More Scientist see more Fraud in Climate Change info

[revelarts]

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=622452
Is The Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Asks SPPI

Washington, DC 11/08/2010 07:28 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)

Science and Public Policy Institute
Recent Submissions

Why “Splattergate” Was a Marketing Disaster, Reports SPPI

Is The Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Asks SPPI

Lord Monckton Responds to Abraham Attack About Global Warming Science

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) continues raising serious concerns for policy makers and the public as to whether the “adjustments” that government-funded employees continue making to raw surface and ocean temperature data sets can be trusted.

In a new collaborative paper, Is The Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?, Dr. Dave Evans has gathered substantial evidence that corruption has become endemic within government-sponsored climate units.

Dr. Evans finds that, “The Western Climate Establishment has allowed egregious mistakes, major errors and obvious biases to accumulate — each factor on its own might be hard to pin down, but the pattern is undeniable.” Evans asks, “How many excuses does it take?”

Continues Dr. Evans, “These photos speak for themselves. The corruption of climate science has become so blatant, so obvious, that even non-scientists can no longer throw their hands in the air, and say ‘I don’t know’. You don’t need a PhD to know it is cheating to place thermometers near artificial heat sources and call it ‘global warming’.”

Key findings of the paper include:

* Official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, asphalt, and even fermenting vats of warm sludge.

* Officials hide the modern ARGO data which shows the world’s oceans are cooling.

* They ignore hundreds of thousands of weather balloon results that show the climate models overestimate future warming by at least 300%.

* Officials frequently point to the last 130 years of global warming. But almost never mention the full story: that the planet started the current global warming trend before 1700, over a century before humans started pumping out meaningful amounts of CO2.

* Leading authors publish a crucial graph with a deceptive colour scheme designed to imitate the results they wish they’d got. Why did a leading journal publish such a naked and childish attempt at cheating?

* Their adjustments blatantly transform the original raw data from thermometers, often creating rising trends. They also selectively ignore thousands of other thermometers.

* Researchers repeatedly go out of their way to hide their records, and dodge FOIs.

* The Russian, Chinese and Indian climate establishments, which are financially independent of the western financial establishment, are all skeptical. As are scientists from other branches of science, as well as many older or retired climate scientists (who have nothing to lose by speaking their minds).

Concludes Dr. Evans, “Once one or two major news outlets start printing these photos of official thermometers near artificial heating sources, and points out the deception, the rush will be on for our elected representatives to abandon the Global Warming Crusade. No one would want to be seen to be taken in by half-truths and shameless deception. Who wants to look gullible because they didn’t ask the obvious burning questions? Those who support conclusions based on corrupt behaviour will be seen as negligent for not having considered the serious evidence here.

Observes SPPI President, Robert Ferguson, “For years, non-government scientists and researchers have expressed the urgent need to have the validity of government temperature adjustments audited. Dr. Evans’ findings exhibit ongoing revelations surrounding the shoddy, often enigmatic science and data handling practices at government funded institutions like the CRU, GISS, NOAA and the IPCC. A growing body of such findings only enhances the urgency for unbiased Congressional oversight investigations. The policy implications are far too dire to allow government scientists to persist in stonewalling a full investigative audit into their surface and ocean temperature data handling practices and computer programs.”

Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering.

The full report can be read here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.html

Robert Ferguson

202-288-5699

bferguson@sppinstitute.org
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

[Noir]

Looking up details one SPPI, personally I don't like this -

On its website SPPI does not detail the sources of its funding or outline its approach to disclosure.

Especially given Ferguson has previous links with Exxon, why hide your money sources? Just makes things look odd if nothing else.

[revelarts]

That may be an issue, However if the points they make are true does it really matter that much?

If a medium size gangster proves the the fraud of a much bigger con-man pulling a huge job, does it invalidate the finding, especially if practically it's self evident?

[Noir]

That may be an issue, However if the points they make are true does it really matter that much?

If a medium size gangster proves the the fraud of a much bigger con-man pulling a huge job, does it invalidate the finding, especially if practically it's self evident?

I'd say it does matter somewhat, not in terms of gangsters, but certainly in term of science.

If someone is trying to claim that his opponents are bias, involved in durty deeds and are not transparent. The very least I would expect from that person is they do everything in their power to show that they are not. The idea of with-holding such information brings about suspection.

That is not to say that his findings are false, that I don't know, however, he is not helping his own case by beige secretive.

[SpidermanTUba]

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=622452
Is The Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Asks SPPI

Washington, DC 11/08/2010 07:28 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)

Science and Public Policy Institute
Recent Submissions

Why “Splattergate” Was a Marketing Disaster, Reports SPPI

Is The Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Asks SPPI

Lord Monckton Responds to Abraham Attack About Global Warming Science

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) continues raising serious concerns for policy makers and the public as to whether the “adjustments” that government-funded employees continue making to raw surface and ocean temperature data sets can be trusted.

In a new collaborative paper, Is The Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?, Dr. Dave Evans has gathered substantial evidence that corruption has become endemic within government-sponsored climate units.

Dr. Evans finds that, “The Western Climate Establishment has allowed egregious mistakes, major errors and obvious biases to accumulate — each factor on its own might be hard to pin down, but the pattern is undeniable.” Evans asks, “How many excuses does it take?”

Continues Dr. Evans, “These photos speak for themselves. The corruption of climate science has become so blatant, so obvious, that even non-scientists can no longer throw their hands in the air, and say ‘I don’t know’. You don’t need a PhD to know it is cheating to place thermometers near artificial heat sources and call it ‘global warming’.”

Key findings of the paper include:

* Official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, asphalt, and even fermenting vats of warm sludge.

* Officials hide the modern ARGO data which shows the world’s oceans are cooling.

* They ignore hundreds of thousands of weather balloon results that show the climate models overestimate future warming by at least 300%.

* Officials frequently point to the last 130 years of global warming. But almost never mention the full story: that the planet started the current global warming trend before 1700, over a century before humans started pumping out meaningful amounts of CO2.

* Leading authors publish a crucial graph with a deceptive colour scheme designed to imitate the results they wish they’d got. Why did a leading journal publish such a naked and childish attempt at cheating?

* Their adjustments blatantly transform the original raw data from thermometers, often creating rising trends. They also selectively ignore thousands of other thermometers.

* Researchers repeatedly go out of their way to hide their records, and dodge FOIs.

* The Russian, Chinese and Indian climate establishments, which are financially independent of the western financial establishment, are all skeptical. As are scientists from other branches of science, as well as many older or retired climate scientists (who have nothing to lose by speaking their minds).

Concludes Dr. Evans, “Once one or two major news outlets start printing these photos of official thermometers near artificial heating sources, and points out the deception, the rush will be on for our elected representatives to abandon the Global Warming Crusade. No one would want to be seen to be taken in by half-truths and shameless deception. Who wants to look gullible because they didn’t ask the obvious burning questions? Those who support conclusions based on corrupt behaviour will be seen as negligent for not having considered the serious evidence here.

Observes SPPI President, Robert Ferguson, “For years, non-government scientists and researchers have expressed the urgent need to have the validity of government temperature adjustments audited. Dr. Evans’ findings exhibit ongoing revelations surrounding the shoddy, often enigmatic science and data handling practices at government funded institutions like the CRU, GISS, NOAA and the IPCC. A growing body of such findings only enhances the urgency for unbiased Congressional oversight investigations. The policy implications are far too dire to allow government scientists to persist in stonewalling a full investigative audit into their surface and ocean temperature data handling practices and computer programs.”

Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering.

The full report can be read here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.html

Robert Ferguson

202-288-5699

bferguson@sppinstitute.org
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/




The Science and Public Policy Institute is another in a long series of bogus think tanks set up by Ronald Ferguson for the sole purpose of lending credibility to denialist literature that does not withstand the rigors of the peer review process. His previous ventures were Exxon funded and the SPPI will not disclose its funding source.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institut e


once again - the denialists claims rest on sources of questionable credibility.

[revelarts]

If Hilter says the sky is blue, and you check and find that it is, does it matter that Hitler said it.

NO. please takie a minute and Stop looking at Hitler and the gangsters or whatever you mgiht want to call then and look at the sky for yourself.

I get so weary of the left's and the rights lame use of the "bad source" argument whenever there pet view is being challenged with facts.

It's lame.

the Climate data has been fixed, this group is not the only one that's pointed it out. It's just failed to rise to the top level of the conversation with so many claiming that Global warming is a foregone conclusion. And people making PSA's of blowing kids head up.

taking a step back to examine the facts is painful but if your honest about "science" then it should not be a problem.

[SpidermanTUba]

the Climate data has been fixed, this group is not the only one that's pointed it out.

Really? What other groups have? Any that aren't fly by night think tanks, right wing blogs, or economists?

[revelarts]

you prove my point.
weren't you just on the other thread complaining about the rights hypocrisy.

Spider all of the items mention in the list are mentioned several place on the web. in news report and by individual scientist , climatologist researchers and groups.
A little while ago I spent way too much time trying to convince a few war supporters here that the Bush administration knew that there where no WMD's in Iraq before we invaded.
But no source was good enough for them.
I suspect that you'll be the same on this issue .
but if your honestly interested google the bulleted items in the report. read the report. just for fun.
If the depth of you research only goes as far as the funding source and not to research itself then I doubt anything i find well help you see any different.

[SpidermanTUba]

you prove my point.
weren't you just on the other thread complaining about the rights hypocrisy.


There's nothing hypocritical about not getting my science from hacks.



Spider all of the items mention in the list are mentioned several place on the web. So what? Science isn't a question of how may times something gets mentioned on the web.



in news report and by individual scientist , climatologist researchers and groups. Which groups?

[Thunderknuckles]

There is no doubt in my mind that many "scientists" are pushing a "Global Warming" agenda without a true understanding of our planet. I don't know what to think these days. I've already lived through a number of disaster scenarios dating back to the 70's. Back then we were all gonna die from "Global Cooling", Ozone depletion, Planetary Alignment, and the Population Bomb and it was all going to come to pass before the year 2000.

I still remember the day when I was a young boy who went crying to his mother because the news reported a significant planetary alignment that many physicists believed would destroy the Earth due to the aggregate gravitational forces. My mom just laughed at me and said something on the line of "Yeah, I know. They said the same thing when I was a young girl"

I believe we need to be "good stewards" of the planet but a lot of this doomsday crap is getting laughable. The Earth has survived and thrived despite being the victim of far more real and horrendous incidents than humans spewing a few gases into the atmosphere.

Bottom line:
I'll bet dollars to donuts we'll still be shitting our pants 30 years from now over some supposed threat to our planet. The only real one, in my opinion, is that of a collision with an extra terrestrial object. It's the only thing we have actually seen happen in our solar system. The rest is just theory and conjecture.

[SpidermanTUba]

There is no doubt in my mind that many "scientists" are pushing a "Global Warming" agenda without a true understanding of our planet. Well hey if there's no doubt in your mind it must be true.


I don't know what to think these days.Just ask Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, they'll tell you.


Back then we were all gonna die from "Global Cooling", Really? Show us a single peer reviewed scientific article that makes the claim we will all die of imminent global cooling, even if CO2 emissions continue.


Ozone depletion,
That problem was fixed by reducing CFC emissions, no thanks to denialists like yourself. I love how the anti-environment camps likes to believe a problem doesn't exist - then when the problem gets fixed in spite of their best efforts, they say "Look, see! No problem!". That's about as stupid as you can get really.



Planetary Alignment

WTF?



, and the Population Bomb Relevance to climate?

[Thunderknuckles]

I think you're missing the point of my message Spider. I've lived long enough to have experienced numerous doomsday scenarios backed by scientists. Noy only that, I've seen a number of them that have proven to be flat out false. Global Warming is just the latest one to come around.

Am I in denial? No, just cautious of the latest group of scientists telling me we are gonna destroy the planet. Like I said, I've heard it before.

As for global cooling, when were you born? You don't remember the hoopla surrounding that theory? Hell, it made the front page of Time magazine!

[bullypulpit]

A little research shows that the board members and article contributors to SPPI have ties to the fossil fuel industry. Never mind that the ONLY scientists and policy makers who find fault with climate change are those with ties to the fossil fuels industry.

Multiple independent studies have borne out the FACT of human influence on global climate change. But the right wing-nut ass-hats who will be taking over the House energy policy committees would rather rely on the Bible for their information on climate change and its consequences.

[darin]

Instead of addressing the data, those in desperation attack the messenger.

There hasn't been one 'Man-Made-Global-Warming Worshiper' in this thread who hasn't based their comments on logical fallacy. Google 'circumstantial ad hominem'

Regardless of the funding the group -
Regardless of the intent of the person making the claim -
Regardless if they stand to benefit from the claims -

None of that means the data they present is false.

Why you folks don't agree with it? Because it'd mind-fuck you to think people are NOT the most-important creatures; the god-like worship of humanity and hope for our ability to control our destiny. You guys cannot concede ONE ITEM which is against today's Liberal Talking Points.

MissileMan is on this board. MissileMan is a conservative who doesn't buy into Intelligent Design. He's fully capable of NOT believing something I'd guess MOST conservatives believe. Why is that, do you suppose? Maybe...just maybe it's cuz today's liberals lack the mental and physiological ability to think freely, logically, and reasonably.

Bully - dude, you are lying. You are simply up there making shit up. Multiple independent studies by those who stand to gain MASSIVE Control and MONEY from the world have created the LIE the planet is only warming because WE are doing it. You rail against studies funded by mythical or ridiculous 'ties' to "The Fossil Fuel Industry" yet get in bed with those who desire to CONTROL human behaviour through oppressive taxes for projects that are not NEEDED.

Do you really discount thousands of scientists who believe the UN and Liberals are simply making this shit up?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4

[Gaffer]

A little research shows that the board members and article contributors to SPPI have ties to the fossil fuel industry. Never mind that the ONLY scientists and policy makers who find fault with climate change are those with ties to the fossil fuels industry.

Multiple independent studies have borne out the FACT of human influence on global climate change. But the right wing-nut ass-hats who will be taking over the House energy policy committees would rather rely on the Bible for their information on climate change and its consequences.

I have no ties to the bible. I don't buy into the global warming either. Like Thunder I to lived through all the silliness that was reported as fact about cooling warming, earthquakes and storms. Humans are insignificant as far as this planet is concerned. To think people caused anything like global warming or cooling is arrogant foolishness.

The global warming scam serves two purposes. Make gore richer and help the globalist take control of every ones lives. They have a very big agenda.

[Noir]

maybe it's cuz today's liberals lack the mental and physiological ability to think freely, logically, and reasonably.

I know, we're so mentally retarded >,>

[darin]

Make gore richer and help the globalist take control of every ones lives. They have a very big agenda.

speak of the devil...


Gore Pocketed ~$18 Million from Now-Defunct Chicago Climate Exchange

Although the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) collapsed and shut down this week, Al Gore's Generation Investment Management LLP pocketed approximately $17.8 million on it's 2.98% share of the exchange when it was sold to the publicly traded Intercontinental Exchange a mere 6 months ago. According to news reports, the brainchild of the exchange, academic Richard Sandor, founded the exchange with a foundation gift of $1.1 million, and pocketed $98.5 million for his 16.5% share of the CCX. This would place the value of Gore's firm's stake at almost $18 million. Note Gore is the founder, chairman, and largest shareholder in Generation Investment Management LLP. Barack Obama was on the Joyce Foundation Board when it provided the funding to establish the CCX. Maurice Strong, founding head of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), precursor to the IPCC, was a CCX board member.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/11/gore-pocketed-18-million-from-now.html

[revelarts]

Rely on the Bible for Climate change data?
What? Huh?

I've read the Bible a bit, um, I've never seen any climate change verses pro or con.

I was stoically on board with Climate change when it 1st came out as "global warming" until i started to read past the headlines on the subject. The Bible doesn't come into the picture when discerning the facts of the case.

I'll assume your just blowing off stream here.

[Gaffer]

speak of the devil...

yep. And you can bet those board members have secret funds established so they make a profit as well. All those rich elites that the dark lord hates so much and are paying so much in taxes (LOL).

[revelarts]

From Another site where I did take a lot of time talking about it
(Sorry but the links might not work )


DAILYTECH.com
Myth of Consensus Explodes APS Opens Global Warming Debate
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Con...ticle12403.htm

"Considerable presence" of skeptics

"The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate."
....
....Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."


and undated comment after questioning (or attacks?) they added

Update 7/17/2008: After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.
--

---
"The American Physical Society didn't reverse it's stance. When they say in the editorial on their forum, "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution," note that they are not referring to their own organization but to the scientific community at large. So, of course they disavowed the idea that they reversed their stance. It was poor "reporting" on the part of the blogger at Daily Tech to characterize APS as reversing their stance."



----------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../16/do1610.xml

London Telegraph
IPCC Climate temperature histories have serious errors. Corrections put Global warming claims in question.
----------------
I just heard an interview , and I need to double check this but, Climatologist Tim Ball says that CO2 is less than 4% of total greenhouse gases. OK, now of that less than .117% is supposedly man made. If CO2 is less than 4% of green house gases what horrible gases make up the bulk of green house gases. get ready for it. Water vapor. yes H2O in the air. And its such a variable vapor that the computer models can't really account for it accurately today... but they are SURE that we are doomed ... in 20 years... if we don't stop driving, breathing and keeping our animals from farting.

------------------------

"CLIMATE SCIENCE
The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study

illustration only
by Staff Writers
Copenhagen (AFP) Jan 12, 2009
The earth's climate
has been significantly affected by the planet's magnetic field
, according to a Danish study published Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions
are responsible for global warming.

"Our results show a strong correlation between the strength of the earth's magnetic field and the amount of precipitation in the tropics," one of the two Danish geophysicists behind the study, Mads Faurschou Knudsen of the geology department at Aarhus University in western Denmark, told the Videnskab journal.

He and his colleague Peter Riisager, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), compared a reconstruction of the prehistoric magnetic field 5,000 years ago based on data drawn from stalagmites and stalactites found in China and Oman.

The results of the study, which has also been published in US scientific journal Geology, lend support to a controversial theory published a decade ago by Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, who claimed the climate was highly influenced by galactic cosmic ray (GCR) particles penetrating the earth's atmosphere.

Svensmark's theory, which pitted him against today's mainstream theorists who claim carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for global warming, involved a link between the earth's magnetic field and climate, since that field helps regulate the number of GCR particles that reach the earth's atmosphere.

"The only way we can explain the (geomagnetic-climate) connection is through the exact same physical mechanisms that were present in Henrik Svensmark's theory," Knudsen said.

"If changes in the magnetic field, which occur independently of the earth's climate, can be linked to changes in precipitation, then it can only be explained through the magnetic field's blocking of the cosmetic rays," he said.

The two scientists acknowledged that CO2 plays an important role in the changing climate, "but the climate is an incredibly complex system, and it is unlikely we have a full overview over which factors play a part and how important each is in a given circumstance," Riisager told Videnskab."
---------------------------------


Japan Boffin: Global warming isn't man-made
Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report

Excerpts and commentary on the article.

"A major scientific report by leading Japanese academics concludes that global warming is not man-made and that the overall warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century onwards has now stopped.
The report was undertaken by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER), the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields.
The JSER acts as a government advisory panel, much like the International Panel on Climate Change did for the UN.
The JSER’s findings provide a stark contrast to the IPCC’s, however, with only one out of five top researchers agreeing with the claim that recent warming has been accelerated by man-made carbon emissions.
The government commissioned report criticizes computer climate modeling and also says that the US ground temperature data set, used to back up the man-made warming claims, is too myopic.

"... British based sci-tech website The Register commissioned a translation of the document.

Section one highlights the fact that Global Warming has ceased, noting that since 2001, the increase in global temperatures has halted, despite a continuing increase in CO2 emissions.

The report then states that the recent warming the planet has experienced is primarily a recovery from the so called "Little Ice Age" that occurred from around 1400 through to 1800, and is part of a natural cycle.
The researchers also conclude that global warming and the halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity, a notion previously dismissed by the IPCC.
"The hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken." the report’s introduction states.
Kanya Kusano, Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC) reiterates this point:
"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,"
Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, cites historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:
"We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. "
"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken." Akasofu concludes."---

---------------------------

[revelarts]

More..

The NASA's ex-climate boss is now a CO2 Climate Change Skeptic and says many IPPC source data records are incorrect and possibly just plain made up.

""I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss
Hansen supervisor takes aim at thermageddon
By Andrew Orlowski
Posted in Environment, 28th January 2009 14:18 GMT

The retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs has come out as a sceptic.

Dr John Theon, who supervised James Hansen - the activist-scientist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media attention - repents at length in a published letter. Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009, and excerpts were published by skeptic Senator Inhofe's office here last night.

"As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research," Theon wrote. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”

Theon takes aim at the models, and implicitly criticises Hansen for revising to the data set:

“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.

"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”".....





•In January 2005 Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying:
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
•UK House of Lords Science and Economic Analysis and Report on IPCC for the G-8 Summit, July 2005:
We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations. There are significant doubts about some aspects of the IPCC’s emissions scenario exercise, in particular, the high emissions scenarios. The Government should press the IPCC to change their approach. There are some positive aspects to global warming and these appear to have been played down in the IPCC reports; the Government should press the IPCC to reflect in a more balanced way the costs and benefits of climate change. The Government should press the IPCC for better estimates of the monetary costs of global warming damage and for explicit monetary comparisons between the costs of measures to control warming and their benefits. Since warming will continue, regardless of action now, due to the lengthy time lags.
• ...Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate."
• Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"
•...Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."
•...The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running....
...GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
•"As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research," ... "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”...
“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it."
"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

[fj1200]

From Another site where I did take a lot of time talking about it
(Sorry but the links might not work )


More..

Clearly you are funded by BIG OIL... [/ominous echo] and are now shunned forthrightly.

[bullypulpit]

Rely on the Bible for Climate change data?
What? Huh?

I've read the Bible a bit, um, I've never seen any climate change verses pro or con.

I was stoically on board with Climate change when it 1st came out as "global warming" until i started to read past the headlines on the subject. The Bible doesn't come into the picture when discerning the facts of the case.

I'll assume your just blowing off stream here.

No, allow me to present this for your edification. ;)

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U5yNZ1U37sE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U5yNZ1U37sE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Pagan]

The Science and Public Policy Institute is another in a long series of bogus think tanks set up by Ronald Ferguson for the sole purpose of lending credibility to denialist literature that does not withstand the rigors of the peer review process. His previous ventures were Exxon funded and the SPPI will not disclose its funding source.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institut e


once again - the denialists claims rest on sources of questionable credibility.

You mean like organizations funded by Soros?

[revelarts]

No, allow me to present this for your edification. ;)


Spider, Bully I stand corrected you found 1 guy who believes the Bible and believes it applies to Global warming. You say He's going to be, or is, on an energy committee. OK. I had no idea, that pretty amazing. I thought you leftist guys had run all the hard core believes out of public political life already.

OK so this guy obviously has his mind made up, before the fact, about Climate Change. And is using whatever other facts he can to support that position.

What about you?
Are you true believer in the other direction?
Are you ever going to get around to looking at a few opposing facts yourself?
Or are you going quote the scripture of the IPCC reports and apostle Al Gore?

[Gaffer]

Spider, Bully I stand corrected you found 1 guy who believes the Bible and believes it applies to Global warming. You say He's going to be, or is, on an energy committee. OK. I had no idea, that pretty amazing. I thought you leftist guys had run all the hard core believes out of public political life already.

OK so this guy obviously has his mind made up, before the fact, about Climate Change. And is using whatever other facts he can to support that position.

What about you?
Are you true believer in the other direction?
Are you ever going to get around to looking at a few opposing facts yourself?
Or are you going quote the scripture of the IPCC reports and apostle Al Gore?

Good points. Once again I say follow the money. Who is this guy affiliated with who are his big donors. I bet it can be traced back to gore and soros and a few of their organizations. He's either brainwashed, stupid or in someones pocket.

[bullypulpit]

Spider, Bully I stand corrected you found 1 guy who believes the Bible and believes it applies to Global warming. You say He's going to be, or is, on an energy committee. OK. I had no idea, that pretty amazing. I thought you leftist guys had run all the hard core believes out of public political life already.

OK so this guy obviously has his mind made up, before the fact, about Climate Change. And is using whatever other facts he can to support that position.

What about you?
Are you true believer in the other direction?
Are you ever going to get around to looking at a few opposing facts yourself?
Or are you going quote the scripture of the IPCC reports and apostle Al Gore?

When the opposing facts are supported by the science...rather than faith based initiatives and pseudo-science...Sure I'll give them credence, but not until then.

<center><a href=http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3267775.stm>Global warming 'detected' in the US</a></center>

[darin]

When the opposing facts are supported by the science...rather than faith based initiatives and pseudo-science...Sure I'll give them credence, but not until then.

<center><a href=http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3267775.stm>Global warming 'detected' in the US</a></center>

You don't see the irony in your statements? Man-made Global Warming is based on junk science. It's based on faith-without-reason. It's honestly, completely silly. (sigh)

[Pagan]

You don't see the irony in your statements? Man-made Global Warming is based on junk science. It's based on faith-without-reason. It's honestly, completely silly. (sigh)

OH the "facts" have never gotten in the way of "Party Hacks", why should now be any different?

Party Hacks are only capable of Parroting the Party Line

[darin]

OH the "facts" have never gotten in the way of "Party Hacks", why should now be any different?

Party Hacks are only capable of Parroting the Party Line

what are you talking about now?

[NightTrain]

what are you talking about now?

He's talking about Bully Boy and Spidey-Lad.

[revelarts]

When the opposing facts are supported by the science...rather than faith based initiatives and pseudo-science...Sure I'll give them credence, but not until then.

<center><a href=http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3267775.stm>Global warming 'detected' in the US</a></center>

oooh. So if the science doesn't support your science then you won't give it credence. Or a look, you'll just call it peudo-science and "keep the faith" with the party line. I see.
Just as I thought, your minds made up there is no fact that will penetrate your belief. Maybe we can have a real debate when you read a few of the items I posted or read other info on your own. What i've posted is not all that's available.

Stay Cool Spider. you to Bully.

[revelarts]

forgot to ad this article to my more notes missed it in my copy paste.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152422/The-new-climate-change-scandal

[revelarts]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uu9fprxnkEI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uu9fprxnkEI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[revelarts]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ydo2Mwnwpac?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ydo2Mwnwpac?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[logroller]

I believe we need to be "good stewards" of the planet but a lot of this doomsday crap is getting laughable. The Earth has survived and thrived despite being the victim of far more real and horrendous incidents than humans spewing a few gases into the atmosphere.

Bottom line:
I'll bet dollars to donuts we'll still be shitting our pants 30 years from now over some supposed threat to our planet. The only real one, in my opinion, is that of a collision with an extra terrestrial object. It's the only thing we have actually seen happen in our solar system. The rest is just theory and conjecture.

I can dig it, nobody likes a party pooper. But climate change is real. Check out the site below; it's an e-book and the best explaination of climate change I have ever seen. It develops solutions; not guesstaments as to how bad it is!

If you truly care about being a "steward", you'll read it.


http://live-the-solution.com/wp-content/uploads/global-warming-ebook.pdf :link:


If Hilter says the sky is blue, and you check and find that it is, does it matter that Hitler said it.

NO. please takie a minute and Stop looking at Hitler and the gangsters or whatever you mgiht want to call then and look at the sky for yourself.


taking a step back to examine the facts is painful but if your honest about "science" then it should not be a problem.

Equating Hitler and gangsters to scientists? You do your argument a disservice, enough with the shock and awe. I'm unimpressed.

Speaking of facts, have you ever taken an ice core, or researched polar ice melting. I haven't and don't plan to; but people have, and continue to do so. They look at things like CO2 concentrations and deglaciation and compile this information to form an opinion. Yes, an opinion; and it may indeed be flawed.

I highly doubt, however, that an intergovernmental panel of top scientists (IPCC) have conspired to strike fear into the world's population for their own benefit. (Starting a religion would be far more effective and profitable.) The fact of the matter is nobody knows the extent of the damage done by industrialization. Nonetheless, climate changes have been measured (with a degree of uncertainty) and these changes have a strong correlation to man's activities post-industrialization!

These scientists aren't suggesting we return to preindustrialized culture; merely that we have consumed massive amounts of resources and the Earth has began to adjust for our wastefullness. As unsustainable practices continue we should expect a reckoning for our behavior; seems like an acceptable conclusion to me -- not as universal as the sky being blue, but generally acceptable.

Earth's solution: Billions of human bodies could serve as a huge carbon sink; Can I get a credit for that in Kyoto so I can keep driving by 1-ton truck to the grocery store? fingers crossed

[darin]

I highly doubt, however, that an intergovernmental panel of top scientists (IPCC) have conspired to strike fear into the world's population for their own benefit. (Starting a religion would be far more effective and profitable.)


Actually....some scientists believe Man-made-global-warming IS a religion.


It was Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion. That was in a speech in 2003, but the world has moved on apace since then and adherents of the creed now have a firm grip on the world at large.

Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man.

The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages:

1. It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones.
2. The climate is always changing, so they must be right.

Only the relatively elderly can remember the cynical haste with which the scaremongers dropped the “coming ice age” and embraced exactly the opposite prediction, but aimed at the same culprit – industry. This was in Britain, which was the cradle of the new belief and was a response to the derision resulting from the searing summer of 1976. The father of the new religion was Sir Crispin Tickell, and because he had the ear of Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who was engaged in a battle with the coal miners and the oil sheiks, it was introduced into international politics with the authority of the only major political leader holding a qualification in science. The introduction was timely yet ironic since, in the wake of the world’s political upheavals, a powerful new grouping of left-wing interests was coalescing around environmental issues. The result was a new form of godless religion. The global warming cult has the characteristics of religion and not science for the following reason...

The global warmers like to use the name of science, but they do not like its methods. They promote slogans such a “The science is settled” when real scientists know that science is never settled. They were not, however, always so wise. In 1900, for example, the great Lord Kelvin famously stated, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Within a few years classical physics was shattered by Einstein and his contemporaries. Since then, in science, the debate is never closed.

The world might (or might not) have warmed by a fraction of a degree. This might (or might not) be all (or in part) due to the activities of mankind. It all depends on the quality of observations and the validity of various hypotheses. Science is at ease with this situation. It accepts various theories, such as gravitation or evolution, as the least bad available and of the most practical use, but it does not believe. Religion is different.

Sin and absolution

It is in the nature of religion to be authoritarian and proscriptive. Essential to this is the concept of sin – a transgression in thought or deed of theological principles.

Original sin in the older religions derived from one of the founts of life on earth – sex. The new religion goes even further back to the very basis of all life – carbon. Perhaps the fundamental human fear is fear of life itself. The amazing propensity of carbon to form compounds of unlimited complexity made the existence of life possible, while its dioxide is the primary foodstuff, the very start of the food chain. Every item of nutriment you consume started out as atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is therefore the ideal candidate for original sin, since no one can escape dependence on it. This manna that gave us life is now regularly branded in media headlines as “pollution” and “toxic”: surely one of the most perverse dysphemisms in the history of language.

The corrective to sin in religion is absolution, and the power of most religions comes from their claim to have the monopoly on absolution. So it is with the new godless religion. Furthermore, it is in the nature of religion to create false markets. In the time of Chaucer the Pardoner sold papal indulgences, which freed the prosperous from the consequences of sin. Likewise, the new pardoners sell carbon offsets. As in so much of both ancient and modern society these activities divert effort from wealth creation and so act as a drag on the economy. They also grant to the rich a comfort that is not available to the poor – a sure road to success.

More: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm




The fact of the matter is nobody knows the extent of the damage done by industrialization. Nonetheless, climate changes have been measured (with a degree of uncertainty) and these changes have a strong correlation to man's activities post-industrialization!

Another fact of the matter is, nobody knows IF ANY damage has been done by industrialization. Climate changes have been PROJECTED...and...Correlation IS NOT Causation.




These scientists aren't suggesting we return to preindustrialized culture; merely that we have consumed massive amounts of resources and the Earth has began to adjust for our wastefullness. As unsustainable practices continue we should expect a reckoning for our behavior; seems like an acceptable conclusion to me -- not as universal as the sky being blue, but generally acceptable.

Earth's solution: Billions of human bodies could serve as a huge carbon sink; Can I get a credit for that in Kyoto so I can keep driving by 1-ton truck to the grocery store? fingers crossed

Do you understand CO2 isn't harming us? Do you understand WATER VAPOR is the single biggest "greenhouse gas" on our planet? Do you understand CO2 only serves as an insulator up to a point - and when x-level saturation of CO2 exists, the CO2 doesn't not create MORE 'warming'?

Read this: www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[revelarts]

http://live-the-solution.com/wp-content/uploads/global-warming-ebook.pdf :link:
I'd pay alot more attention to this e-book if I thought you really read my post.
If you had you wouldn't make the comments below.



Equating Hitler and gangsters to scientists? You do your argument a disservice, enough with the shock and awe. I'm unimpressed.
reread the post and you'll see that
1. it wasn't a comparison just an example and
2. it was used in reference to IPCC skeptics.



Speaking of facts, have you ever taken an ice core, or researched polar ice melting. I haven't and don't plan to; but people have, and continue to do so. They look at things like CO2 concentrations and deglaciation and compile this information to form an opinion. Yes, an opinion; and it may indeed be flawed.

I highly doubt, however, that an intergovernmental panel of top scientists (IPCC) have conspired to strike fear into the world's population for their own benefit.
Um, Log it's been proven that some of the IPCC scientist have lied. And much of the data was skewd. messaged, and twisted to make their position stronger. But they still promote.
Their motives aren't all clear. But it's fact that the deception was on purpose.



The fact of the matter is nobody knows the extent of the damage done by industrialization. Nonetheless, climate changes have been measured (with a degree of uncertainty) and these changes have a strong correlation to man's activities post-industrialization!
. the damage done by industrialization is different than damage caused by CO2. there's no doubt that there's been more extinctions, less fish in the seas and rivers, air quality in many areas is horrible.
But man made Climate change is BS



These scientists aren't suggesting we return to preindustrialized culture;.
Sceintist answers run the gamet from very mild personal chages to living at a stone age level and decreasing the current population by large percentages. And that is not hyperbole.



merely that we have consumed massive amounts of resources and the Earth has began to adjust for our wastefullness. As unsustainable practices continue we should expect a reckoning for our behavior; seems like an acceptable conclusion to me -- not as universal as the sky being blue, but generally acceptable.
I'm sorta with with you here but then....

Earth's solution: Billions of human bodies could serve as a huge carbon sink; Can I get a credit for that in Kyoto so I can keep driving by 1-ton truck to the grocery store? fingers crossed
ya lost me.

CO2 not the problem. And Credit isn't going to do anything to solve it.

[logroller]

Actually....some scientists believe Man-made-global-warming IS a religion.

Another fact of the matter is, nobody knows IF ANY damage has been done by industrialization. Climate changes have been PROJECTED...and...Correlation IS NOT Causation.

So far as my religion reference, I meant that as a support for faithful allegiance, something we all rely upon to some extent because belief-based theology is necessary to the functioning of a free society -- nihilism sucks.

Industry certainly has offered many benefits, and any benefit has some associated cost; these costs vary, but environmental damage has certainly resulted. It's childish to say, 'no it didn't', 'yes it did'; so please don't offer unfounded skepticism.

Some scientist believed cigarettes didn't cause cancer, only that there exists a strong correlation -- most things are difficult to prove, some impossible; global warming being one of these things, as the scale and impact are too extensive to conclude absolute truth, one way or the other. I agree projected models are inherently weaker than irrefutable proof, but lack of proof isn't cause to ignore correlation!


Do you understand CO2 isn't harming us? Do you understand WATER VAPOR is the single biggest "greenhouse gas" on our planet? Do you understand CO2 only serves as an insulator up to a point - and when x-level saturation of CO2 exists, the CO2 doesn't not create MORE 'warming'?

Read this: www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Junkscience, really? I'll look at it when you read that ebook!

So far as water vapor, I thought the same thing, and I was right and wrong; it is the most powerful greenhouse gas, possibly doubling globally warming(Dressler), but it isn't an appreciable output from man in cumulative aspects.(due to precipitation) It is reactionary to global temps in atmosphere; meaning, if global temps drop, water vapor present in the atmosphere drops. In consideration of climate change aspects, water vapor cycles about 40 times a year, so global warming effects would be short lived without additional contributing factors. Thus, water vapor serves as a climate feedback event, rather than a climate forcing event. Until recently, not much has been researched on these climate feedback loops; but new research on their impact upon global temperature and greenhouse effects, in conjunction with GHG (CO2, CH4 etc) concentrations, will offer greater insight into the variance of results among climate models.

Estimated CO2 amounts in the atmosphere vary, so i understand why you prefer to reject any claims derived from such data, but new information is being pursued. However, CO2 sources and sinks have been increased and decreased, respectively, as a direct result of man's activities. There are other GHGs, but massive consumption of carbon-rich fossil fuels have coincided with a rapid rise in tropospheric CO2 levels and global temperature; dismissing such data, as inconclusive or false, without a more probable explanation, in my opinion, is a cop-out to our own responsibility as "stewards" of our domain.

JPL/NASA has completed a 7-year, purely observational study of CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere. Results were unexpected-- huge drifts of CO2 about the equator, moving from sources in northern industrialized countries, to sinks in the south.


I'd pay alot more attention to this e-book if I thought you really read my post.
If you had you wouldn't make the comments below.

reread the post and you'll see that
1. it wasn't a comparison just an example and
2. it was used in reference to IPCC skeptics.

Um, Log it's been proven that some of the IPCC scientist have lied. And much of the data was skewd. messaged, and twisted to make their position stronger. But they still promote.
Their motives aren't all clear. But it's fact that the deception was on purpose.

The link I posted, just read it, it doesn't derail your beliefs any more than spending 4 hours clicking through your links turned my world upside down. It really does have some good ideas for positive change, regardless of climate considerations.

Scientists are people, just like you and me, and they may exagerate or lie to get their point across, a 'means vs ends' agenda. I accept this may happen and exercise my own prudence before accepting the claims of others.

I've spent the last 18 months researching climate change philosophies respective of agenda setting and public policy. I have read thousands of pages of data and opinions and compared it with a variety of views and formed my own opinion -- based on positive, not normative ideals.

I did watch/ read your posts and I don't condemn those opinions or facts, only that I temper them against your motives; where motives are unknown, I harbor more doubt as to their consideration on public and private welfare. I suspect you do the same. It's good for us to pursue alternative views, that's how truth is verified; but investing the energy to prove something irrefutably is bounded by the law of dimishing returns.

Man has the unique ability to alter his surroundings for personal benefit, while public benefits receive less consideration, falling prey to externalities and market failure. These are economic principles that have been proven and need to be addressed.


the damage done by industrialization is different than damage caused by CO2. there's no doubt that there's been more extinctions, less fish in the seas and rivers, air quality in many areas is horrible.
But man made Climate change is BS

Sceintist answers run the gamet from very mild personal chages to living at a stone age level and decreasing the current population by large percentages. And that is not hyperbole.

I'm sorta with with you here but then....
ya lost me.

CO2 not the problem. And Credit isn't going to do anything to solve it.

The carbon credit for human beings line was a joke, and given your skepticism of climate change, I'm not suprised you didn't get it.

I doubt climatology is your field of expertise, as you have referenced 'junkscience.com' as a resource, but let me be clear -- I have done research, as have thousands of other researchers, and overwhelmingly they support anthropogenic global warming (AGW). If you were diagnosed to have failing kidneys and had few or no symptoms, you'd be wise to get a second opinion; but I highly doubt you'd go to 'Dr.Tellyouwhatyouwant2hear' for anything besides confirmation of your own prejudice.

You admit Rev, that some evidence exists to man's detrimental effects upon the Earth, just not global warming. What say you of the premise that the Earth's climate (air, water etc) is interconnected in a network of organisms and cycles; and most likely, there exists relationships which have yet to be determined? What if some methods must be applied to test the effects and scope of a problem, along with the scientific and economic feasability of solving, before the problem has been fully explained? What if the magic 8ball, through divine epiphany said 'AGW is legit'-- How would this change your life?

Regarding your posts (which I did read by the way) and videos, I believe that a researcher who has spent 30 years and millions of dollars of other people's money has a strong motive to deliver a groundbreaking conclusion. Likewise, a different climatologist, whose results have been reported as drastically understated or false, has a equally strong motive to discredit the other. This is the purpose of peer reviews; admittedly this may result in collusion, but a worldwide conspiracy to defraud is far-fetched when members of this thread can't agree on something as mundane as causal relationships.

The general consensus on CO2 is it is a GHG mankind has significantly added to the atmosphere in a relatively short period and global temps have risen dramatically during the same period. Cause/ effect we can argue until we're blue in the face, but it doesn't really matter -- International gov'ts accept the premise of AGW and disproving this would involve vast amounts of human energy best applied to more fruitful endeavors.:cool:

-Peace love and climate change.

A reference to Hitler has no justification in this thread, nor any productive conversation, as it carries emotions which inflame your position as desperate and I believe Godwin's Law applies here!!!:dance:

[darin]

Junkscience, really? I'll look at it when you read that ebook!


(sigh). You fear the truth.

[revelarts]

Lawrence Solomon: 75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/


Lawrence Solomon December 30, 2010 – 2:35 pm

How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.

To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.

The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The questions were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims that the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think that humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming – quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say that human are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.

Surprisingly, just 90% of those who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen – I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.

As for the second question, 82% of the earth scientists replied that that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe that human activity been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a 10% or 15% or 35% increase to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.

In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus – almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for subsets that would yield a higher percentage. They found it – almost — in those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field. But the percentage still fell short of the researchers’ ideal. So they made another cut, allowing only the research conducted by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists.

Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers were then satisfied with their findings. Are you?

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the author of The Deniers.


Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/#ixzz19poj8qf3