Gaia's Fever In Remission
Bill Kambic
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
This is very clearly equine related as many of the "anti-greenhouse
gas" actions will have direct and immediate impacts on the equine
industry (higher feed and hay prices as energy policies push fuel
costs higher; greater transportation costs as "cap and trade" taxes
raise the price of the heavy pickups used for towing; increased taxes
on the fuel used to power those towing vehicles; and the specter of
direct Federal regulation as EPA has declared CO2 to be a pollutant
and subject to their regulation).
Once again I don't want to go back to the Bad Old Days when rivers
used to catch fire, but it seems that the claim from Prince Albert and
his cronies that "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!" has been debunked.
Ocean of Nuance
Are we imagining the world's glaciers melting? Have you seen the
satellite photos?
Don't jump top conclusions about the email dump quite yet.
sharon
jmc
At the moment I don't know who to believe. Both sides have an agenda.
Most likely, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
jmc
Grizzly
bubble channeling money into high cost green energy and paying big
dividends to Algore's carbon credit trading company..You have to smell a
rat when the Guy who espouses everyone else cutting back has a 12000
square foot mansion and runs around the globe in a private jet. Yeah
sure he's purchased carbon offsets for that big house, but guess who's
company he bought them from?
Lisa Wiser
Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate"
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2188feb3-802a-23ad-4de4-3fbc0a92e126&Issue_id
"The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and
documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a
prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical
questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible
for global warming."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
"The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and
documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a
prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical
questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible
for global warming."
Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data
'manipulation'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6634282/Lord-Lawson-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-UEA-global-warming-data-manipulation.html
LisaW
--
Theodore Roosevelt:
A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything
real on real issues.
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the
user.
Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government
owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.
I care not what others think of what I do, but I care very much about
what I think of what I do! That is character!
It is difficult to make our material condition better by the best law,
but it is easy enough to ruin it by bad laws.
The worst lesson that can be taught a man is to rely upon others and to
whine over his sufferings. If an American is to amount to anything he
must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in
his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others; he
must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can and accept
defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow-men a
responsibility which is not theirs.
Ocean of Nuance
I wish folks would cease to mention Gore in the same breath as a science
topic. His scientific credibility is zero after he failed to acknowledge
that creationism is religion and evolution is s fact. Less than zero
because he knows damn well he was lying at that moment BECAUSE of his
science training.
Why should anyone believe him on science topic "A" when he deliberately
lies about science topic "B"?
sharon
Ocean of Nuance
I think we are all having a mass hallucination about the disappearing
glaciers like Paul and his entourage had on the road to Damascus. Or
that Paul and his entourage would have had if that story actually
occurred as written.
sharon
Grizzly
top of Mount St. Helens is also growing. Every year the pack ice at the
North Pole forms and then melts. Sometimes more, sometimes less.
Humanity emits roughly 3% of the CO2 on the planet. The rest is put out
by natural causes. The fact that all the other planets are also heating
up should alter the view that the warming trend is anthropogenic. Taxing
the US population back to a dark ages standard of living will not
likely change anything, as the warming trend is largely part of a
natural cycle. Mentioning Algore in the same breath as the global
warming cap and trade tax scam is as natural as breathing. If Gore and
his cronies could figure out a way to install a meter on people's
respiratory systems, he'd likely tax the air you breathe. While making
the check payable to his carbon offset corporation. I'm all for setting
up more "green" energy, but doing so unilaterally while China is Spewing
CO2 on a massive scale and getting a free pass while benefiting from
most of the manufacturing jobs outsourced to them by Corporate Amerika.
Face it two of the biggest offenders in CO2 output happen to be India,
and China. Places where the USA has outsourced most of its polluting
manufacturing base to a slave labor work force. What they seek to do now
is drop the USA to a third world standard of living where a few rich
people at the top control virtually everything and there is no "middle
class" left, because they have taxed them out of existence.
Grizzly
> most of the manufacturing jobs outsourced to them by Corporate Amerika.
> Face it two of the biggest offenders in CO2 output happen to be India,
> and China. Places where the USA has outsourced most of its polluting
> manufacturing base to a slave labor work force. What they seek to do now
> is drop the USA to a third world standard of living where a few rich
> people at the top control virtually everything and there is no "middle
> class" left, because they have taxed them out of existence.
Forgot to put one word in that Unilateral China sentence/tirade... Now
it makes more sense.
Jane Saranac
"Bill Kambic" <wjka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1temg5tammb20kmni...@4ax.com...Global warming always struck me as something that an enormous amount of
people in this country would latch onto and want to take responsibility for,
completely wrongly. I only hope that the good practices that it has
fostered which benefit the country in other ways, stick around.
Ocean of Nuance
I don't think all that information is accurate (especially the south
pole comments) but beyond that, the long term trend is not negated by
single year aberrations.
Nobody doubts the earth is warming as far as I know. The question is
what is the anthropogenic component, if any, in that warming. What is
being debated in the emails is the computer models as far as I can tell.
What NOBODY can debate is the evidence on the ground.
It is EXACTLY analogous to claiming there is no evidence on the ground
for an earth older than a few thousand years old. The White Cliffs and
Dover and the Green River formation are evidence on the ground that it
is at least millions of years old. No computer model or wacky
"argument" by a creationist can majick away the evidence on the ground
that has no other possible explanation than being several million years old.
sharon
ps. The one exception to an old earth that evolutionary biologists
wrestle with is that no rational person can hold a guinea pig and think
it wasn't perfectly designed to be cuddled by humans. Also, before the
earth was shown to be very old, physicists studied guinea pigs, which
were domesticated about 1,000 years before the biblical big bang, as a
way to probe what happened before time started. :)
Ocean of Nuance
I wrote...
> The White Cliffs and
> Dover and the Green River formation are evidence on the ground that it
That should be the White Cliffs OF Dover though the original text makes
sense if it is understood to be AND (the) Dover (court decision) which
exposed Intelligent Design Creationism as the same old creationism only
now dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. That court case is evidence on the
ground also.
sharon
Bill Kambic
<lizRMOVz...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>Are we imagining the world's glaciers melting? Have you seen the
>satellite photos?
No. But is the Earth warming or is it a regional phenominon?
>Don't jump top conclusions about the email dump quite yet.
I'm not the one generally jumping to conclusions on this.
About a year back there was an interview on the radio with three
oceanographers who were doing research on temperature changes in the
shallow ocean layer (down to 300', IIRC). They were expecting to see
some heating but found none in samples taken in seven widely separated
locals. They were frankly puzzled by the finding because the "knew"
that if the Earth was heating it had to be reflected in their data and
it wasn't. Their conclusion? The sampling techniques were in error
and they would repeat them. There was no followup story.
And even if there is a change going on the evidence that humans are
causing it is paper thin at best.
So are we on a plateau (as "Mr. Global Warming" suggests) or are we at
the top of a curve and we're about to turn down?
Lisa Wiser
nthropogenic.
>
> I don't think all that information is accurate (especially the south
> pole comments) but beyond that, the long term trend is not negated by
> single year aberrations.
>
> Nobody doubts the earth is warming as far as I know. The question is
> what is the anthropogenic component, if any, in that warming. What is
> being debated in the emails is the computer models as far as I can tell.
> What NOBODY can debate is the evidence on the ground.
>
No matter that the most recent year of higher temps was 1998. Climate is
cyclical. Has been before. Seems to be again. The problem with your
complete adherence to Man Made Global Warming is the fact that
definitive information is finally coming out that junk science was used
to "prove" it ...
And, because of the lies, lots of people will now doubt not only global
warming, but anything new science comes up with ... whether fact or
fiction. Crying wolf has consequences.
Lisa Wiser
> I'm not the one generally jumping to conclusions on this.
>
> About a year back there was an interview on the radio with three
> oceanographers who were doing research on temperature changes in the
> shallow ocean layer (down to 300', IIRC). They were expecting to see
> some heating but found none in samples taken in seven widely separated
> locals. They were frankly puzzled by the finding because the "knew"
> that if the Earth was heating it had to be reflected in their data and
> it wasn't. Their conclusion? The sampling techniques were in error
> and they would repeat them. There was no followup story.
>
I was rather fond of the recent report of the group of "scientists" who,
when their temperature studies didn't jive with their pre-drawn
conclusion, recalibrated their equipment until it "worked."
Ocean of Nuance
> The problem with your
> complete adherence to Man Made Global Warming
I do NOT have a complete adherence to AGW as it isn't my field.
And anyone who does have a complete adherence for or against it who
isn't in the field is comical. FULL STOP
sharon
JC Dill
> No matter that the most recent year of higher temps was 1998.
Where do you get this FUD, and why do you believe it when the data is so
easy to find?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
As anyone can CLEARLY SEE, the highest temps have all occurred after
2000, AND temps are on a CLEAR upward slope trend since the 1960s.
More here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
jc
JC Dill
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:12:38 -0500, Ocean of Nuance
> <lizRMOVz...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Are we imagining the world's glaciers melting? Have you seen the
>> satellite photos?
>
> No. But is the Earth warming or is it a regional phenominon?
Well, take a look at the DATA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
jc
Hunter Hampton
wrote:
>Tamara sent me the following:
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
>This is very clearly equine related as many of the "anti-greenhouse
>gas" actions will have direct and immediate impacts on the equine
>industry (higher feed and hay prices as energy policies push fuel
>costs higher; greater transportation costs as "cap and trade" taxes
>raise the price of the heavy pickups used for towing; increased taxes
>on the fuel used to power those towing vehicles; and the specter of
>direct Federal regulation as EPA has declared CO2 to be a pollutant
>and subject to their regulation).
With that logic... it's horse related... I guess anyone can post on
any subject here.
Hunter
Ocean of Nuance
On that note, some here have been touting homeopathy...
http://www.reasonproject.org/contests/vote_for_your_favorite_satire/
See second video (near bottom) but teh first one is hilarious also.
sharon
Hunter Hampton
<lizRMOVz...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>http://www.reasonproject.org/contests/vote_for_your_favorite_satire/
Hysterical! Both...
Hunter
Ocean of Nuance
Yep.
Some people are very clever.
sharon
Lisa Wiser
JC ... you are aware ... a major problem with the idea of AGW is the
scientists involved, looking for grant monies, have been lying? That
excrement has been hitting the fan in the past week.
Is there warming? Yup. Is there cooling? Yup. It's why there are
weather forcasters and climatologist. It changes. It isn't man caused.
Hunter Hampton
wrote:
>Is there warming? Yup. Is there cooling? Yup. It's why there are
>weather forcasters and climatologist. It changes. It isn't man caused.
Lisa,
You don't believe rainforest deforestation is a major cause of global
warming?
Hunter
Lisa Wiser
Hunter,
The scientists we were to trust to keep us informed have been lying. The
"green" ones have been nay-saying the ones who disagreed with them,
boycotting publications that printed an opposing stand -- and then using
the claim the opponents haven't been published.
We don't know what causes Global Warming -- because those who should
have been lying, to get grants, to get and maintain the power of
strangling the economy, whatever. And they have done nothing to advance
science, because people will have to question "Is it really Science or
Money speaking?"
JC Dill
> JC Dill wrote:
>> Lisa Wiser wrote:
>>
>>> No matter that the most recent year of higher temps was 1998.
>>
>> Where do you get this FUD, and why do you believe it when the data is
>> so easy to find?
>>
>> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
>>
>> As anyone can CLEARLY SEE, the highest temps have all occurred after
>> 2000, AND temps are on a CLEAR upward slope trend since the 1960s.
>>
>> More here:
>>
>> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
>
>
> JC ... you are aware ... a major problem with the idea of AGW is the
> scientists involved, looking for grant monies, have been lying? That
> excrement has been hitting the fan in the past week.
Sigh. Really, you need to do some research on issues like this rather
than take as "truth" the skewed info presented from just one side of the
issues.
The email server that was hacked had email going back to 1996 - about 13
years of email from many different people. In those thousands of emails
they found a few that, when read out of context, made it appear that the
data was not honestly rendered. However, if you read the emails *in
context* you see that the story isn't as it has been presented by the
right-wing media or right-wing "global warming is a hoax" deniers.
See:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
quote:
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 problem�, rather than something
that is �secret�, 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 problem��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.
If you really can't see how you are being manipulated by the right-wing
media into outrage over something that isn't there, then you will
continue to be "alarmed" by their reporting, when there really isn't
anything to be alarmed by. To see a counter example, check out:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090908/0321546127.shtml
This is what the right-wing media is doing with all the topics they
don't like - creating and spreading false rumors thru inuendo and poor
reporting. It simply shows how these stories are really baseless
because they can't get any traction by simply reporting what is true.
jc
JC Dill
> The scientists we were to trust to keep us informed have been lying.
No, they haven't.
jc
Bill Kambic
wrote:
NPR last week intereviewed a scientist from Germany (his name and
institution escape me at the moment) whose own work raised the
question of "stalled global warning." He was very upset that his work
was being "misused" by people questioning the basic premise. He
described himself as "Mr. Global Warming." Even after being fed a
long stream of "marshmellow" questions the best he could do was say
that we are "plateaued" and that the general trend of warming that has
gone on for almost 200 years will pick up in a decade or two. He
cited no facts for this beyond the referenced 200 year trend line.
So, again, since this self-described advocate for the principle has
nothing to really base his belief upon besides a historical trend line
we get to ask the question: is this really a "plateau" or is it the
beginning of a reversal? The question is quite valid; the aswer is
not at all clear.
And maybe before we gut our own economy to enable the BRIC group to
try and pollute their way to a First World lifestyle we might want a
better answer.
Ocean of Nuance
> Hunter Hampton wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:56:02 -0500, Lisa Wiser <law...@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there warming? Yup. Is there cooling? Yup. It's why there are
>>> weather forcasters and climatologist. It changes. It isn't man caused.
>>
>>
>> Lisa,
>>
>> You don't believe rainforest deforestation is a major cause of global
>> warming?
>> Hunter
>
>
> Hunter,
>
> The scientists we were to trust to keep us informed have been lying. The
> "green" ones have been nay-saying the ones who disagreed with them,
> boycotting publications that printed an opposing stand -- and then using
> the claim the opponents haven't been published.
>
> We don't know what causes Global Warming -- because those who should
> have been lying, to get grants, to get and maintain the power of
> strangling the economy, whatever. And they have done nothing to advance
> science, because people will have to question "Is it really Science or
> Money speaking?"
1. It is clear from our comments you do NOT know how to interpret the
present email "dump" issue. Nobody is lying. Scietists use jargon like
"trick" that has a different meaning to how lay think of the term. It
is EXACTLY like how lay people use "theory" to mean a guess when
scientists use "theory" to mean the explanation that captures most of
the data.
2. Even assuming there is subterfuge revealed in these emails (which
there is NOT but let's assume), these are emails from some scientists
that are a SUBSET of all scientists, most of whom think there is
sufficient evidence for AGW. They can't all be in the conspiracy, yes?
3. These emails deal with computer models. There is still
observational evidence that will never go away.
4. The bottom line on this or any scientific "scandal," real or
imagined, is NEVER going to be "Therefore God Exists" or "Therefore the
earth is a few thousand years old" or "Therefore the creation account in
the Bible is true." You can't ever claim all scientists are liars. You
can't majick away the evidence that DISPROVES all the many religious
claims. I'm sorry to dash your hopes but that is the reality of it.
sharon
Chrissy
> will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly.
> Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions
> real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards)
> the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original
> the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context
> refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something
> that is “secret”, 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
> 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
> 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.
>
> If you really can't see how you are being manipulated by the right-wing
> media into outrage over something that isn't there, then you will
> continue to be "alarmed" by their reporting, when there really isn't
> anything to be alarmed by. To see a counter example, check out:
>
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090908/0321546127.shtml
>
> This is what the right-wing media is doing with all the topics they
> don't like - creating and spreading false rumors thru inuendo and poor
> reporting. It simply shows how these stories are really baseless
> because they can't get any traction by simply reporting what is true.
>
> jc
JC, thanks for explaining things so clearly.
Dr Corinne B Leek
<lizRMOVz...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>1. It is clear from our comments you do NOT know how to interpret the
>present email "dump" issue.
Call me ignorant, but *what* 'email "dump" issue'?
Have I been protected from a bunch of spam crap?
If so, whew!
Corinne & Confused Crazy Canuck Crew....
--
*** Conserve Energy: Laughter is easier than Anger!
*** cl...@ns.sympatico.ca
Dr Corinne B Leek
wrote:
>And maybe before we gut our own economy to enable the BRIC group to
>try and pollute their way to a First World lifestyle we might want a
>better answer.
And, again, call me ignorant, but what is a "BRIC group"?
Corinne & Confused (again) Crazy Canuck Crew...
Ocean of Nuance
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:37:40 -0500, Ocean of Nuance
> <lizRMOVz...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. It is clear from our comments you do NOT know how to interpret the
>> present email "dump" issue.
> Call me ignorant, but *what* 'email "dump" issue'?
> Have I been protected from a bunch of spam crap?
> If so, whew!
It's the hacked emails from the last 13 years from a climate research
group in the UK.
And there's a typo... it should read, "It is clear from YOUR comments..."
sharon
JC Dill
> <lizRMOVz...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. It is clear from our comments you do NOT know how to interpret the
>> present email "dump" issue.
> Call me ignorant, but *what* 'email "dump" issue'?
A group hacked into a research facility's email server and stole 13
years worth of email stored on the server. See the link I posted
elsewhere in this thread for a page about the story and the
misrepresentation of some of the emails.
jc
Emily Brooks
"Dr Corinne B Leek" <cl...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9guog5t1uuqkqo2cv...@4ax.com...
>
> And, again, call me ignorant, but what is a "BRIC group"?
>
> Corinne & Confused (again) Crazy Canuck Crew...
>
Emily
Dr Corinne B Leek
OK.
Thanks.
Got a good buddy who goes to Brazil every winter.
He says that Brazil looks on itself as an emerging *1st* world
country.
That's an interesting observation.
Corinne & Crazy Canuck Crew...
Dr Corinne B Leek
wrote:
>Dr Corinne B Leek wrote:
OK.
But ya gotta know I seldom ever go to the reference sites because of
the download issue. :-/
Thanks.
Corinne & Crazy Canuck Crew, still in the Dark Ages...
Bill Kambic
wrote:
>This is what the right-wing media is doing with all the topics they
>don't like - creating and spreading false rumors thru inuendo and poor
>reporting. It simply shows how these stories are really baseless
>because they can't get any traction by simply reporting what is true.
And the Left Wing Media never does any of this. Right?
Bill Kambic
<cl...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:17:58 -0500, "Emily Brooks"
><sun...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dr Corinne B Leek" <cl...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>news:9guog5t1uuqkqo2cv...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> And, again, call me ignorant, but what is a "BRIC group"?
>>>
>>> Corinne & Confused (again) Crazy Canuck Crew...
>>>
>>Brazil, Russia, India, China
>OK.
>Thanks.
>Got a good buddy who goes to Brazil every winter.
>He says that Brazil looks on itself as an emerging *1st* world
>country.
>That's an interesting observation.
Brazil is "coming on" as a major world economic player, but is still
very much a "Third World" country once you get away from the big
cities.
It's a fascinating place and the people are quite pleasant.
JC Dill
*I* debunk crap from both sides. During the election I debunked false
lies about McCain (his aircraft crash record) and about Palin (the
library censorship story) being circulated in other newsgroups:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.marketing.online.ebay/msg/0254a3902442c92e
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.mountain-folk/msg/046cea0f9a2f8dbe
Crap is crap, and if you have an open mind it's *easy* to see the BS,
and with the internet it's even easier to debunk it. Start with Snopes,
Factcheck, Politifact. Also try searching with keywords and add the
word "hoax" or similar.
FAUX was caught playing misleading tapes several times in recent weeks,
in all of these cases to spin a story in the direction they (right-wing
conservatives) wanted - funny how they never make "mistakes" that make a
story look worse for conservatives. Maybe that's because these weren't
mistakes at all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-amato/i-filed-an-fcc-complaint_b_363180.html
jc
rayk...@rnsmte.com
"JC Dill" <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:heinuj$l8g$1...@aioe.org...
The huffington post as a reference???
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
By the way, who is causing the global warming on mars???
considering the temp gains and losses exactly paralell earths,AWG is
bullshit from commies trying for a power grab.
Ocean of Nuance
> Brazil is "coming on" as a major world economic player, but is still
> very much a "Third World" country once you get away from the big
> cities.
So is the US.
sharon
Bill Kambic
Only to urban sophistaces such as yourself.
Ocean of Nuance
>
I would h\not refer to someone with 18 TOTAL Arts/Humanities/Social
Science credits as a "sophisticate." :)
What about RFK's train ride through Appalachia? Has that been solved?
There is hunger in America to our great shame.
sharon
Bill Kambic
<lizRMOVz...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
RFK died when?
15 yards and loss of down for irrelevancy.
Ocean of Nuance
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:50:29 -0500, Ocean of Nuance
> <lizRMOVz...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Bill Kambic wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:16:55 -0500, Ocean of Nuance
>>> <lizRMOVz...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Kambic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Brazil is "coming on" as a major world economic player, but is still
>>>>> very much a "Third World" country once you get away from the big
>>>>> cities.
>>>> So is the US.
>>> Only to urban sophisticates such as yourself.
>>>
>>
>> What about RFK's train ride through Appalachia? Has that been solved?
>> There is hunger in America to our great shame.
>
> RFK died when?
>
> 15 yards and loss of down for irrelevancy.
Has that been solved to your knowledge in ALL THOSE YEARS?
Don't we still have abject poverty in many parts of the US?
Isn't it shameful?
sharon
Bill Kambic
And this has to do with Brazil because...?
>
>Isn't it shameful?
No, it's normal. I live in Appalacia, remember?
If this bothers you so much then I suggest that you donate all your
worldly possetions to the Salvation Army and live the life of Mother
Theresa.
Grizzly
> Bill Kambic wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:50:29 -0500, Ocean of Nuance
>> <lizRMOVz...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Kambic wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:16:55 -0500, Ocean of Nuance
>>>> <lizRMOVz...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Kambic wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brazil is "coming on" as a major world economic player, but is still
>>>>>> very much a "Third World" country once you get away from the big
>>>>>> cities.
>>>>> So is the US.
>>>> Only to urban sophisticates such as yourself.
>>>>
>>> I would not refer to someone with 18 TOTAL Arts/Humanities/Social
>>> Science credits as a "sophisticate." :)
>>>
>>> What about RFK's train ride through Appalachia? Has that been
>>> solved? There is hunger in America to our great shame.
>>
>> RFK died when?
>>
>> 15 yards and loss of down for irrelevancy.
>
> Has that been solved to your knowledge in ALL THOSE YEARS?
>
> Don't we still have abject poverty in many parts of the US?
>
> Isn't it shameful?
>
> sharon
the poor? You could send several extra poor children to college if you
just saw to it that your girls attended the same community colleges as
they would instead of private or ivy league schools.
Think of all the good you could do? For that matter you could probably
finance schooling for one of them for a year on what you pay to keep
your Petey Pie "sound" and housed and vetted..Abject poverty will always
exist. Right up there with more children being born to people who cannot
afford to feed them.
This will however become more apparent as the economy does another
downward slide in the upcoming year. The fed has been running the
printing press non stop "hyperinflation anyone? Those two wars continue
apace, and many people here are out of jobs or scrambling for an extra
low wage job or two to feed those kids they used to be able to afford
with one good job. So don't forget to drive through those poor
neighborhoods nearby and laugh your ass off at how good you have it..
Now back to the subject of AGW..from what I've read of the emails
thus far some of those scientists supporting that hypothesis were doing
everything in their power to see to it that the opposing points of view
were the subject of ridicule, and further they sought to have editors of
peer reviewed scientific journals ousted if they published anything that
refuted their agenda.
They wanted to expunge the medieval warm period during which the
vikings had settlements off the coast of Newfoundland and on Greenland.
It called the currently accepted hockey stick graph into question. This
smacks of the politicization of science. After all you could get grants
if your "research" would come to the "right" conclusions. You would get
smeared as a kook who couldn't get anything published in peer reviewed
journals if your research didn't support AGW. Never mind that the
editors may have been hand picked by proponents of AGW who would only
publish research that came to the "right" conclusions.
If you have a little spare time on your hands, go ahead and download
the files through Wikipedia's Wikileaks under the title Climatic
Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009. You find a host of mean
spirited chicanery going on and you can read into it what you like or
take it completely out of context. In any case it tends to call some of
their research into question due to bias and politicization.
The Very Model of Sweetness and Light
dwindling of Arctic sea ice"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=climate-change-cover-up-you-better-2009-11-24
"There is no indication in the data of a slowdown or pause in the human-caused warming
trend." That data reflects fully the natural year-to-year up-and-down readings caused
partly by natural "short-term variability" that "always has and always will be present in
the climate system.""
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/global-warming-common-misconceptions/story?id=9159877
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:17:22 -0500, Lieser Unwiser aka 'Lisa Wiser' <law...@att.net>
wrote:
>Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate"
Your new lying idol is an idiot, too:
"You know, God�s still up there. We�re now going through a cooling spell. And the whole
issue there was is it man-made gases, anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane. I don�t think so"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/senator-inhofe/
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/
http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/2007/11/01/resurrecting-the-inhofe-scale/
hpjeannie
> Suddenly, without warning, Ocean of Nuance exclaimed (11/23/2009 9:12 PM):
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill Kambic wrote:
> >> Tamara sent me the following:
>
> >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> >> This is very clearly equine related as many of the "anti-greenhouse
> >> gas" actions will have direct and immediate impacts on the equine
> >> industry (higher feed and hay prices as energy policies push fuel
> >> costs higher; greater transportation costs as "cap and trade" taxes
> >> raise the price of the heavy pickups used for towing; increased taxes
> >> on the fuel used to power those towing vehicles; and the specter of
> >> direct Federal regulation as EPA has declared CO2 to be a pollutant
> >> and subject to their regulation).
>
> >> Once again I don't want to go back to the Bad Old Days when rivers
> >> used to catch fire, but it seems that the claim from Prince Albert and
> >> his cronies that "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!" has been debunked.
>
> > Are we imagining the world's glaciers melting? Have you seen the
> > satellite photos?
>
>
> > sharon
>
> At the moment I don't know who to believe. Both sides have an agenda.
> Most likely, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Follow the money. The rich will get richer, manipulating laws and
large companies and then investing in them, and the rest of us will
get the shaft. 'Twas ever thus; the amounts and disparities are just
larger now.
Jeannie
hpjeannie
Well, at least One-Note Sheila's finally moved on to a new tune.
Jeannie
JC Dill
>> FAUX was caught playing misleading tapes several times in recent
>> weeks, in all of these cases to spin a story in the direction they
>> (right-wing conservatives) wanted - funny how they never make
>> "mistakes" that make a story look worse for conservatives. Maybe
>> that's because these weren't mistakes at all.
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-amato/i-filed-an-fcc-complaint_b_363180.html
> The huffington post as a reference???
It was the first match in my google search and was included simply to
show the issue for anyone who wasn't familiar with it - due to, for
instance, watching only FAUX news and being ignorant of the problem
since FAUX isn't exactly eager to tattle on themselves to their
listeners and has only given it a very small amount of coverage.
> By the way, who is causing the global warming on mars???
Same problem, you are swallowing BS without doing the research to see if
it's true. The first hit on a search for: global warming mars
finds:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Which says:
quote:
Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other
climate scientists.
And the second hit explains why:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/
quote:
Recently, there have been some suggestions that �global warming� has
been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of
regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been
extended into a �global� change, and used by some to infer an external
common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and
here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding
of the data.
> considering the temp gains and losses exactly paralell earths,
No, it doesn't. Read the realclimate article to learn why your
conclusion was based on incorrect reasoning and faulty understanding of
the data.
> AWG is bullshit from commies trying for a power grab.
Using highly inflammatory negative language to describe those who
disagree with you simply shows that you don't have a real argument and
must resort to an ad hominem attack instead, to try to distract from
your lack of persuasive argument on the facts.
jc
Grizzly
>
> quote:
> Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other
> climate scientists.
>
Those "other" climate scientists have been exposed recently as having an
agenda which included working to oust editors of peer reviewed journals
who published articles which ran counter to the AGW viewpoint. Go to
Wikileaks and download the emails. You might actually develop a
different take on the subject afterwards.
>
Bill Kambic
<hpje...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Follow the money. The rich will get richer, manipulating laws and
>large companies and then investing in them, and the rest of us will
>get the shaft. 'Twas ever thus; the amounts and disparities are just
>larger now.
Indeed. Prince Albert lives in a 26 room house, rides in a chauffer
driven limo, and flies about in a private jet to appearances for which
I'm sure he richly compensated..
I live in a much smaller house, drive myself (mostly in a Subaru), and
don't have a private jet. I also maintain 75 acres of woods and
another 100 (more or less) of grasslands.
About our only similarity is that we both draw a government pension
(but I'll bet his is a lot bigger than mine).
As between us, who gives the bigger damn about the environment?
And I don't get any government subsidies (except my mortgage interest
deduction and the "green space" property tax reduction).
JC Dill
Didn't you see my prior post on those emails? The "controversy" is due
to a misunderstanding of the context of the quoted emails. People who
are ignorant of the terminology used take a snippet out of a single
email (out of thousands of emails spanning over 13 years), quote it out
of context, and from it they create an aura of "news" about something
that isn't newsworthy at all.
jc
rayk...@rnsmte.com
"The Very Model of Sweetness and Light" <ye_olde_m...@yahoo.com>
wrote in message
Another wattermellon....green on the outsise, commie red on the inside.
Grizzly
What's so out of context about getting rid of editors of peer reviewed
journals to further an agenda? It seems to me those who would do such a
thing are trying to slant the viewpoint of that particular journal in
favor of the AGW theory. In the grand scheme of things it seems they
were trying to manipulate the data to fit their theory and further their
agenda. By the way, Obama's current climate czar happens to be one of
the manipulators of the data now being called into question. It's nice
to see that you are among their "true believers" when people develop a
religious fervor over a subject, then cook the books so that the data
gathered will fit their hypothesis you have to wonder about their
credibility as "scientists".
The Very Model of Sweetness and Light
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:19:57 -0800 (PST), hpjeannie <hpje...@yahoo.com> thoughtlessly
typed:
>... Sheila's ...
I'm certainly not the subject. Hadn't you known?
It is, at least for me, the best possible future for horses
(remember them?), and how global warming is not
going to do them good. Don't you care?
Bill Kambic
wrote:
>Grizzly wrote:
Sounds to me like "damge control." Somebody got caught with their
hand in the cookie jar, and now the "spinmeisters" are out in force.
Or, to quote Officer Barbroody, "move along, nothing to see here."
Yeah, right.
JC Dill
> JC Dill wrote:
>> Grizzly wrote:
>>> J
>>>>
>>>> quote:
>>>> Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other
>>>> climate scientists.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Those "other" climate scientists have been exposed recently as having
>>> an agenda which included working to oust editors of peer reviewed
>>> journals who published articles which ran counter to the AGW
>>> viewpoint. Go to Wikileaks and download the emails. You might
>>> actually develop a different take on the subject afterwards.
>>
>> Didn't you see my prior post on those emails? The "controversy" is
>> due to a misunderstanding of the context of the quoted emails. People
>> who are ignorant of the terminology used take a snippet out of a
>> single email (out of thousands of emails spanning over 13 years),
>> quote it out of context, and from it they create an aura of "news"
>> about something that isn't newsworthy at all.
>>
>> jc
>
> What's so out of context about getting rid of editors of peer reviewed
> journals to further an agenda?
That's not what was said in those emails! That's a blatent
misrepresentation, obtained thru taking quotes out of context.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
> It seems to me those who would do such a
> thing
If there *was* anyone actually trying to do such a thing... but we have
absolutely no evidence that anyone was trying to do that. All such
conclusions are based on taking quotes out of context.
> are trying to slant the viewpoint of that particular journal in
> favor of the AGW theory. In the grand scheme of things it seems they
> were trying to manipulate the data to fit their theory and further their
> agenda.
No, it doesn't. In the GRAND scheme of things, when you have all the
info (including the context of the emails in question) they weren't
trying to do any such thing.
ObHorses: This type of ignorance is JUST like the citiots who claim you
are "blindfolding your horses" when you put a fly mask on them. If you
read the email without the necessary background or context, you could
ignorantly come to a conclusion that is just as wrong as saying "look at
all those poor blindfolded horses" but with just a bit more context and
information (those are fly masks, not blindfolds) suddenly what you
first (ignorantly) thought to be "clearly true" becomes obviously false.
The biggest problem is that it's really easy for an ignorant reading of
a snippet of email taken out of context to result in a false conclusion
in this situation, and it takes a lot more work to provide the context
so you can understand the truth. The lie is easier to tell.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/more_fake_quotes_at_the_worldn.php
See the comment that says:
quote:
And, you're certainly right about the problem of it taking many more
words to debunk a lie than to tell one. That's one of the biggest
difficulties I face. It's going to take three 500+ page volumes for me
to debunk all the lies in Barton's single 552 page book. Barton can just
take quote and misquote it with only a sentence or two about its
historical context. I have to really explain the historical context to
show how Barton and the other revisionists created their lies, and this
usually takes at least a few pages, and sometimes even more, for each lie.
> By the way, Obama's current climate czar happens to be one of
> the manipulators of the data now being called into question. It's nice
> to see that you are among their "true believers" when people develop a
> religious fervor over a subject, then cook the books so that the data
> gathered will fit their hypothesis you have to wonder about their
> credibility as "scientists".
This has nothing to do with being a "true believer". If you had REAL
knowledge on this topic you would know that FAUX is misleading you.
See this example:
jc
The Very Model of Sweetness and Light
measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean
and surface temperature measurements find the planet is steadily accumulating heat. There
is direct empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:05:40 -0500, Bill Kambic <wjka...@gmail.com> wrote
only of his hatred for Al Gore and other Americans, and his inability to understand
the scientific process:
>And even if there is a change going on the evidence that humans are
>causing it is paper thin at best.
Why do you believe that human activities couldn't affect climate?
Are you unaware of their extent? Can't you look up the data?
"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has released ocean temperature
data for the month of June 2009, it and broke the previous record which was set in 2005,
making last month the hottest since 1880 (when records began) when it comes to ocean
surface temperatures."
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/noaa-ocean-temperatures-june-2009-warmest-on-record.php
That's despite the fact that when you drop ice into water, the water cools.
See also:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news/does_livestock_cause_global_warming
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030219081126.htm
JC Dill
> NPR last week intereviewed a scientist from Germany
What show was this on NPR? I can't find it here:
http://topics.npr.org/topic/Global_Warming
Was this a locally produced show?
Meanwhile, look at this:
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/nov/24/uc-san-diego-researcher-says-climate-change-accele/
JC Dill
> Sounds to me like "damge control." Somebody got caught with their
> hand in the cookie jar, and now the "spinmeisters" are out in force.
Or it sounds like debunking the lies FAUX and company are spreading.
You can't tell which is which until you read for yourself and understand
the context and jargon of the quotes, instead of falling for the spin
from a anything-but-impartial FAUX news source.
For instance, a lot of attention has been placed on one writer's use of
the word "trick". Without context most readers won't understand that in
this use it means "invention" - they are led to the (incorrect)
conclusion it means "deceit". But both are common and valid meanings
for the word "trick":
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/trick
> Or, to quote Officer Barbroody, "move along, nothing to see here."
>
> Yeah, right.
There IS nothing to see here.
The illusion was created by taking quotes out of context!
I thought you were much smarter than this, Bill. I never imagined you
like being hoodwinked like this, believing the lies produced by taking
these quotes out of context.
jc
Bill Kambic
wrote:
>There IS nothing to see here.
>
>The illusion was created by taking quotes out of context!
>
>I thought you were much smarter than this, Bill. I never imagined you
>like being hoodwinked like this, believing the lies produced by taking
>these quotes out of context.
Maybe. Or may I'm hearing that famous line from The Bard: "The Lady
doth protest too much."
Quotes out of context may mislead and they may reveal. It all depends
on the context. On that we agree.
Tonight on NPR they intereviewed a guy who has tried to get a paper
published challenging the notion that the CA snowpack has been reduced
tue to "global warming." It was rejected, said a spokeman, because
it's "not news." Yet even the NPR flack had to admit that highly
placed government offiicials are repeating innacurate information on
the subject. So maybe the context is a bit less important than is
being said.
I remain a "skeptic." If stuff like this is just dim dots running off
at the mouth in e-mails maybe that's even more disturbing because
these are supposed to the "smart guys" figuring it all out.
Bill Kambic
wrote:
>Bill Kambic wrote:
>
>> NPR last week intereviewed a scientist from Germany
>
>What show was this on NPR? I can't find it here:
>
>http://topics.npr.org/topic/Global_Warming
Morning Edition, IIRC. He had an Arabic (or maybe Turkish) name and
we was from Northern Germany (maybe Keil)?
>
>Was this a locally produced show?
Nope, national.
>
>Meanwhile, look at this:
>
>http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/nov/24/uc-san-diego-researcher-says-climate-change-accele/
This does not prove that the Earth is warming. It proves, maybe, that
the Artic is warming. Contrary to popular opinion, the Artic is not
the Whole Earth.
Also, remember that there is no evidence of sea temperatures rising in
the shallow layer (which is where you will see them first). So,
again, the entire question remains open.
Bill Kambic
Light <ye_olde_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
More drivel I've snipped.
What more needs be said?
hpjeannie
Ah, but you are. Every time you post one of your cut-and-paste
tirades and change the topic line, you make yourself the subject.
Jeannie
Grizzly
I don't always take the same point of view as you Bill, but on this
particular subject, we seem to be pretty much in agreement. I've
actually taken the time to download and read some of those emails, and
some of the things they've said regarding people who espouse the other
point of view were pretty snarky. I just can't align myself with a group
that gushes with religious fervor over the AGW theory/hypothesis. Even
if the planet is warming up, taxing people who own cattle, or horses, or
use electricity here in the USA is suspect as there likely isn't going
to be a reduction in the amount of CO2 emitted by polluting industries
worldwide. China uses coal as its main energy source and they don't
sequester carbon, nor will they be subject to the tax as they are a
"developing" nation..Ditto India. Those countries already have taken
away a large portion of our economy through the outsourcing of our
manufacturing industry, and many of our engineering positions have
likewise been shipped overseas. If we sign onto Kyoto or any of the
other myriad globalist propositions in regard to climate we are shooting
ourselves in the foot. Our economy is currently hamstrung, another 35%
tax on top of what people are already paying will likely knock the
average american down to third world status. Perhaps this is what they
actually seek to accomplish.
JC Dill
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:21:40 -0800, JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There IS nothing to see here.
>>
>> The illusion was created by taking quotes out of context!
>>
>> I thought you were much smarter than this, Bill. I never imagined you
>> like being hoodwinked like this, believing the lies produced by taking
>> these quotes out of context.
>
> Maybe. Or may I'm hearing that famous line from The Bard: "The Lady
> doth protest too much."
This is an artifact of the problem of proving something (anything) false.
A false statement can be (and often is) quite short. Debunking it is
much more involved. It requires citing sources, explaining why the
prior statement was false, etc.
> Quotes out of context may mislead and they may reveal.
Taking quotes out of context can NEVER "reveal" but only mislead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_context
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as
"contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false
attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in
such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
(See how it took many more words to disprove your claim?)
> It all depends
> on the context. On that we agree.
>
> Tonight on NPR they intereviewed a guy who has tried to get a paper
> published challenging the notion that the CA snowpack has been reduced
> tue to "global warming." It was rejected, said a spokeman, because
> it's "not news."
The implication a reader gets from your psaeudo quote and paraphrasing
above is that the guy's paper was "not news" because it wasn't
interesting enough (goes against what the publications "wants" to
publish; disproves global warming). This implication is created because
you are providing the snippet OUT OF CONTEXT.
Quoting:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120846593
But climatologist Philip Mote at Oregon State University says Christy's
paper is not being suppressed for its conclusions. He is one of the
scientists who reviewed the paper, and he says the science in the paper
was fine.
"To my knowledge, there's no suppression going on. It's just that it's
not news," Mote says.
Mote himself published a paper four years ago showing that snowfall in
the Southern Sierra hasn't diminished. In fact, he says there are about
10 papers on the subject. They are not identical to Christy's, but they
reach the same broad conclusion.
"It's not controversial because it's already well known," Mote says.
(end quote)
There is no controversy or censorship going on here. It's "not news"
simply because about 10 papers on this topic have already been
published. Obviously technical and scientific publications (or any
publication) can't publish every paper and have an editing process to
determine which papers to publish. If they have already published 10
other similar papers, there's no need to publish another one!
See how the context changes that "not news" quote?!
> Yet even the NPR flack had to admit that highly
> placed government offiicials are repeating innacurate information on
> the subject. So maybe the context is a bit less important than is
> being said.
The context is ALWAYS important. Without context the info is not being
accurately conveyed as you so perfectly illustrated with your "not news"
quote above.
> I remain a "skeptic." If stuff like this is just dim dots running off
> at the mouth in e-mails
You aren't getting all of the emails. You are getting cherry-picked
excerpts. They are taken out of context, just as your "not news" was
taken out of context.
> maybe that's even more disturbing because
> these are supposed to the "smart guys" figuring it all out.
I bet I could cherry pick excerpts out of the last 13 years of your
email and you wouldn't come out looking any better than these "smart
guys" look to you.
jc
rayk...@rnsmte.com
"JC Dill" <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hekg36$t1i$1...@aioe.org...
LOL
the left is so stupid
try to spin this
Climategate: hide the decline � codified
Watts Up With That
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium
of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that
suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted.
Some the HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don�t
understand computer programming, don�t fret, the comments by the programmer
tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you
To say that the CRU code might be �buggy� would be�well I�ll just let CRU�s
programmer tell you in his own words.
a..
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro;
Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't
usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look
closer to
; the real temperatures.
b.. FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro; Computes regressions on
full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to
avoid
; the decline
c.. FOIA\documents\harris-tree\calibrate_nhrecon.pro;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to
avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
;
d.. FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon1.pro
FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon2.proFOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_jones.pro;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to
avoid
; the decline
;
e.. FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt17. Inserted debug statements into
anomdtb.f90, discovered that
a sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative! Key
output from the debug statements:
(..)
forrtl: error (75): floating point exception
IOT trap (core dumped)
..so the data value is unbfeasibly large, but why does the
sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!
f.. FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting
around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software
suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that
will be the
definitive failure of the entire project..
g.. FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtgetting seriously fed up with the
state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't
documented. Every time a
cloud forms I'm presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding
sites, some with
references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the
station metadata with
one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong
(another station will have
it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.
h.. FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtI am very sorry to report that the
rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy
stations, one with no WMO
and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very
similar coordinates. I
know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if
that's the case? Aarrggghhh!
There truly is no end in sight.
i.. FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt28. With huge reluctance, I have dived
into 'anomdtb' - and already I have
that familiar Twilight Zone sensation.
j.. FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtWrote 'makedtr.for' to tackle the
thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases not
being kept in step. Sounds familiar, if worrying. am I the first person to
attempt
to get the CRU databases in working order?!!
k.. FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtWell, dtr2cld is not the world's most
complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and I
immediately found a mistake! Scanning forward to 1951 was done with a loop
that, for
completely unfathomable reasons, didn't include months! So we read 50
grids instead
of 600!!! That may have had something to do with it. I also noticed, as I
was correcting
THAT, that I reopened the DTR and CLD data files when I should have been
opening the
bloody station files!!
l.. FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtBack to the gridding. I am seriously
worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by
Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see,
this renders the station
counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how
the gridded data is arrived
at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf
product that isn't documented
sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't
know - time pressures perhaps?
Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough
time to write a gridding
procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.
m.. FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtHere, the expected 1990-2003 period is
MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What
the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it
up. So I have
n.. FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtWell, it's been a real day of
revelations, never mind the week. This morning I
discovered that proper angular weighted interpolation was coded into the
IDL
routine, but that its use was discouraged because it was slow! Aaarrrgghh.
There is even an option to tri-grid at 0.1 degree resolution and then
'rebin'
to 720x360 - also deprecated! And now, just before midnight (so it
counts!),
having gone back to the tmin/tmax work, I've found that most if not all of
the
Australian bulletin stations have been unceremoniously dumped into the
files
without the briefest check for existing stations.
o.. FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtAs we can see, even I'm cocking it up!
Though recoverably. DTR, TMN and TMX need to be written as (i7.7)./code>
p.. FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtOH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening,
I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our
databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as
they're found.
q.. FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxdgrid2ascii.proprintf,1,�Osborn et
al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season�
printf,1,�(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990
mean).�
printf,1,�Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.�
printf,1
printf,1,�NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY�
printf,1,�REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values�
printf,1,�will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should
be,�
printf,1,�which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful�
printf,1,�than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).�
r.. FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.proprintf,1,'IMPORTANT
NOTE:'
printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density'
printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the
summer'
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way,
and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'
s.. FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\combined_wavelet_col.pro;
; Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)
;
kl=where((yrmxd ge 1402) and (yrmxd le 1960),n)
sst=prednh(kl)
t.. FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxd_pcr_localtemp.pro; Tries to
reconstruct Apr-Sep temperatures, on a box-by-box basis, from the
; EOFs of the MXD data set. This is PCR, although PCs are used as
predictors
; but not as predictands. This PCR-infilling must be done for a number of
; periods, with different EOFs for each period (due to different spatial
; coverage). *BUT* don�t do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976),
; since they won�t be used due to the decline/correction problem.
; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are �manually� removed
because
; they are isolated and away from any trees.
u..
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
v.. FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\pl_decline.pro;
; Plots density �decline� as a time series of the difference between
; temperature and density averaged over the region north of 50N,
; and an associated pattern in the difference field.
; The difference data set is computed using only boxes and years with
; both temperature and density in them � i.e., the grid changes in time.
; The pattern is computed by correlating and regressing the *filtered*
; time series against the unfiltered (or filtered) difference data set.
;
;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***
w.. FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.pro;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses �corrected� MXD � but shouldn�t
usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look
closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
x.. FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\calibrate_correctmxd.pro; We
have previously (calibrate_mxd.pro) calibrated the high-pass filtered
; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data
(which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to
boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same
calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.
y.. FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\calibrate_correctmxd.pro; No
need to verify the correct and uncorrected versions, since these
; should be identical prior to 1920 or 1930 or whenever the decline
; was corrected onwards from.
z.. FOIA\documents\osborn-tree5\densplus188119602netcdf.pro; we know the
file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-440)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1980, which is
; (1980-1400)/10 + 1 lines
(...)
; we know the file starts at yr 1070, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-1070)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1991, which is
; (1990-1400)/10 + 1 lines (since 1991 is on line beginning 1990)
JC Dill
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:13:44 -0800, JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill Kambic wrote:
>>
>>> NPR last week intereviewed a scientist from Germany
>> What show was this on NPR? I can't find it here:
>>
>> http://topics.npr.org/topic/Global_Warming
>
> Morning Edition, IIRC. He had an Arabic (or maybe Turkish) name and
> we was from Northern Germany (maybe Keil)?
If you can locate it, I'd love to listen to it or read the transcript.
You might want to start here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=3
Or you might not - I might just debunk another out-of-context
mis-statement like the one you made regarding a climate paper being "not
news".
> Also, remember that there is no evidence of sea temperatures rising in
> the shallow layer (which is where you will see them first).
Why is it that you believe we will "see them first" in the shallow
layer? I'd think the shallow layer area would be too subject to local
climate differences (e.g. El Nino effects, floods or droughts changing
river flow into shallow areas) and the deeper layer would show the long
term trend better. But I'm not an expert on climate change, so I could
be wrong. :-)
> So, again, the entire question remains open.
Which question? If the question is "Is there global warming?" most
scientists believe there is ample evidence that the question is clearly
answered YES.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-6.gif
If the question is "Is global warming due to human activities?", that
question is still being debated. It's perfectly reasonable to question
if human activities are significant enough compared with natural
activities (such as volcanic effects) to be causing or contributing to
global warming. But there isn't any serious question about if global
warming is happening:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
IMHO, anyone who seriously doubts that global warming is really
happening (irregardless of the cause - natural or man-caused) is either
really ignorant, really stupid, or a loon - right up there with the
holocaust deniers, flat earthers, those who deny that man never landed
on the moon, etc.
jc
rayk...@rnsmte.com
EPA's own research expert 'shut up' on climate change
Government analyst silenced after he critiques CO2 findings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 24, 2009
11:05 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily
Environmental Protection Agency officials have silenced one of their own
senior researchers after the 38-year employee issued an internal critique of
the EPA's climate change position.
Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA's National Center
for Environmental Economics, or NCEE, submitted his research on the agency's
greenhouse gases endangerment findings and offered a fundamental critique on
the EPA's approach to combating CO2 emissions. But officials refused to
share his conclusion in an open internal discussion, claiming his research
would have "a very negative impact on our office."
His study was barred from circulation within the EPA and was never disclosed
to the public for political reasons, according to the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, or CEI, a group that has accessed four internal e-mails on the
subject.
CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman told WND, "His boss basically told him, 'No,
I'm not going to send your study further up. It's going to stay within this
bureau.'"
A March 12 e-mail to Carlin warned him not to have "any direct communication
with anyone outside NCEE on endangerment."
Carlin, a researcher who earned his doctorate in economics from
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an undergraduate degree in physics
from California Institute of Technology, informed officials that two-thirds
of his references were from peer-reviewed publications and defended his
inclusion of new research on the topic.
"It is also my view that the critical attribute of good science is its
correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in the
technical literature," he wrote. "I believe my comments are valid,
significant and contain references to significant new research � They are
significant because they present information critical to justification (or
lack thereof) for the proposed [greenhouse gas] endangerment finding."
After nearly one week of discussion, NCEE Director Al McGartland informed
Carlin on March 17 that he would not include the research in the internal
EPA discussion.
"Alan, I decided not to forward your comments," he wrote. "� The
administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on
endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for
this decision. � I can only see one impact of your comments given where we
are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."
(Story continues below)
In yet another e-mail sent only minutes following the previous one,
McGartland wrote, "With the endangerment findings nearly final, you need to
move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any
additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least
until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate."
CEI charges that suppression of Carlin's study denied public access to
important agency information, as court rulings have indicated that both "the
evidence relied upon [by the agency] and the evidence discarded" must be
included in the rulemaking record.
"They could come up with reasons to reject it, as I'm sure they're going to
come up with reasons to reject the scientific objections that are coming in
now from outside parties in the general public and from skeptical
scientists," Kazman told WND. "But I'd say the real issue here is that this
critique is coming from a career EPA insider, so it can't be dismissed as
the work of someone in the pay of the coal-burning fossil-fuel industry. The
fact that someone within the EPA was taking this approach is something that
would be naturally embarrassing to the agency."
CEI also said the incident violated the EPA's commitment to transparency and
scientific honesty.
Prior to taking office, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared, "As
Administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental
crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based
policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming
transparency."
Likewise, CEI reminds the EPA of President Obama's April 27 speech to the
National Academy of Sciences in which he stated, "[U]nder my administration,
the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over."
In a memo to the EPA, Kazman wrote, "Because of ideology, however, it was
this back seat to which Mr. Carlin's study was relegated; more precisely, it
was booted out of the car entirely."
"The irony of the president and Administrator Jackson talking about EPA's
new transparency and commitment to scientific integrity, that's really
incredible," Kazman said.
CEI is asking the agency to make Carlin's study public, extend or reopen the
comment period to allow public response to his research and publicly declare
that there will be no reprisals against Carlin for his research.
Kazman said the issue is "coming to a head" because the EPA's internal
commentary period just closed, and the 1,200-page Waxman-Markey climate bill
to cap greenhouse gas emissions is scheduled to come to a vote Friday on the
House floor.
He believes Carlin's study could have implications on how lawmakers feel
about the allegedly solid research behind the climate bill � especially if
objecting analysts within the agency are being silenced.
"Any right-minded administrator would have said, 'Fine, put it in and we'll
give our reasons for why we reject his contentions," Kazman said. "But
instead, they shut the guy up."
rayk...@rnsmte.com
Scientists abandon global warming 'lie'
650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 11, 2008
12:00 am Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON � A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about
to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports
of man-made global warming � labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part
of a new religion.
Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report
quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the
U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting
scientists in the last year alone.
In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12
times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007
report.
(Story continues below)
Here are some choice excerpts from the report:
a.. "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." --
Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
a.. "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving
any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain
skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in
the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has
authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most
pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
a.. Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... .
When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by
science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh,
an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
a.. "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to
others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel
Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people
who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab
University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of
the Planet.
a.. "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they
only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios
that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco
Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National
Autonomous University of Mexico.
a.. "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there
is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global
warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of
the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
a.. "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually
have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as
clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy,
a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the
University of Auckland, New Zealand.
a.. "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment
[comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." --
Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the
statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological
Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of
Monthly Weather Review.
a.. "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand
that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" --
Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008
International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed
papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
a.. "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I
quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at
best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." --
Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made
warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC
committee.
a.. "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly
(from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers
ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space
Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.
a.. "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense
... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social
control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an
ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado
Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group,
has more than 150 published articles.
a.. "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... .
Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global
warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and
developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko,
vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu
University in Japan.
a.. "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact
that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist
Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires
and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses
refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict
the theory.
It is 4 degrees Celsius (39 Fahrenheit) today in Poznan, Poland, where the
U.N. conference is being held.
rayk...@rnsmte.com
"Grizzly" <No...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:zvkPm.3591$cW....@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
> Bill Kambic wrote:
snip
> If we sign onto Kyoto or any of the other myriad globalist propositions in
> regard to climate we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Our economy is
> currently hamstrung, another 35% tax on top of what people are already
> paying will likely knock the average american down to third world status.
> Perhaps this is what they actually seek to accomplish.
Bingo!
rayk...@rnsmte.com
Chrissy
good round up of this topic :
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/25/more-insight-on-thos.html#more
C
JC Dill
> a.. "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor
> receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist
> I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson,
> the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and
> formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been
> called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
>
Here's her entire statement:
And my favorite quote:
> In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC
> because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the
> climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this
> century become unsustainable.
Then she follows with "But as a scientist I remain skeptical." What
does that mean? Does that mean she doesn't believe in Global Warming?
NO! A scientist uses "skeptical" in a specific way. From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical#Scientific_skepticism
"A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the
reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a
systematic investigation.[6] The scientific method details the specific
process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. "
By "remaining skeptical" she's saying the claim needs to be subjected to
more systematic investigation, that we don't have enough data to be 100%
certain.
For more thoughts on her words, see a comment in this blog:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/21/14433/7096/336/687150
Quoting:
This diary presented Dr. Joanne Simpson as a global warming skeptic and
selectively quoted her article.
Here is what they don't quote from her article:
> There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising
> rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events
> are occurring. However, the main basis of the claim that man�s
> release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based
> almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of
> models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the
> weather forecasts. However, a vocal minority of scientists so
> mistrusts the models and the complex fragmentary data, that some
> claim that global warming is a hoax. They have made public statements
> accusing other scientists of deliberate fraud in aid of their
> research funding. Both sides are now hurling personal epithets at
> each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences.
>
> (Snip)
>
> What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on
> incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the
> recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce
> emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the
> planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But
> as a scientist I remain skeptical.
Dr. Joanne Simpson's remarks were clearly TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT[1].
Simpson's skeptical attitude was born of her quest for the purity of
craft, not on uncertainty that global warming is happening and our need
to address it.
(end quote)
jc
[1] Emphasis mine.
rayk...@rnsmte.com
Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming � Caps Year
of Vindication for Skeptics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted
from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic.
This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which
numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics.
Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global
warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is
shattering the media-promoted scientific �consensus� on climate alarmism.
Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France�s
Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French
newspaper L'Express titled �The Snows of Kilimanjaro� (For English
Translation, click here:
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835 ) detailing his newfound
skepticism about manmade global warming. See:
http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=451670
Allegre wrote that the �cause of climate change remains unknown� and pointed
out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local
land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies
show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and
the continent is actually gaining ice.
�Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France,
the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in
order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,� Allegre
wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of
being motivated by money, noting that �the ecology of helpless protesting
has become a very lucrative business for some people!�
Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had
previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning
fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in
the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one
of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled �World
Scientists' Warning to Humanity� in which the scientists warned that global
warming�s �potential risks are very great.� See:
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/sciwarn.html
Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books and
received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the
Geochemical Society of the United States.
Allegre's conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global
warming alarmists have insisted that there is a �consensus� about manmade
global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of
rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in
September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and
CBS News �60 Minutes� correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to
�Holocaust deniers.� See:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 &
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml In
addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics
as "global warming deniers."
This increase in rhetorical flourish comes at a time when new climate
science research continues to unravel the global warming alarmists� computer
model predictions of future climatic doom and vindicate skeptics.
60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears
Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question
the so-called �consensus� that the Earth faces a �climate emergency.� On
April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister
asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming
alarmists.
�Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so
there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future�Significant
[scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created,
many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse
gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate,
Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it
was not necessary,� the 60 scientists wrote. See:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
�It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were
telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe.
But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many
choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political
agendas,� the 60 scientists concluded.
'Climate Change is Nothing New'
In addition, an October 16, 2006 Washington Post article titled �Climate
Change is Nothing New� echoed the sentiments of the 60 scientists as it
detailed a new study of the earth�s climate history. The Washington Post
article by reporter Christopher Lee noted that Indiana University geologist
Simon Brassell found climate change occurred during the age of dinosaurs and
quoted Brassell questioning the accuracy of computer climate model
predictions.
�If there are big, inherent fluctuations in the system, as paleoclimate
studies are showing, it could make determining the Earth�s climatic future
even harder than it is,� Brassell said. See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/15/AR2006101500672.html
Global Cooling on the Horizon?
In August, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research
sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global
cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun�s
output. See: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html
Sun�s Contribution to Warming
There have also been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the
last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is
growing and a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the
sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th-century warming. See:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml
�Global Warming� Stopped in 1998
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter has noted that there is indeed a problem
with global warming � it stopped in 1998. �According to official temperature
records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the
UK, the global average temperature did not increase between 1998-2005.
��this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's
continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere,� noted paleoclimate researcher and geologist Bob Carter
of James Cook University in Australia in an April 2006 article titled �There
is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998.� See:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
�Global?" Warming Misnamed - Southern Hemisphere Not Warming
In addition, new NASA satellite tropospheric temperature data reveals that
the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years contrary to
�global warming theory� and modeling. This new Southern Hemisphere data
raises the specter that the use of the word �global� in �global warming� may
not be accurate. A more apt moniker for the past 25 years may be �Northern
Hemisphere� warming. See:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/southern-hemisphere-ignores-global.html
Alaska Cooling
According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide
average temperature was �0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average.�
See: http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2006/jul06/noaa06-065.html
Oceans Cooling
Another bombshell to hit the global warming alarmists and their speculative
climate modeling came in a September article in the Geophysical Research
Letters which found that over 20% of the heat gained in the oceans since the
mid-1950s was lost in just two years. The former climatologist for the state
of Colorado, Roger Pielke, Sr., noted that the sudden cooling of the oceans
�certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have
serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the
climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings.� See:
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/09/
Light Hurricane Season & Early Winter
Despite predictions that 2006 would bring numerous tropical storms, 2006�s
surprisingly light hurricane season and the record early start of this year�s
winter in many parts of the U.S. have further put a damper on the constant
doomsaying of the global warming alarmists and their media allies.
Droughts Less Frequent
Other new studies have debunked many of the dubious claims made by the
global warming alarmists. For example, the claim that droughts would be more
frequent, severe and wide ranging during global warming, has now being
exposed as fallacious. A new paper in Geophysical Research Letters authored
by Konstantinos Andreadis and Dennis Lettenmaier finds droughts in the U.S.
becoming �shorter, less frequent and cover a small portion of the country
over the last century.�
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/13/where-are-the-droughts
Global Warming Will Not Lead to Next Ice Age
Furthermore, recent research has shown that fears that global warming could
lead to the next ice age, as promoted in the 2004 Hollywood movie �The Day
After Tomorrow� are also unsupportable. A 2005 media hyped study �claimed to
have found a 30 percent slowdown in the thermohaline circulation, the
results are published in the very prestigious Nature magazine, and the story
was carried breathlessly by the media in outlets around the world�Less than
a year later, two different research teams present convincing evidence [ in
Geophysical Research Letters ] that no slowdown is occurring whatsoever,�
according to Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, editor of the
website World Climate Report. See:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/13/overturning-ocean-hype
�Hockey Stick� Broken in 2006
The �Hockey Stick� temperature graph�s claim that the 1990�s was the hottest
decade of the last 1000 years was found to be unsupportable by the National
Academy of Sciences and many independent experts in 2006. See:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697
Study Shows Greenland�s Ice Growing
A 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showed
that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass. See:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N44/C1.jsp Also,
according to the International Arctic Research Institute, despite all of the
media hype, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930�s than today.
Polar Bears Not Going Extinct
Despite Time Magazine and the rest of the media�s unfounded hype, polar
bears are not facing a crisis, according to biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor
from the Arctic government of Nunavut. �Of the 13 populations of polar bears
in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going
extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,� Taylor wrote on May 1,
2006. See:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146433819696&call_pageid=970599119419
Media Darling James Hansen Hypes Alarmism
As all of this new data debunking climate alarmism mounts, the mainstream
media chooses to ignore it and instead focus on the dire predictions of the
number-one global warming media darling, NASA�s James Hansen. The
increasingly alarmist Hansen is featured frequently in the media to bolster
sky-is-falling climate scare reports. His recent claim that the Earth is
nearing its hottest point in one million years has been challenged by many
scientists. See:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N39/EDITB.jsp
Hansen�s increasingly frightening climate predictions follow his 2003
concession that the use of �extreme scenarios� was an appropriate tactic to
drive the public�s attention to the urgency of global warming. See:
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html Hansen also
received a $250,000 grant form Teresa Heinz�s Foundation and then
subsequently endorsed her husband John Kerry for President and worked
closely with Al Gore to promote his movie, �An Inconvenient Truth.� See:
http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speechID=6 &
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf
American People Rejecting Global Warming Alarmism
The global warming alarmists may have significantly overplayed their hand in
the climate debate. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll this August found
that most Americans do not attribute the cause of any recent severe weather
events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that
climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the
last five years.
Senator Inhofe Chastises Media For Unscientific & Unprincipled Climate
Reporting
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) Chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, commented last week on the media�s unfounded global warming hype
and some of the recent scientific research that is shattering the so-called
�consensus� that human greenhouse gas emissions have doomed the planet.
�The American people are fed up with media for promoting the idea that
former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific �consensus� that SUV�s
and the modern American way of life have somehow created a �climate
emergency� that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood
liberals can solve. It is the publicity and grant seeking global warming
alarmists and their advocates in the media who have finally realized that
the only �emergency� confronting them is their rapidly crumbling
credibility, audience and bottom line. The global warming alarmists know
their science is speculative at best and their desperation grows each day as
it becomes more and more obvious that many of the nations that ratified the
woeful Kyoto Protocol are failing to comply,� Senator Inhofe said last week.
See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264616
�The mainstream media needs to follow the money: The further you get from
scientists who conduct these alarmist global warming studies, and the
further you get from the financial grants and the institutions that they
serve the more the climate alarmism fades and the skepticism grows,� Senator
Inhofe explained.
Eco-Doomsayers� Failed Predictions
In a speech on the Senate floor on September 25, 2006, Senator Inhofe
pointed out the abject failure of past predictions of ecological disaster
made by environmental alarmists.
�The history of the modern environmental movement is chock-full of
predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire
predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass
starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions
came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a
dire environmental future. The more the eco-doomsayers� predictions fail,
the more the eco-doomsayers predict,� Senator Inhofe said on September 25th.
See: http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
Related Links:
For a comprehensive review of the media�s embarrassing 100-year history of
alternating between promoting fears of a coming ice age and global warming,
see Environment & Public Works Chairman James Inhofe�s September 25, 2006
Senate floor speech debunking the media and climate alarmism. Go to:
(epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759)
To read and watch Senator Inhofe on CNN discuss global warming go to:
(http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264308 )
To Read all of Senator Inhofe�s Speeches on global warming go to:
(http://epw.senate.gov/speeches.cfm?party=rep)
�Inhofe Correct On Global Warming,� by David Deming geophysicist, an adjunct
scholar with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (ocpathink.org), and an
associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
(http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264537)
rayk...@rnsmte.com
Global Warming Debunked… Again!
It snowed over the
weekend… in the desert! To be more exact… in the UAE! As the headlines indicate
it doesn’t do that often. As a matter of fact it has only done that one other
time since man has been recording history. We think this is just one more
indication that we have been correct in declaring that the earth is on the cusp
of a re-freeze, another ice age… not a planet wide warm-up or “Climate Change”
as the adherents to the gospel of “Global Warming” have taken to calling it
(since so much of what they have declared has been debunked and more debunking
is happening every day).
We thought you’d like to read the article for
yourselves. You’ll find it
HERE.
If we could warn you of
anything, it would be not to be caught up in the planet wide hysteria about a
non-existent warming of the planet. We are convinced it is a hoax, quite likely
the greatest hoax ever visited upon mankind.
The Pew Research Center released the results of a poll last week that indicates that Americans are just plain tired of all the global warming hype. It seems Pew called 1500 adult Americans and asked them to to prioritize the issues they thought the government should tackle in 2009. They were given 20 issues to rank. Global Warming came in dead last! CNS News has an excellent article on it HERE.
There’s good reason for this trend among Americans. What we are being told about the earth’s warming does not correlate to what we are seeing out our windows! It snowed here in the southeastern coastal plain of North Carolina last week. It may do so again this week. That is rare. But NC is not a good example… unless you live here where the average high temp, in January, is 56º and the average low temp in January is 33º.
The problem for the Global Warming adherents is the fact that global temps are going down… not up! Last year the snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China was greater than at any time since 1966.
Russian climatologists believe recent weather changes around the globe are results of solar activity and not man-made emissions. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, calls the argument for man-made climate change “a drop in the bucket.” His research shows that now the recent very active solar activity has entered an inactive phase. He advised people to “stock up on fur coats.” Read the article HERE.
Oh, and the CO-2 scare… well, that is coming unglued as well. It is bunk! An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, “Man-made global warming is junk science,” explaining that worldwide man made CO2 emission each year “equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration … This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.” Read the article HERE.
Back in December of 2008, a US Senate Minority report
on this very thing was released and it had some interesting comments from some
of the 650 dissenting scientists concerning Global Warming. Here are just a few
samples:
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there
is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
— U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane
Research Division of NOAA.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history. … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” — UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” — Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly [from promoting warming fears], without having their professional careers ruined.” — Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense. …The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” — Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
In the meantime those who pull the world’s strings from the shadows continue to push this mythical global disaster as a means toward introduction of a one world government. After all, that’s what the Global Warming hoax is all about.
rayk...@rnsmte.com
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters.
Manipulation of evidence:
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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” - CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.
I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.
Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.
But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.
UPDATE: I write about this subject a lot and the threads below my posts often contain an impressive range of informed opinion from readers with solid scientific backgrounds (plus lots of cheap swipes from Libtards – but, hey, their discomfort and rage are my joy).
Here are a few links:
Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process.
An earlier scandal at the Climate Research Unit, this time involving “cherry-picked” data samples.
A contretemps with a Climate Bully who wonders whether I have a science degree. (No I don’t. I just happen to be a believer in empiricism and not spending taxpayers’ money on a problem that may well not exist)
59 per cent of UK population does not believe in AGW. The Times decides they are “village idiots”
Comparing “Climate Change” to the 9/11 and the Holocaust is despicable and dumb
Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?
UK Government blows £6 million on eco-propaganda ad which makes children cry
and a very funny piece by Damian Thompson comparing the liberal media’s coverage of Watergate with its almost non-existent coverage of Climategate
hpjeannie
>
> I live in a much smaller house, drive myself (mostly in a Subaru),
I knew I liked you for a reason.
Jeannie
'01 Legacy wagon - our third Sube
JC Dill
rayk...@rnsmte.com wrote:
> There have also been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over
> the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the
> ice is growing
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/01/22/ice-shrinking-or-growing/
quote:
There are three regions of Antarctic ice: the East Antarctic Ice Sheet
(EAIS), the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), and the Antarctic
Peninsula. Most studies indicate that the EAIS is unchanged or growing
slightly, while the WAIS and the Peninsula are losing ice.
Measurements of the entire ice sheet from 1993 to 2003 have ranged from
50 gigatons (Gt) growth per year to 200 Gt loss per year, according to
the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4). But overall, the trend is
towards loss of ice. Even with the higher uncertainty for Antarctica
compared to Greenland, the AR4 concludes that "losses from� Antarctica
have very likely contributed to sea level rise".
(snip)
What's easy to miss is that Wingham said parts of the Antarctic ice
sheet are growing rather than shrinking.
(end quote)
Ray, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
You keep posting this crap, I read and my BS meter goes off, and I make
ONE search and immediately debunk one of your claims. Aren't you
embarrassed to be caught repeatedly posting this crap?
jc
JC Dill
> Here are a few tasters.
>
> *Manipulation of evidence:*
>
> 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) amd from
> 1961 for Keith�s to hide the decline.
I've already debunked this statement taken out of context. Apparently
you can't be bothered to read what I'm posting so why do you expect me
to read what you post?
I'll solve that problem. You get to join Sheila in the killfile.
<plonk>
JC Dill
Excellent article, round-up, and collection of links. Thanks for
posting it!
jc
Francis Burton
>Excellent article, round-up, and collection of links. Thanks for
>posting it!
Some more reading:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
Francis
Bill Kambic
Ayup.
Again, I won't want to go back to The Bad Old Days. But this Brave
New World is damn long on promise and damn short on specifics.
Bill Kambic
wrote:
>Or you might not - I might just debunk another out-of-context
>mis-statement like the one you made regarding a climate paper being "not
>news".
It wasn't ME that said "it wasn't news" it was the editor of
scientific journal to which the paper had been submitted. Since ten
other researchers had come to the same conclusion, and had been
published, THAT was the basis for the "it wasn't news" statement.
>
>> Also, remember that there is no evidence of sea temperatures rising in
>> the shallow layer (which is where you will see them first).
>
>Why is it that you believe we will "see them first" in the shallow
>layer? I'd think the shallow layer area would be too subject to local
>climate differences (e.g. El Nino effects, floods or droughts changing
>river flow into shallow areas) and the deeper layer would show the long
>term trend better. But I'm not an expert on climate change, so I could
>be wrong. :-)
You would see it first there because (1) the shallow layer is warmed
by the Sun and (2) cooled by air and wave action. If air is warmer
there's less cooling and thus a heat buildup. There can be local
variations, but if it were real there would have been some change
(particularly given the period of time we're talking about).
If the human input were still being "debated" I'd be much happier. But
it's not.
Ocean of Nuance
That's what the astrologers, flat-earthers, alchemists, and creationists
say and they are wrong also.
Science is the only game in town for actually knowing anything.
What we have here in this thread is argument by authority. Various
people quoting various authorities, some not being actual authorities.
Plus we have ignoramuses like Sen. Inhofe weighing in elsewhere like he
hasn't previously checked his brain at the door (Inhofe says separation
of church and state is a hoax). That unfortunately turns heads of other
people who check their brain at the door who happen to be in the
majority of the US.
There is nothing in the material posted that is a smoking gun for
anything untoward to anyone with an inkling of science training. There
are emotional responses at points where you would would hope to see only
intellectual ones. That just proves scientists are humans. It DOESN'T
prove this group of scientists is nefarious.
Scientists are the good guys 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of the time.
This climate modeling business is tough. There is observational data
and there is modeling. Scientists do the best they can. No matter what
you say about the models, the observational data will be there to be
dealt with honestly by the scientists or dishonestly by the people like
Inhofe who rake in huge donations from oil companies. Who has a bigger
dog in that fight, the scientists or the Senator? Talk about following
the money.
sharon
Ocean of Nuance
Here's the thing.
I think the models will only be so good. If there is some reasonable
indication that AGW is happening then it is imperative that we do
something about it. On something like this, it would be remiss to wait
until the case is 100% to act.
I don't know but this is what I think is going on. I think the
scientists honestly see something in the trends but can't prove it to a
very high degree of certainty due to the EXTREMELY complex and even
chaotic (at this point) nature of the atmosphere-land-water global
system. They have shown it to a fair or good degree of certainty but
the stakes are so high that we can't afford to miss the boat. So they
hammer the reasonable degree of certainty.
Just my opinion about this. I would have to spend months and months
delving into the literature to know what is really going on with this
research.
sharon
Bill Kambic
<lizRMOVz...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>Here's the thing.
>
>I think the models will only be so good. If there is some reasonable
>indication that AGW is happening then it is imperative that we do
>something about it. On something like this, it would be remiss to wait
>until the case is 100% to act.
In theory, yes. But a dollar spent today is a dollar we don't have to
spend tomorrow. So if we spend lots of money to stop that which
cannot be stopped where will the money come from to mitigate the
consequences of that which we cannot stop?
>I don't know but this is what I think is going on. I think the
>scientists honestly see something in the trends but can't prove it to a
>very high degree of certainty due to the EXTREMELY complex and even
>chaotic (at this point) nature of the atmosphere-land-water global
>system. They have shown it to a fair or good degree of certainty but
>the stakes are so high that we can't afford to miss the boat. So they
>hammer the reasonable degree of certainty.
>
>Just my opinion about this. I would have to spend months and months
>delving into the literature to know what is really going on with this
>research.
The recent revelations are disturbing because they suggest scientific
fraud (note that it's a suggestion of, not conclusive proof of). So
if the experts are "fudging" then who can we trust? The politicians?
I don't expect perfection, but I do expect a "more probable than not"
standard to be applied. We don't even reach that standard. And the
gathering in Copenhagen is NOT to debate the "if we are responsible"
but the "what are we going to do because we ARE reseponsible."
That's the scary part.
AKogler
wrote:
> That's what the astrologers, flat-earthers, alchemists, and creationists
> say and they are wrong also.
>
Lots of scientific data in that statement, eh?
> Science is the only game in town for actually knowing anything.
>
> What we have here in this thread is argument by authority. Various
> people quoting various authorities, some not being actual authorities.
> Plus we have ignoramuses like Sen. Inhofe weighing in elsewhere like he
> hasn't previously checked his brain at the door (Inhofe says separation
> of church and state is a hoax). That unfortunately turns heads of other
> people who check their brain at the door who happen to be in the
> majority of the US.
>
> There is nothing in the material posted that is a smoking gun for
> anything untoward to anyone with an inkling of science training. There
> are emotional responses at points where you would would hope to see only
> intellectual ones. That just proves scientists are humans. It DOESN'T
> prove this group of scientists is nefarious.
>
> Scientists are the good guys 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of the time.
>
Scientists are human. As such, they are prey to agendas, egos,
feelings. you are certainly proof of this, with your fluid devotion to
facts. These emails present so much more than 'out of context' cherry
picking.
""Gotcha
Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they're dizzy. The
ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it's
forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the
alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.
But here's what’s undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured
temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after
(circa) 1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is
disingenuous, to say the least. The very existence of a divergence
betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures
are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set
threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question
its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would
apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.
And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in
every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every
website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime
against science, it’s a crime against mankind.
Indeed, miners of the CRU folder have unearthed dozens of e-mail
threads and supporting documents revealing much to loathe about this
cadre of hucksters and their vile intentions. This veritable goldmine
has given us tales ranging from evidence destruction to spitting on
the Freedom of Information Act on both sides of the Atlantic. But the
now-irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the
data for at least a decade may be the most important strike in human
history.
Advocates of the global governance/financial redistribution sought by
the United Nations at Copenhagen in two weeks, and also those of the
expanded domestic governance/financial redistribution sought by
Liberal politicians, both substantiate their drastic proposals with
the pending climate emergency predicted in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Kyoto, Waxman-
Markey, Kerry-Boxer, EPA regulation of the very substances of life --
all bad policy concepts enabled solely by IPCC reports. And the IPCC
in turn bases those reports largely on the data and charts provided by
the research scientists at CRU -- largely from tree ring data -- who
just happen to be editors and lead authors of that same U.N. panel.
Bottom line: CRU's evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all
assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and
readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions
must also be reexamined.
Gotcha. We know they've been lying all along, and now we can prove it.
It's time to bring sanity back to this debate.
It's time for the First IPCC Reassessment Report.""
The spin will be 'personal emails taken out of context'. But man oh
man, it is so much more than that. And thank God for the internet, but
cause anyone who wants to can actually see the whole debacle, and
decide for themselves. IF they are willing to do so.
Sharon, if you truly have this great commitment to science that you
always espouse, you will read the whole thing, and post an actual
rebuttal. One that for once does not use the words 'young earth' or
mention religion in any way would be even better. You are a scientist,
act like one for once. Debunk the code issue.
Thanks.
Abby
Bill Kambic
<lizRMOVz...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>That's what the astrologers, flat-earthers, alchemists, and creationists
>say and they are wrong also.
Some of these folks believed in the Ptolamaic System of astronomy
(which was closely alligned with astrology). Ptolomy came up with a
system that did explain the observed data. It was quite wrong but
clearly supported by the available research of the day. Gallileo and
his telescope (and Keppler and Brahe and others with ther math) proved
Ptolomy wrong. There were social consequences of this, but prior to
Gallileo skeptics of the Ptolomaic System had little to work with.
I guess it's a cautionary tale for both sides.
>Science is the only game in town for actually knowing anything.
Knowing, yes; knowing what to do with what you know, no.
rayk...@rnsmte.com
"AKogler" <ako...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8448b980-c58f-4aee...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
snip
Sharon, if you truly have this great commitment to science that you
always espouse, you will read the whole thing, and post an actual
rebuttal. One that for once does not use the words 'young earth' or
mention religion in any way would be even better. You are a scientist,
act like one for once. Debunk the code issue.
Thanks.
Abby
Not a chance....the LotLizard is what she is....A commie whore.
rayk...@rnsmte.com
rayk...@rnsmte.com
These guys have some credibility unlike the commie whores DC Dill and the
LotLizard
The Very Model of Sweetness and Light
of human civilization -- the entire Holocene ..."
http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/
In consideration of the future of horses as a species,
one must find the issue of the climate quite significant.
Horses will be affected. They are being affected now.
Humans helped horses compete for survival, but if humans
compete with horses for survival, horses will be history.
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:51:23 -0800 (PST), AKogler <ako...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>... These emails present so much more than 'out of context' cherry
>picking.
They're that and a classic example of thievery and deceit used to
promote the interests of lying robber barons.
"... absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question
the deep level of consensus of climate change ..."
Abby's merely going on record here as supporting theft
and deception on behalf of those who make money on
turning up the earth's thermostat and other damage.
Horses are animals comfortable at lower temperatures
than humans.
>Clamoring alarmists can and will spin
You made a lot of vicious noise for terrorizing Iraq.
Do you approve of people stealing horses from Iraqis
and abusing them for profiteers' lies because your
'faith' tells you do support that, and much worse?
>... dizzy. The
>ever-clueless ...
You believe the emails would say things that they don't
really say, taking your talking points on 'faith' from the
likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sun Myung Moon.
>...on the denial merry-go-round.
Why do you deny that human activity affects climate?
Why do you deny that climate affects horses?
Is there anything in this universe about which you care
besides stoking your own ego? It's not really becoming
of you to serve immoral corporatistm, but you will need
to develop some empathy for actual humans instead
of admiration for entities abusing them, to do better.
>... dendrochronological data ...
"Tree ring data (dendrochronology) can yield information on seasonal temperature and wet
or dry conditions. At best, tree rings are comparable to instrumental averages. However,
suitable tree species are limited to parts of the temperate latitudes, and many trees need
to be sampled and carefully assessed for good results. Even so, tree ring records are only
useful for studying regional climates."
http://geology.about.com/od/nutshells/a/aa_climatenuts_3.htm
Regional is not the same as global.
>... If it's bogus ...
What's bogus is the belief that human activity
wouldn't, somehow, affect global climate.
>... question
>its integrity ...
One questions the integrity of anyone who can't
admit that hitting a stable with a missile is wrong.
>... such a corrupt process ...
That's when profiteers steal public money with war crimes.
>... e-mail ...
Why do you support the misrepresentation of stolen emails?
>... this
>cadre of hucksters and their vile intentions.
You want harm to so many for them:
"Global Warming Denial Machine intentionally aims at sacrificing the long term
future of our children and all life on Earth for its short term profit"
http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/11/exxon-led-global-warming-denial-machine.html
>has given us tales
You and your threadworms should prefer facts.
>... cooking the
>data...
See the "Downing Street Memo".
>... irrevocably tainted...
You hope more people and horses suffer for fascism.
>... been lying all along, and now we ...
You're still lying.
"the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge"
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/global_warming_denialism/
>The spin will be
You already offered your spin. You've been gullible to swallow
the talking points of your masters, but you probably can't help
it and might no't be able to improve beyond it.
>...And thank God ...
Why is your God so greedy, hateful, and bloodthirsty?
"The incontrovertible science�based not on manipulated data but on decades of basic
research�is that the burning of fossil fuels is drastically reshaping our planet�s
climate, melting the glaciers, and acidifying the oceans. And the only known way to
restore conditions to those safe for human civilization is to dramatically reduce the use
of fossil fuels. Doing so, however, would affect the incredible profits and power of the
oil and coal industries, and of their ideological allies."
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-24-superfreak-dubner-embraces-climategate-conspiracy-theories/
>... post an actual
>rebuttal...
Here you go:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/the_hacked_climate_science_ema.php
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/what-is-the-malkin-clique-so-excited-about.html
Take your pick.
"The key to these bloggers' mentality is simply to find some tiny thing and focus all
attention on that in order to persuade people that the bigger reality is untrue or
irrelevant. This is not an argument; it's a technique. It's a technique to persuade people
not to examine all the evidence, since the source of the evidence - secular humanist
scientists - are evil suspects and against God and in favor of making your gas bill
higher.
You can't actually persuade people that way, of course. But you can fortify their
resistance to examining all the evidence."
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/11/rhetorical_technique_vs_realit.php
http://www.ecohuddle.com/wiki/global-warming-skepticism
>... religion ...
Why does yours make you want to harm so many other life forms, Abby?
"...sea level might rise from four inches to two feet higher than today. If it rises two
feet, a major storm surge would nearly encircle the Washington Monument and completely
surround the Internal Revenue Service, the National Museum of Natural History, the
National Gallery of Art and neighboring structures..."
http://www.edf.org/documents/495_Global%20Warming%20Nations%20Capital.htm
Save the museums, but don't let the IRS out of there until they make sure that American
tax dollars would actually benefit most Americans ...
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
> "Global Warming Denial Machine intentionally aims at sacrificing the long term
> future of our children and all life on Earth for its short term profit"
>
> http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/11/exxon-led-global-warming-denial-machine.html
This plays right into the hands of the MANY people (according to polls),
lead by the late Jerry Falwell, who think that the end of the earth will
occur within their lifetime and they will be raptured up into the sky.
There is simply no reason to protect the environment if the earth will
end within the next few decades.
So there is a ready-made slack-jawed, checked brain at the door
credulity there that the oil companies are stealthily exploiting.
There's your real conspiracy.
sharon
rayk...@rnsmte.com
"The Very Model of Sweetness and Light" <ye_olde_m...@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:cn90h59vp60490akr...@4ax.com...
is off her meds again
rayk...@rnsmte.com
The Very Model of Sweetness and Light
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/inhofes-mauvais-blague/
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:12:03 -0700, <rayk...@rnsmte.com> wrote:
>... so stupid ...
Do you believe that Sun Myung Moon is the
second coming of Christ, too, Ray?
>Climategate ...
"... Selfishness, Fear, and Paranoia ..."
http://www.ecohuddle.com/wiki/global-warming-skepticism
"... Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the
accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked
emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging
December climate talks in Copenhagen ..."
http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125