Frugal Café Blog Zone

Comments

45 Responses to “The ClimateGate Show… Starring Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren (video)”

1. The ClimateGate Show… Starring Obama's Science Czar John Holdren … | LATEST CAFE DETAILS says:

   December 4, 2009 at 9:14 AM

   [...] original post here: The ClimateGate Show… Starring Obama's Science Czar John Holdren … Posted in New Cafe | Tags: copenhagen, environment-, even-attempted, focus-on-the, [...]
2. AFVET says:

   December 4, 2009 at 12:35 PM

   Keep in mind that the Catholic Church exiled Galileo for stating that the planets revolved around the sun, to restrict his ability to educate the people as to the science that opposed the doctrine of the Church.

   In the middle ages the Catholic Church maintained a Latin service.
   Most people were illiterate, and couldn’t understand what the H the Priest was saying, but they went to church and gave what they could.

   My point is this.
   Marten Luther stood up and said, ‘This is wrong’.
   Soon after that the Bible was translated into a text that the common people could read and understand.
   An educated populace is a powerful force.

   This is what is happening right now.
   Issues like global warming scams and the nefarious politicians that attempt to mislead us
   are as we speak, are failing.
   It has become pretty obvious to me that they do not realize that 24HR news, and 24HR internet is up and running and active. They have been blinded by arrogance.

   Who do they think they are kidding?
   • admin says:

     December 4, 2009 at 12:41 PM

     As always, you have a clear, well-thought out perspective, AFVET. Excellent points made here.

     VMD
     • AFVET says:

       December 4, 2009 at 1:10 PM

       VMD ?
       sorry.
     • admin says:

       December 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM

       LOL – I sometimes put that on as a short-cut extra-special “biggie kudos” to the comment when I am limited on time for a return response, like Bob Ross signing one of his paintings that he really liked – you can keep calling me admin, dear friend, or anything else you choose to call me. Just never call me a “liberal” because I’m a blonde and was born in California. If you were to do that, I’d be force to inflict a verbal assault and/or bodily harm on you. (just kidding, AFVET).

       
     • AFVET says:

       December 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM

       A real blonde? A California Blonde ?

       From now on I will refer to you as Vicki.
     • admin says:

       December 4, 2009 at 2:45 PM

       Yes, a real blonde (with bits of gray now). I once dyed it dark auburn-red because I wanted it the same color as Gates McFadden’s hair (from Star Trek: The Next Generation). That didn’t turn out too well. I blended in with brick walls and the only one who liked it was this sweet but not very sharp custodian where I worked. Hubby smiled with a pained grimace for weeks… it finally faded out, and I’ve not changed it since. Hubby sighed with relief when my”redhead” phase ended.

       And Vicki would be just fine, or Vic or VMD or admin. Whatever suits you, good buddy.
3. Chris says:

   December 4, 2009 at 5:05 PM

   Vicki, I’d like to ask you some questions about your position on AGW. Your statement of principles does not in any way address anything about AGW. Thus, there is no fundamental reason for you or any conservative to reject AGW. I wonder if you are opposing the science not for scientific reasons, but for political reasons: to wit, that you don’t want to see environmental regulations regarding CO2.

   Now, I have no desire to disagree with you regarding political options; if your political beliefs differ from mine, I see no reason for us to argue; every person has a right to their own political opinion. But I don’t believe that every person has a right to their own scientific opinion, their own medical opinion, their own nuclear engineering opinion, or their own string theory opinion.

   What bothers me is the irrational selectivity of accepting some science and rejecting other science solely because that science yields consequences that you don’t like. If astronomers were to discover an asteroid heading towards the earth, and predicted that it would collide with the earth in five years, would you deny their results because you don’t like the idea of having to prepare for such a catastrophe?

   Why can’t you leave science to the scientists? I could sympathize with your position if it were based on a solid grasp of the science, but I very much doubt that you have the training to understand most of the scientific issues here (please correct me if I am wrong).

   Scientists have been very clear on this question. The National Academy of Sciences, which was founded by Congress nearly 150 years ago with the mission of providing Congress with reliable scientific advice as it pertains to policy questions, has declared quite clearly that AGW is real and poses a significant threat to future generations. The NAS has NEVER been wrong in any of its official reports. Why do you reject the advice of the NAS? Do you consider yourself smarter than the eminent scientists at NAS? Do you consider the people who deny AGW to be smarter than the NAS?
   • admin says:

     December 4, 2009 at 5:38 PM

     You’re kidding, right? I’ve written dozens of posts on this global warming / climate change issue, Chris, long before ClimateGate exploded a few weeks ago. I have examined scientific data and papers written on the topic long before I started blogging a year ago. I’ve cited many findings and have included myriad information on the junk science of global warming on all my posts and have provided hundreds of links to scientific writings for months and months. I recommend you do a search on this blog using “global warming” or “global warming hoax.” This particular post is focused on the current congressional hearings, investigating the incriminating East Anglia emails that point to grand-scale fraud about global warming. While I believe this is yet another liberal troll’s “cut and paste” comment, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. However, this is intended more for my readers becoming armed with information than for you.

     Fundamental principle? Like data that proves global warming does not exist, that global cooling has been demonstrated by many different studies and from satellite data from meteorologists who are not funded by the government? Is that the kind of “fundamental principle” you’re talking about? And sorry, Chris, it isn’t just conservatives like me who recognize this global warming hysteria as pure bunk. Many Democrats, and even leaders in socialist countries like UK and Denmark, are now wanting answers and are taking serious issue with this proven, escalating fraud. Just this week, Australia’s parliament voted ‘No” on cap and trade. There has never been a consensus on global warming, only suppression of opposition. That is changing, however.

     Concerning your question using an asteroid vs. global warming, that’s comparing apples to oranges and not an applicable comparison. For instance, no one would claim that human behavior influenced or hastened the asteroid coming to earth. With an approaching asteroid, how would it be determined that if people paid billions of dollars in taxes and made huge lifestyle sacrifices and the implementation of “green” mandates that would devastate the world’s economies, it would somehow make everything better by averting the asteroid’s path to hitting our planet? Lame, lame, lame. However, let’s play along with this just for grins… I’d accept the doomsday asteroid forecast, provided the asteroid data wasn’t compromised, “tricked,” monkeyed with, skewed, or manipulated like the global warming data has been all along. I’d want to know who would stand to benefit, either through money or power or adulation, in asserting that an asteroid was coming.

     The problem, Chris, is not with anyone being “unhappy” with the conclusions drawn, with the end result being that we’ll all die from an asteroid so, by denying it, it might go away. No, that’s not my stance on the global warming myth. Truth is truth. I want the truth. As long as the end result or conclusion was derived from established, non-partisan, rigorous protocols, by methodologies or tests or calculations that can be reproduced, reviewed, and debated by others (i.e., peer review, etc.), then the conclusions must be true and like it or not, must be dealt with – if an asteroid’s coming, it’s coming. But that isn’t what has happened with this bogus global warming research over the past decade and YOU KNOW IT. And you’re being disingenuous about it. There is no truth in the global warming scam.

     I’ve never professed to be a science expert, but I’m well versed on this issue of the global warming hoax, and regularly read JunkScience.com by Steve Milloy and other sites, like AccuWeather, Green Hell Blog, and Climate Depot and MANY more, written by science experts and meteorologists. I’m better informed than the average American, although not as informed as experts like Milloy. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center. He has authored more than 500 articles or columns, many of which expose global warming as a hoax or science using selective or faulty data). Milloy has scientifically debunked global warming as a hoax. The EPA has admitted they ignored or cherry-picked data to come to the conclusion they wanted. Same with the IPCC and NASA. AccuWeather, with its team of professional climatologists, has a number of videos and articles, using satellite data, to debunk this “melting of the ice” and “global warming” nonsense. There is no empirical evidence that the earth is warming as a result of human behaviors.

     I ALWAYS include links for additional information. Sadly, it has been evident for quite some time that AGW is politically motivated, and that more than 30,000 scientists (many of whom were at one time in agreement with Gore and other global warming alarmists, but have discovered the fraud and jumped ship because no conclusive, non-manipulated data has ever been produced to prove global warming and current data are showing that global COOLING has been the trend for better than a decade). Heck, even Greenpeace’s founder has admitted they exaggerated about the demise of polar bears and the Arctic ice melting because they needed to “sell” the world on global warming. Darn that ice for not cooperating, darn those polar bears for not dying off. The IPCC and the EPA have also suppressed data, which was exposed over the summer… if a report showed global warming was not happening, they hide it or discredit it. Many careers have been been sullied by these thugs, like that of Dr. Tim Ball.

     Your odd comment of “leave science to the scientists” has a childlike quality to it, Chris. Not sure what you meant by that… that all Americans who aren’t “experts” should be happy little sheep and just accept what these lying frauds say? That would be like suggesting we should leave our children’s education to only teachers, leave government to only long-term politicians, leave cooking to only formally trained chefs. Naive and strange. You sound like an old-school socialist, blindly trusting in the government to take care of you and not thinking for yourself. And when did Al Gore become a scientist???

     This statement of yours is also weird and full of Swiss-cheese holes: “But I don’t believe that every person has a right to their own scientific opinion, their own medical opinion, their own nuclear engineering opinion, or their own string theory opinion.” So, Chris, if I were to go to three doctors and all three have a different diagnosis to an ailment I’m suffering, I’m not entitled to my own opinion? Yikes, what course of action would I then take, since I’d have to choose one of the three doctors’ prognosis? Thus, I’d be expressing my own medical opinion in so doing. Or, maybe, just maybe, I could read up on my ailment, become highly self-taught, and come up with a fourth diagnosis/prognosis. Scientists are still not in agreement about gravity, about underwater exploration, about the age of the Earth, about the effect of gamma rays, about string theories, about genetics, about many things in the universe. Nothing is without its opposing views, especially within the cliques of educated specialists. There is no consensus about what variables affect something as complicated and huge as climate. Yep, Chris, this idea of yours is heavily flawed, but that’s OK. You’re entitled to have this as your opinion. I do not share it.

     No true debate within the science community has ever happened on this controversial issue of global warming… why is that, Chris? Where is the requisite, non-compromised peer review of Mann’s research? Instead, thuggery and character assassinations from these dictatorial IPCC goons have intimidated scientists worldwide who have data that proves that global warming is not happening or have the affrontery to ask to see Mann’s methodology or test notes. Al Gore has NEVER agreed to be in a debate on this topic, although he has made millions as the grand pooh-bah of climate change/global warming.

     Your last question, do I consider people who deny AGW to be smarter than the NAS? Never thought about it. I will tell you this… Dr. Phil Jones and Dr. Michael Mann are smart men. Very smart. Smart enough to push through bogus data for years now, to nearly pull off one of the biggest hoaxes in all of history. They weren’t alone in this deception… in the next few weeks, more will be revealed about who was paying them off, pulling their strings, and others involved.

     And they are now in royally hot water with the science community; their corrupt efforts to force fraudulent global warming on the world, despite current satellite data that indicates AGW is a myth (record cold, etc.), are being proven to be financially and politically motivated. Did NAS get their data from Mann, which had been manipulated by Mann? Mann is now under investigation by Penn State for destroying the raw data and his hockey stick graph, whereas Jones has been asked by CRU to “step down” from his director position. This is just the tip of the iceberg – pun intended. I’m guessing that NAS will be doing a fancy tap dance any day now as more information is revealed and more people come forward, whistle blowing on these criminals.

     “Intelligence” isn’t the issue, Chris. Compromised data, fraudulent or non-existent peer review, a money-motivated hidden agenda (can’t tax global cooling, after all), and a whopping lack of integrity in the science community is. Looks like “your team” is striking out on that in aces. And many scientists in unrelated fields are concerned that falsifying and suppressing data as was done by CRU/IPCC will indeed harm other areas of science to be taken seriously in the future. Because once an industry or a group of academia specialists is proven to be greed-driven liars, then it tends to have a negative ripple effect. There is really no formal education required for someone to call himself a “climate expert.” So, anyone, maybe with a BS or MS can claim that (back to Al Gore again). By the way, I’ve worked with brilliant engineers for years now, and if any of them ever manipulated, tampered with, or cherry-picked test data like these clowns did, they would have been fired and discredited, their sorry butts kicked to the curb.
     • AFVET says:

       December 5, 2009 at 1:51 PM

       I love it when you snag a troll.
       We all need a good laugh from time to time.
       To see you take him down point by point was entertaining to say the least.
       I hope your blog attracts more readers.
       Your efforts are exemplary.

       Change the lure, maybe you can get some more. HA!

       Let Freedom Ring !!!
4. Chris says:

   December 4, 2009 at 10:23 PM

   Thank you for your long and detailed reply. I will first ask whether you value civility in discourse. I myself believe that democracy can survive only if those who disagree with each other can discuss their disagreement in a courteous manner. I would expect that you share this view, but a few of your statements about me suggest that I might be wrong. Are we doomed to treat each other with disdain?

   I’ll proceed on the assumption that you do indeed prefer fair-minded disagreement over name-calling. I started by following your recommendation to search your blog for some of the background information to which you refer. It’s obvious that you are passionate in your views, which in itself is in no wise objectionable, but you do seem to have a penchant for referring to those you don’t like in rather strong terms. I hope that you won’t be applying that penchant to me.

   My greatest surprise arose from this statement of yours:

   “more than 30,000 scientists (many of whom were at one time in agreement with Gore and other global warming alarmists, but have discovered the fraud and jumped ship because no conclusive, non-manipulated data has ever been produced to prove global warming and current data are showing that global COOLING has been the trend for better than a decade).”

   I searched your blog for any reference to the phrase “30,000 scientsts” and found nothing. Perhaps I’m using the wrong search term. However, my guess is that you’re referring to the Oregon Petition. Please be informed that the Oregon Petition has been utterly discredited. It includes the names of football players, pop singers, and other people whose claim to being scientists is imaginary. I’ll provide some details if you wish, but perhaps the best demonstration of just how egregiously bad that petition is comes from none other than Marc Morano, who compiled his own list of 600 scientists — not 30,000, just 600 — whom he claims reject AGW. A goodly number of those scientists were outraged to be included on his list and demanded that he remove their names.

   You refer to “data that proves global warming does not exist, that global cooling has been demonstrated by many different studies and from satellite data from meteorologists who are not funded by the government?” I searched your blog for the category “global warming” in search of such data, but found none. The entirety of your material consists of references to other people saying that it’s a fraud. You cite such experts as Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, and FOX News. Might I suggest that you examine some actual scientific literature before drawing conclusions about science? Why are you relying on political commentators for scientific information?

   Here’s an excellent primer on the basic science behind climate change:

   http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

   It’s from the National Academy of Sciences and it represents the best available scientific information on the subject. It’s not difficult for a layperson to understand. (Warning: it’s a somewhat large PDF file, so if you have a slow Internet connection, it might take a long time. On my cable connection, it only took about five seconds.)

   If you really want to understand the science, you can go directly to the IPCC report; the entire thing can be found here:

   http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

   I believe I saw a comment somewhere in your blog that scientists should be more transparent. Well, here’s the whole bloody thing, hundreds of pages long, setting out in excruciating detail every scientific factor at work, what the issues are, how much confidence scientists have in every important statement they make, and so on. It takes a lot of stamina to grind the whole thing (I did), and you need to know a lot of science to understand it, but if you want transparency, there’s more in that report than you can possibly stomach.

   You write: “I’d accept the doomsday asteroid forecast, provided the asteroid data wasn’t compromised, “tricked,” monkeyed with, or manipulated like the global warming data has been all along.”

   OK, you believe that the AGW data has been compromised. WHICH data are you referring to? Let’s throw away the HAD-CRUT data; there’s still gigabytes of data out there supporting AGW. Can you even specify which of this data you consider to be unreliable?

   Oh, and by the way, in reference to the infamous reference to the comment about using Michael Mann’s Nature trick, I suggest that you consult the third definition for the word “trick” in the Oxford English Dictionary (the definitive dictionary of the English language): “A clever or adroit expedient, device, or contrivance; a ‘dextrous artifice’.” This is a long-established meaning of the word ‘trick’ and it is obviously the meaning intended by the writer, because the technique that Mr. Mann used was published in Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals; if he had used a deceptive technique in so prominent a journal, his career would have ended right there.

   One last question before I await your response: do you believe that there is a massive international conspiracy out to foist AGW upon the world in order to achieve some nefarious end?
   • AFVET says:

     December 6, 2009 at 9:24 AM

     “I myself believe that democracy can survive only if those who disagree with each other can discuss their disagreement in a courteous manner.”

     That is a direct quote from your first paragraph, and I couldn’t agree more.

     What bothers me is that Algore has stated numerous times that “the debate is over”, when in fact the debate has never taken place.
     He has refused to debate anybody on this subject. Why?
     And why is this propaganda being spread throughout our schools?
     • Chris says:

       December 6, 2009 at 10:52 AM

       AFVET, Al Gore isn’t the only person talking publicly about AGW, nor is he one of the most important people talking about AGW. He is a popularizer and as such he simplifies a complex subject to make it palatable to people who don’t take the time to really dig into the issue and understand it. In this sense, he’s no different from commentators on the conservative side such as Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter: these people are all political people trying to sway public opinion.

       If you pit Rush Limbaugh against Al Gore, you end up with a head-butting match that accomplishes nothing. I urge everybody interested in this issue to start off with the pamphlet from the National Academy of Sciences that I linked to above. It’s solid science from the best scientific minds in the country.

       If you’re willing to interpret Mr. Gore’s statement that “the debate is settled” as a simplification, then I think it’s on the mark. The basic question “Is anthropogenic CO2 presenting a significant threat to future generations?” has been answered in the affirmative and the evidence in favor of that answer is very strong, strong enough to convince the great majority of scientists. However, this is in fact a simplification. There remain a great many details that have not yet been worked out, and no reputable scientist would ever rule out the possibility of some unexpected evidence arising that would change everything.
   • admin says:

     December 6, 2009 at 6:03 PM

     I have no idea what the Oregon Project is. I referred to the Global Warming Petition Project, and have provided links to it in several AGW posts.I’ve perused the 31,486 American scientists who’ve signed it to date, and must say, Chris, I’m unable to find a single pop star or football player listed on it. Maybe you can find them, since I’m not strong on football player names. I searched randomly, using Britney Spears, and while she wasn’t listed, the following were: Howard C K Spears, John M. Spears, MD, Russell T. Spears, MD, William E. Spears Jr. I did the same with Justin Timberlake – no Timberlakes included. I tried Mariah Carey, but the list only includes Curtis D. Carey, Edward H. Carey, and John Carey.

     Please provide some examples as to which pop stars and football players you’re referring to that are supposedly on the petition and cite your source(s) for discrediting the Global Warming Petition Project. Anything that discredits the Oregon Project is of no interest or value to me, since that’s not the petition I was referring to. There is no consensus by the “majority” of scientists, quite the contrary. Only about 2,000 or so are in lock step with this, and those numbers are dropping quickly. Most of the ones outside the US are in socialist countries and are politically motivated by their leaders.

     The Global Warming Petition Project petition is located at http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

     Additionally, you wrote that only Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin comprise my links: “The entirety of your material consists of references to other people saying that it’s a fraud.” Hmm… I won’t go so far as to calling you a fibber, but wonder: did you spend more than 10 seconds looking over any of my posts and links? In the dozens of posts I’ve written on global warming, I have cited a myriad of respected science experts and climate websites, many with complex scientific data, with links to all; all that I’ve seen you cite is pretty much IPCC, NAS, and Wikipedia. And Michelle Malkin, while not a climate expert, is a thorough researcher, referencing source materials from those who are experts and who are not in the back pocket of the government.
     • Chris says:

       December 6, 2009 at 9:58 PM

       Vicki, you write: “There is no consensus by the “majority” of scientists, quite the contrary. Only about 2,000 or so are in lock step with this, and those numbers are dropping quickly. ”

       OK, so you agree that there are 2,000 scientists who agree with AGW. Whom else can you suggest? Do you have names of actual climatologists who disagree with AGW? Please make sure that anybody whose name you suggest actually is a climatologist or has expertise in a closely related field.

       You write: “Most of the ones outside the US are in socialist countries and are politically motivated by their leaders.” Would that include England, France, Japan, Germany, and Italy? I never thought of those countries as socialists, and I’m sure that Mr. Berlusconi would be especially irritated with you calling him a socialist.
     • admin says:

       December 7, 2009 at 8:18 AM

       I wrote that there are only about 2,000 scientists “who are in lock step with this, and those numbers are dropping quickly.” I have no idea how many of those actually “agree” with AGW – the retaliation unleashed by this group for leaving is severe, so heartfelt acceptance from 100 percent of the remaining members is questionable. Since scientists affiliated with IPCC have been leaving, saying that they can’t abide the nonsense of the junk science, I would question if the remaining 2k all share the same thinking or if an untold number are remaining because as demonstrated by the IPCC, those who leave are attacked and their careers torn to shatters. Those who leave also sacrifice funding, so may remain not because of their beliefs but because of their fears of retaliation. I’m sure that there are a number who accept this, but I have no idea how many accept the junk science for itself. What the world leaders are in consensus about is that: “We recognise the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2C.” To that I would agree. However, there is no proof to indicate that earth is indeed approaching that temperature, and current evidence from satellite data indicates the opposite. To say that humans are responsible for the elevation in global average temperatures, or even capable of impacting climate, has also never been proven. And as you cited elsewhere, when the earth’s temperature did indeed exceed that and we were underwater, there was no influence by humans. There is no proof that by imposing the Draconian measures recommended that humans will be able to influence climate to any significant amount. If the earth is indeed warming (and I emphasize “if”) and it is part of an ongoing cycle, then doing something and doing nothing will have the same end result. However, there is no proof that the earth is warming. The data that has been used to support such claims have been debunked (hockey stick graph and tree rings) and Dr. Mann is under investigation. So, at this point, where is the proof if you extract the two main examples as having been compromised or not using established protocols? I believe the motivation behind AGW and cap and trade, while not necessarily for all, is one that is money-driven. Those in power stand to make a great deal of money once this is passed.

       Your reference to Mr. Berlusconi, I’m assuming, is Silvio Berlusconi, Italy’s prime minister. If so, you citing him is interesting, since he is currently implicated in colluding with organized crime. Thousands of Italians are protesting against him today for his alleged affiliation with the Mafia. In today’s international news, it states that a former mafioso, Gaspare Spatuzza, had alleged that Mr Berlusconi’s nascent political party, Forza Italia, had in 1993-94 successfully sought the political support of the Mafia in Sicily. Berlusconi may or may not be a socialist or fascist, but it appears that he could be closely connected to the Mafia, and we all know how they have historically extorted money from citizens and have engaged in tyrannical activities for power. AGW and cap and trade fits in neatly with their M.O. Speculative? Yes. But it is a speculation that carries tremendous weight and casts a pronounced shadow over his reasons for supporting AGW and cap and trade. Berlusconi has strong affiliations with the Italian Socialist Party. Additionally, I do consider PM Gordon Brown a socialist, and the UK’s health care system is that of socialized medicine; Brown’s endorsement of AGW is highly suspect, IMO. Is Pres. Nicolas Sarkozy a socialist? I have no reason to believe he is. I also have no reason to believe that Angela Merkel is currently a socialist, although she was raised as one, as children in Germany were at that time. You left out China, Cuba, Burma, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. On a different note, last time I read is that India is waffling on AGW and Australia just voted ‘no’ on cap and trade. With the current data under investigation, I’m sure we’ll witness many changes in international support for AGW in the coming weeks and months.

       At this point, Chris, I must bid adieu. I’ve spent too much time on this, and although have enjoyed the spirited debate, must attend to many other matters. You are well versed (although using Huffington Post in a different comment as a source was disappointing) and passionate in your beliefs that humans are responsible for AGW. I do not share that belief. Therefore, we must agree to disagree.
     • Chris says:

       December 7, 2009 at 9:20 AM

       OK, that’s fine, Vicki; I’m happy to agree to disagree, and I too have spent too much time explaining these points. I want to express my gratitude for the civility and courteousness of your writing; that’s rare in the AGW fight.

       Forgive me, however, for providing a response to your long statement. I would estimate that at least half of the statements you make are incorrect. What’s worse is that you provide nothing in the way of evidence to support your claims. When you state, for example, that scientists who don’t go along with the AGW hypothesis are denied funding, you offer nothing in the way of evidence. I have a sneaking suspicion that, were I to challenge you to provide evidence, you’d link me to a conservative site with the statement that “Scientists who don’t go along with the AGW hypothesis are denied funding” — but no evidence to support it.

       If I may expand on this point, it seems to me that most of the denialist commentary on AGW is a huge echo chamber. Everybody is quoting each other, and it’s all a fantasy — there’s no actual evidence. But garsh, if you can find a hundred denialist sites that say “scientists who don’t go along with the AGW hypothesis are denied funding”, then it must be true, right?

       I’d like to close with a massive data dump. Forgive me for encumbering your site with all this, but I’d like to convey just how massive the support for AGW is. So I have taken a single chapter from IPCC AR4 (Chapter 3, Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change) and compiled some of its support. First, here are the authors for this single chapter:

       Coordinating Lead Authors:
       Kevin E. Trenberth (USA), Philip D. Jones (UK)
       Lead Authors:
       Peter Ambenje (Kenya), Roxana Bojariu (Romania), David Easterling (USA), Albert Klein Tank (Netherlands), David Parker (UK), Fatemeh Rahimzadeh (Iran), James A. Renwick (New Zealand), Matilde Rusticucci (Argentina), Brian Soden (USA), Panmao Zhai (China)
       Contributing Authors:
       R. Adler (USA), L. Alexander (UK, Australia, Ireland), H. Alexandersson (Sweden), R. Allan (UK), M.P. Baldwin (USA), M. Beniston (Switzerland), D. Bromwich (USA), I. Camilloni (Argentina), C. Cassou (France), D.R. Cayan (USA), E.K.M. Chang (USA), J. Christy (USA), A. Dai (USA), C. Deser (USA), N. Dotzek (Germany), J. Fasullo (USA), R. Fogt (USA), C. Folland (UK), P. Forster (UK), M. Free (USA), C. Frei (Switzerland), B. Gleason (USA), J. Grieser (Germany), P. Groisman (USA, Russian Federation), S. Gulev (Russian Federation), J. Hurrell (USA), M. Ishii (Japan), S. Josey (UK), P. Kållberg (ECMWF), J. Kennedy (UK), G. Kiladis (USA), R. Kripalani (India), K. Kunkel (USA), C.-Y. Lam (China), J. Lanzante (USA), J. Lawrimore (USA), D. Levinson (USA), B. Liepert (USA), G. Marshall (UK), C. Mears (USA), P. Mote (USA), H. Nakamura (Japan), N. Nicholls (Australia), J. Norris (USA), T. Oki (Japan), F.R. Robertson (USA), K. Rosenlof (USA), F.H. Semazzi (USA), D. Shea (USA), J.M. Shepherd (USA), T.G. Shepherd (Canada), S. Sherwood (USA), P. Siegmund (Netherlands), I. Simmonds (Australia), A. Simmons (ECMWF, UK), C. Thorncroft (USA, UK), P. Thorne (UK), S. Uppala (ECMWF), R. Vose (USA), B. Wang (USA), S. Warren (USA), R. Washington (UK, South Africa), M. Wheeler (Australia), B. Wielicki (USA), T. Wong (USA), D. Wuertz (USA)

       Whomp! Pretty big pile, huh? But now let’s get REALLY down and dirty! Let’s look at the published scientific papers referenced by this chapter. To save everybody the burden, I am pasting only one page of the papers cited:

       Basher, R.E., and X. Zheng, 1995: Tropical cyclones in the southwest Pacific: Spatial patterns and relationships to Southern Oscillation and sea surface temperature. J. Clim., 8, 1249–1260.
       Bates, J.J., and D.L. Jackson, 2001: Trends in upper-tropospheric humidity. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 1695–1698.
       Beck, C., J. Grieser, and B. Rudolf, 2005: A new monthly precipitation climatology for the global land areas for the period 1951 to 2000. Climate Status Report, 2004. German Meteorological Service, pp. 181– 190, http://www.dwd.de/de/FundE/Klima/KLIS/prod/KSB/ksb04/28_ precipitation.pdf
       Bengtsson, L., S. Hagemann, and K.L. Hodges, 2004: Can climate trends be calculated from reanalysis data? J. Geophys. Res., 109, D11111, doi:10.1029/2004JD004536.
       Beniston, M., 2004: The 2003 heat wave in Europe. A shape of things to come? Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L02022, doi:10.1029/2003GL018857. Beniston, M., and H.F. Diaz, 2004: The 2003 heat wave as an example
       of summers in a greenhouse climate? Observations and climate model
       simulations for Basel, Switzerland. Global Planet. Change, 44, 73–81. Beniston, M., and D.B. Stephenson, 2004: Extreme climatic events and their evolution under changing climatic conditions. Global Planet.
       Change, 44, 1–9. Berger, C.L., et al., 2002: A climatology of northwest Missouri snowfall
       events: Long-term trends and interannual variability. Phys. Geogr., 23,
       427−448. Berri, G.S., M.A. Ghietto, and N.O. García, 2002: The influence of ENSO
       in the flows of the Upper Paraná River of South America over the past
       100 years. J. Hydrometeorol., 3, 57–65. Betts, A.K., J.H. Ball, and P. Viterbo, 2003: Evaluation of the ERA-40
       surface water budget and surface temperature for the Mackenzie River
       Basin. J. Hydrometeorol., 4, 1194–1211. Biondi, F., A. Gershunov, and D.R. Cayan, 2001: North Pacific decadal
       climate variability since AD 1661. J. Clim., 14, 5–10. Bischoff, S.A., et al., 2000: Climate variability and Uruguay River flows.
       Water International, 25, 446–456. Bissolli, P., J. Grieser, N. Dotzek, and M. Welsch, 2007: Tornadoes in
       Germany 1950-2003 and their relation to particular weather conditions.
       Global Planet. Change, 46, doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.11.007 Black, E.M., et al., 2004: Factors contributing to the summer 2003
       European heatwave. Weather, 59, 217–223. Bojariu, R., and L. Gimeno, 2003: The influence of snow cover fluctuations
       on multiannual NAO persistence. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1156,
       doi:10.1029/2002GL015651. Bonan, G.B., 2001: Observational evidence for reduction of daily
       maximum temperature by croplands in the midwest United States. J.
       Clim., 14, 2430–2442. Bonnazola, M., and P.H. Haynes, 2004: A trajectory-based study of
       the tropical tropopause region. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D020112,
       doi:10.1029/2003JD004356. Bornstein, R., and Q. Lin, 2000: Urban heat islands and summertime
       convective thunderstorms in Atlanta: three cases studies. Atmos.
       Environ., 34, 507–516. Bottomley, M., et al., 1990: Global Ocean Surface Temperature Atlas
       “GOSTA”. HMSO, London, 20 pp.+iv, 313 plates. Bove, M.C., et al., 1998: Effect of El Niño on U.S. landfalling hurricanes,
       revisited. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 79, 2477–2482. Branstator, G., 2002: Circum-global teleconnections, the jetstream
       waveguide, and the North Atlantic Oscillation. J. Clim., 15, 1893–
       1910. Brest, C.L., W.B. Rossow, and M. Roiter, 1997: Update of radiance
       calibrations for ISCCP. J. Atmos. Ocean Technol., 14, 1091–1109. Brohan, P., et al., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: A new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys.
       Res., 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548. Bromirski, P.D., R.E. Flick, and D.R. Cayan, 2003: Storminess variability
       along the California coast: 1858–2000. J. Clim., 16, 982–993. 320
       Bromwich, D.H., and R.L. Fogt, 2004: Strong trends in the skill of the ERA-40 and NCEP–NCAR reanalyses in the high and middle latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere, 1958–2001. J. Clim., 17, 4603–4619.
       Brönnimann, S., et al., 2004: Extreme climate of the global troposphere and stratosphere in 1940–42 related to El Niño. Nature, 431, doi:10.1038/ nature02982.
       Brooks, H.E., J.W. Lee, and J.P. Craven, 2003: The spatial distribution of severe thunderstorm and tornado environments from global reanalysis data. Atmos. Res., 67–68, 73–94.
       Brunet, M., et al., 2006: The development of a new dataset of Spanish daily adjusted temperature series (SDATS) (1850-2003). Int. J. Climatol., 26, 1777–1802.
       Brunetti, M., et al., 2004: Changes in daily precipitation frequency and distribution in Italy over the last 120 years. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D05102, doi:10.1029/2003JD004296.
       Brutsaert, W., and M.B. Parlange, 1998: Hydrologic cycle explains the evaporation paradox. Nature, 396, 30.
       Burian, S.J., and J.M. Shepherd, 2005: Effects of urbanization on the diurnal rainfall pattern in Houston. Hydrological Processes: Special Issue on Rainfall and Hydrological Processes, 19, 1089–1103.
       Burnett, A.W., et al., 2003: Increasing Great Lake-effect snowfall during the Twentieth Century: A regional response to global warming? J. Clim., 16, 3535–3541.
       Caesar, J., L. Alexander, and R. Vose, 2006: Large-scale changes in observed daily maximum and minimum temperatures: Creation and analysis of a new gridded data set. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D05101, doi:10.1029/2005JD006280.
       Cai, W., and P.G. Baines, 2001: Forcing of the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave by El Niño-Southern Oscillation teleconnections. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 9019–9038.
       Cai, W., P.H. Whetton, and D.J. Karoly, 2003: The response of the Antarctic Oscillation to increasing and stabilized atmospheric CO2. J. Clim., 16, 1525–1538.
       Caires, S., and A. Sterl, 2005: 100-year return value estimates for wind speed and significant wave height from the ERA-40 data. J. Clim., 18, 1032–1048.
       Camargo, S.J., and A.H. Sobel, 2004: Western North Pacific Tropical Cyclone Intensity and ENSO. Technical Report No. 04-03, International Research Institute for Climate Prediction, Palisades, NY, 25 pp.
       Camilloni, I.A., and V.R. Barros, 2000: The Paraná River response to El Niño 1982–83 and 1997–98 events. J. Hydrometeorol., 1, 412–430.
       Camilloni, I.A., and V.R. Barros, 2003: Extreme discharge events in the Paraná River and their climate forcing. J. Hydrol., 278, 94–106.
       Cardone, V.J., J.G. Greenwood, and M.A. Cane, 1990: On trends in historical marine wind data. J. Clim., 3, 113–127.
       Carril, A.F., and A. Navarra, 2001: Low-frequency variability of the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 4623–4626.
       Carter, D.J.T., 1999: Variability and trends in the wave climate of the North Atlantic: a review. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Brest, France, vol. III. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Golden, CO, pp. 12–18.
       Cassou, C., and L. Terray, 2001: Dual influence of Atlantic and Pacific SST anomalies on the North Atlantic/Europe winter climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 3195–3198.
       Cassou, C., et al., 2004: North Atlantic winter climate regimes: spatial asymmetry, stationarity with time and oceanic forcing. J. Clim., 17, 1055–1068.
       Cayan, D.R., et al., 2001: Changes in the onset of spring in the western United States. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 82, 399–415.
       Cess, R.D., and P.M. Udelhofen, 2003: Climate change during 1985–1999: Cloud interactions determined from satellite measurements. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1019, doi:10.1029/2002GL016128.
       Chagnon, F.J.F., and R. L. Bras, 2005: Contemporary climate change in the Amazon. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L13703, doi:10.1029/ 2005GL022722.
       Chan, J.C.L., 2006: Comment on “Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment”. Science, 311, 1713.

       This is just one page from a total of 16 and a half pages of citations. And you claim that there is no evidence in support of AGW?!?!!?! C’mon, Vicki — be reasonable. Get the facts. As I have pointed out earlier, you’re fighting the wrong battle when you deny the science. On the science, you are just plain wrong. But on the policy response to the science, you have a truly debatable subject. If you are to have any hope of winning this fight, then you should fight where you have a chance.
     • admin says:

       December 7, 2009 at 9:29 AM

       Very quick response… Dr. Phil Jones and his AGW buddies already exposed themselves in their emails from not permitting the release of scientific pieces that disprove AGW. They are on record for suppressing their opposition, so yes, I agree that there are many articles supporting it. When the scientific community prevents any kind of debate or the publication of information that AGW is based on junk science, then what else would you expect? Now that Jones, Mann, and others are under the bright light of scrutiny, we may discover soon just what they rejected or discredited. Time will tell.

       Must go to work… have a great day, Chris, and again, I have enjoyed this debate.
5. Dave Cochrane says:

   December 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM

   Brilliantly put. We are now at a turning point in world history. Just about every thinking person in the street is now aware of these revelations and that the supposed reality of AGW has been shattered. The Warmists that now remain are the hardest of hardcore ideological political Greens, for whom the science was never the issue. It is now they who are the ‘Denialists’ and it is they who are out of step with accepted reality. It is poetic justice, but I do not count my chickens just yet. The battle with those hardcore Warmist politicians is only just beginning.
6. Chris says:

   December 5, 2009 at 9:20 PM

   Dave, I believe that you are quite mistaken. A number of scientists have now reacted to the news and they are quite confident that the AGW hypothesis is in no way affected by any of this. I expect that we’ll be seeing most of the scientific organizations that have already endorsed AGW to re-affirm their support for the hypothesis. I have seen no evidence of any scientist changing their position in response to this news.

   As for myself, I am most certainly not the hardest of the hardcore Greens; indeed, I share Vicki’s objective of small government and genuinely free markets. I evaluate this matter strictly on its scientific merits. I also draw a big distinction between what the science says and what we should do about it. The scientific case in favor of the AGW hypothesis is very strong and I believe that, if we do not do anything, the global economy in 2100 will be seriously damaged by the effects of climate change. The values issue on which people of goodwill can differ concerns how much we owe to future generations. I myself see my purpose in life as leaving this world a better place than I found it. If another person would rather eat, drink, and be merry now, and to hell with future generations, I cannot in good faith say that this person’s values are wrong.

   Even if you share my personal values of leaving the best possible legacy to the future, there remains a question about how best to accomplish that. If we gut our economy today, we could well bequeath to future generations a world without global warming, but an economy that’s wretched. We must carefully consider how best to balance the desirability of combatting climate change and preserving our environment. And that is a much more debatable issue. I fear that denialists are fighting on entirely the wrong ground. There are three major issues:

   1. What is the magnitude of the threat imposed by AGW? The scientific evidence is solid that this threat could cost the global economy many trillions of dollars.

   2. How do we provide future generations with a healthy economy AND a healthy environment? What can be done that doesn’t destroy either?

   3. How much do we owe future generations?

   By fighting on the ground where you’re weakest (#1), you only serve to discredit yourselves, so that when we get down to brass tacks and deal with #2 and #3, the denialists will be so completely discredited that their claims will be rejected. That would be sad, because I believe in healthy democracies and I believe that #2 and #3 are truly debatable topics — unlike #1.

   Your best ally in all this is China, which refuses to contemplate serious controls on CO2 emissions. Because China is the largest emitter of CO2, its refusal to go along renders all the other considerations moot. So conservatives should be saying “Thank God for China!” Isn’t that ironic?
   • AFVET says:

     December 6, 2009 at 8:54 AM

     Chris please explain how the Cap and Trade bill will reduce carbon emissions without destroying or injuring our economy which is already on it’s knees.

     Politicians and others stand to make millions if this bill passes.

     I smell a rat.
     • Chris says:

       December 6, 2009 at 10:58 AM

       AFVET, I have no strong opinion on the Cap and Trade bill; that’s a political matter over which your opinion is just as good as mine. My primary emphasis is on the robustness of the scientific support for the AGW hypothesis. I do believe that, if we do not take strong action to reduce CO2 emissions, the world will be in for huge economic losses. If I were The King of Planet Earth, I’d impose a global carbon tax, small at first but slowly increasing, and use the revenues to reduce other taxes by an equal amount. However, my cynicism regarding the intelligence of the American body politic as well as the global body politic leads me to conclude that adequate measures will never be taken. I’m glad I have no children — future generations are well and truly screwed.
     • AFVET says:

       December 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM

       Jesus, you sound like FDR.
7. AFVET says:

   December 6, 2009 at 1:26 PM

   Paleontologists have excavated sites in Greenland that produced reptile bones, meaning Greenland was warm at one time, and possibly many others.

   The name Greenland came from the Vikings, who farmed their fields in Greenland, and left evidence of their villages in the ground that have been discovered from the time that Greenland was GREEN !!!

   The Great Salt Lake is a puddle, left over from a massive inland sea that either created rivers throughout the west, or drained/carved the Grand Canyon.

   The Great Lakes are a result of an immense glacier that pushed a rock at least 10 stories in height to rest in the town I grew up in.
   You can walk up to the top on the backside and look down on a bald sandstone face.
   The glacier pushed the dirt up on the backside, then receded and carved out a valley.

   Chris, I have a very strong opinion on Cap and Trade.
   It’s a hoax pure and simple.
   You appear to be intelligent, why can’t you see through the fog?

   It wasn’t too many years ago that they discovered a P-38 in Greenland, buried underneath the ice and snow.
   Let’s see a P-38 would have landed there in the early 40′s, maybe.

   Don’t listen to the politicians. History will make you free thinking.
   • Chris says:

     December 6, 2009 at 2:32 PM

     Yes, Dave, it’s true that Greenland was once much warmer. And when it was, sea levels were higher, so high that, were those sea levels to be replicated at this time, most of Florida, all of the coral atolls in the Pacific, just about every river delta in the world (Nile, Ganges, Yellow, Mississippi, Amazon, Congo, Niger, Dnieper, Indus, etc) as well as all of the Netherlands would be underwater. North Dakota was once a tropical seashore — that’s why they find T Rex bones there. Yes, things change throughout geologic time — but I don’t think we want to inundate many trillions of dollars worth of farm and city land. Moreover, all those changes took place over a very long time period, often hundreds of thousands of years, whereas this change is moving along much, much faster.
     • AFVET says:

       December 7, 2009 at 10:22 AM

       My name is not Dave.
       Have you become confused?
     • Chris says:

       December 7, 2009 at 10:50 AM

       Sorry. I’m hurrying too much. AFVET it is.
8. Dave Cochrane says:

   December 6, 2009 at 1:40 PM

   Chris, you made a number of assertions that have no basis in science.

   Firstly, laughably, you stated: “The scientific case in favor of the AGW hypothesis is very strong.”

   It is not, it is incredibly weak, and grossly over-stated.

   You stated: “The scientific evidence is solid that this threat could cost the global economy many trillions of dollars.”

   Again, only the IPCC and green alarmists are claiming this. Most scientists outside of these political organisations claim nothing of the sort. It is classic alarmism.

   Very very poor stock response, Chris.

   You said: “I do believe that, if we do not take strong action to reduce CO2 emissions, the world will be in for huge economic losses.”

   But you offer nothing to back it up. Are you still relying on those same ‘peer-reviewed’ papers that ignored the findings of sceptical scientists? That same peer review system that was corrupted to keep out the sceptics from publishing? If so, what is your basis for continued confidence in those papers?

   Come on man, you’re a classic Liberal denialist, it’s written all over your baseless statements. You have no thirst for knowledge, no hunger to see the scientific community cleaned up, no desire to look at the findings of the sceptical scientists. This whole Climategate scandal has clearly changed your mindset not one jot. THAT speaks volumes about your agenda.

   You said “Future generations are well and truly screwed.”

   Take your alarmist bleeding heart elsewhere.

   CO2 levels have been FAR far higher in the past than they are now. There has never been runaway global warming in the past, and there is no scientific basis for believing there will be runaway global warming now.
   • Chris says:

     December 6, 2009 at 2:49 PM

     Dave, you disagree with me about the number of scientists who reject AGW. Let me remind you that the academies of science of every single developed country and five developing nations (including China’s and India’s) have all made official statements accepting AGW. Every single major scientific organization that has expertise in climatology has officially endorsed AGW.

     Against this are a handful of scientists who reject the AGW hypothesis. But there are also a handful of scientists who reject the theory of evolution. That doesn’t make evolution any less solid. There will always be a handful of scientists holding onto weird theories.

     If you would like to refer to any lists of scientists whom you claim do oppose AGW, please do so. However, don’t use the Oregon Petition — that was utterly discredited years ago. And even Mr. Morano’s list of 600 scientists was picked apart line by line and shown to be bogus. Do you have any other lists?

     You write: “Are you still relying on those same ‘peer-reviewed’ papers that ignored the findings of sceptical scientists? ”

     Actually, Dave, there are NO peer-reviewed papers that ignored the findings of skeptics. Those findings weren’t ignored, they were immediately recognized to be wrong. The whole point of the peer-review process is to insure that garbage doesn’t get published. The papers that were rejected were garbage. One single paper got through the peer review process and was published — and as soon as the scientific community tore it to shreds for many, many errors, five of the editors of the journal that published the garbage paper resigned in shame.

     But if you want to point to me to a paper that was submitted to the peer-review process, and was rejected improperly, I ask you to provide a link to BOTH the paper AND the referees’ comments. Together, you and I can judge whether the referees were wrong. Fair enough?

     “you’re a classic Liberal denialist”

     Actually, I’m not. I suggest you re-read the item above where I mentioned something about my politics.

     “You have no thirst for knowledge, no hunger to see the scientific community cleaned up, no desire to look at the findings of the sceptical scientists.”

     Well, maybe so, but at least I have read the IPCC AR4 — have you? I’ve visited Steve McIntyre’s blog many times, as well as Marc Morano’s (not that often, it’s just politics), and Spencer’s blog as well. I’d say I’ve read several hundred pages worth of material in McIntyre’s blog (his is the most interesting), a dozen pages of Morano’s, and maybe fifty pages of Spencer’s. I’ve also looked at Marohasey’s (spelling?) and a few others. So tell me, how much of Real Climate have you read?

     And I HAVE looked at the findings of some of the skeptics. I think that McIntyre had some good points about five years ago, and I’m glad to see that the scientific community has dealt with his objections. He provided a real service to science at that time. Of late, he has become rather bitter about the whole thing and has lost his scientific objectivity. I still read him occasionally because a few of his pieces are interesting. I also looked up one of the papers that was rejected but later published on the web. I don’t recall where I saw it; that was about five years ago. But it really was intellectual sewage. *I* could have written a better paper than they did — and I am certainly no expert!
9. MoeX says:

   December 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM

   Chris, as has been pointed out but you’re either deaf or slow, there is no proof of global warming. Whatever claims the IPCC had to such “undeniable” raw data evidence was destroyed and now all “science” from the so-called experts is under investigation. Are you not reading the news? Or relying on the lamestream media for your info? The IPCC has not only admitted to lying but they’ve been exposed this week by a number of sources of lying, not just now, but over the past 10 plus years. There is no evidence of global warming destroying the planet in 5, 10, fill-in-the-blank years, just as there was no proof of fluorocarbons destroying the ozone a few decades back. That, too, was a lie as was later shown with satellite photos.

   No evidence, record cooling round the world, no melting Arctic ice, no dead polar bears, lots of scientific data from satellites showing the trend now of global cooling, blatant cheating and cherry-picking of data to make the hockey stick graph, the tree ring data exposed for faulty test sampling, Mafia-like efforts to silence AGW dissenters, the list is formidable. The AGW scam is falling apart before our eyes.

   When or if we can control a single tornado or a single hurricane or a single rain shower, maybe then I’ll listen to us being able to CONTROL AND DESTROY the entire planet’s weather and doom us all to a parched planet. Meteorologists can’t even predict with reliability what the weather will be next week. And yet, you’re still clinging to the idea that we mere mortals are capable of such efforts to control climate and so must jump into the cap and tax hoax with our wallets open. Laughable.

   Until mankind can prove through our efforts that we can influence tiny things in nature like a hailstorm or a tornado, I’ll just keep reading about the silly hypocrisy of carbon footprints being vomited out by the world leaders going to Copenhagen.
10. Chris says:

    December 6, 2009 at 3:56 PM

    MoeX, I believe that you’re quite mistaken on your facts. What you consider to be a scandal is certainly not being taken as such by most scientists. The overall reaction from other scientists seems to be, \Doesn’t look like much, and really doesn’t compromise all the other data.\ Indeed, here’s a simple way to check out the significance of the emails: let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the entire HAD-CRUT dataset was somehow compromised by this incident. Let’s suppose that the IPCC deleted all references to it and all conclusions based on it from its AR4 report. What would change?

    Nothing at all. If you would take the time to read IPCC AR4, you would see that there’s a mountain of data supporting AGW.

    Besides, I don’t believe that there’s anything in the emails or the files that calls into question the validity of the scientific results. I have looked over some of the quotes and claims being made, and they are all overhyped nonsense. If you think that something in that material compromises the HAD-CRUT dataset, please provide a quote and explain how that statement compromises the HAD-CRUT dataset.

    You write: \The IPCC has not only admitted to lying\

    Boy, I’d like to see you back that up with any kind of evidence!

    You write, \There is no evidence of global warming destroying the planet in 5, 10, fill-in-the-blank years\

    That’s absolutely correct. However, if you had read the IPCC AR4 report, you’d know that it does not draw any conclusions remotely like that. It talks about problems arising in the second half of this century.

    You write, \just as there was no proof of fluorocarbons destroying the ozone a few decades back. That, too, was a lie as was later shown with satellite photos.\

    Where do you read this nonsense? The ozone hole over Antarctica has been observed and measured for decades now! Here’s the Wikipedia article explaining it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole

    You wrote: \No evidence, record cooling round the world, no melting Arctic ice, no dead polar bears, lots of scientific data from satellites showing the trend now of global cooling, blatant cheating and cherry-picking of data to make the hockey stick graph, the tree ring data exposed for faulty test sampling, Mafia-like efforts to silence AGW dissenters,\

    Every single one of your statements is false. Would you mind providing some evidence to back up ANY of those statements?

    You wrote: \When or if we can control a single tornado or a single hurricane or a single rain shower, maybe then I’ll listen to us being able to CONTROL AND DESTROY the entire planet’s weather\

    Ah, perhaps this is the basis of your misunderstanding. We’re talking about climatology, not meteorology. Those are two completely different subjects. Meteorology concerns weather, something that takes place over the course of days and weeks. Climatology concerns climate, something that takes place over decades to centuries. It’s sorta like the difference between beach erosion and continental drift — two completely different time scales.
11. MoeX says:

    December 6, 2009 at 5:35 PM

    Chris, do you have tons of dough sunk in green technology or carbon tax credits, dude? Because you sure sound like you do. Climate highs and lows come and go, our ability to make any kind of a difference in them…. zero.

    And NEVER EVER use Wikipedia as a reliable source to anything. Even high school students are told to not use it, it has been debunked ages ago as being unreliable as an authoritative source. Unless its about something like dogs or cats or flowers, anything even remotely political is skewed and propagandized by liberal contributors (look up ‘Barack Obama’ and you’ll see what I mean). Using IPCC to prove the legitimacy of the IPCC is lame – that’s the head of the fraud. You need to cite sources by leading climatologists or meteorologists who are not funded or sponsored by the climate warming big honchos and not ever use Wiki.

    You wanted me to cite the fraud of IPCC and those who admitted they lied or covered up global warming data? Read ‘em and weep – there are lots more but I got tired of typing and tagging:

    IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming
    IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud
    Leading U.S. Science Groups Endorsed the Global Warming Fraud
    The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate by Dr. Tim Ball, Canada Free Press
    IPCC reviewer: “don’t cover up the divergence”
    Current Global Temperatures Impossible According to IPCC ‘Science’.by Dr. Tim Ball
    Climategate: The Skeptical Scientist’s View by Frank J. Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University
    World cooling has set-in warns astrophysicist – BBC & ‘Global Warming apologists’ challenged to end ‘cover-up’ by Piers Corbyn
    Proved: There is no climate crisis
    Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC
    Completely inadequate IPCC models produce the ultimate deception about man made global warming
    Fatal Errors in IPCC’S Global Climate Models
    MUST READ: “I WAS WRONG” by John Coleman, KUSI.com
    The Fiction Of Climate Science by Gary Sutton, Forbes.com
    Errors in IPCC climate science
    Climate science hijacking
    Global Warming: Doom or Fraud? IPCC Scrutinized
    Understanding Climategate’s Hidden Decline by Marc Sheppard, AmericanThinker.com
    Research fraud within the IPCC? And other ‘global warming’ news
    Science and Public Policy, Lies, Damned Lies and Al Gore on Climate
    The world has never seen such freezing heat
    Climategate: It ain’t just about the weather
    NOAA Report: GW Will Cause Extreme Weather
    Satellite and Climate Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Change (supercedes “Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?”)
    Global Warming: Natural or Manmade?
    UN Climate Panel Accused of Possible Research Fraud
    The Death Blow to Anthropogenic Global Warming by Stephen Wilde
    Yet another Upside Down Mann out
    Did Media Or NASA Withhold Climate History Data Changes From The Public?

    I copied the next text from Judging Global Warming As A Scientific Theory

    Nils-Axel Mörner, former head of paleo-geophysics at Stockholm University, has been studying the subject of sea-level rise for 35 years. He has been observing changes in ocean levels in the Maldives, one of the first places expected to disappear under the waves, and found no evidence that they are in peril. Satellite altimetry data collected over the past two decades tells the same story. His best estimate is for a rise of a couple of inches by the end of this century. Dr. Mörner says: “the sea level is not rising.”

    The reason why Dr Mörner is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world.” Another scientist who has done just that is Cliff Oillier from the University of Western Australia’s School of Earth and Environment. According to a 2009 paper by Dr Oillier: “ Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over the region. The data are compared with results from elsewhere, all of which suggest that any rise of global sea level is negligible.”

    Chris, I don’t believe that the earth is experiencing a dangerous level of warming resultant from man-made CO2 emissions. This is because there is not a shred of empirical evidence anywhere at all to support the thesis that any global temperature fluctuations so far recognized or provable lie outwith the ranges of fluctuations over the last few million years. Add to this that a large number of the so-called physical records are hugely unreliable because the ground stations doing the recording have either been moved during their recording periods, or are staggeringly badly sited. Most of the IPCC assumptions which led to the Kyoto Protocol are fraudulent. Add to that, that the IPCC has been hugely embarrassed by its having had to withdraw its infamous hockey stick graph. and you never told me why we mere mortals can destroy climate, but can’t influence any kind of weather. Seems logical that if global warming will increase bad weather like hurricanes and tornadoes and decrease rainfall and increase temperature, and that we can harm climate, then our influence should not be limited to just climate but to weather too.
12. Chris says:

    December 6, 2009 at 9:53 PM

    First off, Vicki, I’m not calling you a fibber. After going through a goodly number of pages on your website (I have no idea how big it is) I was able to find lots of links to political sites or secondary sites, and when I followed those links, they consisted of nothing more than some non-scientist declaring in so many words the conclusion that AGW is wrong. I saw nothing presenting actual scientific results. However, I’m happy to take your word that you do indeed have such links somewhere on your website.

    Now let’s turn to the names you cite. For each name, I did a Google search to see if I could find anything. Here are my results; if you think I got anything wrong, please feel free to correct me:

    Howard C K Spears: I find a reference to him as having earned an MS in Mechanical Engineering in 1948. Mechanical Engineering isn’t climatology. It has nothing to do with climatology. There is almost no overlap between mechanical engineering and climatology. Mr. Spears clearly has zero expertise on this subject.

    John M. Spears, MD. A medical doctor is not a scientist; he’s a doctor. Yes, he’s smart, but that doesn’t mean that he knows anything at all about climatology. Strike two for the list.

    Russell T. Spears, MD. Same story. I’m sure he’d be the perfect guy to go to with a medical problem, but his second opinion about climatology ain’t worth… well, you know what.

    William E. Spears Jr: I found a number of people with this name, but the best fit I could find was a fellow who is listed as an inventor for United States Patent 508340: A Blasting Apparatus. I don’t think that blasting apparatus inventors have any expertise in climatology.

    There you have it: four swings, four misses. But let’s not stop there. Why don’t you look at some of the many debunkings of the Petition Project:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html
    This guy points out that 0.1% of the names on the list have any expertise in climatology. That’s 30 people. Not very impressive, eh?

    http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition
    This guy gives links to eight different sites debunking the Oregon Petition.

    Oh, and this is what the National Academy of Sciences had to say about the Petition Project:

    \The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.\

    You can find the full news release here:
    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

    You should read it.

    Oh, and the guy who put together this project started off great guns — he was appointed President of the NAS nearly 50 years ago, but later on became a flack for the tobacco industry and was fired from that job for being \not sufficiently rational\. It would seem that senility or something overtook the poor man.

    I’ll tackle some more of your statements in my next post.
    • admin says:

      December 7, 2009 at 8:52 AM

      Chris, I truly appreciate the time and effort you took to provide this information. I am limited in time to pursue all that you’ve provided, but will indeed as time permits. I did find time to investigate this link you provided: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998. However, this paper was written in 1998, so the information contained in it may have already been proven erroneous. Don’t know, and I don’t have time to investigate. The author’s bio is impressive, but I don’t know anything about him; however, I will check into him.

      If my using of blogs is disallowed, then you using Huffington Post, the premier left-wing blog of blogs, should also be disallowed. The managing editor who wrote the piece, like the authors of the pieces I provided, is not a climatologist nor a scientist. So, while I do intend to read it, it won’t be today.

      I want to thank you for your civil presentations, and it is obvious you are passionate in your beliefs that humans are creating AGW. I do not support that belief. You wrote in one of your comments to another reader the following: “Global temperatures have not gone outside the range of the last few million years. However, when they WERE this high in the past, much of what several billion people now call home was under water. Is that what you want?”

      So, we’re back to the beginning. Of course I don’t want that, but can humans actually do anything to prevent it? Or to hasten it? When water levels reached the levels referenced here, no human intervention was responsible. It was all part of a planetary cycle, one that is dependent upon many factors, including the Sun. If we are approaching a similar scenario (and I do not believe we are), then human beings having the ability to affect the planetary cycle now is unfounded. There is no proof that humans can impact climate. The data provided by Dr. Michael Mann is now discredited. The tree ring data was not performed under proper protocols. The conclusions drawn from those two scientific theories have lost their credibility and I believe they were the lynchpins in the AGW argument. For world governments to want to impose Draconian measures with cap and trade on the developed nations for an unproven, suspicious theory is reckless and power-grabbing. Greenpeace has begrudgingly admitted that polar bear numbers are on the rise and that they “exaggerated” their findings about Arctic ice melting so as to push people to the belief that global warming was happening. Global warming supporters have no consensus: some say it is already too late, that we are doomed, that we should have started years ago to eliminate CO2 emissions. Others say we have a few years left, whereas others say we have until 2030 before we’re doomed. It’s all over the road… and no proof to support any of it. And all the while, the world leaders who want to impose their massive restrictions on mankind are spewing out all sorts of pollutants with limos, private jets, and SUVs while discussing in Copenhagen how to shackle the citizens of the world with higher taxes and “green” technology. If we are indeed in such imminent danger, why aren’t the world leaders making any effort whatsoever in curtailing their own carbon footprints?

      I have always been an environmentalist in the sense that people should not impact our drinking water, our air, our environment with toxins and waste. We need to be less of the thoughtless slobs we’ve been over the centuries. And for the past 30 years, we have “cleaned up our act.” As a former Girl Scout leader, I was passionate about teaching the girls to be more responsible about litter, about waste, about polluting our earth. I instilled in them a sense of responsibility for cleaning up after themselves and to take active voluntary measures to be better stewards of our planet. However, I draw the line at the cap and trade mandates that are looming. Carbon dioxide is not a toxin, but a natural by-product of living things. Therefore, attempts to regulate them is just as foolhardy and senseless as trying to regulate water vapor. The tyrannical elements in the cap and trade program will decimate our economy and for what? There is not a shred of proof that eliminating ALL CO2 emissions from human endeavors (or cow farts, etc.) will impact whatever is part of the natural planetary cycle and the influence of the Sun. If global warming is indeed coming (and I don’t believe that), then I don’t believe there is a thing we can do to prevent it.

      At this point, Chris, I’ve enjoyed this debate, but it appears that we must agree to disagree. Thank you for your passionate and coherent input, and I fully intend to read the pieces you provided.
      • Chris says:

        December 7, 2009 at 9:34 AM

        Vicki, that news release that was written in 1998 was a response to the Petition Project (which, I believe, was called the Oregon Petition at that time), and the Oregon Petition started in 1997. So the news release was a timely response to the Petition Project at that time. The Petition Project has done nothing to correct the points objected to in the news release, so nothing has changed.

        You’re absolutely right that it is wrong of me to use Huffington Post while criticizing you for using conservative blogs. I’ll be more careful about that in the future. I hope that other commentators here will follow the same discipline and link to original sources rather than political commentators.

        Your last point raises a more subtle issue. You point out, quite correctly, that previous increases in temperature and sea level were not caused by human activity. However, you then leap to the illogical conclusion that current increases in temperature and sea level cannot be caused by human activity. Forest fires have for millions of years been started by lightning. But that doesn’t mean that humans never cause forest fires. You have to look at each case individually and examine the evidence to determine whether the event was caused naturally or by people. And that’s what has happened here: scientists have looked at mountains of evidence and concluded that the sharp increase in temperatures and sea levels can only be produced by the sudden increase in CO2 levels generated by humans.

        Mr. Mann’s work is only a tiny shred of the tidal wave of evidence supporting AGW; it has not been discredited; the Briffa work has not been discredited. Again, if you read something other than the conservative blogs, you’ll find that the world is not at all the place you’ve been led to think it is.
13. Chris says:

    December 6, 2009 at 10:41 PM

    MoeX writes: \Chris, do you have tons of dough sunk in green technology or carbon tax credits, dude? Because you sure sound like you do.\

    Nope, sure don’t. I don’t have any financial or professional interests in this. Do you?

    You write: \ Climate highs and lows come and go, our ability to make any kind of a difference in them…. zero.\ Well, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but climatologists will tell you that you’re quite wrong.

    You write: \And NEVER EVER use Wikipedia as a reliable source to anything\ You’re quite right, of course. I was offering Wikipedia as an easy-to-read source on the subject. I suggest that you instead consult \Stratospheric Depletion of Ozone by Chloroflourocarbons\, available here:

    http://www.eoearth.org/article/Stratospheric_Ozone_Depletion_by_Chlorofluorocarbons_(Nobel_Lecture)

    In particular, note carefully Figure 15, Average ozone concentrations in Dobson units for the month of October, 1957-1984, Halley Bay, Antarctica. I believe this will settle the matter definitively for you. If you have any questions about the lecture, I’ll be happy to answer them for you.

    Next, you write: \Using IPCC to prove the legitimacy of the IPCC is lame – that’s the head of the fraud.\

    If you have any objections to IPCC AR4, please state them. Don’t just tell me it’s wrong — tell me exactly what you disagree with. Do you find Figure 6.10 objectionable? It’s probably one of the most critical graphs in the whole report. Do you have objections to ALL the datasets referred to in Figure 6.10? Please, don’t hold back: be explicit!

    You write: \ You need to cite sources by leading climatologists or meteorologists who are not funded or sponsored by the climate warming big honchos\

    I take it that you define \climate warming big honchos\ as \anybody who accepts AGW\. Rather a circular argument, don’t you think?

    Next, you provide a great many links. Please note that not one of these links is to an actual scientific site. They are all from political sites, to wit:

    PrisonPlanet.com, with the pane saying \How to Survive Martial Law in America\. Sure doesn’t sound like a serious scientific publication to me.

    NewAmerican.com, another political site with no scientific credentials. And by the way, the climatologist they cite is Patrick Michaels, who just happens to be a Fellow at the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, and edits the World Climate report, funded by — guess who — the Western Fuels Association. Not exactly what I’d call an objective scientist.

    Canada Free Press: ANOTHER conservative news organization. Do you read ANY science? Are you getting ALL your science from political commentators?

    climaterealists.com. This is at least a website dedicated to the science. Unfortunately, the article you cite doesn’t include any evidence regarding the point I made. It tackles a completely different subject.

    Wattsupwiththat: Here at last you come up with something remotely related to the topic at hand. Unfortunately, the evidence it provides clearly shows that the IPCC did in fact take into consideration the point raised by Mr. McIntyre. Here’s what they wrote, as provided by your own source:

    \Rejected — though note ‘divergence’ issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al series\

    You did read the IPCC AR4 comment on the divergence, didn’t you?

    Your next link is to an article by a mathematical physicist specializing in the theory of general relativity — not exactly what I would call climatology. More importantly, he makes lots of accusations but never actually quotes any of the emails to demonstrate his reasoning.

    I’d like to expand on this point, because I have grown tired of shooting down every link you provide. My key point here is that nobody ever actually takes anything directly from the stolen material and logically shows how that quoted material demonstrates anything untoward. I challenge you to explain how ANY of the material demonstrates anything significant to AGW. The only thing I see in the material is some nasty remarks from some scientists. Given some of the things I have read on this blog, I think that the saying \Let he who is without sin cast the first stone\ is apropos.

    Next, you cite two scientists who declare that sea levels are not rising. That’s good, I commend you; at least now you’re quoting actual scientists. Unfortunately, they are both mistaken in their statements. I direct you to IPCC AR4, Chapter 5, section 5.5, in particular Figure 5.13, showing global mean sea levels based on three sources. The first is merely reconstructed indirectly, but the second source is coastal tide gauge measurements from 1950 on, and the third source is satellite altimetry from 1993 to 2001. If you want to look up the actual scientific papers, they are as follows:

    Holgate, S.J., and P.L. Woodworth, 2004: Evidence for enhanced coastal
    sea level rise during the 1990s. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L07305,
    doi:10.1029/2004GL019626.

    and

    Leuliette, E.W., R.S. Nerem, and G.T. Mitchum, 2004: Calibration of TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason altimeter data to construct a continuous record of mean sea level change. Mar. Geodesy, 27(1–2), 79–94.

    See, this is the way to provide real evidence. Don’t quote some political blog, go straight to the source and find the raw evidence. Isn’t that what everybody wants — transparency? So here it is: the actual scientific papers explaining the point. Go to it!

    Lastly, you write: \This is because there is not a shred of empirical evidence anywhere at all to support the thesis that any global temperature fluctuations so far recognized or provable lie outwith the ranges of fluctuations over the last few million years.\

    You’re absolutely right. Global temperatures have not gone outside the range of the last few million years. However, when they WERE this high in the past, much of what several billion people now call home was under water. Is that what you want?
    • AFVET says:

      December 7, 2009 at 10:52 AM

      It’s the SUN Stupid.
      Have you ever heard of the Goldilocks Theory?
      Venus is hotter than Hell.
      Mars is colder than Hell.
      The Earth is in the middle.

      Let’s see if these corrupt politicians can tax the Sun into submission.

      What say you?
      • Chris says:

        December 7, 2009 at 12:00 PM

        AFVET, you write, “It’s the SUN Stupid.”

        The question of my stupidity is open to debate, but the possibility of the sun playing a role in the recent warming has been discounted by satellite observations. The sun has been quite stable over the last 30 years over which we have extremely accurate satellite observations. Moreover, the Stefan-Boltzmann law shows that the sun would have to increase its power output by a LOT in order for the earth’s temperature to increase noticeably. Since the earth’s temperature has increased by a lot more than “noticeably” and the sun’s output has NOT increased by any measurable amount, we can conclude that the sun is not the source of the earth’s warming.
14. Chris says:

    December 7, 2009 at 1:55 PM

    I think it’s time for me to ride off into the sunset. The difference between a gadfly and a pain in the butt is only a matter of time, so I’ll ride off before I become boorish. As I ride off, one of the townspeople turns to another and says, “Who was that masked man?” The other replies, “That, my friend, was the Lone Quixote!” When I reach the top of the hill, I try to get my horse to rear up, but he refuses. I wave my hat and shout, “Hi, ho, Rocinante!” and then we shamble off.

    Best wishes to all.
    • admin says:

      December 7, 2009 at 2:13 PM

      “The Lone Quixote”… LOL.
      I like it – watch out when tilting at those imminent windmills, masked man.

      
    • AFVET says:

      December 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM

      Chris, your horse won’t “rear up” because he’s too cold.
      The atmosphere works. I think the moon should have one.

      Enjoyed the interactive conversation.
      You are obviously very intelligent, but woefully misinformed.
15. Dave says:

    December 22, 2009 at 3:55 AM

    Chris

    Once again, you insist on presenting evidence whose reliability is highly questionable, as if it were accepted fact (outside of the IPCC).
    The sun is thought by many scientists to play a massive role in climate change. Indeed, there is excellent correlation between solar activity (sunspots) and temperature on earth and other planets. Conversley, no correlation has ever been observed in any geological record (e.g. ice cores) between CO2 and temperature – well, except for the fact that CO2 levels rise and fall several hundred years after temperature.

    http://wiki.idebate.org/en/images/9/95/Temperature_and_sunspot_correlation_graph.jpg

    During the recent cooling, there has been a continued rising of CO2. According to the models, temperature should still be rising because CO2 is rising, and of course, the sun plays only a minor role (yeah right).

    You quoted the Stefan-Boltzmann law as if, in itself, it prooves the sun can only play a minor role – completely disregarding all the other complex variables and feedbacks involved (magnetic fields, cosmic rays, clouds) – and completely disregarding the real instrument measurements that illustrate and proove beyond doubt the close relationship between the sun’s activity and earth temperature.

    You talk about the great number of countries that all accept AGW as fact (that old consensus argument again). But they all rely on the same flawed models on which to base their arguments (for example, tree ring proxies – we KNOW how unreliable they are and what a poor correlation they give, but every IPCC climate change centre from the CRU, to the New Zealand Climate Centre, to NASA still uses tree ring models to make their case. But hey, there’s a lot of them, all shouting the same message (that tree ring proxies – at least after a little fudging – show there was no MWP), so I guess they must be right. Yeah, right.

    Lets look at how IPCC scientists actually behave. OK, it’s well known what dishonesty, fudging, fraud, peer-review manipulation occured at CRU. But what is always overlooked by Warmists, is that these things were not just confined to the CRU, but were shown to be happening BETWEEN CRU and other IPCC bodies around the world. Did you know that NASA has also continually refused to make public certain raw data subject to FOIA requests? It is now being sued by thousands of scientists to release the data. Happily, the NZ Climate Centre didn’t destroy its raw data. And – surprise surprise – we find the same things happening there as described in the CRU emails – fudging, cherry-picking, manipulation in order to present the desired message.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/

    I simply do not trust people like that. In fact, I don’t trust ANYONE on good faith, warmest or sceptic. I require demonstrable evidence (and that does not include climate models which are completely inadequate). But here are some reasons to mistrust the warmests.+
    1. They have presented this ‘crisis’ as if we must act yesterday or we’re all doomed, and the only solution is world governance, handing power from sovereign nations to one centralised world body so they can make all the necessary decisions to save the planet.
    2. Al Gore. He said the most recent CRU email is 10 years old. It’s not – it dates to November 09, and most of the more contraversial emails are from the last 2-3 years. Why would he say that? Are we meant to believe that he honestly just got this wrong? Get out of it! This is the man who jumped on his crane (talk about hysterics and theatre) to illustrate massive temperature rises along with CO2 in his stupid film. But it had already been known for years before that, that CO2 FOLLOWED temperature, not vica versa. Are we to believe that again, he simply and accidentally got that small detail wrong? And all his science advisors got it wrong? Pull the other one! This is the man that refuses to debate sceptics, because ‘the science is settled’ and of course sceptics are stupid – after all, there are sceptics that still believe we never went to the moon! Hahaha, oh Gore, what a great argument! This is the man that ownes a carbon trading company. Dirrrr. But of course, ALL the profits go back into clean energy research and Greeny things. So that’s alright then.

    Oh heck, Chris, if you don’t see it now, in all its glaring blatancy, you really never will. Your mind is made up. You trust the IPCC and trust the warmest politicians. You have invested to much energy in this belief to let go now. And that is what the fascists are relying on. Useful idiots. Like you.
    • admin says:

      December 22, 2009 at 8:38 AM

      Well done, Dave… good, solid research and excellent points made.
16. Dave says:

    December 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM

    Thanks Admin. To back up my early statement about there being excellent correlation between solar activity and earth temps, I would urge everyone to check out the documentary ‘The Cloud Mystery’. It features Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark who discovered the remarkable correlation between solar activity and earth temps, but no one could explain why such an affect was happening. Then he discovered it was to do with the sun’s variable ability (during various solar cycles) to block cosmic rays, which in turn affects the amount of low cloud over the earth, which in turn affects… yes, temperature!

    Some scientists at the IPCC (Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich), after watching the documentary, immediately published a paper refuting his findings, claiming that the temperature record over the last couple of decades correlates very poorly – although they conceded it correlates excellently for the period before that. And of course they concluded that the divergence over the last 20 years must be down to… you guessed it: (they’re so predictable) CO2! And of course Wiki have delighted in telling us this, as have the BBC – which still has the web page there now stating that the sun’s activity is basically irrelevant:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm

    So then Dr Svensmark looked at THEIR findings, and discovered they were relying ENTIRELY on LAND measurements over the last 2 decades, and completely (conveniently?) ignoring troposphere and ocean measurements – both of which correlated perfectly! So, when you find that ocean temps match up perfectly with the sun… and troposphere temps match perfectly with the sun… but land temps do not… what does that tell you about the quality of our land temps record? Exactly! That’s what Dr Svensmark has concluded too. The land temps record is highly questionable.

    But you won’t see the BBC updating it’s information. Anyway. here are some useful links.

    http://www.thecloudmystery.com/Home.html

    Please watch the documentary on YouTube (don’t be put off by the Swedish introduction – it’s all in English after that):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&feature=related
17. coetsee says:

    January 25, 2010 at 7:50 AM

    Influence can be defined as the power exerted over the minds and behavior of others. A power that can affect, persuade and cause changes to someone or something. In order to influence people, you first need to discover what is already influencing them. What makes them tick? What do they care about? We need some leverage to work with when we’re trying to change how people think and behave.