Pushing back

[Old Rocks]

Climate scientists fighting back - Spokesman.com - Nov. 8, 2010

WASHINGTON – Faced with increasing 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 have vowed to kill regulations to rein in human-created greenhouse gas emissions.

The 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, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in last Tuesday’s election.

Today, the American Geophysical Union, the country’s largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution. Some are prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk-radio and television shows

 

[Ozmar]

First the fascists wipe out the intellectuals...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Climate scientists fighting back - Spokesman.com - Nov. 8, 2010

WASHINGTON – Faced with increasing 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 have vowed to kill regulations to rein in human-created greenhouse gas emissions.

The 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, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in last Tuesday’s election.

Today, the American Geophysical Union, the country’s largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution. Some are prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk-radio and television shows

 

[Jroc]

"Bring it on" Frauds... They never win a far and open debate.

 

[Ozmar]

"Bring it on" Frauds... They never win a far and open debate.

Like you're one to talk.

 

[Mr. H.]

And why should said "prominent researchers" dread investigations?

Line 'em up just like they did with BP officials.

Shoot high. Aim low.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3FGZRsmYqI[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

The game that is being played by the political pawns of the energy corperations has nothing to do with the research that is being done. It is all about keeping any information concerning a climate changing due to the burning of fossil fuels from influencing policy.

The most prominent researcher in the US, Dr. James Hansen gave his testimony and predictions in a hearing before Congress in 1988. His predictions have turned out to be correct. Yet Senator Inhofe will stand in public and lie about that.

The people that need to be standing before a court, not Congress, are the people denying actual research results, and lying to the public about the dangers that are becoming increasing apparent as the climate changes.

 

[IanC]

hey Old Rocks- they quickly came to their senses and backpeddled. no need to have pesky debates with uncertain results when a Q&A web page will suffice

8 November 2010
For Immediate Release

WASHINGTON—An article appearing in the Los Angeles Times, and then picked up by media outlets far and wide, misrepresents the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and a climate science project the AGU is about to relaunch. The project, called Climate Q&A Service, aims simply to provide accurate scientific answers to questions from journalists about climate science.


“In contrast to what has been reported in the LA Times and elsewhere, there is no campaign by AGU against climate skeptics or congressional conservatives,” says Christine McEntee, Executive Director and CEO of the American Geophysical Union. “AGU will continue to provide accurate scientific information on Earth and space topics to inform the general public and to support sound public policy development.”

 

[mdn2000]

The game that is being played by the political pawns of the energy corperations has nothing to do with the research that is being done. It is all about keeping any information concerning a climate changing due to the burning of fossil fuels from influencing policy.

The most prominent researcher in the US, Dr. James Hansen gave his testimony and predictions in a hearing before Congress in 1988. His predictions have turned out to be correct. Yet Senator Inhofe will stand in public and lie about that.

The people that need to be standing before a court, not Congress, are the people denying actual research results, and lying to the public about the dangers that are becoming increasing apparent as the climate changes.

Hansen got busted faking temperature data. Hansen gave predictions and then made up data to make it work.

If climate change is so dangerous and using fossil fuels causes climate change than why is Oregon using more fossil fuel at a faster rate, creating more CO2, to make a windmills and solar panels. You use more fossil fuel to build green energy than if you just burn oil to make electricity. Besides, even a second grader can see making a copy of a copy makes a poor copy, using oil to make a windmill makes bad ecological sense.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

 

[Old Rocks]

The game that is being played by the political pawns of the energy corperations has nothing to do with the research that is being done. It is all about keeping any information concerning a climate changing due to the burning of fossil fuels from influencing policy.

The most prominent researcher in the US, Dr. James Hansen gave his testimony and predictions in a hearing before Congress in 1988. His predictions have turned out to be correct. Yet Senator Inhofe will stand in public and lie about that.

The people that need to be standing before a court, not Congress, are the people denying actual research results, and lying to the public about the dangers that are becoming increasing apparent as the climate changes.

Hansen got busted faking temperature data. Hansen gave predictions and then made up data to make it work.

If climate change is so dangerous and using fossil fuels causes climate change than why is Oregon using more fossil fuel at a faster rate, creating more CO2, to make a windmills and solar panels. You use more fossil fuel to build green energy than if you just burn oil to make electricity. Besides, even a second grader can see making a copy of a copy makes a poor copy, using oil to make a windmill makes bad ecological sense.

Nice bunch of lies. Back them up, asshole.

 

[mdn2000]

The game that is being played by the political pawns of the energy corperations has nothing to do with the research that is being done. It is all about keeping any information concerning a climate changing due to the burning of fossil fuels from influencing policy.

The most prominent researcher in the US, Dr. James Hansen gave his testimony and predictions in a hearing before Congress in 1988. His predictions have turned out to be correct. Yet Senator Inhofe will stand in public and lie about that.

The people that need to be standing before a court, not Congress, are the people denying actual research results, and lying to the public about the dangers that are becoming increasing apparent as the climate changes.

Hansen got busted faking temperature data. Hansen gave predictions and then made up data to make it work.

If climate change is so dangerous and using fossil fuels causes climate change than why is Oregon using more fossil fuel at a faster rate, creating more CO2, to make a windmills and solar panels. You use more fossil fuel to build green energy than if you just burn oil to make electricity. Besides, even a second grader can see making a copy of a copy makes a poor copy, using oil to make a windmill makes bad ecological sense.

Nice bunch of lies. Back them up, asshole.

Why dont you go and back up all your posts, hell you still have yet to post a study which was the basis for one of your whacko threads. Were is the study, how can you link to a press release of a future study, back up your mouth Old Crock.

Oregon is destroying the earth, Oregon is receiving more subsidies and tax breaks because their social do-good wishing is bankrupting the state.

Imagine, all the raw materials to produce windmills and solar panels are in over-demand, we do not have enough raw materials to make windmills and solar panels fast enough, we must produce more oil to make even more, and more, and more, and each new project has to be the worlds largest project, and at that we will never get one percent of our power from "green energy".

Old Crock, you run from every thread your challenged on, late last year you stated 2 gwh was being produced by wind power and that was supplying all of portland and seattle. 2 gwh for two major cities, pure bullshit and when challenged what did you do Old Crock.

Old Crock never responded.

Old Crock at best can post a link to press releases and call people names, thats all.

I see your absent in energy and that you have deserted all the threads and posts I have challenged Old Crock on.

 

[tinydancer]

The game that is being played by the political pawns of the energy corperations has nothing to do with the research that is being done. It is all about keeping any information concerning a climate changing due to the burning of fossil fuels from influencing policy.

The most prominent researcher in the US, Dr. James Hansen gave his testimony and predictions in a hearing before Congress in 1988. His predictions have turned out to be correct. Yet Senator Inhofe will stand in public and lie about that.

The people that need to be standing before a court, not Congress, are the people denying actual research results, and lying to the public about the dangers that are becoming increasing apparent as the climate changes.

Hansen is a known liar. He is a fraud. He perpetuates his fraud. I truly can't believe any intelligent person is still worshipping the religion of AGW.

At least Cucinnelli is going for Hansen's throat with this latest round of supboenas and I hope he nails his ass to the wall.

 

[Revere]

Why are congressional investigations a "threat?"

 

[konradv]

Why are congressional investigations a "threat?"

They are when they're totally political in nature. Those calling for them don't know the science and don't care.

 

[Revere]

Does science answer to nobody when it demands changes in government policy?

 

[mdn2000]

Why are congressional investigations a "threat?"

The only thing congress needs to do is investigate itself.

Congress is the culprit, they get rich passing "green" laws.

 

[tinydancer]

The game that is being played by the political pawns of the energy corperations has nothing to do with the research that is being done. It is all about keeping any information concerning a climate changing due to the burning of fossil fuels from influencing policy.

The most prominent researcher in the US, Dr. James Hansen gave his testimony and predictions in a hearing before Congress in 1988. His predictions have turned out to be correct. Yet Senator Inhofe will stand in public and lie about that.

The people that need to be standing before a court, not Congress, are the people denying actual research results, and lying to the public about the dangers that are becoming increasing apparent as the climate changes.

Hansen got busted faking temperature data. Hansen gave predictions and then made up data to make it work.

If climate change is so dangerous and using fossil fuels causes climate change than why is Oregon using more fossil fuel at a faster rate, creating more CO2, to make a windmills and solar panels. You use more fossil fuel to build green energy than if you just burn oil to make electricity. Besides, even a second grader can see making a copy of a copy makes a poor copy, using oil to make a windmill makes bad ecological sense.

Nice bunch of lies. Back them up, asshole.

lol

Everyone and their mother knows Hansen has manipulated data. It's a joke to deny such public knowledge.

<snip>

Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were.

A little less than a decade ago, the U.S. government changed the way it recorded temperatures. No one thought to correlate the new temperatures with the old ones, though -- no one until Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre, that is.

McIntyre has become the bane of many warmers' religious-like belief in climate catastrophe. In 2003, along with economist Ross McKitrick, McIntyre demolished the Mann "hockey stick" --a graph that showed stable temperatures for 1,000 years, then shooting up dangerously in the last half of the 20th Century.

The graph was used prominently by the UN and nearly every major eco lobby. But McIntyre and McKitrick demonstrated it was based on incomplete and inaccurate data.

To NASA's credit, when McIntyre pointed out their temperature errors they quickly made corrections.

<snip>

And here is the key point in the article. How anyone can continue to blather on about the last decade having the hottest years ever is beyond comprehension.

The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.

Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.

The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.

Global warming? Look at the numbers

 

[IanC]

Hansen got busted faking temperature data. Hansen gave predictions and then made up data to make it work.

If climate change is so dangerous and using fossil fuels causes climate change than why is Oregon using more fossil fuel at a faster rate, creating more CO2, to make a windmills and solar panels. You use more fossil fuel to build green energy than if you just burn oil to make electricity. Besides, even a second grader can see making a copy of a copy makes a poor copy, using oil to make a windmill makes bad ecological sense.

Nice bunch of lies. Back them up, asshole.

lol

Everyone and their mother knows Hansen has manipulated data. It's a joke to deny such public knowledge.

<snip>

Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were.

A little less than a decade ago, the U.S. government changed the way it recorded temperatures. No one thought to correlate the new temperatures with the old ones, though -- no one until Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre, that is.

McIntyre has become the bane of many warmers' religious-like belief in climate catastrophe. In 2003, along with economist Ross McKitrick, McIntyre demolished the Mann "hockey stick" --a graph that showed stable temperatures for 1,000 years, then shooting up dangerously in the last half of the 20th Century.

The graph was used prominently by the UN and nearly every major eco lobby. But McIntyre and McKitrick demonstrated it was based on incomplete and inaccurate data.

To NASA's credit, when McIntyre pointed out their temperature errors they quickly made corrections.
<snip>

And here is the key point in the article. How anyone can continue to blather on about the last decade having the hottest years ever is beyond comprehension.

The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.

Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.

The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.

Global warming? Look at the numbers

Those adjustments were just a smokescreen. They started bending the data back almost immediately and the figures are currently very close to what they were before the Y2K bug was found.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
------------------------------------------------------
year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
---------------------------------
1880 -0.46 *
1881 0.07 *
1882 0.00 -0.37
1883 -0.84 -0.41
1884 -0.59 -0.54
1885 -0.69 -0.61
1886 -0.57 -0.56
1887 -0.33 -0.42
1888 -0.60 -0.28
1889 0.10 -0.24
1890 -0.01 -0.31
1891 -0.38 -0.33
1892 -0.66 -0.33
1893 -0.71 -0.47
1894 0.10 -0.35
1895 -0.69 -0.25
1896 0.18 -0.14
1897 -0.11 -0.24
1898 -0.17 0.01
1899 -0.40 -0.01
1900 0.57 0.00
1901 0.07 -0.08
1902 -0.05 -0.07
1903 -0.58 -0.27
1904 -0.37 -0.29
1905 -0.44 -0.32
1906 -0.02 -0.18
1907 -0.19 -0.15
1908 0.13 0.00
1909 -0.23 0.03
1910 0.33 -0.11
1911 0.12 -0.16
1912 -0.89 -0.12
1913 -0.15 -0.22
1914 0.00 -0.36
1915 -0.20 -0.38
1916 -0.55 -0.35
1917 -1.01 -0.39
1918 0.00 -0.44
1919 -0.17 -0.11
1920 -0.45 0.12
1921 1.08 0.091922 0.11 -0.02
1923 -0.12 0.14
1924 -0.72 -0.07
1925 0.34 -0.07
1926 0.01 -0.04
1927 0.15 -0.01
1928 0.03 -0.06
1929 -0.57 0.13
1930 0.08 0.09
1931 0.96 0.21
1932 -0.06 0.56
1933 0.63 0.55
1934 1.20 0.381935 0.01 0.36
1936 0.13 0.38
1937 -0.17 0.30
1938 0.75 0.30
1939 0.77 0.37
1940 0.00 0.41
1941 0.49 0.28
1942 0.01 0.13
1943 0.12 0.12
1944 0.03 0.14
1945 -0.06 0.15
1946 0.62 0.11
1947 0.04 0.13
1948 -0.10 0.10
1949 0.16 -0.11
1950 -0.24 -0.06
1951 -0.40 0.13
1952 0.27 0.26
1953 0.86 0.30
1954 0.81 0.43
1955 -0.06 0.40
1956 0.26 0.24
1957 0.12 0.10
1958 0.05 0.07
1959 0.14 0.01
1960 -0.23 -0.01
1961 -0.01 0.01
1962 -0.01 -0.04
1963 0.18 -0.02
1964 -0.11 -0.06
1965 -0.13 -0.07
1966 -0.23 -0.17
1967 -0.09 -0.19
1968 -0.30 -0.19
1969 -0.20 -0.16
1970 -0.13 -0.21
1971 -0.10 -0.10
1972 -0.31 -0.02
1973 0.24 -0.03
1974 0.20 -0.06
1975 -0.19 0.08
1976 -0.24 -0.07
1977 0.38 -0.21
1978 -0.47 -0.13
1979 -0.55 0.06
1980 0.26 -0.08
1981 0.67 0.01
1982 -0.31 0.13
1983 0.00 0.01
1984 0.05 0.03
1985 -0.36 0.25
1986 0.76 0.33
1987 0.81 0.30
1988 0.38 0.56
1989 -0.08 0.55
1990 0.92 0.46
1991 0.71 0.31
1992 0.37 0.44
1993 -0.35 0.34
1994 0.55 0.19
1995 0.43 0.14
1996 -0.06 0.48
1997 0.15 0.58
1998 1.32 0.631999 1.07 0.83
2000 0.69 0.94
2001 0.92 0.81
2002 0.68 0.72
2003 0.69 0.76
2004 0.61 0.84
2005 0.92 0.88
2006 1.30 0.76
2007 0.87 0.69
2008 0.11 *
2009 0.24 *
------------------------------------------------------

1998 is solidly in the lead again. funny how the numbers from last century change over and over and over again.

 

[IanC]

from tinydancer's link

Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine the shrieking of the warmers if we had previously thought that hot years were scattered throughout the past 130 years, but after a correction the warmest years could be seen to be concentrated in the past decade.

They would insist the revised data proved their case. They would blitz every news organization and talk show. They would demand to be allowed to indoctrinate school children on the evils of cars and factories.

So they shouldn't be permitted to brush aside this new data, which makes their claims harder to prove.

Ten years ago, warmers found a similarly small error in the temperature data collected by weather satellites. The satellites were a thorn in their sides because while the warmers were insisting the Earth was getting hotter, the satellites showed it was in fact cooling ever so slightly.

Then the warmers discovered that the scientists who maintained the orbiting thermometers had failed to account for orbital decay, the almost infinitesimally small downward drift of the "birds" every year.

When the effects of drift were added into the observations, the cooling was found to be just 0.01 degree per decade rather than the 0.04 degrees previously claimed.

On this basis, the warmers now insisted then that even the satellites were somehow in agreement with their theory.



Read more: Global warming? Look at the numbers

ain't that the truth