Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Old 02-20-10, 09:57 PM
  #51  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel and meteorologist for decades for local TV stations and, for seven years, ABC's Good Morning America, showed his second global warming special Thursday night, Global Warming Meltdown, on his present station, KUSI in San Diego (his "retirement job" as he calls it). If anything, the show was even better than the first. I posted the first show but rather than hunt for it in the last thread, I'll tell you you can find it here:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81583352.html

The second program can be viewed here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/2...be/#more-16584

These are can't miss programs that I cannot recommend too highly.

Coleman notes at the end of the second program that his are the only skeptical global warming programs that have been shown by any local US TV station in prime time. He is thankful to his station for allowing him such a great opportunity and when all is said and done I think they might be seen as historic.

Edit: Lubos Motl pointed out that Coleman made an error when he said the Himalayas cover 1/10 of the Earth's surface when it is actually 1/200. One wonders how he could come up with such a huge mistake but it doesn't affect his argument on the point and I'll bet he would immediately admit the error and not accuse the critic of "voodoo science."

Edit #2: I did a little resarch and math and found that the Himalayas (612,000 sq km) actually cover about 1/833 of the Earth's surface (510,000,000 sq km). If you are generous to Coleman you could interpret his statement as 1/10 of the Earth's land area (although he clearly said 1/10 of the planet's surface) and that would be about 1/240, in the neighborhood of what Lubos said.

On a hunch I added up the areas of the countries the Himalayas run through except China (India, Tibet (I know, technically part of China but disputed), Nepal, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bhutan) and that added up to a little more than 6,000,000 sq km. The Himalayas are roughly 1/10 of that. I'm not saying that's how the error happened but it's a fairly plausible explanation. Still, the figure applied to the Earth's surface or even its land area sounds absurd and should have made somebody say WTF?!

Last edited by movielib; 02-21-10 at 10:17 AM.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-20-10, 10:54 PM
  #52  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

A story from two weeks ago that was missed. An island is not disappearing because of rising sea levels although an alarmist scientist claimed it was and a magazine article also said it. The natives knew what it really was and the writer of this article did his job and reported the truth rather than a dishonest alarmist global warming story.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/dc-co...ing-island-316

Climate change hoax on a sinking island
February 7th, 2010
By Richard Orange

You couldn’t hope for a more perfect climate change victim than Ajay Patra, the head man of Ghoramara — the island in India’s Sunderban chain that is next in line to be submerged beneath the rising sea. The hungry tide has already claimed all but seven of the 100 hectares his family had once owned, Ajay told me. Each year, he directs his villagers to pile felled trees onto the mud, in the deluded hope of building the island back up. And each monsoon, the sea rips the crude barriers down, tearing off another chunk of his birthright. He is like a modern-day Canute.

As we sipped tea outside Ajay’s large mud bungalow, I excitedly scribbled notes, imagining how all this would go down in the Ecologist magazine, or perhaps the London-based Independent. It had already run an article reporting the disappearance of the next-door island of Lohachara, “the first inhabited island to be claimed by climate change”. I felt sure they’d love this too. But when I asked Ajay what he made of the fact that all of his troubles were the direct result of heavy industry thousands of miles away, he looked at me like I was mad.

“It’s not because of global warming, it’s because of natural erosion”, he said. “People settled this island before they should have, the land mass is unstable”.

I smiled inwardly. It was, perhaps, too much to expect a simple village leader to have a full grasp of the science of global warming. But later, as I examined the dramatic waterline of Ghoramara, I began to have doubts. There were steep, jagged mud cliffs, two or three metres high, marking where the rough sea had torn off strips of land in the last monsoon. Wouldn’t a submerging island sit a bit lower in the water? The other giveaway were the local names for the rivers. There’s the Matla (the drunken river), and the Ichamati (the free-willed river), both named because of the frequency with which they shift course, destroying land here and throwing up new land elsewhere.

Then there’s New Moore Island, which appeared in the Sunderbans for the first time in 1970 and has been growing apace ever since (causing a dispute between India and Bangladesh as to who should own it). New Moore Island was 2,500 square metres when it emerged. It’s around 10,000 square metres today, and such is the scale of the sedimentary deposits building up around it that it’s expected to hit 25 square kilometres in a couple of decades.

To my shame, I must confess that I still tried to make the story work long after all this was apparent. And I imagine every other journalist who has arrived on these islands with global warming in mind has done exactly the same thing.

It wasn’t until I met Sugata Hazra, the director of the School of Oceanographic Studies at Jadavpur University, in nearby Kolkata, and the man who claimed to have discovered the disappearance of Lohachara in 2002, that the alarm bells started ringing at full volume. Dr Hazra claimed that “relative sea levels” in the Sunderbans were rising at 3.2 mm a year, about twice the global rate. It seemed fishy to me.

Geologically, the Sunderbans may be sinking. The weight of the sediment coming down the Ganges from the Himalayas is gradually tilting the plate on which it sits. But this has nothing to do with global warming or rising sea levels. After all, no one ever links New Moore Island’s rise to “relative falling sea levels”.

If about 2.2 mm of Hazra’s 3.2 mm came from “natural subsidence” and erosion, as Hazra’s own 2002 study admitted, wasn’t it a bit misleading to blame rising sea levels? “It’s a complicated process that isn’t fully understood”, was all Dr Hazra said when pressed.

On the nearby island of Ganga Sagar, the wild divergence between Dr Hazra’s account and that of the villagers became embarrassingly obvious. Those set to lose their land were certainly suffering. But no one blamed rising sea levels. They blamed the government’s unwillingness to spend money on a proper concrete breakwater, and the shortsightedness of the well-meaning philanthropists who had settled them there over the last 100 years.

This is what Ajay Patra had meant by the land being settled too soon. Up until the late 19th century, very few people lived on the Sunderban islands, partly because of their tendency to vanish every hundred years or so. It was a Scot, Sir Daniel Hamilton, who pioneered the settlement on Sagar, and at around the same time Ghoramara and Lohachara were settled with landless peasants by their owner — a socially-minded maharaja from the mainland. Neither gave much thought as to why the land was uninhabited. It’s their lack of foresight that’s to blame for the plight of the Sunderban islanders.

Some time later, when I was back in London for a few weeks, I came across an issue of the Ecologist. On the front cover was a spindly Indian boy of about 11, standing on a small spit of muddy sand, completely surrounded by water — as if the photographer had somehow chanced upon the island at the exact point of its disappearance. It was the island of Ghoramara. “His exhausted body a prisoner to the Bay of Bengal’s violent tides, Dependra Das stretches out his bony arms” ran the introduction. The headline was: “The world’s first environmental refugees”.
This is an amazing story which should be printed everywhere as a lesson in the way environmental journalism is so often abused. As I've long said, it is advocacy and propaganda, not journalism as it used to be practiced when it had standards of truth and integrity.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-20-10, 11:12 PM
  #53  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Anatomy of a realclimate.org defense and attack.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/201...rit-large.html

Self-deception writ large
Posted by Richard [North]
Saturday, February 20, 2010

A recent interview with Michael Mann – of "hockeystick" fame - has him in a defensive mood, complaining about the "twisted" media coverage which he has had to endure.

As to redressing what Mann feels is the balance, he refers to "this website" Real Climate, "that I'm involved in along with roughly a dozen other scientists." The purpose of the website, Mann claims, "is to try to communicate to the interested public what the science actually has to say."

What is both so terribly sad is that Mann undoubtedly believes what he is saying, and expresses his views in all sincerity. One problem, though. is that the site, recognisably, is about advocacy rather than explanation. It does not tell the public "what the science actually has to say" – it is there to defend the orthodoxy.

Another, more serious problem – which stems from the first – is that the narrative is irretrievably biased, very often subtly, in such a way that the message is wholly distorted, tilted towards the favoured line, in a way that is wholly anti-scientific.

Yet, all along, it represents itself as the unvarnished truth, as presented by honest (implied) "climate scientists", thus claiming a superior status over less well-endowed commentary, which is characterised as "the anti-climate science effort."

Excellent examples of this can be found in the recent post, labelled, with unconscious irony, "IPCC errors: facts and spin", the piece itself a classic example of "spin".

How that "spin" manifests itself can be seen in the treatment of several of the issues raised, not least in the attempt to diminish the importance of "Africagate", which is a classic of its kind.

The main techniques deployed are the "straw man", misrepresenting the nature of the complaint, then to deal with the distorted version rather than the actual case presented, and positive "framing" – building up the report before addressing the criticism. This is then complemented by belittling the criticism.

Thus, we have Real Climate present the issue with the statement: "The IPCC Synthesis Report states: 'By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%."

Now, the essence of the complaint, expressed in Jonathan Leake's article - articulated via professor Chris Field – is that there is "nothing in the report to support the claim." Furthermore, the statement has been widely quoted by Pachauri and others, including Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

However, neither of these issues is addressed here. Instead, we are immediately told that the claim is "properly referenced back to chapter 9.4 of WG2." Not said, of course, it that the Synthesis Report was published with great fanfare separately from the WG2 report, and is the one which represents the considered view of the IPCC, the report most widely read and quoted by the media.

Only that smaller number who then referred to chapter 9.4 of WG2 would find what Real Climate now highlights. The chapter section says: "In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003)." Of this, we are told: "The Agoumi reference is correct and reported correctly."

So far, therefore, we have two "positive" statements: the Synthesis Report is "properly referenced" and the Agoumi reference is "correct and reported correctly". Actually, neither of these points is at issue – they are irrelevant to the argument. But they have created an impression of rectitude, attempting to condition the reader.

Then comes the "straw man". The main criticism, we are told, is that that Agoumi (2003) "is not a peer-reviewed study ... but a report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Climate Change Knowledge Network". But that is not the main criticism. The main criticism is that there is nothing in the report to support the claim.

However, with the "straw man" up and running, the counter argument is then lodged. Firstly, the "prestige" of the report is built up as we are told that it is "funded by the US Agency for International Development." This, again, is totally irrelevant to the argument but, to the untutored, it confers a certain amount of authority.

An omission is also notable. Although the International Institute for Sustainable Development claims to be a think-tank, it is by its own declaration, an advocacy group. But Real Climate readers are not allowed to know this.

Instead, the author is quite happy to take Leake's evaluation of Agoumi's worth at face value. When it suits, Leake is a reliable source. Thus, the report is written by Morroccan (sic) "climate expert Professor Ali Agoumi". Whatever Agoumi is, he is not a "climate expert" and, particularly, he has no track record in climate impacts. But the description serves, so it is used.

As for the report itself, this is given the most positive spin possible. It is, "a summary of technical studies and research conducted to inform Initial National Communications from three countries (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change."

By contrast, Leake's point is that Agoumi refers to "other reports prepared by civil servants in each of the three countries as submissions to the UN. These do not appear to have been peer-reviewed either."

Given a more critical and searching demeanour, Real Climate could have noted that, rather than refer to Agoumi, the authors of the WG2 report could have referenced the Initial National Communications – the primary rather than secondary sources.

This is a simple, obvious point that any real scientist would make. You do not, as a rule, reference secondary sources when primary sources are available. If you did that in a PhD thesis, an alert supervisor or examiner would strike it out and you would be made to go back and cite the originals.

The IPPC report, of course, is not a PhD thesis - it is supposed to the "gold standard". Yet what would be unacceptable of a collage graduate is deemed by the "climate scientists" of Real Climate to be perfectly acceptable for the IPCC.

This, however, is also the nub of the argument. Had this issue been explored, it would have been seen that the references cited by Agoumi did not support the contention he had made – thereby standing up Leake's complaint, that there is "nothing in the report to support the claim."

Instead, Real Climate does not even deal with the real complaint, instead averring that the Agoumi report "is a perfectly legitimate IPCC reference". Even if that was true, it does not address the substantive issues.

What we then get is a lengthy dissertation about the contents of chapter 9.4 – none of which is at all relevant to the issue. But it allows the comment that it "sounds like a balanced discussion of potential risks and benefits, based on the evidence available at the time – hardly the stuff for shrill 'Africagate!' cries."

The technique here is wearily transparent. Having trotted round the block with your "straw man", you belittle your critics.

Then, and only then, do you add as an afterthought: "If the IPCC can be criticized here, it is that in condensing these results for its Synthesis Report, important nuance and qualification were lost."

By such means, the substantive and very real issue is reduced in scope and importance to a mere footnote, a minor misdemeanour rather than a major and glaring felony.

This is not honest science. It is dishonest wordplay, and all the more contemptible for its pretence at being something else. If the authors believe – like Mann – they are telling the truth, they are deceiving themselves. It is self-deception writ large.
This is all too typical of realclimate. It's funny, I used to think realclimate might actually, at least sometimes, come up with a legitimate argument that would be difficult for skeptics to counter or that they would occasionally come up with something of substance. I somewhat dutifully but warily visited at least once daily to see if there was something meaningful they would actually contribute in defense of their position. Now I still visit at least once daily but have no expectation they will do anything honest or make any real contribution to the scientific debate even though realclimate is claimed to be run by "real working climate scientists." They may have degrees that have "science" written on them in some form but they have given up being scientists long ago, forgetting such scientific necessities as the scientific method, the primacy of observation and data over models and the need for releasing all data and having their work replicated. I now visit realclimate at least once daily for a dose of comedy relief.

Last edited by movielib; 02-21-10 at 07:26 AM.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-21-10, 04:07 PM
  #54  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

movielib is offline  
Old 02-21-10, 10:52 PM
  #55  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Some articles are just all around great. Such as this one with a cascade of insights.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...eat_on_th.html

February 21, 2010
Time to Turn Up the Heat on the Warmists
By Selwyn Duke

At one time, some would call them "deniers." The more generous called them "skeptics." But now, increasingly, it appears that they can be called something else: sane. Yes, the climate has certainly changed.

Even in the mainstream media, the less liberal organs are waking up. There is now a never-ending barrage of articles on the climate scam, with The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post firing some recent salvos. And these inconvenient truths are just adding to a case against the Climateers that has become dizzying.

Really, those issuing Chicken Little warnings had a tough sell from the get-go. We're told that our world has seen at least five major ice ages, but then again, I've also heard four. It has experienced numerous minor ones, although I'm not sure if anyone knows precisely how many. In fact, we hear that the pattern is to have 100,000-year glacial periods followed by 12,000-year interglacials, with 1,500-year cycles of warming and cooling embedded within them. We're told that during part of the Cryogenian Period -- otherwise known as "Snowball Earth" -- the world was completely blanketed with snow and ice, and that during another period, glaciers were almost or completely gone. Furthermore, we're informed that during the latter, there was still, believe it or not, dry land and creatures to tread upon it.

But the creature called man has the capacity to worry, and worry he does. He worried about global cooling in the 1970s and then later about global warming. Then it became "climate change." He worried about causing rising seas, even though we know that the ocean around Florida was once three hundred feet lower and at another time a hundred feet higher. He worried that CO2 -- a naturally occurring gas necessary for life and conducive to plant growth (which is why botanists pump it into greenhouses) -- would spell our end. Never mind how it's said that CO2-level changes follow temperature changes, not the reverse. A hypothesis needed its data.

Then, oh, boy, did we hear about that data. First there was Climategate, with e-mails showing that "scientists" had schemed to suppress inconvenient truths and had refused to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. Then came the admission that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was dead wrong about Himalayan ice melt. And other shoes have dropped as well. Remember the IPCC warning that climate change could cause the loss of 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest? It was based on a report by an advocacy group, the World Wildlife Fund, that misrepresented a study. Then we learned of other notable IPCC sources as well, such as a student's master's dissertation and a sporting magazine.

Next, notorious University of East Anglia head and central Climategate figure Phil Jones may not yet be starting to sing truly, but he is at least singing a different tune. He now admits that the Medieval Warm Period might have been toastier than today, meaning that current temperatures "would not be unprecedented." To those of us who vaguely remember stories about dinosaurs and Mesozoic CO2 levels five to ten times today's and temperatures 11 to 22 degrees greater, this isn't exactly earth-shattering. Jones also admits that there has been no "statistically significant" warming since 1995, something that, when asserted mere months ago, got one branded a flat-earther. In addition, he now says that the Gorelesque view that "the debate is over" is "not my view." Interestingly, though, he never made this known until he was caught green-handed.

Then we heard how the 6,000 weather stations that collected temperature data had mysteriously been reduced to 1,500, and that those eliminated just happened to be in cooler regions. As for examples of those used, journalist Wesley Pruden writes, "Several were located near air-conditioning units and on waste-treatment plants; one was next to a waste incinerator. Still another was built at Rome's international airport and catches the hot exhaust of taxiing jetliners." That's almost as bad as positioning one in front of Al Gore's mouth.

But, hey, while the Chicken Little Climateers had a tough sell, they had the Government-Media-Academia-Entertainment Axis on their side and a tight little theory. If it got warmer, it was man's fault. If it got cooler, it was man's fault. If it got warmer in places it was cooler and cooler in places it was warmer, it was man's fault. If the weather became more volatile, it was man's fault. The only thing that could have disproven their theory was if the weather stayed precisely the same henceforth, anywhere and everywhere. Of course, this actually would be unprecedented.

The Climateers, however, can change as quickly as what they claim to care about. For example, robbed of settled-science sleight-of-hand, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel now states, "We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty [before acting]."

Ah, that's the ticket. Before, we had to do something because of certainty; now we have to do something because of uncertainty.

Well, my head is spinning. Trying to process all these twists and turns, my mind has become a hodgepodge of information resembling Phil Jones' office.

Yet amidst this exposition of fact and exposure of fiction, one point never changes: We have been had. And one question remains: Will justice be done?

Let us be clear on the gravity of the Climateers' crime: They have used billions of our tax money to fund fraudulent science. And why?

For the purposes of promoting policies that would steal billions more.

And what happens now? Do they just get to say "oops" and slink away?

Unfortunately, this prospect is better than what may actually happen, as the Climateers may very well be able to wait out the current storm. Take Phil Jones, for instance. Although little more than a criminal with a science degree, he is avoiding a criminal investigation because it's too late under the law to prosecute. Moreover, he has not been fired from his position as head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Sciences Unit; he has merely stepped aside temporarily. And while recent revelations that he was contemplating suicide may evoke sympathy in some, cry me a rising ocean. If you're a good man with the courage of your convictions, you don't think about ending it all upon meeting opposition; as Kipling said, you rather "trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too." No, Jones is better explained by Sir Walter Scott and something about a "tangled web." His is the depression of a man who has been living a lie, and now, as some slings and arrows come his way, doesn't even have the might born of being right to sustain him. Yet, if I may offer some unsolicited counsel, suicide is no solution, Dr. Jones. The answer is to become a better man, come clean, and make amends.

Then there is the deafeningly silent Al Gore, who, just as Punxsutawney Phil did after seeing his shadow Feb. 2, seems to have scurried into a hole. Will he, like the reluctant rodent, emerge again when the climate changes? Will he rise again along with the mercury as the weather warms and memories fade?

Along with many other hucksters such as IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri, these men make Bernie Madoff look like a piker. And what recourse do we, the victims, have? Well, here are a few suggestions.

First, we need to adopt an aggressive stance. We should cast from office any politician who facilitated the climate-change fraud. Next, we need to press for criminal investigations into and charges against Climateers whenever possible. And when such a remedy isn't possible, we should resort to civil-court action when feasible.

Lastly, just as Senator Ben Nelson was driven from a pizza shop by angry patrons after finagling the cornhusker kickback, the Climateers should be treated as pariahs and not allowed a moment's rest. Some may say this is out of bounds, but scorn and ostracism are powerful corrective forces. Besides, if the law cannot hold these elites to account, then the peasants with pitchforks must step into the breach.

Of course, the Climateers don't really fear this, as they take the peasants for serfs. Let's just hope they're as wrong about this as they are about their science.
And funny too. The lines about Gore are priceless.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-22-10, 05:52 PM
  #56  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Another climate alarmist appointed by Obama.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...e.opinionPrint

Updated February 22, 2010
New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge
By Ed Barnes

Thomas Karl, the head of Obama's new Climate Change office has been criticized for trying to suppress contradictory scientific data on climate change.

The scientist who has been put in charge of the Commerce Department's new climate change office is coming under attack from both sides of the global warming debate over his handling of what they say is contradictory scientific data related to the subject.

Thomas Karl, 58, was appointed to oversee the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, an ambitious new office that will collect climate change data and disseminate it to businesses and communities.

According to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, the office will "help tackle head-on the challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change. In the process, we'll discover new technologies, build new businesses and create new jobs."

Karl, who has played a pivotal role in key climate decisions over the past decade, has kept a low profile as director of National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) since 1998, and he has led all of the NOAA climate services since 2009. His name surfaced numerous times in leaked "climate-gate" e-mails from the University of East Anglia, but there was little in the e-mails that tied him to playing politics with climate data. Mostly, the e-mails show he was in the center of the politics of climate change decisions

According to a school biography published by Northern Illinois University, Karl shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and other leading scientists based on his work at the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and he was "one of the 10 most influential researchers of the 1990s who have formed or changed the course of research in a given area."

His appointment was hailed by both the Sierra Club and Duke Energy Company of North Carolina. Sierra Club President Carl Pope said, "As polluters and their allies continue to try to muddy the waters around climate science, the Climate Service will provide easy, direct access to the valuable scientific research undertaken by government scientists and others." And Duke Energy CEO Jin Rogers said the new office, under Karl, will "spark the consensus we need to move forward."

But Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist affiliated with the University of Colorado who has crossed horns with Karl in the past, says his appointment was a mistake. He accused Karl of suppressing data he submitted for the IPCC's most recent report on climate change and having a very narrow view of its causes.

The IPCC is charged with reviewing scientific data on climate change and providing policy makers and others with an assessment of current knowledge.

Pielke said he agrees that global warming is happening and that man plays a significant role in it, but he said there are many factors in addition to the release of carbon into the atmosphere that need to be studied to fully understand the phenomenon. He said he resigned from the IPCC in August 2005 because his data, and the work of numerous other scientists, were not included in its most recent report.

In his resignation letter, Pielke wrote that he had completed the assessment of current knowledge for his chapter of the report, when Karl abruptly took control of the final draft. He said the chapter he had nearly completed was then rewritten with a too-narrow focus.

One of the key areas of dispute, he said, was in describing "recent regional trends in surface and tropospheric temperatures," and the impact of land use on temperatures. It is the interpretation of this data on which the intellectual basis of the idea of global warming hangs.

In an interview, Pielke reiterated that Karl "has actively opposed views different from his own." And on his Web site last week, he said Karl's appointment "assures that policy makers will continue to receive an inappropriately narrow view of our actual knowledge with respect to climate science."

He said the people who run the agencies in charge of climate monitoring are too narrowly focused, and he worries that the creation of the new office "would give the same small group of people the chance to speak on the issue and exclude others" whose views might diverge from theirs.

Responding to the criticism, Karl told the Washington Post, "the literature doesn't show [Pielke's] ideas about the importance of land use are correct."

Calls to The Commerce Department and to Karl's office went unanswered.

The IPCC in recent weeks has come under severe criticism after e-mails, hacked from a prestigious climate center, revealed some of the political infighting that occurred as its assessments were being put together and called into question its impartiality.

Climate change skeptics, meanwhile, say Karl's appointment was unnecessary and pulls scarce resources from more pressing needs.

"The unconstitutional global warming office and its new Web site climate.gov would be charged with propagandizing Americans with eco-alarmism," wrote Alex Newman of the Liberty Sentinel of Gainesville, Fla.

On the popular skeptic site "Watts Up With That," Anthony Watts called the climate.gov site a "waste of more taxpayer money" and charged that it is nothing more than a "fast track press release service." He wrote that putting Karl in charge was an issue, because he had fabricated photos of "floods that didn't happen" in an earlier NOAA report.
Obama global warming appointees are becoming a joke. It's one alarmists after another, all selling something that has lost all its value. If they haven't lied, exaggerated, suppressed, "adjusted" or corrupted data or skeptical scientists and/or repeated long debunked talking points they are not "qualified" to work for the administration.

Last edited by movielib; 02-22-10 at 06:15 PM.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-22-10, 06:05 PM
  #57  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

The above mentioned Tom Karl has been claimed by NOAA to have a PhD although his degree is an honorary doctorate of humane letters.

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com...JhMzViMjJhZGY=

Monday, November 10, 2008
The "Dr." in the House [Edward John Craig]

An anonymous reader offers an update on an earlier post:
Chris Horner wrote:

“NOAA wouldn’t answer my question, but only sniffed that if I can point to them claiming Karl has a Ph.D. — as opposed to just promoting him as “Dr. Karl” apparently on the basis of a 2002 honorary doctorate of humane letters — I should tell them.”

It’s on NOAA’s own website, in one of their reports [PDF], and in a press release announcing that report’s release. From June 19, 2008:

This report addresses one of the most frequently asked questions about global warming: what will happen to weather and climate extremes? This synthesis and assessment product examines this question across North America and concludes that we are now witnessing and will increasingly experience more extreme weather and climate events,” said report co-chair Tom Karl, Ph.D., director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

I hope the issue with Mr. Karl is resolved. Nothing gets my goat more than people misrepresenting their academic achievements. And it’s clear that people believe Karl has a Ph.D, because I see references to his holding the degree on several websites. Properly denoting that the degree is honorary would help prevent this.
It's still on NOAA's website:

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/...ateweather.pdf

The clear implication in context of that website is that he has at least some kind of science PhD which he clearly doesn't. Like Pachauri, apparently another climate expert who isn't.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-22-10, 06:10 PM
  #58  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

movielib is offline  
Old 02-23-10, 03:29 AM
  #59  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,584
Likes: 0
Received 30 Likes on 23 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Uh oh. How is Al Gore going to stop this?


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0120160720.htm

First Evidence Of Under-Ice Volcanic Eruption In Antarctica

Jan. 22, 2008 — The first evidence of a volcanic eruption from beneath Antarctica's most rapidly changing ice sheet has been reported. The volcano on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet erupted 2000 years ago (325BC) and remains active.

The subglacial volcano has a 'volcanic explosion index' of around 3-4. Heat from the volcano creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea. Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is showing rapid change and BAS scientists are part of an international research effort to understand this change.

Using airborne ice-sounding radar, scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) discovered a layer of ash produced by a 'subglacial' volcano. It extends across an area larger than Wales.

Lead author* Hugh Corr of the BAS says, "The discovery of a 'subglacial' volcanic eruption from beneath the Antarctic ice sheet is unique in itself. But our techniques also allow us to put a date on the eruption, determine how powerful it was and map out the area where ash fell. We believe this was the biggest eruption in Antarctica during the last 10,000 years. It blew a substantial hole in the ice sheet, and generated a plume of ash and gas that rose around 12 km into air."

The discovery is another vital piece of evidence that will help determine the future of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and refine predictions of future sea-level rise. Glaciers are like massive rivers of ice that flow towards the coast and discharge icebergs into the sea.

Co-author Professor David Vaughan (BAS) says,"This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration. However, it cannot explain the more widespread thinning of West Antarctic glaciers that together are contributing nearly 0.2mm per year to sea-level rise. This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters."

About the volcano

The volcano is located beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet in the Hudson Mountains at latitude 74.6°South, longitude 97°West. Volcanoes are an important component of the Antarctic region. They formed in diverse tectonic settings, mainly as a result of mantle plumes acting on the stationary Antarctic plate. The region also includes amongst the world's best examples of a long-lived continental margin arc (Antarctic Peninsula), a very young marginal basin (Bransfield Strait) and an oceanic island arc (South Sandwich Islands). Many extinct volcanoes are very well preserved and others are still active (e.g. Deception Island, Mount Erebus, and the South Sandwich Islands).

Volcanic eruptions were common during the past 25 million years, and coincided with the great period of climatic deterioration that resulted in the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet. Many of the volcanoes show the effects of interaction with ice. BAS has played a major role in describing these effects and modelling their influences on the resulting volcanic sequences. It is important to describe and understand these interactions in geologically recent times in order to predict future configurations of the ice sheet and its role in the global system.

*The paper 'A recent volcanic eruption beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet' by Hugh F Corr and David G Vaughan is published in the February edition of Nature Geosciences (online).
grundle is online now  
Old 02-23-10, 07:10 AM
  #60  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
Uh oh. How is Al Gore going to stop this?


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0120160720.htm

First Evidence Of Under-Ice Volcanic Eruption In Antarctica

Jan. 22, 2008 —...
You did notice this is more than two years old?
movielib is offline  
Old 02-23-10, 07:35 AM
  #61  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Inhofe calls for investigation.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate...inglepage=true

Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe To Ask for DOJ Investigation (Pajamas Media/PJTV Exclusive)

Inhofe intends to ask for a probe of the embattled climate scientists for possible criminal acts. And he thinks Gore should be recalled to explain his prior congressional testimony.

February 23, 2010 - by Charlie Martin

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Science.

This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today’s hearing, alleges:
[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.
As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate Files has led to a re-examination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency’s Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Since the Climategate Files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”

Based on this Minority Staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company and several state Attorneys General (such as Texas and Virginia) in objecting to the Obama administration’s attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report “strengthens the case” for the Texas and Virginia Attorneys General.

Senator Inhofe’s announcement today appears to be the first time a member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved.

The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate Files and the subsequent revelations:
1. The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence.
2. They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions.
3. They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the “consensus.”
4. They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity.
The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation:
1. It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000).
2. It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.
3. The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in Congressional Proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice.
If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties.

By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves.

Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.”

The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administration’s stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science.
Everything in Inhofe's request is entirely reasonable and there is prima facie evidence that the allegations are true. Which means there is little to no chance the administration and the Congress will allow it to happen.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-23-10, 09:23 AM
  #62  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Inhofe's Climategate investigation:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...2-06f62a53a4e2

Sneak Peek into New Senate Report on Climategate
February 23, 2010
Posted by Matt Dempsey [email protected]

Sneak Peek into New Senate Report on Climategate

Want to Comment on the New Climategate Report? Leave a Message on Senator Inhofe's Facebook Page

Hello, I'm Senator Jim Inhofe, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. I want to give you a sneak-peek into a major new Senate report on my Committee's investigation into the scandal commonly known as Climategate.

What emerges from our review of the emails and documents, which span a 13-year period from 1996 through November 2009, is much more than, as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson put it, scientists who "lack interpersonal skills." Rather, the emails show the world's leading climate scientists discussing, among other things:
* Obstructing the release of damaging data and information;
* Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
* threatening journal editors who published work questioning the climate science "consensus"; and
* Assuming activist roles to influence the political process.
The correspondence also reveals a fractured consensus on the state of climate science. Contrary to repeated assertions that the "science is settled," the emails show the world's leading climate scientists arguing over critical issues, questioning key methods and statistical techniques, and doubting whether there is "consensus" on the causes and the extent of climate change.

If you're interested in reading key passages of the report to be released this morning, visit my website at www.epw.senate.gov/inhofe

As even some of the most ardent global warming alarmists now admit, the past few months have been bad news for their cause. I suspect climategate is only the beginning.

We knew they were cooking the science to support the flawed UN IPCC agenda. As I said on the Senate floor back in 2005 that "the IPCC has demonstrated an unreasoning resistance to accepting constructive critiques of its scientific and economic methods, even in the report itself...this is a recipe for de-legitimizing the entire endeavor in terms of providing credible information that is useful to policy makers."

And back in 2003 I said blaming global warming on CO2 and other man made gases is the ‘greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." I was right.
Excerpts from Inhofe's Climategate report being released today:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...c-bc0da0ade611

Excerpts of New Senate Climategate Report
February 23, 2010
Posted by Matt Dempsey [email protected]

Excerpts of New Senate Climategate Report

INTRODUCTION

The emails (and the data and computer code released to the public) were written by the world's top climate scientists, many of whom had been lead authors and contributing lead authors of various sections of the IPCC reports and were thus intimately involved in writing and editing the IPCC's science assessments. This is no small matter. As noted science historian Naomi Oreskes wrote, the "scientific consensus" of climate change "is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." According to one top Obama Administration official, the IPCC is "the gold standard for authoritative scientific information on climate change because of the rigorous way in which they are prepared, reviewed, and approved...

These scientists work at the most prestigious and influential climate research institutions in the world. For example, Dr. Phil Jones was director of the CRU until he was forced to temporarily resign because of his role in the scandal. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), CRU is "among the renowned research centers in the world" on key aspects of climate change research. It also has "contributed to the scientific assessments of climate change conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." CRU's CRUTEM3 is one of the key datasets of surface temperatures utilized by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report...

The IPCC's work serves as the key basis for climate policy decisions made by governments throughout the world, including here in the United States...

In short, the utility and probity of the IPCC process and its results are crucial to policymaking with respect to climate change here in the United States.

SECTION 1: Inside the Email Trail

As noted, the CRU controversy features emails from the world's leading climate scientists-emails that show disturbing practices contrary to the practice of objective science and potentially federal law...

The emails also raise a fundamental question: What, if any, are the boundaries between science and activism? Wherever one draws the line, many scientists confront, and engage in, the political process at some level. As the National Academy of Sciences wrote in "On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research," "science and technology have become such integral parts of society that scientists can no longer isolate themselves from societal concerns."...

Along with apparently hiding data and information, the scientists complained that mainstream scientific journals were publishing work by so-called "skeptics" who disagreed with their views about the causes of climate change...

These emails do not read as a group of scientists in full agreement about the fundamental issues in paleoclimatology. Rather, they put the lie to the notion that the science is "settled," and that key facets of the climate science debate are no longer in dispute. As one pulls back the veil, and gets beneath the "nice, tidy story," one sees serious disagreement over the extent of 20th century warming and whether it was anomalous over the past millennium. As Phil Jones admitted to the BBC recently, "There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not." "Of course," he continued, "if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."

SECTION 2: Inside the IPCC "Consensus"

The scientists involved here played key roles in shaping and editing the very IPCC reports adduced as dispositive proof of a scientific consensus on catastrophic global warming. The emails and documents reveal, among other things, an insular world of scientists working within the IPCC to generate reports that reflected their biased conclusions on the causes of climate change. In this section, we describe the IPCC in more detail, and try to explain its somewhat opaque inner workings. We also show the links between this controversy and the IPCC, specifically by identifying the scientists in the CRU scandal who exercised great influence over the IPCC assessment reports.

SECTION 3: Legal and Policy Issues in the CRU Controversy

The released CRU emails and documents display potentially unethical, and illegal, behavior. The scientists appear to discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. On several occasions they appear to discuss subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. Moreover, there are emails discussing unjustified changes to data by federal employees and federal grantees.

These and other issues raise questions about the lawful use of federal funds and potential ethical misconduct. Discussed below are brief descriptions of the statutes and regulations that the Minority Staff believe are implicated in this scandal. In our investigation, we are examining the emails and documents and determining whether any violations of these federal laws and policies occurred.

SECTION 4: Endangerment Finding and EPA Reliance on IPCC Science

As we noted in the introduction, the significance of the CRU scandal potentially affects domestic climate change policy. We are investigating the extent to which the CRU scandal reveals flaws in the IPCC's Assessment Reports, as many of the scientists at the center of this scandal drafted and edited those reports (for more on this point, see Section 2). In turn, we are examining whether flaws in the IPCC's work weaken or undermine EPA's "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act."
How can this not be enough to justify a full scale investigation?
movielib is offline  
Old 02-23-10, 09:28 AM
  #63  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Another challenge to EPA endangerment finding:

http://www.climategate.com/worlds-bi...-climate-fraud

World’s biggest coal company brings U.S. government to court in climate fraud
by John O'Sullivan
February 17, 2010

The world’s largest private sector coal business, the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) has filed a mammoth 240-page “Petition for Reconsideration,” a full-blown legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The petition must be answered and covers the entire body of leaked emails from ‘Climategate’ as well as those other ‘gate’ revelations including the frauds allegedly perpetrated under such sub-headings as ‘Himalayan Glaciers,’ ‘African Agricultural Production,’ ‘Amazon Rain Forests,’ ‘Melting Mountain Ice,’ ‘Netherlands Below Sea Level’ as well as those much-publicized abuses of the peer-review literature and so called ‘gray literature.’ These powerful litigants also draw attention to the proven criminal conduct by climate scientists in refusing to honor Freedom of Information law (FOIA) requests.

Peabody is, in effect, challenging the right of the current U.S. federal government to introduce cap and trade regulations by the ‘back door.’ In this article we summarize Peabody’s legal writ.

PEC has pulled out all the stops to overturn the EPA findings ‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act’ made on December 7, 2009. Those findings were in turn premised on the Supreme Court decision of April 2, 2007 of Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), where the court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act.

PEC argues inter alia that the law requires that the federal agency must articulate a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made” as per the case of Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

The PEC arguments are based primarily on the release of email and other information from the University of East Anglia (“UEA”) Climatic Research Unit (“CRU”) in November of last year. Their civil action lists most of the principle scientists such as Professor Phil Jones, of the UK’s Climatic Research Unit, who recently admitted there has been no ‘statistically significant’ global warming for 15 years and agreed the Medieval Warm Period may have been just as warm, if not warmer than current global temperatures.

The petition argues the EPA must reconsider its Endangerment Finding based on all the new material from Climategate that was not available during the original EPA ‘comment period’ and which is central to the outcome that EPA reached in promulgating its Endangerment Finding.

The petition further states that the EPA failed to properly exercise its judgment as required by the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” fashion by relying almost exclusively on flawed reports of the IPCC in attributing climate change to anthropogenic greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and which were influenced by political rather than scientific concerns.

Among their submissions the PEC legal team attacks the “Nice Tidy Story of Unprecedented 20th Century Warmth” using emails written while climatologists were making preparations for the Third IPCC report. Among them Keith Briffa stated that:
“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.” [CRU email 938018124.txt (Sep. 22, 1999)]
Briffa went on to say that:
“I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.” [CRU email 938018124.txt (Sep. 22, 1999)]
The PEC legal eagles then cite another key researcher, Ed Cook, who in a lengthy email bristles at the effort to eliminate the MWP and wrote:
“I do find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event to be grossly premature and probably wrong.”
[CRU email 988831541.txt (May 2, 2001)]

The PEC action criticizes the discredited IPCC reports that were not the product of a rigorous, transparent and neutral scientific process. PEC argues:
“The CRU information reveals that many of the principal scientists who authored key chapters of the IPCC scientific assessments were driven by a policy agenda that caused them to cross the line from neutral science to advocacy.”
As an example of bias, Dr. Kevin Trenberth – Senior Scientist, Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research is cited for his admission:
“I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.”
Hide the Decline

The coal company’s lawyers argue that to hide the decline in the correlation between recent temperatures and what was showing in the proxy data, Professor Michael Mann and then Phil Jones unethically and fraudulently grafted on actual temperature data to the end of their proxy reconstructions rather than using the same proxy data as had been used throughout the reconstruction.

By this ‘trick’ they made the graphic presentations of the proxy reconstructions misleading, since the effect is to make it seem as if the proxy data shows rising 20th century warming when it doesn’t. But the real deception in the trick was in hiding what became known as the “divergence” problem.

The divergence problem is where the proxy data are contradicted by actual data, as they are for a significant period of the time when direct temperature measurements exist, the accuracy of the proxy data over the entire period of the proxy reconstruction is called into question so that the science cannot be determined to be “settled.”

In a robust attack lawyers for the PEC further assert:
“Moreover, the Information Commissioner’s Office of the United Kingdom (“U.K.”), the agency that oversees and enforces the U.K.’s freedom of information laws, after investigation, recently concluded that CRU broke those laws in refusing to respond to information requests.”
The petition concludes that:
“In sum, given the seriousness of the flaws that the CRU material and other information reveal in the development of the IPCC reports, the Agency must reexamine the Endangerment Finding. The Agency can no longer have confidence that those reports present a fair, unbiased and accurate assessment of climate science.”
Moreover, PEC is demanding that the EPA shall convene a full evidentiary hearing as a part of such reconsideration. If this element of the petition were granted it is highly probable that the weight of the new evidence now freely available since Climategate would expose the criminal and fraudulent component within the science of man-made global warming, and would likely succeed in having all the EPA’s findings on carbon dioxide invalidated.

Thereby, from accomplishing their civil task Peabody will lend further weight to the likelihood of criminal charges being brought against those individuals implicated in international fraud on the largest scale ever known.
No doubt this will be attacked as coming from a coal company but the real question is, is what they allege true?
movielib is offline  
Old 02-23-10, 09:37 AM
  #64  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

UK Climategate investigation gets off to inauspicious start. Like Penn State they don't seem to want to talk to anyone who actually knows anything.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/23/o...ntary-inquiry/

Oral testimony at UK Parliamentary Inquiry

The UK Inquiry has scheduled oral evidence on Match 1 as follows. They did not invite Ross McKitrick or me or anyone that was actively involved in the efforts to deal with CRU over the past five years.
3.00pm The Rt Hon the Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation
3.30pm Richard Thomas CBE, former Information Commissioner
4.00pm Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia and Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
4.40pm Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review
5.00pm Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Defra
Bishop Hill comments as follows:
None of the people who were actually involved in dealings with the CRU, who were involved in the nitty gritty of trying to extract information from them, the people who were insulted and abused in the CRU emails, the people who understand the technicalities of “Mike’s Nature trick” and hiding the decline, none of these people will actually get a say. They are left outside in the cold.
All these "investigations" seem to have these goals: to whitewash and cover up. Don't they know that doesn't work? Ask Richard Nixon.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-23-10, 02:54 PM
  #65  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,584
Likes: 0
Received 30 Likes on 23 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
You did notice this is more than two years old?
Heh heh.

No, I didn't.

But thanks for telling me.
grundle is online now  
Old 02-23-10, 04:27 PM
  #66  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Insanity.

EPA lays out timetable for regulating greenhouse gas emissions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson laid out the timetable for regulating greenhouse gas emissions Monday, writing in a letter to lawmakers that she plans to start targeting large facilities such as power plants next year but won't target small emitters before 2016.

The letter makes it clear the Obama administration will move ahead with curbing global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act unless Congress moves to stop it. Jackson emphasized that the administration was required to act under a 2007 Supreme Court decision that said greenhouse gases from motor vehicles qualified as a pollutant under the 40-year-old air-quality law. Jackson was responding to a letter several coal-state senators sent her late Friday.

"I share your goals of ensuring economic recovery at this critical time and of addressing greenhouse-gas emissions in sensible ways that are consistent with the call for comprehensive energy and climate legislation," she wrote.

Under the plan Jackson outlined, major emitters of carbon dioxide that are already seeking air-pollution permits would face regulation as early as the start of 2011. Medium-size emitters such as a large liquor distillery would not face restrictions until the second half of 2011 at the earliest, and smaller facilities such as dry cleaners and hospitals wouldn't come under the rules until 2016.

Jackson also wrote that an effort by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases would undo a deal struck last year between the auto industry, the administration and several states to limit greenhouse gases from cars and light trucks.

David Doniger, policy director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group, said the letter shows that "carbon pollution can be controlled under the Clean Air Act in an effective and reasonable way."

"The EPA's reaffirming their intent is to carry out the existing law as defined under the Clean Air Act," he said. "That's their job, until and unless Congress passes a new law."

But Jeffrey R. Holmstead, a lawyer at Bracewell & Giuliani who represents several companies that would be regulated under Jackson's plan, said the administration does not need to act this quickly and could accomplish some of the same goals by simply tightening fuel-economy standards for automobiles.

"The way that she is proposing to do this will be litigated every step of the way," said Holmstead, who has advised Murkowski. "There's nothing that requires they regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars or trucks this year or next year, or the year after. They clearly have enormous discretion in figuring out the timing of any regulation."
First off Lisa Jackson is lying when she says the EPA is required to act. The Supreme Court, in its wrong enough but not that wrong 5-4 decision (thanks, Anthony Kennedy, you moron), said the EPA could act, not that it must act.

But go ahead, EPA. As Jeffrey Holmstead, above, said, what Jackson is proposing will be litigated every step of the way. And litigation means all the alarmists' lousy junk science and dirty secrets will come out.

Bring it on!

Last edited by movielib; 02-23-10 at 04:57 PM.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-23-10, 04:28 PM
  #67  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

movielib is offline  
Old 02-23-10, 04:39 PM
  #68  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Sen Bernie Sanders shows he's clueless, classless and immoral. Compares CAGW skeptics to "Nazi deniers."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33371.html

Bernie Sanders compares climate skeptics to Nazi deniers
By MARIN COGAN
2/23/10 2:20 PM EST

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is comparing climate change skeptics to those who disregarded the Nazi threat to America in the 1930s, adding a strident rhetorical shot to the already volatile debate over climate change.

"It reminds me of an event that took place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s," said Sanders, perhaps the most liberal member of the Senate, during a Senate hearing Tuesday. "During that period of Nazism and fascism's growth-a real danger to this country and democratic countries around the world- there were people in this country and in the British parliament who said 'don't worry! Hitler's not real! It'll disappear!"

Sanders’ reference to the Nazi threat is sure to enrage Republicans who are already skeptical of the science behind climate change. But Sanders wasn't the only one throwing bombs at a hearing that was ostensibly about the EPA's fiscal 2011 budget. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has called global warming a "hoax," is asking for an investigation into the science used in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the governing body on climate science.

Earlier in the hearing, Inhofe had chided Sanders: "I know the senator from Vermont wants so badly to believe that the science on climate change is settled but it's not."

The heated exchanges came as EPA administrator Lisa Jackson sparred with lawmakers over her agency's decision to regulate greenhouse gases, something that Senate Republicans — and some Democrats — have opposed.

"How can you justify doing something administratively that was overwhelmingly rejected by the United States Senate and say defiantly 'we don't care what you say, Congress, we're going to go ahead and do it under the clean air act," Inhofe asked.

Jackson said her agency was in its right to regulate carbon.

"The supreme court said the EPA must make the determination whether or not greenhouse gases are harmful to the public welfare. Rather than ignore that obligation I chose as a public administrator to make the order," Jackson replied.

On Monday, Jackson told lawmakers that the EPA would delay regulation of most greenhouse gas producers until 2016. Her announcement came in the wake of a letter from eight coal state Democrats, who, like Republicans, fear the effect of the regulations will have on the economy.

That was little comfort for Republicans.

"Some would say it's merely a cynical ploy to delay job killing," said Senator Kit Bond.

As the rhetoric escalates, a handful of senators are actually negotiating on a climate bill.

Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer announced that Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (D-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) were "getting close to getting the 60 votes we need" for bipartisan energy legislation.

But Inhofe countered that they were nowhere near close enough for cap and trade legislation.
This is so disgusting I don't think any more commentary is necessary. Even in Wisconsin we wouldn't elect this socialist sicko.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-23-10, 06:19 PM
  #69  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

We based the endangerment finding mostly on the IPCC but retroactively we didn't much use it at all.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breakin...under-the-bus/

BREAKING: Senator Barbara Boxer and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Throw IPCC Under the Bus

Following the release of the Inhofe Report, Boxer claimed she was only quoting "American scientists," and Jackson reversed herself on the use of the IPCC as the "gold standard."
February 23, 2010
by Charlie Martin

During the review of the Environmental Protection Agency budget in today’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, both Senator Barbara Boxer — the chair of the committee — and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson distanced themselves from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Boxer and Jackson’s statements, in addition to being a striking change in policy, are problematic because U.S. climate science is very closely tied to the IPCC reports (as Christopher Horner showed in his recent PJM series on the NASA FOIA emails.)

The statements by Boxer and Jackson followed Senator Inhofe’s release (see the PJM exclusive report) in his opening statement of a minority staff report documenting many flaws in the IPCC report and the other evidence revealed in the Climategate files. (See the full hearing on CSPAN here; the exchanges with Senator Boxer and Inhofe, and Administrator Jackson begin at about 56 minutes into the video.)

Both Boxer and Jackson appeared to be trying to distance the EPA from the IPCC report. Boxer said:
In my opening statement, I didn’t quote one international scientist or IPCC report. … We are quoting the American scientific community here.
[Note by movielib: and that has to do with the price of tea in China or the fact the endangerment finding was mostly based on the IPCC, how?]

When Inhofe directly asked Jackson if she still considered the IPCC report the “gold standard,” she answered:
The primary focus of the endangerment finding was on climate threat risks in this country.
[Note by movielib: good non sequitur]

Jackson also noted:
[The errors Inhofe had presented were] international events. The information on the glaciers and other events doesn’t weaken … the evidence we considered [to make the Endangerment Finding on CO2.]
[Note by movielib: bull!]

The EPA has specifically cited the IPCC AR4 report as the primary source from which it drew information to make the Endangerment Finding on CO2 as a pollutant. In the past, the worldwide nature of the climate changes, and of the data, had been cited as one of the reasons for using the IPCC report, but now it appeared that Jackson was trying to separate the Endangerment Finding from the IPCC.

However, when Inhofe asked Jackson if she was considering asking the EPA inspector general to investigate the IPCC science, she answered:
If anything changes … certainly I would call for a review of the finding, but I haven’t seen that.
Boxer and Jackson voted for the IPCC before they voted against it.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-24-10, 06:36 AM
  #70  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,584
Likes: 0
Received 30 Likes on 23 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

http://www.americanthinker.com/print..._for_good.html

February 24, 2010

Al Gore Is Lying Low -- for Good Reason

By Rex McBride

Maybe Al Gore's been advised by legal counsel to lie low. He may be the leader of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) movement, but he's not defending it in public, not even when it's falling apart and his new fortune is based upon it.

Mr. Gore and his financial backers earned millions of dollars in start-up "green" companies and carbon trading schemes. If the scam worked, he could've become the first "carbon billionaire."

"What goes up can fall down" applies to ill-gotten gains in the stock market or "carbon trading" schemes. In such schemes, it's foreseeable that trusting investors will (a) not only get hurt when the scam collapses, but they'll also (b) pursue legal remedies and sue him for fraud.

Mr. Gore's financial gains were based on the contradictory and error-plagued assertion that man's release of the trace gas CO2 will fry the planet.

Once it becomes clear to everyone that the AGW theory is based on cleverly manipulated data twisted by rigged computer models controlled by several dozen IPCC politicians/scientists, we can expect that investors who lose millions by investing in these companies will eventually haul Mr. Gore and the insider IPCC scientists into court.

Over the years, American tax dollars were poured down the fantasyland AGW "rat hole." Sooner or later, Al Gore needs to answer some hard questions. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for lawsuits from private investors. Today, legal counsel will advise him to remain silent.

It's impossible to predict how many lawsuits, or what kind, might arise once everyone realizes that the AGW scam dwarfs Bernie Madoff's $50-billion Ponzi operation. New studies appear almost daily that further undercut AGW theory. The biggest daily newspaper in the Netherlands vindicated that country's leading AGW critic in the article "Henk Tennekes -- He was right after all."

Dr. Tennekes was fired in the 1990s from a prominent research position and blacklisted for debunking AGW theory. He upset the same IPCC scientists who control the leading "peer review" climate research journals and who blocked the publication of all contrary research in those journals for decades.

As investors learn the extent of the scam, Mr. Gore's start-up "green" companies will lose considerable value, like flaky dot-com companies lacking a real product. Investors in these "green" companies -- who reasonably relied upon Gore's alarming claims -- may pursue several possible remedies:

- derivative shareholder lawsuits, disgorging from Mr. Gore and other senior officers in these companies any illicit gains from any insider trading that could be proven; and/or

- lawsuits against brokers who did not perform the SEC's necessary "due diligence" research before peddling those shares; and/or

- civil RICO lawsuits against Mr. Gore and any IPCC scientists who participated in blocking the publication of contrary research, cooking the data, all of whose annual income skyrocketed from the public hysteria.

On the state level, it's impossible to predict if one or more state attorney generals will look back on the tobacco industry cases and decide, representing the taxpayers of his or her state, to file criminal and/or civil RICO actions against Gore and the enriched IPCC scientists.

(On the federal level, while President Obama is in office, the Justice Department will not file RICO or SEC actions against their buddy Al Gore. Remember, the president originally hoped that Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade would generate over $600 billion in new corporate taxes -- "emergency" measures justified by fantasy AGW theory.

Remember the joke about the government taxing air? In the Twilight Zone of Boxer-Kerry, say hello to cap-and-trade.)

If Mr. Gore's "green" companies do crash and significantly injure private investors, attorneys in a civil lawsuit could compel Gore to answer questions like:

(1) When you claimed that "the science is settled," did you mean that it's "settled" that you and the IPCC scientists could make quick millions by manipulating the data and fomenting public hysteria?

(2) What does "peer review" mean if none of the IPCC scientists who controlled the academic journals protested that there was no original data to support your frightening claim of accelerated temperature increases after 1995?

(3) If the very scientists that the public trusted to act as the "check and balance" against careless research -- or worse yet, to protect against research fraud -- did not catch a "tiny" problem like not having original supporting data after 1995, does "peer review" mean that IPCC's scientists would secretly work in concert to cover each other's asses and keep the grants coming?

Such questions need answers.

In "The Dog Ate Global Warming", an article at the Cato Institute, Patrick J. Michaels noted that "[i]f there are no data, there's no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer."

Obviously, Al Gore cannot be compelled to answer questions in a criminal court under the 5th Amendment. However, his admissible bank and stock portfolio records would prove his skyrocketing wealth, making him a "deep pocket."

Since 1970, the scope of RICO cases has grown far beyond prosecuting mafia operations. The law firm Nixon Peabody explained:

RICO was written in broad terms. To state a claim, a plaintiff must allege four elements: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity... Each element of a RICO claim requires additional analysis: an "enterprise" is marked by association and control; a "pattern" requires a showing of "continuity" -- continuous and related behavior that amounts to, or poses a threat of, continued criminal violations; and "racketeering activity" involves the violation of designated federal laws ...


RICO lawsuits are now won in a wide variety of civil disputes -- e.g., insurance companies working in concert to delay/shortchange payments owed to dentists.

Other RICO cases resulted in court judgments against the Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club, Catholic sex crimes, and Major League Baseball.

It violates federal law to fake taxpayer-funded research and then manipulate or destroy data to enrich oneself. If an insider group secretly conspires to do so, it looks and smells like RICO.

If more AGW-destroying news rolls in, and if Gore's "green" companies lose significant value, then shareholder derivative lawsuits and/or state RICO lawsuits will follow -- more so as the losses grow.

Mr. Gore is in hiding today -- no longer the "courageous" leader of the AGW movement. Apparently, Planet Earth is "no longer in grave danger" or "needing to be saved," but Gore could lose all of his ill-gotten assets.

If the victim list grows and criminal intent is proven, Mr. Gore could do serious time. After a much smaller scam, Bernie Madoff got 150 years.

What if you want answers about the potential misuse of tax dollars that enriched AGW insiders but didn't invest in one of Al Gore's fantasies?

Call Congress and demand that the GAO audit all climate change grants. GAO has the professional audit expertise to follow the money, gather objective facts, and report on any significant fraud or abuse.
grundle is online now  
Old 02-24-10, 07:45 AM
  #71  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Remember this British atrocity, part of a £6 million government funded propaganda campaign? It has received almost 1,700 complaints (total received by two different British regualating bodies) and is being or is going to be investigated by both for violating British broadcast standards.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w62gsctP2gc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w62gsctP2gc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...rt-of-comments

Ofcom to investigate government climate change TV campaign

Media regulator looks into £6m Bedtime Stories campaign after hundreds of complaints claim it is form of political advertising
Mark Sweney
Wednesday 24 February 2010 12.14 GMT

Ofcom has launched an investigation into the government's climate change TV campaign after receiving hundreds of complaints that it is a form of political advertising.

The media regulator has received about 700 complaints about the £6m TV campaign, Bedtime Stories, launched by the Department of Energy and Climate Change last October, with a significant number arguing the ad is a form of political advertising.

According to the Communications Act, the government is allowed to run advertising of a public service nature, such as warnings about obesity or drink driving, but is not allowed to run political ads that aim to "influence public opinion on a matter of public controversy".

The climate-change campaign is already being separately investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority to see if it breaches the advertising code, after nearly 1,000 complaints.

Ofcom's investigation comes after two months of allegations that climate-change scientists manipulated and withheld data.

When the DECC launched the ad campaign, part of its Act on CO2 initiative, the department said it was the first time the government had thrown its weight behind the view that scientific evidence now clearly shows that climate change is man made.

However, the campaign immediately sparked complaints to the ASA, which has received a total of 938 complaints about the ad.

Some of the complaints argued there is no scientific evidence of climate change. Others claimed there was a division of scientific opinion on the issue and that the ad should therefore not have attributed global warming to human activity.

The DECC has defended the campaign, and the science behind it, with climate-change minister Joan Ruddick arguing that the campaign was "consistent with government policy on the issue, which is informed by the latest science and assessments of peer-reviewed, scientific literature made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other international bodies".
I can't see how anyone could say the ad doesn't "aim to 'influence public opinion on a matter of public controversy'" which would place the ad in violation of the British standards. But I'll bet they find a way.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-24-10, 12:32 PM
  #72  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Lake Ridge, VA
Posts: 6,313
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

I thought the thread needed more Bill Nye the Science Guy:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gV3SaxgDNnM&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gV3SaxgDNnM&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
SunMonkey is offline  
Old 02-24-10, 12:37 PM
  #73  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Bill Nye actually trusts, make that - puts even an iota of faith at all in - an IPCC study?

Wow...

My opinion of Bill Nye just took the 'express elevator to hell' as it were.
Dr Mabuse is offline  
Old 02-24-10, 03:00 PM
  #74  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,712
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Bill Nye is as much of a scientist as Mr. Wizard was a wizard.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B7QtRCGQmrc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B7QtRCGQmrc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
the big train is offline  
Old 02-24-10, 03:22 PM
  #75  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

The alarmist double standard strikes again. And Sen Boxer and some other one nobody knows can't even get their facts remotely right.

http://sppiblog.org/news/senators-bo...gy-says-sppi-2

Senators Boxer and Merkley Owe Apology, says SPPI
February 24th, 2010

In Senate EPA hearings today false claims were made by Senators Boxer (D-CA) and Merkley (D-OR) that the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is Exxon Mobil funded, implying its work and findings should be cast aside.

Says SPPI president, Robert Ferguson, “SPPI has never been offered or accepted funds or support in any form from Exxon Mobil. Senators Boxer and Merkley owe an apology and a correction in the record.” Added Ferguson, “It is rather simple for any senate staffer to call Exxon Mobil to verify the facts, or examine public filings for Exxon Mobil’s Contributions and Community Investments.

The intended slurs came as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson faced stern questioning from Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) about recent revelations of the shoddiness of the science underpinning the EPA’s CO2 ‘endangerment’ finding.

Senator Barrasso referenced a recent study by SPPI indicating that NASA and NOAA temperature records had been manipulated, and asked the Administrator if she’d be willing to have the EPA IG investigate and review the allegations.

In Surface Temperature Records – Policy-driven Deception?, veteran meteorologists Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts analyzed world temperature records with the startling conclusion that instrumental land temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely and systematically tampered with that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant global warming in the 20th century. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.

On the other hand, the Senators have not objected that in 2002, Exxon Mobil donated $100-million — $10-million a year for 10 years running — to Stanford University “for research into global warming and renewable energy alternatives.” Neither did the Senators suggest rejection of “oiled” testimony from any witness from Stanford University, including extreme alarmist Stephen Schneider’s in 2003.

Do Senators Boxer and Merkley dismiss as tainted any testimony or research produced from the University of California, Berkeley faculty or employees in light of its $500-million alliance with foreign oil giant British Petroleum?

Other academic institutions supported by Exxon Mobil include Columbia, George Washington, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, North Carolina, Texas and the Harvard Smithsonian (a “corporate partner”).

Also, MIT’s hurricane researcher, Kerry Emanuel, has accepted reimbursement payments from Exxon Mobile funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute for participating with NOAA’s Chris Landsea in a congressional staff briefing. Would Dr. Emanuel’s testimony be considered tainted by Senators Boxer and Merkley?

The funding sources the Senators should be most dismissive of are those from governments. Another SPPI study, Climate Money, revealed that the US federal government has a near monopsony on climate research funding. Where a monopoly market consists of a single seller, a monopsony market consists of a single buyer. The only thing the government buys is policy-driven data and manufactured alarmism, and it has done so to the tally of more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 – and counting. By comparison, Exxon Mobil’s grants to “skeptics” of climate apocalypse is less that a thousandth of what the US government spends on alarmists, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in 2008 alone.

Concluded Ferguson, “The act of dismissing information and data from SPPI which is not Exxon funded and accepting them from sources who are Exxon funded — all the while saying Exxon funding disqualifies testimony — is Theater of the Absurd. If the senators and their staffs truly seek a better understanding of the current state of climate science, they should read more Lindzen and less Alinsky.”

Perhaps California and Oregon voters will see it that way, too.
Do they ever get anything right? And SPPI should not hold its breath waiting for an apology.
movielib is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.