fair now.
Currently you can't win the debate on science and facts, so AGWers try to have the messenger of Truth banned with Fascist tactics (this alasy worked in teh past because the moderators were always sympathetic to AGWers agendas). This is soooo retro guys. Come on, how Stalinist will you all get in your dire AGWing desperation.You all better Tweet Dear Leader Goracle back and tell him you aren't going to jump off the cliff with him now! Last chance. Goracle will go down with the ship, it's guaranteed 100% going to happen.
You AGWers now have 3 choices basically. Prof Hansen of NASA GISS infamy is one example, Prof Jones of EAU CRU Climategate infamy is the second example and I'll give you the third choice in a minute.
1) Prof Hansen choice is, follow the Goracle over the cliff and end up a discredited has-bin for the rest of your life. 2) Prof Jones admits now the Hockey Stick was fiction and there has been statistically no Global Warming for the last 15 years; so he at least has some morals, some integrity and I think he get's out with some scientific credibility at the end of this for admitting his culpability (very hard to do publicly so Kudos to him for doing it!), even though he was part of the Hoax in the beginning. So due respect to Prof Jones. In the end, probably he did it with the best of intentions and the worst of all reasons, he was in the power and position to do it. I'm sure he deeply regrets it now in retrospect, after seeing Prof Hansen get thrown literally under the bus by the Goracle and John Kerry.
Now for an interesting third choice for all you co-conspirators out there trying to shut down the voices of reason and truth.
The majority of the media has turned on you, so the 'Big Lie" propaganda machine changed sides now. So, unless you want to go over the cliff with the Goracle, you can either do a Prof. Jones, or you can turn Whistleblower from an insider perspective and get book deals, mini-series on HBO and a movie deal. I have some agents waiting to hear from you now.
There's your 3rd option. Best of luck Mooching, Looting and Whining.
#345 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 2 Mar 2010 at 05:13 AM
Thimbles and Mark A. York, let's go back the basics and understand Science 101.
I'll let Albert Einstein explain it to you all. When he was lauding Galileo as the true father of modern science, he explained, "Logic and Theories are nothing and empty without concrete scientific proof". He was talking not just about others theories, but his own as well. he was not afraid of the Truth, like you AGWers are.
Maybe in the beginning it seemed logical that humans are guilty, but the science of the last 15 years has failed to provide the concrete proof of this In fact the science has proved the opposite, Increased CO2 emissions above a certain factor have very little affect on temperature or climate. What it does affect is increasing the efficiency of plant crops by 30% which goes to feeding the world's poor people.
One wonders why you AGWer Human Haters are so vehemently against feeding the poor? Any logical answers to that one Thimbles?
Here is the difference between Science and Pseudo-science for you 2, to draw you a picture, since circular logic precludes your ability to add 2 + 2.
Real Science = the Cosmic Ray/Cloud Theory of Climate Control. Over 1 million years of ice core data, tree ring data, archeological evidence, ice rafting evidence, physics experiments and so on, there is one (1) bust in the theory. I million years, there is a fit to the theory except one small period. This period then has been explained utilizing Physics. And this Theory goes a step further in concrete proof in CERN very soon. The scientists are open to real scientific debate, and welcome all new discoveries with the wonderment that drives real science, which is the drive to find the Truth, nottry to fit the template agendas for ideological, political and personal selfish reasons.
Pseudo-Science = AGWing, the Theory that Humans have caused runaway Global Warming because of excess Plant food in the air. There are at least 6 (six) busts in your theory unexplained on the last 2,000 years. Instead of inviting debate, you AGWers seek to use Stalinist tactics to silence debate, manipulate data and force a false sense of 'consensus' (consensus is not science by the way, regardless of what the Goracle has told you all). You could be real men and women of integrity; real scientists like the group with the Cosmic ray theory, and just scientifically prove your points? Why don't you? Show us how your theory holds up when there are three (3) periods in the last 2,000 years before industrialization as warm or warmer than now, two (2) periods of global cooling when industrial CO2 outputs increased starting after WWII and now, and finally there is no Green House Gas tell tale temperature Hot spot over the equator.
So, if you can use your great mathematical skills Mark A. York, lets add all this up. One theory has 1 bust over 1 million years, which has been adequately explained scientifically (not with 'feelings') utilizing Physics dynamics as Cosmic rays enter the atmosphere (to be proven concretely in CERN later on). That theory of course means AGWing is toast as a theory as it stands today. The other theory, your AGWing theory, has 6 (six) busts at least over only 2,000 years. And instead of providing peer-2-peer reviewed data to explain these busts, you use Stalinist tactics to attack the other theory. That is the difference between Science and pseudo science. Next I'll give you the Skeptics play book, play by play.
#346 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 2 Mar 2010 at 05:42 AM
Here is the secret Skeptic Play book Mark, Thimbles and the rest of you secular saint AGWers. Tell the truth, seek the truth, nothing but the truth to the best of your scientific abilities. Full transparency of data and experiments plus peer-2-peer reviewed data and concrete scientific evidence. That is the secret Skeptic play book. PS, don't go blabbing it to your AGWer handlers, especially not the Goracle, if you want to escape from the AGWer cult. Your handlers will only clamp down on you harder and you miss miss your chance to escape the Cult.
That is the play book. Now, see why you circular logics keep getting caught up in your lies, distortions and pseudo-scientific anti-logical explanations?
In the end, there is no way you can win, because the Truth is dominant, just as light ALWAYS dominates darkness. That's the real secret of why you all keep getting creamed in debates and in reality.
"Facts are stubborn things." John Adams and Mark A. York
Here is a quote for you Mark, can you tell us who said this one?
"The Truth shall set you free!"
Think about it. All the time you waste thinking up lies, distortions and media propaganda barrages is wasted for nothing. In the end, only Truth matters. In the end, only Truth survives. Everything else is only delusion based on illusions.
So the way to escape the Circular Logic Slavery plantation you AGWers are trapped in, is to start simply seeking the real truth, and ye shall be set free, I guarantee, it's physics 101!
#347 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 2 Mar 2010 at 08:48 AM
WARNING: Troll alert--this is site is a known troll feeding ground. All posters should avoid contact.
#348 Posted by SecuityControl, CJR on Tue 2 Mar 2010 at 11:49 AM
Thomas Paine's warning........ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
John Adams and Mark A. York......"Facts are stubborn things."
Albert Einstein....."Theories and logic without concrete scientific proof are empty."
Prof. Jones, AEU and CRU....."Statistically, there has been no Global Warming in the last 15 years."
Albert Gore Jr......."We're all gonna die! Has everyone seen my new boat yet, the BS-1? I put my Nobel Prize and Academy Award on it so no one can take them away from me. Yuck Yuck, gotta run, cashin' in my Google stock and sell my Carbon trades, $ 110,000,000 is not enough for me, no sir!"
Gomer Pyle....."Surprise, Surprise, Surprise."
John Galt......"Where am I?"
#349 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 3 Mar 2010 at 03:40 AM
Thimbles, Milli-gram, Mark A. York, Axel, Black Elvis, all the other Secular Saints, all you Secular AGWers make a lot of noise about scientists, mathematics and other such 'intelligentsia babble', so here is a question for you AGWers, "Who is a scientist?"
Galileo, the father of Modern science, put both his daughters into the Poor Claire's Convent in Italy, and dedicated his most prized books to the Pope (and hence the Church). The poor Claire Convent was started by St. Claire working with St. Francis of Assi.
Albert Einstein...."I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, it the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
Sir Issac Newton....near the end of his life, Newton said of himself:
" I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
In the second edition of the "Principia," in which he published most of his discoveries in physics, Newton writes:
"The true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful being. His duration reaches from eternity to eternity; His presence from infinity to infinity. He governs all things."
Newton wrote only three books – the "Optics," the "Principia," and "Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John."[2] Averaged over the course of his life, he divided his time equally between his physics and his Bible, believing that his physics was a biblical ministry. To Dr. Bently he wrote, "When I wrote my Treatise about our System [the "Principia"], I had an Eye upon such Principles as might work with considering Men, for the belief of a Deity, and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that Purpose."
Science is a search for truth among the things that man can see. Divine scriptures teach that there are things that man can see and those that he cannot see – "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" and "we see through a glass darkly." It teaches that "the truth shall make you free" – the truth about both things seen and things not seen.
During most of its history, when it housed and sponsored the work of many of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, the California Institute of Technology proudly displayed its motto:
The Truth Shall Make You Free.
Have you figured out yet who said "The Truth shall set you free" yet, Mark A. York?
The above scientists believed in absolutes, thus they had morals, integrity and direction from which to navigate from. You Circular Logicals are lost in Relativism, and have no absolute reference point from which to navigate from. Hence by scientific definition you are the proverbial 'Blind leading the Blind', lost in circular logic.
You see the irony for you Secular Saint AGWers, yes? You have no absolutes from which to navigate from, thus you are eternally lost in Circular Logic. You presume wrongly (Physics 101) that you personally are the Center of the Universe.Thus, relativistically, it's OK to lie, cheat & steal, because the only thing that matters to you is.....you. As per your Dear Leader, the great Goracle. Only, instead of being 'The One' (Neo) from the Matrix, like the Goracle has brain washed you into believing, you all are the Mr. Smiths, the rogue algorithms gone bad, running around saying your silly mantra, "everything that has a beginning has to have an end!" Mathematics 101, Pi!! A beginning with no end. Silly Mr. Smith Human Haters.
That fact that you Secular Saint AGWers even showed up here speaks volumes. 1) You are either totally clueless and lost, or 2) you don't believe a word you are saying and are in this to manipulate for po
#350 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 3 Mar 2010 at 05:44 AM
If the scientific 'foundation' is rotten to the core, any jumping off and extrapolations from this rotten foundation are only extrapolating rot.
The UN IPCC has blurred the lines between science and advocacy to the point where they are unable to separate situational awareness from proposed remedies. They have been advocating for specific policy actions and ignoring the original charter of informing the public on the state of science. What is often forgotten is the fact that the UN IPCC and Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize, not a prize for science as their cheerleaders would lead the public to believe. Their work was not held to the scientific standard reserved for work in physics or chemistry, which is why the significant errors and a lack of peer-review process in the 4th Assessment Report should surprise no one. The IPCC has functioned more as a political body than a scientific body — one needs to look no further than the fact that its Summary for Policymakers is released months before the underlying report is finalized.
The problem, however, has greater significance than finding that another UN organization is incompetent. The IPCC has been the benchmark against which all climate science is judged. It is the foundation for the recent EPA Endangerment Finding and its conclusions are typically the jumping-off place for scientific extrapolations by other scientists, organizations, and most importantly, governments.
But, who is John Galt anyway? I see the AWGers are stunned. Adios and RIP AWGing. Tweet the Goracle and tell him you quit. And he can jump over the cliff with out you.
#351 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 3 Mar 2010 at 11:45 AM
Here she is;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1254834/Nasa-reveals-detailed-images-Earth.html
You Secular Saints don't really expect sane people to believe she is an accident, now do you? It appears she is very well planned and thought out, and is in very good hands now. All the laws governing her seem to be maintained in a set order and are observable and repeatable. Where is the randomness, the accidental coincidence that created her? And if everything is accidental, how come the observations are measurable & repeatable? And who is sustaining these laws by which she is governed?
"God does not play dice with the Universe." Albert Einstein
#352 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 3 Mar 2010 at 11:56 AM
WARNING: Troll alert--this is site is a known troll feeding ground. All posters should avoid contact.
#353 Posted by SecurityControl, CJR on Wed 3 Mar 2010 at 05:37 PM
Here is Obama's 'Science Tzar', John Holdren:
John Holdren, Science Tzar extraordinaire, has been a longtime climate-change alarmist who has advocated ideas such as enforcing limits to world population growth.
Holdren's name was in the e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K., which show that some climate researchers declined to share their data with fellow scientists, conspired to rig data and sought to keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.
FrontPageMag.com noted Holdren has endorsed "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a world army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits.
Holdren collaborated with conspiracy theorist Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb" in which it was proclaimed: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."
Previously it was reported Holdren also predicted 1 billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide-induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020.
Holdren based his prediction on a theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe causing global cooling, with a consequent reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.
But Holdren also argued "global warming" might cancel global cooling. In their 1970s textbook "Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment," last revised in 1977, Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich argued on page 687 that "a man-made warming trend might cancel out a natural cooling trend."
#354 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 01:15 PM
Apparently we have now successfully killed off Atheism and AGWing as silly theories that belong in the 'Flat Earth' category, judging from all the great concrete peer-2-peer reviewed evidence offered up so far supporting these 2 'Flat Earth' type theories.
Thank God, finally some common sense prevails!
#355 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 01:26 PM
I am a practicing operational weather forecast - meteorologist, though non degree'd. I came from the school of hard knocks and my reputation is excellent otherwise i would not be able to make a living.
From my observations of my colleagues - they do not teach much climatology when learning meteorology.
1. There is little "big picture".
2. They teach very little if any data acquisition which I also think helps to interpret modeling and makes me a better forecaster and running and logging records over 35 years experience gives me a Climate sample.
3. Why I am not sure, many broadcast and research meteorologists are politically conservative and carry their bias, perhaps a narrowness of situational awareness to focus discipline to a point of disadvantage? Lucky for me - I was taught to incorporate earth sciences and not disregard them. again I'm well respected, accurate and non-degree'd and it threatens many.
4. They are working for large conservative corporations and there is no doubt a hint pushed along by editors "not to be controversial" very possibly due to "Time Constraints, and a skeptic is more acceptable than reality based climatology.
I not only know AGW is real, I think it's worse than reported, I think the large majority of the meteorological community should be jailed for "criminal negligence" for our children and grand children, and that this will all catch up over the next decade or two and whence it does there will be "the denial of the denial"
Roger H.
#356 Posted by Roger H., CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 01:46 PM
Can you AGWers please, please, please Tweet the Goarcle, he is needed urgently down in Florida. He needs to save the Coral Reefs from the impending Ice Age! Please URGENTLY have him sail his boat the BS-1 down there now and demand Global Warming instead of Global Cooling! It's just not fair (to Corals). Corals are people too!
Cold weather takes toll on coral
BY TIMOTHY O'HARA Citizen Staff
tohara@keysnews.com
This winter's cold weather devastated inshore coral reefs in the Florida Keys, but has spared the more heavily dived and fished offshore reefs, according to a multi-agency review.
#357 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 02:31 PM
Ocean-Acidification-Gate:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N22/EDIT.php
The Ocean Acidification Fiction
Volume 12, Number 22: 3 June 2009
There is considerable current concern that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content is causing a significant drop in the pH of the world's oceans in response to their absorption of a large fraction of each year's anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It has been estimated, for example, that the globe's seawater has been acidified (actually made less basic) by about 0.1 pH unit relative to what it was in pre-industrial times; and model calculations imply an additional 0.7-unit drop by the year 2300 (Caldeira and Wickett, 2003), which decline is hypothesized to cause great harm to calcifying marine life such as corals. But just how valid are these claims?
Whenever the results of theoretical calculations are proposed as the basis for a crisis of some kind or other, it is always good to compare their predictions against what is known about the phenomenon in the real world. In the case of oceanic pH, for example, Liu et al. (2009) write in an important new paper that "the history of ocean pH variation during the current interglacial (Holocene) remains largely unknown," and that it "would provide critical insights on the possible impact of acidification on marine ecosystems." Hence, they set about to provide just such a context.
Working with eighteen samples of fossil and modern Porites corals recovered from the South China Sea, the nine researchers employed 14C dating using the liquid scintillation counting method, along with positive thermal ionization mass spectrometry to generate high precision δ11B (boron) data, from which they reconstructed the paleo-pH record of the past 7000 years that is depicted in the figure below.
As can be seen from this figure, there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the two most recent pH values. They are neither the lowest of the record, nor is the decline rate that led to them the greatest of the record. Hence, there is no compelling reason to believe they were influenced in any way by the nearly 40% increase in the air's CO2 concentration that has occurred to date over the course of the Industrial Revolution. As for the prior portion of the record, Liu et al. note that there is also "no correlation between the atmospheric CO2 concentration record from Antarctica ice cores and δ11B-reconstructed paleo-pH over the mid-late Holocene up to the Industrial Revolution."
References
Caldeira, K. and Wickett, M.E. 2003. Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425: 365.
Liu, Y., Liu, W., Peng, Z., Xiao, Y., Wei, G., Sun, W., He, J. Liu, G. and Chou, C.-L. 2009. Instability of seawater pH in the South China Sea during the mid-late Holocene: Evidence from boron isotopic composition of corals. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73: 1264-1272.
Lough, J.M. and Barnes, D.J. 1997. Several centuries of variation in skeletal extension, density and calcification in massive Porites colonies from the Great Barrier Reef: A proxy for seawater temperature and a background of variability against which to identify unnatural change. Journal of Experimental and Marine Biology and Ecology 211: 29-67.
Pelejero, C., Calvo, E., McCulloch, M.T., Marshall, J.F., Gagan, M.K., Lough, J.M. and Opdyke, B.N. 2005. Preindustrial to modern interdecadal variability in coral reef pH. Science 309: 2204-2207.
Wei, G., McCulloch, M.T., Mortimer, G., Deng, W. and Xie, L. 2009. Evidence for ocean acidification in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73: 2332-2346.
#358 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 02:35 PM
"References
Caldeira, K. and Wickett, M.E. 2003. Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425: 365."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/425365a.html
"The coming centuries may see more ocean acidification than the past 300 million years.
Top of page
Abstract
Most carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels will eventually be absorbed by the ocean1, with potentially adverse consequences for marine biota2, 3, 4. Here we quantify the changes in ocean pH that may result from this continued release of CO2 and compare these with pH changes estimated from geological and historical records. We find that oceanic absorption of CO2 from fossil fuels may result in larger pH changes over the next several centuries than any inferred from the geological record of the past 300 million years, with the possible exception of those resulting from rare, extreme events such as bolide impacts or catastrophic methane hydrate degassing."
"Liu, Y., Liu, W., Peng, Z., Xiao, Y., Wei, G., Sun, W., He, J. Liu, G. and Chou, C.-L. 2009. nstability of seawater pH in the South China Sea during the mid-late Holocene: Evidence from boron isotopic composition of corals. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73: 1264-1272."
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=21191320
"The paleo-pH records of the SCS, reconstructed from the δ11B data, were not stable as previously thought but show a gradual increase from the Holocene thermal optimal and a sharp decrease to modern values. The latter is likely caused by the large amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution but variations of atmospheric pCO2 cannot explain the pH change of the SCS before the Industrial Revolution. We suggest that variations of monsoon intensity during the mid-late Holocene may have driven the sea surface pH increase from the mid to late Holocene. Results of this study indicate that the impact of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 emissions may have reversed the natural pH trend in the SCS since the mid-Holocene. "
Do I need to go on?
#359 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 07:42 PM
"Pelejero, C., Calvo, E., McCulloch, M.T., Marshall, J.F., Gagan, M.K., Lough, J.M. and Opdyke B.N. 2005. Preindustrial to modern interdecadal variability in coral reef pH. Science 309: 2204-2207."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5744/2204
"The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems is unclear, but it will likely depend on species adaptability and the rate of change of seawater pH relative to its natural variability. To constrain the natural variability in reef-water pH, we measured boron isotopic compositions in a ~300-year-old massive Porites coral from the southwestern Pacific. Large variations in pH are found over ~50-year cycles that covary with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation of ocean-atmosphere anomalies, suggesting that natural pH cycles can modulate the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems."
#360 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 07:46 PM
PS. IT should be clear to any MORON that it's not the increase in acidity that makes us worried.
It's not like anyone is dissolving in the ocean water today.
What worries is the rate of increase. Your crap link is basically saying "Now you have a credit card and you're putting on a 1000 bucks a month on it, but it's been two months and it's not like 2000 bucks on your credit card is unheard of. So do nothing."
PS, your chinese study was mentioning that the natural trend before industrial pollution was a slow increase in pH, which means a slow decrease in acidity. What happened to ph after industrial pollution was a "sharp decrease to modern values" which means a sharp increase in acidity.
Your science sucks. You fail. QED
(I apologize for feeding the troll.)
#361 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 4 Mar 2010 at 07:59 PM
Global Swarming:
Around 50 ships, including large ferries reportedly carrying thousands, were stuck in the ice in the Baltic Sea Thursday and many were not likely to be freed for hours, Swedish maritime authorities said.
"Around 50 commercial vessels are waiting for help from ice breakers (and) we have had as many as six large passenger ferries stuck, but have managed to free two of them," Johny Lindvall of the Swedish Maritime Administration's ice breaker unit told AFP.
He said that two large Viking Line ferries that regularly shuttle thousands of passengers between Sweden and Finland were among the four ferries still stuck in the ice.
According to the TT news agency, the two ferries were the Isabella and the Amorella and were in total carrying 2,630 passengers.
#362 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 05:56 AM
Whether or not to Weather Strip (OR: 'BIG' Green Crony Capitalism);
A year ago, President Barack Obama peered into our economic future and saw foam sealant and weatherstripping.
In the midst of a punishing recession, Obama would wield that incomparable jobs-creating tool, the caulk gun. What the Works Progress Administration was to Franklin Roosevelt, the government-funded weatherization of homes would be to Obama.
“If you allocate money to weatherize homes,” Obama effused to an audience in Elkhart, Ind., “the homeowner gets the benefit of lower energy bills. You right away put people back to work, many of whom in the construction industry and in the housing industry are out of work right now.” And it’s a step to “a new energy future.”
Obama was hawking another one of his cost-free, best-of-all-worlds scenarios, one that has been exposed in all its self-deluding inanity in the space of a year. As a writer parodying such magical thinking long ago observed, “Sun-beams may be extracted from cucumbers, but the process is tedious.” A sun-beam extraction program might have been just as effective, and nearly as timely.
Obama poured $5 billion into weatherization as part of last year’s stimulus and wanted to spend billions more in a second stimulus. The Department of Energy managed to get the money to the states, where it has swelled the coffers for weatherization and done little else.
According to a Department of Energy inspector general report last month, “only 2 of the 10 highest funded recipients completed more than 2 percent of planned units.” New York had completed 280 out of 45,400 planned units as of December, Texas had completed 0 of 33,908, and California 12 out of 43,400. That’s 292 homes in three states with a total population of roughly 80 million.
So much for the 87,000 jobs the administration promised “right away.” The inspector general report is unsparing: “The job creation impact of what was considered to be one of the Department’s most ‘shovel ready’ projects has not materialized,” and neither have “the significant reductions in energy consumption.” Besides that, weatherization has been a stimulative triumph.
Secular Saints rejoice! Your Marxist 'Green Shirt' Socialist Weather Stripping jobs are here now! You are 'somebody', finally. Whoo Hooo! Honk if you love Global Warming! Beeep Beeep!
#363 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 07:42 AM
Take Heart Secular Saints! Thimbles, Milli-gram (notice how small they are?), Axel, Alex, Mark A. York, Black Elvis and all the rest. We skeptics are here to offer you an olive branch and help you sleep better at night. Plus re-build your self esteem and thus give you a much healthier happier outlook on life in general. So maybe you will not hate us humans quite so much.
We have designed this 'Circular logic' Alarm, and it's yours absolutely free! All you have to do the pay the shipping and handling costs. Plus, it comes in all your favorite Secular Saint colors too! You can wear it around your neck and go about the Universe with confidence and peace of mind now. When ever you find your self trapped by simple facts, linear analytical logic, real science or common sense, just press this handy alarm. Instantly, it will call out in loud terms (in 50 different languages), "Help, I've fallen out of Circular Logic and I can't get up!". Also, it will broadcast your GPS location to the internet, and an instant Tweet will be sent to 'Goracle Central', where Secular Saints are on 24/7 standby to come a help you stay inside Circular Logic without those pesky facts and real science getting in the way.
So, now you too can debate those pesky Skeptics, and sleep at night too! And when you get up in the morning wondering who you are, why you are here, and where on earth you are going to, just press the button and presto, "Help, I've fallen out of Circular Logic and I can't get up!". No more worries, back into your accidental coincidental random Circular Logic world you go!
If you act now, we will also include at no extra charge, a free bumper sticker for your Toyota hybrid which says, " Danger, I can no longer brake for Polar Bears!", so that all your friends will know to steer clear of you. Just send $ 599.00 shipping and handling charges by cashier's check to::: Albert J, the 'Secular Saint Circular Logic Alarm' offer now! Act now, and we will throw in another alarm for your Secular Saint friend for free also.
#364 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 08:27 AM
Mark A. York, what in the world is this nonsense? One can't even make congrouis sens out of it. How old are you and Thimbles anyway/ Have you made it through grade school yet?
Prof. Hansen said in a direct Quote to an interview recently for the UK Daily Mail QUOTE, "Statistically, there has been no Global Warming for the past 15 years". That is what he said. Why are you trying to put different words in his mouth.
And Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS infamy has been totally discredited for changing data, hiding data, and making his data 'fit' to a predetermined agenda to get NASA budget money from Congress. There is no Hansen data that can be trusted, even a teen aged Canadian girl busted Hansen's data, LOL
So pray tell, what does any of your rantings even mean, uh?
"When Phil Jones says that the Earth hasn't warmed significantly [Statistically is what he said] in the last 15 years- "
That is Not what Jones is saying. That assertion is a canard cherry pick.[Who is cherry picking? Prof Jones of EAU CRU climategate fame? Are you crazy? You are arguing my point! LOL]
[ & You know what Prof Jones is saying better than he does, you are smart! First you figured out how humans cooled the earth after WW II, now this! Wow!]
So if the period is just shy of 95 percent confidence, as it is. Where does the 94.9 go? Poof in you math. You sir, are an ignoramus. Proven. Fact. {helo, earth to Mark A. Yourk, any one home? What in the world is this nonesense even about?]
"Given that the change of 5‐year‐mean global temperature anomaly is almost 0.2°C over the past decade, we can conclude that the world has become warmer over the past decade, not cooler." [I guess Prof Jones, who has worked this data for the last 15 years doesn't know as much as you do Mark A. York, right? He was just lying, he just made up "no global warming in the past 15 years statistically"?]
James E. Hansen" Why even bring up poor discredited Hansen, he's been kicked under the bus enough by the Goracle and John Kerry.
"Facts are stubborn things". John Adams and Mark A. York
#365 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 02:10 PM
"Given that the change of 5‐year‐mean global temperature anomaly is almost 0.2°C over the past decade, we can conclude that the world has become warmer over the past decade, not cooler."
This is the kind of cherrypicking it takes to propound AGW.
Why pick a 5 year average? Why not a 3 year average? Or a 9 year average? Or a 50 year average?
Answer: Because using a 5 year average produces the desired outcome.
The AGW Believingists arbitrarily choose the data AND the methodology that produces the result they want. It's all just a shell game.
When a fifteen year trend works against AGW, people like Mark York claim that it takes a 100 year period to be meaningful.
Then, literally a few posts later, they will talk out of the other sides of their mouths and use ten year periods as Gorian Gospel.
The thing that the AGWists can't do is provide a single model that has predictive value- indeed even the most Believingist of the AGW "climatologists" (Jones and Trenberth for example) have been forced to concede that the AGW models have failed with regard to the current 15 year non-warming trend.
#366 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 04:56 PM
Yo, AGWers, here is a thought. Why not just try sceince for a change, some facts, instead of organizing clandestine propaganda strategies to 'scare more tax dollars' out of the public? Just a thought. But hey, BRING IT ON, let's bring the real science to the public square now shall we?
1) Prof, Jones of EAU CRU stated in December, "Statistically, there has been no Global Warming for the last 15 years."
2) CO2 industrial outputs for the last 15 years has increased.
1+ 2 = No AGWing due to man made CO2.
The Washington Times reports "global warming" scientists are preparing to strike back at their critics. [ooooohhhh we are soooo scared!!!]
The report by Stephen Dinan said the newspaper had obtained private e-mails in which climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences said they were tired of "being treated like political pawns."
The e-mails revealed a strategy to form a nonprofit group that would challenge "global warming" critics in public newspaper ads. One suggested "an outlandlishly aggressively partisan approach" that would gut credibility of critics.
"Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails obtained by the newspaper.
Many of the scientists in the "climate change" advocacy camp have been "under siege," the newspaper reported, since the East Anglia e-mails revealed discussions about skewing data to push chosen results.
"Facts are stubborn things." John Adams and Mark A. York
#367 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 06:23 AM
The Hijacking of Real Science:::
Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., has suggested the Justice Department investigate scientists for potentially falsifying data.
Judith Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said scientists should be shoring up their own research and eliminating mistakes.
"Hinging all of these policies on global climate change with its substantial element of uncertainty is unnecessary and is bad politics, not to mention having created a toxic environment for climate research," she told the newspaper.
In the Telegraph in the U.K., writer James Delingpole who has followed the "Climategate" scandal as the purloined e-mails have been dubbed, said the arguments are beginning to border on paranoia.
The issue, he said, no longer has anything to do with climate, global warming or even science.
See how deep corruption runs in all of today's science ... in "Hijacking Science."
"It's about economics. Politics. Money. The taxpayer versus Big Government," he wrote.
Writer Sindya N. Bhanoo at DotEarth blogs at the New York Times agreed.
That report said Americans would be looking at $7-a-gallon gasoline if they are required to meet President Obama's targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The report cited work from Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, which concluded a "carbon dioxide tax" would have to start at $30 a ton in 2010 and grow to $60 a ton in 2030, for the dollars to line up.
The Orange County Register has posted a chart for consumers to try to keep up with all the scandals developing in the "global warming" community.
Among the scandals listed are:
* ClimateGate: The scandal over the CRU e-mails from East Anglia.
* FOIGate: In which British officials are investigating whether East Anglia scientists refused to follow that nation's freedom of information law about their work.
* ChinaGate: In which dozens of weather monitoring stations in rural China apparently have simply disappeared. This would lead to higher temperature averages since city levels frequently are warmer.
* HimalayaGate: In which an Indian climate official admitted in January that he falsely claimed Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 to prod governments into action.
* And PachauriGates I and II, SternGates I and II, AmazonGate (in which a claim that global warming would wipe out rain forests was exposed as a fraud), PeerReviewGate, RussianGate I and II and nearly a dozen others.
Then there is 'Mark A. York'-gate, where he claims humans simultaneously warmed the globe and cooled the globe at the same time after World War II as a lame attempt to explain away the decline in temperatures after WWII in spite of a spurt in industrial CO2 output.
And don't forget Wiki-gate, where AWGer gatekeepers tried to erase oall mention of the Medieval Warming Period.
'Facts' apparently create these 'Gate' events, yes Mark and Thimbles? If it just weren't for those pesky 'stubborn' facts, shucky darn anyway!
#368 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 06:56 AM
More 'Pesky Stubborn" facts for You Mark A. York and Thimbles-note Prof Jones has defected from AGWing to escape with what is left of his integrity, you should consider doing the same thing before you go down with the Goracle's ship, the BS-1;
At the ClimateGate.com website, commentator John O'Sullivan noted the petition covers the entire body of "leaked e-mails."
"Peabody is, in effect, challenging the right of the current U.S. federal government to introduce cap and trade regulations by the 'back door,'" O'Sullivan noted.
"[The] civil action lists most of the principle scientists such as Professor Phil Jones, of the U.K.’s Climatic Research Unit, who recently admitted there has been no 'statistically significant' global warming for 15 years and agreed the Medieval Warm Period may have been just as warm, if not warmer than current global temperatures," O'Sullivan said.
He pointed out that the Peabody legal challenge uses e-mails from climatologists to make its points. One, from Keith Briffa, said, "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple."
The e-mail continued, "I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago."
Texas officials also have filed a lawsuit accusing the federal government of using "tainted" information to arrive at the EPA conclusion and it asks that the EPA's decisions be set aside. Virginia's attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, also filed a petition demanding the EPA reconsider its greenhouse gas finding.
Honk if you still love Global Warming, Beeep beeep! Who is John Galt?
#369 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 07:09 AM
Cherry Picking? Did you say Cherry Picking Mark A. York? Hello, here is AGWer Cherry Picking extraordinaire for you;
The scientific community is anything but unanimous on alarmism such as Al the Goracle's "An Inconvenient Truth" video that makes it appear that mankind's use of energy is simply melting polar icecaps on a daily basis.
The disunity is documented by the Petition Project which was launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered. The effort, assembled by Art Robinson, a research professor of chemistry and cofounder of the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine in 1973, now lists tens of thousands of qualified scientists who endorse this:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
The Guardian article raised again questions over where the weather stations that are being used to generate "trends" of upwardly mobile temperatures are located. The article reports that crucial data American scientists got from Chinese collaborators regarding temperatures in rural China cannot be verified. The specific allegations involve a 1990 research paper which alleged temperatures in those regions were rising.
The report was a key reference for later work, including that at the U.N.'s Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change that discounted the impact of urbanization – simply the development of streets, buildings and other infrastructure – around weather stations.
But the report said dozens of the "Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their locations or other details." That included 40 of the 42 stations purportedly in rural areas. More than a dozen others also had been moved, perhaps making their temperature readings unusable in research.
Previously that was reported when U.S. researchers accused government agencies of cherry-picking temperature readings used to assess global temperatures.
The report from scientist Joseph D'Aleo was highlighted in a report on global warming on KUSI television in San Diego.
D'Aleo, a retired climatologist who has been skeptical of global warming, contends climate data has been corrupted and skewed by "urbanization and other local factors such as land-use-land-cover changes and improper siting."
He concluded an analysis by San Jose computer programmer E.M. Smith of the data "found they systematically eliminated 75 percent of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations."
Among the original e-mails hacked from East Anglia and posted online was, "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
Suggestions to suppress information also were documented at East Anglia, "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re (Assessment Report 4)? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis."
They also suggest how "warmists," as critics label those who believe in global warming, conspired to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer-review process.
Myron Ebell, of the GlobalWarming.org website where "cooler heads prevail," had described the East Anglia e-mails as "shocking."
"It's kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the sc
#370 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 07:19 AM
R U ready for AGWing Snake-Oil-gate? Let's all ignore the facts (no GHG temp hot spot over the equator, 2 to 3 warm periods in the last 2000 years as warm or warmer than now with no industiral CO2, and 2 periods of Industrial CO2 growth with declines in temp, after WWII and from now back the last 15 years) and go with more computer modeling instead! Computer models which can't predict either the weather or the climate accurately 6 months from now.
Any wonder why weathermen and women are skeptical of this AGWing Hoax, hey Charles Homans?
More 'Green Shirt' AWGing Snake Oil below form our AGWer cheerleaders at the Guardian (It didn't take the UK Guardian long to switch back to AWGIng Propaganda and repeating the 'Big Lie', they know who pays their salaries!);
Met Office analysis reveals 'clear fingerprints' of man-made climate change
Climate scientists say the 100 studies of sea ice, rainfall and temperature should help the public to make up their own minds on global warming
Scientists matched computer models of different possible causes of climate change - both human and natural - to measured changes in factors such as air and sea temperature, Arctic sea ice cover and global rainfall patterns. This technique, called "optimal detection", showed clear fingerprints of human-induced global warming, according to Stott. "This wealth of evidence shows that there is an increasingly remote possibility that climate change is being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors." The paper reviewed numerous studies that were published since the last IPCC report.
Of course the data used in the computer models was from corrupted GISS and CRU data bases, but hey, why let those silly 'stubborn' facts get in the way of scare mongering pseudo journalism. And
Who is John Galt? these same computer models can't predict the weather correctly 2 weeks from now, but hey, let's base Trillions of $$$ worth of taxes on these computer models being generated by people WHO DEPEND ON THOSE TAX DOLLARS shall we? No conflict of interest or agenda driven science here, no sir! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, move along, nothing to see back there.
"Be afraid, be very afraid! 'Cause we're all gonna die!" the Goracle
#371 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 08:15 AM
You AGWers better pick up your game, the Accidental'ism Darwinists are starting to cut into your media and tax dollar 'moocher pie' with yourt own tactics of junk science and selective cherry picking data (and hide the declines):
These guys seem to be in competition with the Global Swarmies to see who can junk science the most money out innocent people, LOL
"Many lines of evidence indicate that Darwinius has nothing at all to do with human evolution," said Chris Kirk, associate professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the new paper's authors.
Williams believes that Hurum's team selectively chose which data to include. "The animals they used in their study were living ones. So they ignored many of the fossil records that we have," she said.
http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/ancient-primate-fossil-roils-scientific-community/19383401
#372 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 09:35 AM
Caltech is today half funded by tax funds and half by private contributions. Government funding has now become so pervasive that scientific institutions and the scientists who work in them are wary of offending government. Competition for government grants is fierce, and a competing scientist strives to offend no one – and to see that other scientists on his campus are similarly cautious.
Moreover, this infusion of capital from an increasingly rich United States caused a large expansion in scientific work. Virtually all academic institutions that sponsor scientific research have built new buildings – usually several – intended to be filled by government-funded scientists. The Caltech campus, for example, doubled in size during this era. Work in the buildings that housed the legendary scientists of Caltech's past could still be funded entirely by the Caltech endowment, but the doubled campus requires huge sums of tax funds. Caltech is not, however, economically half free. It is entirely enslaved, since the loss of half of the salaries and operating funds of the campus is politically unthinkable.
Simultaneously, an even more corrupting process took place. Only a small percentage of people are personally and intellectually inclined to be scientists. Science is an unusual occupation. An outstanding scientist is usually driven by an overwhelming sense of inquiry into the unknown. He thinks about his work 24 hours per day – even while asleep – and works very long hours with few diversions. Learning new things about the physical world is difficult, and generally requires total immersion in the endeavor.
Moreover, discoveries, even the small ones that keep a scientist going – just as the small payments from a slot machine that keep the addicted gambler hoping – are few and far between. Most of the time, a research scientist appears to be working very hard and accomplishing very little. In fact, if he were actually just loafing and not realistically engaged in scientific work, his superficially apparent work output might be little different.
Into this culture suddenly flowed vast amounts of tax money. As a result, being designated as a scientist became almost as lucrative as actually being a scientist. Government bureaucrats increasingly controlled which experiments would be done, and writing government grant proposals and being seen and well liked at scientific meetings became the "scientist's" principal work. Very large numbers of people entered this new industry – the new business of science.
Grantsmanship gradually became the most important "scientific" skill, and the amount of grant money a scientist commands is now, in most institutions, the most important parameter that determines his advancement. The new "scientist" rushes from meeting to meeting, furiously writes grant proposals, and strives to obtain news coverage of his latest "discoveries," while leaving the actual research to technicians and students.
#373 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 09:38 AM
The Complete List of everything caused by Global Warming, Enjoy;
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
#374 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 09:47 AM
You know what one of the major predictions of global warming is?
Floodng.
And, as we see here, it has come to pass.
PS. anyone notice Al j did not make a single response to his ocean acidity link which I blew out of the water?
Stick and move. Stick and move, Nice strategy, but it's not science.
#375 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 6 Mar 2010 at 01:26 PM
From the Daily Mail;
The discovery of an ancient polar bear fossil suggests the species may have survived at least one period of global warming before.
The jawbone, dated between 110,000-130,000-years-old was discovered on the Arctic island of Svalbard by Professor Olafur Ingolfsson, of the University of Iceland, and Professor Oystein Wiig, of the University of Oslo.
It means polar bears have already survived a global warming that affected the northern hemisphere from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago, when the Greenland ice sheet and the Arctic ice cap were smaller than now.
'We have this specimen that confirms the polar bear was a morphologically distinct species at least 100,000 years ago, and this basically means that the polar bear has already survived one interglacial period,' said Professor Ingolfsson.
'This is telling us that despite the ongoing warming in the Arctic today, maybe we don't have to be quite so worried about the polar bear. That would be very encouraging.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254862/All-sea--polar-bear-cub-drift-shrinking-ice-12-miles-land-expert-says-survived.html#ixzz0hTks5Fxn
#376 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 7 Mar 2010 at 03:53 AM
What's the matter Thimbles, can't you read? Go back and look how you blew me out of the water on your surf board heading to into the bank on 20th street 20 miles inland?
Notice how you can't answer any of my questions, like why are you even here? Why do you even care about Global warming? According you you Secular Saints, this is a random accidental universe, so what is there even to care about in the first place, hey?Certainly not putting plant food into the atmosphere or the ocean.
I'll keep it simple in the next post and draw you a grader school picture, since you can't read or add 2 + 2.
Unlike at the AGWer cheerleading sections at th NYTs and the Guardian, fortunately Stalinists are not running this blog, thank God for some common sense.
#377 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 7 Mar 2010 at 08:15 AM
First a short recap Thimbles, since you try to side track/pivot the agenda to Ocean Acidity per the Goracle's latest Tweet instructions, then I'll draw you an Ocean Acidity picture;
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
#378 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 7 Mar 2010 at 10:56 AM
Kathy from England, I didn't mean to neglect you, really! The 'lack of snow in England like you remember when you were growing up" exactly mirrors RFK Jr.'s remarks about Washington D.C. when he was growing up. Apparently you all got the same Garacle tweet talking points. Then, the most snow in 30 years hit Engalnd, and the most snow since we Americans get our Independence from you Brits back at Valley Forge hit Washington D.C., twice now.
What happened to your "Weather events are not the same as Climate' talking points anyway? You didn't get that one?
#379 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 7 Mar 2010 at 11:04 AM
Thimbles,
You loose the debate before you even start, every time you show up here. Secular Saints by clear scientific definition can NOT care about anything. All according to your Secular Cult is an accidental random coincidence, see? So, by definition, you can’t care about anything, especially not Global Warming or your Ocean Acidity mis-direction tangent dude.
But, I know you and Milli-gram are only working with a Thimble full, so I’ll be very simple and draw you all a simple picture. Also, to be fair, I will alert you every time you are about to get your EGO busted by a round house, so you can try to duck. But, Light always beats Darkness, so it’s really hopeless Thimbles, for you AGWers. It’s pure Physics 101. Walk into any dark closet and turn on the light and see who wins.
You Secular Saint AGWers, you see, are hopelessly stuck in Relativistic Circular Logic. You have no absolutes to navigate by and hence are stuck endlessly in circles.
But here goes, here are your very simplistic pictures. And when I write “Billy Jack”, you know to try to duck, so your Secular Saint Egos don’t get bruised. Billy Jack!
You are still here and you ‘aren’t allowed to care’ according to sceince, so which will you let go of, Secular Atheism or AGWing? One of these two is false according to You Secular Saints, not according to me-based on science. Which one is it?
Before you choose, here are some very ‘Inconvenient Facts’ for AGWing and Ocean Acidity (‘Stubborn’ according to Mark A. York), so get out some graph paper and plot the points (I assume you know how to make a graph, sorry if I’m getting too advanced and scientific for you now);
520 Million years ago, Cambrian Period, Plant Food CO2 = 7,000 ppm, Temp = 22 degrees C;
380 Million years ago, Devonian Period, Plant Food CO2 = 4,000 ppm, Temp = 22 degrees C;
250 Million years ago, Triassic Period, Plant Food CO2 = 2,000 ppm, Temp = 22 degrees C;
150 Million years ago, Cretaceous Period, Plant Food CO2 = 2,500 ppm, Temp = 15 degrees C;
50 Million years ago, Tertiary Period, Plant Food CO2 = 1,000 ppm, Temp = 22 degrees C;
Billy Jack
Now Plot this second graph;
50 Million years ago, Tertiary Period, Plant Food CO2 = 1,000 ppm, Temp = 22 degrees C;
Today, Tertiary Period continues, Plant Food CO2 = 330 (or so) ppm, Temp = 12 degrees C (or so).
Billy Jack
Now, notice in the first graph, the temperature bears no scientific relationship to plant food CO2 PPM, yes?
Now, notice on the second graph, Billy Jack, that the trend line is straight down for the last 50 million years.
Billy Jack, so to use Your Thimble Logic, following the trend lines for CO2 and Temperature over the lasty 50 million years, eventually we will get to zero for both, humans or not, yes? Billy Jack. It’s the same as looking at only the last 100 years or the last 50 years, the same logic, yes? But as I explained already in a previous answer to you Thimbles, this is balanced nature governed by Natural Laws (I know you Secular Saints don’t believe in any laws or rules, which is why you hide behind Atheism). The trend line for temperature, plant food concentration or ocean acidity will no more bottom out at zero than it will burn us up or melt clam shells in the ocean. Billy Jack. Both are false assumptions. Just as surfing on a wave and thinking you will be rammed into the bank 20 miles across town, because ‘the wave will never stop’ is a false assumption.
Yes, you are complaining now that I didn’t address your acidity in the oceans ‘facts” that ‘blew me out of the water’. Billy Jack.
Science, remember, you have to add 2 + 2, Thimbles. Get Mark A. York to explain math to you, he is big on math. You see, the less CO2, the less acidity, and the more the greater.
And just like Polar Bears already survived Global Warming 1,300 years ago (Billy Jack, sorry,
#380 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 7 Mar 2010 at 11:13 AM
British Health Care Quality (NHS) has deteriorated at a rate similar to the rising rate of global temperatures rising over the last 100 years. Ergo, according to Thimble and A. Mark A. York Circular Logic, to prevent Global Warming from rising further, we should improve the Quality of British Health Care. As the quality of heath care goes up, then global temperatures will go down. This makes more sense than blaming the climate changes on plant food concentrations in the atmosphere, because as graphed in the previous post, CO2 in past history millions of years ago, with concentrations as much as 21.2 times higher CO2 plant food in the atmosphere, bares no correlation long term with climate or global average mean temperatures. Here is the science of tying British Socialized Health Care to Global Warming below;
Neglected by 'lazy' nurses, man, 22, dying of thirst rang the police to beg for water
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255858/Neglected-lazy-nurses-Kane-Gorny-22-dying-thirst-rang-police-beg-water.html#ixzz0hZizB8l1
#381 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 04:31 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZvNRe2I4D4
A great album by the by.
#382 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 10:38 AM
Thimbles, being the last post and pretending all the inconvenient facts are not there, then leaving them unanswered is not science, FYI
California watchdog sees climate policy job losses, Today, 01:18 am, Reuters
California is likely to see modest job losses in the near term from its aggressive climate change policy due to higher energy costs and other factors, the state's independent Legislative Analyst's Office said.
#383 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 9 Mar 2010 at 12:55 PM
Thimbles, here is a bet for you, to show you how you are stuck in Circular Logic.
I'll bet a year's pay check you can not properly (properly=scientifically verifiable) answer the following 3 simple questions.
1) Who are you?
2) Why are you here?
3) Where are you going to?
Hint, you can't properly answer 3 until you properly answer 1 and then 2. And if you can't answer # 3, you are clearly clueless and the blind leading the blind. But no worries, all Secular Saints are lost in Circular Logic, because you are all lost in Relativism.
Here is some real science to ponder while you think up your answers;
(Reuters) - Dark matter, which scientists believe makes up 25 percent of the universe but whose existence has never been proven, could be detected by the giant particle collider at CERN, the research center's head said Monday.
#384 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 9 Mar 2010 at 01:14 PM
The Wall Street Journal on Climategate for you Thimbles;
Academic journals typically adopt a double blind system, concealing the names of both authors and reviewers. But any competent scholar can determine an article's approach or analytical framework within the first few paragraphs. Scholars are likely to have colleagues and graduate students they support and whose careers they wish to advance. A few may even have colleagues whose careers, along with those of their graduate students, they would like to tarnish or destroy. There is no check to prevent them from benefiting their friends by providing preferential treatment for their orientation and similarly punishing their enemies.
That's because the peer review process violates a fundamental principle of fairness. We don't allow judges to be parties to a controversy they are adjudicating, and don't permit athletes to umpire games in which they are playing. In both cases the concern is that their interest in the outcome will bias their judgment and corrupt their integrity. So why should we expect scholars, especially operating under the cloak of anonymity, to fairly and honorably evaluate the work of allies and rivals?
Some university presses exacerbate the problem. Harvard University Press tells a reviewer the name of a book manuscript's author but withholds the reviewer's identity from the author. It would be hard to design a system that provided reviewers more opportunity to reward friends and punish enemies.
Harvard Press assumes that its editors will detect and avoid conflicts of interest. But if reviewers are in the same scholarly field as, or in a field related to that of, the author — and why would they be asked for an evaluation if they weren't? — then the reviewer will always have a conflict of interest.
Then there is the abuse of confidentiality and the overreliance on arguments from authority in hiring, promotion and tenure decisions. Owing to the premium the academy places on specialization, most university departments today contain several fields, and within them several subfields. Thus departmental colleagues are regularly asked to evaluate scholarly work in which they have little more expertise than the man or woman on the street.
Often unable to form independent professional judgments — but unwilling to recuse themselves from important personnel decisions — faculty members routinely rely on confidential letters of evaluation from scholars at other universities. Once again, these letters are written — and solicited — by scholars who are irreducibly interested parties.
There are no easy fixes to this state of affairs. Worse, our universities don't recognize they have a problem. Instead, professors and university administrators are inclined to indignantly dismiss concerns about the curriculum, peer review, and hiring, promotion and tenure decisions as cynically calling into question their good character. But these concerns are actually rooted in the democratic conviction that professors and university administrators are not cut from finer cloth than their fellow citizens.
#385 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 13 Mar 2010 at 05:19 PM
Look Al, I stopped reading after you started on your "Secular Saints' Circular Logic disprove Darwin, MAN!" stream of consciousness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAixFYnDh4
And until you get some new meds, I ain't continuing this.
So flood away dude, from your Watts up with that rss feed.
#386 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 13 Mar 2010 at 10:20 PM
Kent Conrad is a bit of a dim bulb.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/kent_conrad_hearts_the_french.html
But he's got nothing on the political journalist class in America. On the subject of reconciliation, Jonathan Chait:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/jesus-christ-mike-allen-reconciliation-not-complicated
"What sentient being who's following this closely could not understand it by now? I give you Politico's Mike Allen, writing Saturday:
'When Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) made this confusing argument last week on “Face the Nation,” we weren’t sure he was being deliberately disingenuous. It was, in fact, spin. Now, he’s made the same case in a similarly obtuse WashPost op-ed, “Reconciliation is not an option for health-care reform.” Don’t misread it: It’s an Alice-in-Wonderland argument FOR the use of reconciliation as part of the recipe for getting comprehensive health reform to the president’s desk'
Confusing? Obtuse? Does Conrad need to stop by Politico's offices with a picture book and some finger puppets? I understand perfectly well how intelligent people who don't follow this debate closely might not catch on to the distinction. But this is what Mike Allen does all day -- and, as I understand it, much of the night and the wee hours of the morning as well. How can anybody still not understand this? "
Lazy, stupid, traffickers of gossip. Why is American democracy such a dumping ground for corruption and stupidity? There are many reasons, but it starts with a public educated by fools.
The public deserves better.
#387 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 14 Mar 2010 at 03:58 AM
Thimbles is a bit of a dim bulb. I was trying to post this to another thread, mods please delete the above.
#388 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 14 Mar 2010 at 04:10 AM
Thimbles not only doesn't know who he is, he doesn't know where he is. Circular Logic at it's best. Everyone follow him! He knows how we should all live our lives and why Trillions of $$$ in carbon taxes will save us all from doom!
You stopped reading because you got close to the border of Circular Logic and were afraid to leave the Accidental'ism Cult Thimbles.
There is no science that supports that anything appears into the Cosmos accidentally (not Life, not wealth, not laws, etc.), but once you buy that lie, you will buy all the rest.
#389 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 15 Mar 2010 at 08:50 AM
Here is a much better Climate thermostat than Mark A. York's, but note how when the results don't support Greenies and AGWing, the results "can't be trusted" and the modeling may be suspect. We can now lower or raise the average temperature by 1 degree C with wind farms, depending on whether they are on shore or offshore, problem solved, no more reason to fear AGWing;
Wind farms could raise temperatures
Emma Woollacott | Fri 12th Mar 2010, 05:27 am
Opponents of land-based wind farms have a new ally in the form of MIT. Researchers there say that, far from mitigating global warming, land-based wind turbines actually increase the temperature around them.
With the US Department of Energy expecting wind power to account for a fifth of the US’s electricity supply by 2030, the team used a climate model to analyze the effects of millions of wind turbines on the climate.
Such a massive deployment could indeed make a difference, they found - though not necessarily a welcome one.
Ron Prinn, TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science, and principal research scientist Chien Wang of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences suggest that using wind turbines to meet 10 percent of global energy demand in 2100 could cause temperatures to rise by one degree Celsius in the regions on land where they're installed.
The opposite holds true for wind turbines installed in water, though, with a predicted drop in temperatures by one degree Celsius over those regions.
Prinn warned against interpreting the study as an argument against wind power, however.
"We’re not pessimistic about wind," he said. "We haven’t absolutely proven this effect, and we’d rather see that people do further research."
The team found that wind turbines on land reduced wind speed, particularly on the downwind side of the wind farms. This in turn reduced the strength of the turbulent motion and horizontal heat transport processes that move heat away from the Earth’s surface.
In contrast, when examining ocean-based wind farms, Prinn and Wang found that wind turbines cooled the surface by more than one degree Celsius. They said that these results are unreliable, however, as their simulation was not as accurate as it might be.
The study also found that the intermittency of wind power could require significant and costly backup options, such as natural gas-fired power plants.
#390 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 15 Mar 2010 at 09:05 AM
I know I shouldn't, but this disinformation is too easy to counter and I'm gonna have to feed the troll, mirroring my comment from the tgdaily link Al forgot to include:
This article, being cited by the skeptics as some sort of "proof" global warming is silly, makes the same elementary mistake as the freakanomics folks did a while back when they said "Solar panels are black, therefor they absorb energy, therefore they contribute to global warming."
See here:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/superfreakonomics-errors-levitt-caldeira-myhrvold/
"Yes Nathan is howlingly off base. Not because solar panels *or wind farms* are (whatever cover with whatever relative emissivity), but because solar panels, like wind turbines and solar thermal power plants, eliminate the emission of CO2 which would otherwise occur from electricity production.
As Ken Caldeira so grippingly points out (and I tried to make graphically clear in my Stanford talk last year) , each molecule of CO2 released thermal energy when it was formed — that’s why we formed it. In the case of electricity generation, about 1/3 of its thermal energy went out a wire as electric power, the rest was released promptly as waste heat. But each molecule of CO2, during its subsequent lifetime in the atmosphere, traps 100,000 times more heat than was released during its formation."
Temperature is not the problem. Temperature is a symptom of the problem. The problem is waste management. We are emitting too much waste and that waste is creating a global temperature change, not a local one, that could exceed several degrees globally, not one.
If wind farms are raising the local temperature around the wind farm areas, by slightly slowing the convection currents that move heat around, then
a) the wind farms are not creating heat nor adding to the global green house effect
b) the local effect is comparable to the urban heat island effect which skeptics and scientists are all familiar with as being seperate phenomenon from global climate change.
This article is very misleading as written.
#391 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 16 Mar 2010 at 12:53 AM
First people like Thimbles and Mark A. York, maybe with good intentions, condemn millions of poor in Africa and Asia to death by malaria by banning DDT for no sound scientific reason, but rather for "feelings". Now they offer them nets, which end up as wedding veils and fishing nets.
Now Thimbles and Mark A. York, et. all. AGWers want to condemn poor Africans to repository disease by blocking clean natural gas for cooking project,s in the name of saving the climate from changing, something the climate has been doing for millions of years now with out human intervention.
In addition, they continue to be blatant hypocrites, claiming life is accidental with no meaning, but still showing up with there causes to "care" about.
Which is is it Thimbles? Choose one or the other. You can't be 1/2 pregnant.
Is it true that Life is just an accident with no meaning and no purpose, or will you choose to "care" about things like AGWing? You can't have it both ways (except in your virtual reality circular logic secular world).
Proof of AGWers condemning poor to repository diseases in Africa in next post.
#392 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 06:47 PM
Obama's "progressive" energy policies offer no hope for economic progress in Africa, write Roy and Niger Innis of CORE.
“I see Africa as a . . . partner with America on behalf of the future we want for all of our children,” President Obama declared in Ghana last July.
However, three months later, the President signed an executive order requiring that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and other federal agencies reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with their projects by 30% over the next ten years. The order undermines the ability of Sub-Saharan African nations to achieve energy, economic and human rights progress.
Ghana is trying to build a 130-MW gas-fired power plant, to bring electricity’s blessings to more of its people, schools, hospitals and businesses. Today, almost half of Ghanaians never have access to electricity, or get it only a few hours a week, leaving their futures bleak.
Most people in Ghana are forced to cook and heat with wood, crop wastes or dung, says Franklin Cudjoe, director of the Imani (Hope) Center for Policy and Education, in Accra. The indoor air pollution from these fires causes blindness, asthma and severe lung infections that kill a million women and young children every year. Countless more Africans die from intestinal diseases caused by eating unrefrigerated, spoiled food.
But when Ghana turned to its United States “partner” and asked OPIC to support the $185-million project, OPIC refused to finance even part of it – thus adding as much as 20% to its financing cost. Repeated across Africa, these extra costs for meeting “climate change prevention” policies will threaten numerous projects, and prolong poverty and disease for millions.
#393 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 26 Mar 2010 at 06:49 PM
Thimbles, here is your cause for AGWing, NASA needs to force Carbon Taxes to pay for their Bagels.
WASHINGTON — The nation’s space agency paid the out-of-this-world price of $66 a person a day for bagels, cookies and juice at a conference, a new report found.
The subject of the NASA conference? It was a training session for its procurement officials — the people who do the buying with taxpayer funds.
During the three-day conference, the 317 attendees snacked on “light refreshments” of soda, coffee, fruit, bagels and cookies at a cost of $62,611, according to a NASA Inspector General report. That’s $66 a day per person.
NASA promised it would come up with better conference spending rules.
And that wasn’t the only problem. The NASA financial watchdog criticized the financially strapped space agency’s spending on conferences in general. The inspector general said NASA didn’t price shop to get cheaper locations for conferences and that NASA’s spending on food and drinks was “excessive.”
The agency needs to come up with firm rules and conference costs, like the Justice Department, the inspector general recommended in the report released late Wednesday.
#394 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 28 Mar 2010 at 01:36 PM
From the Roy Innis (ex-Hudson Institute director) piece you decided to cite
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjY3YTg3ZmY2YTdiZGJkODBmODI1MjFkN2I4NGQ3Zjc=
but forgot to cite, this made me laugh
http://townhall.com/columnists/RoyInnis/2010/03/25/bringing_light,_health_and_prosperity_to_africa
"A single turbine requires 700-1000 tons of concrete, steel, copper and fiberglass – far more raw materials than involved with coal or gas-fired power plants"
700 to 1000 tons. For a single turbine. Really?
Both of you need to check your math.
#395 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 29 Mar 2010 at 01:18 AM
Albert J. I work at an internet firm and all our analysis shows nearly everyone fast-forwards through lengthy posts like yours.
You come across as a bit of a nutcase. But why are you here on CJR? If your arguments are so compelling, your data so irrefutable, why not take it to the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS and debate it with them.
Those same (apparently corrupt and confused) scientists are ready and waiting to debate you at www.realclimate.org and www.skepticalscience.com among many sites.
Why are you hiding here?
#396 Posted by Oleg Popov, CJR on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 10:05 PM
Typical OlegP, not concrete facts, just ad homns,
The current scientific Fossil record alone destroys AGWing, Darwinism and Ocean acidity.
Cambrian period, 7000 ppm Co2, an explosion of new life forms 'at the same time'-not burning up, WITH Sea Shells not melted. 1,300 years ago, Polar Bears survived Global Warming according to the latest fossil records.No human industrial CO2.
Explain it scientifically Mr. "take it to the gate keeper pseudo-scientists who want to keep the Mythology of Darwinism so they can keep the power". No one yet can explain away the Fossil record, even the great Gatekeeper Richard Dawkins or his Blank Slater gate keeper Pinker. I have a 'real' job, no time to surf all the sites like you Looters, Moochers and Whiners trying to steal money with Carbon Taxes for no sound scientific reason, just forplain selfishness.
Perhaps you would like to scientifically explain it, instead of setting up ambushes? They are welcome here if they can explain it scientifically, yes? I'm not hiding from any one, I'm in plain view dude, how else did you suddenly appear on the radar screen to attack in timing with the Goracle's tweets to attack?
One thing about this site though, just when you are about to loose your arguments, you can't whine to the moderator to turn off the winner, Mr. Whiner.
Regards, Albert J
PS, from Albert A, "God doesn't play dice with the Universe", maybe you are here for a reason; to escape from Circular Logic perhaps? Can you explain Thimble's dilemma and escape circular logic? Try it;
One of these two is a false statement, choose which one (because they are scientifically incompatible and can't both be true at the same time);
1) Caring about AGWing or any other cause
or 2) Accidental'ism (aka Darwinism)
Which one is false Oleg? Choose and you are free from the Black Hole of Circular Logic.
#397 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 31 Mar 2010 at 02:15 PM
Thimbles and Mark A. York, don't panic, President Obama isn't really going to allow drilling off the East Coast for clean burning natural gas, that would be too logical;
Obama’s Drilling Plan a ‘Smokescreen’
Rep. Mike Pence:
“As usual the devil is in the details. Only in Washington, D.C., can you ban more areas to oil and gas exploration than you open up, delay the date of your new leases, and claim you’re going to increase production.
“The President’s announcement today is a smokescreen. It will almost certainly delay any new offshore exploration until at least 2012 and include only a fraction of the offshore resources that the previous Administration included in its plan.
“Unfortunately, this is yet another feeble attempt to gain votes for the President’s national energy tax bill that is languishing in the Senate. At the end of the day this Administration’s energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family in America and trade American jobs overseas at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.”
#398 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 31 Mar 2010 at 02:17 PM
Obama's "progressive" energy policies offer no hope for economic progress in Africa, write Roy and Niger Innis of CORE.
“I see Africa as a . . . partner with America on behalf of the future we want for all of our children,” President Obama declared in Ghana last July.
However, three months later, the President signed an executive order requiring that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and other federal agencies reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with their projects by 30% over the next ten years. The order undermines the ability of Sub-Saharan African nations to achieve energy, economic and human rights progress.
Ghana is trying to build a 130-MW gas-fired power plant, to bring electricity’s blessings to more of its people, schools, hospitals and businesses. Today, almost half of Ghanaians never have access to electricity, or get it only a few hours a week, leaving their futures bleak.
Most people in Ghana are forced to cook and heat with wood, crop wastes or dung, says Franklin Cudjoe, director of the Imani (Hope) Center for Policy and Education, in Accra. The indoor air pollution from these fires causes blindness, asthma and severe lung infections that kill a million women and young children every year. Countless more Africans die from intestinal diseases caused by eating unrefrigerated, spoiled food.
But when Ghana turned to its United States “partner” and asked OPIC to support the $185-million project, OPIC refused to finance even part of it – thus adding as much as 20% to its financing cost. Repeated across Africa, these extra costs for meeting “climate change prevention” policies will threaten numerous projects, and prolong poverty and disease for millions.
#399 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 31 Mar 2010 at 02:20 PM
People are ignorant enough about science that it's easy for politicians to scare them into supporting absurd regulations [or get Thimbles and Oleg to believe in AGWing]. For my show, I went to Times Square and asked if people would sign a petition demanding a ban on "dihydrogen monoxide," a colorless, odorless chemical that kills thousands. Most everyone signed.
They were embarrassed when they realized that dihydrogen monoxide is ... H2O. They eagerly endorsed a ban on water.
from John Stossel
And, Thimbles and Oleg, your ban on DDT costs millions of lives from Malaria for no sound scientific reason!
You can't give any concrete scientific reasons for your AGWing Theory why so many holes in your Theory;
1) There is no Green House Gas hot spot over the equator like there would be if your AGWing theory is correct,
2) in the past 2000 years there have been 2, maybe 3 warmer periods with out industrial CO2,
3) there have been 2 declines in temperature in the 20th Century alone where CO2 industrial emissions increased dramatically, first after WWII, second the past 12-15 years,
4) The Fossil record destroys AGWing, Darwinism and over Acidity problems in the ocean
So why should anyone believe your Theory that humans are guilty of burning up the planet with too much Co2 plant food in the atmosphere, rather than the truth of the matter, which is humans are putting more plant food into the atmosphere which will make more food for the poor and starving?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Yes OlegP, concrete scientific facts require more space than the Goracle's Tweeted talking points. And you actually have to read them, then use the space between your ears for something besides an ash tray and a cup holder.
#400 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 31 Mar 2010 at 02:39 PM
Dude, no-one is reading your Unibomber style slabs against everything and anything.
You are engaged in a debate with yourself, when just a click away there are evil climate scientists.
Apparently you could demolish their puny arguments with a few sentences of your brilliance (in the unlikely event you could make a concise point).
Yet you continue to hide here, posting pages of stuff no-one is reading. That says more about your arguments than anything else.
#401 Posted by Oleg Popov, CJR on Wed 31 Mar 2010 at 08:31 PM
So, you can't answer scientifically OlegPhey ? Well, no worries none of the other 'real scientists' can either...no one can becasue AGWing is a pseudo-scientific Liberal Hoax. Chalk it off, OlegP down for the count, another one down!
Put up or shut up OlegP let's see your so called 'science'!
"...no-one is reading your Unibomber style slabs against everything and anything."
So why are you here, why do you 'care' so much now....Hmmmm? Get your marching tweets from your puppet master the Gortacle and trying out your talking points and strategies here first are you?
Your Fascist Stalinist blabber doesn't scare us skeptics, save it for the wimps in the UK.
No science, all Liberal talking points 'fluff'. Go back and tell the Goracle he has mis-read the public yet again;
So much for the afterglow. The president’s post-health care “bounce” is gone, and Americans are increasingly blaming him for high unemployment and a stagnant economy.
A new USA Today/Gallup Poll finds that nearly two in three Americans say health-care reform costs too much, expands government too far, and will worsen deficits, while a plurality believe it will increase premiums and reduce coverage.
Overall, 50 percent of respondents called passage of the Affordable Care Act “a bad thing” while 47 percent called it “a good thing.” Those numbers mirror Obama’s approval/disapproval split of 47/50 — which also marks the first time Obama’s disapproval has climbed that high.
#402 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 1 Apr 2010 at 06:58 AM
Once again, Ad Nauseum for us skeptics, OlegP and Thimbles; just answer with supported peer-2-peer review concrete scientific evidence why the trend identified by your own "real scientist" Prof. Jones of EAU CRU is so?
If AGWing due to too much plant food in the atmosphere by humans is true, then why does your own real scientist observe that, "statistically, there has been no [global] warming in the past 15 years"? Hmmm?
Just answer this one question. Be a man, have some scientific and intellectual honesty and integrity for once in your lives.
Or wimp out as usual. Feel free to bring on the 'real scientists' with all the so called answers any time. We are waiting.
Here is where you use the typical Dawkins manoeuvrings when you know you have lost, and go, "I'm not going to debate that moron!" and skulk away looking for some one more pliable.
#403 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 1 Apr 2010 at 07:08 AM
Red Alert, the Climate is Changing, the Climate is Changing!
Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year.
Graph is here;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climate_change_happening_before_your_eyes
Oleg, Who is John Galt?
#404 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 1 Apr 2010 at 09:59 AM
"You're all gonna die!" Albert Gore Jr.
Lovelock: 'We can't save the planet'
Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said it is too late to try and save the planet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm
Who is John Galt?
#405 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 1 Apr 2010 at 11:42 AM
Oleg P, are you wimping out on us now?
Your Liberal Fascist 'Green Shirt" Cyber Bully play book manual says specifically in chapter 3, page 18, paragraph 4, "When you can't win an argument or debate, either make up some excuse to disappear, or try to change the subject".
In the meantime all, be very entertained!
Johnson afraid Guam will "Tip over and Capsize". Really!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsFsn8ekyhw
A Congressional representative from Houston thought the Astronauts had landed on Mars and she is still in office!
Back at the turn of the 20th Century, a few Irish drunks convinced NYC that the buildings were too tall and that Manhattan would soon sink, unless they cut a canal across the lower one third and turned it so the tall building were next to the 2/3 and could be shored up that way. Saturday came, the tug boats, mules, people with shovels and pick axes all showed up. About 2-3 PM they figured it out and went to the nearest Pub.
Then, some guy in the 80’s convinced everyone the Chinese could alter the earth’s orbit if all Chinese people stood on a table and jumped off at the same time.
Then along came Al Gore you convinced the entire world we are going to burn up the earth because we are breathing too hard. And then some 'real' ‘scientist’ then used the Chinese deal again, and was setting up a date via the web for everyone to “jump off a table” at the same time to alter the orbit of the earth and save us from Global Warming.
Then, Mark A. York here at 'Hot Air' central tried to sound scientific and convince us that he could control the Climate and cure Global Warming by first putting a hole in the Ozone layer and then repairing it; which according to him is what caused Global Cooling after WWII in spite of increased Co2 emissions, LOL. That is a good laugh! Minor detail of course is Prof. Jones, EAU CRU, "statistically for the last 15 years there has been no warming". Whoops, lot's more Co2 from humans, and Global Cooling? How can that be? And no Mark A. York 'affect' to explain it away, oh shucky darns!
#406 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 2 Apr 2010 at 08:18 AM
Shame, Shame, Shame on you Thimbles, Mark A. York and Oleg P for using the web! Don't you know every 2 web searches uses the amount of energy some poor family could use to heat a pot of tea with!
A Greenpeace report questions the degree to which the Apple iPad and mobile devices that similarly rely on cloud computing are contributing to global warming. It also calls on IT leaders such as Facebook, Google and Microsoft to take the lead in pursuing critical climate-change goals.
A March 30 report from Greenpeace associates the Apple iPad with global warming, as the activist organization seeks to raise new questions about the environmental effects of cloud computing.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Greenpeace-Links-Apple-iPad-to-Global-Warming-778895/
#407 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 3 Apr 2010 at 10:54 AM
Albert J. said "And, Thimbles and Oleg, your ban on DDT costs millions of lives from Malaria for no sound scientific reason!"
FYI DDT has never been banned from being used in contolling malaria.
#408 Posted by Turboblocke, CJR on Sun 4 Apr 2010 at 12:15 PM
Phil Jones, the climatologist at the heart of the hacked email scandal, has been vindicated by an independent review panel.
Not that this should be news to anyone who actually bothered to read the hacked emails.
#409 Posted by ca, CJR on Sun 4 Apr 2010 at 08:22 PM
ca, you've got a case of mistaken priorities. whether phil jones was vindicated or not doesn't matter. The important question here is "Who Is John Galt?"
Get with it.
#410 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 5 Apr 2010 at 12:01 AM
NMBYism, Walter Cronkite, the Kennedys, especially Activist JFK Jr. (famous for saying he would never sled on snow in Wash. DC recently just before record snow falls) certainly don't want this in their back yards!
5 April 2010
A federal advisory panel has urged the US Interior Department to block a $1 billion wind project off Cape Cod opposed by local business leaders and politicians but seen as helpful to the Obama administration's energy strategy.
Turbo, you are joking, yes?
Great that Phil Jones has been vidicated! Especially now he ha s categorically stated, "statistically there has been no warming in the past 15 years".
Got any science to explain why, sinc eCO2 human cause emissions have certainly increased in the past 15 years.
Or do we "change the subject", " disappear when challenged directly with actual science", "call names", "belittle the messenger" with ad Hominims to distract from the facts? What is the current AGWer 'Green Shirt' strategy after Easter break?
#411 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 5 Apr 2010 at 09:46 AM
A brief tangent for 'Turbo', and his "It depends on what the definition of is "is" mentality, instead of the net results on the ground, ie., death and suffering by malaria for political ideological reasons, not sound scientific ones. Give them Nets! (Which end up as wedding veils and fish nets.)
Technically, legally, there is currently no ban on DDT 'for vector disease control'. But because of Environmental Ideologists' pressure developing Countries choose to use malaria as 'natural population control' and use Environmentalism for cover. Before the US banned DTT in 1972, Malaria globally was down to a few thousand cases a year. Between then and when the Stockholm Convention was ratified, which allows DTT to be used for 'vector disease' control (but which no global banks will loan money for due to pressures from Ideologists), millions have died due to the De-facto ban on DDT.
That's the facts Jack-DDT was not used, millions died, beacuise if 'feelings' from ideologists like you current AGWers. Thus the reason for sound sceince, not policy based on your 'feelings'. DDT was banned in the US in 1972, and De-facto banning followed in poor countries because of no sound science reason, just ideological 'feelings'. When malaria comes back to developed countries due to globalization, watch how fast DDT is utilized to eradicate malaria.
International law specifically allows use of DDT for public health, and this is a victory for public health scientists around the world who campaigned vigorously for this option within the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (the “POPs Treaty”). Yet, in spite of this victory, the WHO, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), United Nations International Childrens’ Emergency Fund (UNICEF), and the World Bank continue efforts to phase out public health use of DDT. It has become a common international practice to offer developing countries funds with the stipulation that they cannot be used to purchase or use DDT.
In 1997, the World Bank extended $165 million in credit to India. The bank funds could be used for expensive pyrethroid insecticides, but none could be used for DDT. Similar pressures were tried in efforts to get the government of Madagascar to stop a successful program to control highland malaria by spraying house walls with DDT.
Perhaps the most egregious example of external pressures is with loans to Eritrea. Overall, 50 percent of mortality and 60 to 80 percent of morbidity in Eritrea is the result of malaria. Within the country there are 145 physicians and 391 nurses. In other words, there is a critical shortage of health professionals. The World Bank, jointly with UNICEF and U.S. Aid for International Development (USAID), provided assistance loans. The UNICEF funds were only for insecticide-treated nets. USAID funds were for environmental assessment. The World Bank funds require Eritrea to “present by the end of the second year, a program and schedule for substituting DDT residual house-spraying by chemicals or techniques that are safer to the environment and human health.”
These examples provide clear and unambiguous illustrations of environmental advocacy trumping the public health policies of international organizations involved in malaria control.
In summation, without DDT, there is no real hope for reversing modern trends of increasing malaria (with the exception of control programs being restarted in urban areas). As malaria rates increase in developing countries, the risk of malaria being re-introduced to the United States and other developed countries will increase. WHO’s global strategy for malaria control should be changed to emphasize more effective preventive measures. International pressure to stop public health uses of DDT should end.
#412 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 5 Apr 2010 at 10:08 AM
So 'Turbo', great philosophy on life you Green peacers have, with your NIMBYism and your 'holy than thou' evangelism. Here is your input to millions of deaths from malaria for no 'sound scientific' reason in a nut shell;
1) Throw a man into deep water who doesn't know how to swim. 2) Watch him drown. 3) Wash your hands of it because a) it was for the 'grater good' and b) It was 'not against the Law to swim'.
Who is John Galt?
#413 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 5 Apr 2010 at 10:25 AM
Thimbles, meanwhile, back at the ranch, that Ocean Acidification the 'Goracle want's you to keep tangent'ing, to distract from" no statistical warming in the past 15 years" (via Prof. Jones, EAU, CRU, exonerated according to 'ca', whoo hooo!).
Not only does the fossil record exonerate Humans from AGWing, it exonerates Humans from over acidification of the oceans too! Whooo Hoo! We can all sleep at night again, until the next 'Goracle sky is falling tangent.
Cambrian Period, millions of years ago, hopefully we can all agree no Human Industrialization for us to be guilty from, yes? 7000 ppm CO2 (plant food) in the atmosphere. AN explosion The Cambrian Explosion, of new life forms, which we have fossilized shells to prove their existence. In other words, for you Circular Logical AGWers, there were sea creatures with plenty of shells back then, lots of them! And they couldn't possibly all have mutated slowly over time to appear, by the way, because they all showed up very quickly with in a short time frame. Thus the nomenclature, "Cambrian Explosion".
Of course this is not enough science for you AGWers, so here is some more peer-2-peer reviewed data for you Thimbles. Note that 4400 and 1300 years ago the oceans were peaked at acidity much higher than today and today's trend is downwards, not upwards.
The Ocean Acidification Fiction
Volume 12, Number 22: 3 June 2009
There is considerable current concern that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content is causing a significant drop in the pH of the world's oceans in response to their absorption of a large fraction of each year's anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It has been estimated, for example, that the globe's seawater has been acidified (actually made less basic) by about 0.1 pH unit relative to what it was in pre-industrial times; and model calculations imply an additional 0.7-unit drop by the year 2300 (Caldeira and Wickett, 2003), which decline is hypothesized to cause great harm to calcifying marine life such as corals. But just how valid are these claims?
Whenever the results of theoretical calculations are proposed as the basis for a crisis of some kind or other, it is always good to compare their predictions against what is known about the phenomenon in the real world. In the case of oceanic pH, for example, Liu et al. (2009) write in an important new paper that "the history of ocean pH variation during the current interglacial (Holocene) remains largely unknown," and that it "would provide critical insights on the possible impact of acidification on marine ecosystems." Hence, they set about to provide just such a context.
Working with eighteen samples of fossil and modern Porites corals recovered from the South China Sea, the nine researchers employed 14C dating using the liquid scintillation counting method, along with positive thermal ionization mass spectrometry to generate high precision δ11B (boron) data, from which they reconstructed the paleo-pH record of the past 7000 years that is depicted in the figure below.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N22/EDIT.php
Reconstructed pH history of the South China Sea. Created from Table 1 of Liu et al. (2009).
As can be seen from this figure, there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the two most recent pH values. They are neither the lowest of the record, nor is the decline rate that led to them the greatest of the record. Hence, there is no compelling reason to believe they were influenced in any way by the nearly 40% increase in the air's CO2 concentration that has occurred to date over the course of the Industrial Revolution.
#414 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 5 Apr 2010 at 10:55 AM
"Green Shirts gone Wrong", you heard it here first;
Along comes Heather Rogers, who warns about the dangers of buying into this mind-set with “Green Gone Wrong: How Our Economy Is Undermining the Environmental Revolution” (Scribner, 272 pages, $26). She says green capitalism is actually undermining ecological progress.
Ms. Rogers is a muckraking investigative reporter who is also the author of “Gone Tomorrow: the Hidden Life of Garbage.” She says corporate America has led us into thinking that we can save the earth mainly by buying things like compact fluorescent light bulbs, hybrid gas-electric cars and carbon offsets.
“The new green wave, typified by the phrase ‘lazy environmentalism,’ is geared toward the masses that aren’t willing to sacrifice,” Ms. Rogers complains. “This brand of armchair activism actualizes itself most fully in the realm of consumer goods; through buying the right products we can usher our economic system into the environmental age.”
Ms. Rogers offers plenty of evidence that consumers who load up their shopping carts with organic food, for instance, may be unwittingly subsidizing big farm companies that are eradicating forests and defiling the soil in some developing countries. She says their governments aren’t as concerned about the environment, and well-intentioned nongovernmental organizations don’t have much clout.
“Green Gone Wrong,” to be released later this month, doesn’t just go after easy targets like big corporations that she says are clearly more interested in making money than saving the earth.
She is also critical of fashionably green rock bands like Coldplay, whose members fly around the world and think they can erase their sizable carbon footprints by planting trees in developing countries. In Coldplay’s case, many of the trees died.
Back to John Galt.....
#415 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 5 Apr 2010 at 11:39 AM
It amazes me how much time Albert J has spent on this article, his posts and his responses. With the authority with which he writes, I would have thought he would have been more forthcoming about who he is and why we should trust his opinions.
#416 Posted by Monique, CJR on Mon 5 Apr 2010 at 01:55 PM
Monique, I have no idea who Albert J is, but as a research biologist and Progressive in recovery, I can tell you he is absolutely correct in what he is telling y'all, about the anti-science being spouted by the AGW alarmists. One of the major cornerstones to the Scientific Method is conformity of reproducible data. Meaning if any reproducible data contradicts a Theory, the theory MUST be thrown out or modified. There are so many holes in AGW, historic, geologic, archeological, etc, you could drive the Titanic through. You cannot throw out data, that doesn't conform to the theory, the theory must be thrown out if ALL the data doesn't confirm the theory. Only pseudo-scientists, like Sociologists, get to cherry pick data. Another major part is predictability. The model's, the AGW alarmist's use, can't even predict past weather accurately, let alone future weather. Destroying original data is a major sin against the Scientific Method. Anyone who didn't fall asleep in Beginning Biology would know these things. There is also no such thing as "consensus" in the Scientific community. The way any young Turk scientist, makes a name for himself is by taking on one of the theories of the "old farts" and proving it incorrect. At best AGW is a hypothesis, at worst it's fraud. Keep fighting the good fight, Albert.
Me: BS, Soil Conservation/Wildlife Mgmt, 32yr career federal research biologist.
#417 Posted by Lib-in-recovery, CJR on Fri 9 Apr 2010 at 10:48 AM
Thimbles, cows are now off the hook, so you may now resume hating humans and maybe termites also.
Cows absolved of causing global warming with nitrous oxide
Livestock could actually be good for the environment according to a new study that found grazing cows or sheep can cut emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 7:00AM BST 08 Apr 2010
Cows absolved of causing global warming with nitrous oxide
The research will reignite the argument over whether to eat red meat or not
In the past environmentalists, from Lord Stern to Sir Paul McCartney, have urged people to stop eating meat because the methane produced by cattle causes global warming.
However a new study found that cattle grazed on the grasslands of China actually reduce another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7564682/Cows-absolved-of-causing-global-warming-with-nitrous-oxide.html
#418 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 9 Apr 2010 at 12:10 PM
Whatever sci-fi recovery dude,
The way things are going we'll be able to drive the titanic through the northern passage in not too long. For a guy who supposedly has a background in the exact art of science, you sure have some general, inexact complaints.
And no one with a scientific background could describe the schizophrenic stream of consciousness that is Albert's daily contribution as "fighting the good fight". His works are better described as "losing the last haldol".
Anyways, with all this talk of cambrian this and acidification that, I thought I would link a couple of documentaries about the prehistoric climate from that time:
Snowball earth: the planet wide ice age that was undone by an accumulation of volcanic CO2 which led to the cambrian explosion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG5_ufWfbuk
PS. unless you were a single celled extremophile, there was no chance of you surviving that bout of climate change.
And The Day the Earth Nearly Died: The great permian extinction event that wiped out 80% of everything, caused by a a massive volcanic flood basalt event in Siberia which released a tremendous amount of CO2, which triggered a giant methane release in the ocean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YddIuwHJtQs
#419 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 9 Apr 2010 at 12:27 PM
OK, Mr. thimble brain. Go back to "Rules for Radicals" and call someone who disagrees w/you a name. Problem solved. Perfect progressive tactics. I've been dealing w/that tactic for many years.
I noticed you didn't say I was wrong, in my little discussion of the salient points of the Scientific Method. Because you can't. You just mindlessly went on the name calling attack. I can do the same. My credentials are real, I doubt you can say the same. This is a little discussion board, I will save my footnotes, for serious papers. Keep quoting discredited "scientists", "ProgressiveBroadcasting System" specials and "Popular Science" writers. That circular logic you use will make you dizzier than you already are. I hope you enjoyed all those naps you took in Jr. High School Science class. By the way, did you eventually graduate? Oh, since you mentioned it, what was the human agency that caused "Snowball Earth" and the "Siberian Magma Flow" extinctions? I mean, humans must have had something to do with it. While you are at it please explain the multiple planetary warming/cooling cycles that are etched into the geologic record, just as SE and SMF are etched on the geologic record. Also, please explain why there is apparent warming on Mars and other planetary bodies, comparable to that on Earth. Are there SUV's there? How about the archeological finds in the Alps and in Greenland, that are being uncovered, as the ice melts? If the glaciers have been there for the last 10000 yrs, as the AGW alarmists contend, how did farmsteads and mining implements get there?
Besides all you human haters out there should be happy that Mother Earth is wiping us out, after all aren't we just a dangerous virus attacking the Earth Mother?
Albert J may be a bit long-winded but he is correct.
#420 Posted by Lib-in-recovery, CJR on Fri 9 Apr 2010 at 02:19 PM
I don't have a lot of time for this so I'll make it quick.
Is solar intensity measurable? Do scientists have the instruments on land and in space to measure solar intensity?
#421 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 9 Apr 2010 at 07:37 PM
Think of all the polar bears that ships will kill in the northwest passage!...
The horror!...
This Chicken Little schtick grows old.
There is a real good reason you won't find Al Gore out in public these days- his "Inconvenient Truth" was inconveniently shot to hell. He's probably hiding out in that bayside condo he bought with a few million bucks of his movie money (you know, the condo that's nearly at sea level in San Francisco and that will be flooded if Gore iwere right about the AGW silliness).
Even the screwiest, most hard core AGW proponents have been forced to concede that there has been any scientifically significant global warming in the last 15 years, and that there dire "hockey stick" predictions fall flat in the face of the data..
There is simply not one single AGW model that can account for the past 100 year temperature record, given the last 15 years have seen no significant increase in temperatures. PERIOD.
Before you believe any moron who refutes this "inconvenient truth", ask for the name of the model.. And some credible sources. It will be a snowy day in Hell before any one of these AGW loonies can answer.
This is why they have to fudge the numbers - when the tree ring record supports their arguments, they use it - when it doesn't, they stop using it.. When a ten year average doesn't provide a good chart, they use a five year average. When some guy somewhere mentions that he thinks (without scientific basis) that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2350, then hey, they just toss his crack dream into a UN report (and change the date to 2035 for good measure)... What better way to get people in a panic!
A NY Times article made it into the sourcing for the IPCC study, for Pete's sake.
So take what these nuts say with a couple of tons of salt- their true agenda is kill corporations - to reverse the Industrial Revolution- and since Reagan killed the Soviet Union the environmental movement is the only refuge these communists have left.
#422 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 11 Apr 2010 at 02:35 PM
Cool story, bro.
Now, is solar intensity measurable? Do scientists have the instruments on land and in space to measure solar intensity?
#423 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 11 Apr 2010 at 06:23 PM
"that there has been any scientifically significant global warming in the last 15 years"
There is no such thing as scientifical significance. There is such a thing as statistical significance. Is it possible that you already know this and you're being a jackass?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag
Stop it.
#424 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 11 Apr 2010 at 11:44 PM
Thimbles, try visiting http://www.spaceweather.com/
for all your solar needs.
Also as you notice we are at a record solar minimum, read up on the Cosmic Ray/Cloud theory of climate control, some real science by real scientists. Tests being done in the LHC may prove this theory soon. This theory has only one bust going back millions of years, a magnetic anomaly, which is explainable. Unlike the many busts in AGWer theory of CO2 Plant food.
The Cosmic ray theory has no Carbon tax agenda and it's not some made up Hoax about humans putting too much plant food in the atmosphere; when the Cambrian Period, where sea creatures had plenty of sea shells and life not only flourished, it exploded (Cambrian Explosions): and the CO2 was 7,000 PPM!
#425 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 12 Apr 2010 at 12:29 PM
You know what's funny? Denialists flap a lot over the strong correlation between solar luminosity and temperature when they make the argument that solar variation, not green house gasses, are the primary driver of climate change. And the funny thing is that this claim about 60% correct when times are normal.
But now that temperature has been increasing during a solar minimum, a statistically significant trend is you go start 20 years or further back instead of the convenient number of 15 (in fact temperatures have been matched the hottest year recorded (1998) during a solar minimum, denialists want to claim galactic supernovas are responsible.
But what about all those times you used the strong solar variability correlation in the past to claim historical carbon climate change was bunk? If supernovas are affecting us now, then they must have affected us then. (Supernovas are not that unusual, galactically speaking.)
And if the correlation between solar variability was strong in the past, it should be strong now unless some new factor is affecting the observation.
If you claim it's a supernova, which one? Where was it? What's your proof? What cosmic rays increases have been recently measured? Put the same asshole skepticism you have when it comes to peer reviewed science to your "clouds from heaven" theory.
By the by, Cambrian life was much different from life today. Your argument is like if I claimed "African tigers cannot survive in the Arctic." and you claimed "Oh YEAH!? Siberian tigers are fine in the cold!"
Yeah, but African tigers aren't Siberian ones. You can't make make claims about one species based on facts of another one. Likewise , you can't make claims about life in this world based on life in a past one.
So let's get one thing clear. No one claims that even in the worst case scenarios that ALL LIFE will collapse. Some life will persist, but not necessarily the African tiger and not necessarily the current sea animals who have adapted shells suited to a neutral ocean's PH and not necessarily us.
Advanced, complex life is not the same as the single celled pre-Cambrian organisms that could quickly mutate and adapt to rapid environmental changes. When complex life, that is adapted to live in specific environments, face rapid environmental change, they often die.
So yeah, keep citing the Cambrian if you like even if that world isn't a parallel of ours, and I'll keep citing the permian extinction, which is a much better parallel to ours with volcanism providing the CO2 driver that humans provide today.
The ocean methane has screwed us in the past, and Great Dying II is not something I look forward to in future.
PS. My apologizes to everyone for feeding the troll.
PPS> I know who John Galt is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_BAnx1H1Gg
Nice company to keep.
#426 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 12 Apr 2010 at 11:00 PM
Thimbles, well I guess you have now chosen between 'caring' and Accidental'ism (Darwin/Dawkins/Pinker) since the two are not compatible scientifically. You keep caring enough to show up here time and time again, so you are saying De-Facto that Darwinism is false scientifically, yes?
#427 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 13 Apr 2010 at 05:58 AM
Thimbles and Turbo, bad news I'm afraid, better tweet the Goracle urgently and go back to over acidification of the Oceans (even though the Cambrian period had many life forms with sea shells @ 7,000 PPM CO2 levels). But, it's great news for Polar Bears. The unintended consequences are that now with all the extra Polar Bears on the planet, those driving Toyota Hybrids can't brake for Polar Bears. Honk if you Love Global Cooling! Beep Beeep!
Arctic ice hits 10-year high
Amid proof of junk science, Obama pushes carbon taxes
To the dismay of Al Gore and global-warming alarmists, the amount of ice covering the Arctic increased dramatically in March after years of declining, reaching levels not seen this time of year for nearly a decade, according to London's Daily Mail.
"Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 31 at 15.25 million square kilometers (5.89 million square miles)," the National Snow and Ice Data Center stated in a report published April 6. "This was the latest date for the maximum Arctic sea ice extent since the start of the satellite record in 1979."
Still, the Obama administration appears determined to tax carbon emissions, either with Congress through an energy bill, as noted by Red Alert last week, or without Congress through the Environmental Protection Agency, declaring CO2 to be a chemical noxious to human beings, even though human beings exhale it.
Whoops! Where is John Galt?
#428 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 13 Apr 2010 at 06:06 AM
The Real Climate Control Mark A. York and Thimbles;
http://www.spaceweather.com/submissions/large_image_popup.php?image_name=Andy-Devey-video0006-10-04-12-16-44-53UT-stacked-coloured-1_1271108294.jpg
#429 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Tue 13 Apr 2010 at 04:24 PM
"Thimbles, well I guess you have now chosen between 'caring' and Accidental'ism (Darwin/Dawkins/Pinker) since the two are not compatible scientifically. You keep caring enough to show up here time and time again, so you are saying De-Facto that Darwinism is false scientifically, yes?"
You are crazy. Haldol. Try it out, for the love of god.
"Arctic ice hits 10-year high
Amid proof of junk science, Obama pushes carbon taxes"
Cite so we can laugh at you.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139645
World Net Daily? Jerome Corsi? BWAHAHAHAH!
"Arctic ice hits 10-year high
Amid proof of junk science, Obama pushes carbon taxes"
"the National Snow and Ice Data Center stated in a report published April 6."
"This was the latest date for the maximum Arctic sea ice extent since the start of the satellite record in 1979."
In what world do you measure size in units of date? In the world net daily world.
The actual maximum for this year is equal to a minimum ten years ago.
The graph is here:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
The actual report claims that there was a sudden cold snap as hot areas manifested over Greenland and North America. Therefore, March 2010 was the latest maximum in 10 years, not the biggest or highest.
Stupid.. So stupid..
#430 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 13 Apr 2010 at 11:14 PM
"Where is John Galt?"
He is many and they are here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsSUCeRUXqA
and they are sociopaths. Ayn Rand liked those kinds of people:
http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm
Your world of collectives and net daily conspiracies is a world dreamt by psychotics.
Where is John Galt? The best place for him and his like is hell.
#431 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 13 Apr 2010 at 11:27 PM
Thimbles,
Have you got any science or you just going to keep rambling around in your Circular Logic world where you don't have to scientifically prove your theories, because they are "for the greater good" from your dizzy Circular Logical perspective? Rant, rant, never any science.
Explain to us all how AGWing works when we have increased CO2 after WWII and now, and the temperature declined both after WWII and for the past 12-15 years (According to Prof. Jones anyway, from EAU CRU fame).
That's a simple scientific question. can you answer it?
I am glad to see you agree with me that Accidental'ism (Darwinism) is a failed scientific theory now. So, you are making progress. There is zero % scientific proof that things, including Life, just accidentally and magically appears.
#432 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 14 Apr 2010 at 08:23 PM
Thimbles,
I guess the financial Times are just a bunch of nut case conspiracy theorist, yes?
Global warming graph attacked by study
By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent
Published: April 14 2010 19:51 | Last updated: April 14 2010 19:51
A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years.
Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods.
“It used a particular statistical technique that exaggerated the effect [of recent warming],” he said.
#433 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 14 Apr 2010 at 08:28 PM
Thimbles,
You got any scientific explanation yet for why the Fossil record destroys your CO2 AGWing theory?
You have any scientific explanation yet for why there are at least 2, maybe 3 warm periods in the last 2,000 years pre-man made industrialization CO2 emissions like the Medieval Warming period and the Roman warming period?
Do you have any scientific explanation for why the GHG theory flops, because there is no Temperature hot spot over the equator, which is we use science to verify Theory, there should be one there.
No? I didn't think so. Who is John Galt? Have a nice Earth Day and make sure to pay your carbon taxes Thimbles. When you get ready to stop walking around in circles inside your head, come back with some science.
#434 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 14 Apr 2010 at 08:35 PM
PS Thimbles, be sure to get your shrimp tacos for Earth Day. With every 5 orders, you get a free Nobel Peace Prize!
TORONTO — 21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations' Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card released today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,500 sources cited in the report — finding 5,600 to be not peer-reviewed.
Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called "grey literature."
"We've been told this report is the gold standard," says Canadian blogger Donna Laframboise, who organized the online crowdsourcing effort to examine the references. "We've been told it's 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have been nowhere near a scientific journal."
Based on the grading system used in US schools, 21 chapters in the IPCC report receive an F (they cite peer-reviewed sources less than 60% of the time), 4 chapters get a D, and 6 get a C. There are also 5 Bs and 8 As.
#435 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 14 Apr 2010 at 08:40 PM
Thimbles, the latest scientific challenge for you.
Explain to all of us skeptics, since you are ' real' scientist and mathematician, and we skeptics are are just conspiracy theorists;
What is the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) Theory, and where we can get a concise copy of it with all the peer-2-peer reviewed data is to back this AGWing theory up with concrete evidence that humans are guilty?
Should be simple enough for a 'real' scientist like you, yes? Just tweet the Goracle, he'll email it to you I'm sure.
Science, you know, first propose a logical theory, prove it, hold it up to skeptical scrutiny, explain scientifically the anomalies.
Like Aristotle did with velocity (until Galileo disproved his theory scientifically).
Like Galileo did for tidal actions (until Newton disproved his theories scientifically with gravity).
Like Newton did (until Einstein undid Newton scientifically with evidence from a full solar eclipse to prove General Relativity).
Got science yet?
#436 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 14 Apr 2010 at 09:11 PM
Ooops, you went to the crazy pile again with your "You DARWINISTS believe GLOBAL WARMING evovled by ACCIDENT which contriccts the universe since IF YOU BELIEVE IN DARWIN, you don't CARE about ANYTHING! ah HA! QED Goracle TWEET TWEET John Galt John Galt John Galt John Galt John Galt..."
http://plif.courageunfettered.com/archive/wc083.gif
I don't speak crazy. Bye.
#437 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 14 Apr 2010 at 10:07 PM
Global Warming;
The eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano on Wednesday sent hundreds of people in southwestern Iceland fleeing from their homes, fearing flash floods. The volcano, which resides under a glacier, dramatically roared back into life on March 20 after nearly 200 years of dormancy.
Let's see you green shirts stop this one Thimbles! Do you really think paying carbon taxes will help this? I'm quite sure one of your green shitrts will shortly be blaming George W. Bush and his weather machine for this.
#438 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 15 Apr 2010 at 10:02 AM
From Prof. Jones, EAU CRU, "Statistically, there has been no warming in the last 15 years." Translation; if you take out the manipulations, the 'Hide the decline', the statistical malfeasance to create statistical artifacts like the infamous and now discredited 'hockey stick' (see earlier posts), you get no Global Warming, human caused or otherwise, in the past 15 years, INSPITE of increased CO2 plant food emissions by humans. It get's even more dramatic to 'global cooling' if you remove the 1998 El Nino spike.
Now add in this from the New Scientist today and stir it up:
Since about 1985, all the solar factors that could have warmed the climate have been going in the wrong direction, says Lockwood. "If they were really a big factor we would have cooling by now."
Well, if you pull your head out of the clouds and understand what Prof. Jones just said, the solar factors now match up with"no global warming in the past 15 years". Bingo!
And what happens when we remove the 'hockey stick' from the data and look at the affects on the jet stream by the Sun, especially in Europe?
Again from the 'New Scientist' today;
Lockwood found that when he removed 20th-century warming [manufactured warming by Climate-gate pseudo scientists] due to industrial emissions from his models, the statistical link between solar lows and extreme winters was stronger, suggesting the phenomenon is unrelated to global warming [he means unrelated to manipulated 'pseudo data' like the hockey stick]. But the sun undeniably has a big influence on weather systems: it is, after all, the energy source that powers them.
See what happens Thimbles when you let a pre-determined agenda drive your results with out fact checking and scientific verifications, and then you circumvent the peer review process that would have caught this? Lockwood above assumes the manipulated data by Mann, et. al. is real (in fact the hockey stick was a virtual reality statistical artifact currently verified as so by statisticians). So when he 'removes the artificial hockey stick', the results are as expected for solar activities. Hello!
Imagine that. The sun affects climate and weather, and there has been no global warming due to human added plant food in the atmosphere over the last 15 years.
I threw you a bone Thimbles, can you see where your lead in is? Not to worry skeptics, lead AGWers to the sun and their theories evaporate, literally. Then we get back to real science.
So, watch-ya worried about Thimbles? It seems like God doesn't play dice with the Universe after all, hey?
#439 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 15 Apr 2010 at 12:21 PM
By the way Thimbles, here is an icicle for you. If human activity is melting the Arctic Ice Cap (and Polar Bears are drowning), how come it's growing back now but human plant food emissions have increased-if CO2 is the driver you say it is? ;
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ice-max-2010.html
Arctic 2010 Sea Ice Maximum, Visualized
04.06.10
Sea ice coverage over the Arctic Ocean oscillates over the course of a year, growing through winter and reaching a maximum extent by February or March. THIS YEAR, Arctic sea ice grew to levels BEYOND those measured in recent years but slightly below average when compared to the 30-year satellite record.
Look up Thimbles, it's the Sun, dude! The Sea Ice also matches the New Scientist article about Europe in the deep freeze at solar minimums, and does not match increased human Plant Food emissions!
Can you say 'GWing without the A'? The sun, sub-sea volcanism and subsequent oceanic temperatures, cosmic ray concentrations, the solar and earth's magnetic fields, and clouds all have much more sway over climate and weather than plant food, human made or otherwise does.
#440 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 15 Apr 2010 at 12:52 PM
Take heart Thimbles, inside the Black Hole of your Circular Logic, it's still possible for AGWing to be happening in an alternate Universe (just not here on Planet earth right nowThank God!).
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100409-black-holes-alternate-universe-multiverse-einstein-wormholes/
According to the new equations, the matter black holes absorb and seemingly destroy is actually expelled and becomes the building blocks for galaxies, stars, and planets 'in another reality'.
Chase your AWGing into that Alternate Universe in your head Thimbles. Hop down the rabbit hole and go get that elusive AGWing. I know you can find it if you look hard enough. I'll bet you will find John Galt in there also!
#441 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Thu 15 Apr 2010 at 01:20 PM
Thimbles, this is how you melt a Glacier, not with plant food!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100416/ts_nm/us_iceland_volcano
All that bike riding up in ash for nothing, dagnabits!
#442 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 16 Apr 2010 at 01:06 PM
Look at the bright side Thimbles!
The most embarrassing question incited by this American administration’s first 15 months will surely be what possessed it to plump for an insane cap-and-trade measure that would not have reduced carbon emissions or increased federal-government revenues, and to mount the indelible spectacle of Mr. Obama plying the rounds in Copenhagen between the charlatans and eco-geeks dressed as seals and bunnies and so forth, seeking pledges to a $100 billion annual transfer to the most egregious regimes of the Third World, as Danegeld for the advanced economies’ contribution to carbon emissions.
But President Obama should be aware that he will be spending the rest of his time in office trying to amass credits that will cause historians to overlook his signing on to the inconvenient untruth of Al Gore’s self-enriching magic carpet of eco-bunk. The Himalayan glaciers are not melting; world water levels are not rising; nor is the world’s temperature; and there is no evidence, none, that human-generated carbon emissions have any impact on the world’s temperature at all, whatever other problems they create.
The clock struck midnight; Al Gore turned back into a (rich) pumpkin; the Prince of Wales can go back to talking to his tomatoes; and the whole gigantic fraud has been borne away by a swarm of killer bees that was supposed to have done us all in decades ago, leaving the president of the U.S. panhandling the kooks of Copenhagen for a slush fund for Mugabe and Chávez.
QED
#443 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 16 Apr 2010 at 01:15 PM
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
When you get through reading them all Thimble and Mark A. York, let's have a real discussion about real science and real mathematics.
"Facts are stubborn things", John Adams and Mark A. York
Happy Earth Day on Lenin's' Birthday by the way!
#444 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 24 Apr 2010 at 11:54 AM
Cause and Affect, The real AGWing agenda;
Cause: Senate Democratic sources now say climate change legislation is unlikely this year. 4/23 5:41 P.M. - http://pwire.at/aFoExC
Affect: the 'Green Shirts' like Thimbles, Mark A. York and Mill-i-gram run and chase circular logic in Euro-blogs now where there are still citizens willing to be brow beaten into Carbon Taxes for no good scientific reasons.
By the way Thimbles, you do realize on the road to find out who you really are, that the physio-bio computer you mistakenly identify as being 'Thimbles'; your human body-mind; is a 'Carbon' based unit, yes?
#445 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 25 Apr 2010 at 06:31 PM
Jesus Christ.
1) It's "effect". "Cause and effect".
2) Thanks for discovering that my pseudonym is not representative of my physical reality. It took you a while, didn't it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=850ci_XMOps
Oh god.
#446 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 26 Apr 2010 at 12:30 AM
Mann Oh Mann, the good news just keeps on rolling in;
No one can accuse Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli of shying from controversy. In his first four months in office, Cuccinelli directed public universities to remove sexual orientation from their anti-discrimination policies, attacked the Environmental Protection Agency, and filed a lawsuit challenging federal health care reform. Now, it appears, he may be preparing a legal assault on an embattled proponent of global warming theory who used to teach at the University of Virginia, Michael Mann.
In papers sent to UVA April 23, Cuccinelli’s office commands the university to produce a sweeping swath of documents relating to Mann’s receipt of nearly half a million dollars in state grant-funded climate research conducted while Mann — now director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State — was at UVA between 1999 and 2005.
If Cuccinelli succeeds in finding a smoking gun like the purloined emails that led to the international scandal dubbed Climategate, Cuccinelli could seek the return of all the research money, legal fees, and trebled damages.
“Since it’s public money, there’s enough controversy to look in to the possible manipulation of data,” says Dr. Charles Battig, president of the nonprofit Piedmont Chapter Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment, a group that doubts the underpinnings of climate change theory.
#447 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 1 May 2010 at 11:37 AM
Thimbles, of course you aren't really 'Thimbles' the moniker. But it is also scientifically true you still don't know who you are, what you are or where you are. Not knowing these vital things, how do you hope to go 'any where', much less save the planet?
As an example, that carbon based unit you think of as your self? It changes every cell in in it's self every 7 years. So, what are you now, and where are you? You have to answer these things before you can answer "who are you" and 'why are you here'. Oh, I forgot, Seculars have no reason to be here. You just freak accidents that happened by accident and magic, Abra Kadabra. Poof! There is life for no reason what so ever and with no purpose.
I may be wrong, and many will disagree with me here, but I am betting you are older than 7 years old. That would mean that you are now into multiple carbon based units for one so called "Thimbles". So where is "Thimbles" now, which cell, which molecule? Hmmm? Where are you, what are you, who are you?
Like I said, you are clueless, so why should the world listen to or follow you? You and your Cultists are just the 'Blind leading the Blind' to no where in particular, and you don't even have a reason to be here; so you have no stake in future society. Thus, why do you even care, about AGWing or any other cause 'de Celeb?
#448 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 1 May 2010 at 11:52 AM
Look Haldol guy, you don't know nothing about me or my beliefs, therefore you are labeling me a "secularist", which you equate to "atheist", and you are making a bunch of other random assumptions about my perceptions of purpose and randomness and circular logic based on that label.
If you assume that the earth, and the systems which it supports, are a manifestation of God's design then isn't it a sacrilege to pollute those systems and tarnish the treasures that future generations were supposed to inherit?
Is it holy to defecate upon the works of god?
#449 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 3 May 2010 at 02:09 AM
Count me in the AGW - Confident it's a scam group. The reasons I feel this way are too numerous to list. But a few bear mentioning: (1) A "scientist" is a person who does "science." "Science" is a disciplined approach to proposing an understanding of natural phenomena, verifying that proposition through controlled experimentation and verifying the results of that experimentation through independent reproduction. Without this, it is NOT "science" even if someone with a degree in a relevant science says it is. Such process is significantly absent in AGW theory, particularly when it comes to issues of "control." Regardless of your reaction to the authoritarian "evidence" produced by the spurious substitutes like, "peer review" "computer models" "consensus" etc. the evidence in favor of AGW is NOT compelling. The, (once most compelling), evidence that showed a precipitous spike in average temperatures over the last 60 years has been exposed as a fraud and while there is still ample evidence to support a warming trend, the true preponderance of evidence shows a warming trend for about the last three hundred years, which renders the theory of a relationship to human-caused Carbon emisions very low as a probability. And the percentages of human addition to atmospheric Carbon simply do not add up to a significant factor compared to solar phenomena and water vapor effects, etc. True scientific evidence helps but is by no means consistent in its indications. From this, true scientific conclusions cannot be drawn at this point.
But based on this innadequately supported theory we are supposed to curtail our use of major energy supplies and abandon the independence from governmental controls that makes us relatively free as humans in a civilization go. So we are expected to give up something very meaningful, for the achievement of which countless millions have given their lives. So AGW is not just a scientific debate but a significant political debate in which those who advocate a parent-like governmental authority favor AGW and those who favor individual self determination dismiss it, (as shown in the "fine-grained-study" referenced). It is too much to ask people to give up real advances in individual liberty for an unlikely emergency and more unlikely correction. What's more, based on this unproven theory, we are supposed to significantly disrupt international trade including the crippling of the economy of the world's greatest markets. This will result in tens of millions of deaths in second and third world nations over the next decade, a crime against humanity for which the AGW advocates will rightly need to be brought to punishment. Hopefully, we will be able to stop this politically-driven contrivance before too much of this impact is felt. But we may as well start preparing ourselves for the hunt for the worst perpetrators and the international agreements that will be needed to bring them to justice.
#450 Posted by Edwin Loftus, CJR on Tue 4 May 2010 at 12:11 PM
"The, (once most compelling), evidence that showed a precipitous spike in average temperatures over the last 60 years has been exposed as a fraud"
If you are talking about the Mann hockey stick then no it hasn't. For periods previous to modern thermometers, temperature proxies must be used. The tree ring data synchs reliably with the data until about 60 years ago, at which point it diverges.
But other temperature proxies haven't and, by 60 years ago, we had thermometers. Mann used the instrument record when the tree ring data diverged.
That is not fraud. What would have been fraud is continuing to use tree ring data while it was going further away from your thermometer readings.
#451 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 4 May 2010 at 02:17 PM
Whoops!
Dr Spencer, formerly senior scientist for climate studies at NASA, now leads the US science team for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSRE) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He co-developed the original satellite method for precise monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. He’s just the kind of egghead the IPCC claims to represent when it tells us the world is getting dangerously warmer, it’s man’s fault – the result of CO2 emissions – and it must be urgently addressed.
Except Dr Spencer doesn’t agree with any of that. He thinks it’s all nonsense, based on a very elementary error he describes in his new book The Great Global Warming Blunder. His arguments summarized below..
Climate change, he shows, is an almost entirely natural process on which human influence is negligible.
Of course, sceptics have been making this point for years, arguing that the quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by man are so tiny that even if they were to double there would still be no dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
What they have been unable to answer convincingly until now, though, is the alarmists’ counterargument that CO2 emissions are exaggerated by “positive feedbacks”.
One type of positive feedback often cited by alarmists is cloud cover. When CO2 causes the world to warm, they argue, it reduces the number of clouds. Clouds are what help protect our planet from the burning heat of the sun, by reflecting solar radiation.
So even if the effect on climate of CO2 is relatively small, the potential knock-on effect is vast. This is why the predictions of temperature rises made by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports are so large and terrifying.
But according to Spencer, these alarmists have got completely the wrong end of the stick. The mistake they have made is to confuse cause with effect. It’s not man-made global warming that is causing cloud cover to grow thinner, leading to a spiral of ever-rising temperatures. Rather, it’s natural variations in cloud cover that are helping to cause global warming.
Give it up with minor the technicalities Thimbles, even Prof Jones (EAU CRU) admits there has been statistically NO Global Warming the last 15 years and the MWP was as warm or warmer than now.
You can't support your AWGing Theory yet , not coming close to explaining the busts in it;
1) If the Green House Gas Theory is correct, where is the tell tale Hot Spot Temperature Anomaly that should appear over the Equator to prove the Theory...(there is none)
2) Why were there at least 2 maybe 3 periods as warm as the current day and time, including the Roman Warm Period and the MWP, but no Industrial Plant food (CO2) to make it warm?
3) Why in spite of Industrial Plant Food (Human CO2), there are 2 distinct declines in Global Temperatures (as in Hide the Decline), one after WWII, another the last 15 years
4) WHy the fossil record does not support your theory either, Cambrian Period had 7,000 PPM CO2 and no humans, yet life exploded in the biosphere (as per 'Cambrian Explosion') and why Polar Bears survived Global Warming according to new fossils about 1.300 years ago, again no Industrialization Plant Food in the air.
5) In Infamous Hockey Stick was debunked years ago as Statistical malfeasance and manipulation by a teen aged Canadian girl, get over it already!
But keep flailing about, it 's humorous!
PS, did you see your hero Richard Dawkins is now linked to the Nazi SS, along with Oxford and Cambridge? How .....Iron-ic!
Who is John Galt now, Hmmmm?
#452 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 5 May 2010 at 07:53 AM
And PS Thimbles, "Statistically" is all you AGWers have, Computer models, like the failed weather prediction models; like the failed Ash Cloud models that didn't predict the Volcano correctly. But at lest the Ash model didn't cost us Trillions for no good reason, it only cost Billions and havoc for a week. So stop whining about Statistically there has been no warming for the last 15 years. I didn't say it, Prof. Jones, you guy, said it.
While you enjoy some Ben & Jerry's "Gordon Fudge" ice cream for the UK Elections, ponder this Thimbles;
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS — Traders involved in Europe’s flagship climate change programme, the Emissions Trading System — some of whom work at Germany’s biggest banks and energy firms — were the focus of a series of raids and arrests by British and German prosecutors in part of a massive pan-European crackdown on CO2-credit VAT fraud. . . .
On Friday (30 April), it was revealed that UK tax authorities had raided 81 different offices and homes earlier in the week, arresting 22 individuals — 13 in England and further eight in Scotland.
The swoop, which occurred two days earlier, involved roughly 450 staff from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
German authorities simultaneously raided 230 premises, including the headquarters of Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt and the offices of RWE, one of the largest energy firms in Europe, according to the Bloomberg news agency. . . .
The operation, which targetted [sic] a total of 50 companies and some 150 suspects in Europe’s biggest economy, involved around a thousand investigators from Germany.
Authorities in eight other EU nations — Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Portugal, as well as Norway, outside the bloc — were approached by Frankfurt prosecutors for their help in the investigation. . . .
In announcing its investigations into the pan-European racket, the agency said that as much as 90 percent of the entire market volume on emissions exchanges was caused by fraudulent activity.
European Commission climate spokeswoman Maria Kokkonen told EUobserver . . . “However, it should be underlined that this does not affect the overall functioning of the EU-ETS.”
Of course it doesn’t. Nothing to see here, folks — move along. Pay no attention to that 'Mann' behind the curtain manipulating the Hockey 'Stich' data.
#453 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 5 May 2010 at 08:04 AM
The Goracle's Stunning new 9 Million dollar digs!
AL GORE: Every penny that I have made, I have put right into a non-profit deal, Alliance For Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge. And Congresswomen, if your, if, if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you do not know me.
Stunning Pictures of Al Gore's New $9 Million Mansion Media Totally Ignored
http://newsbusters.org/node/38375/print
Who is John Galt?
#454 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 12 May 2010 at 10:09 AM
Let's see how many ways is this sooo wrong, rising oceans, footprints, sustainability, this must be just killing you Thimbles, better tweet the Goracle now and ask him what in the Sam Hill he was thinking about right now when Obamabots are trying to sneak in Cap and Trade carbon taxes.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/28/home/la-hm-hotprop-gore-20100428
#455 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 12 May 2010 at 10:22 AM
Managing to be snarky over Al Gore's house purchase (like I give a crap about Al Gore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo ) while the Gulf of Mexico is filling up with oil.
Ain't you a special one.
#456 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 12 May 2010 at 12:53 PM
Nice article, thanks for sharing.
#457 Posted by bark off, CJR on Tue 18 May 2010 at 07:37 PM
Thimbles, something for you and your Cult to put in your pipes and smoke (and it's nothing to do with your puppet master the Goracle and his new 9 Million 'Ocean View' digs-what happened to rising sea levels of more than 30 feet?);
It’s the Sun, stupid
Solar scientists are finally overcoming their fears and going public about the Sun-climate connection
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/21/its-the-sun-stupid/
Gulp! Some real science for real scientists.
#458 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 24 May 2010 at 11:20 AM
The actual Kuhn press release.
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/SunSize-May2010/
Kuhn’s work is part of worldwide efforts to understand the influence of the sun on Earth’s climate. “We can’t predict the climate on Earth until we understand these changes on the sun,” he said...
I think Lawrence Solomon is making stuff up, as denialists tend to do.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
I'll let you know if he makes a release to this effect soon.
#459 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 24 May 2010 at 12:38 PM
In you relativistic circular Logic black hole Thimbles, you have actually psychologically reversed in your mind the role of the Deniers now that we have all the new science.
You are the Deniers now, and your Inquisition throw back to the days of Galileo has come to an end. Or it will shortly.
Let's delineate what you want every one to believe is "undisputed fact" now based not on science, but on "political driven consensus", since you can't even tell us where the origin of 'your' beloved AGWing theory is from, who owns it and where it is succinctly defined for all to see.
You continually refuse to send us even a reasonable "theory" about why there are so many busts in your AGWing "Theory". In science, ye who propose the theory need to defend it and with concrete evidence, plus explain away any of the numerous holes your theory posted here ad nauseum (due to your insistence at circular logic, since you left wing political seculars insist on being right no matter what, truth be damned, and you start using using Fascist tactics when the facts don't match your political and financial agendas).
So, since you can't even describe 'your own Theory', please allow me to describe it for you.
The debate is not about Global Warming. The debate is not even simply about human contributions to Global warming. It is not about encroachment of habitats, cleaning up the atmosphere and so on.
The debate is very simple.
You expect the world to believe that the human contributed plant food into the Atmosphere is going to burn us all up.
The best scientific 'estimates' of human contributed plant food into the atmosphere is.....drum roll please.........0.000111% .....in PPM.....!
Then on top of that you want the world to believe that in spite of the climate changing for Billions of years, The Goracle and you can put on your capes and stop the climate from changing. Stop Climate, in the name of the Goracle, Stop changing!
20 years ago theAGWing theory may have had some merit but currently it is amateurish, childish and ludicrous.
Give it up and go save the Iguanas from Global cooling estimated to last another 15 to 20 years, especially if the bigger volcano blows next as it did in the 1870's, lowering global temps.
#460 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 24 May 2010 at 01:12 PM
Thimbles, are the Russians now 'just making up stuff' to the extent of starting a 6 year project to study the solar affects on global temperatures? Is that your answer to everything, now, if real scientists disagree with you, then 'they are just making stuff up'?
Russian scientists are again challenging backward U.S. science – this time claiming that solar energy, not the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – is the major determinant of temperatures on earth.
Based on their observations that the sun is currently in a minimum of solar activity, Russian scientists are predicting not global warming, but the coming of a new ice age.
Now the Russians are testing this theory by gathering detailed solar data over the next six years at the International Space Station.
Ironically, if the Russians are right, humans may well be advised not to diminish the use of hydrocarbon technology but to increase the burning of "fossil fuels," on the off chance that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere might help marginally warm up an earth that may be entering a new "Little Ice Age," much like the global cooling experienced in the years beginning around 1650 and extending through 1850. (Note here Thimbles, no SUVs in 1650, so don't start blaming the coming Ice Age on humans also please!)
Mars temperature proves sun heats Earth
The controversy broke into the U.S. media when Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, was quoted in a 2007 National Geographic article that argued "ice caps" near the south pole of Mars have been diminishing for three summers in a row.
The clear implication was that climate changes on Earth and throughout our solar system are affected by natural causes, not human-induced causes.
Last week, at the Hartland Institute's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change, Abdussamatov explained that average annual sun activity has experienced an accelerated decrease since the 1990s, such that in 2008-2005, the earth reached the maximum of the recent observed global-warming trend.
He further explained that through 2014 the earth will go through a series of unstable variations in which global temperature will oscillate around the maximum reached in the years 1998-2005.
In 2003-2005, Abdussamatov predicted a reduction of sunspot activity that would reach a new deep minimum of sunspot activity in 2042, resulting in a deep global temperature minimum to be reached in the years 2055-2060.
"My predictions are looking better and better with each passing year," Abdussamatov commented.
Russian space station charged with refining ice age prediction
In his capacity of the head of the Russian-Ukrainian project "Astrometria" on the Russian segment of the International Space Station, Abdussamatov is conducting additional research to refine his prediction that a new Little Ice Age will begin in 201
Abdussamatov explained to the climate conference that the Russian segment of the ISS is scheduled to collect more precise data on sun activity over the next six years.
"If the Astrometria project is developed in time," Abdussamatov said, "we will be able to develop a more precise forecast of the duration and the depth of the approaching new Little Ice Age and to understand the reasons of cyclical changes taking place in the interior of the sun and the ways they affect the Earth and various scopes of human activity."
Abdussamatov's theory is that "long-term variations in the amount of solar energy reaching the earth are the main and principal reasons driving and defining the whole mechanism of climatic changes from the global warmings to the Little Ice Ages to the big glacial periods."
In the conclusion to his speech, Abdussamatov took on global-warming hysterics who want to diminish human use of hydrocarbon fuels, encouraging in
#461 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Mon 24 May 2010 at 01:36 PM
Like I said in the past, the primary climate driver in the past has been solar, followed by volcanism. We are talking about the present in which there has not been unusual amounts of volcanic activity (and the nature of recent volcanic activity has driven temperatures down) and there has been a prolonged solar minimum which should have lead to cooling.
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract
But instead, we have some of the hottest years recorded in 2007 and 2009.
And what I said was not, "if real scientists disagree with you, then 'they are just making stuff up'", what I said was Lawrence Solomon, the journalist who writes a column and titled his book "The Deniers" is making stuff up, and I say that because I searched for the source of his quotes and found nothing but links to L Solomon.
So I sent an email to Kuhn asking whether he was quoted and characterized accurately.
I suspect he wasn't, but If he was, I'll mention it.
#462 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 24 May 2010 at 08:27 PM
Thimbles, you still have not explained any of the Busts in AGWing yet dude; for such a renowned "scientist" you have definitely sold out man!
Why is there the 3 warm periods as warm or warmer than now starting with the Roman Warming period? Why are there two declines in Temps when CO2 Plant food increased starting after WWII?
Why is does the fossil record, specifically the Cambrian Explosion, blow away AGWing, Ocean Acidity and Darwinism all in one bif Secular blow out? And don't forget the recent fossil find of 1300 years ago that shows Polar Bears already survived Global Warming back then, LOL!
Be a real scientist and explain it away "Thimble full".
In the mean time, LOL +++++L here is your so called "consensus about AGWing" exposed for all to see...man, can you spell "Junk Science on steroids"? I guess you are one of "dozens" while Skeptics have thousands disagreeing with your distorted assumptions. Yes? Dozen man?
Lawrence Solomon of Canada’s National Post reports a blockbuster:
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia and the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”
Diane Katz at the Fraser Institute says “Hulme’s revelation belies the claims of IPCC apologists who have insisted that misrepresentations in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report were minor mistakes that have no bearing on the unshakable consensus of experts on anthropogenic global warming.”
More evidence that the Senate just granted the EPA the authority to fight a fictional dragon.
Hah! FOR A FEW DOZEN MORE......Where is John Galt?
#463 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 16 Jun 2010 at 08:41 AM
Meanwhile, Thimble Full, Life imitates Art.
Of course you will concentrate on this post and ignore the last one, and you will reply you don't care about your Puppet Master and AGWing handler, the Goracle, like you always do. Go ahead, ignore the science.
It turns out the Goracle has been boffing the ex-wife of the creator of Seinfeld (after she finished with the pool boy). Seinfeld you will recall, was a show ABOUT NOTHING. Just like the schlock-u-mentary she and Albert Jr. made about a Hoax-about nothing, "An Inconvenient Truth".
Human Industrial plant food into the atmosphere amounts to 0.000111 % of the Atmosphere, LOL!
Of course, any contribution of plant food is beneficial to the poor and starving of the world, as it increases plant yield, and hence food production.
But you, the Goracle and his mistress want to deprive the starving of the world more food for your own selfish, self serving interests; to make money on a "Nothing" scheme of trading carbon, Cap and Trade being about making money for nothing (scamming money by guilt).
Lot's of "NOTHING" empty connections now to AGWing, life imitating art.
So, the real questions you need to tweet your puppet master for answers for us are;
1) Who get's the 9 Million US$ Ocean View house in L.A.?
2) Who get's the family boat, the BS-1?
You can at least answer these simple questions Thimbles, since you can't defend the busts in AGWing theory?You can't even give us the origin of this AGWing theory or who holds the basic tenets of AGWing theory. Of course because there really is no AGWing. It's all a hoax to guilt money from unsuspecting Sheeples, as evidenced by the huge wealth the Goracle and his cronies have already raked in.
Save the Iguanas from Global Cooling!
#464 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 16 Jun 2010 at 09:09 AM
By the way Thimbles, you have already admitted you haven't got a clue where you are at in one of your previous posts. So as a scientist who gives talks at Stanford, you will understand the following question, yes?
Why should we listen to, or follow Thimbles, when Thimbles doesn't have a clue where he is, why he is here or where he is going to?
I showed you scientifically you don't know who you are. The human body replaces each cell every 7 years. So Thimbles can't possibly be that CARBON based human unit you walk around in.
I'll give you another hint. "I think, therefore I am" is also scientifically incorrect, one only has to observe current technology to disprove this antiquated idea. Thus, Dawkins and Pinker, Secular gatekeepers, are scientifically as clueless as you are Thimbles.
You don't know "who you are"
You can't scientifically triangulate "where you are".
You don't have a clue why you are here or where you are going to.
But you want us to 'follow you' by worrying about 0.000111% more human manufactured plant food in the Atmosphere?
Welcome to your Circular Logic Secular Black Hole, Thimbles. I gave you enough clues to escape it if you have the desire to be a real scientist. Good luck. What do you have to lose, a Life with no meaning? Come and join the real human race (your version of humans has no meaning and life is just a Cosmic accident, thus meaningless: and you Seculars might as well not exist). Have a life with direction and purpose, leave the Secular Black Hole.
Or not. You have free will. You can stay in your Self Centered Black Hole mistakenly thinking You personally are the Center of the Universe. Or you can escape and join us.
What do you do, Thimbles?
#465 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Wed 16 Jun 2010 at 09:36 AM
Oh Thimble's, Say it Ain't soooo, not renewables tooo! Is nothing scared now?
The editors of Investor’s Business Daily write:
Environment: Our growing addiction to alternative energy was killing aquatic life in the Gulf long before the Deepwater Horizon spill. Abandoning oil will kill more and also release more carbon dioxide into the air.
President Obama sees the oil spill as a chance to make the planet a greener place by weaning us off fossil fuels and pushing us toward alternative energy. The earth and the Gulf of Mexico have indeed been getting greener lately, thanks to agricultural runoff due to a mandated surge in biofuels such as ethanol.
Before the first gallon gushed from Deepwater Horizon, there existed an 8,500 square mile “dead zone” below the Mississippi River Delta, roughly the size of Connecticut and Delaware combined.
Hypoxia, or oxygen depletion, caused by agricultural runoff in the Mississippi River Basin varies from year to year, but it has been on an upward trend as acreage for corn destined to become ethanol increases.
#466 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sat 19 Jun 2010 at 09:01 AM
All You AGWer Alarmers out there, here is your problem in a nutshell;
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Albert Einstein
Q. E. D.
#467 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Fri 2 Jul 2010 at 10:31 AM
A new congressional report outlining the “harmful impact” to Arizona’s water supplies from concentrated solar operations has stirred debate over the degree to which solar energy development can proceed in portions of the arid Southwest.
The conclusions in the 21-page policy report, compiled by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and his staff, focuses on concentrating solar power (CSP) technology, which in most cases requires significant volumes of water to wash solar panels and cool equipment.
“Arizona lawmakers have an obligation to protect the state’s limited water supply and put its water resources to their highest and best use,” the report states. “Using Arizona’s water supplies to produce conventional CSP that will most likely be exported out of state does neither.”
Yet despite the environmental risks, Kyl and his staff say proponents of the renewable energy technology have continued to press for building more solar plants in the desert. “Despite the seriousness of [the state's] water constraints, solar power companies have largely ignored water concerns and continue to propose water-intensive conventional CSP plants in Arizona.”
The policy report, which stunned both the solar power industry and policymakers, comes as the Obama administration pushes for a significant expansion of renewable energy nationwide, including in Arizona’s Sonoran Desert region, which ranks second only to the Mojave Desert in the number of proposed solar power projects.
The Bureau of Land Management is reviewing 33 solar power plant applications in Arizona covering 452,000 acres of federal land, mostly in the south and southwest sections of the state, according to a review of government data.
Of those proposed plants, 29 would use some form of CSP technology. That includes the state’s only “fast-track” solar project — Boulevard Associates LLC’s proposed 375-megawatt Sonoran Solar Energy Project on 13,440 acres of federal land in Maricopa County. Fast-tracked projects must be permitted and underway before the end of 2010 to qualify for lucrative federal economic stimulus grants.
In addition, at least 10 applications have been filed with the Arizona State Land Department for CSP plants on state-owned land, according to Kyl’s report.
“A majority of the land that has been identified as having the most solar energy potential is also located in some of the most water challenged parts of the state,” the report states. “Not all of those projects will be constructed, but the potential impact on water resources is alarming.” Differing opinions.
And yet again we are reminded that there is no free ride with any energy source.
IE, Liberal Progressive’s Mythological and Ideological theory that this is a “Something for Nothing” Universe is FLAT out scientifically as wrong as the FLAT Earth Theory is.
#468 Posted by Albert J, CJR on Sun 4 Jul 2010 at 10:28 AM
A big problem with the global warming idealogy is that simply speaking, every planet in our solar system is currently warming up. As a result, it's just too hard to isolate our direct contribution.
Instead, we should focus on our ecology and creating sustainable systems with the environment instead of bickering about whether or not it's actually warming up directly from carbon.
Dr. J
http://drjdallasplasticsurgeon.com
#469 Posted by Dr. J - Plastic Surgery Dallas, CJR on Sun 25 Sep 2011 at 10:04 AM
Quote: "A big problem with the global warming idealogy is that simply speaking, every planet in our solar system is currently warming up. As a result, it's just too hard to isolate our direct contribution.
Instead, we should focus on our ecology and creating sustainable systems with the environment instead of bickering about whether or not it's actually warming up directly from carbon.
Dr. J http://drjdallasplasticsurgeon.com. "
I'm sorry DrJ but i don't think that every planet in our solar system is heading up ... that would be a to easy explenation! It goes deeper then that, lots of factors here on earth are contributing to global warming.
But you're right that we should focus on our ecology and creating sustainable systems.
Andressa
#470 Posted by Andressa, CJR on Fri 25 Nov 2011 at 02:35 PM
What do you mean by blip on radar? a fault? that kind of exaplins it
tulisa sex tape
#471 Posted by gavin benson, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 12:15 PM
Coleman can not do simple math. So, he should not be trusted on anything he says.
Even if he did weather reports every day, he would need to have done at least 17 a day every day for 40 years in order to claim that he had done more than a "quarter of a million."
#472 Posted by Rain Man, CJR on Mon 5 Nov 2012 at 01:11 PM
My local weathercaster says that he doesn't believe in climate change because "in Genesis God promised Noah that he wouldn't flood the earth again." Ispo facto . . . .
#473 Posted by BG Guy, CJR on Mon 5 Nov 2012 at 01:21 PM
anyone who a) read all these posts down to mine, number 473, deserves some sort of award; b) does not believe in climate change, should check out what's left of our glaciers in bolivia. 40% gone in the last ten years. once again, the industrial west has placed bolivia in peril, even worse than the trillions of gold, silver and tin it stole over the centuries, to finance the industry now wrecking the andean environment.
es injusto~
#474 Posted by edu joven, CJR on Mon 5 Nov 2012 at 07:41 PM