Watchdog’s Scariest People of 2015: No. 3

[Chom Noamsky]

Not really scary, just corrupt and venal.

http://watchdog.org/251583/watchdogs-scariest-people-2015-no-3/

[gordo]

The scariest person in our local news is Trump. Thank gods he is not
Canadian. Cruze is second and he also is not a Canadian, he gave that
up when he wanted to be a president of the country beneath Canada.All
of them think AGW is a hoax.

[AlleyCat]

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:55:13 -0800, gordo says...

> All
> of them think AGW is a hoax.

Agw IS a hoax, gourd-head... global warming is not. The globe HAS warmed
before and it WILL again. Duh. That's what NATURE does, dumb ass.

[Chom Noamsky]

Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Cruz... the whole lot of 'em are completely
bereft of any original ideas. There hasn't been any genuinely original
ideas in politics for hundreds of years. Only mindless monkeys think it
matters who gets elected, or that any one of them has anything new to
offer. Same old banal tripe.

Likewise, the greenmob has never had any original ideas, it just
regurgitates the half-baked ideas of dead leftist pseudo-intellectuals
that were never anything other than disastrous (look at the latest
failure, the ongoing collapse of Venezuela) .

The greenmob is an obsolete cliche, an anachronism, something the dog
tried swallowing but puked up.

You are a greenmob cliche.

[Gordon Levi]

AlleyCat <a...@aohell.com> wrote:

>
>On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:55:13 -0800, gordo says...
>
>> All
>> of them think AGW is a hoax.
>
>Agw IS a hoax

So why does your favourite denier bother to explain the science
underlying it <http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/>?

You claim to have read it but you must have stopped before he told you
"It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other
changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about
1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood
by climate scientists".

It is well understood not only by climate scientists but by almost
everybody. Why can't you understand it?
>... , gourd-head global warming is not. The globe HAS warmed

[Chom Noamsky]

On 1/27/2016 4:55 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> AlleyCat <a...@aohell.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:55:13 -0800, gordo says...
>>
>>> All
>>> of them think AGW is a hoax.
>>
>> Agw IS a hoax
>
> So why does your favourite denier bother to explain the science
> underlying it <http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/>?
>
> You claim to have read it but you must have stopped before he told you
> "It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other
> changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
> concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about
> 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood
> by climate scientists".

Also uncontroversial, change in CO2 can be both the cause of and the
response to temperature change. Well established in the literature.
Especially evident with glaciation cycles driven by forcings caused by
changing orbital geometry.

What *is* controversial is climate sensitivity. So far (just like
climate model temperature predictions) observed sensitivity is proving
to be substantially lower than estimated.

The IPCC is suffering a credibility crisis over this, along with the
community that contributed to those exaggerated estimates. And rather
than revise theory, the response has been to revise the data. For
example, the Karlization of temps. Anything that can be done to heat
observational data and bring it closer to those exaggerated estimates is
being done.

And we all know why. Or at least some of us know why, the rest prefer
to wear their naive glasses, or know the exaggeration is deliberate.

[Tunderbar]

Back to the OP:

According to IRS documents, Shukla received $333,048 in total compensation from IGES in 2014 for working an average of 28 hours a week. His wife received $166,097 in total compensation as the IGES business manager. National Review reported that Shukla's daughter is also on the payroll, but her earnings have gone unreported.

"If this information is accurate, it raises serious questions about Dr. Shukla's use of grant money," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who chairs the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and has promised an investigation.

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 23:55:12 +1100, Gordon Levi says...

>
> AlleyCat <a...@aohell.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:55:13 -0800, gordo says...
> >
> >> All
> >> of them think AGW is a hoax.
> >
> >Agw IS a hoax
>
> So why does your favourite denier bother to explain the science
> underlying it <http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/>?

I guess you conveniently missed the "A" in AGW. Dr. Spenser does NOT think
man is as responsible as you screechers think he is. Also, he explaining
the THEORY of Global Warming, you 2nd grade level reader.

Please, I BEG you... go to your local Community College and take a course
in remedial reading comprehension... it'll do you some good.

First sentence of article: "Every scientific theory involves assumptions."
Need you read any further to know that he's describing the THEORY, not the
facts? He keeps saying "Global Warming Theory" when he speaks of warming.
He is NOT blaming man for anything, moron.

Note the words in bold in the third paragraph... he signaling to the
idiots, that he does NOT agree with the theory AND assumption.

Please read the first sentence of the 4th paragraph:

"Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly
caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak."

THAT'S what I keep telling you nerdy screechers... blaming man for
something that's NOT even happening, because you feel the need to control
the argument and tax people to pay for your pie-in-the-sky projects, is
disingenuous at best.

> You claim to have read it but you must have stopped before he told you
> "It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other

Yes... THEORETICALLY. Jeez, you nerds iz stoopit. This particular THEORY
has NOT been proven. You can't point at something and label it as being
caused by man and his output of CO², ESPECIALLY when it's a natural event,
that has happened MILLIONS of times before.

> changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
> concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about

> 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement?it is well understood
> by climate scientists".

Do you not under-fucking-stand what he's saying? Obviously not. I didn't
think you could be this stupid, but I see that I am wrong. The CO² has NOT
doubled, and it almost reads as a facetious statement, stating that
surface temps would rise LESS than 1°C. LESS than, AFTER CO² levels have
doubled? THAT'S NOTHING. CO² levels SHOT up after WWII, and temps went
DOWN. Explain THAT.

http://i.imgur.com/8qHCbEX.jpg

> It is well understood not only by climate scientists but by almost
> everybody. Why can't you understand it?

I understand warming... MAN is NOT responsible. How CAN he be? WE do not
put out as much CO² as termites... why are WE the tipping point? Man put
out CO² in the single-digits, percentage-wise... WHY aren't we trying to
tax whatever puts out slightly less, or slightly more> Because THOSE
sources have no money.

http://tinypic.com/r/2d0xmyc/9

DR. ROY SPENSER WAS DESCRIBING THE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY, NOT FACT.

[Gordon Levi]

Please don't confuse "AlleyCat". Once he understands the common ground
of the underlying AGW theory and the difference between global warming
and climate change you should gently introduce him to the parts of the
debate that are actually worth discussing. If he believes that "AGW is
a hoax" it is impossible for him to understand climate sensitivity.

[AlleyCat]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 01:20:29 +1100, Gordon Levi says...

> "AGW is
> a hoax"

We know.

Please explain how and why THESE Ph.D.s would LIE, if CO² is the "driving
force" of temperature and climate change.

Dr. Ian Clark, Ph.D.
Dr. Piers Corbin, Ph.D.
Dr. John Christy, Ph.D. LEAD Author, IPCC
Dr. Philip Stott, Ph.D.
Dr. Paul Reiter, Ph.D., IPCC and Pasteur Institute, Paris
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. - IPCC and M.I.T

I will supply you with email addresses, if you have the balls to debate
them.

Are YOU a Ph.D. in either:

Astronomy
Astrophysics
Atmospheric Science
Biochemistry
Biogeography
Climatology
CO² Biology
Cosmology
Earth Sciences
Ecology
Environmental Science
Geochemistry
Geodynamics
Geology
Geophysics
Meteorology
Nuclear Physics
Oceanography
Paleoclimatology
Paleogeophysics
Physical Chemistry
Physics
Space and Remote Sensing Sciences
Theoretical Physics

Once last time... are you willing to call Ian Clark, Ph.D. a liar?
Really... I'll give you his email address if you can make a case for CO²,
which is such a low percentage, that it can't POSSIBLY make the difference
you think it does, over water vapour and methane and surface-level ozone
and nitrous oxides and fluorinated gases and............................

http://tinypic.com/r/1z6yza0/9

CO² is too minute to be effective.

http://tinypic.com/r/1z6yza0/9

Go ahead... call them deniers... they are. They deny that man is
responsible, with his 6% contribution to CO² levels, for climate change
and that global catastrophes are imminent BECAUSE of this puny rise in
CO².

They KNOW what's going on, maybe just a little more than YOU and Obama.

What Ph.D. do YOU have... I forgot.

> > The Sun is driving climate
> > change.
>
> Utter garbage.

You're an idiot.

http://tinypic.com/m/j9n0c7/4

Dr. Philip Stott, Ph.D. - Dept. of Biogeography, University of London.

What Ph.D. do YOU have... I forgot.

> https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Skeptical science? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Ya... REAL scientists over
there, boy.

> Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However
> global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going
> in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of
> recent global warming.

You can't expect the Earth's temperatures to follow the Sun's output, to
the day, moron... things take time, JUST as rising CO² levels FOLLOW
warming trends.

http://tinypic.com/r/241nkh2/8

Here is a great explanation for you deniers.

http://tinypic.com/r/15gv2a9/8

http://tinypic.com/r/15gv2a9/8

CO² has NEVER...

There's no evidence at all from Earth's long climate history that CO2 has
ever determined global temperatures.

Utter truth, with Ph.D.'s to back it up... what do YOU have, who says
differently? The 97%?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


More SCIENTISTS who think AGW is a hoax.

David Bellamy, botanist.

Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.

Dr. Piers Corbyn, Ph.D., owner of the business WeatherAction which makes
weather forecasts.

http://tinypic.com/r/2nqxsid/8

Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences,
Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society

Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for
Urban Science and Progress at New York University

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National
Academy of Sciences

Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for
Air and Stream Improvement.

Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada

Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics
Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA
Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003)

Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of
Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the
Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National
University

Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa,
research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and
soil science

Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of
London

Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands
Meteorological Institute

Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee

Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate
in chemistry

***********************

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural
processes.

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be
attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on
climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical
articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the
Russian Academy of Sciences

Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics

Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography
at the University of Winnipeg

Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James
Cook University

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences,
University of Ottawa

Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and
Environmental Science, University of Auckland

David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics
and Astronomy, University of Rochester

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington
University

William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology
Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy;
emeritus professor, Princeton University

Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo

Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the
University of Stockholm.

William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World
Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center
for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of
Missouri

Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil
Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton
University in Canada.

Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of
Adelaide.

Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty
member at the University of California, San Diego

Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie
University and University of Colorado

Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke
University

Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo

Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate
science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the
University of Virginia

Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of
Alabama in Huntsville

Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center

George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon
State University

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University
of Ottawa

****************************

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the
observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director
of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska
Fairbanks.

Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at
Institute of Geophysics (Paris).

Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.

Pål Brekke, solar astrophysicist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth
System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville,
contributor to several IPCC reports.

Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos
National Laboratory.

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.

Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute and a Nobel laureate.

Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes

Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa
County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University
of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.

***********************************

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of
little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United
States Department of the Interior

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State
University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change

Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation
Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University

Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research
professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940-2007), retired New Zealand MetService
Meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University
of Wyoming

Reid Bryson (1920-2008), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic
Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a 2007 magazine
interview that he believed global warming was primarily caused by natural
processes:

Robert Jastrow (1925-2008), American astronomer, physicist and
cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist. Together with Fred Seitz and
William Nierenberg he established the George C. Marshall Institute to
counter the scientists who were arguing against Reagan's Starwars
Initiative, arguing for equal time in the media. This institute later took
the view that tobacco was having no effect, that acid rain was not caused
by human emissions, that ozone was not depleted by CFCs, that pesticides
were not environmentally harmful and it was also critical of the consensus
view of anthropogenic global warming. Jastrow acknowledged the Earth was
experiencing a warming trend, but claimed that the cause was likely to be
natural variation.

Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923-2011), Emeritus Professor of Physics and
former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned from the American
Physical Society, writing in a letter about the "corruption" from "the
money flood" of government grants.

Frederick Seitz (1911-2008), solid-state physicist and former president of
the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall
Institute in 1984.

[Wally W.]

Which "climate sensitivity?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
Climate sensitivity is the equilibrium temperature change in response
to changes of the radiative forcing.[2] Therefore climate sensitivity
depends on the initial climate state,

So where is a climate you want to focus on:
Antarctica? Hawaii?

Greenies try to lump them so if any climate changes anywhere, they can
screech: Climate change! Extreme weather! The sky is falling!

Other "climate" buzzwords:
"climate denial"
"climate funding"
"climate lobbyist"
"**the** climate"

[Gordon Levi]

You can't understand the facts until you understand the theory. It
seems that Dr Spencer's article is too long for you to take in. I'll
try to find a video to explain it to you the next time you claim that
a scientific theory is a hoax.

[AlleyCat]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 18:32:32 +1100, Gordon Levi says...

> >DR. ROY SPENSER WAS DESCRIBING THE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY, NOT FACT.
>
> You can't understand the facts until you understand the theory. It
> seems that Dr Spencer's article is too long for you to take in. I'll
> try to find a video to explain it to you the next time you claim that
> a scientific theory is a hoax.
>

Tee hee... what a nerd. Go ahead, show me your shilling video... I'll have
10 that will debunk it, in a few minutes time.

[R Kym Horsell]

Pardon if I talk around you Gordon:

Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:

>>caused by man and his output of CO?, ESPECIALLY when it's a natural event,

>>that has happened MILLIONS of times before.
>>> changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2
>>> concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about
>>> 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement?it is well understood
>>> by climate scientists".
>>Do you not under-fucking-stand what he's saying? Obviously not. I didn't

>>think you could be this stupid, but I see that I am wrong. The CO? has NOT

>>doubled, and it almost reads as a facetious statement, stating that

>>surface temps would rise LESS than 1?C. LESS than, AFTER CO? levels have
>>doubled? THAT'S NOTHING. CO? levels SHOT up after WWII, and temps went
>>DOWN. Explain THAT.



Perhaps put down the weights and do some reading.


As a guide:

Firstly, there are no accurate records of CO2 before ~1960.
Careful observation will show this is after WWII.
Therefore a claim "SHOT up after WWI !!**@@" is bogus.

Secondly, war involves a lot of burning. You look too pretty
to have seen any military service. Take it from the pencil necks
that have, that it does.

Smoke has 2 effects. You're not gunna like this coz it's confusing.
Black soot lands on the ground and warms up more than normal.
But various components of dust and smoke at altitudes over 1 mi
trend to reflect light and heat back into space before it can reach
the surface.

So if you look at temp plots across the WWI and WWII period you can see
various bumps to mark the passing of various cities and people
and spoil the nice hockeystick that is expected to underlay
the development of average global temperatures.

Thirdly, Spencer says "CO2 alone". But we know it is not alone.
Even deniers are smart enough to know that water vapor
is a Greenhouse Gas that is more powerful than CO2.
But water vapor is dependent on temperature.
You may not notice this living in The Everglades, but the warmer the
weather the greater the humidity as a general rule.

Scarily for people not familiar with meth, the relationship is actually
exponential. I.e. absolute humidity is like A exp(bT).

So while CO2 alone -- acccording to Spencer -- can raise temperatures
1C if CO2 doubles from 280 to 560 ppmv (given we are already at 400+ ppmv)
when you add the contribution of water vapor you get a "multiplier effect".

Interestingly, because the humidity is exponential in temperature,
the sum of CO2 plus water vapor is a straight line.

Surprise surprise surprise as they say in the Marines, that's what's observed.

>>http://i.imgur.com/8qHCbEX.jpg
>>> It is well understood not only by climate scientists but by almost
>>> everybody. Why can't you understand it?
>>I understand warming... MAN is NOT responsible. How CAN he be? WE do not

>>put out as much CO? as termites... why are WE the tipping point? Man put
>>out CO? in the single-digits, percentage-wise... WHY aren't we trying to

>>tax whatever puts out slightly less, or slightly more> Because THOSE
>>sources have no money.
>>http://tinypic.com/r/2d0xmyc/9
>>DR. ROY SPENSER WAS DESCRIBING THE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY, NOT FACT.
> You can't understand the facts until you understand the theory. It
> seems that Dr Spencer's article is too long for you to take in. I'll
> try to find a video to explain it to you the next time you claim that
> a scientific theory is a hoax.

I apologize for not using down home random capitalization.

--
Greenland.
An old estimate from survey and radar data suggested
Greenland was losing 100 Gt of ice per year, on average.
We know the sea ice in the N Hem is declining by an average
of 30,000 km2 per year -- about .3% of the total.
What would the greenland ice loss look like as sea ice
and how does it compare with 30,000 km2?
The thickness of sea ice is around 2-3 m on average in the N hem.
So 100 Gt is around 40,000 km2.
Effectively, Greenland is melting faster than the sea ice.
But hold the phone.
The GRACE satellites try to directly measure the "mass" they
feel from orbit. The 2 satellites measure how their orbits
wiggling in response to mass concentrations below, and from multiple
orbits in nearby areas it's possible to calculate the "mass anomalies"
below.
Flying over greenland it's been found the annual loss
of ice in the sheet there is actually now 250 Gt per year on average.
I.e. suggesting melting of the greenland ice sheet is
an order of magnitude larger than the more visible vanishing
of sea ice.

[Gordon Levi]

If "AlleyCat" doesn't understand the basic theory underlying AGW he
can't make brilliant contributions to denier lore such as this one
from you. My only goal is to bring "AlleyCat" up to your speed. It was
Chom Noamsky who raised the topic of "climate sensitivity" so respond
to his post with your objections to the term.

[AlleyCat]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 07:53:24 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell says...

> Even deniers are smart enough to know that water vapor
> is a Greenhouse Gas that is more powerful than CO2.
> But water vapor is dependent on temperature.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ah... Kymberly Horshet's at it again.

CO² is such a fucking minute part of the total of "greenhouse gases"
compared to water vapour, at ANY temperature.

http://i.imgur.com/tEwJdNE.jpg

Hell, ARGON beats the crap out of CO².

http://i.imgur.com/1Qgf8yf.jpg

.03% of the total gases in the atmosphere, has so LITTLE affect, it's not
worth mentioning any more. Please explain, how so little, can have SO much
impact, according to you nerdy screechers?

Do the math... HERE. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _

390ppMILLION? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[AlleyCat]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 19:24:27 +1100, Gordon Levi says...

> If "AlleyCat" doesn't understand the basic theory underlying AGW

I understand the THEORY, nerd. AGW being a THEORY must still be treated as
if it's NOT proven... that's the definition, dumb ass.

A theory that is unproven is not a theory: it's a hypothesis (assuming
it can't de disproved, of course - in which case it becomes a fallacy).

Hmmm... AGW, anyone?

EVEN THEORIES ARE NOT PROVEN, since a body of evidence is merely
gathered for them, which appears to back them up. That evidence can
generally be verbalized in the form of: if I ASSUME x is true what
further predictions can I make and test for? If, by assuming x is true,
your ability to work with, or predict, anything else about your world
remains unchanged, then what you have is a hypothesis. If, by testing
for an outcome you can predict, you don't obtain the predicted result,
you have a fallacy.

Hypotheses - these "hanging chads" of thought - are still useful, as
logical explanations for what is seen - but since the have no measurable
means of verification, they often have no utility either. The 'Many
worlds' hypothesis might be seen as a good example of such. It
postulates the existence of a phenomena which we (by definition) cannot
measure from our frame of reference, but it also postulates the
existence of a phenomena we can do nothing about.

So, a hypothesis could be defined as "something that we can do nothing
about, but which should probably still worry us."

Hmmm... AGW, anyone? We cannot do ANYTHING about global warming and
climate change, since they are NATURAL events... happening ever since
there's BEEN climate.

You fucking morons either can't grasp that, of you shield it from the
public ON PURPOSE so you can swindle them into paying for your green
energy plans, without having to use your OWN money... excuse me... your
MOMMY'S money.

USE your own money... get a job, pay taxes and have more and more taken
away from you for something that's happening naturally... we'll see how
long you keep screeching "for" something that's NOT going to do any more
harm to the world, than it's ALREADY done for billions of years.

Because WE'RE here NOW... we're supposed to fight natural events we have
NO power over?

Fuck.. for someone who claims to have a high intelligence quotient, you
can be so monumentally stupid.

[Gordon Levi]

I supplied Dr Spencer's lucid explanation of anthropogenic global
warming _theory_ (his word)
<http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/>. In response I get a
load of waffle about defining theories, a straight contradiction of
the theory by stating we can do _nothing_ about it and some more
waffle about who is paying. You claim to understand AGW theory but you
still seem to believe that it is controversial despite the fact that
_everybody_ else accepts it.

There are some rational arguments to support the view that AGW will
not be a problem and/or that doing something about it is too
expensive. You could progress to those arguments if you ever manage to
understand the basics.

[Chom Noamsky]

That's just not how it works. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof, the onus is not on skeptics to disprove
catastrophic doom theories. The onus is on proponents of CAGW theory to
make their case.

[AlleyCat]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 23:57:38 +1100, Gordon Levi says...

> I supplied Dr Spencer's lucid explanation of anthropogenic global
> warming _theory

It's not an explanation of HIS theory, you dumb fucking shut-in. He's
explaining the THEORY that OTHERS have. God, what a bonehead.

That money your mommy spent to educate you and then having you sit at home
all day postulating, was wasted.

Do you want me to show you the thousands of words and video of him
explaining the OPPOSITE of what you THINK he's explaining?

Dr. Roy Spenser does NOT believe in this theory, you dolt. He's explaining
the theory OF AGW.

I can explain religion, moron... that doesn't mean I believe in God.

You were at the same place the following is... why didn't you post THIS?

***********************************************************

My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies (or Gordon Levi)

I receive many e-mails, and a recurring complaint is that many of my
posts are too technical to understand. This morning's installment
arrived with the subject line, "Please Talk to Us", and suggested I
provide short, concise, easily understood summaries and explanations
"for dummies".

So, here's a list of basic climate change questions, and brief answers
based upon what I know today. I might update them as I receive
suggestions and comments. I will also be adding links to other sources,
and some visual aids, as appropriate.

Deja vu tells me I might have done this once before, but I'm too lazy
to go back and see. So, I'll start over from scratch. (Insert smiley)

It is important to understand at the outset that those of us who are
skeptical of mankind's influence on climate have a wide variety of
views on the subject, and we can't all be right. In fact, in this
business, it is really easy to be wrong. It seems like everyone has a
theory of what causes climate change. But it only takes one of us to be
right for the IPCC's anthropogenic global warming (AGW) house of cards
to collapse.

As I like to say, taking measurements of the climate system is much
easier than figuring out what those measurements mean in terms of cause
and effect. Generally speaking, it's not the warming that is in
dispute... it's the cause of the warming.

If you disagree with my views on something, please don't flame me.
Chances are, I've already heard your point of view; very seldom am I
provided with new evidence I haven't already taken into account.

1) Are Global Temperatures Rising Now?
There is no way to know, because
natural year-to-year variability in global temperature is so large, with
warming and cooling occurring all the time. What we can say is that
surface and lower atmospheric temperature have risen in the last 30 to
50 years, with most of that warming in the Northern Hemisphere. Also,
the magnitude of recent warming is somewhat uncertain, due to problems
in making long-term temperature measurements with thermometers without
those measurements being corrupted by a variety of non-climate effects.
But there is no way to know if temperatures are continuing to rise
now... we only see warming (or cooling) in the rear-view mirror, when we
look back in time.

2) Why Do Some Scientists Say It's Cooling, while Others Say the
Warming is Even Accelerating?
Since there is so much year-to-year (and
even decade-to-decade) variability in global average temperatures,
whether it has warmed or cooled depends upon how far back you look in
time. For instance, over the last 100 years, there was an overall
warming which was stronger toward the end of the 20th Century. This is
why some say "warming is accelerating". But if we look at a shorter,
more recent period of time, say since the record warm year of 1998, one
could say that it has cooled in the last 10-12 years. But, as I
mentioned above, neither of these can tell us anything about whether
warming is happening "now", or will happen in the future.

3) Haven't Global Temperatures Risen Before?
Yes. In the longer term,
say hundreds to thousands of years, there is considerable indirect,
proxy evidence (not from thermometers) of both warming and cooling.
Since humankind can't be responsible for these early events is
evidence that nature can cause warming and cooling. If that is the case,
it then opens up the possibility that some (or most) of the warming in
the last 50 years has been natural, too. While many geologists like to
point to much larger temperature changes are believed to have occurred
over millions of years, I am unconvinced that this tells us anything of
use for understanding how humans might influence climate on time scales
of 10 to 100 years.

4) But Didn't the "Hockey Stick" Show Recent Warming to be
Unprecedented?
The "hockey Stick" reconstructions of temperature
variations over the last 1 to 2 thousand years have been a huge source
of controversy. The hockey stick was previously used by the IPCC as a
veritable poster child for anthropogenic warming, since it seemed to
indicate there have been no substantial temperature changes over the
last 1,000 to 2,000 years until humans got involved in the 20th Century.
The various versions of the hockey stick were based upon limited amounts
of temperature proxy evidence - primarily tree rings - and involved
questionable statistical methods. In contrast, I think the bulk of the
proxy evidence supports the view that it was at least as warm during the
Medieval Warm Period, around 1000 AD. The very fact that recent tree
ring data erroneously suggests cooling in the last 50 years, when in
fact there has been warming, should be a warning flag about using tree
ring data for figuring out how warm it was 1,000 years ago. But without
actual thermometer data, we will never know for sure.

5) Isn't the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Evidence of Warming?
Warming, yes... manmade warming, NO. Arctic sea ice naturally melts back
every summer, but that melt-back was observed to reach a peak in 2007. But
we have relatively accurate, satellite-based measurements of Arctic (and
Antarctic) sea ice only since 1979. It is entirely possible that late
summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s, a
period when Arctic thermometer data suggests it was just as warm.
Unfortunately, there is no way to know, because we did not have
satellites back then. Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice has been growing
nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years.

6) What about rising sea levels?
I must confess, I don't pay much
attention to the sea level issue. I will say that, to the extent that
warming occurs, sea levels can be expected to also rise to some extent.
The rise is partly due to thermal expansion of the water, and partly due
to melting or shedding of land-locked ice (the Greenland and Antarctic
ice sheets, and glaciers). But this says nothing about whether or not
humans are the cause of that warming. Since there is evidence that
glacier retreat and sea level rise started well before humans can be
blamed, causation is - once again - a major source of uncertainty.

7) IS INCREASING CO2 EVEN CAPABLE OF CAUSING WARMING? THERE ARE SOME
VERY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO CLAIM THAT ADDING MORE CARBON
DIOXIDE TO THE ATMOSPHERE CAN'T CAUSE WARMING ANYWAY. THEY CLAIM
THINGS LIKE, "THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 ABSORPTION BANDS ARE ALREADY
SATURATED", OR SOMETHING ELSE VERY TECHNICAL. [AND FOR THOSE MORE
TECHNICALLY-MINDED PERSONS, YES, I AGREE THAT THE EFFECTIVE RADIATING
TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH IN THE INFRARED IS DETERMINED BY HOW MUCH
SUNLIGHT IS ABSORBED BY THE EARTH. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE LOWER
ATMOSPHERE CANNOT WARM FROM ADDING MORE GREENHOUSE GASES, BECAUSE AT THE
SAME TIME THEY ALSO COOL THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE]. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT
MOST OF THE CO2-CAUSED WARMING IN THE ATMOSPHERE WAS THERE BEFORE HUMANS
EVER STARTED BURNING COAL AND DRIVING SUVS, THIS IS ALL TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT BY COMPUTERIZED CLIMATE MODELS THAT PREDICT GLOBAL WARMING.
ADDING MORE "SHOULD" CAUSE WARMING, WITH THE MAGNITUDE OF THAT
WARMING BEING THE REAL QUESTION. BUT I'M STILL OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY
THAT A MAJOR ERROR HAS BEEN MADE ON THIS FUNDAMENTAL POINT. STRANGER
THINGS HAVE HAPPENED IN SCIENCE BEFORE.

8 ) Is Atmospheric CO2 Increasing? Yes, and most strongly in the last 50
years... which is why "most" climate researchers think the CO2 rise
is the cause of the warming. Our site measurements of CO2 increase from
around the world are possibly the most accurate long-term,
climate-related, measurements in existence.

9) Are Humans Responsible for the CO2 Rise? While there are short-term
(year-to-year) fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration due to
natural causes, especially El Nino and La Nina, I currently believe that
most of the long-term increase is probably due to our use of fossil
fuels. But from what I can tell, the supposed "proof" of humans
being the source of increasing CO2 - a change in the atmospheric
concentration of the carbon isotope C13 - would also be consistent
with a natural, biological source. The current atmospheric CO2 level is
about 390 parts per million by volume, up from a pre-industrial level
estimated to be around 270 ppm... maybe less. CO2 levels can be much
higher in cities, and in buildings with people in them.

10) But Aren't Natural CO2 Emissions About 20 Times the Human
Emissions? Yes, but nature is believed to absorb CO2 at about the same
rate it is produced. You can think of the reservoir of atmospheric CO2
as being like a giant container of water, with nature pumping in a
steady stream into the bottom of the container (atmosphere) in some
places, sucking out about the same amount in other places, and then
humans causing a steady drip-drip-drip into the container.
Significantly, about 50% of what we produce is sucked out of the
atmosphere by nature, mostly through photosynthesis. Nature loves the
stuff. CO2 is the elixir of life on Earth. Imagine the howls of protest
there would be if we were destroying atmospheric CO2, rather than
creating more of it.

11) IS RISING CO2 THE CAUSE OF RECENT WARMING? WHILE THIS IS
THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE, I THINK IT IS MORE LIKELY THAT THE WARMING IS
MOSTLY NATURAL. AT THE VERY LEAST, WE HAVE NO WAY OF DETERMINING WHAT
PROPORTION IS NATURAL VERSUS HUMAN-CAUSED.

12) Why Do Most Scientists Believe CO2 is Responsible for the Warming?
Because (as they have told me) they can't think of anything else that
might have caused it. Significantly, it's not that there is evidence
nature can't be the cause, but a lack of sufficiently accurate
measurements to determine if nature is the cause. This is a hugely
important distinction, and one the public and policymakers have been
misled on by the IPCC.

13) If Not Humans, What could Have Caused Recent Warming? This is one of
my areas of research. I believe that natural changes in the amount of
sunlight being absorbed by the Earth - due to natural changes in cloud
cover - are responsible for most of the warming. Whether that is the
specific mechanism or not, I advance the minority view that the climate
system can change all by itself. Climate change does not require an
"external" source of forcing, such as a change in the sun.

14) So, What Could Cause Natural Cloud Changes? I think small, long-term
changes in atmospheric and oceanic flow patterns can cause ~1% changes
in how much sunlight is let in by clouds to warm the Earth. This is all
that is required to cause global warming or cooling. Unfortunately, we
do not have sufficiently accurate cloud measurements to determine
whether this is the primary cause of warming in the last 30 to 50 years.

15) How Significant is the Climategate Release of E-Mails? While
Climategate does not, by itself, invalidate the IPCC's case that
global warming has happened, or that humans are the primary cause of
that warming, it DOES illustrate something I emphasized in my first
book, "Climate Confusion": climate researchers are human, and prone
to bias.

16) Why Would Bias in Climate Research be Important? I thought
Scientists Just Follow the Data Where It Leads Them When researchers
approach a problem, their pre-conceived notions often guide them. It's
not that the IPCC's claim that humans cause global warming is somehow
untenable or impossible, it's that political and financial pressures
have resulted in the IPCC almost totally ignoring alternative
explanations for that warming.

17) How Important Is "Scientific Consensus" in Climate Research? In
the case of global warming, it is nearly worthless. The climate system
is so complex that the vast majority of climate scientists - usually
experts in variety of specialized fields - assume there are more
knowledgeable scientists, and they are just supporting the opinions of
their colleagues. And among that small group of most knowledgeable
experts, there is a considerable element of group-think, herd mentality,
peer pressure, political pressure, support of certain energy policies,
and desire to Save the Earth - whether it needs to be saved or not.

18) How Important are Computerized Climate Models? I consider climate
models as being our best way of exploring cause and effect in the
climate system. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and
unless you can demonstrate causation with numbers in equations, you are
stuck with scientists trying to persuade one another by waving their
hands. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that climate models will
ever produce a useful prediction of the future. Nevertheless, we must
use them, and we learn a lot from them. My biggest concern is that
models have been used almost exclusively for supporting the claim that
humans cause global warming, rather than for exploring alternative
hypotheses - e.g. natural climate variations - as possible causes of
that warming.

19) What Do I Predict for Global Temperature Changes in the Future? I
tend to shy away from long-term predictions, because there are still so
many uncertainties. When pressed, though, I tend to say that I think
cooling in our future is just as real a possibility as warming. Of
course, a third possibility is relatively steady temperatures, without
significant long-term warming or cooling. Keep in mind that, while you
will find out tomorrow whether your favorite weather forecaster is right
or wrong, no one will remember 50 years from now a scientist today
wrongly predicting we will all die from heat stroke by 2060.

Concluding Remarks

Climate researchers do not know nearly as much about the causes of
climate change as they profess. We have a pretty good understanding of
how the climate system works on average... but the reasons for small,
long-term changes in climate system are still extremely uncertain.

The total amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere in the last
100 years has upset the radiative energy budget of the Earth by only 1%.
How the climate system responds to that small "poke" is very
uncertain. The IPCC says there will be strong warming, with cloud
changes making the warming worse. I claim there will be weak warming,
with cloud changes acting to reduce the influence of that 1% change. The
difference between these two outcomes is whether cloud feedbacks are
positive (the IPCC view), or negative (the view I and a minority of
others have).

So far, neither side has been able to prove their case. That uncertainty
even exists on this core issue is not appreciated by many scientists!

Again I will emphasize, some very smart people who consider themselves
skeptics will disagree with some of my views stated above, particularly
when it involves explanations for what has caused warming, and what has
caused atmospheric CO2 to increase.

Unlike the global marching army of climate researchers the IPCC has
enlisted, we do not walk in lockstep. We are willing to admit, "we
don't really know", rather than mislead people with phrases like,
"the warming we see is consistent with an increase in CO2", and then
have the public think that means, "we have determined, through our
extensive research into all the possibilities, that the warming cannot
be due to anything but CO2".

Skeptics advancing alternative explanations (hypotheses) for climate
variability represent the way the researcher community used to operate,
before politics, policy outcomes, and billions of dollars got involved.