Does the cold snap disprove global warming? Well, considering this cold "snap" has lasted for, oh, the last few years, I'd have to say it does.
RELEASE : 10-017
NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years
NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years WASHINGTON -- A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.
Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record.
"There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point," said James Hansen, GISS director. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated."
January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Looking back to 1880, when modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, although there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.
...
:orly:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html
The decade of 2000 to 2009 appears to be the warmest one in the modern record, the World Meteorological Organization reported in a new analysis on Tuesday. Does that mean that the past decade has been cooling? No—of course not. Comparison of the red line in Fig. 1 with pre-1998 decades shows that the past decade is warmer, but the blue line shows cooling during the past decade—although the decade is warmer than previous decades, the climate did cool during the decade.
Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record.
Two months after “climategate†cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.
Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.
SNIP
Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have “cherry picked†the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather.
SNIP
In addition to the allegations against NOAA and GISS, climate scientists are also dealing with the embarrassment this week of the false glacier-melt warning contained in the 2007 report of the UN Panel on Climate Change. That report said Himalayan glaciers are likely to disappear within three decades if current rates of melting continue.
This week, however, the panel admitted there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders. Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
...
Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers. Two months after "climategate" cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming. Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.
...
THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny - and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.
Very thorough site... :-)
Very good Mrs. Smith!! :bow::tongue:
I don't think TNO will be back to this thread. Owned is too light a word for what has gone on here. There are idiots then there are global warming alarmists. They're worse than Moonies.
KC
:tongue:The site in my post has multiple anti-warmer columns, with research and links. It would be a good one to hang on to for reference. :-)
I already had an entire thread on this article.
Can't beat no bunny!
Very good Mrs. Smith!! :bow:
I don't think TNO will be back to this thread. Owned is too light a word for what has gone on here. There are idiots then there are global warming alarmists. They're worse than Moonies.
KC
second warmest since 1880.
Exaggerations and errors aside, the glaciers are not fine.
Watch: http://asiasociety.org/onthinnerice
Care to link the data, worldwide, that gives the temps, with the source material?
So, tell me, have glaciers never melted before? Ever?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources
http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-linksAs TVDOC noted realclimate.com is not a scientific research site but policy advocacy.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources
Exaggerations and errors aside, the glaciers are not fine.
Watch: http://asiasociety.org/onthinnerice
Do you believe that global warming is man made? Me, I don't believe in global warming at all but if it were warming I don't think for a minute that man has any impact on it.He psychologically NEEDS man-made global warming.
You are admitting to exaggerations and errors ... why do you suppose those who are pushing the global warming agenda do that? Do you think it hurts or helps their cause?
IF the science is so strong why not just live with that?
What has convinced you that the globe is warming? And does that source have any past history of these 'exaggerations and errors'? If they do then why do you still believe?
I'm simply curious. I've never actually met anyone who believed in man made global warming and I only know a few who believe in global warming at all.
KC
As TVDOC noted realclimate.com is not a scientific research site but policy advocacy.
In short: they've lied.
And as the point of the article you seek to rebut centers on the fact that the Himalayan glacier melt was nothing more wild-assed speculation uttered in a phone conversation rather than a definitive research article perhaps the IPCC should have found some real research rather than "ignoring" what they knew to be speculation for "political" reasons.
AGW isn't even PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE as it violates the laws of thermodynamics but does this give the AGW-types a sense of relief?
So, the American Institute of Physics supports the mainstream view on AGW because...
At this point there is no longer a "mainstream view" (if there ever was one realistically).........not unlike the "consensus fallacy" scientists are running away from this hoax as fast as they can......and still preseve their grant status......
Its over.......its just a matter of time before it collapses under the weight of all of the fabrication and deceit.....
doc
No major scientific institution has reversed its position on AGW.
No major scientific institution has reversed its position on AGW.
I've never found a credible scientific institution that took that position to begin with.......
doc
I've never found a credible scientific institution that took that position to begin with.......
("Credible" as defined as one who was not either blackmailed by their alarmist peers, or by threatned revocation of research grants, or fed false or doctored data to arrive at their conclusions)
doc
I'm not interested in conspiracy theories.
I'm not interested in conspiracy theories.
Yes. So what?
No major scientific institution has reversed its position on AGW.
So...since we "know" that glaciers melted in traceable patterns that, except for this era, do not have a "viable" presence of man.....................what caused them to melt and re-form? Mammoth farts?
It could be mammoth farts. Methane is going to be the new boogie man in the glowbull warming myth very soon.
The Church (you know those people you hate?) didn't reverse it's excommunion of that guy who thought the world was round for several hundred years...would you have still thought the earth was flat, just because the main 'scientific' community hadn't changed it's mind yet?
I'm not interested in conspiracy theories.
The belief that the Earth is flat is a protoscientific view which was held long before the scientific method became standard practice. It's silly to compare modern science to protoscience.
The belief that the Earth is flat is a protoscientific view which was held long before the scientific method became standard practice. It's silly to compare modern science to protoscience.
First Fact: All life on this planet is based on carbon.......you know the same carbon that forms carbon dioxide, and is the primary component in the fuels that we use. The same carbon that has become the "bogeyman" for the AGW alarmists.
Second Fact: The carbon on earth, in its various forms, has always been here, and always be until the planet vaporizes in the corona of our dying sun.
Sixth Fact The fossil record that most evolutionists love has proven through spectrographic analysis that the earth has warmed and cooled countless times over its history, and generally does so on a cyclical basis......this is not a new phenomena, it has been happening also for eons.
CO2 is good but too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.
The problem is not the presence of the CO2 but rather where it is. Currently, there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is just silly. No one is claiming that Earth hasn't gone through waming and cooling cycles.
CO2 is good but too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.
The problem is not the presence of the CO2 but rather where it is. Currently, there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
The atmospheric greenhouse e ect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a rm scientifi c foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarifi ed. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse eff ects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned di fference of 33C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
No major scientific institution has reversed its position on AGW.As Max Plank quipped, Science progresses funeral by funeral. So give it time. Nobody lives forever.
No major scientific institution has reversed its position on AGW.
The head of the IPCC has monied interests in EcoShamExcept that, I think you forget, Obama fixed the sea levels. Perhaps his only first term accomplishment. I wonder if he'll tout it tomorrow night?
The data used by the IPCC has been shown to be cherry-picked at best and outright fraud at worse.
So-called "scientists" whose work has been used in the IPCC have admitted to have political agendas.
If any sciency group wants to cling to the IPCC they are free to drown with them.
The concept of which is physically impossible. To wit:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Come back in 114 pages.
Let's see... one paper published in a minor journal versus the American Institute of Physics and the American Physical Society. Tough one.And as typical, no discussion of the facts.
:whatever:
CO2 is good but too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.There has been far more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past.
The problem is not the presence of the CO2 but rather where it is. Currently, there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is just silly. No one is claiming that Earth hasn't gone through waming and cooling cycles.
And as typical, no discussion of the facts.
If AGW is possible within the laws of thermodynamics it should be pretty easy to show the error in the work.
Considering that the Gerlich paper hasn't persuaded the AIP or the APS to change their positions on AGW, why should I consider it persuasive? Because it got published?Well, aren't you trying to convince us that AGW is real based on a few dozen corrupt bureaucrats manipulating certain scientific findings and eventually corrupted a few scientists to take a party line and eventually corrupt the whole scientific process to the point that only scientific papers that agreed with the corrupt bureaucrats got into peer reviewed journals?
Considering that the Gerlich paper hasn't persuaded the AIP or the APS to change their positions on AGW, why should I consider it persuasive? Because it got published?AIP and APS have chosen to throw their lots in with known frauds, crooks and agenda pushers ather than refute a black-and-white assertion so be it.
AIP and APS have chosen to throw their lots in with known frauds, crooks and agenda pushers ather than refute a black-and-white assertion so be it.
So, according to you, the AIP and APS are in on the conspiracy. Got it.Or maybe they're just idiots too embarrassed to admit their mistake.
:mental:
Or maybe they're just idiots too embarrassed to admit their mistake.
FACT: The hockey stick is a fraud
Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
Geoff Brumfiel
But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.
It's probably the most politicized graph in science — an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed science in the service of that case to others — and it has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the 'hockey-stick' plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy to rest.
bullshit
The CRU emails talk plainly of Mann and company using "tricks" to manipulate data.
Your POS article is from 2006, well before the CRU emails were revealed.
private emails > NAS
Yeah. Let's base our opinion on AGW on statements and emails taken out of context.
:whatever:
Mike's Nature Trick explained: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
:orly:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html
"According to the NASA email, NASA's incorrect temperature readings resulted from a "flaw" in a computer program used to update annual temperature data. [James] Hansen, apparently frustrated by the attention paid to the NASA error, labeled McIntyre a "pest" and suggests those who disagree with his global warming theories "should be ready to crawl under a rock by now." Hansen also suggests that those calling attention to the climate data error did not have a "light on upstairs."
"In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations."
Yeah. Let's base our opinion on AGW on statements and emails taken out of context.
:whatever:
Mike's Nature Trick explained: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
You mean this NASA Climate date?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30006
Or this little problem with the same climate data?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000
Seems everyone is cheating and fudging their numbers to make it appear that man made global warming is real and not the made up pile of bullsh*t that it really is.
How can people admitting they can't make the numbers and computer models match what they are out there predicting without manipulating (guessing) on the numbers to make them come out the way they want "out of context"?What he said.
Yeah. Let's base our opinion on AGW on statements and emails taken out of context.
:whatever:
Mike's Nature Trick explained: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha†phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.†The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick†to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problemâ€, rather than something that is “secretâ€, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problemâ€â€“see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
The exact "explanation" from that link...
In other words...
What we are trying to prove doesn`t match the observable evidence so we will use a different set of standards to keep the propaganda up.
Once more a word (trick) has to be redefined to suit a purpose...in this case claim no attempt to mislead.
Interesting that by its own admission when there was a problem they had no issue with simply ignoring it.
Show me how that is any kind of real "science".
Hey, wake me up when Michael Mann is fired or indicted.
The A.P. is reporting that the director of the prestigious U.K. Hadley Climate Research Unit will step down during an investigation into allegations that he and his colleagues for years slanted climate research toward man-made greenhouse gases as the central cause of global warming. Initial reviews of the hacked files reveal world-renowned climate scientists conspiring to manipulate computer climate modeling data, terminology and research reports to promote the theories of global warming.http://www.examiner.com/x-3089-LA-Ecopolitics-Examiner~y2009m12d1-UK-Hadley-Climate-Unit-head-yields-to-bias-charges
Hadley officials say that Unit head Phil Jones will be suspended from his chief researcher’s position pending completion of an independent review of his involvement in altering the way in which global temperature data were presented.
The problem is not the presence of the CO2 but rather where it is. Currently, there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
The error written about in the article you provided a link to was a statistically insignificant error which led NASA to rank 1998 as hotter than 1934.
Today, NOAA's climate arm, the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., announced that the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average -- the 34th coolest on record.
The preliminary analysis is based on records dating back to 1895.
For the 2009 summer, the average temperature of 71.7 degrees F was 0.4 degree F below the 20th Century average. The 2008 average summer temperature was 72.7 degrees F.
NOAA's climate officials said a "a recurring upper level trough held the June-August temperatures down in the central states," where a number of states came near their record low for the three-month summer: Michigan (5th coldest), Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota (all 7th coldest), Nebraska (8th coldest) and Iowa (9th coldest).
There were more than 300 low temperature records (counting daily highs and lows) set across states in the Midwest during the last two days of August.
They are still wrong. But don't take my word for it...take NOAA's
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/
All of this on top of the fact that they can't predict the weather from day to day yet you believe they can tell you what the temperature is going to be in 100 years? Really?
Weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is far less predictable than climate. For instance, I can't tell you what the temperature will be on this day 5 years from now but I can tell you that we will be in the midst of winter. Okay?
Weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is far less predictable than climate. For instance, I can't tell you what the temperature will be on this day 5 years from now but I can tell you that we will be in the midst of winter. Okay?Obviously climate isn't all that predictable either since they have to hide the decline. And...isn't all life supposed to have been wiped off the face of the earth by now according to AGW prophets of doom like Ted Danson and Algore?
Can you tell me what kind of winter we will be in the midst of 5 years from now? How high the ocean levels are going to be? How many trees will be dead from the lack of CO2?
I am starting to think you don't actually believe in AGW .... I think you just like to argue the point. It would seem the evidence is overwhelming and I don't think you're an idiot soooo that would lead one to believe you simply like to 'argue'.
KC
Oh please. It was a metaphor. Can you tell me what kind of winter we will be in the midst of 5 years from now? How high the ocean levels are going to be? How many trees will be dead from the lack of CO2?
Obviously climate isn't all that predictable either since they have to hide the decline. And...isn't all life supposed to have been wiped off the face of the earth by now according to AGW prophets of doom like Ted Danson and Algore?
What's the difference between AGWers prophecies of doom and that of the average UFO or Bible cult?
Weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is far less predictable than climate. For instance, I can't tell you what the temperature will be on this day 5 years from now but I can tell you that we will be in the midst of winter. Okay?
Well, I do believe in AGW but I'm not dogmatic about it. I wouldn't say that the science is settled one way or the other but I think the weight of evidence is on the side of AGW. Now, contrast my position against the position of many here who are absolutely certain that AGW is a hoax or just plain wrong.
I don't really follow what celebrities and activists have to say on matters of science.
I don't know. I've always maintained that a lot of populated places on Earth will probably stand to benefit from global warming... at least in the short term. My main concern regarding the consequences of climate change is ecosystem collapse and how it could affect our economy and way of life.
Oh please. It was a metaphor. Can you tell me what kind of winter we will be in the midst of 5 years from now? How high the ocean levels are going to be? How many trees will be dead from the lack of CO2?
I am starting to think you don't actually believe in AGW .... I think you just like to argue the point. It would seem the evidence is overwhelming and I don't think you're an idiot soooo that would lead one to believe you simply like to 'argue'.
KC
I don't really follow what celebrities and activists have to say on matters of science.If AGW where really a threat, and our political leaders really believed that, they would be bicycling to Copenhagen over the ocean, or better yet, teleconferencing, because the situation is just too dire to be belching tons of the evil life-promoting CO2 into an already bloated atmosphere.
I don't know. I've always maintained that a lot of populated places on Earth will probably stand to benefit from global warming... at least in the short term. My main concern regarding the consequences of climate change is ecosystem collapse and how it could affect our economy and way of life.
This really shocks me. If AGW were going on there would be no need to lie and bend facts to fit in the holes they want them in. That alone pretty much makes the case for me. If it would stand on its own merit I would be behind it 100% but it can't/won't/doesn't so why would you say there is more weight on the side of AGW. THAT makes no sense.
Can you point to a single instance where the 'un-believers' have done the same thing? Why can't the scientists who deny AGW get any air time? Hell, even the head of the Weather Channel shut down her climatologists views .... Why silence the dissent? What is the purpose?
KC
Scientists are human. Humans are sometimes overzealous.And climate scientists are political advocates getting fat government tax-payer funded pay checks that in turn allow politicians to pass massive wealth redistribution schemes and centralize power under their grubby little fingers while insiders set-up bald-faced carbon pyramid schemes that will wreck the economy.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
Well, I do believe in AGW but I'm not dogmatic about it. I wouldn't say that the science is settled one way or the other but I think the weight of evidence is on the side of AGW. Now, contrast my position against the position of many here who are absolutely certain that AGW is a hoax or just plain wrong.
Furthermore, I am absolutely positive that the earth herself can belch up more pollution into the atmosphere during one volcanic eruption than human beings have belched into the atmosphere during our entire industrial phase thus far. I also believe if anything is going to wipe out life on earth, it will be something like a super volcano erupting or a large object from space exploding in the atmosphere and not someone driving their Hummer.
In fact, I am certain that in the whole history of humanity and in the whole history of automobiles, nobody has ever brought about the end of the world by driving a car. I am equally certain that in the whole history of humanity and the whole history of bicycles, nobody has ever saved the earth by peddling to work, or the hippie jam fest.
And climate scientists are political advocates getting fat government tax-payer funded pay checks that in turn allow politicians to pass massive wealth redistribution schemes and centralize power under their grubby little fingers while insiders set-up bald-faced carbon pyramid schemes that will wreck the economy.
Give us one good reason why ANY of this should be permitted.
LOL! Have you ever looked at the kind of academic credentials climate scientists have? These are people who could, if they wanted to, get easy and high paying jobs in the private sector. To suggest that climate scientists do what they do to get rich is just silly. That said, there are always bad apples in any field.
The fact that cosmic and geological events are capable of affecting climate has no bearing on the question of whether human activities are affecting climate.Okay then: I also firmly believe in the whole history of humanity and the whole history of industry, no human industry has ever led to the end of the world.
Cars aren't the only problem. There's also industry. Of course, I can see why you'd try to minimize the problem. Nice try.
Oh, so now credentials matter.
How convenient for you.
A credentialed scientist publishes a report that says AGW violates the laws of physics and all you can retort is because the AGW pushers haven't acknowledged the report it doesn't count.
Okay then: I also firmly believe in the whole history of humanity and the whole history of industry, no human industry has ever led to the end of the world.
Even the most destructive human activity I can think of, liberalism, has not as yet led to the End Times. And as far as human activity destroying the climate, I would put my money on liberalism as being the most likely to End the World and the Climate As We Know Them, although that is far fetched. But there are a lot of limousine liberals out there with their private jets and most of them believe in AGW, or so they say, yet they utilize their limos and private jets. So even if AGW were a problem, it couldn't be that big a problem as the Smartest People in the Room don't seem all that concerned about it.
Even Climatologists seem to enjoy jet setting about to different climate and AGW conferences. So either they do not believe their own prophecies or they don't seem them as that big a deal.
Well, look... if you think that pumping CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere at the current rate won't eventually have a detrimental effect that's your business but the science seems to indicate that it's a problem.See? There you go again. CO2 is a basic building block of life, not a pollutant. You believe it is a pollutant, but that is only a belief.
Well, look... if you think that pumping CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere at the current rate won't eventually have a detrimental effect that's your business but the science seems to indicate that it's a problem.
Of course credentials matter. The difference between you and me is that I don't run around in circles screaming "fraud" and "conspiracy" every time a credentialed scientist takes a position contrary to what I believe.
A catastrophic heat wave appears to be closing in on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. How hot is it getting in the scientific kitchen where they’ve been cooking the books and spicing up the stew pots? So hot, apparently, that Andrew Weaver, probably Canada’s leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of IPCC leadership and institutional reform.
If Andrew Weaver is heading for the exits, it’s a pretty sure sign that the United Nations agency is under monumental stress. Mr. Weaver, after all, has been a major IPCC science insider for years. He is Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, mastermind of one of the most sophisticated climate modelling systems on the planet, and lead author on two recent landmark IPCC reports. For him to say, as he told Canwest News yesterday, that there has been some “dangereous crossing†of the line between climate advocacy and science at the IPCC is stunning in itself.
Not only is Mr. Weaver an IPCC insider. He has also, over the years, generated his own volume of climate advocacy that often seemed to have crossed that dangereous line between hype and science. It is Mr. Weaver, for example, who said the IPCC’s 2007 science report — the one now subject to some scrutiny —“isn’t a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles.â€
He has also made numerous television appearances linking current weather and temperature events with global warming, painting sensational pictures and dramatic links. “When you see these [temperature] numbers, it’s screaming out at you: ‘This is global warming!â€
Mr. Weaver is also one of the authors of The Copenhagen Diagnosis, an IPCC-related piece of agit-prop issued just before the recent Copenhagen meeting.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis is as manipulative a piece of policy advocacy as can be found, filled with forboding and alarming assessments. Described as “an interim evaluation of the evolving science,†it was an attempt to jump-start decision-making at Copenhagen. It failed, perhaps in part because one of the authors was U.S. climate scientist Michael Mann, who plays a big role in the climategate emails.
That Mr. Weaver now thinks it necessary to set himself up as the voice of scientific reason, and as a moderate guardian of appropriate and measured commentary on the state of the world’s climate, is firm evidence that the IPCC is in deep trouble. He’s getting out while the getting’s good, and blaming the IPCC’s upper echelon for the looming crisis.
In the language typical of an IPPC report, one might say that the radiative forcing created by climategate and glaciergate strongly suggest there is very likely to bring about cataclysmic melting of the organization within the next portion of the current decadal period. The words “very likely†in IPCC risk assessment terms mean a 90% or greater probability that something will happen. As it looks now, the IPCC is burnt toast and unless it is overhauled fast there’s a 90% probability the climate change political machine is going to come crashing down.
Mr. Weaver’s acknowledgement that climategate—the release/leak/theft of thousands of incriminating emails from a British climate centre showing deep infighting and number manipulation — demonstrates a problem is real news in itself. When climategate broke as a story last November, Mr. Weaver dismissed it as unimportant and appeared in the media with a cockamame story about how his offices had also been broken into and that the fossil fuel industry might be responsible for both climategate and his office break-in.
The latest IPCC fiasco looks even more damaging. In the 2007 IPCC report that Mr. Weaver said revealed climate change to be a barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles, it turns out one of those missiles — a predicted melting of the Himalayan ice fields by 2035 — was a fraud. Not an accidental fraud, but a deliberately planted piece of science fiction. The IPCC author who planted that false Himalayan meltdown said the other day “we†did it because “we thought ... it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.â€
Mr. Weaver told Canwest that the Himalayan incident is “one small thing†and not a sign of a “global conspiracy to drum up false evidence of global warming.†We shall see. It is a safe bet that there have been other tweaks, twists, manipulations and distortions in IPCC science reports over the years. New revelations are inevitable. Now is a good time to get out of the kitchen. Mr. Weaver is the first out the door.
Read more: http://network.nationalpo...e-ipcc.aspx#ixzz0dprQkf8N
See? There you go again. CO2 is a basic building block of life, not a pollutant. You believe it is a pollutant, but that is only a belief.
Man-made CO2, which is the CO2 we're talking about, is a pollutant.
Man-made CO2, which is the CO2 we're talking about, is a pollutant.
Now THAT is an intelligent response........how would we separate the molecules of CO2 that are man-made (if any) from those that are naturally occurring.......
CO2 is CO2........do you think that the gasses coming out of my SUV's tailpipe have a molecular tag on them shouting "I am man-made........"
You are brighter than that TNO........that's just lame.....
doc
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
22 December 2004
Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion.
Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.
One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.
Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same typeâ€) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.
...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated
Okay?
Absolutely NOT OK........I advised you earlier in this thread that "realclimate.org" is not a credible source......they are a political advocacy site........the next link to that nest of liars will be deleted.........
Got it?
They are toast.......
doc
Man-made CO2, which is the CO2 we're talking about, is a pollutant.How does "man-made" co2 differ from "natural" co2?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updatedSorry, I didn't see this before I posted below. But still, I would rather hear it from a tree itself. I trust trees more than I trust climate "scientists."
Okay?
The people who run Real Climate and write articles for it are all climate scientists or scientists working in related fields.
They have been discredited as liars and propagandists, scientists or not........you have my decision on them.
If you are going to argue your position, and cite sources, you will have to find some that are credible.......not realclimate.
doc
Has anyone from Real Climate been disciplined, fired, or indicted for anything?
Has anyone from Real Climate been disciplined, fired, or indicted for anything?Jones has been suspended.
Jones has been suspended.
Numerous people have admitted that politically motivated points made it into the IPCC
If stealclimate.com stands by by the liar and the fraud-ridden report they impeach themselves.
The owner of the site, and a number of the so-called "scientists" that write for that site were complicit in the "climategate" affair, that was shown to have proffered doctored data, and fraudulent statements as fact.
I am a scientist, albeit retired, and the people that inhabit that site, and write papers for it have pissed off thousands of legitimate scientists working all over the world on any number of projects because what they did, is simply not done in science.........it gives all scientists a bad name, and lowers our credibility in the eyes of students, other scholars, and the public..........
So far they have not been accused of violating any laws, although several of them are under investigation in the UK.........what they did was violate the trust of the science community in general, and the public at large.........
THAT eliminates them as a credible source.....
I'm not going to debate this with you TNO, you have my decision on this matter.
doc
Whatever. This is neither here nor there. The point is that distinguishing between man-made CO2 and natural CO2 can be done. The science for this is in no way controversial. What is controversial are estimates of how much man-made CO2 is in the environment.
So...
you can tell the diff between CO2 and CO2 by their emitters?
No, you can tell the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2 by their isotopes. Plus, we have an idea of how much CO2 industry belches out and so we can estimate how much is in the atmosphere.
No, you can tell the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2 by their isotopes. Plus, we have an idea of how much CO2 industry belches out and so we can estimate how much is in the atmosphere.
No, you can tell the difference between man-made CO2 and natural CO2 by their isotopes. Plus, we have an idea of how much CO2 industry belches out and so we can estimate how much is in the atmosphere.
This whole co2 thing isn't making sense to me. Who makes coal and oil? As far as I know, humans just find it in the earth and use it so how does "manmade" co2 get made?
As an aside.......I have a small hand-held gas spectrometer that I use to monitor Radon levels in my basement, and I just came back from measuring the CO2 level in my back yard........it measured 192 ppm.........now that level is far below what these "climate scientists" site as the "atmospheric" level.......can you explain that.......?
Phil Jones is not a member of the RC team. I would post a link to a list of RC members but I'm apparently not allowed to. LOL!stealclimate.com was very prominent in the fraud:
The storm began with just four cryptic words. “A miracle has happened,†announced a contributor to Climate Audit, a website devoted to criticising the science of climate change.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece
“RC†said nothing more — but included a web link that took anyone who clicked on it to another site, Real Climate.
There, on the morning of November 17, they found a treasure trove: a thousand or so emails sent or received by Professor Phil Jones, director of the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.
Jones is a key player in the science of climate change. His department’s databases on global temperature changes and its measurements have been crucial in building the case for global warming.
What those emails suggested, however, was that Jones and some colleagues may have become so convinced of their case that they crossed the line from objective research into active campaigning.
In one, Jones boasted of using statistical “tricks†to obliterate apparent declines in global temperature. In another he advocated deleting data rather than handing them to climate sceptics. And in a third he proposed organised boycotts of journals that had the temerity to publish papers that undermined the message.
It was a powerful and controversial mix — far too powerful for some. Real Climate is a website designed for scientists who share Jones’s belief in man-made climate change. Within hours the file had been stripped from the site.
The most critical point throughout these emails is the goal of preventing DCPS from providing what is considered normal in the peer-reviewed literature: an opportunity to respond to their critique, or as they put it, "be given the final word." One wonders if there is ever a "final word" in science, as the authors here seem to imply.
The next day (6 Dec 2007), Melissa Free responds with a cautious note, evidently because she had presented a paper with Lanzante and Seidel at an American Meteorological Society conference (18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change) acknowledging the existence of a discrepancy between observations and models -- the basic conclusion of the DCPS paper.QuoteWhat about the implications of a real model-observation difference for upper-air trends? Is this really so dire?
Santer responds (6 Dec 2007) with the key reason for attacking DCPS:QuoteWhat is dire is Douglass et al.'s willful neglect of any observational datasets that do not support their arguments.
This "willful neglect" of "observational datasets" refers to the absence of two balloon datasets, RAOBCORE v1.3 and v1.4. (DCPS explain in an addendum that these data sets are faulty. See below.)
A further e-mail from Jones (6 Dec 2007) discusses options to beat DCPS into print. Wigley enters (10 Dec 2007) to accuse DCPS of "fraud" and that under "normal circumstances," this would "cause him [Douglass] to lose his job." We remind the reader that DCPS went through traditional, anonymous peer review with iterations to satisfy the reviewers and without communicating outside proper channels with the editor and reviewers.
Tim Osborn, a colleague of Jones at CRU and a member of the editorial board of IJC, inserts himself into the process, declaring a bias on the issue and stating that Douglass's previous papers "appear to have serious problems." Santer responds with gratitude for the "heads up," again making the claim that DCPS ignored certain balloon datasets. As noted below, DCPS did not use these datasets because they were known to be faulty.
On this day (12 Dec 2007), an unsigned report appeared on RealClimate.org attacking DCPS, especially about not using RAOBCORE 1.4. This prompted the DCPS authors to submit an Addendum to IJC on 3 Jan 2008 to explain in one page two issues: (1) the reason for not using RAOBCORE 1.4 and (2) explaining the experimental design to show why using the full spread of model results to compare with observations (as Santer et al. would do) would lead to wrong conclusions about the relationship between trends in the upper air temperature versus the surface -- see Appendix A. (A copy of the addendum may be found at http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass.)
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
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
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013
Isotopes--really? Pray tell, dipshit, how does C-12 become C-13 or C-14 simply because it has been "produced" by man? Did we all of a sudden just bombard the shit with our pocket neutron sources?You glow worms are so cute.
I don't know why the CO2 level in your backyard is at 192 ppm. Perhaps you live close to a large carbon sink?Maybe he doesn't have a volcano in his back yard. Not everyone can be as fortunate as NOAA.
Anyway, here is an interesting article and video on carbon monitoring: http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0604-tracking_global_carbon.htm
Maybe he doesn't have a volcano in his back yard. Not everyone can be as fortunate as NOAA.
I don't know why the CO2 level in your backyard is at 192 ppm. Perhaps you live close to a large carbon sink?
Anyway, here is an interesting article and video on carbon monitoring: http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0604-tracking_global_carbon.htm
TNO,
What's the normal level of atmospheric CO2, by percentage?
What effect would one volcanic eruption have on this? Or one forest fire, like the one we had in 2008 (Paradise Ca)?
Do the oceans absorb and release this gas, as a function of solar output?
There is no "normal" level for atmospheric CO2 but we know that the current concentration is about 100 ppm higher than the preindustrial level.pre-industrial what were we doing to provide energy for the people? How do we know what 'normal' was in. let's say, 500 AD?
Volcanic eruptions and forest fires increase atmospheric CO2. Your point?
Yes. Oceans provide the largest carbon sink we have. Heat is thought to affect the rate at which oceans absorb and release CO2.
Well....it is winter here, therefore photosyntheses wouldn't affect it much, as a carbon sink........and the wind is 15 knots from the east, which is the "industrialized" part of the area.........
I'm not on a submarine, with CO2 scrubbers, so it must be a "valid" measurement.........
Or at least as "valid" as the "climate scientists".........
doc
May I ask what state you live in?
Missouri......no where near any water if that is what you are getting at......
doc
There is no "normal" level for atmospheric CO2 but we know that the current concentration is about 100 ppm higher than the preindustrial level.
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.
To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.
The Great Lakes?Failing at both climate "science" AND geography.
I'm not on a submarine, with CO2 scrubbers, so it must be a "valid" measurement.........
Someone must be dreaming. I remember times on the boat where we'd gone so long people were beginning to get headaches over the level of CO2, and the oxygen level got so low we couldn't light cigarettes. Not the "not supposed to", I mean physically UNABLE TO LIGHT THEM.
You wouldn't be telln' us sea stories, or breathin' the bleed-off from the torpedo fuel vents wouldya?
:-)
doc
The Great Lakes?
Yeah...no:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
We are left to wonder what "some recent studies" might be.
In the 1990’s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.
3. Temperature leads carbon, not vice versa:
Saturday, 9 January, 2010
Why does CO2 lag temperature?
Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif)
...
To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:
•Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
•CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
•CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
Actually, CO2 leads and lags.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-does-CO2-lag-temperature.html
Real climate also has a great article on CO2 lead and lag but I can't post it because it will be censored by the CC government.
Real climate also has a great article on CO2 lead and lag but I can't post it because it will be censored by the CC government.You can post it but it will be given zero credence because they cherry-pick their data and Mann, by his own emails, used it to push his agenda.
You can post it but it will be given zero credence because they cherry-pick their data and Mann, by his own emails, used it to push his agenda.
They have zero credibility.
You can post it but it will be given zero credence because they cherry-pick their data and Mann, by his own emails, used it to push his agenda.
They have zero credibility.
You can post it but it will be given zero credence because they cherry-pick their data and Mann, by his own emails, used it to push his agenda.
How do these Global Warming Cultists explain or compensate for the fact that small fluctuations in the atmosphere can equal human CO2 output?I don't mind playing Devil's advocate (in fact he keeps me on retainer) but you bring out a point I don't think feather-head recognizes:
These alleged scientists know that the balance between the surface and the atmosphere aren't in natural balance and never have been.
Yet they act as if the imbalance only started in the last 100-150 years.
TVDOC said that if I post anything from Real Climate he will delete it.Yes, well, they do play the part of Mann-handlers gay cabana boy. They have no one to blame buth themselves. Perhaps you should be grateful for not being allowed to embarrass yourself.
Yes, well, they do play the part of Mann-handlers gay cabana boy. They have no one to blame buth themselves. Perhaps you should be grateful for not being allowed to embarrass yourself.
I see. So, your outrage at censorship is reserved only for RC... people who disagree with you.If I still had my mod powers I would allow the posting. It's a waste of bandwith, but I would allow it.
There is no "normal" level for atmospheric CO2 but we know that the current concentration is about 100 ppm higher than the preindustrial level.
Volcanic eruptions and forest fires increase atmospheric CO2. Your point?
Yes. Oceans provide the largest carbon sink we have. Heat is thought to affect the rate at which oceans absorb and release CO2.
If I still had my mod powers I would allow the posting. It's a waste of bandwith, but I would allow it.
You can be as butt-hurt as you want but the fact still remains stealclimate.borg are part and parcel of the lies propagated by Jones and Mann as [roven by Mann's own emails.
I would allow your posts but your still a moron for refusing to deal with facts.
Oh, TVDOC can do what he thinks is right. I don't need RC. I just don't see the point of censoring it.You're still a moron.
I don't want to play Grammar Cop but... if you're going to call me a moron you ought to mind your grammar when doing so.
You're still a moron.
Better?
Oh, TVDOC can do what he thinks is right. I don't need RC. I just don't see the point of censoring it.
The point of censoring RC is twofold:
First, If we are going to discuss science, regardless of discipline, we must deal with the facts and authentic research that that discipline has to offer. By discrediting themselves, RC has removed themselves from the discussion of science, and placed themselves squarely into the category of "political advocacy".......
(Plus they pissed me, and a huge number of others in the science community off)
Second, Removing RC from the discussion illustrates clearly and decisively to all who follow this debate that without RC, and their merry band of reprobates, there is simply no relevant scientific data out there (that TNO can find, and I'm certain he is now Google's best client), that supports the concept (and consequences) of AGW........So we forced to logically come to the stark realization that without RC, and its associates and syncopants.....there is simply no argument for AGW.
In summary, by striking down ONLY ONE "pseudoscientific" point of reference, I've eliminated virtually all of the arguments supporting AGW........That should be the key concept taken away from this action, and subsequent discussion.......
(Plus, in case I failed to mention it, they pissed me off)
doc
ON EDIT: If TNO (or others) wish to start a thread on purely the political implications of the AGW debate, the inclusion of RC will then become appropriate, so long as the discussion remains political in nature........however, I did ask TNO upthread about his position on the political and economic implications of AGW, and as he did over a year ago, he failed to address the issue.
This claim that RC has been discredited carries no weight except in denier circles.
This claim that RC has been discredited carries no weight except in denier circles.
Oh please stop!!
You are being silly.....
I can just as easily (and did) say that without RC the argument for AGW only exists in "alarmist" circles.......
doc
So, what we thought were our finest scientific institutions are really just alarmist circles? How sad for us.
This claim that RC has been discredited carries no weight except in denier circles.
Which ones would those be? IPCC?
doc
The NAS would be one example of scientific institutions supporting AGW. Does this surprise you?
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
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
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16802-5013
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&filename=1139521913.txt
You have your marching orders. Now, move out!
Then you are free to use their research to prove your point.........if they have any........
doc
Well, you seemed to imply that RC is the only scientific organization out there supportive of the AGW hypothesis. Clearly, that's not the case.
I guess I don't see the point you're making. Would you care to fill me in or should I just assume you're being random?MAJOR PREMISE: Mann is a proven liar.
Well.....then quit "picking the fly shit out of the pepper", and post their research to prove your point!!
I have posted my rationale for the position for RC in some detail........stop whining about it, and move on.......or admit that you don't have an argument without RC.......and if you do that I'll open the thread to links to RC, and the membership can spend their time laughing and poking you with a sharp stick........
MAJOR PREMISE: Mann is a proven liar.
MINOR PREMISE: Mann's emails show he used stealclimate.borg to promote his lies and suppress conflicting research.
SYLLOGISM: stealclimate.borg has no credibility.
100% opinion.
Actually, MSB has posted the incriminating emails TWICE in this thread, and apparently you still have not gotten the point.....
doc
There's nothing incriminating in the Mann emails and the fact that he hasn't been fired by Penn State or indicted or even fined underlines that point.
There's nothing incriminating in the Mann emails and the fact that he hasn't been fired by Penn State or indicted or even fined underlines that point.Yeah, cuz liberals with a money-grubbing power-grabbing agenda are so-o-o-o-o good about policing their own.
By NOEL SHEPPARD
From the Media Research Center
A scientist in the middle of the ClimateGate scandal received economic stimulus funds last June.
As NewsBusters reported on November 28, Penn State University is investigating Professor Michael Mann, the creator of the discredited "Hockey Stick Graph," for his involvement in an international attempt to exaggerate and manipulate climate data in order to advance the myth of manmade global warming.
According to the conservative think tank the National Center for Public Policy Research, Mann received $541,184 in economic stimulus funds last June to conduct climate change research.
With this in mind, NCPPR issued a press release Thursday asking for these funds to be returned:
In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.
"It's outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he's under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project.
Professor Mann is currently under investigation by Penn State University because of activities related to a closed circle of climate scientists who appear to have been engaged in agenda-driven science. Emails and documents mysteriously released from the previously-prestigious Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom revealed discussions of manipulation and destruction of research data, as well as efforts to interfere with the peer review process to stifle opposing views. The motivation underlying these efforts appears to be a coordinated strategy to support the belief that mankind's activities are causing global warming. [...]
The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009.
Potentially adding insult to injury, Penn State received additional stimulus funds to investigate the impact of climate change last week:
A nearly $1.9 million grant from the National Science Foundation is enabling a Penn State-led group of researchers to continue studies on the potential effects of climate change on the spread of infectious diseases, such as malaria and dengue. The grant is part of federal stimulus funding authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
This grant appears to have nothing to do with Mann's department. However, given the high-profile the university is currently under as a result of his involvement in ClimateGate, it seems absurd that any federal funds involving climate change would be going to this school while it is investigating its chief proponent of this myth.
Maybe more importantly, why are economic stimulus funds being given to a university for scientific research in the first place, especially one with such political overtones?
As NCPPR noted in its release:
"It's no wonder that Obama's stimulus plan is failing to produce jobs. Taxpayer dollars aren't being used in the ways most likely to spur job creation. The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to reward a loyalist in the climate change debate. Nor was the stimulus sold as a way to promote the Obama Administration's position on the global warming theory...As is often the case, political considerations corrupt the distribution of government funds," said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the National Center's Project 21 black leadership network.
Despite the obviously controversial nature of this funding and its recipient, I can identify absolutely no media coverage concerning the matter.
I'm sure now that NCPPR has exposed this hypocrisy, press outlets across the fruited plain will be aggressively investigating economic stimulus grants to Mann and others involved in the ClimateGate scandal in order to inform the public about how their tax dollars are being spent.
Of course, I'm not holding my breath.
Yeah, cuz liberals with a money-grubbing power-grabbing agenda are so-o-o-o-o good about policing their own.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703657604575005412584751830.html
I guess
PSU has not stated that Michael Mann is under investigation. That claim is a lie... or, as you might call it, a rhetorical flourish.A lie?
PDF: http://www.ems.psu.edu/sites/default/files/u5/Mann_Public_Statement.pdf
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx
Main Entry: in·ves·ti·gate
Pronunciation: \in-ˈves-tÉ™-ËŒgÄt\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·ves·ti·gat·ed; in·ves·ti·gat·ing
Etymology: Latin investigatus, past participle of investigare to track, investigate, from in- + vestigium footprint, track
Date: circa 1510
transitive verb
: to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry
intransitive verb
: to make a systematic examination; especially : to conduct an official inquiry
That you continue to act so dishonestly--lie--is the real kicker here.
Your cult has been exposed. The legislation is dying.
You can argue all day but the planet is NOT dying and nobody gives enough of a **** anymore for any politician to do anything about it.
YOU LOST
You just keep on ******* that chicken.
So, there you have it. PSU is looking into the matter. That doesn't mean that Michael Mann is under investigation.
cognitive dissonance
Function: noun
Date: 1957
: psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously
Get used to it MSB,he is the king of wordsmithing something to death.That constitutes trollism.
That constitutes trollism.
Ban him! Oh wait... :thatsright:
There's nothing incriminating in the Mann emails and the fact that Mr. Mann hasn't been fired by Penn State University or indicted or even fined underlines that point.
So, there you have it. PSU is looking into the matter.
I haven't claimed that an investigation isn't underway. What I wrote is that PSU has not stated that Michael Mann is under investigation.
100% opinion.
100% BS.:rotf: