Climate News Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful
|
August 11 2010
US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high.
The fault was first detected after a tip off from an anonymous member of the public to climate skeptic blog, Climate Change Fraud (view original article) (August 9, 2010).
Caught in the center of the controversy is the beleaguered taxpayer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA’s Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis has now confirmed that the fast spreading story on the respected climate skeptic blog is true.
However, NOAA spokesman, Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis declined to state how long the fault might have gone undetected. Nor would the shaken spokesman engage in speculation as to the damage done to the credibility of a decade’s worth of temperature readings taken from the problematic ‘NOAA-16’ satellite.
‘NOAA-16’ was launched in September 2000, and is currently operational, in a sun-synchronous orbit, 849 km above the Earth, orbiting every 102 minutes providing automated data feed of surface temperatures which are fed into climate computer models.
NOAA has reported a succession of record warm temperatures in recent years based on such satellite readings but these may now all be undermined.
World-renowned Canadian climatologist, Dr. Timothy Ball, after casting his expert eye over the shocking findings concluded, “At best the entire incident indicates gross incompetence, at worst it indicates a deliberate attempt to create a temperature record that suits the political message of the day.”
Great Lakes Sees Unphysical Wild Temperature Fluctuations
Great Lakes users of the satellite service were the first to blow the whistle on the wildly distorted readings that showed a multitude of impossibly high temperatures. NOAA admits that the machine-generated readings are not continuously monitored so that absurdly high false temperatures could have become hidden amidst the bulk of automated readings.
In one example swiftly taken down by NOAA after my first article, readings for June and July 2010 for Lake Michigan showed crazy temperatures off the scale ranging in the low to mid hundreds - with some parts of the Wisconsin area apparently reaching 612 F. With an increasing number of further errors now coming to light the discredited NOAA removed the entire set from public view. But just removing them from sight is not the same as addressing the implications of this gross statistical debacle.
NOAA Whitewash Fails in One Day
NOAA’s Chuck Pistis went into whitewash mode on first hearing the story about the worst affected location, Egg Harbor, set by his instruments onto fast boil. On Tuesday morning Pistis loftily declared, “I looked in the archives and I find no image with that time stamp. Also we don't typically post completely cloudy images at all, let alone with temperatures. This image appears to be manufactured for someone's entertainment.”
But later that day Chuck and his calamitous colleagues now with egg on their faces, threw in the towel and owned up to the almighty gaffe. Pistis conceded,
“I just relooked and (sic) the image again AND IT IS in my archive. I do not know why the temperatures were so inaccurate (sic). It appears to have been a malfunction in the satellite. WE have posted thousands if (sic) images since the inauguration of our Coatwatch (sic) service in 1994. I have never seen one like this.”
But the spokesman for the Michigan Sea Grant Extension, a ‘Coastwatch’ partner with NOAA screening the offending data, then confessed that its hastily hidden web pages had, indeed, showed dozens of temperature recordings three or four times higher than seasonal norms. NOAA declined to make any comment as to whether such a glitch could have ramped up the averages for the entire northeastern United States by an average of 10-15 degrees Fahrenheit by going undetected over a longer time scale.
Somewhat more contritely NOAA's Pistis later went into damage limitation mode to offer his excuses,
“We need to do a better job screening what is placed in the archive or posted. Coastwatch is completely automated so you can see how something like this could slip through.”
In his statement Pistis agreed NOAA’s satellite readings were “degraded” and the administration will have to “look more into this.” Indeed, visitors to the Michigan Sea Grant site now see the following official message:
"NOTICE: Due to degradation of a satellite sensor used by this mapping product, some images have exhibited extreme high and low surface temperatures. “Please disregard these images as anomalies. Future images will not include data from the degraded satellite and images caused by the faulty satellite sensor will be/have been removed from the image archive.”
Blame the Clouds, not us says NOAA
NOAA further explained that cloud cover could affect the satellite data making the readings prone to error. But Pistis failed to explain how much cloud is significant or at what point the readings become unusable for climatic modeling purposes.
As one disgruntled observer noted,
“What about hazy days? What about days with light cloud cover? What about days with partial cloud cover? Even on hot clear days, evaporation leads to a substantial amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, particularly above a body of water. How can this satellite data be even slightly useful if it cannot "see" through clouds?”
Top Climatologist Condemns Lack of Due Diligence
The serious implications of these findings was not lost on Dr. Ball who responded that such government numbers with unusually high or low ranges have been exploited for political purposes and are already in the record and have been used in stories across the mainstream media, which is a widely recognized goal.
The climatologist who advises the military on climate matters lamented such faulty data sets,
“invariably remain unadjusted. The failure to provide evidence of how often cloud top temperatures "very nearly" are the same as the water temperatures, is unacceptable. If the accuracy of the data is questionable it should not be used. I would suggest it is rare given my knowledge of inversions, especially over water.“
How Many other Weather Satellites Are Also ‘Degraded’?
A key issue the government administration declined to address was how many other satellites may also be degrading. ‘NOAA-16’ is not an old satellite - so why does it take a member of the public to uncover such gross failings?
Climate professor, Tim Ball, pointed out that he’s seen these systemic failures before and warns that the public should not expect to see any retraction or an end to the doom-saying climate forecasts:
“when McIntyre caught Hansen and NASA GISS with the wrong data in the US I never saw any adjustments to the world data that changes to the US record would create. The US record dominates the record, especially of the critical middle latitudes, and to change it so that it goes from having nine of the warmest years in the 1990s to four of them being in the 1930s, is a very significant change and must influence global averages.”
Each day that passes sees fresh discoveries of gross errors and omissions. One astute commenter on www.climatechangefraud.com noted, “it is generally understood that water heats up more slowly than land, and cools off more slowly. However, within the NOAA numbers we have identified at least two sets of data that run contrary to this known physical effect.
The canny commenter added, “two data points in question are at Charlevoix, where the temperature is listed at 43.5 degrees - while temperature nearby (+/- 30 miles) is 59.2 degrees; and in the bay on the east side of the peninsula from Leland is listed at 37.2 degrees. These are supposedly taken at 18:38 EDT (19:38 Central, or 7:38PM). These are both taken in areas that appear to be breaks in the cloud cover.
With NOAA’s failure to make further concise public statements on this sensational story it is left to public speculation and ‘citizen scientists’ to ascertain whether ten years or more of temperature data sets from satellites such as NOAA-16 are unreliable and worthless.
John O'Sullivan is a legal analyst, author and journalist. As an accredited academic, John taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England before moving to the United States. As an analytical commentator, O'Sullivan has published over 100 major articles worldwide.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work. Emails not shown.
Use your Gravatar username and email address to show your custom avatar. Want your own avatar? Sign up here.
If you post an image, please upload to a photo-sharing service like ImageShack or TinyPic and use the link they provide you. Do NOT link directly to the photo's source unless you have permission.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to Admin' link. If you find your post gone, it is because you violated the TOS above or it was in reply to a deleted comment.
Comments
Regarding government conspiracy, leaving faulty info up for years seems an odd way to hide one. =:
'Faulty' data casts doubt over the whole data set. It seems that NOAA hasn't a clue what data are outliers and what data are real.
For example, if they ditched anything that was more than 25 degrees above or below a seasonal average, how does that make the data set more accurate than say making the threshold +/-5 degrees.
The key thing is that these outliers effectively invalidate the whole data series, since No one (least of all NOAA) has a clue what data is correct and what isn't.
...No removing or investigating and adjusting outliers is typican science work, and there's no evidence all of NOAA has any problem with it. Whether it's economic to do it on figures for public consumption only is another matter.
For example, if they ditched anything that was more than 25 degrees above or below a seasonal average, how does that make the data set more accurate than say making the threshold +/-5 degrees.
...You don't use a seasonal average, you use the current moving average, and a time period long enough to give a usable baseline.
The key thing is that these outliers effectively invalidate the whole data series,
...No,they don't - the last paragraph of this article admits there's no evidence for that yet.
since No one (least of all NOAA) has a clue what data is correct and what isn't.
...Just a silly statement, with so many other temperature monitoring programs, land, sea, and space, to compare with. The two main temperature series, UAH and RSS, detected an quit using the faulty data years ago.
...Data checking is easy. I'll wait for any evidence tying this to global warming research. ;)
Much appreciated.
Sadly, the once mighty America is no longer an eagle flying the flag of freedom. it's now an unmanned drone preying on its own inventors - the American people.
Your protection of freedom is much appreciated.
Malcolm Roberts
:)
The satellite is not offline, the data is degraded in the areas it is already marked as degraded, and has been for some time.
www.oso.noaa.gov/poesstatus/spacecraftStatusSummary.asp?spacecraft=16
Click on the subsystems and you can see detailed history that shows this O'Sullivan guy is a liar like all the other deniers.
The link you provided says 'Inoperable'. Subsystem History for AVHRR shows most recent entry from 10/18/2005, and for AMSU-A1, the most recent entry is dated 03/04/2008...
See The GRAND FUBAR here ....
dai.ly/aTVTtY
This video makes about as much sense as
Al Gore's crazy climate notions....
This is a fantastic site seems new ?
See some informative videos here :
fraudulentclimate.atspace.com
No it probably will not, search for some
videos by sea level expert Nils-Axel Morner.
He knows the truth about the sea,
and he has "no axe to grind" at all.
It could be worse. You could be living in that part of Wisconsin that was 612 degrees.
Temperature trends are done by others using NOAA buoy data which is not affected by clouds.
The real story is that the Great Lakes are warming. This is hardly surprising, but it is not clear that this is due to AGW or to regional factors. The impact of this is mixed. "But at least for this year, some fishermen are welcoming the warmer water. John Steiben, owner of Duluth's Lake Superior Fishing, a charter fishing business, it's been a great summer for salmon and lake trout." But, "Dan Chimelak, co-owner of the Lakeside Fishing Shop in St. Clair Shores, said warmer waters are keeping fish from feeding during the daytime, meaning fewer bites for anglers on Lake St. Clair. 'It makes the fish lethargic and they stop feeding during the day,' he said.Chimelak said business is down 20 percent from last year." [2]
[1] www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/michigan/warmer-Great-Lakes-are-a-nice-for-a-dip-but-worrisome
[2}From The Detroit News: detnews.com/article/20100723/METRO/7230394/Great-Lakes-warm-up--may-hit-new-highs#ixzz0wMAsLpw8
And let me guess, from this anecdotal claim of a temperature rise in the Great Lakes that confirms human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest, cyclic global warming that ended around 1998. How silly of me to doubt it. Of course.
Are you sure the operation wasn't a little above your teeth?
Just kidding.
Seriously, can you provide me with one piece of specific scientifically measured real world evidence proving that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic warming that ended around 1998? Just one.
Clever distraction you made Mike from John O'Sullivan's article's key point.
Malcolm
:)
The reason we have to keep meticulous records of our weather is because it is constantly changing, season to season and solar cycle to solar cycle. Anecdotal "evidence" is simpy someone's impression of a given situation without scientific control and is therefore useless in observing phenomena on the scale of climate.
We must be diligent in keeping bad data out of the mix. I am not going to accuse NOAA of fraud over THIS issue without more proof. However they are suspect because of their previous malfeasance. Answers as to wether or not this data was used in any way to study, model, or promote man made climate change are imperative. This is not the time for NOAA et al to run interference, this is the time for honest questions and honest answers.
In May 2009, Mary Kicza, assistant administrator for NOAA’s Satellite and Information Service said, “To help us understand climate change, we have to find ways to best leverage all of our available resources, including the information we get from satellites.”
NOAA does use satellite data to evaluate climate change! Why did you say NOAA doesn't do climate change trends or that satellite data isn’t used when accounting for climate change? Do you work for NOAA?
That then begs the question as to whether the other satellites in the series also have "degradation" issues which have yet to be identified. The satellite temperature measurements are supposed to be the new gold standard after all and now it looks as if they no longer have our confidence.
Thanks for the background info. Is there anyway to check if Christy & Spencer have also dropped use of this satellite?
By my understanding NOAA-16 has been removed in the updated Version-3.0 used in the MSU/AMSU RSS troposphere/stratosphere temperature measurements.
On the other hand this new glitch is quite different from the earlier 2007 problem. The question is does the information from NOAA-16 get used in other applications that are not reviewed for obvious errors? Coastwatch uses a combo of 5? satellites, 4 NOAA and 1 METPAL (?) I lost my reference, sorry. Great Lakes heating news tend to give bouy data as opposed to satellite info.
I hope this helps! All the best Jeff
That's really helpful. It does make one wonder how well (if at all) they've controlled for this degradation (and when it actually started).
They knew about this for years,
and this is their excuse, already
in the bag, to be pulled out when
they needed it. Now they can blame
Hansen, Mann, Briffa and the others
for not exercising diligence or ...
whatever. Expect a round of sackings.
This is what Prof Lindzen has been
saying for ages, about the earth
radiation budget experiment. That
it showed exactly the opposite to
what the computers had predicted.
I say that this is because the computers
were programmed with the faulty NOAA data.
Please do check out the videos on this
website where Ball, Lindzen, Monckton,
and others appear in various long exposes
of these, and other frauds.
! The Fraudulent Climate of Hokum Science !
fraudulentclimate.atspace.com/
! Where Hokum Climate Science is exposed as Fraudulent !
Knowledgeable folks should definitely check it out for laughs, however.
we're so-o-o-o-o screwed
NOAA-16 is an image weather sat... Not related to climatic data - it's not even close. So just another big balone blow from the denial world.
I call BS. Virtually every island making such claims (in hopes of mega- or giga-bucks of "compensation") has been discovered to have had long-standing high-water marks far above present levels, and/or is actually a coral island which grows faster than the water rises.
Are you from the Maldives, or some other scam-regime?
Most folks try to document such extensive claims.
We all know how reliable the ground stations and historical records are and the controversy there.
Who's really going to trust the MET's reconstruction of historical records?
Now the Satellites are being called into question? Are there any reliable records left that have not been fiddled with?
Or is this a deliberate way of discrediting Satellites that are diverging away from the fiddled ground stations?
I think you might be right Axel, we may soon see cracks appear in the warmist ranks as they turn on each other.
The first Rats off the sinking ship might get research dollars else where. The rest will go down with the AGW Titanic.
nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/app3.graph.pdf
nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/niwa.ct.docs.pdf
www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/11/noaa-adjustments.html
esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1508
Just a few of many entrants to the Fiddle contest.
chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Perhaps you can explain how CCC nearly identically replicated GISTEMP? Have you even heard of CCC?
There are plenty of questionable adjustments that have been made to the records that need closer scrutiny.
You have a lot - a *LOT* - of learning to do.
clearclimatecode.org
www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
to get a taste.
Seems the issue is less with the code and more with the adjustments made to the data.
Quote:
The sorry state of the records does not help any.
I think theres sombody we know in this link.
Secondly, when doing global analyses, NZ comprises ~100,000 mi^2/198^10^6 mi^2, or ~0.05% of the total surface area of the earth. The global number wouldn't change but a very very small amount.
Lastly, anything coming from the NZCSC is dubious on its face, given its agenda. For example:
hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist
If that's all ya got, ya got nuthin'.
That is, unless you want to argue that moving a station higher doesn't change its base climate state. That would be an interesting discussion.
Unless you know how weather data is analyzed, you're really not in a position to accuse "manipulation".
That a confirmation of the methods and Codes is being done is great. That's how science is supposed to work.
Now the data adjustments need re-tested, as well as historical records.
No one really doubts it has warmed. What we doubt is that the 3.3% of Co2 we emit has caused all or any of it.
The lack of warming in the mid atmosphere that the models projected and the missing heat needs further investigation. As well as other factors besides Co2.
As for the "missing" "hot spot", that's a red herring. The "missing heat", that's under active investigation. CO2 has never been the total focus - climate scientists know full well that many factors effect the climate, not just CO2. Anyone who says that all that they care about or study is CO2 is lying. Badly.
Voters are now rejecting AGW.
UK
Australia
US Cap & Trade
Voter consensus counts not doomer religious whackos
I can report with great authority the "missing heat" is not here.
jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif
The theory is that each Greenhouse Gas or Warming Force Models predict would leave a pattern of warming that is distinct? Hence the "Finger Print" analogy.
D64 calls this a "Red Herring"? Some thing does smell fishy though. rossmckitrick.weebly.com/
Quote: Laat and Maurellis discuss how areas with high levels of industry show warming at surface that Co2 Should show. Yet they noticed warming at higher altitudes was absent. Quote:www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/13/co2-emissions-link-to-temperature-trends-a-quandary/
Seems there is a great discrepancy that needs further investigating.
Phil Jones was just practicing the NEW peer review. Just like the new and improved Scientific Method which guarantees NOT to invalidate your theories. So much time saved!
How's that homework coming?
PS - Where's that devastating and unassailable rebuttal to ACC, again? Do you have a URL?
Only in Defraudo's world is this man a climatologist while Dr Lindzen is a crank!
This is so egregious at first I thought you were spoofing us. But I guess not!
I also recall seeing some report of a northern surface station that, between the hours of 10 pm and 11 pm, reported a one-time 20°C "spike" in temperature, which remained in the record and resulted in hysterical press about Arctic heat waves or some such.
Incredible credulousness is evidently a virtue among "climate scientists".
All the best Jeff
PS Just for kicks here is a story of how GISS has adjusted the rural weather station in Matanuska Alaska warming it's readings by ADDING the Urban Heat Island effect from nearby Anchorage!!! wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/21/fudged-fevers-in-the-frozen-north/
If you could find that report about that northern surface station it may be useful in a follow up article.
Thanks,
John
Why are you lying about the status of NOAA-16?
www.oso.noaa.gov/poesstatus/spacecraftStatusSummary.asp?spacecraft=16
In your current article you claim the entire satellite has been taken offline, and yet the NOAA says the complete opposite.
Care to prove your assertion, or admit you made it up?
Before you call someone a liar (another of your posts re this article) please be sure your facts are solid. I will let John defend himself, but I could not let this egregious accusation go without comment. Let's try and be attentive and respectful.
The fact that these "scientists" didn't do such a simple check on their data leads me to believe that this was intentionally allowed (maybe they even built the satellite with this "feature") in order to push the global warming agenda.
Disgusting science. And is the media going to report this? Of course now, they'll continue saying 2010 was the warmest year yet and that the 2000s was the warmest decade even though we have absolute proof the data was completely bogus.
There's no evidence so far that any bad data from this has been used in research.
Read the last paragraph of the article, which proves the entire story is speculative at best.
I'm glad you've learned something today, call your parents and let them know, they were starting to get worried!
All the best..... Jeff
The term is a spawn of the CRU pseudos. It consists of a mash-moosh of badly implemented borrowings from real sciences, ranging from physics to oceanography to modelling to forecasting. Professionals in those fields are almost unanimously contemputous of the misuses of their specialties by "climatologists".
You have absolutley NO IDEA of how Canadian Universities are organised.
Climatology and Meteorology is taught as part of the Atmospheric Physics course in the department of Geography, in the Faculty of Science, at Winnipeg.
Climatology is not a "department" it is a syllabus subject !
You make unfounded slurs and fatuous remarks, and you KNOW NOTHING. Your opinions on whether climate change that is occurring is dangerous or not are equally invalid, because you didn't properly reseach the FACTS on that either.
You are franky a blowhard !
It's really the core of this whole thing isn't it?
If they have the induced bias can be calculated and then adjusted for, if they haven't it's just a storm in a teacup.
Many thanks for locating the article-this may be of some use.
John
Sincerely..... Jeff
You can read the running updates to UAH analysis here:
ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/pub/data/msu/t2lt/readme.13Apr2010
" The addition of NOAA-18 has now been corrected. The problem was a mismatch in the
overlap dates of NOAA-16 and NOAA-18 (there was no overlap of "good" data). For
the gridded files, which are basically the patterns of the anomalies, NOAA-18 is
merged directly with NOAA-15, and this has been coded accordingly.
Corrected v5.3 files will be on the data site on 14 April.
Update 13 Apr 2010 *********************************
The addition of NOAA-18 on the gridded monthly anomalies has created a sudden divergence
between land and ocean temperatures beginning in 2005 "
--------
Still sounds like hokum "science" to me.
What happened to NOAA-17 ?
They are saying that there are Still anomalies....
Humbug !
coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/glsea/avgtemps/glsea-temps.dat
Based on the URL, is this the "official" NOAA data?
So can anyone tell me, were there any comparable extreme lows????
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/superior/archive/s/Jul25/2010_Jul25_1159EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/superior/archive/s/Jul25/2010_Jul25_1321EDT.gif
Cloud cover lowers temperature readings whereas this is the reading for April 28 2010 at 22:24 EDT www.coastwatch.msu.edu/superior/archive/s/Apr28/2010_Apr28_2224EDT.gif
I hope this helps.... Jeff
The Doctor, the mysterious traveler who, with his human companions, journeys throughout all of time and space, facing a variety of foes and righting wrongs.
We need "The Doctor" NOW
I wish he was real !
Satellites should be the most reliable source of data, especially when fitted with sensors to measure solar signals in earths climate. Which could prove or disprove the Co2 theory once and for all.
I'm no expert on Satellite sensors but i would imagine they would be compared to a known target at regular intervals. Just as a confirmation of accuracy.
A drift of tenths of a degree per decade could be compensated for with regular calibrations? Say ten times a day? And this would alert to any rapid sensor degradation?
Just asking.
It looks like Coastwatch doesn't do this, and probably is not equipped to do it. That's why the warning about the way they indicate unreliable data on their site.
The Doctor could tell you what happened 100 or 200 or 1,000 years in the future, too. Why bother with historical data at all?
Now, who was said, "I won!" as a justification for inane decisions?
Well, kev, just because you're not smart enough to have mounted or participated doesn't mean the conspiracy doesn't exist. If it looks like a duck, walks like and duck, and quacks ...
typo: "walks like a duck, ..."
TIT FOR TAT!
No. The satellites (one t, two l-s) are experiencing internal failures. Maybe cosmic rays and solar storms have fried 'em?!?
www.savingseafood.org/images/documents/enforcement/noaa%20response%20to%20ig%20april%202%20report.pdf
"Action Planned or Taken: After conducting a thorough review, the NOAA Records Officer,
Ms. Pat Erdenberger, in a memo dated May 26, 2010, concluded that no destruction of agency
records before their scheduled retention took place and therefore NOAA is not required to notify
NARA.
First, Ms. Erdenberger determined that all but one set of the documents destroyed were not
agency records within the meaning of the Federal Records Act.
Second, of the one set of documents that were agency records, Ms. Erdenberger, determined that
these records were limited to OLE's housekeeping copies of Travel Orders and Travel Vouchers
covering the years up to and including 2007, and these records were destroyed using the
appropriate record schedule disposition authority."
Travel orders and travel vouchers.
BTW, is this item referring to you?
www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2006/08/04/conservation_leader_corrects_barbara_dur?blog=36
You are part of this "alliance," yes?
www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2010/02/04/what-the-alliance-doesn-t-want-ken-salaz?blog=94
BA there was no link because that was not said this is a pretty standard blub designed to appeal to deniers who want to see conspiracies every were.
Case in point, given that Tim Ball is not actually a climatologist (world renowned or otherwise). He was a professor of geography till he retired.
You would also have to be a little slow not to notice that suddenly there are no links to the further statements attributed to NOAA’s Chuck Pistis, because he didn't make them.
Then there's this nonsense,
"Each day that passes sees fresh discoveries of gross errors and omissions. One astute commenter on www.climatechangefraud.com noted"
So that would this blog site quoting itself then.
This fiction is laughable
outlet stores online take place by go shopping when it is daytime,but how to do in future if something can not do in other way
I may be wrong, but I don't think Coastwatch's mandate includes doing climate science.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm grilled cheese !
---
Actually no, assuming you've got a programmer older than, say, fifteen. Software development 101 includes a chapter on what's called, in industry parlance, "sanity checking." When you're getting data from an external source, you check to make sure it makes sense before you use it.
An earth surface temperature reading near the melting point of lead does not make sense.
It would go something like this:
BOILINGWATER=212
if (tempsensor > BOILINGWATER) then
report error
else
report tempsensor
endif
I wonder if there's a bit in the temperature sensor register that's stuck on, adding 512 degrees to each of the temperature readings - that is to say:
1001100100
... instead of:
0001100100
If you compare multiple readings in binary, a useful pattern may emerge to allow for correction of the bit errors.
In today's limited government (read: cash) environment, I'm surprised anyone expects much in the way of analysis from Coastwatch. Direct from their site:
"Access to the works and information contained herein is provided as a public service by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with the understanding that the U.S Government makes no warranties, either express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information."
They're just a public service.
You tagged it Michael Pelletier. This is an incredibly stupid statement by Pistis (Festus?) the NOAA spokesman. They may as well put in a disclaimer that nobody should trust this data because it's crappy.
Would it be a good idea to check and double check before such stories are pu7blished?
Paai
I heartily endorse scepticism as the cornerstone of science, and a free internet, where everybody can write anything as its political corrolary (or vice versa).
Having said that, I must confess that I am often disturbed by the unscientific or even demagogic texts of people like mr. O'sullivan. As a 'legal analyst' he certainly understands the necessity of clear language and straight formulations. If he rejects its use, he does so on purpose.
I object to the easy demagogism which he applies when reasoning from a single malfunctioning satelite to a perverse conspiracy of scientists. The fact that the false readings still were used for the Michigan Sea Grant, does not take away the fact that the NOAA-16 was flagged as unreliable in 2006 and that several (most?) agencies discontinued the use of its data in the next year. NOAA messed up, as humans and institutions often do, but it seems that the impact for global temperature estimates is not what O'sullivan purports it to be.
I myself am a scientist, and I am used to working with ugly data. It pains me to see layman pooh-poohing the problems that are inherent to such datasets, and when they try to turn those problems into criminal offences, it really gets my goat.
Paai
Quoted right from the Coastwatch site. Doesn't look very pretentious to me.
??? Here www.fightingillini.com/school-bio/ill-phonebook.html
It appears the old link I gave no longer works as I just visited it, but this one does as I just copied it again anfd pasted it again!!!!
If my neighbor is known to steal lawn equipment and my lawnmower comes up missing, it is only logical to look for it at his home first.
1.More heat and/or more CO2 are good for plants. I know this to be true because I paid attention in Biology Classes and CO2 tanks are commonly used to boost CO2 when growing pot in grow houses. 30-40% of a plant by weight comes from CO2.
2. By their own admission, the IPCC has stated that short of everyone on the planet disappearing, there is really nothhing we can do to change this...which basically is an admission that there is nothing we are doing to cause it.
3. And this means that no amount of Carbon taxation or trading will have any affect on global temperatures...another IPCC admission.
No matter how bad you may feel about polar bears, killing yourself will only add CO2 and CH4 as you decompose.
These are the real tangible issues. No amount of arguing with people on line can refute these statements.
I'm not implying that your opinions are invalid because you are not scientists. Quite the contrary. There are several issues coming to light now that are seriously erroding the credibility of the scientific community. But then why should this surprise us? Scientists are corruptable human being, too.
Just don't let them delude you into thinking that you are not intelligent enough to understand scientific issues so they can run you wide and take your money. Like a sleazy auto mechanic trying to sell you muffler return springs or new spark plugs for your VW TDI.
Don't let the white lab coats fool you...they are not Gods.
I do not know what the average surface temp is on earth and this article implies that no one does, even those that think they do. The only thing that appears to be man made about climate change is the data.
However, I know it has been getting cooler every year for the last five years where I live. The highest temp ever recorded in Los Angeles County was in my home town of Woodland Hills California. A temp of 119 degrees F in July of 2006! And yet I'm only about 20 minutes from the beach in Malibu.
Since then, every year has been cooler. I have only seen a handful of days in the 100 to 104 degree area since then. And not a single day above 98 so far this summer.
Hey...sorry 'bout your bad luck this year Russia. But I would be more inclined to blame it on HAARP than CO2.
Finally, let me ad this...If we could cut atmospheric CO2 in half we would accomplish only one thing...starvation on a grand scale. Millions of people starve to death every year. Even a small drop in CO2 levels would cause a dramtic increase in starvation...for humans and animals.
So, go ahead. Call me a denier...as some weak attempt to link me to Holocaust deniers. Nice try. I'm Jewish.
But if we see you driving a Prius...we'll be sure to point out the fact that you are a mass murderer. Starving people because of your selfish attitude re. CO2. And plants hate you , too.
The most sensible piece I have read in a long long time.
Thanks Eric
Keep a smilin'
I also know for a fact that it has been a gittin cooler where I live for the past 5-6 years where I live too.
In fact this year has beena classic for seasons with the ol St Swithins old wives tale to complete the story.
Yep keep a
Add to this the fact that 1 tank of ethanol uses enough corn to feed a man for a year and the moral issues become clear.
All warmer than today and all periods when humanity flourished.
All that historical knowledge became "Inconvienent" to the politics of Global Governance. So it was erased.
If they are willing to change historical climate data to fit the agenda why not change a little history too.
Let me give an example. If your youngest daugher runs a teperature of 38.5 degrees, will you reason "Oh, five years ago she had 39 degrees of fever and she survived. No need to call the doctor now"?
Paai
#1 is conditional and refuted by several research projects.
ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/sCO2plants.asp
news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22205
Yes, you're a denier, denialist, whatever you want to call it, and no, let me be the first to tell you that your sad, disrespectful attempt to get mileage out of the Holocaust while lying to us cuts no ice.
Go look at some expertly written books based on experience-and not concocted and/or faked lab experiments.
For example,'Gardening Indoors with CO2' by George F. Van Patten, Allysa F. Bust andTom LaSpina. ISBN 1-878823-19-1. It’s a small book less than 100 pages, it covers the basics to help you get started. The author, who surely must be a so-called 'denialist liar' and MUST be paid by 'big oil' has spent his working life on this issue and found that it all depends on the method of CO2 injection you plan to use.
From what I have read, OSHA specifies an eight hour weighted time average of 5,000 PPM, while short term exposure of fifteen minutes not exceeding 30,000 ppm. Of course, like any gas, an excess of carbon dioxide is harmful to plants also, in addition to being a waste of money, so controlling injection into the grow space is pretty important. Commercial growers would probably use a Nondispersive Infared sensor to constantly monitor co2 levels. But with the high returns on crop yield for investors CO2 is one of the best plant fertilizers money can buy.
...What you mean is, you can't dispute a single one of my cites.
Go look at some expertly written books based on experience-and not concocted and/or faked lab experiments.
..You have no evidence of any such experiments. None.
For example,'Gardening Indoors with CO2' by George F. Van Patten, Allysa F. Bust andTom LaSpina. ISBN 1-878823-19-1.
Gardening indoors? You're kidding me. Please, tell me you're kidding me.
Tell you what, I'll match my three studies against your hobbyists' handbook until you can poke a hole in them, thanks.
Below is some 'peer-review' for you.
The US Dept of Agriculture after conducting 55 experiments has proved higher CO2 levels decrease water loss in plants, giving them an advantage in arid climates and during droughts.
www.ncpa.org/pub/ba256
U. S. Department of Agriculture research scientist Sherwood Idso,also showed increased levels of CO2 dramatically enhanced plant growth. For example, Idso found:
· "With a CO2 increase of 300 ppm, plant growth increased 31 percent under optimal water conditions and 63 percent when water was less plentiful.
· With a 600 ppm CO2 increase, plant growth increased 51 percent under optimal water conditions and an astonishing 219 percent under conditions of water shortage."
Idso is also a crank. He's one of the sources of OISM.
www.gfdl.noaa.gov/climate-impact-of-quadrupling-co2
Sherwood Idso = long ago proven climate liar. Oh, and the other one too.
Article = long series of irrelevancies, no peer review in evidence.
Sources that have been repeatedly shown to be lying on this issue are not acceptable, especially on a blog accusing the entire planet's scientific establishment of similar behavior sans evidence. Please don't try that infantile stunt on me again, or I will be forced to, well, laugh uproariously.
Can you do better, or was this fraudulent cite your best shot?
However, I'm enjoying your fallacy to the effect that every employee of an agency carries the same gravitas as the agency itself. Of course, any third-grader could think their way out of that box - you must not have a very high opinion of your readership.
I'm still waiting for that peer review. In the meantime, you are correct that the rest of the world is moving on. Every scientific society and every national government on earth now accepts some form of AGW theory.
As far as who is the joke around here, well, that's just another one of your continued insults:
"Seems like some feel compelled by ideology to buy into what every govt paid lackey tells them..."
"Obviously, in CMB's alternative universe..."
And, of course, "cmb, clearly you're the joke round here."
They appear to be used in the manner of a man somewhat desperate to run off the opposition. Do you think you could act your age and do without them, or are they a regular fixture of your scholarship?
Would you count it an insult if I asked you to use less colorful language, less innuendos and less flawed reasoning? That is, if you are interested in presenting well balanced and useful views to your readers.
Paai
climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/no-scientific-consensus-on-human-climate-chan
Evidently, you don't check your sources as well as you'd like to kid yourself.
...Ah, there's another of those baseless insults. Knowledge is as knowledge does, I suppose.
in claiming you have the 'entire planet's scientific establishment' behind you.
...Please don't lie to us all about my claim, John. Go ahead, take a little time to reread it, and see if you can get it right. Your operating system probably has text handling tools that can help.
By my own 'peer-reviewed' studies I found 76 climatologists out of over 19,500 ( source: Eli Rabett)
...no such evidence at link, John. Again, very little respect for your own readership there.
self-selecting themselves to be your hyperbolic 'scientific establishment.' ; )
...Sorry,nothing self-selecting about Oreskes' samples.
climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/no-scientific-consensus-on-human-climate-chan
...Hey, that's a great lie article! Penny Peiser, Roger Pielke, Jr. - both long term proven climate jokesters - you sure know how to pick them. Couldn't you find anyone who is not already officially attached to a denialist operation? What scholarship. lol
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Benny_Peiser
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roger_Pielke_Jr.
...And no, you found no such thing, and especially not from the article you quote.
...Do you have anything that proves me wrong, or not? Please don't embarrass yourself by quoting your own opinion articles.
Evidently, you don't check your sources as well as you'd like to kid yourself.
...Ah, yet another insult - harbinger of desperation. What you really mean is, once again you are unable to disprove anything I've said and are left talking trash. Feel free to provide me with proof of one scientific society or national government that rejects AGW theory. Surely they will have said so, yes?
...I'll wait.
There are 177 nations whose scientific bodies don't even register a VIEW on AGW-that's how little concern the rest of the world has over your 'sky is falling' meme. Of the 2-3 dozen 'national academies' ( government puppets) who do register a view not one cites 'catastrophic' climate change anywhere. Please try to check your facts. I challenge you to provide verifiable 'peer reviewed' proof of your utter BS on this.
BTW Eli Rabbett is your warmist buddy- he attests to about 19,500 climate scientists ( yes, the link is there!). From that pool we see 75 signing up to your doomsaying religion (Oreskes). That's what I call a resounding 'no' vote, don't you? ; )
Paai
...A lie, as usual. (also, "demented grave?" lol)
You say, "Every scientific society and every national government on earth now accepts some form of AGW theory." LIES!!!
...Feel free to find one single such refutation and prove me wrong. I deliberately made it easy for you.
There are 177 nations whose scientific bodies don't even register a VIEW on AGW-that's how little concern the rest of the world has over your 'sky is falling' meme.
...I'm afraid that doesn't disprove my point. In fact, it implies consent. Oh, and you have omitted your citation.
Of the 2-3 dozen 'national academies' ( government puppets)
...Pathetic lie. These instances of insane dramatic claims without evidence are how we know you are a climate liar.
who do register a view not one cites 'catastrophic' climate change anywhere.
...Again, no disproof to be found here, just a failed subject change - I didn't say anything about 'catastrophic'. Also, you're definitely going to need a cite for this one.
Please try to check your facts. I challenge you to provide verifiable 'peer reviewed' proof of your utter BS on this.
...Of course you do, having been unable to find even one exception. Or, apparently, citation.
BTW Eli Rabbett is your warmist buddy- he attests to about 19,500 climate scientists ( yes, the link is there!). From that pool we see 75 signing up to your doomsaying religion (Oreskes).
....Another despicable climate lie. (oh, and "doomsaying religion?" lol) Oreskes used published papers over a 12 year period. Zero deniers.
rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-many-climate-scientists-are-there.html
...Interesting, but irrelevant. No 75 there.
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#
...Ah, Oreskes did produce a 75. 75% of 928 climate change papers between 1993 and 2005 explicitly or implicitly accept the consensus view of AGW. 25% expressed no preference. 0% deniers.
Her main critics, notably Peiser and Pielke, have already hit the dustbin of history partly due to their dishonesty on this issue.
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/05/peiser.php
sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1761-2005.32.pdf
Peiser's already had to apologize for his behavior. =)
That's what I call a resounding 'no' vote, don't you? ; )
...Maybe if it's opposites day where you are. lol Nope, just another in a long line of very clumsy lies. Enjoy your dustbin.
Your own cite:
tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Quote: "It seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is largely
nonexistent among those who understand
the nuances and scientific basis
of long-term
climate processes. The
challenge, rather, appears to be how
to effectively communicate this fact to
policy makers and to a public that continues
to mistakenly perceive debate
among scientists."
Perhaps you can find a single scientific society or national government that refutes AGW now...?
Let's review again... "only 7% gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus... 6% reject the consensus outright..."
Now who is lying?
www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641
So I'll vote for one of those two as the liar. Response is pretty unanimous:
www.skepticalscience.com/Klaus-Martin-Schulte-and-scientific-consensus.html
www.sadlyno.com/archives/7040.html
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/classifying_abstracts_on_globa.php
Your boy is already a laughingstock. Adding utterly deranged 'Lord Haw-Haw' Monckton to the mix is good for a few extra laffs.
Even E&E is not interested.
www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-be
Oh wait, I guess they were desperate for content.
www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-journal-publishes-plagiarized-paper
So, now we have two comparisons to the Oreske paper, which was originally derided by denialists as worthless. Lot of wasted effort, then..? =)
I dub thee Sir Spamalot!
Keep cheerleading for the AGW theory.
....A lie. I claimed there was no actual science refuting AGW. The lie paper you quoted from is a joke, the anti-consensus papers "found" are folding like a house of cards now that they are being checked. Frauds and unreviewed letters don't count as doing actual science, sorry.
That is a lie. Even when reviewed the 6% stands.
...A lie. They are rapidly turning out to be fakes.
www.skepticalscience.com/Klaus-Martin-Schulte-and-scientific-consensus.html
Just out of curiosity, where is the consensus among the AGW deniers? This guy's collected 119 different arguments.
www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Why don't you boys make up your minds? lol
BTW, I seem to provide one hell of a lot more links and information than your trash talking a--. Who's the spammer? ;)
Get a life loser, you said "0% deniers". Keep cheerleeading like the useful idiot you are. Skip has you pegged!
Of course, you're not. You're stuck, and are producing irrelevancies like mad to compensate.
I'm sorry your pal's 6% is knocked down to 1% and falling, but that's kinda what you get for trusting a surgeon on climate science. =)
There have been reviews of her "work" that find her method unethical and, of course, slanted. You may as well quote cranks like Al Gore, James Hansen, Joe Romm, James Cameron or Gavin Schmidt.
If AGW were real, Joe Romm would not have advised Cameron to run away from Morano! Why is it the Warmists cannot defend their positions in open debate. When has Al Gore EVER debated anyone on AGW? The warmists can only run back to their echo chambers and comfort each other as their precious theory is systematically dismantled.
And by the way, and even 1 is greater than 0.
...A lie, for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
Yeah, that was easy. Any rational human knows her agenda is "denying" natural variations in Earth's climate.
...A lie, for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/pages/publication.html
Who cares what she thinks. And here is another shot, right from the warmist playbook. Naomi Oreskes is not a climatologist!
...No, she is a historian, describing history. Even you are not stupid enough to think she is describing climate. lol
There have been reviews of her "work" that find her method unethical and, of course, slanted.
...Show us any review not from an already known denialist liar which says so.
If AGW were real, Joe Romm would not have advised Cameron to run away from Morano! Why is it the Warmists cannot defend their positions in open debate. When has Al Gore EVER debated anyone on AGW? The warmists can only run back to their echo chambers and comfort each other as their precious theory is systematically dismantled.
...Sorry, Cameron and Gore are not climate scientists. Debate with them is meaningless. Morano is a bought and paid for climate liar with a record as long as your arm. Debate with him is meaningless.
...Where is the offer from denialist climate scientists to debate "warmist" climate scientists? Show us.
And by the way, and even 1 is greater than 0.
...Ah, but your one is from a surgeon already caught lying outright with the rest of his picks, and my zero is from a historian's peer-reviewed lit. Sorry you don't know the difference.
...Another response proving that you are dishonest, thrown into the dustbin. You're not very good at this.
I just proved above, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you are a liar. A hysterical, screaming liar.
Do you really think I intend to convince a climate liar of anything? I post here for the other readers, whom you hope to lie to unopposed.
In short, I don't give a d-mn what you think, at any time. Your whine above is as good as any admission of guilt you could provide. lol
Just checking back.
I appreciate all your intimate attention, but I'm still not going to sleep with you, Russ.
I just proved above, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you are a liar. A hysterical, screaming liar.
Do you really think I intend to convince a climate liar of anything? I post here for the other readers, whom you hope to lie to unopposed.
In short, I don't give a d-mn what you think, at any time. Your whine above is as good as any admission of guilt you could provide. lol
Hey - how did that James Cameron debate end up? Anyone hear anything? I'm sure he kicked Morano's ass!
You're just going to have to find some other guy to chase.
Cameron kept imposing conditions, up to and including no recording or reporters, all agreed to, and then chickened out anyway.
Which action speaks louder than any words could have.
Punks and pussies!
rabett.blogspot.com/2010/08/judys-tribe.html
Someone's running out of ledge here, and it ain't me. lol
Misstating what Phil Jones said.
Intellectual dishonesty all over the place.
This article is just another data point confirming what I already suspected: AGW is only a tool for promoting mass hysteria. Mass hysteria facilitates mass manipulation.
The real-world-experience deniers will have to try harder than ever to convince me.
Or, you can go to NCDC, dig up the data, and prove your recollections. Go for it!
How is your list comeing along? Publication problems? Still trying to find a peer?
"From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather)."
www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt
All the best.... Jeff
...Why not? It's available. Perhaps you are acquiring a habit of hiding data. Well, let's see if we can work with what we have. OK, so you have two days out of twelve years, and for climate work you need 30. Years, that is. Nope, I'm afraid you have no concept of this issue whatsoever - or have chosen to act like it.
You know, it's odd, this stolen email doesn't exactly read like a bunch of guys who are trying to fool anyone about the temperature.
Don't you find that interesting? =)
Seriously did you really think I was going to dig up information for you? Dude I wouldn't waste my time! For others I can usually scrounge it up for them... but you... I wouldn't bother, it'ld be a complete waste of time.
...No, it was just harrassment.
Seriously did you really think I was going to dig up information for you?
....Of course not. You couldn't even effectively pretend Tim Ball was a climatologist. ;)
Also this...
* 1964 to 1968 Operations Officer and Aircrew at 111 Search and Rescue
Unit
* 1962 to 1964 Operations Officer, Operational Training Unit,
Summerside PEI
* 1960 to 1962 Aircrew, Navigation, electronics, 415 Squadron
Summerside PEI.
How's your impressive life goin'?
I'm sorry you feel harrassed... get used to it!!!
Of course, he routinely claims to have a science doctorate, but, hey, that's just another steaming pile of Tim Ball. =)
www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/?title=Timothy_F._Ball&qpvt=tim+ball&fwd=1&src=abop&q=tim+ball
I only list this cuz I have it handy... oh, and it makes you look unsmart!!!
You really are quite the worthless participant here. lol
www.google.com "tim ball" +"doctor of philosophy".
Let me know if that's too much trouble for someone as keenly interested in the facts as you surely are. lol
Remember, I'm not laughing with you I'm laughing at you!!
... just Tim Ball's own statement of claim from his frivolous defamation lawsuit. In his (or his lawyer's) own words:
"9. Some of the aforementioned statements are inaccurate. Ball was awarded a Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science at the University of London in Climatology in october of 983."
The document, like most court docs online, is a set of scanned images as a PDF here.
www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/TBall%20Statement%20of%20Claim.pdf
You lose. Tried to warn you, but no.
BTW, how come I can find this in 5 minutes, and you can't find it at all? I think we all now why at this point.
p.s. Note that Ball, even in the court document, is referring to his degree being in climatology, another proven lie.
...I must concur. You have proven nothing but your own intellectual cowardice, while I've now knocked your argument's d--k in the dirt, to cop a phrase - so yes, according to the denialist's handbook, it's time for you to go. After all, the blog owner has also bailed on his own lie article.
...Although this conversation hasn't allowed much room for facts as you and Mr. O'Sullivan have conducted it, I've been studying these issues for about four years. If you do develop any substantive questions about AGW or the denialism industry, feel free to return. =)
Duh.
I jus' gotta' learn to listen to smarter people!!
Feel free to explain why Ball specifically said he has a "Doctor of Science" degree (which are accorded as high honors by UofL only after the candidate fulfills specific requirements he can't touch), when he has a "Doctor of Philosophy" degree, which is what attaches to most degrees, scientific or otherwise.
Here's one of Tim Ball's own lie sheets claiming he has a "Doctor of Science" degree (a lie) and the first (a lie) Canadian PhD in Climatology (a lie).
www.enouranois.gr/english/political/Dialogue_with_a_Climate_Change_Contrarian.doc
...or
tinyurl.com/ballsliesheet
Here's Tim Ball changing "Doctor of Science" to "Faculty of Science" after having been caught out. Notice that he also no longer claims to be the first PhD in Climatology in Canada.
www.stam.mb.ca/Global_Warming_adv2007.pdf
...or
tinyurl.com/balladmission
Funny ol' world, innit?
Clearly you're not academically trained or you'd know that the traditional system of accrediting doctors in academia in English-speaking countries is by the attribution of 'Ph.D' which signifies not that the recipient studied 'philosophy.' I'm speechless at your ignorance on this!
If you weren't such a self-indulgent navel-gazer you might've taken time to look it up -the PhD is the highest degree one can earn!
Boy, you are as dumb as a bag of hammers! Please don't expect any further replies from me - I've bigger fish to fry!
....Ah, there's another one of those cowardly setup insults. lol
Clearly you're not academically trained or you'd know that the traditional system of accrediting doctors in academia in English-speaking countries is by the attribution of 'Ph.D' which signifies not that the recipient studied 'philosophy.' (More Captain Obvious evasion snipped)
...Wow, no sh-t. And another cowardly insult. Your constant M.O., apparently.
You also may feel free to explain why Ball specifically said he has a "Doctor of Science" degree (which are accorded as high honors by UofL only after the candidate fulfills specific requirements he can't touch), when he has a "Doctor of Philosophy" degree, which is what attaches to most degrees, scientific or otherwise.
Here's one of Tim Ball's own lie sheets claiming he has a "Doctor of Science" degree (a lie) and the first (a lie) Canadian PhD in Climatology (a lie).
www.enouranois.gr/english/political/Dialogue_with_a_Climate_Change_Contrarian.doc
...or
tinyurl.com/ballsliesheet
Here's Tim Ball changing "Doctor of Science" to "Faculty of Science" after having been caught out. Notice that he also no longer claims to be the first PhD in Climatology in Canada. "One of the first" - still a lie.
www.stam.mb.ca/Global_Warming_adv2007.pdf
...or
tinyurl.com/balladmission
You lose. That's OK, you've already cut and run, presumably after finding out I was right. =)
...although I am not too sure about the american legal system. In Holland, thank God, we don't have a jury...
Paai
First, he is only dealing with one satellite, with (four? five?) others in the series to worry about. This is most likely a miniscule fraction of the temperature monitoring going on from orbit, not to mention gravimetric satellites and ground buoys and stations.
Second, the two pre-eminent compiled time series, UAH and RSS, both detected the faulty data as early as four years ago, around 2006, and immediately removed it from their datasets. Even a small instrumental deviation is enough to trigger any real error-checking routine, so the chances of this affecting other AGW data are also negligible. Certainly no such proof has been offered.
Third, according to his own article, the data was up and visible until the very day it was found by John's pal. It was also investigated immediately once NOAA was alerted, and then removed, with notice of the errors posted - all in a matter of hours with no stonewalling. These facts eliminate the possibility of some secretive conspiracy.
As with most denialist stories, this one will have legs until it is realized in enough quarters that where it is not false, it is trivial. Then it will die the death of Climategate.
Thanks again. =)
A word to the wise, cmb. Seeing what John O'sullivan writes, I feel that it is justified to challenge him on his integrity as a publicist. But even so, one can try to be polite, give him all opportunity to defend himself and generally keep open the possibility that YOU are wrong, not he. I don't believe in shouting matches on important issues like climate.
And as you can see, he is not exactly falling over his own legs to take up the challenge
Paai
What I *do* see, however, is publicists like mr O'sullivan going to any length in order to discredit anybody who has to do with climate science. He and others generally cross not only the borders of sound argument and reasoning, but also I fear of personal and professional integrity. In the case of the stolen emails, for instance, a dialogue was constructed of completely unconnected sentences with ten years in between, to 'prove' bad faith. Would you trust people who do such things afterwards?
paai
Now, why would someone engage in a criminal act in order to create FUD? What would be their motive? Who would back them? Think on that for a bit. I'll let you figure it out.
BTW, not all "alternate viewpoints" are credible. Do you think geologists should take young earth creationists literally? Flat earthers? Why not?
D64's only defense is to attack the messenger because he will not understand the message. Willful ignorance is the worst kind. And what the hell does creationism or flat earthers or cancer have to do with the fact that you are perpetrating a fraud?
Where is the work by your warmist saints to try and disprove their own theory? Why has it been left to the skeptics to do all of their peer review work for them? Why do they collude to hide cooling trends and cool past warm periods? And I would like to hear you honestly answer another question posed to you. Where is your skepticism? If you have none then you must be a "believer" as this is the polar opposite of skeptic. Gullible.
You missed the point about creationists and flat earthers - you clearly believe *all* viewpoints are legitimate (you little relativist you!), so, where are all the articles in the peer-reviewed literature from young earthers and creationists? If there isn't any, then obviously the scientists are censoring these "legitimate" viewpoints.
The deniers are free to propose alternate theories to ACC to explain the observations. Nothing that they actually have proposed fits as well. Ponder this - you can't have low climate sensitivity *and* claim that it's *all* solar at the same time. Do you know why?
Lastly, where's your skepticism about the deniers? The usual suspects put something up on some blog, or get "published" in E&E, and y'all think ACC is now dead. Monckton stupidly lays into Abraham, and obviously that means everything in the world. M&W get a badly flawed paper into a statistics journal, and the "hockey stick" is irretrievably broken. Where's your skepticism in those instances?
It is you and your fellow deniers who are true believers. And hypocrites.
From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann
Cc: Gavin Schmidt
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go
there personally, but so I'm informed).
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd
like us to include.
You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone...
mike
Yeah, no collusion there.
As for your claim that I consider all viewpoints legitimate, I do not know where you get that, but again I cannot tell from where your "facts" originate. Appears most of them are just made up, like the fact that I accept all viewpoints. Point of logic (this one is free), If I do not buy into your AGW or ACC claims, then I obviously do not feel all viewpoints are legitimate.
Typical loser answer, "where is your skepticism". Projection seems to be a real issue for you. Seek help.
Any argument on the validity of climate science based on the stolen emails is suspect, because, as I've pointed out, those emails were carefully chosen to be as context-free as possible. How else do you explain that so few were released?
Your list of "crimes" by climate scientists included (and I quote) "willful disregard for alternate viewpoints". Where are those young earther/creationist papers in the relevant peer-reviewed journals? Hmmm?
Look, I (and probably Mann) do not have problems with sound debate and differing viewpoints. But the typical malinformed, ill-behaved and paranoid sceptic is not somebody I have much patience with.
paai
Forgive my limited postings, I am at the ranch all weekend and time is short here in paradise.
They don't change the science at all.
You refuse to read anything to do with atmospheric physics that voids the CO2 warming link.
You are living a lie.
You are good and entertaining example to the rest of us about how people build prisons around their own minds.
Of course you will say that it is us that are living a lie.
HAHAHAHAHAHHA!
However, every piece of so-called "science" that claims that CO2 has nothing to do with warming is wrong - horribly wrong.
...You don't have any such thing. Neither does anyone else, as even the more cautious denialists will admit.
This is why you people are so hilarious.
We show you evidence. You refuse to read it and then say there is no evidence.
HAHAHAHAHA!
You have such poorly evolved intellects. You really make me laugh.
What a way to build credibility!! Keep it up.
Surely your evolved intellect will have no problem.
You should learn that.
Care to take a crack at my little problem? No-one has bothered to try. You can be first!
Tell me what, if anything, is wrong with the analysis.
What you mean is, you have no evidence, and you already know that what is offered here by the denialists is crap.
Science works with proven techniques of observation and experimentation. If you want to disprove its findings, there is no choice but to use those same techniques. Defamation and character murder can never, never, never replace that.
Paai
People who know me tell me I am very intelligent, I do not think my IQ is anything out of the ordinary. What is different about me is that I am logical to the point of aggravation. My father was a Logistician for the military and I come by this trait honestly. I am sorry you cannot make the same connections.
If you and your peers expect me to drastically alter my lifestyle based on an idea that is in great dispute, you had better be prepared to bring HARD science to back your claim. Especially when your claim involves a minor trace gas to which man contributes vcompatatively nothing. And for God's sake do not let mecatch you fudging numbers in order to match your failed predictions.
What you fail to recognize about RC's collusion with the warmists is that it is dishonest. This site allows all points of view to be heard, no matter how ridiculous including discussions of "missing heat". I attempted to post peer reviewed scientific fact at RC and yhey would not post them because like you they had no argument. The "most knowledgable" climate scintists in the world could not counter little ol' Gator.
The reason I can turn an honest warmer onto a denier is by simply using logic. It does not take great intellect, just a properly trained mind.
Oh wait - I've asked for your "logic" before, and you demurred, claiming it was private and would somehow harm some in your family.
I'm very unimpressed.
The science isn't asking you to "drastically alter" anything - that would be a policy choice. You and the other deniers don't like the policies on offer, so you attack the science. That is utterly illogical.
PS - How is there "collusion" between (say) RC and Mike Mann, when Mike Mann is one of the major contributors to RC?
PPS - How's that statistics homework coming?
I will not deny that you are much more intelligent than I am. But I am glad to learn that logistics and logic are more or less the same thing. I used to think that logistics had to do with transport and logic with thinking. My fault entirely.
When I worked to get my PhD, I learned many wrong things. One was that I should not take a random point on a graph and conclude from that point whether a series of data was rising or falling. You sceptics are far ahead of us there: everybody knows now that global temperatures are falling steeply from 1998. Stupidly enough, I was taught to apply smoothing and similar, eh..., tricks.
Also I got the weird idea somewhere, that when something happened in the past, and happened again in the present, that the causes for those happenings are not necessarily the same, but that you should check every time. But we dutch academics are notoriously thick. Again the climate sceptics have the advance on us: they *know* that climate warming every time must have exactly the same cause, from the MWP to the Carboon.
Finally, and worst of all, I got addicted to the idiotic notion that arguments should be presented clearly and logically, and I still teach that rubbish to my students with all other tricks. But say the word, and I will depart from this forum in shame.
Paai
And you probably did learn some wrong things in your studies. I know that later in life I have discovered a number of things I was taught were indeed wrong. Nothing unusual about that.
There are some skeptics who indeed believe they "know" what is causing changes. I myself am still learning.
I heartily agree with logic. As I stated before, my father was a very logical person, more so than myself. Logisticians for the military are comparable to their civilian counterparts as airline pilots are to fighter pilots. My father's formal education continued throughout his career, and even after retirement. The man loved learning and I am grateful that he passed the same passion to me.
When the dialogue turns ugly and I still respect the party, I find it best to end things amicably. I am afraid I will have to add you to my spam list. That is unfortunate because you are obviously an intelligent person. Good luck.
...simply a lie.
As for malfeasance in science, there has never been such fraud and collusion in science in the history of the Earth.
...simply a lie.
Any other "scientific" endeavor which displayed such secrecy, use of propaganda, intimidation of critics, refusal to lawfully respond to FOI requests, blackballing of editors and willful disregard for alternate viewpoints would have been broken up under racketeering laws.
....cleared by four separate investigations. Nice emotional lie post, though.
You're using "theory" to mean "wild guess", whereas in science, it has a very specific meaning. Why are you using a non-scientific definition?
You are out of your league.
The absorption of LW by CO2 has been shown in the lab, BTW.
Got your math test solved yet?
When you can provide a notarized MRI proving you indeed have a brain, get back to me.
How's that little statistics assignment going?
My government green job is going to dry up. I hate the world. I blame "deniers". I will fight them so that maybe I feel better. But I still don't feel better.
How I hate the world. I hope and pray it cooks in a global warming conflagration so that at least I was proved right.
...the reply of a liar who cannot refute a word he just said. not one.
You and your friends have zero actual science which refutes AGW theory. None.
You guys are so funny.
Just like the Doomers that are so convinced the world is going to end while the rest of us ignore them and dismiss them as kooks.
HAHAHAHHAHAHA!
Eagerly awaiting your next maniacal ravings.
Did you boys ever find a single scientific society or national government that repudiates AGW theory? Your friends ran away shortly after I asked.
Although Discovery and National Geographic channel suggest otherwise, science is not about white coated professors juggling microscopes and retorts and coming up with shattering discoveries. Science is before all discipline and faithfully attending to niggling, pesky details that never are broadcasted or even published in most popular media.
paai
I'm afraid that more than a language issue, it is a cultural issue. I was not raised to tolerate malfeasance.
Until you read ALL the emails, please refrain from commenting further, it makes you appear ignorant.
There are literally millions of emails that were stolen and not released. You cannot claim to know anything based on such a limited and clearly chosen sample.
The email hack was designed as a sideshow, nothing more. The science is unchanged.
Apparently from your disbelief, you also have not read the email. I started by selecting dates at random and could not find an email that wasn't at least unscientifically biased. Then I waded in deeper and, not all of the email is damaging, but most of it is.
These email were not stolen as far as anyone can tell. There remains the possibility they were released, Wikileaks style. IF the warmists were honest they would welcome honest questions, but they are not and do not.
AGW is nothing BUT sideshows in the biggest clown filled circus we have ever witnessed. And I dub thee "Flunky the Clown".
Now quote away Flunky the Clown/Dogma Quote Boy!
Would you agree that the ~1100 emails represent a very tiny fraction of all the emails over that time between senders and recipients?
Would you agree that nothing of the science has been altered by the emails?
Would you agree that a whistleblower would have come forward by now? And if not, why not?
Deniers have read books, written papers, and made arguments. None of them stand up to real skepticism. How many times over the years have we been told that this latest paper, blog post, or op-ed piece put the whole idea of ACC into the trash? How many times have you examined those things skeptically? None, as far as I can tell. You always say that scientists need to disprove their own theories - how come the deniers never disprove their own nonsense?
You've got a real double standard thing going - dare I say, shading into hypocrisy...
I have never met a larger "denier" than you. You deny every last shred of evidence that disagrees with AGW or ACC - this is a mental disorder. I know better than to summarily toss out everything the warmists claim. I reserved the possibility for AGW for over twenty years. Reviewing every "peer reviewed" paper the warmists issued, but once I saw the massive decption, it became obvious the emperor had no clothes. Real scientists do not fake their data.
Again, I hate to beat a dead horse, but your projection onto me of a double standard is laughable. I have rejected a good portion of some skeptics' work, but of course you could not know that and again made assumptions based on your ignorance.
How deranged are you?
Play the ball, not the man.
Who "faked data"? How was it "faked", and what was "faked"?
And being older doesn't mean being wiser.
You make all sorts of accusations and charges, but are strangely unable to support them, especially when asked directly. Why is that?
Likewise, you've got some unassailable proof of the falsehood of ACC, yet cannot repeat it because it's non-public and (as you claim) would hurt your family. That's awfully convenient.
The more you write, the more you sound like a 9/11 troofer.
I hate everyone. I hate the world. I hope it cooks so that I am proven right.
We'll all come up short.
Would you like to try to show us how ACC is wrong?
We all see this as a sign of your own frustration at the demise of your fading religion and the end of your useless green job as some sort of green advisor.
We get your sick little thrill.
Get some help. Find a girlfriend. Get a hobby. Move on.
I don't have to drink the whole bottle to know that the wine is perfectly sound (if perhaps not very palatable). Let me repeat myself: I only found normal comments from programmers and scientists in the hundred-odd emails I did read. Among them of course the emails that were supposed to have smoking guns.
If you want to suggest that I am dishonest, please come out and do so. Obviously I would appreciate to know exactly why.
Paai
Did it change the science?
Paai
If you have a bona fide PhD, it means more or less that you are able to conduct independent scientific or scholarly research as demonstrated in your dissertation.
Alas, it does NOT mean that you cannot be a complete asshole (I should know
So you may reasonably expect somebody with a PhD to be able to follow most scientific debates and have a pretty good idea whether the issues are sound or not, again with the rider that he/she may be stupid, prejudiced or otherwise biased (e.g, by a large sack of money, such as the scientists that supported the tobacco industry in the denial of the connection between lung cancer and smoking).
Paai
He has a filthy dirty oil-paid propaganda record, but he also has a (Doctor of Philosophy, not Doctor of Science as he has repeatedly claimed) bona fide PhD.
If not, then you just like me did read the stolen emails and tried to make sense of it. In that case you are welcome to your own interpretation, but let me say that I found nothing out of he ordinary. I teach my students 'tricks' every day about how to handle noisy data, and I did say worse things about other scientists when refereeing their papers.
So you are welcome to hack into my email archive and expose me for the fraud I am
Paai
Pronunciation: \ˈȯ-dət\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin auditus act of hearing, from audire
Date: 15th century
1 a : a formal examination of an organization's or individual's accounts or financial situation b : the final report of an audit
2 : a methodical examination and review
I hope this clears things up for you (hint, it is definition #2). German is my second language and it gives me issues at times. I know you said English was your third language, so a little assist there.
Again, please show me the proof the emails were "stolen", another fraudulent and unfounded claim by the warmists. And if the those warmists at CRU have nothing to hide, why the fuss?
In my studies we used no "tricks". We used "methods", "formulas", "programs", etc... but no "tricks" to "hide" anything. And if you as you say, "say worse things", you have a problem. I pity your students and weep for the future of science in your community.
Science without checks and balances is just noise.
"In 2007, McIntyre started auditing the various corrections made to temperature records, in particular those relating to the urban heat island effect. He discovered a discontinuity in some U.S. records in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) dataset starting in January 2000. He emailed GISS advising them of the problem and within a couple of days GISS issued a new, corrected set of data and thanked McIntyre for "bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000".[15] The adjustment caused the average temperatures for the continental United States to be reduced about 0.15 °C during the years 2000-2006. Changes in other portions of the record did not exceed 0.03 °C; it made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies."
Gosh, instead of being a "crank", appears GISS was "thankful" for the assist. Golly, who are the dumbies now? GISS could not locate a heat island effect? And if you had read the "stolen" email, you would have found discussion of how the warmists tweaked temperatures upward .015C for their "Global Mean".
Just how much abuse are you willing to take for your agenda?
Here's a test for you - suppose a particle physicist gives you the following particle speeds (in 1000 miles/s):
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186
You "audit" it and compute the mean as 182, with a std deviation of 2.16 and draw a nice 2σ interval, say [178.7, 187.3].
What's the problem?
Apply the Scientific Method.
How much abuse for your agenda are you willing to take?
Quit dodging. It's a very simple problem. Incredibly simple.
As I stated before, my agenda is the truth. I do not care if Joe Romm is a "crank", I will still listen to his argument and research his ponts to see if he is right or wrong.
You love to mock religion (except your own) and you love to denegrate those who are not "scientists" or if they are they are "not climatologists". Take another look at an American hero, especially to the left...
"John Muir remained, though, a deeply religious man, writing, "We all flow from one fountain—Soul. All are expressions of one love. God does not appear, and flow out, only from narrow chinks and round bored wells here and there in favored races and places, but He flows in grand undivided currents, shoreless and boundless over creeds and forms and all kinds of civilizations and peoples and beasts, saturating all and fountainizing all."[11]
At age 22, Muir enrolled at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, paying his own way for several years. There, under a towering black locust tree beside North Hall, Muir took his first botany lesson. A fellow student plucked a flower from the tree and used it to explain how the grand locust is a member of the pea family, related to the straggling pea plant. Fifty years later, the naturalist Muir described the day in his autobiography. "This fine lesson charmed me and sent me flying to the woods and meadows in wild enthusiasm."[6]:225 Muir took an eclectic approach to his studies, attending classes for two years but never being listed higher than a first year student due to his unusual selection of courses. Records showed his class status as "irregular gent" and, even though he never graduated, he learned enough geology and botany to inform his later wanderings."
Then later in life...
"Muir boldly advanced the unorthodox idea that the Yosemite had been gouged out primarily by a mighty glacier of the Ice Age, and that it had been elaborated little by little in the course of thousands of years.
In the controversy that ensued, Muir’s theory was treated rather roughly by his opponents. Scientific controversies in those days were not conducted in the gentlemanly manner that now prevails. His views were assailed, ridiculed, and belittled as the wild fantasies of an ignorant shepherd. It seems appropriate, then, on this occasion to show where Muir’s theory now stands, and to appraise its scientific worth as impartially and as dispassionately as may be, in the light of the findings of modern geologic research."
Gosh, the "scientific consensus" was wrong and an untrained vagabond was right. Does this remind anyone of anything we have discussed before? I'm sure he was just a "crank".
Flunky the Clown/Dogma Quote Boy, I am just taking a que from you and refuse to answer questions. Now what?
They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Being mocked doesn't mean being right.
All the best.... Jeff
Do you want us to fetch you coffee and change your diapers too?
But you will whine and cry and say there isn't any. What a lazy, brainwashed and sanctimonious POS you are.
Shouldn't a group claiming there is no consensus in AGW theory be able to find at least ONE scientific society or national government that officially repudiates AGW theory?
Just one?
Just checking back.
If I were wasting my time here, you wouldn't be chasing down my every post. lol
'The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.'
Quote:But the un-skeptical will deny their boat is sinking and awash to the very end, it seems.
And the reference to Plimer - priceless!
Watch her strut her stuff defending Bush's lame-duck $4 gas prices to Jon Stewart. Doesn't know the difference between income and profit? Okeydoke.
www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-26-2006/kimberley-strassel
Daily Kos poll fraud
For the past year and a half, Daily Kos has contracted with the pollster Research 2000 to conduct polling for the site. As part of the deal, Markos Moulitsas posted all of the internal numbers that were part of the poll. Recently, a few statisticians took a look at those numbers and wrote to tell Markos that they thought they were fishy. After looking at their report, waiting for Research 2000 to respond and having independent statisticians assess the evidence, Markos has concluded they're right.
"While the investigation didn't look at all of Research 2000 polling conducted for us, fact is I no longer have any confidence in any of it, and neither should anyone else," Markos says. He's filing a lawsuit against the pollster. In the meantime, I'm sure I've used his polling in the past, and so have others. If you come across any posts based on it -- on this site or on others -- consider them null and void.
By Ezra Klein | June 30, 2010; 3:36 PM ET
Oopsy! Now they have to get a legitimate polling source.
Probably where you get your "science" as well.
LOL!!!
Thorough rebuttal here:
unclevinny.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/global-warming-denialism/
Run James run! See James run! See Joe tell James to run! Run James Run!!! See no rebuttal from James or Joe here! See them run like chicken littles! See spot on sun! Go sun go! See James and Joe ignore spot! Poor spot.
Got brains?
See D lie about journals. See emails that prove facist warmist liars manipulated journals. See no honest debate. See AGW myth die with a wimper. See James debate? Hell no.
See James run, run James run. Run away from the debate James run. See Romm cower behind his facist website. Cower Romm cower. See Gator laugh at silly warmists, laugh Gator laugh!
Get some help. You've lost touch with reality.
All the best..... Jeff
Well I guess assuming he would learn is going a bit far.
All the best..... Jeff
What's the problem with the statistical analysis, if any?
Perhaps you can better than Gator.
With nothing more to say.... Jeff
You're certain?
Mean = 183
Std deviation = 2
2std dev interval [181, 185]
...Given that we must add "liar" and "endless contentless drooler,", they seem rather irrelevant to your continual cyberbully behavior here.
...They are out of the hands of the addressees and the organization. At some point, by an insider or outsier, they were stolen. End of story.
...BTW, you have found no "tricks" in the science as you are using the word. none.
An inside job is still theft, no matter what moral relativity argument anyone wants to pull out.
The emails were stolen, same as if you decided to take extra money from the lunch money cup at home on the way to elementary school. Even if you are normally allowed access, it's still theft.
That is not to say that I do not think that the presentation of the emails was not dishonest in the extreme, but that has already been discussed ad nauseam.
www.theage.com.au/national/email-scandal-rallies-web-climate-sceptics-20091123-iysr.html
"In one of thousands of emails and documents stolen from the British University of East Anglia last week, Professor Jones tells colleagues he has completed the ''trick of adding in the real temps'' for the last 20 years ''to hide the decline''.
In another, US National Centre for Atmospheric Research climatologist Kevin Trenberth says it is a ''travesty'' that climate scientists cannot account for the ''lack of warming at the moment'' ".
The first email was from Jones, (1999): the second from Trenberth (2009).
All the best.... Jeff
paai
And what about your claim saying that ''you'' discovered the issue. When it was a known issue, and about the last issue between the datasets had been raised by A. Watts in 2009 (corrected since then).
Man you like to put up news with very old stuff - quite a BS denial attitude.
Also nice to have are knowledge of proper argumentation and a little bit of logic.
paai
As for logic, the paper you cite is a discussion of the emails and the multiple examples of improper conduct contained within them. This would be akin to discussing the solar system and talking of the planets within. To not do so wouldn't be logical. To assume all of the planets are the same one would be illogical also.
All the best.... Jeff
Deniers always put so much weight on the stolen emails. Why?
They simply cannot allow for the fact that their supposed scandal exploded in their faces and proved the lot of them denialist liars.
The constant deflective drool is a dead giveaway.
scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
Now, here's what they can't wish or lie away. The infrared emission spectrum from Earth, showing the massive CO2 notch (among others) that keeps part of the IR which would otherwise be escaping to space trapped within the atmosphere.
tinyurl.com/delayedIRrelease
The denialists can find NO infrared spectrum satellite from ANYWHERE that does not show this notch in Earth's emissions. Perhaps they'd like to argue the missing energy is destroyed. =)
jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif
sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
The missing energy is still missing. No one suggested it was destroyed.
Have you gotten through my statistical analysis homework? Your answer?
Wider error bars or wind sensors can't find it either.
CMB's graph shows a notch but real world observations don't show the warming it predicts, so what gives?
www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html
Shouldn't this lapse rate have been factored for in the models that predicted this "Hot Spot"?
Or could the "missing" hot spot be due to over estimating the water vapor feed back rate? And this causing an error in the projections?
Yes, climate models know about lapse rates. Duh.
The IPCC AR4 has a whole section on climate model evaluation. Check it out.
And Wind Speed sensors can better measure Temperatures?
www.cheaperpetrolparty.com/Images/Global_Warming/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
leatherhead.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/global-warming-temperature-chart1.gif
www.ucar.edu/research/climate/images/pcmensembles2.jpg
And if this Hot Spot if found, is not a signature for Co2 warming, only proof of warming. How does one tell what has caused the warming?
And why is the rate of warming been far below model predictions?
..The radiosondes denialists love to quote had a faulty design. Better radiosondes work better. And I'm not referring to the Hot Spot, I'm referring to GW in general, which is what the notch you refer to produces - not just the Hot Spot. The Hot Spot is a red herring, and is a non-issue for almost half the AGW models since 1979. This is according to sometimes denialist John Christy (UAH) and others:
Quote: "Over the period since 1979, for global-average temperatures, the range of recent model
simulations is almost evenly divided among those that show a greater global-average warming
trend at the surface and others that show a greater warming trend aloft. The range of model
results for global average temperature reflects the influence of the mid- to high-latitudes where
amplification results vary considerably between models. Given the range of model results and
the overlap between them and the available observations, there is no conflict between observed
changes and the results from climate models."
www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
Note the authors. John Christy probably wouldn't put his name to that if he could get out of it. But it's a fact.
Has this notch been seen to increase with additional Co2?
I would asume that the notch would be biggest at higher altitudes, smaller at lower, as the waves are progressively filtered out by passing upwards through the atmosphere? Has this been obseved?
...Close. The infrared is not reflected, it is generated at the surface from sunlight creating heat. Little IR from the Sun reaches the ground.
Has this notch been seen to increase with additional Co2?
...Yes. The same notch can be created in the lab, and as CO2 is added, the notch deepens until the bottom gets close to zero. Around that point, it begins to widen instead due to collision broadening.
I would asume that the notch would be biggest at higher altitudes, smaller at lower, as the waves are progressively filtered out by passing upwards through the atmosphere? Has this been obseved?
....Yes. Co2 has another notch at 4.2-4.6um, and it has been measured at altitude.
www.opticsinfobase.org/viewmedia.cfm?id=23222&seq=0
Note - the paper is looking up at transmission of the original sunlight coming down, instead of looking down at transmission from the Earth the way the satellite did, so the largest notch is at the bottom. Either way, it is IR that is being held back by CO2.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/modeling.html
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/modeling.html
As do some reconstructions comparing raw data to adjusted data. justdata.wordpress.com/
www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/realclimateruns.jpg
As you can see, at no point do they diverge more than about 6/10 of a degree, and overall slope - the important part - is very similar.
This map only goes to 2008, which is a shame because 2010 is apparently still on track to be the hottest year on record.
Neither of the two graphs are showing actual measured data as compared to the projections.
What i am looking for is the possible divergance beteen Models and actuals.
Some are claiming that UHI effects are not being compensated enough for. And that water vapor has been over stated.
Some Raw data reconstructions from non urban locals seem to show much less warming.
www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_California.htm
Appinsys is a well-known ridiculous denialist website, just so you know. California is not the globe, and is a coastal climate state to boot.
Come on Amirlach, have you not learned that only warmist have any credibility? Unless you agree with these doomers you are a liar. Get with the program and get in lockstep with the facists!
How many days has he had to prove me wrong now?
How many days has he had to prove me wrong now?
While i belive Co2 does have a warming effect. I am sceptical about several areas.
-The rates of Co2/Water Vapor feedback forcings being accurate. Which may be linked with the models predicting slightly less than actual measures.
-The lack of research into possible relationships between Ocean Cycles like the PDO, El-nino ect affecting cloud formation. And the effects of Solar Magnetic particle forcings on Clouds.
-Regarding Clouds it seems there is little research into how they affect Climate than there should be. Or modeling of the same.
-The questionable state of global Climate records and reporting. Possible biased loss of remote, higher elevation, cooler stations and the placement of stations near growing urban areas.
-The so called missing heat in the energy budget.
-The Missing Hot Spot while explained is still contested. I'm still out on this one. I'll wait untill i see more evidence.
Hansen seems to have drifted from sceptical science towards activisim. While you discount some sceptics based on their views i have to say i feel the same about Hansen.
Now looking at the record from 1880 to 1940 you see nearly the same trend shape as from 1940 to present. Although the latter is at a higher state than the former, they follow about the same profile except for the 1998 spike of El-nino.
The rise and fall of these trends seem to fit with the PDO's 30 year cycle. If this trend holds we should see 20-30 years of gradual cooling before any warming returns.
www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ENSO.htm
This link has information on the cycles and the effects they have on climate, as well as some on volcanic cooling events namely El Chichon 82 and My Pinotubo 92.
The oceans hold much more heat than the land does, and affect the climate worldwide. The paper's abstract says they may have warmed from both natual and anthropogenic sources. =)
"25 Aug 10 - Although Northern Hemisphere LAND MASSES had their hottest May-July on record, says meteorologist Joe Bastardi, the globe as a whole did not.
The warmth ON LAND is a by-product of the years of warm Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and El Nino, says Bastardi. The land kept warming after the water began to cool. It's "sort of like high tide in back bay occurring after it had occurred on the beach (oceans) and the tide is about to go out."
"If one uses common sense, one would understand that land masses with warm water next to them for years would warm greatly," says Bastardi.
Southern Hemisphere sea ice now approaching record high levels
However, "the expansion of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice, now approaching record high levels, ought to tell you something about the oceans immediately around the sea ice," says Bastardi. This large mass of water is cooling and has cooled most dramatically in the area where it is warmest (the tropical pacific).
"We see drastic cooling over land and IN THE ATLANTIC TOO. In fact, it basically keeps cooling the tropical Pacific into next year, then hammers away at the two areas warmest now - the Atlantic and the continents."
Warming huh?
Of course since this gentleman disagrees with you he is a "crank", is paid by "big oil", hates you and all life on this pkanet including his children and kicks puppies.
...First, of course the extent is nearing maximum, it does that every year in September.
Meanwhile, while sea ice is icreasing due to enhanced snowfall from evaporation due to warming elsewhere, all 4 glaciers in Antarctica arwe receding, and the ice mass as a whole is losing mass.
Denialists like to talk about sea ice extent, but you'll never hear them talk about thickness or mass, because while single year ice sheets cover the area, multi-year sea ice is on the decline.
www.slate.com/id/2192730
It's also interesting to note that this massive land ice loss has been happening for awhile, while each year the thin sea ice, covered with crystallized watwer vapor from hot spots elsewhere, keeps rising at a statistically insignificant rate.
www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-010
I like Bastardi, he's a true skeptic, but he tends to forget important variables. =)
Antarctic icemass loss continues to this day, and you haveno evidence to the contrary. None.
OT, but -- did you hear the one about the Chinese chef's riddle, "Why are puppies so cute?"
Ans.: To make you forget how delicious they are!
If not, then you need to, because all of your questions/doubts are addressed within it.
You are not thinking of anything new. Trust me.
Around 1970 they were both in a negative phase and it was cooler.
And again they both were positive around 1998. And was warm.
These cycles also seem to affect rain fall and one would assume cloud formations.
www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO_AMO.htm
Do you understand that?
If what you say is true why dose the rise and fall of temperatures follow these cycles? If Co2 was the main driver it should follow the rise of Co2 instead. Glodal temps have clearly correlated with these cycles. With the 1998 spike the point where El-Nino and the PDO/AMO, and even Solar Radience all peacked together. A rouge wave if you will.
I understand the models do not compensate for cloud effects as they are not fully understood yet?
I find it very hard to belive that with this sort of correlation these cycles have no effect on Climate and only a minor trace gas does.
...Except that in this case, you're using it as an excuse to hide your ignorance. Denialism requires a large repertoire of such excuses, as there is no AGW science they dare honestly discuss.
As far as Hansen goes, maybe it's the denialist death threats.
It will be interesting to see if China, Russia and India will be as eager to kill their emerging industrial growth and standard of living as we are.
Of course, the White House won't go for it unless the economic impact of Phil Gramm (R-Deregulation)'s global "subprimatization" is fixed.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050401214.html
You're not actually reading these cites, are you?
PDF proof of book reviewed in the above: nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf
The DICE model used assumes AGW as a given; since it is bogus, even the "benefits" in the cost-benefit analysis must be removed, making the de-carbonization net costs immensely worse.
It is notable that Kyoto comes out just a bit worse than neutral, because it is so trivial.
If you want the internal (not approved for translation and distribution in the West) Chinese take on AGW, try this: libertygibbert.wordpress.com/rare-scribbling/locusts/low-carbon-plot/. "The Low Carbon Plot".
initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/08/dyson-exegesis.html
www.grist.org/article/freeman-dyson-climate-crackpot
climateprogress.org/2008/05/25/freeman-dyson-and-his-amazing-incredible-genetically-engineered-carbon-eating-trees/
Extra credit for quoting a single nutcase with a ridiculous lie article as the opinion of an entire government. lol
www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2009/0923/p06s05-woap.html
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/04/china.jonathanwatts
www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File188.pdf
Quote: "As a developing country of responsibility, China attaches great importance to the
issue of climate change. The National Coordination Committee on Climate Change
was established, and a series of policies and measures to address climate change
has been taken in the overall context of national sustainable development strategy,
making positive contributions to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.
As it is mandated under the UNFCCC, the Government of China hereby formulates
China’s National Climate Change Programme (hereinafter referred to as the
CNCCP), outlining objectives, basic principles, key areas of actions, as well as
policies and measures to address climate change for the period up to 2010."
...I did enjoy that you sent me to a tiny, tiny blog from an Australian geologist (read: national and personal monetary stake) as evidence. =)
"The most ambitious option, aimed at stabilizing the level of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels by 2030, would require measures that would add $100 to the costs associated with each ton of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere, said the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
Gee, if the "Idiots Pushing Carbon Caps" says so then it must be so George!
From the very same article...
"The White House quickly issued a statement rejecting the more aggressive options outlined by the report. Referring to the highest-cost scenario, James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said it "would of course cause global recession, so that is something that we probably want to avoid."
That from a greenie! Must be a "hoax".
Anyone who denies the obvious manipulation of surface stations is either an idiot or a zealot or both. It is the most basic of logic that by removing cooler stations and leaving heat island trapped, air port exhaust sucking sensors that you will get a warmer average. No argument from the sane here. I, as part of my many years studying the Earth, have actually been formally educated on HOW TO MANIPULATE statistical maps. I have mapped everything from AIDS cases to mosquito populations to city sticker compliance. You are an idiot AND a zealot and there is no fixing stupid!
Why would I advocate a position that would threaten myself and my family? Answer. I would not. Nor would any of the skeptics I have met. Your heros on the other hand stand to make more money than God by pushing this crap and they know reducing CO2 will not adversly effect THEIR lives. You don't see big Al giving up limos or mansions, in fact he just doubled his carbon footprint. Your advocacy only ruins OTHER peoples lives while pushing your warped social agenda. In other words you and the warmists have a motive and I do not.
I am not now nor have I ever been in the employ of "big oil". I advocate logical environmentalism and practice what I preach. There is a universe full of things you do not understand and one of them is that fossil fuels have done more to save mankind and this planet than any other resource.
Keep spewing lies and half truths all you want. You probably have not noticed you have made NO converts here or anywhere (nor will you), because you are so very obtuse.
Keep bawling about CO2 and keep losing credibilty. It is a most pathetic display.
Still haven't read the Menne et.al. paper.
Getting all lathered up doesn't hide your ignorance.
Bachelor of Propaganda?
You're a joke. All bluster and BS.
..A pathetic, ridiculous lie, in which you try to pin your own behavior on me. lol
Your heros are proven frauds and you are simply too invested in hating industry to see that.
..A pathetic, ridiculous lie, in which you try to pin your own behavior on me.
(Several paragraphs of hoax-based right wing funded paranoia and projection snipped)
You can't find one single, solitary lie from me in this entire thread - thus your reams of inventive fiction. lol
You've simply admitted that you are out of trash sources and are throwing in the towel, before ever peroving me wrong once. No surprise from thee quarters, your buddies have been doing the same things, just a whole lot earlier.
While you've been constantly insulting everyone here who disagrees with you, making up deluded statements off the top of your head, producing well known lie sites as scientific work, and generally trying to run people off ("how much abuse are you willing to take for your cause?"), You've lied about:
My claims
My qualifications
Your claims
Your qualifications
The CRU scientists
The CRU emails
The claims of every AGW theory defender here
Tim Ball
Tim Ball's credentials
Tim Ball's lying about his credentials Naomi Oreskes
Naomi Oreskes' results
Crazy Schulte's attack on Oreskes
Crazy Schulte's results
Climatology consensus
"The best scientists are skeptical..." lol
Inner cities (that was a telling admission)
And pretty much every source you disagreed with.
Then, when stuck, you repeated my posts verbatim like a grade school kid.
Translation: I win, you lose, and you'll never understand why. =)
Poor Gator, he has shown plainly that he will never understand how much of an ass he's made of himself all through this thread. He hasn't honestly answered one single question that's been put to him, and is obviously the dupe of the most ridiculous and disproven hoaxsters out there. And he likes it. ;)
Except to those collecting it.
Your economics is as credible as your climate science.
Except for the Inner Cadre, who all have vast dachas.
I think many economists would agree that most of the the partially socialist economies in Europe are doing better financially than we are in the states, after our republican mortgage meltdown and a pointless two trillion dollar war for votes, kept off the budget for the first TIME IN aMERICAN HISTORY:
www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2010/May/insolvency-6_image012.jpg
(Note use of cite to back uup my argument - a habit you should pick up.) =)
If you're dedicated to polishing this nonexistent fraud called the free market, the fake free market conceptthat has decimated the world economy since Bush's last year in office, just show us the resulting growth of the middle class.
Darn, I forgot, right wingers are dedicated to reducing wages and moving the monetary supply into the hands of the rich. It's called "trickle-down", which is code for "look, we can piss on everyone's heads from up here, and they can do nothing because we sent their jobs to some third world socialist hellhole!" =)
It's made-up crap.
www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2010-07-15-heat-record_N.htm
www2.wsav.com/blogs/weather-she-wrote/2010/aug/17/2010-hottest-year-record-so-far-ar-718355/
www2.wsav.com/blogs/weather-she-wrote/2010/aug/17/2010-hottest-year-record-so-far-ar-718355/
Regarding the original subject:
www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/22/nasa.warmest.decade.data/index.html
www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/22/nasa_global_warming_warmest_decade/
www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/22/nasa_global_warming_warmest_decade/
I like that last one:
NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
July 28, 2010
Quote: "The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.
Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere."
Ten different variables, 300 scientists, 160 research groups in 48 countries. Enjoy your dustbin. If your sort becomes an actual threat to the planet, sometime in the next 50 years or so someone or other will be around to seal y'all in. Just a thought. =)
I've just today found this site and read this thread - and you are by far the nastiest person on here.
Since you continue to believe in AGW despite cold hard evidence to the contrary, you are obviously religiously dogmatic and not capable of independent thought.
GCM output does not constitute evidence for AGW and never will.
Wake up! More and more people are starting to think for themselves, do their research and find out that the Alarmists hve been propagating a scam! If you haven't found evidence of this yet - then you are not being honest with yourself - and you know it otherwise you wouldn't be such a nasty woman!
...Please feel free to point out any lie I tell or have told, along with the science that proves it a lie. But you'll probably want to do it down at the end of the thread.
I've just today found this site and read this thread - and you are by far the nastiest person on here.
...You must have missed the blog author's responses to me - each one leads with an inane insult to set the mood. lol
Since you continue to believe in AGW despite cold hard evidence to the contrary,
...Please feel free to present this cold, hard evidence to the contrary.
you are obviously religiously dogmatic and not capable of independent thought.
...Made-up crap.
GCM output does not constitute evidence for AGW and never will.
...No one with half a brain says it does. See 'instrumental record.'
Wake up! More and more people are starting to think for themselves, do their research and find out that the Alarmists have been propagating a scam!
...Please feel free to post any information proving any such thing, and don't forget the proof like the rest here do.
If not, you need to.
In this case, you have none as usual.
Of course we still do not know what it is I am accused of "denying" because there is nothing to deny, the emperor has no clothes!
I can understand why you can't figure that out - you pay no attention to what you are posting.
The funny part is that even with your record here, spread out for all to see, you expect us to take your blabber as evidence. Brainless.
Pro-Warmist papers get printed even when full of garbage, while anti-Warmist papers get rejected for trivia, or because "the debate has moved on".
Some peers! Some review!
...Another denialist excuse for their unending scientific failures by cranks.
...Sonya Boehmer-Christiansen, editor of fake denialist journal Energy and
Environment, pushes denialist tripe from ClimateAudit, uses her university
affiliation to lend credence to her arguments in a dishonest email, which
implies illegal activity which did not exist.
...This "unbiased" journal editor then follows up these malicious but
baseless accusations with quoted lie articles from two well known right wing liars, Jennifer Marohasy and Patrick Michaels.
There's certainly no reason peolle shouldn't notice, and flush immediately, a right wing, biased editor of a fake denialist journallike Sonya. lol
www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1065&filename=1256765544.txt .. lol
Pro-Warmist papers get printed even when full of garbage, while anti-Warmist papers get rejected for trivia, or because "the debate has moved on".
...A lie, and none of you can prove otherwise. Excuses are all denialists have for their lack of real science work.
...Any other excuses for your pack of tenured publicity seekers and home science hobbyists' lack of knowledge?
As mentioned, almost every siting problem will result in warming bias. I doubt you can concoct, much less find, one that would result in cooling bias.
No, I don't mean that BS report Heartland published; I mean the one with all the analysis that shows that siting issues so compromise the data that it's useless. There should be no pictures of stations, but detailed statistical analysis. Sorta like Menne et.al. 2010 - which I'm sure you've read, correct?
Science considers data irrespective of source. You should try it sometime.
Like Watts.
...So really, you have no idea whether such errors are accounted for, or affect anyone's work, and have to act the fool.
Science considers data irrespective of source. You should try it sometime.
...Ah, but then science checks the data (don't I remember quality control being what you boys supposedly want to see?), and that's where you boys keep falling flat on your face. After ten years or so, shouldn't people begin to notice?
...For instance, the article at the top of this mess can't even say the satellite it whines about has affected any work whatsoever. His last paragraph admits it - and even denialist Lubos Motl admits that UAH and RSS both stopped using the data around 2006.
...Why should anyone bother with cranks whose work does not check out? Work that can't be replicated in another lab, or that uses funny math, isn't work. The Miskolczi paper that pretends the earth is a ball of gas comes to mind.
Why do feel it necessary to lie so much?
Yes D, obviously if I disagree with the findings of said propaganda I mustn't have read it. Brilliant logic Mr Spock!
If UHI is responsible for almost all the warming signal in the USHCN, how come the USCRN over the same time period matches Menne's analysis of USHCN so well?
You're full of it, Gator.
You're just a liar - pathetic!
Do you know the difference between "cool" (an absolute state) and "cooling" (a trend)?
Man, you are dumb.
"As mentioned, almost every siting problem will result in warming bias. I doubt you can concoct, much less find, one that would result in cooling bias."
So, what kind of cooling bias?
First, Joanne Nova runs a despicable lie site and is a despicable climate liar herself (we've had conversations) - and has published zero climate work - she had a kids' science show in Australia, which seems to be her only expertise.
Second, she chose her B example from a faulty dataset:
cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20140440
Quote: "Previous assessment of trends and uncertainty in HadAT is likely to have underestimated the systematic bias in tropical mean temperature trends. This objective assessment of radiosonde homogenization supports the conclusions of the synthesis report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), and associated research, regarding potential bias in tropospheric temperature records from radiosondes."
camels.metoffice.gov.uk/quarc/Titchner09.pdf
Quote: "Therefore, remaining biases in the radiosonde temperature
record may account for the apparent tropical lapse rate discrepancy between radiosonde data and
climate models. Furthermore, the authors find that the unadjusted global and NH extratropical tropospheric
trends are biased cold in the daytime radiosonde observations."
Second cite is from David Evans, a very well known denialist liar - a computer programmer who claims to be a climate expert because he once worked on a temp budgeting program. He's never published any climate science either. Also, Joanne Nova's husband/partner/whatever.
Notice he is using the same faulty radiosonde data. ;)
Not holding my breath, of course, as Climategate as a scandal is dead as a doorknob and has been since day one.
Just checking back.
www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html
The IPCC itself claims low to medium-low LOSU (Level Of Scientific Understanding) for EVERY 'forcing' influence on climate except for CO2 and CH4. This is like the drunk looking for his lost car keys under the streetlamp -- even though he dropped them elsewhere -- because the light is better.
???????? Wassat? My guesser is broke.
...False. Don't you read your own cites? lol
This is like the drunk looking for his lost car keys under the streetlamp -- even though he dropped them elsewhere -- because the light is better.
...Nope, forcing from CO2 and CH4 is relatively well understood, especially considering the first was noticed a century or more ago. And, of course, CO2 is exactly where the apparently-drunk deniers pretend the keys cannot be, because that is where their fossil fool paymasters want their attention focused.
...ABCD. Anything But Carbon Dioxide - the climate liar's mantra. lol
It has a wide daily, monthly, annual and decadal range of variation, and comparitively huge effect on surface warming -- but is a mystery to those confident hectoring IPCC wannabe global energy rationers.
Like so much else.
It is, after all, figured into pretty much every climate model in some form.
Lovely lie article by climate liar Tim Ball, BTW. It's a shame people read that sort of thing and miss the glaring distortions. lol
Paai
The title:
"Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful"
The last paragraph:
"With NOAA’s failure to make further concise public statements on this sensational story it is left to public speculation and ‘citizen scientists’ to ascertain whether ten years or more of temperature data sets from satellites such as NOAA-16 are unreliable and worthless."
From "official" to public speculation. Good to know. Most denialists aren't this truthful. =)
To be a "denialist", there must be a fact to be denied.
It'll be interesting to watch "citizen scientists" work globally.
scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
Examples of common topics in which denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming denialism, Holocaust denial, HIV/AIDS denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, Tobacco Carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship.
...5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.
Finally, some ground rules. We don't argue with cranks. Part of understanding denialism is knowing that it's futile to argue with them, and giving them yet another forum is unnecessary. They also have the advantage of just being able to make things up and it takes forever to knock down each argument as they're only limited by their imagination while we're limited by things like logic and data. Recognizing denialism also means recognizing that you don't need to, and probably shouldn't argue with it. Denialists are not honest brokers in the debate (you'll hear me harp on this a lot). They aren't interested in truth, data, or informative discussion, they're interested in their world view being the only one, and they'll say anything to try to bring this about.
Three can keep a secret if two are dead.
-Benjamin Franklin
What are denialist conspiracy theories and why should people be instantly distrustful of them? And what do they have to do with denialism?
Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn't because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it's that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information.
But how could it be possible, for instance, for every nearly every scientist in a field be working together to promote a falsehood? People who believe this is possible simply have no practical understanding of how science works as a discipline. For one, scientists don't just publish articles that reaffirm a consensus opinion. Articles that just rehash what is already known or say "everything is the same" aren't interesting and don't get into good journals. Scientific journals are only interested in articles that extend knowledge, or challenge consensus (using data of course). Articles getting published in the big journals like Science or Nature are often revolutionary (and not infrequently wrong), challenge the expectations of scientists or represent some phenomenal experiment or hard work (like the human genome project). The idea that scientists would keep some kind of exceptional secret is absurd, or that, in the instance of evolution deniers, we only believe in evolution because we've been infiltrated by a cabal of "materialists" is even more absurd. This is not to say that real conspiracies never occur, but the assertion of a conspiracy in the absence of evidence (or by tying together weakly correlated and nonsensical data) is usually the sign of a crackpot. Belief in the Illuminati, Zionist conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracies, holocaust denial conspiracies, materialist atheist evolution conspiracies, global warming science conspiracies, UFO government conspiracies, pharmaceutical companies suppressing altie-med conspiracies, or what have you, it almost always rests upon some unnatural suspension of disbelief in the conspiracy theorist that is the sign of a truly weak mind. Hence, our graphic to denote the presence of these arguments - the tinfoil hat.
A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned.
- Nature, 8 Nov 1906
Here at denialism blog, we're very interested in what makes people cranks. Not only how one defines crankish behavior, but literally how people develop unreasonable attitudes about the world in the face of evidence to the contrary. Our definition of a crank, loosely, is a person who has unreasonable ideas about established science or facts that will not relent in defending their own, often laughable, version of the truth. Central to the crank is the "overvalued idea". That is some idea they've incorporated into their world view that they will not relinquish for any reason. Common overvalued ideas that are a source of crankery range from bigotry, antisemitism(holocaust deniers), biblical literalism (creationists - especially YEC's), egotism (as it relates to the complete unwillingness to ever be proven wrong) or an indiscriminant obsession with possessing "controversial" or iconoclastic ideas. Some people just love believing in things that no one in their right mind does, out of some obscure idea that it makes them seem smart or different.
The OED definition of a crank seems to be a little old-fashioned:
5. colloq. (orig. U.S.). A person with a mental twist; one who is apt
to take up eccentric notions or impracticable projects; esp. one who is
enthusiastically possessed by a particular crotchet or hobby; an
eccentric, a monomaniac. [This is prob. a back-formation from CRANKY,
sense 4.] Also attrib. and Comb.
The OED etymology suggests it's been in use for about 180 years, but I don't think it was defined well until that Nature quote in 1906 (which very poetically describes the problem) that the definition seems to take shape. Cranks aren't interested in debate, nor do they respond to reason, they'll just blather on about their idiotic pet theory until everyone in the room has fled or opened a vein. Another take on that quote might be that a crank can only be turned one way, which would fit with the mechanical metaphor and suggest they're only ever interested in spouting one line of reasoning.
Wikipedia has an excellent wiki on cranks; I find their criteria are more modern :
1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
For our next installment of the big five tactics in denialism we'll discuss the tactic of selectivity, or cherry-picking of data.
Denialists tend to cite single papers supporting their idea (often you have to squint to see how it supports their argument). Similarly they dig up discredited or flawed papers either to suggest they are supported by the scientific literature, or to disparage a field making it appear the science is based on weak research. Quote mining is also an example of "selective" argument, by using a statement out of context, just like using papers or data out of context, they are able to sow confusion. Here at denialism blog we'll use the cherries to denote the presence of selectivity in a denialist screed.
selectivity
Examples abound. Such as when HIV/AIDS denialists harp about Gallo fudging the initial identification of HIV (a famous dispute about whether or not he stole Montagnier's virus) to suggest the virus was never actually identified or that the field rests on a weak foundation. Jonathan Wells likes to harp endlessly about Haeckels' embryos to suggest that the tens of thousands of other papers on the subject of evolution, and the entire basis of genetics, biology and biochemistry are wrong.
One of the main reasons this is such an effective tactic to use on science is that when something is shown to be incorrect, we can't "purge" the literature so the bad papers stay there forever. Only when a paper is retracted is the literature actually restored, and there's a lot of research and researchers that got things wrong on the way to figuring out a problem. It's really just the nature of research, we make mistakes, but the self-correcting nature of science helps get us incrementally closer to some form of scientific truth. It is up to the individual researcher to read and quote more than the papers that support their foregone conclusion, as one has to develop theories that effectively synthesize all the data and represent an understanding of an entire field, not just quote the data one likes.
Then there is the issue of selective quotation of perfectly good science or scientists. For example, see our post on how the Family Research council misrepresents data on contraception to promote their political agenda. Talk Origins has an entire quote-mine project devoted to documenting how creationists misrepresent scientists to advance their agenda.
This tendency towards quote-mining and misrepresentation of science is really the clearest proof of the dishonesty inherent in denialist tactics (with the possible exception in the case of Intelligent Design Creationism of the wedge document - but an internal statement of denialists' goals is usually hard to come by). Selectivity is exceedingly common, and proof that many denialists aren't just intellectually, but morally bankrupt.
You know who they are - those organizations that have words like "freedom" and "rights" "choice" and "consumer" in their names but always shill for corporate interests...those occasional MDs or engineers creationists find that will say evolution has nothing to do with science. They are the fake experts.
But how do we tell which experts are fake and which are real?
To figure out who is a fake expert you have to figure out what a real expert is. My definition would be a real expert is someone with a thorough understanding of the field they are discussing, who accurately represents the scientific literature and the state of understanding of the scientific enterprise. There has been some other other discussion on scienceblogs from Janet at Adventures in Ethics and Science, it also reiterates some of the same points in relation to what she feels comfortable discussing as an expert. It also stresses the importance of context in evaluating the validity of expert opinion. But I'm not the god of the dictionary so let's consider some other definitions.
The OED gives the definition simply as "One whose special knowledge or skill causes him to be regarded as an authority; a specialist. Also attrib., as in expert evidence, witness, etc."
I don't think this is adequate to describe what we really mean though, that is, how do you identify a trusted source of scientific information?
Legally (in the US), scientific expertise had been defined by whether the testimony the expert provided conforms to the so-called Frye rule from 1923 until 1993 when the Daubert vs. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals case changed the definition to be consistent with the federal rules of evidence. The Frye rule was that scientific testimony was valid if the theory it was based on was "generally accepted", that is it was admissible if the theory on which the evidence was based had a somewhat arbitrary critical mass of followers in the scientific field.
I'm sorry for mixing terminologies. But moving goalposts isn't adequate to describe the full hilarity of the kinds of arguments denialists make. For instance, the goalposts never have to be moved when they require evidence that places them somewhere in the land before time. What I mean is the use, by denialists, of the absence of complete and absolute knowledge of a subject to prevent implementation of sound policies, or acceptance of an idea or a theory.
So while moving goalposts describes a way of continuing to avoid acceptance of a theory after scientists have obligingly provided additional evidence that was a stated requirement for belief, impossible expectations describes a way to make it impossible for scientists to ever prove anything to the satisfaction of the denialist. They're related though so we'll group both together.
Let's take the example of the global warming deniers. One finds that they harp endlessly about models, how much models suck, how you can't model anything, on and on and on. True, models are hard, anything designed to prognosticate such a large set of variables as those involved in climate is going to be highly complex, and I'll admit, I don't understand them worth a damn. Climate science in general is beyond me, and I read the papers in Science and Nature that come out, blink a few times, and then read the editors description to see why I should care. But with or without models, which I do trust the scientists and peer-reviewers involved to test adequately, that doesn't change the fact that actual measurement of global mean temperature is possible, and is showing an alarmingly steep increase post-industrialization.
The next thing the global warming deniers harp on is about how we don't have enough records of temperature to make a educated statement about whether our climate is really heating up that much as the instrumental record only goes about 150 years back. Then you show them proxy records that go back a thousand years, and after they're done accusing people of falsifying, they say it's still not enough, then you go back a few tens of thousands of years, and it's still not enough, then finally you go back about 750 thousand years and they say, that's just 0.0001% of the earth's history! That's like a blink of the eye in terms of earth's climate. Then you sigh and wish for painless death. I'll let real-climate fight the fights over proxy records and CO2 lag, because, simply, they know a lot more than me, and if you really want to argue with global warming denialists I recommend reading A Few Things Ill Considered's Faq first. But what I can recognize is the tendency of the global warming deniers to constantly move the goalposts back and back, and once they whip out the argument we've only got proxy measurements for a fraction of earths life (a mere few hundred thousand years), you know they've graduated to impossible expectations.
A person who wasn't just obviously stonewalling would say after you've shown them this much data that maybe we should take the data as is before we're all under water.
Almost everybody knows about the fallacies of logic, formal and informal, that are routinely used in arguments with denialists. While these fallacies aren't perfect examples of logic that show when an argument is always wrong, they are good rules of thumb to tell when you're listening to bunk, and if you listen to denialists you'll hear plenty. I wish they'd teach these to high school students as a required part of their curriculum, but it probably would decrease the efficacy of advertisement on future consumers.
The problem comes when the denialists get a hold of the fallacies then accuse you, usually, of ad hominem! It goes like this.
Denialist says something wacky...
Commenter or blogger corrects their mistake...
Denialist says same thing, changes argument slightly...
Commenter or blogger again corrects their mistake...
Denialist says something even wackier, says it disproves all of a field of science...
Commenter or blogger, exasperated, corrects it and threatens disemvowelment...
Denialist restates original wacky argument...
Commenter or blogger's head explodes, calls denialist an idiot.
Denialist says he won because commenter or blogger resorted to ad hominem.
The thing to remember about logical fallacies is that their violation isn't proof or disproof of the validity of the opponent's argument. Your opponent might just be an idiot, but ultimately right. Some people just don't know how to argue or keep their temper. Logical fallacies are rules of thumb to identify when portions of arguments are poorly constructed or likely irrational. They are dependent on context, and aren't really rigorous proofs of the validity or invalidity of any argument.
Further, some fallacies, like ad hominem are poorly understood, so when an opponent says you're wrong because of this this and this therefor you're an idiot, the poor victim of the ad hominem feels like they can claim victory over the argument. When in reality ad hominem refers to the dismissal of an argument by just insulting the person. Time and time again you see someone exasperated by the crank who won't turn despite being shown again and again where their error is, and finally just call the guy an idiot. That's actually not an ad hominem. That might be totally true and highly relevant to the argument at hand. Sometimes people are just too stupid or too ignorant to realize when they've been soundly thrashed, and true cranks will stubbornly go on, and on and on...
0 credibilty.
Alarmists are so gullible.
Who wants to know how to be an effective crank?
Well, I've outlined what I think are the critical components of successful crankiness. Ideally, this will serve as a guide to those of you who want to come up with a stupid idea, and then defend it against all evidence to the contrary.
Here's how you do it:
Step one: Develop a wacky idea.
It is critical that your wacky idea must be something pretty extraordinary. A good crank shoots for the stars. You don't defend to the death some simple opinion, like Coke is better than Pepsi. You've got to think big! You've got to do something like deny HIV causes AIDS, or relativity, or reject an entire field of biology, or deny the earth is older than 6000 years. If you can't think of anything, try reading the Bible for claims that are now obviously ludicrous - like the possibility of climbing into heaven using a ladder. Insist on its literal truth.
The thing you deny has to be something that's so obvious to the majority of people that when they hear it, they want to hear an explanation, if only because it's clearly going to be nuts. This is critical to all successive steps. If you don't say something outrageous and contrarian, no one will ever see you as the iconoclastic genius that you are.
The presentation of this idea is also important. Remember that really important people with really important ideas don't have time for grammar or spelling. Also try interesting use of punctuation!!!!, CAPITALization and text color. When you EMPHASIZE things people will inevitably take your more seriously.
Make sure that you develop new physical laws, name them after yourself, and if you must cite anything, either cite your own name or work, or that of another crank. If you're feeling bold cite some famous scientist, like Einstein, but don't list a specific passage, just assume that they said or did something that supports your idea. After all you're both geniuses, you must think alike!
It's also important during your research of this new idea, never to be worried about preserving the original intent of other authors you quote or cite. If any words they say can be construed to mean something else, that's ok too. Academic license is part of academic freedom.
Whenever possible try to include figures. Line drawings and diagrams with complicated mathematical symbols are ideal. Remember, most people don't know calculus, include equations you find in other books to prove the mathematical or physical relationship you have discovered. The type of people who will believe your idea aren't big into checking others' work for consistency, so it will be OK. Those that do would never believe you anyway, but by the time they get around to that, you'll have a cult following.
This can be done many ways.
The old-school method is to spend your day job writing angry letters to politicians, newspaper editors, and anyone else that you thought might listen to you.
Cranks with independent wealth can self-publish their own book (I have many of these provided courtesy of an astronomer friend whose institute regularly receives such works and places them in their "crank file"). A book lends credibility, especially to other cranks who think that anyone who could actually focus their intellects for long enough to write a book, must be onto something. Ideally, send your book to scientists in the field you are trying to undermine, they'll know just where to put them. If your idea has a more mainstream appeal, send it to church leaders and various pundits who might give it some play in their pulpits.
These days, technology has provided us what is known as a blog. Your target audience, despite the improvements in technology, are just as likely not to care as before. Less so, because now they don't even have to experience the inconvenience of opening your crank letter or having to file your crank book. The secret to generating traffic then is exploiting the fact that the internet gives access to all sorts of people who will be irritated by your mere presence. Leave comments in others blogs that describe how you have solved this big problem, where everyone else has failed. Ideally, get a minion to constantly extol your virtues and genius. If one is lacking just sockpuppet yourself from another computer. It's not even necessary to leave comments at science blogs or (real) skeptic sites. Any site will do, bother cat fanciers, tech geeks, whoever. Traffic will inevitably follow.
All great minds will be criticized by peon scientists who have grown fat and bloated with public grant funds. They've been feeding at the public coffers for so long, they wouldn't know an original idea if it fell out of the ether and struck them on their thick skulls. Here are some simple responses to common criticisms:
Accusation: "You haven't published in a real peer-reviewed journal"
Response: Either say "Peer review is just an old-boys network for peon scientists to pat each other on the back", or accuse journal editors of persecuting you. Compare yourself to Galileo.
Accusation: "You don't have solid proof"
Response: Either restate what you said already, restate it slightly differently, call your accuser a name, or suggest they are part of the conspiracy to hide the truth. Compare yourself to Galileo.
Accusation: "Because of X, Y, and Z, your theory is false and you're an idiot"
Response: Yell "That's Ad Hominem - I win the argument" (and that they've persecuted you).
Accusation: "Because of X, Y and Z, you are wrong"
Response: If they fail to call you an idiot, there are a few ways to respond to this. Either nitpick an aspect of their argument so that you can ignore the rest while diverting the discussion into a meaningless tangent. Or cut and paste large sections of print or references to papers that may or may not agree with you (the exhaustion strategy). Finally, it's always a good idea to just ignore them and restate your original argument. Alternatively demand they provide you with *scientific* evidence that their theory is the correct one. If they do, ignore it and restate your original argument.
Accusation: "No credible scientists or scientific agencies believe this theory"
Response: "That's because they're part of a conspiracy to hide the truth!" In addition assert motives for the conspiracy like maintaining control over the populace, spreading materialistic atheist dogma, acquiring grant money, etc. Don't forget to challenge orthodoxy and compare yourself to Galileo! He was persecuted by the orthodoxy too! Remember, whenever a majority of scientists believe anything, that means it's wrong. Cite Kuhn, compare yourself to Galileo again.
If they show up at your blog and leave comments, remember to delete anything critical at all, dissent must not be tolerated on your home turf. Anything critical might damage the proof of your unassailable intellect, and the absence of critique will make it appear as if your critics are afraid to engage you on your own turf.
You see? It's easy! All you have to do is ignore anything that contradicts your theory, nitpick others' arguments, force them to explain themselves, accuse them of lying, accuse them of conspiring against the truth, exhaust them with dumps of links or citations, repeat yourself, and compare yourself to Galileo, because he had problems convincing the orthodoxy too. Also, don't forget to call yourself a skeptic, or dissident, or iconoclast.
You haven't graduated to being a full crank until you've been persecuted. Here are some suggestions:
1. If you are faculty at a university, make sure to write a book about your crank idea. When the other members at the department decide to deny you tenure because of your moronic ideas or call you an idiot claim persecution!
2. If you work at an office, make sure you spend your time promoting your crank idea. Tell everybody about it. Send mass emails about it. Leave copies of your "monograph" where your boss and others can find it - like the breakroom. If you're fired for pursuing your crankery on the job claim persecution!
3. If someone shows up at your website or forum and points out the flaws in your argument claim persecution!
4. If anyone calls you an idiot, a moron, a pseudoscientist, a crank, or denialist claim persecution!
5. If people don't immediately accept your idea upon hearing it claim persecution!
6. If they won't teach your idea in public schools as fact claim persecution!
7. If they won't teach the controversy over your ideas in public schools claim persecution!
8. If people criticize journals for publishing your papers claim persecution!
9. If people circulate petitions against teaching your ideas claim persecution!
10. If a journalists covers only the scientific side and doesn't cover yours claim persecution!
11. If no one visits your site or listens to you claim persecution!
12. If no one persecutes you claim persecution!
In this modern world there is such a thing as "parity of ideas". Everything must be balanced against its opposite. If anyone says anything that contradicts you, it is your right to be able to counter what they say for "balance", even if you don't have proof or credibility. If they don't do this you are being persecuted.
lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2007/03/pseudoscientific-method.html
Let's start with that.
My studies began in 1981. You have some catching up to do.
Now go lie some more, it's what you do. lol
As I told a senior member of the IPCC, the lie of AGW will most definitely be exoposed over time, because the Earth refuses to cooperate with this worn out theory.
The earth cooperates with AGW theory every single day, 24/7/365:
acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7-15.gif
Any confusion? Ask the Pentagon.
October 2003: Pentagon Report Predicts Global Warming Will Result in Resource Wars, Chaos
Edit event
A Pentagon-commissioned analysis on the potential impact of rapid global climate change warns that such an event would likely cause global instability on a massive scale as governments try by any means to defend and secure diminishing food, water, and energy supplies. “Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,” the report suggests. “Once again, warfare would define human life.” Wealthier nations “may build virtual fortresses around their countries”in order to keep out millions of starving and displaced refugees. The report’s authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network, believe the threat is serious and possibly imminent. Randall tells the London Observer that it may already be too late to avert a disaster. “We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,” he says. In their analysis, the authors say the issue “should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern.” It is “plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.” The report recommends additional research on the issue and preparing a contingency plan to deal with the potential impacts of a catastrophic change in the climate. “No-regrets strategies should be identified and implemented to ensure reliable access to food supply and water, and to ensure national security.” [US Department of Defense, 10/2003; Fortune, 2/9/2004; Observer, 2/22/2004] The report was commissioned by Andrew Marshall, an influential Defense adviser who heads the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment. According to the Observer, the report is suppressed for months by top officials. [Observer, 2/22/2004]
...So, now, in addition to the world's scientists, scientific organizations, national governments, and centers of learning, the most powerful military on the face of the planet has joined the conspiracy against you brave fighters for truth, justice, and teabags. What an exciting life you must lead! =)
Glad you got the "prove a negative" thingy. Good for you! Now you may understand how silly it is for you to ask us to disprove AGW, something that does not exist. It is akin to asking one to prove ghosts do not exist It is up to you to prove the positive.
"On cue, aspiring Obama administration climate thug Joe Romm of the Soros-funded Climate Progress – who blamed the Minneapolis bridge collapse on global warming, among other absurdities – and David “Nuremburg-syle trials for those bastards” Roberts of Grist did what they’re paid to do: change the subject by attacking the person with names and slurs."
Slurs you say? Like "jackass".
Take a deep breath and hold it.
Another Gator lie.
acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7-15.gif
Now, change the subject again.
Nice graph.
Start here:
Blaming a 3% of a minor greenhouse gas for AGW/ACC/Snakeoil is like yelling at your couch!
4.bp.blogspot.com/_1aOzUxvOj5k/Rx1Xl6fBnTI/AAAAAAAAARc/efy9rKgQoGc/s1600/side%2Bby%2Bside%2Bgraphs.JPG
BTW, without CO2 in the atmosphere, we would freeze even with the sun, which shoots your "can't be CO2" argument right in the Gator.
Oh, and we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 37% or more, not 3%. Please try to get these things straight.
No, CO2 has increased @ 38% and only about 3% of that is from man. And your statement regarding CO2 and freezing shows just how little you understood about what I posted. Geez!
Wrong.
You can't even get your facts right. No wonder you're a denier.
...Now you are trying to pretend the argument isn't about CO2. Desperation at its finest. Sorry, but that spectrum automatically takes into account every process occurring in Earth's atmosphere.
...But once again pretending a cooling sun causes more warming noted. lol
No, CO2 has increased @ 38% and only about 3% of that is from man.
...A blatant, ridiculous lie. We have added ~37% of the current atmospheric CO2 by burning fossil fuels, as isotopic studies repeatedly show, and we are adding another 3% of the total per year.
And your statement regarding CO2 and freezing shows just how little you understood about what I posted. Geez!
...You think I misunderstood a third grade comment like "without the sun we would freeze?" You got that from the Twilight Zone episode, no doubt, because you sure as hell didn't get to college writing stupid crap like that. CO2 has nothing to do with your comment either, you threw it in so you could lie about it. Without the sun, we'd freeze with an atmosphere of CO@, lead, plutonium, or baby shoes. Your argument is so pathetic, I kind of feel an odd sort of pity for you. lol
...So no, it just shows you totally misunderstand snowball earth facts, or are distorting them for fun.
environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/greenhouse.htm
...Quote: "This phenomenon is what scientists call the "greenhouse effect." Without it, scientists estimate that the average temperature on Earth would be colder by approximately 30 degrees Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit), far too cold to sustain our current ecosystem."
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304142228.htm
...Once again, same as through the entire thread, you are a slam dunk walking, with a big empty mouth. =)
Hint - you will not find it at the collusional delusional Soros funded doomer websites. Those sites are OK if you are just looking for the same old disproven talking points, but not so much for science.
Your figures on CO2 are wrong. Your figures assume no natural additions. 97% of the CO2 in our atmosphere is naturally occurring. "Most carbon dioxide — about 97 percent — comes from natural sources. That's roughly 300 billion metric tons per year of CO2 gas from breathing animals, decaying plants, forest fires, volcanic eruptions and other naturally occurring phenomena." Oopsy!
Now to address those links. About.com? Really? OK, what do they have to say...
"Question: What Causes Global Warming?
Answer: Scientists have determined that a number of human activities are contributing to global warming by adding excessive amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide accummulate in the atmosphere and trap heat that normally would exit into outer space." Oopsy, someone forgot the Sun and thinks the debate is over!
Next is a nice but terribly brief article about "snowball earth". Yawn. I was a geology major and studied under the man who wrote the first nationally accepted geology textbook.
Do you have anything new to add? If not please find a site whre you will be appreciated. I hear the echo is wonderful at Realclimate!
The facts, which you cannot disprove:
www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html
Quote: "Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution."
D-ck knocked in the dirt again. You'd think you'd learn. =)
"Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere." True, but if you notice the next statement is separate... "In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution." What they just said is that CO2 levels are 35% higher today. What they did not say is that man is responsible for all of that increse, just that man added some CO2.
If they wanted to attribute the 35% increase soley to man (and boy do they!) it would have read..."In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. Human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, are responsible for this increase." That is not what they are saying or they would have worded it differently. What the EPA has done here is cause you and others to "infer" that all of the increase is from man, but that is not what they said.
Oh look, it must have been your d*ck in the dirt!
CO2 from burning of fossil fuels is widely accepted to be in the 35-40% range of all atmospheric CO2. That's pretty much all there is to say about that. Readers, feel free to check.
www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/images/02a.jpg
It shows 95% is naturally occurring and that is close enough for me (+/-2%).
Given that ~3,500 kCal is equivalent to one pound of body fat, come back to us in a year, two years, 5 years and 10 years and report what your weight is.
It's only a 3% increase; what's the problem?
Try again!
Earth with CO2 20x present would be a very different place, highly unlikely to have the same ecosystems as now upon which we ~7 billion are critically dependent. There would be lots of kinds of living things around, probably, but just not including us humans.
Does that count as "no problem"?
Previous doomers claimed that by the 1980's the peoples of the Earth would be at each others throats fighting over ever dwindling food stocks. Much like AGW, it never happened. Why? Because man, like nature, is resilient and found ways to increase food production and saved countless lives thru proper use of resources, including fossil fuels. Not only do we produce more food than we need, we have so much that we pump it into internal combustion engines and burn it! Increased CO2 means greater food production, not to mention faster reforestation and good news all down the food chain.
Every era throughout history has had its doomers and they have always been wrong. "The end is near" has become a joke, check the funnies page. There are REAL threats we could face such as meteors, massive vulcanism or another ice age. These are scenarios that deserve our atttention, and instead we waste time, money and resources demonizing the basis of all life on this big blue marble.
It may be that the plants that are favored by higher CO2 are unsuitable for our consumption. Imagine a planet chock-full of inedible plants. Would that be good?
Strange how you think that we can adapt to increasing CO2, but we're unable to mitigate the CO2 increase in the first place by transitioning away from fossil fuels. Why are we smart with adaptation, but utterly befuddled by mitigation?
The kicker is if adaptation is always more expensive than mitigation. For every dollar you want us not to spend on mitigation, it will cost us (say) 2 dollars, or 5 dollars, on adaptation as a result. Why are you so set on adaptation-only?
Someone needs to get some pliers and help you extricate that AGW hook lodged deep in your throat.
And yes, greater biodiversity does mean "able to support more life". And sorry Defraudo, we are a naturally occurring species.
Let's get back to that pesky proof I have asked you for, going on weeks now. You have dodged it each and every time. I want to see where the alarmists have actually sought out alternative answers to make certain they are right about AGW. Where have they tried to disprove AGW in order to validate it as fact.
I'm calling Soros and telling him he is not getting his money's worth!
Can you not argue without deceit?
You're beneath contempt.
You're just like all the other deniers - bereft of any ethics when it comes to arguments.
OK, how about one more time... "The kicker is if adaptation is always more expensive than mitigation. For every dollar you want us not to spend on mitigation, it will cost us (say) 2 dollars, or 5 dollars, on adaptation as a result. Why are you so set on adaptation-only?"
Where were you misqouted? Is it or is it not your assertion that adaptation is always more expensive than mitigation? You truly are gone! Smoke another bong load and try again!
What is it?
Tell me.
Show me.
Some facts:
news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22205
ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/sCO2plants.asp
Looks like many plants do poorly in increased CO2. Oopsie! Knocked in the dirt again. lol
I actually conducted experiments on crops and increased CO levels as far back as 1977. My results were as follows, the more CO2 I added to the atmosphere, the larger and healthier the plants. I will admit to not studying inedible plants, but commercial greenhouses have proven the value of high CO2 levels for decades on everything from roses to marijuana.
You continue to cite the usual suspects and do not seem to have much knowledge of youyr own. I can finds sites that claim to prove ghosts are real, so what? Until you come up with proof you will remain simply a noisy chattering irritant.
Please understand your advances on my privates is still creepy.
...So, when do you start? lol What you really mean is that you can find a bunch of crap from industry funded liars, publicity seekers, and lone k00ks like Lord Haw-Haw Monckton. Actual science? Zero and holding. lol
I actually conducted experiments on crops and increased CO levels as far back as 1977.
....Sorry, now that you've admitted to lying, we have no reason to believe you at all. None whatsoever.
You continue to cite the usual suspects
...What you mean is, you have not been able to prove me wrong on one thing I've said or one cite I've produced in this entire thread.
Until you come up with proof you will remain simply a noisy chattering irritant.
....Cool. Ready for another punch to the groin? Here it is.
www.state.gov/documents/organization/140636.pdf
Quote: "Between 1990 and 2007, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion increased from 4,708.9 Tg CO2 Eq. to 5,735.8 Tg CO2 Eq., a 21.8 percent total increase over the 17-year period."
...I guess your EPA lies join the rest in the dustbin. Knocked in the dirt again. lol
Please understand your advances on my privates is still creepy.
....I understand you're too stupid to get a figure of speech, yes. That is creepy, now that you mention it.. =)
All you have shown is that the debate is far from over. One site claims x and another clams y, big deal. I pay attention to what the Earth actually does. So far, no unnatural warming. Big deal.
He has to be lying about his qualifications or his science, pick one. =)
More of your red herring strawman inanity.
...A lie.
Can you please show me where any of the dire predictions being made by these same parties has ever come try?
True? You mean like the Ozone hole, smog, massive starvation, etc.?
No. Why? Because they are wrong.
....A lie.
Like all doomers that have come before them, they are wrong.
....A lie.
It's been over 20 years since Hansen mopped his brow in front of congress crying about doom to come. 20 years and no warming.
....A lie.
Gee, that is who I would put my trust in, the same people who have been caught time and time again hyping and lying about climate change. 20 years of being wrong.
....A lie.
Yeah, that would be my FIRST choice.
All you have shown is that the debate is far from over. One site claims x and another clams y, big deal.
...Denialism at its finest. lol
I pay attention to what the Earth actually does.
...A lie.
So far, no unnatural warming.
...A lie.
Another typical Gator post - no scientific proof will be offered for any claim he has made whatsoever, because he's talking straight out of his a-s.
You will have to find other ways to entertain yourseelf, I am headed to the ranch!
So, how many humans were alive then? =)
Knocked in the dirt again. lol
I guess math was not your strong suit, or English, geology, biology, etc... We are at 390ppm, times 20 = 7800 ppm. And so you understand, 7800 is less than 100,000.
I think you need a girlfriend, the obsession with my manhood is disturbing.
Oh, wait, that's just the sort of stuff you don't believe in.
www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm
Hmm, even the IPCC agrees with you. If you go by their single researcher, that is. =)
So, given that you were right about the 20x figure 0f 7800 ppm, it really is a shame it's above the transitional limit of 5000 ppm for OSHA (whom you quote).
www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_225400.html
Exposure Limits
OSHA GENERAL INDUSTRY PEL: 5000 ppm; 9000 mg/m3
OSHA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY PEL: 5000 ppm, 9000 mg/m3 TWA
ACGIH TLV: 5000 ppm, 9000 mg/m3 TWA; 30,000 ppm, 54,000 mg/m3 STEL
NIOSH REL: 5000 ppm TWA; 30,000 ppm STEL
Knocked in the dirt again. lol
We already covered the isotope issue, please keep up.
You haven't covered it, because you cannot deny it. Isotopic studies have shown that burning fossil fuels has contributed around 37% of current atmospheric CO2.
Any statement to the contrary is an outright lie.
ww2.defra.gov.uk/2010/08/25/cumbria-climate-change/
ww2.defra.gov.uk/2010/08/25/blackpool-climate-change/
Yeah, obviously your source really doesn't believe in global warming.
When we go to a real climate website, we find:
Quote: "Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 382 ppm in 2006 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Earth Systems Research Laboratory, a 36 percent increase."
And www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html says:
"The Fourth U.S. Climate Action Report concluded, in assessing current trends, thatcarbon dioxide emissions increased by 20 percent from 1990-2004, while methane and nitrous oxide emissions decreased by 10 percent and 2 percent, respectively. The declines in methane emissions are due to a variety of technological, policy, and agricultural changes, such as increased capture of methane from landfills for energy, reduced emissions from natural gas systems, and declining cattle populations. At least some of the decline in nitrous oxide emissions is due to improved emissions control technologies in cars, trucks, and other mobile sources."
Your d-ck knocked in the dirt once again. But keep proclaiming your superiority, it's funny. =)
Until you find a credible source, keep it to yourself.
"When we go to the source of the website, DEFRA..." Oh my, my sides are hurting! Please stop you are killing me. Too funny!
Do you have any credible sites?
And you fascination with my genitalia is creepy dude!
www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/images/02a.jpg
www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/
Oh my, my sides are hurting! Please stop you are killing me. Too funny!
Knocked in the dirt again. lol
When I first heard a contrasting opinion I was shocked because I thought that the facts were settled.
As an intelligent person and a truth seeker, I am receptive to differing views and wanted to get to the truth, so I did a lot of research on both sides.
I have now changed my mind. One of the reasons for this is that there is NO evidence for AGW whatsoever and the level of corruption in the UNIPCC is shockingly high.
I truly hope that you will let your anger go and become receptive to checking out differing views on AGW. Only by removing your bias and looking at this in a purely OBJECTIVE way will you learn what the truth is.
Let go of your arrogance and pride and actually check out the sites that Gator provides. Then debate. There can be no debate if all you want to do is call someone a lier without backing it up and without checking out your "opponent's" sources.
Really, if you're not prepared to do that you are not able to look at things in an objective and mature way.
Virtually everything he references is either wrong or the work of cranks, or, if it's legitimate, is misinterpreted and/or abused by him to support his political dogma.
If you've the open mind you claim you do, then start with the real science, not the garbage Gator uses.
When I first heard a contrasting opinion I was shocked because I thought that the facts were settled.
As an intelligent person and a truth seeker, I am receptive to differing views and wanted to get to the truth, so I did a lot of research on both sides.
....I do hope you distinguished between science sites, and special purpose hobby sites created specifically for denialism.
I have now changed my mind. One of the reasons for this is that there is NO evidence for AGW whatsoever and the level of corruption in the UNIPCC is shockingly high.
....Both statements are false, the first one incredibly, totally, 100% false. And please understand, I have studied AGW for four years now, and there are lists covering literally hundreds of pieces of evidence for AGW.. Could you show me the evidence that convinced you?
I truly hope that you will let your anger go and become receptive to checking out differing views on AGW. Only by removing your bias and looking at this in a purely OBJECTIVE way will you learn what the truth is.
....Unwarranted assumptions here. As I say, I've been studying AGWE for about four years now. I've seen the research, and I've seen the lie sites. I object to your accusations of bias, which are ridiculous when all the actual scientific evidence backs me up. That's not bias, it's knowledge. Again, if you know of any actual science refuting me, please do chime in with the link at any time.
Let go of your arrogance and pride and actually check out the sites that Gator provides.
....More unwarranted assumptions. Done, starting years ago.
Then debate. There can be no debate if all you want to do is call someone a lier without backing it up and without checking out your "opponent's" sources.
....More assumption without evidence. I always check out my opponent's sources. And I never make statements I can't back up. If you want backup, ask for it. That's what the recipient is supposed to do. (You'll notice my opponents always skip that step, because they know they're lying.)
Really, if you're not prepared to do that you are not able to look at things in an objective and mature way.
....Assumption. I invite you to show anywhere on this thread where Gator, or the other denialists, have ever acted for a single instant like there is a possibility that carbon based AGW exists. Anywhere, at any time. Then, you may call me biased. =;
Pick any point in the last 500 million years when CO2 and temperatures were high; we'll call this point A. Then pick a subsequent time when CO2 and temperatures were low. Call this point B.
Then explificate how CO2 spontaneously reduced itself and thus the temperature between A and B. Be sure to make it sound reel scientifical!
Your GHG speculation still hasn't contacted reality at any observable point. Care to try again?
So, how does cooling occur, since warming drives CO2 out of ocean solution? Must be something cooled the water, huh? That would be a differentt, and far more powerful driver, I guess.
As for the current slope, it's identical to the last 3 30-yr warming periods in slope and size. All prior to significant industrial CO2 output.
BTW, there has only been a 50ppm increase since the pre-industrial period; Callendar ignored 90% of the perfectly good and competent chemical CO2 level data points from the 19th C. His selected 10% were the lowest available, of course. He was the earlyy model climate faker, on which all the rest of you have built their Tinkertoy models and mansions.
Sorry, that is a proven fact. To quote a well-known saying, "it works every time it's tried."
Which particular molecules make up that portion makes no chemical or physical difference.
...A lie. Their altitude is important in the radiative energy transfer, for one thing.
So, how does cooling occur,
....The usual way.
since warming drives CO2 out of ocean solution?
....Currently the oceans are warming, and yes, the oceanic carbon sink is probably suffering because of it.
Must be something cooled the water, huh? That would be a differentt, and far more powerful driver, I guess.
....Can't really tell what you are talking about here. Anything will cool if you put it in a cooler space. Fact is, the oceans are warming.
As for the current slope, it's identical to the last 3 30-yr warming periods in slope and size. All prior to significant industrial CO2 output.
....Cite, please.
BTW, there has only been a 50ppm increase since the pre-industrial period; Callendar ignored 90% of the perfectly good and competent chemical CO2 level data points from the 19th C. His selected 10% were the lowest available, of course. He was the earlyy model climate faker, on which all the rest of you have built their Tinkertoy models and mansions.
....Yes, we've seen this hoax before. Quack Zbigniew Jaworowski lied to congress with it. It's based on this "paper" by a high school teacher, and .....published in fake denialist journal E&E.
80 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods
By Ermst-Georg Beck, Energy & Environment, Volume 18 No. 2 2007,
Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd.
....Of course, it's bullsh-t.
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/remember_eg_becks_dodgy.php
rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/beckies-as-tonstant-weader-knows-eli.html
In the meantime, I see you continue to want to discuss CO2 levels millions of years ago when humans did not exist, instead of the (37% fossil-fuel-isotope CO2) exponential trend of today, with this last decade the warmest on record.
Too funny. lol
Hint: Respiration can't add additional carbon to the biosphere.
As an impartial reader I would have to say both of you lose. The data for and against is so poorly compiled I would not use it for a $10 bet in vegas - never mind billions or trillions in worldwide taxes. Good thinking, though. Please keep it up.
He's a dirtbag.
Well, since it appears you have no argument and only insults, my work is done.
That's great, huh? How about this gem, also from Pete, "May I suggest that you sum yourself up beatifully in your comments. “You sure do have a lot of bluster and not a whole lot backing it up. All hat, no cattle. Still. Forever?”. I think that you are correct “you're an ignorable boob.” “You also need to up your maturity level”. “If this is the best you got, you got nuthin'.”
Seems I'm not alone! But one of my fav's is this quote from you... "I think it's time for the climate science community to take on the denialists, their blogosphere minions (often one and the same) and the crap "journalists" head on. They've been trashing the community for years - and ignoring them, or hoping they'll go away, or that the literature is sufficient, is a big mistake. They aren't going away, they have far more influence than they should, and they don't care about the literature.
What we need is a cadre of scientists, well-versed in the nastier aspects of PR, debate, and so on, to take the denialists head-on. No more ****-footing around. The denialists have taken their shots, time to return fire - and from now on, start lofting shells that they'll have to answer. Being on one's back foot all the time is not the way to win a war - and yes, it's a war. Time to go on offense, instead of playing a weak defense (if at all).
Let's put Plimer, McIntyre, Watts, Monckton, Bolt, Delingpole, and all the other morons, on notice. The science community isn't going to play it nice anymore. Yes, be honest - but be ruthless and show them for the charlatans, frauds, liars and scum that they are.
Can you tell I'm pissed? Good!"
Now piss off.
....AAAAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
...You're an imbecilic parrot who knows damn well he's got nothing but other liars. ROFLMAO
If you can't discuss the issue honestly, there's no point in proving you wrong - you'll just keep lying.
Take your own advice.
" .. made a couple of ill-advised statements there that Anthony took out of context and posted at WTFWT. I suspect he contacted Morano, who then linked Watts’ post at his site. That was noticed by my bosses all the way to the top, including the legal department. I haven’t used my real name since. Basically, I got Watts’ goat (by refusing to give him irrelevant personal information) and he got his revenge by embarrassing me professionally. I learned my lesson ..."
Gosh, it seems an honest person would have understood my usage of a nom de plume. I thoroughly described how it was out of concern for my brother and not a cowardly concern for myself. Your assertion that my reasoning was invalid because mu brother could find another job shows your lack of honesty and ethics. You said, "Your brother's political career at NASA is more important than saving America..." So your career is more imporant than saving the planet from CERTAIN DOOOM. What a loser.
As I have properly diagnosed your projection issues I think it would be best if you leave now and seek help.
And I'll sign off with this gem of yours. "I think it's time for the climate science community to take on the denialists, their blogosphere minions (often one and the same) and the crap "journalists" head on. They've been trashing the community for years - and ignoring them, or hoping they'll go away, or that the literature is sufficient, is a big mistake. They aren't going away, they have far more influence than they should, and they don't care about the literature.
What we need is a cadre of scientists, well-versed in the nastier aspects of PR, debate, and so on, to take the denialists head-on. No more ****-footing around. The denialists have taken their shots, time to return fire - and from now on, start lofting shells that they'll have to answer. Being on one's back foot all the time is not the way to win a war - and yes, it's a war. Time to go on offense, instead of playing a weak defense (if at all).
Let's put Plimer, McIntyre, Watts, Monckton, Bolt, Delingpole, and all the other morons, on notice. The science community isn't going to play it nice anymore. Yes, be honest - but be ruthless and show them for the charlatans, frauds, liars and scum that they are.
Can you tell I'm pissed? Good!"
Again, piss off.
You're just like Watts - no cred on the science, so you resort to personal attacks.
I say give them the mic and watch the crediblity continue to drain from their message.
...Cite, please.
What we need is a cadre of scientists, well-versed in the nastier aspects of PR, debate, and so on, to take the denialists head-on. No more ****-footing around. The denialists have taken their shots, time to return fire - and from now on, start lofting shells that they'll have to answer. Being on one's back foot all the time is not the way to win a war - and yes, it's a war. Time to go on offense, instead of playing a weak defense (if at all).
Let's put Plimer, McIntyre, Watts, Monckton, Bolt, Delingpole, and all the other morons, on notice. The science community isn't going to play it nice anymore. Yes, be honest - but be ruthless and show them for the charlatans, frauds, liars and scum that they are.
Can you tell I'm pissed? Good!"
Why don't you and your D-lusional buddy go back to your holes.
(crap describing scientific debate as over-the-top rhetoric snipped.)
We see thru you guys, you're not clever. You do not care to debate, you are simply here to be s-disturbers. Why do you think I have taken so much of my time with you guys while you argue in circles. I can harrass with the best of them!
Playing the man, not the ball.
I see why you like Watts - he does the same thing.
One of the refuges of scoundrels.
"Playing the man, not the ball."
That is virtually all you do.
"All hat no cattle"
"Crank"
"not 130 pounds soaking wet"
"thuper thecret"
But of course that was always your plan.
"Let's put Plimer, McIntyre, Watts, Monckton, Bolt, Delingpole, and all the other morons, on notice. The science community isn't going to play it nice anymore. Yes, be honest - but be ruthless and show them for the charlatans, frauds, liars and scum that they are."
Projection is just one of your many issues, but one of the most obvious. Too bad you could not keep the one admirable Pinot of tahr last quote, honesty. You never had any intent to do anything other than vent and harrass.
"Can you tell I'm pissed? Good!"
Yes this an emotional issue for you and has nothing to do with science.
Take your own advice and play the ball, not the mam.
15 denialist attackers kill environmentalist. 7 others hospitalized.
politicom.moldova.org/news/russian-environmentalist-killed-in-attack-61091-eng.html
www.bellona.org/news/news_2007/enviro_beating
Two logging environmentalists killed - 40 shots fired as they stood by a wall. History of death threats against other members.
www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGAMR370012007
Two environmental reporters murdered:
www.ifex.org/indonesia/2010/08/11/river_dead/
General worldwide threat to environmental reporters from denialists discussed:
www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5722210,00.html
Canadian activist Glen Davis killed in parking garage by man videoed there earlier - video of suspects here:
video.filestube.com/watch,915d6dca91a1832a03e9/Glen-Davis-Murder-2nd-Person-of-Interest-for-ID.html
Two environmentalists killed and radio station staff threatened - One, eight months pregnant, was shot in front of her two year old kid.
www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/salvadoran-environmental-activists-killed-radio-station-staff-threatened-20100105
Closer to home, denialists are frustrated by the law, and often rely on physical assaults and other violence. Don't miss the videos:
environment.change.org/blog/view/violence_escalating_against_anti-coal_activists
And, Sourcewatch has a long list of activists assaulted and killed.
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_and_animal_activists_injured_or_killed
And, of course, we get to count many 9/11 rescue workers, killed when former gas company denialist republican Christine Whitman, appointed by the denialist Bush administration, told them air masks were not needed at ground zero. Thousands may die before it's over.
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/11/cancer-new-york-rescuers
www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_2712.cfm
Yes, the number of environmentalists assaulted and killed by denialists dwarfs anything the denialists want to use as proof against them. Then there are the continual death threats.
ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50607
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/05/hate-mail-climategate
And, of course, denialists may be killing in much larger numbers.
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-climate-change-cause-conflict
(The Pentagon is planning for worldwide climate change violence)
www.wellsphere.com/green-living-article/violence-in-darfur-fueled-by-global-warming/698509
The lucky starve, the unlucky are raped to death or thrown into bonfires.
Typical nonsense from cmb, not one shred of evidence that skeptics are turning violent. We did just see Mr Lee, a true believer in AGW, not just take hostages, but according to police, spent "days" assembling those bombs he strapped to his chest. Days to think about killing innocent humans in order to save Gaia. This is not an impassioned email sent off in frustration over pseudo science. It is not even a dangerously stupid logger who fells a tree to vent his anger over losing the only job he is likely to find or a wife scared to death over how she will feed her kids. James J Lee was a sick man who was driven over the edge by over the top propagand and alarmist rantings.
cmb, you are a confusionist. You post half truths and whole lies and have shown yourself to be an environmental zealot. I hate what the coal industry has done to the natural beauty, flora and fauna of West Virginia but also realize there is a point of balance soemwhere in between. But what you advocate is to turn us back 150 years and place the Earth over man, that is lunacy. Obviously you come at this debate from an impassioned viewpoint, much like Mr Lee did, and have lost all sight of logic and reason.
You should be embarrassed for ever posting such ridiculously unrelated links. I will be sharing this exchange with some very interested parties over the long weekend, you make a very interesting case study.
Happy Labor Day!
...Sorry, that's what you said above. There won't be any goalpost moving here, despite your theft of the word "skeptic" to mean denialist. Denialists exactly as you describe took all the actions listed in my post. Feel free to prove otherwise instead of whining about what nation they were in.
15 denialist attackers kill environmentalist. 7 others hospitalized.
politicom.moldova.org/news/russian-environmentalist-killed-in-attack-61091-eng.html
www.bellona.org/news/news_2007/enviro_beating
Two logging environmentalists killed - 40 shots fired as they stood by a wall. History of death threats against other members.
www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGAMR370012007
Two environmental reporters murdered:
www.ifex.org/indonesia/2010/08/11/river_dead/
General worldwide threat to environmental reporters from denialists discussed:
www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5722210,00.html
Canadian activist Glen Davis killed in parking garage by man videoed there earlier - video of suspects here:
video.filestube.com/watch,915d6dca91a1832a03e9/Glen-Davis-Murder-2nd-Person-of-Interest-for-ID.html
Two environmentalists killed and radio station staff threatened - One, eight months pregnant, was shot in front of her two year old kid.
amnesty.org/.../salvadoran-environmental-activists-killed-radio-station-staff-threatened-20100105
Closer to home, denialists are frustrated by the law, and often rely on physical assaults and other violence. Don't miss the videos:
environment.change.org/blog/view/violence_escalating_against_anti-coal_activists
And, Sourcewatch has a long list of activists assaulted and killed.
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_and_animal_activists_injured_or_killed
And, of course, we get to count many 9/11 rescue workers, killed when former gas company denialist republican Christine Whitman, appointed by the denialist Bush administration, told them air masks were not needed at ground zero. Thousands may die before it's over.
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/11/cancer-new-york-rescuers
www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_2712.cfm
Yes, the number of environmentalists assaulted and killed by denialists dwarfs anything the denialists want to use as proof against them. Then there are the continual death threats.
ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50607
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/05/hate-mail-climategate
And, of course, denialists may be killing in much larger numbers.
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-climate-change-cause-conflict
(The Pentagon is planning for worldwide climate change violence)
www.wellsphere.com/green-living-article/violence-in-darfur-fueled-by-global-warming/698509
The lucky starve, the unlucky are raped to death or thrown into bonfires.
You are not an environmentalist, you are a nonstop climate liar.
.
I only hope cmb is not as far gone as James J Lee, right before he snapped. cmb has cognitive as well as delusional issues and if he keeps ranting we may need to contact the authorities.
When you can show those environmentalists died because they weren't being environmentalists, let me know. lol
....Hey, thanks, you just invalidated your whole diatribe about the zero population hostage guy. How much time did you waste on that, again? lol
When attempting to make an argument, please be aware of the facts.
As for wasting time, that was what I did when I bothered to read your meaningless links. We are discussing the AGW myth and you went off on a tangent about logging and other unrelated issues.
Now please show me the violent AGW skeptics.
And zero population, illegal immigration, international trade, and the entire human economy. Oh, and human breeding itself - kinda invalidates the AGW angle, doesn't it? lol
www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/james-lee-discovery-chann_n_702356.html
Of course, you must pretend he was on about AGW, you have no choice. You have lied yourself into a corner once again.
And it's not a website devoted a warmist like you to come here and call everyone that has a different point of view from you a liar. And on the other hand this is a skeptic website, or it was last time I ckecked.
So, still no science disproving AGW.
Still no proven AGW fraud, other than your own.
Still nor one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory.
Just checking. =)
Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security
• Gen. Chuck Wald, USAF (Ret.)
• Vice Adm. Denny McGinn, USN (Ret.)
• Gen. Chuck Boyd, USAF (Ret.)
• Lt Gen Lawrence Farrell Jr
• Adm. John Nathman, USN (Ret.)
Lt. Gen. Jr.,
• Rear Adm. Dave Oliver Jr., USN Ret.)
USAF (Ret.)
• Gen. Paul Kern, USA (Ret.)
• Gen. Gordon Sullivan, USA (Ret.)
• Vice Adm Dick Truly USN (Ret )
• Gen. Ron Keys, USAF (Ret.)
• Adm. Joe Lopez, USN (Ret.)
Adm. Truly, Ret.)
• Sherri Goodman (Executive Director),
General Counsel, CNA
• Gen. Bob Magnus, USMC (Ret.)
www.cna.org/reports/energy
I haven't seen that a single denier here has even begun to do so.
Why?
It's good to expose their lies and fake sources, but there's no reason to bother except for the benefit of new questioners who find this article - and might be sucked into the denialists' giat rotating rubber ranch, where the arguments change as soon as they're debunked and the sources are bought and paid for politihacks or tenured publicity seekers instead of credible scientists.
The fact that CO2 causes warming is unequivocal and easily demonstrated in any high school lab, and not one denier can explain why it shouldn't also do so outside. All they can do is point to something else (sun, sea, cosmic rays, natural cycles, etc.) and pretend only one thing can drive climate at a time. ;)
A hundred thousand dollars well spent i figure. It has offset the billions spent by the socialist utopian doomers, with change left over.
(Other childish strawman fantasies snipped.)
At least this is an improvement from your "200 questions" act, though that did cause me to produce more factual information on the subject of AGW than any other participant in this thread, including the author.
BTW, new coal plant bans in Denmark, New Zealand, Canada, the UK, California, Hawaii, soon America as a whole. Church of Scotland is fighting theirs. Coal stocks and coal plant lending out of style. How's that 2 billion in climate research vs. trillions in dirty fuels workin for ya? =)
None of the facts addresssed the problem that the Co2 warming theory is based on unproven assumptions about a Co2/Water Vapor relationship, fiddling up the data with wind sensors not withstanding. And funny your theory rests on claiming everything else (sun, sea, cosmic rays, natural cycles, etc.) Clouds you forgot clouds. Are all but irrelavant and pretend only one little thing can drive climate in any measurable way.
So yes it's great we have stupid people protesting coal and oil in the west where regulations are better followed. Where the air quality has improved despite increased use of "Dirty" energy. Nevermind there is no viable alternative.
As we protest the energy industry, jobs and energy production move from our anti-coal protesters to China and India where the Chinese alone plan on building about 60 coal plants in the next five years.
And we know how much they care about the quality of the air or the well being of protestors.
Any cuts we make now will be taken up by nations with far lower standards than us. The effect of protesting coal in the west is worse than not.
....No. Where'd the "yearly" suddenly pop into your brain from? You were claiming AGW advocates believe one year's CO2 will end life as we know it? You're dumber than I thought. Sorry, no moving the goalposts.
None of the facts addresssed the problem that the Co2 warming theory is based on unproven assumptions about a Co2/Water Vapor relationship, fiddling up the data with wind sensors not withstanding.
...Nope, just based on the properties of CO2. IR hits CO2, makes it vibrate, and is reradiated, end of story. And why would a coal post address that, when you didn't ask about that? lol
And funny your theory rests on claiming everything else (sun, sea, cosmic rays, natural cycles, etc.) Clouds you forgot clouds.
....See "et cetera". lol
Are all but irrelavant and pretend only one little thing can drive climate in any measurable way.
....Incomplete sentence is incomplete.
(Made-up commons fallacy desperation and lies snipped.)
....Every bit of coal we don't burn, no matter where or when, is a victory. Anyone claiming our CO2 reductions (or any other reductions) can be eliminated by other nations' output is mentally deficient. It's simple:
2+2=4
1+2=3
See the difference? Good.
Must be why China is set to surpass the US in Co2 output? Add another 60 dirty coal burning plants on top of that. Now theres a reduction we can belive in.
Quote: What happened to the unproven water vapor feedback assumptions?
Maybe this source will be more to your liking? www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf
Oh and BTW the clouds comment above was mostly sarcasm.
Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide
warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.
...and
The oceans may themselves have warmed from a
combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.
Fits right in line with AGW theory. The ocean is 3 times the size of the land, has a lower albedo, and so it naturally contributes most of the heat rise on land.
....Or, at least, your lack of pride allows you to play pretend. lol
Must be why China is set to surpass the US in Co2 output? Add another 60 dirty coal burning plants on top of that. Now theres a reduction we can belive in.
....Relevance?
Quote:
...Nope, just based on the properties of CO2. IR hits CO2, makes it vibrate, and is reradiated, end of story.
What happened to the unproven water vapor feedback assumptions?
....Haven't seen any. Can you point me to a couple? Extra points for assumptions that will erase the rising curves and hockey stick measurement graphs coming out of every outdoor temperature sensor old enough to make one.
How does that figure into your math equasion now? lol
What you mean, sad sack, is that you can't prove me wrong in anything I've saud here. Not one thing.
....You misunderstand your situation here, which isn't surprising given the diet of lies you feed yourselves on. I don't have to prove anything. Nothing at all. Every big decision making body who matters now accepts AGW theory, and those of you who do not respond to reason or fashion will respond to rule of law or military power, whichever proves necessary.
....No, the "proof" ball is solidly in your corner, and all you boys have are fake experts, harrassment, and lies.
....Better keep your passport up to date, when the time comes maybe you can move to one of those government-free paradises we keep hearing about. Shame about their being no power or running water, but whatever. =)
Really, HAHAHA then we must have picked up that trait from you warmist, since you know it soo well. HAHAHA!!
If you'd read the thread, Russ, you'd know why I'm here. Since you don't, you haven't, and must lie. lol
You boys ever find a single national government or scientific society that rejects AGW theory yet? Been a couple weeks now, and no takers. Astounding, considering Russ's opinion above. =)
My opinion is you have a vested interest here, You are another desperate one trying to save his or her gravy train with either government or corporate money. Maybe you are one of those that’s involved with one of those Eco-Cults, desperately depending on the fears of peoples good nature to donate to your cause. Another gravy train, but a gravy train none the less. So what one are you? Who are you involved with? The one thing I do know is you are very desperate other wise you wouldn’t be here trying to keep your gravy train going!!! HAHAHA
Who am I "involved" with? My two draft-age sons. lol
You boys ever find a single national government or scientific society that rejects AGW theory yet? No? Nothing? Been a couple weeks now, and no takers.
Time ticks on.
And there you go again with the harassment like a little Hitler, an eco fascist dictator bullying, How can any one trust anything you say when you act like this? HAHAHA!!!
Still no proven AGW fraud, other than your own.
Still nor one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory.
Just checking. =)
Their barely polite assertions that CAGW "science" is trumped-up justification for keeping them poor, with the promise of getting even poorer, and that they are not going to be bought off with UN-mandated welfare-state status and "compensation" handouts, are becoming blunter and more forthright, not less.
Once the real third world starts starving and flooding, they'll be at your necks, and by then they'll have the weapons to defend their interests.
...And again, we note that the total cash spent for AGW research is dwarfed by just this one deal. Yet denialists pretend the money is all on the researchers rather than the "skeptics." and that's why they can't produce the science. ;)
Construction and equipment etc. vs research? Pretty feeble, even for you.
How about the gazbillions spent on wind farms, solar panels, geothermal plants, imaginary "offsets" and associated scams, biofuel (about enough wheat in the US last year to feed its population for that year), etc. ? All of which, totaled, might match the output of the most anemic gas-fired plant (e.g.) in the U.S.
The real price tag is going to be the opportunity cost of all the productive uses that money could have been put to. Spain found it was about a 2.2:1 negative cost/benefit ratio. Choosing renewable power dependence is like cutting off your feet to spite your toes.
How much more desperate can you get here? HAHAHA. Every time you type something here you stoop to a new level!! HEHEHE!!!
Still no proven AGW fraud, other than your own.
Still not one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory.
Just checking. =)
I do not need to prove anything. I am not making outlandish claims about a beneficial trace gas that is the basis of all life on this planet. I'm not passing the "memo", I am sharing the "lol" with Russ and anyone else who needs a good laugh.
You have become unhinged and I am afraid for you. Will we be reading about you endangering innocents because they do not hear the same voices in their heads? Seek professional help, seriously.
Speaking of religeous cults, the warmist have some pretty nice company don't they?
Still no proven AGW fraud, other than your own.
Still nor one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory.
Just checking. =)
This is so funny it could not be written... "Manson, who still adorns a Nazi swastika tattoo on his forehead, did not glom on to the global warming bandwagon after seeing Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, the movie that gunman Lee cited as his inspiration, he was preaching about the need to kill people in order to save the polar ice caps from melting as far back as the mid-80’s."
Maybe thye have internet priveleges. "C"harles "M"anson's "B"oyfriend?
Anywho, here is another peach of a quote... "Why don’t you tell them that the polar caps are melting because you’re creating so much heat with this machine,” continues Manson….”Maybe I should have killed four or five hundred people then I would have felt better, I would have felt like I’d really offered society something…..the truth is the planet Earth is dying.”
cmb, do you have tatoos on your forehead, or your back? LOL!!!
"C"harles "M"anson's "B"oyfriend?
HAHAHAHA!!
Oh, wait:
Still no science disproving AGW.
Still no proven AGW fraud, other than your own.
Still nor one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory.
I thought you told me this was a blog about global warming fraud. And now you can't find any? =)
I win.
HAHA, Charlie Mansons Boytoy, HAHA!!
Still no proven AGW fraud, other than your own.
Still nor one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory.
Just checking. =)
Still no proven AGW fraud, other than your own.
Still nor one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory.
Just checking. =)
Any science disproving AGW.
Any proven AGW fraud, other than your own.
And, of course, not one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory.
Exactly as I predicted. ;)
Any science disproving AGW.
Any proven AGW fraud, other than your own.
And, of course, not one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory.
Exactly as I predicted. You must, of course, change the subject. ;)
And what do we get? Phil Jones' assurance that his wee cabal of self-anointed experts, amateurs of multidisciplinary sciences and masters of none, are "90% confident" that their own pet speculation, AGW, is true. (Every one of whom, unfortunately, has conflicts of interest up the wazoo.) Such assertions would merely be risible did they not have the ear of funders of research and of journal editors, resulting in an egregious history of subjecting skeptical reports and articles to stringent and generally nit-picking screening standards, while supportive (even transparently pro-forma rhetorically supportive) material gets waved on through with a few helpful hints about making the nonsense presented sound and read better (= more persuasive or less obviously foolish.)
Such is warmist peer-pal review and misnomered "science". The burden of "proof" languishes heavily and unbudged on the CAGW side.
....Fortunately, that's not a description of AGW theory, it's something you made up off the top of your head to attack instead.
....This is known as a "strawman argument", used by denialists who cannot refute real AGW theory. Also 9/11 truthers, Birthers, Space People suckers, and moon landing deniers.
(ridiculous series of parroted lies snipped)
And then there is this... "Another of Manson’s “followers,” a 24 year-old woman Manson named “Star,” invoked the Club of Rome’s infamous 1990 publication entitled The First Global Revolution, in which the organization outlined how they would manufacture ecological scares in order to manipulate the public into accepting the imposition of a dictatorial world government run by them, when she talked about Manson’s belief that humans were the enemy of the Earth.
“The goal, really, the main goal is to basically save life on the planet Earth from the humans,” she said. “We have a key to make this goal accomplished, and that key is Charlie Manson,” she said.
I'm not sure who is wackier, "Star" or cmb!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation
Oh, and better write the Pentagon, quick! =)
www.cna.org/sites/default/files/Powering%20Americas%20Defense.pdf
There is no consensus amongst scientists.
And again with the CNA brochure. GIGO!
cm's b is like a broken record that is badly off key.
The CNA link is a report by the Pentagon, which you of course absolutely must defuse. lol
Meanwhile, back to the subject.
No one on this blog has produced:
Any science disproving AGW.
Any proven AGW fraud, other than your own.
And, of course, not one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory.
Exactly as I predicted. You must, of course, change the subject. ;)
....But it's nice to see you admit that what you're really worried about is having to buy a less expensive brand of yogurt due to cap and trade. BTW, judging by your last few posts, Charlie's stuff is now more lucid than yours is - congrats! lol
Get ready to cry in your beer as the rest of the world continues with mitigation projects on your dime. ;)
Find me some more Soros funded collusional delusional doomer propaganda!
....So, not being able to counter my argument, now you understand why denialists spend so much money on the anti-AGW hoax. They have no science behind them, and must buy cranks to defend their trillions in dirty commodities.
How about the gazbillions spent on wind farms, solar panels, geothermal plants, imaginary "offsets" and associated scams, biofuel (about enough wheat
....Wheat, lol
in the US last year to feed its population for that year) etc. ?
....Bigger than the coal economy? Go ahead, show us the totals.
All of which, totaled, might match the output of the most anemic gas-fired plant (e.g.) in the U.S.
....I'll wait for your evidence.
The real price tag is going to be the opportunity cost of all the productive uses that money could have been put to. Spain found it was about a 2.2:1 negative cost/benefit ratio.
...Oh, I don't think, seems to me I've heard that stupid hoax debunked. Ah, yes, I have. Right wing k00ks use it. It['s trash.
mediamatters.org/research/201002240011
...."U.S. Department of Energy: "The primary conclusion made by the authors ... is not supported by their work." In an August 2009 White Paper responding to the Spanish study, the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory stated that Calzada's study "represents a significant divergence from traditional methodologies used to estimate employment impacts from renewable energy. In fact, the methodology does not reflect an employment impact analysis. Accordingly, the primary conclusion made by the authors - policy support of renewable energy results in net job losses - is not supported by their work."
....Don't miss the conclusion:
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf#page=8
....More destruction of your hoax in California:
www.calitics.com/diary/11251/laos-flawed-look-at-jobs-and-ab-32
Choosing renewable power dependence is like cutting off your feet to spite your toes.
....Yes, being hostage to terrorists is definitely better than renewable power. lol
IAC, what "scenarios" the military plans for depends on what it knows, and who it is told to believe.
....Simply a lie. Goes straight to the organization.
IAC, what "scenarios" the military plans for depends on what it knows, and who it is told to believe.
....Go ahead and list those for us.
Leave off with the insults, A-hole. Just click on it: the site is unavailable.
Here's the direct PDF link if you can't get it up.
www.cna.org/sites/default/files/Powering%20Americas%20Defense.pdf
------------
Search Site
Contact Us
* Home
* About Us
o Who We Are
o History
o Leadership
o Our Staff
o Research Quality
o Commitment to Diversity
o Serving the Community
o Working with CNA
o Contact Us
* Our Research
* Solution Centers
o CNA Center for Naval Analyses
+ Advanced Technology & Systems Analysis
+ Operations Evaluation Group
+ Operations & Tactics Analysis
+ China Studies
+ Strategic Studies
+ Resource Analysis
+ Marine Corps Division
o CNA Institute for Public Research
+ Education
+ Health Research & Policy
+ Safety & Security
+ Organizational Learning & Effectiveness
+ Air Traffic Management
o CNA Military Advisory Board
+ National Security and the Threat of Climate Change
+ Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security
+ Powering America’s Economy: Energy Innovation at the Crossroads of National Security Challenges
* News & Information
...
Did You Know?
CNA’s Center for Naval Analyses provides research and analysis services to the military and other government agencies to help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our national defense efforts."
Clarity
No matter how complex the problem, we know how to deliver the results briefly, succinctly, clearly.
Featured Articles, Reports and Video
Yemen: Crossroads of Conflic
Yemen: Crossroads of Conflict – a conference report from CNA Strategic Studies’ International Affairs Group workshop "Yemen and Its Neighbors" held May 24, 2010.
Powering America’s Economy: Energy Innovation at the Crossroads of National Security Challenges
CNA's Military Advisory Board releases Powering America’s Economy: Energy Innovation at the Crossroads of National Security Challenges; with findings that America's economic leadership is threatened by oil dependence, and that economic and energy security are tied to national security.
Estimating the Cost of Type 1 Diabetes in the U.S.
...
* About Us
* News & Information
* Privacy Policy
* About This Site
* Site Map
Doing Business with CNA
* Federal Government Customers
* State and Local Government Customers
* Contract Vehicles
* Subcontractors
Solution Centers
* Center for Naval Analyses
* Institute for Public Research
* Military Advisory Board
Follow CNA on
* Facebook
* Twitter
* YouTube
© 2010 CNA. All Rights Reserved.
4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311 | 703.824.2000 | Directions
.,,And etc. May be some clues there. Good luck.
rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/in-which-in-is-shown-how-nipcc-and-fred.html
matt.baya.net/lies-damn-lies-and-the-heartland-institute/
Let us know when this paper gets published.
Here is the truth about HI...
"SourceWatch is a project of the Center for Media and Democracy, a partisan advocacy group. Heartland is one of scores of free-market think tanks that are unfairly criticized on this site.
The site (last viewed in September 2009) devotes much space to Heartland’s alleged ties to Philip Morris and the tobacco industry. A former board member, Roy Marden, indeed worked for Philip Morris/Altria during some of his time on Heartland’s board, and he helped convince others in the company to approve contributions to us because of our opposition to high taxes on cigarettes, the abuse of tort law leading up to the Master Settlement Agreement, and other tobacco-related issues. This was not a conflict of interest: All nonprofit organizations put representatives of foundations and corporations on their boards with the expectation that they help “give or get” financial support.
Philip Morris’ support never amounted to more than 5 percent of Heartland’s annual budget. None of the correspondence between Marden and his colleagues at Philip Morris suggests any improper influence over Heartland’s programs or positions, and indeed there was none. Heartland was speaking up for over-taxed smokers and against nanny state regulations long before Philip Morris offered any funding and before Marden joined the organization’s board. None of these simple and exculpatory facts are reported by SourceWatch.
Similarly, SourceWatch reports contributions to Heartland by ExxonMobil and implies improper influence, but again presents no evidence of this occurring. Walter Buchholtz was a public relations advisor for ExxonMobil during his service on The Heartland Institute’s Board of Directors, and like Marden, he helped persuade his company to contribute to Heartland. He never exerted improper influence on any Heartland staff, and his company never gave more than 5 percent the organization’s annual receipts.
ExxonMobil has not contributed to Heartland since 2006. Indeed, gifts from all energy companies - coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear - combined did not exceed 5 percent of Heartland’s budget in 2007 or 2008."
Then there is this about the rabett hole...
www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S0217979210055573.html
Baseless attacks, half truths and whole lies again from cmb.
...Not any more, the paper was published, but uses the faulty CRU dataset.
yet you can post blogs as "evidence"?
....of AGW? Nope, just the reputations of people you pretend are experts. You do know the differwence between a physical process and a person, yes? lol
The attacks on the Heartland Institute follow the same old worn out "Exxon" and "Phillip Morris" mantra. Rant, rant rant....
Plagiarizing Heartland's own apologetics material proves nothing. They are a leading source of false propaganda and errant papers, financed routinely by large energy corporations and interests, as everyone knows, including Heartland.
www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1634
Quote: "In what has become an annual non-event, the Heartland Institute will gather the who's-who of the global warming denial network together in Chicago this weekend for the fourth International Conference on Climate Change.
As in years past, the event is expected to receive very little mainstream media coverage. The deniers like to think the reason is some liberal media conspiracy. In reality, the lack of interest stems chiefly from the fact that this denial-a-palooza fest is dripping with oil money and represents a blatant industry effort to greenwash oil and coal while simultaneously attacking the credibility of climate scientists.
Despite the lack of press interest, the show must go on. After all, the Chicago meet-up will provide deniers and industry front groups a chance to coordinate their ongoing efforts to smear the reputation of the IPCC, and they can reminisce about the Climategate non-scandal like boys in the schoolyard kicking around a rusty old can.
For insight into the underlying aim of the Chicago denier conference, let us take a look at the funding sources for the sponsoring organizations.
Funding:
19 of the 65 sponsors (including Heartland itself) have received a total of over $40 million in funding since 1985 from ExxonMobil (funded 13 orgs), and/or Koch Industries family foundations (funded 10 orgs) and/or the Scaife family foundations (funded 10 orgs). See below for a full funding break-down.
ExxonMobil (1998-2008): $6,588,250 ($389,250 more than reported in 2009)
Koch Foundations (1985-2008): $17,572,210 ($13,133,290 more than reported in 2009)
Scaife Family Foundations (1985-2008): $16,352,000
($20,516,640 less than reported in 2009*)
Total Funding 1985-2008: $40,512,460
*The Heritage Foundation sponsored the 2009 conference and is notably absent from sponsoring the 2010 ICCC. Heritage has received $23,096,640 from Scaife, $2,417,000 from Koch and $565,000 from Exxon between 1998-2006.
....Golly, you have a lot of refuting to do. Heartland propaganda publications not allowed.
Instead Canadian PR man James Hoggan of DeSmogBlog takes line honours.
This man has just published a new book, favourably reviewed by the sycophants at Hot Topic.
I'm not holding that against him. What irks me is this – his book (and his blogsite) allege climate skeptics are in the pay or control of big oil. The possibility of genuinely held belief based on genuine science appears to have escaped him. Hoggan is the master of this conspiracy theory.
"Unfortunately, a well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign is poisoning the climate change debate. Using tricks and stunts that unsavory PR firms invented for the tobacco lobby, energy-industry contrarians are trying to confuse the public, to forestall individual and political actions that might cut into exorbitant coal, oil and gas industry profits. DeSmogBlog is here to cry foul - to shine the light on techniques and tactics that reflect badly on the PR industry and are, ultimately, bad for the planet."
This would be the same James Hoggan, PR man, who got paid $300,000 to set up a website attacking critics of global warming. That's right, DeSmogBlog is bought and paid for, and the irony is that its founding donor John Lefebvre, although a greenie, is now a convicted criminal done on money-laundering conspiracy charges. His company reportedly was also dabbling in carbon trading allowances as an offshoot from its online gambling business.
One wonders what Hoggan needed $300,000 for. The fee for a blogsite is around $10 a month. The only other investment is your time.
(to be cont'd)
Hoggan's client list, meanwhile, reads like a who's-who of alternative energy, as Canada's Financial Post noted:
"There has been no mention on the blog, nor on The Fifth Estate, of James Hoggan's client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science."
Expressed another way, PR hack Jim Hoggan's DeSmogBlog is a godsend for Hoggan's paying PR clients, spinning everything that could help them get a financial edge in the new carbon emissions markets.
Interestingly, the DeSmogBlog founder also has Air New Zealand as a client, which may explain that airline's mad rush to fly its jets on mung beans and lentil emissions.
Hoggan throws down the gauntlet in his new book urging people to check sourcewatch for the dodgy connections of various players:
"Whatever you do, you must keep a wary eye. By all means, read the sites that deny the reality of climate change. But then check on www.sourcewatch.org to see who paid for those opinions. Read the DeSmogBlog. Don't accept the word of people who pass themselves off as "skeptics."
So, where'd you steal this from? =)
You still need to prove a lie from DeSmogBlog. Best get hoppin'.
So who's who at DeSmogBlog? Apart from paid shill James Hoggan, there's former Boston Globe editor Ross Gelbspan who I pinged in Air Con. Gelbspan wants the UN given the power to tax all international currency transactions (anything you buy and sell from overseas):"
"I think we need to use a tax on international currency transactions to finance the transfer of climate-friendly technologies to the developing world…the currency transaction tax was conceived by Dr James Tobin."
The UN, as noted in Air Con, estimates it could earn US$1.5 trillion a year from imposing the Tobin Tax on everyone.
Gelbspan apparently doesn't believe in free speech, either, or balance. He only wants you to hear his (and DeSmogBlog's) point of view:
"[Journalists] have a responsibility not to report what [skeptical] scientists say!"
Then there's Kevin Grandia, Hoggan's right-hand man at DeSmogBlog, and we know he doesn't have an agenda, right?
"Kevin Grandia has been trained by Al Gore as part of The Climate Project, an initiative designed to educate the public about climate change."
And get this, as an employee of the Hoggan Public Relations firm, Grandia should know how to manipulate the poor simple fools who read DeSmogBlog and believe it, because he is a trained psychologist.
Who else is DeSmogBlog in bed with? Greenpeace and the Rainforest Action Network, and Hoggan sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation, a radical environmental group.
Hoggan donated money to the British Columbia Liberal Party, and also happened to receive lucrative BC government contracts.
The B.C. Liberal Party received six donations totaling $8,943 from James Hoggan and Associates from 2005 to 2008. Hoggan's company was paid $353,855 by the B.C. government from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, according to Public Accounts. Contracts included the Sea-to-Sky Highway expansion project and Canada Line.
Let's turn now to RealClimate, spiritual home of global warming belief because of its association with climate scientists Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann. Turns out RealClimate is being financially supported with its website provided by a company called Environmental Media Services, who are in turn a front for another PR company, Fenton, and also intricately hooked up to The Tides Foundation.
Readers of Air Con will know that the Tides Foundation is funded by drug liberalization billionaire and convicted crook George Soros, thus proving the point I made in Air Con about the little publicized PR network funding various Chicken Little bloggers. RealClimate's launch was handled by Fenton and EMS, although RealClimate denies any major funding or influence, Still, as Hot Topic's Gareth Renowden has said, "with friends like these…"
We're sitting here at Investigate magazine on video news footage from one of the agencies we are affiliated to, and a story about how 90 "opinion-setting" climate bloggers were brought on an all-expenses paid junket to Copenhagen so they could learn how to spin climate change on the internet and "save the planet" ahead of the conference proper next month.
Would you like me to go find a few from Heartland?
Fetch!
....Poor Gator, completely unable to find any such thing, continues to habitually lie. But continue shrieking.
You will always swear by your bible and your gods. I can point out time and time again that the sources you quote have multiple agendas unrelated to climate and yet you simply stick your fingers in your ears and bark like a deranged dog.
Unless you can provide irrefutable proof man is causing catastrophic global warming, there really is nothing more to discuss here. When a salesman shows up at my door and tries to sell me a product (especially a costly product), he must provide proof of his product's claims or he is sent packing.
No sale.
You have never successfully made a single case you put forth here, and you have never shot down a single case I made. You are a 100% desperate, blithering loser all through this thread, and that fact screams at anyone who reads it. Just sayin'.
Meanwhile, back to the subject.
No one on this blog has produced:
Any science disproving AGW.
Any proven AGW fraud, other than your own.
And, of course, not one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory.
Exactly as I predicted when I first arrived. But I am supposed to be the waste of time here. =)
Couldn't have put it better myself.
I'm sorry you're disappointed that I saw through your hoax source, but life is tough. Once you are out of high school, you'll find that out.
Parody this.
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v228/n5267/pdf/228143a0.pdf
Here are 800 peer reviewed studies against AGW
www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
And this www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html
or you could simply read this www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
And here are a list of all the global warming scandals that have taken place notrickszone.com/2010/08/03/climate-scandals-list-of-94-climate-gates/
cmb all the organisations that do not support the AGW theory you just call "denialist lie operations" so there's not much point in telling you them.
Second one: NIPCC. Well known bought and paid for denialist lie site.
Third one: Another tiny special purpose denialist blog, this time discussing a lie film by Martin Durkin, proven to have misquoted climate scientists and falsified temperature graphics. Busted by authorities in Britain for it.
Fourth one: Another tiny special purpose denialist blog, apparently with an exhaustive list of more famous denialist lie blogs, judging by the first three.
You are correct, you are wasting your time presenting these citations to anyone. And once again, don't take my word for it, check around. =)
Now, how about those three scientists?
cmb you ask us for scientific evidence against AGW, I provided you with 800 peer reviewed scientific papers, and you called them "bullshit papers written by denialist leaders published in fake journals". This proves that to you AGW is a religion rather than a scientific theory. If to you it was just a scientific thery, you'd look at the evidence against it. And read this about Energy and Environment www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html
Quoting cmb:
cmb read it's report and show where it's wrong wrong. It's no good just trying to insult the NIPCC www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html
Quoting cmb:
What has the paper I gave you got to do
with 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'?
Read the paper and show where it is wrong
www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
[quote name="cmb"]
Now, how about those three scientists?[/
Here's 700 epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
That's a typo. I meant show where
it's wrong.
Just a layout hint: on long sequencence, the last replies get too narrow to read easily. Instead of replying to the he immediately preceding post, click reply on the item IT is responding to. Then your entry retains the same width. This is an example; I am replying to the same entry you were, so our posts are identical size.
www.desmogblog.com/sonja-boehmer-christiansen
www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-journal-publishes-plagiarized-paper
Publishing total crap like Schulte makes them a lie journal. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to read lie journals. Nor do I have time for the litany of already-busted climate liars in your fraudulent list of "800 papers."
NIPCC - "Heartland President Joseph Bast, editor of Climate Change Reconsidered, and authors Craig D. Idso Ph.D. and S. Fred Singer Ph.D. spoke at the press conference. "
All three long-ago-busted climate liars. Singer was a tobacco denialist to boot - possibly helped to kill millions. And the list of contributors is a who's-who of long-ago-busted climate liars.
Warren Anderson (USA), J. Scott Armstrong (USA), Dennis Avery (USA),
Franco Battaglia (Italy), Robert Carter (Australia), Piers Corbyn (UK),
Richard Courtney (UK), Joseph d’Aleo (USA), Don Easterbrook (USA),
Fred Goldberg (Sweden), Vincent Gray (New Zealand), William Gray (USA),
Kesten Green (Australia), Kenneth Haapala (USA), David Hagen (USA),
Klaus Heiss (Austria), Zbigniew Jaworowski (Poland), Olavi Karner (Estonia),
Richard Alan Keen (USA), Madhav Khandekar (Canada), William Kininmonth (Australia),
Hans Labohm (Netherlands), Anthony Lupo (USA), Howard Maccabee (USA),
H. Michael Mogil (USA), Christopher Monckton (UK), Lubos Motl (Czech Republic),
Stephen Murgatroyd (Canada), Nicola Scafetta (USA), Harrison Schmitt (USA),
Tom Segalstad (Norway), George Taylor (USA), Dick Thoenes (Netherlands),
Anton Uriarte (Spain), Gerd Weber (Germany)
Hilarious. The report:
"The Third Assessment Report of the IPCC
(IPCC-TAR 2001) was noteworthy for its use of
spurious scientific papers to back up its SPM claim of
“new and stronger evidence” of anthropogenic global
warming. One of these was the so-called “hockeystick”
paper, an analysis of proxy data, which claimed
the twentieth century was the warmest in the past
1,000 years. The paper was later found to contain
basic errors in its statistical analysis (McIntyre and
McKitrick, 2003, 2005; Wegman et al., 2006)."
No mention of the fact that the National Academy of Sciences did its own Hockey Stick review and found some sloppy work but no scientific errors.
This is a lie report, written by an assembly of liars.
cmb read the link that I gave you. Energy and Environment is a peer reviewed
journal. You know it's amazing, how you can say that Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is bias and give Desmogblog as your source.
cmb Desmogblog is simply a propoganda
website.On the article it said this
"Energy and Environment was described as being a journal skeptics can go to when they are rejected by the mainstream peer-reviewed science publications." cmb in that list I gave you (which is valid. All Attempts at debunking it has been refuted) you'll see that skeptics have published in hundreds of different journals. A lot of them are major journals like 'Geophysical Research Letters'. Here is a list of the journals published:
AAPG Bulletin
Academic Questions
Advances in Geosciences
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Space Research
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Agricultural Meteorology
Agricultural Water Management
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Ambio
American Journal of Botany
Annales Geophysicae
Annals of Applied Statistics
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Applied Energy
Aquatic Botany
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
Arctic and Alpine Research
Area
Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law
Astronautics and Aeronautics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Astrophysics and Space Science Library
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Atmospheric Environment
British Medical Journal (BMJ)
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS)
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
Central European Journal of Physics
Chemical Engineering Progress
Chemical Innovation
Climate Dynamics
Climate of the Past
Climate Research
Climatic Change
Cold Regions Science and Technology
Comptes Rendus Geosciences
Contemporary South Asia
Current Opinion in Biotechnology
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Ecological Complexity
Ecological Modelling
Ecological Monographs
Ecology
Economic Affairs
Economic Analysis and Policy
Economics Bulletin
Emerging Infectious Diseases
Energy
Energy & Environmen
Energy Fuels
Energy Policy
Energy Sources
Environment International
Environmental and Experimental Botany
Environmental Conservation
Environmental Geology
Environmental Geosciences
Environmental Health Perspectives
Environmental Law and Management
Environmental Politics
Environmental Research
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Environmental Software
Environmetrics
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
Fresenius' Journal of Analytical Chemistry
Futures
Geografiska Annaler
Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography
GeoJournal
Geology
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
Geophysical Research Letters
Geoscience Canada
Global and Planetary Change
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Global Change Biology
Global Environmental Change
GSA Today
Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences
Hydrological Sciences Journal
Il Nuovo Cimento C
Interfaces
International Journal of Biometeorology
International Journal of Climatology
International Journal of Environmental Studies
International Journal of Forecasting
International Journal of Global Energy Issues
International Journal of Global Warming
International Journal of Modern Physics B
International Journal of Remote Sensing
International Quarterly for Asian Studies
International Social Science Journal
Irish Astronomical Journal
Irrigation and Drainage
Iron & Steel Technology
Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics
Journal of Chemical Education
Journal of Climate
Journal of Coastal Research
Journal of Cosmology
Journal of Environmental Sciences
Journal of Environmental Quality
Journal of Experimental Botany
Journal of Forestry
Journal of Fusion Energy
Journal of Geophysical Research
Journal of Hydrology
Journal of Information Ethics
Journal of Lake Sciences
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering
Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics
Journal of Paleolimnology
Journal of Plant Physiology
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Journal of the American Water Resources Association
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society
Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering
Journal of Vegetation Science
La Chimica e l'Industria
Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Malaria Journal
Marine Geology
Marine Pollution Bulletin
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
Meteorologische Zeitschrift
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
Monthly Weather Review
Moscow University Physics Bulletin
Natural Hazards
Natural Hazards Review
Nature
Nature Biotechnology
Nature Geoscience
Netherlands Journal of Geosciences
New Astronomy
New Concepts In Global Tectonics
New Literary History
New Phytologist
New Zealand Geographer
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
Nordic Hydrology
Norwegian Polar Institute Letters
Oceanologica Acta
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Paleoceanography
Paleontological Journal
Physical Geography
Physical Review E
Physical Review Letters
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth
Physics Letters A
Physics Reports
Physics Today
Planetary and Space Science
Plant Ecology
Plant Physiology
PLoS Biology
Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering
Proceedings of the ICE - Civil Engineering
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union
Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
Proceedings of the Royal Society A
Progress in Physical Geography
Public Administration Review
Pure and Applied Geophysics
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
Quaternary International
Quaternary Research
Quaternary Science Reviews
Regulation
Risk Analysis
Russian Journal of Earth Sciences
Science
Science of the Total Environment
Science, Technology & Human Values
Scientia Horticulturae
Social Studies of Science
Society
Soil Science
Solar Physics
South African Journal of Science
Space Science Reviews
Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy
Statistics, Politics, and Policy
Surveys in Geophysics
Technology
Tellus A
The Astrophysical Journal
The Cato Journa
The Electricity Journal
The Holocene
The Independent Review
The Lancet
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
The Quarterly Review of Biology
The Review of Economics and Statistics
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
Topics in Catalysis
Waste Management
Water, Air, & Soil Pollution
Water Resources Research
Weather
Weather and Forecasting
World Economics
Journal Count: 225
this: "Boehmer-Christiansen was one of those who claimed that Phil Jones had manipulated climate data in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Five separate inquiries were conducted to investigate such claims but the conclusion reached was that there had been no scientific dishonesty or misconduct by the
IPCC scientists."
cmb those "Investigations weren't actual 'investigations'. They were whitewashes. The emails and documents showed clear evidence of manipulating data. E.g:
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) -- but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
From: Mick Kelly
To:
Subject: RE: Global temperature
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300
Yeah, it wasn't so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer - 10 year - period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc.
Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects
and the recent cold-ish years.
Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.
Mick
And read this: www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
cmb read the report and show where it is wrong, instead of just attacking the authors.
Quoting cmb:
cmb why don't you read the report of this actual investigation into the 'hockey stick' graph' www.google.co.uk/.../
....A ridiculous lie.
...A pathetic lie.
That's not a paper, it's an editorial. It lies about TSI in the first few pages.
It also lies directly about the National Academy of Sciences.
www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/report.cgi?record_id=11676&type=pdfxsum
Hockey Stick vindicated back to 1600 AD. Note figure S-1, showing six different hockey sticks from six different teams. Guess where they all end up? Yep. =)
Inhofe's lie list of 700 "scientists:
"The results of our assessment are summarized as follows:
Based on publications in the refereed literature, only approximately
10% of the 687 individuals could be indentified definitively
as climate scientists. Only approximately 15% could be identified
as publishing in fields related to climate science.
Examples include solar physicists studying solar irradiance variation.
For approximately 80% of these individuals, no evidence
could be found that they had published research remotely
related to climate science. Examples include purported
meteorologists - the largest professional field found – who have no
refereed scientific publications and whose job is merely to report
the weather forecast.
Almost 4% have made statements suggesting they largely
accept the scientific community’s consensus view that global
warming is occurring and that greenhouse gases appear to be
a significant cause. (This is a tentative approximation, because
these same individuals may have made other statements elsewhere.
This nonetheless raises the question whether they should have been
included on the Senate Minority Report’s list in the first place.)
80.20% - Found no peer-reviewed publication record related to climate science
34.93% - Work in a field related to climate science
21.83% - Meteorologists
14.12% - Found a definite peer-reviewed publication
record related to climate science
9.46% - Not scientists and not climate
change skeptics
8.01% - No evidence of being scientist
7.2% - No outside confirmation of skepticism
3.35% - Appear NOT to be climate change skeptics.
Note that the percentages add up to well over 100%. This is because there is overlap among the categories. Examining the titles of the different categories should make this clear.
www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
Sorry, just tired of the endless flow of crap cites from you.
Go ahead, pick a paper from your list.
cmb the graphs it showed were all from poeple who had strong connections with Mann and they used equally flawed data like the hockey stick graph. Read 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' It completely debunks Mann's work. www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/dp/1906768358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284207553&sr=8-1
And before you try and defend the hockey stick graph, perhaps you might be interested in this quote from the climategate emails:
From: Keith Briffa
To: "Folland, Chris" , 'Phil Jones' , "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Date: Wed Sep 22 16:19:06 1999
Cc: tkarl
...
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. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate.
Quoting cmb:
I don't think you actualy read that list, but anyway, here are three scientists:
Robert Jastrow: Founder of NASA GISS
Habibullo Abdussamatov: Head of the space research laborotary at the Russian Acadmey of Science's Pulkovo observatory.
Antonino Zichichi: President of the World Federation of Scientists, discovered nuclear anti-matter, authored over 800 scientific papers.
...Founded a right wing think tank, and became the director of that think tank before coming out against AGW. Died in 2008. Never had the credentials to refute AGW or evolution, his main bugaboos. Sorry, no scientific work against AGW found from Jastrow.
" Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.""
...At which point the planet would be at around -33 fahrenheit. Little knowledgenowledge of, scientific work in, or understanding of AGW theor One of our dumber denialists, since even the sun refuses to cooperate with him.y.
"Dr. Antonino Zichichi–one of the world’s foremost physicists and former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter–calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
...So, nothing about this guy disbelieving AGW theory, just some older models.
...Got anyone who might know what they're talking about, instead of content-free whiners, retirees, and dead guys?
when you said "even the sun refuses to cooperate with him" you are probably referring to the fact that this past decade the
sun has reached a solar minimum. cmb the sun can explain the warming throughout the 20th century. Read this peer reviewed study
www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf
cmb the sun reached a solar minimum and the world is cooling just like it should.. Even on wikipedia, the most bias AGW website in the world, their own graph shows the decade long cooling. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png Some wikipedia zealots have tried to cover it up by putting that line through it, but you can still see the cooling.
Antonino Zichichi is a skeptic. Read this
www.zenit.org/article-19481?l=english
He also signed this letter (
www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004
www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf
....Old stuff.
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011639.shtml
cmb the sun reached a solar minimum and the world is cooling just like it should.. Even on wikipedia, the most bias AGW website in the world, their own graph shows the decade long cooling. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia /commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temper atures.png Some wikipedia zealots have tried to cover it up by putting that line through it, but you can still see the cooling.
If you think that graph shows the last decade has produced global cooling, you'd better get an eye test.
Antonino Zichichi is a skeptic. Read this
www.zenit.org/article-19481?l=english
He also signed this letter (
www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004
Another load of deniialist trash.
How come Zichichi's organization organization has made him a laughingstock?
www.federationofscientists.org/PMPanels/Climate/ClimatePMP.asp
climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3813
For a rebuttal to that paper.
Quoting cmb:
cbm look at the last ten years. You can see no warming. You can even see the 2007 - 2008 largest ever annual decline in temperature.
Quoting cmb:
cbm that article was about preparing for natural disasters and any extreme weather that might occur in the future. When it said 'climate change' it was referring to actual changes in the cliimate, not AGW.
"Priorities in dealing with the Emergency
The priorities in dealing with the emergency are:
*
To encourage and support free access to data on climate change
*
To monitor the monitoring of the global environment
*
To stimulate the education of the public with regard to the causes and effects of climate change.
To monitor:
1.
The increasing vulnerability of human society to the effects of climate change (e.g. More and more people living on flood plains and in areas threatened by tropical cyclones).
2.
Climatic extremes (e.g. droughts) to determine the extent of change and variability.
3.
Ways in which vulnerability to climatic disasters can be reduced (e.g. forecasting drought in order to avoid famine).
4.
Improved methods of forecasting variability and change (e.g. improved models for predicting El Niño) and the responsible issue of forecast products.
5.
The adequacy of climate-observing networks in light of the present and continuing deterioration of the current systems.
6.
Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone). "
cmb, either
accept that Benestad's and
Schmidt's paper is wrong, or show where Nicola Scafetta's rebuttal is wrong, it's no use just insulting the website.
Quoting cmb:
cmb it is referring to actual changes in the climate and for preparing for any extreme weather, it says
"Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone).
cmb it says 'possible human influences'. It means that they want to research the science on it. There not saying AGW is real.
Even if the WFOS did believe in AGW, it still doesn't change the fact that Zichichi is a skeptic.
LOL, indeed!
You lose. =)
....You have no such evidence And are crying "conspiracy" with nothing.
Read 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' It completely debunks Mann's work.
....I won't be reading any crazyassed 500-page 'climategate' books written by liars,
"Montford's truncated and distorted history of paleoclimatology is the basis for his subsequent argument, but it must be accepted to make sense of anything else he says in his book. A good example is his argument (as related by Stevie Mac) is that using tree rings as climate proxies is worthless. In reality, work on using tree rings as climate proxies stretches back to the early 20th century and is fairly well established. But Montford (as related by Stevie Mac) boldly forges on trying to show that tree rings are lousy proxies, especially if they corrolate to local temperature! (Amazon review)
....while this is still going on.
wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2010/07/mann-cleared
And before you try and defend the hockey stick graph,
....The Hockey Stick graph isn't even a proof of AGW. Just a favorite topic of denialists.
perhaps you might be interested in this quote from the climategate emails:
From: Keith Briffa
To: "Folland, Chris" , 'Phil Jones' , "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Date: Wed Sep 22 16:19:06 1999
....Ah, 1999. The year after the El Nino and the PDO (itself not discovered until 4 years later) combined to make a temperature spike beloved by all denialists.
"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. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate."
....Doesn't exactly sound like a brainwashed conspiracy zombie to me, and doesn't disprove anything, what's your problem? That they told the truth to each other? lol
cmb, Charlie Mansons Boytoy, HAHAHA!! What did all of the scientific society have to say about them at that time?
cmb said "Still nor one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory."
1. First, just like Galileo, Isaac Newton, and Charles Darwin, All it takes is one person to prove a theory wrong. Just like in your statement, "Still nor one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory."!!!!! It doesn’t mean because a scientific society promotes something they are right, but it could mean they are corrupt or stupid, or maybe they are right, but it isn’t always the case, so you pick, since there isn’t anything proving AGW either, it is all speculation?
2. And cmb talked about my English to make me less credible, HAHAHA, but he or she says, HAHAHA, "Still nor one ", "Still nor one ","Still nor one ",HAHAHAHAHAAAAAaaaaa!!! Not that it makes any difference but please!!!! Still nor one, Still nor one, Still nor one, HAHAHAHA!!! Open mouth and insert a foot or Two!! But Hey type O’s happen, and crap happens, so don’t knock someone else’s English when you do the same! I presume you were saying, “still no one” but you had to play the bad English card on me. HAHAHAHA!!! Funny Eh!! HAHAHA!!!!
Who paid for it? Well, you'll read and see more on that in due course. There is also a plan to further indoctrinate youth leaders on global warming belief:
The contribution from the Netherlands enables 50 youthful delegates from developing countries to attend the Copenhagen climate summit in mid December. Ten children from what are known as the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) will head to Copenhagen. Rising sea levels directly threaten the very existence of these countries, including Fiji and Haiti. Five children from the developing countries will participate in the Children's Climate Forum. In addition, 25 young reporters from developing countries will have a workshop on climate change issues.
So next time Soros' paid minions at global warming websites take a poke a skeptics, remember that they are hypocrites funded or helped by cynical PR companies and UN agencies to brainwash the public and further the positions of "green" companies who, like Al Gore, stand to make (collectively) trillions of dollars if carbon trading becomes compulsory.
This is not about the fact that oil companies have funded some groups fighting carbon emissions. For what it's worth, those same oil companies have often funded the alarmists as well. Nonetheless, the issue is well known. But there is next to no coverage of the much bigger funding to global warming belief sites, so the purpose of this post is to shine a little light in those corners.
And finally...
Hot Topic relies heavily on RealClimate, DeSmogBlog, Climate Progress (Soros-funded) and other tainted websites for its spin. Remember that.
And remember this: The Briefing Room, Howling At The Moon etc have not been paid a cent to write an opinion, article or book on climate change. Nor have the leading skeptic sites WattsUpWithThat or ClimateAudit.
It's a matter of trust, at the end of the day."
Oopsy!
Say, who paid for climate liar Joanne Nova's lie-filled climate handbook to be distributed?
Heartland.
Now, find that paid lie for us, and don't forget the proof. lol
Unless you can prove otherwise? You just wasted a lot of time on nothing at all. No surprise, of course.
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/monckton_and_bolt_defame_john.php
www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1622302920070116
"Lefebvre holds 5.54 percent of the company via Eagle Medallion Fortress."
Ya gotta laugh. lol
Go find me some mote Soros funded collusional delusional doomer propaganda. Oh yeah, you already have. Media Matters. What a hoot!
Second, if you think the CNA board members were the only ones working on that Pentagon report, you're decerebrate. Your continuing, days-long inability to address the report's contents noted.
Once again, zero refutation. Continue shrieking.
www.readingcomprehensionconnection.com/reading_lesson.php
Then maybe you will understand that I said I only lied once. That was when I wasted time on your silly links after I promised I would not.
Good Boy!
Continue shrieking.
Some words got wiped out above:
" finds r = .89 at p =< 0.0001.
We need to mandate massive use and release of CFCs NOW!"
Eyeballing his graph, there is a lag of about 2 yrs.
www.peoplesworld.org/why-exxon-mobil-is-more-dangerous-than-bp/
"For example, Exxon has given more than $1.2 million to the American Council for Capital Formation. This group's website is filled with attacks on the climate bill now before Congress."
"Another featured item, a recent Wall Street Journal interview with ACCP's head, Mark Bloomfield, cheerleads cutting the capital gains tax. Bloomfield boasts he is known as "Mr. Capital Gains."
Exxon has given $1.6 million to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which calls itself "a public interest group dedicated to free enterprise and limited government." CEI, says Sourcewatch, "postures as an advocate of ‘sound science' in the development of public policy. However, CEI projects dispute the overwhelming scientific evidence that human induced greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change. They have a program for "challenging government regulations", push property rights as a solution to environment problems, opposed U.S. vehicle fuel efficiency standards and been a booster for the drug industry."
Then there's the National Center for Policy Analysis, which Exxon has given $520,000. It says its goal is "to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector."
"Exxon is one of the top funders of the National Taxpayers Union, to whom it has given $315,000. NTU calls itself a "citizen group" advocating the flat tax - tax cuts for the rich, cutting government services, "individual liberty, and free enterprise." Grover Norquist was one of NTU's executive directors."
Big list here:
mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Exxon_Mobil_Corporation/grants
Note that they are also funding the teabaggers to the tune of $275,000. heartland's little heart must be broken, after being passed over for a bunch of nutbars. =)
"The PW is known for its partisan coverage. We take sides - for truth and justice. We are partisan to the working class, racially and nationally oppressed peoples, women, youth, seniors, international solidarity, Marxism and socialism. We enjoy a special relationship with the Communist Party USA, founded in 1919, and publish its news and views."
And what a finish! Drum roll please!!!
"Media Matters" = "George Soros" (Your boss)
Well not that you have done my bidding, it's Miller time.
Continue ranting if you like.
....What you mean is, you can't disprove anything I quoted. Not one word. Here it is again at the bottom of this post; consider proving these wrong your homework assignment.
"Media Matters" = "George Soros" (Your boss)
....Already proven as a denialist lie. Once again, Gator shows his colors as a drive-by serial liar.
....Here are the figures you need to disprove.
"For example, Exxon has given more than $1.2 million to the American Council for Capital Formation. This group's website is filled with attacks on the climate bill now before Congress."
"Another featured item, a recent Wall Street Journal interview with ACCP's head, Mark Bloomfield, cheerleads cutting the capital gains tax. Bloomfield boasts he is known as "Mr. Capital Gains."
....Contact info here:
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_for_Capital_Formation
Exxon has given $1.6 million to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which calls itself "a public interest group dedicated to free enterprise and limited government." CEI, says Sourcewatch, "postures as an advocate of ‘sound science' in the development of public policy. However, CEI projects dispute the overwhelming scientific evidence that human induced greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change. They have a program for "challenging government regulations", push property rights as a solution to environment problems, opposed U.S. vehicle fuel efficiency standards and been a booster for the drug industry."
Contact info here:
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute
Then there's the National Center for Policy Analysis, which Exxon has given $520,000. It says its goal is "to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector."
....Contact info here:
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis
"Exxon is one of the top funders of the National Taxpayers Union, to whom it has given $315,000. NTU calls itself a "citizen group" advocating the flat tax - tax cuts for the rich, cutting government services, "individual liberty, and free enterprise." Grover Norquist was one of NTU's executive directors."
....Contact info here:
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Taxpayers_Union
....Let us know how you do.
"Among the various elements of Sourcewatch are... Congresspedia.org - A joint project with the non-partisan (not) Sunlight Foundation and The Center for Media and Democracy..."
"A Senior Fellow at the Sunlight Foundation is veteran journalist and editor Bill Allison, who for nine years worked for the George Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity, where he co-authored The Cheating of America, whose central thesis holds that “the rich and powerful shirk their responsibilities” as taxpayers. Allison was also senior editor of The Buying of the President 2000 and co-editor of The Buying of the President 2004."
"PBS broadcaster and Schumann Center for Media and Democracy President Bill Moyers is a trustee of the Open Society Institute’s Board of Directors. The network of Soros foundations – the most prominent of which is the Open Society Institute – supports a wide array of leftist groups and causes."
Thanks for getting all that Soros funded, Charles Manson approved, collusional delusional doomer propaganda.
Fetch!
Now all you have to do is find a lie on Mediamatters, and you'll have a point. not until, of course.
MM & Soros: the financing that never was:
mediamatters.org/research/200704130012
So, go ahead and show us the amount of money Soros gave Mediamatters, since you have nothing else.
Meanwhile, you are still desperately dodging the subject. lol
Now, roll over!
cmb how about you prove these wrong:
There's the $100 million Exxon donated to Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project to 'research alternative energy' and help 'combat global warming'. www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/Publications/XOMGlobalCap/page_7.html
Or the $600 million Exxon has invested in biofuels. www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_con_vehicle_algae.aspx
Or the overall $1.3 billion Exxon has spent in reducing GHG emissions.
Read their 2009 Corporate Citizenship Report www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Imports/ccr2009/pdf/community_ccr_2009.pdf
cmb Exxon believes in man made global warming and strongly supports "action on climate change".
I think you should read this www.policestateplanning.com/id52.htm
and this nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/06/bp-greenpeace-big-oil-jackpot.html for the 'skeptics ore funded by oil industries' arguments.
exxonsecrets.com/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=81
Biofuels - Exxon says they "expect to spend", so you lied directly - and there's not even an outside test facility yet. lol
Zero cite for third claim.
Pretty writing about themselves in the citizenship report:
"ExxonMobil recognizes the dual challenge
of providing energy necessary for economic
development while reducing greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions associated with
energy production and use. Our efforts to
reduce GHG emissions from our operations
and consumer use of products include
improving energy efficiency, implementing
proven emissions-reducing technologies,
and developing breakthrough technologies
for the long term."
...Guess that makes them AGW dupes, right? Dupes who directly fund lie mills like the MRC. =)
Your first desperately lying kooksite is directly exposed as a lie site by Exxon's own figures.
Your second desperately lying kook thinks she can limit her comparison to only one of many denialist organizations funded by Exxon/Mobil, magically pretending the others don't exist. From her link:
"The Competitive Enterprise Institute was the key group dropped – it had received $2.2 million from ExxonMobil since 1998, more than any other thinktank. But the relationship continues as CEI’s climate operatives continue to work closely with the other think tanks funded by Exxon."
List of organizations funded by Exxon/Mobil, including at least ten denialist lie operations.
All years:
mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Exxon_Mobil_Corporation/grants
Latest year, 2008:
mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Exxon_Mobil_Corporation/grants?year=2008
Still full of lying denialists, despite their bending to popular opinion and dropping CEI.
You will always swear by your bible and your gods. I can point out time and time again that the sources you quote have multiple agendas unrelated to climate and yet you simply stick your fingers in your ears and bark like a deranged dog.
Unless you can provide irrefutable proof man is causing catastrophic global warming, there really is nothing more to discuss here. When a salesman shows up at my door and tries to sell me a product (especially a costly product), he must provide proof of his product's claims or he is sent packing.
No sale.
You have never successfully made a single case you put forth here, and you have never shot down a single case I made. You are a 100% desperate, blithering loser all through this thread, and that fact screams at anyone who reads it. Just sayin'.
Meanwhile, back to the subject.
No one on this blog has produced:
Any science disproving AGW.
Any proven AGW fraud, other than your own.
And, of course, not one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory.
Exactly as I predicted when I first arrived. But I am supposed to be the waste of time here. =)
It's funny how you think that any organisation that questions AGW, that supports the crazy theory that the climate might actually change by itself and without human intervention, is a "denialist lie operation". cmb when warmists are told all the evidence against AGW, they don't respond to the arguments, they just attack the person or the organisation. They don't ever debate, they just resort to name calling.
cmb there are qualified scientists who don't believe in AGW. These are real scientists, who are actually interested in scientific truth, unlike most of the warmist 'scientists'.
....A lie, already roundly debunked.
It is not a conspiracy or anything like that. Here's another article about the 'skeptics are paid by oil industries' argument. www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html
....Bought and paid for climate liar Marc Sheppard, in a ridiculous right wing lie rag. Does Mr. Sheppard really think the funding sources he mentions for CRU stand to make trillions of dollars off the issue in some way? Oil and coal companies do. A fake comparison, fit for infants, and that's Mr. Sheppard's preferred audience.
....BTW, zero scientific wrongdoing in the stolen CRU email dump; cleared by four separate investigations.
It's funny how you think that any organisation that questions AGW, that supports the crazy theory that the climate might actually change by itself and without human intervention, is a "denialist lie operation".
....Simply a sad strawman designed to distort my views. Your mistake is in taking my word. Don't take my word, do your own research.
....http://deathby1000papercuts.com/dbkpreport/2010/02/the-conservative-100-most-popular-conservative-sites-feb-14-2010/
....Clearly your source is trash. 18th in the top 100 conservative sites. You embarrass yourself by offering it.
cmb when warmists are told all the evidence against AGW, they don't respond to the arguments, they just attack the person or the organisation. They don't ever debate, they just resort to name calling.
....A pathetic lie, as a read through this thread will illustrate. You have described the behavior of the denialists to a T, however.
cmb there are qualified scientists who don't believe in AGW.
....Name three.
These are real scientists, who are actually interested in scientific truth, unlike most of the warmist 'scientists'.
....Sorry, you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Over 95% of climate scientists agree with some form of AGW theory. There are no scientific societies who disagree.
....There is no scientific evidence refuting AGW theory. None. Zip. Zilch.
CO2 seems to be causing cooling!
But hey, feel free to explain the mechanics of how CO2 can cause global cooling. After all, you stole this doctored lie graph from somewhere, right? Somewhere you're ashamed of?
I'm all ears. No lie sites, please.
p.s. Here's a sourced graph for you. A little different temperature curve than yours, don't you think?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Your graph is covering a different time period and different data, apples and oranges.
You mean you want me to get info from Truther sites? You mean like all those Soros sites with which you are so enamoured? Why can't you find reputable sites like your ole buddy Charles Manson's "One World"? Or maybe you can find some of James J Lee's rantings and post them as well.
Fetch!
....Nope, sorry. Your stolen, unattributed mystery graph covers from 2008 to 1998 (so as to get the 1998 El Nino in there to lie about). Mine covers five more years. If you're claiming that's apples and oranges, you're playing stupid again. Or, you can source your unattributed mystery (i.e.worthless) graph and we'll see. =)
(Crazy Soros fixation rant snipped for lack of content)
Glass houses, chief. Let's see how many other climate liars they directly fund.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
American Spectator Foundation, Inc. (Richard Mellon Scaife, whose propaganda funding makes Soros look like a paperboy.)
Cato Institute
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and from foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, such as the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Carthage Foundation)
Competitive Enterprise Institute (teabagger funders, routine liars)
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (in addition to Exxon, funded by Bradley, Olin, Scaife, and Koch Foundations.)
FreedomWorks (Dick Armey's lobbying organization, teabagger financier)
And that's just to the f's. Meanwhile, you have an organization Soros helped start, and a guy who used to work for him. lol
Fetch!
You will always swear by your bible and your gods. I can point out time and time again that the sources you quote have multiple agendas unrelated to climate and yet you simply stick your fingers in your ears and bark like a deranged dog.
Unless you can provide irrefutable proof man is causing catastrophic global warming, there really is nothing more to discuss here. When a salesman shows up at my door and tries to sell me a product (especially a costly product), he must provide proof of his product's claims or he is sent packing.
No sale.
You have never successfully made a single case you put forth here, and you have never shot down a single case I made. You are a 100% desperate, blithering loser all through this thread, and that fact screams at anyone who reads it. Just sayin'.
Meanwhile, back to the subject.
No one on this blog has produced:
Any science disproving AGW.
Any proven AGW fraud, other than your own.
And, of course, not one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory.
Exactly as I predicted when I first arrived. But I am supposed to be the waste of time here. =)
Even your uneducated bible thumpers will admit
their beliefs are based on faith. You, however,
are clearly delusional, or on the take.
cmb, you truly have reduced yourself to being nothing more than a barking dog. Zero proof of catastrophic AGW and zero credibility.
Unfortunately for you, the neo-pseudo science you practice, is a sham. In your world it is unnecessary and "inconvenient" to actually do the work of proving a theory. Just bark loud enough and expect others to follow.
Sure, you don't have to produce anything disproving AGW, just keep harrassing and making stupid crap up and pretending it disproves AGW. No proofs required in your game plan. lol
(pathetic routine lies snipped)
How about the lie that AGW has been proven. Or are you ready to admit it has not?
As for "harrassing", why are you here? Do you really think anyone is going to change their minds simply because you rant and bark? Of course not, so your very prescence here is to harass. Remember your buddy "derecho64"? I do...
"What we need is a cadre of scientists, well-versed in the nastier aspects of PR, debate, and so on, to take the denialists head-on. No more ****-footing around. The denialists have taken their shots, time to return fire - and from now on, start lofting shells that they'll have to answer. Being on one's back foot all the time is not the way to win a war - and yes, it's a war. Time to go on offense, instead of playing a weak defense (if at all).
Let's put Plimer, McIntyre, Watts, Monckton, Bolt, Delingpole, and all the other morons, on notice. The science community isn't going to play it nice anymore. Yes, be honest - but be ruthless and show them for the charlatans, frauds, liars and scum that they are.
Can you tell I'm pissed? Good!"
Again, why are you here?
You expose yourself as loser here every time you post. lol
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v228/n5267/pdf/228143a0.pdf
And the "lol" is getting really old and childish.
Funny, you cannot even understand your own posts.
...So, you made it upoff the top of your head, like the rest of your crap.
Outright disregard, no, disgust that you display for any alternative theory
....Go ahead, show me a working alternative theory.
clearly shows your point of view. If I am wrong, then admit you do not know if man is responsible for catastrophic warming. Otherwise it is your assertion that, at least for you, AGW is a proven fact.
....Really, REALLY stupid false dichotomy. ROFLMAO
....Funny, you cannot even understand your own posts.
1: a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities ; also : the process or practice of making such a division
Waiting for that alternative theory. Then you can find me expressing disgust for it. Hypotheses like you've waved about so far do not count.
Yeah, pretty crowded in there. GIGO.
So, I guess George W. Bush's AGW conversion would make him one of Reagan's liberal friends? lol
Bush is a progressive, not a liberal, you apparently do not know the difference.
Let's get back to the theory of catastrophic AGW. Where is your proof?
cmb we've been telling you the other theories. The warming in the 20th century was not unprecedented and can be explained as a natural recovery from the little ice age. Solar activity can explain the warming throughout the 20th century. In the 20th century the sun was more active than in over a thousand years. cmb CO2 is just a natural trace gas (only 0.038% of the atmosphere), it plays no part in climate change.
Read the peer reviewed studies on that list I gave you. And before you call it a 'lie list' or 'denialist list' again, I'll remind you of something I said in an earlier comment:
Quoting Adam:
If you can't; accept that the list is valid and read the studies in it.
I begged and begged for you to produce a peer reviewed paper from your denialist lie list of 800. You refused and ran like a little girl. Once you finally produced a paper from your list, later in the thread, I immediately found a knockdown straight from the AGS. Your list is sh-t, but you just keep waving it around like a baby who's just been in his diaper. Boring.
Siebesma et al. (2004) report that “simulations with nine large-scale models [were] carried out for June/July/August 1998 and the quality of the results [was] assessed along a cross-section in the subtropical and tropical North Pacific ranging from (235°E, 35°N) to (187.5°E, 1°S),” in order to “document the performance quality of state-of-the-art GCMs in modeling the first-order characteristics of subtropical and tropical cloud systems.” The main conclusions of this study, according to Siebesma et al., were that “(1) almost all models strongly underpredicted both cloud cover and cloud amount in the stratocumulus regions while (2) the situation is opposite in the trade-wind region and the tropics where cloud cover and cloud amount are overpredicted by most models.” In fact, they report that “these deficiencies result in an overprediction of the downwelling surface short-wave radiation of typically 60 Wm-2 in the stratocumulus regimes and a similar underprediction of 60 Wm-2 in the trade-wind regions and in the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ),” which discrepancies are to be compared with a radiative forcing of only a couple of Wm-2 for a 300 ppm increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration. In addition, they state that “similar biases for the short-wave radiation were found at the top of the atmosphere, while discrepancies in the outgoing long-wave radiation are most pronounced in the ITCZ.”
or, as other actual non-amateur forecasters said, Quote:
LOL. You've got to be kidding after all the inventive ways to be profane on this site!!!
thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html
Quote:
I wonder who did steal the APSs mailing list? That's usually highly confidential in any organization, and is never given out, for obvious reasons. Not a good start to a negotiation.
It's a fun piece though. =)
You'll notice he has omitted his proof. =)
Quoting Adam:
Even Real Climate (REAL CLIMATE!!!!!!) is admitting there's been no warming www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
Quoting Adam:
-- A lie. To restate - great list of speculations, as the letter calls them, but no action once again. Did you ever find the removal? Pretty sure I asked you that last time and you ran.
Do you agree that in the email that I gave you, that he was clearly manipulating the data?
If not, could you please explain what other possible things he could have been doing instead?
If so, will you admit that what we were saying about climategate was right all along?
And will you read this book detailing all of the climategate emails, so you'll know that it wasn't just quotes taken out of context www.amazon.com/Climategate-Crutape-Letters-Steven-Mosher/dp/1450512437/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1286703070&sr=1-3
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/
www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/case-against-climate-change-discredited-by-study-835856.html
"The study, published in the journal Nature, found that the global average temperatures in the late 1940s stayed roughly the same rather than falling. David Thompson of Colorado State University, the team's leader, said a drop was, in effect, an artefact rather than a real observation.
"I was surprised to see the drop so clearly in the filtered data, and working in partnership with others, realised it couldn't be natural," Dr Thompson said.
Although the initial drop was significant, it did not last. By the 1960s, many other nations began taking ship-borne measurements of ocean temperature, minimising the discrepancy."
Why should he leave bad data in the graph? I thought that was your complaint?
Regarding climategate, clearing from 4 investigations is good enough for me, especially since no one has ever found any real-world scientific malfeasance in them. You might as well stop mentioning it, every decision maker on the planet knows it is dead now and that's good enough for me and my kids. =)
Quoting cmb:
cmb read this about those investigations www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
Did you know that Lord Oxburgh, of the second investigation, is president of a carbon trading industry and chairman of a wind farm company.
Reading Is Fundamental. When you get a 30-year graph with all short period cycles removed and it doesn't still show warming, let me know.
Wait are you admitting we were right about there being cooling over the past decade. You say it doesn't invalidate AGW, but are you admitting it anyway.
If not, could you please tell me what it would take to convince you that no warming occured over the past decade. I gave you all four temperature datasets. I gave you quotes from the climategate emails. I gave you a warmist paper, in which the author admitted it. I gave you articles in which super-biased BBC admitted it. On that article from real climate, several times the author admitted there had been no warming.
You should avoid absolutes, for this reason. So should your pals, but they are intent on lying to you to convince you of their viewpoint.
BTW, one decade is not statstically significant. It takes at least a 30 year average to establish a climate trend.
Look at this graph. The 2010 spike is because of el nino. www.climate4you.com/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979.gif
Quoting cmb:
So what you're saying is that it's going to take another 20 years of global cooling to finally convince that the world is not warming.
cmb couldn't you simply reach the most obvious conclusion now. That the climate is not warming, and that natural factors will always overwhelm any human influence.
No data that 2010 is caused strictly by an El Nino to be found, however. Do you have a different graph?
And yeah, it's going to take 30 years of average cooling to convince me, just like it took 30 years of average warming to convince me.
Your conclusion is only "obvious" to liars and dupes. In fact, most people would laugh uproariously at your thinking you could ever back it up.
But then, denialists don't need backup. They just repeat their Big Lie over and over and over, changing it a little whenever they get caught. Over 119 different denialist arguments, and you boys still can't prove your case.
Hadcrut 3
www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.html
UAH
www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html
RSS
www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
NCDC
www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanom.html
800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
--A lie.
Did you know that for the past 30 years there has been virtually no change in global sea ice
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
And that accumulated cyclone energy is not at a 33 year low www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
That's a typo. I meant it's now at a 33 year low.
Cyclone energy is not a good GW predictor. Go look it up.
cmb I showed you satellite data, which proved there had been no change in global sea ice.
We all accept there's been a decline in Arctic sea ice arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
But Antarctic sea ice is at record extent arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
No matter how much we lose in the Arctic we'll always make up for in the Antarctic.
Quoting cmb:
Oh, so what you're saying is that, if hurricane activity is high like in 2005, then it's ok to blame that on global warming, but if it's at a record low, 5 years later, suddenly that doesn't matter any more.
*views
I also don't understand if cmb, doesn't like any views or facts that goes against it's view, why it bothers to comment on this website on the first place. All cmb does is insult us and call us names.
You forgot a few lines of text. Here you go:
ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/sCO2plants.asp
news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22205
www.gfdl.noaa.gov/climate-impact-of-quadrupling-co2
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Benny_Peiser
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roger_Pielke_Jr
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/05/peiser.php
sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1761-2005.32.pdf
tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
www.skepticalscience.com/Klaus-Martin-Schulte-and-scientific-consensus.html
www.sadlyno.com/archives/7040.html
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/classifying_abstracts_on_globa.php
www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-be
www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-journal-publishes-plagiarized-paper
www.skepticalscience.com/Klaus-Martin-Schulte-and-scientific-consensus.html
www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/pages/publication.html
rabett.blogspot.com/2010/08/judys-tribe.html
www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/TBall%20Statement%20of%20Claim.pdf
tinyurl.com/ballsliesheet
tinyurl.com/balladmission
www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-26-2006/kimberley-strassel
unclevinny.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/global-warming-denialism/
tinyurl.com/delayedIRrelease
www.cheaperpetrolparty.com/Images/Global_Warming/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
leatherhead.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/global-warming-temperature-chart1.gif
www.ucar.edu/research/climate/images/pcmensembles2.jpg
www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
www.opticsinfobase.org/viewmedia.cfm?id=23222&seq=0
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/modeling.html
www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/realclimateruns.jpg
www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-010
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050401214.html
initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/08/dyson-exegesis.html
www.grist.org/article/freeman-dyson-climate-crackpot
climateprogress.org/2008/05/25/freeman-dyson-and-his-amazing-incredible-genetically-engineered-carbon-eating-trees/
...More after the jump.
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/04/china.jonathanwatts
www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File188.pdf
www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2010/May/insolvency-6_image012.jpg
www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2010-07-15-heat-record_N.htm
www2.wsav.com/blogs/weather-she-wrote/2010/aug/17/2010-hottest-year-record-so-far-ar-718355/
www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/22/nasa.warmest.decade.data/index.html
www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/22/nasa_global_warming_warmest_decade/
www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/22/nasa_global_warming_warmest_decade/
www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1065&filename=1256765544.txt
cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20140440
camels.metoffice.gov.uk/quarc/Titchner09.pdf
scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7-15.gif
4.bp.blogspot.com/_1aOzUxvOj5k/Rx1Xl6fBnTI/AAAAAAAAARc/efy9rKgQoGc/s1600/side%2Bby%2Bside%2Bgraphs.JPG
environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/greenhouse.htm
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304142228.htm
www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html
news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22205
ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/sCO2plants.asp
www.state.gov/documents/organization/140636.pdf
www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm
ww2.defra.gov.uk/2010/08/25/cumbria-climate-change/
ww2.defra.gov.uk/2010/08/25/blackpool-climate-change/
www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html
www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/remember_eg_becks_dodgy.php
rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/beckies-as-tonstant-weader-knows-eli.html
www.bellona.org/news/news_2007/enviro_beating
www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGAMR370012007
www.ifex.org/indonesia/2010/08/11/river_dead/
www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5722210,00.html
video.filestube.com/watch,915d6dca91a1832a03e9/Glen-Davis-Murder-2nd-Person-of-Interest-for-ID.html
www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/salvadoran-environmental-activists-killed-radio-station-staff-threatened-20100105
environment.change.org/blog/view/violence_escalating_against_anti-coal_activists
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_and_animal_activists_injured_or_killed
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/11/cancer-new-york-rescuers
www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_2712.cfm
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/05/hate-mail-climategate
www.wellsphere.com/green-living-article/violence-in-darfur-fueled-by-global-warming/698509
www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/james-lee-discovery-chann_n_702356.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation
mediamatters.org/research/201002240011
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf#page=8
www.calitics.com/diary/11251/laos-flawed-look-at-jobs-and-ab-32
www.cna.org/sites/default/files/Powering%20Americas%20Defense.pdf
rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/in-which-in-is-shown-how-nipcc-and-fred.html
matt.baya.net/lies-damn-lies-and-the-heartland-institute/
www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1634
www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v228/n5267/pdf/228143a0.pdf
www.desmogblog.com/sonja-boehmer-christiansen
www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-journal-publishes-plagiarized-paper
www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/report.cgi?record_id=11676&type=pdfxsum
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011639.shtml
www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004
www.federationofscientists.org/PMPanels/Climate/ClimatePMP.asp
wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2010/07/mann-cleared
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/monckton_and_bolt_defame_john.php
www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1622302920070116
www.peoplesworld.org/why-exxon-mobil-is-more-dangerous-than-bp/
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_for_Capital_Formation
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Taxpayers_Union
mediamatters.org/research/200704130012
exxonsecrets.com/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=81
mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Exxon_Mobil_Corporation/grants
mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Exxon_Mobil_Corporation/grants?year=2008
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v228/n5267/pdf/228143a0.pdf
www.independent.co.uk/.../case-against-climate-change-discredited-by-study-835856.html
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/
Meanwhile, back to the subject.
No one on this blog has produced:
Any science disproving AGW.
Any proven AGW fraud, other than your own.
And, of course, not one scientific society or national government rejecting AGW theory.
Exactly as I predicted when I first arrived. But I am supposed to be the waste of time here. =)
cmb you asked that before. I provided you with 800 peer reviewed papers against AGW. An 880 page report debunking AGW through thousands of peer reviewed studies and a list of nearly 100 scientific scandals.
And you completely dismissed it.
It's no good asking for science against AGW, when your obviously not willing to accept any.
If you do have an open mind, actually look through these papers, especially the ones to do with the sun www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
- Craig Loehle - "A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies"
.....Paper never loads, no climate studies by author. No evidence of peer review. Submitted to Sonya's fake journal E&E.
Craig Loehle:
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Craig_Loehle
- Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch - "Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies" - multi-science.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/
.....Paper correcting their own earlier mistakes.McCulloch also has no climate work. In Sonya's fake Journal E&E - Category: "Short communication." Not a paper, No evidence of peer review. Does not deny AGW.
- Craig Loehle - "Reply To: Comments on Loehle, "correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies"
.....Paper is in the Letter section of Sonya's fake E&E. Not a paper, no peer review. Does not deny AGW.
- Robert C. Balling Jr. - "A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming" - onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1526-0984.2000.74003.x/pdf
.....Agrees w AGW, talks history.
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer - "
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions"
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1651/pdf
.....Talks about model results, does not deny AGW. Three climate liars in authors list. Intentionally uses bad radiosonde data.
.....Rebuttals here:
bravenewclimate.com/2008/10/14/two-denialist-talking-points-quashed/#more-615
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/10/tropical-tropopshere-iii/
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
.....BTW, next paper in that same journal issue: "Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere"
....."Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical ‘consistency test’. "
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer - "Addendum to A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model Predictions", pas.rochester.edu/.../...
...Paper in draft, Dave Douglas only recorded author, but 3 climate liars involved - no evidence of peer review, text unavailable. Cannot deny AGW.
...more after the jump.
.....Both climate liars, no climate work. References "Climate Audit" website as a university. Snarky reply to my above cite, trying to use corrected radiosonde data but leaving old incorrect data in place. No peer review in evidence. Does not deny AGW.
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer - "Addendum to
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model Predictions."
Three climate liars in authors list, paper not yet accepted, is in draft form. No evidence of peer review. Text unavailable, cannot deny AGW.
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick - "An updated comparison of model ensemble and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere" - arxiv.org/abs/0905.0445
.....Another attempt to cover their earlier mistakes. Does not deny AGW.
- C.R. de Freitas, "A Critial Appraisal of the Global Warming Debate", onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-7939.1994.tb00398.x/pdf
Written by climate liar, direct lies in paper, which is basically an editorial. No evidence of peer review. Opinion piece which cannot deny AGW.
- Heinz Hug - "A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide" -
.....Link goes directly to above paper by climate liar De Frietas - "A Critical Appraisal of the Global Warming Debate". Googling discovers Hug's paper, published in Sonya's fake journal E&E, "Add this item to your shopping cart for purchase later." Price: £18.00., text unavailable, CO2 proven factor in climate change. Apparently does not deny AGW.
- Henry R. Linden, "A dissenting view on global climate change", www.sciencedirect.com/.../
...Published in "The Electricity Journal", subject area "Business, Management and Accounting
Social Sciences". Linden = no work published after 1995. He's a ghost on Scopus:http://www.scopus.com/h irsch/author.url?accessor=auth orProfile&auidList=24302523300 &authorName=Linden%2c+Henry+R. &origin=AuthorProfile&txGid=J6 G7MLggZGwUDUoz2fmuXFY%3a5
I just met your criterion - ten papers. I think that'll do it for your lie cite's list of liars.
Even in the Climategate emails they admitted it was peer reviewed
At 02:18 PM 5/16/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
......
It is
already 'credible' since it is in the peer reviewed literature (and E&E, by the way, is
peer reviewed).
And read this about Loehle's study wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/
As for this one onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1756/abstract
I think you should read this arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.2196.pdf
And this joannenova.com.au/2010/08/the-models-are-wrong-but-only-by-400/
cmb I think Jo Nova suns it up best:
"Thousands of radiosondes, and three decades of satellite measurements show unequivocally that there is no hot spot, not a hint, or glimmer, nothing within a standard deviation of what the catastrophic models expected."
cmb there is no tropospheric hot spot, there never was and there's never going to be. This is one of the major flaws in AGW. Some climategate scientists like Santer might try to desperately try and find a hot spot, but they can't escape the fact it's simply not there.
Look, cmb, if there was even the slightest bit of evidence, that the tropospheric hot spot was indeed there, then all the warmists would be saying it, but there not.
1. How does the index ranking they are so proud of compare with, say, the proceedings of the ACS or APS?
2. Can you find me any article, in any issue of E&E, which bolsters AGW theory? A real journal publishes any paper that's topical and is good work. Such a possiblity is right in their mission statement from the article you gave me.
If there are zero articles, research letters, or drafts whose conclusions bolster AGW theory in some way, we have a fake journal.
Of course Sonya has already been caught with her hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, but I just wanted to see what you've got.
As far as Jo Nova goes, she uses bad radiosonde and microwave data, and the hot spot is not necessary for AGW theory, only stratospheric cooling. Plus, I caught her repeatedly lying and censoring her blog. No points for Jo.
And now, I have a user at 10, gotta go.
cmb you think that a paper has to support AGW, to be "topical and good work". Any other paper, which supports skeptisicm, you simply call it a 'lie paper'.
cmb Energy and Environement publishes, skeptic papers, which are peer reviewed, published and have referecnes. You can't say the journal's not a real journal, because it doesn't publish AGW papers. cmb I also have a challenge for you. Why don't you find me an article on some climate alarmist website ('Real Climate' or 'Brave New Climate) which supports skeptisicm of AGW.
You can't keep going on and on about E & E until you've done that.
Quoting cmb:
That's completely ridiculous!
It's like saying
genes aren't necessary for evolution
or that fuel isn't necessary to drive a car
or that gravity isn't necessary to keep you on the ground
Or that the sun isn't necessary for warmth
Or that electricity isn't necessary for a computer
cmb the tropospheric hot spot is crucial to the AGW theory. Without it AGW could not be happening. It would be disproved. Stratospheric cooling is completely insignificant.
cmb really read those studies www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Have an open mind. accept that there is an alternative theory to AGW. I Reccommend the ones to do with the sun:
www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/2005GL023849.pdf
www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/2005GL025539.pdf
www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/2006GL027142.pdf
www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf
www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf
arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.4639v1.pdf
cmb read the studies (proper reading, not quick reading).
epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
You can't try and get out of reading it, with some stuff from some climate alarmist website, like you did last time.
Lindzen, Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
PDF download available here: Lindzen Climate Science Questions
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen
climateprogress.org/2009/03/09/richard-lindzen-heartland-denier/
www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/richard-lindzen-global-warming-and-id/
www.dankennedy.net/2010/05/16/richard-lindzens-curiously-unskeptical-skepticism/
Skip aka Russ
He does the same sh*t routine at Nova's site and probably everywhere else on Earth,
cmb when are you going to move out of your mom's basement, toss out your Star Trek toys, and get a job
Found here, www.fightingillini.com/school-bio/ill-phonebook.html!!
If you remember he left his e-addy here instead of his screen name while posting his comments here, climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/7672-venus-is-hot-mars-is-not
He is probably invested in the carbon trading scheme. You can post this on Nova's site if you like!!! Cheers!!!
Do you browbeat your mom to get as fanatical about your religion as you are?
I hate hockey. So hang me for treason!
YummY
Other Federal employees may have done the same thing - right, Dr Schmidt?
Gavin wants to promote Hansen's outlook, and I would like to prevent the American public from being ripped off by this global warming fraud junk science hooey.
People are too timid to speak out for one reason or another about what they know to be absolute hogwash, but people have to let their fears go and just let it be known that they aren't going to take getting ripped off by this any more.
I could give you a litany of slander written about me; it matters little, but I wonder when they are going to start doing it to Hal Lewis?
They've been strangely quiet about him so far
Do you have any with solid arguments who were refuted? That would be a serious thing, I agree. I would like to see some of their research, if you'd be so kind.
Imagine you had been raised in a culture that endorsed a certain religion. You would most likely buy into the tenets of any religion you witnessed your peers and parents practicing. AGW is as real to cmb as Xenu is to the Scientologists. When a society adopts a dogma to the point where virtually every media source, all pop culture, prominent politicians, peers, academia and a few very vocal scientists all agree, there is very little chance of escaping that ideology. Galileo was virtually alone in his science and was excoriated by all of the above entities of his day. And he was still right.
As I have told other AGW zealots whom I see have no interest in truth, let's take this up again in ten years. Science and logic apparently have no effect on them, maybe time will.
I miss Chief Illiniwek. Go Illini! ;)
I wondered how long it would take you to denegrate Hal Lewis, now I have my answer.
I can't be sure, but I don't think dental charts would do you any good either. =)
Say, did Hal ever say where the trillions of dollars supporting AGW are coming from, or why no one else has noticed?
I guess I had not considered how unstable your life may be. Not everyone can have job security through proficiency. And I guess that means transient address issues as well. It will comfort you to know that I worked my way through college doing what is known as "skip tracing", I will find you. I guess I never realized what a fragile flower you are, my bad.
Since it hasn't warmed this decade, giving you a head start - if the trend during the thirty years ending with the next ten is negative, I owe you $100. If it's positive, you owe me $100.
Given your level of certainty, I should ask for 10 to 1 odds, but I doubt you'd want to put $1000 on the line...?
In the Comments on a SciAm article subtly dissing Judith Curry, "Iconoclast" posts the following:
Quote:Every paragraph a gem, typos and all.
priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/86304-satellite-failure-means-decade-global-warming-data-doubtful.html
RSS feed for comments to this post