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

The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash 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 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition)

Old 12-01-10, 10:25 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Continuing from the last post.

What a difference a year makes.


Cancun vs. Copenhagen: Have the Media Forgotten About Global Warming?
A Year after broadcast network-hyped U.N. Climate Change Conference in Denmark, same networks don't even mention same event in Mexico.
By Jeff Poor
Wednesday, December 01, 2010 3:17 PM EST

Crickets chirping

That's the sound you would hear if you were looking for any sort of broadcast media coverage on site at the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference going on now in Cancun. A survey of the broadcast networks over the week leading up to the Cancun event and two days into it shows it hasn't even been mentioned on any of the evening news broadcasts, morning shows or Sunday morning public affairs programming.

However, the same event hosted in Copenhagen in 2009 was all over the radar of the broadcast networks. A similar survey of the same programming leading up to Copenhagen show five reports about the event, with ABC and NBC having reporters on-scene at the conference.

So what happened? Do the media finally getting it about climate change and the United Nations' conference? Or are they just reluctant to cheer-lead alarmism about climate change with a sour economy and lower poll numbers for President Barack Obama?

The Deluge of Copenhagen 2009 Media Attention

Flashback to November 2009: Global warming alarmist forces were rallying all over as the 2009 U.N. Climate Change Conference was set to convene in Copenhagen, Denmark. Former Vice President Al Gore visited the White House, successfully lobbying President Obama to attend the hyped event.

'President Obama took an important step today with the announcement that he will attend the global warming treaty talks in Copenhagen,' Gore said on Dec. 7, 2009. 'This action is another example of the significant change in policy on the climate crisis … Those who feared that the United States had abdicated its global responsibility should take hope from these actions and work towards completing a strong operational agreement next month in Copenhagen and guidelines for negotiators to complete their work next year on a comprehensive treaty.'

However, when it was all said and done, Copenhagen turned out to be a disappointment for the global warming alarmist crowd, despite a full-court press by the Obama administration and a media willing to accommodate the administration's desire to push this issue out front.

"The science is solid, according to a vast majority of researchers, with hotter temperatures, melting glaciers and rising sea level providing the proof," Clayton Sandell said on ABC "World News Sunday" Dec. 6, 2009, reporting from Copenhagen the night before last year's conference kicked off.

Anchor Dan Harris went on to describe climate change as 'the most important problem in the world.'

"Tomorrow is the start of a huge global summit on what some people believe is the most important problem in the world, climate change," Harris said. "However, as this summit begins, climate change skeptics have been handed some real ammunition, a scandal over leaked emails from key scientists."

The other networks echoed ABC's assertion of the event's importance. Anne Thompson of 'NBC Nightly News' on Dec. 6, 2009 was on location, describing a scene of 'cautious optimism' on the eve of the failed event.

"Good evening, Lester, from rainy Copenhagen, where there is actually some cautious optimism that a political agreement can be reached on reducing carbon dioxide emissions,' Thompson said. 'And the reason is because in the last few weeks three of the biggest emitters in the world - the U.S., China and India - have all put specific proposals on the table promising to reduce their carbon footprints."

She went on tout how wonderful of a job the country hosting the talks has done with its carbon-cutting policies.

"The world is gathering in Copenhagen, 192 nations coming to the capital of Denmark, a leader in cutting the emissions fueling climate change," she continued. "Over the last two decades Denmark has slashed its carbon footprint by 13 percent while growing its economy by more than 45 percent. Over the next two weeks, the nations of the world will try to find common ground here on how to reduce global warming and make commitments to change their carbon-burning ways. Yvo de Boer is the U.N.'s climate chief and will play a key role in the upcoming talks."

Jeff Glor, anchor of 'CBS Evening News' on Dec. 5, 2009 plugged Obama's decision to attend Copenhagen at the end of the summit, but added that it was shadowed by the ClimateGate scandal.

"It was a change of plans for the president," Glor said. "Instead of attending the climate change summit in Copenhagen when it opens next week, he'll arrive near the end on Dec. 18. That might mean a climate deal is within reach. But a series of leaked e-mails between climate scientists is casting a cloud over this meeting."

But Brian Williams, anchor 'NBC Nightly News' was on it the earliest. Three nights before the start of last year's conference, Williams told viewers Obama's change in plans was a sign of optimism, even though there was a "scandal" brewing with 'stolen' e-mails.

"There was a surprising announcement just a short time ago from the White House," Williams said on the Dec. 4, 2009 broadcast of "Nightly News." "President Obama has changed his plans, now says he won't attend the beginning of that U.N. conference on climate change next week in Copenhagen. Instead, he'll attend at the end of the conference, when leaders from China and India will be there. And as the world prepares to tackle this issue, there's a new scandal that's burning up the Net these days. It began with e-mails that were stolen, and the scandal has to do with climate change."

Where is the Cancun coverage?

This year's Cancun event has been completely overlooked by the broadcast networks, and received some scant attention on the cable networks. On CNN's Nov. 28 'Newsroom,' CNN International Desk Editor Azadeh Ansari mentioned it.

"It's the United Nations climate conference taking place for two weeks," Ansari said. "One hundred ninety heads of state are heading there as we speak right now to partake in the 16th conference of the parties that's taking place. A lot of stuff's going to come out of this that we're going to be monitoring closely."

As of Dec. 1, the public is still waiting on CNN's follow-up coverage. And nothing has come from the left-of-center talking heads that populate MSNBC's primetime line-up.

However, the Fox News Channel and its sister channel Fox Business Network have given some attention to the Cancun event. Fox News Channel's Trace Gallagher, on scene in Cancun during the Dec. 1 broadcast of "America's Newsroom," gave some insight into perhaps why we haven't seen a whole lot elsewhere. He explained the perception that despite all the hemming and hawing over the importance and urgency of 2009 event, there just isn't a whole lot expected to come from this year's incarnation.

"You talk to these experts and we have talked to a lot of them and they will tell you there is a very different feel here in Cancun than there was in Copenhagen a year ago," Gallagher said. "We're not just talking about the 84-degree temperatures but you know, you go to Copenhagen and the world leaders were showing up and there was a sense that the deal was very close at hand. Of course, that deal fell apart in the eleventh hour. Now in essence, they kind of have kicked the can to Cancun, but the expectations in Cancun for a deal are very low, and really, the biggest sticking point is who's going to share the burden in all of this."

But the most amusing commentary on the Cancun climate summit came on 'Fox News Watch' on Nov. 27. Host Jon Scott referenced 'Red Eye' host Greg Gutfeld's attack on the entire concept of global warming and a psychoanalysis some University of California-Berkley professors offered on alarmism.

"So climate change experts finally got the message and the message is their message reeks," Gutfeld said. "In fact, their scare-the-hell-out-of-us screed was so awful researchers claim that it actually undermined their mission, which I always thought was to scare the hell out of us. But according to Cal Berkeley shrinks, dire predictions about global warming can, quote, 'backfire if presented too negatively,' end quote. Of course, that raises one question, how do you offer dire predictions positively? Hey, we're all going to die, LOL?"

Gutfeld went on to reference other over-hyped 'scares' like the coming ice age, the dangers of nuclear power, artificial sweeteners and DDT. He noted the ad hominem attacks on those pushing back against global warming alarmists but declared these 'shrinks' had it wrong. Global warming isn't an issue the public should be worrying about at all.

"Worse, with global warming, we saw that anyone questioning that hysteria would be labeled a skeptic and treated like a leper,' Gutfeld continued. 'But the ClimateGate scandal proved that inevitably these cocky experts would overstep the science, get humbled, retreat into therapy. Have you seen Gore lately? So now finally shrinks are saying these experts should rethink their messaging. But, no, the shrinks are not telling experts to stop exaggerating consequences, instead, start offering solutions too. Meaning, just assume your lies were right all along and push those curly light bulbs. That ain't going to work either. The jig is up."

But as Gutfeld suggests, one reason some of the global warming psychological experts haven't completely thrown in the towel - one year after the fact, ClimateGate has been barely acknowledged by the media. A recent analysis by the Business & Media Institute revealed the media had done more to defend the behavior of the embattled ClimateGate scientists than criticize it.
Cool Fox News reports:

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6Upr4zSU" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6Upr4zSU" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

Funny that Fox is practically the only network or cable news outlet reporting on Cancun.
movielib is offline  
Old 12-02-10, 10:59 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Remember Eric Steig who wrote a paper in 2009 claiming all of Antarctica was warming? That flew in the face of much research that said eastern Antarctica (about 80% of the continents) has been cooling for about 30 years. In fact, Steig (one of whose co-authors was the infamous Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann) et al. was criticized right from the start. Here are my posts on it (a few unrelated posts may have shown up in this search):


Well now an apparently very good peer reviewed paper is being published which does a lot to refute Steig. Here is the story:


Skeptic paper on Antarctica accepted – rebuts Steig et al
Posted on December 1, 2010 by Anthony Watts

In a blow to the Real Climate “hockey team” one team member’s paper, Steig et al Nature, Jan 22, 2009 (seen at left) has been shown lacking. Once appropriate statistical procedures were applied, the real data spoke clearly, and it was done in a peer reviewed paper by skeptics. Jeff Condon of the Air Vent writes via email that he and co-authors, Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, and Steve McIntyre have succeeded in getting a paper accepted into the prestigious Journal of Climate and asked me to re-post the notice here.

The review process was difficult, with one reviewer getting difficult on submitted comments [and subsequent rebuttal comments from authors ] that became longer than the submitted paper, 88 pages, 10 times the length of the paper they submitted! I commend them for their patience in wading through such formidable bloviation. Anyone want to bet that reviewer was a “team” member?

As WUWT covered in the past, these authors have demonstrated clearly that the warming is mostly in the Antarctic Peninsula. Steig et al’s Mannian PCA math methods had smeared that warming over most of the entire continent, creating a false impression.

WUWT visitors may want to read this primer which explains how this happens. But most importantly, have a look at the side by side comparison maps below. Congratulations to Jeff, Ryan, Nick, and Steve! – Anthony

Jeff writes:

After ten months of reviews and rewrites we have successfully published an improved version of Steig et al. 2009. While we cannot publish the paper here, we can discuss the detail. Personally I’ve never seen so much work put into a single paper as Ryan did and it’s wonderful to see it come to a successful conclusion. This is the initial post on the subject, in the coming weeks there will be more to follow.

Guest post by lead author Ryan O’Donnel.


DOING IT OURSELVES. . . a tongue-in-cheek reference to the RC post here:

Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction

(Accepted 11/30/10, Journal of Climate)

Ryan O’Donnell Nicholas Lewis Steve McIntyre Jeff Condon

A detailed analysis is presented of a recently published Antarctic temperature reconstruction that combines satellite and ground information using a regularized expectation-maximization algorithm. Though the general reconstruction concept has merit, it is susceptible to spurious results for both temperature trends and patterns. The deficiencies include: (a) improper calibration of satellite data; (b) improper determination of spatial structure during infilling; and (c) suboptimal determination of regularization parameters, particularly with respect to satellite principal component retention. We propose two methods to resolve these issues. One utilizes temporal relationships between the satellite and ground data; the other combines ground data with only the spatial component of the satellite data. Both improved methods yield similar results that disagree with the previous method in several aspects. Rather than finding warming concentrated in West Antarctica, we find warming over the period of 1957-2006 to be concentrated in the Peninsula (≈0.35oC decade-1). We also show average trends for the continent, East Antarctica, and West Antarctica that are half or less than that found using the unimproved method. Notably, though we find warming in West Antarctica to be smaller in magnitude, we find that statistically significant warming extends at least as far as Marie Byrd Land. We also find differences in the seasonal patterns of temperature change, with winter and fall showing the largest differences and spring and summer showing negligible differences outside of the Peninsula.
Region RLS C/Dec E-W C/Dec S09 C/Dec
Continent 0.06 ± 0.08 0.04 ± 0.06 0.12 ± 0.09
East Antarctica 0.03 ± 0.09 0.02 ± 0.07 0.10 ± 0.10
West Antarctica 0.10 ± 0.09 0.06 ± 0.07 0.20 ± 0.09
Peninsula 0.35 ± 0.11 0.32 ± 0.09 0.13 ± 0.05

Copyright © 2010 American Meteorological Association

(early online release to be available on or around Dec. 7th)

Some of you remember that we intended to submit the analysis of the Steig Antarctic reconstruction for publication. That was quite some time ago . . . and then you heard nothing. We did, indeed, submit a paper to Journal of Climate in February. The review process unfortunately took longer than expected, primarily due to one reviewer in particular. The total number of pages dedicated by that reviewer alone – and our subsequent responses – was 88 single-spaced pages, or more than 10 times the length of the paper. Another contributor to the length of time from submission to acceptance was a hardware upgrade to the AMS servers that went horribly wrong, heaping a load of extra work on the Journal of Climate editorial staff.

With that being said, I am quite satisfied that the review process was fair and equitable, although I do believe excessive deference was paid to this one particular reviewer at the beginning of the process. While the other two reviews were positive (and contained many good suggestions for improvement of the manuscript), the other review was quite negative. As the situation progressed, however, the editor at Journal of Climate – Dr. Anthony Broccoli – added a fourth reviewer to obtain another opinion, which was also positive. My feeling is that Dr. Broccoli did a commendable job of sorting through a series of lengthy reviews and replies in order to ensure that the decision made was the correct one.

The results in the paper are generally similar to the in-process analysis that was posted at CA and here prior to the submission. Overall, we find that the Steig reconstruction overestimated the continental trends and underestimated the Peninsula – though our analysis found that the trend in West Antarctica was, indeed, statistically significant. I would hope that our paper is not seen as a repudiation of Steig’s results, but rather as an improvement.

In my opinion, the Steig reconstruction was quite clever, and the general concept was sound. A few of the choices made during implementation were incorrect; a few were suboptimal. Importantly, if those are corrected, some of the results change. Also importantly, some do not. Hopefully some of the cautions outlined in our paper are incorporated into other, future work. Time will tell!

Lastly, I’ll give a shout out to other folks whose comments helped shape the paper by their comments and analysis. In particular, Roman, Hu, and Carrick . . . thanks!
In the comments, some pointed out that the new study still shows a warming trend, even for eastern Antarctica (very little as you can see and within the margin of error). Others, who were more knowledgeable pointed out to them that the chart and graph covered 1957-2006. Antarctica did warm from 1957-1979 but has cooled considerably since then and that is the period Steig tried to tell us it was warming (or he disingenuously hid the fact in his paper). This post covered that point: http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...ml#post9772525 .

Furthermore, look at the difficulty the authors had in getting this paper published. One peer reviewer (an alarmist, no doubt and, I think, probably someone close to Steig, Mann and the RC crowd, if not actually in it) bottled it up for almost a year. If the paper had backed Steig it probably would have been published before the ink was dry.

The Steig paper was pushed by the MSM and made network newscasts. Of course, the new paper will not.
movielib is offline  
Old 12-04-10, 05:57 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Necessity for those in Cancun:


movielib is offline  
Old 12-04-10, 08:35 PM
Political Exile
grundle's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,298
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition


The last global warming conference ever?

Rex Murphy, National Post · Saturday, Dec. 4, 2010

This global-warming/climate-change stuff is a great racket. Over in England right now, they're locked in the jaws of a very early freeze-up. The roads are iced, the plows overworked, and people are angry. But there's a precious subset of the English population that are not enduring the frigid and premature torments of a northern winter. They're the climate-change activists, bureaucrats, politicians, puppeteers and NGOs -- the class of professional alarmists who've been banging on about global warming for close on two decades now. This bunch has exempted itself from the rigors of English November, traded their sackcloth and ashes for sun-wear and tropical breezes.

They're toasting their pasty, righteous, caterwauling epidermi on the golden hot sands of Cancun, Mexico, flopped out amid the bikinis and barbeques while they attempt to spell out a future of rationing and want for all the rest of us. Flown there on taxpayer or foundation money, meeting up with all their buddies from the bust that was Copenhagen, the grim, grey priesthood of "sustainable" living are convening in one of the great sybaritic strips of the entire Western world. The monks are in the cathouse.

But hey, if you're going to do Armageddon -- do it in Cancun. The apocalypse at the all-you-can-eat buffet. Parasailing to Armageddon.

Does not one of the great minds decoding next century's weather see the brain-splitting contradiction of holding a conference warning of the imminent threat of global warming in a venue that mainly exists because people fly there to get warmer? That's right, people spend money to fly to Cancun mainly because it's warmer there than where they live. In essence, Cancun is what the global warming crowd are, otherwise, warning us about.

Perhaps at some level of instinct they do know. Perhaps they know that this show of theirs is on its last legs, the jig is up, the great game is over. After the unsuccessful 2009 Copenhagen conference, they had to have realized that even Al Gore and all Al Gore's grim little men would never be able to put the whole rickety, tendentious machine back together again. After Copenhagen, and especially after Climategate, even the true believers must have lost heart. Witness this year's confabulation. Notice who's not there?

Last year, even the Golden One, Barack Obama, swept dramatically into Denmark. It was the venue for all the A-list politicians. Prime ministers and presidents were everywhere. This year, the world's leaders have stayed away. Even the press, whose Cancun presence is down considerably compared to Copenhagen, smells the decay of a cause.

Some countries have made it clear that they no longer are even pretending to play the global-warming abatement game. "Japan will not inscribe its target under the Kyoto protocol on any conditions or under any circumstances," declared Jun Arima, deputy director-general for environmental affairs at Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Given that his was the country where the Kyoto Protocol was signed, it's a powerful blow to the Gore-ish forces. Perhaps Japan will get one of those cute Fossil of the Day Awards that Canada so excels at collecting.

Could this be the last global warming conference? It's possible. The environmentalists and the activists have had a tin ear and a surplus of righteousness from the beginning. But there's something extravagantly out of key, even for them, in holding their great "Save the Planet" revival at Cancun -- up to now famous for Spring Break and as a hangout for louche Hollywood types and cleavage researchers. It signals they've lost the will to pretend. And with Japan having walked away from the whole idea of Kyoto, it's hard to see how they'll work up the steam for another holiday next year.
grundle is offline  
Old 12-05-10, 08:05 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Yet another peer reviewed study says corals are not threatened by increased CO2 and resultant "ocean acidification."


Responses of Scleractinian Corals to Ocean Acidification
Volume 13, Number 48: 1 December 2010
Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

In July of 2007, Kreif et al. (2010) collected two colonies of massive Porites corals (which form large multi-century-old colonies and calcify relatively slowly) and four colonies of the branching Stylophora pistillata coral (which is short-lived and deposits its skeleton rather rapidly) from a reef adjacent to the Interuniversity Institute for Marine Science in Eilat (Israel) at the northern tip of the Red Sea; and they grew fragments of these corals in 1000-liter tanks through which they pumped Gulf of Eilat seawater that they adjusted to be in equilibrium with air of three different CO2 concentrations (385, 1904 and 3970 ppm), which led to corresponding pH values of 8.09, 7.49 and 7.19 and corresponding aragonite saturation state (Ωarag) values of 3.99, 1.25 and 0.65. Then, after an incubation period of six months for S. pistillata and seven months for the Porites corals, several fragments were sampled and analyzed for a number of different coral properties; and fourteen months from the start of the experiment, fragments of each coral species from each CO2 treatment were analyzed for zooxanthellae cell density, chlorophyll a concentration, and host protein concentration. And what did this work reveal?

In the words of the seven scientists who conducted the study, "following 14 months incubation under reduced pH conditions, all coral fragments survived and added new skeletal calcium carbonate, despite Ωarag values as low as 1.25 and 0.65." This was done, however, at a reduced rate of calcification compared to fragments growing in the normal pH treatment with a Ωarag value of 3.99. Yet in spite of this reduction in skeletal growth, they report that "tissue biomass (measured by protein concentration) was found to be higher in both species after 14 months of growth under increased CO2." And they further note that the same phenomenon had been seen by Fine and Tchernov (2007), who, as they describe it, "reported a dramatic increase (orders of magnitude larger than the present study) in protein concentration following incubation of scleractinian Mediterranean corals (Oculina patagonica and Madracis pharencis) under reduced pH," stating that "these findings imply tissue thickening in response to exposure to high CO2." Also, in a somewhat analogous situation, Krief et al. report that "a decrease in zooxanthellae cell density with decreasing pH was recorded in both species," but that "this trend was accompanied by an increase in chlorophyll concentration per cell at the highest CO2 level."

In discussing their intriguing findings, the Israeli, French and UK researchers say "the inverse response of skeleton deposition and tissue biomass to changing CO2 conditions is consistent with the hypothesis that calcification stimulates zooxanthellae photosynthesis by enhancing CO2 concentration within the coelenteron (McConnaughey and Whelan, 1997)," and they write that "since calcification is an energy-consuming process ... a coral polyp that spends less energy on skeletal growth can instead allocate the energy to tissue biomass," citing Anthony et al. (2002) and Houlbreque et al. (2004). Thus, they suggest that "while reduced calcification rates have traditionally been investigated as a proxy of coral response to environmental stresses, tissue thickness and protein concentrations are a more sensitive indicator of the health of a colony," citing Houlbreque et al. (2004) in this regard as well.

In concluding their paper, Krief et al. say "the long acclimation time of this study allowed the coral colonies to reach a steady state in terms of their physiological responses to elevated CO2," and that "the deposition of skeleton in seawater with Ωarag < 1 demonstrates the ability of both species to calcify by modifying internal pH toward more alkaline conditions." As a result, they further state that "the physiological response to higher CO2/lower pH conditions was significant, but less extreme than reported in previous experiments," suggesting that "scleractinian coral species will be able to acclimate to a high CO2 ocean even if changes in seawater pH are faster and more dramatic than predicted."
Note the thriving corals even at CO2 concentrations of almost 4000ppm, more than ten times the concentration we have today and an amount we will surely never even come close to.

There has been a veritable torrent of peer reviewed studies over the last few decades and especially the last few years that have told us "the corals are all right." They are in no danger whatsoever, nor are the reefs they make and maintain.

Not to belabor the point, but I and many others have been pointing out for years that this makes perfect sense as the corals and the reefs have survived for tens or even hundreds of millions of years through extremes unimaginable to those of us who live in these relatively moderate climatic times. Yet, after all this historical empirical evidence and after all these experiments and peer reviewed studies, it's still all ignored and we are periodically bombarded with scare stories of the destruction of coral reefs by increased CO2 and <strike>global warming</strike> global climate disruption.

The fact that alarmists ignore this well established science so they can keep on feeding us scare stories should make you wonder why you should believe anything they say.
movielib is offline  
Old 12-05-10, 08:58 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Another scare: anesthetic gases.


Neglected greenhouse gas discovered by atmosphere chemists
By Jes Andersen

When doctors want their patients asleep during surgery they gently turn the gas tap. But Anaesthetic gasses have a global warming potential as high as a refrigerant that is on its way to be banned in the EU. Yet there is no obligation to report anaesthetic gasses along with other greenhouse gasses such as CO2, refrigerants and laughing gas.

Significantly worse than CO2

One kilo of anaesthetic gas affects the climate as much as 1620 kilos of CO2. That has been shown by a recent study carried out by chemists from University of Copenhagen and NASA in collaboration with anaesthesiologists from the University of Michigan Medical School. The amount of gas needed for a single surgical procedure is not high, but in the US alone surgery related anaesthetics affected the climate as much as would one million cars.

Think before you gas them

Analyses of the anaesthetics were carried out by Ole John Nielsen. He is a Professor of atmospheric chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, and he's got an important message for doctors. "We studied three different gasses in regular use for anaesthesia, and they're not equally harmful," explains Professor Nielsen. All three are worse than CO2 but where the mildest ones Isoflurane and Sevoflurane have global warming potentials of 210 and 510 respectively, Desflurane the most harmful will cause 1620 times as much global warming as an equal amount of CO2, explains the professor. "This ought to make anaesthesiologists sit up and take notice. If all three compounds have equal therapeutic worth, there is every reason to choose the one with the lowest global warming potential", says professor Ole John Nielsen.

Inspired by maternity ward

The three anaesthetic gasses isofluran, desflurane and sevoflurane were studied at the Ford atmospheric laboratories in Michigan. Mads Andersen of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratories collaborated on the analyses with his former PhD supervisor Ole John Nielsen. He relates how he got the idea for the study while his wife was giving birth. "The anaesthesiologist told me, that the gas used is what we chemist know as a halogenated compound. That's the same family of compound as the Freon that was famously eating the ozone layer back in the eighties" says research scientist Mads Andersen.

On the map with ozone eaters replacement

Freon is a compound that Andersen knows well. It got his supervisor Professor Nielsen on the scientific map. With a global warming potential of a whopping 11.000 the refrigerant Freon has been banned all over the world since 1992. When the search was on for an alternative to the harmful substance Nielsen analysed just how much heat was retained by new compounds, and how long they would stay in the atmosphere. His methods went to prove, that the refrigerant HFC134a had a global warming potential of 1.300 and left the atmosphere in just 14 years to freons 50 to 100 years.

HFC-134a has spared the atmosphere a considerable climate effect. But it too is being prohibited all across the European Union. And unless therapeutic arguments speak for using all three, sevoflurane should be the only legal anaesthetic gas as shown by the study done by NASA, Ford and the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen.
Forget the nonsense about freon because the whole ozone thing is being disproved. But what about the anesthetic gases?


Surgical anesthetic gases coming under fire for global warming potential – Only one problem: they haven’t been observed in the atmosphere
Posted on December 5, 2010 by Anthony Watts

The press release [above] is from the University of Copenhagen Department of Chemistry. The anesthetic gases isofluran, desflurane and sevoflurane are coming under scrutiny for global warming potential. However, what isn’t stated in the press release is this important paragraph of the scientific paper :
There are no production numbers available in the literature for the anaesthetic agents. The three compounds have not yet been observed in the free atmosphere, and current atmospheric levels are expected to be small (of the order of part per trillion/volume). At these concentrations, when viewed in isolation, their present contribution to the relative forcing of climate change is negligible in comparison with the current forcing of 1.7 Watts/sq meter due to CO2.
Later though, even though they admit they have no numbers on the production quantity of these anaesthetic agents, and “the three compounds have not yet been observed in the free atmosphere”, they use some SWAG to make this claim:
Hence, we conclude that global emissions of inhalation anaesthetics, when measured by the 100 yr GWP, have a contribution to the radiative forcing of climate change which is comparable with that of the CO2 emissions from one coal-fired power plant or approximately 1 million passenger cars.
Gosh, more than a whole coal-fired power plant! Somebody tell China immediately so they can stop building two a week.
In other words, it doesn't matter how many zillions of times more "warming" a gas is than CO2 if there's practically none of it and never will be enough to have any measurable effect. Remember those "dangerous" gases produced from manufacturing your plasma TV? What's important is the scare factor you can generate.

Go ahead with that life saving surgery. You won't destroy the planet.
movielib is offline  
Old 12-05-10, 03:47 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

7 out of every 8 carbon traders registered in Denmark were fraudulent. They steal $7 billion.


The $7-billion carbon scam
Lawrence Solomon December 5, 2010 – 12:50 pm

Scam artists from around the world, capitalizing on lax regulations at the Danish emissions trading registry, have made off with an estimated $7-billion over the last two years, according to Europol. Denmark’s Office of the Auditor General is now investigating the fraud, which occurred after the Danish registry dropped requirements that carbon traders be documented. While allowing a free-for-all served the carbon market on the short term, by appearing to inflate the interest in carbon as a commodity, it ultimately backfired when much of the trading proved to be phony.

Aided by lax rules, the Danish emissions registry became the world’s largest, with 1256 registered permit traders, most of them fake. As one example, a registered trader used a London parking lot as his address. Following the discovery of the scam, some 1100 of these have been de-registered, leaving scant few traders in the Danish market.

The Danish Minister of Climate and Energy who oversaw the illusory growth in the carbon market, Connie Hedegaard, has since been promoted to the post of EU Climate Commissioner. She is now in Cancun, representing the EU’s interests and arguing for steps that the global community needs to take for the carbon industry to regain credibility.

This story, greatly underreported, came to me via a Norwegian reader, Geir Hasnes, who has translated one of the few press reports to have appeared. His translation appears here.
Well, it makes perfect sense that the Minister who allowed the theft of $7 billion should be promoted, right? And it shows once again that the only way to make carbon trading seem to be worth something is the old fashioned way - fraud.
movielib is offline  
Old 12-06-10, 02:27 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Yet another peer reviewed paper linking cosmic rays with climate (see Post #282).


New Paper Correlating Solar Cycles With Climate
Posted on December 6, 2010 by stevengoddard

While the paper in post #282 is based on recent observations and analysis of data, the new paper is based on analysis of data from an anomalous historical period. Put together with Henrik Svensmark's experiments (which are still ongoing) and the historical work of Nir Shaviv and Jan Veizer, this thing is being hit from many different angles and so far every one is supporting the theory.
movielib is offline  
Old 12-06-10, 02:43 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

More peer reviewed fun:

New paper says climate models suck. They can't hindcast and they can't forecast.


New peer reviewed paper shows just how bad the climate models really are
Posted on December 5, 2010 by Anthony Watts

One of the biggest, if not the biggest issues of climate science skepticism is the criticism of over-reliance on computer model projections to suggest future outcomes. In this paper, climate models were hindcast tested against actual surface observations, and found to be seriously lacking. Just have a look at Figure 12 (mean temperature -vs- models for the USA) from the paper, shown below:

Fig. 12. Various temperature time series spatially integrated over the USA (mean annual), at annual and 30-year scales. Click image for the complete graph

The graph above shows temperature in the blue lines, and model runs in other colors. Not only are there no curve shape matches, temperature offsets are significant as well. In the study, they also looked at precipitation, which fared even worse in correlation. The bottom line: if the models do a poor job of hindcasting, why would they do any better in forecasting? This from the conclusion sums it up pretty well:
…we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms.
Selected sections of the entire paper, from the Hydrological Sciences Journal is available online here as HTML, and as PDF ~1.3MB are given below:

A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data

Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. ‘A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094 – 1110


We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.

Citation Anagnostopoulos, G. G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A. & Mamassis, N. (2010) A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data. Hydrol. Sci. J. 55(7), 1094-1110.


According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global circulation models (GCM) are able to “reproduce features of the past climates and climate changes” (Randall et al., 2007, p. 601). Here we test whether this is indeed the case. We examine how well several model outputs fit measured temperature and rainfall in many stations around the globe. We also integrate measurements and model outputs over a large part of a continent, the contiguous USA (the USA excluding islands and Alaska), and examine the extent to which models can reproduce the past climate there. We will be referring to this as “comparison at a large scale”.

This paper is a continuation and expansion of Koutsoyiannis et al. (2008). The differences are that (a) Koutsoyiannis et al. (2008) had tested only eight points, whereas here we test 55 points for each variable; (b) we examine more variables in addition to mean temperature and precipitation; and (c) we compare at a large scale in addition to point scale. The comparison methodology is presented in the next section.

While the study of Koutsoyiannis et al. (2008) was not challenged by any formal discussion papers, or any other peer-reviewed papers, criticism appeared in science blogs (e.g. Schmidt, 2008). Similar criticism has been received by two reviewers of the first draft of this paper, hereinafter referred to as critics. In both cases, it was only our methodology that was challenged and not our results. Therefore, after presenting the methodology below, we include a section “Justification of the methodology”, in which we discuss all the critical comments, and explain why we disagree and why we think that our methodology is appropriate. Following that, we present the results and offer some concluding remarks.

Here’s the models they tested:

Comparison at a large scale

We collected long time series of temperature and precipitation for 70 stations in the USA (five were also used in the comparison at the point basis). Again the data were downloaded from the web site of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (http://climexp.knmi.nl). The stations were selected so that they are geographically distributed throughout the contiguous USA. We selected this region because of the good coverage of data series satisfying the criteria discussed above. The stations selected are shown in Fig. 2 and are listed by Anagnostopoulos (2009, pp. 12-13).

Fig. 2. Stations selected for areal integration and their contribution areas (Thiessen polygons).

In order to produce an areal time series we used the method of Thiessen polygons (also known as Voronoi cells), which assigns weights to each point measurement that are proportional to the area of influence; the weights are the “Thiessen coefficients”. The Thiessen polygons for the selected stations of the USA are shown in Fig. 2.

The annual average temperature of the contiguous USA was initially computed as the weighted average of the mean annual temperature at each station, using the station’s Thiessen coefficient as weight. The weighted average elevation of the stations (computed by multiplying the elevation of each station with the Thiessen coefficient) is Hm = 668.7 m and the average elevation of the contiguous USA (computed as the weighted average of the elevation of each state, using the area of each state as weight) is H = 746.8 m. By plotting the average temperature of each station against elevation and fitting a straight line, we determined a temperature gradient θ = -0.0038°C/m, which implies a correction of the annual average areal temperature θ(H - Hm) = -0.3°C.

The annual average precipitation of the contiguous USA was calculated simply as the weighted sum of the total annual precipitation at each station, using the station’s Thiessen coefficient as weight, without any other correction, since no significant correlation could be determined between elevation and precipitation for the specific time series examined.

We verified the resulting areal time series using data from other organizations. Two organizations provide areal data for the USA: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Both organizations have modified the original data by making several adjustments and using homogenization methods. The time series of the two organizations have noticeable differences, probably because they used different processing methods. The reason for calculating our own areal time series is that we wanted to avoid any comparisons with modified data. As shown in Fig. 3, the temperature time series we calculated with the method described above are almost identical to the time series of NOAA, whereas in precipitation there is an almost constant difference of 40 mm per year.

Fig. 3. Comparison between areal (over the USA) time series of NOAA (downloaded from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...cag3/cag3.html) and areal time series derived through the Thiessen method; for (a) mean annual temperature (adjusted for elevation), and (b) annual precipitation.

Determining the areal time series from the climate model outputs is straightforward: we simply computed a weighted average of the time series of the grid points situated within the geographical boundaries of the contiguous USA. The influence area of each grid point is a rectangle whose “vertical” (perpendicular to the equator) side is (ϕ2 - ϕ1)/2 and its “horizontal” side is proportional to cosϕ, where ϕ is the latitude of each grid point, and ϕ2 and ϕ1 are the latitudes of the adjacent “horizontal” grid lines. The weights used were thus cosϕ(ϕ2 - ϕ1); where grid latitudes are evenly spaced, the weights are simply cosϕ.


It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.

However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms. Several publications, a typical example being Rial et al. (2004), point out the difficulties that the climate system complexity introduces when we attempt to make predictions. “Complexity” in this context usually refers to the fact that there are many parts comprising the system and many interactions among these parts. This observation is correct, but we take it a step further. We think that it is not merely a matter of high dimensionality, and that it can be misleading to assume that the uncertainty can be reduced if we analyse its “sources” as nonlinearities, feedbacks, thresholds, etc., and attempt to establish causality relationships. Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart.

Do we have something better than GCMs when it comes to establishing policies for the future? Our answer is yes: we have stochastic approaches, and what is needed is a paradigm shift. We need to recognize the fact that the uncertainty is intrinsic, and shift our attention from reducing the uncertainty towards quantifying the uncertainty (see also Koutsoyiannis et al., 2009a). Obviously, in such a paradigm shift, stochastic descriptions of hydroclimatic processes should incorporate what is known about the driving physical mechanisms of the processes. Despite a common misconception of stochastics as black-box approaches whose blind use of data disregard the system dynamics, several celebrated examples, including statistical thermophysics and the modelling of turbulence, emphasize the opposite, i.e. the fact that stochastics is an indispensable, advanced and powerful part of physics. Other simpler examples (e.g. Koutsoyiannis, 2010) indicate how known deterministic dynamics can be fully incorporated in a stochastic framework and reconciled with the unavoidable emergence of uncertainty in predictions.
OK, I don't get all this but I get the conclusion. Models suck and will never be any good. The climate system is simply too complex.

So Gavin Schmidt, it's time for you to get a real job. And I don't mean misrepresenting and defaming skeptics at SurRealClimate.

The peer reviewed papers destroying alarmist science are not just continuing, they are snowballing. How long before it's over?
movielib is offline  
Old 12-06-10, 11:37 AM
Political Exile
grundle's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,298
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition


Alarmist Doomsday warning of rising seas 'was wrong', says Met Office study

By Daily Mail Reporter

6th December 2010

Alarming predictions that global warming could cause sea levels to rise 6ft in the next century are wrong, it has emerged.

The forecast made by the influential 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which would have seen cities around the world submerged by water, now looks ‘unlikely’.

A Met Office study also rules out the shutdown of the Atlantic Ocean’s conveyor belt, which would trigger Arctic winters in Britain like those seen in the film The Day After Tomorrow.

However, the report says the IPCC was right to warn of a sea level rise of up to 2ft by 2100, and that a 3ft rise could happen.

The IPCC underestimated the danger posed by the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the release of methane from warmer wetlands, the report adds.

Vicky Pope, head of climate science at the Met Office, said: ‘In most cases, our new understanding has reinforced results from the IPCC report – and the degree of impact is about the same.’

The 2007 analysis was criticised last year after it was found to have wrongly claimed Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

The Met Office analysis comes as world ministers fly to Cancun, Mexico, for the second week of UN climate change talks.


* Britain braced for return of the big freeze with temperatures set to plummet to -10C tonight
* Our terror as weight of snow brought down Tesco roof

They will try to agree a treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions and slow deforestation.

The talks, hosted at a Cancun luxury resort and golf spa famed for its beaches and water sports, have also attracted former deputy prime minister and keen diver John Prescott.

The new Met Office report is the first serious attempt to update the science of global warming since the publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment.

The new Government funded study, says the worst case scenario is now a one metre (3.3 ft) rise.

In 2007 the IPCC reported preliminary evidence that the Atlantic conveyor belt that brings warm water north and keeps Britain relatively mild for its latitude during winters was breaking down.

But more recent observations show the currents are stable.

However, the report also has bad news. It says there is new evidence that the Arctic will become largely free of ice during most summers earlier in the century than the IPCC warned, and that the Greenland ice sheet is more likely to melt in centuries to come than previously thought.

It also warns that the release of methane from warming wetlands will be greater than thought in 2007 - leading to more global warming in the coming decades.

The Met Office report comes at the start of the second week of talks in Cancun designed to create a treaty that curbs greenhouse gas emissions, sets up a £60billion fund to help poor countries cope with climate change and slows down deforestation.

The 46 strong British delegation will be joined from today by Chris Huhne, junior Climate minister Greg Barker and Labour Peer Lord Prescott, Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly Rapporteur.

The former deputy prime minister, who was involved in negotiating the original climate treaty in Kyoto, says he will present a “Prescott Plan” to break the deadlock between rich and poor countries.
grundle is offline  
Old 12-06-10, 12:26 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,052
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Originally Posted by grundle View Post

Alarmist Doomsday warning of rising seas 'was wrong', says Met Office study

By Daily Mail Reporter

6th December 2010

Alarming predictions that global warming could cause sea levels to rise 6ft in the next century are wrong, it has emerged.
Three years in, the 100 year forecast is shot to shit, but the rest of the science is basically sound? Right.

Lets fly off to Cancun to discuss emergency solutions (spewing tonnes of the very thing we seek to reduce -- ever hear of videoconferencing?)
OldDude is offline  
Old 12-06-10, 01:50 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Originally Posted by OldDude View Post
Three years in, the 100 year forecast is shot to shit, but the rest of the science is basically sound? Right.

Lets fly off to Cancun to discuss emergency solutions (spewing tonnes of the very thing we seek to reduce -- ever hear of videoconferencing?)
But it's coooold (brrr) where most of them live.
movielib is offline  
Old 12-07-10, 06:57 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

More nuttiness at a climate conference than at a UFO convention?


IBD Editorial
Cuckoo In Cancun
Posted 12/06/2010 07:06 PM ET

Environmentalism: Still think those who continue to push the idea of man-made climate change are well-grounded and rational? Think again.

Consider Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. She opened the U.N's global warming conference last week with a prayer to Ixchel, the Mayan goddess of the moon.

This mythological supreme being of fertility is supposed to be good for sending rain for crops. Maybe that's the sort of blessing Figueres had in mind when, from Cancun's — no joke — Moon Palace, she called Ixchel "the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving" and hoped delegates would be inspired by her.

And did we mention that the multitasking Ixchel is also some kind of jaguar? Given her many roles, is it really reasonable to ask her to also save the planet from global warming?

But then if she did that, the alarmists wouldn't have to take junkets to balmy resorts in December to save the world from mankind.

One might think the climate change conference silliness would have a limit. But one would be wrong.

A week into the proceedings, the Sacramento Bee published a column by Wangari Maathai, winner of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize. Her topic? Negotiations at the global climate meeting, she believes, "should be an opportunity for empowering women."

Moving on, we find a professor from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who wants to use the summit to fight obesity. Fossil fuel energy, says Ian Roberts, is causing the world to get hotter, and fatter. How? As the British Telegraph reports, Roberts believes the use of cars and other fossil-fuel-using machines has made us all fatter.

Maybe Roberts should have taken his fight against obesity to summit delegates, as well. They threw themselves a party on the first night that was bursting with food, adult beverages and pinatas.

Did any give even a fleeting thought as to how their outsized carbon footprints would affect their waistlines?

Did a single one look at the virtually unlimited bounty before them and recognize the hypocrisy of promoting rationing in the developed world to cut carbon emissions?

Lest you think there's been no serious work done, Bolivia is using the summit to bring up — again — its idea for an International Tribunal for Climate Justice to prosecute "ecocide" — defined as a crime against an ecosystem "to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished."

"Supporters of a new ecocide law," the British Guardian reported in April, "believe it could be used to prosecute" the "climate deniers" who "distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming."

The hinges that are supposed to anchor these people to reality are quite obviously missing. There's more clear thinking at the typical UFO convention, tin hats and all, than at any global warming conference — including this year's big party on the beach.
The absence of tin foil hats is made up for by the disproportionate number of people running around in polar bear costumes.
movielib is offline  
Old 12-07-10, 07:21 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Raving alarmist Eric Steig (of RealClimate) blasts author without having read his book or having any idea of what he is talking about.


Quote of the Week – “weather is not climate”, flaming edition
Posted on December 7, 2010 by Anthony Watts

Over at The Air Vent, Jeff reviewed the book “Warnings” by CCM Mike Smith. This is a book about weather, weather forecasting, severe weather events, and the people and technology that save lives and help people in their daily lives by making weather forecasting their mission. I’ve got the book, I’ve read it, and there’s nary a mention about climate in it.

The number five comment out of the gate at tAV was from Professor Eric Steig, Real Climate contributor and author of the recently rebutted paper that purported to show continent-wide Antarctic warming, that turned out to be nothing more than a statistical smearing artifact.

Professor Steig must still be angry about his paper being effectively rebutted, because he launched a rather bizarre rant of the “weather is not climate” meme about the author’s website, while at the very same time labeling Mike Smith a “liar” and “dishonest” in the context of a book professor Steig has never read.

Eric Steig said

December 5, 2010 at 8:35 pm
‘Curious’ wrote “Does it cover the distinction between weather and climate?”

Well, I have not read the book, but if you watch the video the author links to on his web site, you’ll find he uses the same lie that Lindzen does “If you can’t predict the weather 5 days from now, how can you be confident in a forecast 100 years from now.” Hello, these are completely different concepts. No one is claiming they are predicting *weather* 100 years from now (or even 10 years from now!).

Mike Smith may be a good meteorologist, but he evidently hasn’t learned this very basic difference yet. Either that, or he is a very dishonest person.
Wow, just wow.

Mike Smith replied:

Mike Smith said

December 6, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Hi Everyone. I thought that instead of Mr. Steig hurling accusations about me and everyone speculating as to my positions, I would make a few comments and clear the air.

First, there is NOTHING about global warming or climate change in “Warnings.” The book has received excellent reviews and I am very proud of it. I believe that any of you who might chose to read it will enjoy it as much as Jeff did. I certainly appreciate him posting the review.

Mr. Steig says, “No one is claiming they are predicting *weather* 100 years from now (or even 10 years from now!).” I suggest, he read p. 118 of the 2009 National Climate Change Assessment. It makes a WEATHER forecast for the number of heat waves to occur in Chicago during the period 2070-2099. The is just one of the few weather forecasts in the document (i.e., a weather forecast is a forecast of specific conditions at a specific place and time). Here in Kansas, there are various predictions made about drought and reservoir levels on a sub-state basis in 2050. It is factually incorrect to say that “no one” is making weather forecasts decades into the future.

I am very well aware of the differences between weather and climate. The assertion that we can forecast climate decades into the future depends on climate models being unbiased, the errors averaging out, and their ability to forecast volcanic eruptions and changes in solar energy as as other non-atmospheric inputs. No skill (other than in hindcast mode) in any of these areas has been demonstrated. Here is a new paper on the subject: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/sec...text=713240928 From the abstract: “Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.”

Finally, I don’t understand the need for pejoratives like “liar” and “dishonest.” We have never met and, to my knowledge, have never had a conversation. While we may disagree on these points, I do not doubt Mr. Steig’s good faith. I wish he would have given me the same benefit of the doubt.

‘Tis a strange world we inhabit in blogland where people accuse you of being a liar and dishonest without even reading what you’ve written.

Just in case Professor Steig reads this and decides to read the book, here it is:

How typical of alarmists. Steig's Antarctica paper from 2009 was obviously written to try to eliminate the embarrassment of a cooling Antarctica. It was quite sloppy (which it needed to be to get the desired result) and has just been refuted by a much more carefully written paper (see Post #302). While there is no obvious connection between that incident and this one, both show Steig's bias, sloppiness and contempt for facts. Now Steig attacks a writer whose book doesn't even address global warming.

If these people have science and truth on their side why do they resort to these tactics?
movielib is offline  
Old 12-07-10, 10:25 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

James Hansen: wrong again (peer reviewed wrong).


James Hansen's Outlandish "Alpine Plant Extinction Claim" Is Debunked by Real-World Data Reference
Dec 8, 2010

Scherrer, D. and Korner, C. 2010. Infra-red thermometry of alpine landscapes challenges climatic warming projections. Global Change Biology 16: 2602-2613.


The authors write that "climate warming scenarios predict higher than average warming in most alpine areas," and, therefore, that "alpine regions are often considered as particularly threatened." In fact, in testimony presented before the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the United States House of Representatives on 26 April 2007, NASA's James Hansen declared that life in alpine regions is in danger of being "pushed off the planet" as the earth warms, as it has "no place else to go." But is this really so?

What was done

In a study designed to test this very concept, Scherrer and Korner employed thermal imagery and microloggers to assess the fine-scale detail of both surface and root zone temperatures in three different temperate-alpine and subarctic-alpine regions: one in the Swiss Alps, one in North Sweden and one in North Norway, all of which study sites were located on steep mountain slopes above the climatic tree line and exhibited a rich microtopography but no change in macroexposure.

What was learned

The two Swiss scientists report that "microclimatic variation on clear sky days was strong within all slopes, with 8.4 ± 2.5°C (mean ± SD) surface temperature differences persisting over several hours per day along horizontal (i.e., equal elevation) transects," which differences, as they describe them, "are larger than the temperature change predicted by the IPCC."

What it means

Scherrer and Korner say their findings are "important in the context of climate change," because they show that "species do not necessarily need to climb several hundred meters in elevation to escape the warmth." Quite often, in fact, they say that a "few meters of horizontal shift will do," so that for plants "unable or too slow to adapt to a warmer climate, thermal microhabitat mosaics offer both refuge habitats as well as stepping stones as atmospheric temperatures rise."

In discussing their results more broadly, the Swiss scientists state that their data "challenge the stereotype of particularly sensitive and vulnerable alpine biota with respect to climatic warming," noting that "high elevation terrain may in fact be more suitable to protect biodiversity under changing climatic conditions than most other, lower elevation types of landscapes." Thus, in what would appear to be a bit of good advice to all -- and James Hansen in particular -- the two researchers say they "advocate a more cautious treatment of this matter."
It's hardly surprised Hansen is nearly always wrong. Everything he says is either based on computer models, or (most often) just pulled out of his ass.

Hansen's wrongness is so complete he's beginning to rival Paul Ehrlich, the undisputed King of Wrong going on about four decades. This means that, like Ehrlich, he gets lauded in the press, appears on TV shows where he gets softball questions and worship from hosts and other guests, testifies as an "expert" before Congress seemingly every other week and wins numerous awards and prizes (and money) from greenies everywhere. Congratulations, Dr Hansen.
movielib is offline  
Old 12-07-10, 11:16 AM
DVD Talk Limited Edition
arminius's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Here I Is!
Posts: 6,968
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition


The story in the link is not worth pasting here. The thing is islands have come and gone since well before there were humans. Now they are trying to have blame assigned by how good your standard of living is? Too bad we can't have the next global whatever it's called this week conference there and then pull out all transport.
arminius is offline  
Old 12-07-10, 11:55 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,052
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Originally Posted by arminius View Post

The story in the link is not worth pasting here. The thing is islands have come and gone since well before there were humans. Now they are trying to have blame assigned by how good your standard of living is? Too bad we can't have the next global whatever it's called this week conference there and then pull out all transport.
Overpumping of ground water is a BIG cause of both salination and sinkholes in places like this (and Florida). I suspect global warming is not the real cause of their problems, but excessive water use and pumping from wells.
OldDude is offline  
Old 12-07-10, 10:23 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

movielib is offline  
Old 12-08-10, 06:02 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

From the "Yeah, I know It's Weather, Not Climate, But It's Still Freaking Hilarious Department" comes this:


“Gore effect” strikes Cancun Climate Conference 3 days in a row
Posted on December 8, 2010 by Anthony Watts

From the “weather is not climate department” – New record low temperatures set in Cancun for three straight days, and more new low temperature records are possible this week.

Dr. Roy Spencer, who is in Cancun representing climate skepticism on behalf of CFACT writes on his blog:
Today’s my first full day in Cancun at COP-16, and as I emerged from my hotel room I was greeted by a brisk, dry, cool Canadian breeze.

It was 54 deg. F in Cancun this morning — a record low for the date. (BTW, Cancun is nowhere near Canada).

Al Gore is not supposed to be here…but it could be that the Gore Effect has announced his secret arrival. We will check into this.
Here’s the record for today from Weather Underground:

The old record low temperature of 57°F was bested today by four degrees.

And for the previous two days, new record lows have been set:

The weather forecast for the week ahead does not look encouraging, additional low temperature records may be set:

Here are existing Record Lows and Forecast Lows in upcoming days:

Wednesday: 53 °F (2003) Forecast: 51°F

Thursday: 60 °F (2000) Forecast: 59°F

Friday: 60 °F (1999) Forecast: 55°F

Saturday: 57 °F (2003) Forecast: 53°F

Sunday: 55 °F (2008) Forecast: 51°F

The Cancun delegates certainly live in “interesting times”.
It's as if some Higher Power is always conspiring against the warmists to bring colder weather wherever they go. Last year, snow storms blasted Copenhagen and other areas including Washington, DC, even forcing many attendees (including Obama) to leave early, ahead of storms. One would have thought all such embarrassment would have been avoided in Cancun and then they run into a string of record breaking cold mornings. Just remember: weather isn't climate and correlation isn't causation. But it can be funny.

Last edited by movielib; 12-08-10 at 06:11 AM.
movielib is offline  
Old 12-08-10, 04:29 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Remarkable: Now updated report has more than 1000 scientists dissenting from CAGW.


SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

Climate Depot Exclusive: 321-page 'Consensus Buster' Report set to further chill UN Climate Summit in Cancun
Wednesday, December 08, 2010By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report:



More than 1000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 320-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from 2007's groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 1000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal -- which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists -- detonated upon on the international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol lead author grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report.

Other UN scientists were more blunt. South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a "worthless carcass" and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace". He also explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed." Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. "'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded...There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!" See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! 'Climate change - RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence...Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives' [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!]

Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“We're not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC's Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein, is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen...Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” -- Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate...The planet's climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” -- Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

"I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” -- Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic's View.”

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today,” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what 'science' has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed...Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring,

“Those who call themselves 'Green planet advocates' should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere...Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content...Al Gore's personal behavior supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” -- Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named "100 most influential people in the world, 2004" by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer."

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith...My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia's CSIRO's (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” -- Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens' Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity...In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” -- Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” -- Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.” -- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

End Selected Excerpts


The rapidity of the global warming establishment's collapse would have been unheard of just two years ago. Prominent physicist Hal Lewis resigned from American Physical Society, calling "Global warming the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life." UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn was blunt about what Climategate revealed: "The case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...the whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed."

Even the usually reliable news media has started questioning the global warming claims. Newsweek Magazine wrote in May 2010 about the "uncertain science" and how "climate researchers have lost the public's trust" from a "cascade of scandals" from the UN IPCC. Newsweek compared the leaders of the climate science community to "used-car salesmen."Once celebrated climate researchers are feeling like the used-car salesmen" and the magazine noted that "some of IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles...Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments." For full list of Climategate related scandals See: Climate Scandals: List Of 94 Climate-Gates -- 94 climate-gates total -- 28 new gates -- 145 links to reports with details

As the global warming edifice crumbled in 2010, the movement lost one of its leading lights due to the Climategate revelations. Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech, explained her defection from the global warming activist movement. "There is 'a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink...They are setting themselves up as second-rate scientists by not engaging, Curry wrote in 2010. Curry critiqued the UN IPCC for promoting "dogma" and clinging to the "religious importance" of the IPCC's claims. "They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them," Curry lamented. "The IPCC assessment process had a substantial element of schoolyard bullies, trying to insulate their shoddy science from outside scrutiny and attacks by skeptics...the IPCC and its conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy," Curry wrote. Curry called the Climategate fallout nothing short of a "rather spectacular unraveling of the climate change juggernaut...I immediately realized that [Climategate] could bring down the IPCC...I became concerned about the integrity of our entire field...While my colleagues seemed focused on protecting the reputations of the scientists involved and assuring people that the 'science hadn't changed." [Also see: 'High Priestess of Global Warming' No More! Former Warmist Judith Curry Admits To Being 'Duped Into Supporting IPCC' - 'If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic'] [Note: There were many Cilmategate inquiries that sought to downplay Climategate, but they fell short of their goal and were labeled as nothing more than the "global warming establishment exonerating the global warming establishment." See here, here, and here. The InterAcademy Council (IAC) was the most competent of the inquires.]

As new data and science continued to call into question man-made global warming claims, one of the movements leading fear promoters shocked the world by beginning to retreat from his dire predictions. Green guru James Lovelock warned in 2007 that " "Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic." Lovelock illustrates how the climate of the climate change movement has been transformed in the last year. In May 2010, Lovelock shocked the world by announcing: "Everybody might be wrong. Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out." Lovelock went even father by noting how the science of global warming is in its infancy and "we haven't got the physics worked out yet." "The great climate science centers around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven't got the physics worked out yet," Lovelock explained. Lovelock now openly praises skeptics and worries that climate fear promotion is akin to religion. In March of 2010, Lovelock said: "The skeptics have kept us sane...They have kept us from regarding climate science as a religion. It had gone too far that way." [Note: Even the UN has grown more uncertain about the science. See: UN Fears (More) Global Cooling Commeth! IPCC Scientist Warns UN: We may be about to enter 'one or even 2 decades during which temps cool' -- Admits 'Jury is still out' on ocean cycle's temp impact!]

More woes for the movement were felt when left-leaning environmental activists began jumping ship. See: Left-wing Env. Scientist Denis Rancourt Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a 'corrupt social phenomenon...strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass' & Meet the green who doubts 'The Science': Environmentalist Peter Taylor 'explains why he's skeptical about manmade global warming — and why greens are so intolerant' & Activists at green festivals expressing doubts over man-made climate fears. “One college professor, confided to me in private conversation that, 'I'm not sure climate change is real,'” according to a report from the New York Green Festival.

2010 saw the once vaulted UN IPCC now become the object of ridicule and scrutiny. In June 2010, Climate Scientist Mike Hulme took apart a key claim. Hulme noted that claims such as "2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate" are disingenuous. Hulme noted that the key scientific case for Co2 driving global warming was reached by a very small gaggle of people. "That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields."

In another blow to the UN IPCC's carefully crafted image, was Scientist Dr. William Schlesinger admission in that only 20% of UN IPCC scientists deal with climate. Schlesinger said, “something on the order of 20 percent [of UN scientists] have had some dealing with climate.” By Schlesinger's own admission, 80% of the UN IPCC membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies. Also note, that climate requires a wide range of disciplines: See: 'There are more than 100 expert sub disciplines involved in climate change studies' & Science magazine confused about who is a 'prominent climate scientist' -- 'there is no specific climate discipline' & Claims of 'overwhelming majority' of scientists exposed as laughable! 'There are just 94 authors responsible for compiling the report in which...the [UN IPCC's] modeling case for alarm rests'

The notion of climate "tipping points", popularized by former Vice President Al Gore and NASA Scientist James Hansen, became the object of derision as well in 2010. See: 190-year climate 'tipping point' issued -- Despite fact that UN began 10-Year 'Climate Tipping Point' in 1989! Climate Depot Factsheet on Inconvenient History of Global Warming 'Tipping Points' -- Hours, Days, Months, Years, Millennium -- Earth 'Serially Doomed'

Once respected global warming stalwarts like NASA's James Hansen descended into political and ideological activism by being arrested multiple times protesting coal use. Hansen also endorsed a book which calls for '"ridding the world of Industrial Civilization". Hansen declared the author "has it right...the system is the problem." Hansen did this despite the fact that the book proposes '"razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine." The eco-magazine writer David Roberts noted in August 2010: "'I know I'm not supposed to say this, but James Hansen managed his transition from scientist to activist terribly. All influence lost."

Energy Sec. Chu came under fire for claiming science told him what the world was going to be like 100 years from now. See: Obama's 'Climate Astrologer': Energy Sec. Chu claims he knows 'what the future will be 100 years from now'

Obama Science Advisor John Holdren found his knowledge of the science of climate change come under scrutiny after he issued a bizarre warning about the possible loss of WINTER sea ice in the arctic. See: Obama science advisor: John Holdren ridiculed for claiming Arctic could be ICE FREE IN WINTER!

The U.S. Congressional cap-and-trade bill collapse and the UN climate treaty failure has left disillusioned within the global warming movement. Gore has admitted to feeling "a little depressed." And it has left a spectacle of world leaders promising verbal non-binding agreements to limit the earth's temp have left modern society attempting to ape primitive cultures efforts to control the climate. See: Blaming all recent weather events on man-made global warming is akin to astrology & Climate Astrology -- 'It Has Been Foretold' of Extreme Weather: 'UN IPCC science has a status similar to interpretations of Nostradamus and the Mayan calendars'

In addition, the scientific underpinnings and the public support around the globe has dropped so significantly that there is now open talk of moving on to the "next eco-scare" Demoted: UN officially throws global warming under the bus: UN now says case for saving species 'more powerful than climate change' – May 21, 2010 & Time for next eco-scare already?! As Global Warming Movement Collapses, Activists Already 'Test-Marketing' the Next Eco-Fear! 'Laughing Gas' Crisis? Oxygen Crisis? Plastics?

The carefully crafted "consensus" of man-made global warming has unraveled. See:

Prominent Geologist Dr. Easterbrook Slams Geological Society of America's climate statement 'as easily refuted by data that clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and global climate change' & American Meteorological Society Members Reject Man-made Climate Claims: 75% Do Not Agree With UN IPCC Claims -- 29% Agree 'Global Warming is a Scam' & Meteorologists Reject U.N.'s Global Warming Claims: Only 1 in 4 American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agree with UN

In 2009, the world's largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) was “startled” by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate fears, with many calling for the removal of the ACS's climate activist editor.

A 2010 Open Letter signed by more than 130 German scientists urging German Chancellor to “reconsider” her climate views. See: 'Consensus' Takes Another Hit! More than 130 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears 'Pseudo 'Religion'; Urge Chancellor to 'reconsider' views – August 4, 2009 More than 100 international scientists challenged President Obama's climate claims, calling them "simply incorrect." In December 8 2009, 166 scientists from around the world wrote an Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General rebuking the UN and declaring that “the science is NOT settled.” On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group's climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.” An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”

Scientific meetings are being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]

Despite these developments, global warming promoters have sought to cite a survey alleging 97% of climatologists agree with the "consensus" view. But the survey does not hold up to scrutiny. See: 'Consensus' claims challenged: Only 77 scientists were interviewed to get 97.4% agreement -- 'It would be interesting to learn who these individuals are' & Climate Con: 97% 'Consensus' Claim is only 76 Anonymous Self-Selected Climatologists


This Climate Depot Special Report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party's convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

The NAS has come under fire for its lobbying practices. See: NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone Turns Science Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study is used to lobby for global warming bill & Cicerone's Shame: NAS Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes Advocacy Group -- 'political appointees heading politicized scientific institutions that are virtually 100% dependent on gov't funding' MIT's Richard Lindzen harshly rebuked NAS president Cicerone in his Congressional testimony in November 2010. Lindzen testified: "Cicerone [of NAS] is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide." [ Also See: MIT Climate Scientist Exposes 'Corrupted Science' in Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ]

While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

Scientists caution that the key to remember is "climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables," not just CO2. UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London decried the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver. "As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets," Stott wrote in 2008. Even the climate activists at RealClimate.org let this fact slip out in a September 20, 2008 article. "The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors," RealClimate.org admitted in a rare moment of candor.]
As always, Marc Morano does a superthorough job. This is a 321 page report, not just a list. It contains quotes from all the scientists and links.
movielib is offline  
Old 12-08-10, 04:50 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

I can't believe they actually fell for it. Delagates in Cancun bite on the older than the hills Dihydrogen Monoxide trick.


Cancun COP16 attendees fall for the old “dihydrogen monoxide” petition as well as signing up to cripple the U.S. Economy
Posted on December 8, 2010 by Anthony Watts

Oh dear, some of these folks aren’t the brightest CFL’s in the room.

Readers may remember this famous Penn and Teller video from 2006 where they get well meaning (but non thinking) people to sign up to ban “dihydrogen monoxide” (DHMO), which is an “evil” chemical found in our lakes, rivers, oceans, and even our food!

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yi3erdgVVTw?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yi3erdgVVTw?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Yeah, they signed up to ban water. Now watch the video from the Cancun climate conference, you’d think some of these folks would be have enough science background (from their work in complex climate issues) to realize what they are signing, but sadly, no.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TzZ_Zcp4PwY?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TzZ_Zcp4PwY?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

CFACT writes:

UN climate kooks want to cripple US economy and ban H2O

Some people will sign anything that includes phrases like, ”global effort,” “international community,” and “planetary.” Such was the case at COP 16, this year’s United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico.

This year, CFACT students created two mock-petitions to test U.N. Delegates. The first asked participants to help destabilize the United States economy, the second to ban water.

The first project, entitled “Petition to Set a Global Standard” sought to isolate and punish the United States of America for defying the international community, by refusing to bite, hook, line and sinker on the bait that is the Kyoto Protocol. The petition went so far as to encourage the United Nations to impose tariffs and trade restrictions on the U.S. in a scheme to destabilize the nation’s economy. Specifically, the scheme seeks to lower the U.S. GDP by 6% over a ten year period, unless the U.S. signs a U.N. treaty on global warming.

This would be an extremely radical move by the United Nations. Even so, radical left-wing environmentalists from around the world scrambled eagerly to sign.

The second project was as successful as the first. It was euphemistically entitled “Petition to Ban the Use of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)” (translation water). It was designed to show that if official U.N. delegates could be duped by college students into banning water, that they could essentially fall for anything, including pseudo-scientific studies which claim to show that global warming is man-caused.

Despite the apparently not-so-obvious reference to H2O, almost every delegate that collegian students approached signed their petition to ban that all too dangerous substance, which contributes to the greenhouse effect, is the major substance in acid rain, and is fatal if inhaled.

Perhaps together, the footage associated with these two projects will illustrate to mainstream America the radical lengths many current U.N. delegates are willing to go to carry out an agenda no more ethical, plausible or practical than the banning water.
One would think a delegate to a climate conference would (a) know what Dihydrogen Monoxide is; or (b) at least ask some questions to make sure of what they are signing.

And these are the people who want to make us pay trillions of dollars to essentially accomplish nothing (except bankrupt the world).

Last edited by movielib; 12-10-10 at 01:47 AM.
movielib is offline  
Old 12-08-10, 05:15 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

How could anyone not support this bill?


A bill for climate data integrity: The Public Access to Historical Records Act
Posted on December 8, 2010 by Anthony Watts

This just in from U.S. Senator David Vitter’s office here’s now the official press release:

For Immediate Release Contact: Joel DiGrado (Vitter) (202) 224-4623

December 8, 2010 Emily Lawrimore (Barrasso) (202) 224-6441

Vitter, Barrasso Introduce Bill to Ensure Open, Accurate NASA Climate Data

(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sens. David Vitter and John Barrasso today introduced S. 4015, the Public Access to Historical Records Act, which would dramatically improve the transparency and accuracy of NASA’s historical records and guarantee public access to the data.

“Recent incidents, such as the investigation showing that the Obama administration manipulated data to justify the drilling moratorium, have raised concerns that some scientists and government agencies are using misleading data to support their favored viewpoints,” said Vitter. “This bill would open NASA’s temperature records to public scrutiny and establish an objective set of data to ensure that influential climate research is protected from political agendas.”

“Each year, Americans are forced to spend billions of their hard-earned dollars to support climate change research. Since this administration promised to be the most open administration in history, it should immediately share NASA’s temperature data with the American public,” said Barrasso. “There are too many questions regarding temperature models not to allow all Americans access to this data. This legislation will ensure that our nation has the most accurate and transparent historic temperature record in the world.”

The bill by Vitter and Barrasso is consistent with the Data Quality Act, which requires that scientific information from government agencies be accurate, clear, complete and unbiased. The Public Access to Historical Records Act would require NASA and the National Climatic Data Center to immediately release relevant climate data that outside groups have long been attempting to review through the Freedom of Information Act.

The bill would also force NASA to make all of its raw historical temperature data available online to the public and would require the agency to compile an official U.S. historical temperature record with oversight from an independent council of appointed meteorologists and statisticians. The resulting temperature record would be routinely reviewed for accuracy by an independent auditor and would be required for use as a primary source by any scientists or groups accepting federal money for climate research.



The full bill as presented is available here Temperature-Records-Act-2010 (PDF):


I had a small hand in this, reviewing some language, but the thrust of the bill came from NASA’s stubborn refusal to provide FOI requested data and documents to CEI. Don’t these guys ever learn? Of course this bill is in its infancy, so there’s no telling if it will make it to law, and if it does, how much it will be modified, or if some pork will be added to it.
Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.

– Otto von Bismarck
So, we’ll watch the sausage being made here, and hope for the best. - Anthony
Of course, such a law should not even be necessary. It should be obvious that government agencies should be transparent and tell us the truth (except in matters of true national security).

It will be interesting to see what the likes of Gore, Hansen, Boxer, Waxman, Markey and other assorted boobs and greenie groups have to say when they inevitably oppose this bill. I suggest they hire Jack Nicholson to bellow:

movielib is offline  
Old 12-09-10, 07:07 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Here we go again. The alarmists seem to have assignments. Michael Mann's was "to get rid of the medieval warm period." Steven Sherwood's was "to find the tropical troposphere hotspot." Eric Steig's was "to get rid of a cooling (eastern) Antarctica." Michael Lockwood's was "to refute Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray theory." As shown in these threads, all have been colossal failures.

Now it is Andrew Dessler's turn "to show CO2 warming has a positive feedback through clouds." Even though the opposite is almost surely true.

Roy Spencer responds to the latest junk science:


The Dessler Cloud Feedback Paper in Science: A Step Backward for Climate Research
December 9th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

How clouds respond to warming – the ‘cloud feedback’ problem – will likely determine whether manmade global warming becomes either the defining environmental event of the 21st Century, or is merely lost in the noise of natural climate variability.

Unfortunately, diagnosing cloud feedback from our global satellite observations has been surprisingly difficult. The problem isn’t the quality of the data, though. The problem is figuring out what the cloud and temperature behaviors we observe in the data mean in terms of cause and effect.

So, Andy Dessler’s (a Texas A&M climate researcher) new paper appearing in Science this week is potentially significant, for it claims to have greatly closed the gap in our understanding of cloud feedback.

Dessler’s paper claims to show that cloud feedback is indeed positive, and generally supportive of the cloud feedbacks exhibited by the IPCC computerized climate models. This would in turn support the IPCC’s claim that anthropogenic global warming will become an increasingly serious problem in the future.

Unfortunately, the central evidence contained in the paper is weak at best, and seriously misleading at worst. It uses flawed logic to ignore recent advancements we have made in identifying cloud feedback.

In fact, the new paper is like going back to using only X-rays for medical imaging when we already have MRI technology available to us.

What the New Study Shows

So what is this new evidence of positive cloud feedback that Dessler has published? Well, actually it is not new. It’s basically the same evidence we published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Yet we came to a very different conclusion, which was that the only clear evidence of feedback we found in the data was of strongly negative cloud feedback.

But how can this be? How can two climate researchers, using the same dataset, come to opposite conclusions?

The answer lies in an issue that challenges researchers in most scientific disciplines – separating cause from effect.

Dessler’s claim (and the IPCC party line) is that cloud changes are caused by temperature changes, and not the other way around. Causation only occurs in one direction, not the other.

In their interpretation, if one observes a warmer year being accompanied by fewer clouds, then that is evidence of positive cloud feedback. Why? Because if warming causes fewer clouds, it lets in more sunlight, which then amplifies the warming. That is positive cloud feedback in a nutshell.

But what if the warming was caused by fewer clouds, rather than the fewer clouds being caused by warming? In other words, what if previous researchers have simply mixed up cause and effect when estimating cloud feedback?

A Step Backwards for Climate Science

What we demonstrated in our JGR paper earlier this year is that when cloud changes cause temperature changes, it gives the illusion of positive cloud feedback – even if strongly negative cloud feedback is really operating!

I can not overemphasize the importance of that last statement.

We used essentially the same satellite dataset Dessler uses, but we analyzed those data with something called ‘phase space analysis’. Phase space analysis allows us to “see” behaviors in the climate system that would not be apparent with traditional methods of data analysis. It is like using an MRI to see a type of tumor that X-rays cannot reveal.

What we showed was basically a new diagnostic capability that can, to some extent, separate cause from effect. This is a fundamental advancement – and one that the news media largely refused to report on.

The Dessler paper is like someone publishing a medical research paper that claims those tumors do not exist, because they still do not show up on our latest X-ray equipment…even though the new MRI technology shows they DO exist!

Sound strange? Welcome to my world.

We even replicated that behavior see in the satellite data analyzed with phase space analysis — our ‘MRI for the climate system’ – by using a simple forcing-feedback climate model containing negative cloud feedback. It showed that, indeed, when clouds cause temperature changes, the illusion of positive cloud feedback is created…even when strongly negative cloud feedback really exists.

Why Dessler Assumed We Are Wrong

To Dessler’s credit, he actually references our paper. But he then immediately discounts our interpretation of the satellite data.


Because, as he claims, (1) most of the climate variability during the satellite period of record (2000 to 2010) was due to El Nino and La Nina (which is largely true), and (2) no researcher has ever claimed that El Nino or La Nina are caused by clouds.

This simple, blanket claim was then intended to negate all of the evidence we published.

But this is not what we were claiming, nor is it a necessary condition for our interpretation to be correct. El Nino and La Nina represent a temporary change in the way the coupled atmospheric-ocean circulation system operates. And any change in the atmospheric circulation can cause a change in cloud cover, which can in turn cause a change in ocean temperatures. We even showed this behavior for the major La Nina cooling event of 2007-08 in our paper!

It doesn’t mean that “clouds cause El Nino”, as Dessler suggests we are claiming, which would be too simplistic and misleading of a statement. Clouds are complicated beasts, and climate researchers ignore that complexity at their peril.

Very Curious Timing

Dessler’s paper is being announced on probably THE best day for it to support the IPCC’s COP-16 meeting here in Cancun, and whatever agreement is announced tomorrow in the way of international climate policy.

I suspect – but have no proof of it – that Dessler was under pressure to get this paper published to blunt the negative impact our work has had on the IPCC’s efforts.

But if this is the best they can do, the scientists aligning themselves with the IPCC really are running out of ideas to help shore up their climate models, and their claims that our climate system is very sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions.

The weak reasoning the paper employs – and the evidence we published which it purposely ignores! – combined with the great deal of media attention it will garner at a time when the IPCC needs to regain scientific respectability (especially after Climategate), makes this new Science paper just one more reason why the public is increasingly distrustful of the scientific community when it comes to research having enormous policy implications.
What is going on here is that there are many problems for the alarmist scientists to make their case. Contrary to popular belief and propaganda, these problems run counter to much fairly well established or in the process of being established science. The unpleasant fact is that the papers cited above do not really have to be any good. First, they will be published easily and without too much revision or reflective thought because most of the peer reviewers are their buddies who get assigned to review the papers. (Skeptics face a much more severe gauntlet; you can bet a bunch of alarmists will be trying to prevent their publication. Despite that, many do get through and, because of the far more difficult path, often involving months of refinement and revision, I think you can also figure they are going to be very good by the end of the much more rigorous process.) Then the alarmists' papers will be touted by the media while the skeptics' papers will be ignored. That's all the alarmists want. They get wide publicity and live on that for years. Any criticisms of the alarmists' papers will also be ignored by the press. Thus, the impression is given that the alarmists rule and have not been refuted, while just the opposite is true. And yet, the alarmists are still losing both the scientific and political battles.

Last edited by movielib; 12-10-10 at 06:01 AM.
movielib is offline  
Old 12-10-10, 02:00 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

After recording several record lows for the date (see Post #319), Cancun shivers (well, for them) to an all time December low on Dec 8.


“Gore Effect” strikes again: new coldest ever December record low temperature in Cancun
Posted on December 9, 2010 by Anthony Watts

God indeed has a sense of humor. From Weather Underground:

Here’s the actual METAR data, showing 10°C (50.0°F):

According to the Mexican National Meteorological Service, the record low temp for December is 12°C (53.6F) see table here: Cancun_climate (PDF)

According to this page lowest for December is 52°F (11°C)


Either way, 50°F is a new record for December low temperature, and it couldn’t happen at a more inconvenient time for the Cancun COP16 climate conference.
In fact, it's the lowest temperature ever recorded for Cancun outside of Januarys. If this was a movie, no one would believe it.

This may be a harbinger of 2012 on the Mayan calendar.
movielib is offline  
Old 12-10-10, 05:30 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,004
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

The Cancuckoo Conference officially ends today with no meaningful agreement in sight. But, as always, I make the same prediction.

The dedicated planet savers will go into overtime, far into the night, even unto the time of the sun's (which has nothing to do with climate) reappearance. They will emerge with two stone tablets upon which will be writ... a bunch of meaningless gobbledygook that they will proclaim is a great achievement and that they "saved" the talks. They will say it is a beginning, a foundation upon which eventually will be built the Great Deliverance of Spaceship Earth, our One and Only Home.

Well, maybe not exactly those words but it will be to that effect. They do it every year. This will be no different.
movielib is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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