What passes for Republican Science

[Old Rocks]

Title:




Well Known . . . to a Few People: Attribution of Excess Atmospheric CO2 and Resulting Global Temperature Change to Fossil Fuel and Land Use Change Emissions



Authors:




Schwartz, S. E.



Affiliation:


Well Known . . . to a Few People: Attribution of Excess Atmospheric CO2 and Resu

AA(Atmospheric Sciences Division, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, USA ses@bnl.gov)

Publication:

American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2010, abstract #A21A-0018

Publication Date:
12/2010

Origin:
AGU

Keywords:

[0300] ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE, [1600] GLOBAL CHANGE, [1610] GLOBAL CHANGE / Atmosphere, [3305] ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES / Climate change and variability

Bibliographic Code:
2010AGUFM.A21A0018S

Abstract
The increase in atmospheric CO2 over its preindustrial (1750) value exceeded 100% of cumulative emissions from fossil fuel combustion (FF, including also cement manufacture) until about 1960, Figure 1. How could this be? Throughout the 19th century and into the early 20th century the major source of incremental atmospheric CO2 was not FF emissions but emissions from so-called "land-use changes" (LUC), net changes of carbon stocks in the terrestrial biosphere, due mainly to deforestation. LUC CO2 emissions have been a substantial fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions throughout the industrial period and even at present are about a third as great as FF emissions. Cumulative LUC CO2 emissions exceeded cumulative FF emissions until about 1965. Because of the long residence time of atmospheric CO2, the increase in atmospheric CO2 above preindustrial that can be attributed to LUC likewise exceeded that from FF until about 1965. LUC CO2 continues to represent about one-third of total excess atmospheric CO2 and the corresponding forcing; this attribution is robust to the CO2 impulse profile used but is sensitive to uncertainty in the estimate of LUC CO2 emissions. These conclusions come as a surprise to many. However, the dominant contribution of LUC to excess CO2 emissions and atmospheric mixing ratio was recognized in early work by Stuiver (Science, 1978) and Broecker and Peng (Tracers in the Sea, 1982) and unequivocally demonstrated by Keeling et al (AGU Monograph 55, 1989). The shadow of prior emissions of CO2 is lengthened further by the relaxation time of the physical climate system. However it is the relatively long residence time of excess carbon in the coupled atmosphere-mixed ocean layer system, about 50 years, that is primarily responsible for the persistent influence of prior CO2 emissions. These findings have implications for understanding the impact on subsequent generations of CO2 emitted by prior generations and on climate management. Figure 1. Cumulative CO2 emissions from land-use changes and fossil fuel combustion (including cement manufacture), and measured mixing ratio of atmospheric CO2.

 

[Si modo]

It sure looks like the state of the science doesn't even allow for "consensus" on CO2 RTs, eh Rocks?

 

[tererun]

These are the same people who use the loch ness monster to try and debunk evolution. They try to declare that the loch ness monster is real and therefor lots of real science is wrong because of something most people know is a fairy tale. These are the same people who think the bible and hana barbera cartoons are true historical references with lots of facts. Arguing with a right winger about science is like arguing with a 2 year old over who is right. Why bother with a person who is so devoid of any intelligence and knowledge. Just laugh at them and tell them to get bac to church with all the other people who are too fucking stupid to grasp extremely simple concepts of reality.

Really? I'm not a right-winger, but I'd LOVE to have you argue with me... How about we start with a question..

Has the Average Global Surface Temperature rise been ACCELERATING or DECELERATING over the past 8 or 10 yrs?

Before you even get there 8-10 years is barely any time to be inferring much in regards to global temp change. That would be like determining whether or not your health is improving or getting better by measuring your temperature for a minute.

If you wish to talk the realities of pollution and it's effects you really need to be taling about pollution levels and not something lie temperature which could be drastically altering over the course of a decade naturally. The reality is that there is globally a much higher level of pollutants than there has been for many centuries that corresponds with the increase of the industrilaization of mankind. This effect is actually clearly visible in the skies over major cities across the US and in the known spread of cemincals in things like rainwater across things lie our major agricultural areas and farmlands in the midwest. It also should be noted that as you move up the food chain these pollutants become more and more present in the creatures higher up as those creatures consume masses of smaller creatures who injest larer and larger amounts of pollutants.

But really I do not have the time to include the entirety o what I learned in 6th grade science class to an idiot like yourself. If you are too much of a blind faith fool that you cannot see the effects of pollution in every major city in this world, and along our major highways, you don't even belong in the conversation, and if you are ignorant of the fact our pollutions are growing and that our present regulations are merely slowing down growth and certainly not reducing global output then you are way to ignorant to even be arguing with me or anyone else.

The reality is I don't give a fuck if mankind wants to pollute itself into some real problems they cannot change. I have lived a good chunk of my life, and at best I can only hope to see the apocalypse and not live beyond it if it truly comes from pollution. I am glad to see the kids of our time have started to realize their elders are fucking their futures for convenience now, but I am just not going to impede them but I am sure as hell not going to have to deal with fixing the problem. Use whatever excuse you wish to be wasteful and stupid, but it does not change the reality your scientific knowledge is lacking, and you are a fucking idiot. I only hope that if mankind survives it learns from it's mistakes and removes people lie you from important decisions about the future and relegates you to jobs like burger flipper or fry cook which seems to be the extent of your intellectual abilities.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Title:




Well Known . . . to a Few People: Attribution of Excess Atmospheric CO2 and Resulting Global Temperature Change to Fossil Fuel and Land Use Change Emissions



Authors:




Schwartz, S. E.



Affiliation:


Well Known . . . to a Few People: Attribution of Excess Atmospheric CO2 and Resu

AA(Atmospheric Sciences Division, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, USA ses@bnl.gov)

Publication:

American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2010, abstract #A21A-0018

Publication Date:
12/2010

Origin:
AGU

Keywords:

[0300] ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE, [1600] GLOBAL CHANGE, [1610] GLOBAL CHANGE / Atmosphere, [3305] ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES / Climate change and variability

Bibliographic Code:
2010AGUFM.A21A0018S

Abstract
The increase in atmospheric CO2 over its preindustrial (1750) value exceeded 100% of cumulative emissions from fossil fuel combustion (FF, including also cement manufacture) until about 1960, Figure 1. How could this be? Throughout the 19th century and into the early 20th century the major source of incremental atmospheric CO2 was not FF emissions but emissions from so-called "land-use changes" (LUC), net changes of carbon stocks in the terrestrial biosphere, due mainly to deforestation. LUC CO2 emissions have been a substantial fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions throughout the industrial period and even at present are about a third as great as FF emissions. Cumulative LUC CO2 emissions exceeded cumulative FF emissions until about 1965. Because of the long residence time of atmospheric CO2, the increase in atmospheric CO2 above preindustrial that can be attributed to LUC likewise exceeded that from FF until about 1965. LUC CO2 continues to represent about one-third of total excess atmospheric CO2 and the corresponding forcing; this attribution is robust to the CO2 impulse profile used but is sensitive to uncertainty in the estimate of LUC CO2 emissions. These conclusions come as a surprise to many. However, the dominant contribution of LUC to excess CO2 emissions and atmospheric mixing ratio was recognized in early work by Stuiver (Science, 1978) and Broecker and Peng (Tracers in the Sea, 1982) and unequivocally demonstrated by Keeling et al (AGU Monograph 55, 1989). The shadow of prior emissions of CO2 is lengthened further by the relaxation time of the physical climate system. However it is the relatively long residence time of excess carbon in the coupled atmosphere-mixed ocean layer system, about 50 years, that is primarily responsible for the persistent influence of prior CO2 emissions. These findings have implications for understanding the impact on subsequent generations of CO2 emitted by prior generations and on climate management. Figure 1. Cumulative CO2 emissions from land-use changes and fossil fuel combustion (including cement manufacture), and measured mixing ratio of atmospheric CO2.

50 years =/= 100 years or 800 years

 

[Old Rocks]

A very good discussion of carbon sinks and the time involved, as well as the present trends.

http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/ngruber/publications/vol55no8page30-36.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's look at those residence times:

The driver for this study is the wide-ranging published values of the CO2 atmospheric residence time (RT), τ, with the values differing by more than an order of magnitude, where the significance of the difference relates to decisions on whether (1) to attempt control of combustion-sourced (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions, if τ > 100 years, or (2) not to attempt control, if τ 10 years. This given difference is particularly evident in the IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50−200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed. However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years. The differential of these two times is then clearly identified in the relevant supporting documents of the report as being, separately (1) a long-term (100 years) adjustment or response time to accommodate imbalance increases in CO2 emissions from all sources and (2) the actual RT in the atmosphere of 4 years. As a check on that differentiation and its alternative outcome, the definition and determination of RT thus defined the need for and focus of this study. In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure or 0D box for the model basis, as an alternative to the more commonly used global circulation models (GCMs), to define and determine the RT in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data (1) support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, (2) from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO2 of 5 years carrying C12 and 16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5−15 years. Additionally, the analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer “adjustment time” (100 years) governing the long-term rising “quasi-equilibrium” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis. With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.​

Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide - Energy & Fuels (ACS Publications)

[Emphasis added]

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/globclim.htm

CO2 persists for quite a long time in the atmosphere; its atmospheric residence time is on the order of decades to a centuries (30 - 800 years; Catalyst fall '07). About ~ 1/2 of the emissions that we put out today will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, while ~ 1/5 will persist for ~ 800 years.

Hmmm, peer-reviewed science or undergraduate course work?

I'll take peer-reviewed.

Thanks.

LOL. Some peers.


American Chemical Society - SourceWatch

ACS activities against open access

The American Chemical Society has been actively involved in fighting open access for science journals. In 2004, Editor Rudy Baum penned an editorial in Chemical & Engineering News against, what he called, "open access advocates." The editorial was titled "Socialized Science."[15]. "Their unspoken crusade is to socialize all aspects of science, putting the federal government in charge of funding science, communicating science, and maintaining the archive of scientific knowledge. If that sounds like a good idea to you, then NIH's open-access policy should suit you just fine."

In June 2005, Nobel Laureate Richard J. Roberts made a letter publicly available that announced he was withdrawing his membership in ACS because the Society "vehemently opposed the Open Access initiative."[16] Dr. Roberts wrote, "Frankly, the recent actions of the ACS are a disgrace to its image in the USA and around the world."

In January 2007, Nature reported that public relations operative, Eric Dezenhall, "spoke to employees from Elsevier, Wiley and the American Chemical Society at a meeting arranged last July [2006] by the Association of American Publishers." The publishers were seeking to counter economic threats from open-access journals and public databases.

In an email leaked to Nature, Dezenhall suggested that the publishers "focus on simple messages, such as 'Public access equals government censorship.' He hinted that the publishers should attempt to equate traditional publishing models with peer review, and 'paint a picture of what the world would look like without peer-reviewed articles.'" Nature added that "Brian Crawford, a senior vice-president at the American Chemical Society and a member of the AAP executive chair, says that Dezenhall's suggestions have been refined and that the publishers have not to his knowledge sought to work with the Competitive Enterprise Institute."[17]

Scientific American reported that ACS had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying against open-acess. "In fact, the ACS paid lobbying firm Hicks Partners LLC at least $100,000 in 2005 to try to persuade congressional members, the NIH, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that a 'PubChem Project' would be a bad idea, according to public lobbying disclosures, and paid an additional $180,000 to the Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates to promote the 'use of [a] commercial database.' It also reportedly spent a chunk of its 2005 $280,000 internal lobbying budget as well as part of its $270,000 lobbying budget last year to push the issue, according to disclosure documents. The ACS publishes more than 30 journals covering all aspects of chemistry, and the organization did not return phone calls for comment."[18]

After stories appeared in the press, Brian Crawford wrote a statement on behalf of the American Association of Publishers. "Regrettably, the news reports above were somehow stimulated by reporters gaining access to internal emails and background information...."[19] Crawford is head of ACS publications.[2]

Crawford later defended hiring Dezenhall in an editorial: "In essence, the premise of a January 24, 2007 article in Nature was that [publishers] should be admonished for seeking advice and assistance from a media consulting firm known for its effectiveness in working with high-profile clients on controversial issues," he wrote. "Peer-reviewed science and medicine should be free of any government intervention or funding agency bias, and we will fulfill our responsibility to communicate that point of view, because doing so is in the best interest of science and society."[20]

The American Chemical apparently took Dezenhall up on his offer, according to New Scientist, which reported that publishers had established a front group called Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine (PRISM).[3] "Dezenhall's strategy includes linking open access with government censorship and junk science – ideas that to me seem quite bizarre and misleading," wrote the reporter. [21] New Scientist acquired a copy of Dezenhall's strategy document for creating PRISM and released it on their Website.[22]

 

[Old Rocks]

Seems the ACS is totally against the American Public being allowed access to the science they pay their taxes for. Now that wouldn't have anything to do with the close ties the organization has with various industries, would it?

 

[Si modo]

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/globclim.htm

CO2 persists for quite a long time in the atmosphere; its atmospheric residence time is on the order of decades to a centuries (30 - 800 years; Catalyst fall '07). About ~ 1/2 of the emissions that we put out today will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, while ~ 1/5 will persist for ~ 800 years.

Hmmm, peer-reviewed science or undergraduate course work?

I'll take peer-reviewed.

Thanks.

LOL. Some peers.


American Chemical Society - SourceWatch

ACS activities against open access

The American Chemical Society has been actively involved in fighting open access for science journals. In 2004, Editor Rudy Baum penned an editorial in Chemical & Engineering News against, what he called, "open access advocates." The editorial was titled "Socialized Science."[15]. "Their unspoken crusade is to socialize all aspects of science, putting the federal government in charge of funding science, communicating science, and maintaining the archive of scientific knowledge. If that sounds like a good idea to you, then NIH's open-access policy should suit you just fine."

In June 2005, Nobel Laureate Richard J. Roberts made a letter publicly available that announced he was withdrawing his membership in ACS because the Society "vehemently opposed the Open Access initiative."[16] Dr. Roberts wrote, "Frankly, the recent actions of the ACS are a disgrace to its image in the USA and around the world."

In January 2007, Nature reported that public relations operative, Eric Dezenhall, "spoke to employees from Elsevier, Wiley and the American Chemical Society at a meeting arranged last July [2006] by the Association of American Publishers." The publishers were seeking to counter economic threats from open-access journals and public databases.

In an email leaked to Nature, Dezenhall suggested that the publishers "focus on simple messages, such as 'Public access equals government censorship.' He hinted that the publishers should attempt to equate traditional publishing models with peer review, and 'paint a picture of what the world would look like without peer-reviewed articles.'" Nature added that "Brian Crawford, a senior vice-president at the American Chemical Society and a member of the AAP executive chair, says that Dezenhall's suggestions have been refined and that the publishers have not to his knowledge sought to work with the Competitive Enterprise Institute."[17]

Scientific American reported that ACS had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying against open-acess. "In fact, the ACS paid lobbying firm Hicks Partners LLC at least $100,000 in 2005 to try to persuade congressional members, the NIH, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that a 'PubChem Project' would be a bad idea, according to public lobbying disclosures, and paid an additional $180,000 to the Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates to promote the 'use of [a] commercial database.' It also reportedly spent a chunk of its 2005 $280,000 internal lobbying budget as well as part of its $270,000 lobbying budget last year to push the issue, according to disclosure documents. The ACS publishes more than 30 journals covering all aspects of chemistry, and the organization did not return phone calls for comment."[18]

After stories appeared in the press, Brian Crawford wrote a statement on behalf of the American Association of Publishers. "Regrettably, the news reports above were somehow stimulated by reporters gaining access to internal emails and background information...."[19] Crawford is head of ACS publications.[2]

Crawford later defended hiring Dezenhall in an editorial: "In essence, the premise of a January 24, 2007 article in Nature was that [publishers] should be admonished for seeking advice and assistance from a media consulting firm known for its effectiveness in working with high-profile clients on controversial issues," he wrote. "Peer-reviewed science and medicine should be free of any government intervention or funding agency bias, and we will fulfill our responsibility to communicate that point of view, because doing so is in the best interest of science and society."[20]

The American Chemical apparently took Dezenhall up on his offer, according to New Scientist, which reported that publishers had established a front group called Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine (PRISM).[3] "Dezenhall's strategy includes linking open access with government censorship and junk science – ideas that to me seem quite bizarre and misleading," wrote the reporter. [21] New Scientist acquired a copy of Dezenhall's strategy document for creating PRISM and released it on their Website.[22]

OMG!



Rocks is hating on the ACS? THE largest scientific society in the world? Chemists, chemical engineers and scientists of other disciplines? One of THE largest publishers of scientific journals in the world?

OK...I'm hyperventilating I'm laughing so hard.

Ya gotta stop.....It's killing me.

L



O



L

 

[Old Rocks]

World & Environment
























Yale researchers elected to world’s largest scientific society






January 12, 2011

YaleNews | Yale researchers elected to world

Five Yale scientists have been selected as fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Members of the AAAS bestow the honor on their peers in recognition of their efforts to advance science and its applications. All told, 503 scientists and scholars from around the world were elected this year.

 

[flacaltenn]

So RightWinger: Did we adequately address your concerns about "harassing" scientists and Al Gore- like politicians? Or do you still believe we ought to just submit to majority rule and respect all that authority and power REGARDLESS of the science?

Hope you saw the REAL harrassment coming at ANY dissenting scientist that dares to question the concepts or prognostications of this bunch of bullies..

 

[Trakar]

So RightWinger: Did we adequately address your concerns about "harassing" scientists and Al Gore- like politicians? Or do you still believe we ought to just submit to majority rule and respect all that authority and power REGARDLESS of the science?

Hope you saw the REAL harrassment coming at ANY dissenting scientist that dares to question the concepts or prognostications of this bunch of bullies..

The Battle Over Climate Science | Popular Science

The Battle Over Climate Science

Climate scientists routinely face death threats, hate mail, nuisance lawsuits and political attacks. How much worse can it get?...

...“Weird” is perhaps the mildest way to describe the growing number of threats and acts of intimidation that climate scientists face. A climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory answered a late-night knock to find a dead rat on his doorstep and a yellow Hummer speeding away. An MIT hurricane researcher found his inbox flooded daily for two weeks last January with hate mail and threats directed at him and his wife. And in Australia last year, officials relocated several climatologists to a secure facility after climate-change skeptics unleashed a barrage of vandalism, noose brandishing and threats of sexual attacks on the scientists’ children.

Those crude acts of harassment often come alongside more-sophisticated legal and political attacks. Organizations routinely file nuisance lawsuits and onerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to disrupt the work of climate scientists. In 2005, before dragging Mann and other climate researchers into congressional hearings, Texas congressman Joe Barton ordered the scientists to submit voluminous details of working procedures, computer programs and past funding—essentially demanding that they reproduce and defend their entire life’s work. In a move that hearkened back to darker times, Oklahoma senator James Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, released a report in 2010 that named 17 prominent climate scientists, including Mann, who, he argued, may have engaged in “potentially criminal behavior.” Inhofe outlined three laws and four regulations that he said the scientists may have violated, including the Federal False Statements Act—which, the report noted, could be punishable with imprisonment of up to five years.

It’s late February when I visit Mann in his office, almost two years after Inhofe issued his “list of 17.” Though it’s still winter in central Pennsylvania, the temperature outside hangs in the upper 60s, crocus stems poke up from flower beds, and shopkeepers have thrown open their doors along College Avenue. Mann is home for three days between conferences in Milwaukee and Hawaii and West Coast stops on a promotional tour for his new book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars...
(read the rest of this Popular Science feature article at - The Battle Over Climate Science | Popular Science

And this is a limited accounting of the criminal thuggery that many of the more extreme denialist activists engage upon at an ever escalating scale and pace.

 

[flacaltenn]

So RightWinger: Did we adequately address your concerns about "harassing" scientists and Al Gore- like politicians? Or do you still believe we ought to just submit to majority rule and respect all that authority and power REGARDLESS of the science?

Hope you saw the REAL harrassment coming at ANY dissenting scientist that dares to question the concepts or prognostications of this bunch of bullies..

The Battle Over Climate Science | Popular Science

The Battle Over Climate Science

Climate scientists routinely face death threats, hate mail, nuisance lawsuits and political attacks. How much worse can it get?...

...“Weird” is perhaps the mildest way to describe the growing number of threats and acts of intimidation that climate scientists face. A climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory answered a late-night knock to find a dead rat on his doorstep and a yellow Hummer speeding away. An MIT hurricane researcher found his inbox flooded daily for two weeks last January with hate mail and threats directed at him and his wife. And in Australia last year, officials relocated several climatologists to a secure facility after climate-change skeptics unleashed a barrage of vandalism, noose brandishing and threats of sexual attacks on the scientists’ children.

Those crude acts of harassment often come alongside more-sophisticated legal and political attacks. Organizations routinely file nuisance lawsuits and onerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to disrupt the work of climate scientists. In 2005, before dragging Mann and other climate researchers into congressional hearings, Texas congressman Joe Barton ordered the scientists to submit voluminous details of working procedures, computer programs and past funding—essentially demanding that they reproduce and defend their entire life’s work. In a move that hearkened back to darker times, Oklahoma senator James Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, released a report in 2010 that named 17 prominent climate scientists, including Mann, who, he argued, may have engaged in “potentially criminal behavior.” Inhofe outlined three laws and four regulations that he said the scientists may have violated, including the Federal False Statements Act—which, the report noted, could be punishable with imprisonment of up to five years.

It’s late February when I visit Mann in his office, almost two years after Inhofe issued his “list of 17.” Though it’s still winter in central Pennsylvania, the temperature outside hangs in the upper 60s, crocus stems poke up from flower beds, and shopkeepers have thrown open their doors along College Avenue. Mann is home for three days between conferences in Milwaukee and Hawaii and West Coast stops on a promotional tour for his new book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars...
(read the rest of this Popular Science feature article at - The Battle Over Climate Science | Popular Science

And this is a limited accounting of the criminal thuggery that many of the more extreme denialist activists engage upon at an ever escalating scale and pace.

This is prime proof that the AGW accepts lower levels of evidence for their "science" and their harrassment claims..

A dead RAT in the driveway?? A HUGE YELLOW Hummer speeding away?? We all know that knuckle-dragging beserko rw deniers think YELLOW hummers are gay..

I once found 3 pounds of perfectly wrapped knockwursts and kosher franks in my driveway and the first thought I had was that it was OldRocks revenge for negging him back..

Completely void of logic, reason and evidence. It fits the pattern...

 

[Si modo]

So RightWinger: Did we adequately address your concerns about "harassing" scientists and Al Gore- like politicians? Or do you still believe we ought to just submit to majority rule and respect all that authority and power REGARDLESS of the science?

Hope you saw the REAL harrassment coming at ANY dissenting scientist that dares to question the concepts or prognostications of this bunch of bullies..

The Battle Over Climate Science | Popular Science

The Battle Over Climate Science

Climate scientists routinely face death threats, hate mail, nuisance lawsuits and political attacks. How much worse can it get?...

...“Weird” is perhaps the mildest way to describe the growing number of threats and acts of intimidation that climate scientists face. A climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory answered a late-night knock to find a dead rat on his doorstep and a yellow Hummer speeding away. An MIT hurricane researcher found his inbox flooded daily for two weeks last January with hate mail and threats directed at him and his wife. And in Australia last year, officials relocated several climatologists to a secure facility after climate-change skeptics unleashed a barrage of vandalism, noose brandishing and threats of sexual attacks on the scientists’ children.

Those crude acts of harassment often come alongside more-sophisticated legal and political attacks. Organizations routinely file nuisance lawsuits and onerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to disrupt the work of climate scientists. In 2005, before dragging Mann and other climate researchers into congressional hearings, Texas congressman Joe Barton ordered the scientists to submit voluminous details of working procedures, computer programs and past funding—essentially demanding that they reproduce and defend their entire life’s work. In a move that hearkened back to darker times, Oklahoma senator James Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, released a report in 2010 that named 17 prominent climate scientists, including Mann, who, he argued, may have engaged in “potentially criminal behavior.” Inhofe outlined three laws and four regulations that he said the scientists may have violated, including the Federal False Statements Act—which, the report noted, could be punishable with imprisonment of up to five years.

It’s late February when I visit Mann in his office, almost two years after Inhofe issued his “list of 17.” Though it’s still winter in central Pennsylvania, the temperature outside hangs in the upper 60s, crocus stems poke up from flower beds, and shopkeepers have thrown open their doors along College Avenue. Mann is home for three days between conferences in Milwaukee and Hawaii and West Coast stops on a promotional tour for his new book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars...
(read the rest of this Popular Science feature article at - The Battle Over Climate Science | Popular Science

And this is a limited accounting of the criminal thuggery that many of the more extreme denialist activists engage upon at an ever escalating scale and pace.

And, none of this would have happened if folks had NOT made this political.

THIS is what happens when folks refuse to let science do what science does best - science.

Those who try to force data, observations, etc. into science that is not at a state where ANY conclusions can be made are responsible for all of this. (And, in case no one notices, I repeat - ANY conclusion.)

Just stop making this political and things will be fine.

 

[Trakar]

And, none of this would have happened if folks had NOT made this political.

THIS is what happens when folks refuse to let science do what science does best - science.

Those who try to force data, observations, etc. into science that is not at a state where ANY conclusions can be made are responsible for all of this. (And, in case no one notices, I repeat - ANY conclusion.)

Just stop making this political and things will be fine.

You appear to be conflating your misunderstandings and confusions regarding the science (and the culpability for politicization) with an accurate and objective assessment of the issue.

 

[Si modo]

And, none of this would have happened if folks had NOT made this political.

THIS is what happens when folks refuse to let science do what science does best - science.

Those who try to force data, observations, etc. into science that is not at a state where ANY conclusions can be made are responsible for all of this. (And, in case no one notices, I repeat - ANY conclusion.)

Just stop making this political and things will be fine.

You appear to be conflating your misunderstandings and confusions regarding the science (and the culpability for politicization) with an accurate and objective assessment of the issue.

Oh really?

Then you'll be kind enough to show us the science that demonstrates a conclusion about anthropogenic CO2's magnitude of influence on any warming.

Thanks.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Traker, Sis will be accusing you soiling science. Especially if you post from peer reviewed journals.

 

[Si modo]

Now Traker, Sis will be accusing you soiling science. Especially if you post from peer reviewed journals.

As I have never done that, I find it interesting that you are so compelled to lie when it comes to what I do or say.

 

[Dr.Drock]

And, none of this would have happened if folks had NOT made this political.

THIS is what happens when folks refuse to let science do what science does best - science.

Those who try to force data, observations, etc. into science that is not at a state where ANY conclusions can be made are responsible for all of this. (And, in case no one notices, I repeat - ANY conclusion.)

Just stop making this political and things will be fine.

You appear to be conflating your misunderstandings and confusions regarding the science (and the culpability for politicization) with an accurate and objective assessment of the issue.

Oh really?

Then you'll be kind enough to show us the science that demonstrates a conclusion about anthropogenic CO2's magnitude of influence on any warming.

Thanks.

Al Gore says so, that's better than anything scientists can do.

That's why Al Gore stopped flying around in a fleet of private jets and stopped owning multiple energy draining mansions and stopped having his luggage driven around by limos, because he's a man of integrity who believes every word he says.

 

[Si modo]

You appear to be conflating your misunderstandings and confusions regarding the science (and the culpability for politicization) with an accurate and objective assessment of the issue.

Oh really?

Then you'll be kind enough to show us the science that demonstrates a conclusion about anthropogenic CO2's magnitude of influence on any warming.

Thanks.

Al Gore says so, that's better than anything scientists can do.

That's why Al Gore stopped flying around in a fleet of private jets and stopped owning multiple energy draining mansions and stopped having his luggage driven around by limos, because he's a man of integrity who believes every word he says.

Al Gore is an asswipe and patient zero for this malady on science.

 

[Old Rocks]

And, none of this would have happened if folks had NOT made this political.

THIS is what happens when folks refuse to let science do what science does best - science.

Those who try to force data, observations, etc. into science that is not at a state where ANY conclusions can be made are responsible for all of this. (And, in case no one notices, I repeat - ANY conclusion.)

Just stop making this political and things will be fine.

You appear to be conflating your misunderstandings and confusions regarding the science (and the culpability for politicization) with an accurate and objective assessment of the issue.

Oh really?

Then you'll be kind enough to show us the science that demonstrates a conclusion about anthropogenic CO2's magnitude of influence on any warming.

Thanks.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


Global Climate Change Position Statement

Global Climate Change

PDF version


Position in Brief

• Recommends action on reducing greenhouse gases as well as adaptation strategies for dealing with climate change
• Encourages continued research and funding into the effects of climate change, while also emphasizing the importance of educating the public on the issue

“Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)

This statement reviews key probable climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to current and anticipated consequences.

AGW Observer