Pushing back

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hansen is discredited.

I'm with Sallow, The Big Bad Wolf on this one

"I hear that Issac Newton guy was a fraud too."

"And that gravity thing? It's a liberal conspiracy."

 

[Old Rocks]

The Heinz Awards :: James Hansen

Dr. James Hansen receives the Heinz Award in the Environment for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often contentious debate over the threat of global climate change.

The theory that industrial pollution continues to create an atmospheric "greenhouse effect" or warming has pitted scientist against scientist and politician against politician. In the eye of the storm that swirls around this issue is Dr. Hansen. He calmly pursues his research while scrupulously maintaining his scientific credibility and modifying his views as new data and techniques have become available, all the while acting as a messenger from the esoteric world of computer climate models to the public and policymakers alike.

It was Dr. Hansen who, in the sweltering, drought-scorched summer of 1988, went where few scientists were willing to go - before Congress, to explain just how serious the potential for global warming truly was. Dr. Hansen courageously testified that the time had come to recognize that the "greenhouse effect" was real and that new and cleaner sources of energy had to be found. Time has validated his position.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate Scientists Awarded Prestigious Blue Planet Prize

TOKYO, Japan, June 20, 2010 (ENS) - Two prominent climate scientists - one from Great Britain and one from the United States - have been are the winners of the 2010 Blue Planet Prize, an international environmental award which is considered to be Japan's equivalent of the Nobel Prize.

Dr. Robert Watson, chief scientific adviser of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and chair of environmental science and science director at Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, the University of East Anglia, was named as one awardee in a ceremony in Tokyo on Thursday.

Dr. James Hansen, director at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, where he has worked since 1967, and adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, was named as the other awardee.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate scientist Hansen wins $100,000 prize | Reuters

Reuters) - U.S. climate scientist James Hansen won a $100,000 environmental prize Wednesday for decades of work trying to alert politicians to what he called an unsolved emergency of global warming.

Hansen, born in 1941, will visit Oslo in June to collect the Sophie Prize, set up in 1997 by Norwegian Jostein Gaarder, the author of the 1991 best-selling novel and teenagers' guide to philosophy "Sophie's World."

"Hansen has played a key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change," the prize citation said.

Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies since 1981, testified to the U.S. Congress as long ago as 1988 about the risks of global warming from human activities led by the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[tinydancer]

I sense the big oil lobby is strong in this thread.

Yes..dump a bunch of crap into a finite space..and no matter how much you dump in there..it will never ever have any effect.

That makes sense.

[/sarcasm]

Please tell me that you are aware that Ken Lay came up with the whole carbon credit scheme and this was a pay to pollute manouver.

Does Enron ring a bell here?

What rings a bell is that the you don't seem to realize that the model has worked already. It worked to reduce, dramatically, the sulphate pollution from coal burning power stations.

Also, when you state things like you just did, link to some proof. Otherwise, you are just another yap-yap artist that pull nonsense out of their ass.

lol

I'm already really liking you. You are a poster child of global warming koolaid.

Hey just cause you don't know history.....





March 12, 2007
Enron, Kyoto, and trading pollution credits
Thomas Lifson

Investigate Magazine is a New Zealand publication which has been looking into the history of Kyoto and pollution credit trading:


...without Enron there would have been no Kyoto Protocol.

About 20 years ago Enron was owner and operator of an interstate network of natural gas pipelines, and had transformed itself into a billion-dollar-a-day commodity trader, buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth, whatever. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much pollutant the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA's $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of today's proposed carbon credit trade. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enron's stock to rapidly rise.

Then came the inevitable question, what next? How about a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program? The problem was that CO2 is not a pollutant, and therefore the EPA had no authority to cap its emission.

Al Gore took office in 1993 and almost immediately became infatuated with the idea of an international environmental regulatory regime. He led a U.S. initiative to review new projects around the world and issue ‘credits' of so many tons of annual CO2 emission reduction.
There's much more, although not yet a decisive case. But this is a very interesting line of inquiry. That Al Gore is now the chairman of a company which trades carbon credits makes him, in a sense, the successor to Enron.


Oh, what tangled webs we weave....





Oh and here's the linky.

American Thinker- Print Article

 

[Old Rocks]

Quite a list for a 'discredited scientist'. Wish I could be that discredited. What have you accomplished lately, Tiny, other than exposing yourself as a fool?

 

[mdn2000]

So you are saying you do not trust scientists to sample intelligently and furthermore you do not trust the scientists that independantly review the data and how it was collected. It is all just a huge conspiracy. Right.........

Us smart guys are like that...we do stuff just to fuck with you dumb guys... It's one of our most enjoyable past times. OOPS!!!! Did I just let the cat out of the bag???? My bad!

I am not saying that at all, its not a matter of trust, its a matter of reading their studies. If you read the actual study and not an article you will see that the scientist are smart enough to cover their asses. I even pointed this out in a link posted to an article, the study itself states explicitly that scientist do not have enough data thus constantly changing formulas, equations, programs and many assumptions.

Read the actual study and just about every scientist that is credible states this. this is stuff from the global warming scientist, how do you think it can be "exposed" if it is not being done.

This is not information that needs to be leaked, its stated in the reports and studies, hell, thats why they want more money to do more research, you think they need more research just to have a better argument. If they could prove there is global warming they would not need massive amounts of more research.

There are tens of thousands of very smart people, just in the USA, studying the environment from volcanoes to the bottom of the oceans to sun spots and everything in between. They are all churning out reports, papers and articles showing thier findings and conclusions. Everything they do gets reviewed by thousands more smart people. There is no one guy that is running the show. If one of them misrepresented some data for some reason and was found in error or even guilty of purposely presenting a false report. It means next to nothing. 99.999 percent of scientists are fanatically honest. Maybe one or two out of ten thousand are driven by their ego..so what? As far as continued research...that doesn't mean they have found nothing. That's a stupid assumtion. All that means is there is more data to gather and add to the existing data and conclusions.. Instead of being able to model a future within a hundred years they may be able to narrow it down to a 2 or three year window so we can prepare for some environmental changes with reliability and less wasted preparedness.

What you guys need to get over is who caused this or that. What we HAVE to know is what is changing and how fast. Any resistance towards that knowledge is criminal negligence.

Once again, these studies you refer to, every scientist admits, in the study, they do not and cannot collect the data they need so numbers are made up, formulas, calculations, computer models, are all tweaked to get the desired result.

Post a complete study, link to a complete study, its there, the scientist can and does admit they do not know.

 

[Old Rocks]

Please tell me that you are aware that Ken Lay came up with the whole carbon credit scheme and this was a pay to pollute manouver.

Does Enron ring a bell here?

What rings a bell is that the you don't seem to realize that the model has worked already. It worked to reduce, dramatically, the sulphate pollution from coal burning power stations.

Also, when you state things like you just did, link to some proof. Otherwise, you are just another yap-yap artist that pull nonsense out of their ass.

lol

I'm already really liking you. You are a poster child of global warming koolaid.

Hey just cause you don't know history.....





March 12, 2007
Enron, Kyoto, and trading pollution credits
Thomas Lifson

Investigate Magazine is a New Zealand publication which has been looking into the history of Kyoto and pollution credit trading:


...without Enron there would have been no Kyoto Protocol.

About 20 years ago Enron was owner and operator of an interstate network of natural gas pipelines, and had transformed itself into a billion-dollar-a-day commodity trader, buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth, whatever. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much pollutant the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA's $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of today's proposed carbon credit trade. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enron's stock to rapidly rise.

Then came the inevitable question, what next? How about a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program? The problem was that CO2 is not a pollutant, and therefore the EPA had no authority to cap its emission.

Al Gore took office in 1993 and almost immediately became infatuated with the idea of an international environmental regulatory regime. He led a U.S. initiative to review new projects around the world and issue ‘credits' of so many tons of annual CO2 emission reduction.
There's much more, although not yet a decisive case. But this is a very interesting line of inquiry. That Al Gore is now the chairman of a company which trades carbon credits makes him, in a sense, the successor to Enron.


Oh, what tangled webs we weave....





Oh and here's the linky.

American Thinker- Print Article

Lordy, lordy, a wingnut political blog.

Just go back to listening to your pet drugged out radio jock, no need to listen to real scientists.

By the way, what is your fixation on Gore? Something sexual in nature? He is not revelant except as an interpretor for what the scientists are saying.

 

[elvis]

What rings a bell is that the you don't seem to realize that the model has worked already. It worked to reduce, dramatically, the sulphate pollution from coal burning power stations.

Also, when you state things like you just did, link to some proof. Otherwise, you are just another yap-yap artist that pull nonsense out of their ass.

lol

I'm already really liking you. You are a poster child of global warming koolaid.

Hey just cause you don't know history.....





March 12, 2007
Enron, Kyoto, and trading pollution credits
Thomas Lifson

Investigate Magazine is a New Zealand publication which has been looking into the history of Kyoto and pollution credit trading:


...without Enron there would have been no Kyoto Protocol.

About 20 years ago Enron was owner and operator of an interstate network of natural gas pipelines, and had transformed itself into a billion-dollar-a-day commodity trader, buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth, whatever. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much pollutant the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA's $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of today's proposed carbon credit trade. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enron's stock to rapidly rise.

Then came the inevitable question, what next? How about a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program? The problem was that CO2 is not a pollutant, and therefore the EPA had no authority to cap its emission.

Al Gore took office in 1993 and almost immediately became infatuated with the idea of an international environmental regulatory regime. He led a U.S. initiative to review new projects around the world and issue ‘credits' of so many tons of annual CO2 emission reduction.
There's much more, although not yet a decisive case. But this is a very interesting line of inquiry. That Al Gore is now the chairman of a company which trades carbon credits makes him, in a sense, the successor to Enron.


Oh, what tangled webs we weave....





Oh and here's the linky.

American Thinker- Print Article

Lordy, lordy, a wingnut political blog.

Just go back to listening to your pet drugged out radio jock, no need to listen to real scientists.

By the way, what is your fixation on Gore? Something sexual in nature? He is not revelant except as an interpretor for what the scientists are saying.

you post environut blogs on here all the time.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am not saying that at all, its not a matter of trust, its a matter of reading their studies. If you read the actual study and not an article you will see that the scientist are smart enough to cover their asses. I even pointed this out in a link posted to an article, the study itself states explicitly that scientist do not have enough data thus constantly changing formulas, equations, programs and many assumptions.

Read the actual study and just about every scientist that is credible states this. this is stuff from the global warming scientist, how do you think it can be "exposed" if it is not being done.

This is not information that needs to be leaked, its stated in the reports and studies, hell, thats why they want more money to do more research, you think they need more research just to have a better argument. If they could prove there is global warming they would not need massive amounts of more research.

There are tens of thousands of very smart people, just in the USA, studying the environment from volcanoes to the bottom of the oceans to sun spots and everything in between. They are all churning out reports, papers and articles showing thier findings and conclusions. Everything they do gets reviewed by thousands more smart people. There is no one guy that is running the show. If one of them misrepresented some data for some reason and was found in error or even guilty of purposely presenting a false report. It means next to nothing. 99.999 percent of scientists are fanatically honest. Maybe one or two out of ten thousand are driven by their ego..so what? As far as continued research...that doesn't mean they have found nothing. That's a stupid assumtion. All that means is there is more data to gather and add to the existing data and conclusions.. Instead of being able to model a future within a hundred years they may be able to narrow it down to a 2 or three year window so we can prepare for some environmental changes with reliability and less wasted preparedness.

What you guys need to get over is who caused this or that. What we HAVE to know is what is changing and how fast. Any resistance towards that knowledge is criminal negligence.

Once again, these studies you refer to, every scientist admits, in the study, they do not and cannot collect the data they need so numbers are made up, formulas, calculations, computer models, are all tweaked to get the desired result.

Post a complete study, link to a complete study, its there, the scientist can and does admit they do not know.

The measurements of the recession of most of the glaciers worldwide are very well documented. The very rapid melting of the ice at both poles has been very well documented by satellites, as has the troposphere temperatures for the last 31 years.

The warming of the oceans and the rising sea level are both well documented.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

USGS Release: Footloose Glaciers Crack Up (7/14/2010 11:09:44 AM)

USGS Repeat Photography Project Documents Retreating Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

Global glacier retreat

Records reveal robust ocean warming - physicsworld.com

Sea levels rising in parts of Indian Ocean; Greenhouse gases play role, study finds

 

[Revere]

Go game the tax code in someone else's country, greenie.

 

[tinydancer]

What rings a bell is that the you don't seem to realize that the model has worked already. It worked to reduce, dramatically, the sulphate pollution from coal burning power stations.

Also, when you state things like you just did, link to some proof. Otherwise, you are just another yap-yap artist that pull nonsense out of their ass.

lol

I'm already really liking you. You are a poster child of global warming koolaid.

Hey just cause you don't know history.....





March 12, 2007
Enron, Kyoto, and trading pollution credits
Thomas Lifson

Investigate Magazine is a New Zealand publication which has been looking into the history of Kyoto and pollution credit trading:


...without Enron there would have been no Kyoto Protocol.

About 20 years ago Enron was owner and operator of an interstate network of natural gas pipelines, and had transformed itself into a billion-dollar-a-day commodity trader, buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth, whatever. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much pollutant the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA's $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of today's proposed carbon credit trade. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enron's stock to rapidly rise.

Then came the inevitable question, what next? How about a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program? The problem was that CO2 is not a pollutant, and therefore the EPA had no authority to cap its emission.

Al Gore took office in 1993 and almost immediately became infatuated with the idea of an international environmental regulatory regime. He led a U.S. initiative to review new projects around the world and issue ‘credits' of so many tons of annual CO2 emission reduction.
There's much more, although not yet a decisive case. But this is a very interesting line of inquiry. That Al Gore is now the chairman of a company which trades carbon credits makes him, in a sense, the successor to Enron.


Oh, what tangled webs we weave....





Oh and here's the linky.

American Thinker- Print Article

Lordy, lordy, a wingnut political blog.

Just go back to listening to your pet drugged out radio jock, no need to listen to real scientists.

By the way, what is your fixation on Gore? Something sexual in nature? He is not revelant except as an interpretor for what the scientists are saying.

Life is good.

When someone attacks me on whether or not I have a fixation on Gore based on sexual iinferences as compared to my true posts on the environmental policy of a man who is set to become the first billionaire over carbon trading, I know I'm doing something right.

It becomes pathetic when all you can do is attempt to insult me.

It makes you less of a poster with any credibility and proves no point.

 

[Old Rocks]

You wish to address the issue of global warming, then all you do is post about Al Gore. So what else is a person to think?

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statements by dissenting organizations
‹ The template below (Content) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›
The relevance of particular information in (or previously in) this article or section is disputed.

The information may have been removed or included by an editor as a result.


Please see discussion on the talk page considering whether its inclusion is warranted.(October 2010)

With the release of the revised statement[94] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming.[2][3]

Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include opinions that the earth has not warmed, or that warming is attributable to causes other than increasing greenhouse gases

 

[tinydancer]

You wish to address the issue of global warming, then all you do is post about Al Gore. So what else is a person to think?

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statements by dissenting organizations
‹ The template below (Content) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›
The relevance of particular information in (or previously in) this article or section is disputed.

The information may have been removed or included by an editor as a result.


Please see discussion on the talk page considering whether its inclusion is warranted.(October 2010)

With the release of the revised statement[94] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming.[2][3]

Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include opinions that the earth has not warmed, or that warming is attributable to causes other than increasing greenhouse gases

Oh this gets better by each and every post you make. I really like you.

 

[westwall]

you calling somebody a liar and a fraud?



James E. Hansen (born March 29, 1941) heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, Earth Sciences Division. He has held this position since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.

- James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The man is a serious mental case. And yes I am calling him a liar and a fraud. He's been caught out.

Whoopsies.

When expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery.

The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all.


Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures.

To compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year!!


The Climate Dogma Exposed as A Manipulated Lie Euro-med

Hansen was brought to his knees on this one.

What a bullshitter you are. Not only has Dr. James Hansen not been brought to his knees, he is the most respected climate scientist in the US if not in the world.

Anthony Watt is an undegreed ex-TV weatherman that has never done a bit of research in his life.

Here is a sceptic who does not think that the situation is as bad as stated. Now look at his graphs. Note the direction of the temperature.

Oct. 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.42 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

As the tropical tropospheric temperatures continue to cool, the global average is finally beginning to follow suit:+0.42 deg. C for October, 2010. This is the lowest monthly temperature anomaly we’ve seen in what has been a very warm year.

For those following the race for warmest year in the satellite tropospheric temperature record (which began in 1979), 2010 is still within striking distance of the record warm year of 1998. Here are the 1998 and 2010 averages for January 1st through October 31

He's only respected by loons like you olfraud. Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon who supervised Hansen thinks he's a embarrassment to NASA. But then he's only a rocket scientist so what does he know!

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

 

[mdn2000]

There are tens of thousands of very smart people, just in the USA, studying the environment from volcanoes to the bottom of the oceans to sun spots and everything in between. They are all churning out reports, papers and articles showing thier findings and conclusions. Everything they do gets reviewed by thousands more smart people. There is no one guy that is running the show. If one of them misrepresented some data for some reason and was found in error or even guilty of purposely presenting a false report. It means next to nothing. 99.999 percent of scientists are fanatically honest. Maybe one or two out of ten thousand are driven by their ego..so what? As far as continued research...that doesn't mean they have found nothing. That's a stupid assumtion. All that means is there is more data to gather and add to the existing data and conclusions.. Instead of being able to model a future within a hundred years they may be able to narrow it down to a 2 or three year window so we can prepare for some environmental changes with reliability and less wasted preparedness.

What you guys need to get over is who caused this or that. What we HAVE to know is what is changing and how fast. Any resistance towards that knowledge is criminal negligence.

Once again, these studies you refer to, every scientist admits, in the study, they do not and cannot collect the data they need so numbers are made up, formulas, calculations, computer models, are all tweaked to get the desired result.

Post a complete study, link to a complete study, its there, the scientist can and does admit they do not know.

The measurements of the recession of most of the glaciers worldwide are very well documented. The very rapid melting of the ice at both poles has been very well documented by satellites, as has the troposphere temperatures for the last 31 years.

The warming of the oceans and the rising sea level are both well documented.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

USGS Release: Footloose Glaciers Crack Up (7/14/2010 11:09:44 AM)

USGS Repeat Photography Project Documents Retreating Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

Global glacier retreat

Records reveal robust ocean warming - physicsworld.com

Sea levels rising in parts of Indian Ocean; Greenhouse gases play role, study finds

Great, now lets see if you can defend just a tiny bit of what you link to,

I quote from your source, so tell us about these models, how are they programed, what is the data inputed, why do they suggest and not prove. How are the calculations performed, how many times do they tweak the "model", its a computer model right, why cant we read the actual study, how come we are spoon fed the press release, where is the study, can you post the actual technical details.

Arctic Report Card - Atmosphere - Overland, et al.

Models suggest that loss of sea ice in fall favors higher geopotential heights over the Arctic. With future loss of sea ice, such conditions as winter 2009-2010 could happen more often. Thus we have a potential climate change paradox. Rather than a general warming everywhere, the loss of sea ice and a warmer Arctic can increase the impact of the Arctic on lower latitudes, bringing colder weather to southern locations.

Gee models suggest, what models? How much do they suggest, a little, a lot, not at all but it sounds good.

Sorry but that is a poor foundation for a national energy policy, "models suggest".

Cede on this link of yours and we can destroy the next link.

 

[westwall]

Once again, these studies you refer to, every scientist admits, in the study, they do not and cannot collect the data they need so numbers are made up, formulas, calculations, computer models, are all tweaked to get the desired result.

Post a complete study, link to a complete study, its there, the scientist can and does admit they do not know.

The measurements of the recession of most of the glaciers worldwide are very well documented. The very rapid melting of the ice at both poles has been very well documented by satellites, as has the troposphere temperatures for the last 31 years.

The warming of the oceans and the rising sea level are both well documented.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

USGS Release: Footloose Glaciers Crack Up (7/14/2010 11:09:44 AM)

USGS Repeat Photography Project Documents Retreating Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

Global glacier retreat

Records reveal robust ocean warming - physicsworld.com

Sea levels rising in parts of Indian Ocean; Greenhouse gases play role, study finds

Great, now lets see if you can defend just a tiny bit of what you link to,

I quote from your source, so tell us about these models, how are they programed, what is the data inputed, why do they suggest and not prove. How are the calculations performed, how many times do they tweak the "model", its a computer model right, why cant we read the actual study, how come we are spoon fed the press release, where is the study, can you post the actual technical details.

Arctic Report Card - Atmosphere - Overland, et al.

Models suggest that loss of sea ice in fall favors higher geopotential heights over the Arctic. With future loss of sea ice, such conditions as winter 2009-2010 could happen more often. Thus we have a potential climate change paradox. Rather than a general warming everywhere, the loss of sea ice and a warmer Arctic can increase the impact of the Arctic on lower latitudes, bringing colder weather to southern locations.

Gee models suggest, what models? How much do they suggest, a little, a lot, not at all but it sounds good.

Sorry but that is a poor foundation for a national energy policy, "models suggest".

Cede on this link of yours and we can destroy the next link.

They have very little empirical data. What they do have tends to disagree with what they say (thus the effort to rewrite the data record) their models are incapable of recreating what has allready occured so once again they must resort to data manipulation or outright fabrication. All in all a failed theory.

 

[westwall]

The most surprising thing about the midterm elections wasn't that it swept over 60 Tea Party-backed candidates to power -- it was that more than half of those candidates are on record denying climate change. Unified climate denial is an alarming platform to adopt in the modern world, considering every other major political party around the globe -- even conservative ones -- acknowledges that global warming is a serious problem. But the ascendant far-right wing that's just taken power isn't deterred by stuff like science: The GOP plans to attack the EPA, "investigate" climate scientists, and convince the public that climate change is a scam. Thankfully, climate scientists have had enough. This time, they're fighting back.

In response to the political success that denying climate change was able to muster, the American Geophysical Union -- the nation's largest association of climate scientists -- has decided to mobilize, and to publicly speak out about climate science. 700 climate researchers have agreed to participate in the campaign to help educate the public, and to refute erroneous claims that deny humans are having an impact on the earth's climate.

From the LA Times:

Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics ... John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate change skeptics, is also pulling together a "climate rapid response team," which includes scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.

This move is long overdue -- discourse on climate science has far too long been swayed by messaging from fossil fuel interests, opportunistic politicians, and conservative pundits, all who without any knowledge of the science, insist that global warming is a scam. And with those opportunistic politicians now in power, and threatening to worsen the US's already disgraceful climate and clean energy policies, it's high time the scientists -- the actual experts on the topic -- made their case to the public.
I wish that they didn't have to do this -- I wish we had a cable TV media apparatus that aimed to relay honest information to the public, that oil companies like Exxon hadn't sunk millions into propagating climate denial, that politicians sought solutions to our most gripping problems instead of pandering to those who would like to believe nothing -- including our consumption habits -- ever has to change.

Scientists shouldn't have to prove that their work is valid (that's what peer review is for) by defending it on cable talk shows and calling out misinformation-spouting politicians. But it sure seems like they have to now.

The AGU backpedaled big time, I suggest you find a more recent story.

 

[IanC]

....

Scientists shouldn't have to prove that their work is valid (that's what peer review is for) by defending it on cable talk shows and calling out misinformation-spouting politicians. But it sure seems like they have to now.

Obviously you haven't done any research on climate science controversy or the climategate scandal.

if peer review in climate science was working we wouldn't be at this damaging climax of disagreement over scientific principles in research. let's take one example- the Hockey Stick graph. no one forced MMH to discard the proxie data after 1960 and peer review should have insisted that it be shown. no one forced MMH to use incorrect statistical analysis in generating their data and peer review should have sent it to stat experts for review. no one forced MMH to hide data and methodologies from interested parties wanting to recreate the findings (as is necessary in the scientific method) and peer review not only broke their own rules of data disclosure but actively helped to hide this information.

There is a tremendous stench of malfeasance coming from the upper echelons of climate science and until it is examined by neutral parties rather than fake tribunals by involved parties the smell is not going to go away.

 

[Old Rocks]

The stench is politically driven people like yourself lying for the energy corps.