Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-16-10, 07:22 PM   #76
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Heard about this today. Makes me happy because it shows that what they are selling, people aren't buying. Similar to changing High Fructose Corn Syrup to Corn Sugar.
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-10, 07:29 PM   #77
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

I think we should call what the alarmists do:

Global climate distortion.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-10, 07:34 PM   #78
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Member of The American Association for the Advancement of Science has had enough:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/1...comment-484457

Quote:
Lance Wallace says:
September 16, 2010 at 3:47 pm

I got the invitation today and after 20 years of paying my dues to AAAS it was finally too much–I requested an immediate cancellation of my membership.

“Today I received my invitation to the first Webinar of
your new website Member Central. This is titled Climate
Change and the Public: Overcoming Skepticism After
ClimateGate. I and I believe many other AAAS members
am personally affronted by your choosing to present
this panel, containing only apologists for the
“consensus” view on climate change. The revelations of
Climategate are a stain on science, and your attempt to
treat it by an intensified PR campaign is distasteful
and self-defeating. How much better it would have been
had you chosen to present a proper debate, with AAAS
scientists (e.g., Lindzen of MIT or Freeman Dyson) on
both sides of the issue.

For the first time, I am ashamed of my membership in
AAAS and request that you terminate my membership
immediately.”
So many formerly fine science societies and periodicals are eventually going to have their reputations ruined by their obviously biased advocacy for the global climate disruption myth.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-10, 07:36 AM   #79
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-10, 07:57 AM   #80
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Finally, the infallible climate modeler:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/1...hine-unveiled/

Quote:
Friday Funny: New climate prognostication machine unveiled
Posted on September 17, 2010 by Anthony Watts

Back when MIT showcased this hi-tech wonder, few thought it could be improved upon.


MIT’s “wheel of climate” – image courtesy Donna Coveney/MIT

They were wrong.

The only thing needed now is to change its name to the Global Climate Disruption Prognosticator.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-10, 03:08 PM   #81
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,807
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

I thought this was clever.

http://www.ucsusa.org/action/GotScie...t&sub=facebook

Not sure if I agree with it yet (I'm still weighing the science in my head) but it was a neat way to get the message across on facebook.
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-10, 05:42 PM   #82
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

"* UCS Factcheck: According to NASA 2009 was tied for the second warmest year on record and 2000 to 2009 has been the warmest decade since records were first kept in 1880."


A measly hundred years as a baseline. In terms of Earths climate history that seems quite insufficient. I would also like to see the list of "scientists" in that union.
__________________
Seek not the favor of the multitude; it is seldom got by honest and lawful means. But seek the testimony of few; and number not voices, but weigh them. I Kant
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-10, 06:07 PM   #83
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,439
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

This thread title is rather Anti-Rhetoric at the moment. Global Warming is a thing of the past and Global Disruption is the proper term.
__________________
You summed it up. It's sad that a thread like that even exists on this site.
-The Questyen
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-10, 06:18 PM   #84
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
I thought this was clever.

http://www.ucsusa.org/action/GotScie...t&sub=facebook

Not sure if I agree with it yet (I'm still weighing the science in my head) but it was a neat way to get the message across on facebook.
I'm hardly a fan of Hannity but that page is somewhat of a cherry pick. NASA temps are "adjusted" by James Hansen who hasn't been the most honest of record keepers. You can see many examples of his lowering past temps and raising more current ones to maximize the warming. The satellite temps give a somewhat different picture.

And then 2009 and 2010 were both affected by an El Nino which elevates temps. Now we're heading into a La Nina which lowers them. El Ninos and La Ninas have nothing to do with global warming or global cooling.

As a matter of fact, the last eight years have seen virtually no change in overall temperatures. There was probably a slight decline until the recent El Nino. Anyone claiming to "prove" anything from the last decade, whether Hannity or his detractors on that page, are full of shit.

The alarmists keep saying it's currently getting hotter, the sea level rise is accelerating, storms, floods, droughts are increasing. They say it as if it's known fact. In actuality, there is no evidence to support any of it.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-10, 06:44 PM   #85
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

There were studies published in 2008 that claimed they had found the missing tropical troposphere hotspot. That hotspot was predicted by most (actually, I think all) climate models and its being missing was an embarrassment to the alarmists. The 2008 studies eschewed temperature readings taken by satellites and balloons in favor of wind readings. In other words, they said wind was better at measuring temperatures than thermometers. These studies were roundly criticized by skeptics and even some alarmists who found that absurd. I have covered this many times in these threads.

Now there is a peer reviewed study by a number of distinguished climate scientists from the middle to the skeptical side that strongly refutes the 2008 studies.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...8-are-refuted/

Quote:
September 17, 2010...7:00 am
Conclusions From Allen and Sherwood (2008) and Thorne (2008) Are Refuted

In 2008, there were two papers published in Nature which received quite a bit of attention. The papers are

Robert J. Allen & Steven C. Sherwood, 2008: Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds Published online: 25 May 2008; | doi:10.1038/ngeo208

P. W. Thorne, 2008: “Atmospheric science: The answer is blowing in the wind; Published online: 25 May 2008; | doi:10.1038/ngeo209

I posted on these two papers in

Use Of Winds To Diagnose Long Term Temperature Trends – Two New Papers

Comments On The Science In The Nature Paper By Allen and Sherwood

It has taken over two years but in our paper

Christy, J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, R., Sr., Klotzbach, P., McNider, R.T., Hnilo, J.J., Spencer, R.W., Chase, T., and Douglass, D. What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?. Remote Sens. 2010, 2, 2148-2169

we refute the findings in the Allen and Sherwood (2008) and Thorne (2008) papers. In our paper in Section 3.1.3, we write
“The temperature trends derived from the thermal wind equation (TWE) (AS08 and C10) are indirect estimates and their magnitudes are significantly higher than the other products which measure the temperature directly.” [AS(08) = Allen and Sherwood (2008) and C10 = Christy et al (2010)]
and
“[W]e conclude that these trends calculated from the TWE, as applied for AS08 and here (C10), using the current radiosonde coverage and observational limitations (consistency, accuracy, etc.) do not produce results reliable enough for studies such as ours. In particular, AS08 and C10, with TLT trends of +0.29 and +0.28 °C decade−1 are almost three times that of the mean of the directly measured systems, and are values that are, in our view, simply not consistent with the countervailing, directly-measured evidence.”
In other words, The Allen and Sherwood (2008) finding that
“Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.650.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause……The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change”
has been refuted as reported in the Christy et al 2010 paper.
The importance of this should not be underestimated. The missing hotspot is overwhelmingly important in showing the climate models are unreliable, probably more so than any other factor. That alarmists know this and that is why they tried so hard to find it. That anyone would believe that wind is a better measure of temperature than thermometers seems to be crazy and that is why the 2008 studies have been treated with much skepticism. It is so absurd it almost seems it does not have to be refuted.

But it's very important that it is now formally refuted. Of course, Christy et al. needs to be critically studied just as much as the 2008 studies but you could hardly find a more distinguished group than the ones who did this study. Of course, the CRU/realclimate crowd would no doubt disagree and it will be interesting to see what they can do with this.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 09-19-10 at 09:52 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-10, 10:09 AM   #86
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Sometimes the scientists need to listen to the engineers.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...neering-crowd/

Quote:
The Anti-Engineering Crowd
Posted on September 19, 2010 by stevengoddard



Engineers have to get things right. They design things which have to work in the real world. When bridges fall down, there are consequences. If your computer doesn’t work, there are consequences. If a rocket crashes, there are consequences.

By contrast, many scientists have the luxury of living in the world of thought. They can toy around with ideas and models and concepts, normally without consequence for being wrong. You would not want a scientist designing a bridge, or performing surgery. They generally don’t have the necessary skills.

We see the disconnect between climate science and reality constantly. One of my favorite examples is the idea of the “ice shelf collapse” due to “global warming.”



An engineer looks at this picture and sees stress fractures in a thick piece of ice. A polar scientist with global warming on his mind, might see CO2. There is no evidence of melt in this picture. None, zip, nada, nil. The idea that this clean, smooth crack is due to melt is ludicrous.

Another example is the idea of “ice sheet collapse” where the bulk of the Greenland Ice Sheet quickly slides off into the ocean. Again, we know that the ice sheet over Greenland has depressed the land underneath by several thousand feet. There are also mountains underneath the ice. Ice can not slide out of a 3,000 foot deep bowl. Again, the idea is ludicrous.

The idea that winter storms and winter snow extent are increasing due to “excess heat” defies any rational thought. Yet the idea is bandied around effortlessly by some in the climate science community.

The fact that GCMs do not verify would cause an engineer to be concerned. Yet some climate scientists march forwards with the blinders on. Because the anti-engineering crowd doesn’t believe there are consequences for being wrong.

We need both scientists and engineers. Scientists are the dreamers. Engineers are the boring, practical people. Any government daft enough to accede policy decisions to scientists will get exactly what they deserve.

——

BTW – I have degrees in both science and engineering …..
Glaciers and ice sheets bordering on the sea calve all the time. Snow falls on the interior, it builds up, pushes laterally and eventually some ice breaks off and falls into the sea. The size of the overall glacier or ice sheet remains the same. A scientist who calls this evidence of global warming is either a fool or a liar. Yet you hear it all the time.

Every calving glacier or big ice sheet breaking off (it's the size of Manhatten! it's the size of Rhode Island!) is to them an event to exploit rather than a natural occurrence that has been going on for billions of years. It is always going to happen, over and over, even if it gets colder, so there is an endless supply of "evidence." The ice sheet "sliding off" a basin is even sillier.

I think Goddard may be too kind. I find it hard to believe this is actually ignorance on the part of such scientists. They have to know better.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-10, 08:03 AM   #87
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

To top off a week of nuttiness from John Holdren, he's been named "Crank of the Week."

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=cont...0-john-holdren

Quote:
Crank of the Week - September 13, 2010 - John Holdren
Submitted by admin on Sun, 09/19/2010 - 14:50

White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren is back in the news and that can only mean he is once again spouting radical, crackpot ideas. In a video interview with CNSNews.com, Holdren said that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with fellow misanthrope Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.” Aside from poor taste in associates, Holdren has demonstrated that the academic left is alive and as potentially dangerous to the average citizen as ever. Perhaps this is what the Obama administration means by “change,” but it is surely change we cannot live with.

What does “de-development” mean? “Resources must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries,” Holdren and his co-authors wrote. Frivolous and wasteful uses like building cities and subdivisions for citizens to live in, linked with modern highways to allow them to travel and commute to schools, offices and factories. And that is not all. The eco-inanity continues:
This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.
In other words, the rich nations must become poor and the poor nations must stay that way. Businesses must be shuttered, either legally or through boycott. Everyone needs to lead a low-consumption life, an environmentalist code word for crappy and short. It is astounding that such dreck is coming from a close adviser to the US president. If Holdren wants to redistribute wealth he can give his salary to the poor and go live in a low-impact hut behind the White House.

“De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation,” Holdren wrote along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the “recommendations” concluding their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions. The three ecological stooges called for action: “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” It was a stupid and cruel idea then and remains so today.

Paul Ehrlich gained notoriety for his book, The Population Bomb, a Malthusian rant about a distopian world ruined by uncontrolled human breeding. I read this book in my youth and was shaken by the predictions it made. I can tell you now that the book has left a permanent impression on me, since none of the catastrophic conditions predicted by Ehrlich have come to pass. Ehrlich and the other environmental radicals of the 1960s & 70s were wrong then and Holdren's recent comments prove that their accuracy has not improved.

Evidently Holdren was run to ground by CNSNews.com at an Environmental Protection Agency forum celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Clean Air Act. CNSNews also asked Holdren to comment on the declaration he made in 1995, along with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of Stanford University, that mankind needed to “face up” to “a world of zero net physical growth” that would require reductions in consumption. The contempt in which ivory tower intellectuals hold the rest of mankind is breathtaking—they say that conservatives are heartless, but it is they would condemn humanity to lives of endless drudgery and crushing poverty.

“We know for certain, for example, that: No form of material growth (including population growth) other than asymptotic growth is sustainable,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in an essay for the World Bank titled, “The Meaning of Sustainability.” Holdren would not comment about this statement, saying he had to get to another engagement. Perhaps even he had the sense to realize that one outburst of concentrated leftist intellectual, green claptrap a week is the limit, even for a presidential adviser—but no, I speak too soon.

Holdren is also worried about global warming. Having noticed that there hasn’t been any actual global warming since 1998, he has decided to employ an old trick used by disingenuous scholars for ages—change the name of the failed theory. Holdren has dropped the name “global warming,” and now refers to “global climate disruption” instead. Shedding the old name solves that pesky problem of accuracy and provides sufficient vagueness to avoid having to actually be right in the future. Whether it gets warmer or colder, wetter or drier, less climatically eventful or more climatically eventful, the result will be the same: it can all be put down to “global climate disruption.” Look for more re-branding of crackpot theories in the future.

Proving that he is in the forefront when it comes to illusory pseudo-scientific drivel, this is Holdren's second Crank of the Week award. His first award came in 2009, when he stated that the global warming threat was so dire, we need to start geoengineering the climate system. He has also suggested that forced sterilization might be a good idea to rein in human population growth. Holdren is nothing if not consistent—consistently arrogant, consistently intellectually dishonest and consistently morally vacuous. So, for once again demonstrating a mixture of industrial grade stupidity and utter contempt for everyday people, this Crank of the Week is for you, John P. Holdren.
To Obama, "restoring science" (as opposed to the "anti-science" Bush Administration) meant giving a job to every pseudoscientific eco-nut he could find. There isn't an ounce of real science in the environmental area to be found the Obama Administration.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-10, 09:32 PM   #88
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

re:John Holdren

Quote:
“We are not, of course, optimistic about our chances of success. Some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century. (The inability to forecast exactly which one – whether plague, famine, the poisoning of the oceans, drastic climatic change, or some disaster entirely unforeseen – is hardly grounds for complacency.)”

- John "Fail" Holdren and Paul "Bigger Fail" Ehrlich, ‘What We Must Do, and the Cost of Failure’, in Holdren and Ehrlich, Global Ecology, p. 279
__________________
JasonF said it "crazyronin understands scripture better than all those Popes"
the mods around here are morons-wendersfan
PSN and Origin: boomanchu2
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-10, 07:51 AM   #89
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Since the arctic sea ice minimum was a little less than last year (but more than 2008) we are again being told about the "downward death spiral" of the ice. But part of the lesser extent is, like in 2007, explained by winds that blew together some of the ice, making extent less but thickness greater. Nevertheless, we hear this lie:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...tting-thicker/

Quote:
Is The Ice Getting Thicker?
Posted on September 21, 2010 by stevengoddard
“There are claims coming from some communities that the Arctic sea ice is recovering, is getting thicker again,” Mark Serreze, director of the Colorado-based centre, told Postmedia News on Wednesday.

“That’s simply not the case. It’s continuing down in a death spiral.”
http://www.vancouversun.com

US Navy PIPS2 maps show that the area of Arctic ice greater than 2 metres thick has increased by about 50% since the same date in 2008. The blink comparator below removes all ice reported as less than two metres thick:



Light green shows expansion of 2 metre thick ice since 2008:

In other words, a huge area has been becoming thicker and Serreze is engaging in his usual false alarmism. So what else is new?

The only downward death spiral is the alarmists' credibility.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-10, 08:01 AM   #90
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Contrary to alarmist claims, oceans are cooling according to new peer reviewed study.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/20...n-in-2003.html

Quote:
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Paper: Global Cooling began in 2003

Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr has posted today an in-press paper which demonstrates that ocean temperatures flattened in 2001-2002 and have been on a negative trend since. The ocean temperature trend is far more important than the hopelessly adjusted & flawed land temperature record to assess global warming, as noted by Dr. Pielke. During this period, CO2 levels have steadily climbed, which according to the IPCC should have caused a positive radiative imbalance resulting in about .16C warming. The fact that ocean temperatures have instead been cooling falsifies the entire anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
[indent]"There is an excellent new paper by Bob Knox and David Douglass that provides further insight into the issue of the monitoring of global climate system heat changes. The paper is

R. S. Knox, David H. Douglass 2010: Recent energy balance of Earth International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, vol. 1, no. 3 (November) In press doi:10.4236/ijg2010.00000."

ABSTRACT: A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.



Discussion and Summary

As many authors have noted, knowing FOHC [ocean heat content] is important because of its close relationship to FTOA, the net inward radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere. Wetherald et al. [13] and Hansen et al. [14] believe that this radiative imbalance in Earth’s climate system is positive, amounting recently [14] to approximately 0.9 W/m2. Pielke [15] has pointed out that at least 90% of the variable heat content of Earth resides in the upper ocean. Thus, to a good approximation, FOHC may be employed to infer the magnitude of FTOA, and the positive radiation imbalance should be directly reflected in FOHC (when adjusted for geothermal flux [9]; see Table 1 caption). The principal approximations involved in using this equality, which include the neglect of heat transfers to land masses and those associated with the melting and freezing of ice, estimated to be of the order of 0.04 W/m2 [14], have been discussed by the present authors [9].

In steady state, the state of radiative balance, both quantities FTOA and FOHC should be zero. If FTOA > FOHC, “missing energy” is being produced if no sink other than the ocean can be identified. We note that one recent deep-ocean analysis [16], based on a variety of time periods generally in the 1990s and 2000s, suggests that the deeper ocean contributes on the order of 0.09 W/m2. This is not sufficient to explain the discrepancy.

Trenberth and Fasullo (TF) [2] believe that missing energy has been accumulating at a considerable rate since 2005. According to their rough graph, as of 2010 the missing energy production rate is about 1.0 W/m2, which represents the difference between FTOA ~ 1.4 and FOHC ~ 0.4 W/m2. It is clear that the TF [Trenberth & Fasullo] missing-energy problem is made much more severe if FOHC is negative or even zero. In our opinion, the missing energy problem is probably caused by a serious overestimate by TF of FTOA, which, they state, is most accurately determined by modeling.

In summary, we find that estimates of the recent (2003–2008) OHC rates of change are preponderantly negative. This does not support the existence of either a large positive radiative imbalance or a “missing energy.”[indent]
I think it's an exaggeration to say this "falsifies the entire anthropogenic global warming hypothesis" but it's yet another nail in the coffin that is more nails than coffin. But of course this study will be ignored, it will again be claimed that no peer reviewed studies refute CAGW and the alarmists will keep on telling us the oceans are getting warmer at an accelerating rate.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 09-22-10 at 08:37 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-10, 03:36 PM   #91
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

How many climate lies can dance on the head of a pin?

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/good-...l-warming-ever

Quote:
Good Riddance to Worst Summer of Global Warming Ever
Opinion by NRDC
(1 Hour Ago) in Society / Environment

By Dan Lashof

Tuesday was the official end of the summer of 2010. I for one say good riddance.

The Earth is telling us something, as illustrated in this video produced by NRDC, but too many politicians in Washington aren’t listening.



This was supposed to be the summer when we finally enacted a comprehensive law to steadily reduce emissions of heat-trapping pollution. Instead all we got is more hot air. Literally.

As NRDC’s report shows, average nighttime low temperatures were the hottest ever recorded at nearly one in four U.S. weather stations in NOAA’s Historic Climatology Network.

But it’s not just the temperatures. Global warming is dangerously and permanently disrupting our climate. Because the atmosphere can hold more moisture as it warms, there is more rapid evaporation when it is dry and more intense rainfall when it is wet. The result is an increase in severe droughts and floods. As we have seen this year in Russia, Pakistan, China, and the United States, the results can be tragic.

Monsoon-induced floods in Pakistan displaced more than 6 million people and destroyed one million homes. In Russia, the worst heat and drought on record led to the loss of one-third of the wheat crop while rampant wild fires that consumed whole villages. China was besieged by extreme rains leading to devastating mudslides while floods swept through Iowa and Tennessee killing 54 amidst searing, record-setting heat in other parts of the country.

Unfortunately, the end of summer does not spell the end of climate consequences. As the New York Times reported today, coral reefs are undergoing what may be the worst global bleaching event ever. And we’re still in the midst of a record-shattering hurricane season, even though most of the storms have luckily stayed offshore so far.

I am enjoying the cooler nights these days, but one thing is for sure: politicians will produce a lot more hot air this fall.

Original post on NRDC Switchboard
Of course there's nothing about record cold in Siberia and South America. Or anything about how NOAA said the Moscow heat and Pakistan floods were caused by a phenomenon involving the jet stream that had nothing to do with global warming. It's lies piled on lies piled on more lies piled on... well, it's lies all the way down. Topped off by the absolute lie that there was an "all time low" of arctic sea ice this year. In fact it's not true for the satellite era and we don't even know the extent of sea ice before 1979 and satellite measurements.

Just when I thought things couldn't get more disgusting.

Clearly, the National Resources Defense Council cares not one whit for truth.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 09-23-10 at 09:48 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-10, 03:46 PM   #92
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,479
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Guarddog?
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-10, 04:12 PM   #93
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoviePage View Post
Guarddog?
Clearly you did not read a single movielib post. But why should you, there are so many and global warming is a proven farce.
__________________
Seek not the favor of the multitude; it is seldom got by honest and lawful means. But seek the testimony of few; and number not voices, but weigh them. I Kant
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-10, 11:37 PM   #94
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

The New York Times misguided attack on the Kochs and defense of Californias economic suicide attempt.

http://bigjournalism.com/rtrzupek/20...koch-brothers/

Quote:
Shilling for ‘Green Energy,’ the New York Times Keeps Up Its Relentless, Partisan and Ignorant Assault on the Koch Brothers
Posted by Rich Trzupek Sep 21st 2010 at 3:03 pm in Economics,

Charles and David Koch are among the most committed and influential free-market champions in America today. According to an editorial in the New York Times, the Koch brothers have invested about a million dollars to try to save California from self-destruction, courtesy of the nation’s most ludicrous energy program: AB-32. That’s a noble effort on the part of Kansas petroleum magnates, even though debt-ridden, job-starved California seems determined to follow Spain’s disastrous path leading toward an unattainable green-energy nirvana.



Naturally the Times doesn’t quite see it that way, assuring readers that the Koch brothers are a dangerous part of sinister, right-wing forces who have aligned to kill California’s bright green future. The Times describes the provisions of AB-32 accurately, although they treat the fantastical goals contained in the bill as though they could be met with a wave of the hand:
The 2006 law, known as AB 32, is aimed at reducing California’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80 percent at midcentury. To reach these targets, state agencies are drawing up regulations that would affect businesses and consumers across the board — requiring even cleaner cars, more energy-efficient buildings and appliances, and power plants that use alternative energy sources like wind instead of older fossil fuels.
More regulations, more government control of private industry, more unreliable, expensive wind power: what could possibly go wrong?

Sure the Times acknowledges that California might have a few economic problems, but AB-32 will fix everything if only those darn boys from Kansas would go away:
The Koch brothers have contributed about $1 million, partly because they worry about damage to the bottom line at Koch Industries, and also because they believe that climate change is a left-wing hoax. They have argued that the law will lead to higher energy costs and job losses, arguments that resonate with many voters in a state with a 12.4 percent unemployment rate. But this overlooks the enormous increase in investments in clean energy technologies — and the jobs associated with them — since the law was passed.
When you’ve got a 12.4 percent unemployment rate, it’s pretty easy to ignore “the jobs associated with” an “enormous increase in investments in clean energy technologies.” It should be readily apparent that the state wouldn’t have an unemployment rate thirty percent greater than the nation’s already dreadful unemployment rate if hyper-aggressive green energy programs like AB-32 actually created meaningful numbers of jobs.

What these sorts of statutes actually encourage is what those of us involved in the energy business generically call “pixie dust projects.” Pixie dust projects – miraculous energy solutions that usually violate at least two laws of thermodynamics – have always been around, but under this administration there has been an explosion of such efforts, with shady characters and snake-oil salesmen galore clawing to get to the front of the line to grab government cash so they can perfect their version of the flux capacitor. No state is more awash in pixie dust these days than California, and its horrific unemployment numbers reflect that fact.

Of course, though the Times dutifully parrots the Obama administration’s mantra that green energy will solve our economic woes, they can’t help but get a lick in to defend “global warming/climate change/climate disruption” (or whatever we’re calling greenhouse gas hysteria this week): “The Kochs and their allies are disastrously wrong about the science,” the Times sniffed, demonstrating once again that nobody on the Times is actually interested in understanding the science any more than they care about what’s actually happening in China.

On the latter point, the Times declares that if AB-32 is defeated: “…he biggest winners will be the Chinese, who are already moving briskly ahead in the clean technology race.” Really? The Chinese are only winning on if one defines “moving briskly ahead” as building a new coal-fired power plant each week, failing to operate the environmental controls installed in the power plants they’ve already built, damming up ever river they can find and producing mounds of solar panels to sell to gullible Americans.

If the Kochs and other free market defenders are not successful and AB-32 remains in place, California’s economy won’t look much like China’s, but you can be assured will look an awful lot like Spain’s.
Californians have a chance to effectively repeal AB-32 for at least several years (until California's unemployment rate dips below 5.5% - so maybe for more than a few years) by its ironically numerically opposite number, Proposition 23 in November. For their sake, even the alarmists among them, I hope they succeed.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-10, 10:22 AM   #95
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

When two statisticians (McShane and Wyner) blew apart the Hockey Stick last month (see http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...l#post10322246 and some subsequent posts in the last thread), one could hope the HS was gone for good but, of course, alarmists never let any of their zombies go. Now alarmists Schmidt, Mann and Rutherford have been given the courtesy of a reply to the McShane and Wyner paper in the statistics journal that published their paper. That reply has been immediately devastated by Anthony Watts and also by Lubos Motl.

Watts:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/2...-pile-of-snip/

Quote:
RC’s response to McShane and Wyner: a case of orange cones
Posted on September 23, 2010 by Anthony Watts



Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and Scott Rutherford have written a comment letter to the Annals of Applied Statistics to the Hockey Stick busting McShane and Wyner paper covered on WUWT in August.

It’s quite something. Here’s the M&W graph:



It only took reading the first paragraph of the Team paper for me to get cheesed off. Emphasis mine:
McShane and Wyner (2010) (henceforth “MW”) analyze a dataset of “proxy”climate records previously used by Mann et al (2008) (henceforth “M08”) to attempt to assess their utility in reconstructing past temperatures. MW introduce new methods in their analysis, which is welcome. However, the absence of both proper data quality control and appropriate “pseudoproxy” tests to assess the performance of their methods invalidate their main conclusions.
Why am I cheesed off?

The sheer arrogance of claiming improper “data quality control” when Mann himself has issues with his own papers such as incorrect lat/lon values of proxy samples, upside down Tiljander sediment proxies, and truncated/switched data, is mind boggling. It’s doubly mind boggling when these errors are well known to thousands of people, and Mann has done nothing to correct them but then speaks of data quality control issues in rebuttal. And yet Schmidt defends these sort of things on RC. It’s like the Team never read the McShane Wyner paper, because they clearly said this about data issues:
We are not interested at this stage in engaging the issues of data quality. To wit, henceforth and for the remainder of the paper, we work entirely with the data from Mann et al. (2008)
So MW used Mann’s own data, made it clear that their paper was about methodology with data, and not the data itself, and now the Team is complaining about data quality control?

The Team egos involved must be so large that the highway department has to put out orange road cones ahead of these guys when they travel. And they wonder why people make cartoons about them:



They go on to whine about the MWP being “inflated”.
MW’s inclusion of the additional poor quality proxies has a material affect on the reconstructions, inflating the level of peak apparent Medieval warmth, particularly in their featured “OLS PC10”
Well, here’s the thing gents; you don’t KNOW what the temperature was during the MWP. There are no absolute measurements of it, only reconstructions from proxy, and the Team opinion on what the temperature may have been is based on assumptions, not actual measurement. You can’t set yourself up as an authority on knowing whether it was inflated or not without knowing what the temperature actually was. They also rail about “poor quality proxies” (their own) used in MW. Like these?
Half the Hockey Stick graphs depend on bristlecone pine temperature proxies, whose worthlessness has already been exposed. They were kept because the other HS graphs, which depend on Briffa’s Yamal larch treering series, could not be disproved. We now find that Briffa calibrated centuries of temperature records on the strength of 12 trees and one rogue outlier in particular. Such a small sample is scandalous; the non-release of this information for 9 years is scandalous; the use of this undisclosed data as crucial evidence for several more official HS graphs is scandalous. And not properly comparing treering evidence with local thermometers is the mother of all scandals.


Read the entire Team response here, comments welcome.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notye...idt_etal_2.pdf

Backup location in case it falls down a rabbit hole: inpress_Schmidt_etal_2

For balance, the McShane and Wyner paper is available here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...wyner-2010.pdf
This is just an expansion of the Team's early criticism of M&W. They complained about the data that M&W used but that bad data came from Mann. M&W made it clear that they were not doing their own reconstruction but were criticizing Mann's by using his data.

Lubos Motl's blog is in my next post.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-10, 10:39 AM   #96
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Motl:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/09/sc...-clueless.html

Quote:
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Schmidt, Mann, Rutherford: just clueless
Lubos Motl

One month ago, we discussed the
paper by McShane and Wyner (MW)
in Annals of Applied Statistics that has demonstrated something we have known for years - namely that the methodology behind the hockey sticks is not a reliable tool to reconstruct the temperatures. The very method is flawed and can be seen to produce hockey stick graphs out of red noise, as McShane and Wyner have explicitly concluded, too.

The journal has just published a Mannian reply,
reply to MW by Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and Scott Rutherford.
It's quite incredible: they're clearly completely clueless, or at least they pretend to be.

Once they thank MW for introducing new methods, they say that the methods are bad because MW suffer from a "proper data quality control" and lack "pseudoproxy tests". Apparently misunderstanding absolutely everything that MW have written, the hockey team repeats wrong statements that the proxies should be chosen by "objective standards of reliability", by which they obviously mean the flawed Mannian methods to cherry-pick for the hockey sticks.

But MW have proved - but were not the first ones to prove - that these methods do not produce reliable results. MW use the very data used by the papers by Mann et al. so any criticism of the "[raw] data quality control" is clearly a complaint about Mann's group itself. But MW's analysis doesn't confirm that the Mannian methods produce OK results. Quite on the contrary, they lead to reconstructions that are about as reliable as random guesswork.

Schmidt, Mann, and Rutherford dedicate a lot of their time to secondary technical issues such as annual vs decadal time scales or the selection of the number of principal components, and so on. But they are not ready to look at the fundamental assumptions of their method so they pretend that they haven't heard a word by MW: instead, they clearly want to mindlessly run their rats through their mazes without ever looking whether the methodology is right and whether they have been careful about critical effects that could (and do) invalidate their work.

They're just not willing or capable to understand that their methods are fundamentally wrong and they can't fix them by changing the value of one number or another.

Also, if Mann says that someone else - who wrote a paper that is all about the quality control and checks of reliability - fails to impose a quality control is just breathtakingly arrogant from a person who has made all kinds of blunders that one can possibly do when it comes to quality control; see Anthony Watts's comments that are mostly about these matters. After all, once again, MW use the same data. They just analyze them more carefully.

The hockey team criticizes MW for not having used pseudoproxy tests. To be sure, pseudoproxies may be important for accurate and reliable climate reconstructions. They are generated from some kind of climate models and they are meant to reproduce realistic patterns of autocorrelations in space and time - and the right "color of noise" - which is clearly desirable when you want to evaluate the accuracy of one method or another.

However, the hockey team authors are clearly unable to distinguish particular proposed climate models from the reality, so they are constant victims as well as perpetrators of circular reasoning. If you test whether a climate model XY will produce self-consistent patterns of variations whose statistical properties may be compared in various ways, be sure that the answer is Yes. But this tautological conclusion doesn't mean that these patterns agree with the reality. It doesn't mean that the model or any of its features is right.

The misunderstanding of the difference between a model or assumption that has already been verified, and one that has not, is self-evident throughout the text by the hockey team. For example, they include the following cute comment in parentheses:
We note that the term 'pseudoproxy' was misused in MW to instead denote various noise models.
Oh, I see, so the term was "misused". However, unless one inserts some unverified or biased assumptions about the past climate, all climate models ultimately have to boil down to "noise models" when it comes to the production of pseudoproxies simply because an unbiased expectation about the past temperatures is a form of noise. It's just the "detailed properties" of the noise that can be chosen more or less realistic.

However, if you produce your pseudoproxies by a particular model, XY, and you use these pseudoproxies to choose your proxies, tests, and to make other choices, all conclusions that are "highly consistent" with XY will obviously get a boost. It's not hard to see that this boost is empirically unjustified: as a piece of evidence, it is completely spurious. After all, if you were assuming a different model, different conclusions would be "favored". You shouldn't be (pleasantly) surprised if a methodology looking for patterns consistent with your assumptions will confirm these assumptions. It's inevitable.

Such an agreement between your assumptions and their consequences is not a "test" in any sense. The only way to test whether the discrepancies between your model and the measured reality (which are clearly nonzero) can be interpreted as a "tolerably small noise" is to compare your model with other models - with other kinds of noise.

While the existing "generic" climate models are bad at predicting the dynamics of the global mean temperature (and they surely want to assume/show that the climate wasn't changing in the past as much as it was changing recently), they're even worse when it comes to the prediction of the "color of the noise" in temperature as a function of time and space (and their combinations). Just think about their ability to predict the regional climate which is even worse than for the global averages. So there's no justifiable reason to favor pseudoproxies produced by your favorite popular models over general noise that is parameterized in a simple way, by its color or autocorrelation exponents. Quite on the contrary: you have to make such comparisons. MW have done so. The result is that the combination of models and methods used by Mann et al. is no better than guesswork with a few tunings.

The criticism directed against MW is thus not substantiated by the evidence. MW have done exactly what an unbiased scientist has to do.

The hockey team's paper doesn't display too much understanding for the important statistical issues raised by MW and others but it does boast a lot of ambitious statements. Near the end, we learn
Assessing the skill of methods that do not work well (such as Lasso) and concluding that no method can therefore work well, is logically flawed.
Well, indeed, if you show that one method doesn't work, it doesn't mean that all methods fail to work. However, it's still plausible that all methods in a universality class are invalid. Nevertheless, this is not what MW have argued. They have evaluated pretty explicit methods used by the Mannian papers - and these methods were shown to be no better than guesswork. That's the point that Mann et al. are unwilling to even consider - and surely not listen to.

Indeed, Gavin, if you assume that your climate model XY based on your favorite assumptions is right, you will be able to choose proxies (and also statistical tests!) that agree with it, and claim that there is a "consistent picture". But that doesn't mean that XY must be a right description of reality. Chances are that it is completely wrong. Every step in such an analysis strongly depends on the assumptions - so it can't be viewed as a test whether the assumptions are right because it doesn't really compare different possible assumptions (unless some model agrees 100% accurately and requires no fine-tuning, and we're surely not there yet).

It's clear that Schmidt, Mann, and Rutherford haven't really addressed the main point raised by MW - and others - that the methodology is just guaranteed produce the same result regardless of the actual reality (in this case, of the past climate). They seem completely deaf. It must be annoying for a sensible climate scientist to be a part of a community where a clique of arrogant, combative, and completely deluded zealots who shouldn't be there is clearly and systematically unable or unwilling to listen to rational arguments even if they're presented in the most transparent way.

Also, I am really uncertain whether Schmidt, Mann, and Rutherford have read the MW paper or at least its abstract. They may simply be so afraid of seeing the truth - that they have defended a wrong science for more than a decade - that they don't have the courage to read papers such as MW, or at least they key portions.

However, Schmidt, Mann, and Rutherford are clearly obsessed to emit irrelevant references to the summary for policymakers of an IPCC report or try to find arguments that Al Gore et al. were right right about the "hottest decade in the millennium" (even though their "certainty" is just 80-96 percent). Such thermometer pissing contests and political interpretations may be OK for the popular press, but does this stuff really belong to expert publications, especially to replies to a paper that carefully analyzes some a technical glitch of a method and where the exchange of ideas shouldn't be interrupted by superficial screams from the "popular debate"?

I don't think so.

Schmidt, Mann, and Rutherford simply fail as scientists.
In other words, the Team hasn't changed anything from the feeble response they made a month ago. They just expanded it into more words and tried to disguise how they can't really reply. They either don't understand the statistics or are disingenuous about it (just like Mann was originally).

The Hockey Stick cannot be defended and that has been true since McIntyre and McKitrick broke it in 2003. McShane and Wyner merely strengthened this and lent the expertise of professional academic statisticians. The refusal of Mann and his buds to give it up is only evidence of their refusal to act as scientists.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-10, 04:37 PM   #97
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Last incandescent light bulb factory in the US closes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet...es-henry-payne

Quote:
Lights Out: America’s Last Bulb Plant Closes
September 24, 2010 9:00 A.M.
By Henry Payne

Detroit – While the now infamous UAW hooch n’ weed break once again called attention to Obama’s Recovery of Auto Jobs Summer, it also overshadowed the Destruction of Bulb Jobs Summer. At midnight Friday, the last incandescent light bulb plant in America closed — a victim of government rules outlawing the traditional light bulb by 2012.

While Democrats crow over saving hundreds of auto jobs, they have been silent on sending hundreds of bulb industry jobs to China. One by one, GE light bulb plants have closed down across the country this year as the company moves to production of the more expensive compact fluorescents with cheap labor overseas.

Today, Winchester, Va. was the last to shutter, sending 200 jobs offshore.

America’s green-brainwashed MSM was largely mute on the destruction of U.S. jobs by federal edict. But NBC News — albeit in their last story of Thursday night — managed to file a report.

27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0">

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



“Just before midnight, GE will shut down the last incandescent light bulb factory in the U.S. The government has ordered that we switch over to more energy-efficient light bulbs,” read anchor Brian Williams introducing the story to dispassionate correspondent Mike Taibbi.

“Gone are the $30-an-hour jobs,” reported Taibbi.

“Roy Kirby can’t quite let go,” he continued turning to a whacked Winchester worker as if he had just lost his pet parakeet instead of having his livelihood taken away by federal diktat.

Perhaps Taibbi’s lack of outrage was due to ignorance of basic facts. “Consumers are changing their buying habits on their own,” he tried to explain, claiming that compact fluorescents are now the consumer’s choice of bulb.

No, they aren’t. In fact, 85 percent of light bulbs sold in America are still traditional bulbs. Because they are cheaper. Because CFLs don’t last as long as advertised. And because CFLs are hard to dispose of.

Which means consumers will be in for a rude awakening in 2012. Maybe then NBC will show some outrage.
It seriously is time to stock up if you want to keep using them. I'm thinking 20 year supply.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-10, 05:20 PM   #98
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Reading and writing and arithmetic? Forget them. Environmental propaganda? That's the ticket!

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75711

Quote:
U.S. Education Secretary Vows to Make American Children 'Good Environmental Citizens'

"Today, I promise you that under my leadership, the Department of Education will be a committed partner in the national effort to build a more environmentally literate and responsible society," said Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
By Nicholas Ballasy

(CNSNews.com) - U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan vowed on Tuesday that his department would work to make American children into "good environmental citizens" through federally subsidized school programs beginning as early as kindergarten that teach children about climate change and prepare them "to contribute to the workforce through green jobs."

“Right now, in the second decade of the 21st century, preparing our children to be good environmental citizens is some of the most important work any of us can do. It’s work that will serve future generations--and quite literally sustain our world,” Duncan said at the Education Department’s "Sustainability Education Summit: Citizenship and Pathways for a Green Economy."

“This week’s sustainability summit represents the first time that the Department is taking a taking a leadership role in the work of educating the next generation of green citizens and preparing them to contribute to the workforce through green jobs,” said Duncan. “President Obama has made clean, renewable energy a priority because, as he says, it’s the best way to 'truly transform our economy, to protect our security, and save our planet.'

“Educators have a central role in this. A well educated citizen knows that we must not act in this generation in ways that endanger the next,” said Duncan. “They teach students about how the climate is changing. They explain the science behind climate change and how we can change our daily practices to help save the planet. They have a role in preparing students for jobs in the green economy.”

“Historically," Duncan said, "the Department of Education hasn’t been doing enough to drive the sustainability movement, and today, I promise that we will be a committed partner in the national effort to build a more environmentally literate and responsible society."

"I want my department to help advance the sustainability movement through education," he said.

Duncan explained that the funding for this environmental education will come through a new initiative of the Department of Education called the "Blueprint for Reform."

"The president has proposed $265 million for this program in his fiscal 2011 budget," said Duncan. "These grants will support subjects such as the arts, foreign languages, history, and civics--all of which receive funding under current Education Department programs. Because we recognize the importance education plays in the sustainability movement, these grants also will support environmental education."

Duncan said that his department's "Blueprint for Reform" envisions environmental education being incorporated into so-called "STEM" classes ("science, technology, engineering and mathematics") for students as young as kindergarten.

"These projects have the prospect to build the science of sustainability into the curriculum, starting in kindergarten and extending until the students graduate high school," said Duncan.
What can one say?
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-10, 09:57 AM   #99
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

The survey says...

The science is not settled.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/2...nsensus-fails/

Quote:
Where Consensus Fails – The Science Cannot Be Called ‘Settled’
Posted on September 25, 2010 by Anthony Watts
Guest Post by Thomas Fuller

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have just published the findings of a survey conducted with practicing climate scientists. The survey was conducted in 2008 with 379 climate scientists who had published papers or were employed in climate research institutes and dealt with their confidence in models, the IPCC and a variety of other topics. The survey findings are here: http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pd...0_9.CLISCI.pdf

Most of the questions were asked using a Likert Scale, which most of you have probably used in filling out one of the numerous online surveys that are on almost any website. “A set of statements was presented to which the respondent was asked to indicate his or her level of agreement or disagreement, for example, 1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree.

The value of 4 can be considered as an expression of ambivalence or impartiality or, depending on the nature of the question posed, for example, in a question posed as a subjective rating such as “How much do you think climate scientists are aware of the information that policy makers incorporate into their decision making process?”, a value of 4 is no longer a measure of ambivalence, but rather a metric.”

The total number of respondents is large enough to make statistically significant statements about the population of similarly qualified climate scientists, and the response rate to the invitations is in line with surveys conducted among academics and professionals. What that means is that we can be fairly confident that if we conducted a census of all such scientists the answers would not be very different to what is found in the survey’s findings.

Typically in a commercial survey, analysts would group the top two responses and report on the percentages of respondents that ticked box 6 or 7 on this scale. Using that procedure here makes it clear that there are areas where scientists are not completely confident in what is being preached–and that they don’t like some of the preachers. In fact, let’s start with the opinion of climate scientists about those scientists, journalists and environmental activists who present extreme accounts of catastrophic impacts.

The survey’s question read, “Some scientists present extreme accounts of catastrophic impacts related to climate change in a popular format with the claim that it is their task to alert the public. How much do you agree with this practice?”

Less than 5% agreed strongly or very strongly with this practice. Actually 56% disagreed strongly or very strongly. Joe Romm, Tim Lambert, Michael Tobis–are you listening? The scientists don’t like what you are doing.

And not because they are skeptics–these scientists are very mainstream in their opinions about climate science and are strong supporters of the IPCC. Fifty-nine percent (59%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “The IPCC reports are of great use to the advancement of climate science.” Only 6% disagreed. And 86.5% agreed or strongly agreed that “climate change is occurring now” and 66.5% agreed or strongly agreed that future climate “will be a result of anthropogenic causes.”

Even so, there are areas of climate science that some people want to claim is settled, but where scientists don’t agree.

Only 12% agree or strongly agree that data availability for climate change analysis is adequate. More than 21% disagree or strongly disagree.

Only 25% agree or strongly agree that “Data collection efforts are currently adequate,” while 16% disagree or strongly disagree.

Perhaps most importantly, only 17.75% agree or strongly agree with the statement, “The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is adequate.” And equal percentage disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Only 22% think atmospheric models deal with hydrodynamics in a manner that is adequate or very adequate. Thirty percent (30%) feel that way about atmospheric models’ treatment of radiation, and only 9% feel that atmospheric models are adequate in their treatment of water vapor–and not one respondent felt that they were ‘very adequate.’

And only 1% felt that atmospheric models dealt well with clouds, while 46% felt they were inadequate or very inadequate. Only 2% felt the models dealt adequately with precipitation, and 3.5% felt that way about modeled treatment of atmospheric convection.

For ocean models, the lack of consensus continued. Only 20% felt ocean models dealt well with hydrodynamics, 11% felt that way about modeled treatment of heat transport in the ocean, 6.5% felt that way about oceanic convection, and only 12% felt that there exists an adequate ability to couple atmospheric and ocean models.

Only 7% agree or strongly agree that “The current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of turbulence,” and only 26% felt that way about surface albedo. Only 8% felt that way about land surface processes, and only 11% about sea ice.

And another shocker–only 32% agreed or strongly agreed that the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases emitted from anthropogenic sources.

As Judith Curry has been noting over at her weblog, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the building blocks of climate science. The scientists know this. The politicians, propagandists and the converted acolytes haven’t gotten the message. If this survey does not educate them, nothing will.
Note that this survey was taken in 2008. Before Climategate and before many new peer reviewed studies have cast yet more doubt on the "consensus" dogma.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 09-26-10 at 10:26 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-10, 07:44 AM   #100
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,765
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Stark raving mad:

What planet is Scotland on?

http://planetark.org/wen/59677

Quote:
Scotland To Get 100 Pct Green Energy by 2025
Date: 28-Sep-10
Country: UK
Author: REUTERS

Scotland should produce enough renewable electricity to meet all its power demand by 2025, First Minister Alex Salmond said Tuesday.

"Scotland has unrivalled green energy resources and our new national target to generate 80 percent of electricity needs from renewables by 2020 will be exceeded by delivering current plans for wind, wave and tidal generation," Salmond said.

"I'm confident that by 2025 we will produce at least 100 percent of our electricity needs from renewables alone, and together with other sources it will enable us to become a net exporter of clean, green energy," he said a statement ahead of a renewable energy investment conference.

Last week, Scotland raised its 2020 renewable electricity target from 50 to 80 percent of total demand, much of which is expected to be met by offshore wind despite costs soaring over the last few years.

The sparsely-populated part of northern Britain is expected to export much of the low-carbon electricity produced by its existing onshore wind farms and planned offshore projects south to England, which has lagged behind most of Europe in green energy growth.

The Scottish government has ruled out building new nuclear plants north of the border with England, while the British government in London hopes new reactors will run alongside wind and marine energy technologies.
Better yet, one should ask in what universe is Scotland and what are the physical laws of that universe?

Are they also going to have everlasting gobstoppers?
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 AM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0