Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[thousandmilemargin]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I'll bet many are the same people and that there is some "cult" gene that makes these people so easily brainwashed.

Nice smear tactic.

I'm skeptical about AGW because I'm skeptical about everything.

As an atheist, I am oppossed to all religions - including the secular ideologies with the 20th century megadeath bodycounts.

If you want a box to put me in, label me under "People who read history".

And what history teaches is that people go crazy in crowds, but only recover their sanity one by one. Society lurches from one form of madness or delusion to another. Peer review or "consensus" doesn't guarantee truth - it just tells you what kind of delusion is fashionable at the moment.

(And "consensus" often just means "We've managed to silence all the people who disagree with us" or "The people who disagree don't count").

[MulaMan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

An unfortunate side-effect of human nature. C1ue, you may as well try and convince a Catholic to consider that Jesus was just a man.

Yes I do think there is a valid connection here: people who are easily drawn into religious cults are also easily brainwashed by a political ideology such as the neocons / neolibs.

Just a theory, no evidence, but the connection between radical religious people in America and those that follow the similar "preacher-like" Foxs News broadcasts - fear based cults.

The current Republican Party seems structured much like a religious cult - I think they learned from the evangelical christian cults that prey on Americans and make a fortune.

I wonder how many "anti Global Warming" folks, are / were also weapons of mass desctruction scare folks, anti evolution folks, bomb Iran folks, ect... I'll bet many are the same people and that there is some "cult" gene that makes these people so easily brainwashed.

[MulaMan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Apple, Yahoo, PG&E, Exelon, and Nike = a few minor companies that have left the US Chamber of Commerce because the anti-American Fox News watching retards that can't figure out the basic science around global warming.

Amazing that even the U.S. Department of Commerce has currently been taken over by anti-American scumbags.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Technol...20Commerce.pdf

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Excuse me, but is the normal disagreement process conducted via newspaper opinion articles? And the disagreement in question was an outright attack on the article without apparently willingness to engage in face to face discussion.

Two guys don't like each other, old story. You tried to turn it into a global conspiracy. Is it fair? Probably not but it's two guys with a personal problem...this is nothing.

Ah, so (ad hominem) on Seitz, also some discrepanies in the signatories means all 31000 are indeed veterinarians and pranksters?

Yeah, pretty much. When you're such a complete dick and sellout that the world class organization you headed is outing you...you screwed the pooch. Are you so short of options you're going to try and support this guy?

So let's throw both Seitz and IPCC out as being bogus lists of scientists.

Wow, I guess so. The king of iTulip deniers is supporting Seitz?! Get this straight, we're not tossing the IPCC under the bus so you don't have to give up your boy Seitz. You own that piece of shit from this day forward, enjoy it. Seriously, you want to draw the line here? Support this loser? Go for it, let's debate the value of this scam artist. He's a classic sellout denier. First tobacco and now global warming. What's next, child labor?

You're all about the science, right? Support Seitz here. Help us understand his, (and your), support for tobacco as a harmless product.

Of course, if you want to just admit your wrong and toss Seitz under the bus, that's fine...;). It could be a 12 step program. First Seitz then that fascist Monckton and the next thing you know, you're free of your hate for science.

I've seen you write in other areas and I've serious hope you'll give up this nonsense.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

And at least GISS is honest about what they are: trying to find climate change as opposed to perform science research

Ok, you see GISS as part of the conspiracy. It doesn't surprise me. Notice I've no use for anything else you say about their data, that's just noise once you state this belief.

[bill]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Here’s something that’s real.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/07.pdf

Draft implementing agreement under the Convention prepared by the
Government of the United States of America for adoption at the fifteenth

session of the Conference of the Parties

FCCC/CP/2009/7
Page 10

Section 4 - Financing

With respect to funding, the U.S. is keenly aware of the need for a dramatic
increase in the flow of resources available to developing countries to catalyze both
mitigation and adaptation actions at a scale that will be necessary to address the
climate challenge. Resources will need to flow from a wide variety of sources,
including, for example, public sources in developed and developing countries,
private investment, and – in the case of mitigation – the carbon market. The
private sector is expected to be a much larger source of funding than the public
sector, making it critical that policies in both developed and developing countries
promote the flow of such funding. The text below suggests certain fundingrelated
elements to be included but leaves to future negotiation, taking into
account mitigation efforts and other related issues, the questions of whether there
is a need for a new funding-related mechanism(s) and, if so, where such
mechanism(s) would be referenced.
[provision reaffirming Annex II Parties’ obligations under Article 4.3 and 4.4 of
the Convention]
[provision regarding assigning a new function to either the existing or another
operating entity, namely to provide technical assistance for building developing
countries’ capacity to “ready” themselves for accessing larger pools of domestic
and international financing by e.g., creating low-carbon development strategies
and establishing national systems for measurement, reporting, and verification]
[provisions to establish a means to, inter alia, draw on public/private sector
expertise; recommend steps intended to mobilize domestic and international
financing from a variety of domestic, bilateral, regional, and multilateral sources,
including carbon markets; consider ways of linking qualifying actions with
support; recommend how to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the
Parties’ aggregated efforts to mobilize investment; and address concerns of

competition, targeting and overlap of such efforts]

http://en.cop15.dk/

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Again, you have not provided one article from a single scholarly peer reviewed journal. You've provided articles from fox news, oil industry journals, and fake peer reviewed journals that are completely discredited and fully rejected by the scientific community.

Gee, the Pielke article in question was not only peer reviewed in the BAMS, but also referred to a number of other peer reviewed articles.

Are are you saying the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society is not a peer review journal? Or that it is an oil industry journal? Fox news?

And apparently with regard to this peer reviewed article to two principal antagonists had a less than collegial history. Trenberth of the IPCC and co-author Landsea, had personal disagreements according to Pielke.

So this paper is not an example of the AGM "religious" ostracizing other general points of view. It's not even the IPCC doing it. It's one scientist who doesn't like another scientist.

Excuse me, but is the normal disagreement process conducted via newspaper opinion articles? And the disagreement in question was an outright attack on the article without apparently willingness to engage in face to face discussion.

As for one scientist not liking another - It is interesting that IPCC's hurricane forecasting lead author who personally attacked a specific article on hurricane forecasting would fail to mention the very peer reviewed article in question even to discredit it in the IPCC proceedings. Oh, and Trenberth is not a hurricane researcher either.

I'd say that personal like/dislike is one thing, but professional discrimination is completely different.

As far as the 31,000 signatories to the "petition project";

Ah, so (ad hominem) on Seitz, also some discrepanies in the signatories means all 31000 are indeed veterinarians and pranksters?

So by the same argument then IPCC WG3 is also false:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12511

Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren’t clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists.

...

Then there are the contributors whose involvement we cannot explain. Farhana Yamin is an international lawyer, based at the University of Sussex. Rachel Warren and Paul Watkiss are merely listed as “environmental consultants” at the latter’s consultancy firm, and clearly have a commercial interest in climate change policies being developed. Kate Studd is listed as a contributor, but she works for the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, and doesn’t appear to be an academic at all. What are these people doing on this list of the most expert climate specialists in the world?

...

Of the 70 US contributors, there were 7 economists, 13 social scientists, 3 epidemiologists, 10 biologists/ecologists, 5 engineers, 2 modellers/statisticians, 1 full-time activist (and 1 part time), 5 were in public health and policy, and 4 were unknowns. 17 worked in earth/atmospheric sciences.

...

I agree it would be quicker to simply note the qualified skeptics on the list (there are probably a few dozen), but, from a rhetorical point of view, I think pointing out these immensely unqualified members of the list is more effective.

Well, we can all play that game… Included as contributors to WGII are Patricia Craig, Judith Cranage, Susan Mann, and Christopher Pfeiffer, all from Pennsylvania State University. It’s not that these people aren’t experts in their field - they probably are. Our problem with their inclusion on the list of Contributors to the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment report is that their jobs are (in order) website-designer, administrative assistant (x2), and network administrator.

Also on the list is Peter Neofotis who appears to be a 2003 graduate of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology from Columbia. Are there many experts in anything who graduated in 2003? Would Dessler take his sick child to a doctor, who, according to our understanding of medical training, would have not yet qualified? Also at Columbia is Marta Vicarelli, who is a PhD candidate in ’sustainable development’. Can she be the amongst the world’s leading experts on sustainability? It seems hard to take the claim seriously. Or what about Gianna Palmer at Wesleyan University, who, as far as we can tell, will not graduate from university until 2010?

So let's throw both Seitz and IPCC out as being bogus lists of scientists.

The video also assets Dr. Seitz oversaw $45M in tobacco company funded research in the 70s - quite a lot of money then.

If $45M in the 70's is corrupting to scientific skepticism, then how is $70B plus in federal climate change research not also corrupting?

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Using the 5 year mean temperature we see a warming trend start in 1919. That trend peaks in 1942. Then we see a moderate cooling trend from 1943 through 1966 which retraces less than 40% of the increase measured between 1919 and 1942. Then in 1967 the increase in unrelenting for 40 years.

Perhaps you might explain how GISS can have a data set from the 1880s when it was founded in 1961?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/

The institute was originally established in May 1961 by Dr. Robert Jastrow to do basic research in space sciences in support of Goddard programs.

And at least GISS is honest about what they are: trying to find climate change as opposed to perform science research

Current research, under the direction of Dr. James Hansen, emphasizes a broad study of Global Change, which is an interdisciplinary initiative addressing natural and man-made changes in our environment that occur on various time scales (from one-time forcings such as volcanic explosions, to seasonal/annual effects such as El Niño, and on up to the millennia of ice ages) and affect the habitability of our planet.

Furthermore the GISTEMP is itself new having been:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was needed for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models.

And surprise! he wanted a better method to 'estimate global temperature change', and he got it.

The GISTEMP page also lists this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/



Hmm sure doesn't reconcile well with the hockey stick.

Then there's another graph on the same page:



That doesn't look like a hockey stick either.

Finally let's look at the underlying data set to the hockey stick you refer to:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

Interesting, no actual temperature data. It is all a plus or minus vs. some reference which is not obvious to me. Another case of 'oops we don't got no steenkin' data?'

But of the 130 data points: 76 are 0.00 or negative. Another 32 are 0.01 to 0.20. The remaining 22 points range from 0.23 to 0.62 - and EVERY SINGLE ONE UNDER HANSEN'S TENURE. Coincidence?

I'd say it is a little worrying given the almost all the biggest +variance years were all AFTER his testimony to Congress: all but 4 of the 22 points above are after his 1989 testimony.

1970	0.03	-0.01
1971	-0.1	0.03
1972	0	0
1973	0.14	-0.02
1974	-0.08	-0.03
1975	-0.05	0
1976	-0.16	-0.03
1977	0.13	0
1978	0.01	0.05
1979	0.09	0.13
1980	0.18	0.12
1981	0.26	0.17
1982	0.05	0.17
1983	0.26	0.14
1984	0.09	0.11
1985	0.05	0.16
1986	0.12	0.17
1987	0.26	0.19
1988	0.31	0.25
1989	0.19	0.3
1990	0.38	0.27
1991	0.35	0.24
1992	0.12	0.24
1993	0.14	0.24
1994	0.23	0.23
1995	0.38	0.29
1996	0.29	0.37
1997	0.39	0.39
1998	0.56	0.38
1999	0.32	0.41
2000	0.33	0.45
2001	0.47	0.44
2002	0.55	0.48
2003	0.54	0.53
2004	0.48	0.55
2005	0.62	0.55
2006	0.53	0.53
2007	0.56	0.54
2008	0.44	*
2009	0.54	*

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Yet, my atolls all have a story to tell about sea-level on this planet and about the planet's climate. They all are saying the same thing: not much change in the world's sea-level has occurred since 1940 or so. Therefore, one might infer that the world's mean temperature has been unusually steady for seven decades, possibly even longer than that.

I think that's correct. Not much change in sea level yet. Glad you're feeling good about your atolls, the Maldivians are not feeling so sanquine with regard to their average ground level at 1.5 meters...:eek:.

We've had several long discussions about sea ice where we learned or were reminded that melting sea ice does not raise sea level much since most of it is already floating in the sea.

I'd have to disagree with your conclusion however. Temperature can move up within some limit and not cause all the glaciers to melt into the sea. We know that because, temperatures are up and the sea isn't. Let's hope we don't have to wait until we're saying, Maldives? There's no stinking Maldives!

[ggirod]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

The video reminded me of the era in the 1970s when scientists were solicited to write articles that found that people likely to smoke were also likely to get lung cancer. That sort of finding almost brings tears to one's eyes. It meant that the poor sap whom you see smoking not only stinks, coughs, wheezes, and occasionally gags, but in addition to likely not finding an optimal mate to procreate with, the poor sap is destined, through no fault of his own, to die of lung cancer. Oh, how cruel a fate awaits this poor gent (or lady, if you prefer)!

I guess the fact that smoking is still allowed/encouraged in many places around the nation, not to mention the world, and people still come out and picket for their individual rights, does not bode well for the future of similar global warming initiatives. Maybe in another 30-40 years society will finally reject profligate CO2 production. Oh, you say you can't wait that long? Oh, Well, sorry .....

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

This is what the denialists do, mislead and misrepresent, it's all they have.

And here's a good report on the IPCC / Mann "hockey stick" chart that c1ue refers to as "thoroughly discredited"...maybe not so much unless one supposes that the National Academy of Science is in on the fix.

And bonus material. The Medieval Warming period chart is old data and the idea is no longer supported after much more robust data samples. So now we know why the deniers are always using this chart from IPCC - even though they profess disdain for them. The chart is politically expedient.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

And apparently with regard to this peer reviewed article to two principal antagonists had a less than collegial history. Trenberth of the IPCC and co-author Landsea, had personal disagreements according to Pielke.

So this paper is not an example of the AGM "religious" ostracizing other general points of view. It's not even the IPCC doing it. It's one scientist who doesn't like another scientist.

Personal disagreement held up as conspiracy. Add that to the diniers list of tricks.

Trust me: My atolls from around the globe do not receive government grants. They receive no fat cheques from NOAA, nor from the UN, nor from Greenpeace, nor from the oil industry. No cheques were received by my atolls from the tobacco industry, and none from FOX News, either. None were received from the rightwing, nor the Republican Party; and none were received from BBC, the CBC, nor the Green Party in British Columbia, either.

Yet, my atolls all have a story to tell about sea-level on this planet and about the planet's climate. They all are saying the same thing: not much change in the world's sea-level has occurred since 1940 or so. Therefore, one might infer that the world's mean temperature has been unusually steady for seven decades, possibly even longer than that.

Sea-level rose 300 feet when the Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago. Much of that 300 foot rise happened immediately after the ice sheets melted away from the continents of Europe and North America.... Now, little change in the sea-level is being observed: 6 or 7 inches per 100 years. This is good news for everyone and everything on Earth, including my atolls.

Finally, I receive no money nor accept any research grants for my blogs. But I do own common oil and gas income stocks, atomic energy stocks, some of which might benefit from cap-'n-trade legislation, and some of which might be hurt by cap-'n-trade. My view-point on cap-'n-trade is that it is terrible legislation and based upon politics, not real science.

Starving Steve, East Sooke, British Columbia

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Again, you have not provided one article from a single scholarly peer reviewed journal.

And apparently with regard to this peer reviewed article to two principal antagonists had a less than collegial history. Trenberth of the IPCC and co-author Landsea, had personal disagreements according to Pielke.

So this paper is not an example of the AGM "religious" ostracizing other general points of view. It's not even the IPCC doing it. It's one scientist who doesn't like another scientist.

Personal disagreement held up as conspiracy. Add that to the diniers list of tricks.

[Mashuri]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Michael Crichton: Environmentalism as Religion

http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...aseligion.html

An unfortunate side-effect of human nature. C1ue, you may as well try and convince a Catholic to consider that Jesus was just a man.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I've provided many 'peer reviewed' articles which contradict key AGW assertions, but apparently you still choose to speak in incorrect generalized terms.

As for the overwhelming informed consensus - how many of this consensus make a living from the $70B+ overall and $5B+/2009 funding from the US federal government? From the UN? From other governments? What about the many AMS/ACS examples who clearly are not in the consensus? The 31000 signatories to http://www.oism.org/pproject/?

Again, you have not provided one article from a single scholarly peer reviewed journal. You've provided articles from fox news, oil industry journals, and fake peer reviewed journals that are completely discredited and fully rejected by the scientific community.

As far as the 31,000 signatories to the "petition project";



This is what the denialists do, mislead and misrepresent, it's all they have.