DVD Talk
The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition) [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

movielib
07-04-11, 01:28 PM
A new thread is started when the old one gets to around 800 posts so here it is.

Part 10:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/578495-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-10-post-climategate-whitewash-edition.html

I had just posted in the last thread a link to the rantings of Australian scientist Gideon Polya who made the claim that climate change will kill 10 billion people this century. I could now be partially responsible for killing about 900 times more people than Hitler. That seems important.

I will repost Post #789 from the last thread as Post #2 in this thread.

Enjoy the carnage.

Mods, please close the last thread.

movielib
07-04-11, 01:28 PM
Wow. Read this crazy thing. It's a long diatribe so I won't post it all, I'll just post the link.

This Australian scientist hits all the typical notes plus he makes a bunch of stuff up that not even Michael Mann would say.

He says methane is 105 times more potent than CO2 (it's about 25 times more; he also fails to mention it's far less plentiful - it's measured in parts per billion, rather than per million). He says CO2 is now over 450 ppm when it's at about 390. His wildest claim of all: ten billion people will perish because of climate change this century.

His name is Gideon Polya. He makes Hansen and Mann and Schmidt and Jones and the rest of them look sane so he serves a purpose in Alarmland.

His favorite phrase seems to be "Climate criminal, climate racist, climate Apartheid Australia."

http://www.countercurrents.org/polya040711.htm

OldDude
07-04-11, 03:59 PM
In another "Australians are crazy over global warming" story, apparently you can kill a farting camel for carbon credits, although camel scientists are upset about the camel kill.
(As an side, Farting Camel Killers would be a great name for a rock band)
http://news.yahoo.com/wind-change-aussie-farting-camels-cull-under-attack-002118066.html
..

Wind of change: Aussie 'farting camels' cull under attack
By Joseph Barrak | AFP – Sun, Jul 3, 2011...

The world's association of camel scientists fought back angrily on Monday over Australian plans to kill wild dromedaries on the grounds that their flatulence adds to global warming.

The idea is "false and stupid... a scientific aberration", the International Society of Camelid Research and Development (ISOCARD) charged, saying camels were being made culprits for a man-made problem.

"We believe that the good-hearted people and innovating nation of Australia can come up with better and smarter solutions than eradicating camels in inhumane ways," it said.

The kill-a-camel suggestion is floated in a paper distributed by Australia's Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, as part of consultations for reducing the country's carbon footprint.

The scheme is the brainchild of an Adelaide-based commercial company, Northwest Carbon, a land and animal management consultancy, which proposes whacking feral camels in exchange for carbon credits. . . . .

kvrdave
07-04-11, 04:45 PM
The similarities between this and doomsday cults is fascinating.

DeputyDave
07-04-11, 05:03 PM
The similarities between this and doomsday cults is fascinating.
Except the doomsday cults can mostly be convinced they are wrong when the end date comes and goes.

arminius
07-05-11, 09:07 AM
I just don't see how you can read all this stuff and not come to the conclusion that this is just a power/money grab. Unless of course, you are one of the grabbers.

movielib
07-05-11, 11:10 AM
As reported previously, Rolling Stone gave Al Gore a platform to spout his nonsense after a period of relative quiet. This was not surprising as RS is in the tank for CAGW and Gore said nothing new, just the same old exaggerations, half-truths and lies.

This inspired someone to write:

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.4030

After an unusually long silence, Prince Albert of Gore has resurfaced, with a 7000-word essay for Rolling Stone magazine. (See Walter Russell Mead's two-part takedown here and here.) Yet I imagine that, with Al's inflated self-importance, it must rankle to find Katy Perry getting the cover photo instead of him. Which reminds me of a song...

Cover of the Rolling Stone
(with apologies to Shel Silverstein, and Dr. Hook - original lyrics, mp3)

Well I'm an ex-V.P., without a Ph.D.
Idolized everywhere I go
I preach of disaster and show slides about warmth
For a hundred thousand a show*
I write Congressional bills and I got media shills
And lobbyists I can phone
But though I'm a fixture, I can't get my picture
On the cover of the Rolling Stone

[Refrain]
Rolling Stone
Wanna see my picture on the cover
Stone
Wanna buy five copies for my mother
Stone
Wanna see my frowning face
On the cover of the Rolling Stone

To meet a desperate need I wrote a brilliant screed
Of just seven thousand words
A work of style and great importance
Like they had never heard
You'd think I would get a front page spread
'Cause my face is so well known
And so it enrages to be in the back pages
Of the stupid thankless Rolling Stone

[Refrain]

I got a lot of over-zealous Greenpeace groupies
Who swallowed all my lies
I got an Indian railroad expert
Who's sharing in my Nobel Prize
I got land and jets and mansions and cash
And an Oscar of my own
And I keep gettin' richer but I can't get my picture
On the cover of the Rolling Stone

[Refrain]


* Yes, that's his price.

movielib
07-05-11, 11:54 AM
Another extremely silly paper has been making the rounds. It purports to explain why it hasn't been warming. Supposedly it's because the Chinese have been burning more coal and the sulfur particulates are preventing the planet from boiling as it should because of CO2. Critics have pointed out the study depends on an old 2006 model that was never any good to begin with. Also, it's been pointed out that worldwide such particulates haven't been changing anyway. The study was printed in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science which should raise alarms because the once respected PNAS has become a vanity publisher for NAS members who can get them in easily (unless they are climate skeptics who apparently have different rules).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/05/global_warming_on_pause_but_stop_burning_coal_anyway/

Chinese coal blamed for global <strike>warming</strike> er... cooling
Economists ride into sulphurous cloud of aerosols
By Andrew Orlowski
Posted in Environment, 5th July 2011 11:51 GMT

The refusal of the global temperatures to rise as predicted has caused much angst among academics. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," wrote one in 2009. Either the instruments were wrong, or the heat energy had gone missing somewhere.

Now a team of academics, after tweaking a statistical model to include sulphur emissions, suggest that coal power stations may be to blame for a lack of global warming since 1998. The IPCC's 2007 assessment but acknowledged the negative radiative forcing (aka, cooling effect) of both natural aerosols from volcanoes and manmade aerosols, but admitted the level of scientific understanding was low.

A team of two geographers and two economists headed by Professor Robert Kaufmann at the Department of Geography in Boston publish their results in a new paper Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008 [PDF], which includes manmade emissions of sulphur and simulates the flat temperatures since 1998. Kaufmann has a PhD in energy management policy. In this paper, he and his colleagues revisit "a simplified model" from 2006 (PDF) containing statistically estimated equations for three variables: global surface temperature, CO2 and CH4. The actual temperature differences described in the new paper are tiny – with variations from model predictions of 0.1°C.

"Results indicate that net anthropogenic forcing rises slower than previous decades because the cooling effects of sulfur emissions grow in tandem with the warming effects greenhouse gas concentrations. This slow-down, along with declining solar insolation and a change from El Nino to La Nina conditions, enables the model to simulate the lack of warming after 1998," the team explains.

The model estimates a 0.06W/m2 increase in cooling since 2002. Declining sulphur emissions between 1990 and 2002 – caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the switch to gas – had a warming effect of 0.19W/m2.

Kaufmann et al declare that aerosol cooling is "consistent with" warming from manmade greenhouse gases. Recent studies suggest greenhouse gas emissions may be masking a long-term cooling trend as solar activity declines.

Climate scientist Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, doesn't find the economists' statistical theatrics convincing. She wonders why the short-lived regional increases in particulates should have a global effect on temperatures. She also notes that there has been no increase in aerosols, either globally or over East Asia, from 2000 to 2006; Chinese emissions only rose in the period 2004 to 2007. Kaufmann et al do acknowledge that a La Nina weather pattern cooled the planet between 1998 and 2000, while a warm El Nino increased temperatures in 2002 and again in 2010.

"The political consequence of this article seems to be that the simplest solution to global warming is for the Chinese to burn more coal, which they intend to do anyway," writes Curry.

Doubtless they will. First we blame them for warming the planet, but now we blame them for cooling the planet.
Another interesting thing is that one of the authors is Michael Mann - no, not that one (and also not the movie director). But it has caused some confusion. Different middle initial and different schools though.

But perhaps the most significant thing is that the authors admit the world hasn't been warming which is causing consternation among some alarmists who keep saying it is even though it isn't.

movielib
07-07-11, 09:45 AM
This clever little 9 minute "cartoon video" is quite good. Unlike many of the first overwhelmingly positive skeptical reactions, however, I find it somewhat wanting as giving too little credit to nuclear energy and in giving too short shrift to the sun while citing "indirect" causes of warming (and cooling) that are, in all probability, indirectly caused by the sun in the first place (these indirect influences amplify the sun's small direct influences). Specifically, I find it lacking that Svensmark's cosmic ray theory isn't included, especially because the person behind the video is Roy Spencer who has recently become much more accepting of the possibility Svensmark is on to something. I understand there is only so much you can fit into 9 minutes and you don't want to lose your audience by being too long or too technical but these changes wouldn't take much tweaking. But still, it's a mostly good and informative video and is very much worth watching.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vvObfrs3qoE?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vvObfrs3qoE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

movielib
07-07-11, 02:03 PM
This is a riot.

Alarmist Chris Mooney blasts skeptic Chris Horner because, at the Heartland ICCC conference June 30/July 1, Horner claimed that many proponents of CAGW, particularly the leaders, are "watermelons," green on the outside and red on the inside. Their real goal is to stop capitalism and free markets and redistribute wealth.

Then, in the comments to Mooney's article, a whole bunch of alarmists come in to blast Mooney and show that Horner is absolutely right. Mooney gets blasted for being closer to Horner than he is to them.

While it can be sometimes difficult to assign motive, many alarmists have said just the things Horner talks about. The quotes are there. Horner has written books about it full of such quotes.

Here is Mooney's article and the comments, wherein Mooney bemoans the fact that his supposed allies have come in to prove him wrong and Horner right:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/07/06/in-the-climate-debate-the-misunderstanding-is-mutual/

Lubos Motl does his usual splendid job of analysis (despite dork's derisive comment about Motl and myself in a recent thread (see http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/558567-afterbirther-movement-long-form-released-22.html), Motl is not an "internet loon"; he is harsh and sarcastic and his style is not mine but he is seldom wrong, and when he is he admits it, unlike many other people):

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/chris-mooney-defends-growth-becomes.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Thursday, July 07, 2011
Chris Mooney defends growth, becomes a heretic
Lubos Motl

Chris Mooney has always been a kind of opportunist who figured out that it was possible to make profit out of spreading the environmentalist delusions - but he has arguably never believed them. If he were a politician, he would be the ultimate insider in Washington D.C.

Such a position has worked for years but it no longer works. Environemtalism and its most radical reincarnation, global warming alarmism, is gradually regaining the status of a fringe movement promoted by the lunatics. Mooney has clearly not noticed the difference yet.

In a recent article,

In the Climate Debate, The Misunderstanding Is Mutual (Mooney's article plus fiery debate),

he has complained about a panel discussion at the Sixth Heartland Climate Conference. Around 57:00, panelists Marc Morano, Chris Horner, and Alan Carlin (no, it's not Noam Chomsky) confirm the suggestions from the audience that the primary driver behind the climate movement is an attempt to reorganize the society, a new green version of socialism or communism or anti-capitalism.

A few years ago, such a Mooney could be attacked by climate realists who would explain him why it's obviously true that the climate alarmists are like watermelons - green on the surface but red (Marxist) inside. That would lead to repetitive confrontations with no apparent winner.

However, we're in 2011 so what happened was more creative. ;-) What was that?

Well, Chris Mooney has been attacked by the climate warmists. Horner is obviously right and Mooney is betraying the most degenerated version of Marxism that drives almost all of his readers to his "The Intersection" website.

Commenters "1985" and "William Furr" immediately came to complain about would-be green people like Mooney who don't admit that capitalism absolutely has to be destroyed and the economic growth has to be sent deeply into the red numbers as soon as possible.

Mooney cried in comment #3 for the first time. Did they come to prove Horner right? Well, they don't have to prove him right. Everyone knows that Horner is right. Mooney has over 2,000 daily visitors to his blog that doesn't boast any scientific content - and it can't because Mooney has no clue about science - so try to ask a simple question, Chris, what drives over 2,000 people to this pure trash that you're posting on the Internet?

Well, yes, they're the hard core of the environmentalist movement who are eager to read any garbage as long as it licks the a*s of the environmentalist movement. They're the "Deep Greens" as they called themselves. I didn't know the term but it's apparently how the most radical part of the green movement is calling itself.

It wasn't just "1985" and "William Furr" who complained about Mooney's lack of will to fight against capitalism - which should be the primary goal of the climate alarmism. "Boris" in #4 argued that the "best" minds in the AGW business have claimed that a goal of the AGW hysteria is to redistribute wealth. :-)

"William Furr" returned in #5 and said that Mooney isn't the kind of great minds who want to hobble economies and redistribute wealth. Instead, Mooney is the kind of opportunist who wants to eat a cake and have it, too. Very true. ;-) "William Furr" and "1985" came to explain that it's not possible to have a cake and eat it, too.

In #6, Mooney cried for the second time. He still believes that the new green Marxism isn't the main force behind the AGW alarmism but he is already "willing to be convinced otherwise". :-)

In #7, "Eric the Leaf" promotes the book "End of Growth" to his (probable) soulmates "1985" and "William Furr".

In #8, Mooney cries for the third time. In his opinion, admitting that the AGW movement is about the liquidation of growth has been a losing card for the liberals and one of the reasons behind the "conservative counter-revolution in the U.S." (oops!).

In #9, "1985" says that the laws of physics dictate something else (destruction of the world economy) than what is politically feasible and Mooney is missing this key point. In #10, "William Furr" says that doing not enough is equivalent to doing nothing. That's why Mooney is equivalent to a denier, a point that will be repeated many times.

In #11, Mooney claims that both physical and political laws are important for the reality and it's a bad idea to misunderstand either. Very true - the only problem is that Mooney misunderstands both. A few more exchanges between "1985" and Mooney follow.

A new player enters the arena in #16. Dr Michael Tobis who is "in it for the gold", says that they have to prove that Horner is right and the destruction of the world economy has nothing to do with ideology - only its preservation is purely ideological. He insists that the greens who are eating roots and sleeping on the trees have to be presented as the most un-ideological, mainstream people. The average American family can't be scaled to the whole world so a revolution is needed, we learn. But it's not about ideology! It's just a non-ideological revolution meant to remove everything that the mankind has ever built.

In #17, "1985" criticizes Mooney for understating the gap between physics and politically feasiable things - i.e. understating the urgent need for a revolution that circumvents all standard political channels. In #18, Mooney supports Tobis' opinion that the black should be presented as white and vice versa. "Incredibly well stated, Michael."

In #19, a new participant, "Nullius in Verba", divides the Greens to Green-lite, Green, and Deep Green. He has no doubts that the latter group exists and has "explicitly anti-Capitalist, redistributive, 'climate justice' sorts of authoritarian/totalitarian policy ideas." It's more radical than communism that wanted to preserve - and expand - technology.

In #20, "1985" attacks Tobis because the point is to liquidate capitalism while Tobis wants to allow this monster to retain the status of a sacred cow. According to #21 by "1985", "Nullius in Verba" is missing the point, too. There is nothing totalitarian about controlling the people's carbon cycle and preventing them from breathing out. Instead, it is necessary to preserve life. Just to be sure that there is no disagreement between these greens, Nullius in Verba agrees in #22 that they agree about the long-term goals - a complete control over the people's behavior. They just differ in the strategies how to achieve this holy goal.

In #23, "Michael Tobis" labels "1985" as a gift to his opponents. Tobis even dares to think that the growth and capitalism belong together and have done miracles for many. In #24, the next thing that "1985" expects from "Nullius" is to say that Julian Simon was correct. I eagerly expect it, too!

According to "M Burke" in #25, capitalism may save the planet by providing us with fuel-efficient cars and light bulbs. :-)

In #26, "TTT" figures out that this thread is an "epic OWNGOAL". He is ashamed, as an environmentalism. I would also be ashamed if I were an environmentalist - from the very first moment. He unsuccessfully tries to mock Chris Horner and says that the "infinite growth is impossible" but that's less important than to "poke and mock the freaks".

In #27, "Brian D" says that capitalism doesn't work because it ignores "externalities" such as CO2 so it has to be "given signals".

In #28, Mooney cries again. He agrees it's an owngoal and he is tired of it.

In #29, "Nullius" says that the tragedy of the commons is about the lack, and not excess, of the markets. Things have to be privatized and the tragedy is over.

In #31, "DirkH" who is apparently a skeptic smiles that Mooney wanted to separate the fight against the growth from environmentalism and he has been returned back to the reality by his would-be soulmates. Go get him boys, he's befouling Gaia. :-) Dirk loves warmists fighting with each other, and so do I.

Mooney cries in #32 for the fifth time and agrees that Dirk is right and the warmists are losers. Depressing.

In #33, "Brian D" protests: privatization can't avoid the tragedy of commons because the real commons like CO2 in the atmosphere can't be owned by anyone.

According to "1985" in #34, the most selfish thing is to self-sacrifice and co-operate (with the green world government). People just haven't understood yet that this is the happiest form of greed. And your humble correspondent is afraid that they will not understand it. In #35, "1985" says that the lost battle doesn't matter because small victories doesn't matter because their required goal is so huge. ;-) Mooney says that these discussions provide more ammunition for the denialists - so what? Unless every single human on Earth is completely controlled by the radical green machine, there's no chance, anyway. :-) The comment #36 by "1985" says that the point of the tragedy of commons is not to think about it or try to solve it, but just to have a talking point to spread propaganda about ecology, so "1985" criticizes "Nullius" for his attempt to think how the tragedy of the commons was solved in England - another clear heresy. In #37, he says that the judgement day is not in the year infinity but in this century and people should have been getting ready for the Armageddon for 50 years.

In #38, "Nullius" recommends Mooney, who understood that he was a sore loser, to cure the situation easily. Just admit that you're not on the same side as the Deep Greens! You oppose them as much as you do oppose the Republicans. ("Nullius" recommends Mooney a career suicide if not a physical one.) "Nullius" himself would love to be explained some things because he finds green attitudes to all meaningful questions a mystery. "Nullius" isn't quite optimistic about the privatization of the atmosphere so he proposes a "climate change bond", something that allows you to make profit whenever the climate changes. I would surely buy it - to make a profit every day! :-)

A new participant, "PDA" in #39, says that it's not an owngoal because there's just one anti-capitalist person on this thread. "PDA" predicts that they will lose every single argument in the future because there won't be a 100% unity between them - if the unity is needed, and be sure that for totalitarian movements such as the AGW alarmism, it's badly needed, I add.

In #40, "1985" accuses Tobis of considering capitalism to be a sacred cow. I guess that the super hard core Marxist Tobis isn't used to this kind of criticism. ;-) In #41, "1985" criticizes "climate change bonds" because when the sea level rises by 1 meter, several and maybe infinitely many meters are already in the pipeline, so capitalism doesn't work, and if you thought it does, the physical laws describing the oceans have to be rewritten.

In #42, "William T" believes that "1985" is in a minority and he is a troll.

In #43, "Nullius" agrees that if the sea level rises by 1 meter, infinitely many meters are already in the pipeline. Why would "Nullius" dare to heretically disagree with this self-evident axiomatic dogma? The climate change bond would already know about the Armageddon in advance.

"Brian D" has a long comment #44 that I didn't understand but he surely wants to say that the ICCC conference is not science-based.

"Johnny" in #45 says that the resources are infinite - we may switch. Nature has solved all other growth problems, too. "Nullius" in #46 defends signals sent to the market. Both of these positions are disagreed by "PDA" in #47 - the previous comments are just beliefs, he says. Instead, one should parrot that the infinite growth is impossible because this approach has already been useful - by brainwashing millions of greens into a pile of mindless zombies.

"Gofigure" in #48 promotes a recommended skeptical literature. In #49, "TTT" uses a quote by "Nullius" to show that "Nullius" is also a Marxist - more detached from reality than the other Marxists. In #50, "Nullius" tries to denounce Marxism.

Rod Taylor in #51 says that Kevin Drum and other liberals (including far left economist DeLong) publicly admitted that the carbon fees were just another tax and the rightwingers were thought to be stupid enough not to see through the tricks. ;-) Well, Drum et al. have been proved wrong.

In #52, Mooney would love to agree that "1985" is in a minority but he realizes that this is not what readers of the thread will conclude - because it's preposterous. The green movement is overflooded with unhinged Marxists of the "1985" type. In #53, "1985" responds to another comment: roughly speaking, who is not a Marxist contradicts the laws of physics.

A fun discussion. Here is the most important lesson for Mooney to learn from his comrade "1985":

In that sense, and I again, I am sorry and very sad to say it, the difference between you [Mooney] and the denialists is smaller than the difference between you and the people who actually get it. If you do not understand that growth has to stop and be reversed immediately (and why), despite all your writings on the subject, you are actually in the same kind of denial that the people you write about are.
I usually prefer to comment on the science and the excesses and silliness of the alarmists and usually (not always) stay away from going into political motives. After all, the skeptics have those too although I think they have the science firmly on their side. But neither should political motives (on both sides) be entirely ignored.

grundle
07-08-11, 02:00 AM
A new thread is started when the old one gets to around 800 posts so here it is.

Part 10:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/578495-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-10-post-climategate-whitewash-edition.html

I had just posted in the last thread a link to the rantings of Australian scientist Gideon Polya who made the claim that climate change will kill 10 billion people this century. I could now be partially responsible for killing about 900 times more people than Hitler. That seems important.

I will repost Post #789 from the last thread as Post #2 in this thread.

Enjoy the carnage.

Mods, please close the last thread.

Paul Ehrlich said that overpopulation would kill 90% of the world's population by the 1980s.

movielib
07-09-11, 06:14 PM
They wonder why we laugh at them, Part 1:

http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/monbiot-global-warming-jellyfish-apocalypse-end-of-vertebrate-life-is-nigh/

Monbiot: Global Warming Jellyfish Apocalypse – End of Vertebrate Life Is Nigh.
Posted on July 9, 2011 by hauntingthelibrary

In another gem of a piece that exceeds even his infamous “2012 Meat Apocalypse” prediction, George Monbiot has warned that global warming Co2 is breeding an invasion of the jellyfish that spells the end of vertebrate life itself!

Monbiot starts his latest Jeremiad by observing that there used to be a lot more fish in the sea, citing two impeccable scientific sources: himself and old people who remember how many more mackerel there used to be. Apparently, you used to be able to just walk along the beach with a bucket and the fish would just about leap into it for you. Ah, the good old days!

Finding that there is no scientific explanation – or even data – on why things are no longer what they used to be in the world of mackerel, our hero jumps into a kayak and paddles three miles (!) out to sea. He doesn’t see any mackerel, but does spot something else. “Unimaginable numbers” of monster jellyfish!

But I could also see something else. Jellyfish. Unimaginable numbers of them. Not the transparent cocktail umbrellas I was used to, but solid, white rubbery creatures the size of footballs. They roiled in the surface or loomed, vast and pale, in the depths. There was scarcely a cubic metre of water without one.

Yikes! Could the arrival of these monster jellyfish spell a doom of Lovecraftian proportions and strangeness? Monbiot believes it could well do. This could be the end of vertebrate ecology itself we are witnessing:

Is this the moment? Have I just witnessed the beginning of the end of vertebrate ecology here? If so, the shift might not be confined to Cardigan Bay. In a perfect conjunction of two of my recent interests, last week a monstrous swarm of jellyfish succeeded where Greenpeace has failed, and shut down both reactors at the Torness nuclear power station in Scotland.

Damm those monster jellyfish! But why now? What is causing this terrifying invasion? Could it possibly be down to C02 and global warming? Why yes it could be:

A combination of overfishing and ocean acidification (caused by rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) has created the perfect conditions for this shift from a system dominated by fish to a system dominated by jellyfish.

If this is indeed what we’re seeing, the end of vertebrate ecology is a direct result of the end of vertebrate politics: the utter spinelessness of the people charged with protecting the life of the seas.

The jellyfish are coming, thanks to C02, and they’re shutting down the power stations as they move inexorably to a “system dominated by jellyfish”. This, surely, is proof of the unprecedented effects of global warming? We’ve never had jellyfish breeding in such numbers as to shut down power stations before, after all. Have we?

Well, of course, it’s nothing new – this has all happened before. Like in the Phillipines in 1999, where an “enormous concentration” of jellyfish was blamed for crippling the new power station. In Miami in 1984, where a “huge crowd of jellyfish” shut down the nuclear reactor at the St Lucie power station and again in 1993. In Tampa Bay in 1971, where massive “swarms” of jellyfish shut down the power plant. In Tokyo in 1972, where they closed a power plant, in the Persian gulf in 1958 where they shut down an oil refinery – the list goes on.

Having backtracked on his “2012 Meat Apocalypse” prediction, Monbiot’s latest is even better – the end of vertebrate life and the imposition of “a system dominated by jellyfish” who apparently are starting by shutting down power stations. Run for the hills!

movielib
07-09-11, 06:22 PM
They wonder why we laugh at them, Part 2:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/a/aa/Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg/800px-Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg

Climate "scientists": 95 percent of people fry to death at 20 °C
Lubos Motl
July 9, 2011

The Sydney Morning Herald has discussed what happens when the global mean temperature increases by 4 °C:

Too hot to handle: can we afford a 4-degree rise?

Kevin Anderson, a director of a Tyndall Centre somewhere in the U.K., sees it in this way:

If you have got a population of 9 billion by 2050 and you hit 4 degrees, 5 degrees or 6 degrees, you might have half a billion people surviving.

So the population will happily continue to rise to 9 billion by 2050. Suddenly, the global mean temperature will apparently jump from 15 °C to 20 °C, we're told, and 8.5 billion people will suddenly die because 20 °C is surely deadly.

I wonder whether those loons actively realize what they are saying - and what their colleagues are saying - and whether at least some of them know that the likes of Mr Anderson are mentally ill. You see that the U.K. doesn't have any counterpart of the ObamaCare if they can't afford to store Mr Anderson in a psychiatric asylum.

Needless to say, there doesn't exist any empirically based reason to think that the temperature change in the next 40 years will exceed something like 0.5 °C - see all RSS cooling and warming trends (which imply that the very sign of the future temperature changes are unknown) - so five degrees is already an overestimate by one order of magnitude.

However, if the planet were warmer by 5 °C, just imagine this nonsense for the sake of it, we could notice the difference but we would surely see no substantial death rate. In fact, that's about the point at which the warm-weather-related deaths would match the cold-weather-related deaths. At this point, the number of temperature-related deaths would probably be minimized. That's not a shocking insight - after all, 20 °C is the temperature we like in our living rooms - I actually favor 23 °C but it is not far - so if this is also chosen to be the global mean temperature, the planet will surely become more comfortable than it is now.

But it's amazing that those people don't realize how little 4 °C is for our planet. Every year, the seasons change the temperature at every place away from the equator by dozens of degrees. Every 24 hours, we experience a day-night temperature difference comparable to 4 °C, too. The different places on the globe differ, too:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/a/aa/Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg/800px-Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg

You see that depending on the location (equator vs Antarctica are the two extremes), the annual average temperatures go from -50 to +30 °C or so. The width of this interval is 80 °C. Four Celsius degrees is just 1/20 of this width. So by moving by something like 1/20 of the distance between the equator and the poles which is 1/80 of the Earth's circumference, you may completely compensate the effect of such a warming. Many people have moved by much more than 1/80 of the circumference of the Earth and many of them survived. ;-)

A cooling by 5 °C would have a higher impact because ice sheets would begin to grow at many places which would change the environment "qualitatively": that's why the ice ages were pretty different. But that's only because on the downside, we're pretty close to a phase transition, the freezing point of water, 0 °C, when certain important things change discontinuously.

However, the continental ice sheets have been gone for thousands of years and we're extremely far from the next similar point, the boiling point of water at 100 °C. So you can't be shocked that an increase of the temperature by an extra 5 °C will make no qualitative difference to the Earth. It would be indisputably measurable if it occurred - unlike the controversial increases by 0.6 or 0.8 °C attributed to the last century - but "measurable" doesn't imply "worrisome".

I have discussed those points many times, see e.g. 13 °C of warming would be fine for life.

After a stream of preposterous statements how the Earth and maybe the Milky Way would collapse if the temperatures grew by 4 °C, another alarmist called David Spratt makes the following punch line of the article:

‘And we are talking about how we might adapt to a 4-degree warmer world,’’ Spratt wrote. ‘‘Have we gone mad?’

Well, you surely have. There is absolutely no problem for humans and others to move from 15 °C to 20 °C and there is no reason to even talk about the question how they will adapt. The only adaptation will be done by the farmers - and the adaptation will simply be that they don't have to work so much to get the same results.

Do you find it hard to imagine a world that is warmer by 4 °C? How will all the layers of the atmosphere, oceans, and ecosystems react? Well, this may be a hard homework exercise to calculate but there's a simple way to solve it: look at the map above and find a place that is 4 °C warmer than the place where you currently live. Think about the ways how the ecosystems, people, and economies can survive over there today - and you will understand how your place would be doing if the temperature increased by ten times more than it can realistically increase.

Nothing would change much.

OldDude
07-09-11, 06:39 PM
They wonder why we laugh at them, Part 2:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/a/aa/Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg/800px-Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg

I would urge all the CAGWers to jet off to conference locations that are projected to average about 15 °C during the week they are there. I would note that they seem to prefer locations that are about 25 - 30 °C. Oh, the horror. I don't know how they survive (well, the conference room has a/c, but I think golf under those conditions would kill them.)

movielib
07-11-11, 09:54 AM
A carbon tax or an emission trading scheme (ETS - Aussie for Cap and Trade) has been a huge issue in Australia. In late 2009 it brought down the opposition leader who supported it in favor of a new opposition leader who managed to kill the impending ETS. But Labor was still in control. Last year Labor PM Julia Gillard very narrowly won by enough to keep Labor in power and she did that only by promising there would be no carbon tax. Then she did a 180 and said there would be. There has been uproar ever since.

Yesterday Gillard announced details of the plan. Meanwhile, a new poll shows she and her party would get trounced if an election were held today.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/11/3266969.htm

Poll predicts landslide Coalition victory
By Jeremy Thompson
July 11, 2011

A new poll, taken in the week before yesterday's release of the climate plan, has the Government losing an election in a landslide and has Opposition Leader Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister.

The latest Essential Report shows that on first preferences the Coalition leads Labor 50 per cent to 30 per cent and after preferences the Opposition leads by a massive 57 to 43.

Essential's pollster Andrew Bunn says if an election were held now it would be "getting on to the proportion of the New South Wales State election" which was a massacre for the Labor government.

Mr Abbott leads Prime Minister Julia Gillard by 39 to 37 per cent - a narrow lead, but a year ago Ms Gillard was in front 53 per cent to 26 per cent.

"This is the first time we've [Essential] had him ahead and the approval ratings for Ms Gillard have been rapidly reducing over the last couple of months," Mr Bunn told ABC News Online.

"The major movement started in both voting intention and approval from the announcement in February of the carbon pricing. The two party preferred was neck-and-neck in February and it's now 57-43."

Ms Gillard has slipped even further in outright approval, with only 29 per cent of people approving of the job she is doing as Prime Minister and 62 per cent disapproving.

But Mr Abbott's approval rating is not in positive territory either - 39 per cent of those polled approve of the job he is doing as Opposition Leader and 49 per cent disapprove.

Neither leader rates well in the eyes of the public.

Essential's last poll showed former prime minister Kevin Rudd is more popular than Ms Gillard and former opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull is more favoured than Mr Abbott.

Mr Bunn says it is not too late for Ms Gillard to rekindle her electoral chances because former prime minister John Howard came back from a similar position.

"What's going to be critical is the response over the next few months on the response to the carbon pricing scheme," he said.

The poll also shows the lowest approval for a carbon price since Essential started polling in March - 53 per cent against and 35 per cent in favour.

The results were published as Ms Gillard began her campaign to sell the climate change plan.

"I've got a lot of explaining to do and I'm going to keep explaining," she said after visiting a family in western Sydney.

"Yesterday when we launched the package I wanted to explain the way it worked to Australians and I'm doing that today and I'll be doing that for many days, many weeks, many months ahead."

At the same time, Mr Abbott was at a coal mine in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales campaigning just as vigorously against the plan.

He said he would not support the Government's $1.3 billion compensation package for the coal industry - nor the $300 million assistance package for steel.

"The best form of compensation for the coal industry is not to have a carbon tax in the first place," Mr Abbott said.

"We are not going to make it easier for the Government and its toxic tax. It's up to the Government to get this legislation through. We can't save the country from opposition," he said.

However, the package appears likely to be passed anyway and Mr Abbott is risking political pain by opposing assistance measures to industry and households.
With the parliamentary system Australia has I'm not sure when a new election can be called but the carbon tax and Gillard's huge lie should be her undoing. I only hope it is soon enough.

movielib
07-11-11, 05:27 PM
Energy Secretary Chu saves us from our "bad" choices.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=10841346

Sunday, July 10, 2011
Nanny Steven Chu: “We Are Taking Away a Choice that Lets You Waste Your Own Money!”
Paul Gregory

Steven Chu was a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. That he developed methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light does not mean he understands economics, consumer choice, or politics. A Nobel Prize does not even guarantee common sense. Often it guarantees the opposite.

In a Friday conference call with reporters, Chu argued against a House bill that would repeal a 2007 federal law outlawing incandescent bulbs. Many Americans object to being told that must buy the fluorescent, halogen, and LED bulbs starting in January of 2012 as dictated by federal law.

Chu argued the more-efficient bulbs mandated by Congress save consumers money over the bulb’s life even though the up-front price is higher. Chu defended Congress’s right to dictate what kind of light bulb Americans buy because:

“We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money."

There are many things that cost more up front and “pay for themselves” in terms of longer life or lower operating costs. Think of insulation which costs a bundle but lowers utility bills, or electric cars that costs $10,000 more but save on gas. So far, we have allowed the people themselves to decide: More money now, but less later? Or: Less money now and more later? That is my or your decision.

The choice of light bulb is a classic problem of economic choice over time. Consumers, who place a high value on money now, do not buy insulation, electric cars, or fluorescent lights. We have different time preferences. People who pass on insulation, electric cars and fluorescent light bulbs are by no means wasting their money. They are making choices that are perfectly rational for them.

This basic point of economics escapes Nobel laureate Chu.

Which light bulb is better for you is not an easy calculation. The compact fluorescent costs about six times more and contains hazardous mercury, but lasts six times longer and saves energy. There are also matters of taste and aesthetics. Some will find the new light bulb shape ugly. Others will not like the light it emits, but there will no longer be any choice. Just like we lost Freon in 1995, we will lose Edison’s light bulb in 2012.

Chu says the state should make the choice of light bulbs for you, but why should he stop there? Why not insulation or which car to buy?

Welcome to the Nanny state.

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

PS I cite below the EPA's recommednations for cleaning up a broken mercury bulb:


This page presents only the most important steps to reduce exposure to mercury vapor from a broken bulb. View the detailed recommendations.
Before cleanup

* Have people and pets leave the room.
* Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.
* Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
* Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb:
o stiff paper or cardboard;
o sticky tape;
o damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces); and
o a glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.

During cleanup

* Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.
* Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.

After cleanup

* Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.
* If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.
I think the EPA's estimation of the dangers of mercury in CFLs is overblown like it is for most things. But that doesn't make Chu's nannyism any less wrong. His arrogance is monumental but that is true of most environmentalist positions. The guy should go back to his lasers. He's obviously incapable of understanding freedom of choice. He's been a disaster from day 1.

BearFan
07-11-11, 05:37 PM
Thank God there is someone so wise to make decisions for me ....

For the record, we have purchased quite a few fluorescent bulbs, but there are some we have not and if they burned out, I would replace with a regular bulb (like the 14 year old bulb in the attic that gets turned on at most 10 times a year .. it would not make sense for me to spend the extra money on that bulb and a few others, because I would never make up the extra cost).

movielib
07-11-11, 06:24 PM
I've posted this before:

A while back I bought what I think will be a lifetime supply (of course, I'm older than almost all of you). I bought double life incandescents, where available, that are only a little more than the standard bulbs. Everything: 60w, 75w, 100w, globe bulbs and 3-ways cost me a total of about $180.

My wife hates CFLs and I like her more than I like Sec Chu.

orangecrush
07-12-11, 09:24 AM
I've posted this before:

A while back I bought what I think will be a lifetime supply (of course, I'm older than almost all of you). I bought double life incandescents, where available, that are only a little more than the standard bulbs. Everything: 60w, 75w, 100w, globe bulbs and 3-ways cost me a total of about $180.

My wife hates CFLs and I like her more than I like Sec Chu.My main beef with the CFLs is that it isn't made very clear where you are supposed to dispose of them correctly. You have to really go out of your way to find out where to dispose of them and if you don't have internet, you wouldn't know at all. I wonder how many have made their way into landfills?

al_bundy
07-12-11, 11:21 AM
I've posted this before:

A while back I bought what I think will be a lifetime supply (of course, I'm older than almost all of you). I bought double life incandescents, where available, that are only a little more than the standard bulbs. Everything: 60w, 75w, 100w, globe bulbs and 3-ways cost me a total of about $180.

My wife hates CFLs and I like her more than I like Sec Chu.

my wife hates them only when she knows they are there. one time i replaced a few bulbs with CFL's and she never noticed the difference

al_bundy
07-12-11, 11:24 AM
Thank God there is someone so wise to make decisions for me ....

For the record, we have purchased quite a few fluorescent bulbs, but there are some we have not and if they burned out, I would replace with a regular bulb (like the 14 year old bulb in the attic that gets turned on at most 10 times a year .. it would not make sense for me to spend the extra money on that bulb and a few others, because I would never make up the extra cost).

CFL's still cost more? last i saw you could buy them for $1.50 or so each at home depot and costco

movielib
07-12-11, 11:46 AM
CFL's still cost more? last i saw you could buy them for $1.50 or so each at home depot and costco
At Home Depot I got 48 each of 60w, 75w, 100w (all double life) plus 48 globe lights (which are more) plus 12 3-way lamp bulbs (which are kinda pricey) for a total of about $180 so yes, CFLs are still more expensive.

Edit: 6 packs of 60w, 75w, 100w double lifes today are $3.47.

http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical-Light-Bulbs-Incandescents/GE/h_d1/N-5yc1vZbmglZlo/h_d2/Navigation?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053&Nu=P_PARENT_ID&omni=b_GE&searchNav=true

Get 'em before the supply goes down and prices go up.

movielib
07-12-11, 04:48 PM
Al Gore coming back:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PY-mboZkhD0?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PY-mboZkhD0?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

As ever, everything Gore says is the opposite of the truth. The alarmists have much more money (not even close, maybe three orders of magnitude; plus his side even gets more from fossil fuel companies, particularly BP and Shell). Just a few years ago, Al boasted about putting $300 million into alarmist propaganda. Where is money anything like that in skepticism? Sure, you've seen all the skeptical commercials, right? What his side doesn't have is the science and the truth.

September 14 should be a real hoot.

movielib
07-12-11, 05:18 PM
According to John Kerry, a scientific "expert" is one who takes federal money to (presumably) agree with him.

http://junkscience.com/2011/07/12/what-makes-a-scientist-congressional-democrats-offer-a-shocking-answer/

What makes a scientific expert? Congressional Democrats offer a shocking answer
Posted on July 12, 2011 by Steve Milloy

What makes a scientific expert? Knowledge? Expertise? Accomplishment? Respect of one’s colleagues? A new bill introduced in Congress has a shocking new answer.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) have proposed a rigged process to ban so-called ‘endocrine disrupting’ chemicals like bisphenol A (BPA).

The bill would establish an “Endocrine Disruption Expert Panel” to advise the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences on banning chemicals.

But to be on the panel an “expert” must:

… have received Federal endocrine-research-related funding within the 2 years preceding appointment under this subsection…

So you can’t be an expert unless you’re at least partially-owned by the politicized federal agencies that want to ban chemicals like BPA in the first place. Astonishingly, a scientist’s source of funding is what makes him expert, according to the Kerry-Moran bill.

While the bill is unlikley to go anywhere due to probable Republican opposition, it does expose where Democrats want to take science and scientists.
Remember how Obama and the Democrats were going to follow the science? They had it backwards.

grundle
07-13-11, 06:18 PM
Germany plans to replace green energy with dirty coal energy!


http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110713-36277.html

Germany to fund new coal plants with climate change fund cash

Published: 13 Jul 2011

The German government wants to encourage the construction of new coal and gas power plants with millions of euros from a fund for promoting clean energy and combating climate change.

The plan has come under stiff criticism, but the Ministry of Economics and Technology defended the idea. A spokeswoman said it was necessary as the government switches from nuclear to other renewable energy sources and added that the money would promote the most efficient plants possible.

Funding for the initiative is limited to five percent of the energy and climate change fund’s annual expenditure between 2013 and 2016.

Annual funding for the new plants could total more than €160 million per year between 2013 and 2014 alone, the Berliner Zeitung newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The fund was first established to encourage nuclear plant operators to develop new, renewable forms of energy production. Now that nuclear power is to be phased out by 2022, the fund will pay for research into reducing carbon dioxide emissions from buildings, developing renewable energy sources and storage technologies for them.

Opposition politicians and environmental groups said the plan was wrong because it would promote what they argued were climate-damaging plants. They also worried that money earmarked for other valuable projects could be reduced as a result.

Oliver Krischer, a member in the Bundestag of the Green party, told the Berliner Zeitung that the country would do better to encourage more investment in energy efficiency

And the environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND) said additional coal-fired plants were entirely unnecessary.

The Economics Ministry spokeswoman said that in any event, that Germany’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2020, would not be damaged by the new initiative.

grundle
07-13-11, 08:58 PM
A wikipedia editor named "Scibaby" was banned some time ago, because he kept adding reliably sourced information that was skeptical of global warming, and the fascists who control wikipedia do not tolerate that kind of thing.

His user page is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scibaby

Since being banned, he's used more than 900 sockpuppet accounts, which have all been banned, and are listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Scibaby

Here's a recent example of something that he added, which was then erased:


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=439035378

Several prominent contributors to recent IPCC reports are critical of the claims of consensus on global warming. One contributor, Dr. Paul Reiter, professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France stated in testimony to the United States Senate "…such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and skepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse."<ref>http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/reiter-042606.pdf</ref>. Similarly, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, indicated “Claims of consensus…serve to intimidate the public and even scientists” and are “a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”<ref> http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597</ref>


That's the kind of thing that the global warming fascists at wikipedia don't want people to know about.

movielib
07-16-11, 11:03 AM
2/3 of Americans are in favor of light bulb freedom. Only 1/5 are against it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2011/67_oppose_upcoming_ban_on_traditional_light_bulbs

67% Oppose Upcoming ‘Ban’ on Traditional Light Bulbs
Friday, July 15, 2011

One-in-five Americans (20%) say they or someone they know has bought large quantities of traditional light bulbs to use when those bulbs disappear off store shelves next year under new federal light bulb regulations.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Adults aren’t doing that themselves or don’t know anyone who is, but another 10% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The new government regulations provide for the manufacture of similar-looking bulbs that will last longer and be more energy-efficient – but also more expensive. Critics view the regulations as unnecessary government intrusion in the free market and see them as effectively banning the kind of light bulb Americans have used for decades.

Just 20% of adults think the sale of traditional light bulbs should be banned. Sixty-seven percent (67%) oppose such a ban. Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided.

However, 57% think it is at least somewhat likely that the new light bulbs, while they will cost more up front, will save money in the long run, as the federal Energy Department claims. Thirty-six percent (36%) think long-term savings are unlikely. These findings include 29% who think the savings are Very Likely and just nine percent (9%) who say they are Not At All Likely.

Two years ago, only 18% of adults thought it was the government’s job to tell Americans what kind of light bulb they should use. Seventy-two percent (72%) say it’s none of the government’s business.

The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on July 13-14 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Americans have decidedly mixed feelings about the impact of the new fluorescent or halogen bulbs on the environment. Twenty-eight percent (28%) believe the bulbs will be good for the environment, but just as many (28%) think they will be bad environmentally. Twenty-eight percent (28%) more feel they will have no impact. Seventeen percent (17%) aren’t sure.

Still, 81% say they or someone they know has already bought and used one of the new energy-efficient light bulbs.

Perhaps suggesting there may be a consumer surprise coming soon, just 63% of adults have followed even somewhat closely news stories about the legislation mandating the manufacture and sale of only the new high-efficiency light bulbs. This includes only 27% who say they have been following those stories Very Closely.

Women oppose the ‘ban’ on traditional light bulbs more than men do. Voters over 40 are against it more than those who are younger.

But the majority of adults across all demographic categories oppose a ban on the sale of traditional light bulbs, including 69% of those who say they or someone they know has already bought and used one of the new energy-efficient bulbs.

Higher-income voters are the most likely to have already tried out the new bulbs or to know someone who has bought and used one. Those who’ve already used the new bulbs are also much more likely than those who have not to think they will save money in the long run.

Younger Americans are more convinced than their elders that the new bulbs will be good for the environment.

A majority of U.S. voters continue to feel as they have for years that discovering new sources of energy is more important than reducing energy consumption.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters believe a free market economy is better than an economy managed by the government. Just 14% think a government-managed economy is better.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.
Encouraging.

movielib
07-17-11, 10:07 AM
New study shows how CAGW "consensus" was "manufactured." Climate scientist Judith Curry, who was once a total alarmist but who has been moving more and more toward skepticism because she has been honest enough to keep an open mind comments at her blog (indented material indicates quotes from Goodwin's paper and a few quotes from other sources at the end of the post; nonindented material indicates Curry's analysis) :

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/16/manufacturing-consensus/

Manufacturing(?) consensus
Posted on July 16, 2011
by Judith Curry

The consensus on anthropogenic climate change provided by the IPCC is the source of much controversy. Central to the controversy is the meaning and implications of “consensus,” in both scientific and sociological contexts.

Some important insights on this issue are provided by this paper on The authority of the IPCC and the manufacture of consensus by Jean Goodwin at Iowa State University. Some excerpts are provided below:

Through a series of (up to now) four reports starting in 1990, the IPCC has managed to establish as a political “given” that the earth is warming, and that human activity is a significant cause. The fourth report was the occasion for the Bush II administration’s shift from statements like this:

We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.

in 2001, with it’s typical assertions of “uncertainty” as a reason for inaction, to statements like

[The IPCC report] reflects the sizeable and robust body of knowledge regarding the physical science of climate change, including the finding that the Earth is warming and that human activities have very likely caused most of the warming of the last 50 years.

in 2007. How did the IPCC manage this feat? In opposition to those who would create an appearance of doubt, the IPCC has made evident a broad and deep agreement among scientists—they have “manufactured consensus.”

As far as I can tell, the word “consensus” is absent in the WGI section of the FAR–in particular, it is absent from the initial “Policymakers’ Summary” Where it first turns up is in the earliest representation of the FAR: a statement defining for public audiences what the FAR is and how it should be taken. John Houghton, the UK’s Chief Meteorologist and chair of WGI, wrote the following in his “Foreword” to the report:

“In preparation of the main Assessment most of the active scientists working in the field have been involved. One hundred and seventy scientists from 25 countries have contributed to it, either through participation in the twelve international workshops organised specially for the purpose or through written contributions. A further 200 scientists have been involved in the peer review of the draft report. Although, as in any developing scientific topic, there is a minority of opinions which we have not been able to accommodate, the peer review has helped to ensure a high degree of consensus among authors and reviewers regarding the results presented.”

JC comment: It appears from this argument that John Houghton was responsible for the initial decision to use consensus as key element of the IPCC’s rhetoric, in the context of selling the FAR to the public.

What is being done by this complex of features?—this rhetorical form, which I will call a ”consensus claim”? One place to begin is by realizing its oddity. After all, we teach our students to recognize and reject ad populum or “bandwagon” appeals. I suspect that it would be hard to find scientists claiming to each other that such & such ought to be believed, because a “consensus of scientists” thus quantified backed it. In fact, the WGI report itself did not frame its statements “socially,” with information about how many scientists of what type and nationality were speaking. Instead, it framed its statements “epistemically,” presenting in the Summary for Policymakers what “we are certain of…calculate with confidence…predict” as well as what “uncertainties” remain, and detailing in a series of chapters some of the evidence backing these claims. If scientists tend to offer each other epistemic as opposed to social grounds, it is no surprise that there seem to be no mechanisms within science for establishing that a scientific consensus exists.

JC comment: The wikipedia article on scientific consensus is worth reading. It states “Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.” It is “intended to communicate a summary of the science from the “inside” to the “outside” of the scientific community.”

The consensus claim thus seems to be primarily aimed at non-scientists, and in particular (I assert, somewhat speculatively) constitutes an appeal to authority. In this representation of the FAR, audiences are being invited to credit the assessment not because of its epistemic grounding, but because of the social fact of who wrote it. . . Whereas non-experts almost by definition are unable to assess an expert’s reasoning, they may be well capable of judging social facts, such as whether some procedures were inclusive. To adapt a phrase of Collins & Pinch, where we might find it impossible to assess scientists on scientific grounds, we can instead assess them on the same everyday, pragmatic grounds we trust plumbers.

JC comment: Climategate was about the social aspects of the consensus. Whereas scientists rightly claimed that climategate changed nothing epistemically with regards to climate science, the public saw substantial problems with the procedures upon which the consensus was built.

The consensus claim, furthermore, appears to be an elaboration of the appeal to authority specifically designed to heighten its force. “Credit what I say, because I say so” is the minimalist version of the appeal to authority. I have argued elsewhere that the force of this appeal is based in a kind of “blackmail”: it puts the audience in a position such that they will appear imprudent if they conspicuously go against the view of someone who obviously knows more. The minimalist appeal, however, is relatively easy for audiences to evade. For example, the audience can shop around for a second opinion, and then excuse their non-compliance with the appeal on the grounds that the experts themselves seem to be divided. If, however, all the experts say the same thing, the layperson’s “plausible excusability” is restricted.

JC comment: this strategy is clearly reflected in the arguments of Oreskes and Anderegg et al.

To make a consensus claim is thus to do as the Foreword says: to make an “authoritative statement.” It’s worth noting that there is some evidence that some participants in the IPCC process aimed it to achieve just such authority. Bert Bolin, the overall chairman of the IPCC itself, recalls that he “repeatedly pointed out to the working groups that the goal was not necessarily always to reach an agreement, but rather to point out different views when necessary and to clarify the reasons for disagreements when possible.” He goes on: “But this was still seldom tried”. In line with this, Houghton himself was quoted as saying (upon the establishment of the IPCC in 1988), “we must arrive at a general consensus”.

JC comment: is this aiming that makes this a manufactured consensus. It is illuminating to see that the idea of a consensus was pushed for by Hougton, with some resistance by Bolin.

Scientists involved in the first IPCC assessment process represented the final report as the result of a “consensus of scientists”; as far as I can tell, however, this was not the official position of the IPCC itself. This situation changed, however, in the course of the later IPCC process. Whatever its beginnings the consensus claim seems to have become one of the ways the IPCC represented itself to its audiences. For example, a flyer for the Third Assessment Report represented it as “an authoritative, international consensus of scientific opinion”.

The emphasis on consensus also became codified in the IPCC’s internal procedures, as they became increasingly settled after the first (and quite rushed) assessment process. As early as 1991, a rule was adopted stating that “in taking decisions, drawing conclusions, and adopting reports, the IPCC Plenary and Working Groups shall use all best endeavours to reach consensus”.

Meanwhile, however, the IPCC endured close to twenty years where its authority was undermined by objections which were legitimate under its own announced standards. By committing the IPCC to quantitative inclusiveness, those representing its work as a “consensus” created grounds for controversy.

JC comment: I agree that the claim of consensus is ultimate source of controversy surrounding the IPCC. As I’ve argued in my previous post no consensus on consensus, a consensus on this topic is neither necessary or desirable.

The IPCC and its defenders therefore were obliged to undertake a second task: the “boundary work” necessary to distinguish those qualified to contribute to a scientific consensus on global climate change, from those who were not. This work is evident in some of the press reporting above, where the “minority” was characterized not only as quantitatively small, but as “extreme” and “scientifically suspect.” Unfortunately, the need for boundary work also likely created temptations to make illegitimate attacks on the scientific credibility of opponents whose views did not fit with the consensus. Even when successful and legitimate, boundary-drawing created additional problems. If indeed every scientist within the consensus agreed that policy action was urgent, and every scientist outside thought otherwise, a strong appearance of politicization was created—i.e., that the boundary between “insiders” and “outsiders” was based on political views, not scientific relevance.

JC comment: This is an astute insight, on how the scientists have become politicized on this issue.

Finally, the consensus claim created opportunities for opponents to object that the IPCC’s emphasis on consensus was distorting the science itself. Once the consensus claim was made, scientists involved in the ongoing IPCC process had reasons not just to consider the scientific evidence, but to consider the possible effect of their statements on their ability to defend the consensus claim.

JC comments: I have argued previously that the IPCC is torquing (and even corrupting) climate science, and this article clarifies that the source of this corruption is the consensus building process.

“Consensus” is a strong claim, and it opens a wide argument space; that is what I have been trying to suggest in the above sketch. By representing their work as a “consensus,” the scientists of the IPCC essentially legitimated the objections of those commonly labeled as “denialists,” and committed themselves to a twenty year process of replying to them.

Let me close this section with a call that “more research is needed!” into the report as a rhetorical strategy—a subject that, as far as I can tell, has been almost entirely unexplored. It could be that we would find that the “report strategy” does not aim to construct an appeal to expert authority enforcing its conclusions, but attempts to seriously engage a lay audience with the modes of expert reasoning used to reach those conclusions. In the terms I suggested above, a “report strategy” would be taking an “epistemic,” as opposed to “social,” approach to communicating science. . . And it seems likely that pursuing a “report strategy” would require from its authors commitments different from, and much less than, the strategy of making a consensus claim.

JC comment: Goodwin hits the nail on the head in terms of the need to seriously engage the lay audience with the modes of expert reasoning used to reach those conclusions. In the absence of transparency on the IPCC’s reasoning and uncertainty assessments, I suspect that there is a substantial amount of fallacious reasoning (particularly circular reasoning) that underlies many of the IPCC’s conclusions and likelihood statements.

JC conclusion: Lets return for a moment to the previous post on agnoiology and this statement by Lehrer:

We shall argue that consensus among a reference group of experts thus concerned is relevant only if agreement is not sought. If a consensus arises unsought in the search for truth and the avoidance of error, such consensus provides grounds which, though they may be overridden, suffice for concluding that conformity is reasonable and dissent is not. If, however, consensus is aimed at by the members of the reference group and arrived at by intent, it becomes conspiratorial and irrelevant to our intellectual concern.

Goodwin makes a strong argument that the IPCC is a manufactured consensus that has been reached by intent. As such, Lehrer argued in 1975 that such a consensus is conspiratorial and irrelevant to our intellectual concern.

The IPCC needs to lose the emphasis on consensus and pay far more attention to understanding uncertainty and to actual reasoning. I’ll close with this statement by Oppenheimer et al. (2007)

The establishment of consensus by the IPCC is no longer as important to governments as a full exploration of uncertainty.
Curry thinks Goodwin makes a strong case that the IPCC deliberately tried to manufacture a CAGW consensus and marginalize and delegitimize skeptics.

I think that this has been evident for many years but it's nice someone has validated it in a study.

The IPCC is a political organization with an agenda. It uses scientists but is not scientific. It pushes one way and those who play along get rewarded and those who don't get ignored, pushed out or quit in exasperation. Its conclusion is predetermined and drives the science instead of allowing the science to drive to its conclusion.

movielib
07-18-11, 09:47 AM
While it's not at the top of the issue list in most countries (odd since it is supposed to be the biggest threat to the Earth, humanity and all of "creation" in the history of this or any other universe), the global warming issue is #1 in Australia. PM Julia Gillard's government is crumbling (see Post #15).

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/how-carbon-taxes-splintered-australias-government/242010/

How Carbon Taxes Splintered Australia's Government
By Lois Parshley
Jul 18 2011, 7:00 AM ET 4

The prime minister's bid to regulate greenhouse gases has threatened her party's dominance, fractured the political system, and even drawn calls for breaking apart the country

Last February, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced a new carbon tax, effective in 2012, the details of which she finally released last Sunday, July 10. If she succeeds in rolling her plan out, Australia will be the first country in the world with an economy-wide tax on carbon emissions. But Australia's economy relies heavily on carbon-intensive agriculture and mining exports and opposition to Gillard's plan has been intense. Now the Prime Minister and her Labor party are struggling to hold onto power as the fight over carbon taxing threatens not just to derail Gillard's plan but to topple Australia's government.

The same day the plan was announced, Mines Minister Norman Moore, one of the top officials in Western Australia, spoke openly about the possibility of Western Australia seceding, citing the unpopular carbon tax as proof that the federation was broken. How did things get so far?

The carbon tax began not so much as an environmental but as a political concession. When Australia's 2010 federal election resulted in a hung parliament, the incumbent Prime Minister Gillard, suddenly in need of support from another party, reneged on her campaign promise not to introduce a carbon tax to woo the Green Party into a coalition. Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens, told the local Adelaide Now newspaper that both Gillard and her primary detractor -- Tony Abbott, the leader of the center-right Liberal party -- made it clear they would accept a carbon tax as part of negotiating a coalition. Brown said he had advocated for the tax because it was an immediate mechanism to moderate pollution.

As conceived by a Climate Change Committee that included the Prime Minister's ruling Labor party, the Green Party, and two independents, the carbon tax would be in place for three to five years as an introduction to a fuller emissions trading scheme. In her announcement last Sunday, the Prime Minister set the carbon price at $24.60 a ton, lower than some of her critics had feared.

Senator Christine Milne, the Deputy Leader of the Greens, told me, "The tax will increase at a rate of 5 percent per year until 2015," when the introduction of a trading system would link the Australian price to the global carbon price, which is currently controlled by the European Union. Milne said the tax aims to reduce emissions levels to 5 percent below 2000 levels, eliminating 159 million tons of pollution by 2020. She cited South Korea's announcement on Tuesday -- Seoul will set Korea's first ever carbon targets for 2020 -- as evidence that Australia's move will encourage other countries to legislate carbon.

Although Milne is confident the tax will win over detractors, opposition leader Tony Abbott claims the legislation, applied to all companies that produce at least 25,000 tons of carbon a year, will cause electricity hikes for consumers by as much as 10 percent. Gillard hoped to ameliorate such concerns by offering a $1.39 billion compensation package to the worst polluters, providing $10 billion in loan guarantees for electricity generators, increasing the tax-free income threshold, and providing a budget buffer to four million low income households.

Nonetheless, Australian citizens have not received the plan warmly. In a Galaxy poll this week, 60 percent said that they oppose the tax. Fergus Hanson, Research Fellow and Director of Lowy Polling, has been tracking Australian opinions on global warming since 2006. He explained, "While there has been a sharp drop in the proportion favoring the most aggressive form of action, 81 percent at a minimum agree 'the problem of global warming should be addressed.'" According to Hanson, the political problem stems from "the type of action people want," suggesting that most people, worried about the state of the economy, would prefer a more moderate approach.

Australia provides 28 percent of the world's coal, and the western regions that produce it have weathered the global financial crisis well. But southern and eastern Australia, where the majority of the population lives, are still struggling: as the faster-to-recover Western areas are driving a rise in the prices of staples, many Australians are concerned about making ends met.

Tim Wilson, a Director at the Institute of Public Affairs, told me that the political situation is increasingly tense -- with many Australians blaming Gillard. "The Prime Minister lied about not implementing a tax, and people are seriously pissed off. The hostility towards the government is incredible -- in a public forum in Queensland, a man asked why a citizen's militia shouldn't take the government back by firearm. That might not sound extreme to you, but we don't have a firearm culture over here." Lowy's polling shows 59 percent of Australians dissatisfied with Gillard as a Prime Minister, and opposition leader Abbott, with 49 percent dissatisfied, isn't faring much better.

How will all this play out? Tim Wilson predicted that the carbon tax will be passed by Parliament sometime this fall. "Prime Minister Gillard only has a government by one seat," he said, and at the next elections, currently scheduled sometime before November 2013, Gillard and the Labor party will almost certainly fall. "Whoever takes over next will repeal the tax," Wilson guessed. "And that will be the last we hear about a carbon tax for a while."

Perhaps, as an island nation, it's appropriate that Australia is the first country in the world where discussions of climate change are capable of toppling a government. According to Fergus Hanson, it's been the key issue over which every Australian Prime Minister and opposition leader has seen their demise since 2007, including former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who lost office in 2010 after a failed bid for national climate legislation.

For other Western democratic governments looking on, Australia's turmoil suggests that even the political will for climate legislation may not be enough without strong public support for the proposed plan.
Gillard is now regularly called Juliar. She made a deal with the Greens to stay in power, truly a Deal with the Devil. She and her Labor Party deserve what they get. Australia deserves better.

movielib
07-18-11, 10:20 AM
We all know about the CLOUD experiments at CERN, designed to test Henrik Svensmark's theory that lower solar activity allows for increased cosmic ray bombardment of the Earth which causes increased lower level cloud cover as the particles become seeds for water droplet formation which cools the Earth (and all of this vice versa when solar activity increases). This has already been confirmed by at least two other experiments but CERN is supposed to be The Big One. The first results will be published soon but there is a remarkable development.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/cern-boss-i-forbade-employees-to.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29

Monday, July 18, 2011
CERN boss: I forbade employees to interpret our climate experiment
Lubos Motl

Political pressure on scientific research even at CERN began to resemble the undemocratic era

Nigel Calder has found an incredible interview with Rolf-Dieter Heuer, the boss of CERN, in "Die Welt" (see also The Register):

Wie "Illuminati" den Cern-Forschern geholfen hat (German)
How did "Angels" helped the CERN researchers (autom. transl.)

Heuer is also asked about the CLOUD experiment (TRF) that will release its results on its simulation of the formation of clouds by the cosmic rays momentarily.

His answer contains these shocking sentences:

I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.

In reality, the relevance of the experiment for the fashionable debate about the "global climate change" is the only sensible justification of the investment of 9+ million euros by CERN whose job is something completely different than atmospheric science.

One could perhaps understand if all scientists were similarly constrained and prevented from interpreting the results of their research in ways that could be relevant for policymaking. However, the main problem is that many people who are trying to work on very different phenomena in the climate are not prevented from interpreting - and indeed, overinterpreting - their results that are often less serious, by orders of magnitude, than the observations by the European Organization for Nuclear Research.

Moreover, this sentence by Heuer

One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.

is really a proof of his prejudice. Whether the cosmic radiation is just one player or the only relevant player or an important player or an unimportant player is something that this very research has been supposed to determine or help to determine. An official doesn't have the moral right to predetermine in advance what "one has to make clear" about these a priori unknown scientific results.

I urge Dr Kirkby to ignore the shameful interventions into his scientific work and the bullying by his boss. But even if Dr Kirkby turned out to be an obedient puppet, I assure you that the people who are more relevant are undoubtedly going to think about the experiments and its broader implications because this experiment wasn't designed and paid by the European taxpayers including myself with the purpose to instantly throw the results to the trash bin.

And if the experiment happened to confirm a theory by Henrik Svensmark, which has had nothing to do with politics when published, by the way, Mr Heuer has no moral right to try to prevent Henrik Svensmark from enjoying all the credit that he would deserve in that case - credit for contributions to science that would exceed Mr Heuer's own contributions to science by orders of magnitude.

In reality, it is almost certainly true that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters. But so are water vapor and carbon dioxide and aerosols and oscillations of the ocean; except that in the case of the second item on the list, scientists are being similarly prevented from saying that this chemical compound is just one among many drivers.

I am pretty much sure that Mr Heuer has heard about some people who are claiming that CO2 is important in the climate and he must know that they're allowed - and, indeed, encouraged - to "interpret" those wild speculations that are, relatively to the CLOUD experiment, supported by nothing. But he still finds it appropriate to suppress the broader findings that may follow from the research done by his very lab. This is an utterly dishonest behavior reminding us of science in the 20th century totalitarian societies and Mr Heuer should be ashamed.

Much of Feynman's famous "Cargo Cult Science" commencement speech is dedicated exactly to these questions but let me quote this portion:

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish at all. That's not giving scientific advice.

I think it is totally obvious what "results of a certain kind" that are being published mean in the particular issue of the "global climate change". On behalf of the European taxpayers, I authoritatively urge Mr Heuer to retract his outrageous "ban" and to apologize for it. Indeed, such speech codes - that Mr Heuer has been so candid about - are among the top reasons why the scientists ceased to be trustworthy in recent years and it is unacceptable for this violation of the scientific integrity to propagate to particle physics.

And that's the memo.
It seems to me virtually all studies on climate science, regardless of which "side" they come down on, include some interpretation of the results. This interpretation forbidding from the CERN chief seems bizarre. Likewise the statement that cosmic rays are "only" one of many parameters. No one ever said differently. The question is "How much?" If it's a lot and, particularly if it's a lot more than CO2, that is enormously important. But the researchers are not allowed to say so?

At Nigel Calder's blog, a paragraph from one of the comments is most apt, applying the chief's admonition to the Higgs Boson, so sought after at CERN using its Large Hadron Collider:

https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/%E2%80%9Cno-you-mustnt-say-what-it-means%E2%80%9D/

Robbie says:
18/07/2011 at 11:15

...
So in essence: No conclusion about the existence of the ‘Higgs’-particle can be given by any of CERN’s publications. Conclusions on the existence of the ‘Higgs’-particle should also not be part of CERN’s practice. They should be “just” publishing the results of the experiments. Not their interpretations.
...

I'm really not too concerned with this "ban." If the CERN researchers don't "interpret" their work, plenty of others will.

movielib
07-18-11, 08:17 PM
Al, this is going to flop bigger than that concert you had in 2007.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1388902

Critic: Gore's starting over reflects failure
Bill Bumpas - OneNewsNow - 7/18/2011 4:20:00

lFormer Vice President Al Gore has announced his plans for a live streaming event that is meant to mobilize people to help solve what he calls the "climate crisis."

Al Gore's organization, the Climate Reality Project, was formerly known as the Alliance for Climate Protection. It will soon launch "24 Hours of Reality." But one prominent global-warming skeptic believes Gore is going back to the drawing board because all of his efforts over the years, including a movie and a Nobel Prize, failed to win over the public on "manmade global warming."

"Here's a man presiding over the greatest collapse of a modern environmental movement in history, and this is what he has now -- 24 hours to try to regenerate it and start over," deduces Marc Morano, executive director of Climate Depot.

Marc Morano (GOP EPW)He points out that Gore is a man who has been interviewed by every major media outlet in the United States, without criticism. He is "a man who thought he was on the winning side of science and history. And now, in 2011, he raises the white flag and says basically, 'I have to start all over. We've have failed.'"

The former vice president's press release says the Climate Reality Project will connect the dots between recent extreme weather events and manmade pollution.

"A to Z, the entire case of manmade global warming has collapsed around Al Gore. So now, he's morphed the movement into extreme weather because this is a much easier case for them to emotionally make," Morano explains. "There's no scientific case for it. But now, every time there's a hurricane, a tornado, a flood, a drought [or] a heat wave, they can just say, 'Ha, ha -- further proof of manmade global warming.'"

Gore's "24 hours of Reality" event is scheduled for September 14 and 15.
About the weakest weapon in the CAGW arsenal is the bad weather/global warming link. Every attempt is refuted by organizations that are essentially in the alarmist camp to begin with such as NOAA and NASA. Even they don't buy this baloney. But that doesn't stop many alarmists who have no other case.

There is always bad or undesirable weather somewhere (our heatwave right now, for example) so there is no end to the opportunities. It's junk but low hanging junk. That this is what Gore is grasping at as a last resort shows the depth of his desperation.

movielib
07-19-11, 07:57 AM
Irrational global warming fears threaten to destroy town.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/higher-floors-lower-roofs-the-town-being-shrunk-by-climate-change-angst/story-fn59niix-1226096410709

Higher floors, lower roofs: the town being shrunk by climate change angst
Stuart Rintoul
From: The Australian
July 18, 2011 12:00AM

PORT Albert, on Victoria's southeast coast, is a pretty-as-a-picture fishing village that is at war with the science of climate change.

Residents in the village have been told that because of rising sea levels, new housing has to be built on stumps almost 1.5m above ground level, despite the fact many of the town's original colonial buildings have withstood time and tide on ground level without ill effect since the 19th century.

At the same time, a heritage overlay in the village, introduced more than a decade ago, prevents roof lines being built higher than the roof of the local pub, which is claimed to be Victoria's oldest continuously licensed hotel.

Residents have seen land values plummet by 38 per cent in the past year under the weight of the overlays. Investment in the town has stalled. And Port Albert Progress Association president Donna Eades says that, with rising floor levels and roof lines limited by the height of the pub, "the next generation of Port Albert residents will have to be pygmies".

Ms Eades says Port Albert residents have been made the "guinea pigs" for rising sea-level predictions, while the charm and character of the historic township has been sacrificed to climate change fashion.

"We're sick to death of the climate change issue and how it's impacting our community," she says.

"We were the first port in Gippsland. We had the tall ships in our harbour offloading people and cattle into the gold fields. We're proud of our maritime heritage and we like how the town looks."

Ms Eades says the Gillard government's proposed carbon tax will also hurt the township through rising power costs affecting farming and jobs being lost in the neighbouring Latrobe Valley.

The Wellington Shire Council says that new building requirements on the black soil floodplains of Port Albert are in line with "a number of studies and projects" by Gippsland water management authorities as well as state policy requiring the council to plan for a 0.8m sea-level rise by 2100.

Flood predictions have been based largely on a 2009 CSIRO report, The Effect of Climate Change on Extreme Sea Levels along Victoria's Coast.

Ms Eades was born in Port Albert and spent 20 years in the Australian navy before returning to the town to raise her family.

"It's just a shame, because we have so much potential here," Ms Eades says. "We are a tranquil, beautiful little coastal hamlet, we're a lovely community, and we just want to move ahead."

Progress Association secretary Gayle Maher, whose family moved into the town five years ago, says the C33 amendments - introduced by the former Labor government and adopted by Wellington Shire in April, but now under review by Planning Minister Matthew Guy - risked turning Port Albert into a ghost town.

Ulla Killury and her husband, Rob, have run the post office and garage for the past 11 months. Ms Killury says she and her husband are now uncertain about staying.

Poring over voluminous correspondence with Wellington Shire and charts showing flood and inundation projections swamping the town, they say the people of Port Albert are furious by the uncritical adoption of climate change predictions that 1:100 year flood levels will rise from a present 1.75m to 2.68m in 2100.

New housing is required to have floor levels at 2.98m against an approximate ground level of 1.5m, while roof lines are held under heritage overlays at the Port Albert Hotel's 10.57m.

Port Albert, according to the women of the Progress Association, flooded twice last century, the water rolling in over sandbanks and mangroves, long before a sea wall was built in the 1960s.

Deputy Premier Peter Ryan, who, while in opposition last year, tabled a petition asking for Port Albert to be removed from Labor's C33 amendment, said a Coalition government would look at the feasibility of a new sea wall.
"We have to destroy the village to save it."

These politicians have seen An Inconvenient Truth too many times (once is too many) and believe those computer graphics flooding Florida and other places.

Dealing with bad weather and real climate change (the climate is always changing but it is virtually always little and slowly) is prudent. Overreacting to climate change fantasy is destructive.

And they want to do this kind of stuff to the whole world.

movielib
07-20-11, 05:39 PM
This is a debate that took place in Australia a few days ago. Christopher Monckton, skeptic vs. Richard Denniss, alarmist.

Monckton is hardly my favorite skeptic. He's very knowledgeable but is not a scientist and he's prone to exaggeration and errors (although not nearly to the extent of Al Gore or other nonscientist alarmists, or even compared to most scientist alarmists). I've never heard of this Denniss, who's an economist.

Both their opening statements are not great but Monckton's was better. All Denniss had were bad (even pathetic) analogies, the very flawed computer models and the supposed popularity of the nonexistent "consensus." Monckton at least knows the subject and can quote from scientific peer reviewed papers. I didn't hear a single word from Denniss about science in the whole debate.

But where things get interesting is in the Q&A from Australian science journalists. These "journalists" were obviously completely hostile (although in a polite way) to Monckton. Almost all the questions were directed at Monckton and the format allowed Denniss to answer after Monckton. That should have given him a big advantage but he still got slaughtered. Monckton several times pretty much destroyed the "journalists" and exposed their abject ignorance.

This is not a "must see" but if you have the time and interest it's only an hour. The better part of the program is the Q&A which starts a little before the second half.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ma6cnPLcrtA?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ma6cnPLcrtA?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

movielib
07-20-11, 10:57 PM
The BBC decides it can ignore CAGW skeptics pretty much completely.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/the-bbcs-secular-inquisition

20 July 2011
The BBC's secular inquisition
Melanie Phillips

I am open-mouthed. The BBC Trust is recommending that its journalists ditch balance for propaganda.

A report being published today has apparently decided that the BBC no longer needs to interview man-made global warming sceptics because there is a consensus on this issue that the theory is true.

Its conclusions are said to be based in part on recommendations by the geneticist Professor Steve Jones. Astonishingly, he is said not only to have found no evidence of bias in the BBC’s output on climate change, but suggests that on issues like this where he says there is a ‘scientific consensus’ – also including the MMR vaccination and genetically modified crops – there should be no need for the BBC to find opponents of the mainstream view.

This is as terrifying as it is outrageous. First of all, the claim that there is a consensus on man-made global warming is itself false. The wickedly cynical propaganda strategy to promote this false belief in a consensus was described in an eye-opening blog post by James Delingpole in the Telegraph last year:

The story begins in autumn 2004 when the government’s hysterically warmist chief scientific adviser Sir David King successfully persuaded the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to put action on global warming at the heart of UK government policy. This resulted in the creation of a propaganda body called The Climate Change Working Group which in turn sought PR advice from a company called Futerra communications.

Futerra – Britain’s answer to Fenton communications in the US – recommended the following policy:

Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.

To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken [emphasis added].

There is no consensus on man-made global warming. There are in fact hundreds of scientists at the very least, amongst them some of the most distingushed in their field, who are sceptical about the theory. Some of them, such as the meteorologist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, have testified to the outright fraud and intimidation used to support the climate change scam. Some have been subjected to professional ostracism, loss of grant funding, vilification and even death threats because they have stood up for scientific evidence against the gross perversion of science involved in what is probably the most intellectually corrupt episode in scientific history. Such wholesale intimidation means that without a shadow of a doubt many more scientists are climate change sceptics than are registered in public debate.

Now the Trust is apparently stating that there is no need for their voices to be heard. So there is 'no need' for the BBC to report on one of the great scandals of our time -- the systematic intimidation of scientists and suppression of ideas within the academy. If this grotesque ruling had been in operation when the ‘Climategate’ scandal erupted, when warmist scientists tried to suppress the evidence that the climate was not warming but remaining static or even cooling, this would surely have meant that the BBC would have barely covered the scandal since the heart of it ran against the ‘consensus’.

Indeed, it would mean that in general BBC reporters would not only fail to present experts telling us the truth about the non-heating up of the climate but also guarantee that they fail to report the wholesale collapse of the theory and rout of the warmist agenda which is taking place.

Not that the BBC does this now – far from it. For with some honourable exceptions, its journalism has always presented the warmist nonsense as mainstream and the sceptical side as heresy. It is already difficult for sceptics to get a hearing on the BBC. But if the Trust has its way, BBC science journalism will become as bent as a corkscrew. And dissent from its own ideological position -- dissent which happens to represent the views of at least hundreds of scientists and the majority of the population -- would be suppressed.

This is nothing less than a totalitarian agenda. Indeed, why stop at science? If ‘consensus’ dictates what is to be reported, and consensus is itself subjectively determined on the basis of the presumed weight of expert opinion (which can never be truly known) or the presumed agreement of the population (which can never be truly known), then it follows that on issues such as abortion, membership of the EU or immigration (on which even the BBC has been forced to admit it got public opinion terribly wrong) the BBC would similarly see ‘no need’ to allow alternatives to chattering-class opinion to be heard.

A free society requires toleration of dissent. Progress depends upon the recognition that today’s dissent may turn into tomorrow’s orthodoxy. Science is littered with examples of this, from Galileo onwards. Indeed, the idea that a presumed consensus should wipe out dissenting voices is positively anti-science. If science doesn’t have an open-mind, it is no longer science but propaganda. And that is what the BBC Trust is proposing.

The BBC Trust is supposed to be the guardian of the public interest. Its role is to ensure that the BBC adheres to the high standards of its charter. But with this recommendation, the Trust has shown that it will destroy the BBC’s duty of fairness and impartiality and replace it by an Orwellian double-speak on the grounds that there are certain ideas which cannot be challenged. This is not guarding the sacred flame of journalistic integrity. It is a secular Inquisition.
Nothing new. They just made it official.

movielib
07-21-11, 09:05 AM
Follow up to the last post. Excellent analysis by James Delingpole.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100098066/bbcs-biased-climate-science-reporting-isnt-biased-enough-claims-report/

'BBC's biased climate science reporting isn't biased enough' claims report
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: July 21st, 2011

Before commenting on the BBC Trust’s report into the BBC’s science coverage, I thought I’d take the trouble of reading the actual document rather than the press previews. I’m very glad I waited because the finished product is an absolute corker. Let me take you through some of my favourite moments.

The report, as you may be aware, was written by my fellow Telegraph columnist Steve Jones. Besides being a fine and engaging writer, Dr Jones is a geneticist of distinction and I would certainly never dream of questioning his judgement in his fields of expertise (notably Drosophila and snails). Fortunately, as becomes quite clear reading the report, climate science isn’t one of them.

Dr Jones sets out his ideological position fairly early on when he strives to bracket global warming “denialism” with a range of other syndromes: believing that “AIDS has nothing to do with viruses, the MMR vaccine is unsafe, complex organs could never evolve, or even that the 9/11 disaster was a US government plot.” I’d love to see his evidence for this casual slur-by-association.

The distinction he tries to make between “scepticism” (good, up to a point, he thinks) and “denialism” (bad, obviously) is in any case a straw man argument. Of all the sceptics I’ve ever met or read, not a single one has ever striven to deny that climate changes nor that modest global warming has been taking place since 1850 (when we began emerging from the Little Ice Age).

What many of these sceptics – or deniers, if you must – do question is

a) whether – and if so by how much – this warming is anthropogenic (ie human-caused)

b) whether the warming constitutes a threat – or whether its benefits might in fact far outweigh its drawbacks

c) whether this warming likely to continue or whether – as happened without human influence at the end of the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period – it will be followed by a period of natural cooling

d) whether the drastic policy measures (tax, regulation, “decarbonisation”, the drive for renewables) being enacted to ‘combat climate change’ will not end up doing far more harm than good.

Jones concedes at one point that “A debate remains, and it deserves to be reported with as much objectivity as would any other unresolved issue.” But the apparent reasonableness here is certainly not borne out by the rest of his screed against sceptics, whom he caricatures as “proponents of the idea that global warming is a myth” – while neglecting to engage with the subtleties of the arguments mentioned above.

Sometimes, in his enthusiasm to put all these evil “deniers” in their place, Dr Jones appears to forget the basic rules of science altogether. For example, he describes how measured levels of atmospheric C02 have increased since 1959, and how “basic physics show that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas” and how “three independent sets of records of global temperature agree that 2010 was one of the three hottest years since figures were first collected.” Dr Jones might be surprised to learn the “deniers” agree with him on this. Where they differ is over a fundamental scientific concept: “Correlation is not causation.” We are, remember, emerging from the Little Ice Age. So the rise in global temperatures is perfectly explicable in terms of natural climatic cycles. Furthermore, you could reasonably argue that the theory of anthropogenic CO2 as a driver of catastrophic global warming has already been “falsified” (or, as I prefer to think of it, torpedoed below the waterline, hit in the magazine and blown out of the sea). That’s because, as even the great Dr Phil Jones of the CRU has acknowledged, “global warming” stopped in 1998 (even as anthropogenic CO2 levels, notably in China) continued to rise.

Another category error Dr Jones falls into is in his use of the Argumentum ad Verecundiam, the appeal to authority. He tells us:

The IPCC concluded that it is beyond doubt that the climate is warming and more than 90% likely that this has been driven by human activity.

And he cites an open letter to the journal Science by two hundred and fifty members of the US National Academy of Sciences:

“(T)here is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.”

But as both Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn could have explained to Dr Jones, science does not advance through “consensus”; and as Einstein could have told him, science is not a numbers game. When Hitler commissioned the book 100 Authors Against Einstein, Einstein coolly replied that if he were wrong, one author would have been enough.

If Dr Jones would like to learn more about these complexities, I would be more than happy to send him a free copy of my book Watermelons. One gets the impression that he hasn’t yet had much opportunity to find out what climate realists (as we prefer to style ourselves, “deniers” being – you know – a touch Holocaust-y) actually think or properly to familiarise himself with the terms of the debate. Also, the book’s quite well-researched so it might help him avoid repeating any of those embarrassing errors he makes in the report.

Still, as I suggested at the beginning, I’m extremely grateful to Dr Jones for writing his report because it offers such a sustained and brilliant rebuttal to the threadbare notion that our state broadcaster is in any way capable of being fair and balanced.

As Biased BBC notes, it has been five years since the BBC officially abandoned all pretence that it was adopting a neutral position on “Climate Change”. In a 2007 BBC Trust policy report, it wrote:

The BBC has held a high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts (on whose and what measurement) and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of consensus.

This anti-heretic policy it has been pursuing with Torquemada-like fervour ever since. Though Dr Jones’s report argues that the BBC should from henceforward give less space to sceptics, it’s difficult to imagine quite how it could possibly do so. About the only occasion on which they have been given any air space has been on hatchet-jobs like the BBC’s feature-length assault on Lord Monckton, “Meet The Climate Sceptics”.

Dr Jones notes with concern Britain’s growing scepticism:

A poll carried out by the Cardiff University Understanding Risk Group in early 2010 showed in contrast that one in seven among the British public said that the climate is not changing and one in five that any climate change was not due to human activity. Fewer than half considered that scientists agree that humans are causing climate change.

The conclusion, however, he draws from this is not that this is a fair reflection of the lack of evidence to support CAGW theory – but that media organisations like the BBC aren’t doing enough to promote the “correct” version of reality. “The divergence between the views of professionals versus the public may be seen as evidence of a failure by the media to balance views of very different credibility. The BBC is just one voice but so many in Britain gain their understanding of science from its output that its approach to this question must be considered.”

In other words, Dr Jones thinks that the growing numbers of people in Britain (and around the world) who are sceptical of man-made global warming are victims of “false consciousness.” There speaks the authentic voice of the left-leaning cultural establishment. The BBC must be very proud: they chose the right man for the job.
Can there be any doubt that the BBC went looking for an alarmist with scientific credentials to "investigate" and write their report and found exactly what they wanted? The blatant audacity shows the contempt the BBC has for real, responsible journalism.

movielib
07-21-11, 11:16 AM
Apollo astronaut tells off Texas alarmist in letter to the editor.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7660566.html

Letters
At odds on climate change
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
July 19, 2011, 9:10PM

Not buying it

Regarding "Texas is vulnerable to warming climate" (Page B8, July 10), some opinions are just too over-the-top to resist responding. Professor Andrew Dessler's essay falls in that category. He makes the point that we had better begin to accept that we are responsible for Texas' very hot summer, and we should get our legislators to begin taking steps to control our temperature.

Typical of these alarmists of human-caused global warming, he cites the opinions of those colleagues who agree with him while not citing one bit of data to support this unproven and unaccepted hypothesis of global warming, first dreamed up about 20 years ago.

Dessler would like for us to stop arguing about the science. That is because the "science" does not support this hypothesis of humans causing global warming. Dessler would rather restrict discussion to the political arena.

One of the strategies climate alarmists now use in their attempt to gain acceptance for an unproven hypothesis is semantics. They have usurped a term that has been used and accepted by everyone for millennia: "climate change." Yes, the climate has been changing forever, sometimes up and sometimes down, and life on our planet has been adjusting to those changes for billions of years, with varying degrees of success.

Dessler maintains "the uniformity of expert opinion that reductions of emissions make sense." What uniformity of opinion? As the historical record shows, our climate is always changing, and on many occasions more than it is today.

Those interested in the truth about human-caused global warming should not just accept the opinions of others (including mine); they should look at the historical data themselves. We can either adjust to the climate as it changes, as we have always done, or we can adjust after wasting billions — no, trillions — of dollars in a hopeless attempt to control the temperature of the Earth.

— Walter Cunningham,
astronaut, Apollo VII, Houston
Along with Harrison "Jack" Schmitt (who is also a geologist) and Buzz Aldrin, there are at least three astronauts who are CAGW skeptics (most, I assume, have never taken a public position).

I love it when alarmists say "deniers" are like people who believe the moon landings were faked. I guess Schmitt and Aldrin think they walked on a Nevada desert.

movielib
07-21-11, 11:41 AM
Stark raving mad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/20/un-climate-change-peacekeeping

UN security council to consider climate change peacekeeping

Special meeting to discuss 'green helmets' force to intervene in conflicts caused by rising seas levels and shrinking resource
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
Wednesday 20 July 2011 09.06 BST

A special meeting of the United Nations security council is due to consider whether to expand its mission to keep the peace in an era of climate change.

Small island states, which could disappear beneath rising seas, are pushing the security council to intervene to combat the threat to their existence.

There has been talk, meanwhile, of a new environmental peacekeeping force – green helmets – which could step into conflicts caused by shrinking resources.

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, is expected to address the meeting on Wednesday.

But Germany, which called the meeting, has warned it is premature to expect the council to take the plunge into green peacemaking or even adopt climate change as one of its key areas of concern.

"It is too early to seriously think about council action on climate change. This is clearly not on the agenda," Germany's ambassador to the UN, Peter Wittig, wrote in the Huffington Post.

"A good first step would be to acknowledge the realities of climate change and its inherent implications to international peace and security," he wrote.

Bringing the security council up to speed on climate change could be a challenge, however.

The Pentagon and other military establishments have long recognised climate change as a "threat multiplier" with the potential to escalate existing conflicts, and create new disputes as food, water, and arable land become increasingly scarce.

Wittig seems to agree, noting that UN peacekeepers have long intervened in areas beyond traditional conflicts.

"Repainting blue helmets into green might be a strong signal - but would dealing with the consequences of climate change - say in precarious regions - be really very different from the tasks the blue helmets already perform today?" he wrote.

In an official "Concept Note" ahead of the meeting, Germany said the security council needed to draw up scenarios for dealing with the affects of extreme temperatures and rising seas. How would the UN deal with climate refugees? How would it prevent conflicts in those parts of Africa and Asia which could face food shortages?

But there is a deep divide over whether the security council should even consider climate change as a security issue.

China, for example, argues that the security council should leave climate change to the experts.

However, small island states in the Pacific, which face an existential threat due to climate change, have been pushing the council to act for years.

"The security council should join the general assembly in recognising climate change as a threat to international peace and security. It is a threat as great as nuclear proliferation or global terrorism," Marcus Stephen, the president of Nauru, wrote in a piece in the New York Times.

"Second, a special representative on climate and security should be appointed. Third, we must assess whether the United Nations system is itself capable of responding to a crisis of this magnitude."

That remains an open question.

Wednesday's meeting arrives at a time of growing doubt about whether the UN is equipped to deal with climate change. Last month's climate talks in Bonn produced little progress in key areas.

Meanwhile, Ban has been refocusing his attention from climate change to sustainable development.

The security council has also been stalled in its efforts to deal with the threats posed by climate change.

Its first attempt was at a meeting in 2007 convened by Britain. But the effort swiftly exposed the deep divisions of the common problem.

Small island states, which could disappear entirely beneath rising seas, were anxious for the security council to intervene, saying the threat they faced was as severe as war.

But China and other countries resisted, arguing the security council should stick to maintaining the peace.
Green Helmets. rotfl

No islands are "sinking." But it's a damn good way to try to extort money from the West, especially from clueless politicians and bureaucrats who feel guilty for having "caused" something that isn't happening.,

movielib
07-22-11, 03:59 PM
Follow up to Post #33.

Reactions show Monckton won the debate.

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2011/1393/

Lord Monckton wins Press Club debate and persuaded 9% more Australians to his view that ‘Concerns about Global Warming are exaggerated’

Article No. 1393 - This special Roy Morgan Reactor included an Australia-wide cross-section of 218 respondents aged 14+.: July 20, 2011

Despite negative publicity surrounding Lord Monckton’s visit to Australia, the results of a special Roy Morgan Reactor test over the last 24 hours show Lord Monckton won the debate and persuaded a substantial 9% of Australians to his view that ‘Concerns about Global Warming are exaggerated’.

People reacted along party lines with L-NP supporters reacting positively to Lord Monckton and negatively to Dr. Denniss, while ALP and particularly Greens supporters reacted positively to Dr. Denniss and negatively to Lord Monckton. However, as shown by the white line below, the Reactor spent more time in ‘positive territory’ when Dr. Denniss was talking than when Lord Monckton was.

When asked after viewing the Reactor to nominate a winner of the debate, more respondents (49%) nominated Lord Monckton as the winner ahead of Dr. Denniss (37%) and 14% couldn’t say.

http://www.roymorgan.com/roymorgan/library/i34686_8.JPG

The crucial issue at the heart of the debate is whether either speaker managed to considerably shift the views of respondents reacting to the debate. Did either Lord Monckton or Dr. Denniss change the views of how ordinary Australians view the issue of Global Warming?

Before viewing the Reactor respondents were asked for their views on Global Warming: 44% of respondents said of Global Warming — ‘If we don’t act now it will be too late’, 43% said ‘Concerns are exaggerated’, 10% said ‘It is already too late’ and 3% couldn’t say.

After viewing the Reactor these views had shifted with 52% now saying ‘Concerns are exaggerated’ — an increase of 9%, 38% (down 6%) saying ‘If we don’t act now it will be too late,’ 7% (down 3%) saying ‘It is already too late’ and 3% couldn’t say.

The changes demonstrated by this question definitively back up the view of respondents that Lord Monckton won the debate — 9% of respondents viewing the Reactor shifted their opinion towards the point of view Lord Monckton expressed.

http://www.roymorgan.com/roymorgan/library/w35197_8.jpg

Michele Levine, Chief Executive Officer Roy Morgan Research says:

“The results of Roy Morgan’s Reactor on yesterday’s debate between Lord Christopher Monckton and Dr. Richard Denniss provides a valuable insight into how Australians are viewing the complex debate surrounding Global Warming, Climate Change, Carbon Dioxide and the Carbon Tax.

“Roy Morgan Research data has shown continually that Australians are concerned about Global Warming and Climate Change but do not want the proposed Carbon Tax; and that the issue is highly politically divided.

“This special research combines real-time response — ‘how much do you agree or disagree with what the speaker is saying’; with ‘pre- and post- measures of environmental attitudes.’ This shows clearly that the electorate is delicately poised on this issue — ‘concern about the environment; but much more worried about the economy, and the Carbon Tax.

“Each speaker clearly outlined their point of view — and for the most part the Reactor showed this appealed along party lines. However, a clear difference between the speakers was that Lord Monckton talked extensively about the climate science and quoted figures about changes in the climate over past time periods provided by scientists whilst Dr. Denniss concentrated more heavily on the economic and political implications in Australia from taking action on Global Warming.

“Listening to Lord Monckton — he says what many Australians want to hear — ‘Don’t worry about Climate Change! It will be alright!”

This special Roy Morgan Reactor survey covered an Australia-wide cross-section of 218 respondents aged 14+. For a closer look at the Reactor and how the different points expressed by Lord Monckton and Dr. Denniss were received by those reacting to the debate, please view the full Reactor highlights here:

http://onlinereactor.com.au/PlayerCI.aspx?jid=92&h=crnbqkkkuq%0D%0D

movielib
07-22-11, 08:10 PM
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/images/newspost_images/aria110718_cmyk.dkewgt4na6w2w4sc4k0kg0c08.6uwurhykn3a1q8w88k040cs08.th.jpeg

movielib
07-23-11, 07:08 PM
On Conclusion Based Science and Epicycles.

That's not the title of the following essay but it could be. CAGW alarmists start with their conclusion: Human generated CO2 causes catastrophic global warming and if anything doesn't fit they invent a reason to explain the discrepancy (that is, when they don't just ignore the inconvenient truths which is often). It is much like Ptolemy's geocentric theory which in addition required that every orbit be a circle (rather than an ellipse, as we now know) and to which had to be added circle upon circle (epicycles) to make things fit (approximately) as more knowledge was gained. It's ingenious but it's not science and it's fatally flawed.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/do-stratospheric-aerosols-mask-global.html

Saturday, July 23, 2011
Do stratospheric aerosols mask global warming?
Lubos Motl

In recent months, it has become popular among the climate alarmists to "explain away" the lack of warming in recent 10-15 years.

Aerosols have become their best ally in these efforts. A few weeks ago, we discussed this question:

Did the Chinese coal cause the cooling since 1998?

It was no fluke but an example of a whole new fad. Phys Org, among many others, promoted a new article by Susan Solomon et al.:

NOAA study suggests aerosols might be inhibiting global warming

The article itself is in Science and it's called

The Persistently Variable “Background” Stratospheric Aerosol Layer and Global Climate Change

What they're obsessed by is -0.1 Watts per square meter by which the energy flows may have dropped between 1960 and 1990.

When they evaluate the impact, they decide that the predictions of global warming should be reduced by 1/3 to be more realistic. Fine. It's enough to publish one more paper and reduce the alarmists' prediction by an additional 1/2 and they will be consistent with the observations - and with the climate skeptics.

You may see that the assumption that there is a big warming to start with is treated as a dogma by these would-be scientists. A big warming is the "default assumption" and "dirty corrections" have to be added in order to get to the reality. Only a blind person may fail to see the bias of the authors.

Their science resembles the science of the chieftain of a terrorist training camp. He believes in the Tooth Fairy and designs an amazing method to earn some money for his terrorist hobby. He punches away the teeth of all the mujahideens in his group, puts the teeth under the pillow, and expects that the Tooth Fairy will replace them by millions of dollars during the night, when he sleeps.

Instead, he still finds the teeth in the morning. So he is totally puzzled: what miraculous, unexpected, supernatural power could have prevented the Tooth Fairy from replacing the teeth by the money? Of course, he is as clever a chieftain as the IPCC scientists so he finds an explanation that satisfies him: the Tooth Fairy asked the Bone Fairy for a permission and didn't get it.

So the chieftain breaks all the bones of his men and puts them under the pillow. It must be different this time, he is confident, and he is waiting for the Tooth Fairy to replace the teeth and bones by millions of dollars. His belief in these laws of physics remains perfect - well, up to the moment when this man is finally shot by a NATO soldier.

It's very similar with the global warming nuts. Instead of admitting that their could have made a wrong assumption, they always prefer to add dozens of other wrong assumptions.

Sources of aerosols in the stratosphere

But what I really want to do is to compare the quality of this portion of science as it is being done today - when these disciplines are contaminated by tons of junk and corrupt scientists with an agenda - with what the science looked like 45 years ago - when you would expect that it had to be much more primitive.

Compare the abstract of the Solomon et al. paper with another paper that is fully available:

On the meteoric component of stratospheric aerosols

J.P. Shedlovsky and S. Paisley wrote it in 1965, i.e. 46 years ago! Let me represent this paper as an average paper about these issues from the 1960s. Nevertheless, you may see that their science was much more advanced, rational, impartial, and systematic. Fine, let us make some comparisons of the broad ways of thinking inherent in the 1965 and 2011 papers.

Background: aerosols, stratosphere

First, some background. We are talking about aerosols - suspensions of fine solid particles within a gas or liquid droplets - that are located in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is the layer of the atmosphere, approximately between heights 10 and 50 kilometers, defined by the property that the temperature increases with the height. It's warmer as you're getting closer to the Sun, if you want to formulate it in an extreme way.

(But this bizarrely sounding sentence is essentially right because what matters is that the solar radiation is being absorbed so its amount is decreasing as you go deeper into the atmosphere from outside, at least at some frequencies.)

Consequently, there is no substantial circulation of the air in the stratosphere: warmer (less dense) air is higher which is how it should be: we say that this layer is "stratified", therefore the name of the "stratosphere". In this respect, the stratosphere is the opposite of the troposphere - the part of the atmosphere between the surface and the stratosphere (they're separated by the tropopause) which we know and where the "weather" takes place. In the troposphere, the temperature decreases with the height (think about the flights with United: the adiabatic lapse rate is a zeroth-order approximate way to see why it is so) and the air circulates all the time (because the warmer air is less dense and therefore wants to get up).

So in the stratosphere, there are also aerosols. I want to mention the very methodology how to look at two questions: whether and how the composition changes with time; and how the aerosols got there.

Time dependence

If you read the 2011 paper by Solomon et al., you must be sure that the authors are stunned that things can be changing in Nature. How is that possible? Only humans are the nasty animals who introduced change to the Earth, they still essentially think. Before the human sins, things in Nature were not changing with time. Isn't the very purpose of time to guarantee that nothing changes? :-)

On the other hand, the Shedlovsky-Paisley 1965 paper has no problems with the concept of time. It discusses various changes that influence the chemical compounds - especially the atmospheric residence time.

They also have no problem to acknowledge a huge uncertainty about various numbers. For example, on the last page, they say that the estimates of the accretion of extraterrestrial particles by the Earth ranged from 8 to 3.6 million tons per year.

These scientists, much like any genuine scientists, knew that every effect of this sort or any other sort may be relevant for your questions unless it has been shown to be irrelevant. On the other hand, the climate alarmist hacks always start with the opposite approach. They assume - without any evidence and often in a direct contradiction with the evidence - that every effect is irrelevant and the only moment when they start to abandon this utterly preposterous and clearly invalid assumption is when their models based on random assumptions disagree with the observed data by an order of magnitude or more.

If someone has been making the assumption that none of these things - such as the aerosols in the stratosphere or the water vapor in the stratosphere (Solomon's previous papers) - matters for questions they care about (for no good reason), such as the "climate change", then one of the following things must hold: they have just had a big party, remembering a recently deceased colleague, they had gotten drunk and they still suffer from some hangover. Or they are assholes. Solomon et al. is the latter case who deliberately want to lie and distort the empirical facts.

Chemical composition

The IPCC admits that their uncertainty about the overall effects of the aerosols on all things such as the climate is comparable to the whole effect of global warming. But they worship a key dogma that everyone has to believe - namely that the aerosols (and everything else) must be less important than the carbon dioxide.

Consequently, this dogma inevitably suppresses the scientific research of pretty much everything that matters in the atmosphere - and the aerosols in the stratosphere are no exception. That's why the quality of the scientific research in this discipline has actually plummeted since the 1960s.

You may see this striking decline in every detail. For example, ask the simple question where the aerosols come from etc.

Today, aerosols are among the dozens of "inconvenient and dangerous" players that could threaten the exceptional, divine (or devilish) status of the carbon dioxide. Worshiping the bad effects of the carbon dioxide is what these assholes are all about and what their whole criminal income is based upon so they make sure that no one studies e.g. aerosols too carefully, and if he does, he never interprets the results so that the aerosols may still be treated as one of those irrelevant Cinderellas whom no one really knows. This research - pretty much any research unrelated to CO2 - has been dangerous for these assholes since the very beginning so they do everything they can to marginalize it.

So because it's not possible or allowed to rationally talk about the aerosols, the knowledge of most people - including those who should know them - has gone down from the 1960s. In particular, those people only talk about "volcanos" and "chimneys" as the sources of the aerosols - which may also get to the stratosphere. This is how the popular media think about the aerosols and the "scientists" in that field don't know much more that would go beyond the pop science in the media.

Things couldn't be more different in the 1960s. The average 1965 paper analyzes the concentration of 8 elements and many other things in the aerosols and tries to pinpoint their origin because the relative concentration of various elements and compounds differs among the sources, too.

Let me copy and paste the whole introduction to the 1965 paper:

Introduction

The chemical composition of stratospheric aerosols has been shown by JUNGE et al. (1961) and JUNQE & MANSON (1961) to consist primarily of sulfate, presumably a mixture of ammonium and sodium sulfates. In addition, aluminum, silicon, chlorine, calcium and iron were reported as being detected.

There are several different possible source materials which can contribute to stratospheric aerosols. These include atmospheric H2S and SO2 which are photochemically oxidized to sulfate, erosion products of continental surfaces, oceanic salts, volcanic debris and extraterrestrial material accreted by the earth. These sources are all significantly different as regards their chemical composition. Thus, it may be possible to determine the relative importance of such sources to stratospheric aerosols from a more thorough knowledge of the aerosol chemical composition. The purpose of this paper is to report some air concentrations of a number of elements in the low stratosphere and to relate these data to the extraterrestrial component.

You see that the scientific approach is perfectly sensible. They don't make any unjustified detailed assumptions that they would be trying to hysterically and dogmatically defend - which is what the alarmist assholes are doing all the time. Moreover, they also appreciate - and it's the main point of the paper - that the aerosols in the stratosphere may have not only terrestrial but also extraterrestrial origin. Chemistry is the bulk of this research and it has to be: calculating the absorption by a particular component of aerosols is a relatively simple added result in comparison. But you can't get the right results if you don't know the chemistry and how much it changes with time and why.

Make no mistake about it: a volcano eruption emits a greater amount of aerosols. But a big majority of it remains in the troposphere. To get aerosols into the stratosphere, you must work hard and relatively small meteorites etc. that are often burned over there may arguably be more important.

The point I want to make is that these difficult and technical questions were studied rationally in the 1960s; but they are no longer studied rationally today. The contemporary authors such as Solomon et al. have neither the expertise nor the scientific integrity to figure out where the aerosols are coming from and what's happening with them. Consequently, they can't make any justifiable predictions about the future evolution of the concentrations of these aerosols, either.

Instead of analyzing hundreds of numbers describing various elements etc. in the aerosol samples - which is what the 1965 paper is made out of - Solomon et al. are only interested in one, scientifically unimportant number - the average forcing that aerosols may be adding or subtracting from the energy fluxes that determine the global mean temperature.

Needless to say, they usually want to show that this number is low because aerosols shouldn't threaten the "climate monopoly" that has been assigned to the carbon dioxide by all these assholes. On the other hand, when they're running into real trouble - e.g. when they predict a huge warming for a decade but they get a cooling - they want the aerosols to "explain" the discrepancy. They beg for a while, hoping that the aerosols will be erased from the science again in the future.

But if one only works with one number, such as the change of forcing caused by the stratospheric aerosols, it's easy to adjust the arguments so that you get the number you wanted to get in the first place. It's not robust science. To do robust science, one has to work with lots of numbers - such as the concentrations of the elements in various samples etc. in the 1965 paper. A theory can't be scientific if it just "explains" one number - such as the global warming rate - by one parameter (and usually many more). A scientific theory must explain and/or predict many more numbers than the number of parameters. Using words of Feynman,

When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

The alarmists are violating this rule all the time. The main problem is that they're not really interested in explaining Nature and the immense wealth of interesting patterns and unexplained numbers. They're interested in making one ideologically chosen quantity, the global warming rate, high and seemingly believable - so that it may be worshiped by the brainwashed society. But that's not science.

And that's the memo.
Lubos is never one to mince words and, as usual, he uses words stronger than I would. But his point is irrefutable. I can add other examples to the one here about aerosols. There's the Hockey Stick to "get rid of" the Medieval warming period. There's the study that claims to find the missing tropical troposphere hot spot by measuring winds instead of temperatures. There's the study that claims Antarctica is warming when every other study says it's cooling. All these alarmist papers have been thoroughly discredited. That doesn't stop them or even slow them down. The feedback from clouds and water vapor caused by increasing CO2 seems to be negative so they say it's positive. They dismiss the cosmic ray theory and pooh-pooh the importance of the ocean circulation cycles because they identify "villains" other than CO2. No, none of these things can dethrone the great CO2 monster but when things aren't working the way they say they should, all of a sudden aerosols from some coal plants in China can "suppress" the dreaded warming effects of CO2 (even though these coal plants also emit plenty of CO2).

How many epicycles does it take to collapse a theory?

movielib
07-25-11, 05:19 PM
Alarmist Chris Mooney:

If it's hot it's global warming (aka climate change):

http://www.desmogblog.com/forget-tornadoes-lets-talk-unendingly-about-heat-waves-and-global-warming

If it's cold it's just regular old weather and you're nuts for saying anything different:

http://www.desmogblog.com/warming-and-winter-storming

What's with these people?

[BTW, the correct answer is it's all weather and it would take a heck of a lot more to prove there's any significant climate change.]

movielib
07-25-11, 06:51 PM
Peer reviewed paper finds upper limit of recent warming to be .66 degrees C per century (it may be less due to poor urban heat island effect figures from the official records). And most of the warming is natural.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%C2%B0ccentury-for-agw/

Loehle and Scafetta calculate 0.66°C/century for AGW
Posted on July 25, 2011 by Anthony Watts

Guest post by Craig Loehle and Nicolas Scafetta
Human Effect on Climate Clearly Detected
(but is 0.66 deg C/100yr since ~1950!)

Loehle, C. and N. Scafetta. 2011. Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Historical Time Series. Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5:74-86.

The study is available via free open access at http://benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V005/74TOASCJ.htm (links to full paper and supplemental information, both PDF, follow at the end of this post)

How do we detect the influence of humans on the climate system? Current methods based on climate models are unfortunately circular: their estimate of human effects is only valid if the models are correct, but the models make certain assumptions and also are fitted to the historical temperature record. A model-independent estimate of climate response is needed and is provided by this study.

The climate change attribution problem was addressed using empirical decomposition. Previously observed cycles in solar motion and activity of 60 and 20 years were used to develop an empirical model of Earth temperature variations. The model was fit to the Hadley global temperature data up to 1950 (the time period before anthropogenic (GHG+Aerosol) emissions became a significant forcing mechanism), and then extrapolated from 1951 to 2010 (Fig. 1A). The residuals (Fig.1B) showed an approximate linear upward trend after 1942. It is assumed that this residual upward warming has been mostly induced by anthropogenic emissions, urbanization and land use change. The warming observed before 1942 is relatively small and is assumed to have been mostly naturally induced because anthropogenic (warming + cooling) forcing would approximately compensate each other before 1950.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/loehle-scafetta_fig1.png?w=640&h=827

The resulting full natural plus anthropogenic model (below, Fig. 2) fits the entire 160 year record very well. Residual analysis does not provide any evidence for a substantial cooling effect due to sulfate aerosols from 1940 to 1970. In fact, the cooling observed during that period is well predicted by a natural 60-year cycle, which from 1940 to 1970 was in its cooling phase and contributed about 0.3 oC cooling, plus an estimated +0.66 oC/century anthropogenic Note that a quasi 60-year cycle is visible in the global temperature since 1850 and has been observed also in numerous multisecular climatic records. New solar activity proxy models developed in the paper suggest a mechanism for both the 60-year climate cycle and a portion of the long-term warming trend. About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by this natural 60-year climatic cycle during its warming phase. Figure 2B shows the components of the signal in our model.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/loehle-scafetta_fig2.png

A 21st Century forecast (below, Fig. 3) suggests that climate may remain approximately steady until 2030-2040, and may at most warm 0.5-1.0°C by 2100 at the estimated 0.66°C/century anthropogenic warming rate, which is about 3.5 times smaller than the average 2.3°C/century anthropogenic warming rate projected by the IPCC during the first decades of the 21st century.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/loehle-scafetta_fig3.png?w=640&h=494

Conclusions

1) The estimated AGW component matches theory, since the log of an exponential rise in carbon dioxide should give an approximate linear trend (as in fact the climate models do). The timing of AGW effects (beginning in 1942) also matches expectations.

2) The fitted components match solar model forcings within their uncertainty.

3) The estimated sensitivity matches a no-amplification (neutral) climate sensitivity, or even a slight negative feedback case.

4) Warming due to anthropogenic GHG+Aerosol of 0.66 oC/Century is not alarming, in comparison to the IPCC protected 2.3 oC/Century This 0.66 value is an upper bound in our estimation (due to possible poorly corrected UHI and LULC effects that may explain part of the observed warming trend since 1950).

5) Cooling/flat temperatures till 2030 are likely (as also predicted by others).

6) Our result matches the historical record better than any other attribution study and better than GCM outputs.
Loehle and Scafetta are famous for constructing a temperature history without Michael Mann's infamous tree rings and coming up with a history that fits historical records and reported climates (i.e. the medieval warm period and the little ice age) far better than the Hockey Stick. They have done us another invaluable service. They also refute the standard alarmist explanation that blamed aerosols for the cooling between the '40s and the '70s. Kind of like today with the new aerosols from China being blamed for the lack of warming for the last 15 years.

movielib
07-26-11, 12:13 PM
Newt finally admits it was a mistake to sit on Al Gore's couch with Nancy Pelosi.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/173463-gingrich-says-he-regrets-2008-climate-ad-with-pelosi

Gingrich regrets 2008 climate ad with Pelosi
By Michael O'Brien - 07/26/11 08:10 AM ET

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said Tuesday that he regrets making a commercial with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on the need to address climate change.

Gingrich, who partnered with Pelosi while she was Speaker for the 2008 ad, said the spot was "misconstrued," and for that reason, he wouldn't do it again.

"I was trying to make a point that we shouldn't be afraid to debate the left, even on the environment," Gingrich said on WGIR radio of the 30-second television commercial. "Obviously it was misconstrued, and it's probably one of those things I wouldn't do again."

That commercial has caused some difficulties for Gingrich in the Republican presidential primary. Pelosi is one of the most polarizing figures for primary voters, and the appearance of wanting to partner with such a political bogeyman has arguably hurt Gingrich with GOP voters.

Gingrich said in January that he "meant exactly what [he] said in that commercial," which was produced by the Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit organization founded by former Vice President Al Gore (D). In the ad, Gingrich makes no endorsement of any policy solution, but says the "country must take action to address climate change."

But Gingrich has also made some environmental issues a part of his presidential campaign, calling for the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its replacement with an agency dedicated to energy creation.
Still it's one of those nonapoloy apologies. How can anyone possibly see this ad as a debate? And what exactly did anyone "misconstrue"? The reason for the regret is that supposed misconstruing. Really not enough, Newt.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qi6n_-wB154" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

movielib
07-26-11, 12:40 PM
This is funny. How to properly dispose of a broken CFL.

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/103974" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I think the EPA is way over cautious in this. But that is the way they always are. Everything is blown way out of proportion.

Heck, I remember playing with mercury a few times when I was a kid. (I know some of you, but certainly not JasonF or CRM114 will say "That explains a lot.") But I think I turned out OK. At least relatively.

Certainly mercury is dangerous in large enough quantities and in certain forms. It's nothing to play around with as we now know. But the amount in a CFL is minuscule. I would guess you could probably just sweep it up and throw it out and it'd be no big deal.

But it is humorous to see the EPA, which thinks we should use CFLs over incandescents coming up with this almost CDC plague method of cleaning up these squiggly wonders.

movielib
07-26-11, 03:58 PM
Good slideshow from down under where they are threatened by a "carbon tax."

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B2CFo8f0zV_bOTc1YTliZDktODNiMi00MDQzLWFiYmMtNTA4YzkyODNlYjZk&hl=en_GB

movielib
07-26-11, 04:16 PM
Real world again refutes climate models. New peer reviewed paper:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

July 26, 2011 · 10:52 am
By Roger Pielke, Sr
New Paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011
Blog by Roger Pielke, Sr

There is a new paper published which raises further questions on the robustness of multi-decadal global climate predictions. It is

Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

The University of Alabama has issues a news release on it which reads [h/t to Phillip Gentry]

Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing” http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA’s Terra satellite.

The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.
Because of the importance of the issue of climate sensitivity, this paper is a big deal.

movielib
07-26-11, 10:54 PM
CAGW loon gets two years in prison.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=138730013

Activist Gets 2 Years Prison For Thwarting Auction
by The Associated Press
SALT LAKE CITY July 26, 2011, 09:59 pm ET

An environmental activist who derailed a government auction of oil and gas leases near two national parks in Utah was sentenced Tuesday to two years in prison and fined $10,000.

Tim DeChristopher, 29, also was given three years of probation. He was convicted in March of two felony counts of interfering with and making false representations at a government auction in 2008.

The maximum sentence was 10 years in prison.

He is the first person to be prosecuted for failing to make good on bids at a lease auction of Utah public lands. He ran up bids on 13 parcels totaling more than 22,000 acres near Arches and Canyonlands national parks.

DeChristopher was immediately whisked away by federal marshals to the Davis County Jail in Farmington. Defense attorney Pat Shea said they've requested DeChristopher be sent to a federal prison in Littleton, Colo., because it is near his family.

The defense plans an appeal, Shea said. "There's been a serious abuse of justice."

In a roughly 35-minute address to the court, DeChristopher restated his belief that his actions were an act of civil disobedience necessary to highlight the impending threat of climate change to the planet.

"My intent both at the time of the auction and now was to expose, embarrass and hold accountable the oil and gas industry, to point that it cut into their $100 billion profits," DeChristopher told U.S. District Judge Dee Benson.

DeChristopher said he would accept whatever punishment Benson imposed, but added that time in prison would not silence him or change his viewpoint.

"You have authority over my life, but not my principles. Those are mine," DeChristopher said. "I'll continue to confront the system that threatens our future."

The case has elevated DeChristopher to folk hero status. Since his arrest, the former wilderness guide has become a vocal advocate for the environmental movement and encouraged others to take similar steps of civil disobedience.

Benson said that while he didn't disagree with DeChristopher's concerns over climate change, he could not excuse the activist's blatant disrespect for the rule of law.

"I'm not saying there isn't a place for civil disobedience," the judge said. "But it can't be the order of the day."

Benson said one of the great myths of the case was that he had no choice but to try and derail the government auction.

"Mr. DeChristopher had many other lawful ways to go against or protest the auction," Benson said.

After the sentencing, DeChristopher supporters in Benson's courtroom broke into song and one person shouted, "This is not justice."

Outside the downtown courthouse, a protest gathering of about 100 people draped in orange sashes blocked the doors to the courthouse, many of them crying and shouting.

Protesters used plastic ties around their wrists to form a human chain that moved into the streets, blocking car and light rail traffic, police spokeswoman Lara Jones said.

Twenty-six people were arrested and hauled off on a bus to the Salt Lake County Jail, she said.

Federal prosecutors didn't ask Benson for the 10-year maximum, but advocated for a significant sentence that would serve as a deterrent to others.

They said a U.S. Probation Office report, which recommended a sentence less than the maximum, underestimated the harm caused when DeChristopher ran up the price of the parcels, pushing the bids beyond the reach of other buyers in December 2008.

He ended up with $1.7 million in leases on 22,500 acres. DeChristopher could not pay for the leases and his actions cost some angry oilmen hundreds of thousands of dollars in higher bids for other parcels.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Huber said the sentence was a significant enough deterrent.

"If a sentence was perceived as too light or inconsequential, it could be seen as a reasonable price to pay to grab the limelight or gain fame," Huber said.

A University of Utah economics student at the time of the bids, DeChristopher offered to cover the bill with an Internet fundraising campaign, but the government refused to accept any of the money.

DeChristopher has never denied his crimes. During the trial, DeChristopher testified that he didn't originally intend to bid on the leases, but decided during the auction that he wanted to delay the sale so the new Obama administration could reconsider the leases.

A federal judge later blocked many of the leases from being issued.

The case has become a symbol of solidarity for environmentalists, including celebrities like Robert Redford and Daryl Hannah. Peter Yarrow of the folk trio Peter, Paul and Mary, led a sing-a-long and rally outside the courthouse in the hours leading up to the hearing.

The event was organized by DeChristopher's nonprofit group, Peaceful Uprising.

Activists contend DeChristopher was simply standing up to a federal agency that had violated federal environmental laws by holding the auction in the first place.

Carlos Martins, a college student at the protest rally, said after the sentencing that "they gave him that sentence to deter us, but they're proving that by making civil disobedience impossible, they're making violent actions inevitable."

"This cannot end when we go home tonight," said Samuel Rubin, another protester. "We must now be the one to throw ourselves into the gears of the machine."
There was the usual support from celebrity ecoloons.

I think the sentence was just. I still think DeChristopher should have to pay for all the damage he did.

movielib
07-26-11, 11:01 PM
The hits to alarmist science just keep on coming.

More peer reviewed papers:

Solar influences on El Ninos and La Ninas:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-paper-finds-solar-influence-on-el.html

Warming increases marine fish biodiversity:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-study-confirms-global-warming.html

That's four important papers reported in two days. They will all be ignored by the MSM.

movielib
07-26-11, 11:36 PM
Holy shit, make that five papers reported in two days, four of them today. This one has got to be the biggest surprise. Uberalarmist Kevin Trenberth blasts climate models.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/07/major-ipcc-climate-scientist-publishes-paper-listing-significant-failures-of-climate-models.html

Major IPCC Climate Scientist Publishes Paper Listing Significant Failures of Climate Models

Read here. Kevin Trenberth, like so many of his IPCC AGW-comrades recently, is finally admitting there exists many shortcomings and failures in the global warming "consensus" science. In Trenberth's case, he body slams the climate models, which all the alarmist catastrophic predictions are based on.

Specifically, Trenberth takes issue with the climate models' inadequacies in regards to precipitation. Such as:

"...all models contain large errors in precipitation simulations, both in terms of mean fields and their annual cycle, as well as their characteristics: the intensity, frequency, and duration of precipitation..."
"...relates to poor depiction of transient tropical disturbances, including easterly waves, Madden-Julian Oscillations, tropical storms, and hurricanes..."
"...confidence in model results for changes in extremes is tempered by the large scatter among the extremes in modeling today's climate, especially in the tropics and subtropics..."
"...it appears that many, perhaps all, global climate and numerical weather prediction models and even many high-resolution regional models have a premature onset of convection and overly frequent precipitation with insufficient intensity,..."
"...model-simulated precipitation "occurs prematurely and too often, and with insufficient intensity, resulting in recycling that is too large..."
"...a lifetime of moisture in the atmosphere that is too short, which affects runoff and soil moisture..."
and finally, he has a NSS moment..."major challenges remain to improve model simulations of the hydrological cycle."

Sooo, climates models can't do precipitation (rain/snow/hail). That's not much of a surprise to skeptics, plus it is widely known throughout the scientific world that climate models are also unable to do: water vapor, wind, clouds, ocean oscillations, atmospheric oscillations, ocean currents, polar ice sheets, positive feedback, negative feedback, climate sensitivity, aerosol impacts, submerged volcano impacts, solar/cosmic impacts, monsoons/hurricanes/typhoons, ocean heat, missing heat, missing CO2, minimum surface temperatures, maximum surface temperatures, regional warming/cooling, and of course, global warming, which is Trenberth's personal brass ring travesty.

Clearly, the climate models themselves are travesties, which the IPCC's lead dogs are finally starting to turn on. Although Trenberth shows some courage in publicly admitting a major (billions of dollars) climate science failure, he will likely resort to his true self in the near future to make amends to the green radical fringe.
Trenberth is famous for this Climategate email quote:

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."

Thus the article's use of the word "travesty" twice.

Indeed.

movielib
07-27-11, 08:44 AM
The alarmist were ready with the Chinese sulfate explanation for the lack of warming. (See Post #8.) In a Climategate email of January 3, 2009 from Mike MacCracken to Phil Jones and Chris Folland, the explanations the alarmists had been giving for the lack of warming were being called into question and it was suggested that they investigate the sulfate explanation:

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1231190304.txt (near bottom of page)

From: Mike MacCracken [[2]mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net]
Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44
To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris
Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum
Subject: Temperatures in 2009

Dear Phil and Chris--

Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting (see note below for notice that went around to email list for a lot of US Congressional staff)--and I would expect the analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India (I know that at least some plants are using desulfurization--but that antidotes are not an inventory). I worry that what the western nations did in the mid 20th century is going to be what the eastern nations do in the next few decades--go to tall stacks so that, for the near-term, "dilution is the solution to pollution". While I understand there are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted).

That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example, suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.

Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading--or at the very least we need to maintain the current sulfate cooling offset while we reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably therefore, SO2 emissions, unless we manage things) or we will get an extra bump of warming. Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean (so we only/mainly emit for trajectories heading out over the ocean) and the impacts of deposition may well be less that for global warming (will be a tough comparison, but likely worth looking at). Indeed, rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so.

Would be an interesting issue to do research on--see what could be done.

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.

We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Now it does appear that MacCracken believes sulfates could be a legitimate explanation. But it has been pretty well refuted both in the present case and in the slight cooling period from the '40s to the '70s. But what is more significant is that the alarmists seem to know that there must be an explanation any time it isn't warming according to there predictions and models. It never enters their minds that the explanation could possibly be that CO2 is not such an all out villain and the explanation is solar cycles, ocean circulation cycles, cosmic rays etc. and that CO2 is just a bit player to begin with. No, they know the answer and if things don't seem to be going "right" there's another reason. Theirs is a conclusion in search of evidence rather than the other way around, i.e. the scientific method.

This is also consistent with my theory that the alarmists are always trying to plug the gaping holes in their CO2 theory and do so with poor research that is easily refuted. It's epicycles and epicycles on epicycles. Epicycles all the way down. (See Post #40, the latest of my many posts on this subject.)

OldDude
07-27-11, 08:55 AM
The alarmist were ready with the Chinese sulfate explanation for the lack of warming. (See Post #8.) In a Climategate email of January 3, 2009 from Mike MacCracken to Phil Jones and Chris Folland, the explanations the alarmists had been giving for the lack of warming were being called into question and it was suggested that they investigate the sulfate explanation:

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1231190304.txt (near bottom of page)


Now it does appear that MacCracken believes sulfates could be a legitimate explanation. But it has been pretty well refuted both in the present case and in the slight cooling period from the '40s to the '70s. But what is more significant is that the alarmists seem to know that there must be an explanation any time it isn't warming according to there predictions and models. It never enters their minds that the explanation could possibly be that CO2 is not such an all out villain and the explanation is solar cycles, ocean circulation cycles, cosmic rays etc. and that CO2 is just a bit player to begin with. No, they know the answer and if things don't seem to be going "right" there's another reason. Theirs is a conclusion in search of evidence rather than the other way around, i.e. the scientific method.

This is also consistent with my theory that the alarmists are always trying to plug the gaping holes in their CO2 theory and do so with poor research that is easily refuted. It's epicycles and epicycles on epicycles. Epicycles all the way down.

My theory is that the lack of warming is explained by a large cloud of bullshit from warmists. The bullshit is so thick it blocks the sun.

movielib
07-27-11, 12:29 PM
Yet one more peer reviewed paper that is a problem for CAGW:

Tree rings more affected by sheep than by temperature:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/26/tree-ring-widths-more-affected-by-sheep-than-temperature/

movielib
07-27-11, 12:47 PM
My theory is that the lack of warming is explained by a large cloud of bullshit from warmists. The bullshit is so thick it blocks the sun.
I defer to the distinguished engineer from Michigan.

But I do have this question: Is not the bullshit cloud offset by the hot air emitted by these individuals?

movielib
07-28-11, 09:13 AM
Top alarmist polar bear scientist being investigated for scientific misconduct.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/polar-bear-alarmist-put-on-leave.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29

Thursday, July 28, 2011
Main polar bear alarmist put on leave, investigated
Lubos Motl

Scientific misconduct almost certainly demonstrable

You may have forgotten about it but one of the early stimuli that energized the recent wave of hysteria about the so-called "global warming" was a claimed observation of four dead polar bears floating on the sea after a thunderstorm in September 2004 - exactly when TRF was getting started.

The main relevant articles ultimately appeared in 2005 and 2006:

Potential effects of diminished sea ice on open-water swimming, mortality, and distribution of polar bears during fall in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea (2005)

Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea (2006)

The authors of the 2006 article, Charles Monnett (lead author of both articles) and Jeffrey S. Gleason, have de facto claimed that 5/6 of a group of polar bears died in a 16-year period and it's surely due to global warming and it's gonna get worse.

As the media - see e.g. AP and CBS news - just figured out, Charles Monnett, employed by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, was put on leave until the verdict about the investigation of his "integrity issues". Obama administration officials are behind the investigation: they confiscated Monnett's hard drives and notebooks, among other possible proofs.

Gleason, the second author in both papers, has told the investigators that none of the polar bears in either article had anything real to do with global warming (and they haven't even mentioned the term global warming) and Monnett has added this spin to his interpretations (which has surely sweetened his life until 2011, I add).

As you may determine if you study some literature, Charles Monnett is the world's main scientist behind the idea that polar bears are increasingly drowning because of global warming - something that added a couple of scenes to Al Gore's movie (which was a part of the investigation as well), too. Until these days, he de facto controlled the U.S. Arctic Wildlife research and decided about $50 million of its funding (see the AP report).

He was told the charges. They are related to his polar bear research and chances are 50-50 that they can either demonstrate that this whole research has been fraudulent or the same thing holds for the "climate change" interpretations of it. See Where are all the drowning polar bears? (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/16/where-are-all-the-drowning-polar-bears/) at World Climate Report (2008) for more details why Monnett's results never looked right.

It seems increasingly likely that the research backing the global warming doctrine is corrupt at every conceivable level. We can't know what the final verdict of the investigation will be - but I am pleasantly surprised that the Obama administration dares to investigate at all when the target is a top doomsday-believing would-be defender of a climatic holy cow, I mean the holy polar bear.

Just a trivial point: many people, including myself, tended to think in the past that the polar bears live near the North Pole where the ice has been diminishing in recent 3 decades (and doing many other things before that) which would clearly affect them. If you have these tendencies, you should check the map of their habitat. Of course that the normal range is on the firm land, near the Arctic Circle, far enough from the pole, and the experienced animals probably know damn well that the pack ice and especially open sea increase the likelihood of drowning. Right now in the Summer, when the ice is still receding, they're probably careful not to get too far from the land. (The minimum ice is achieved around mid September.)

Five days ago, media highlighted the observations that polar bears may swim up to 700 km without a pause.

For many reasons, I don't really think that the polar bears are endangered or threatened. But if they were, I would be a support of actions to save them and my guess is that it couldn't cost more than a billion of dollars (a fancy Mercedes for each polar bear would cost just about that). At any rate, it's preposterous to use polar bears as an argument in the attempts to reduce the integrated GDP by trillions of dollars.
This is being reported by the MSM, most notably in an AP article that has been printed by many outlets. I used Motl's article because it's the most complete and includes background.

I will add that perhaps the top polar bear expert in the world is Mitchell Taylor who has been shunned for his realistic assessments that the bears are in no danger, which is consistent with the fact that the bears' population is 3-5 times what it was in the 1970s and is now stable overall. Also, the bears can deal with less ice much better than the alarmists claim. See this article about the way Taylor has been treated:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

The polar bears "endangerment" has been a fraud from the start.

Edit: It should not be overlooked that Al Gore used Monnett's studies for his sci-fi movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and has cited them frequently.

movielib
07-28-11, 09:31 AM
New peer reviewed study says glaciers don't behave like the alarmists say. IPCC got it wrong (again).

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N30/C1.php

Surface Melting and the Dynamics of the Greenland Ice Sheet Reference
Sundal, A.V., Shepherd, A., Nienow, P., Hanna, E., Palmer, S. and Huybrechts, P. 2011. Melt-induced speed-up of Greenland ice sheet offset by efficient subglacial drainage. Nature 469: 521-524.

Background

The authors write that "fluctuations in surface melting are known to affect the speed of glaciers and ice sheets," but they say that "their impact on the Greenland ice sheet in a warming climate remains uncertain," citing Meehl et al. (2007), while further noting, in this regard, that "although some studies suggest that greater melting produces greater ice-sheet acceleration (Zwally et al., 2002; Parizek and Alley, 2004)," others have identified a long-term decrease in Greenland's flow despite increased melting (van de Wal et al., 2008)."

What was done

In a study designed to further explore this important subject, and based on data for five different years (1993 and 1995-1998), Sundal et al. used "satellite observations of ice motion recorded in a land-terminating sector of southwest Greenland to investigate the manner in which ice flow develops during years of markedly different melting."

What was learned

The six scientists determined that "although peak rates of ice speed-up are positively correlated with the degree of melting, mean summer flow rates are not, because glacier slow-down occurs, on average, when a critical run-off threshold of about 1.4 centimeters a day is exceeded." Thus, and "in contrast to the first half of summer, when flow is similar in all years," they found that "speed-up during the latter half is 62 ± 16 per cent less in warmer years," so that "in warmer years, the period of fast ice flow is three times shorter and, overall, summer ice flow is slower." And so it can finally be understood how van de Wal et al. (2008) identified, in the words of Sundal et al., "a long-term (17-year) decrease in Greenland's flow during a period of increased melting."

What it means

Sundal et al. conclude that "simulations of the Greenland ice-sheet flow under climate warming scenarios should account for the dynamic evolution of subglacial drainage," because "a simple model of basal lubrication alone misses key aspects of the ice sheet's response to climate warming," which is something that was indeed missed in the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.
I'll add that this appears to be yet another one of those negative feedbacks so common in nature. Strangely, the alarmists only seem to see imaginary positive feedbacks, presumably because that makes all their claims more alarmist. The abundance of positive feedbacks seen by the alarmists is most unlikely because if they were true our planet would have accelerated off the rails many eons ago. Nature finds a balance and keeps it within bounds through negative feedbacks. Fortunately, Earth's balance, for many reasons, is livable for us. It's not impossible for "tipping points" and "rail jumping" to occur but it is highly unlikely once a fairly stable climate and ecosystem have been established. The sun going nova in 5 billion years would be an example. But it takes a lot and CO2 is no nova.

As I've said repeatedly, the alarmists have no sense of history and don't want to have one because it would undermine their arguments.

movielib
07-28-11, 11:47 AM
Follow up to Post #47.

Ecoloon appeals.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52274315-90/dechristopher-appeal-defense-benson.html.csp

DeChristopher laywers plan an appeal
By brandon loomis

The Salt Lake Tribune
First published Jul 27 2011 07:37PM

Convicted oil and gas lease auction saboteur Tim DeChristopher will appeal his conviction and two-year prison sentence, in part because he was prevented from arguing the environmental necessity of his actions at trial.

Defense attorney Pat Shea said his team will file documents Thursday notifying the court that DeChristopher plans to appeal.

That gives DeChristopher’s lawyers two weeks to craft their reasons for appealing both the conviction and the sentence. Those reasons, Shea said, will concentrate on U.S. District Judge Dee Benson’s decision not to let DeChristopher argue that he had to act to save future generations from climate change.

“We believe we should have been able to explain to the jury that they did have the right to decide guilt or innocence,” Shea said, “on the broader sense of justice.”

Benson declined to allow the so-called “necessity” defense at trial, which would have allowed DeChristopher’s attorneys to ask jurors to overlook any alleged crimes because they were needed both to prevent environmental harm and to stop an illegal auction.

The federal oil and gas lease auction DeChristopher disrupted came during the closing days of the Bush administration in December 2008. The leases didn’t stand: A federal judge issued a restraining order, and the Obama administration pulled the leases citing insufficient environmental reviews.

Benson, in explaining his sentence, made it clear that he believed it was not DeChristopher who set that questioning in motion, but a lawsuit filed by other environmentalists.

University of Utah law professor Daniel Medwed, a criminal law specialist, said it would be difficult to convince the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Benson’s rejection of the “necessity” — or “lesser-of-two-evils” — defense. That’s because a defendant must prove he or she prevented significant harm.
That "environmental necessity" defense (or, preventing greater harm in the future) was what got off those Brits who trespassed on and vandalized a power plant a few years ago. That judge allowed that argument. The judge in the present case properly and wisely did not allow that defense because it's, well, stupid, frivolous and silly. They talk about opening the floodgates, this would open a tsunami. What "preventing future harm" could not be argued for any act? Furthermore, there is no evidence our power creation and use causes net harm and all the evidence in the world that it is an overwhelmingly net benefit to humanity. And all the screams that we're causing CAGW or species extinction or all the other supposed environmental degradations are refuted time and time again.

De Christopher could have gotten ten years. I think that would have overly harsh but two years is just about right. De Christopher deserves it and it should act as a deterrent.

grundle
07-28-11, 12:35 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

By James Taylor

Forbes

July 28, 2011

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

movielib
07-28-11, 12:46 PM
For the hundredth time: coral reefs are not endangered from a little CO2 or slight temperature increases.

http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/28/threat-to-coral-reefs-exaggerated-says-new-study/

Threat To Coral Reefs Exaggerated, Says New Study
By P Gosselin on 28. Juli 2011

Some scientists and media have gotten much attention claiming that the world’s coral reefs could disappear in as little as 20 to 30 years – all because of humans consuming fossil fuels and whatever.

Now the Financial Times Germany reports on a study that claims this is all exaggerated.

The world’s largest coral reef off the east coast of Australia is not going to disappear as fast as once previously thought, according to a new study. Warnings that the Great Barrier Reef could die off due to climate change over the next 20 to 30 years are exaggerated says Sean Connolly of the James Cook University.”

This comes to no surprise for skeptics. How many millions of years and through what ranges of temperature swings have the coral reefs survived so far? Indeed a few tenths of a degree Celsius of change over decades will have no impact on the reefs. And I seriously doubt the reefs are going to do what the models tell them.

The James Cook University Press release here says:

…some current projections of global-scale collapse of reefs within the next few decades probably overestimate the rapidity and uniformity of the decline.”

Again, if the relatively sudden transition from ice age to optimum did not kill them, why would a few tenths of a degree over decades or centuries do it?

Wikipedia writes that coral reefs in the Persian Gulf have adapted to temperatures of 13 °C (55 °F) in winter and 38 °C (100 °F) in summer, i.e. 25°C change in 6 months. Like any species on the planet, reefs are always threatened by something. The press release writes:

However reefs are naturally highly diverse and resilient, and are likely to respond to the changed conditions in different ways and at varying rates.”

The James Cook press release, despite its obvious findings, still tries to convey an aura of alarm (for funding) yet admits that climate change is a natural process that has occurred time and again in the past.

Past extinction crises in coral reef ecosystems appear to coincide with episodes of rapid global warming and ocean acidification, they say. This has led some to predict rapid, dramatic, global-scale losses of coral reefs.”

The rapid changes they mention here were measured in degrees per decade and century, and not tenths of a degree as is the case with today’s relatively boring rate of change.
The coral scare is one of the most hyped and perhaps the most exaggerated and most refuted of all the scares in the alarmist arsenal (that's saying a lot). No matter how many studies blow it out of the water (no pun intended), it never seems to touch repetitions of this junk science. If the alarmists won't honestly acknowledge that this scare is bogus and back off on it why should we believe anything else they say?

movielib
07-28-11, 12:55 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
I'll just point out this study was first pointed out in Post #46. That's why I didn't post your article although I thought about it.

No problem, your article does add more information and analysis. :up:

grundle
07-28-11, 01:43 PM
I'll just point out this study was first pointed out in Post #46. That's why I didn't post your article although I thought about it.

No problem, your article does add more information and analysis. :up:


Thanks for explaining that.

Anyone who is truly concerned about the environment will see this as good news.

Anyone who wants the environment to be messed up so they can have excuses to adopt totalitarian government will see this as bad news.

grundle
07-28-11, 02:58 PM
The link to the study seems to be overwhelmed, so here is the google cache of it:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BT-FOWVtVQ4J:www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf+http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera&source=www.google.com

movielib
07-28-11, 08:55 PM
Stark raving mad.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fVo1UpXa2_A?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fVo1UpXa2_A?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

What is wrong with these people? Are they really this fucking nuts?

Lemdog
07-28-11, 10:17 PM
:lol:

Bill Needle
07-29-11, 04:07 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism



Since global warming zealotry is sustained by blind religious fervor and politics I doubt this will have an effect on it's practitioners. As soon as the faithful began resorting to demagoguery, data fraud, and stupid statements like 'the debate is settled' you knew actual science and facts had become completely irrelevant to them.

movielib
07-29-11, 07:42 AM
Follow up to Post #722, The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10, here:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/578495-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-10-post-climategate-whitewash-edition-19.html#post10802022

I received this email:

Journalism beats censorship‏
July 29, 2011
5:03 AM
From: Ann & Phelim
To: movielib

Hello,

We wanted you to be the first to know that we have been victorious over the attempts to censor our journalism. As you know, Phelim's questioning of Josh Fox, the director of Gasland, was removed from YouTube after Fox used his expensive lawyers to make a false copyright claim.

Well, after a lengthy appeals process we have won and YouTube has restored our video which shows Fox being forced to admit that he behaved unethically and withheld important facts from viewers.

These facts would have completely undermined a central thesis of Gasland and, pushed into a corner, Phelim forced Fox to admit that he knew the facts but withheld them because "they were not relevant".

Well, Fox's admission of this unethical behavior was starting to go viral, with the exchange being covered by Fox Business, American Family Radio, G. Gordon Liddy and Big Hollywood among others. So Fox and his lawyers have it removed from YouTube. It seems that Josh Fox does not like criticism and dissent is not tolerated. We replied by setting up the Fight Gasland Censorship website whilst waiting for the YouTube appeals process to make a finding.

Well we have won this battle and you can now see Fox's dramatic admissions - here.

Please send the link to anyone you think might be interested in seeing how environmentalists simply ignore facts that contradict their ideology.

Also, Ann will be speaking at Republican Party Animals event this Saturday. It seems you can still buy tickets, so if you live near Hollywood and have no plans for the night, please join us!

Thanks for all your support

Ann & Phelim
As I said in my original post, the use of the short clip from the Gasland film was clearly fair use. You can once again see the film on YouTube at my original post or right here:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e9CfUm0QeOk?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e9CfUm0QeOk?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

I didn't know they were appealing but it must be a difficult process considering what an open and shut case this was. Thanks Ann & Phelim for doing it and congrats for succeeding.

movielib
07-29-11, 08:28 AM
Follow up to Post #54.

An interview by investigators into the actions of suspended and under investigation polar bear scientist, Charles Monnett, has been released. See excerpts from his interview here (long so I'll just link it):

http://neveryetmelted.com/categories/charles-monnett/

The conclusion by the writer, Steve Milloy:

What is downright scary is the way these bozos think that dressing up wildly extravagant theories resting on baseless extrapolations of insignificant anecdotal-level observations with jargon and a few formulae in order to reach preconceived and intensely desired conclusions is perfectly legitimate scientific activity.

If anybody wonders how junk science can become established science and the accepted basis for fabulously costly governmental programs and polices, just look at the work of Dr. Charles Monnett and at PEER.
Remember, this is what fueled the "threatened" status for the polar bears and gave Al Gore's movie an emotional boost right into an Academy Award that helped lead to a Nobel Peace Prize.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/whWvXkK0HJ8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Navinabob
07-29-11, 02:21 PM
[QUOTE=grundle;10870332]http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Yes... but don't forget that Spencer isn't neutral on the subject as he's from the Heartland Institute. This guy is interpreting one data set from one satellite to confirm a belief he already has had for years. This not a study by NASA and this is not good science (not surprising the article author is creationist who does not believe in evolution so his science skills are a bit suspect). NASA has gone record as saying this study is worthless. But even if you ignore that, the article isn't doing what the title suggests, but rather only the difficulties in obtaining accurate data by measurements of radiation due to variances in natural cloud cover. That is it.

The report states that "there are a variety of parameters other than feedback affecting the lag regression statistics which make accurate feedback diagnosis difficult. These include the amount of non-radiative versus radiative forcing, how periodic the temperature and radiative balance variations are, the depth of the mixed layer, etc., all of which preclude any quantitative estimate of how large the feedback difference is"

What we are likely seeing is data observing the heat-sink caused by our oceans because, as he notes himself, there is a discrepancy between the data set and the predicted forecasts over the oceans.

LiveScience has posted a good read on this crap.

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-debunked-not-fast-234403696.html

Navinabob
07-29-11, 02:34 PM
Remember, this is what fueled the "threatened" status for the polar bears and gave Al Gore's movie an emotional boost right into an Academy Award that helped lead to a Nobel Peace Prize.

I'm never surprised by how easily public policy is based on crap. Politicians, and the people who push for policy, have little science background. That's why we invest federal research money into army acupuncturists for guys wounded in combat and vaccine courts to pay out cash who got Autism from vaccines.

As a whole, we are a nation of idiots.

movielib
07-29-11, 04:14 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Yes... but don't forget that Spencer isn't neutral on the subject as he's from the Heartland Institute. This guy is interpreting one data set from one satellite to confirm a belief he already has had for years. This not a study by NASA and this is not good science (not surprising the article author is creationist who does not believe in evolution so his science skills are a bit suspect). NASA has gone record as saying this study is worthless. But even if you ignore that, the article isn't doing what the title suggests, but rather only the difficulties in obtaining accurate data by measurements of radiation due to variances in natural cloud cover. That is it.

The report states that "there are a variety of parameters other than feedback affecting the lag regression statistics which make accurate feedback diagnosis difficult. These include the amount of non-radiative versus radiative forcing, how periodic the temperature and radiative balance variations are, the depth of the mixed layer, etc., all of which preclude any quantitative estimate of how large the feedback difference is"

What we are likely seeing is data observing the heat-sink caused by our oceans because, as he notes himself, there is a discrepancy between the data set and the predicted forecasts over the oceans.

LiveScience has posted a good read on this crap.

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-debunked-not-fast-234403696.html
Many scientists disagree with you. Live Science says no scientist they contacted agrees with this. They then cite Trenberth and Dessler, two of the most rabid supporters of CAGW. If Spencer is not neutral on the subject (and he isn't), neither are Trenberth and Dessler.

As far as Spencer being a creationist, so what? I 100% disagree with him on that but one thing has nothing to do with the other. I have never seen Spencer's creationist or any other of his religious beliefs intrude anywhere in his specialty which is climate science. He is a former NASA scientist who has (with John Christy) for years overseen one of the two satellite temperature monitoring services, known as UAH, at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, using NASA satellites. He received the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for that work. He is rock solid in his specialty and his religious beliefs are completely irrelevant in this case.

He is also criticized for voicing his caveats and uncertainties. But that is exactly what a good scientist does. Too bad we don't see more of that from the CAGWers. And if you don't think the CAGWers are always interpreting things to confirm beliefs they've held for years, I've got a bridge for sale.

You can put Spencer's work and credentials up against any CAGW scientist such as the most cited like James Hansen, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt or Phil Jones.

And Spencer isn't "from" the Heartland Institute. He's "from" the University of Alabama at Huntsville, via NASA, via the universities of Michigan (BS) and Wisconsin-Madison MS and PhD). He has spoken at Heartland events and has written articles for them at times.

He may or may not be right in his skeptical beliefs but there is no way in hell his work is as suspect as Mann's Hockey Stick or Hansen's NASA GISS temperature adjustments or wild predictions. Or the IPCC's repeated reliance on and citing of junk from advocacy groups like Greenpeace or the WWF.

movielib
07-29-11, 04:39 PM
The huge funding bias in global warming research.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/climate-change-suspect-must-be-given-a-fair-trial/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoNova+%28JoNova%29

We need a free market in climate science
Climate change suspect must be given a fair trial
Joanne Nova
July 29, 2011

GOVERNMENTS across the world have paid billions to find links between carbon dioxide and the climate, but very little to find the opposite, and that’s a problem.

Teams of professionals have searched high and low for any possible hint that CO2 poses a threat, and that is all very well, but no one has been paid to find otherwise. CO2 has been convicted without a defence lawyer.

It is self-evident that any expert in a field will reap more rewards, fame and fortune if their field is critically important. Why would anyone expect such experts to go out of their way to hunt down evidence that might suggest their field ought not be the centre of a global economic transformation?

When results come in that conflict with catastrophic model predictions, hordes of researchers scour every nook and cranny to find early warm biases, or recent cold biases, and they may legitimately find some. But no one is paid to hunt down the errors or biases leading the other way. The vacuum sucks.

Did anyone really expect that teams of volunteers without offices, budgets, access to data or PR writers would spontaneously arise and point out any flaws? Would people with the right training choose to forgo Sunday golf in order to download Hadley radiosonde data and shoot holes in the national temperature record? Actually, they would and they have, but it’s taken years to build, and it’s a silly way to run the country. This was always a loophole begging to be exploited.

We wouldn’t let a company issue a prospectus without being audited. But we’ll transform the national economy based on a report issued by a foreign committee that no one has been paid to criticise. There are no audits on the science from institutions like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA or the CSIRO. No due diligence study has been done. Hallowed peer review amounts to unpaid anonymous reviewers, often picked from a pool of people who agree.

Where is the Institute of Natural Climate Forces, or the International Bureau of Solar Science? Where are the researchers whose reputations and grants rise in value if they find holes in the theory of man-made global warming?

If, hypothetically, there are scientific gaps in the theory of man-made global warming, for the most part we are leaving it up to volunteers to find them. It’s as if the government has funded a team of QCs for the prosecution, but spent nothing on legal aid for the defence.

Between 1989 and 2009, the US government paid over $30 billion towards “climate change”. And don’t be fooled by the meaning of “climate change”, which ought to encompass all the factors that change the climate. The inherent bias in the system is so strong that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change actually defines “climate change” as being “man-made”. I kid you not.

“Climate change” means a change of climate, which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."

The IPCC was originally established to investigate things “relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change”. That was their mandate. They would have no reason to exist if there’s no disaster, and they were never going to announce that they studied it all and golly, but it’s all OK Chipper, and we’re headed home. Thanks for the funding!

What committee ever voted for its own extinction?

When the very term “climate change” means man-made, the mindset is biased. It’s a one-way road to an endless circle of confirmation bias. The Orwellian overtones are extreme: How do you ask “what causes climate change?” and get any answer other than “man-made”?

Where are the programs to find out if man-made emissions didn’t cause global warming?

Exxon was a rare funder of climate skeptics but with a contribution of $23 million over a decade, it barely paid 1 part in 3500 of what the US government did.

When people ask “how can thousands of scientists be wrong?” they forget that a consensus on a highly complex, immature subject can be purchased, or unwittingly created. If a government spent $30bn to find better uses for carrots, there would be carrot appreciation societies, carrot conventions, 400 patents on carrot-based wing-nuts, tents, and textiles, and 4000 peer-reviewed references on worrying declines in carrot hue, nutrients, fertility and genetic diversity, not to mention gender inequality in dietary carrot content.

That’s not to say that excessive one-sided funding proves anything about the climate, but nor does the existence of a consensus of government-paid climate scientists.

We’ve paid to find a crisis, and what-do-you-know, we “found” one. (Yes. It’s true, we got what we paid for.) Hundreds of scientists have been doing their jobs, most diligently, turning over every stone labelled “CO2″. But no one has been paid to turn over the other stones.

When politicians and journalists say they can’t find a credible voice of dissent, it’s only because they define “credible” as someone holding a government-funded position — and by definition, there are no government-funded sceptics.

US president Dwight Eisenhower warned against government domination of science in his farewell speech in 1961:

“In this [technological] revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalised, complex and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the federal government.”

"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

"The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present."

The so-called “free market” leaders of the world missed the need for healthy competition in science. Their big mistake on climate policy was failing to see the effect of monopoly science. They could have set up institutes and research centres whose aim was to find non-man-made causes of climate change.

These alternate institutes and conventions would compete with the usual grant applicants for research, and it would be in their interest to find reasons the climate was changed by the sun, or geomagnetic effects or orbital changes, or who knows? Through natural competition (and may the best argument win) we’d have learned more about our climate, and we’d prevent a climate monopoly from potentially skewing the research.

As with all unbalanced systems, people are rushing to fill the vacuum. The volunteers are coming. Never before in science have so many unpaid people used their expertise to become whistleblowers.

As Eisenhower feared, government has come to dominate science. We need organisations that are timeless centres of excellence, rather than crisis-response teams. Groups of scientists need to compete to make the best, most accurate predictions, not the most alarming ones.

One thing is for sure, the mess of climate science needs to be cleaned up and we need to find ways to fund science that don’t pre-empt the answers, or stifle competition.
Ironically, some studies funded to find CAGW do not find it or even contradict it. These studies are generally ignored by the CAGWers and the MSM. The honest scientists report these even when they go against CAGW (although they nearly always include a disclaimer that it doesn't mean there is no CAGW; don't want to burn those funding bridges). One wonders how many contrary studies are just buried.

Navinabob
07-29-11, 06:09 PM
As far as Spencer being a creationist, so what? I 100% disagree with him on that but one thing has nothing to do with the other. I have never seen Spencer's creationist or any other of his religious beliefs intrude anywhere in his specialty which is climate science. He is a former NASA scientist who has (with John Christy) for years overseen one of the two satellite temperature monitoring services, known as UAH, at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, using NASA satellites. He received the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for that work. He is rock solid in his specialty and his religious beliefs are completely irrelevant in this case.


I don't mean to be using this as an ad hominem attack, but his scientific cognitive thinking is seriously out of touch with reality; when you attach faith to science you end up with crap.

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

and

"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

And then for a particular case where his belief in ID may influence his scientific theory that the world's temperature increase is cloud coverage that is natural, normal and ultimately self correcting; the following is a creed he swore to at the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming." (Note how the entire group is a mixtures of ID and climate science).

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

As for the study itself... it is getting torn to shreds.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/07/29/282656/climate-scientists-blow-gaping-hole-in-nasa-data-paper-by-ideologue-roy-spencer/

movielib
07-29-11, 08:01 PM
I don't mean to be using this as an ad hominem attack, but his scientific cognitive thinking is seriously out of touch with reality; when you attach faith to science you end up with crap.

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

and

"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

And then for a particular case where his belief in ID may influence his scientific theory that the world's temperature increase is cloud coverage that is natural, normal and ultimately self correcting; the following is a creed he swore to at the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming." (Note how the entire group is a mixtures of ID and climate science).

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

As for the study itself... it is getting torn to shreds.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/07/29/282656/climate-scientists-blow-gaping-hole-in-nasa-data-paper-by-ideologue-roy-spencer/
I don't mean to be using this as an ad hominem attack either but "being torn to shreds" by Discover Magazine which has been in the tank for CAGW for years or to an even greater extent by Think Progress which is an alarmist site funded by George Soros impresses me zero.

And I really don't care what you come up with on Spencer's religion. As I said, I have never seen it come into his climate work. He happens to be the only skeptical climate scientist I know of who is a creationist and yet many other scientists highly respect his work and agree with him to a high degree. Richard Lindzen, who is one of the most prominent and respected of all climate scientists (except by alarmists who think he must be crazy just because he's a skeptic) has been doing work parallel to Spencer's for years.

I trust you know I'm one of the most outspoken atheists on this Forum and I have argued for evolution many times here. I don't bring any of that into climate discussions (except now) because it's irrelevant. So is Spencer's religion.

Navinabob
07-29-11, 08:28 PM
But he's part of a group that mixes climate science with evangelical christian ID. Regardless if you "see it" in his work, he's still coming from the view-point that God balances the weather. From there, he uses science to illustrate that point. It's like a racist using a biology study to prove African Americans are less attractive then other races. Ideology is good, but when it colors your studies you must look at things a bit more skeptically.

This is especially true when your findings are going against the scientific consensus... your burden of proof becomes all that much higher. Wait, is NASA alarmist, because they're ashamed that their name is being dragged into this study.

movielib
07-29-11, 09:07 PM
But he's part of a group that mixes climate science with evangelical christian ID. Regardless if you "see it" in his work, he's still coming from the view-point that God balances the weather. From there, he uses science to illustrate that point. It's like a racist using a biology study to prove African Americans are less attractive then other races. Ideology is good, but when it colors your studies you must look at things a bit more skeptically.

This is especially true when your findings are going against the scientific consensus... your burden of proof becomes all that much higher. Wait, is NASA alarmist, because they're ashamed that their name is being dragged into this study.
Virtually everyone is at least somewhat influenced by their religion (or lack thereof) or political ideology. It's not a coincidence that most alarmists are liberals and most skeptics are conservatives. In my view, the skeptics, while hardly perfect, are miles ahead of the alarmists such as Mann, Hansen et al. What matters is the actual science.

It's not the skeptics who refuse to release their background work and codes, it's the alarmists. That happens time and time again. It's not the skeptics who plot together to stop alarmists from publishing, it's the alarmists who do this to the skeptics (just read the Climategate emails). Hansen, who is in charge of the NASA/GISS temperature record is constantly "adjusting." Strangely, older temperatures almost always get "adjusted" down, later temperatures almost always get "adjusted" up. (Sometimes there are valid reasons for adjustments but Hansen's are patently absurd.) Spencer and Christy, who are in charge of the UAH temperature record, don't do this. Even in places seemingly as trivial as the climate blogs, skeptical blogs link to both sides, alarmists only to their own. Skeptical blogs allow open discussion, alarmist blogs are notorious for their blocking the posts from the other side. When crap like that is going on, and it has been for more than two decades (the blogs for around 6-8 years), maybe there's a reason.

And there is not, and never has been, a "scientific consensus" on CAGW. And anyone who proposes a theory, such as the CAGW theory, has the burden of proof. Proclaiming you are right and there is a consensus doesn't cut it. Particularly when almost all they have to go on are climate models for which there are huge gaps in knowledge in how parameters should be set and for which they can tweak those parameters any way they want to. Likewise, someone such as Henrik Svensmark, who has proposed his cosmic ray theory, has the burden of proof on him. The difference is that Svensmark has relied much more on actual data and observations and has run actual experiments (including the CERN experiments which he has wisely stayed out of to assure their independence from any influence he might have tried to assert). Personally, I think there's more promise in Svensmark than in Spencer or Lindzen for explaining the biggest factors behind climate change (which has been going on for 4.5 billion years).

movielib
07-29-11, 09:15 PM
Roy Spencer defends himself:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/fallout-from-our-paper-the-empire-strikes-back/

Fallout from Our Paper: The Empire Strikes Back
July 29th, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

UPDATE: Due to the many questions I have received over the last 24 hours about the way in which our paper was characterized in the original Forbes article, please see the new discussion that follows the main post, below.

LiveScience.com posted an article yesterday where the usual IPCC suspects (Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Andy Dessler) dissed our recent paper in in the journal Remote Sensing.

Given their comments, I doubt any of them could actually state what the major conclusion of our paper was.

For example, Andy Dessler told LiveScience:

“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”

Well, apparently Andy did not notice that those were OBSERVATIONS that disagreed with the IPCC climate models. And our model can quantitatively explain the disagreement.

Besides, is Andy implying the IPCC models he is so fond of DON’T have THEIR results tweaked to match the observations? Yeah, right.

Kevin Trenberth’s response to our paper, rather predictably, was:

“I cannot believe it got published”

Which when translated from IPCC-speak actually means, “Why didn’t I get the chance to deep-six Spencer’s paper, just like I’ve done with his other papers?”

Finally Gavin Schmidt claims that it’s the paleoclimate record that tells us how sensitive the climate system is, not the current satellite data. Oh, really? Then why have so many papers been published over the years trying to figure out how sensitive today’s climate system is? When scientists appeal to unfalsifiable theories of ancient events which we have virtually do data on, and ignore many years of detailed global satellite observations of today’s climate system, *I* think they are giving science a bad name.

COMMENTS ON THE FORBES ARTICLE BY JAMES TAYLOR

I have received literally dozens of phone calls and e-mails asking basically the same question: did James Taylor’s Forbes article really represent what we published in our Remote Sensing journal article this week?

Several of those people, including AP science reporter Seth Borenstein, actually read our article and said that there seemed to be a disconnect.

The short answer is that, while the title of the Forbes article (New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism) is a little over the top (as are most mainstream media articles about global warming science), the body of his article is — upon my re-reading of it — actually pretty good.

About the only disconnect I can see is we state in our paper that, while the discrepancy between the satellite observations were in the direction of the models producing too much global warming, it is really not possible to say by how much. Taylor’s article makes it sound much more certain that we have shown that the models produce too much warming in the long term. (Which I think is true…we just did not actually ‘prove’ it.)

But how is this any different than the reporting we see on the other side of the issue? Heck, how different is it than the misrepresentation of the certainty of the science in the IPCC’s own summaries for policymakers, versus what the scientists write in the body of those IPCC reports?

I am quite frankly getting tired of the climate ‘alarmists’ demanding that we ’skeptics’ be held a higher standard than they are held to. They claim our results don’t prove their models are wrong in their predictions of strong future warming, yet fail to mention they have no good, independent evidence their models are right.

For example….

…while our detractors correctly point out that the feedbacks we see in short term (year-to-year) climate variability might not indicate what the long-term feedbacks are in response to increasing CO2, the IPCC still uses short-term variability in their models to compare to satellite observations to then support the claimed realism of the long-term behavior of those models.

Well, they can’t have it both ways.

If they are going to validate their models with short term variability as some sort of indication that their models can be believed for long-term global warming, then they are going to HAVE to explain why there is such a huge discrepancy (see Fig. 3 in our paper) between the models and the satellite observations in what is the most fundamental issue: How fast do the models lose excess radiant energy in response to warming?

That is essentially the definition of “feedback”, and feedbacks determine climate sensitivity.

I’m sorry, but if this is the best they can do in the way of rebuttal to our study, they are going to have to become a little more creative.
Edit:

I find it interesting that alarmist Kerry Emanuel says:

http://www.newser.com/article/d9opjerg1/study-on-how-much-heat-cloud-cover-causes-sparks-debate-criticism-from-climate-scientists.html

Kerry Emanuel of MIT, one of two scientists who said the study was good, said bloggers and others are misstating what Spencer found. Emanuel said this work was cautious and limited mostly to pointing out problems with forecasting heat feedback. He said what's being written about Spencer's study by nonscientists "has no basis in reality."
Emanuel might just as well have added that alarmist scientists have been just as bad since they are saying the same things as the nonscientists. In fact, where does he think the nonscientists have been getting their stuff from?

I also will add that some skeptics have been guilty of exaggerating the results of Spencer's study, something he has not at all done himself.

Navinabob
07-30-11, 03:39 PM
More from Dessler:

To understand this paper, you have to understand the difference, between a “forcing” and a “feedback.” Forcings are imposed changes to, the climate, while feedbacks are processes that respond to changes in, the climate and amplify or ameliorate them. So the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by humans is a forcing—it is simply an imposition on the climate. Water vapor, on the other hand, is a feedback because the amount of water vapor is set by the surface temperature of the planet. As the planet warms, you get more water vapor in the atmosphere, and since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, this leads to additional warming.

The canonical way to think about clouds is that they are a feedback—as the climate warms, clouds will change in response and either amplify, (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the initial change.

What this new paper is arguing is that clouds are forcing the climate, rather than the more traditional way of thinking of them as a feedback. This is not, in fact, a new argument. Spencer’s 2010 JGR, paper as well as the new Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper both make this argument.

Overall, the argument made in all of these papers to support the conjecture that clouds are forcing the climate (rather than a feedback) is extremely weak. What they do is show some data, then they show a very simple model with some free parameters that they tweak until they fit the data. They then conclude that their model is right. However, if the underlying model is wrong, then the agreement between the model and data proves nothing.

I am working on a paper that will show that, if you look carefully at the magnitudes of the individual terms of their model, the model is obviously wrong. In fact, if Spencer were right, then clouds would be a major cause of El Niño cycles—which we know is not correct. Talk to any ENSO expert and tell them that clouds cause ENSO and they’ll laugh, at you.

Finally, the best way to put Roy’s paper into context it is to recognize how Roy views his job: “I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism. I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.” (he wrote that on his blog).

Thus, his paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall St. Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.

NASA climatologist Gavin Schmid:

“If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime,” Schmidt said. “Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record.”

Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming. But he dismissed research on the ancient climate, calling it a “gray science.”

Nice job over at RealClimate giving his paper a good work over.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

movielib
07-30-11, 05:25 PM
More from Dessler:

To understand this paper, you have to understand the difference, between a “forcing” and a “feedback.” Forcings are imposed changes to, the climate, while feedbacks are processes that respond to changes in, the climate and amplify or ameliorate them. So the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by humans is a forcing—it is simply an imposition on the climate. Water vapor, on the other hand, is a feedback because the amount of water vapor is set by the surface temperature of the planet. As the planet warms, you get more water vapor in the atmosphere, and since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, this leads to additional warming.

The canonical way to think about clouds is that they are a feedback—as the climate warms, clouds will change in response and either amplify, (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the initial change.

What this new paper is arguing is that clouds are forcing the climate, rather than the more traditional way of thinking of them as a feedback. This is not, in fact, a new argument. Spencer’s 2010 JGR, paper as well as the new Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper both make this argument.

Overall, the argument made in all of these papers to support the conjecture that clouds are forcing the climate (rather than a feedback) is extremely weak. What they do is show some data, then they show a very simple model with some free parameters that they tweak until they fit the data. They then conclude that their model is right. However, if the underlying model is wrong, then the agreement between the model and data proves nothing.

I am working on a paper that will show that, if you look carefully at the magnitudes of the individual terms of their model, the model is obviously wrong. In fact, if Spencer were right, then clouds would be a major cause of El Niño cycles—which we know is not correct. Talk to any ENSO expert and tell them that clouds cause ENSO and they’ll laugh, at you.

Finally, the best way to put Roy’s paper into context it is to recognize how Roy views his job: “I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism. I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.” (he wrote that on his blog).

Thus, his paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall St. Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.

NASA climatologist Gavin Schmid:

“If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime,” Schmidt said. “Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record.”

Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming. But he dismissed research on the ancient climate, calling it a “gray science.”

Nice job over at RealClimate giving his paper a good work over.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
If RealClimate didn't give the paper a "good work over" it wouldn't be doing its Hockey Team job. That's just the stuff Spencer answered. And it's their job to defend Mann's Hockey Stick no matter how discredited it is. They still defend Al Gore's movie and their original post on it is still the #1 item listed under "Highlights" as it has been since 2006.

dave-o
07-30-11, 06:22 PM
Typical response from RealClimate. Heavy on the ad hominen, light on any science. If someone thinks that these criticisms of Spencer's paper are equal to it being "torn to shreds", that belies just a tad bit of their own bias.

Thank god other areas of science are not practiced this way...

But I do find it humrous that the alarmists are accusing Spencer of using a faulty model. They are experts on that type of thing after all, so maybe they have a point! ;)

Navinabob
07-30-11, 06:31 PM
If RealClimate didn't give the paper a "good work over" it wouldn't be doing its Hockey Team job. That's just what Spencer answered. And it's their job to defend Mann's Hockey Stick no matter how discredited it is. That's just what Spencer answered. They still defend Al Gore's movie and their original post on it is still the #1 item listed under "Highlights" as it has been since 2006.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't think Gore's movie is fit to wipe my ass. Much of what he presented was sensational, now out-dated or flat-out wrong. As a real skeptic you have to examine the data and not get lost within the political movement. Not every scientist working as denier is full of bunk, but a lot are. The same way I don't trust any of the clowns over at Green Peace because of the way their ideology has overshadowed their work. Green Peace parades bad research that supports its cause, PETA distorts statistics to impresses other PETA zombies, denier blogs push whatever sliver of doubt they can find.

Spencer's study was bad science. The only people fooled by it are people entrenched within it's ideology already because they desperately want him to be right. Much of what you post is dead-on. Spencer just happens to be a misfire in my opinion.

movielib
07-30-11, 07:44 PM
Don't get me wrong here, I don't think Gore's movie is fit to wipe my ass. Much of what he presented was sensational, now out-dated or flat-out wrong.
That's just my point. Why is RealClimate still supporting AIT?

As a real skeptic you have to examine the data and not get lost within the political movement. Not every scientist working as denier is full of bunk, but a lot are. The same way I don't trust any of the clowns over at Green Peace because of the way their ideology has overshadowed their work. Green Peace parades bad research that supports its cause, PETA distorts statistics to impresses other PETA zombies, denier blogs push whatever sliver of doubt they can find.
I agree with you in many ways although I would never use the word "denier" for anyone except Holocaust deniers.

I honestly don't know of many skeptical scientists who are full of bunk. There are some skeptics I'm skeptical of myself. I tend to avoid posting Monckton (not always because sometimes he is not full of shit or it's just instructive to see how he's treated completely differently than Gore and other alarmist clowns) because I think he does exaggerate and has some problems although he's much better than alarmist nonscientist counterparts such as Gore, Suzuki, Flannery or Monbiot.

I remember when Ernst-Georg Beck died. He had published a paper claiming wildly fluctuating CO2 levels over several hundred years. It was a very bad paper and I said so at WattsUpWithThat. I got pilloried and was accused of falsely claiming to be a skeptic. I backed off, but only out of respect for the dead (I said this probably was not the right time to bring it up) but I showed them I was a real skeptic by linking to the DVD Talk global warming threads. It did appall me that many there were praising Beck and defending his work.

You can see all this at:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/obituary-ernst-george-beck/

Spencer's study was bad science. The only people fooled by it are people entrenched within it's ideology already because they desperately want him to be right. Much of what you post is dead-on. Spencer just happens to be a misfire in my opinion.
I don't really know whether Spencer's paper is good or bad science. I'm not a scientist myself, of course. I do know that the preponderance of the evidence, both in observations and history, favors low climate sensitivity and negative feedbacks. And I know I wouldn't wipe my ass with anything Dessler, Trenberth or Schmidt says.

I do find it interesting that Emanuel, who is a very strong alarmist (his work has been in trying to link increasing CO2 levels to increasing hurricanes), finds Spencer's paper good; he just finds what many are saying about it not so good.

movielib
08-01-11, 10:31 AM
Follow up to Posts #54 and #66. Transcript released from an investigative interview with the co-author of suspended polar bear scientist Charles Monnett. The co-author's name is Jeffrey Gleason. As with Monnett, Gleason is grilled on their polar bear work.

Very long so here is the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/29/transcript-jeffrey-gleason

It is now being claimed by an investigator that Gleason's alleged misdeeds are not connected to his polar bear research. Tom Nelson comments:

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/08/more-on-polarbeargate-interview-with.html

If you read through the Gleason transcript and the Monnett transcript, it's pretty difficult to believe that Monnett's current troubles have absolutely nothing to do with his junk polar bear paper.

After co-authoring the paper suggesting that global warming killed the allegedly dead polar bears, Gleason now suggests that evidence of AGW is "somebody else's issue".

Gleason is questioned about the ridiculous 25% survival calculation in his paper; he's asked why he could get clear pictures of whales, but not dead polar bears; he's asked why his only photos appear to be manipulated; he's asked whether he's sure that the same dead polar bear wasn't seen more than once. He's also questioned on the "pal review" on this paper (Monnett's wife was a reviewer). He's also asked why no more dead polar bears were seen in subsequent years, if global warming killed the bears in 2004.

Gleason says the airplane circled all dead polar bears to get a better look. On page 25 of the Monnett transcript, Monnett agrees, but then contradicts himself on page 29, when he says "I know some of them, we didn't circle on. We just kept going. We, we identified them, um, you know, flying by." Note that the paper says "Swimming and floating polar bears are difficult to see from the survey's standard 457m altitude even under ideal conditions."
Indeed, both authors are aggressively grilled on the polar bear work. Both come off as evasive. Their answers show their work was superficial, with silly extrapolations and appear to promote an agenda (that the polar bears, whose numbers have increased three to five fold in the last 50-60 years, are in serious trouble). Why were they asked about these things if they aren't the issue (or at least an issue)?

Navinabob
08-01-11, 02:41 PM
Follow up to Posts #54 and #66. Transcript released from an investigative interview with the co-author of suspended polar bear scientist Charles Monnett. The co-author's name is Jeffrey Gleason. As with Monnett, Gleason is grilled on their polar bear work.

Very long so here is the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/29/transcript-jeffrey-gleason

It is now being claimed by an investigator that Gleason's alleged misdeeds are not connected to his polar bear research.

Investigations can take awhile. So while he was likely officially suspended for something else as stated by the press release, it was probably done to buy time for further inquire. Or it might be easier to suspend/terminate if they go the route they are on. It'd be like firing a person for being late for work as opposed for performance issues because that'd be a much easier termination case to prove.

Or it might cast less embarrassment back at them if the suspension has nothing to do with research. Hopefully time will tell.

movielib
08-02-11, 07:39 AM
More on suspended polar bear scientist:

http://m.npr.org/news/front/138909083?singlePage=true

U.S. Wildlife Scientist Gets New Clues For His Suspension
Published: August 01, 2011
by Nell Greenfieldboyce

An arctic scientist who was abruptly suspended from his work at a government agency on July 18 has now received a letter that hints at why he was suspended.

The Department of the Interior's Inspector General Office has informed researcher Charles Monnett that next week, investigators will ask him questions about his actions related to a polar bear study that was recently halted.

Monnett, who works at an agency of the Department of the Interior, is an arctic wildlife researcher who published an influential report in 2006 on apparently drowned polar bears that raised alarms about melting ice and the danger of climate change.

That controversial study seemed to be at the center of an Inspector General investigation that's been going on for months, drawing criticism that a climate change researcher was apparently facing persecution for his scientific work.

But last Friday, a spokesperson with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, where Monnett works, issued a statement that "the agency placed Mr. Monnett on administrative leave for reasons having nothing to do with scientific integrity, his 2006 journal article, or issues related to permitting, as has been alleged. Any suggestions or speculation to the contrary are wrong."

Now, a letter dated July 29 from the Office of Inspector General says that Monnett will be questioned about his work related to managing a study titled "Populations and Sources of the Recruitment in Polar Bears." Issues to be discussed included his compliance with regulations that govern federal contracts, as well as disclosure of personal relationships and preparation of the scope of work.

This polar bear tracking study was being conducted with the University of Alberta, but a "stop work order" was issued shortly before the government placed Monnett on administrative leave, says Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which has been providing legal representation for Monnett.

"We're sort of at a loss as to why this kind of Inspector General fishing expedition has entered this inlet," says Ruch.

He says Monnett has only a cordial professional relationship with the primary investigator of the polar bear study in question. And Ruch says all of the scientist's work on managing that polar bear study was approved by his supervisors. "Every aspect of this study was approved by his chain of command, with a fairly transparent paper trail," says Ruch.

The July 29 letter further informed Monnett that the Department of Justice "has declined criminal prosecution" regarding matters that would be discussed in the upcoming interview, scheduled for August 9.
So it has to do with a different polar bear study? Or both? Or something else?

movielib
08-02-11, 04:58 PM
"It's not about Monnett's science or his 2006 polar bear paper."

Oh, really?

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/second-guessing-polar-bear-research/

August 2, 2011, 11:29 am
Second-Guessing Polar Bear Research
By FELICITY BARRINGER

An environmental advocacy group representing Charles Monnett, a federal wildlife biologist who has been suspended from his job, says that he will undergo a second interview next Tuesday with the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office, this time about his role in promoting and designing a five-year research project on polar bear populations.

Dr. Monnett was placed on administrative leave two weeks ago by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement and was informed that his integrity was in question.

A missive that he received from the Interior Department says that he may still face questions about a peer-reviewed paper he published in 2006 after a sighting of four dead polar bears in open waters of the Beaufort Sea. Agents now want to pose questions about the the design of a long-term contract to study the bears’ movements and behaviors and how it was awarded.

Dr. Monnett (pronounced Moe-NEIGH) played an important role in setting priorities for $50 million worth of research studies at the Alaska regional office of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Shortly before his suspension on July 18, he was told he could have nothing more to do with this continuing study on polar bears because of doubts about his impartiality.

In 2006, the journal Polar Biology published a peer-reviewed article by Dr. Monnett and another federal biologist, Jeffrey Gleason, in which they reported having sighted dead polar bears during a survey of bowhead whale populations in 2004. The article and associated discussions at scientific conferences helped to make the polar bear a charismatic symbol of climate change and its impact.

When Dr. Monnett was suspended, the bureau halted the study. Asked about that study on Monday, Melissa Schwartz, a bureau spokeswoman, confirmed that the decision to halt it had been reversed and “the study is continuing to move forward.”

The study is led by Dr. Andrew Derocher of the University of Alberta, an institution that has led much of the Canadian research on polar bear populations. The stop-work order could have left the impression that the integrity of Dr. Derocher’s team was also in doubt; its withdrawal suggests that Dr. Monnett remains the focus of the case.

Dr. Monnett’s original paper, published in the journal Polar Biology, was what scientists call a “note,” or brief discussion of observations with limited analysis, all couched in the language of possibility. It suggested that the retreat of polar ice required the bears to swim longer distances. It hypothesized that the energy expended in these swims left the bears ill-prepared for a storm that brought high winds and waves.

It was not long before skeptics on the subject of human-caused climate change began to question Dr. Monnett’s findings, asking why no floating dead bears had been seen since.

A portion of an interview with Dr. Gleason by the inspector general’s agents in February goes into minute detail over whether the impact of a storm was given enough prominence and the retreating ice too much prominence. Dr. Gleason repeatedly responded in the fashion of other scientists whose findings have gone viral: I am responsible for the observations, not the spin.

The partial transcript was released by the group defending him, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

The investigators also told Dr. Gleason that Dr. Monnett had made a “big mistake” in calculations that put the bear mortality rate after the storm at 75 percent. When Dr. Gleason asked what the investigation was about, he was told that it concerned “the validity of the paper.” In a later interview with Dr. Monnett, investigators said they were looking into “scientific misconduct.”

(One of the more lively moments in this transcript is the back-and-forth between the investigators and an increasingly exasperated Dr. Monnett over how to structure the mathematical calculations representing polar-bear mortality. He indicated, with consistent acidic references to “fifth grade” equations on percentages, that the investigators or their informants needed remedial work on their mathematics.)

Dr. Monnett confirmed for the investigators that after he observed the dead bears, he contacted Dr. Derocher and others about what to do about his observations, since they were polar bear experts and he was not. They encouraged him to publish them, he said.

Going forward, will such communications with these scientists be brought forth as evidence of bias? And what will Dr. Monnett be asked about the particulars of the awarding of the contract for or the design of the polar-bear study? Should his communications with other scientists be at issue, it will be interesting to compare how this issue is parsed in this case by comparison with other deconstructions of scientists’ communications.

I am referring, of course, to investigations of climate-change researchers at the University of East Anglia after their e-mails were stolen and climate change skeptics charged that the communications were evidence of ethical missteps. (The scientists were cleared of wrongdoing.) Or the ongoing investigation of the climate researcher Michael Mann by Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, should he win his court battle appeal
to subpoena Dr. Mann’s research papers and his e-mail correspondence with scientists.

A transcript of the next interview with Dr. Monnett may answer some of these questions. Or raise new ones.
(I have to laugh at the second last paragraph. It doesn't really fit and seems awkwardly set up and crammed in by Ms Barringer so she won't lose her alarmist credentials. :lol:)

I find it odd that the group defending Monnett released the transcripts which seem so damning to him.

movielib
08-02-11, 05:22 PM
17 years ago Greenpeace said a whole lot of things and made a whole lot of predictions. None were or have come true. But will that stop them? Did it stop Paul Ehrlich? (That's the science equivalent of "Does a bear shit in the woods?")

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/08/02/greenpeaces-fear-machine/

Greenpeace’s Fear Machine
August 2, 2011
Donna Laframboise

Art Horn, writing at the Energy Tribune, calls our attention to a Greenpeace document titled The Climate Time Bomb. It was written 17 years ago – in 1994 – but it may as well have been yesterday.

The dramatic language, the glass-is-always-half-empty perspective on the world, the blind faith in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – it’s all there.

Back in 1994, Greenpeace had monitored “extreme weather events” and had already concluded from this catalogue of disasters that:

the first impacts of human-induced climate change are in fact already being felt.

Seventeen years ago, well before the bulk of current scholarship was even in the grant application stage, Greenpeace had already decided that:

Many plants and animals will face extinction…Entire island countries in the Pacific may disappear under the sea.

Even more telling, nearly two decades ago Greenpeace was already declaring that the problem wasn’t a shortage of reliable, scalable, non-carbon-dioxide-emitting energy sources but old-fashioned apathy:

Solutions to global warming do exist – the clean energy alternatives and the energy saving processes only require political will to be implemented.

This, of course, is exactly what these people are saying now. In 2008 a Greenpeace publication on renewable energy featured a huge pullout quote (see page 3) that read:

will we look into the eyes of our children and confess that we had the opportunity, but lacked the courage? that we had the technology, but lacked the vision?

But as the brouhaha over the recent IPCC renewable energy report demonstrates, it is only idealistic young people and groups such as Greenpeace that think such technology exists even today.

Moreover, the most optimistic estimates of renewable energy depend on a rather large fudge. One has to include the burning of animal dung by the poorest of the poor within one’s definition of renewable energy. As the person who blogs at ClimateQuotes.com observes:

Traditional biomass means cooking on wood stoves, it means difficult wood collection (done mostly by women), it means smoke inhalation and deforestation. Basically, traditional biomass is another way of saying abject poverty. It means no access to energy at all. Calling traditional biomass renewable energy is more than a strech.

If one spends a few minutes clicking through that 1994 report it becomes clear that Greenpeace has long been in the habit of making dire predictions. When those predictions fail, this organization carries on as if nothing ever happened.

This means it doesn’t learn much. Like a mindless furry rodent on a hamster wheel it continues on and on and on.

In 1994 Greenpeace told us coral reefs were “under assault” and implied that warmer ocean temperatures were causing bleaching. Eager to alarm everyone Greenpeace declared:

A severe coral bleaching episode is reported in the Tahiti lagoon, possible [sic] linked to warmer-than-normal water. Local experts predict 100 per cent bleaching by the end of May 1994.

That sounds grim. But less than 10 years later, when an IMAX film titled Coral Reef Adventure was released, it contained breathtaking footage of healthy Tahiti coral. According to the film’s website Tahiti’s coral continues to attract divers and snorkelers from around the world.

Back in 1994 Greenpeace implied that the fact that some insurance companies had gone out-of-business was proof the apocalypse was imminent. This section is a wonderful, early example of how activist groups have found it convenient to align themselves with certain business interests (and let us not be confused: insurance is, indeed, big business).

If you’re wondering how the insurance-companies-headed-for-oblivion prediction turned out, I recommend a series of articles that won US journalist Paige St. John a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting back in May. By the time you’ve finished reading them your sympathy for the insurance industry may be somewhat diminished.

(For the short version, see this blog post in which I discuss how the math that resulted in consumers paying $82 billion more in insurance premiums was dreamed up. Hint: it included a four-hour informal discussion with four climate experts – whose predictions were, in retrospect, rather wide of the mark.)

One of the more distressing parts of that 1994 Greenpeace report is the section on human health. It’s important to remember that the IPCC’s first health chapter didn’t appear until 1995. It was so badly botched that Paul Reiter, who has devoted his entire professional life to the study of diseases spread by mosquitoes – including malaria – later described it as “amateurish.”

Nevertheless, in 1994 Greenpeace just knew that climate change would lead to more disease. Its report includes a closeup photo of a person with a large open sore on their face, and declares that:

Our health is threatened by climate change. Malaria, asthma, encephalitis, tuberculosis, leprosy, dengue fever and measles are all expected to become more common.

How does Greepeace know this?

because Australian officials “believe hotter summer temperatures may be contributing” to an increase in malaria
because US researchers think the discovery of a new strain of mosquito suggests that these mosquitoes “may spread rapidly in a global warming world”
because a UK government report “suggests that malaria and other tropical diseases, and even bubonic plague, could be reintroduced to the UK as a result of global warming. ”

This is all that Greenpeace requires. Beliefs and suggestions – nothing more. Greenpeace is happy to take mere possibilities and translate them into the confident statement that Our health is threatened by climate change. It feels no shame in adding a lurid photograph which, one supposes, is intended to imply that we’re all fated to become disfigured if we don’t get with the Greenpeace program.

What does all of this add up to?

It says that Greenpeace is a fearmonger. It demonstrates that Greenpeace has spent the past 20 years trying to frighten us.

One wonders if these people will ever look into the eyes of their children and confess that, rather than getting a real job, they chose instead to blight the childhoods of youngsters everywhere with hideous images and terrifying tales.
Thee article says Greenpeace loves the IPCC. The feeling must be mutual given that the IPCC uses so much Greenpeace "science" (and WWF and some others too) in its reports.

classicman2
08-03-11, 01:38 PM
I'm going to become a devout adherent to this global warming nonsense if this oppressive heat continues. It's already 108 where I live. A high of 113 is predicted for today. :)

movielib
08-04-11, 05:53 PM
We've been told that Roy Spencer's latest peer reviewed paper is crap for a variety of ad hom reasons such as he's a believer in intelligent design and several alarmist on alarmist sites say he's full of shit. I am not a believer in ID but I fail to see how that disqualifies Spencer in the area of climate science in which he has published many papers and is the highly accomplished co-runner of the UAH satellite temperature record.

One of those alarmists, Andrew Dessler has claimed that Spencer does not know his climate forcings from his feedbacks, essentially making the silly claim that something can't be both a feedback and then a forcing itself.

String theory physicist Lubos Motl critiques Dessler's critique.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/can-one-sharply-separate-forcings-and.html

Spoilerized for length

Thursday, August 04, 2011
Can one sharply separate forcings and feedbacks?
Lubos Motl

Andrew Dessler is employed as a climate alarmist in Texas (at Texas A&M).

He recently expressed his opinion about the new paper by Spencer and Braswell (reactions in the media via Google News). According to Dessler, the "paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times)."

Dessler himself who is never wrong (except when he speaks or writes) addresses his results to other scientists which is why he sent his reaction concerning Spencer's and Braswell's paper to Think Progress, a community server of militant Marxist guerillas.

I wonder whether he can see the irony. My guess is that he can't. Yesterday, alarmist Alexander Ač didn't manage to identify that a report about Bernanke in the pub came from the Onion and he presented it on his blog as real news. ;-)

These people are no longer capable to distinguish reality from fiction even in the most obvious cases. At any rate, Dessler's e-mail to Joe Romm also says the following:

To understand this paper, you have to understand the difference, between a “forcing” and a “feedback.” Forcings are imposed changes to, the climate, while feedbacks are processes that respond to changes in, the climate and amplify or ameliorate them. So the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by humans is a forcing—it is simply an imposition on the climate. Water vapor, on the other hand, is a feedback because the amount of water vapor is set by the surface temperature of the planet. As the planet warms, you get more water vapor in the atmosphere, and since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, this leads to additional warming.

[indent]The canonical way to think about clouds is that they are a feedback—as the climate warms, clouds will change in response and either amplify, (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the initial change.

What this new paper is arguing is that clouds are forcing the climate, rather than the more traditional way of thinking of them as a feedback. This is not, in fact, a new argument. Spencer’s 2010 JGR, paper as well as the new Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper both make this argument.

Overall, the argument made in all of these papers to support the conjecture that clouds are forcing the climate (rather than a feedback) is extremely weak.

Dessler's text gets extremely repetitive so I didn't copy the whole thing. OK, his main claim is that clouds are "just a feedback" and "not a forcing" and this is the key dogma that every paper about clouds has to obey.

Oh, really?

Bosses and slaves in the climate

First, what does it really mean? He means that there are the "real forcings" which are like the "bosses", the important effects, and they're the only truly active, independent players who command everything else. All other players in the system are just "assistants" to these bosses who "amplify" the orders by the bosses (or present their commands in a softer, more diplomatic tone - "negative feedbacks"), or they're just passive spectators.

Quasi-mathematically, he says that everyone has to reconcile his theory of the climate with the following multi-step template:

EmissionsCO2=F1(Carbontax)ConcentrationCO2=F2(EmissionsCO2)Clouds=F3(EmissionsCO2)Temperature=F4(Con centrationCO2)…

and so on. So if you look at this hierarchical system of laws, clouds and everything else is ultimately a function of the carbon tax - the only "true forcing". But even if you forget about the carbon tax (which has no measurable impact on CO2 in the real world, unlike recessions and technological discoveries), this world view is based upon the belief that some quantities in Nature are "active" while others are "purely passive" and controlled or determined by the "active" ones.

That's how the dogmas of third-class scientists of Dessler's caliber are clearly built. But does Nature obey these dogmas?

In principle: it doesn't

In principle, when you're arbitrarily accurate, it surely doesn't. There are no fully passive players in the physical world. There is no exception. There are no observers that only react to the external changes but don't influence their environment. Dessler's reasoning is surely fundamentally flawed as a matter of fundamental physics.

The laws of classical physics may be expressed using the principle of least action:

δS=0

The action S is a function of all degrees of freedom - positions of particles, shape of things that can change their shape, values of electromagnetic and other fields at each point, and so on.

If you vary the action, you obtain the so-called Euler-Lagrange equations: they're like equations similar to F⃗=ma⃗ or Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism. It's important to realize that in all realistic situations, a dynamical degree of freedom Φ enters more than one equation. If a degree of freedom Φ is dynamical, and not e.g. a Lagrange multiplier, there must exist at least one term in the action that is at least bilinear in Φ or its derivatives, e.g. (∂tΦ)2.

Consequently, it appears in the equations of motion obtained by varying Φ itself. But unless Φ is completely decoupled from everything else - a ghost that can't even react to other things - it also appears in the equations where another degree of freedom is (or other degrees freedom are) varied. It follows that Φ influences the other degrees of freedom, too.

If Φ is influenced by Ψ, it must also be true that Ψ is influenced by Φ. Maybe I have used an unnecessarily complicated language to convince you about Newton's third law, the law about action and reaction.

So Φ cannot be a passive player that doesn't influence anyone else. In particular, if you choose Φ to remember some information about the cloud cover, it cannot be the case that Φ is only a "passive respondent" that cannot influence other players in an independent way. It always can!

And we know damn well that clouds surely do influence the rest of the system. Tropical depressions have clouds in the middle. The clouds help to cool the interior - because they reflect the sunlight - which also helps to further reduce the pressure in the middle. Tropical depressions may later grow to tropical cyclones and hurricanes (which have a cloudless "eye" in the middle that helps to stabilize the system). This temporary instability wouldn't be the same if there weren't clouds - and it's likely that it wouldn't work at all. If clouds weren't important for a hurricane, you would probably get many hurricanes during sunny days which seem somewhat unusual. ;-)

The atmospheric-ocean interactions that lead to El Nino or La Nina conditions are affected by cloud cover, too, even if Dessler finds it inconvenient. But is there at least some approximation in which some degrees of freedom are "masters" ("forcings") while others are just "assistants" (feedbacks) or "slaves" (completely passive spectators)? Well, yes, there is.

Slow and fast degrees of freedom

In quantum physics, we know such things from the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. For example, the nuclei of the atoms are moving much more slowly (in the molecules) than the electrons. The momentum of the nuclei and the electrons are comparable - by the action and reaction principle (or momentum conservation, if you wish). But because the kinetic energy is EK=P2/2M, it is clear that for the same momentum, the kinetic energy of the nuclei that have a much higher mass M may be neglected relatively to the kinetic energy of the lighter electrons.

So you may imagine that the nuclei are sitting at fixed positions and you calculate the behavior of the faster electrons relatively to these fixed positions. In this way, you obtain all the wave functions for the electrons. They also tell you that there is an effective potential energy for the positions of the nuclei, V(R⃗1,…,R⃗N). This effective potential energy is calculated as the total energy eigenvalue corresponding to the motion of all the electrons.

At the end, you may include the kinetic energy of the nuclei as well, add it to the potential energy you calculated from the electrons' wave functions, and neglect everything else about the electrons. In another language, the "fast" degrees of freedom of the electrons have been "integrated out": you no longer have to look into the detailed motion of the electrons. You have just extracted how it affects the slow degrees of freedom, namely the locations of the nuclei.

("Integrating out" in quantum field theory, using the logic of the renormalization group, is based on the same principles although the mathematical realization differs.)

An analogous "hierarchic" treatment exists in classical physics, too. At least when there are fast processes and slow processes. For example, the change of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a "slow" process - it takes roughly a century for the concentration to make a substantial part of its return to the equilibrium value for the current temperatures which is around 280 ppm.

On the other hand, the change of the concentration of water vapor is a "fast" process. It takes a much shorter time for water to evaporate from the ocean - or condense into the ocean - and reach same value of the concentration that is expected for the existing values of some "slow" parameters. In this sense, the water vapor is analogous to the electrons in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation: they also immediately adjust their wave functions to minimize the energy, given some "nearly constant" positions of the nuclei.

So the only justification of the dogmatic proposition that "clouds are not a forcing" is that they are always a "fast process". And indeed, you may find situations in which this approximation is relatively OK.

But you may also find situations and effects in which this approximation is totally wrong. If the Solar System moves through a spiral arm of the Milky Way so that the amount of cosmic rays is higher, these cosmic rays almost immediately influence the cloud cover but they may be doing the same thing for - well - one half of 140 million years (the period it takes for the Solar System to "bubble" through the Milky Way from one spiral arm to the next). Or any other period of time if there are some faster patterns in the cosmic rays, e.g. those influenced by the slow 400-year solar cycles.

So you could say that the cosmic rays are the forcing, and not the clouds themselves, but that's just about your choice of words. It's still true that from the terrestrial viewpoint, you will see a change in the cloud cover that looks independent of other internal quantities and that may (and probably did) change the Earth's temperature by many degrees if not a dozen of degrees.

You could say that the cosmic rays play a similar role of an "external agent" as humans do when they add CO2 into the atmosphere. And you would be right. But that doesn't mean that the cosmic rays are necessary for the clouds to be able to influence other degrees of freedom as if they were the "local bosses" for a certain "project". Of course that the clouds can play this role themselves.

While Dessler assumes that clouds are "so extremely fast" degrees of freedom that they're just ultimately slaves that should never be considered "independent degrees of freedom", even little children know that this is rubbish. It can take quite some time for clouds to disappear if you experience cloudy skies. The Sun above the clouds may be doing the right thing, everything may be in place to make those nasty clouds disappear but they're still there.

(We know it in Czechia. July 2011 was the coldest and rainiest July of this century so far. So if you had 100+ degrees Fahrenheit in Texas, please don't forget that there are also places outside Texas where your experience doesn't necessarily generalize.)

In fact, there are all kinds of lags associated with the clouds and some of them are comparable to months. Note that the typical lags in changes of temperature associated with the heat capacity of the upper ocean are of order 5 years. It simply takes years for the oceans to heat up or warm down by their contact with the adjacent atmosphere.

If I borrow a part of Figure 3 in Spencer-Braswell, it looks like this:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-kyf2MMNtGLA/TjrQkctlvXI/AAAAAAAAExk/6fb028Sye48/spencer-fig-3-lag-clouds.JPG

What is drawn is a regression coefficient between two quantities (some energy flux and temperature) in W/m2/K as a function of some lag between them in months. When you understand some logic of this research, it's a pretty simple and fundamental a thing to try to draw. The green curve is extracted from the observations. The red and blue curves are calculated from the climate models. Within the accuracy we expect from the IPCC (and using clever approximations such as 2035=2350), you see that the green, red, and blue curves almost exactly coincide.

You may ask: which of the IPCC climate models - those with a lower sensitivity (blue) or those with a higher sensitivity (red) - are better in describing this feature of reality? The answer is that it doesn't really matter. All IPCC climate models are extremely far from the reality (even though the lower-sensitivity models are a little bit better).

First of all, the models' maximum achieved slope is about 3-5 times lower than the observations: that shows that the IPCC models strongly overestimate how much tightly the atmosphere wants to store heat when you raise the temperature. When the Earth gets warmer, it simply emits more thermal radiation. The slope of this dependence is substantial and many times greater than the prediction of the IPCC models that essentially say that the Earth doesn't respond (and doesn't cool itself) when the temperature rises.

Second of all, the optimum lag where the curve is maximized - around 4 months according to the observed data - is something that the models totally disagree with. The contemporary IPCC-sponsored models - and the third-class scientists who defend them - have absolutely no clue about such quantities and patterns. They have never tested any of them. They have never asked the question. They're never being fired if they utterly fail in their job even though they should be severely punished if the system were working and if science mattered. So they don't even have to try.

What they do is to prepare some presentations indicating that the models "look OK" that the laymen who are ignorant about physics and mathematics are ready to buy. The assumption is that the laymen can't understand that if Z(t)=X(Δt)Y(t−Δt), one may try to determine the quantity X(Δt), encoding the relationship between Y and Z, as a function of the delay Δt. The number of people who are ignorant enough to be unable to understand these tests is high enough for the alarmist machine to run. Well, it hasn't ever been about the equations, anyway. So the likes of Dessler never do any genuine science. They never try to ask and answer meaningful questions. They're just defending some blatantly wrong dogmas that are convenient from various personal and collective perspectives.

Dessler is promising us that he will find some actual problems with the paper by Spencer and Braswell. He doesn't know of any at this moment but he's already sure he will find some problems - well at least, problems legitimate enough so that they can get through the "peer review" done by his soulmates (whose standards are near zero when the paper is helping to create panic).

So far, he has only realized - correctly - that the results of the paper are inconvenient and contradict the IPCC's perception of CO2 as the only relevant "master", or "forcing", in the climate they want to be discussed. The idea that the cloud cover at a given place could be a real number and an independent piece of information that is not a function of the CO2 concentration - or, heaven forbid, that clouds could even influence the temperature - is as scary for the likes of Dessler as the heliocentric system was for the medieval Catholic bigots.

Even if the Earth were not the center of the Universe and even if clouds had the potential to independently influence the temperatures beneath them, we surely can't allow this heresy to be loudly articulated, can we? This would lead to a complete collapse of the society as Dessler et al. visualize it.

People like Spencer, Braswell, Lindzen, Choi and others are working hard and they're rather badly treated for this work. This won't change until at least 95% of the pseudoscientific likes of Mr Dessler will be eliminated from the scientific community where they have absolutely no moral right to oxidate. What they're doing is nothing else than sabotage. They do everything they can for the genuine scientific research to be suppressed and de facto impossible. That's what they are apparently paid for.

You see that as soon as Spencer and Braswell plotted the observational data - and the model predictions - in a slightly original and unusual way, the alarmists were just stunned. They didn't know how to react - except for vacuous ad hominem attacks (like claims that no one surely takes them seriously because they're not a part of the alarmed community). In the same way, if you wrote a paper comparing the regional variability of the warming trend (the standard deviation that I analyzed in a few previous postings) with the model predictions, they would also be shocked. They have never tested their models whether they predict these rather basic quantities correctly. More seriously, they don't want the models to be tested because every new test means one more failure. And every new failure diminishes their anti-God called CO2.

There are many independent players and degrees of freedom in Nature - and in the climate system - and they influence each other in many ways. Some of these influences are more important, some of them are less important. They may be described by one equation or another - and the right one can't be clear a priori. The right theories about these influences must be selected by their agreement with the data, and not just the most obvious laymen's data such as the overall global temperature change, but also the agreement in many graphs that only skillful scientists such as Spencer, Braswell, Lindzen, and Choi may design and quantify. One example was reprinted above.

These four people are doing real climatology, real theory, real phenomenology, and/or real observations and experiments; Dessler and dozens of others are doing nothing else than propaganda, mudslinging, and defense of their politically motivated but scientifically unjustifiable dogmas.

And that's the memo.
Now I don't claim to follow all of this but I do know a can influence b and then b can influence c. In this case b would be first a "feedback" and then a "forcing." b is clouds. And it is Dessler's argument that is crap.

I do ask OldDude to comment. Thanks.

movielib
08-04-11, 07:37 PM
I'm in northern Wisconsin at my wife's parents' old house with no internet access and intermittent access from some network. I may not be able to post much now through Sunday. I was lucky to get the above post in.

Navinabob
08-04-11, 08:15 PM
We've been told that Roy Spencer's latest peer reviewed paper is crap for a variety of ad hom reasons such as he's a believer in intelligent design and several alarmist on alarmist sites say he's full of shit. I am not a believer in ID but I fail to see how that disqualifies Spencer in the area of climate science in which he has published many papers and is the highly accomplished co-runner of the UAH satellite temperature record.

So, it's crap because he's mixing causation and correlation to wedge in his prestated beliefs into a study. Your point on his background is also meaningless because if someone background meant they were right then all the scientists who don't agree with him would also be right. Many smart people believe in stupid things which is why the evidence counts more then who is saying it. The most important skill a scientist should have is a need to disprove their own theories... you have to want to be wrong!

When your stated view is that God balances the environment and you use science to try prove that statement to be true, you are not conducting real research. If you deny evolution you are saying that your faith trumps empirical evidence (see, it pops up again!). There is a clear pattern.

movielib
08-04-11, 09:32 PM
So, it's crap because he's mixing causation and correlation to wedge in his prestated beliefs into a study.
You think he's doing that. I don't. I think his caution in his claims shows he is considering the difference between causation and correlation.

Your point on his background is also meaningless because if someone background meant they were right then all the scientists who don't agree with him would also be right.
I don't get this. I've never said Spencer is right because of his background. I've never even said he's right. I think he conducted a legitimate study that implies the models are not right because, at least in part, they overestimate climate sensitivity and that is because they don't get clouds right. I certainly won't say he's proved it since he doesn't say that himself.

I've listed (a very few) of his credentials just to show he's not a far out nut like many alarmists like to portray him (and just about any other skeptic). He is a credentialed scientist with a distinguished record, with NASA and with the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Just as distinguished as any alarmist.

No one is right because of his or her "background."

Many smart people believe in stupid things which is why the evidence counts more then who is saying it. The most important skill a scientist should have is a need to disprove their own theories... you have to want to be wrong!

I agree. Every scientist should do that. Or at least invite others to try to disprove his or her theories. Obviously many don't operate that way. I do know I've never seen alarmists who operate that way. One big difference is that skeptics routinely release all their raw data, work and codes. I have seen way too many alarmists who hide theirs and make it extremely difficult for skeptics to obtain (Mann, Hansen, Jones, to name a few). You see alarmists complain about skeptics but never because their work is not accessible. However, skeptics often have to spend months or sometimes even years reverse engineering alarmists' studies (such as the Hockey Stick) because the alarmists will not release much of their work unless absolutely forced to. Mann's Hockey Stick is legendary. McIntyre and McKitrick had to spend years (I cannot recommend The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford too highly). Jones is famous for saying "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" Please find me any such examples among skeptics.

When your stated view is that God balances the environment and you use science to try prove that statement to be true, you are not conducting real research. If you deny evolution you are saying that your faith trumps empirical evidence (see, it pops up again!). There is a clear pattern.
I think nature tends to balance the environment. I think there are many more negative than positive feedbacks. It has, obviously, nothing to do with religion as I'm an atheist. It has to do with the empirical fact that we have not gone completely off the rails. Cool periods are followed by warm ones and vice versa. It's what we have seen for 4.5 billion years. There are some very extreme periods (Snowball Earth, for example, which seem to come during periods of the Earth going through the spiral arms of the galaxy and, according to the Svensmark theory, we get a huge increase in galactic cosmic rays which cause much more cloudiness and cool the planet more than at any other times. Whether that particular theory is right or wrong, it takes a huge forcing to get us so far off the rails. And even then, we recover. (Thank goodness we are not always in a spiral arm or the Earth would probably never have evolved us.) We will not recover from the sun going nova (hopefully we will still be around and will have found somewhere else).

All I can say is I don't agree with you about the ID thing. We're at a dead end with it. And as I said before, Lindzen's work on climate sensitivity parallels Spencer's quite a bit. Lindzen is not a fundamentalist Christian (he's Jewish) and he's not an IDer. If Lindzen had done this study (which is conceivable because there has been so much overlap in their pursuits), would it be any better or worse? I think any particular scientist may or may not be able to separate religious or political beliefs from his or her work. The fact that not all do is evidenced by most liberal scientists believing in and apparently wanting to prove CAGW. I don't deny that most conservative scientists probably want to prove the opposite. I say most. This does not apply to all. And yes, what it comes down to is the quality of the work and the evidence. I'll put the work of skeptics up with the work of alarmists any time. I think the contrast is glaring. But then, I'm a libertarian.

movielib
08-04-11, 10:09 PM
New peer reviewed study in the journal Science. Arctic ice unlikely to reach a tipping point any time soon (or probably in the foreseeable future).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/04/new-study-suggests-arctic-tipping-point-may-not-be-reached/

New study suggests Arctic ‘tipping point’ may not be reached
Posted on August 4, 2011 by Anthony Watts

This is interesting. While there’s much noise from alarmists that we are on an “Arctic death spiral” the team for this paper’s press release today found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago. The paper references changes to wind systems which can slow down the rate of melting (something we’ve seen on the short term, even NASA points this out for recent historic ice retreats). They also suggest that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely saying that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return (i.e. a tipping point). From the University of Copenhagen:

Large variations in Arctic sea ice

For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in The Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts. This is indicated by new findings by the Danish National Research Foundation for Geogenetics at the University of Copenhagen. The results of the study will be published in the journal Science.

Sea ice comes and goes without leaving a record. For this reason, our knowledge about its variations and extent was limited before we had satellite surveillance or observations from airplanes and ships. But now researchers at the Danish National Research Foundation for Geogenetics at the Natural History Museum of Denmark (University of Copenhagen) have developed a method by which it is possible to measure the variations in the ice several millennia back in time.

The results are based on material gathered along the coast of northern Greenland, which scientists expect will be the final place summer ice will survive, if global temperatures continue to rise.

This means that the results from northern Greenland also indicate what the conditions are like in the ocean.

Less ice than today

Team leader Svend Funder, and two other team members and co-authors of the Science article, Eske Willerslev and Kurt Kjær, are all associated with the Danish Research Foundation at the University of Copenhagen.

Regarding the research results, Funder says, “Our studies show that there have been large fluctuations in the amount of summer sea ice during the last 10,000 years. During the so-called Holocene Climate Optimum, from approximately 8000 to 5000 years ago, when the temperatures were somewhat warmer than today, there was significantly less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, probably less than 50% of the summer 2007 coverage, which was absolutely lowest on record. Our studies also show that when the ice disappears in one area, it may accumulate in another. We have discovered this by comparing our results with observations from northern Canada. While the amount of sea ice decreased in northern Greenland, it increased in Canada. This is probably due to changes in the prevailing wind systems. This factor has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.”

Driftwood unlocks mystery

In order to reach their surprising conclusions, Funder and the rest of the team organised several expeditions to Peary Land in northern Greenland. Named after American Polar explorer Robert E. Peary, the region is an inhospitable and rarely visited area, where summer blizzards are not uncommon.

” Our key to the mystery of the extent of sea ice during earlier epochs lies in the driftwood we found along the coast. One might think that it had floated across sea, but such a journey takes several years, and driftwood would not be able to stay afloat for that long. The driftwood is from the outset embedded in sea ice, and reaches the north Greenland coast along with it. The amount of driftwood therefore indicates how much multiyear sea ice there was in the ocean back then. And this is precisely the type of ice that is in danger of disappearing today,” Funder says.

After the expeditions had been completed, the team needed to study the wood they had collected: wood types had to be determined and it had to be carbon-14 dated. The driftwood originated near the great rivers of present-day North America and Siberia. The wood types were almost entirely spruce, which is widespread in the Boreal forest of North America, and larch, which is dominates the Siberian taiga. The different wood types therefore are evidence of changing travel routes and altered current and wind conditions in the ocean.

Beach ridges and wave breaking

The team also examined the beach ridges along the coast. Today, perennial ice prevents any sort of beach from forming along the coasts of northern Greenland. But this had not always been the case. Behind the present shore long rows of beach ridges show that at one time waves could break onto the beach unhindered by sea ice. The beach ridges were mapped for 500 kilometres along the coast, and carbon-14 dating has shown that during the warm period from about 8000 until 4000 years ago, there was more open water and less coastal ice than today.

http://nyheder.ku.dk/alle_nyheder/2011/2011.8/havis-i-arktis-ustabil/ishavskort.jpg/
Part of map showing the northern ice sea. The red marks illustrate beach ridges... (Illustration: University of Copenhagen)

Point of no return

“Our studies show that there are great natural variations in the amount of Arctic sea ice. The bad news is that there is a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. And there is no doubt that continued global warming will lead to a reduction in the amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return: a level where the ice no longer can regenerate itself even if the climate was to return to cooler temperatures. Finally, our studies show that the changes to a large degree are caused by the effect that temperature has on the prevailing wind systems. This has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of the ice, as often portrayed in the media,” Funder says.

Research could also benefit polar bears

In addition to giving us a better understanding of what the climate in northern Greenland was like thousands of years ago, it could also reveal how polar bears fared in warmer climate. The team plans to use DNA in fossil polar bear bones to study polar bear population levels during the Holocene Climate Optimum.

The team’s findings are to be published in the journal Science.
I thought the polar bears were not supposed to be able to survive with so much less ice.

It should be pointed out that polar bears (who, with the brown bear, are thought to have a common ancestor) are thought to have been around for about 100,000 years. They clearly didn't all drown as No, No Monnett thinks they should. They survived this theorized period of 50% less ice (if it really happened). But now a little CO2 is supposed to kill them all.

movielib
08-05-11, 10:27 AM
Those damn deniers and their oil money.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/08/05/naming-names-marine-experts-tainted-by-activist-cash/

Naming Names: Marine Experts Tainted by Activist Cash
August 5, 2011
Donna Laframboise

Yesterday I blogged about how the Pew Environment Group, an activist organization, has been funding research to the tune of $1 million a year for more than 20 years. Those named as Pew Fellows each receive $150,000.

This is no small matter. The question of whether an entire generation of scholarship has been improperly influenced by activist funding must now be asked.

How many people with doctorates now owe part of their success to this agenda-driven organization? How many scholars, in gratitude for such funding, currently maintain ties with this activist group?

Is it really in the public interest for the line between advocacy and science to become blurred in this manner?

Below is the complete list of marine experts (Pew’s term) who accepted this activist cash. Take a minute to scan it. It contains an awful lot of people whom the public is likely to regard as neutral, objective experts. There’s a PhD attached to their name, after all.

But please also note that these people are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with full-blown political activists.

For example, one of the individuals awarded $150,000 in 2007 was Dorothy Childers. The first line of her Pew bio describes her as “an advocate for marine and coastal conservation in Alaska” (my italics). Lower down we’re told she has also been a Greenpeace employee.

Among the recipients of $150,000 in the year 2000 was the (now deceased) Marc Reisner – whose 1986 best-selling book Cadillac Desert was turned into a PBS documentary film. His expertise also appears to be closely connected to the series of activist organizations that employed him. For example, he spent eight years as communications director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Sarah Fowler landed her $150,000 in 2005. Her bio is another long list of activist outfits, including the Nature Conservancy Council, Naturebureau International, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Among those who became Pew Fellows in 1992 is a lawyer named Victor Sher who is described as “the former president of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund” and Jane Lubchenco – who now heads the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (see more about her activist ties here).

Here’s the complete list. You can read a bio of each person and see photos by visiting this page on the Pew website and typing any of these names into the search box.

Spoilerized for length.

Alex Aguilar, Ph.D.
Angel C. Alcala
Richard B. Allen
Susan L. Anderson, Ph.D.
Shankar Aswani-Canela, Ph.D.
Peter J. Auster, Ph.D.
John C. Avise, Ph.D.

Scott Baker, Ph.D.
Andrew Baker, Ph.D.
Kamaljit S. Bawa, Ph.D.
Michael J. Bean, J.D.
Giovanni Bearzi, Ph.D.
Barbara Block, Ph.D.
Wen Bo
P. Dee Boersma, Ph.D.
Pablo Garcia Borboroglu, Ph,D.
Enrique H. Bucher, Ph.D.
JoAnn M Burkholder, Ph.D.
Rodrigo H. Bustamante, Ph.D.
Claudio Campagna, Ph.D.

James T. Carlton, Ph.D.
Stephen R. Carpenter, Ph.D.
Juan Carlos Castilla, Ph.D.
Mac Chapin, Ph.D.
Anthony T. Charles, Ph.D.
Dorothy Childers
Patrick Christie, Ph.D.
David R. Cline
Andrew N. Cohen
Theo Colborn, Ph.D.
Marcus Colchester, Ph.D.
Felicia C. Coleman, Ph.D.
Marla Cone
Daniel Conley, Ph.D.
Andrew Constable, Ph.D.
Robert Costanza, Ph.D.
Richard M. Cowling, Ph.D.
Benjamin E. Cuker, Ph.D.

Gretchen C. Daily, Ph.D.
Paul K. Dayton, Ph.D.
Omar Defeo, D.SC.
Rodolfo Dirzo, Ph.D.

Karen L. Eckert, Ph.D.
Roberto R. Enriquez-Andrade, Ph.D.
Mark Van N. Erdmann, Ph.D.
Peter A. Espeut, M.Phil.
Tim Essington, Ph.D.
James A. Estes, Ph.D.
Exequiel Ezcurra, Ph.D.

Philip M. Fearnside, Ph.D.
Miriam Fernandez, Ph.D.
Carl B. Folke, Ph.D.
Sarah Fowler
Rainer Froese, Ph.D.
Rodney M. Fujita, Ph.D.
Beth Fulton, Ph.D.

Madhav Gadgil, Ph.D.
Ashok J. Gadgil, Ph.D.
Steven D. Gaines, Ph.D.
Alwyn H. Gentry, Ph.D.
Kristina M. Gjerde, J.D.
Edgardo Gomez, Ph.D.
Thomas J. Goreau, Ph.D.
Russell S. Greenberg, Ph.D.
Anil K. Gupta, Ph.D.

Stephen John Hall, Ph.D., GAICD
Jean Mary Harris, Ph.D.
John Harte, Ph.D.
Vreni Häussermann, Ph.D.
Burr Heneman
Julia A. Horrocks, Ph.D.
Stephen P. Hubbell, Ph.D.
Malcolm Hunter, Ph.D.
David Hyrenbach, Ph.D.

Noah Idechong

Wes Jackson, Ph.D.
Dana L. Jackson
Narriman S. Jiddawi, Ph.D.
Robert E. Johannes, Ph.D.
Calestous Juma, Ph.D.

Anne R. Kapuscinski, Ph.D.
Les Kaufman, Ph.D.
Dennis Takah. Kelso, J.D., Ph.D.
Jack R. Kloppenburg, Jr., Ph.D.
William Kostka

Jessica C. Landman, J.D.
Glenn-Marie Lange, Ph.D.
Matthieu Le Corre, Ph.D.
Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D.

Georgina Mace, Ph.D.
Mauro Maida, Ph.D.
Helene D. Marsh, Ph.D.
Hiroyuki Matsuda, D. Sc.
Tim R. McClanahan, Ph.D.
Laurence J. McCook, Ph.D.
Judith McDowell, Ph.D.
Donella Meadows, Ph.D.
Laurence David Mee, Ph.D.
Fan Meng
Firoenza Micheli, Ph.D.
Constance I. Millar, Ph.D.
Vera Leoid. Mischenko, Ph.D., J.D.
Mario J. Molina, Ph.D.
Derek C. Muir, Ph.D.
Peter Mumby, Ph.D.
Dennis D. Murphy, Ph.D.
Norman Myers, Ph.D.

Gary P. Nabhan, Ph.D.
Rosamond L. Naylor, Ph.D.
Daniel C. Nepstad, Ph.D.
Magnus A.K. Ngoile, Ph.D.
Bernard O. Nietschmann, Ph.D.
Elliott A. Norse, Ph.D.
David W. Norton, Ph.D.
Reed Noss, Ph.D.

Thomas Okey, Ph.D.
Jose Orensanz, Ph.D.
Erdal Ozhan, Ph.D.

Stephen R. Palumbi, Ph.D.
Ana M. Parma, Ph.D.
Charles H. ‘Pete’ Peterson, Ph.D.
Ellen K. Pikitch, Ph.D.
Stuart L. Pimm, Ph.D.
Sandra L. Postel
James A. Powell, Ph.D.
Jurgenne Primavera, Ph.D.

Vo Quy, Ph.D.

Marc Reisner
Robert C. Repetto, Ph.D.
Robert H. Richmond, Ph.D.
Alison Rieser, J.D. LL.M.
Callum M. Roberts, Ph.D
Graham Robertson, Ph.D.
Alejandro Robles
Marie-Joelle Rochet, Ph.D.
Terry L. Root, Ph.D.
Garry R. Russ, Ph.D.

Andrea Sáenz-Arroyo, Ph.D.
Carl Safina, Ph.D.
Mark H. Sagoff, Ph.D.
Enric Sala, Ph.D.
Adelaida Semesi
Robert S. Seymour, Ph.D.
Peter Shelley, J.D.
Victor M. Sher, J.D.
Craig R. Smith, Ph.D.
Robert S. Steneck, Ph.D.
Gregory S. Stone, Ph.D.
Ben Sullivan, Ph.D.
Ussif Rashid Sumaila, Ph.D.

Mia J. Tegner, Ph.D.
John W. Terborgh, Ph.D.
G. David Tilman, Ph.D.
Wayne Z. Trivelpiece, Ph.D.
Ronald L.. Trosper, Ph.D.

Christopher F. Uhl, Ph.D.
Amanda C.J. Vincent, Ph.D.
Peter M. Vitousek, Ph.D.

Johanna H. Wald, J.D.
Carl J. Walters, Ph.D.
Les E. Watling, Ph.D.
John B. Weller
Alan T. White
David S. Wilcove, Ph.D.
Norbert Wu

Alexey V. Yablokov, Ph.D.

Cheryl Ann Zimmer, Ph.D.
Perhaps the biggest joke in alarmist arguments is their referring to skeptics receiving cash from industry (there is some but very little and even that is a lot less than it used to be). BP and Shell have been huge funders of alarmism for years. Even Exxon has given a lot more to alarmism than to skepticism (see http://www.policestateplanning.com/id52.htm).

dave-o
08-05-11, 01:54 PM
When your stated view is that God balances the environment and you use science to try prove that statement to be true, you are not conducting real research.

Although I can't 'fix' this here...if you replace "God" with 'C02', then you have a perfect summary of why the vast majority of alarmist climate science is utter crap.

The alarmist position is that CO2 drives the climate...damn the evidence! When the data doesn't fit with the theoretical model, you change the model, not the data.

OldDude
08-05-11, 02:21 PM
Although I can't 'fix' this here...if you replace "God" with 'C02', then you have a perfect summary of why the vast majority of alarmist climate science is utter crap.

The alarmist position is that CO2 drives the climate...damn the evidence! When the data doesn't fit with the theoretical model, you change the model, not the data.

Oh noes, the invisible gas in the sky does it.

movielib
08-05-11, 02:24 PM
The anti-CAGW studies are coming so fast, RealClimate (RC) and the rest of the alarmist Defense Team can hardly deal with one before another pops up. For them, "dealing with" means cavalier dismissal plus ad hominems about the researchers. I'm not saying every paper that reaches non-CAGW conclusions is automatically right but it's adding up. Also, many of the authors of these studies are not what the alarmists would deem "the usual suspects" i.e. skeptics they hate.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/

Carbon cycle questions
Posted on August 4, 2011 by curryja| 407 Comments

by Judith Curry

I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow.

The abstract for his talk is here:

PROFESSOR MURRY SALBY
Chair of Climate, Macquarie University
Atmospheric Science, Climate Change and Carbon – Some Facts

Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation – properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.

Professor Murry Salby holds the Climate Chair at Macquarie University and has had a lengthy career as a world-recognised researcher and academic in the field of Atmospheric Physics. He has held positions at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, with invited professorships at universities in Europe and Asia. At Macquarie University, Professor Salby uses satellite data and supercomputing to explore issues surrounding changes of global climate and climate variability over Australia. Professor Salby is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate due out in 2011. Professor Salby’s latest research makes a timely and highly-relevant contribution to the current discourse on climate.

The podcast for his talk is here. Unfortunately there is no video so you can’t see his graphs. But the talk is very lucid, you can certainly get the point. The entire podcast is an hour, with his formal presentation about a half hour, and questions for the remaining half hour.

This talk was given in June at the IUGG meeting in Melbourne Australia, and apparently created quite a stir. A journal paper is in press, expected to be published in about 6 months. Some of the results will be in his forthcoming book Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate that will be available Sept 30.

Andrew Bolt has some reactions in the Herald Sun:

Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.

But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.

The Earth’s carbon cycle is not a topic on which I have any expertise. A good overview article is provided by NASA’s earthobservatory.

Climate models have begun to include an interactive carbon cycle in the CMIP5 simulations. NASA has been trying to launch a satellite to measure global carbon, an effort which remains troubled and plagued by continuing delays.

JC comments: If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science. Salby and I were both at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the 1990′s, but I don’t know him well personally. He is the author of a popular introductory graduate text Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics. He is an excellent lecturer and teacher, which comes across in his podcast. He has the reputation of a thorough and careful researcher. While all this is frustratingly preliminary without publication, slides, etc., it is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues. I’ll close with this text from Bolt’s article:

He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.

“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”
There are quite a few articles about this peer reviewed study which has been accepted and will be published in the future. I chose this one by Judith Curry because she is a former alarmist who is now somewhere around middle territory but seems to be drifting ever further into skepticism. I think it's because of her integrity and honesty. She has been battered by the alarmists for a couple of years for her "heresy" but she will go where the evidence leads her, regardless.

We do know oceans outgas CO2 when they warm and absorb CO2 when they cool. There is a time lag of around 800 years which can be a little more or a little less. 800 years ago is near the end of the medieval warm period so effects of that warming on CO2 levels could be felt today. So that warming could now be affecting CO2 levels, not necessarily CO2 levels of today affecting temperature.

I think it is at least a plausible factor. I am far from ready to jettison rising CO2 today as a factor for rising temperatures but I've always thought it was a very small factor because climate sensitivity is low and negative feedbacks dominate.

It appears that Salby's credentials are solid, or even stellar. I admit I have never heard of him but he is obviously not one of those "leading deniers" or, as I characterized it, one of the CAGW crowds "usual suspects." For example he's not a Lindzen or Singer or Spencer or Soon or Christy or Landsea or any of many others whose names they have done their best to drag through the mud.

I have not yet listened to the podcast. My connection up here in northern Wisconsin is just too slow. Please go to the link where you can click through to the podcast.

Joanne Nova has an excellent article here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/

She says Salby attributes 80% of the CO2 rise to temperature alone.

All in all there are numerous factors and the complexity is great as it always is in climate science. We'll have to see where it goes. But I don't think an alarmist dismissal will make it go away.

Navinabob
08-05-11, 05:47 PM
^ That'd be fantastic if it holds up to scrutiny.

And while JC's creditials are very good, she's actually been beat up by both sides; I suppose that is the price you pay for trying to sit on the fence. I like her... she actually tries to get to a middle ground. I'm a bit annoyed with her for proclaiming a revolution without a single bit of data and analysis presented. And while a research paper is promised, it is sad that the book will come first. I hate books presented as "proof" of anything as there is no peer review and they are not held to ANY standard of truth. I'd be much more comfortable if he released his data in reverse order.

JC also admits "The Earth’s carbon cycle is not a topic on which I have any expertise" which is refreshingly honest (another reason why I like her) but sorta takes a bite of her game-changing comments.

Back to Salby, here is what I gather from scattered comments to be the issue with his lecture from people smarter then myself; if 0.8 C of warming is produces an increase of 120ppb CO2 then the converse would also have to be true. During the last glacial maximum, when global temperatures were indisputably several degrees cooler than today, the atmospheric CO2 concentration must have been negative.

The CO2 feedback sensitivity to temperature is O(10 ppm/ C) and there is a multitude of paleoclimatic events in the past that would pick up on something off by a factor of 10. Just as importantly, the oceans and biosphere are acting as a sink for the CO2, in collaboration for isotopic and O2 decline signatures that provide a robust framework for the origin of the excess CO2.

Not only that, but his theory defies the conservation of mass principle. You can not have the mass atmospheric CO2 caused by warming be less than the mass of anthropogenic emissions. Where does the CO2 go? We know it goes to the ocean because the ocean is a CO2 sink, and not a source:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064508004311

I'd also like to note what the well credentialed and respected Judith Curry said of Spencer's paper above:

"It may be appropriate to use the word 'alarmist' in some circumstances, but not as an adjective to describe a computer model. This does not help the Heartland Institute to be taken seriously in the climate debate, even by skeptics." and while she agrees with part of the paper, Spencer was "concluding too much from their analysis about feedback, sensitivity, and the performance of models," and "It needs to be understood that given the short period of their data set, Spencer and Braswell are looking only at fast feedback processes associated with clouds (not the longer feedbacks associated with oceans and ice sheets). How to translate all of this into a conclusion that climate models are producing incorrect sensitivity to greenhouse warming is not at all clear."

:)

movielib
08-05-11, 07:09 PM
I'd also like to note what the well credentialed and respected Judith Curry said of Spencer's paper above:

"It may be appropriate to use the word 'alarmist' in some circumstances, but not as an adjective to describe a computer model. This does not help the Heartland Institute to be taken seriously in the climate debate, even by skeptics." and while she agrees with part of the paper, Spencer was "concluding too much from their analysis about feedback, sensitivity, and the performance of models," and "It needs to be understood that given the short period of their data set, Spencer and Braswell are looking only at fast feedback processes associated with clouds (not the longer feedbacks associated with oceans and ice sheets). How to translate all of this into a conclusion that climate models are producing incorrect sensitivity to greenhouse warming is not at all clear.":)
I know Curry was critical of Spencer's paper (and she agrees with some of it). There's nothing wrong with that. And yes, Curry has gotten it from both sides. I've been critical of her myself at times but I find her a couple of orders of magnitude more thoughtful than the likes of Dessler, Schmidt or Trenberth. And I wouldn't say she is sitting on the fence. She was once firmly in the alarmist camp and some things she was seeing got her thinking. As soon as she wasn't pure she was vilified by the alarmists. From what I see, she has been moving skepticward and is continuing to do so. I'd say she is more than half way.

I don't know how many times I have to say it. I'm not just running up here saying "Spencer has slain the alarmists." Same with Salby. I'm not anywhere near convinced by Salby which you should have gotten from my post.

The point is that there are many peer reviewed studies that go contrary to CAGW. Almost all (not all, for example E.-G. Beck whom I talked about awhile ago) are by legitimate scientists who are conducting legitimate science. Some but by no means all of those studies are by skeptics. Some are not.

The alarmist crowd, however, does these things:

*Often they are still claiming that there are no peer reviewed studies (or maybe a few pieces of junk that somehow made it past peer review but should not have been published) that go against the "consensus." They're still quoting Naomi Oreskes for goodness sake.

*Although these studies supposedly don't exist, nevertheless they jump on many of them and cavalierly dismiss them with little analysis.

or

*They just ignore them.

Skeptics don't always behave in the best manner. But compared to alarmists (particularly the RealClimate/Hockey Team/CRU/NASA (at least Hansen) crowd) they are climate angels.

Navinabob
08-05-11, 08:09 PM
I know Curry was critical of Spencer's paper (and she agrees with some of it). There's nothing wrong with that. And yes, Curry has gotten it from both sides. I've been critical of her myself at times but I find her a couple of orders of magnitude more thoughtful than the likes of Dessler, Schmidt or Trenberth. And I wouldn't say she is sitting on the fence. She was once firmly in the alarmist camp and some things she was seeing got her thinking. As soon as she wasn't pure she was vilified by the alarmists. From what I see, she has been moving skepticward and is continuing to do so. I'd say she is more than half way.

I don't know how many times I have to say it. I'm not just running up here saying "Spencer has slain the alarmists." Same with Salby. I'm not anywhere near convinced by Salby which you should have gotten from my post.

The point is that there are many peer reviewed studies that go contrary to CAGW. Almost all (not all, for example E.-G. Beck whom I talked about awhile ago) are by legitimate scientists who are conducting legitimate science. Some but by no means all of those studies are by skeptics. Some are not.

The alarmist crowd, however, does these things:

*Often they are still claiming that there are no peer reviewed studies (or maybe a few pieces of junk that somehow made it past peer review but should not have been published) that go against the "consensus." They're still quoting Naomi Oreskes for goodness sake.

*Although these studies supposedly don't exist, nevertheless they jump on many of them and cavalierly dismiss them with little analysis.

or

*They just ignore them.

Skeptics don't always behave in the best manner. But compared to alarmists (particularly the RealClimate/Hockey Team/CRU/NASA (at least Hansen) crowd) they are climate angels.

Thanks for the clarification; I agree with much of what you said. And I'm an equal opportunity skeptic who has no problem trashing studies on what you call "the alarmist side" as well. It's just that you and the other skeptics/deniers (depending on what side you are on) already do a great job of it here so I'm playing up the counter evidence. While I do think the consensus is pretty firmly in one direction, I think the research being done to counter them is exactly the sort of thing we need to do. Consensus is important when deciding what actions we need to take... but at the same time it breeds laziness, arrogance and scientific complacency. The more questions and new theories the better.

Even threads only pushing one side of a complicated science can fall victim to that same sort of thing.

Lastly, making it into a journal is only the start of a study. Peer review means we rip it apart. If your enemies have nothing to say about your work then you are not doing any science worth while and any hole they expose only puts you closer to the real truth.

movielib
08-06-11, 10:50 AM
Tim Flannery (Australia's A'l Gore, although he is a scientist, a mammalogist and paleontologist) is outed for owning beachfront property even as he claims rising seas will soon engulf such supposedly unfortunate places. He lashes back charging that a Norway style killer may seek him out if he revealed exactly where.

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/08/flannery-fears-norway-style-attack/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=flannery-fears-norway-style-attack

Flannery fears "Norway-style attack"
Climate Add comments
Aug 062011

Because as we all know, anybody who dares question the ridiculous predictions of the Official Government Climate Prophet is only a whisker away from buying a machine gun and killing dozens of innocent people.

Desperate to regain what little is left of his credibility after it emerged this week that he owns a waterfront property, having previously warned of drastic sea level rises, Flannery makes deeply offensive remarks tarring all “conservatives” with the brush of Norwegian madman Anders Breivik.

As The Australian reports:

While his place was, he admitted, “very close to the water”, the issue was how far it was above the water — something Professor Flannery would not reveal because, he said, it could help identify the location and subject him to a Norway-style attack by conservatives.

There really is no limit to the depths alarmists will go to protect their own interests and smear those who dare question them.
Flannery was named "Australian of the Year" (whatever that is) in 2007 when CAGW hysteria was at its height. He has made claim after silly claim (as I said, like Al Gore). He was named head of the Australian Climate Commission in February by PM Julia(r) Gillard who is famous for being elected on a promise of no carbon tax and then trying to impose one.

movielib
08-06-11, 11:06 AM
This story in The Australian reveals even more about Flannery's flim-flam.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do-flannerys-all-at-sea/story-e6frg6nf-1226109405774

Do as I say, not as I do: Flannery's all at sea
Ean Higgins
From: The Australian
August 06, 2011 12:00AM

IF your dream home is right down on the water, and you had listened to global warming guru Tim Flannery, you'd be more than a little worried.

Professor Flannery, appointed climate commissioner by the Gillard government, is never backward in coming forward.

A few years go, he spoke of sea-level rises of biblical proportions, where walls of water eight storeys high would subsume all beneath.

"Anyone with a coastal view from their bedroom window, or their kitchen window, or whatever, is likely to lose their house as a result of that change, so anywhere, any coastal cities, coastal areas, are in grave danger," he said.

Since his most recent appointment, Professor Flannery has taken the cause around the country, warning in June of a clear and present danger.

"There are islands in the Torres Strait that are already being evacuated," he said.

Given all that, many have been surprised to learn Professor Flannery has his own pile right on the water in the trendy tidal region of the lower Hawkesbury River, north of Sydney.

"Yes, it is waterfront and his would be one of the biggest on the point," a neighbour, David, told Sydney radio jock Ray Hadley on 2GB last week. Almost immediately, the world of talkback and the blogosphere went wild.

In one chatroom, OS said doomsayers such as Professor Flannery "after having frightened the elderly to sell their seaside properties, are buying them".

According to property searches, in 1997 Professor Flannery bought one house on the Hawkesbury with his wife, Alexandra Leigh Szalay, for $274,000.

Five years later -- even as climate scientists, including Professor Flannery, claimed evidence of global warming and rising sea levels was even more solid -- the couple bought the property next door, for $505,000.

For a week, Professor Flannery declined to speak to journalists about his properties, but he broke his silence yesterday to tell The Weekend Australian that while waterfront property generally was at risk, his little bit of paradise was secure for his lifetime.

"There is no chance of it being inundated, short of a collapse of the Greenland Ice Shelf," Professor Flannery said.

While his place was, he admitted, "very close to the water", the issue was how far it was above the water -- something Professor Flannery would not reveal because, he said, it could help identify the location and subject him to a Norway-style attack by conservatives.

Professor Flannery also said his warnings of a 20m rise in sea levels should be put in perspective -- that, he said, had to do with a range of factors and could occur once every 50,000 or 100,000 years.

The relevant time period, he said, was between now and the end of this century when the best predictions were for a rise in sea levels based on thermal expansion of the oceans of 40-80cm, plus a less predictable additional rise from melting icecaps and glaciers.

Asked what Torres Strait islands were "being evacuated", Professor Flannery conceded no evacuations were under way, but authorities on one island, Saibai, were looking at the possibility of acquiring land on a higher one.
What rank hypocrisy and flim-flammery. First he says, any coastal property is in danger. Then, his is not. In other words (by his own standards), much actually isn't and in truth (given actual likely sea level rises, not his fantasies), very little or none is.

What is hard to believe is that he has owned these properties for so long and no one knew.

movielib
08-06-11, 11:31 AM
This is great.

JULIA GILLARD CLIMATE CHANGE HORROR
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vbOEUFKh-SU?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vbOEUFKh-SU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

The movie clips are from When Worlds Collide.

Starring as themselves are Aussie Labor Party PM Julia(r) Gillard and Green Party head Bob Brown. Appearing in a supporting role is Tanya Plibersek, who is an alleged Australian journalist who is "absolutely sick to her stomach."

Near the beginning Gillard seems to say "assification" rather than "acidification."

rotfl

movielib
08-07-11, 05:54 PM
Stark raving mad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gernot-wagner/all-polar-bears-gone-over_b_920314.html

Gernot Wagner
Economist, Environmental Defense Fund and author, 'But Will the Planet Notice?'
All Polar Bears Gone, Overnight
Posted: 8/7/11 04:11 PM ET

Temperatures are rising and doing so at increasingly faster rates.

Oceans are acidifying and doing so at increasingly faster rates.

We are literally slowing down the rotation of the globe and doing so at an increasingly faster rate.*

All are clearly linked to global warming, yet none of them are quite strong enough to spur us into action. What will it take to make that happen?

Change observable over years or decades apparently won't do, and (fortunately) the climate isn't changing over days or weeks.

But perhaps a dramatic yet not quite catastrophic event could act as a wake-up call? I'm at a loss to come up with examples that fit into that category.

Hurricanes don't. Katrina was catastrophic but apparently not dramatic enough (and, of course, no single hurricane can be linked to global warming anyway, although it's clear that their intensity goes up on a warming planet). Record droughts, floods and other catastrophes don't seem to convince the unconvinceable either, largely for the same reasons.

Good old competition doesn't. Brussels, Beijing, Brasilia and others are leaving Washington in the dust with little in response.

We have already established that melting poles and glaciers attract little attention. They don't tend to melt overnight. And if they did, we would have much bigger problems than the political stalemate.

One possible candidate: a mass die-off of most polar bears.

Catastrophic? For Arctic fauna, yes; for the planet, debatable. Dramatic? Here's hoping.
------------------------------------------------------

* Think ice skater, whose spinning speed increases as she pulls her arms closer and slows down as she extends her arms. The same happens to the planet: As polar ice melts, water distributes to the equator, expanding the planet's bulge and slowing its rotation -- by fractions of a second, but amazingly it is already measurable. And we know it's happening at an increasing rate.
No comments on the article yet and no comment necessary.

OldDude
08-07-11, 06:20 PM
Stark raving mad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gernot-wagner/all-polar-bears-gone-over_b_920314.html


No comments on the article yet and no comment necessary.

* Think ice skater, whose spinning speed increases as she pulls her arms closer and slows down as she extends her arms. The same happens to the planet: As polar ice melts, water distributes to the equator, expanding the planet's bulge and slowing its rotation -- by fractions of a second, but amazingly it is already measurable. And we know it's happening at an increasing rate.

Actually, the dominant cause of slowing of the earth's rotation is tidal friction from the moon, and it has been slowing down for millions of years. We defined the second in terms of the tropical year 1900 (before its current definition at an atomic vibration). The insertion of leap seconds has been the means of correcting. We have actually been inserting fewer than expected or inserted in the 70's and 80's (the present leap second scheme began in 1972) No one understands why, but the earth has sped up very slightly, not slowed down as anticipated. While other things could cause this, the skater analogy would apply to ice thickening at either pole, since it takes water from the equator.

But again, these are only the pertubations, the moon and tides should cause continuous gradual slowing.

Supermallet
08-07-11, 06:23 PM
Yeah, tidal friction has been slowing the planet for millennia. The idea that global warming has a measurable effect on this is pretty silly. That argument also presumes that water is equally distributed across the circumference of the Earth, which we know it isn't, again thanks to tides.

movielib
08-08-11, 11:46 PM
Al Gore ranted a few days ago (It was Thursday August 4). This was at the Aspen Institute. Do not be fooled by the picture from South Park. This is really Al Gore and this is a real recording of his actual words.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MgxEzQ5D64w?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MgxEzQ5D64w?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

This one is not as good a recording but has a little more at the beginning and less at the end:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VKiepplqmow?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VKiepplqmow?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

wishbone
08-09-11, 08:49 AM
For those without YouTube access...Al Gore Lets Loose In Aspen Institute Speech About Bull**** Anti Global-Warming Pseudo-Science

http://i52.tinypic.com/29l0ff8.jpg
First Posted: 8/8/11 08:56 PM ET Updated: 8/9/11 01:26 AM ET

Speaking in Aspen last Thursday, former Vice President Al Gore warned of the impacts of global warming. In sharp contrast to previous appearances, however, Gore may have frothed at the mouth a bit when he told the Aspen Institute's 'Networks and Citizenship' panel not to believe those that dismiss global warming.

In a passionate rant, Gore says his opponents are a group of people, "washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again. There's no longer a shared reality ... It's no longer acceptable in mixed company -- meaning bipartisan company -- to use the goddamn word 'climate.'"

Gore continues,And some of the exact same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/08/al-gore-global-warming-rant_n_921721.html

Al knows bullshit. ;)

Navinabob
08-09-11, 01:22 PM
For those without YouTube access...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/08/al-gore-global-warming-rant_n_921721.html

Al knows bullshit. ;)

Well sure, he is a BS king, but to be fair those are all claims being made by one side and they are actually bullshit. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!

I think Al might owe Penn & Teller some royalty cash...

movielib
08-09-11, 03:51 PM
Well sure, he is a BS king, but to be fair those are all claims being made by one side and they are actually bullshit. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!

I think Al might owe Penn & Teller some royalty cash...
Actually, virtually all skeptics agree that CO2 does have a warming effect. But much smaller than the alarmists think.

Volcanoes have very little, if anything, to do with skeptics' claims about what causes warming. "Sunspots" if by which he means total solar irradiation and its effects upon ocean circulation cycles and cosmic rays (which may amplify the tiny changes in the sun) may very well have a lot to do with things.

dave-o
08-09-11, 04:12 PM
Well sure, he is a BS king, but to be fair those are all claims being made by one side and they are actually bullshit. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!

I think Al might owe Penn & Teller some royalty cash...

What is bullshit are the straw man arguments the alarmists keep throwing out there like these. Seriously, people need to start actually reading what the skeptical scientists are saying and researching...not what alarmists scientists and scientist wannabes like Gore and his ilk say they are claiming...it gets tiresome, it really does.

Navinabob
08-09-11, 06:01 PM
Actually, virtually all skeptics agree that CO2 does have a warming effect. But much smaller than the alarmists think.

Volcanoes have very little, if anything, to do with skeptics' claims about what causes warming. "Sunspots" if by which he means total solar irradiation and its effects upon ocean circulation cycles and cosmic rays (which may amplify the tiny changes in the sun) may very well have a lot to do with things.

Marcel Leroux & Jean Moulin (who you should recognize) are the two big pushers of the volcano & sun theory. Pilmer's stuff on volcanoes is pretty popular (but pretty weak IMHO) Dunno if Deniers have since rejected them... Are they passe now? Either way... not looking good for that claim.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

The solar radiation theory is a good one at face value, but there is a lot of research questioning that claim.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

This article is a nice read on both sides using the same data on the sun's influence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3325679/The-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html

As for cosmic rays... they don't do much better seeing as the correlation drops off at 1970 and the connection breaks apart.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf

And yes, I like to cite my sources for people who who care about the science as opposed to ideology or politics.

Navinabob
08-09-11, 06:07 PM
What is bullshit are the straw man arguments the alarmists keep throwing out there like these. Seriously, people need to start actually reading what the skeptical scientists are saying and researching...not what alarmists scientists and scientist wannabes like Gore and his ilk say they are claiming...it gets tiresome, it really does.

Ok, I get your point. Gore picked easily debunked and out-dated topics that real "skeptics" no longer argue? I find that very likely since he was speaking to people already inclined to share his views already and not a venue designed for a critical debate.

This is probable the most brilliant quote I've seen on the internet regard climate outrage from both sides and what the fundamental break-down in communication is.

“Whenever your simplify the explanation of a significant theory sufficiently to make it understandable to high school graduates of average education, you also make it misrepresent the science sufficiently that unscrupulous people can make a plausible case that you are wrong. This is particularly true of descriptions of complex systems such as climate.”

dave-o
08-09-11, 06:51 PM
Ok, I get your point. Gore picked easily debunked and out-dated topics that real "skeptics" no longer argue? I find that very likely since he was speaking to people already inclined to share his views already and not a venue designed for a critical debate.

This is probable the most brilliant quote I've seen on the internet regard climate outrage from both sides and what the fundamental break-down in communication is.

“Whenever your simplify the explanation of a significant theory sufficiently to make it understandable to high school graduates of average education, you also make it misrepresent the science sufficiently that unscrupulous people can make a plausible case that you are wrong. This is particularly true of descriptions of complex systems such as climate.”

That is inded an awesome quote. It seems to describe quite a bit of what is happening very accurately. The Gores of the world will continue to do this. I can live with that, because they are buffoons with less than a high school science education. It makes me sad when I see once reputable scientific leaders and organizations doing this same schtick (mosty coming from one side of the debate)...

movielib
08-09-11, 07:13 PM
Marcel Leroux & Jean Moulin (who you should recognize) are the two big pushers of the volcano & sun theory. Pilmer's stuff on volcanoes is pretty popular (but pretty weak IMHO) Dunno if Deniers have since rejected them... Are they passe now? Either way... not looking good for that claim.
No, actually, I don't know the first two (I may have heard their names at one time). I'm talking more about Svensmark, Shaviv and Veizer for cosmic rays and Lindzen/Spencer (ooh, there's that name again) and lots of others for the ocean circulations. As far as Plimer (not Pilmer), I read his book and he makes a lot of good points but he overreaches a lot and I think his volcano stuff is mostly bunk. Which is why I tend to stay away from him. Not all skeptics are consistently thorough (which doesn't mean perfect). Not many, if any, skeptical scientists buy his arguments on that. I never have and I've never pushed it.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

The solar radiation theory is a good one at face value, but there is a lot of research questioning that claim.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

This article is a nice read on both sides using the same data on the sun's influence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3325679/The-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html

As for cosmic rays... they don't do much better seeing as the correlation drops off at 1970 and the connection breaks apart.
That's the RealClimate crowd and they may have a point but because there are so many factors, if one real good one isn't close for a little while it's pretty meaningless. Look at long term graphs and there are many periods where correlations aren't close for each and every factor. But you have to look at which ones hold best in the long run. It's not proof but it can be persuasive. The correlation is still far better than CO2 and over a much longer time period. See Shaviv and Veizer for the long haul. And the experiments verifying that cosmic rays do increase low level clouds are piling up. The big one we are all waiting for is CERN which should have its first results published soon. You really should read Svensmark's and Calder's The Chilling Stars.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf
Svensmark and Shaviv have done very good jobs showing how their supposed debunking of the cosmic ray theory are very poor.

And yes, I like to cite my sources for people who who care about the science as opposed to ideology or politics.
I've cited so many sources in these threads it gets a little difficult to go back and repeat them endlessly for those who haven't followed closely (I'm not saying you haven't, but if you have you've read everything I'm referring to here).

Some of the quotes and responses may not be entirely in the right places. I'm writing this on the fly as I have to spend some time with my wife tonight.

I can see that we don't disagree nearly as much as it may seem on the surface. And I cannot ignore that the alarmists have a history of hiding their work, not responding to requests and have been shown to try to keep skeptical studies out of journals. Again I ask you to find examples of skeptics doing these things. To a layperson such as myself it seems quite suspicious. I've read a lot of the alarmist stuff and also a lot of the skeptical stuff. I'm far more impressed and persuaded by the skeptical side (not that I think they are perfect). I'm not sure that you've given the skeptics a fair hearing in your own mind.

movielib
08-09-11, 07:15 PM
Ok, I get your point. Gore picked easily debunked and out-dated topics that real "skeptics" no longer argue? I find that very likely since he was speaking to people already inclined to share his views already and not a venue designed for a critical debate.

This is probable the most brilliant quote I've seen on the internet regard climate outrage from both sides and what the fundamental break-down in communication is.

“Whenever your simplify the explanation of a significant theory sufficiently to make it understandable to high school graduates of average education, you also make it misrepresent the science sufficiently that unscrupulous people can make a plausible case that you are wrong. This is particularly true of descriptions of complex systems such as climate.”
It is quite arguable that Gore and the alarmist scientists do this more than the skeptics. I see alarmists misrepresenting skeptics very often. Again, I think they do it much more than skeptics do.

movielib
08-09-11, 07:27 PM
That is inded an awesome quote. It seems to describe quite a bit of what is happening very accurately. The Gores of the world will continue to do this. I can live with that, because they are buffoons with less than a high school science education. It makes me sad when I see once reputable scientific leaders and organizations doing this same schtick (mosty coming from one side of the debate)...
Gore is a buffoon. The nonscientist on the skeptical side that alarmists like to call a buffoon is Monckton. I don't cite him much because I know he overreaches and can say some rather unscientific things. But compared to Gore, he's Einstein. It amazes me that the RealClimate/Hockey Team/CRU crowd still supports Gore.

Navinabob
08-09-11, 07:34 PM
I'm pretty new to the thread and still catching up. I appreciate all the time you take with this (and with me). I mostly stick to traditional skeptic circles (meetings, websites, podcasts) where climate skepticism is sort of a bastard off-shoot. While there is a vocal minority of gw skeptics, I don't hear too much from them as many skeptics would rather not be associated with them. That's why I decided to jump in here as another side of the story is always good to look at.

And I wasn't implying that you, personally, are more ideology and less science based, but that is usually the voice I hear shouting loudest. Much like not all "alarmists" are Green Peace nut-jobs that are more about fighting "big corporations" and less about the environment, but that is usually the guy interviewed on the news.

movielib
08-09-11, 08:10 PM
I'm pretty new to the thread and still catching up. I appreciate all the time you take with this (and with me). I mostly stick to traditional skeptic circles (meetings, websites, podcasts) where climate skepticism is sort of a bastard off-shoot. While there is a vocal minority of gw skeptics, I don't hear too much from them as many skeptics would rather not be associated with them. That's why I decided to jump in here as another side of the story is always good to look at.

And I wasn't implying that you, personally, are more ideology and less science based, but that is usually the voice I hear shouting loudest. Much like not all "alarmists" are Green Peace nut-jobs that are more about fighting "big corporations" and less about the environment, but that is usually the guy interviewed on the news.
Fair enough. And you've made many good points, some of which I agree with and some I don't.

I've been at this for years. That's obvious, this being thread #11 (and I was doing it before I started the one and only threads). I admit I have a bias toward the skeptical side. But that is far more because of the science than my ideology (which would make me favor skepticism - see, I'm not afraid to say it). But if the science were overwhelming or even persuasive on the alarmist side I would accept it or be less of a skeptic. As an atheist I prefer (religiously/ideologically) the oscillating universe to the ever expanding universe. That doesn't stop me from accepting the latter as the evidence favors it fairly overwhelmingly at present.

And when I see the alarmists conducting studies to "get rid of the medieval warm period" or to counter that most of Antarctica has been cooling for decades or "finding" the missing hotspot (that all the climate models say should be there) by measuring winds instead of temperatures, I get suspicious. And then, the studies are almost invariably shown to be shoddy. There was no evidence to overturn these very well established things (I'm not saying they are sure things but they had been accepted for a long time because there was a lot of evidence in support). It seems they target their embarrassments and somehow, some way they find "evidence" to overturn them.

Then there are some things that just keep on being confirmed. Like corals are not in trouble because of oceans being slightly warmer or a tiny bit more "acidic." There's the fact that experiments have shown that corals simply change their algal symbiotes when temperatures change. There are experiments that show water with a little more CO2 and/or that are a little more acidic do not have problems growing their exoskeletons as alleged. There are hundreds of millions of years of history that show corals have survived far worse than anything we have now. Yes, there are bleaching (there always have been) but they also almost invariably recover. And yet, one of the most persistent memes is that coral reefs will be wiped out by global warming. I have never seen the alarmists address the many, many studies which say they are not threatened. That is just one example (although one of the best) of what appears to be a lack of honesty.

movielib
08-09-11, 08:31 PM
It was dead last year but now it will soon be officially "really and sincerely" dead.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/09/death-of-a-carbon-salesman-chicago-climate-exchange/

Death of a carbon salesman: Chicago Climate Exchange
Posted on August 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts

It was essentially dead when we announced on WUWT Chicago Climate Exchange(CCX) was halting carbon futures trading last year. Note the flatlined final price of 5 cents per ton:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/ccx_091010_capture.png

My only question now is “what took them so long”?

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

From the Wall Street Journal:

ICE to Close Chicago Climate Futures Exchange

CHICAGO—IntercontinentalExchange Inc. told traders Friday that it would shut down its U.S. emissions derivatives platform, a year after acquiring its parent only to suffer sparse trading as the prospects of a federal carbon-reduction plan remain dim.

The money-losing Chicago Climate Futures Exchange venture will continue operating through the first quarter of 2012 before closing, exchange officials said in a notice. ICE will then list over-the-counter emissions contracts mirroring products listed on the platform.



“The U.S. has not enacted carbon cap-and-trade legislation and changes to the EPA acid rain program have reduced trading activity,” ICE said in the notice. “Accordingly, Chicago Climate Futures Exchange volumes are down substantially and the exchange is operating at a loss.”

===============================================================

Makes you wonder what the bloviator in chief at the California Air Resources Board (CARB), Mary Nichols is going to do with their much ballyhooed (but delayed) idea of carbon trading in California?
ICE bought the actually (but not really and sincerely) dead CCX for $600 million last year. Good investment, guys. It looks like ICE is trying another zombie ploy but I wouldn't expect that to work either.

Bill Needle
08-09-11, 08:49 PM
Gore is a buffoon. The nonscientist on the skeptical side that alarmists like to call a buffoon is Monckton. I don't cite him much because I know he overreaches and can say some rather unscientific things. But compared to Gore, he's Einstein. It amazes me that the RealClimate/Hockey Team/CRU crowd still supports Gore.

As long as he still has some ability to separate fools from their money they will tolerate him.

movielib
08-10-11, 08:07 AM
Suspended polar bear scientist grilled another three hours on his research.

http://classic.cnbc.com/id/44082434

Watchdog says merit of polar bear paper questioned
Published: Tuesday, 9 Aug 2011 | 10:31 PM ET

JUNEAU, Alaska - The federal investigation into suspended wildlife biologist Charles Monnett has focused on the scientific merit of a 2006 article in which he and a colleague recorded their observations of apparently drowned polar bears in the Arctic, a watchdog group said Tuesday.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said Monnett was interviewed by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement's inspector general's office on Tuesday.

Monnett was suspended last month by the bureau pending results of an investigation into "integrity issues." The agency indicated that the suspension, which came amid an ongoing, months-long investigation, was related to how a polar bear research project was awarded and managed.

The article, published in 2006 in the journal Polar Biology, is based on observations that Monnett and fellow scientist Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004. At the time, they were conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, and saw four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. In the peer-reviewed article, they said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of the bears floating dead and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances.

Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.

They said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds. They also added that the findings "suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues."

The article and related presentations helped make the polar bear a symbol for the global warming movement.

Separately Tuesday, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., wrote the acting director of the Interior Department's inspector general's office, seeking clarification on the purpose of the investigation into Monnett.

Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said Monnett's work has been cited by witnesses before his committee and provided "the foundation" for the government's decision in 2008 to list the bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming.

"As a result, critical habitat for the polar bear was designated, which added additional layers of onerous regulations to oil and gas development in 187,000 square miles of land in Alaska," he said, adding that accusations against Monnett's work "could be serious and have far reaching consequences."

PEER executive director Jeff Ruch said that Tuesday's nearly three-hour long interview revolved around the article and the project, including Monnett's role during procurement.

Ruch, who monitored the interview via teleconference, said Monnett was also asked about any connections he had to non-governmental organizations and fundraising for environmental groups.

He said the suggestion was raised that Monnett was somehow involved in a covert campaign to promote the issue of climate change. Ruch said it could be several weeks before a transcript is available.

A bureau spokeswoman declined comment. Ruch said he is "mystified" that the inspector general's office "doesn't have better things to do."

Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, said it's "absurd" to suggest that anything that's been said about the 2006 paper would have any bearing on the listing.

"That paper was one of literally hundreds of scientific articles cited in the listing," she said, adding that there was "nothing wrong" with the paper and that support for the protection of the polar bear in the scientific literature is "extraordinarily broad."

The center, which supported the listing, has joined Greenpeace in writing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the president's chief science adviser, John Holdren, seeking an inquiry into Monnett's suspension.
Monnett clearly has ties to environmental groups and is pushing an agenda. What's remarkable is that it seems for once the overseers are interested in that little tidbit which happens all the time.

And one of hundreds of articles supporting the nonsense that the polar bears are in danger? Please. I notice they say "articles" and not "peer reviewed papers." So they were cited in the listing. So what? The listers were biased toward listing the bears. And hundreds of junky "articles" are still junk. Yeah, I guess you could find hundreds of such articles, maybe thousands, in Greenpeace, WWF and other envirogarbage advocacy pieces. Real impressive. Never mind that polar bear numbers have increased 3-5 times since the fifties and survived a hundred thousand years, many times under far worse conditions than now.

movielib
08-13-11, 09:23 AM
In getting scientific studies published peer review is a required and good system. But to make sure they're published, pal review (as in the Hockey Team pals reviewing each others papers and giving them an automatic pass) is better. Better still: here's a million dollar grant, now review my paper review. And perhaps the ultimate: spouse review.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2011/08/a-window-on-climate-peer-review.html

A Window on Climate Peer Review
August 11, 2011, 5:26 pm
Warren Meyer

I have written before that peer review is not a guarantee of correctness. Most academics would laugh at that portrayal, yet that is exactly how climate peer review is treated in the media.

A number of years ago, Charles Monnett, flying over the Arctic to do some sort of whale study, saw 3-4 polar bears floating dead in the water. Without either a) retrieving the bear carcasses or b) even getting a picture of them, he wrote up a paper that discussed the siting and hypothesized the bears drowned in a storm and further that more bears would likely drown in the future if global warming melts more Arctic ice in the summer. The findings were the basis for a lot of worry about polar bears, and played a key role in Al Gore’s movie. Panic over the dead bears and Monnett’s wild hypotheses about them helped fuel calls for declaring the bears endangered, despite all evidence that their populations have actually been increasing over the last few years. Monnett did quite well from the work, parlaying his fame into management of a $50 million study budget, the dream of all academics.

Monnett’s study has come back into the news because there has been some kind of investigation of him and his work by the Feds. There has been a lot of speculation among skeptics that the investigation focuses on academic fraud, but I thought that a stretch. As I wrote here

If you read between the lines in the news articles, we really have no idea what is going on. The guy could have falsified his travel expense reports.

The likelihood that an Obama Administration agency would be trying to root out academic fraud at all, or that if they did so they would start here, seems absurd to me.

There is no room for fraud because the study was, on its face, facile and useless. The authors basically extrapolated from a single data point. As I tell folks all the time, if you have only one data point, you can draw virtually any trend line you want through it. They had no evidence of what caused the bear deaths or if they were in any way typical or part of a trend — it was all pure speculation and crazy extrapolation. How could there be fraud when there was not any data here in the first place? The fraud was in the media, Al Gore, and ultimately the EPA treating this with any sort of gravitas.

Seriously, you see four floating bear bodies from 1500 feet, once. You don’t have any facts about how they died. You only have one data point in time. Where is there room for fraud? It’s one freaking useless data point. Here is just a taste of what a joke this study was:

The actual survey Monnett was conducting when he observed the dead bears in 2004 was the migration of bowhead whales. Investigators questioned how he later obtained data for a table listing live and dead polar bear sightings from 1987 to 2004.

“So how could you make the statement that no dead polar bears were observed” during that time period? May asked.

“Because we talked to the people that had flown the flights, and they would remember whether they had seen any dead polar bears,” Monnett said.

They only mystery is how this unbelievably trivial piece of work was published.

Well, now we have a better idea. The reviewers for the article were Lisa Rotterman and Andrew Derocher. Incredibly, it turns out Ms. Rotterman is his wife – yes, some people are more peers than others – and Derocher was awarded a large research contract by Monnett [reported to be $1.1 million - m] just before he reviewed the article. Wow.

By the way, I think I will be both right and wrong. I was pretty sure any government investigation would be about misuse of funds, and that does seem to be the main thrust here, though I was wrong in that it does seem to touch on academic fraud as well, in particular the idea of giving out grant money as a quid pro quo for a positive review (a practice that skeptics have long suspected in the climate community).

By the way, both Monnett and his partner Gleason now are claiming that everyone blew their study out of proportion and it wasn’t really about global warming. If this is true, they were sure silent about this when they were basking in all kinds of attention and press and grant money. Either of them could have stepped forward and stopped the momentum that built from this article and they did not.

By the way, for those who still want to believe that the EPA is driven by science,

Gleason concedes that the study had a major impact on the controversial listing of the bear as an endangered species because of global warming.

“As a side note, talking about my former supervisor, he actually sent me an e-mail at one point saying, ‘You’re the reason polar bears got listed,’” Gleason said.

One sighting in history of four floating dead polar bears and suddenly our whole fossil fuel economy has to be shut down.
Furthermore, Derocher is known for making sure polar bear expert Mitchell Taylor was kept away from a polar bear conference in 2009 because Taylor does not agree with the Derocher/Monnett crowd on CAGW. He claimed it had nothing to do with Taylor's work on polar bears. Yeah, right.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/09/exile-for-non-believers/
Excerpt: Derocher's letter to Taylor:

Hi Mitch,

The world is a political place and for polar bears, more so now than ever before. I have no problem with dissenting views as long as they are supportable by logic, scientific reasoning, and the literature.

I do believe, as do many PBSG members, that for the sake of polar bear conservation, views that run counter to human induced climate change are extremely unhelpful. In this vein, your positions and statements in the Manhattan Declaration, the Frontier Institute, and the Science and Public Policy Institute are inconsistent with positions taken by the PBSG.

I too was not surprised by the members not endorsing an invitation.

Nothing I heard had to do with your science on harvesting or your research on polar bears – it was the positions you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition.

Time will tell who is correct but the scientific literature is not on the side of those arguing against human induced climate change.

I look forward to having someone else chair the PBSG.

Best regards,

Andy (Derocher)

Navinabob
08-13-11, 04:16 PM
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:colbertnation.com:394240" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394240/august-09-2011/heatsteria">The Colbert Report</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/'>Colbert Report Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.colbertnation.com/video'>Video Archive</a></p></div></div>

movielib
08-16-11, 08:58 AM
Climate models get El Niños wrong: new peer reviewed paper.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-paper-finds-el-nino-is-changing.html

Sunday, August 14, 2011
New paper finds El Niño is changing opposite to predictions of climate models

A paper published this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters finds that changes in the character of El Ninos over the past 31 years are the opposite of the predictions of climate models from greenhouse gases. The paper concludes "A plausible interpretation of these results is that the character of El Niño over the past 31 years has varied naturally" rather than being forced by increased greenhouse gases. Another alarmist prediction by climate modelers crumbles in the face of real-world data.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L15709, 4 PP., 2011 (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048275.shtml)

El Niño and its relationship to changing background conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean

Key Points:
The character of El Nino is changing in ways not expected from climate models

Changes in El Nino are projecting onto background conditions
The changes probably result from natural variations rather than GHG forcing

M. J. McPhaden et al

This paper addresses the question of whether the increased occurrence of central Pacific (CP) versus Eastern Pacific (EP) El Niños is consistent with greenhouse gas forced changes in the background state of the tropical Pacific as inferred from global climate change models. Our analysis uses high-quality satellite and in situ ocean data combined with wind data from atmospheric reanalyses for the past 31 years (1980–2010). We find changes in background conditions that are opposite to those expected from greenhouse gas forcing in climate models and opposite to what is expected if changes in the background state are mediating more frequent occurrences of CP El Niños. A plausible interpretation of these results is that the character of El Niño over the past 31 years has varied naturally and that these variations projected onto changes in the background state because of the asymmetric spatial structures of CP and EP El Niños.
One has to wonder how long "the consensus" will keep relying on the very flawed models. Given that they still defend the Hockey Stick and An Inconvenient Truth I wouldn't hold my breath.

movielib
08-16-11, 10:00 PM
Sea urchins, like corals, are resilient.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N32/B1.php

Sea Urchin Larvae Living in Periodically Low-pH Seawater Reference
Yu, P.C., Matson, P.G., Martz, T.R. and Hofmann, G.E. 2011. The ocean acidification seascape and its relationship to the performance of calcifying marine invertebrates: Laboratory experiments on the development of urchin larvae framed by environmentally-relevant pCO2/pH. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 400: 288-295.

Background

The authors write that "variation in ocean pH is a dynamic process occurring naturally in the upwelling zone of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem," where "the near-shore carbonate chemistry is under-characterized and the physiology of local organisms may be under constant challenge from cyclical changes in pH and carbonate ion concentration of unexpectedly high magnitude."

What was done

To explore both aspects of this situation, i.e., to determine (1) the temporal variability of near-shore seawater pH and (2) its effects on calcifying marine invertebrates, Yu et al. did two things. First, they deployed a SeaFET pH sensor (Martz et al., 2010) from 22 July to 17 August 2010 at 8 meters depth at Mohawk Reef, Santa Barbara, California, USA (34°23.66'N, 119°43.80'W) on sandy substrata about 50 meters seaward of that location's kelp forest, which device recorded seawater pH and temperature over a period of 30 seconds every 10 minutes. Second, they raised larvae of the purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) in seawater maintained at pCO2 levels ranging from ambient to 1000 and 1450 ppm CO2 (pH 7.7 and 7.5, respectively), while measuring, after three and six days development, "total larval length (from the spicule tip of the postoral arm to the spicule tip of the aboral point) along the spicules, to assess effects of low pH upwelling water on morphology."

What was learned

The four U.S. researchers observed changes of up to 0.32 pH unit over 24-hour periods, and a maximum change between the high and low points of the measurement period of 0.67 pH unit, with a time-averaged value of 7.933 for the entire period, indicating that marine organisms at Mohawk Reef are currently experiencing "low pH and high pCO2 values that are not expected for the open ocean for another ~100 years." As for sea urchin larval development, they report that "even at the highest pCO2 treatments, larval development was normal in terms of timing and morphological appearance," although at both day 3 and 6 larvae in the 1450-ppm CO2 treatment were 7-13% smaller than control larvae.

What it means

Yu et al. state that "the observed developmental progression and survival of cultures was within the norm typically observed for this species at this temperature range." In addition, they indicate that "a lack of developmental deformities at early stages for pCO2 ~1000 ppm has been previously reported for this species (Todgham and Hofmann, 2009), and another local species, Lytechinus pictus, with a similar overlapping portion of its range in southern California (O'Donnell et al., 2010)." And they say "there are even reports that survival is increased in this species and its congener S. droebachiensis under some low pH conditions (Dupont and Thorndyke, 2008)." Hence, it would appear, as Yu et al. conclude, that "the effects of small magnitude in these urchin larvae are indicative of a potential resilience to near-future levels of ocean acidification."
There has been study after study that shows corals and many other marine invertebrates are resilient and adaptive. They survive changes in temperature and pH that alarmists claim will wipe them out. They have been surviving much worse extremes than anything we have going on now and have for hundreds of millions of years.

But I have yet to see any alarmist or anyone in the MSM acknowledge any of these studies. I haven't seen any refutations. All I see is ignoring. And then they go right on repeating the nonsense that higher temperatures or lower pH will kill all these animals. If the alarmists had any integrity they would at least admit this truth. But I guess the truth is too inconvenient for them.

movielib
08-17-11, 06:12 PM
Polar bear "scientist" Charles Monnett "even worse than was thought"?

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/17/139714742/fresh-allegations-leveled-against-polar-bear-scientist

New Allegations Leveled Against Polar Bear Scientist
by Nell Greenfieldboyce
August 17, 2011

The polar bear researcher who was suspended from his government job last month has received a new letter from investigators that lays out actions he took that are described as being "highly inappropriate" under the rules that apply to managing federal contracts.

According to the letter, wildlife biologist Charles Monnett told investigators that he assisted a scientist in preparing that scientist's proposal for a government contract. Monnett then served as chairman of a committee that reviewed that proposal.

A lawyer with a group that is assisting Monnett says that what he did was standard practice at Monnett's office, that no other groups were competing for that sole-source contract, and that this letter "confirms our view that they are really on a witch hunt, trying to get Dr. Monnett."

Monnett works for an agency of the Department of the Interior and, in 2006, published his observations of apparently drowned polar bears in the Arctic. The dead polar bears became a powerful symbol of the danger of climate change and melting ice, and were featured in Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth.

Monnett has been under an official investigation for months, and his legal team says investigators have repeatedly asked him about his observations of dead polar bears and the reports he wrote describing them. His supporters say he is being targeted because of the political implications of his work for regulating greenhouse gases and Arctic oil drilling.

A spokesperson for the agency that employs Monnett, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, has previously said in a statement that "the agency placed Mr. Monnett on administrative leave for reasons having nothing to do with scientific integrity, his 2006 journal article, or issues related to permitting, as has been alleged. Any suggestions or speculation to the contrary are wrong."

The new letter, which was written by a special agent of the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Interior and dated Aug. 15, told Monnett that essentially, "you admitted that you reviewed a Proposal ... that you helped draft."

"I'd say 'helped draft' is quite an exaggeration," said Paula Dinerstein, senior counsel at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, which is providing legal assistance to Monnett and made the letter available to NPR.

The Contract In Question

The $1.3 million contract in question funds a polar bear tracking study led by University of Alberta scientist Andrew Derocher. Dinerstein said Monnett merely looked over the scientist's proposal and let the scientist know if it met the basic requirements for what a proposal should be.

Plus, Dinerstein said, "the decision had been made long before all this happened that this was going to be a sole-source contract with this Canadian university."

She said no other group was competing for this sole-source contract, "so the kind of inappropriateness that they are talking about simply doesn't apply here." She says the contract was for work that piggybacked on polar bear research that the university was already doing.

A spokesperson for the University of Alberta, Brian Murphy, said Wednesday that Derocher was not available to talk about the latest allegations and that "the university and Dr. Derocher cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."

Monnett's legal team has said that in past interviews, investigators have seemed to ask whether the contract was inappropriately steered to the University of Alberta scientist by Monnett in exchange for the scientist offering a peer review of Monnett's soon-to-be-famous dead polar bear paper.

During an Aug. 9 interview, Monnett's lawyers have said Inspector General investigators asked questions about the fact that, as the contract was being finalized, Monnett asked Derocher for his thoughts on the unpublished report on dead polar bears. But Monnett's lawyers say the contract had been negotiated for months before that and that Monnett's request for an informal peer review was unrelated.

Dinerstein said Monnett's actions with regard to looking over the scientist's proposal for the contract before its review was the "standard practice" at his office. "Everything that Dr. Monnett did in this situation, and in other situations where there were sole-source contracts, was known by his management and the contracting officers," she said.

But in the latest letter to Monnett, the Inspector General's special agent writes that the contracting officer in this case told investigators that she did not know of Monnett's actions: "The CO told the OIG that you never informed her you had taken such actions, and if you had told her she would have warned you that such actions would be highly inappropriate under procurement integrity policies and procedures."

The letter asks Monnett to inform investigators of any other contract holders that he assisted in this way.

Dinerstein said it appears as though the special agents are trying to broaden their investigation "when, in fact, everything that he did was approved by his management, was standard practice, was following the lead of the people who were supposedly in charge of complying with the federal contracting regulations. He was the scientist."

Her group has filed a complaint of scientific and scholarly misconduct against officials at Monnett's agency about how he has been treated. In a letter to PEER dated Aug. 8, the scientific integrity officer at the Department of Interior stated that an inquiry is being conducted into those allegations.
At the very least it appears that Monnett gave the appearance of having awarded a contract in exchange for a favorable peer (or pal) review of his ridiculous dead polar bear paper. And the charge that Monnett "assisted a scientist in preparing that scientist's proposal for a government contract [and] then served as chairman of a committee that reviewed that proposal" seems quite serious. Of course Monnett's attorneys and the PEER group defending him are trying to spin it but that seems ever more futile as more comes to light.

It should not be forgotten that Monnett's polar bear study is simply ridiculous. He claimed there were three (or four, it's still not clear) dead polar bears in the water. There are not even pictures (who takes an aerial survey and doesn't take pictures of such a sight, even the purpose of the survey was originally about whales and not bears?). There is no proof of how these alleged bears died. And then, projecting these "results" over the whole Arctic Ocean or whatever the much larger area was) is ludicrous. But that study was highly relied on (and used as propaganda) in finding the polar bears threatened. (Excuse me for being cynical but I think the officials very much wanted to list the bears and would latch onto anything that would facilitate that. Monnett's study was just what they needed.)

Maybe it's true that Monnett's study is not actually what the investigators are after but that it's just about lousy and corrupt management. Still, the awfulness of that study that would have gotten a fourth grader a D- and the use that was made of the study is by far the bigger scandal.

movielib
08-18-11, 10:42 AM
Impartial coverage at PBS:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/pbs_and_global_warming_skeptics_lockout.html

August 18, 2011
PBS and Global Warming Skeptics' Lockout
By Russell Cook

I've repeatedly asked politicians, policymakers, and mainstream media journalists to explain to me why we need greenhouse gas regulation when skeptic scientists' climate assessments indicate that it's a pointless action to stop a natural phenomenon. You'd think at least the journalists would directly answer my questions about their articles' claims of a scientific consensus, acid oceans, and who corroborated a singular accusation that fossil fuel industries conspire with skeptic scientists to fool the public. Each time, I got evasive replies instead.

Rush Limbaugh will probably howl at me for expecting the MSM to accurately report both sides of the issue, but my incessant inquiries reveal that one news outlet, PBS' NewsHour, appears unable to clearly state why skeptic scientists' viewpoints aren't worth considering.

Its national affairs editor, Murrey Jacobson, has now sidestepped my questions three times in a row about why his program excluded skeptic scientists since 1996, first via a private 12/7/09 email forwarded to me after numerous inquiries to the PBS ombudsman. Having received Jacobson's permission to quote it publicly only days ago, I placed it word-for-word here, for all to see. Back when I got it in 2009, I suggested to the ombudsman that it should be public, which resulted in Jacobson's different but equally evasive public response that I linked to in the first paragraph of my 12/19/09 piece, "The Lack of Climate Skeptics on PBS's 'NewsHour.'" He sidestepped my questions for the third time in his 6/20/11 email, seen verbatim here.

Jacobson's defense essentially boils down to a "belief" that skeptics are far outnumbered, and an insistence that the NewsHour's coverage "has reflected the trajectory of the data while offering differing perspectives on these issues." I'll point out that those are perspectives on solving the human-created problem.

After seeing Robert (aka "Robin") MacNeil repeat Jim Lehrer's "personal guidelines he works by as a journalist," I stopped waiting for Jacobson and tried to get answers from the top man himself, via snail-mail directly to Lehrer. If Jacobson's responses are troublesome, Lehrer's is a jaw-dropper -- scroll down the page if you can't wait to see it. But first, my literal word-for-word letter is here (I had to spell out my web links), now as an open letter:

May 18th, 2011

Dear Mr Lehrer,

I wanted to respond to what Robin MacNeil said about your 'stealth exit from the NewsHour' May 13th. As a NewsHour viewer since sometime in the late '70s, you might find it amusing that as recently as a few years ago, I was still occasionally calling your show the "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour" despite Robin's long-ago departure. No offense to the commercial news broadcasts, but when John Chancellor retired from NBC, the NewsHour became my sole source of properly done news and analysis of current political events. I particularly appreciated the two-side analysis approach on Middle East affairs, US / Soviet relations, and US political developments, as I reasoned the solutions to such problems lay somewhere in the middle, and could decide for myself just where that middle ground was.

No doubt this is what you mean in your MacNeil/Lehrer journalism guideline about "assume there is at least one other side or version to every story."

Now for my journalism concern, which may be something you are not fully aware of: I firmly believe this guideline was never applied to the story of man-caused global warming at the NewsHour. Correct me if I am wrong, no skeptic scientists have ever appeared on the program in debate with IPCC scientists. I've done my own extensive online research at the NewsHour archive pages, going as far back as they allow, to 1996, and I also do not see any as guests offering their basic science viewpoints, while substantial amounts of time were given to multiple-repeat IPCC scientist guests like Michael Oppenheimer, Stephen Schneider, and Kevin Trenberth, along with others offering detailed explanations on conclusions about man-caused global warming.

My worry is that you or your staff relied on reasons to exclude skeptic scientists from former Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan, who was described by Al Gore as the Pulitzer-winning discoverer of 'smoking gun' evidence showing skeptic scientists received fossil fuel industry money in exchange for fabricated climate assessments that were only intended to confuse the public. My fear is that nobody at the NewsHour ever checked the veracity of Gelbspan's claims or myriad other problems with his assertions:

Gelbspan never won a Pulitzer; surely you'd agree his CYA response about it borders on preposterous -- the Pulitzer group rewards exemplary reporting, not conceiving story ideas, editing, or guiding a reporting staff.
Gelbspan did not discover the set of 1991 coal industry PR campaign memos he is so widely credited with doing, where one in particular contains a sentence which is the central bit of evidence in his accusation against skeptic scientists. In fact, he never discloses how those memos came into his hands.
Neither Gelbspan nor multiple other reporters who rely on that central accusation sentence ever show the memo in its full context in any book, magazine article, web page, or media presentation. A reading of the actual memo reveals the sentence is out-of-context, and not actually any kind of top-level industry directive (I found the complete memo after seven months of searching for it, at an obscure Greenpeace page of archive scans).
Gelbspan's fossil fuel funding accusation is at best guilt-by-association; he never shows irrefutable proof that an exchange of industry money to skeptic scientists prompted false climate assessments.
No one else has corroborated Gelbspan's accusation, yet he is relied on as evidence in places ranging from Al Gore's movie to two of the major global warming nuisance lawsuits.
The long-repeated idea that the media gives too much balance to skeptic scientists is literally unsupportable. That is proven by the sheer lack of such scientists appearing at the NewsHour or even significant amounts time on the program devoted to skeptics' viewpoints, plus the credibility of a 2004 study by Boykoff & Boykoff supposedly proving the existence of 'too much balance' is critically undermined by their own ties to Gelbspan.

I could go on and on. I've done my own research, and have accumulated a computer notes file of web site pages and keyword phrases copied from those that is over 62,000 words. My concern about the lack of skeptic scientists at the NewsHour has been seen online at the PBS Ombudsman pages several times now. Yes, Murrey Jacobson responded to my question about why no skeptic scientists debated IPCC scientists in the December 17, 2009 Ombudsman page, but it is rather apparent he danced around the question instead of answering it directly.

I did my own reporting on this at the American Thinker web site back in December 2009 in a blog piece titled "The Lack of Climate Skeptics on PBS's 'NewsHour' http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/the_lack_of_climate_skeptics_o.html In a July 2010 American Thinker article, I quantified the sheer imbalance of IPCC side vs skeptic side at the NewsHour and further showed how Margaret Warner appears to have relied on a Gelbspan book quote in her Dec 1997 interview of Western Fuels CEO Fred Palmer, see "The Left and Its Talking Points" http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/the_left_and_its_talking_point.html My latest A.T. article details how an ex-WCCO TV anchorman appears to be repeating Gelbspan's 15-year old talking point about 'unfair media balance', and how the lack of fact-checking in this particular situation showcases an ominous sign of things to come for the mainstream media, see "Warmist Mantra Wearing Out" http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/warmist_mantra_wearing_out.html (note: headlines at A.T. are written by its editors)

Do you understand the enormity of this problem, not only for you specifically, but also for all of basic journalism? I'm no journalist, I don't pretend to be one, and I even partially turned back praise by the UK Telegraph's James Delingpole of my research being 'investigative journalism' in my A.T. article "Warmist Slander of Scientific Skeptics" http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/warmist_slander_of_scientific.html I am simply asking tough questions that journalists have surprisingly not asked.

You've had a fabulous career, but the apparent huge contradiction to your own guidelines on this specific topic threatens to put a very black mark on it. I seriously doubt this is deliberate on your part, but is rather a simple oversight that's been made more serious over the years through a self-feeding influx of information supporting only the original oversight.

This is an appearance problem you must face, and either prove me wrong, or acknowledge the problem and address how you intend to fix it. My preference is for you to do so at the PBS Ombudsman page, or better yet, at the NewsHour itself. I have nothing to hide, and would be glad to share all that I've found, if you have questions about any part of it. And, to borrow a point made by one of the more prominent speakers about the skeptic side, Lord Christopher Monckton, "no need to trust what I say, you may look all of this up for yourself."

Sincerely,

Russell Cook

And now, Jim Lehrer's response. He gets "green credits" for using outdated stationery:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/Lehrer%20letter.jpg

"I hear you on your concerns." I replied with an 800-word snail-mail letter asking, "What does that mean?" among many other questions. No response yet.

Evasive, vague answers kept Bernie Madoff's billion-dollar operation alive only until the point where they were no longer tolerated. In the case of Al Gore and his supporters, they've kept global warming alive not solely with infusions of money like a standard Ponzi scheme, but with constant infusions of media reports saying there is a vast scientific consensus, skeptic scientists are corrupt, and there is no need for journalists to have interviews with skeptics because of the previous two reasons.

What happens to the NewsHour and the other news outlets if we no longer tolerate their evasive, vague answers about not investigating obvious red-flag problems?

movielib
08-18-11, 07:11 PM
Stark raving mad.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/18/bizarre-craptastic-theory-from-the-guardian-penn-state-and-nasa-et-will-kill-us-because-global-warming-will-tip-them-off-that-we-are-a-bad-species/

Bizarre, craptastic theory from the Guardian, Penn State, and NASA: “ET will kill us because global warming will tip them off that we are a bad species”
Posted on August 18, 2011 by Anthony Watts

From the you’ve got to be effing kidding me department.

First, I apologize to my readers for the headline. Read on and I think you’ll see it is justified. The headline is paraphrased from the article and the paper to give you the flavor. I have reproduced the passage used by the Guardian and provided a link to the full paper below.

First, the Guardian story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu): (h/t to reader “a jones”)

m]

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

Rising greenhouse emissions may tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report for Nasa
Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 August 2011 19.04 BST

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by scientists at Nasa and Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.

Shawn Domagal-Goldman of Nasa's Planetary Science Division and his colleagues compiled a list of plausible outcomes that could unfold in the aftermath of a close encounter, to help humanity "prepare for actual contact".

In their report, Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis, the researchers divide alien contacts into three broad categories: beneficial, neutral or harmful.

Beneficial encounters ranged from the mere detection of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), for example through the interception of alien broadcasts, to contact with cooperative organisms that help us advance our knowledge and solve global problems such as hunger, poverty and disease.

Another beneficial outcome the authors entertain sees humanity triumph over a more powerful alien aggressor, or even being saved by a second group of ETs. "In these scenarios, humanity benefits not only from the major moral victory of having defeated a daunting rival, but also from the opportunity to reverse-engineer ETI technology," the authors write.

Other kinds of close encounter may be less rewarding and leave much of human society feeling indifferent towards alien life. The extraterrestrials may be too different from us to communicate with usefully. They might invite humanity to join the "Galactic Club" only for the entry requirements to be too bureaucratic and tedious for humans to bother with. They could even become a nuisance, like the stranded, prawn-like creatures that are kept in a refugee camp in the 2009 South African movie, District 9, the report explains.

The most unappealing outcomes would arise if extraterrestrials caused harm to humanity, even if by accident. While aliens may arrive to eat, enslave or attack us, the report adds that people might also suffer from being physically crushed or by contracting diseases carried by the visitors. In especially unfortunate incidents, humanity could be wiped out when a more advanced civilisation accidentally unleashes an unfriendly artificial intelligence, or performs a catastrophic physics experiment that renders a portion of the galaxy uninhabitable.

To bolster humanity's chances of survival, the researchers call for caution in sending signals into space, and in particular warn against broadcasting information about our biological make-up, which could be used to manufacture weapons that target humans. Instead, any contact with ETs should be limited to mathematical discourse "until we have a better idea of the type of ETI we are dealing with."

The authors warn that extraterrestrials may be wary of civilisations that expand very rapidly, as these may be prone to destroy other life as they grow, just as humans have pushed species to extinction on Earth. In the most extreme scenario, aliens might choose to destroy humanity to protect other civilisations.

"A preemptive strike would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilisation may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand. Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilisational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, via greenhouse gas emissions," the report states.

"Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the authors write.

Even if we never make contact with extraterrestrials, the report argues that considering the potential scenarios may help to plot the future path of human civilisation, avoid collapse and achieve long-term survival.

Now the paper, peer reviewed and published in Acta Astronautica titled:

Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis
Seth D. Baum,1 Jacob D. Haqq-Misra,2 & Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman3
1. Department of Geography, Pennsylvania State University.
2. Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University
3. NASA Planetary Science Division

Acta Astronautica, 2011, 68(11-12): 2114-2129

Here’s the relevant passage:

A preemptive strike [from extraterrestrials] would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilization may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand. Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilizational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere (e.g. via greenhouse gas emissions), which therefore changes the spectral signature of Earth. While it is difficult to estimate the likelihood of this scenario, it should at a minimum give us pause as we evaluate our expansive tendencies.

Words fail me. Truly this is science fiction, and not the good kind. I have a feature called “Climate Craziness of the Week”, this may be the all time winner.

Read the entire paper here (http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/view_online.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fftp%2Farxiv%2Fpapers%2F1104%2F1104.4462.pdf) (PDF)
This goes to show that if you include global warming in a grant application you can get money for anything. And some wonder why alarmists want to keep this fundwagon going.

Navinabob
08-18-11, 07:55 PM
This goes to show that if you include global warming in a grant application you can get money for anything. And some wonder why alarmists want to keep this fundwagon going.

Wait... what is the issue here? The paper is clearly NOT about global warming. While NASA and Penn State professors wrote the article, there was no research grant attached to it that I saw. Professors and scientists write research, some of which is theoretical conjecture. NASA's involvement could easily been a nicety in exchange for raw data...

The journal itself isn't really taken seriousl. Here is the journal mandate:

The journal Acta Astronautica, 2500 pages a year, covers developments in space science technology related to peaceful scientific exploration of space and its exploitation for human welfare and progress, the conception, design, development and operation of space-borne and Earth-based systems. In addition to the regular issues of contributed papers and transaction notes, the journal publishes selected proceedings from IAA congresses

Its entire purpose to write papers like this. It is barely one step up from fan-fiction of Babylon 5 physics and spaceships. As for "peer reviewed" I'm gonna to have to make a much longer post on what that actually means and what sort of weight you can put behind it. I see that tossed around here in so many different ways it really need to be clarified for people who only have a foggy notion as it both meaningful and meaningless depending on the context of the report, the journal, the publicity and the politics of the research.

Finding outrage in something like this is pretty alarmist... unless the outrage is mostly mocking and I missed the tone entirely?

movielib
08-18-11, 08:20 PM
Wait... what is the issue here? The paper is clearly NOT about global warming. While NASA and Penn State professors wrote the article, there was no research grant attached to it that I saw. Professors and scientists write research, some of which is theoretical conjecture. NASA's involvement could easily been a nicety in exchange for raw data...

The journal itself isn't really taken seriousl. Here is the journal mandate:

The journal Acta Astronautica, 2500 pages a year, covers developments in space science technology related to peaceful scientific exploration of space and its exploitation for human welfare and progress, the conception, design, development and operation of space-borne and Earth-based systems. In addition to the regular issues of contributed papers and transaction notes, the journal publishes selected proceedings from IAA congresses

Its entire purpose to write papers like this. It is barely one step up from fan-fiction of Babylon 5 physics and spaceships. As for "peer reviewed" I'm gonna to have to make a much longer post on what that actually means and what sort of weight you can put behind it. I see that tossed around here in so many different ways it really need to be clarified for people who only have a foggy notion as it both meaningful and meaningless depending on the context of the report, the journal, the publicity and the politics of the research.

Finding outrage in something like this is pretty alarmist... unless the outrage is mostly mocking and I missed the tone entirely?
OK, I don't know if there was a research grant attached to this. I don't know there wasn't. I think we can assume somebody paid in some way to get the 33 page paper with 89 footnotes published. I don't know for sure if the paper was peer reviewed although the article said it was. That could be wrong. I realized it is not primarily about global warming but it, like much other stuff, throws it in for no good reason. Often it is to help get a grant. That may or may not be the case here.

I realize peer review is not always what it's cracked up to be. I emphasize it because alarmists always do and many of them still falsely claim that few papers that have conclusions that contradict CAGW exist.

I don't know if Acta Astronautica considers itself a step up from fan fiction but I doubt it. Although this paper would suggest it is.

The fact remains that professors (correction: see below) in two departments at a major university and NASA wrote this junk. It is probably coincidental that the university is where Michael Mann works. They felt compelled, for some reason, to make it even sillier by throwing in global warming.

And no, I don't have outrage, I have derision.

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

Edit: Correction: Not professors.

Seth Baum is a PhD candidate and Research Assistant, Center for Research on Environmental Decisions

Jacob Haqq-Misra is a postdoc (PhD, Meteorology & Astrobiology) and research scientist whose specialties are climate modeling, dynamic meteorology, climate change, planetary habitability, astrobiology, extraterrestrial life, philosophy of science

These are not positions without prestige and this subject seems right up their alley. Something like Diagon Alley.

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

Edit #2: Acta Astronautica (founded 1959) is indeed peer reviewed:

http://iaaweb.org/content/view/232/359/

Submission

Submission to this journal proceeds totally online. Use the following guidelines to prepare your article. Via the EES homepage of this journal (External link http://ees.elsevier.com/aa/) you will be guided stepwise through the creation and uploading of the various files. The system automatically converts source files to a single Adobe Acrobat PDF version of the article, which is used in the peer-review process. Please note that even though manuscript source files are converted to PDF at submission for the review process, these source files are needed for further processing after acceptance. All correspondence, including notification of the Editor's decision and requests for revision, takes place by e-mail and via the author's homepage, removing the need for a hard-copy paper trail.

If you don't think many grants are awarded because CAGW is thrown into the application, I've got a bridge to sell you. Look, CAGW junk gets published every day, often just as an unneeded add-on to studies that have little or nothing to do with it. This paper is just more ridiculous than most (or maybe all). Is it important in the global warming debate? No. Will it be taken seriously even by most alarmists? No. But that doesn't mean it's entirely atypical. In fact, it's all too typical. It's just even more out there than the others.

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

Edit #3: Here is a data base of Acta Astronautica papers. It seems rather incomplete but I think it's enough to show that most of the papers are not of the crazy, far-out loony (or fan fictiony) type. From the titles, some of it seems rather speculative but I see little that compares to the ET craziness of the paper under discussion.

http://www.iaaweb.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=6&Itemid=49#Design

Navinabob
08-19-11, 02:50 PM
OK, I don't know if there was a research grant attached to this. I don't know there wasn't. I think we can assume somebody paid in some way to get the 33 page paper with 89 footnotes published. I don't know for sure if the paper was peer reviewed although the article said it was. That could be wrong. I realized it is not primarily about global warming but it, like much other stuff, throws it in for no good reason. Often it is to help get a grant. That may or may not be the case here.

I realize peer review is not always what it's cracked up to be. I emphasize it because alarmists always do and many of them still falsely claim that few papers that have conclusions that contradict CAGW exist.

I don't know if Acta Astronautica considers itself a step up from fan fiction but I doubt it. Although this paper would suggest it is.

The fact remains that professors (correction: see below) in two departments at a major university and NASA wrote this junk. It is probably coincidental that the university is where Michael Mann works. They felt compelled, for some reason, to make it even sillier by throwing in global warming.

And no, I don't have outrage, I have derision.

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

Edit: Correction: Not professors.

Seth Baum is a PhD candidate and Research Assistant, Center for Research on Environmental Decisions

Jacob Haqq-Misra is a postdoc (PhD, Meteorology & Astrobiology) and research scientist whose specialties are climate modeling, dynamic meteorology, climate change, planetary habitability, astrobiology, extraterrestrial life, philosophy of science

These are not positions without prestige and this subject seems right up their alley. Something like Diagon Alley.

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

Edit #2: Acta Astronautica (founded 1959) is indeed peer reviewed:

http://iaaweb.org/content/view/232/359/

If you don't think many grants are awarded because CAGW is thrown into the application, I've got a bridge to sell you. Look, CAGW junk gets published every day, often just as an unneeded add-on to studies that have little or nothing to do with it. This paper is just more ridiculous than most (or maybe all). Is it important in the global warming debate? No. Will it be taken seriously even by most alarmists? No. But that doesn't mean it's entirely atypical. In fact, it's all too typical. It's just even more out there than the others.

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

Edit #3: Here is a data base of Acta Astronautica papers. It seems rather incomplete but I think it's enough to show that most of the papers are not of the crazy, far-out loony (or fan fictiony) type. From the titles, some of it seems rather speculative but I see little that compares to the ET craziness of the paper under discussion.

http://www.iaaweb.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=6&Itemid=49#Design

First off, those who wrote that article did it for fun, free press, and the ability to indicate that they had another study published; there was no research grant or money invested by any organization. The researchers are not jokes, they did use real research, but the topic was fluff. The CDC just did something like this with a zombie outbreak. And while some think the science of "alarmism" is all bunk, it happens to be the mainstream scientific consensus. It isn't included in the report to be sensational, it is included in the report because it is the working theory we have going (although their conclusion with it about aliens fearing us because of it is just silly). Goldman, the guy from NASA, released this to the press:

So here’s the deal, folks. Yes, I work at NASA. It’s also true that I work at NASA Headquarters. But I am not a civil servant… just a lowly postdoc. More importantly, this paper has nothing to do with my work there. I wasn’t funded for it, nor did I spend any of my time at work or any resources provided to me by NASA to participate in this effort.

There are at least a hundred more important and urgent things to be done on any given work day than speculate on the different scenarios for contact with alien civilizations… However, in my free time (what precious little I have), I didn’t mind working on stuff like this every once in a while. Why? Well, because I’m a geek and stuff like this is fun to think about.

Unfortunately, there is not enough time for fun. Indeed, I felt guilty at times because this has led to a lack of effort on my part in my interactions with Seth and Jacob. Beyond adding some comments here or there, I did very little for the paper.

But I do admit to making a horrible mistake. It was an honest one, and a naive one… but it was a mistake nonetheless. I should not have listed my affiliation as “NASA Headquarters.” I did so because that is my current academic affiliation. But when I did so I did not realize the full implications that has.

As for the journal being peer reviewed, I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't, only that it didn't mean to much in this case. Acta Astronautica has a very small IF rating (a 2 is low... they hover at .5 to .8) and isn't taken very seriously by the scientific community for a few reasons; I'll only list one as it directly relates to this study. The journal is struggling for relevancy still due to an outdated mission statement, seemingly taken from Starfleet Academy, and virtually no readership or research of note. Because nobody is reading it it has a hard time attracting quality peers to conduct quality peer review (catch 22). The peers they do have are under pressure to increase linking citations and any press (good or bad). It is that pressure that causes a lot of problems.

Virtually every study that blows the doors off the global warming conspiracy, 9/11 conspiracy or vaccine conspiracy comes from journals under this sort of pressure as well. A peer reviewed journal increases it's IF rating (the standard to which a journal gathers prestige) when other journals cite a paper in theirs... so when a tiny journal prints a sensational study that causes researchers in other journals to link to their original journal, they get their rating up. The higher a rating goes up the better the quality of research submitted they get and the more they can charge libraries for access.

That is how a minor journal gets bigger & better, a already higher journal does the exact opposite. A big journal has to stick with popular topics (like global warming will kill us all!) and beat it to death because new studies can cite articles in their own journal and increase their own rating! The reason Nature doesn't publish climate skeptical studies isn't so much an ideological agenda as it is a financial one. Unless they have more of those then they do alarmist/confirming ones to cite to in their own journal they are losing ground. Let me state that again plainly: every time a new article cites another article in the same journal, the journal itself goes up in rank. So the more articles you have saying basically the same thing the better you do. Editors know this and use that as motivation when accepting or declining submitted work.

This brings me to my next point; peer review is made up of people. A paper can get accepted and published not based on good science, but by good politics. A reviewer who is a climate skeptic might let a paper slide through on crappy science because they may believe the same crappy science. This is how laughably bad research on acupuncture and homeopathy gets published in medical journals. You can have a well educated cardiologist accurately rip apart a study on if the magic of the full moon healing failing hearts, but then has a blind-spot for acupuncture used in heart surgery. The smaller the journal, the fewer the number of peers used for reviewing work.

Often it takes other studies in other journals trying to confirm, replicate or disprove those findings to end bad research. But, as I explained before, boosts the little journal because those other journals have to cite the study they are ripping apart!

Bad research and biased research gets published all the time.

Chances are, when I say a study is crappy and it being published in a peer reviewed Geology Instruments Monthly journal, I can be easily right.

Chances are, when you say good skeptical research is being kept out of the bigger journals in what looks to be a conspiracy, you can easily right.

In a lot of ways it is a crappy system. David Gorski often steals a great line from Winston Churchill’s about democracy, "Peer review is the worst way to weed out bad science and promote good science, except for all the others that have been tried."

I hope this helps.

movielib
08-19-11, 07:38 PM
[Rude comment removed.]

There is nothing you said about peer review I'm not aware of. As I said, I don't hold it out as the Holy Grail. Often alarmists do. As I also said, alarmists very often claim few (or even no) peer reviewed papers support the skeptical position. The great Pachauri, railway engineer and head of the IPCC (who has been called the leading climate scientist in the world when he isn't even a scientist, at least in some alarmist press stories), has claimed everything in the IPCC report is from peer reviewed studies. That has been shown to be enormously untrue. It is the alarmists who hold it up so highly (while they are doing their damnedest to keep any whiff of skepticism out of the journals, with varying degrees of success) which is why I always emphasize that a study is peer reviewed when it goes against the "consensus." It is for the same reason that skeptics sometimes talk about cold weather. They know the difference between weather and climate. But many alarmists forget about the difference when they see warm weather. They remember the difference when it's cold. The skeptics are being reactive. They react to the alarmists when the latter spout bullshit to scare us into spending trillions and abandoning energy that works for any benefit that is trivial, at best.

But journals such as Nature and Science do publish skeptical studies. Not all such studies are done by skeptics. Still, many studies support the skeptical position and/or do not support the alarmist position in one or more points.

This link lists more than 900 peer reviewed studies which meet these criteria:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Most of these are scientific studies, some go into economic and other areas. They are not all equal in quality or strength of refutation. Some are old, some are new.

It may surprise you to learn that I counted 32 from Nature and 42 from Science. They do publish some of these studies in spite of their bias (one can clearly see the bias from their editorial pronouncements from time to time). It's just not spoken about in polite society. ;) You should see from what I post here that skeptical studies are published, literally, just about every week.

And finally, I know the "study" that started this round is junk. I never said the journal was any good (I'd never even heard of it), I just said it is peer reviewed. It is just another example (albeit extreme, perhaps the most extreme I've ever seen) of alarmist junk getting published. If you wade through all these threads you can see other alarmist junk of much greater import such as the Hockey Stick, the warming antarctic, finding the models' missing tropical troposphere hotspot by measuring wind instead of temperature and many others.

movielib
08-19-11, 08:04 PM
Yet another peer reviewed study refuting the oft made alarmist claim that tropical storms are getting worse (generally claimed because of CO2 induced global warming).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/19/ryan-maues-paper-in-grl-in-agus-weekly-highlight/

Ryan Maue’s paper in GRL in AGU’s weekly highlight
Posted on August 19, 2011 by Anthony Watts

We’ve known this for quite some time, but I wanted to offer my congratulations to Dr. Maue. I’m thankful that you are a WUWT contributor. – Anthony

AGU journal highlights — Aug. 18

The following highlights summarize research papers that have been recently published in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), Journal of Geophysical Research-Earth Surface (JGR-F), Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences (JGR-G), and Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans (JGR-C).



http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1114/2011GL047711/2011gl047711-op01-tn-350x.jpg

2. Global cyclone activity historically low

A new research study shows that overall global tropical cyclone activity has decreased to historically low levels during the past 5 years.

Maue analyzes global tropical cyclone data from 1970 through May 2011 to examine the considerable interannual variability of the accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) metric. Since 2006, global and Northern Hemisphere ACE have decreased significantly, reaching the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Also, during 2010-2011, the overall global frequency of tropical cyclones reached a historical low. The researcher demonstrates that much of the variability in tropical cyclone energy during the past 40 years is clearly associated with natural large-scale climate oscillations such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Source:
Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2011GL047711, 2011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047711

Title: Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity

Author: Ryan N. Maue: Center for Ocean and Atmosphere Studies, Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Does five years mean much? Well, maybe in this case it does because until about 2005 (Katrina etc.) we had been in the midst of a high activity period for storms (it tends to be cyclical, something the alarmists don't like to admit but which Maue alludes to in his study, above - The El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation). But even if it doesn't mean much, many alarmists keep on claiming that it's getting worse and every new hurricane (of which there have been fewer and weaker recently) is pumped up as an example of global warming (or, the more subtle of them will say something like: while no one hurricane can be blamed on global warming, we are seeing more and more and we can expect to keep seeing more and more because of global warming; but we're not).

In the Atlantic basin and the Gulf of Mexico, no hurricane has made landfall in the US for more than a thousand days. This alone is not that significant but ACE is down over the entire globe.

The hurricane season in the Atlantic runs from June through November. But most of the worst storms occur in the middles two months, August and September. We are less than halfway through both those two months and the entire season. We could still get rocked. I've been saying this every year since 2005 but we've been quite lucky (if you want to call it that). Also, since 2005 I've been expecting much worse seasons (as have been the experts) because we were in the middle of the high activity phase of the cycles. We haven't gotten it.

This study is consistent with Chris Landsea's studies which conclude that the mild warming that has occurred has not caused increased tropical storm activity.

Navinabob
08-20-11, 06:07 AM
Thanks for the condescension.

There is nothing you said about peer review I'm not aware of. As I said, I don't hold it out as the Holy Grail. Often alarmists do. As I also said, alarmists very often claim few (or even no) peer reviewed papers support the skeptical position. The great Pachauri, railway engineer and head of the IPCC (who has been called the leading climate scientist in the world when he isn't even a scientist, at least in some alarmist press stories), has claimed everything in the IPCC report is from peer reviewed studies. That has been shown to be enormously untrue. It is the alarmists who hold it up so highly (while they are doing their damnedest to keep any whiff of skepticism out of the journals, with varying degrees of success) which is why I always emphasize that a study is peer reviewed when it goes against the "consensus." It is for the same reason that skeptics sometimes talk about cold weather. They know the difference between weather and climate. But many alarmists forget about the difference when they see warm weather. They remember the difference when it's cold. The skeptics are being reactive. They react to the alarmists when the latter spout bullshit to scare us into spending trillions and abandoning energy that works for any benefit that is trivial, at best.

But journals such as Nature and Science do publish skeptical studies. Not all such studies are done by skeptics. Still, many studies support the skeptical position and/or do not support the alarmist position in one or more points.

This link lists more than 900 peer reviewed studies which meet these criteria:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Most of these are scientific studies, some go into economic and other areas. They are not all equal in quality or strength of refutation. Some are old, some are new.

It may surprise you to learn that I counted 32 from Nature and 42 from Science. They do publish some of these studies in spite of their bias (one can clearly see the bias from their editorial pronouncements from time to time). It's just not spoken about in polite society. ;) You should see from what I post here that skeptical studies are published, literally, just about every week.

And finally, I know the "study" that started this round is junk. I never said the journal was any good (I'd never even heard of it), I just said it is peer reviewed. It is just another example (albeit extreme, perhaps the most extreme I've ever seen) of alarmist junk getting published. If you wade through all these threads you can see other alarmist junk of much greater import such as the Hockey Stick, the warming antarctic, finding the models' missing tropical troposphere hotspot by measuring wind instead of temperature and many others.

I think it is important to note that quantity of studies released is not nearly as impressive as quality when deciding what the consensus of science should be. But, I've got no reason to think that what you just said about those 900 articles isn't true; that some are better science then others, and some come from better sources then others, but all should be at least considered. It is probably just as likely that the same is true from the other position.

Here is what bugged me about the NASA/aliens/global warming posts on the climate skeptic sites. Google the article title, filter it to the day it came out and glance over the blogs and website titles that talked about it. Note that they make the same group-think mistakes, that "NASA funded this study, grant money for global warming, conspiracy connections to Mann, the study was a scare tactic for global warming..." All crap easily debunked.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/nasa-now-pandering-to-ufo-believers-to.html

NASA now pandering to UFO believers to sell global warming hoax
No, this is not a headline from The Onion, it's peer-reviewed science from the experts at NASA and Penn State (home of the Mann)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFk6oA7vsBE&feature=youtu.be

"tax-payer funded NASA research"

http://michaeljmaxim.com/?p=4715

A report by NASA scientists claims that space aliens may attack earth to save the planet from man-made global warming climate change.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/08/nasa-space-aliens-may-attack-earth-to-save-planet-from-global-warming/

It’s an Obama world.
NASA, the once prestigious space agency, has morphed into a junk science outlet that focuses on Muslim outreach and space alien sensitivities to global warming climate change.
Oh… And they dropped the Shuttle program.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/warming_advocates_finally_use_the_alien_invasion_excuse.html

Battered by growing skepticism about their climate conclusions, global warming advocates have cast about wildly for a way to stem the tide. And they appear to have found the answer; aliens are more likely to destroy us because of our greenhouse gas emissions.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/18/bizarre-craptastic-theory-from-the-guardian-penn-state-and-nasa-et-will-kill-us-because-global-warming-will-tip-them-off-that-we-are-a-bad-species/

Bizarre, craptastic theory from the Guardian, Penn State, and NASA: “ET will kill us because global warming will tip them off that we are a bad species” (Although he at least updated the story with a bit of an explanation)

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/19/aliens-could-attack-earth-to-end-global-warming-nasa-scientist-claims/

Aliens Could Attack Earth to End Global Warming, NASA Scientist Frets

The thought-provoking scenario is one of many envisaged in a joint study by Penn State and the NASA Planetary Science Division, entitled "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis."

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/592386-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-11-co2-kills-10-billion-people-edition-6.html#post10895084

This goes to show that if you include global warming in a grant application you can get money for anything. And some wonder why alarmists want to keep this fundwagon going.

Note the lack of critical thinking, fact checking and general alarmist tone. This is the stuff that bothers me. If those articles came from what you call "alarmist" or "biased" scientists I'm betting it would have bothered you too as you quite adeptly have no problem picking out the bullshit when you see it.

dave-o
08-20-11, 07:31 AM
...I'm betting it would have bothered you too as you quite adeptly have no problem picking out the bullshit when you see it.

Yes, this part is quite true. There is a lot of bizarre and unfounded stuff out there that movielib is quite good at filtering out (especially since the moral majority seems to have latched on to this issue). So, when every once in awhile a one of these slips through, not a problem. I do find it interesting that of the hundreds of articles posted in these threads this is the one you are singling out...

My belief is that once you filter out the "bad science", this consensus you refer to evaporates. From what I have seen there is far far more junk science on the alarmists side. Which makes sense, since there far far more money there too ( and as you so astutely pointed out, that more than any ideological position is what is driving this wave of garbage)...

movielib
08-20-11, 10:01 AM
I think it is important to note that quantity of studies released is not nearly as impressive as quality when deciding what the consensus of science should be. But, I've got no reason to think that what you just said about those 900 articles isn't true; that some are better science then others, and some come from better sources then others, but all should be at least considered. It is probably just as likely that the same is true from the other position.

Here is what bugged me about the NASA/aliens/global warming posts on the climate skeptic sites. Google the article title, filter it to the day it came out and glance over the blogs and website titles that talked about it. Note that they make the same group-think mistakes, that "NASA funded this study, grant money for global warming, conspiracy connections to Mann, the study was a scare tactic for global warming..." All crap easily debunked.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/nasa-now-pandering-to-ufo-believers-to.html

NASA now pandering to UFO believers to sell global warming hoax
No, this is not a headline from The Onion, it's peer-reviewed science from the experts at NASA and Penn State (home of the Mann)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFk6oA7vsBE&feature=youtu.be

"tax-payer funded NASA research"

http://michaeljmaxim.com/?p=4715

A report by NASA scientists claims that space aliens may attack earth to save the planet from man-made global warming climate change.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/08/nasa-space-aliens-may-attack-earth-to-save-planet-from-global-warming/

It’s an Obama world.
NASA, the once prestigious space agency, has morphed into a junk science outlet that focuses on Muslim outreach and space alien sensitivities to global warming climate change.
Oh… And they dropped the Shuttle program.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/warming_advocates_finally_use_the_alien_invasion_excuse.html

Battered by growing skepticism about their climate conclusions, global warming advocates have cast about wildly for a way to stem the tide. And they appear to have found the answer; aliens are more likely to destroy us because of our greenhouse gas emissions.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/18/bizarre-craptastic-theory-from-the-guardian-penn-state-and-nasa-et-will-kill-us-because-global-warming-will-tip-them-off-that-we-are-a-bad-species/

Bizarre, craptastic theory from the Guardian, Penn State, and NASA: “ET will kill us because global warming will tip them off that we are a bad species” (Although he at least updated the story with a bit of an explanation)

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/19/aliens-could-attack-earth-to-end-global-warming-nasa-scientist-claims/

Aliens Could Attack Earth to End Global Warming, NASA Scientist Frets

The thought-provoking scenario is one of many envisaged in a joint study by Penn State and the NASA Planetary Science Division, entitled "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis."

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/592386-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-11-co2-kills-10-billion-people-edition-6.html#post10895084

This goes to show that if you include global warming in a grant application you can get money for anything. And some wonder why alarmists want to keep this fundwagon going.

Note the lack of critical thinking, fact checking and general alarmist tone. This is the stuff that bothers me. If those articles came from what you call "alarmist" or "biased" scientists I'm betting it would have bothered you too as you quite adeptly have no problem picking out the bullshit when you see it.
Here's the thing. We skeptics are so used to bad science, bad economics, bad journalism and bad politics coming from the alarmist camp (and make no mistake, this has become a political war, something very unfortunate for science) that we may have made some assumptions when this probably worst ever (which is saying quite a lot) "study" hit the press. If it weren't for the story in The Guardian (a notoriously pro-CAGW newspaper) which seemed to be the only news outlet that picked up on it, this study may have remained unknown to the general public and the blogosphere, given the study's source which no one seems to have ever heard of.

There is a list that is kept by Jon Brignell at the Number watch website. I post the updated list once or twice a year. It is a list of everything (that he has found) that has been attributed to global warming. It is chock full of absurdities and outright contradictions. There are links to almost all although some of the links, of course, have died. The aliens have not yet been added.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

So this was just one more, even if it has set a new record for silliness.

When I posted it, it was as only the latest example of silliness from the pro-CAGW crowd that has accepted that humans are destroying the Earth as some sort Truth Handed Down By the Climate Gods that is beyond question. Yes, I made the assumption that the study was funded (even if the authors were not paid and did it on their own time (which I am not sure has been established), it took money for all this to be done). I didn't say much of anything about the NASA connection and I was actually more disturbed that the study came from two researchers at a major university. Of course I noted that it was Penn State, home of Michael Mann (you have to) but allowed he may have not had anything to do with it. I do doubt that Mann doesn't know these gentlemen since they seem to have aspirations of working in the same field as Mann.

I think the NASA scientists backpedaling is a little disingenuous. If they were just having a little fun I think that should have been made explicit in the paper itself (which has an air of seriousness), seeing that it reads much like it was printed in The Onion.

Was too much made of this "study"? Perhaps. As for myself, it would have been a one off. It was too juicy to pass up completely but I doubt I ever would have mentioned it again. I really don't want to any more. Way to much time wasted talking about this ridiculous paper. I'm sick to death of it. Maybe the aliens should just phaser me. ;)

DVD Polizei
08-20-11, 10:11 AM
Unfortunately, politics has turned natural events on this earth into something people just don't believe in at all (on one extreme) and then those who believe the planet will somehow flood itself in a few years (on the other extreme).

movielib
08-20-11, 12:03 PM
Lindzen and Choi take criticisms seriously, refine 2009 paper and find much less climate sensitivity than pro-CAGW scientists.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/lindzen-choi-2011-published.html

Thursday, August 18, 201
Lindzen-Choi 2011 published
Lubos Motl

WUWT brings us some good news and the final version of the Lindzen-Choi 2011 article published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences:

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications (full text PDF (http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/view_online.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-eaps.mit.edu%2Ffaculty%2Flindzen%2F236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf))

This is an updated version of their 2009 article - so the basic strategy was kept.

However, the 2009 article was criticized not only via bogus pseudo-arguments emitted by the folks who didn't like the results but also by numerous legitimate observations.

I think that Lindzen and Choi are very generous when it comes to those critics - many others would include such criticism into invisible minor footnotes. At any rate, all the criticisms that Lindzen and Choi have become aware of are corrected in the new paper.

You may be interested in single result: the climate sensitivity (warming from CO2 doubling) is 0.7 °C or, with a 99-percent near-certainty, between 0.5 °C and 1.3 °C.

This interval - which doesn't even overlap with the IPCC's 2.0-4.5 °C interval - would mean that the man-made contribution to the global temperature change between now and 2080 when CO2 will be near 560 ppm is approximately 0 °C while the interval is between -0.3 and +0.7 °C at the 99 percent confidence level. (I subtracted the warming that has already occurred, and assumed that the non-CO2 contributions were approximately zero.) The error margin is just the uncertainty of the CO2 greenhouse contribution. There will surely be other contributions so the total warming by 2080 is more likely than 1% to be outside this interval.

Their paper is based on a more careful analysis of some observational data. Which data?

They observe the surface sea temperature (SST) in the tropics and the energy outgoing from the top-of-atmosphere (TOA), especially in tropics, as measured by ERBE satellite. (When the same analysis is done globally, they get roughly the same results but with a stronger noise. Recall that Richard has concluded that the tropics are the "mother" of the Earth's climate and nothing changes about that in this paper.)

The basic mechanism is that when the sea is getting warmer, the Earth emits more radiation. The change in the radiation may take some time - so the "best response" may be obtained after a 1-month delay. (The dependence of the response on the lag expressed in months is an important technical issue in the paper.)

Of course, the question is how strongly the outgoing energy depends on the sea surface temperature. An IPCC-like high sensitivity - the Earth is going to fry - means that the energy flows don't change much when the temperature changes by 1 °C; consequently, small changes of energy flows correspond to a huge change of the temperature.

If the Earth were just a black body, the warming by 1 °C would lead to 3.3W/m2/K increase of the outgoing energy. This is also the slope that a simple linear regression (interpolating a straight line in between points in the SST-flux plane) would produce from the ERBE data.

However, this simple regression overemphasizes the long-term changes of SST and long-term changes of the fluxes where one of the quantities or both may be perturbed by various kinds of noise that arises from the complexity of the climate system or other drivers; or by the instability or drift of the measurement apparatuses that measure the energy flows over long timescales.

So instead, Lindzen and Choi cleverly and rightfully focus on well-defined periods in which the SST and the flux are changing sufficiently monotonically and quickly over a short enough period of time. In the 2011 paper, these intervals are chosen according to objective criteria in which various criticisms have been incorporated.

When the regression is applied to these data that are dominated by fast changes where the signal apparently exceeds the noise more sharply, they obtain a slope that is twice as large, 6.0W/m2/K. This may be translated to their resulting climate sensitivity that is very likely to be smaller than 1.2 °C, thus showing that the net feedback is negative (and may actually be strongly negative).

Lindzen and Choi discuss the source of the difference between their results and those of Dessler 2010 or Trenberth et al. 2010. Lots of methods are also chosen from Spencer and Braswell 2010 etc.

At any rate, this is how climate science should look like. The paper looks nice enough to me but I am not going to expect that it is a "holy scripture". New imperfections may be found in the 2011 paper as well. However, I am kind of confident that they're new imperfections. The new paper is a big step towards clarifying a more accurate value of the climate sensitivity.

I am hoping that as the climate hysteria and politically imposed "consensus" is dying away, the legitimate and rational process in this direction will continue and strengthen, crisper results about the climate will be found in the near future, and those people among various Desslers who will stay in the research will recognize themselves as occasionally helpful assistants to the real leader of their field such as Richard Lindzen.

And that's a wish of mine.
One of the biggest factors in deciding the global warming debate is the climate sensitivity. As those who have been following these threads know, climate sensitivity is the amount of temperature rise that can be expected from a doubling of CO2. The skeptics and the alarmists are very far apart on this.

Lindzen (who even the alarmists must admit has impeccable credentials and is not a creationist (which the alarmists use to unfairly taint Roy Spencer who has been working on the same subject), has long thought the sensitivity is low. I think history bears this out (as it also supports negative feedbacks) simply because of the fact that the Earth has not run off the rails (tipping point) in billions of years in spite of their being far more extreme situations than the one we are experiencing now. But proving by what mechanisms is still necessary (Svensmark, Shaviv, Veizer and others are also doing this by another approach, the cosmic ray theory; these approaches are complementary, not mutually exclusive).

The climate sensitivity question is very complex - far beyond my self-educated and meager scientific abilities and understanding. That mistakes will be made, even by experts, is inevitable. But what I see is the alarmists basing their work on climate models which have never been shown to be reliable and have often been show to be wrong in many predictions and particulars while skeptics are much more using observations and experimentation. And Lindzen and Choi are doing science just the way it is supposed to be done. Take criticisms seriously, admit when you are wrong and try to refine and improve your work. With all due respect, this is something rare (if it exists at all) with alarmists.

OldDude
08-20-11, 01:57 PM
Here is some Bad Science from Science:
http://news.yahoo.com/critters-moving-away-global-warming-faster-180108117.html

..

Critters moving away from global warming faster
By SETH BORENSTEIN - AP Science Writer | AP – Thu, Aug 18, 2011...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Animals across the world are fleeing global warming by heading north much faster than they were less than a decade ago, a new study says. . . .


Even if animals and plants are extending their range to the north and to higher elevation, there is NO evidence presented in the article that they are abandoning southerly range or lower elevations due to heat or other reasons. Expanding and fleeing are two quite different concepts (except to idiots).

Unless there is evidence they are abandoning range previously occupied, there is no evidence they are "fleeing." (at inches per year rotfl )

JasonF
08-20-11, 03:54 PM
Thanks for the condescension.

Oh, please. This thread might as well be renamed as "The One and Only movielib Makes Condescending Posts About Global Warming Thread."

JasonF
08-20-11, 03:57 PM
Here is some Bad Science from Science:
http://news.yahoo.com/critters-moving-away-global-warming-faster-180108117.html



Even if animals and plants are extending their range to the north and to higher elevation, there is NO evidence presented in the article that they are abandoning southerly range or lower elevations due to heat or other reasons. Expanding and fleeing are two quite different concepts (except to idiots).

Unless there is evidence they are abandoning range previously occupied, there is no evidence they are "fleeing." (at inches per year rotfl )

I get the distinction you're making and I agree with it, but wouldn't you agree that if animals are expanding into habitats they previously did not inhabit, that is evidence consistent with climate change?

kvrdave
08-20-11, 04:04 PM
I get the distinction you're making and I agree with it, but wouldn't you agree that if animals are expanding into habitats they previously did not inhabit, that is evidence consistent with climate change?

Sounds more like evidence consistent with human sprawl. Personally, I have yet to see anything, even contradictory data, that isn't somehow consistent with climate change. There is nothing that can't fit into the theory and no evidence that can refute it. Give me an example of something that would show that climate change is not occuring. We all know that climate continually changes (as this ultimately gets back to humans causing it), but what evidence would refute any ideas offered in climate change science?

Navinabob
08-20-11, 04:15 PM
Yes, this part is quite true. There is a lot of bizarre and unfounded stuff out there that movielib is quite good at filtering out (especially since the moral majority seems to have latched on to this issue). So, when every once in awhile a one of these slips through, not a problem. I do find it interesting that of the hundreds of articles posted in these threads this is the one you are singling out...

My belief is that once you filter out the "bad science", this consensus you refer to evaporates. From what I have seen there is far far more junk science on the alarmists side. Which makes sense, since there far far more money there too ( and as you so astutely pointed out, that more than any ideological position is what is driving this wave of garbage)...

I've actually picked on a few articles posted, but I'm mostly staying within my comfort zone of spotting bad science as opposed to responding to technical points that I'm barely literate at. OldDude's animal article and commentary about jumping to conclusions does seem fair. What they have is a few data sets and a far-reaching conclusion. Even if they prove the migration, does that mean they can point to a cause? But without a journal report to look at I can't be certain that Yahoo just isn't taking things out of context for a better "story"

The Lindzen and Choi article seems just fine to me, refining your work after criticism is how it is supposed to be done. It does not mean they are now necessarily correct though, but more likely closer then they were before. And as they get closer, that data can be used to refine studies from the other side until we get true predictions.

OldDude
08-20-11, 04:32 PM
I get the distinction you're making and I agree with it, but wouldn't you agree that if animals are expanding into habitats they previously did not inhabit, that is evidence consistent with climate change?

Maybe. We can't tell from the bad article whether "global range" is expanding northward (or to higher elevation) or these are isolated areas (heat islands or microclimate changes).

We also don't know whether the local climate changed or the species became more cold adapted. Man obviously didn't start in Alaska, but he did invent coats (which might be cheating). Polar bears branched off some other species that lives at lower latitudes and adapted to life at higher latitudes. Does that prove the North Pole is warm? Adaptation is real, too.

Fleeing involves abandoning territory, which they didn't prove. As to whether the new range is species adaptaption, local (microclimate) change or global change is an open issue. I don't have the Science article so I don't know if it is bad or the journalist did a bad write-up ( but I have seen other articles in Science that seem poorly done. Maybe I can catch this one at the library)

PS: Speaking of fleeing, did polar bears flee lower latitudes because:
*They REALLY like seals
*It was too damned hot
*They wanted to avoid competition from other bear species.

Navinabob
08-20-11, 04:51 PM
Oh, please. This thread might as well be renamed as "The One and Only movielib Makes Condescending Posts About Global Warming Thread."

Meh... I know I'm in hostile territory and understand that most things posted are pretty biased. But, all-in-all, people have been very patient and helpful while I catch up.

dave-o
08-20-11, 06:01 PM
Meh... I know I'm in hostile territory and understand that most things posted are pretty biased. But, all-in-all, people have been very patient and helpful while I catch up.

No hostility intended from me. Yours is a welcome voice to this thread. While I might not agree with all of your conclusions, you strike me as someone who is more about getting the science right, above all else. In this way we are quite similar.

I'm guessing the condescension implication was more of a misunderstanding. If one reads that post as being directed at only one person, it may come off as condescending. But if it is read as just adding some background information for those who might not know about how peer reviews work, than I see it as a helpful addition. The fact of the matter is, that even in my field, where we deal with peer review quite a bit, a fair amount of my colleagues don't really know how it works ( or care for that matter).

As for movielib's style of discussing the alarmist scientists and propagandists he covers here...well, some people really deserve to be condescended to.... ;)

movielib
08-20-11, 07:19 PM
Oh, please. This thread might as well be renamed as "The One and Only movielib Makes Condescending Posts About Global Warming Thread."
I think I am more derisive than condescending toward the alarmists who spout nonsense (they all don't but, come on, many do) but I try to not be either toward people who post in the threads. Perhaps I fail sometimes. :(

You are entitled to your opinion (now that was condescending). ;)

movielib
08-20-11, 07:25 PM
No hostility intended from me. Yours is a welcome voice to this thread. While I might not agree with all of your conclusions, you strike me as someone who is more about getting the science right, above all else. In this way we are quite similar.

I'm guessing the condescension implication was more of a misunderstanding. If one reads that post as being directed at only one person, it may come off as condescending. But if it is read as just adding some background information for those who might not know about how peer reviews work, than I see it as a helpful addition. The fact of the matter is, that even in my field, where we deal with peer review quite a bit, a fair amount of my colleagues don't really know how it works ( or care for that matter).
The particular post in question just got to me and at a time when I was feeling a little testy. I think your interpretation is correct. I choose to now take it the latter way and withdraw my comment. I am editing it to remove it.

movielib
08-20-11, 07:42 PM
The Lindzen and Choi article seems just fine to me, refining your work after criticism is how it is supposed to be done. It does not mean they are now necessarily correct though, but more likely closer then they were before. And as they get closer, that data can be used to refine studies from the other side until we get true predictions.
Excellent points. I completely agree.

movielib
08-20-11, 07:48 PM
Meh... I know I'm in hostile territory and understand that most things posted are pretty biased. But, all-in-all, people have been very patient and helpful while I catch up.
I have many times admitted I am biased. ;)

I still try to be fair.

JasonF
08-20-11, 11:18 PM
You are entitled to your opinion (now that was condescending). ;)

See?!!!?!!!!!!?!!!!???!!


;)

Navinabob
08-22-11, 02:21 PM
Looks like Mann was vindicated by the National Science Foundation Inspector General. That was the last investigation they had going (and the one FOX News indicated would be the final word after the Penn State and UK investigations were not up to snuff for skeptics).

http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf

Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.

CRM114
08-22-11, 02:33 PM
and make no mistake, this has become a political war

I get the political angle from the skeptic side (maximizing corporate profits) but what exactly is the angle from the alarmist side? Please don't tell me destruction of capitalism or some other nonsense.

Navinabob
08-22-11, 03:49 PM
I get the political angle from the skeptic side (maximizing corporate profits) but what exactly is the angle from the alarmist side? Please don't tell me destruction of capitalism or some other nonsense.

I think the skeptic side also revolves around the fact that "saving the Earth" is a hippie-like thing many conservatives have a knee-jerk reaction to, plus, it didn't help any that Gore opened up with a movie that dumb-downed the science and emotionalized the debate which got every conservative up in arms.

The claim I most hear is "research money" with the thinking that the louder they yell "fire" the more the government will put into Universities to study the danger. I get that idea and there is truth to it, nothing opens up the wallet like fear, but there is is one flaw in that argument. It is also just as easy to get funds to do skeptical research... Between Jan 2009 to June of 2010 there was a half a billion dollars funneled in to lobbyists to defeat global warming legislation.

Wikipedia has this blurb:

A recent study from 2011 concluded that 9 out of 10 climate scientist who claim that climate change is not happening, have ties to ExxonMobil. The results showed that out of the 938 papers cited by climate sceptics, 186 of them were written by only ten men, and foremost among them was Dr Craig D. Idso, who personally authored 67 of them. Idso is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, an ExxonMobil funded think tank. The second most prolific was Dr Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who receives roughly 40% of his funding from the oil industry. This goes in parallel with the ‘work’ of the Koch industries; Koch industries is the second largest privately held company in the US, and in the past 50 years, they have invested more than 50.000.000 dollars in spreading doubts about climate change.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links/

http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate-change-papers-exxon-mobil/

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/dirty-money-climate-30032010/

But, all that is a drop in the bucket compared to the 1.5 to 2.5 billion given by government grants to study climate change (covers both pro & con... but most research is pro). I guess it all boils down to trust, or distrust, in ideology. Some people are inclined to think all money given by oil & gas companies must mean corruption, others think that nobody would ever cut off their generous funding by doing research that might jeopardize it.

In both cases you are assuming all scientists will spin data to further an agenda... which is exactly what corporations and politicians do. They have no idea how many times scientists have shot themselves in the foot and killed their funding/jobs for themselves and their staff by producing results nobody wants to pay for. When push comes to shove, many scientists would rather be right than employed.

CRM114
08-22-11, 04:22 PM
OK, but the sides seems unequal. 1.5 billion in research grants vs the entire corporate oligarchy? That's the political war?

Navinabob
08-22-11, 04:51 PM
OK, but the sides seems unequal. 1.5 billion in research grants vs the entire corporate oligarchy? That's the political war?

That is only just if you view everything as an evil web of lies where all the science on the other side is bought-off. Personally, the science speaks for itself and good science is good science regardless of who picks up the tab. Both sides use each others data for their own research... it isn't like alarmists only use info from Green Peace and deniers won't touch satellite data unless Exxon paid for it. If you ignore the "press releases" and focus on the research itself, "who paid for it" isn't all that important.

Studies from vaccine-deniers like The Age of Autism are not bunk because AoA paid for everything, but because their science is shit. Sure, where it comes from should raise a red-flag or two... but I think too many people stop right there at that red flag and go no further.

wishbone
08-22-11, 05:00 PM
A recent study from 2011 concluded that 9 out of 10 climate scientist who claim that climate change is not happening, have ties to ExxonMobil. The results showed that out of the 938 papers cited by climate sceptics, 186 of them were written by only ten men, and foremost among them was Dr Craig D. Idso, who personally authored 67 of them. Idso is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, an ExxonMobil funded think tank. The second most prolific was Dr Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who receives roughly 40% of his funding from the oil industry. This goes in parallel with the ‘work’ of the Koch industries; Koch industries is the second largest privately held company in the US, and in the past 50 years, they have invested more than 50.000.000 dollars in spreading doubts about climate change.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links/

http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate-change-papers-exxon-mobil/

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/dirty-money-climate-30032010/Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

In an article titled, "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links)’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil" from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/18/the-carbon-brief-the-european-rapid-response-team/), former Greenpeace (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Greenpeaceactivitiesand.html) "researcher (http://www.carbonbrief.org/about)" Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html) to smear them as "linked to" [funded by] ExxonMobil.

To get to the truth, I emailed the scientists mentioned in the article the following questions;

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

http://i54.tinypic.com/vxjip2.jpg

Their responses follow (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html),http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html

movielib
08-22-11, 05:07 PM
The funding thing is ridiculous. Wiki is controlled by alarmists who wipe clean anything posted that questions the "consensus." It's been going on for years and is well known. Once again, it has all been posted here. And a few billion is, I'm sure, just for one year (although I think the amount is 2-3 times that per year now. Exxon was pilloried for contributing about $19 million over a decade or so and contributes little or nothing now. But even Exxon gave $100 million to Stanford for "green" research, five times more than all the money it gave to fund "deniers."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1121-04.htm

BP and Shell give hundreds of millions to alarmists and zip to skeptics.

I am just so tired of killing this funding zombie. The money that goes to funding alarmism is two or three orders of magnitude higher than skeptics' funding. It's a joke.

movielib
08-22-11, 05:32 PM
Looks like Mann was vindicated by the National Science Foundation Inspector General. That was the last investigation they had going (and the one FOX News indicated would be the final word after the Penn State and UK investigations were not up to snuff for skeptics).

http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf

Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.
Odd, I didn't even know such an investigation was going on.

None of the investigations before of CRU or Mann have even deigned to talk to a skeptic, certainly not those who know the most about the Mann incidents such as Steve McIntyre or Ross McKittrick who blew open the Hockey Stick. All had alarmists on the panels, some with vested interests and no skeptics. I'd wait to hear skeptical reaction to this latest one.

Look, it's possible that Mann is simply just a lousy scientist and not corrupt. But his science and particularly his statistics have been shown to be garbage. Mann also has resisted showing his data and methods as much as he has been able to for well over a decade now. McIntyre and McKittrick had to reverse engineer Mann's work while being denied access to his background work for years to make any sense out of it at all and then they showed you could feed virtually any numbers into his methods and come up with a Hockey Stick. It's been shown that the proxies he needed to get his Hockey Stick don't work unless he includes the notoriously bad bristlecone pines.

You cannot possibly understand how this all went down unless you read Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion. It is a masterful, step by grueling step analysis of the whole sordid story.

http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/dp/1906768358/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314048658&sr=1-1

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51uETda8P9L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

movielib
08-22-11, 05:54 PM
I get the political angle from the skeptic side (maximizing corporate profits) but what exactly is the angle from the alarmist side? Please don't tell me destruction of capitalism or some other nonsense.
First off, much more corporate money has gone to the alarmists than to the skeptics (as I said above and has been shown myriad times in these threads). Even Exxon. GE is notorious. See the green weeks every year on NBC and all its cable channels. These companies want to be thought of as "green."

Second, I think you can see that virtually every alarmist website from the odious such as DeSmog Blog on up to the "science" site RealClimate are backed by leftist groups and often the trail does lead to, dare I say it, George Soros. Those who believe in CAGW are overwhelmingly liberal as has been shown by many polls. Are alarmist climate scientists likely to be different?

And there is the funding. The US, many other countries, the UN and environmental groups have been funding alarmists for decades.

It seems to me you posed this question years ago and I answered it. It could have been someone else. I've answered this more than once before.

Navinabob
08-22-11, 06:09 PM
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html

If you say that you bring no bias towards your research and yet belong to (and speak at) the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Independent Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, and the Heartland Institute, you are deluding yourself and misinforming others.

Also, everything there was just "their word" as opposed to facts. Note that they just say "research funded" instead of "ever received money from" in those questions. Here is a bit on Singer and Lindzen:

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC. Singer, who last winter proposed a $95,000 publicity project to "stem the tide towards ever more onerous controls on energy use," has received consulting fees from Exxon, Shell, Unocal, ARCO, and Sun Oil, and has warned them that they face the same threat as the chemical firms that produced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a class of chemicals found to be depleting atmospheric ozone. "It took only five years to go from... a simple freeze of production [of CFCs]," Singer has written, ". . . to the 1992 decision of a complete production phase-out—all on the basis of quite insubstantial science."

and "Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the skeptics—Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling—were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities."

--- Harper Magazine, December 1995 and New Scientist, July 1997

Funded research is one thing, but books, lectures, consultancy fees, witness fees, celebrity status... all of that has to be considered.

With that said, it looks like the 9 out of 10 article I linked to had a lot a BS in it (as it was done by the alarmist side). Many of the studies they picked were only just barely linked to global warming (it'd be much like counting the alien story from above). They also included studies by Exxon that you could easily say was on the Alarmist side of the argument.

movielib
08-22-11, 06:33 PM
Funded research is one thing, but books, lectures, consultancy fees, witness fees, celebrity status... all of that has to be considered.
You realize that all this also applies to alarmists? No one has cashed more checks based on awards than James Hansen, for example. One was for $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation (Teresa and that guy, John Kerry).

Navinabob
08-22-11, 07:07 PM
For every George Soros there is a Charles Koch. I think "amount of money" put into Alarmist science is a silly premise to consider as well over 90% of scientists and virtually every science institution and university in the world takes the alarmist perspective as being the scientific consensus. Most of the money will go there because that is the working model.

Here are the big skeptic groups:

Advancement of Sound Science Center
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
American Tradition Partnership
Bureaucrash
Caesar Rodney Institute
Cato Institute
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Cooler Heads Coalition
Friends of Science
George C. Marshall Institute
Global Climate Coalition
Global Warming Policy Foundation
Greening Earth Society
The Heartland Institute
The Heritage Foundation
High Park Group
Information Council on the Environment
International Policy Network
James Madison Institute
LaRouche movement
Lavoisier Group
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Center for Public Policy Research
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
Pacific Legal Foundation
Reason Foundation
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Science and Public Policy Institute
Scientific Alliance
Spiked (magazine)
Western Fuels Association

Big Consensus groups (I left off the hundreds of smaller foundations):

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Academia Chilena de Ciencias
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Academia Sinica, Taiwan, China
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Akademi Sains Malaysia
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (AMOS)
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists (CAP)
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union (CGU)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Canadian Society of Soil Science (CSSS)
Canadian Society of Zoologists (CSZ)
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Leopoldina, Germany
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation – Marine Board
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society, The (UK)
Georgian Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy, India
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
Int. Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Met Office, UK
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of State Foresters
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology, UK
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Forestry Congress
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

You should be able to clearly see why there is a bigger total amount money being done by one side. More researchers and more organizations mean more studies and more funds. Just like we have more research funds on the model that vaccines do not cause autism... it is the working consensus.

If the skeptics can provide enough quality proof they'll be able shift the consensus in time for sure. Until then science has to pick a path and go with it... otherwise you are reinventing the wheel every time you want to build a new car.

Navinabob
08-22-11, 07:31 PM
You realize that all this also applies to alarmists? No one has cashed more checks based on awards than James Hansen, for example. One was for $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation (Teresa and that guy, John Kerry).

It sure does. You can start and stop at just Gore to make that point. Although it is easier to be the big fish if you are in the smaller pond when fighting for research funds, speaking slots, expert witness positions and book options...

The odds that skeptics are all loons on the take of big oil are about as likely as that there is a global conspiracy where alarmists keep fabricating data to keep research funds going.

movielib
08-22-11, 07:49 PM
For every George Soros there is a Charles Koch. I think "amount of money" put into Alarmist science is a silly premise to consider as well over 90% of scientists and virtually every science institution and university in the world takes the alarmist perspective as being the scientific consensus. Most of the money will go there because that is the working model.
Or, it's the "working model" because lots more money has been poured into it from the beginning, the political class has supported and pushed it for decades and the press has also. And given that the alarmists are far from proving their case and most of their "proof" is from climate models (which time and time again are shown to be wrong and, incomplete and entirely too tweakable) I do not admit that there is now or has ever been a "consensus." It's certainly not like evolution, relativity, quantum physics or vaccines/autism.

You should be able to clearly see why there is a bigger total amount money being done by one side. More researchers and more organizations mean more studies and more funds. Just like we have more research funds on the model that vaccines do not cause autism... it is the working consensus.
The amount of funding is waaay out of proportion.

If the skeptics can provide enough quality proof they'll be able shift the consensus in time for sure. Until then science has to pick a path and go with it... otherwise you are reinventing the wheel every time you want to build a new car.
I fully expect the skeptics to be vindicated in the end. They are in a far better position than they were in just five years ago when An Inconvenient Truth came out. I think the truth does win in science sooner or later and the skeptics are far closer to the truth than the alarmists. But the governments and presses of the world still do a lot to shut out the skeptics' science although it's not quite as bad as it used to be. Their uphill battle has far more to do with politics and journalism than it does with science.

movielib
08-22-11, 08:15 PM
I very much dispute the claim that over 90% of scientists support the nonexistent "consensus." Here is the report on 1000 scientists who dispute the so-called consensus.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

(See link to full report at bottom of page)

Or see directly online (takes awhile to load):

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/view_online.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftraffic.libsyn.com%2Frbushway%2F2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

This is not just a list but a 321 page report detailing how each person dissents.

Science isn't done by consensus or numbers but the alarmists are always touting these things even though their claims are false.

JasonF
08-22-11, 08:51 PM
An Inconvenient Truth: Christie Is Right on Climate

Jonathan H. Adler • August 22, 2011 11:24 am

Until last week, many conservatives considered New Jersey Governor Chris Christie a hero. Some were even clamoring for him to enter the presidential race. Now, however, some of the same conservatives are branding him a heretic, even as he embraces policy decisions they support. What’s going on?

Last week, Christie vetoed legislation that would have required New Jersey to remain in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a multi-state agreement to control greenhouse gas emissions through a regional cap-and-trade program. The bill was an effort to overturn Christie’s decision earlier this year to withdraw from the program. Given conservative opposition to greenhouse gas emission controls, the veto should have been something to cheer, right? Nope.

The problem, according to some conservatives, is that Christie accompanied his veto with a statement acknowledging that human activity is contributing to global climate change. Specifically, Christie explained that his original decision to withdraw from RGGI was not based upon any “quarrel” with the science.

While I acknowledge that the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing, that climate change is real, that human activity plays a role in these changes and that these changes are impacting our state, I simply disagree that RGGI is an effective mechanism for addressing global warming.

As Christie explained, RGGI is based upon faulty economic assumptions and “does nothing more than impose a tax on electricity” for no real environmental benefit. As he noted, “To be effective, greenhouse gas emissions must be addressed on a national and international scale.”

Although Christie adopted the desired policy — withdrawing from RGGI — some conservatives are aghast that he would acknowledge a human contribution to global warming. According to one, this makes Christie “Part RINO. Part man. Only more RINO than man.” [“RINO” as in “Republican in Name Only.”]

Those attacking Christie are suggesting there is only one politically acceptable position on climate science — that one’s ideological bona fides are to be determined by one’s scientific beliefs, and not simply one’s policy preferences. This is a problem on multiple levels. Among other things, it leads conservatives to embrace an anti-scientific know-nothingism whereby scientific claims are to be evaluated not by scientific evidence but their political implications. Thus climate science must be attacked because it provides a too ready justification for government regulation. This is the same reason some conservatives attack evolution — they fear it undermines religious belief — and it is just as wrong.

Writing at MichelleMalkin.com, Doug Powers warns that ” if some politicians think they can swim in the waters of AGW without getting wet or soaking taxpayers, they should think again.” In other words, once you accept that human activity may be contributing to global warming, embracing costly and ill-advised regulatory measures is inevitable. Yet it is actually Powers, not Christie, who is embracing a dangerous premise. As Christie’s veto shows, he understands that the threat of climate change does not justify any and all proposed policy responses. One can believe the threat is real, and still think cap-and-trade is a bad idea. Christie’s critics, on the other hand, seem to accept that once it can be shown that human activity may be having potentially negative environmental effects, this alone justifies government intervention. Yet the environmental effects of human behavior are ubiquitous. Human civilization necessarily entails remaking the world around it. So if recognizing negative environmental effects leads inevitably to governmental intervention, there is virtually no end to what government needs to do, global warming or no.

How inconvenient, then, that even the vast majority of warming “skeptics” within the scientific community would agree with Governor Christie’s statement that “human activity plays a role” in rising greenhouse gas levels and resulting changes in the climate. The Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels, for instance, has written several books acknowledging human contributions to global warming. In Climate of Extremes: The Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know (co-authored with Robert Balling, another “skeptic”) for example, he explained that there is an observable warming trend and that human activity shares some of the blame. Michaels and Balling are labeled “skeptics” because they don’t believe the warming is likely to be as severe or as disruptive as most other climate scientists, but they readily accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming. (See, e.g., p. 27.) Their rejection of a climate apocalypse — and not a denial of human contributions to climate change — is actually the view of most climate “skeptics,” and nothing Christie said is incompatible with that view.

As I’ve written before, it would be convenient if human activity did not contribute to global warming or otherwise create problems that are difficult to reconcile with libertarian preferences. But that’s not the world we live in, and politicians should not be criticized for recognizing that fact. Further, even if one accepts the “skeptic” perspective on climate change, there are still reasons to believe climate change is a problem, as I explain here. This does not require endorsing massive regulatory interventions or cap-and-trade schemes; there are alternatives. In the end, politicians should be evaluated on their policy proposals — and commended for the courage to acknowledge politically inconvenient truths.

http://volokh.com/2011/08/22/an-inconvenient-truth-christie-is-right-on-climate/

Lots of hyperlinks in the original, but I'm too lazy to copy them over.

movielib
08-22-11, 09:18 PM
http://volokh.com/2011/08/22/an-inconvenient-truth-christie-is-right-on-climate/

Lots of hyperlinks in the original, but I'm too lazy to copy them over.
This is a very good article. I agree with just about everything Adler says. Anyone who says there is no human contribution from CO2 or otherwise (UHI for example) is ignorant. Sen James Inhofe, whom I think is the most knowledgeable person in the legislature about global warming (and everyone would probably at least allow that he's the most knowledgeable Republican) knows Humans and CO2 have an effect.

The one thing I'd disagree with Christie about is that CO2 is impacting his state, at least in any more than a trivial way (OK, maybe the Jersey Devil will relocate to New York, but that would be a good thing for New Jersey, wouldn't it? ;)). He doesn't define how much he thinks it is impacting New Jersey so it's hard to say how much most skeptics would disagree.

I kind of have to say:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k256/Baqu84/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

orangecrush
08-22-11, 10:40 PM
I get the political angle from the skeptic side (maximizing corporate profits) but what exactly is the angle from the alarmist side? Please don't tell me destruction of capitalism or some other nonsense.Control and money. There are multiple billions of dollars to be made in market manipulation if cap and trade becomes a reality for the major industrial countries.

wmansir
08-23-11, 03:01 AM
I think it's reasonable to object to Christie's statement if you believe everything he said about AGW, but also acknowledge that there are too many unknowns to enact "national and international scale" solutions, which Christie endorses.

Also, the Powers post quoted also had a quote from Christie saying "it’s time to defer to the experts" on AGW.

And the fuller quote was:
I don’t yet know why Christie vetoed the bill if greenhouse gases are such a problem. Maybe the “fixes” were too expensive, but if some politicians think they can swim in the waters of AGW without getting wet or soaking taxpayers, they should think again. As Joshua advised at the end of War Games, the only winning move is not to play.
Again, not an unreasonable position if you believe it's premature to act and if you give them an inch they will take your incandescent light bulbs.

Navinabob
08-23-11, 05:17 AM
I very much dispute the claim that over 90% of scientists support the nonexistent "consensus." Here is the report on 1000 scientists who dispute the so-called consensus.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

(See link to full report at bottom of page)

This is not just a list but a 321 page report detailing how each person dissents.

Science isn't done by consensus or numbers but the alarmists are always touting these things even though their claims are false.

1,000 names is just a drop in the bucket. Heck, 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences signed a petition too... That is just one group.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full

Here we get 2,000

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/SciEcon-call-to-action-w-addendum-page-June.pdf

Here we get 500 from just California

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/california-scientists-issue-global-warming-warning.html

I'm not saying that there isn't well thought out and intelligent dissent fro individuals within many organizations... I'm sure we can all agree that skeptics have several thoroughbred scientists. What I am saying is no scientific body of national or international standing has gone against current scientific opinion on global warming since 2007. The best skeptics have are several organizations that have held off comment until more data comes in.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement.

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries ... "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/04/23/survey-tracks-scientists-growing-climate-concern

Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.

"Science isn't done by consensus or numbers but the alarmists are always touting these things even though their claims are false."

That line of yours worries me; I'm going to assume you didn't get the point across that you wanted to actually make. You might have been going for the "appeal to authority" fallacy... but that reasoning is made void when faced with an expert consensus.

I got some smaller groups if people are under the assumption no consensus exists if my other giant lists didn't impress, and how many scientists do they have? (just the American Meteorological Society has a membership of more than 14,000):

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem
Research Centers Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

movielib
08-23-11, 07:46 AM
1,000 names is just a drop in the bucket. Heck, 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences signed a petition too... That is just one group.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full

Here we get 2,000

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/SciEcon-call-to-action-w-addendum-page-June.pdf

Here we get 500 from just California

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/california-scientists-issue-global-warming-warning.html

I'm not saying that there isn't well thought out and intelligent dissent fro individuals within many organizations... I'm sure we can all agree that skeptics have several thoroughbred scientists. What I am saying is no scientific body of national or international standing has gone against current scientific opinion on global warming since 2007. The best skeptics have are several organizations that have held off comment until more data comes in.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement.

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries ... "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/04/23/survey-tracks-scientists-growing-climate-concern

Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.

"Science isn't done by consensus or numbers but the alarmists are always touting these things even though their claims are false."

That line of yours worries me; I'm going to assume you didn't get the point across that you wanted to actually make. You might have been going for the "appeal to authority" fallacy... but that reasoning is made void when faced with an expert consensus.

I got some smaller groups if people are under the assumption no consensus exists if my other giant lists didn't impress, and how many scientists do they have? (just the American Meteorological Society has a membership of more than 14,000):

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem
Research Centers Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
None of those lists impress me. You are assuming that all or virtually all of the members of those groups endorse the "consensus." You use the example of the American Meteorological Society. From this post about myths:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/569534-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-9-gates-unlimited-edition-5.html#post10048640

3. “Deniers” are a tiny minority of scientists.

“Nay-sayers” are overshadowed by a vast majority of learned scientific bodies that support the consensus. But most scientific organizations, such as the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, and the National Academies of Science, do not poll their members. Decisions and position statements are made by a small group of officials at the top of the organization. This has created sharp unrest within some professional societies.

The American Meteorological Society is a case in point. A recent survey of AMS broadcast meteorologists revealed that 50% of the respondents disagreed, and only 24% agreed, with the statement that, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.” When asked if, “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for a warming of the planet,” only 19% agreed, while 62% disagreed (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Oct. 2009).

As the number of those who oppose the consensus grows, it appears that the “deniers” are not a tiny minority as is often claimed.
In fact, meteorology and geology are known for having a high degree of dissenters. To somewhat oversimplify, with the former it's thought it has a lot to do with their familiarity with computer models and with the latter it's thought to be because they take an eons eye view of things.

This is true about many of these groups. The leadership does not reflect the membership. Some groups have had great dissension within their ranks such as the American Physical Society.

As always, these threads are full of criticism of the surveys you cite.

Of course there is the Oregon Petition Project wherein 31,000 American scientists, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs agreed with a statement that disputes CAGW. The alarmists have attacked the Project because alarmists pranksters sent in a few phony names such as (Spice Girl) Geri Halliwell and the name Perry Mason showed up. The Project, which verifies the signatories, found Geri and other illegitimate names and deleted them and Perry Mason is a real chemist from Texas. Critics have not been able to prove any other name is phony.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

The threads also contain criticism of the work of people such as Oreskes and Anderegg that come up with lopsided numbers of papers and supporters of the "consensus." Such work has been showed to be highly flawed.

I'm sorry I can't repeat everything I (and others) have posted over the years. You might want to wade through the nearly 9,000 posts (not counting those before I started these threads). I also suggest you read some skeptical blogs. Tell me which ones seem more open and honest. Which ones link to blogs on the other side and which ones don't? Which ones allow the other side to comment in a much more open way? Ask yourself why RealClimate will not let many skeptical comments through but ClimateAudit and WattsUpWithThat are free and open. Which scientists are very open with all their background material? Which ones hide their work and resist any and all attempts to reveal it? Have you ever seen scientists complaining that Lindzen or Spencer or Douglass or Christy or Landsea or any other skeptics are hiding their dataor methods? It happens with alarmists quite often (Mann, P. Jones, many others on The Team and CRU, just to name a few). Are Christy and Spencer manipulating the UAH temperature record like Hansen is manipulating the NASA/GISS record?

I could go on and on. But a nearly 9,000 post history is involved.

You can go right on believing that there is this great overwhelming consensus if you want.

Finally, you can dismiss the report on 1,000 dissenting scientists as a drop in the bucket. Clearly, it's not all the scientists who have dissented. It's those who have done definitive work in the field and/or have made definitive public statements. To me it's pretty significant given the "handful" of "cranks" out on the fringe statements about the numbers of dissenters you regularly hear from the CAGW crowd.

orangecrush
08-23-11, 09:52 AM
I have nothing to add but my appreciation for the recent back and forth in this thread. It is very interesting.

dave-o
08-23-11, 10:59 AM
I am curious about a few things:

What percentage determines a consensus?

How many studies or dissenting scientists need to exist before the "consensus" is no longer considered valid?

Why is it that every time some piece of research that tries prove there is a consensus comes out, it is fatally flawed? It shouldn't be that hard to prove using sound methodological methods.

Lastly, how many of these "experts" who comprise this consensus are actual research scientists that have some background in climatology, meteorology, atmospheric science, geology, or one of the other related disciplines (heck, how many of them ever consult with statisticians)?

It seems to me that a careful review of the history behind this purported consensus, where it originated, etc. can be quite illuminating. At least it was for me...

movielib
08-23-11, 11:40 AM
I am curious about a few things:

What percentage determines a consensus?

How many studies or dissenting scientists need to exist before the "consensus" is no longer considered valid?

Why is it that every time some piece of research that tries prove there is a consensus comes out, it is fatally flawed? It shouldn't be that hard to prove using sound methodological methods.

Lastly, how many of these "experts" who comprise this consensus are actual research scientists that have some background in climatology, meteorology, atmospheric science, geology, or one of the other related disciplines (heck, how many of them ever consult with statisticians)?

It seems to me that a careful review of the history behind this purported consensus, where it originated, etc. can be quite illuminating. At least it was for me...
The whole matter is a red herring. The alarmists started talking about a consensus and saying "the science is settled" up to at least a decade ago and they've been repeating the mantra ever since no matter what contrary evidence surfaces. It has worked for the most part because compliant politicians and journalists go along with it.

Your question about statisticians is most relevant and has been discussed here before. Most climate scientists are not tops in statistics and it is the key behind such things as the Hockey Stick (besides not using lousy proxies). Mann et al.'s statistics are abysmal and he definitely should have consulted a statistician. Of course, if he had, he would not have gotten the result he wanted.

Navinabob
08-23-11, 03:18 PM
I just did some reading on the American Meteorological Society and it looks like your point was a valid one. There is a strong dissension among Meteorologists. I strongly suggest reading this article as it has a nice summary of the entire climate scientists versus meteorologists debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html

I'd also like to point out that once you remove TV meteorologists (weather forecasters) from your polling you get results closer to this:

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/04/23/survey-tracks-scientists-growing-climate-concern

Of the 489 Earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed by Harris Interactive, 97 percent said that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years, and 74 percent agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming." The findings mark a significant increase in concern over climate change since 1991, when a Gallup survey of the same universe of scientists showed only 60 percent agreed that temperatures were up and 41 percent believed that evidence pointed to human activity as the cause.

The scientists were about evenly divided on whether they thought the effects of global climate change over the next 50 to 100 years were likely to be near catastrophic (41 percent) or moderately dangerous (44 percent). About 13 percent saw relatively little danger. About 56 percent of the scientists said that global climate change was a mature science, while 39 percent termed it an emerging science.

"Most climate scientists are not tops in statistics" Where did you get this fact from? Are meteorologists better in statistics? I'm sure sure how familiar people are about science education, but getting a PhD in science versus a BA has very different curriculum with regards to statistics and research methods. The pressure it takes to do just your thesis demands you have a good grasp of statistics.

And I'm still not as impressed with petitions as I am in polls. The two are vastly different in terms of statistical reliability. It's also a bit misleading when you suggest alarmist studies are all flawed. From your vantage point, and those of skeptic bloggers, I can see why you'd think that. Don't forget that the alarmist side routinely rips apart skeptic studies. Just because you don't post them, it doesn't make the criticism not exist.

And Dave-O, unfortunately there is no magic threshold to where the consensus line is. Typically it's done by the preponderance of research papers and argued about at conventions. Journals scrutinized by peer review rank higher then those without, journals with higher IF rating come off better then those with lower, books are basically useless. Usually research centers have boards that dictate what their consensus in. And yes, not all members of an organization will agree... but remember that boards typically have the best and most senior researchers that organization has (or the most politically minded I suppose).

Every theory has holes in it or areas that can be refined by more research No scientist will say "the science is settled" but they do have to work off existing knowledge. There will always be debate (which is great).

Navinabob
08-23-11, 03:39 PM
The whole matter is a red herring. The alarmists started talking about a consensus and saying "the science is settled" up to at least a decade ago and they've been repeating the mantra ever since no matter what contrary evidence surfaces. It has worked for the most part because compliant politicians and journalists go along with it.

Man I hate that point you made as it goes against every field of science in the world outside of quackery. A consensus is not a red-herring as it is one of the most basic principals of research. Contrary evidence does not shift a paradigm alone... you need more evidence on your side then the other guys have. Then that evidence needs to pass wide-spread scrutiny to eventually take over as being the consensus.

movielib
08-23-11, 03:54 PM
Man I hate that point you made as it goes against every field of science in the world outside of quackery. A consensus is not a red-herring as it is one of the most basic principals of research. Contrary evidence does not shift a paradigm alone... you need more evidence on your side then the other guys have. Then that evidence needs to pass wide-spread scrutiny to eventually take over as being the consensus.
If there were a consensus, which there isn't. They've never established a paradigm, they've just made claims. Many of these claims are shown to be false or questionable all the time. There's an illusion which is held up by governments and journalists. I've yet to hear your answers about the computer models, the missing hotspot, the criticisms of the Hockey Stick etc. I think there is much more evidence against CAGW than for it. Thousands of scientists agree with that.

Find me anything like the number of actual scientific dissenters in evolution, relativity or quantum physics (there are different interpretations but hardly any credentialed physicist disputes quantum physics itself).

CRM114
08-23-11, 03:58 PM
The funding thing is ridiculous. Wiki is controlled by alarmists who wipe clean anything posted that questions the "consensus." It's been going on for years and is well known.

:whofart:

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/uploads/foilhat.jpg

CRM114
08-23-11, 04:03 PM
First off, much more corporate money has gone to the alarmists than to the skeptics (as I said above and has been shown myriad times in these threads). Even Exxon. GE is notorious. See the green weeks every year on NBC and all its cable channels. These companies want to be thought of as "green."

Second, I think you can see that virtually every alarmist website from the odious such as DeSmog Blog on up to the "science" site RealClimate are backed by leftist groups and often the trail does lead to, dare I say it, George Soros. Those who believe in CAGW are overwhelmingly liberal as has been shown by many polls. Are alarmist climate scientists likely to be different?

And there is the funding. The US, many other countries, the UN and environmental groups have been funding alarmists for decades.

It seems to me you posed this question years ago and I answered it. It could have been someone else. I've answered this more than once before.

Back then you pretty much stated it was a leftist plot to destroy capitalism. (:lol:) I was just wondering if the story has changed. The political angle of the skeptics is obvious.

movielib
08-23-11, 04:40 PM
:whofart:

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/uploads/foilhat.jpg
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

Connolley was finally suspended for abusing his powers and privileges and I'm not sure what his present status is. But he has lots of friends. But go ahead and scoff.

movielib
08-23-11, 04:42 PM
Back then you pretty much stated it was a leftist plot to destroy capitalism. (:lol:) I was just wondering if the story has changed. The political angle of the skeptics is obvious.
Sorry, I don't remember it that way. I remember showing how many companies could make lots of money off of cap and trade.

Do you really think big companies give more support to skeptics than alarmists?

dave-o
08-23-11, 05:23 PM
Man I hate that point you made as it goes against every field of science in the world outside of quackery. A consensus is not a red-herring as it is one of the most basic principals of research. Contrary evidence does not shift a paradigm alone... you need more evidence on your side then the other guys have. Then that evidence needs to pass wide-spread scrutiny to eventually take over as being the consensus.


Setting aside (for a moment) the fact that we can't define what a consensus is and the evidence that you interpret as pointing to a consensus of experts in this subject area...even when a scientific consensus has been reached, every so often in history, we see examples of where a consensus of "experts" is claimed and yet something has gone very very awry (see Lysenkosim for a glorious example of this). Typically, some sort of politics and more importantly financial gain or a power grab is involved when this happens. More than anything, this is what has me interested in CAGW at this point.

Regardless of how this debate turns out, as the science is far from settled here, I truly believe, based on everything I have seen and read, that this will go down in history as one of those times. There have just been far too many instances of scientists acting in very unscientific ways. This happens on both sides of any scientific debate when careers, reputations, and money are at stake. However, it is clear to me that one side of this debate has been far, far, more guilty of this behavior. And not just from the fringe scientists, but from what is supposedly the "top" of the field. History will not look kindly on many of these scientists as good science always trumps bad science in the end (even if it takes awhile sometimes). Every scientist is a skeptic. The second they stop being one, they stop being a scientist.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”

-Richard Feynman

movielib
08-23-11, 05:48 PM
Setting aside (for a moment) the fact that we can't define what a consensus is and the evidence that you interpret as pointing to a consensus of experts in this subject area...even when a scientific consensus has been reached, every so often in history, we see examples of where a consensus of "experts" is claimed and yet something has gone very very awry (see Lysenkosim for a glorious example of this). Typically, some sort of politics and more importantly financial gain or a power grab is involved when this happens. More than anything, this is what has me interested in CAGW at this point.

Regardless of how this debate turns out, as the science is far from settled here, I truly believe, based on everything I have seen and read, that this will go down in history as one of those times. There have just been far too many instances of scientists acting in very unscientific ways. This happens on both sides of any scientific debate when careers, reputations, and money are at stake. However, it is clear to me that one side of this debate has been far, far, more guilty of this behavior. And not just from the fringe scientists, but from what is supposedly the "top" of the field. History will not look kindly on many of these scientists as good science always trumps bad science in the end (even if it takes awhile sometimes). Every scientist is a skeptic. The second they stop being one, they stop being a scientist.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”

-Richard Feynman
The best examples I can think of for a "consensus" being overturned are plate tectonics and a bacterium causing ulcers. Lysenkoism really only took hold in the Soviet Union. And that was certainly political. Gulag political.

Navinabob
08-23-11, 07:29 PM
If there were a consensus, which there isn't. They've never established a paradigm, they've just made claims. Many of these claims are shown to be false or questionable all the time. There's an illusion which is held up by governments and journalists. I've yet to hear your answers about the computer models, the missing hotspot, the criticisms of the Hockey Stick etc. I think there is much more evidence against CAGW than for it. Thousands of scientists agree with that.

Find me anything like the number of actual scientific dissenters in evolution, relativity or quantum physics (there are different interpretations but hardly any credentialed physicist disputes quantum physics itself).

That is a bit like poisoning the well isn't it? And if having many claims be wrong is proof of no underling theory, then the skeptical side would also be rubbish as a lot of the research I've seen also doesn't hold up to scrutiny. As for governments and journalists... have you not seen FOX News? How about the feeding frenzy that happens when a major Republican claims they believe in global warming?

I think a close comparison would be chiropractic medicine (not perfect as I think climate skeptic science is pretty far above it). It has it's share of mainstream support, funding, followers, studies, research foundations and doctors. There are hospitals where doctors are trained to offers chiropractic medicine as a supplement to traditional medicine. There are highly respected real doctors who insist that the science of chiropractic is real and that there is a conspiracy that biased western medicine is in the pocket of "big pharma" which is refusing to acknowledge the thousands of experts and hundreds of thousands of testimonials. Even with all that, chiropractic medicine is still basically bullshit.

I've stayed away from the hockey-stick debate, and others you mentioned, because it was already made here and likely unopposed. For me to present evidence contrary to that here I'd being having an uphill battle on a topic I'm not that well versed in. At least examining new studies and new evidence I have a better shot at seeing the expressed premise (as opposed to whatever the debate morphed to) and at looking at evidence one day at a time (as opposed to all the back-and-forth that happened).

dave-o
08-23-11, 07:50 PM
That is a bit like poisoning the well isn't it? And if having many claims be wrong is proof of no underling theory, then the skeptical side would also be rubbish as a lot of the research I've seen also doesn't hold up to scrutiny. As for governments and journalists... have you not seen FOX News? How about the feeding frenzy that happens when a major Republican claims they believe in global warming?

I think a close comparison would be chiropractic medicine (not perfect as I think climate skeptic science is pretty far above it). It has it's share of mainstream support, funding, followers, studies, research foundations and doctors. There are hospitals where doctors are trained to offers chiropractic medicine as a supplement to traditional medicine. There are highly respected real doctors who insist that the science of chiropractic is real and that there is a conspiracy that biased western medicine is in the pocket of "big pharma" which is refusing to acknowledge the thousands of experts and hundreds of thousands of testimonials. Even with all that, chiropractic medicine is still basically bullshit.

I've stayed away from the hockey-stick debate, and others you mentioned, because it was already made here and likely unopposed. For me to present evidence contrary to that here I'd being having an uphill battle on a topic I'm not that well versed in. At least examining new studies and new evidence I have a better shot at seeing the expressed premise (as opposed to whatever the debate morphed to) and at looking at evidence one day at a time (as opposed to all the back-and-forth that happened).

I can understand not wanting to sift through all the back and forth (god knows I've wasted enough time on reading about this topic!). Taking new studies and judging their worth is a great way to see where the science is heading. However, ignoring where the debate has been will leave you with some rather big holes. One of those being the myriad of reasons why so many people bristle when they here about the "consensus". It also leads to quick, dismissive pictures (not by you) of people wearing tin foil hats when someone mentions the fact that Wikipedia has been a very untrustworthy source for this topic.

There are two types of people who have problems with CAGW (generally speaking), those that review the science and the history of this debate and conclude that it isn't adding up the way the alarmists would have you believe, and those who are idealogically driven to oppose it without much of an understanding of the science or the history of the debate. I think you'll find more of the former in these threads than the latter. In fact, based upon your posts, you would probably fit right in here with the opinions on things like chiropractics, vaccines, acupuncture, etc.

Navinabob
08-23-11, 08:25 PM
None of those lists impress me. You are assuming that all or virtually all of the members of those groups endorse the "consensus." You use the example of the American Meteorological Society. From this post about myths:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/569534-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-9-gates-unlimited-edition-5.html#post10048640


In fact, meteorology and geology are known for having a high degree of dissenters. To somewhat oversimplify, with the former it's thought it has a lot to do with their familiarity with computer models and with the latter it's thought to be because they take an eons eye view of things.

This is true about many of these groups. The leadership does not reflect the membership. Some groups have had great dissension within their ranks such as the American Physical Society.

As always, these threads are full of criticism of the surveys you cite.

Of course there is the Oregon Petition Project wherein 31,000 American scientists, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs agreed with a statement that disputes CAGW. The alarmists have attacked the Project because alarmists pranksters sent in a few phony names such as (Spice Girl) Geri Halliwell and the name Perry Mason showed up. The Project, which verifies the signatories, found Geri and other illegitimate names and deleted them and Perry Mason is a real chemist from Texas. Critics have not been able to prove any other name is phony.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

The threads also contain criticism of the work of people such as Oreskes and Anderegg that come up with lopsided numbers of papers and supporters of the "consensus." Such work has been showed to be highly flawed.

I'm sorry I can't repeat everything I (and others) have posted over the years. You might want to wade through the nearly 9,000 posts (not counting those before I started these threads). I also suggest you read some skeptical blogs. Tell me which ones seem more open and honest. Which ones link to blogs on the other side and which ones don't? Which ones allow the other side to comment in a much more open way? Ask yourself why RealClimate will not let many skeptical comments through but ClimateAudit and WattsUpWithThat are free and open. Which scientists are very open with all their background material? Which ones hide their work and resist any and all attempts to reveal it? Have you ever seen scientists complaining that Lindzen or Spencer or Douglass or Christy or Landsea or any other skeptics are hiding their dataor methods? It happens with alarmists quite often (Mann, P. Jones, many others on The Team and CRU, just to name a few). Are Christy and Spencer manipulating the UAH temperature record like Hansen is manipulating the NASA/GISS record?

I could go on and on. But a nearly 9,000 post history is involved.

You can go right on believing that there is this great overwhelming consensus if you want.

Finally, you can dismiss the report on 1,000 dissenting scientists as a drop in the bucket. Clearly, it's not all the scientists who have dissented. It's those who have done definitive work in the field and/or have made definitive public statements. To me it's pretty significant given the "handful" of "cranks" out on the fringe statements about the numbers of dissenters you regularly hear from the CAGW crowd.

In 2005, Scientific American reported:

“Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.

That doesn't sound too good.

Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

That doesn't sound too good either.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

There are tons of other criticism on that petition, but I avoid them just because the deceit used in that case was ugly.

movielib
08-23-11, 10:59 PM
Yeah, Scientific American. It's been in the CAGW tank for years. It did the hit piece on Bjorn Lomborg (The Skeptical Environmentalist) which included Paul Ehrlich buddies Stephen Schneider and Obama Science Czar John Holdren. And then when he answered it on his website (SA refused to give him any more than a little space if they offered him any at all - can't quite remember), SA threatened to sue him because he reproduced the SA articles and answered them point by point. He took off what SA said and just left his responses. But the whole thing is still available here:

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/view_online.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greenspirit.com%2Flomborg%2FScientificAmericanBjornLomborgAnswe r.pdf

I had forgotten the silly attack about the petition being formatted like the PNAS. The originator of the Project, Arthur Robinson (chemist), worked for many years with Linus Pauling (they split when Robinson rejected Pauling's Vitamin C claims) and had a number of papers published in PNAS himself. He respected the journal and had no intention of deceiving people into thinking it was a PNAS project. There is nothing in the mailing that says anything of the sort. Here is Dr Robinson responding to a critic:

http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1834.htm

Art Robinson Reponds to Petition Slander
From Art Robinson to Enviro Warmer Academic

I have read an email exchange in which you are engaged. Your statements include several like those quoted below. These statements and their implications are false - and I suspect that you know that they are false.

"Again, read my email before making such spurrious [misspelled in your text] claims. In my first email to you I cited several studies that found a large fraction of the names were fake, or were of people with no scientific background, or who did not choose to sign the petition."

"since after all, that's what the authors of the Oregon Petition were trying to make themselves look like" [PNAS]

Only one false name has ever appeared on the petition. It was put there by Ozone Action (now Greenpeace USA) and removed immediately thereafter.

Every listed signer has a university degree in science. The posted listing gives their highest degrees. (MDs were listed only if their underlying degrees were in science.) Thousands of physicists and chemists signed - including about 100 members of the National Academy, about 500 meteorologists and climate scientists, and numerous very eminent people in American science.

Since the initial 17,000 signatories (after which we stopped active solicitation), an additional 1,000 have signed - while about 25 have asked to have their signatures removed. [This was before the second round of solicitations was sent out bringing the number up to more than 31,000 -m]

For every signer we have a physical signature mailed to us by first class mail from the signer's address. No one has been listed who did not actually sign - except the Ozone Action signature, which they sent with false credentials, a false address, and a false signature. [The infamous, feeble Geri Halliwell prank which is still sometimes cited to discredit the petition - m]

The review article sent with the petition could not possibly have been mistaken for a PNAS reprint. I have published many research papers in PNAS. I am very familiar with reprint formats.

The PNAS claim originated because Frederick Seitz - past president of the National Academy and past president of Rockefeller University signed a letter that was circulated with the petition. (Dr. Seitz, like everyone else who has actively opposed the "enviro warmers" has been smeared with many false claims.) Also, the first signers of the petition were several rather famous members of the National Academy.

Neither I nor any of my colleagues at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine have ever received any funds whatever from any energy industry corporation. The costs of the petition were born entirely by individual non tax deductible donations to a non tax deductible entity established solely for the petition. No energy industry funds were received.

Your emails on this subject are typical of those who promote the unproven hypothesis that human actions are responsible for the warming trend that has been in progress since the bottom of the Little Ice Age - at about the time of the American Revolutionary War. This was the coldest period in about 1,500 years. There are many records - both scientific and historic that substantiate this.

For example, J. Oerlemans, Science 308 (2005) pp 675-677 shows that world glaciers reached a maximum in length about 250 years ago and then began to shorten. One-half of the shortening to date occurred before Ford's first automobile and three-fourths of the shortening occurred before significant increase in atmospheric CO2. There has been no increase in rate of glacier melting in the past 60 years - in fact the rate has diminished slightly. There are two "bumps" in the temperature curve derived from the glacier shortening - both corresponding exactly to "bumps" in solar activity. Was George Washington a cause of glacier melting?

I note that you entirely ignore the scientific arguments and depend primarily upon parroting personal smears (published by others like you) of those who oppose you and claiming (without proof) that lots of people (almost everyone) agree(s) with you. Is this the method of determining natural truth that was taught to you in physics classes?

You may be interested to know that the highest percentage response to our request for signatures came from physicists. As a group, physicists tend to be very rigorous in their application of the scientific method.

Arthur B. Robinson (Originator and director of the Petition Project)
President and Research Professor - OISM
BS Chemistry Caltech; PhD Chemistry UCSD
Now I have no doubt you can find many alarmist blogs that smear Dr Robinson. It's all part of the game. There is no prominent skeptic who has not been smeared.

You keep bringing up stuff from alarmist blogs and other alarmist sources. I continue to maintain that you haven't given the skeptical side a hearing. Yes, there is no end of alarmist blogs and other sources that are in the business (as a main endeavor or a sideline) of attempting to discredit skeptics (except when they ignore their work). You're doing a great job finding them.

Navinabob
08-24-11, 05:12 AM
I can understand not wanting to sift through all the back and forth (god knows I've wasted enough time on reading about this topic!). Taking new studies and judging their worth is a great way to see where the science is heading. However, ignoring where the debate has been will leave you with some rather big holes. One of those being the myriad of reasons why so many people bristle when they here about the "consensus". It also leads to quick, dismissive pictures (not by you) of people wearing tin foil hats when someone mentions the fact that Wikipedia has been a very untrustworthy source for this topic.

There are two types of people who have problems with CAGW (generally speaking), those that review the science and the history of this debate and conclude that it isn't adding up the way the alarmists would have you believe, and those who are idealogically driven to oppose it without much of an understanding of the science or the history of the debate. I think you'll find more of the former in these threads than the latter. In fact, based upon your posts, you would probably fit right in here with the opinions on things like chiropractics, vaccines, acupuncture, etc.

You can go back to any thread on here in the last two years about chiropractics, vaccines, acupuncture, religion, big bang and supernatural phenomena; I'm firmly on the side of reason. I follow a dozen blogs on skeptic science (normally medicine, but I'm growing into my physics pants) and worship at the church of Randi.

My intent wasn't to ignore the past, it's more like I'm still learning the past. Every link of letter Lib posts I devour. I suppose I should speak up more when I agree with a link... but in all honesty this thread is more about the skeptic side rather then anything balanced and the feeling I got was silence equals agreement.

So when I read something posted that seems off to me based on my general knowledge of science I look for the dissenting opinion. Sometime I feel the point I made (or borrowed) is a good one and Lib's response is poor. Other times, I think his response is dead-on and I let the matter die. I have no trouble with anyone else being right as the truth is what is important. I hate the term "alarmist" or "denier" as both terms poison the well and keep the two sides from moving towards common ground.

I don't think anyone here is tin-foil hat material... Lastly, I loved the other point you made. It was beautiful.

Regardless of how this debate turns out, as the science is far from settled here, I truly believe, based on everything I have seen and read, that this will go down in history as one of those times. There have just been far too many instances of scientists acting in very unscientific ways. This happens on both sides of any scientific debate when careers, reputations, and money are at stake. However, it is clear to me that one side of this debate has been far, far, more guilty of this behavior. And not just from the fringe scientists, but from what is supposedly the "top" of the field. History will not look kindly on many of these scientists as good science always trumps bad science in the end (even if it takes awhile sometimes). Every scientist is a skeptic. The second they stop being one, they stop being a scientist.

CRM114
08-24-11, 09:00 AM
Sorry, I don't remember it that way. I remember showing how many companies could make lots of money off of cap and trade.

Do you really think big companies give more support to skeptics than alarmists?

I think big companies give WAY more money to lobbyists protecting their financial interests. Why else would the Repubs do everything within their power to block anything that would remotely impact the bottom line? The Repubs may even believe in GW but unfettered capitalism is the primary goal in their short lifespans.

Red Dog
08-24-11, 09:12 AM
No, crony capitalism is the primary goal to politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Navinabob
08-24-11, 05:48 PM
Ok, moving away from the ideology. I'm going back over a few key climate studies in an attempt to fill in the gaps as was suggested.

What is the skeptic/denier (s/d) outlook on Ocean Acidification research?

If we work under the agreed upon premise that oceans our are where we keep most of our carbon, and CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing (are those two statements correct?), would most of the natural CO2 increase come from, or be evident by, the ocean?

As far as I can tell from s/d geologist named Ian Plimer, CO2 and temperature have no correlation when looking back millions/billions of years. "The atmosphere once had at least 25 times the current CO2 content, we are living at a time when CO2 is the lowest it has been for billions of years, we continue to remove CO2 via carbonate sedimentation from the oceans and the oceans continue to be buffered by water-rock reaction."

Geologists describe this feldspar and silicate buffering reaction as "In the oceans, dissolved silica and degraded silicates appear to participate in a reaction which fixes silica and alkali metal cations and releases hydrogen ions, resulting in maintenance of the pH." This premise, according again to Ian is critical to explaining how and why the CO2 is naturally in our atmosphere and balances itself out over millions of years.

So the skeptic/denier premise is basically from a Geologist standpoint. It appears that the mainstream/alarmist (m/a) premise is more from a basic chemistry/biology approach. Their opinion is that CO2 increase is not coming from the oceans because ocean acidification (pH going down) while atmosphere CO2 goes up. The claim is that contradiction is the made-made CO2. Geologists say that we had contradictions all the time over the last billions years.

Ok, but who really cares and what is the "alarm" part for? I'm still shaky on a bit so I might get shit wrong, but still, here goes:

When CO2 binds with the water molecules in the ocean they form carbonic acid (CO2 + H2O = H2CO3). Now almost all of the H2CO3 eventually turns into HCO3-, which in turn drops the pH of the ocean.

So the m/a folk maintain that since the pH of the oceans is decreasing (something that s/d say as well) that implies that the ocean is absorbing more carbon than it is releasing... which is proof of man-made climate change. S/d fire back with basically "past variance had mixed correlation millions of years ago" and "Ok... but what is the big deal?"

So right now both sides are seeing and agreeing to the same data, it is the interpretation of the numbers and data that seems to be the current conflict issue.

Our recent ocean acidity increase prediction is from pH 8.069 to pH 7.949 which means there is a large spike of carbonic acid. I'm NOT a chemist so I'm stealing the math here, At pH 8.1 the concentration of hydrogen cations is about 7.94×10^-9 mol/L: that is, 7.9 billionths of 1mol/L. A pH of 8.0 is 10^-8 mol/L hydrogen ions, or about 25% more than occurs at pH 8.1. This is a difference of 2 billionths of 1 mol/L.

To geologists, that 2 billionths of 1 mol/L is negligible. The world already has that variance in it depending on what ocean you go to. To chemists and biologists, it is huge. I think that is where the divergence of opinion comes from. Biologists view organism pH-sensitivity as a pretty serious matter (as does anyone who owns a fish tank). Geologists know that sea water has a natural variance of pH 7.8 to 8.3 so a .1 is still under the range of "normal."

So one side sees the immediate acid osmosis danger with regard to biochemistry (sea-life dies), the other says that the world will easily survive a shift to even twice that magnitude as the world continues to evolve... not that big a deal.

Is that basically it? "Some of our current ecosystem will likely die" versus "So what if it does? We had crap die for millions of years and that is normal."

dave-o
08-24-11, 06:20 PM
Ok, moving away from the ideology. I'm going back over a few key climate studies in an attempt to fill in the gaps as was suggested.

What is the skeptic/denier (s/d) outlook on Ocean Acidification research?

If we work under the agreed upon premise that oceans our are where we keep most of our carbon, and CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing (are those two statements correct?), would most of the natural CO2 increase come from, or be evident by, the ocean?

As far as I can tell from s/d geologist named Ian Plimer, CO2 and temperature have no correlation when looking back millions/billions of years. "The atmosphere once had at least 25 times the current CO2 content, we are living at a time when CO2 is the lowest it has been for billions of years, we continue to remove CO2 via carbonate sedimentation from the oceans and the oceans continue to be buffered by water-rock reaction."

Geologists describe this feldspar and silicate buffering reaction as "In the oceans, dissolved silica and degraded silicates appear to participate in a reaction which fixes silica and alkali metal cations and releases hydrogen ions, resulting in maintenance of the pH." This premise, according again to Ian is critical to explaining how and why the CO2 is naturally in our atmosphere and balances itself out over millions of years.

So the skeptic/denier premise is basically from a Geologist standpoint. It appears that the mainstream/alarmist (m/a) premise is more from a basic chemistry/biology approach. Their opinion is that CO2 increase is not coming from the oceans because ocean acidification (pH going down) while atmosphere CO2 goes up. The claim is that contradiction is the made-made CO2. Geologists say that we had contradictions all the time over the last billions years.

Ok, but who really cares and what is the "alarm" part for? I'm still shaky on a bit so I might get shit wrong, but still, here goes:

When CO2 binds with the water molecules in the ocean they form carbonic acid (CO2 + H2O = H2CO3). Now almost all of the H2CO3 eventually turns into HCO3-, which in turn drops the pH of the ocean.

So the m/a folk maintain that since the pH of the oceans is decreasing (something that s/d say as well) that implies that the ocean is absorbing more carbon than it is releasing... which is proof of man-made climate change. S/d fire back with basically "past variance had mixed correlation millions of years ago" and "Ok... but what is the big deal?"

So right now both sides are seeing and agreeing to the same data, it is the interpretation of the numbers and data that seems to be the current conflict issue.

Our recent ocean acidity increase prediction is from pH 8.069 to pH 7.949 which means there is a large spike of carbonic acid. I'm NOT a chemist so I'm stealing the math here, At pH 8.1 the concentration of hydrogen cations is about 7.94×10^-9 mol/L: that is, 7.9 billionths of 1mol/L. A pH of 8.0 is 10^-8 mol/L hydrogen ions, or about 25% more than occurs at pH 8.1. This is a difference of 2 billionths of 1 mol/L.

To geologists, that 2 billionths of 1 mol/L is negligible. The world already has that variance in it depending on what ocean you go to. To chemists and biologists, it is huge. I think that is where the divergence of opinion comes from. Biologists view organism pH-sensitivity as a pretty serious matter (as does anyone who owns a fish tank). Geologists know that sea water has a natural variance of pH 7.8 to 8.3 so a .1 is still under the range of "normal."

So one side sees the immediate acid osmosis danger with regard to biochemistry (sea-life dies), the other says that the world will easily survive a shift to even twice that magnitude as the world continues to evolve... not that big a deal.

Is that basically it? "Some of our current ecosystem will likely die" versus "So what if it does? We had crap die for millions of years and that is normal."

I'm a bit short on time, so I'll give some quick input. I think this is a good summary, with a few exceptions. While I think the is some validity to phrasing it as "so what...things die all the time" (as this is true). I also think that they would add the question "where is the evidence (observations) of ecosystems being destroyed"...and even more specifically, "where is the evidence of ecosystems being destroyed that would not have otherwise occurred due to natural climate variations". And this leads to the next question of "where is the evidence that we have any ability to affect these ecosystems that may or may not be destroyed, and at what cost will these changes be made". But of course that last question delves more into the policy realm and out of the hard science domain. Anyways, I'll read it again later when I have a bit more time.

Thanks for the discussion by the way, it's nice to have some more back and forth in these threads!

movielib
08-24-11, 11:59 PM
Ok, moving away from the ideology. I'm going back over a few key climate studies in an attempt to fill in the gaps as was suggested.

What is the skeptic/denier (s/d) outlook on Ocean Acidification research?

If we work under the agreed upon premise that oceans our are where we keep most of our carbon, and CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing (are those two statements correct?), would most of the natural CO2 increase come from, or be evident by, the ocean?

As far as I can tell from s/d geologist named Ian Plimer, CO2 and temperature have no correlation when looking back millions/billions of years. "The atmosphere once had at least 25 times the current CO2 content, we are living at a time when CO2 is the lowest it has been for billions of years, we continue to remove CO2 via carbonate sedimentation from the oceans and the oceans continue to be buffered by water-rock reaction."

Geologists describe this feldspar and silicate buffering reaction as "In the oceans, dissolved silica and degraded silicates appear to participate in a reaction which fixes silica and alkali metal cations and releases hydrogen ions, resulting in maintenance of the pH." This premise, according again to Ian is critical to explaining how and why the CO2 is naturally in our atmosphere and balances itself out over millions of years.

So the skeptic/denier premise is basically from a Geologist standpoint. It appears that the mainstream/alarmist (m/a) premise is more from a basic chemistry/biology approach. Their opinion is that CO2 increase is not coming from the oceans because ocean acidification (pH going down) while atmosphere CO2 goes up. The claim is that contradiction is the made-made CO2. Geologists say that we had contradictions all the time over the last billions years.

Ok, but who really cares and what is the "alarm" part for? I'm still shaky on a bit so I might get shit wrong, but still, here goes:

When CO2 binds with the water molecules in the ocean they form carbonic acid (CO2 + H2O = H2CO3). Now almost all of the H2CO3 eventually turns into HCO3-, which in turn drops the pH of the ocean.

So the m/a folk maintain that since the pH of the oceans is decreasing (something that s/d say as well) that implies that the ocean is absorbing more carbon than it is releasing... which is proof of man-made climate change. S/d fire back with basically "past variance had mixed correlation millions of years ago" and "Ok... but what is the big deal?"

So right now both sides are seeing and agreeing to the same data, it is the interpretation of the numbers and data that seems to be the current conflict issue.

Our recent ocean acidity increase prediction is from pH 8.069 to pH 7.949 which means there is a large spike of carbonic acid. I'm NOT a chemist so I'm stealing the math here, At pH 8.1 the concentration of hydrogen cations is about 7.94×10^-9 mol/L: that is, 7.9 billionths of 1mol/L. A pH of 8.0 is 10^-8 mol/L hydrogen ions, or about 25% more than occurs at pH 8.1. This is a difference of 2 billionths of 1 mol/L.

To geologists, that 2 billionths of 1 mol/L is negligible. The world already has that variance in it depending on what ocean you go to. To chemists and biologists, it is huge. I think that is where the divergence of opinion comes from. Biologists view organism pH-sensitivity as a pretty serious matter (as does anyone who owns a fish tank). Geologists know that sea water has a natural variance of pH 7.8 to 8.3 so a .1 is still under the range of "normal."

So one side sees the immediate acid osmosis danger with regard to biochemistry (sea-life dies), the other says that the world will easily survive a shift to even twice that magnitude as the world continues to evolve... not that big a deal.

Is that basically it? "Some of our current ecosystem will likely die" versus "So what if it does? We had crap die for millions of years and that is normal."
I have mentioned Plimer as the author of Heaven and Earth, a skeptical book that has a lot of good points in it but I do think Plimer overreaches and makes some mistakes. I liked his book overall but I had more than a few criticisms, for example I think he is way off on volcanoes. It's been awhile since I read the book and I can't remember others offhand but I know there were others. He's not one of my favorites to quote from as I think he can be rather careless.

The main points of the CO2 effects on the oceans are rising temperatures and lowering pH. We need to consider their effects on life.

Those who have read these threads know that I have cited probably at least a dozen peer reviewed papers, most, if not all of which are experimental in nature. Waters of differing temperatures and pHs were used in seeing how they affected shell building invertebrates (the animals the alarmists are always saying will be devastated). These experiments have invariably shown that any effects are negligible, if there are any at all. For example, corals (the most widely cited as supposedly being in danger) have symbiotic relationships with algae. When temperatures change, corals "evict" their current algae partners and "invite in" different species of algae that allow them to keep functioning. They are very good at this. After all, they are thought to have existed for some 500 million years and have survived far worse than the tiny current changes (as I am wont to say, the alarmists have no sense of history nor do they want to have any). As far as acidification, experiments have shown that a large range of shelled invertebrates can continue to thrive in waters quite a bit more on the acidic side than anything that is happening now or is expected to happen in the foreseeable future. I remember posting a new study on sand dollars not long ago and there have been many others.

I hate to say it but I have never seen a single one of these experiment acknowledged on any alarmist site and I keep hearing the same alarms being sounded at every opportunity.

If there is anything that should have been put to rest by now in this debate, this is it.

movielib
08-25-11, 12:05 AM
I think big companies give WAY more money to lobbyists protecting their financial interests. Why else would the Repubs do everything within their power to block anything that would remotely impact the bottom line? The Repubs may even believe in GW but unfettered capitalism is the primary goal in their short lifespans.
And many big companies know that cap and trade could enhance some of their bottom lines quite a lot (at least in the short run) - unfortunately, at our expense.

As I showed above, even the most evil of all evil companies, Exxon, has given more to the alarmist side than they have to the skeptical side. The other oil giants, BP and Shell, have given virtually (if not literally) all of their contributions to the alarmist side. Other giants such as GE and many others have also.

A company which actually was evil, Enron (you may remember it), was instrumental in pushing cap and trade. (BP also.)

http://the-classic-liberal.com/bp-enron-cap-trade/

movielib
08-25-11, 01:55 AM
The preliminary results of the CLOUD experiment at CERN are in. You may recall that this experiment is to see if cosmic rays can influence cloud formation. These first results definitely establish that cosmic rays can increase nanometer-size particle formation by a factor of more than ten. But the size of these particles themselves is too small to serve as seeds for clouds. Still, this is considered an important first step. Subsequent experiments will try to resolve whether and how such particles can grow to sufficient size. (The missing link may be volatile organic compounds present in the real atmosphere that are not present in the CERN "CLOUD" chamber, a point from the paper that RealClimates blog post makes (see below)) Those who were hoping for definitive proof one way or another from what has always been promised as only the first step are probably disappointed. I admit to hoping for this myself and I know alarmists were hoping to kill the theory right here. Both sides' hopes were probably always unrealistic.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html

Published online 24 August 2011 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2011.504

News

Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays

Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere.

Geoff Brumfiel

It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.

The findings, published today in Nature1, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.

For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.

The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.

Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.

Polarizing lens

"People are far too polarized, and in my opinion there are huge, important areas where our understanding is poor at the moment," says Jasper Kirkby, a physicist at CERN. In particular, he says, little controlled research has been done on exactly what effect cosmic rays can have on atmospheric chemistry.

To find out, Kirkby and his team are bringing the atmosphere down to Earth in an experiment called Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD). The team fills a custom-built chamber with ultrapure air and chemicals believed to seed clouds: water vapour, sulpher dioxide, ozone and ammonia. They then bombard the chamber with protons from the same accelerator that feeds the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful particle smasher. As the synthetic cosmic rays stream in, the group carefully samples the artificial atmosphere to see what effect the rays are having.

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says.

Scientists on both sides of the debate welcome the findings, although they draw differing conclusions. "Of course there are many things to explore, but I think the cosmic-ray/cloud-seeding hypothesis is converging with reality," says Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Technical University of Denmark in Copenhagen, who claims a link between climate change and cosmic rays.

Others disagree. The CLOUD experiment is "not firming up the connection", counters Mike Lockwood, a space and environmental physicist at the University of Reading, UK, who is sceptical. Lockwood says that the small particles may not grow fast enough or large enough to be important in comparison with other cloud-forming processes in the atmosphere.

"I think it's an incredibly worthwhile and overdue experiment," says Piers Forster, a climatologist at the University of Leeds, UK, who studied the link between cosmic rays and climate for the latest scientific assessment by the International Panel on Climate Change. But for now at least, he says that the experiment "probably raises more questions than it answers".

Kirkby hopes that the experiment will eventually answer the cosmic-ray question. In the coming years, he says, his group is planning experiments with larger particles in the chamber, and they hope eventually to generate artificial clouds for study. "There is a series of measurements that we will have to do that will take at least five years," he says. "But at the end of it, we want to settle it one way or the other."
The Nature paper is behind a pay wall.

I think this comment at WUWT sums it up quite well:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/

Gary Hladik says:
August 24, 2011 at 12:48 pm

So if I understand this correctly, the CLOUD results so far say that Svensmark COULD be right, i.e. that solar modulation of cosmic rays COULD have an effect of unknown magnitude on the Earth’s climate system. In other words, Svensmark hasn’t been proven right, but his work just passed an important test that could have proved it wrong.

A surprisingly (to me) good article has been written by Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

But again, at WUWT, I think a commenter has good insight:

John
Adam says:
August 24, 2011 at 12:52 pm

It’s interesting to read what Real Climate has to say about the subject. Of particular note is how rigorous they want the science before being able to say the sun affects climate, where as they only need a computer model to believe the importance of CO2 (this is not saying they’re wrong to want rigorous science, but that all science should be equally rigorous).
In any event, this is a historic paper regardless of what "side" one is on. This seems to be great science, done as science should be done. Nothing seems to be overstated one way or the other. We just have to be patient.

movielib
08-25-11, 10:44 AM
Follow up to the CERN CLOUD experiment. This is supplemental material released with the Nature study.

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/view_online.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpress.web.cern.ch%2Fpress%2FPressReleases%2FReleases2011%2Fdownload s%2FCLOUD_SI_press-briefing_29JUL11.pdf

CLOUD Collaboration

Supporting information to press briefing on Nature publication, Kirkby et al., “Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation”, DOI 10.1038/nature10343

The background to the CERN CLOUD experiment. CLOUD is tackling one of the most challenging and longstanding problems in atmospheric science – to understand how new aerosol particles are formed in the atmosphere and the effect these particles have on climate. Increases in atmospheric aerosol particles cool the climate by reflecting more sunlight and by forming additional cloud drops, thereby making clouds brighter. The increased amount of aerosol in the atmosphere caused by human activities is thought to have offset a large fraction of the warming caused by greenhouse gases. By current estimates, about half of all cloud drops are formed on aerosol particles that were “nucleated” (that is, produced from the clustering of trace atmospheric molecules rather than being emitted directly into the atmosphere, like sea spray particles). Nucleation is therefore likely to be important for climate. However, the physical mechanisms of nucleation are not understood, so global models have been based on theoretical calculations or have been adjusted to match observations. CLOUD aims to understand the nucleation process and therefore provide reliable aerosol physics to reduce the uncertainty in climate forcings and projections.

What exactly has CLOUD studied? CLOUD has studied the nucleation of new particles in a specially designed chamber under extremely well controlled conditions of temperature, humidity, ionisation and concentrations of nucleating vapours. We measured the creation of new particles caused by sulphuric acid and ammonia vapours, which have long been thought to account for nucleation in the real atmosphere. CLOUD also measured nucleation of new particles caused by ions that are generated in the air by cosmic rays. Carefully controlled laboratory experiments like CLOUD provide the best way of understanding whether cosmic rays could affect Earth’s clouds and climate, as has been proposed.

What is special about the CLOUD experiment? The CLOUD chamber has much lower concentrations of contaminants than all previous experiments, allowing us to measure the nucleation due to controlled amounts of selected trace gases without the complicating effect of undetected gases. CLOUD used state of the art instruments to measure very low concentrations of atmospheric vapours and, with a unique new instrument, has measured the chemistry and growth of newly formed charged molecular clusters from single molecules up to full particles. Another unique aspect is the capability to measure nucleation due to ionising natural cosmic rays, or due to enhanced ionisation provided by the CERN pion beam ‐ or with the effects of all ionisation completely suppressed.


What has CLOUD discovered and why is it important for our understanding of climate? There are several important discoveries from CLOUD. Firstly, we have shown that the most likely nucleating vapours, sulphuric acid and ammonia, cannot account for nucleation that is observed in the lower atmosphere. The nucleation observed in the chamber occurs at only one‐tenth to one‐thousandth of the rate observed in the lower atmosphere. Based on the first results from CLOUD, it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours and water alone. It is now urgent to identify the additional nucleating vapours, and whether their sources are mainly natural or from human activities.

Secondly, we have found that natural rates of atmospheric ionisation caused by cosmic rays can substantially enhance nucleation under the conditions we studied – by up to a factor of 10. Ion‐enhancement is particularly pronounced in the cool temperatures of the mid‐troposphere and above, here CLOUD has found that sulphuric acid and water vapour can nucleate without the need for additional vapours. This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.
So at the very least, once again the climate models are shown to be lacking - this time because they make a false assumption about cloud nucleation. We are, quite simply, way too ignorant about so many climate factors that there is no way we can know how to model climate in the first place. Tiny initial differences have huge differences in outcome and we cannot possibly hope to get the original factors right with our present level of knowledge.

What I think it means right now (and I could be wrong) is that we know less than we thought about cloud nucleation. Cosmic rays definitely have an effect on nucleation but we are missing the factor of how tiny particles become big enough to start to form clouds. I think further experiments at CLOUD will have to introduce situations more like the real atmosphere in the future. As stated in the paper, sulphuric acid and ammonia are not sufficient to form clouds as previously though and as the climate models assume. Organic compounds, according to the Nature paper, may be the key to "get there from here."

I will add that Shaviv and Veizer have shown that cosmic ray flux correlates well with temperatures over about a half billion years, far better than CO2 levels (this is, of course, disputed like everything is).

http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

Correlation is not causation but noncorrelation certainly isn't causation and causation is much more likely to mesh with correlation than with noncorrelation (I hope that made sense). If Shaviv and Veizer are right, cosmic rays probably do have something to do with it and finding the mechanism is the key. But the CLOUD study seems to be saying that we do not now know what that mechanism is, whether or not cosmic rays play a significant part.

Navinabob
08-25-11, 02:48 PM
Yeah, that is a great step in the right direction.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/downloads/CLOUD_SI_press-briefing_29JUL11.pdf

CERN had a press briefing, this is their final conclusion: “However,
 it 
is 
premature 
to 
conclude 
that 
cosmic
 rays 
have 
a 
significant 
influence
 on 
climate 
until
 the
 additional
 nucleating
 vapours
 have
 been
 identified,
 their
 ion
 enhancement
 measured,
 and
 the
 ultimate
 effects
 on
 clouds
 have
 been
 confirmed.”

And we already have studies looking into other factors that would explain what else may be going on based on the CERN data a decade ago.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5599/1732.abstract

It has been proposed that Earth's climate could be affected by changes in cloudiness caused by variations in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays in the atmosphere. This proposal stems from an observed correlation between cosmic ray intensity and Earth's average cloud cover over the course of one solar cycle. Some scientists question the reliability of the observations, whereas others, who accept them as reliable, suggest that the correlation may be caused by other physical phenomena with decadal periods or by a response to volcanic activity or El Niño. Nevertheless, the observation has raised the intriguing possibility that a cosmic ray–cloud interaction may help explain how a relatively small change in solar output can produce much larger changes in Earth's climate. Physical mechanisms have been proposed to explain how cosmic rays could affect clouds, but they need to be investigated further if the observation is to become more than just another correlation among geophysical variables.

Thanks for posting Movie; this just goes to show that any complex scientific inquiry has various sets of data that can cause us to adjust our reasoning.

CRM114
08-25-11, 03:00 PM
And many big companies know that cap and trade could enhance some of their bottom lines quite a lot (at least in the short run) - unfortunately, at our expense.

As I showed above, even the most evil of all evil companies, Exxon, has given more to the alarmist side than they have to the skeptical side. The other oil giants, BP and Shell, have given virtually (if not literally) all of their contributions to the alarmist side. Other giants such as GE and many others have also.

A company which actually was evil, Enron (you may remember it), was instrumental in pushing cap and trade. (BP also.)

http://the-classic-liberal.com/bp-enron-cap-trade/

When you say things like "given more to the alarmist side" are you referring to research grants? How much is Exxon paying lobbyists in Washington to fight any legislation it deems harmful to their bottom line?

movielib
08-25-11, 04:18 PM
When you say things like "given more to the alarmist side" are you referring to research grants?
There is grant money from governments, businesses and environmentalist groups.

How much is Exxon paying lobbyists in Washington to fight any legislation it deems harmful to their bottom line?
I don't know. Can you tell me how much lobbying money comes from those poor, destitute environmental groups?

CRM114
08-25-11, 04:21 PM
Not anywhere near as much as energy companies, that's for damned sure. The environmentalist groups have nowhere near the ROI on lobbying. Lobbying corporate interests means billions in extra profit.

movielib
08-25-11, 05:57 PM
Not anywhere near as much as energy companies, that's for damned sure. The environmentalist groups have nowhere near the ROI on lobbying.
I'm glad you're so sure.

I would be talking about only the amount of lobbying money spent on global warming and other environmental issues.

Lobbying corporate interests means billions in extra profit.
Well, many of them must believe cap and trade is good for their bottom line then. Otherwise, why would these companies be members of the United States Climate Action Partnership?

http://www.us-cap.org/

USCAP Members Include:

AES
Alcoa
Alstom
Boston Scientific Corporation
Chrysler
The Dow Chemical Company
Duke Energy
DuPont
Environmental Defense Fund
Exelon Corporation
Ford Motor Company
General Electric
Honeywell
Johnson & Johnson
Natural Resources Defense Council
NextEra Energy
NRG Energy
PepsiCo
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Rio Tinto
Shell
Siemens Corporation
The Nature Conservancy
Weyerhaeuser
World Resources Institute
Yeah, a few that aren't companies so you can take them off.

Conoco, BP and Caterpillar recently left but are still committed to "the environment" for the most part. Energy giant BP said its "approach is now different, not its position on climate change."

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/02/16/bp-caterpillar-and-conocophillips-leave-uscap

I don't know why you can't accept that many companies, including many of the nation's biggest energy companies have been pushing for "climate legislation" like cap and trade. It would give you more companies you'd like to buy from. ;)

Navinabob
08-25-11, 06:24 PM
I have mentioned Plimer as the author of Heaven and Earth, a skeptical book that has a lot of good points in it but I do think Plimer overreaches and makes some mistakes. I liked his book overall but I had more than a few criticisms, for example I think he is way off on volcanoes. It's been awhile since I read the book and I can't remember others offhand but I know there were others. He's not one of my favorites to quote from as I think he can be rather careless.

The main points of the CO2 effects on the oceans are rising temperatures and lowering pH. We need to consider their effects on life.

Those who have read these threads know that I have cited probably at least a dozen peer reviewed papers, most, if not all of which are experimental in nature. Waters of differing temperatures and pHs were used in seeing how they affected shell building invertebrates (the animals the alarmists are always saying will be devastated). These experiments have invariably shown that any effects are negligible, if there are any at all. For example, corals (the most widely cited as supposedly being in danger) have symbiotic relationships with algae. When temperatures change, corals "evict" their current algae partners and "invite in" different species of algae that allow them to keep functioning. They are very good at this. After all, they are thought to have existed for some 500 million years and have survived far worse than the tiny current changes (as I am wont to say, the alarmists have no sense of history nor do they want to have any). As far as acidification, experiments have shown that a large range of shelled invertebrates can continue to thrive in waters quite a bit more on the acidic side than anything that is happening now or is expected to happen in the foreseeable future. I remember posting a new study on sand dollars not long ago and there have been many others.

I hate to say it but I have never seen a single one of these experiment acknowledged on any alarmist site and I keep hearing the same alarms being sounded at every opportunity.

If there is anything that should have been put to rest by now in this debate, this is it.

Without links I couldn't find what specific studies you mentioned other then the sand-dollar one. So I went and examined the totality of Maria Byrne's research, as opposed to just that one study. I'm not sure the research is exactly showing what the bloggers are saying it does. This is the first sentence of the journal that strangle enough I didn't see any skeptic sites mention before they extrapolated "Climate change driven ocean acidification and hypercapnia may have a negative impact on fertilization in marine organisms because of the narcotic effect these stressors exert on sperm."

The study you cite is:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/b124760j48467523/

I found it from the skeptic site:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/01/marine-biology-experts-find-that-warming-acidification-have-zero-impact-on-coastal-species.html

Note this is only for sperm survivability (fertilization) and that the skeptic site just happened to leave off This may reflect adaptation to the marked fluctuation in temperature and pH that characterises their shallow water coastal habitats. Efforts to identify potential impacts of ocean change to the life histories of coastal marine invertebrates are best to focus on more vulnerable embryonic and larval stages because of their long time in the water column where seawater chemistry and temperature have a major impact on development. from the abstract it quoted.

This skeptic site actually gives the exact opposite conclusion when they break down the article (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N3/C3.php)
which interpretation further suggests that other marine fauna in still other circumstances may likewise be capable of adapting to any warming and acidification that might possibly develop throughout the world's oceans during the remaining decades of the 21st century. Again, remember what the author actually says is that the finding are only true for only shallow warm & coastal areas and NOT THE OCEAN.

Here are her findings in totality, not cherry-picked:

1. Global warming is causing ocean warming and acidification. The distribution of Heliocidaris erythrogramma coincides with the eastern Australia climate change hot spot, where disproportionate warming makes marine biota particularly vulnerable to climate change.

2. Climate change driven ocean acidification and hypercapnia may have a negative impact on fertilization in marine organisms because of the narcotic effect these stressors exert on sperm.

3. In contrast, warmer, less viscous water may have a positive influence on sperm swimming speed and so ocean warming may enhance fertilization.

4. Sea urchin fertilize fine at 7.6–8.2 pH (89%). But, as warmer warms they suffer greatly. Normal water temperature is 20 to 26C. At 24C they drop 40%, and at 26C they drop an additional 20%.

5. Although ocean acidification research has focused on impaired calcification, embryos may not reach the skeletogenic stage in a warm ocean.

6. From her research from April of this year: When exposed to the increased acidity and temperature levels projected 100 years from now they produced deformed specimens, without shells or spines. This means key sources of protein will be lost due to future changes in our oceans.

“We wondered about the impact of climate change on shelled marine animals since ocean acidification reduces the amount of carbonate ions, which they need to make their calcium carbonate skeletons.”

5. Abalone were particularly sensitive to change and did not do well in even slightly warmer and more acidic conditions (+2oC/pH 7.8).


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1663/1883.full.pdf

http://www.oceanacidification.net/news/projected-acidification-and-warming-threaten-key-ocean-species/

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/12/21/rspb.2010.2404.abstract?sid=f62df070-3d87-42dc-97f5-2416316767c4

Heck, just by looking at the Royal Society of Biological Science you got a bunch of studies to pick from. Going in mostly order:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1644/1767.full.pdf+html

Ocean acidification is the lowering of pH in the oceans as a result of increasing uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is entering the oceans at a greater rate than ever before, reducing the ocean’s natural buffering capacity and lowering pH. Previous work on the biological consequences of ocean acidification has suggested that calcification and metabolic processes are compromised in acidified seawater. By contrast, here we show, using the ophiuroid brittlestar Amphiura filiformis as a model calcifying organism, that some organisms can increase the rates of many of their biological processes (in this case, metabolism and the ability to calcify to compensate for increased seawater acidity). However, this upregulation of metabolism and calcification, potentially ameliorating some of the effects
of increased acidity comes at a substantial cost (muscle wastage) and is therefore unlikely to be sustainable in the long term.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1593/1465.full?sid=68a4a035-532b-4c8b-bb1b-e84fc54804b1

Species-energy theory indicates that recent climate warming should have driven increases in species richness in cool and species-poor parts of the Northern Hemisphere. We confirm that the average species richness of British butterflies has increased since 1970–82, but much more slowly than predicted from changes of climate: on average, only one-third of the predicted increase has taken place. The resultant species assemblages are increasingly dominated by generalist species that were able to respond quickly. The time lag is confirmed by the successful introduction of many species to climatically suitable areas beyond their ranges. Our results imply that it may be decades or centuries before the species richness and composition of biological communities adjusts to the current climate.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1691/2121.full?sid=68a4a035-532b-4c8b-bb1b-e84fc54804b1

Good decision making for fisheries and marine ecosystems requires a capacity to anticipate the consequences of management under different scenarios of climate change. The necessary ecological forecasting calls for ecosystem-based models capable of integrating multiple drivers across trophic levels and properly including uncertainty. The methodology presented here assesses the combined impacts of climate and fishing on marine food-web dynamics and provides estimates of the confidence envelope of the forecasts. It is applied to cod (Gadus morhua) in the Baltic Sea, which is vulnerable to climate-related decline in salinity owing to both direct and indirect effects (i.e. through species interactions) on early-life survival. A stochastic food web-model driven by regional climate scenarios is used to produce quantitative forecasts of cod dynamics in the twenty-first century. The forecasts show how exploitation would have to be adjusted in order to achieve sustainable management under different climate scenarios.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1661/1415.full?sid=68a4a035-532b-4c8b-bb1b-e84fc54804b1

We link spatially explicit climate change predictions to a dynamic metapopulation model. Predictions of species' responses to climate change, incorporating metapopulation dynamics and elements of dispersal, allow us to explore the range margin dynamics for two lagomorphs of conservation concern. Although the lagomorphs have very different distribution patterns, shifts at the edge of the range were more pronounced than shifts in the overall metapopulation. For Romerolagus diazi (volcano rabbit), the lower elevation range limit shifted upslope by approximately 700 m. This reduced the area occupied by the metapopulation, as the mountain peak currently lacks suitable vegetation. For Lepus timidus (European mountain hare), we modelled the British metapopulation. Increasing the dispersive estimate caused the metapopulation to shift faster on the northern range margin (leading edge). By contrast, it caused the metapopulation to respond to climate change slower, rather than faster, on the southern range margin (trailing edge). The differential responses of the leading and trailing range margins and the relative sensitivity of range limits to climate change compared with that of the metapopulation centroid have important implications for where conservation monitoring should be targeted. Our study demonstrates the importance and possibility of moving from simple bioclimatic envelope models to second-generation models that incorporate both dynamic climate change and metapopulation dynamics.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1686/1409.full?sid=68a4a035-532b-4c8b-bb1b-e84fc54804b1

This research is funny because while they say other things may suffer, kelp forests will thrive!

Predictions about the ecological consequences of oceanic uptake of CO2 have been preoccupied with the effects of ocean acidification on calcifying organisms, particularly those critical to the formation of habitats (e.g. coral reefs) or their maintenance (e.g. grazing echinoderms). This focus overlooks the direct effects of CO2 on non-calcareous taxa, particularly those that play critical roles in ecosystem shifts. We used two experiments to investigate whether increased CO2 could exacerbate kelp loss by facilitating non-calcareous algae that, we hypothesized, (i) inhibit the recovery of kelp forests on an urbanized coast, and (ii) form more extensive covers and greater biomass under moderate future CO2 and associated temperature increases. Our experimental removal of turfs from a phase-shifted system (i.e. kelp- to turf-dominated) revealed that the number of kelp recruits increased, thereby indicating that turfs can inhibit kelp recruitment. Future CO2 and temperature interacted synergistically to have a positive effect on the abundance of algal turfs, whereby they had twice the biomass and occupied over four times more available space than under current conditions. We suggest that the current preoccupation with the negative effects of ocean acidification on marine calcifiers overlooks potentially profound effects of increasing CO2 and temperature on non-calcifying organisms.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1635/649.full?sid=68a4a035-532b-4c8b-bb1b-e84fc54804b1

Good study on the different risks and different adaptions likely needed to happen.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1671/3275.full?sid=68a4a035-532b-4c8b-bb1b-e84fc54804b1

Larvae will likely thrive!

Little is known about how fishes and other non-calcifying marine organisms will respond to the increased levels of dissolved CO2 and reduced sea water pH that are predicted to occur over the coming century. We reared eggs and larvae of the orange clownfish, Amphiprion percula, in sea water simulating a range of ocean acidification scenarios for the next 50–100 years (current day, 550, 750 and 1030 ppm atmospheric CO2). CO2 acidification had no detectable effect on embryonic duration, egg survival and size at hatching. In contrast, CO2 acidification tended to increase the growth rate of larvae. By the time of settlement (11 days post-hatching), larvae from some parental pairs were 15 to 18 per cent longer and 47 to 52 per cent heavier in acidified water compared with controls. Larvae from other parents were unaffected by CO2 acidification. Elevated CO2 and reduced pH had no effect on the maximum swimming speed of settlement-stage larvae. There was, however, a weak positive relationship between length and swimming speed. Large size is usually considered to be advantageous for larvae and newly settled juveniles. Consequently, these results suggest that levels of ocean acidification likely to be experienced in the near future might not, in isolation, significantly disadvantage the growth and performance of larvae from benthic-spawning marine fishes.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1715/2191.abstract?sid=68a4a035-532b-4c8b-bb1b-e84fc54804b1

Climate change has had a significant impact globally on the timing of ecological events such as reproduction and migration in many species. Here, we examined the phenology of reproductive migrations in 10 amphibian species at a wetland in South Carolina, USA using a 30 year dataset. We show for the first time that two autumn-breeding amphibians are breeding increasingly later in recent years, coincident with an estimated 1.2°C increase in local overnight air temperatures during the September through February pre-breeding and breeding periods. Additionally, two winter-breeding species in the same community are breeding increasingly earlier. Four of the 10 species studied have shifted their reproductive timing an estimated 15.3 to 76.4 days in the past 30 years. This has resulted in rates of phenological change that range from 5.9 to 37.2 days per decade, providing examples of some of the greatest rates of changing phenology in ecological events reported to date. Owing to the opposing direction of the shifts in reproductive timing, our results suggest an alteration in the degree of temporal niche overlap experienced by amphibian larvae in this community. Reproductive timing can drive community dynamics in larval amphibians and our results identify an important pathway by which climate change may affect amphibian communities

So science says mostly bad for marine life, with a few things doing really well (not surprising since that is a basic enough rule for any sort of environmental change I can think of). Using a citation trace I see the study you claim to be ignored by science, it appears that marine biologists and researchers had no issue finding it and getting the correct data from it.

If you can find the other studies you mentioned I'll happily go through them. Climate research I'm still new at, but thankfully everything I've ever learned from medical research and a decade of being an active skeptic lets me at least be able to understand journal publications.

Navinabob
08-25-11, 06:30 PM
Not anywhere near as much as energy companies, that's for damned sure. The environmentalist groups have nowhere near the ROI on lobbying. Lobbying corporate interests means billions in extra profit.

Environmental groups have talked starving nations from feeding their poor because of claims that "evil genetically modified" food will kill them all. They have their own agendas and wield a powerful sword for sure...

movielib
08-25-11, 06:44 PM
They are in the threads over the years. I'm not going to dig them out.

Instead I offer you the Ocean Acidification Data Base. Tons more studies than I have cited. Note that some are within the realm of possibility and some go way beyond anything that is at all likely to happen.

http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/acidification.php

There are links to the various aspects of the project.

See, particularly Results and Conclusions:

http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/results.php

More specifically:

Studies on Ocean acidification:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/o/subject_o.php

Calcification:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/subject_c.php

Marine Biota:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/marinebiota.php

Click on by subcategory and get reviews of papers.

Enjoy.

(Yes, you find get the usual smears from the likes of DeSmogBlog and ExxonSecrets.)

Navinabob
08-25-11, 06:45 PM
I'm glad you're so sure.

I would be talking about only the amount of lobbying money spent on global warming and other environmental issues.


Well, many of them must believe cap and trade is good for their bottom line then. Otherwise, why would these companies be members of the United States Climate Action Partnership?

http://www.us-cap.org/


Yeah, a few that aren't companies so you can take them off. Note this says "members include" so there are likely more beyond these most prominent ones.

Conoco, BP and Caterpillar recently left but are still committed to "the environment" for the most part. Energy giant BP said its "approach is now different, not its position on climate change."

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/02/16/bp-caterpillar-and-conocophillips-leave-uscap

I don't know why you can't accept that many companies, including many of the nation's biggest energy companies have been pushing for "climate legislation" like cap and trade. It would give you more companies you'd like to buy from. ;)

Don't forget that many companies get great press and get vocal animal/environmental/civil/consumer rights groups off their backs by giving grants and cash to researchers. You can always repair your financials in a company.... it is your company image that you protect with your life.

Navinabob
08-25-11, 06:49 PM
They are in the threads over the years. I'm not going to dig them out.

Instead I offer you the Ocean Acidification Data Base.

http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/acidification.php

There are links to the various aspects of the project.

Studies on Ocean acidification:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/o/subject_o.php

Click on by subcategory and get reviews of papers.

Enjoy.

Since I already found either a lie, or incompetence, of epic proportions from that site I plan on keeping my skepticism while poking about.

movielib
08-25-11, 07:14 PM
Since I already found either a lie, or incompetence, of epic proportions from that site I plan on keeping my skepticism while poking about.
That's fine. That's what I find on alarmist sites. It's going to happen on all sites sometimes. My experience is that it's a lot worse on alarmist sites.

movielib
08-25-11, 07:34 PM
Don't forget that many companies get great press and get vocal animal/environmental/civil/consumer rights groups off their backs by giving grants and cash to researchers. You can always repair your financials in a company.... it is your company image that you protect with your life.
I'm well aware of greenwash.

Navinabob
08-25-11, 08:15 PM
That's fine. That's what I find on alarmist sites.

That's why I try and stick to science sites (Most everything I got was from a biology journal) and why I try and post journals from the source and not cut-up by someone doing an opinion editorial (not you... you didn't to the hacking and misleading). I think I should also get a few bonus points for getting quotes from the author of the journal in question where she clearly states her opinion and posting the full abstracts without those pesky important parts cut out.

And case in point. I seriously can't make stuff like this up and why I stress ALWAYS going to the source.

I found the post you made in 2010. You pulled it word for word from here (there same site you just told me to use).

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N12/B2.php

Acidified Seawater's Effects on Coral Larvae and Polyps Reference
Suwa, R., Nakamura, M., Morita, M., Shimada, K., Iguchi, A., Sakai, K. and Suzuki, A. 2010. Effects of acidified seawater on early life stages of scleractinian corals (Genus Acropora). Fisheries Science 76: 93-99.

What was done
The authors employed controlled infusions of pure CO2 to create mean pH values of 8.03 ± 0.03, 7.64 ± 0.12 and 7.31 ± 0.11 (corresponding to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 400-475, 905-1660 and 2115-3585 ppm, respectively) in filtered seawater that flowed continuously through three sets of multiple tanks into which they had introduced the gametes of two Acropora coral species (A. digitifera and A. tenuis) they had collected during a natural spawning event, after which (seven days later) they determined their percent survival. Then, after ten more days, they documented the size of the developing polyps; and after 14 days they documented the percentage of polyps that had acquired zooxanthellae that the researchers had collected from the giant clam T. crocea and released into the several treatment tanks.

What was learned
Suwa et al. report that "A. digitifera larval survival rate did not differ significantly among pH treatments," and the graphs of their data indicate that survivorship in A. tenuis was actually about 18.5% greater in the lowest pH (highest CO2) treatment than in the ambient seawater treatment. At the end of the subsequent ten-day study, however, polyp size was reduced in the lowest pH treatment, but by only about 14%, which is not too bad for an atmospheric CO2 concentration in the range of 2115-3585 ppm. And in the A. tenuis coral, this reduction in individual size was more than compensated by the even greater percentage increase in survivorship. In addition, after only four days of being exposed to the zooxanthellae derived from giant clams, all polyps in all treatments had acquired a full complement of the symbiotic zooxanthella.

What it means
In discussing their findings, the seven scientists say they indicate that "the survival of coral larvae may not be strongly affected by pH change," or "in other words," as they continue, "coral larvae may be able to tolerate ambient pH decreases of at least 0.7 pH units," which, in fact, is something that will likely never occur, as it implies atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the range of 2115 to 3585 ppm. In addition, if such high concentrations ever were to occur, they would be a long, long time in coming, giving corals far more than sufficient time to acclimate -- and even evolve (Idso and Idso, 2009) -- to adequately cope with the slowly developing situation.

Reference
Idso, C.D. and Idso, S.B. 2009. CO2, Global Warming and Species Extinctions: Prospects for the Future. Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, Pueblo West, Colorado, USA, 132 p.

I'd like to show the "What it means" part clearly so I'm posting it again.

In discussing their findings, the seven scientists say they indicate that "the survival of coral larvae may not be strongly affected by pH change," or "in other words," as they continue, "coral larvae may be able to tolerate ambient pH decreases of at least 0.7 pH units," which, in fact, is something that will likely never occur, as it implies atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the range of 2115 to 3585 ppm. In addition, if such high concentrations ever were to occur, they would be a long, long time in coming, giving corals far more than sufficient time to acclimate -- and even evolve (Idso and Idso, 2009) -- to adequately cope with the slowly developing situation.

Look how many time they use bits of info to make a complete first sentence. The reason they did that was because they couldn't use the full abstract or it would sort of invalidate most everything they were trying pretend the article was saying. The article is clearly saying while the larvae itself survives, the research says "successful recruitment is impaired when metamorphosis is disrupted, despite larval survival." and that "metamorphosis rate significantly decreased under acidified seawater conditions after both short (2 h) and long (7 d) term exposure. These results imply that acidified seawater impacts larval physiology, suggesting that suppressed metabolism and metamorphosis may alter the dispersal potential of larvae and subsequently reduce the resilience of coral communities in the near future as the ocean pH decreases."


Here it it not butchered in the form of a complete abstract. I'll bold the good parts again just because they didn't want you to actually read them and for its delightful comic effect.

Ocean acidification may negatively impact the early life stages of some marine invertebrates including corals. Although reduced growth of juvenile corals in acidified seawater has been reported, coral larvae have been reported to demonstrate some level of tolerance to reduced pH. We hypothesize that the observed tolerance of coral larvae to low pH may be partly explained by reduced metabolic rates in acidified seawater because both calcifying and non-calcifying marine invertebrates could show metabolic depression under reduced pH in order to enhance their survival. In this study, after 3-d and 7-d exposure to three different pH levels (8.0, 7.6, and 7.3), we found that the oxygen consumption of Acropora digitifera larvae tended to be suppressed with reduced pH, although a statistically significant difference was not observed between pH conditions. Larval metamorphosis was also observed, confirming that successful recruitment is impaired when metamorphosis is disrupted, despite larval survival. Results also showed that the metamorphosis rate significantly decreased under acidified seawater conditions after both short (2 h) and long (7 d) term exposure. These results imply that acidified seawater impacts larval physiology, suggesting that suppressed metabolism and metamorphosis may alter the dispersal potential of larvae and subsequently reduce the resilience of coral communities in the near future as the ocean pH decreases.

And just to make sure I'm not taking anything out of context that the author didn't mean, I decided to email them in Japan with a link to http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N12/B2.php

I'll let you all know if they respond.

movielib
08-25-11, 08:50 PM
Polar bear scientist back to work. He will no longer manage federal contracts. Future administrative actions may still be taken.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/25/139953618/polarbeargate-scientist-to-head-back-to-work

'Polarbeargate' Scientist To Head Back To Work
by Nell Greenfieldboyce
August 25, 2011

The polar bear scientist who has spent more than a month suspended from his government job has now been told that he should report back to work on Friday — although NPR has learned that his job is changing and he will no longer manage federal contracts.

"Chuck is planning to go to work. He just doesn't know what the work is going to be," says attorney Jeff Ruch of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which is providing legal representation for wildlife biologist Charles Monnett.

In 2006, Monnett published a report on his sightings of apparently drowned polar bears in the Arctic. The dead polar bears became a powerful — and controversial — symbol of the danger of melting ice and climate change.

Monnett was put on administrative leave on July 18 by the agency he works for at the Department of the Interior. The move came as Monnett was being investigated by the department's Office of Inspector General.

That investigation is ongoing, and it is not clear what aspects of Monnett's research or management work are still under scrutiny. Monnett's supporters say what's become known as "polarbeargate" is a witch hunt into a scientist whose research has political implications.

Investigators have repeatedly asked Monnett questions about his dead-polar-bear report. They have also asked about his contract management duties.

According to Monnett's legal team, investigators suggested he improperly steered a federal research contract to a polar bear scientist at the University of Alberta who gave him comments on his soon-to-be-famous dead-polar-bear report prior to its publication.

Also, in a letter to Monnett, an agent with the inspector general's office said that Monnett had admitted to helping the scientist prepare a proposal for the contract, then inappropriately served on a committee that reviewed that proposal.

Monnett's lawyers say he followed standard procedures at his office and that this sole-source contract was under negotiation long before the two scientists corresponded about Monnett's dead-polar-bear report.

Ruch says Monnett got a phone call on Thursday telling him to report back to his office and that the administrative leave is being suspended. "He thinks in some sense it is a vindication that they acted in undue haste," says Ruch.

However, Ruch says Monnett is concerned that he does not yet know what his duties will be upon his return.

Melissa Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, confirmed in an email that Monnett's administrative leave is coming to an end.

"He was informed that he will have no role in developing or managing contracts and will instead be in our environmental assessment division," Schwartz said in the email.

"The return of an employee to work does not suggest that future administrative actions cannot/will not be taken," Schwartz added. "Federal regulations create a presumption against lengthy administrative leaves. Lengthier administrative leaves are reserved for exceptional situations when all other options are considered insufficient to adequately protect the government's interests."

When he was placed on leave, Monnett had been managing approximately $50 million worth of government-funded studies, according to a complaint that his lawyers filed with the Department of the Interior last month.

That complaint alleged that Department of the Interior officials are guilty of scientific and scholarly misconduct because of their treatment of Monnett. An inquiry is being conducted into those allegations, according to a letter sent to Ruch by the Department of the Interior's scientific integrity officer.

Ruch said that Monnett is concerned about the continuing investigation: "The fact that he's been identified as the subject as an ongoing investigation is going to leave a shadow over him no matter what he does."

That complaint alleged that Department of the Interior officials are guilty of scientific and scholarly misconduct because of their treatment of Monnett. An inquiry is being conducted into those allegations, according to a letter sent to Ruch by the Department of the Interior's scientific integrity officer.

Ruch said that Monnett is concerned about the continuing investigation: "The fact that he's been identified as the subject as an ongoing investigation is going to leave a shadow over him no matter what he does."

movielib
08-25-11, 08:56 PM
That's why I try and stick to science sites (Most everything I got was from a biology journal) and why I try and post journals from the source and not cut-up by someone doing an opinion editorial (not you... you didn't to the hacking and misleading). I think I should also get a few bonus points for getting quotes from the author of the journal in question where she clearly states her opinion and posting the full abstracts without those pesky important parts cut out.

And case in point. I seriously can't make stuff like this up and why I stress ALWAYS going to the source.

I found the post you made in 2010. You pulled it word for word from here (there same site you just told me to use).

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N12/B2.php

Acidified Seawater's Effects on Coral Larvae and Polyps Reference
Suwa, R., Nakamura, M., Morita, M., Shimada, K., Iguchi, A., Sakai, K. and Suzuki, A. 2010. Effects of acidified seawater on early life stages of scleractinian corals (Genus Acropora). Fisheries Science 76: 93-99.

What was done
The authors employed controlled infusions of pure CO2 to create mean pH values of 8.03 ± 0.03, 7.64 ± 0.12 and 7.31 ± 0.11 (corresponding to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 400-475, 905-1660 and 2115-3585 ppm, respectively) in filtered seawater that flowed continuously through three sets of multiple tanks into which they had introduced the gametes of two Acropora coral species (A. digitifera and A. tenuis) they had collected during a natural spawning event, after which (seven days later) they determined their percent survival. Then, after ten more days, they documented the size of the developing polyps; and after 14 days they documented the percentage of polyps that had acquired zooxanthellae that the researchers had collected from the giant clam T. crocea and released into the several treatment tanks.

What was learned
Suwa et al. report that "A. digitifera larval survival rate did not differ significantly among pH treatments," and the graphs of their data indicate that survivorship in A. tenuis was actually about 18.5% greater in the lowest pH (highest CO2) treatment than in the ambient seawater treatment. At the end of the subsequent ten-day study, however, polyp size was reduced in the lowest pH treatment, but by only about 14%, which is not too bad for an atmospheric CO2 concentration in the range of 2115-3585 ppm. And in the A. tenuis coral, this reduction in individual size was more than compensated by the even greater percentage increase in survivorship. In addition, after only four days of being exposed to the zooxanthellae derived from giant clams, all polyps in all treatments had acquired a full complement of the symbiotic zooxanthella.

What it means
In discussing their findings, the seven scientists say they indicate that "the survival of coral larvae may not be strongly affected by pH change," or "in other words," as they continue, "coral larvae may be able to tolerate ambient pH decreases of at least 0.7 pH units," which, in fact, is something that will likely never occur, as it implies atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the range of 2115 to 3585 ppm. In addition, if such high concentrations ever were to occur, they would be a long, long time in coming, giving corals far more than sufficient time to acclimate -- and even evolve (Idso and Idso, 2009) -- to adequately cope with the slowly developing situation.

Reference
Idso, C.D. and Idso, S.B. 2009. CO2, Global Warming and Species Extinctions: Prospects for the Future. Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, Pueblo West, Colorado, USA, 132 p.

I'd like to show the "What it means" part clearly so I'm posting it again.

In discussing their findings, the seven scientists say they indicate that "the survival of coral larvae may not be strongly affected by pH change," or "in other words," as they continue, "coral larvae may be able to tolerate ambient pH decreases of at least 0.7 pH units," which, in fact, is something that will likely never occur, as it implies atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the range of 2115 to 3585 ppm. In addition, if such high concentrations ever were to occur, they would be a long, long time in coming, giving corals far more than sufficient time to acclimate -- and even evolve (Idso and Idso, 2009) -- to adequately cope with the slowly developing situation.

Look how many time they use bits of info to make a complete first sentence. The reason they did that was because they couldn't use the full abstract or it would sort of invalidate most everything they were trying pretend the article was saying. The article is clearly saying while the larvae itself survives, the research says "successful recruitment is impaired when metamorphosis is disrupted, despite larval survival." and that "metamorphosis rate significantly decreased under acidified seawater conditions after both short (2 h) and long (7 d) term exposure. These results imply that acidified seawater impacts larval physiology, suggesting that suppressed metabolism and metamorphosis may alter the dispersal potential of larvae and subsequently reduce the resilience of coral communities in the near future as the ocean pH decreases."


Here it it not butchered in the form of a complete abstract. I'll bold the good parts again just because they didn't want you to actually read them and for its delightful comic effect.

Ocean acidification may negatively impact the early life stages of some marine invertebrates including corals. Although reduced growth of juvenile corals in acidified seawater has been reported, coral larvae have been reported to demonstrate some level of tolerance to reduced pH. We hypothesize that the observed tolerance of coral larvae to low pH may be partly explained by reduced metabolic rates in acidified seawater because both calcifying and non-calcifying marine invertebrates could show metabolic depression under reduced pH in order to enhance their survival. In this study, after 3-d and 7-d exposure to three different pH levels (8.0, 7.6, and 7.3), we found that the oxygen consumption of Acropora digitifera larvae tended to be suppressed with reduced pH, although a statistically significant difference was not observed between pH conditions. Larval metamorphosis was also observed, confirming that successful recruitment is impaired when metamorphosis is disrupted, despite larval survival. Results also showed that the metamorphosis rate significantly decreased under acidified seawater conditions after both short (2 h) and long (7 d) term exposure. These results imply that acidified seawater impacts larval physiology, suggesting that suppressed metabolism and metamorphosis may alter the dispersal potential of larvae and subsequently reduce the resilience of coral communities in the near future as the ocean pH decreases.

And just to make sure I'm not taking anything out of context that the author didn't mean, I decided to email them in Japan with a link to http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N12/B2.php

I'll let you all know if they respond.
I did trust this site. It appears I was mistaken. I probably have been too eager to trust my side. I will endeavor to be more discerning and careful in the future.

Like everyone I do not like to admit to being wrong but I like to think I can do so.

I am going to email them with your findings and ask them to respond. I will let you know if they respond. If they can explain I expect they will.

This should all be very interesting.

movielib
08-26-11, 08:17 AM
You knew it would happen. Hurricane Irene blamed on global warming.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/25/hurricane-irene-can-be-tied-to-global-warming-says-bill-mckibben.html

Global Warming’s Heavy Cost
Aug 25, 2011 9:29 PM EDT
Hurricane Irene’s dangerous power can be traced to global warming says Bill McKibben—and Obama is at fault for his failed leadership on the environment.

Irene’s got a middle name, and it’s Global Warming.
If you want to read the dreary rest of it, go to the link. You can also find out all about McKibben and his friends being arrested for protesting the proposed Keystone Pipeline which would carry oil from the from the Canadian oil sands of Alberta to the US. Arrests are into the hundreds and include Margot Kidder.

With recent reports of ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) being at decades low numbers and with a hurricane not having gone ashore into the United States for more than 1000 days, it takes a lot of chutzpah to trumpet this storm in this way, even though it is unusual for a hurricane to take the path Irene is expected to take. But it's hardly unprecedented.

Upon reading McKibben's first words I was immediately taken back to Ross Gelbspan's bizarre 2005 article which began...:

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5444&method=full

Katrina's real name
By Ross Gelbspan
August 30, 2005

The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.

...and blamed global warming for everything that had happened around that time.

Give credit to McKibben for demoting global warming from being the "name" to only the "middle name."

BTW, where does the middle name of Irene go? Irglobalwarmingene?

CRM114
08-26-11, 09:08 AM
Environmental groups have talked starving nations from feeding their poor because of claims that "evil genetically modified" food will kill them all. They have their own agendas and wield a powerful sword for sure...

How does that dispute the fact that the lobbying dollars pales in dollars spent by giant corporations and industries? No one is disputing the environmentalist groups get things done but it's obvious who holds the real power in the nation's government.

Navinabob
08-26-11, 03:10 PM
How does that dispute the fact that the lobbying dollars pales in dollars spent by giant corporations and industries? No one is disputing the environmentalist groups get things done but it's obvious who holds the real power in the nation's government.

I'm not sure it does dispute anything really. My point wasn't so much to say you were wrong in saying that the corporate side has more cash & lobbiests (I've no idea), but only to mention that environmental groups certainly have some money and can wield tremendous influence of their own.

You use both the word "fact" and "obvious" as if you provided a fact (a number, a link, a article, a blog or even an educated guess) that would let us conclude something at face-value.

I'm not saying your point isn't 100% correct... I just have not seen any evidence yet to judge it.

Navinabob
08-26-11, 03:37 PM
You knew it would happen. Hurricane Irene blamed on global warming.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/25/hurricane-irene-can-be-tied-to-global-warming-says-bill-mckibben.html


If you want to read the dreary rest of it, go to the link. You can also find out all about McKibben and his friends being arrested for protesting the proposed Keystone Pipeline which would carry oil from the from the Canadian oil sands of Alberta to the US. Arrests are into the hundreds and include Margot Kidder.

With recent reports of ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) being at decades low numbers and with a hurricane not having gone ashore into the United States for more than 1000 days, it takes a lot of chutzpah to trumpet this storm in this way, even though it is unusual for a hurricane to take the path Irene is expected to take. But it's hardly unprecedented.

Upon reading McKibben's first words I was immediately taken back to Ross Gelbspan's bizarre 2005 article which began...:

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5444&method=full



...and blamed global warming for everything that had happened around that time.

Give credit to McKibben for demoting global warming from being the "name" to only the "middle name."

BTW, where does the middle name of Irene go? Irglobalwarmingene?

So he's basically an activist that writes books and collect "honorary degrees" that had a past life as a journalist? I think we can both agree this guy is basically worthless.

See, we can get back to common ground. :D

movielib
08-28-11, 11:10 AM
There is no doubt that Hurricane (now Tropical Storm) Irene (the first hurricane to make landfall in the US in 1075 or so days - the longest such period since the Civil War) is a major storm that is doing a huge amount of damage (partly because its path carries it over such a populated area). It has taken an unusual path although hardly unprecedented (and there have been far worse storms on this path, just not for quite awhile).

There is also no doubt that meteorologist Paul Douglas (Minneapolis) is a CAGW alarmist (for example, see http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/02/paul_douglas_us.php)

But Douglas thinks the media is hyping this storm way beyond its actual effect.

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/128532828.html

A Hurricane of Hype
Posted by: Paul Douglas Updated: August 27, 2011 - 3:20 PM

It's a hurricane, not Armageddon. Good grief. A Category 1 storm, you'd think "Irene" was the worst storm America has ever endured. It will cause more problems along the East Coast, but it will be closer to a severe winter nor'easter than anything even remotely similar to Katrina in 2005. Low-lying areas from coastal Delaware to New Jersey, Long Island and metro New York City may flood, a storm surge of 2-4 feet possible. Friday night I heard some alleged "experts" talking about a 6-12 foot storm surge. Say what? That's just irresponsible (hype). Sometimes I think cable networks are more interested in showing off their reporters and weather toys than conveying some sense of perspective to viewers. Irene will be remembered at the Hype-a-cane of 2011.

...

Hurricane of Hype

Everyone wants to err on the side of caution and keeping people safe. I get that. But some of the stuff I heard Friday night on the national media made me a little crazy. An 8-12 ft. storm surge at New York Harbor? Not even close. "Storm of the Century?" Nope. The result? "Weather "experts" are crying wolf!" Apathy sets in, which could be tragic the next time a (real) monster-storm churns up the East Coast.

And can we stop with the reporters on the beach, reminding us that it's windy? They urge viewers to evacuate, yet there they are, clinging to light poles, incoherent above the wailing winds.

Really?

Any hurricane is a big deal, but Irene hits Long Island today as a Category 1 storm, capable of a 2-4 foot storm surge in New York Harbor. Expect lowland flooding, but this will NOT be the "Big One".

Meanwhile, back here in (hurricane-free) fly-over country a pretty nice Sunday is shaping up: partly sunny with only an isolated T-shower. More numerous T-storms are possible late Monday into midweek as temperatures mellow into the 80s. No all-day rains in sight, no 90s looking out 2 weeks.

Summer is mellowing nicely; the worst of the heat, humidity & severe storms behind us.
I've been watching Fox News the last few days and even it has no sense of perspective on this. Whatever gets viewers, right?

Bill Needle
08-28-11, 07:53 PM
Douglas is a running joke in the area due to his incessant alarmism on anything weather related (snowmageddon, snowpocalypse, snownami have all been coined at his expense), so this is notable. Then again, if it was making landfall in South Minneapolis he might have jumped right aboard the hyper-storm bandwagon.

JasonF
08-28-11, 09:43 PM
But Douglas thinks the media is hyping this storm way beyond its actual effect.

It was something that was going to affect New York City. Of course the media was paying disproportionate attention to it.

Navinabob
08-29-11, 06:45 PM
This is likely the most honest account of Global Warming I've ever stumbled upon. Its from a Libertarian think-tank called the Reason Foundation and the journey one of a prominent Climate Skeptic expert, their Science Correspondent, who became a non-alarmist believer. It discusses both the liberal notion of an "evil Exxon" conspiracy and the conservative "no consensus of global warming"

Honestly it should be a sticky as the first thread in here. It is long, but well worth the read.

Here is his bio, showing his science reporting and climate skeptic credentials.

http://reason.com/people/ronald-bailey/all


Science Correspondent

Ronald Bailey is the award-winning science correspondent for Reason magazine and Reason.com, where he writes a weekly science and technology column.

Bailey is the author of the book Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution (Prometheus, 2005), and his work was featured in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004.

In 2006, Bailey was shortlisted by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the personalities who have made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology in the last 10 years.

From 1987 to 1990, Bailey was a staff writer for Forbes magazine, covering economic, scientific and business topics. His articles and reviews have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Commentary, The Public Interest, Smithsonian, TechCentralStation, National Review, Reader's Digest and many other publications.

Prior to joining Reason in 1997, Bailey produced several weekly national public television series including Think Tank and TechnoPolitics, as well as several documentaries for PBS television and ABC News. In 1993, he was the Warren T. Brookes Fellow in Environmental Journalism at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Bailey won a 2004 Southern California Journalism Award for best magazine feature for his story, "The Battle For Your Brain," which delved into the ethical and political conflicts over new brain enhancement technologies. In 2005, Bailey won a first place Southern California Journalism Award for best online commentary for his series on creationism, "Creation Summer Camp."

Bailey is the editor of several books, including Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death (Prima Publishing, 2002), Earth Report 2000: Revisiting The True State of The Planet (McGraw Hill, 1999), and The True State of the Planet (The Free Press, 1995). He is the author of ECOSCAM: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (St. Martins Press, 1993).

Bailey has appeared on numerous television and radio programs, including the NBC Nightly News, PBS' Newshour, several National Public Radio programs, and various C-SPAN programs. He has lectured at Harvard University, Yale University, Morehouse University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, the University of Virginia, and many other places.

In 2004, Bailey testified before a congressional committee on "The Impact of Science on Public Policy."

He is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities.

Bailey lives in Washington, DC, and Charlottesville, Virginia, with his wife Pamela.

Here is the great article

http://reason.com/archives/2006/09/22/confessions-of-an-alleged-exxo

Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore
Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming. Or anything else.

Ronald Bailey | September 22, 2006

"Exxon Misleads on Climate Change," according to Reuters earlier this week. The story, headlined around the globe, was based on a letter sent by the British Royal Society to the oil giant ExxonMobil accusing it of funding groups that misinform the public about the reality of man-made global warming. The prestigious Royal Society is the world's oldest scientific organization. The letter is from Bob Ward, the Society's senior manager for policy communication. Apparently speaking on behalf of the Society, Ward expresses his "disappointment at the inaccurate and misleading view of climate change" conveyed by an ExxonMobil's 2005 Corporate Citizenship report. Ward also says that he did a quick analysis of public policy organizations listed in ExxonMobil's 2005 Worldwide Corporate Giving report and found that "25 offered views consistent with the scientific literature" whereas Ward says he found 39 groups featuring information that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

It's safe to say that Ward may count the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason magazine and Reason Online as one of the 39 groups that he believes misleads the public on the issue of climate change. If that's the case, then at least some of the information that Ward says "misrepresents" climate change science may be past articles written by me. So the question is: Why did I do it? Did ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond hand me brown paper bags filled with stacks of unmarked bills in the back of taxis while whispering, "Ron, we're counting on your widely read and highly influential articles to help stave off the Green onslaught against our soaring profits"? Or was I a simple-minded dupe, passing along misinformation supplied to me during expensive lunches at the Palm by corrupt scientists who had been paid off by the oil giant? Or perhaps I am just generally skeptical of end-of-the-world scenarios and believe, as Carl Sagan famously did, that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

I have been Reason's science correspondent for nearly eight years now. Well before I joined the magazine, I had been reporting and opining on environmental science and policy issues for various publications and as a producer of a number of national PBS television series. As far as I can tell my first published expression of skepticism with regard to catastrophic global warming was in a review of environmentalist Bill McKibben's The End of Nature that I wrote as a staff writer for Forbes magazine in October, 1989 (unfortunately not available online). In that review, I noted that NASA climate modeler James Hansen had testified before Congress a year earlier that he had detected global warming. In my review, I noted, "Hansen is a reputable scientist, but his views are by no means universally accepted." I then quoted a number of climatologists who were skeptical of man-made global warming including MIT's Richard Lindzen and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's Andrew Solow. Lindzen told me at the time, "We have no evidence whatsoever that greenhouse warming has begun." (Lindzen is still skeptical of catastrophic man-made global warming.) I would talk with them and many other climate scientists over the next decade and half as I continued to cover this issue.

My next prominent foray into the topic was Chapter 9, "The Sky is Falling," in my book Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (1993). Among much lengthy discussion of the science and politics of climate change, I noted that the satellite record temperature showed warming of 0.06 degrees Celsius per decade, which was one-fifth the 0.3 degrees per decade rate projected by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's First Assessment Report in 1990. The satellite data comes from climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville who would become my go-to guys on the subject. As will become evident below, I tend to trust empirical data over computer models.

In 1993, I accepted the offer to become the first Warren Brookes Fellow in Environmental Journalism at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). CEI allowed me several months to do research for a technology policy book that unfortunately I was never able to finish. However, this established a fruitful relationship in which I eventually became the editor of a number of volumes on environmental policy and science with CEI. The idea was to offer good scientific evidence and policy prescriptions in contrast with the environmental alarmism and misinformation being propounded in the Worldwatch Institute's annual State of the World reports. Each volume contained chapters dealing with global trends in population, food, forest area, air pollution, fisheries, and so forth. The deal basically was that CEI paid me a fixed amount and I found and got final say on all the authors and that CEI could not edit what they had to say. I found commercial publishers for each volume.

Naturally each book contained a chapter on the issue of man-made global warming. The first book is The True State of the Planet (Free Press, 1995). The global warming chapter was written by University of Arizona climatologist Robert Balling. The chapter relied heavily on the satellite data which found that the atmosphere had cooled by a statistically significant -0.13 degrees Celsius since 1979. Adjusting for the cooling that resulted from the explosion of Mount Pinatubo that had propelled tons of sulfur particles to stratosphere, Christy calculated a slight warming trend of +0.09 degrees Celsius per decade. This was much less than the models were projecting.

The next volume, Earth Report 2000 (McGraw-Hill, 2000) contained a chapter on global warming by Roy Spencer who was then the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Spencer pointed out that recently corrected satellite data found a slight warming trend of +0.01 degrees per decade between 1979 and 1997 and when one included the very warm El Nino year of 1998, the trend rose to +0.06 degrees per decade. This trend was only one-fourth the per - decade trend predicted by the models. Spencer added that various weather balloon temperature datasets showed a cooling trend of between -0.07 and -0.2 degrees per decade.

In 2002 came Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (Prima Publishing). The global warming contributor was University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy who is also the principal investigator for the satellite temperature measurements. Christy pointed out, "Since 1979, the global temperature trend is a modest +0.06 degrees Celsius per decade through March 2002." The myth about global warming was not that it was not happening, but that it was unlikely to be catastrophic for humanity or the planet. Christy concluded: "No global warming disaster is looming. Humans are causing an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which will likely cause a very slow rise in global temperatures with which we can easily cope."

So there was a contradiction in climate science. The models projected and the surface thermometer records were showing significant warming. On the other hand, the satellite dataset and various weather balloon datasets showed only very modest warming. Which was right? In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report at the request of the Bush Administration that found that a lot of proxy data indicated that warming was taking place. However, the NAS also noted that the divergence between the satellite data and the thermometer data was troubling. "The finding that surface and troposphere temperature trends have been as different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere," declared the report. The NAS added, "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established."

Given this divergence in the various temperature records, climate scientists naturally spent a lot of time and intellectual energy in trying to explain it. In August 2005, Science magazine published three papers that went a long way toward resolving the issue. One paper found that Christy and Spencer had failed to take proper account of satellite drift, which produced a spurious cooling trend to their dataset. Another found that the operation of weather balloons also tended to add spurious cooling to their data. When the corrections were made the satellite and weather balloon datasets were in better agreement with the surface thermometer datasets that showed higher warming trends.

On the day that the studies were released I wrote a column for Reason in which I declared that my skepticism of man-made global warming was at an end. The column was titled, "We're All Global Warmers Now." The first line read: "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up." The bottom line? Christy and Spencer's corrected dataset finds warming of +0.123 degrees per decade. The corrected balloon data tend to support Christy and Spencer. However, the scientific team that found the errors in the satellite data corrects it to find warming of +0.193 degrees per decade. And the surface measurements show a warming trend of 0.15 degrees per decade. In the column, I quote Christy saying, "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming."

Then in May 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report of which John Christy was a co-author that further reconciled the differences in temperature trends. The report found that "global-average temperature increased at a rate of about 0.12 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.16 degrees C per decade since 1979. In the tropics, temperature increased at about 0.11 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.13 degrees C per decade since 1979." I blogged the report at Reason ' s Hit & Run the day the report was issued. I also noted that Christy told the Washington Post that he has a "minimalist interpretation" of the report because Earth is not heating up rapidly at this point.

Just to bring my intellectual journey in reporting and opining about the global warming issue up to date, I reviewed former vice-president Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth for Reason. I agreed that Gore has "won the climate debate" and that "on balance Gore gets it more right than wrong on the science" though I argued he exaggerates just how bad future global warming is likely to be. However, I agree that the balance of the evidence pretty clearly indicates that humanity is contributing to global warming chiefly by means of loading up the atmosphere with extra carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

ExxonMobil has been a supporter of the Reason Foundation. Folks at the foundation confirmed when I called yesterday that the company has donated a little over $250,000 since 2000. The company's latest contributions were $10,000 in 2003 and $20,000 this past January. The last contribution poses a possible conundrum for hard-line corporate conspiracy theorists because it arrived about five months after I declared, "We're All Global Warmers Now." I would suggest that ExxonMobil supports the Reason Foundation because my colleagues robustly defend the free enterprise system. "Follow the money" is often pretty good advice when evaluating the source of information, but in the think tank and public policy magazine realm money tends follow opinion, rather than the other way around.

As further disclosure, I have worked with various organizations that I am told have also received grants from ExxonMobil, including CEI and the online publication TCSDaily (formerly TechCentralStation). At no time did anyone at those organizations ask me to change any of my reporting on global warming science or policy (or any other reporting on other topics for that matter). Back in the early 1990s, someone (whose name I have long forgotten) at Exxon asked me to write an article on global warming for the company's in-house magazine for $5,000. I absolutely refused. Finally, with regard to disclosure, I should mention that I own 50 shares of ExxonMobil that I bought on the advice of my stockbroker wife in October 2002 for $34.53 per share. I am happy to report that her advice was sound--those shares are going for about $64.00 today.

So if corporate shilling doesn't explain my stubborn skepticism about global warming, what does? Looking back over my reporting on the issue, I would argue the consistent theme is my reliance on temperature datasets as a way to either validate or invalidate the projections of computer climate models. Up until the last year or so, the satellite data and weather balloon data pointed to relatively modest global warming much below the trends predicted by most climate models. If those trends were correct then there was no imminent "planetary emergency." When the trends were shown to be incorrect last year, I "converted" into a global warmer. In the past year, a great deal of new evidence-reductions in arctic ice cover, growing Siberian lakes and so forth--has also tended to confirm the conclusion in my mind that man-made global warming may become a problem. Because of this accumulating evidence I am much less certain than Christy and Spencer are that the future warming is unlikely to be a significant problem.

And then there is also the matter of my intellectual commitments. We all have them. Since I work for a self-described libertarian magazine that should indicate to even the dimmest reader that I tend to have a healthy skepticism of government "solutions" to problems, including government solutions to environmental problems. I have long argued that the evidence shows that most environmental problems occur in open access commons-that is, people pollute air, rivers, overfish, cut rainforests, and so forth because no one owns them and therefore no one has an interest in protecting them. One can solve environmental problems caused by open access situations by either privatizing the commons or regulating it. It will not surprise anyone that I generally favor privatization. That's because I believe that the overwhelming balance of the evidence shows that centralized top-down regulation tends to be costly, slow, often ineffective, and highly politicized. As a skeptic of government action, I had hoped that the scientific evidence would lead to the conclusion that global warming would not be much of a problem, so that humanity could avoid the messy and highly politicized process of deciding what to do about it. Unhappily, I now believe that balance of evidence shows that global warming could well be a significant problem. Since it doesn't seem pertinent to the purpose of this column, I will leave the policy discussion of how to handle man-made climate change to another time.

So I didn't get any stacks of $20 dollar bills in brown paper bags from ExxonMobil (don't believe any photoshopped pictures you may see to the contrary). I also don't think that I was duped by paid-off scientists. Except for climatologist Robert Balling, as the embedded links above show, the sleuths at Exxonsecrets have uncovered no payments to the scientists I chiefly relied upon in my reporting over the years. But was I too skeptical, demanding too much evidence or ignoring evidence that cut against what I wanted to believe? Perhaps. In hindsight I can only plead that there is no magic formula for deciding when enough evidence has accumulated that a fair-minded person must change his or her mind on a controversial scientific issue. With regard to global warming it finally did for me in the last year. That was far too late for many and still too early for others. However, I can't resist pointing out that I became a "convert" on global warming nearly a year before some other prominent journalistic skeptics such as Gregg Easterbrook and Michael Shermer changed their minds.

So then not a whore, just virtuously wrong. Looking to the future, I can't promise that my reporting will always be right (no reporter can, but I will strive to make it so), but my reporting has always been honest and I promise that it always will be.

movielib
08-29-11, 07:48 PM
This is likely the most honest account of Global Warming I've ever stumbled upon. Its from a Libertarian think-tank called the Reason Foundation and the journey one of a prominent Climate Skeptic expert, their Science Correspondent, who became a non-alarmist believer. It discusses both the liberal notion of an "evil Exxon" conspiracy and the conservative "no consensus of global warming"

Honestly it should be a sticky as the first thread in here. It is long, but well worth the read.

Here is his bio, showing his science reporting and climate skeptic credentials.

http://reason.com/people/ronald-bailey/all


Science Correspondent

Ronald Bailey is the award-winning science correspondent for Reason magazine and Reason.com, where he writes a weekly science and technology column.

Bailey is the author of the book Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution (Prometheus, 2005), and his work was featured in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004.

In 2006, Bailey was shortlisted by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the personalities who have made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology in the last 10 years.

From 1987 to 1990, Bailey was a staff writer for Forbes magazine, covering economic, scientific and business topics. His articles and reviews have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Commentary, The Public Interest, Smithsonian, TechCentralStation, National Review, Reader's Digest and many other publications.

Prior to joining Reason in 1997, Bailey produced several weekly national public television series including Think Tank and TechnoPolitics, as well as several documentaries for PBS television and ABC News. In 1993, he was the Warren T. Brookes Fellow in Environmental Journalism at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Bailey won a 2004 Southern California Journalism Award for best magazine feature for his story, "The Battle For Your Brain," which delved into the ethical and political conflicts over new brain enhancement technologies. In 2005, Bailey won a first place Southern California Journalism Award for best online commentary for his series on creationism, "Creation Summer Camp."

Bailey is the editor of several books, including Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death (Prima Publishing, 2002), Earth Report 2000: Revisiting The True State of The Planet (McGraw Hill, 1999), and The True State of the Planet (The Free Press, 1995). He is the author of ECOSCAM: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (St. Martins Press, 1993).

Bailey has appeared on numerous television and radio programs, including the NBC Nightly News, PBS' Newshour, several National Public Radio programs, and various C-SPAN programs. He has lectured at Harvard University, Yale University, Morehouse University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, the University of Virginia, and many other places.

In 2004, Bailey testified before a congressional committee on "The Impact of Science on Public Policy."

He is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities.

Bailey lives in Washington, DC, and Charlottesville, Virginia, with his wife Pamela.

Here is the great article

http://reason.com/archives/2006/09/22/confessions-of-an-alleged-exxo

Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore
Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming. Or anything else.

Ronald Bailey | September 22, 2006

"Exxon Misleads on Climate Change," according to Reuters earlier this week. The story, headlined around the globe, was based on a letter sent by the British Royal Society to the oil giant ExxonMobil accusing it of funding groups that misinform the public about the reality of man-made global warming. The prestigious Royal Society is the world's oldest scientific organization. The letter is from Bob Ward, the Society's senior manager for policy communication. Apparently speaking on behalf of the Society, Ward expresses his "disappointment at the inaccurate and misleading view of climate change" conveyed by an ExxonMobil's 2005 Corporate Citizenship report. Ward also says that he did a quick analysis of public policy organizations listed in ExxonMobil's 2005 Worldwide Corporate Giving report and found that "25 offered views consistent with the scientific literature" whereas Ward says he found 39 groups featuring information that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

It's safe to say that Ward may count the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason magazine and Reason Online as one of the 39 groups that he believes misleads the public on the issue of climate change. If that's the case, then at least some of the information that Ward says "misrepresents" climate change science may be past articles written by me. So the question is: Why did I do it? Did ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond hand me brown paper bags filled with stacks of unmarked bills in the back of taxis while whispering, "Ron, we're counting on your widely read and highly influential articles to help stave off the Green onslaught against our soaring profits"? Or was I a simple-minded dupe, passing along misinformation supplied to me during expensive lunches at the Palm by corrupt scientists who had been paid off by the oil giant? Or perhaps I am just generally skeptical of end-of-the-world scenarios and believe, as Carl Sagan famously did, that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

I have been Reason's science correspondent for nearly eight years now. Well before I joined the magazine, I had been reporting and opining on environmental science and policy issues for various publications and as a producer of a number of national PBS television series. As far as I can tell my first published expression of skepticism with regard to catastrophic global warming was in a review of environmentalist Bill McKibben's The End of Nature that I wrote as a staff writer for Forbes magazine in October, 1989 (unfortunately not available online). In that review, I noted that NASA climate modeler James Hansen had testified before Congress a year earlier that he had detected global warming. In my review, I noted, "Hansen is a reputable scientist, but his views are by no means universally accepted." I then quoted a number of climatologists who were skeptical of man-made global warming including MIT's Richard Lindzen and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's Andrew Solow. Lindzen told me at the time, "We have no evidence whatsoever that greenhouse warming has begun." (Lindzen is still skeptical of catastrophic man-made global warming.) I would talk with them and many other climate scientists over the next decade and half as I continued to cover this issue.

My next prominent foray into the topic was Chapter 9, "The Sky is Falling," in my book Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (1993). Among much lengthy discussion of the science and politics of climate change, I noted that the satellite record temperature showed warming of 0.06 degrees Celsius per decade, which was one-fifth the 0.3 degrees per decade rate projected by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's First Assessment Report in 1990. The satellite data comes from climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville who would become my go-to guys on the subject. As will become evident below, I tend to trust empirical data over computer models.

In 1993, I accepted the offer to become the first Warren Brookes Fellow in Environmental Journalism at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). CEI allowed me several months to do research for a technology policy book that unfortunately I was never able to finish. However, this established a fruitful relationship in which I eventually became the editor of a number of volumes on environmental policy and science with CEI. The idea was to offer good scientific evidence and policy prescriptions in contrast with the environmental alarmism and misinformation being propounded in the Worldwatch Institute's annual State of the World reports. Each volume contained chapters dealing with global trends in population, food, forest area, air pollution, fisheries, and so forth. The deal basically was that CEI paid me a fixed amount and I found and got final say on all the authors and that CEI could not edit what they had to say. I found commercial publishers for each volume.

Naturally each book contained a chapter on the issue of man-made global warming. The first book is The True State of the Planet (Free Press, 1995). The global warming chapter was written by University of Arizona climatologist Robert Balling. The chapter relied heavily on the satellite data which found that the atmosphere had cooled by a statistically significant -0.13 degrees Celsius since 1979. Adjusting for the cooling that resulted from the explosion of Mount Pinatubo that had propelled tons of sulfur particles to stratosphere, Christy calculated a slight warming trend of +0.09 degrees Celsius per decade. This was much less than the models were projecting.

The next volume, Earth Report 2000 (McGraw-Hill, 2000) contained a chapter on global warming by Roy Spencer who was then the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Spencer pointed out that recently corrected satellite data found a slight warming trend of +0.01 degrees per decade between 1979 and 1997 and when one included the very warm El Nino year of 1998, the trend rose to +0.06 degrees per decade. This trend was only one-fourth the per - decade trend predicted by the models. Spencer added that various weather balloon temperature datasets showed a cooling trend of between -0.07 and -0.2 degrees per decade.

In 2002 came Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (Prima Publishing). The global warming contributor was University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy who is also the principal investigator for the satellite temperature measurements. Christy pointed out, "Since 1979, the global temperature trend is a modest +0.06 degrees Celsius per decade through March 2002." The myth about global warming was not that it was not happening, but that it was unlikely to be catastrophic for humanity or the planet. Christy concluded: "No global warming disaster is looming. Humans are causing an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which will likely cause a very slow rise in global temperatures with which we can easily cope."

So there was a contradiction in climate science. The models projected and the surface thermometer records were showing significant warming. On the other hand, the satellite dataset and various weather balloon datasets showed only very modest warming. Which was right? In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report at the request of the Bush Administration that found that a lot of proxy data indicated that warming was taking place. However, the NAS also noted that the divergence between the satellite data and the thermometer data was troubling. "The finding that surface and troposphere temperature trends have been as different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere," declared the report. The NAS added, "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established."

Given this divergence in the various temperature records, climate scientists naturally spent a lot of time and intellectual energy in trying to explain it. In August 2005, Science magazine published three papers that went a long way toward resolving the issue. One paper found that Christy and Spencer had failed to take proper account of satellite drift, which produced a spurious cooling trend to their dataset. Another found that the operation of weather balloons also tended to add spurious cooling to their data. When the corrections were made the satellite and weather balloon datasets were in better agreement with the surface thermometer datasets that showed higher warming trends.

On the day that the studies were released I wrote a column for Reason in which I declared that my skepticism of man-made global warming was at an end. The column was titled, "We're All Global Warmers Now." The first line read: "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up." The bottom line? Christy and Spencer's corrected dataset finds warming of +0.123 degrees per decade. The corrected balloon data tend to support Christy and Spencer. However, the scientific team that found the errors in the satellite data corrects it to find warming of +0.193 degrees per decade. And the surface measurements show a warming trend of 0.15 degrees per decade. In the column, I quote Christy saying, "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming."

Then in May 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report of which John Christy was a co-author that further reconciled the differences in temperature trends. The report found that "global-average temperature increased at a rate of about 0.12 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.16 degrees C per decade since 1979. In the tropics, temperature increased at about 0.11 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.13 degrees C per decade since 1979." I blogged the report at Reason ' s Hit & Run the day the report was issued. I also noted that Christy told the Washington Post that he has a "minimalist interpretation" of the report because Earth is not heating up rapidly at this point.

Just to bring my intellectual journey in reporting and opining about the global warming issue up to date, I reviewed former vice-president Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth for Reason. I agreed that Gore has "won the climate debate" and that "on balance Gore gets it more right than wrong on the science" though I argued he exaggerates just how bad future global warming is likely to be. However, I agree that the balance of the evidence pretty clearly indicates that humanity is contributing to global warming chiefly by means of loading up the atmosphere with extra carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

ExxonMobil has been a supporter of the Reason Foundation. Folks at the foundation confirmed when I called yesterday that the company has donated a little over $250,000 since 2000. The company's latest contributions were $10,000 in 2003 and $20,000 this past January. The last contribution poses a possible conundrum for hard-line corporate conspiracy theorists because it arrived about five months after I declared, "We're All Global Warmers Now." I would suggest that ExxonMobil supports the Reason Foundation because my colleagues robustly defend the free enterprise system. "Follow the money" is often pretty good advice when evaluating the source of information, but in the think tank and public policy magazine realm money tends follow opinion, rather than the other way around.

As further disclosure, I have worked with various organizations that I am told have also received grants from ExxonMobil, including CEI and the online publication TCSDaily (formerly TechCentralStation). At no time did anyone at those organizations ask me to change any of my reporting on global warming science or policy (or any other reporting on other topics for that matter). Back in the early 1990s, someone (whose name I have long forgotten) at Exxon asked me to write an article on global warming for the company's in-house magazine for $5,000. I absolutely refused. Finally, with regard to disclosure, I should mention that I own 50 shares of ExxonMobil that I bought on the advice of my stockbroker wife in October 2002 for $34.53 per share. I am happy to report that her advice was sound--those shares are going for about $64.00 today.

So if corporate shilling doesn't explain my stubborn skepticism about global warming, what does? Looking back over my reporting on the issue, I would argue the consistent theme is my reliance on temperature datasets as a way to either validate or invalidate the projections of computer climate models. Up until the last year or so, the satellite data and weather balloon data pointed to relatively modest global warming much below the trends predicted by most climate models. If those trends were correct then there was no imminent "planetary emergency." When the trends were shown to be incorrect last year, I "converted" into a global warmer. In the past year, a great deal of new evidence-reductions in arctic ice cover, growing Siberian lakes and so forth--has also tended to confirm the conclusion in my mind that man-made global warming may become a problem. Because of this accumulating evidence I am much less certain than Christy and Spencer are that the future warming is unlikely to be a significant problem.

And then there is also the matter of my intellectual commitments. We all have them. Since I work for a self-described libertarian magazine that should indicate to even the dimmest reader that I tend to have a healthy skepticism of government "solutions" to problems, including government solutions to environmental problems. I have long argued that the evidence shows that most environmental problems occur in open access commons-that is, people pollute air, rivers, overfish, cut rainforests, and so forth because no one owns them and therefore no one has an interest in protecting them. One can solve environmental problems caused by open access situations by either privatizing the commons or regulating it. It will not surprise anyone that I generally favor privatization. That's because I believe that the overwhelming balance of the evidence shows that centralized top-down regulation tends to be costly, slow, often ineffective, and highly politicized. As a skeptic of government action, I had hoped that the scientific evidence would lead to the conclusion that global warming would not be much of a problem, so that humanity could avoid the messy and highly politicized process of deciding what to do about it. Unhappily, I now believe that balance of evidence shows that global warming could well be a significant problem. Since it doesn't seem pertinent to the purpose of this column, I will leave the policy discussion of how to handle man-made climate change to another time.

So I didn't get any stacks of $20 dollar bills in brown paper bags from ExxonMobil (don't believe any photoshopped pictures you may see to the contrary). I also don't think that I was duped by paid-off scientists. Except for climatologist Robert Balling, as the embedded links above show, the sleuths at Exxonsecrets have uncovered no payments to the scientists I chiefly relied upon in my reporting over the years. But was I too skeptical, demanding too much evidence or ignoring evidence that cut against what I wanted to believe? Perhaps. In hindsight I can only plead that there is no magic formula for deciding when enough evidence has accumulated that a fair-minded person must change his or her mind on a controversial scientific issue. With regard to global warming it finally did for me in the last year. That was far too late for many and still too early for others. However, I can't resist pointing out that I became a "convert" on global warming nearly a year before some other prominent journalistic skeptics such as Gregg Easterbrook and Michael Shermer changed their minds.

So then not a whore, just virtuously wrong. Looking to the future, I can't promise that my reporting will always be right (no reporter can, but I will strive to make it so), but my reporting has always been honest and I promise that it always will be.
I have been a Reason subscriber since 1980 and I have read Bailey for years, his articles and his books. I have great admiration for him and I have agreed with him most of the time throughout the years. I know about his "conversion" (which was rather mild) but I don't agree with it.

Please note that his article was written almost five years ago and a lot has happened since then.

Navinabob
08-29-11, 08:09 PM
I have been a Reason subscriber since 1980 and I have read Bailey for years, his articles and his books. I have great admiration for him and I have agreed with him most of the time throughout the years. I know about his "conversion" (which was rather mild) but I don't agree with it.

Please note that his article was written almost five years ago and a lot has happened since then.

It was just a well written piece that was a great snap-shot of 2006. His points on Exxon had a ring of truth that I was hoping JasonF's might get some insight from. It's also a good summary of the debate up until 2006 written in a rather fair way (yes, just his opinion... but an rather educated one).

I bookmarked his blogs and I plan on catching up with his work in the next few weeks or so.

JasonF
08-29-11, 10:08 PM
It was just a well written piece that was a great snap-shot of 2006. His points on Exxon had a ring of truth that I was hoping JasonF's might get some insight from.

I think you've got me confused with CRM. I don't think there's any sort of malicious quid pro quo going on. I think people gravitate to organizations that coincide with their preconceptions (on both sides of this debate, and others). I also think corporations support those institutions that align with their goals -- not out of a desire to corrupt the process, but because they want to further those interests. So I've never thought that any but a tiny, tiny minority of skeptic scientists are corrupt and looking for an industry payoff (nor do I think any but a tiny, tiny minority of global warming scientists are corrupt as well, though to hear some people tell it, global warming is all a big money-making scheme for Al Gore).

Now, what I do think happens -- on both sides -- is that people get entrenched in their positions and so heavily invested in them that they lose the ability to see that they might be wrong. Not because they are corrupt, but because they are human, and people generally don't like to rethink things ideas and concepts that they have internalized. And for that reason -- because Bailey was willing to take a step back and rethink his positions, and in a way that probably did not make him popular with his peers -- I did find his article to be very interesting and well worth reading. Thanks for posting it.

DVD Polizei
08-29-11, 10:19 PM
Not to belittle Global Warming (as I am about to die in a few days from it according the latest scientific reports)...but Margot Kidder is still alive? No way!

Navinabob
08-29-11, 10:24 PM
I think you've got me confused with CRM. I don't think there's any sort of malicious quid pro quo going on. I think people gravitate to organizations that coincide with their preconceptions (on both sides of this debate, and others). I also think corporations support those institutions that align with their goals -- not out of a desire to corrupt the process, but because they want to further those interests. So I've never thought that any but a tiny, tiny minority of skeptic scientists are corrupt and looking for an industry payoff (nor do I think any but a tiny, tiny minority of global warming scientists are corrupt as well, though to hear some people tell it, global warming is all a big money-making scheme for Al Gore).

Now, what I do think happens -- on both sides -- is that people get entrenched in their positions and so heavily invested in them that they lose the ability to see that they might be wrong. Not because they are corrupt, but because they are human, and people generally don't like to rethink things ideas and concepts that they have internalized. And for that reason -- because Bailey was willing to take a step back and rethink his positions, and in a way that probably did not make him popular with his peers -- I did find his article to be very interesting and well worth reading. Thanks for posting it.

Sorry, yeah... I got posts mixed up. I didn't mean any harm.

JasonF
08-30-11, 01:42 AM
Sorry, yeah... I got posts mixed up. I didn't mean any harm.

No worries!

focker
08-30-11, 05:26 AM
I'm also a big fan of Reason and Ron Bailey. I'm still probably more skeptical than he is on global warming, but it's refreshing to see someone who seems open to accepting whatever conclusions are best supported by the data, rather than constantly trying to shove square pegs into round holes as many on both sides of the debate seem prone to do.

orangecrush
08-30-11, 10:37 AM
It was just a well written piece that was a great snap-shot of 2006. His points on Exxon had a ring of truth that I was hoping JasonF's might get some insight from. It's also a good summary of the debate up until 2006 written in a rather fair way (yes, just his opinion... but an rather educated one).

I bookmarked his blogs and I plan on catching up with his work in the next few weeks or so.I thought it was a good read and good reminder that in general, it is easy to ascribe movites to anyone that are often offbase.

Navinabob
08-30-11, 06:04 PM
Some new research supporting the revised hockey-stick model from two different journals. Both in the top 20 in Geophysics (impact ratings mid 3).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012603.shtml

We present a reconstruction of tropical South American temperature anomalies over the last ∼1600 years. The reconstruction is based on a highly resolved and carefully dated ammonium record from an ice core that was drilled in 1999 on Nevado Illimani in the eastern Bolivian Andes. Concerning the relevant processes governing the observed correlation between ammonium concentrations and temperature anomalies, we discuss anthropogenic emissions, biomass burning, and precipitation changes but clearly favor a temperature-dependent source strength of the vegetation in the Amazon Basin. That given, the reconstruction reveals that Medieval Warm Period– and Little Ice Age–type episodes are distinguishable in tropical South America, a region for which until now only very limited temperature proxy data have been available. For the time period from about 1050 to 1300 AD, our reconstruction shows relatively warm conditions that are followed by cooler conditions from the 15th to the 18th century, when temperatures dropped by up to 0.6°C below the 1961–1990 average. The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last ∼1600 years.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044771.shtml

The impact of human activities on Earth's climate is still subject to debate and the pattern of a sharp recent global temperature increase contrasting with much lesser variable temperatures during preceding centuries has often been challenged, partly due to the lack of unquestionable evidence. In this paper, oxygen isotope compositions of benthic foraminifer shells recovered from sediments of the Lower St. Lawrence Estuary and the Gulf are used to reconstruct temperature changes in a water mass originating from ∼400 m deep North Atlantic waters. The data demonstrate that the 1.7 ± 0.3°C warming measured during the last century corresponds to a δ18O shift of 0.4 ± 0.05‰, encompassing the temperature effect and related change in the isotopic composition of the corresponding water mass. In contrast, δ18O values remained nearly constant over the last millennium, except for a small positive shift which we attribute to the Little Ice Age. We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.

wishbone
08-30-11, 06:32 PM
Say it ain't so Al...Al Gore compares climate change skeptics to racists
Posted on 08.28.11
By Andrew Jones

Al Gore continued his criticism of climate change skeptics in an interview with Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky on UStream, going as far as to compare them to the racists of the 20th century.

“There came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural,” Gore said. “Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won. We have to win the conversation on climate.”

When asked by Bogusky about Rick Perry’s recent comments against climate change, Gore focused on not just the Texas governor, but the entire anti-science movement.

“This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money,” Gore said.

“These scientists don’t make a lot of money. They’re comfortable as they should be, but they don’t make a lot of money. It’s not in their nature to get ready to constantly defend themselves against political attacks. That’s not want they expected to be doing in their lives.”

WATCH (http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/al-gore-compares-climate-change-skeptics-to-racists/): Video from UStream, which occurred on August 27, 2011.http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/al-gore-compares-climate-change-skeptics-to-racists/

So is being called a racist a step up or step down from being called a denier? :hscratch:

Navinabob
08-30-11, 06:44 PM
Say it ain't so Al...http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/al-gore-compares-climate-change-skeptics-to-racists/

So is being called a racist a step up or step down from being called a denier? :hscratch:

Here is another story with a few more details.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/28/gore-global-warming-skeptics-are-this-generations-racists/

One day climate change skeptics will be seen in the same negative light as racists, or so says former Vice President Al Gore.

In an interview with former advertising executive and Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky broadcast on UStream on Friday, Gore explained that in order for climate change alarmists to succeed, they must “win the conversation” against those who deny there is a crisis. (RELATED: Bill McKibben: Global warming to blame for Hurricane Irene)

“I remember, again going back to my early years in the South, when the Civil Rights revolution was unfolding, there were two things that really made an impression on me,” Gore said. “My generation watched Bull Connor turning the hose on civil rights demonstrators and we went, ‘Whoa! How gross and evil is that?’ My generation asked old people, ‘Explain to me again why it is okay to discriminate against people because their skin color is different?’ And when they couldn’t really answer that question with integrity, the change really started.”

The former vice president recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.

“Secondly, back to this phrase ‘win the conversation,’” he continued. “There came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs with — you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this personally — but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won.”

“We have to win the conversation on climate,” Gore added.

When Bogusky questioned the analogy, asking if the scientific reasoning behind climate change skeptics might throw a wrench into the good and evil comparison with racism, Gore did not back down.

“I think it’s the same where the moral component is concerned and where the facts are concerned I think it is important to get that out there, absolutely,” Gore said.

Gore also took shots at Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has lambasted climate change alarmists on the presidential campaign trail, and at other politicians who dare to question the veracity of global warming science.

“This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money,” Gore said.

Ironically, back during Perry’s days as a Democrat, the Texas governor supported Gore in his 1988 presidential bid. Perry became a Republican in 1989.

birdseye
08-30-11, 08:47 PM
If Al Gore is going to compare skeptics to racists opposed to the Civil Rights movement, isn't it worth pointing out that his own father voted against the Civil Rights Act?

dave-o
08-31-11, 12:25 AM
Gore out does himself once again. Honesty, he does more harm for the pro-CAGW scientific community than anything the skeptics could come up with...

movielib
08-31-11, 07:23 AM
Some new research supporting the revised hockey-stick model from two different journals. Both in the top 20 in Geophysics (impact ratings mid 3).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012603.shtml

We present a reconstruction of tropical South American temperature anomalies over the last ∼1600 years. The reconstruction is based on a highly resolved and carefully dated ammonium record from an ice core that was drilled in 1999 on Nevado Illimani in the eastern Bolivian Andes. Concerning the relevant processes governing the observed correlation between ammonium concentrations and temperature anomalies, we discuss anthropogenic emissions, biomass burning, and precipitation changes but clearly favor a temperature-dependent source strength of the vegetation in the Amazon Basin. That given, the reconstruction reveals that Medieval Warm Period– and Little Ice Age–type episodes are distinguishable in tropical South America, a region for which until now only very limited temperature proxy data have been available. For the time period from about 1050 to 1300 AD, our reconstruction shows relatively warm conditions that are followed by cooler conditions from the 15th to the 18th century, when temperatures dropped by up to 0.6°C below the 1961–1990 average. The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last ∼1600 years.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044771.shtml

The impact of human activities on Earth's climate is still subject to debate and the pattern of a sharp recent global temperature increase contrasting with much lesser variable temperatures during preceding centuries has often been challenged, partly due to the lack of unquestionable evidence. In this paper, oxygen isotope compositions of benthic foraminifer shells recovered from sediments of the Lower St. Lawrence Estuary and the Gulf are used to reconstruct temperature changes in a water mass originating from ∼400 m deep North Atlantic waters. The data demonstrate that the 1.7 ± 0.3°C warming measured during the last century corresponds to a δ18O shift of 0.4 ± 0.05‰, encompassing the temperature effect and related change in the isotopic composition of the corresponding water mass. In contrast, δ18O values remained nearly constant over the last millennium, except for a small positive shift which we attribute to the Little Ice Age. We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.
No one says the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than present in all locations or always at the exact same time. During the MWP (roughly 800-1300), many locations (not just Europe) were warm (mostly warmer than today) for at least part of that period as was the case during the Roman and Minoan warm periods. These are a collection of graphs showing reconstructions for many locations:

http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

movielib
08-31-11, 08:15 AM
In Post #212 I mentioned Bill McKibben and his merry band protesting against the proposed Keystone pipeline from the Alberta, Canada oils sands to the the US. McKibben, Margot Kidder and now James Hansen, alarmist NASA scientist (who has been arrested at protests at least twice before and has testified for trespassers and vandals in Britain), and Darryl Hannah have been arrested.

A State Department environmental impact study has approved the pipeline but it needs final approval from Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama.

Washington Post economics columnist Robert Samuelson weighs in with why we should build this pipeline:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/say-yes-to-canadian-oil-sands/2011/08/28/gIQAl0HmlJ_story.html

Robert J. Samuelson
Opinion Writer
Say yes to Canadian oil sands
By Robert J. Samuelson, Published: August 28

When it comes to energy, America is lucky to be next to Canada, whose proven oil reserves are estimated by Oil and Gas Journal at 175 billion barrels. This ranks just behind Saudi Arabia (260 billion) and Venezuela (211 billion) and ahead of Iran (137 billion) and Iraq (115 billion). True, about 97 percent of Canada’s reserves consist of Alberta’s controversial oil sands, but new technologies and high oil prices have made them economically viable. Expanded production can provide the U.S. market with a growing source of secure oil for decades.

We would be crazy to turn our back on this. In a global oil market repeatedly threatened by wars, revolutions, and natural and man-made disasters — and where government-owned oil companies control development of about three-quarters of known reserves — having dependable suppliers is no mean feat. We already import about half of our oil, and Canada is our largest supplier, with about 25 percent of imports. But its conventional fields are declining. Only oil sands can fill the gap.

Will we encourage this? Do we say yes to oil sands? Or do we increase our exposure to unstable world oil markets?

Those are the central questions raised by the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline connecting Alberta’s oil sands to U.S. refineries on the Texas Gulf coast. The pipeline requires White House approval, and environmentalists adamantly oppose it.

To be sure, there are dangers. Pipelines do crack; there are spills. Susan Casey-Lefkowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council reminds of recent spills of about 1 million gallons into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan and about 40,000 gallons into the Yellowstone River in Montana. Moreover, converting into oil the “bitumen” found in oil sands is messy. Some processes have required up to two barrels of water for every barrel of oil. Because energy use is also high, so are greenhouse gases. On a per-barrel basis, emissions have sometimes been double and triple that of standard oil production.

Environmentalists are outraged. They’ve made Keystone into a cause celebre. Sit-ins outside the White House have led to arrests. For President Obama to approve the pipeline would be regarded by his environmental supporters as a complete betrayal.

Actually, the reality is more complex. If Obama rejects the pipeline, he would — perversely — increase greenhouse gas emissions. Canada has made clear that it will proceed with oil sands development regardless of the American decision. If the United States doesn’t want the oil, China and other Asian countries do. Pipelines would be built to the West Coast. Transporting the oil by tanker to Asia would almost certainly create more emissions than moving it by pipeline to closer U.S. markets.

Next, oil sands’ greenhouse gases are exaggerated. Despite high per-barrel emissions, the cumulative total is not large: about 6.5 percent of Canada’s emissions in 2009 and about 0.2 percent of the world’s, according to Canadian government figures. More important, most emissions from oil (70 percent or more) stem from burning the fuel, not extracting and refining it. Here, oil sands and conventional oil don’t differ. When all these “life cycle” emissions — from recovery to combustion — are compared, oil sands’ disadvantage shrinks dramatically. Various studies put it between 5 and 23 percent.

By all logic, the administration’s Keystone decision — overseen by the State Department, which issued a final environmental impact statement last week — should be a snap. Obama wants job creation. Well, TransCanada, the pipeline’s sponsor, says the project should result in 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs. Most would be American, because 80 percent of the 1,661-mile pipeline would be in the United States. Continued development of oil sands would also help the U.S. economy; hundreds of American companies sell oil services in Canada. Finally, production technologies are gradually reducing environmental side effects, including greenhouse emissions.

The real benefit would be a stronger strategic alliance between Canada and the United States. Canada’s oil exports now go almost exclusively to us. Our interest is for this to continue. From 2010 to 2020, oil sands production is projected to double, to 3 million barrels a day; most of that would be available for export. On paper, it might seem that Canada should diversify its oil customers. Not so. Canada’s prospects are so tied to ours that any narrow advantage of having more buyers would vanish if that weakened the U.S. economy.

The United States and Canada are each other’s largest trading partners and closest allies. Oil markets are subtly changing, as more countries — led by China — seek preferential access to scarce global supplies. In the future, security of supply may matter as much as price. The more we can reduce oil demand and increase supply stability, the better off we’ll be. On oil sands, we should just say “yes.”
I just want to say that opponents invariably use the term "tar sands" which was the old name for oil sands. Since we now get oil and not tar from these sands, the name "oil sands" makes more sense (although, arguably, the name was changed, in part, because it sounds better; but before people figured out how to make oil useful some 150 years ago, finding it on your land was usually considered a nuisance). I suspect the opponents continue to say "tar sands" because it sounds worse.

Venusian
08-31-11, 10:05 AM
I don't keep up with this thread, but have yall talked about the CERN study in Nature?

movielib
08-31-11, 11:18 AM
I don't keep up with this thread, but have yall talked about the CERN study in Nature?
See Posts #195-197.

Navinabob
08-31-11, 04:05 PM
No one says the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than present in all locations or always at the exact same time. During the MWP (roughly 800-1300), many locations (not just Europe) were warm (mostly warmer than today) for at least part of that period as was the case during the Roman and Minoan warm periods. These are a collection of graphs showing reconstructions for many locations:

http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/09/new-northern-hemisphere-research-30-datasets-prove-romanmedieval-warmings-hotter-than-current-temps.html

The above graph looks like there is crazy temperature variance (Look at all the spikes and dips!) but it mostly follows Mann's assessment except for 300–800 ad. Not only that, but the author says in the paper that, not surprisingly, c3 didn't link to. How do I know? The author says so in the report itself.

The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.

And

“Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

So, from reading through his reports he basically disagrees with Mann's hockey stick in only one area, but agrees with everything else... including the last spike.

Or is the attempt just showing that if Mann was incorrect about 300-800 ad (there is good arguments that he was or wasn't on both sides) then he must be wrong about everything else? That's a pretty common logical fallacy called false dichotomy.

movielib
08-31-11, 05:39 PM
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/09/new-northern-hemisphere-research-30-datasets-prove-romanmedieval-warmings-hotter-than-current-temps.html

The above graph looks like there is crazy temperature variance (Look at all the spikes and dips!) but it mostly follows Mann's assessment except for 300–800 ad. Not only that, but the author says in the paper that, not surprisingly, c3 didn't link to. How do I know? The author says so in the report itself.

The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.

And

“Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

So, from reading through his reports he basically disagrees with Mann's hockey stick in only one area, but agrees with everything else... including the last spike.

Or is the attempt just showing that if Mann was incorrect about 300-800 ad (there is good arguments that he was or wasn't on both sides) then he must be wrong about everything else? That's a pretty common logical fallacy called false dichotomy.
Perhaps I'm missing something. I admit I am not trained in reading scientific studies.

Here's the abstract:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x/abstract;jsessionid=AD1D887CDF1AC2B98A2C297A91F03891.d01t01

ABSTRACT.

A new temperature reconstruction with decadal resolution, covering the last two millennia, is presented for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N), utilizing many palaeo-temperature proxy records never previously included in any large-scale temperature reconstruction. The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. ad 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. ad 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. ad 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. ad 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.[/quote]
Here's the graph:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/TJ5EQRtx_zI/AAAAAAAABUU/R16B0GnKHmg/s1600/ScreenShot2076.jpg

Here's the famous Hockey Stick graph:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

See the resemblance?

There are easily recognizable Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and Little Ice Age. Mann's original reconstructions showed none of these.

Now granted, he says his reconstruction agrees with Mann 2008 (it clearly doesn't agree at all with Mann et al. 1999 which was the face of the 2001 IPCC Report and which is still widely used today), wherein Mann did a temperature reconstruction with the questionable tree ring proxies omitted.

Here is the 2008 graph:

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/mann2008_s8av31.png

And here is some criticism from Steve McIntyre without whom (with Ross McKitrick), Mann's new reconstruction would not have been necessary:

http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/03/mann-2008-mwp-proxies/

http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/07/another-correction-from-upside-down-mann/

The "upside down Mann" reference is to Mann's having published the Tiljandro lake sediment proxy series upside down and then not correcting it. See:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/22/manns-inverted-tiljander-data-survives-another-round-of-peer-review/

For those that don’t know this story, here’s some links to get yourself up to speed. In a nutshell, Mann took some sediment data, inverted it in sign, and even though the scientist (Tiljander) who gathered and published the data says it is inverted, Mann has done nothing about it, and it continues to find its way into peer reviewed literature.

Maybe it's just me but this still looks pretty different from the 2010 study (definitely a lot closer though).

Look, there is still a great deal of doubt about past temperatures. Outside of taking thermometers and satellites back in time, that will probably always be true. But remember, at least one alarmist wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period" (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rj00BoItw). Mann's 1999 study purported to do just that and it did not fare well. While I think there is evidence that the MWP (and the Roman WP and the Minoan WP) were warmer than today, even if one doubts this there is really no doubt they were warm periods. Today's warming is not unprecedented, there hasn't been much in the last decade (admittedly not all that significant) and any future warming is still in great doubt.

Nivanabob, I really appreciate what you are doing here. I have learned that alarmist scientists are not necessarily as evil as I thought they were and skeptics are not always right or totally honest either (of course I did know that but I now think they may be less right and, in some cases, less honest than I thought they were). I am still far from persuaded that the alarmists are more correct or more pure or honest than the skeptics. In fact, I think there is ample evidence that the opposite is true, just maybe not to the extent I thought.You do know how to read studies much better than I do. I'm sure you will continue to do these more precise analyses and I think we will all be better off for it.

Navinabob
08-31-11, 06:10 PM
Thanks, that is a lot to digest. I was actually reading up on Watts vs. Mann but didn't have enough time to add any of that as I tend to just ramble on...

And the alarmist/mainstream side could very well be evil when you look at policy, politics or money. I'm just liking their science, I'm woefully ignorant on everything else.

movielib
08-31-11, 06:30 PM
Thanks, that is a lot to digest. I was actually reading up on Watts vs. Mann but didn't have enough time to add any of that as I tend to just ramble on...

And the alarmist/mainstream side could very well be evil when you look at policy, politics or money. I'm just liking their science, I'm woefully ignorant on everything else.
Actually, that would be McIntyre vs. Mann. On this subject Watts has never done anything but reporting.

Navinabob
09-01-11, 02:44 PM
I found the McIntyre research papers for those interested in looking at the source material. Mann was indeed torn to shreds it appears.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/188.pdf

Mann acknowledged many of his errors and has since clarified his research. The changes to the graph did two things: 1) climate skeptics/deniers embraced their major victory and have great ammo for when journalists, bloggers and politicians put up the out-dated graph as proof. And, 2) mainstream researchers / alarmists show that the basic trend remained the same and they now have better research to show. Our old friend Ljungqvist makes the great point on how both sides get away with graph/statistics trickery. If you use under 15 good sources of similar research and plot them over Mann's revised graph you'll see clearly the all the studies that don't match up. If you include 30+ you see a fat blurry chart that appears to match Mann. I always go with "the bigger the sample size the better", but in doing that you tend to gloss over the fact that so many studies conflict in different areas. It's a bit like flipping a coin... do it enough times and you'll get really close to 50-50.

Personally, I think the little-ice age or medieval spike isn't nearly as important fine-tuning the recent instrument data. Do you got a good expert on that Movie?

Navinabob
09-01-11, 02:53 PM
This is just funny. I read this while looking into Mann. A great example why politicians are NOT experts (and occasionally dumb as shit).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/11/opinion/main666190.shtml

The U.S. Senate's leading abuser of science has struck again. Not content with calling the notion of human-caused global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" (as he did in a July 2003 Senate floor speech), last week James Inhofe returned with an "update" on climate-change science. In his latest speech, timed to coincide with the final steps toward implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (which the United States won't be joining), Inhofe asserted that "put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith." Clearly, he hasn't changed his tune.

What separates Inhofe's fixation from similar conservative crusades is just how brazenly it ignores what scientists know with confidence about global warming. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society all broadly agree on this basic point: Temperatures are rising, at least in part as a result of human greenhouse-gas emissions. According to the World Meteorological Organization, 2004 was the fourth-hottest year since 1861, while the past 10 years (excepting 1996) were "among the warmest 10 years on record."

That's not all. Drawing on highly sophisticated computer models, climate scientists can project -- not predict -- how much temperatures may rise by, say, 2100 if we carry on with business as usual. Although scenarios vary, some get pretty severe. So do the projected impacts of climate change: rising sea levels, species extinctions, glacial melting, and so forth.
One might argue, perhaps, that humanity should simply adapt to climatic changes rather than restricting fossil-fuel use. But that's not Inhofe's approach. No matter how strong the evidence of ongoing climate change gets, he simply rejects it. But backed into a corner, Inhofe's arguments have necessarily grown more and more desperate.

For example, in his latest speech, Inhofe continued his curious crusade against a single University of Virginia climate expert, Michael Mann. Mann initially became a target for global warming "skeptics" in 2001 after the IPCC prominently cited his work to show that recent temperatures represent an anomaly in the context of the past 1,000 years. The IPCC reproduced a graph published by Mann and his colleagues that's often referred to as a "hockey stick" because of its shape: After a long, relatively straight line, temperatures spike up in the 20th century.

Ever since then, global warming deniers (and especially Inhofe) have been trying to break the "hockey stick," but their attacks on Mann represent a grand diversion. Although in his latest speech Inhofe refers only to "the hockey stick graph, constructed by Dr. Michael Mann and colleagues," multiple other scientists have produced similar analyses. And even if all of these were to be overturned, that would hardly upend the conclusion that humans are currently heating the planet -- a robust scientific finding based on several different lines of evidence. Rather, shattering the "hockey stick" would merely leave us uncertain as to whether the current temperature spike has any precedent over the past millennium.

In fact, Inhofe's latest foray against Mann throws into question the competence of the senator's scientific-research apparatus. Inhofe charged that recent critics, arguing in the scientific literature, have called Mann's hockey-stick work "just bad science." But the critics in question weren't attacking the "hockey stick" at all. Rather, they were challenging an entirely different paper by Mann and a colleague, and the disagreement concerns the period between 1971 and 1998 -- not the past 1,000 years. It looks as though Inhofe went rifling through the scientific literature to find someone criticizing Michael Mann without even bothering to understand the context of that criticism.

Yet Inhofe's latest speech stoops even lower than this. The senator also implied, on the slender basis of a Washington Post cartoon (which he misinterprets), that some "alarmists" think climate change triggered the recent Asian tsunami. "Are we to believe now that global warming is causing earthquakes?" Inhofe asked rhetorically.

Answer: No, we aren't to believe that. No one believes that.

In criticizing environmental "alarmists" for something that none of them have said, Inhofe has created as big a straw man as we've seen in politics lately. Yet when it comes to climate change, Inhofe doesn't seem to care whether he has a sound argument to make, so long as he has something contrary to say that takes at least some effort to deconstruct.

Let's take one more glance at the way Inhofe abuses climate science. In his latest speech, Inhofe took aim at a recently released report from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, produced by some 300 scientists working under the auspices of the Arctic Council (an intergovernmental group that includes the United States). The report shows that human-caused climate change has already had a pronounced effect in the Arctic region, where average temperatures have shot up "at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades." The result? Ongoing impacts such as melting glaciers and sea ice.

These conclusions come from a body of scientific experts who have studied the problem for four years. What does James Inhofe do when faced with such a major, peer-reviewed scientific consensus document? The same thing he always does: He draws on a tiny number of skeptic scientists, here pointing out that Arctic temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s rival those today, to challenge the consensus. But while 1930s and 1940s Arctic temperatures were probably caused by natural variation, today's temperature spike seems to have a human fingerprint. That's the whole point.

Throughout his speech, moreover, Inhofe made constant reference to a work of fiction: Michael Crichton's new novel, State of Fear. Calling Crichton a "scientist" -- actually, he's an M.D. -- Inhofe credited the author with telling "the real story about global warming" to the public. In fact, Crichton's new book misrepresents climate science nearly as badly as Inhofe does. Inhofe further suggested that Crichton's depictions of environmentalists -- as fear-mongers who hype the possibility of disasters to bring in donations -- show "art imitating life." Actually, Crichton's notion of a global eco-terrorist conspiracy, aided and abetted by leading environmental organizations, seems more than a tad conspiratorial.

Nevertheless, we haven't heard the last from Senator Crank. Speaking of the remaining cadre of climate-science "skeptics," Inhofe pledged in his latest speech: "I will do my part to make sure that they are heard." In other words, he will continue to challenge each new major piece of scientific evidence on climate, raising dubious criticisms rather than trying in earnest to understand the best science. And this is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works talking

Navinabob
09-01-11, 04:06 PM
What happens next is the dreaded "scientific consensus" where Mann's research is pretty well confirmed by just about everyone who matters.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.short

The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

Caspar Ammann, a paleoclimatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), is available to comment on the so-called hockey stick controversy discussed by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The hockey stick refers to the shape of a frequently cited graph of global mean temperature that shows a rapid rise between 1900 and 2000 after 900 years of relative stability. The graph first appeared in a research paper by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes published in the journal Nature in 1998.

Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. Their results appear in two new research papers submitted for review to the journals Geophysical Research Letters and Climatic Change. The authors invite researchers and others to use the code for their own evaluation of the method.

Ammann and Wahl’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrick’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH graph are unfounded. They first presented their detailed analyses at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Denver this year.

McIntyre and McKitrick’s papers were published in Energy and Environment (2003 and 2005) and in Geophysical Research Letters (2005).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023395.shtml

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005b, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press) and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press).

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales. However, the methods in use are evolving and are expected to improve.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JCli...18.2308R

Results are presented from a set of experiments designed to investigate factors that may influence proxy-based reconstructions of large-scale temperature patterns in past centuries. The factors investigated include 1) the method used to assimilate proxy data into a climate reconstruction, 2) the proxy data network used, 3) the target season, and 4) the spatial domain of the reconstruction. Estimates of hemispheric-mean temperature are formed through spatial averaging of reconstructed temperature patterns that are based on either the local calibration of proxy and instrumental data or a more elaborate multivariate climate field reconstruction approach. The experiments compare results based on the global multiproxy dataset used by Mann and coworkers, with results obtained using the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (NH) maximum latewood tree-ring density set used by Briffa and coworkers. Mean temperature reconstructions are compared for the full NH (Tropics and extratropics, land and ocean) and extratropical continents only, withvarying target seasons (cold-season half year, warm-season half year, and annual mean). The comparisons demonstrate dependence of reconstructions on seasonal, spatial, and methodological considerations, emphasizing the primary importance of the target region and seasonal window of the reconstruction. The comparisons support the generally robust nature of several previously published estimates of NH mean temperature changes in past centuries and suggest that further improvements in reconstructive skill are most likely to arise from an emphasis on the quality, rather than quantity, of available proxy data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html

A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.

The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990's was probably the warmest in a millennium.

But in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the National Academies said "an array of evidence" supported the main thrust of the paper. Disputes over details, it said, reflected the normal intellectual clash that takes place as science tests new approaches to old questions.

The study, led by Michael E. Mann, a climatologist now at Pennsylvania State University, was the first to estimate widespread climate trends by stitching together a grab bag of evidence, including variations in ancient tree rings and temperatures measured in deep holes in the earth.

It has been repeatedly attacked by Republican lawmakers and some business-financed groups as built on cherry-picked data meant to create an alarming view of recent warming and play down past natural warm periods.

At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result.

"I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation," said one member, Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at North Carolina State University. He added that his impression was the study was "an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure."

More broadly, the panel examined other recent research comparing the pronounced warming trend over the last several decades with temperature shifts over the last 2,000 years. It expressed high confidence that warming over the last 25 years exceeded any peaks since 1600. And in a news conference here today, three panelists said the current warming was probably, but not certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900.

The experts said there was no reliable way to make estimates for surface-temperature trends in the first millennium A.D.

In the report, the panel stressed that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence," the report said.

The 1999 paper is part of a growing body of work trying to pull together widely disparate clues of climate conditions before the age of weather instruments.

The paper includes a graph of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere that gained the nickname "hockey stick" because of its vivid depiction of a long period with little temperature variation for nearly 1,000 years, followed by a sharp upward hook in recent decades.

The hockey stick has become something of an environmentalist icon. It was prominently displayed in a pivotal 2001 United Nations report concluding that greenhouse gases from human activities had probably caused most of the warming measured since 1950. A version of it is in the Al Gore documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, have repeatedly criticized the Mann study, citing several peer-reviewed papers challenging its methods.

The main critiques were done by Stephen McIntyre, a statistician and part-time consultant in Toronto to minerals industries, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario.

They contended that Dr. Mann and his colleagues selected particular statistical methods and sets of data, like a record of rings in bristlecone pine trees, that were most apt to produce a picture of unusual recent warming. They also complained that Dr. Mann refused to share his data and techniques.

In an interview, Dr. Mann expressed muted satisfaction with the panel's findings. He said it clearly showed that the 1999 analysis has held up over time.

But he complained that the committee seemed to forget about the many caveats that were in the original paper. "Even the title of the paper on which all this has been based is as much about the caveats and uncertainties as it is about the findings," he said.

Raymond S. Bradley, a University of Massachusetts geoscientist and one of Dr. Mann's co-authors, said that the caveats were dropped mainly as the graph was widely reproduced by others. (The other author of the 1999 paper was Malcolm K Hughes of the University of Arizona.)

The report was done at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee, who called last November for a review of the 1999 study and related research to clear the air.

In a statement, Mr. Boehlert, who is retiring at the end of the year, expressed satisfaction with the results, saying, "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change — which doesn't rest primarily on these temperature issues, in any event — or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work."

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006352.shtml

Previous tree-ring–based Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions portray a varying amplitude range between the “Medieval Warm Period” (MWP), “Little Ice Age” (LIA) and present. We describe a new reconstruction, developed using largely different methodologies and additional new data compared to previous efforts. Unlike earlier studies, we quantify differences between more traditional (STD) and Regional Curve Standardization (RCS) methodologies, concluding that RCS is superior for retention of low-frequency trends. Continental North American versus Eurasian RCS series developed prior to merging to the hemispheric scale cohere surprisingly well, suggesting common forcing, although there are notable deviations (e.g., fifteenth to sixteenth century). Results indicate clear MWP (warm), LIA (cool), and recent (warm) episodes. Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14°C from the coldest (1600–1609) to warmest (1937–1946) decades. However, we advise caution with this analysis. Although we conclude, as found elsewhere, that recent warming has been substantial relative to natural fluctuations of the past millennium, we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions, present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely “flatten out” estimates for this period relative to twentieth century warming, which expresses a more homogenous global “fingerprint.” Therefore we stress that presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16469924

Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. The most significant and longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century. Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period.

http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Thompsonetal-climatic-change-2003.pdf

This paper examines the potential of the stable isotopic ratios, 18O/16O (δ18Oice) and 2H/1H (δDice), preserved in mid to low latitude glaciers as a tool for paleoclimate reconstruction. Ice cores are particularly valuable as they contain additional data, such as dust concentrations, aerosol chemistry, and accumulation rates, that can be combined with the isotopic information to assist with inferences about the regional climate conditions prevailing at the time of deposition. We use a collection of multi-proxy ice core histories to explore the δ18O-climate relationship over the last 25,000 years that includes both Late Glacial Stage (LGS) and Holocene climate conditions.

These results suggest that on centennial to millennial time scales atmospheric temperature is the principal control on the δ18Oice of the snowfall that sustains these high mountain ice fields. Decadally averaged δ18Oice records from three Andean and three Tibetan ice cores are composited to produce a low latitude δ18Oice history for the last millennium. Comparison of this ice core composite with the Northern Hemisphere proxy record (1000–2000 A.D.) reconstructed by Mann et al. (1999) and measured temperatures (1856–2000) reported by Jones et al. (1999) suggests the ice
cores have captured the decadal scale variability in the global temperature trends. These ice cores show a 20th century isotopic enrichment that suggests a large scale warming is underway at low latitudes. The rate of this isotopically inferred warming is amplified at higher elevations over the Tibetan
Plateau while amplification in the Andes is latitude dependent with enrichment (warming) increasing equatorward. In concert with this apparent warming, in situ observations reveal that tropical glaciers are currently disappearing. A brief overview of the loss of these tropical data archives over the last 30 years is presented along with evaluation of recent changes in mean δ18Oice composition. The isotopic composition of precipitation should be viewed not only as a powerful proxy indicator of climate change, but also as an additional parameter to aid our understanding of the linkages between changes in the hydrologic cycle and global climate.


http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years.

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes before about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.

http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000859quick_reaction_to_th.html

My reading of the summary of the report and parts of the text is that the NAS has rendered a near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al. They report does acknowledge that there are perhaps greater uncertainties in temperature reconstructions, reducing Mann et al.'s claim of warmest decade/year in 1,000 years down to 400. Nonetheless, I see nothing in the report that suggests that Mann's research is significantly flawed, nor any calls for release of his data or algorithms, though the report does say in very general terms that such release is a good idea. I am not a climate scientist, but my reading of the section that deals with criticisms of Mann et al.'s work (starting at p. 105) is that while these critiques raise some interesting points, they are minor issues, and the committee find's Mann et al.’s original conclusion to be "plausible." I’d bet that the word "plausible" will be oft invoked as one of the take home messages of the report.

So what to make of this? The NRC has come to the conclusion that the hockey stick debate is much ado about nothing, and make the further point that this particular area of science is not particularly relevant to detection and attribution of human caused climate change. I am certain that research on this subject will continue, but hopefully this NAS report will allow the rest of us to focus on the policy debate rather than this particular issue of science.

I would have liked to see the report get into far more detail on science policy questions, such as release of data, methods, code, etc. and mechanisms of peer review, and IPCC authors reviewing their own work. However, I recognize that these issues may have been interpreted as outside their charge and the committee was not empanelled for this purpose.

Is this the final word on the "hockey stick"? My guess is that for most people, yes, especially if Representative Boehlert, who requested the report, is satisfied with the answers to his questions.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

It's probably the most politicized graph in science — an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed science in the service of that case to others — and it has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the ‘hockey-stick’ plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy to rest.

There is more from the Paleoclimate gang that support Mann, as well as about a dozen more major publications but I'm getting tired. I left off a bunch of reports that had too many criticisms from the skeptic side or had little scientific clout. Movie should get a medal for the patience to do this several times a day. It is exhausting.

I'm not sure I wanna tackle the Wegman Report as it was basically made-up crap that'd just piss me off.

movielib
09-01-11, 07:16 PM
What happens next is the dreaded "scientific consensus" where Mann's research is pretty well confirmed by just about everyone who matters.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.short

The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

Caspar Ammann, a paleoclimatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), is available to comment on the so-called hockey stick controversy discussed by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The hockey stick refers to the shape of a frequently cited graph of global mean temperature that shows a rapid rise between 1900 and 2000 after 900 years of relative stability. The graph first appeared in a research paper by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes published in the journal Nature in 1998.

Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. Their results appear in two new research papers submitted for review to the journals Geophysical Research Letters and Climatic Change. The authors invite researchers and others to use the code for their own evaluation of the method.

Ammann and Wahl’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrick’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH graph are unfounded. They first presented their detailed analyses at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Denver this year.

McIntyre and McKitrick’s papers were published in Energy and Environment (2003 and 2005) and in Geophysical Research Letters (2005).

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023395.shtml

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005b, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press) and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press).

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales. However, the methods in use are evolving and are expected to improve.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JCli...18.2308R

Results are presented from a set of experiments designed to investigate factors that may influence proxy-based reconstructions of large-scale temperature patterns in past centuries. The factors investigated include 1) the method used to assimilate proxy data into a climate reconstruction, 2) the proxy data network used, 3) the target season, and 4) the spatial domain of the reconstruction. Estimates of hemispheric-mean temperature are formed through spatial averaging of reconstructed temperature patterns that are based on either the local calibration of proxy and instrumental data or a more elaborate multivariate climate field reconstruction approach. The experiments compare results based on the global multiproxy dataset used by Mann and coworkers, with results obtained using the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (NH) maximum latewood tree-ring density set used by Briffa and coworkers. Mean temperature reconstructions are compared for the full NH (Tropics and extratropics, land and ocean) and extratropical continents only, withvarying target seasons (cold-season half year, warm-season half year, and annual mean). The comparisons demonstrate dependence of reconstructions on seasonal, spatial, and methodological considerations, emphasizing the primary importance of the target region and seasonal window of the reconstruction. The comparisons support the generally robust nature of several previously published estimates of NH mean temperature changes in past centuries and suggest that further improvements in reconstructive skill are most likely to arise from an emphasis on the quality, rather than quantity, of available proxy data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html

A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.

The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work "have been underestimated," and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990's was probably the warmest in a millennium.

But in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the National Academies said "an array of evidence" supported the main thrust of the paper. Disputes over details, it said, reflected the normal intellectual clash that takes place as science tests new approaches to old questions.

The study, led by Michael E. Mann, a climatologist now at Pennsylvania State University, was the first to estimate widespread climate trends by stitching together a grab bag of evidence, including variations in ancient tree rings and temperatures measured in deep holes in the earth.

It has been repeatedly attacked by Republican lawmakers and some business-financed groups as built on cherry-picked data meant to create an alarming view of recent warming and play down past natural warm periods.

At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result.

"I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation," said one member, Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at North Carolina State University. He added that his impression was the study was "an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure."

More broadly, the panel examined other recent research comparing the pronounced warming trend over the last several decades with temperature shifts over the last 2,000 years. It expressed high confidence that warming over the last 25 years exceeded any peaks since 1600. And in a news conference here today, three panelists said the current warming was probably, but not certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900.

The experts said there was no reliable way to make estimates for surface-temperature trends in the first millennium A.D.

In the report, the panel stressed that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence," the report said.

The 1999 paper is part of a growing body of work trying to pull together widely disparate clues of climate conditions before the age of weather instruments.

The paper includes a graph of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere that gained the nickname "hockey stick" because of its vivid depiction of a long period with little temperature variation for nearly 1,000 years, followed by a sharp upward hook in recent decades.

The hockey stick has become something of an environmentalist icon. It was prominently displayed in a pivotal 2001 United Nations report concluding that greenhouse gases from human activities had probably caused most of the warming measured since 1950. A version of it is in the Al Gore documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, have repeatedly criticized the Mann study, citing several peer-reviewed papers challenging its methods.

The main critiques were done by Stephen McIntyre, a statistician and part-time consultant in Toronto to minerals industries, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario.

They contended that Dr. Mann and his colleagues selected particular statistical methods and sets of data, like a record of rings in bristlecone pine trees, that were most apt to produce a picture of unusual recent warming. They also complained that Dr. Mann refused to share his data and techniques.

In an interview, Dr. Mann expressed muted satisfaction with the panel's findings. He said it clearly showed that the 1999 analysis has held up over time.

But he complained that the committee seemed to forget about the many caveats that were in the original paper. "Even the title of the paper on which all this has been based is as much about the caveats and uncertainties as it is about the findings," he said.

Raymond S. Bradley, a University of Massachusetts geoscientist and one of Dr. Mann's co-authors, said that the caveats were dropped mainly as the graph was widely reproduced by others. (The other author of the 1999 paper was Malcolm K Hughes of the University of Arizona.)

The report was done at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee, who called last November for a review of the 1999 study and related research to clear the air.

In a statement, Mr. Boehlert, who is retiring at the end of the year, expressed satisfaction with the results, saying, "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change — which doesn't rest primarily on these temperature issues, in any event — or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work."

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006352.shtml

Previous tree-ring–based Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions portray a varying amplitude range between the “Medieval Warm Period” (MWP), “Little Ice Age” (LIA) and present. We describe a new reconstruction, developed using largely different methodologies and additional new data compared to previous efforts. Unlike earlier studies, we quantify differences between more traditional (STD) and Regional Curve Standardization (RCS) methodologies, concluding that RCS is superior for retention of low-frequency trends. Continental North American versus Eurasian RCS series developed prior to merging to the hemispheric scale cohere surprisingly well, suggesting common forcing, although there are notable deviations (e.g., fifteenth to sixteenth century). Results indicate clear MWP (warm), LIA (cool), and recent (warm) episodes. Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14°C from the coldest (1600–1609) to warmest (1937–1946) decades. However, we advise caution with this analysis. Although we conclude, as found elsewhere, that recent warming has been substantial relative to natural fluctuations of the past millennium, we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions, present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely “flatten out” estimates for this period relative to twentieth century warming, which expresses a more homogenous global “fingerprint.” Therefore we stress that presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16469924

Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. The most significant and longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century. Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period.

http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Thompsonetal-climatic-change-2003.pdf

This paper examines the potential of the stable isotopic ratios, 18O/16O (δ18Oice) and 2H/1H (δDice), preserved in mid to low latitude glaciers as a tool for paleoclimate reconstruction. Ice cores are particularly valuable as they contain additional data, such as dust concentrations, aerosol chemistry, and accumulation rates, that can be combined with the isotopic information to assist with inferences about the regional climate conditions prevailing at the time of deposition. We use a collection of multi-proxy ice core histories to explore the δ18O-climate relationship over the last 25,000 years that includes both Late Glacial Stage (LGS) and Holocene climate conditions.

These results suggest that on centennial to millennial time scales atmospheric temperature is the principal control on the δ18Oice of the snowfall that sustains these high mountain ice fields. Decadally averaged δ18Oice records from three Andean and three Tibetan ice cores are composited to produce a low latitude δ18Oice history for the last millennium. Comparison of this ice core composite with the Northern Hemisphere proxy record (1000–2000 A.D.) reconstructed by Mann et al. (1999) and measured temperatures (1856–2000) reported by Jones et al. (1999) suggests the ice
cores have captured the decadal scale variability in the global temperature trends. These ice cores show a 20th century isotopic enrichment that suggests a large scale warming is underway at low latitudes. The rate of this isotopically inferred warming is amplified at higher elevations over the Tibetan
Plateau while amplification in the Andes is latitude dependent with enrichment (warming) increasing equatorward. In concert with this apparent warming, in situ observations reveal that tropical glaciers are currently disappearing. A brief overview of the loss of these tropical data archives over the last 30 years is presented along with evaluation of recent changes in mean δ18Oice composition. The isotopic composition of precipitation should be viewed not only as a powerful proxy indicator of climate change, but also as an additional parameter to aid our understanding of the linkages between changes in the hydrologic cycle and global climate.


http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years.

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes before about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.

http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000859quick_reaction_to_th.html

My reading of the summary of the report and parts of the text is that the NAS has rendered a near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al. They report does acknowledge that there are perhaps greater uncertainties in temperature reconstructions, reducing Mann et al.'s claim of warmest decade/year in 1,000 years down to 400. Nonetheless, I see nothing in the report that suggests that Mann's research is significantly flawed, nor any calls for release of his data or algorithms, though the report does say in very general terms that such release is a good idea. I am not a climate scientist, but my reading of the section that deals with criticisms of Mann et al.'s work (starting at p. 105) is that while these critiques raise some interesting points, they are minor issues, and the committee find's Mann et al.’s original conclusion to be "plausible." I’d bet that the word "plausible" will be oft invoked as one of the take home messages of the report.

So what to make of this? The NRC has come to the conclusion that the hockey stick debate is much ado about nothing, and make the further point that this particular area of science is not particularly relevant to detection and attribution of human caused climate change. I am certain that research on this subject will continue, but hopefully this NAS report will allow the rest of us to focus on the policy debate rather than this particular issue of science.

I would have liked to see the report get into far more detail on science policy questions, such as release of data, methods, code, etc. and mechanisms of peer review, and IPCC authors reviewing their own work. However, I recognize that these issues may have been interpreted as outside their charge and the committee was not empanelled for this purpose.

Is this the final word on the "hockey stick"? My guess is that for most people, yes, especially if Representative Boehlert, who requested the report, is satisfied with the answers to his questions.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html

It's probably the most politicized graph in science — an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed science in the service of that case to others — and it has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the ‘hockey-stick’ plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy to rest.

There is more from the Paleoclimate gang that support Mann, as well as about a dozen more major publications but I'm getting tired. I left off a bunch of reports that had too many criticisms from the skeptic side or had little scientific clout. Movie should get a medal for the patience to do this several times a day. It is exhausting.

I'm not sure I wanna tackle the Wegman Report as it was basically made-up crap that'd just piss me off.
Of course there are lots of defenses of Mann. It's The Team (a name they made up for themselves). The same names: Briffa, Wahl, Ammann, Osborn, Bradley, Hughes. And the same story, over and over of refusing to give critics like McIntyre and McKitrick the data and methods, while the critics' work is open.

And why is Wegman's work "made up crap"? Because The Team says so? Wegman is a highly accomplished statistician.

[(You can bring up the "plagiarism" charge. The plagiarism was done by a grad student - yes, Wegman should have exercised more oversight - and had absolutely nothing to do with the work or conclusion because it was uncontroversial boilerplate, which even the alarmists admit). It's all been talked about here before.]

Before being asked to write his report, I do not think there is any evidence that Wegman was biased against Mann and toward McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M). He was hired strictly to investigate the statistical methodology of the two sides. He found Mann's work greatly lacking in statistical methodology and M&M's highly credible. He found he could not find the material necessary to reconstruct Mann because it was not available (much the same problem M&M and others always ran into and, despite many requests, seldom found Mann forthcoming). He was able to reproduce M&M's work because they laid it all out in an open manner.

Wegman and Gerald North (not a statistician which is why he had one with him at the hearing, below) both made reports on the Hockey Stick for Congress in 2006. While North was much friendlier to Mann than was Wegman, North said he could not disagree with Wegman's findings:

http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/ (you should read this whole post)

Did Wegman and North Disagree?

There’s obviously been a lot of spinning here, as Wegman’s language was much more forthright. The realclimate crowd have tried to marginalize the clear statements in Wegman.

At the July 19, 2006 House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing, Barton asked North very precisely whether he disagreed with any Wegman’s findings and North (under oath) said no as follows:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false.

CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be–

DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann’s methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.

DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.

MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
As I have repeatedly said, one cannot get the whole picture of the Hockey Stick controversy without reading Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion.

As an introduction, I am posting a link to "Caspar and the Jesus paper," a preClimategate blog written by Montford:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

Look, one can easily get a one-sided picture of the Hockey Stick by just reading one side (The Team and its acolytes) or the other (M&M and their acolytes). What ultimately separates the two (besides the quality of the science, which we may disagree on) is the covert hiding of data and methods by The Team and the openness of those things by M&M etc. That, in and of itself, does not prove M&M right by I have to wonder why The Team has to be so secretive and unwilling to share information. I also have to wonder why journals allow studies to be published that do not include (at least by reference) all such information.

Edit - one final thing - your link which acknowledges Mann's work can only say that today's temperatures are the warmest in 400 years (rather than 1000) is entirely noncontroversial. It is essentially saying nothing that is not already known (or, at least, agree to by almost everyone - a real consensus). But if his work is so statistically flawed, it doesn't even tell us that. It would be like a broken clock being right twice a day.

dave-o
09-01-11, 07:30 PM
It's been awhile since I dredged through these studies, so I'm just going from memory here...but I remember one of the biggest problems I kept running across was the "Team's" insistence that the hockey stick has been supported by numerous independent studies. The problem with such a statement as I recall, is that a closer look at the studies reveals that they are far from independent. In other words, they often used the same flawed data, models, codes, etc. (and the peer review was often done by the same small group of scientists)...

movielib
09-02-11, 07:27 AM
Charges against polar bear researcher came from within the Interior Department, not from any outside skeptic(s).

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/01/140122766/federal-worker-accused-polar-bear-scientist

Polar Bear Scientist Was Accused By Federal Worker
by Nell Greenfieldboyce
September 1, 2011

The controversial "polarbeargate" investigation into Arctic researcher Charles Monnett originated when allegations of scientific misconduct were made by a "seasoned, career Department of the Interior" employee.

That's according to a new letter sent to Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) from the Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General.

For months, Monnett has been under investigation by that office. Agents have repeatedly asked him about an influential 2006 report he wrote on his observations of apparently drowned polar bears. The report became a symbol of the danger of melting ice and climate change.

Supporters of Monnett charged that the investigation amounted to a witch hunt against the scientist, whose work has implications for climate change and drilling in the Arctic.

"In March 2010, the OIG received credible allegations from a seasoned, career Department of the Interior (DOI) employee, that acts of scientific misconduct may have been committed by one or more DOI employees," says the letter to Inhofe, which is signed by Mary Kendall, acting inspector general for the Department of the Interior.

This means the original complaint apparently did not originate from an outside interest group trying to discredit climate change research or influence government decisions about Artic drilling, as some critics seem to have assumed.

Jeff Ruch, a lawyer with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which is providing legal representation for Monnett, expressed surprise when he heard that the allegations against Monnett came from within the Department of the Interior itself.

Ruch noted that Monnett's 2006 report on dead polar bears had been approved by his supervisors. "We assumed that if this agency approved it, it was unlikely that someone from that same agency would make allegations against itself," Ruch said.

Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, wrote a letter to the Office of Inspector General on Aug. 16 requesting information about the Monnett investigation, saying that Monnett's article had been important to the government's decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species.

The Office of Inspector General typically does not comment on ongoing investigations, but the letter said in this case officials had decided to release background information because the investigation has been "subject to much public speculation" and the department hopes to "quell speculation and assure interested parties of the OIG's objectivity, professionalism, and independence in investigating this matter."

But, Ruch said, "This doesn't vindicate them; it just raises more questions about the IG's judgment."

It should have been clear from the first interview with Monnett that the allegations of scientific misconduct had no merit, says Ruch. "The question we would have for the IG is, do they still think the allegations are credible?"
Apparently they do think there is at least some credibility to the allegations since, while Monnett was returned to duty pending the rest of the investigation (apparently standard procedure), he was relieved of duties connected with overseeing the project (and funds) he had been heading.

Navinabob
09-02-11, 07:00 PM
"Consensus is collusion" is something traditional skeptics hear all the time. Outsiders branding themselves as brave pioneers of truth is not a new idea; homeopaths, chiropractors, ghost hunters and psychics all make the same claim.

Researchers using the same models and the increasingly similar results from model to model may look suspicious to most people (especially if so inclined to think there is a conspiracy), but for anyone who has any sort of scientific background, it is both normal and expected. It happens to be perfectly consistent with good science. That is exactly what you expect to happen. Real researchers are instead skeptical of the one study that says the opposite. It is that contradictory study that has the high burden of proof.

Yes, there could be a wide-spread conspiracy, and yes, they could all be sharing the same fictional research to get their research grants and federal money (although it doesn't explain non-US researchers). The "Team" is sorta consistent with a conspiracy... but it is also consistent with having the right answer. This is especially true when the majority of scientists with relevant research all basically fall to the same side as them. When in doubt, I lean towards occam's razor.

Even if you exclude Mann's work, you still have most other researchers showing a warm medieval period, a small cooling drop, and rapid warming since the 19th Century.

What I profoundly dislike about Mann is his refusal to release source-code, even if it is ugly, he should do it. Much of today's climate research is readily available and his refusal is in bad form. I do understand it though. In academia you typically did not release code, especially if it wasn't formatted for public viewing and would likely cost a lot to format. You report what you did, not how you did it. Repeatability by others using their own code is more important. Recently our research "climate" has changed some; new research isn't cobbled together with bits of string and FORTRAN anymore. This site is doing the right thing and anyone can recheck NASA's findings.

http://clearclimatecode.org/
http://clearclimatecode.org/ccc-gistemp-release-0-6-0/

Now you can use raw data to conduct your own research, nobody is stopping anyone from doing that.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

But again, like I said before, that one study by Mann isn't the entire show.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

Navinabob
09-02-11, 07:05 PM
Back on "consensus" for a bit... I did a search and didn't see anyone bring this up. Note the giant leap in results from those with PhD in relevant science from just the general public.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

JasonF
09-02-11, 09:12 PM
I thought this was an interesting development.
Editorial

Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1603-1613

Wolfgang Wagner

Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vienna University of Technology (TU Wien), Gusshausstrasse 27-29, A-1040 Vienna, Austria; E-Mail: ww@ipf.tuwien.ac.at; Tel.: +43-1-58801-12225; Fax: +43-1-58801-12299

Received: 1 September 2011 / Accepted: 2 September 2011 / Published: 2 September 2011

Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.

With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few. Unfortunately, their campaign apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication. But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible. Aside from ignoring all the other observational data sets (such as the rapidly shrinking sea ice extent and changes in the flora and fauna) and contrasting theoretical studies, such a simple conclusion simply cannot be drawn considering the complexity of the involved models and satellite measurements.

The political views of the authors and the thematic goal of their study did, of course, alone not disqualify the paper from entering the review process in the journal Remote Sensing. As I stated in my editorial at the launch of this new open access journal [6] one of the premier goals of remote sensing as a discipline is to better understand physical and biological processes on our planet Earth. The use of satellite data to check the functionality of all sorts of geophysical models is therefore a very important part of our work. But it should not be done in isolation by the remote sensing scientists. Interdisciplinary cooperation with modelers is required in order to develop a joint understanding of where and why models deviate from satellite data. Only through this close cooperation the complex aspects involved in the satellite retrievals and the modeling processes can be properly taken into account.

In hindsight, it is possible to see why the review process of the paper by Spencer and Braswell did not fulfill its aim. The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record. Their reviews had an apparently good technical standard and suggested one “major revision”, one “minor revision” and one “accept as is”. The authors revised their paper according to the comments made by the reviewers and, consequently, the editorial board member who handled this paper accepted the paper (and could in fact not have done otherwise). Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors. This selection by itself does not mean that the review process for this paper was wrong. In science, diversity and controversy are essential to progress and therefore it is important that different opinions are heard and openly discussed. Therefore editors should take special care that minority views are not suppressed, meaning that it certainly would not be correct to reject all controversial papers already during the review process. If a paper presents interesting scientific arguments, even if controversial, it should be published and responded to in the open literature. This was my initial response after having become aware of this particular case. So why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

Let me conclude with saying that even considering this unfortunate case I think Remote Sensing is an excellent journal which has achieved a high scientific standard within the very short period since its start in January 2009. The start of every new journal is challenging because authors, reviewers, and editors need to become familiar with the journal. New journals are often unattractive to many authors as the papers are not (yet) indexed by the prominent citation databases. In that sense, I was very happy to learn in May 2011 that Remote Sensing was already accepted for inclusion in Scopus, Europe’s most important citation database. This success became possible primarily due to the excellent work done by the editorial team of MDPI who give their best to make sure that the review process is handled as quickly as possible without compromising on quality of the review process. I would also like to thank all members of the editorial board, reviewers, and authors of Remote Sensing very much, who helped to give this first open access remote sensing journal a good start. I will continue supporting the journal, albeit in different roles, wishing it all the best for the future!

References and Notes

1. Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth’s radiant energy balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

2. Climate Models Get Energy Balance Wrong, Make too Hot Forecasts of Global Warming; 26 July 2011. Available online: http://www.uah.edu/news/newspages/campusnews.php?id=564 (accessed on 1 September 2011).

3. Spencer, R. Personal Homepage. Available online: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ (accessed on 1 September 2011).

4. New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole in Global Warming Alarmism; 27 July 2011. Available online: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-globalwarming-alarmism/ (accessed on 1 September 2011).

5. Does NASA Data Show Global Warming Lost in Space? Available online: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/29/data-cooling-on-global-warming/ (accessed on 1 September 2011).

6. Wagner, W. A better understanding of our Earth through Remote Sensing. Remote Sens. 2009, 1, 1-2.

7. Trenberth, K.E., Fasullo, J.T., O’Dell, C., Wong, T. Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2010, 37, L03702.

© 2011 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf

dave-o
09-02-11, 10:39 PM
"Consensus is collusion" is something traditional skeptics hear all the time. Outsiders branding themselves as brave pioneers of truth is not a new idea; homeopaths, chiropractors, ghost hunters and psychics all make the same claim.

Researchers using the same models and the increasingly similar results from model to model may look suspicious to most people (especially if so inclined to think there is a conspiracy), but for anyone who has any sort of scientific background, it is both normal and expected. It happens to be perfectly consistent with good science. That is exactly what you expect to happen. Real researchers are instead skeptical of the one study that says the opposite. It is that contradictory study that has the high burden of proof.

Yes, there could be a wide-spread conspiracy, and yes, they could all be sharing the same fictional research to get their research grants and federal money (although it doesn't explain non-US researchers). The "Team" is sorta consistent with a conspiracy... but it is also consistent with having the right answer. This is especially true when the majority of scientists with relevant research all basically fall to the same side as them. When in doubt, I lean towards occam's razor.

Even if you exclude Mann's work, you still have most other researchers showing a warm medieval period, a small cooling drop, and rapid warming since the 19th Century.

What I profoundly dislike about Mann is his refusal to release source-code, even if it is ugly, he should do it. Much of today's climate research is readily available and his refusal is in bad form. I do understand it though. In academia you typically did not release code, especially if it wasn't formatted for public viewing and would likely cost a lot to format. You report what you did, not how you did it. Repeatability by others using their own code is more important. Recently our research "climate" has changed some; new research isn't cobbled together with bits of string and FORTRAN anymore. This site is doing the right thing and anyone can recheck NASA's findings.

http://clearclimatecode.org/
http://clearclimatecode.org/ccc-gistemp-release-0-6-0/

Now you can use raw data to conduct your own research, nobody is stopping anyone from doing that.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

But again, like I said before, that one study by Mann isn't the entire show.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

While I get what you are saying and they are fair points about how good science works, they are also general rules and we are still required to look closer into the details of specific areas of research, as the rules have flaws. I consider myself fairly well reversed at reading various scientific studies (having done it for most of my adult life and being on the other end too, by getting research published). So I like to think I am better than the average bear at spotting science that is lacking (just my opi nion of course).

Again, it's been a while since I delved into these studies and my impression was that there were some serious flaws. What is truly needed, if it hasn't yet been done, are actual independent studies to get repeatability. Garbage in, garbage out as the saying goes. Also, when you a have a relatively small, insular community of scientists, in a niche field, errors of bias need to be even more carefully guarded against. This was particularly lacking in the paleoclimatology community. Perhaps this has changed since I read the research last, at least I hope it has.