The Truth About Climate Change

[Old Rocks]

Hey Walleyes, did you miss Muller's recent work?

Experts Heat Up Over Berkeley Lab Scientist's Quest to 'Calm' Climate Change Debate - NYTimes.com

The scientist heading up a controversial review of land-surface temperature records has a simple goal.

"What I really hope to do is calm the debate" over climate change, said Richard Muller, a physicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST).

But that appears to be a tall order, judging by reaction yesterday to the group's preliminary findings, which drew suspicion from climate skeptics and mainstream climate scientists alike.

BEST's preliminary results show a warming trend of 0.7 degrees Celsius since 1957. That result, which Muller called "unexpected," is similar to the findings of independent analyses by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K. Hadley Centre.

"The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine temperature trends," Muller told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.
That contradicts arguments made by climate skeptics -- including blogger Anthony Watts of "Watts Up With That?" -- who allege that many of the weather stations are located in areas that would bias their observations. A station might be placed in a rural area that is eventually enveloped by development, creating a situation where the urban heat island effect could influence the observations it collects, for example.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, one could go to real scientists and see how new data changes our understanding of the past. But undegreed ex-TV weatherman are so much smarter than real scientists. Daveboy, you are a hoot. Here, read something that real scientists have written;

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Of course you will not, it is far longer than a wingnut talking point, therefore, beyond your abilities.

"...see how new data changes our understanding of the past."

Is that how you're rationalizing the IPCC getting busted for hiding past climate variations?

You've been lied to, Roxy. And you're not smart enough to see it.

Right, all those geo-physicists and geologists from countries all over the world are just setting their sightes on lying to old Roxy.

Come on, Daveboy, give us one Scientific Society that supports your viewpoint. Just one?

 

[zonly1]

Speaking of hockey sticks(damn math glitch), where is Michael mann now days since he posthumously resignd from east Anglia university and Penn State. Then there were are the others: phil jones..gone, George Montbiot...gone.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. All alive and doing well.

Michael Mann Cleared, Again « The Penn Stater Magazine

Michael Mann Cleared, Again
August 23, 2011

Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, who was at the center of the 2009 controversy dubbed “Climategate,” did not engage in scientific misconduct, according to a new report by the National Science Foundation.

Bloomberg reported yesterday that the NSF has cleared Mann of wrongdoing; the Bloomberg story also includes a link to a download of the NSF’s report.

The controversy arose when a computer server at a British climate-research center was hacked in November 2009, and emails among climate researchers—including Mann—were published on the Internet. Climate-change skeptics claimed that the emails showed that Mann and the others had manipulated data in order to reach the conclusions that global warming is real.

Penn State investigated Mann a year ago in conjunction with the controversy and also found no evidence of research impropriety. Several other bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences, have reached the same conclusion.

Mann’s website at Penn State contains links to some of the news stories about him, including one from last month in which he talks about the attacks he’s experienced from global-warming skeptics and others.

 

[Old Rocks]

Professor Phil Jones - University of East Anglia (UEA)

Professor Phil Jones
Current Post: Director, CRU Room Number: CRU 1.06

Telephone: 01603 592090 (+44 1603 592090)

Fax: 01603 507784 (+44 1603 507784)

Email: [email protected]



Research Interests

Instrumental climate change; paleoclimate, particularly over the last 2000 years; riverflow reconstruction from longer rainfall records; weather generators.


Biography

I am the Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. I am principally known for the time series of hemispheric and global surface temperatures, which I update on a monthly basis. I have numerous research papers over the last 25 years. I have been a fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1992 and was on the Editorial Committee of the International Journal of Climatology until 1995. I am currently on the editorial board of Climatic Change. I am an elected member of Academia Europaea since 1998.

I was jointly awarded the Hugh Robert Mill Medal in 1995 by the Royal Meteorological Society for work on UK Rainfall Variability, and in 1997 the Outstanding Scientific Paper Award by the Environmental Research Laboratories / NOAA for being a coauthor on the paper "A search for Human Influences on the Thermal Structure of the Atmosphere," by Ben Santer et al. in Nature, 382, 39-46 (1996). More recently I was awarded the first Hans Oesschger Medal from the European Geophysical Society (now the European Geosciences Union) in 2002 and the International Journal of Climatology prize of the Royal Meteoological Society for papers published in the last five years, also in 2002. I am recognised as one of the top 0.5% of highly-cited researchers in the Geosciences field by the ISI (the institute in the US that maintains the Web of Science, where publications and citations are monitored. I was made (2006) a fellow of the American Meteorological Society and was a awarded a Reviewer's Award by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) the same year. In 2009 I have also been made a fellow by the AGU.

 

[zonly1]

LOL. All alive and doing well.



Michael Mann Cleared, Again
August 23, 2011

Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, who was at the center of the 2009 controversy dubbed “Climategate,” did not engage in scientific misconduct, according to a new report by the National Science Foundation.

Bloomberg reported yesterday that the NSF has cleared Mann of wrongdoing; the Bloomberg story also includes a link to a download of the NSF’s report.

The controversy arose when a computer server at a British climate-research center was hacked in November 2009, and emails among climate researchers—including Mann—were published on the Internet. Climate-change skeptics claimed that the emails showed that Mann and the others had manipulated data in order to reach the conclusions that global warming is real.

Penn State investigated Mann a year ago in conjunction with the controversy and also found no evidence of research impropriety. Several other bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences, have reached the same conclusion.

Mann’s website at Penn State contains links to some of the news stories about him, including one from last month in which he talks about the attacks he’s experienced from global-warming skeptics and others.

Just wondering why the east anglia university web site states: "This website is temporarily unavailable. Please check back later."

 

[Old Rocks]

Monbiat, still very much with us and stirring things up

A 'Malign Intellectual Subculture' - George Monbiot Smears Chomsky, Herman, Peterson, Pilger And Media Lens

On June 13, George Monbiot devoted his Guardian column to naming and shaming a 'malign intellectual subculture that seeks to excuse savagery by denying the facts'. 'The facts', Monbiot noted, 'are the genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda.'

In a piece that recalled the iconic scene from The Usual Suspects, Monbiot lined up Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, David Peterson, John Pilger, and Media Lens, as political commentators who 'take the unwarranted step of belittling the acts of genocide committed by opponents of the western powers'.

According to Monbiot, Herman and Peterson are guilty of something called 'genocide denial'. Media Lens got off on the lesser charge of 'supporting genocide denial'. As for Chomsky, Monbiot Tweeted:

'And, to my great distress, as I rate him very highly, #NoamChomsky doesn't come out of it too well either.'

The 'it' in question was Monbiot's own investigation: think a one-man Chilcot Inquiry.

'Genocide belittling' and 'genocide denial' may sound like neutral terms, but in fact they are loaded, and aimed, in a particular direction by mainstream journalists.

Typically, someone is adjudged guilty of 'genocide denial' only when they question accounts of crimes committed by official enemies of the West. No-one is accused of 'genocide denial' if they present Iraq Body Count's (IBC) figure of 100,000 reported civilian deaths by violence since 2003 as the likely total number of Iraqis who have died through all causes. No-one is accused if they favour IBC's current figure over the Lancet study which estimated 655,000 Iraqi dead as a result of the war way back in 2006. The same applies to the many commentators who have rejected, or ignored, claims that US-UK-led sanctions killed more than 500,000 Iraqi children under five between 1990-2003.

Journalists can go as low as they please in estimating numbers killed in Western or Western-backed bloodbaths in, for example, Indonesia, East Timor, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Yemen, Iran and Afghanistan. No-one would dream of charging them with 'genocide denial'.

In his article, Monbiot initially focused on right-wing 'deniers'. He then turned to the opposite end of the political spectrum:

'But genocide denial is just as embarrassing to the left as it is to the libertarian right. Last week Edward Herman, an American professor of finance best known for co-authoring Manufacturing Consent with Noam Chomsky, published a new book called The Srebrenica Massacre. It claims that the 8,000 deaths at Srebrenica are "an unsupportable exaggeration. The true figure may be closer to 800."

 

[zonly1]

why the apology?

Climategate: Monbiot makes it all suddenly OK through medium of satire – Telegraph Blogs

First the good news. George Monbiot – aka the Great Moonbat – has issued a personal apology for the shabby behaviour of his climate-fear-promoting scientist chums in the Climategate scandal.

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).

Now the not-so-good-news. He's trying to limit the damage by pinning the blame on one (admittedly very deserving, but there are others, Lord knows there are others) man.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

Now for the bit where it gets unpleasant. So seriously unpleasant that I'm not sure I should be posting such things in a family newspaper. You ready? I'm warning you, it's not pretty. The Moonbat makes a brave but not – I fear – wholly successful foray into the unfamiliar terrain of humour and satire. Here goes:

To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email which confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.

No, no. Keep up there at the back! The Moonbat isn't really experiencing "intense disappointment." This is a joke, geddit? He's about to show you the kind of letter which really would be a smoking gun, if it existed, which of course it doesn't because you see – (ho ho!, stap me vitals, ooh nurse, etc) – George made it up using the humorous medium of comical exaggeration for satirical effect.

Now read on:

“From: [email protected]
Sent: 29th October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called “the ordering of men’s affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man”, which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.

The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master’s initial thesis – that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere – had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master’s rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to “demonstrate” the Master’s thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.

Etc. Anyway, I'm not going to run the thing in full lest you damage your sides. Suffice to say that thanks to the Moonbat's ingenious reductio ad absurdum of the Climate Change Deniers' position, we can all now happily agree that Climategate isn't at all an important story and that the scientists revealed to have manipulated data, shut down debate and hidden evidence are in no wise part of any conspiracy to promote belief in AGW. They were just ordinary, decent chaps doing their job. Thanks George.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Global warming has become such a hotly debated issue that the country is polarized -- and most citizens get lost in the claims and counterclaims.

Manufacturers fear that these dire warnings will lead to more government regulation and anti-government factions believe that there is a climate conspiracy where top scientists have been caught cooking their books, falsifying temperature data, and excluding colleagues who disagreed.

Representative Michelle Bachman, whose Earth Day speech in 2009 was titled “An Ode to Carbon Dioxide,” made a claim that carbon dioxide levels are “a part of the regular cycle of the earth.” In pandering to her right-wing supporters it is easy for her to dismiss the problem because she won’t be around to see it happen.

The Truth About Climate Change

Okay, I read this and the one below it (Love that the first reply uses a site entitled Slay the Green Dragon" or whatever as a uh, source to dispute your claims, btw) and that was enough to see this will deteriorate quickly.
So I don't claim to be a scientist or know everything about this. On the one hand, I remember the 70's when the GOP was saying all this "Ecology propaganda of the hippies" was going to kill business. At the time, the joke was, you could walk across Lake Erie without getting wet because of all the pollution. Turns out those danm tree huggin hippies were right. We needed to do something (like stop dumping waste from the Auto plants into the rivers).
This time? I don't know. I remember when the volcano erupted in Iceland, one of the commentators said that it emitted as much CO2 as every car in South America - in ONE WEEK. There went my guilt about the bigass Lexus...
So then my daughter comes home with some info. Seems EVERY scientific organization in the world (except those working for OPEC and the petroleum industry) agree this thing is real. Hmmm.
Food for thought.

 

[westwall]

LOL. All alive and doing well.

Michael Mann Cleared, Again « The Penn Stater Magazine

Michael Mann Cleared, Again
August 23, 2011

Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, who was at the center of the 2009 controversy dubbed “Climategate,” did not engage in scientific misconduct, according to a new report by the National Science Foundation.

Bloomberg reported yesterday that the NSF has cleared Mann of wrongdoing; the Bloomberg story also includes a link to a download of the NSF’s report.

The controversy arose when a computer server at a British climate-research center was hacked in November 2009, and emails among climate researchers—including Mann—were published on the Internet. Climate-change skeptics claimed that the emails showed that Mann and the others had manipulated data in order to reach the conclusions that global warming is real.

Penn State investigated Mann a year ago in conjunction with the controversy and also found no evidence of research impropriety. Several other bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences, have reached the same conclusion.

Mann’s website at Penn State contains links to some of the news stories about him, including one from last month in which he talks about the attacks he’s experienced from global-warming skeptics and others.

Sure he is, that's why he's fighting tooth and nail to prevent information of his "research" getting released. He's fighting an FOIA request now for information that was paid for by the American tax payer. Wonder what he has to hide.....

 

[westwall]

Monbiat, still very much with us and stirring things up

A 'Malign Intellectual Subculture' - George Monbiot Smears Chomsky, Herman, Peterson, Pilger And Media Lens

On June 13, George Monbiot devoted his Guardian column to naming and shaming a 'malign intellectual subculture that seeks to excuse savagery by denying the facts'. 'The facts', Monbiot noted, 'are the genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda.'

In a piece that recalled the iconic scene from The Usual Suspects, Monbiot lined up Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, David Peterson, John Pilger, and Media Lens, as political commentators who 'take the unwarranted step of belittling the acts of genocide committed by opponents of the western powers'.

According to Monbiot, Herman and Peterson are guilty of something called 'genocide denial'. Media Lens got off on the lesser charge of 'supporting genocide denial'. As for Chomsky, Monbiot Tweeted:

'And, to my great distress, as I rate him very highly, #NoamChomsky doesn't come out of it too well either.'

The 'it' in question was Monbiot's own investigation: think a one-man Chilcot Inquiry.

'Genocide belittling' and 'genocide denial' may sound like neutral terms, but in fact they are loaded, and aimed, in a particular direction by mainstream journalists.

Typically, someone is adjudged guilty of 'genocide denial' only when they question accounts of crimes committed by official enemies of the West. No-one is accused of 'genocide denial' if they present Iraq Body Count's (IBC) figure of 100,000 reported civilian deaths by violence since 2003 as the likely total number of Iraqis who have died through all causes. No-one is accused if they favour IBC's current figure over the Lancet study which estimated 655,000 Iraqi dead as a result of the war way back in 2006. The same applies to the many commentators who have rejected, or ignored, claims that US-UK-led sanctions killed more than 500,000 Iraqi children under five between 1990-2003.

Journalists can go as low as they please in estimating numbers killed in Western or Western-backed bloodbaths in, for example, Indonesia, East Timor, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Yemen, Iran and Afghanistan. No-one would dream of charging them with 'genocide denial'.

In his article, Monbiot initially focused on right-wing 'deniers'. He then turned to the opposite end of the political spectrum:

'But genocide denial is just as embarrassing to the left as it is to the libertarian right. Last week Edward Herman, an American professor of finance best known for co-authoring Manufacturing Consent with Noam Chomsky, published a new book called The Srebrenica Massacre. It claims that the 8,000 deaths at Srebrenica are "an unsupportable exaggeration. The true figure may be closer to 800."

Indeed he is and looky here...he's changed his tune on nuclear power....I wonder why?




You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn't work.

Like most greens, I favour a major expansion of renewables. I can also sympathise with the complaints of their opponents. It's not just the onshore windfarms that bother people, but also the new grid connections (pylons and power lines). As the proportion of renewable electricity on the grid rises, more pumped storage will be needed to keep the lights on. That means reservoirs on mountains: they aren't popular, either.

The impacts and costs of renewables rise with the proportion of power they supply, as the need for storage and redundancy increases. It may well be the case (I have yet to see a comparative study) that up to a certain grid penetration – 50% or 70%, perhaps? – renewables have smaller carbon impacts than nuclear, while beyond that point, nuclear has smaller impacts than renewables.

Like others, I have called for renewable power to be used both to replace the electricity produced by fossil fuel and to expand the total supply, displacing the oil used for transport and the gas used for heating fuel. Are we also to demand that it replaces current nuclear capacity? The more work we expect renewables to do, the greater the impact on the landscape will be, and the tougher the task of public persuasion.

But expanding the grid to connect people and industry to rich, distant sources of ambient energy is also rejected by most of the greens who complained about the blog post I wrote last week in which I argued that nuclear remains safer than coal. What they want, they tell me, is something quite different: we should power down and produce our energy locally. Some have even called for the abandonment of the grid. Their bucolic vision sounds lovely, until you read the small print.

At high latitudes like ours, most small-scale ambient power production is a dead loss. Generating solar power in the UK involves a spectacular waste of scarce resources. It's hopelessly inefficient and poorly matched to the pattern of demand. Wind power in populated areas is largely worthless. This is partly because we have built our settlements in sheltered places; partly because turbulence caused by the buildings interferes with the airflow and chews up the mechanism. Micro-hydropower might work for a farmhouse in Wales, but it's not much use in Birmingham.

And how do we drive our textile mills, brick kilns, blast furnaces and electric railways – not to mention advanced industrial processes? Rooftop solar panels? The moment you consider the demands of the whole economy is the moment at which you fall out of love with local energy production. A national (or, better still, international) grid is the essential prerequisite for a largely renewable energy supply.

Some greens go even further: why waste renewable resources by turning them into electricity? Why not use them to provide energy directly? To answer this question, look at what happened in Britain before the industrial revolution.

The damming and weiring of British rivers for watermills was small-scale, renewable, picturesque and devastating. By blocking the rivers and silting up the spawning beds, they helped bring to an end the gigantic runs of migratory fish that were once among our great natural spectacles and which fed much of Britain – wiping out sturgeon, lampreys and shad, as well as most sea trout and salmon.

Traction was intimately linked with starvation. The more land that was set aside for feeding draft animals for industry and transport, the less was available for feeding humans. It was the 17th-century equivalent of today's biofuels crisis. The same applied to heating fuel. As EA Wrigley points out in his book Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, the 11m tonnes of coal mined in England in 1800 produced as much energy as 11m acres of woodland (one third of the land surface) would have generated.

Before coal became widely available, wood was used not just for heating homes but also for industrial processes: if half the land surface of Britain had been covered with woodland, Wrigley shows, we could have made 1.25m tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of current consumption) and nothing else. Even with a much lower population than today's, manufactured goods in the land-based economy were the preserve of the elite. Deep green energy production – decentralised, based on the products of the land – is far more damaging to humanity than nuclear meltdown.

But the energy source to which most economies will revert if they shut down their nuclear plants is not wood, water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel. On every measure (climate change, mining impact, local pollution, industrial injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power. Thanks to the expansion of shale gas production, the impacts of natural gas are catching up fast.

Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.





Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[westwall]

Global warming has become such a hotly debated issue that the country is polarized -- and most citizens get lost in the claims and counterclaims.

Manufacturers fear that these dire warnings will lead to more government regulation and anti-government factions believe that there is a climate conspiracy where top scientists have been caught cooking their books, falsifying temperature data, and excluding colleagues who disagreed.

Representative Michelle Bachman, whose Earth Day speech in 2009 was titled “An Ode to Carbon Dioxide,” made a claim that carbon dioxide levels are “a part of the regular cycle of the earth.” In pandering to her right-wing supporters it is easy for her to dismiss the problem because she won’t be around to see it happen.

The Truth About Climate Change

Okay, I read this and the one below it (Love that the first reply uses a site entitled Slay the Green Dragon" or whatever as a uh, source to dispute your claims, btw) and that was enough to see this will deteriorate quickly.
So I don't claim to be a scientist or know everything about this. On the one hand, I remember the 70's when the GOP was saying all this "Ecology propaganda of the hippies" was going to kill business. At the time, the joke was, you could walk across Lake Erie without getting wet because of all the pollution. Turns out those danm tree huggin hippies were right. We needed to do something (like stop dumping waste from the Auto plants into the rivers).
This time? I don't know. I remember when the volcano erupted in Iceland, one of the commentators said that it emitted as much CO2 as every car in South America - in ONE WEEK. There went my guilt about the bigass Lexus...
So then my daughter comes home with some info. Seems EVERY scientific organization in the world (except those working for OPEC and the petroleum industry) agree this thing is real. Hmmm.
Food for thought.

The "every scientific organization" meme is a tad misleading. The governing bodies do indeed all support AGW, however the general memberships of those bodies don't. Every major scientific organization is in turmoil over the policies, the Royal Society recently was forced to change their statement from "there is no doubt it is happening" to there is much
debate about the causes of the observed warming".

Furthermore if you follow the money you will see that the oil companies are behind the AGW scheme because they get to make tons more moeny off of their product for no extra effort. Additionally they are also heavily involved in the solar and wind companies so it is in their best interests to get as much legislation passed to make those investments worthwhile.

It is a sordid group who are involved in the scam, a sordid group indeed.

 

[daveman]

Of course, one could go to real scientists and see how new data changes our understanding of the past. But undegreed ex-TV weatherman are so much smarter than real scientists. Daveboy, you are a hoot. Here, read something that real scientists have written;

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Of course you will not, it is far longer than a wingnut talking point, therefore, beyond your abilities.

"...see how new data changes our understanding of the past."

Is that how you're rationalizing the IPCC getting busted for hiding past climate variations?

You've been lied to, Roxy. And you're not smart enough to see it.

Right, all those geo-physicists and geologists from countries all over the world are just setting their sightes on lying to old Roxy.

Come on, Daveboy, give us one Scientific Society that supports your viewpoint. Just one?

How many of the scientific societies you're crowing about have actually done their own research? Or are they just jumping on the bandwagon?

Science isn't a popularity contest, Roxy, although you seem to think it is.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Global warming has become such a hotly debated issue that the country is polarized -- and most citizens get lost in the claims and counterclaims.

Manufacturers fear that these dire warnings will lead to more government regulation and anti-government factions believe that there is a climate conspiracy where top scientists have been caught cooking their books, falsifying temperature data, and excluding colleagues who disagreed.

Representative Michelle Bachman, whose Earth Day speech in 2009 was titled “An Ode to Carbon Dioxide,” made a claim that carbon dioxide levels are “a part of the regular cycle of the earth.” In pandering to her right-wing supporters it is easy for her to dismiss the problem because she won’t be around to see it happen.

The Truth About Climate Change

Okay, I read this and the one below it (Love that the first reply uses a site entitled Slay the Green Dragon" or whatever as a uh, source to dispute your claims, btw) and that was enough to see this will deteriorate quickly.
So I don't claim to be a scientist or know everything about this. On the one hand, I remember the 70's when the GOP was saying all this "Ecology propaganda of the hippies" was going to kill business. At the time, the joke was, you could walk across Lake Erie without getting wet because of all the pollution. Turns out those danm tree huggin hippies were right. We needed to do something (like stop dumping waste from the Auto plants into the rivers).
This time? I don't know. I remember when the volcano erupted in Iceland, one of the commentators said that it emitted as much CO2 as every car in South America - in ONE WEEK. There went my guilt about the bigass Lexus...
So then my daughter comes home with some info. Seems EVERY scientific organization in the world (except those working for OPEC and the petroleum industry) agree this thing is real. Hmmm.
Food for thought.

The "every scientific organization" meme is a tad misleading. The governing bodies do indeed all support AGW, however the general memberships of those bodies don't. Every major scientific organization is in turmoil over the policies, the Royal Society recently was forced to change their statement from "there is no doubt it is happening" to there is much
debate about the causes of the observed warming".

Furthermore if you follow the money you will see that the oil companies are behind the AGW scheme because they get to make tons more moeny off of their product for no extra effort. Additionally they are also heavily involved in the solar and wind companies so it is in their best interests to get as much legislation passed to make those investments worthwhile.

It is a sordid group who are involved in the scam, a sordid group indeed.

Sounds a LOT like the rhetoric of those who were fighting the ridiculous claims that dumping waste into our rivers, lakes etc... was just fine because it would all wash out to the ocean. That this radical "Ecology Movement" with their green & white flags, were actually sponsored by socialist and so on. "They're sordid I tell you! Sordid!"

I try to keep an open mind. On the one hand, the volcano kinda blew a lot of this theory outta the water.
On the other hand, everything that eco-proponents discuss, at least tries to protect the planet.
Also, anything that could get us off oil and bankrupt the Middle East would be peachy by me! We ain't gonna get there by listening to the whackjobs who think the only answer is "Drill baby drill" and are instantly negative to alternatives.

 

[westwall]

Okay, I read this and the one below it (Love that the first reply uses a site entitled Slay the Green Dragon" or whatever as a uh, source to dispute your claims, btw) and that was enough to see this will deteriorate quickly.
So I don't claim to be a scientist or know everything about this. On the one hand, I remember the 70's when the GOP was saying all this "Ecology propaganda of the hippies" was going to kill business. At the time, the joke was, you could walk across Lake Erie without getting wet because of all the pollution. Turns out those danm tree huggin hippies were right. We needed to do something (like stop dumping waste from the Auto plants into the rivers).
This time? I don't know. I remember when the volcano erupted in Iceland, one of the commentators said that it emitted as much CO2 as every car in South America - in ONE WEEK. There went my guilt about the bigass Lexus...
So then my daughter comes home with some info. Seems EVERY scientific organization in the world (except those working for OPEC and the petroleum industry) agree this thing is real. Hmmm.
Food for thought.

The "every scientific organization" meme is a tad misleading. The governing bodies do indeed all support AGW, however the general memberships of those bodies don't. Every major scientific organization is in turmoil over the policies, the Royal Society recently was forced to change their statement from "there is no doubt it is happening" to there is much
debate about the causes of the observed warming".

Furthermore if you follow the money you will see that the oil companies are behind the AGW scheme because they get to make tons more moeny off of their product for no extra effort. Additionally they are also heavily involved in the solar and wind companies so it is in their best interests to get as much legislation passed to make those investments worthwhile.

It is a sordid group who are involved in the scam, a sordid group indeed.

Sounds a LOT like the rhetoric of those who were fighting the ridiculous claims that dumping waste into our rivers, lakes etc... was just fine because it would all wash out to the ocean. That this radical "Ecology Movement" with their green & white flags, were actually sponsored by socialist and so on. "They're sordid I tell you! Sordid!"

I try to keep an open mind. On the one hand, the volcano kinda blew a lot of this theory outta the water.
On the other hand, everything that eco-proponents discuss, at least tries to protect the planet.
Also, anything that could get us off oil and bankrupt the Middle East would be peachy by me! We ain't gonna get there by listening to the whackjobs who think the only answer is "Drill baby drill" and are instantly negative to alternatives.

I am an environmental geologist. My business is cleaning up after man has destroyed the environment and also helping companies not destroy the environment in the first place. I was and am a longtime supporter of Greenpeace (before they went socialist) and other legit conservationist organizations.

I can tell you without reservation that most environmental groups now cause more harm then good. From firestorms in CA and AZ and TX due to environmentalist attacks on legitimate logging and brush clearing to the poisoning of CA water supply through the requirements of oil companies to add the oxygenate MTBE in an effort to reduce air pollution.

Then of course there was the ban on DDT that is directly responsible for the deaths of at least 60 million people in Africa alone so human welfare is clearly not an issue with them either.

I do agree that renewables are neccessary however the way the green movement and our government is going about it is completely wrong. If you want that technology to come to the fore you have to make the funding available to everyone not just a few cronies who give you kickbacks like Solyndra which just pissed away half a billion of our dollars and produced nothing.

In a perfect world the oil companies here would be allowed to drill for the recources we have now and I would make it a mandate that the subsidies they get must be used for renewables research granted by a committee made up of lay people and academics who would review the various proposals and award grants to those that showed the most promise.

Sadly that will never come to pass.

 

[IanC]

Penn says Mann did nothing wrong and yet they refuse to specifically state how they ignore the email to delete AR4 correspondence. that was a specific item named when the inquiry was formed. Mann was finally forced to admit he did pass the email to Wahl, and Wahl did delete the correspondence, as was shown by an independant inquiry by (NASA) which got little media attention. did Mann tell the truth to Penn at the first inquiry? did Penn do IT forensics to check if the materials Mann presented to them was always present on the system or just hastily retrieved later? this whole thing is just going to fester until the disinfectent of sunlight is shone on it.

at least Penn asked the questions even if they didnt check the answers. Univ of East Anglia refused to even ask Phil Jones if he sent the email.

and what is so important about the AR4 correspondence that it has to be hidden? the world is being asked to spend trillions of dollars and change everyone's standard of living but the embarrassment of a few scientists takes precidence? the IPCC wouldnt be losing respect if they were more open and accountable.

 

[Chris]

The truth about climate change is that the poles are melting, and it's getting warmer.

And in the next century we will add 2,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.

 

[westwall]

The truth about climate change is that the poles are melting, and it's getting warmer.

And in the next century we will add 2,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Prove it...without computer models. And I still don't see open water at the North Pole like there has been many times in the past.

 

[FactFinder]

All this stuff is very very tired, lame and worn out. Especially since noone really knows. A bunch of speculation being argued ad nauseum as if it were fact...

Time to grow up! Time to move on. Time to get a life and respect others!

 

[ScienceRocks]

All this stuff is very very tired, lame and worn out. Especially since noone really knows. A bunch of speculation being argued ad nauseum as if it were fact...

Time to grow up! Time to move on. Time to get a life and respect others!

I'm kind of rooting for the sucker to go all the way.