The One and Only Global Warming Thread Part 4

[VinVega]

Sponsored by www.movielib.org. "Punching Al Gore in the face since 2002."

Previous Thread Here

Enjoy.

[movielib]

Lubos Motl has also endorsed Climate Audit:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/cl...or-better.html

Wednesday, November 07, 2007
ClimateAudit to be 2nd or better

I don't think that Bad Astronomy, the current front-runner, is a worthless blog but still, it is too influenced by ideological preconceptions and it is arguably too superficial.

The Reference Frame that wasn't nominated votes for ClimateAudit that is 300 votes behind Bad Astronomy and 500 votes ahead of Pharyngula, an anti-Christian blog occassionally dedicated to biology that was more successful a year ago. JunkScience will remain fourth. Other well-known and not-too-well-known blogs don't have a chance.

You can also vote for whomever you want - one vote per computer and 24 hours. I endorse ClimateAudit because it is a very substantial blog that always tries to go deeply into its favorite topics and avoids ideology. If you think that the science blogosphere is dangerously influenced by a certain way of thinking and you consider, much like I do, ClimateAudit as a refreshing exception, try to convince other people to vote for ClimateAudit.

Most importantly, Steve McIntyre has achieved rather remarkable results in which his blog played an important role. The well-known co-debunker of the hockey stick has also found rather serious problems with the U.S. temperature record.

Steve McIntyre and his blog undoubtedly contribute to an increase of quality of climate science.

The final results will be announced in two days.

I think the most important point is that Steve McIntyre has made immeasurable and unignorable contributions to the CAGW debate which is arguably, because of its implications for public policy, the most important scientific question of our time.

Link for voting repeated for new thread:

http://2007.weblogawards.org/polls/b...nce-blog-1.php

[movielib]

New study says global warming is not linked to Pacific storms:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...scityph107.xml

Global warming 'not linked' to typhoons

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 07/11/2007

A study of intense typhoons in the Pacific has failed to show a link with global warming, instead revealing that their number waxes and wanes naturally over the decades.

Even in the Atlantic, where these intense storms are called hurricanes, climate experts have not formed a consensus, with many - but by no means all - believing hurricanes have become stronger and longer-lasting over the past 30 years due to a rise in sea surface temperatures, possibly as a result of global warming.

Today, in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, a study of typhoons is published by Prof Johnny Chan, City University of Hong Kong.

A major conclusion of his study is that global warming apparently is not related to the frequency of intense typhoons.

Instead, such occurrences have a strong decadal variation caused by similar variations in the oceanographic and atmospheric conditions that govern the formation, intensification and movement of tropical cyclones.

Prof Chan said that there are key differences between the Pacific and the Atlantic. In the latter, sea-surface temperature is generally close to a threshold of 27 degrees, beyond which more tropical cyclones are more likely to form, he said.

Although some have linked hurricanes to climate change, others believe the variations follow a natural cycle, he said: "More analyses are necessary before one can say one way or the other."

For the western North Pacific, the sea surface temperature is always above the threshold. "Therefore, a slight increase due to global warming would not have a great influence".

Chris Landsea showed that there was a lack of evidence for a link in the Atlantic and any supposed apparent link was due to poorer ability to detect storms before satellites (not acknowledged in the article) and this study shows a lack of evidence for the Pacific.

[movielib]

Regarding the weblog voting, it has been extremely difficult to get through to the site nearly all day since about before noon. From reports, BA has increased its lead once again to several hundred. Pharyngula (which won last year and is running third this year) is badmouthing CA and telling everyone to vote for BA to prevent CA from winning. I did manage to get in one vote for CA about a half hour ago but I haven't been able to access the site since.

Regardless of whether it finishes first or second I think this is a remarkable achievement for CA. By reports it gets far less traffic and is far less known than BA. BA is getting votes from people voting against CA; many of those votes would have gone to Pharyngula. CA's votes are not because its voters are trying to stop a different blog from winning but because they believe in CA.

Edit: The Weblog site seems to have become accessible again.

[Duran]

I'm happy if either wins. Bad Astronomy is run by a skeptic, which ultimately has the same effect of encouraging people to think critically about what they hear and read.

[movielib]

Originally Posted by Duran

I'm happy if either wins. Bad Astronomy is run by a skeptic, which ultimately has the same effect of encouraging people to think critically about what they hear and read.

Sure but BA shouldn't win because of crap like this:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2323#comments

Post #127: Steve McIntyre says:
November 7th, 2007 at 5:09 pm

I see that Pharyngula is calling me a “undeserving mouthpiece for right-wing hackery”.

I take considerable pride in not being a “mouthpiece” for anyone. The views that I express are my own. I cannot imagine what basis, if any, he has for purporting to discern my political views or what evidence he has for calling them “right-wing”. I challenge him or anyone else to locate any quotes from me that support such allegations.

It’s fine for PZ Myers to support his friend over at Bad Astronomy, but it’s inappropriate for him to disseminate hate allegations.

[Duran]

Originally Posted by movielib

Sure but BA shouldn't win because of crap like this:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2323#comments

Yes, but as far as I can tell there's no indication BA itself is involved in that silliness.

[atlantamoi]

Saw this linked to Drudge:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...t-scam-history

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
By Noel Sheppard | November 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

_________________

movielib, have you seen the super doomy article in a recent Rolling Stone (Springsteen on the cover)? It's crazy. Scientist James Lovelock talking about chaos in only 30 years. Here's the link:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...james_lovelock

Rolling Stone's politics usually gives me a good chuckle. I wish they'd offer counter perspectives at times.

[movielib]

Originally Posted by Duran

Yes, but as far as I can tell there's no indication BA itself is involved in that silliness.

I agree. The crap seems to be coming from Pharyngula. This from the Pharyngula site:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Vote on the Weblog Awards, while you still can

Category: Weblogs

You can vote today, and you can vote tomorrow, and then the polls close…so get out there and vote for Bad Astronomy for best science blog. The forces of stupidity have been motivated and are pushing a denialist blog up in the rankings, and it would be good to consolidate our votes and make sure a decent blog wins. Tim Lambert agrees, and also informs us that Steve Milloy has endorsed the Climate Audit blog—any doubt that it was an undeserving mouthpiece for right-wing hackery has now ended.

Besides, I'm rooming with Phil this weekend in Washington DC, and I really don't want to have to put up with his bitter tears the whole time, or worse, if he feels compelled to drown his sorrows in vodka. Vote BA, because grown astronomers shouldn't have to cry, and because I want to have fun, rather than nursing a broken man.

Obviously the two site owners are friends but I won't infer anything from that.

[movielib]

Originally Posted by atlantamoi

Saw this linked to Drudge:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...t-scam-history

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
By Noel Sheppard | November 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion [sic - I think he intended to say illusion] of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

I saw that yesterday and decided against posting it. While I of course agree with some of it, I think it goes way too far in attributing motive and charging fraud. Much of that cannot be substantiated. Perhaps his over-the-top rhetoric is a result of frustration over the one-sided coverage of the MSM and the present uber-alarmist stance of the Weather Channel. Nevertheless I think skeptics should stick to facts which can be supported. We shouldn't stoop to the level of the opposition.

On the other hand, I'm glad you posted it. I wanted to point out the irony that Heidi Cullen, CAGW hysteric-in chief for the present Weather Channel, would not even have her particular job if it weren't for the pioneering work of skeptic Jack Coleman in creating the Weather Channel.

_________________

movielib, have you seen the super doomy article in a recent Rolling Stone (Springsteen on the cover)? It's crazy. Scientist James Lovelock talking about chaos in only 30 years. Here's the link:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...james_lovelock

Rolling Stone's politics usually gives me a good chuckle. I wish they'd offer counter perspectives at times.

I haven't read it although I've seen some of the Lovelock excerpts. How anyone can take Lovelock seriously is beyond me.

[movielib]

The Weblog Awards site continues to have on again, off again accessibility. But the last time I was able to check, about a half hour ago, CA had blown past BA with a nearly 1,000 vote lead. There have been several possibly suspicious surges, with BA getting large chunks twice when CA nearly caught up and now CA getting such a huge boost all of a sudden. But I have learned that both Icecap and Newsbusters gave big endorsements to CA. The latter, especially, judging by its always lively and voluminous comment sections, seems to have a large following. I guess the certain accusations of vote fraud by both sides will be investigated by Weblog and it will be sorted out.

Alarmist site RealClimate has remained silent on this whole thing. Perhaps it's because it's not in the running (it was last year and did very poorly) and they would only be telling people to vote against CA as they have no reason to support BA, other than preventing CA from winning.

BTW, I've read that voting closes at 5:30pm CST today.

Correction: 4:00pm CST.

[movielib]

I think I'm seeing something highly suspicious. 200 votes for BA in about 5 minutes. The pace has never been anything like this before. Both sides may be cheating but this seems the most suspicious of all the shenanigans.

Edit: A nearly 1000 vote CA lead has been cut in half in about 10 minutes! WTF?

Edit: I'm going to the grocery store in a few minutes. By then I expect BA to be in the lead.

Edit: Now both are surging forward at unrealistic rates. I really do think both sides have learned how to cheat and are doing it wholesale. It is sort of fun - clicking refresh every few seconds and seeing the votes mount up. Diebold must be consulting for both sides (joke).

Edit: Going now. When I get back there will probably be more votes cast in this poll than in the 2004 presidential race.

Edit: I'm back. CA has lengthened its lead to more than 800 votes. My side has better cheaters than their side.

[Red Dog]

Maybe all we need to do is pray is stop global warming. That's what GA Governor Sonny Purdue is going to do - host a prayer service - to end the drought in GA.

[OldDude]

Originally Posted by movielib

I saw that yesterday and decided against posting it. While I of course agree with some of it, I think it goes way too far in attributing motive and charging fraud. Much of that cannot be substantiated. Perhaps his over-the-top rhetoric is a result of frustration over the one-sided coverage of the MSM and the present uber-alarmist stance of the Weather Channel. Nevertheless I think skeptics should stick to facts which can be supported. We shouldn't stoop to the level of the opposition.

The preponderance of biased reporting, opacity of data, and willingness to attack the messenger not the message on the warmist side make a compelling, if circumstantial case for fraud and motive.

Certainly investigative journalists are failing to meet the standard for investigating, and "scientists" have demonstrated a lack of interest in truth, vs. agenda. Such failures on the part of a few players suggests incompetence; when it is virtually the entire "establishment," you have to suspect (and begin to investigate?) crookedness.

[General Zod]

Originally Posted by OldDude

The preponderance of biased reporting, opacity of data, and willingness to attack the messenger not the message on the warmist side make a compelling, if circumstantial case for fraud and motive.

Certainly investigative journalists are failing to meet the standard for investigating, and "scientists" have demonstrated a lack of interest in truth, vs. agenda. Such failures on the part of a few players suggests incompetence; when it is virtually the entire "establishment," you have to suspect (and begin to investigate?) crookedness.

The very fact that politicians are the main ringleaders of the entire global warming movement should at least give some people a clue.

[movielib]

Originally Posted by OldDude

The preponderance of biased reporting, opacity of data, and willingness to attack the messenger not the message on the warmist side make a compelling, if circumstantial case for fraud and motive.

Yes, it's all highly suspicious. But without proof I'm wary of actually attributing such motives to all of them. Certainly some have been dishonest but I still do believe that most of the alarmist scientists are simply self-deceiving and wrong rather than conscious frauds.

Certainly investigative journalists are failing to meet the standard for investigating, and "scientists" have demonstrated a lack of interest in truth, vs. agenda. Such failures on the part of a few players suggests incompetence; when it is virtually the entire "establishment," you have to suspect (and begin to investigate?) crookedness.

The journalists have, without a doubt, abandoned all rational standards. And scientists, as I just stated above, may very well be deceiving themselves and lowering their standards to get the result they desire. But I do accept that there is a difference between unconscious and conscious fraud. Unfortunately, the result is the same with either.

[movielib]

There are many possible explanations being given for the apparently massive and odd vote for the Weblog Science Award. That the votes are not in real time, that they are being cached and being released periodically, that big votes are the result of different websites giving boosts to one or the other contender. Or fraud by one side or both. Or any combination.

Whatever, I really have to wonder if everyone is adhering to the rules: one vote per 24 hours per computer. I, for example, with access to four computers (two at home and two at work), have voted maybe a dozen times (I've missed some chances). The site controls are supposed to block any more voting than that but, of course, we know some computer wizes can circumvent such safeguards.

In any event, just since I've gotten home I've found out that while I was gone, CA's lead has been as high as 2000 and as low as 500. Right now, at this very moment (it will change in a millisecond) it's a robust 1727. Less than an hour to go, that would seem insurmountable. But this is not Kansas.

[movielib]

I have to be somewhere at 4:00 so I won't see the end. I'll check in when I get back.

[movielib]

Well, it's all over and Climate Audit won by 1428 votes (a few votes are still trickling in, probably from caches but it is essentially over). I assume Weblog will check as well as it can for cheating and we'll see what happens there.

I just want to say that Phil Plait, head of Bad Astronomy, has not stayed totally above the fray. He has accused CA of being not "a real science site" which is ridiculous. He called JunkScience "an anti-science site" which is equally ridiculous. In the following blog Plait posted near the end of the voting, he accused CA of saying things that were not true about BA (very possibly some posters did but that is also true of posters at BA) but Steve McIntyre remained his typical calm, rational, polite self the entire time. Ironically, Plait was going to endorse Pharyngula if it pulled ahead and Pharyngula has been monstrously rabid in its treatment of CA. Given that BA and Pharyngula were running neck and neck (and Pharyngula won last year) it was probably just as likely that they would have been the one to get a slight lead first. Then the rabid mad-dog site would have punched it out with CA and with BA's endorsement. Here is Plait's blog:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2...comment-138890

Posted at 2:47 pm in Politics, About this blog, Science, Antiscience

Note: somehow, I thought the voting ended tomorrow. In fact, it ends at 5:00 p.m. Eastern time today.

Criminy, this web award thingy is getting some attention.

Boing Boing posted on it, as well as Fark, Point-oh, Cognitive Daily, Sadly, No! and many others (even BuzzFeed!).

What silliness!

Let’s be clear: this whole thing is really just a skewed popularity contest. Skewed because people can vote more than once, and because bloggers across many websites can exhort their readers to vote for one blog over another, without the voters even knowing anything about the sites.

There are ironies abounding. I was going to be low-key about this, because although it was fun to play the silly game PZ and I did last year, I didn’t want to irritate my readers again. :-) But then Climate Audit jumped in and said some things about the BABlog that weren’t true (though it has been updated to more closely represent reality since then). I thought about it, and decided to defend myself.

I didn’t ask for this, and was going to avoid it, but now, well, here we are.

And now we see an anti-global warming site — and it would be dishonest to call it anything else; although others have defended it saying he only attacks those who misuses statistics, where are his attacks on those who use GW statistics to deny it exists? [Note by movielib: Actually, neither Steve nor almost anyone else who posts on CA has ever claimed GW does not exist] — pulling ahead, partially because some antiscience sites (cough cough Junk Science) are pushing for it.

So I had to wade in to this. I’ll be very honest: a couple of days ago PZ and I were neck-and-neck, and I was considering endorsing him instead of me if he started to pull ahead, at least so that a real science site would win the award. Instead, I started eking out a lead, and he endorsed me.

Here’s the voting panel. If you see the actual stats, it means you’ve voted in the last 24 hours. If you see the list of blogs with buttons to vote, then go ahead. I’d appreciate your vote, but only if you really do like this site. Otherwise, come back Saturday or Sunday, and I’ll be on the science and politics you know and love/hate as usual.

Edit: I recommend reading the comments to Plait's above blog. There is a lot of Steve McIntyre support there for the reason that McIntyre has rightfully earned the respect of so many people who have actually read what he has to say and not just the attacks against him. If there is any more fair-minded person than McIntyre I would love to meet that person because he or she would be near saintly (that assessment is coming from an atheist).

[movielib]

OK, more shenanigans. Fully 3½ hours after the polls closed, 1400 votes were "found' for BA. I was watching TV so I didn't find out about this until now. Apparently the votes just "showed up" and the score is now

BA 20683
CA 20638

which would give it to BA by 45 votes.

The administrator at Weblog said to someone who said he was allowed to vote after the polls closed:

http://weblogawards.proboards85.com/...4559563&page=2

It let you "vote" (I put vote in quotes because your vote did not really count) because you had a cached copy of the balloting SWF file. I agree that this should not happen, and we'll fix that next year. But no matter what you saw on the page, no votes that came in after closing time count.

So it looks like the mysterious 1400 votes will be disqualified.

Winners are still supposed to be announce tonight but it will be delayed if there are still issues to be resolved.

No matter what happens, this is a big win for Climate Audit. Probably thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of people were introduced to CA because of all this.

I am also glad I learned about BA. I'm sure I had heard about it and I think I have even gone there a couple of times from links about something I was investigating. But it wasn't a site I was particularly conscious of.

On the other hand I will never knowingly go to Pharyngula. I couldn't care less that it is run by a fellow atheist. From what I've seen he seems to be an irrational, closed-minded lunatic.

[movielib]

Steve McIntyre, ever gracious, has added a link to Bad Astronomy (as he links to RealClimate although it's not reciprocated). We'll see if BA returns the favor; somehow I doubt it will. But even Steve could not bring himself to link to the ranting insanities and inanities at Pharyngula.

[movielib]

http://2007.weblogawards.org/polls/b...nce-blog-1.php

RESULTS ARE NOT FINAL FOR THIS POLL! This poll is still being checked for excessive voting from individual machines. If excess voting is found it will be noted and the votes will be removed. The winner should be announced Monday.

[Duran]

Originally Posted by movielib

Steve McIntyre, ever gracious, has added a link to Bad Astronomy (as he links to RealClimate although it's not reciprocated). We'll see if BA returns the favor; somehow I doubt it will. But even Steve could not bring himself to link to the ranting insanities and inanities at Pharyngula.

BA has, and I found his last post on the matter reasonable, for the most part, even though I disagree on some points.

[movielib]

Originally Posted by Duran

BA has, and I found his last post on the matter reasonable, for the most part, even though I disagree on some points.

I'm not sure if you are saying BA has linked to CA. If you are it is in a different sense than CA's link to BA. CA has added BA to its permanent list of blog links. BA merely has a reference link to CA in a post, not a permanent link in its list of links as CA has done. I'm sure Steve will keep the BA link even if it's never reciprocated, just as he has done with RealClimate.

I agree Phil's post is somewhat reasonable. Like you I disagree with parts of it.

[Duran]

Originally Posted by movielib

I'm not sure if you are saying BA has linked to CA. If you are it is in a different sense than CA's link to BA. CA has added BA to its permanent list of blog links. BA merely has a reference link to CA in a post, not a permanent link in its list of links as CA has done. I'm sure Steve will keep the BA link even if it's never reciprocated, just as he has done with RealClimate.

I agree Phil's post is somewhat reasonable. Like you I disagree with parts of it.

I don't think BA has any obligation to link to any other blogs, especially one like Climate Audit which is barely related. But including the links when referencing the blogs in posts is courteous and is really all that should be expected of anyone.