DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition) (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/592386-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-11-co2-kills-10-billion-people-edition.html)

grundle 07-13-11 07:58 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
A wikipedia editor named "Scibaby" was banned some time ago, because he kept adding reliably sourced information that was skeptical of global warming, and the fascists who control wikipedia do not tolerate that kind of thing.

His user page is here:


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


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


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

movielib 07-16-11 10:03 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
2/3 of Americans are in favor of light bulb freedom. Only 1/5 are against it.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

movielib 07-17-11 09:07 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
New study shows how CAGW "consensus" was "manufactured." Climate scientist Judith Curry, who was once a total alarmist but who has been moving more and more toward skepticism because she has been honest enough to keep an open mind comments at her blog (indented material indicates quotes from Goodwin's paper and a few quotes from other sources at the end of the post; nonindented material indicates Curry's analysis) :


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

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

Some important insights on this issue are provided by this paper on The authority of the IPCC and the manufacture of consensus by Jean Goodwin at Iowa State University. Some excerpts are provided below:
Through a series of (up to now) four reports starting in 1990, the IPCC has managed to establish as a political “given” that the earth is warming, and that human activity is a significant cause. The fourth report was the occasion for the Bush II administration’s shift from statements like this:
We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.
in 2001, with it’s typical assertions of “uncertainty” as a reason for inaction, to statements like
[The IPCC report] reflects the sizeable and robust body of knowledge regarding the physical science of climate change, including the finding that the Earth is warming and that human activities have very likely caused most of the warming of the last 50 years.
in 2007. How did the IPCC manage this feat? In opposition to those who would create an appearance of doubt, the IPCC has made evident a broad and deep agreement among scientists—they have “manufactured consensus.”

As far as I can tell, the word “consensus” is absent in the WGI section of the FAR–in particular, it is absent from the initial “Policymakers’ Summary” Where it first turns up is in the earliest representation of the FAR: a statement defining for public audiences what the FAR is and how it should be taken. John Houghton, the UK’s Chief Meteorologist and chair of WGI, wrote the following in his “Foreword” to the report:
“In preparation of the main Assessment most of the active scientists working in the field have been involved. One hundred and seventy scientists from 25 countries have contributed to it, either through participation in the twelve international workshops organised specially for the purpose or through written contributions. A further 200 scientists have been involved in the peer review of the draft report. Although, as in any developing scientific topic, there is a minority of opinions which we have not been able to accommodate, the peer review has helped to ensure a high degree of consensus among authors and reviewers regarding the results presented.”
JC comment: It appears from this argument that John Houghton was responsible for the initial decision to use consensus as key element of the IPCC’s rhetoric, in the context of selling the FAR to the public.
What is being done by this complex of features?—this rhetorical form, which I will call a ”consensus claim”? One place to begin is by realizing its oddity. After all, we teach our students to recognize and reject ad populum or “bandwagon” appeals. I suspect that it would be hard to find scientists claiming to each other that such & such ought to be believed, because a “consensus of scientists” thus quantified backed it. In fact, the WGI report itself did not frame its statements “socially,” with information about how many scientists of what type and nationality were speaking. Instead, it framed its statements “epistemically,” presenting in the Summary for Policymakers what “we are certain of…calculate with confidence…predict” as well as what “uncertainties” remain, and detailing in a series of chapters some of the evidence backing these claims. If scientists tend to offer each other epistemic as opposed to social grounds, it is no surprise that there seem to be no mechanisms within science for establishing that a scientific consensus exists.
JC comment: The wikipedia article on scientific consensus is worth reading. It states “Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method.” It is “intended to communicate a summary of the science from the “inside” to the “outside” of the scientific community.”
The consensus claim thus seems to be primarily aimed at non-scientists, and in particular (I assert, somewhat speculatively) constitutes an appeal to authority. In this representation of the FAR, audiences are being invited to credit the assessment not because of its epistemic grounding, but because of the social fact of who wrote it. . . Whereas non-experts almost by definition are unable to assess an expert’s reasoning, they may be well capable of judging social facts, such as whether some procedures were inclusive. To adapt a phrase of Collins & Pinch, where we might find it impossible to assess scientists on scientific grounds, we can instead assess them on the same everyday, pragmatic grounds we trust plumbers.
JC comment: Climategate was about the social aspects of the consensus. Whereas scientists rightly claimed that climategate changed nothing epistemically with regards to climate science, the public saw substantial problems with the procedures upon which the consensus was built.
The consensus claim, furthermore, appears to be an elaboration of the appeal to authority specifically designed to heighten its force. “Credit what I say, because I say so” is the minimalist version of the appeal to authority. I have argued elsewhere that the force of this appeal is based in a kind of “blackmail”: it puts the audience in a position such that they will appear imprudent if they conspicuously go against the view of someone who obviously knows more. The minimalist appeal, however, is relatively easy for audiences to evade. For example, the audience can shop around for a second opinion, and then excuse their non-compliance with the appeal on the grounds that the experts themselves seem to be divided. If, however, all the experts say the same thing, the layperson’s “plausible excusability” is restricted.
JC comment: this strategy is clearly reflected in the arguments of Oreskes and Anderegg et al.
To make a consensus claim is thus to do as the Foreword says: to make an “authoritative statement.” It’s worth noting that there is some evidence that some participants in the IPCC process aimed it to achieve just such authority. Bert Bolin, the overall chairman of the IPCC itself, recalls that he “repeatedly pointed out to the working groups that the goal was not necessarily always to reach an agreement, but rather to point out different views when necessary and to clarify the reasons for disagreements when possible.” He goes on: “But this was still seldom tried”. In line with this, Houghton himself was quoted as saying (upon the establishment of the IPCC in 1988), “we must arrive at a general consensus”.
JC comment: is this aiming that makes this a manufactured consensus. It is illuminating to see that the idea of a consensus was pushed for by Hougton, with some resistance by Bolin.
Scientists involved in the first IPCC assessment process represented the final report as the result of a “consensus of scientists”; as far as I can tell, however, this was not the official position of the IPCC itself. This situation changed, however, in the course of the later IPCC process. Whatever its beginnings the consensus claim seems to have become one of the ways the IPCC represented itself to its audiences. For example, a flyer for the Third Assessment Report represented it as “an authoritative, international consensus of scientific opinion”.

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

Meanwhile, however, the IPCC endured close to twenty years where its authority was undermined by objections which were legitimate under its own announced standards. By committing the IPCC to quantitative inclusiveness, those representing its work as a “consensus” created grounds for controversy.
JC comment: I agree that the claim of consensus is ultimate source of controversy surrounding the IPCC. As I’ve argued in my previous post no consensus on consensus, a consensus on this topic is neither necessary or desirable.
The IPCC and its defenders therefore were obliged to undertake a second task: the “boundary work” necessary to distinguish those qualified to contribute to a scientific consensus on global climate change, from those who were not. This work is evident in some of the press reporting above, where the “minority” was characterized not only as quantitatively small, but as “extreme” and “scientifically suspect.” Unfortunately, the need for boundary work also likely created temptations to make illegitimate attacks on the scientific credibility of opponents whose views did not fit with the consensus. Even when successful and legitimate, boundary-drawing created additional problems. If indeed every scientist within the consensus agreed that policy action was urgent, and every scientist outside thought otherwise, a strong appearance of politicization was created—i.e., that the boundary between “insiders” and “outsiders” was based on political views, not scientific relevance.
JC comment: This is an astute insight, on how the scientists have become politicized on this issue.
Finally, the consensus claim created opportunities for opponents to object that the IPCC’s emphasis on consensus was distorting the science itself. Once the consensus claim was made, scientists involved in the ongoing IPCC process had reasons not just to consider the scientific evidence, but to consider the possible effect of their statements on their ability to defend the consensus claim.
JC comments: I have argued previously that the IPCC is torquing (and even corrupting) climate science, and this article clarifies that the source of this corruption is the consensus building process.

“Consensus” is a strong claim, and it opens a wide argument space; that is what I have been trying to suggest in the above sketch. By representing their work as a “consensus,” the scientists of the IPCC essentially legitimated the objections of those commonly labeled as “denialists,” and committed themselves to a twenty year process of replying to them.
Let me close this section with a call that “more research is needed!” into the report as a rhetorical strategy—a subject that, as far as I can tell, has been almost entirely unexplored. It could be that we would find that the “report strategy” does not aim to construct an appeal to expert authority enforcing its conclusions, but attempts to seriously engage a lay audience with the modes of expert reasoning used to reach those conclusions. In the terms I suggested above, a “report strategy” would be taking an “epistemic,” as opposed to “social,” approach to communicating science. . . And it seems likely that pursuing a “report strategy” would require from its authors commitments different from, and much less than, the strategy of making a consensus claim.
JC comment: Goodwin hits the nail on the head in terms of the need to seriously engage the lay audience with the modes of expert reasoning used to reach those conclusions. In the absence of transparency on the IPCC’s reasoning and uncertainty assessments, I suspect that there is a substantial amount of fallacious reasoning (particularly circular reasoning) that underlies many of the IPCC’s conclusions and likelihood statements.

JC conclusion: Lets return for a moment to the previous post on agnoiology and this statement by Lehrer:
We shall argue that consensus among a reference group of experts thus concerned is relevant only if agreement is not sought. If a consensus arises unsought in the search for truth and the avoidance of error, such consensus provides grounds which, though they may be overridden, suffice for concluding that conformity is reasonable and dissent is not. If, however, consensus is aimed at by the members of the reference group and arrived at by intent, it becomes conspiratorial and irrelevant to our intellectual concern.
Goodwin makes a strong argument that the IPCC is a manufactured consensus that has been reached by intent. As such, Lehrer argued in 1975 that such a consensus is conspiratorial and irrelevant to our intellectual concern.

The IPCC needs to lose the emphasis on consensus and pay far more attention to understanding uncertainty and to actual reasoning. I’ll close with this statement by Oppenheimer et al. (2007)
The establishment of consensus by the IPCC is no longer as important to governments as a full exploration of uncertainty.

Curry thinks Goodwin makes a strong case that the IPCC deliberately tried to manufacture a CAGW consensus and marginalize and delegitimize skeptics.

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

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

movielib 07-18-11 08:47 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
While it's not at the top of the issue list in most countries (odd since it is supposed to be the biggest threat to the Earth, humanity and all of "creation" in the history of this or any other universe), the global warming issue is #1 in Australia. PM Julia Gillard's government is crumbling (see Post #15).


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

movielib 07-18-11 09:20 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
We all know about the CLOUD experiments at CERN, designed to test Henrik Svensmark's theory that lower solar activity allows for increased cosmic ray bombardment of the Earth which causes increased lower level cloud cover as the particles become seeds for water droplet formation which cools the Earth (and all of this vice versa when solar activity increases). This has already been confirmed by at least two other experiments but CERN is supposed to be The Big One. The first results will be published soon but there is a remarkable development.


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

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

Nigel Calder has found an incredible interview with Rolf-Dieter Heuer, the boss of CERN, in "Die Welt" (see also The Register):
Wie "Illuminati" den Cern-Forschern geholfen hat (German)
How did "Angels" helped the CERN researchers (autom. transl.)
Heuer is also asked about the CLOUD experiment (TRF) that will release its results on its simulation of the formation of clouds by the cosmic rays momentarily.

His answer contains these shocking sentences:
I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.
In reality, the relevance of the experiment for the fashionable debate about the "global climate change" is the only sensible justification of the investment of 9+ million euros by CERN whose job is something completely different than atmospheric science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Much of Feynman's famous "Cargo Cult Science" commencement speech is dedicated exactly to these questions but let me quote this portion:
One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish at all. That's not giving scientific advice.
I think it is totally obvious what "results of a certain kind" that are being published mean in the particular issue of the "global climate change". On behalf of the European taxpayers, I authoritatively urge Mr Heuer to retract his outrageous "ban" and to apologize for it. Indeed, such speech codes - that Mr Heuer has been so candid about - are among the top reasons why the scientists ceased to be trustworthy in recent years and it is unacceptable for this violation of the scientific integrity to propagate to particle physics.

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

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


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

So in essence: No conclusion about the existence of the ‘Higgs’-particle can be given by any of CERN’s publications. Conclusions on the existence of the ‘Higgs’-particle should also not be part of CERN’s practice. They should be “just” publishing the results of the experiments. Not their interpretations.
I'm really not too concerned with this "ban." If the CERN researchers don't "interpret" their work, plenty of others will.

movielib 07-18-11 07:17 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Al, this is going to flop bigger than that concert you had in 2007.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

movielib 07-19-11 06:57 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Irrational global warming fears threaten to destroy town.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

movielib 07-20-11 04:39 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
This is a debate that took place in Australia a few days ago. Christopher Monckton, skeptic vs. Richard Denniss, alarmist.

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

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

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

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

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

movielib 07-20-11 09:57 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
The BBC decides it can ignore CAGW skeptics pretty much completely.


20 July 2011
The BBC's secular inquisition
Melanie Phillips

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

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

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

This is as terrifying as it is outrageous. First of all, the claim that there is a consensus on man-made global warming is itself false. The wickedly cynical propaganda strategy to promote this false belief in a consensus was described in an eye-opening blog post by James Delingpole in the Telegraph last year:
The story begins in autumn 2004 when the government’s hysterically warmist chief scientific adviser Sir David King successfully persuaded the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to put action on global warming at the heart of UK government policy. This resulted in the creation of a propaganda body called The Climate Change Working Group which in turn sought PR advice from a company called Futerra communications.

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

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

To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken [emphasis added].
There is no consensus on man-made global warming. There are in fact hundreds of scientists at the very least, amongst them some of the most distingushed in their field, who are sceptical about the theory. Some of them, such as the meteorologist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, have testified to the outright fraud and intimidation used to support the climate change scam. Some have been subjected to professional ostracism, loss of grant funding, vilification and even death threats because they have stood up for scientific evidence against the gross perversion of science involved in what is probably the most intellectually corrupt episode in scientific history. Such wholesale intimidation means that without a shadow of a doubt many more scientists are climate change sceptics than are registered in public debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

movielib 07-21-11 08:05 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Follow up to the last post. Excellent analysis by James Delingpole.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another category error Dr Jones falls into is in his use of the Argumentum ad Verecundiam, the appeal to authority. He tells us:
The IPCC concluded that it is beyond doubt that the climate is warming and more than 90% likely that this has been driven by human activity.
And he cites an open letter to the journal Science by two hundred and fifty members of the US National Academy of Sciences:
“(T)here is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.”
But as both Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn could have explained to Dr Jones, science does not advance through “consensus”; and as Einstein could have told him, science is not a numbers game. When Hitler commissioned the book 100 Authors Against Einstein, Einstein coolly replied that if he were wrong, one author would have been enough.

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

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

As Biased BBC notes, it has been five years since the BBC officially abandoned all pretence that it was adopting a neutral position on “Climate Change”. In a 2007 BBC Trust policy report, it wrote:
The BBC has held a high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts (on whose and what measurement) and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of consensus.
This anti-heretic policy it has been pursuing with Torquemada-like fervour ever since. Though Dr Jones’s report argues that the BBC should from henceforward give less space to sceptics, it’s difficult to imagine quite how it could possibly do so. About the only occasion on which they have been given any air space has been on hatchet-jobs like the BBC’s feature-length assault on Lord Monckton, “Meet The Climate Sceptics”.

Dr Jones notes with concern Britain’s growing scepticism:
A poll carried out by the Cardiff University Understanding Risk Group in early 2010 showed in contrast that one in seven among the British public said that the climate is not changing and one in five that any climate change was not due to human activity. Fewer than half considered that scientists agree that humans are causing climate change.
The conclusion, however, he draws from this is not that this is a fair reflection of the lack of evidence to support CAGW theory – but that media organisations like the BBC aren’t doing enough to promote the “correct” version of reality. “The divergence between the views of professionals versus the public may be seen as evidence of a failure by the media to balance views of very different credibility. The BBC is just one voice but so many in Britain gain their understanding of science from its output that its approach to this question must be considered.”

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

movielib 07-21-11 10:16 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Apollo astronaut tells off Texas alarmist in letter to the editor.


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

Not buying it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

movielib 07-21-11 10:41 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Stark raving mad.


UN security council to consider climate change peacekeeping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That remains an open question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

movielib 07-22-11 02:59 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Follow up to Post #33.

Reactions show Monckton won the debate.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

“Listening to Lord Monckton — he says what many Australians want to hear — ‘Don’t worry about Climate Change! It will be alright!”
This special Roy Morgan Reactor survey covered an Australia-wide cross-section of 218 respondents aged 14+. For a closer look at the Reactor and how the different points expressed by Lord Monckton and Dr. Denniss were received by those reacting to the debate, please view the full Reactor highlights here:


movielib 07-22-11 07:10 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

movielib 07-23-11 06:08 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
On Conclusion Based Science and Epicycles.

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


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

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

Aerosols have become their best ally in these efforts. A few weeks ago, we discussed this question:
Did the Chinese coal cause the cooling since 1998?
It was no fluke but an example of a whole new fad. Phys Org, among many others, promoted a new article by Susan Solomon et al.:
NOAA study suggests aerosols might be inhibiting global warming
The article itself is in Science and it's called
The Persistently Variable “Background” Stratospheric Aerosol Layer and Global Climate Change
What they're obsessed by is -0.1 Watts per square meter by which the energy flows may have dropped between 1960 and 1990.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources of aerosols in the stratosphere

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

Compare the abstract of the Solomon et al. paper with another paper that is fully available:
On the meteoric component of stratospheric aerosols
J.P. Shedlovsky and S. Paisley wrote it in 1965, i.e. 46 years ago! Let me represent this paper as an average paper about these issues from the 1960s. Nevertheless, you may see that their science was much more advanced, rational, impartial, and systematic. Fine, let us make some comparisons of the broad ways of thinking inherent in the 1965 and 2011 papers.

Background: aerosols, stratosphere

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

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

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

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

Time dependence

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

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

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

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

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

Chemical composition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are several different possible source materials which can contribute to stratospheric aerosols. These include atmospheric H2S and SO2 which are photochemically oxidized to sulfate, erosion products of continental surfaces, oceanic salts, volcanic debris and extraterrestrial material accreted by the earth. These sources are all significantly different as regards their chemical composition. Thus, it may be possible to determine the relative importance of such sources to stratospheric aerosols from a more thorough knowledge of the aerosol chemical composition. The purpose of this paper is to report some air concentrations of a number of elements in the low stratosphere and to relate these data to the extraterrestrial component.
You see that the scientific approach is perfectly sensible. They don't make any unjustified detailed assumptions that they would be trying to hysterically and dogmatically defend - which is what the alarmist assholes are doing all the time. Moreover, they also appreciate - and it's the main point of the paper - that the aerosols in the stratosphere may have not only terrestrial but also extraterrestrial origin. Chemistry is the bulk of this research and it has to be: calculating the absorption by a particular component of aerosols is a relatively simple added result in comparison. But you can't get the right results if you don't know the chemistry and how much it changes with time and why.

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

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

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

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

But if one only works with one number, such as the change of forcing caused by the stratospheric aerosols, it's easy to adjust the arguments so that you get the number you wanted to get in the first place. It's not robust science. To do robust science, one has to work with lots of numbers - such as the concentrations of the elements in various samples etc. in the 1965 paper. A theory can't be scientific if it just "explains" one number - such as the global warming rate - by one parameter (and usually many more). A scientific theory must explain and/or predict many more numbers than the number of parameters. Using words of Feynman,
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
The alarmists are violating this rule all the time. The main problem is that they're not really interested in explaining Nature and the immense wealth of interesting patterns and unexplained numbers. They're interested in making one ideologically chosen quantity, the global warming rate, high and seemingly believable - so that it may be worshiped by the brainwashed society. But that's not science.

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

How many epicycles does it take to collapse a theory?

movielib 07-25-11 04:19 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Alarmist Chris Mooney:

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


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


What's with these people?

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

movielib 07-25-11 05:51 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Peer reviewed paper finds upper limit of recent warming to be .66 degrees C per century (it may be less due to poor urban heat island effect figures from the official records). And most of the warming is natural.


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

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

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

The study is available via free open access at http://benthamscience.com/open/toasc...5/74TOASCJ.htm (links to full paper and supplemental information, both PDF, follow at the end of this post)

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

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


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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

movielib 07-26-11 11:13 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Newt finally admits it was a mistake to sit on Al Gore's couch with Nancy Pelosi.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

movielib 07-26-11 11:40 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
This is funny. How to properly dispose of a broken CFL.

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

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

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

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

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

movielib 07-26-11 02:58 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Good slideshow from down under where they are threatened by a "carbon tax."


movielib 07-26-11 03:16 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Real world again refutes climate models. New peer reviewed paper:


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

There is a new paper published which raises further questions on the robustness of multi-decadal global climate predictions. It is
Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.
The University of Alabama has issues a news release on it which reads [h/t to Phillip Gentry]
Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.

Because of the importance of the issue of climate sensitivity, this paper is a big deal.

movielib 07-26-11 09:54 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
CAGW loon gets two years in prison.


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

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

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

The maximum sentence was 10 years in prison.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

movielib 07-26-11 10:01 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
The hits to alarmist science just keep on coming.

More peer reviewed papers:

Solar influences on El Ninos and La Ninas:


Warming increases marine fish biodiversity:


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

movielib 07-26-11 10:36 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
Holy shit, make that five papers reported in two days, four of them today. This one has got to be the biggest surprise. Uberalarmist Kevin Trenberth blasts climate models.


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

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

Specifically, Trenberth takes issue with the climate models' inadequacies in regards to precipitation. Such as:
"...all models contain large errors in precipitation simulations, both in terms of mean fields and their annual cycle, as well as their characteristics: the intensity, frequency, and duration of precipitation..."
"...relates to poor depiction of transient tropical disturbances, including easterly waves, Madden-Julian Oscillations, tropical storms, and hurricanes..."
"...confidence in model results for changes in extremes is tempered by the large scatter among the extremes in modeling today's climate, especially in the tropics and subtropics..."
"...it appears that many, perhaps all, global climate and numerical weather prediction models and even many high-resolution regional models have a premature onset of convection and overly frequent precipitation with insufficient intensity,..."
"...model-simulated precipitation "occurs prematurely and too often, and with insufficient intensity, resulting in recycling that is too large..."
"...a lifetime of moisture in the atmosphere that is too short, which affects runoff and soil moisture..."
and finally, he has a NSS moment..."major challenges remain to improve model simulations of the hydrological cycle."
Sooo, climates models can't do precipitation (rain/snow/hail). That's not much of a surprise to skeptics, plus it is widely known throughout the scientific world that climate models are also unable to do: water vapor, wind, clouds, ocean oscillations, atmospheric oscillations, ocean currents, polar ice sheets, positive feedback, negative feedback, climate sensitivity, aerosol impacts, submerged volcano impacts, solar/cosmic impacts, monsoons/hurricanes/typhoons, ocean heat, missing heat, missing CO2, minimum surface temperatures, maximum surface temperatures, regional warming/cooling, and of course, global warming, which is Trenberth's personal brass ring travesty.

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

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

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


movielib 07-27-11 07:44 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
The alarmist were ready with the Chinese sulfate explanation for the lack of warming. (See Post #8.) In a Climategate email of January 3, 2009 from Mike MacCracken to Phil Jones and Chris Folland, the explanations the alarmists had been giving for the lack of warming were being called into question and it was suggested that they investigate the sulfate explanation:

http://assassinationscience.com/clim...1231190304.txt (near bottom of page)

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

Dear Phil and Chris--

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

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

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

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

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

We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.

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

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

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:36 AM.

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.