A Global Warming Debate
Recently, there was a blogpost at Second Hand Smoke about the way the media immediately tied the recent (not unusual) hurricane Irene to Global Warming. I decided to leave a comment and have gotten into a row with a True Believer. Below is the transcript (thus far):
I left the following comment;
It’s rather like eugenics; the hysteria of degrading the human species in the early 20th century is rightly laughed at now, but it was a real “scientific” crisis back then. That was the same pseudo-science with the same politicized studies as Global Warming. Eugenics was a crock, and AGW is turning out to be just as much of a crock.
It took a world war and the murder of millions to end the stupidity of eugenics. Hopefully Global Warming won’t claim as many casualties.
Harryhammer's reply:
Based on two recent independent studies, each employing different methodologies, 97% of climate experts think humans are causing global warming.
No scientific body of national or international standing thinks otherwise.
The last scientific group to think otherwise was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
They changed their tune in 2007.
If you want a really good example of politicized pseudo-science, look no further than the so-called Climategate scandal:
Every denier in America jumped on that bandwagon and was wrongly accusing the 4 climate scientists who had their emails hacked.
The denial camp was accusing them of manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics.
None of it was true.
Six separate independent committees investigated the allegations and published reports of their findings.
Each separate independent investigation found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
Wrongly accusing someone is a serious mistake.
Check out the 9th Commandment.
My reply:
Harryhammer
The old argument about concensus; the last stand for you global warming alarmists.
First, the theory does not fit with reality. There has been no statistical warming since 1995; even Phil Jones acknowledges that. Where is the heat going? It’s not in the oceans, either. There is no warming in the tropical troposphere, as theory suggests. This isn’t science; it’s pseudo-science. Of course, climatology was a backwater before AGW theory; naturally most professional organizations want to keep the gravy train rolling.
Which brings up the cagey way you argued for concensus; you cleverly ignored the PEOPLE who I could present to you as skeptics, because you knew you could no longer credibly make that case, and substituted organizations. f You ignore the Leipzig, Heidleberg, Oregon, and other petitions. You ignore the NIPCC. You ignore anyone who does not parrot the party line. Your side like to make dark accusations of money from Exxon-Mobil, but ignore money from Soros, from Gates, Buffet, the Ford Foundation, the Sierra club, etc. But in the end nature is the final determinant of the theory, and your theory has been exploded.
We really don’t even know the planetary temperatures; we have taken to using temperature readings from hundreds of miles away (at times) to smooth the curves, and the temperature stations that are still manned are often subject to the urban heat island effect. We know (thanks to the CRU leaks) that there were scientists actively subverting the data.
I have read the e-mails, Harryhammer; have you? The commissions were hastily convened with the express purpose of absolving Mann, Jones, Briffa, et. al. If you believe them, I have a bridge to sell you. Oh, wait, you already purchased one, I see. You put Russell Muir in charge of an investigation of misconduct and what would you expect? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/07/the-muir-cru-apologia-is-out/
In November 2009 Phil Jones told Mann “not to leave stuff lying around that would point out his many climate errors.”
Now there’s a man dedicated to truth. He also spoke of using Mann’s “nature trick to hide the decline”; what do you think that means? CRU is one of the principle processors of raw data, and when asked for the unprocessed data they said they THREW IT AWAY. Pardon my French, but that is pure bat crap.
Steve McIntyre rebuts it quite well. http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
In the end, it doesn’t matter what scientists think but what actually happens. Nature isn’t cooperating with you guys.
Oh, and your answer to victor about the global warming healthscare; perhaps you should read this.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/the_global_warming_health_scar.html
Sorry, but your side has lost this argument. Continuing to fight is starting to appear ridiculous.
Harryhammer's reply:
Timothy,
The most recent study of climate scientists’ opinions came to the following two conclusions:
1.) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
2.) The relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Let me put it to you in plain English:
Let’s say that your kid is really sick and you take him to see 100 specialists.
97 of the top guys in the field say your kid needs an operation right away or he might die.
Whereas, three of the bottom guys in the field say “go home, relax, don’t worry about it.”
Only an idiot would go home and relax.
You’re being equally idiotic.
Timothy,
There were 6 separate independent inquiries, not one, and they all found no wrongdoing.
After the July 2010 reports, the New York Times referred to Climategate as a “manufactured controversy,” and expressed the hope that reports clearing the scientists “will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies,”
The Columbia Journalism Review criticized newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels, and said that “readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever.”
CNN media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.
In June 2010 Newsweek called the controversy a “highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal.”
Incidentally, I don’t believe you when you say that you read all of the emails.
The theft involved about 160 MB of data containing more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents.
That’s the equivalent of about 7 feet of encyclopaedia sized books on a shelf.
I seriously doubt that you’ve read that much in your life time.
At best, you skimmed a few cherry-picked phrases, pulled them completely out of context, and then proceeded to twist them into a worldwide Al Gore led conspiracy like every other conservative hack.
No significant warming since 1995:
When it suits your purpose, you want to go back to the medieval period and now you want to stop at 1995.
Climate change is a multi-decadal phenomenon.
Short-term temperatures are strongly affected by natural variability.
To best assess if the warming over the past 40 years has continued into the most recent decade, analysts do a simple test.
They calculate the trend in temperatures for the period from 1970 to 2000, and use it to predict what temperatures over the last decade would be expected to have been prior to actually knowing them.
By the way, I didn’t ignore the Leipzig, Heidleberg, Oregon, and other petitions.
I looked at them all in depth.
Name your best source out of the bunch and I’ll explain to you what conflict of interest and below par research means:
• Fred Singer?
• Patrick Michaels?
• Frederick Seitz?
• Robert Stevenson?
• Chauncy Starr?
• Robert Balling?
My reply:
Harryhammer, you are a font of dubious information that is not sourced.
First, tell me about the six “independent” inquiries. You do not give any details. Why is that? Likely because you only know the talking points. Again, I ask you HAVE YOU READ THE ACTUAL E-MAILS? Is that really hard to answer the question? Not all of them, but enough of the pertinent parts. I do not need panels of inquiry to tell me that my eyes are lying to me. It’s plain what was happening when you bother to actually look to the source.
O.k. I suppose the Oxburgh investigation was better? Oxburgh was heavily invested in “green” technology and had a clear conflict of interest. http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/23/another-tainted-inquiry/
See more about “hide the decline and the Oxburgh commission here. http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/31/disinformation-from-kerry-emanuel/
Both Russell and Oxburgh’s reviews were slammed by MP’s on the Science and Technology Committee for their ineptitude. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8279368/Official-inquiries-into-the-Climategate-scandal-unsatisfactory.html
Do you REALLY believe that Penn State would find evidence of wrongdoing, or the U.K. Royal Society, which is notoriously alarmist about AGW? None of these investigations could be called independent; they were a series of whitewashes. CRU has refused to cooperate with any serious investigators. They have deleted e-mails. They have deleted raw data. Now, why do you suppose that is?
Even if your correct and they aren’t guilty of fraud, they ARE guilty of scientific malpractice on a titanic scale. They are either liars or incompetent bunglers.
Amazing how you take the word of a mainstream journalism community as Gospel on this issue; were I to present such evidence you would scoff at the lack of scientific credibility they possess. I always take my que from the New York Times when they pronounce something a “manufactured controversy”.
Again, perhaps we should use our own eyes and brains and not simply accept what Simon Says.
You say;
“No significant warming since 1995:
When it suits your purpose, you want to go back to the medieval period and now you want to stop at 1995.”
I want to go back to what Phil Jones himself said, which is that there has been no statistical warming since 1995. It demolishes your theory. Climate changes all of the time. Yes we talk about the Medieval Warming period because it was there, and warmer than the present day. Michael Mann has labored to eliminate it, because it shows that this is not an abnormal period.
Also, you argue that:
1.) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
2.) The relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Really? Again, you fail to cite sources. But this is no surprise because everyone agrees planetary temperatures rose in the 20t century (the Little Ice Age ended in the 19th) and human activity has definitely contributed to it. Land use change, for instance. Roger Pielke Sr. would be placed in the camp of that 97% although he doesn’t see CO2 rise as all that significant. Even people like Patrick Michaels would fall into your 97%. This is a clever fraud, Hammer.
Do you know what happened at CERN? Svensmark’s theory about cosmic rays has been validated by experimentation. This explains the difference between solar output and temperature rise. Did you know that sea levels actually dropped last year? Did you know that a recent study shows that the Earth lost more heat than any of the models predicted, shattering the IPCC predictions. http://www.iceagenow.com/New_NASA_Data_Blow_Gaping_Hole_In_Global_Warming_Alarmism.htm
Sorry, but the Earth is not really sick, and does not need a doctor. Not even a geologist, climatologist, or meteorologist. There is no reason to fundamentally reorder human civilization, killing millions in the process through starvation and deprivation as the industrialized nations throw away their wealth to make guilt-ridden liberals such as yourself feel good.
And you have some gall disparaging men like John Christy, Roger Pielke Sr. even Roger Revelle (who thought global warming would end at 2* and was more of a curiosity than a crisis). This while IPCC reports were being written by men from Greenpeace and the Sierra Club!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/a-blunder-of-staggering-proportions-by-the-ipcc/
But then it’s easier to smear people than to actually debate the facts. I notice you stopped debating the facts a while ago. That’s an old lawyer trick.
In the end, it’s the facts that matter, and they are seriously against you AGW hysterics.
HarryHammer's reply:
Timothy,
Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
Soon you’ll be adding your mama to the list of Al Gore conspirators.
The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring is as strong as ever and remained unchanged at the end of the investigations.
Believe me, if there was any dirt whatsoever, James “Mountain Jim” Inhofe would have found it.
He has been one of the most vocal global warming deniers that exist and he headed the last inquiry.
He was recently cornered in the hall:
http://planetsave.com/2011/02/17/hertsgaard-nails-inhofe-oil-lobbyists-amazing-video-interviews/
Incidentally, one of the smartest women in the world is a 41-year-old Australian named Laura N. Kochen; a Olympiq Society member.
Her membership is quite the impressive achievement given that since January 1, 2001, the Olympiq Society has only accepted 14 members (12 full and 2 prospective), of which only 2 are women, and Laura Kochen is one of them.
The most cited living author has been teaching at M.I.T. for 55 years.
He recently spoke on this:
http://www.thenation.com/video/158093/noam-chomsky-how-climate-change-became-liberal-hoax
Timothy,
You can label me all you want.
Labels don’t change facts.
You mentioned Patrick Michaels.
Dr. Patrick Michaels is actually the best expert that global warming deniers currently have because he’s one of the few deniers with any relevant scientific credentials.
Michaels was a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia from 1980 to 2007.
Did you know that the overall median 9 month salary for all professors in the United States is about $73,000.
Dr. Michaels has never had it so good as he has as a global warming denier:
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-skeptic-pat-michaels-admits-cnn-forty-percent-his-funding-comes-oil-industry
Incidentally, he said that 3% of the more than $4,200,000 he received came from oil and gas interests when in fact it was closer to 40%.
Why would he lie about that?
http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/waxman-asks-upton-to-examine-dr-patrick-michaels-s-testimony
My reply:
Harryhammer, you are again arguing the messengers when you should be arguing the message. As I pointed out, that is an old lawyer trick; when the facts are against you smear the opposition. But since you want to bring this up...
In the last year alone the U.S. has funded global warming studies to the tune of $8.7 Billion dollars. That's direct funding, I might add. There is other ancillary funding, like green energy, that is not accounted for in this figure. Who has the greater motivation? If Patrick Michaels is receiving 40% of his funding from oil, why shouldn't he? He's certainly not going to get any help from the "mainstream" sources. AND his work is peer reviewed. Science is science, Hammer; if he's wrong it's up to the scientific community to refute his work.
How about Joanne Simpson? Ever heard of her? She was the first woman meteorologist who pioneered studies of cloud models and hurricanes. A big name at Nasa. When she retired (and only when she retired) she came out blazing against the climate of oppression by the AGW crowd. http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/ Seems she was intimidated to speak against global warming, intimidated by the same people (Hansen and company) who have tried to claim this is about science over politics. It should come as no surprise; the CRU e-mails show that the hockey team was actively working to suppress "deniar" papers in science journals and to peer review their own.
Ah, but then Dr. Simpson probably owned a car; proof positive she's in the pocket of Big Oil.
Why do you refuse to see the money coming from Think Progress, from the Sierra Club, from the Tides Foundation, from governments throughout the world and instead focus on the opposition's funding, an opposition that really has no other choice if it wants to continue it's research?
Why do you ignore the vast fortunes made by carbon traders on Wall Street (such as J.P. Morgan http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/11/technology/jpmorgan_carbon.fortune/) or Al Gore? You worry about oil money, but what of investor's money? What of fat-cat Wall Street tycoons. What do they expect for THEIR money?
But facts are stubborn things, and the facts are that we aren't seeing the principle predictions made by the climate models bearing out. Did you know that attempts to use the IPCC models to predict current conditions from past data have failed miserably? Why trust models that cannot be made to predict current conditions?
And there is considerable evidence for fraud. James Hansen's GISS once published September data in October for the Arctic and claimed it was the hottest October on record. They quietly pulled back, but the press releases had already gone to the public. They also trumpeted that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. but quietly corrected that. How about the National Snow and Ice Data Center losing 93000 miles of ice? www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8966 These may be simple errors, but it's surprising how these errors always go in favor of AGW. They are generally corrected quietly AFTER the results have been trumpeted to the public.
I would like to direct your attention to the Endangered Atmospheres Conference. Chaired by Margaret Mead, this was a get-together of some of the most famous (or infamous) activist scientists (guys like James Lovelock, John Holdren, William Kellogg etc.) with the purpose of coming up with some atmosphere-related issue to draw in the general public. They chose global cooling, but had global warming on their short list. It was part of an effort to make the Earth's atmosphere a matter of international law, to ultimately fundamentally change the relations of nations and the world economic system. And it was the same people who first demogogued global cooling then, without skipping a beat, switched to global warming. Why? Because nature wasn't cooperating with GC. I remember watching it happen. Here is a good overview of it http://pumasunleashed.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/1975-%E2%80%98endangered-atmosphere%E2%80%99-conference-where-the-global-warming-hoax-was-born/. (Most of the links for the conference notes are pay sites, although I have read Kellogg's piece in the past. http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/898089 )
Again, Roger Revelle himself (the granddaddy of AGW theory) thought this more a curiosity than anything else; he understood the logarithmic nature of CO2 to heat. Remember, CO2 is a minor trace gas, with less then four molecules in every ten thousand molecules of air. What is argued about are feedbacks; are they positive or negative? The IPCC and other alarmists insist they are positive, that CO2 will warm the planet, triggering more water vapor, triggering a release of methane, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. This disregards the warmer periods in history where it DIDN'T happen that way. That was why Michael Mann was so determined to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period. It's why alarmist researchers are trying to downplay the Ordovician period (where CO2 levels were ten times as high as today, but the temperature of the planet was cooler.)
Facts are stubborn things.
Oh, and Harry, citing leftists like Noam Chomsky does your case no good. Neither does citing a Greenpeace activist, even if she is in Mensa.
http://hell.iqsociety.org/hellia-members/laura-n-kochen/
Sorry, but a whitewash is a watewash, and I don't need Mensa-ites to tell me to disregard my own eyes.
And if my mother should become a global warming alarmist I would rightly conclude that her recent stroke has driven her into dementia. At least she would have an excuse!
END
I'll keep everyone updated on future exchanges between myself and Hammerhead here.
I left the following comment;
It’s rather like eugenics; the hysteria of degrading the human species in the early 20th century is rightly laughed at now, but it was a real “scientific” crisis back then. That was the same pseudo-science with the same politicized studies as Global Warming. Eugenics was a crock, and AGW is turning out to be just as much of a crock.
It took a world war and the murder of millions to end the stupidity of eugenics. Hopefully Global Warming won’t claim as many casualties.
Harryhammer's reply:
Based on two recent independent studies, each employing different methodologies, 97% of climate experts think humans are causing global warming.
No scientific body of national or international standing thinks otherwise.
The last scientific group to think otherwise was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
They changed their tune in 2007.
If you want a really good example of politicized pseudo-science, look no further than the so-called Climategate scandal:
Every denier in America jumped on that bandwagon and was wrongly accusing the 4 climate scientists who had their emails hacked.
The denial camp was accusing them of manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics.
None of it was true.
Six separate independent committees investigated the allegations and published reports of their findings.
Each separate independent investigation found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
Wrongly accusing someone is a serious mistake.
Check out the 9th Commandment.
My reply:
Harryhammer
The old argument about concensus; the last stand for you global warming alarmists.
First, the theory does not fit with reality. There has been no statistical warming since 1995; even Phil Jones acknowledges that. Where is the heat going? It’s not in the oceans, either. There is no warming in the tropical troposphere, as theory suggests. This isn’t science; it’s pseudo-science. Of course, climatology was a backwater before AGW theory; naturally most professional organizations want to keep the gravy train rolling.
Which brings up the cagey way you argued for concensus; you cleverly ignored the PEOPLE who I could present to you as skeptics, because you knew you could no longer credibly make that case, and substituted organizations. f You ignore the Leipzig, Heidleberg, Oregon, and other petitions. You ignore the NIPCC. You ignore anyone who does not parrot the party line. Your side like to make dark accusations of money from Exxon-Mobil, but ignore money from Soros, from Gates, Buffet, the Ford Foundation, the Sierra club, etc. But in the end nature is the final determinant of the theory, and your theory has been exploded.
We really don’t even know the planetary temperatures; we have taken to using temperature readings from hundreds of miles away (at times) to smooth the curves, and the temperature stations that are still manned are often subject to the urban heat island effect. We know (thanks to the CRU leaks) that there were scientists actively subverting the data.
I have read the e-mails, Harryhammer; have you? The commissions were hastily convened with the express purpose of absolving Mann, Jones, Briffa, et. al. If you believe them, I have a bridge to sell you. Oh, wait, you already purchased one, I see. You put Russell Muir in charge of an investigation of misconduct and what would you expect? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/07/the-muir-cru-apologia-is-out/
In November 2009 Phil Jones told Mann “not to leave stuff lying around that would point out his many climate errors.”
Now there’s a man dedicated to truth. He also spoke of using Mann’s “nature trick to hide the decline”; what do you think that means? CRU is one of the principle processors of raw data, and when asked for the unprocessed data they said they THREW IT AWAY. Pardon my French, but that is pure bat crap.
Steve McIntyre rebuts it quite well. http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
In the end, it doesn’t matter what scientists think but what actually happens. Nature isn’t cooperating with you guys.
Oh, and your answer to victor about the global warming healthscare; perhaps you should read this.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/the_global_warming_health_scar.html
Sorry, but your side has lost this argument. Continuing to fight is starting to appear ridiculous.
Harryhammer's reply:
Timothy,
The most recent study of climate scientists’ opinions came to the following two conclusions:
1.) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
2.) The relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Let me put it to you in plain English:
Let’s say that your kid is really sick and you take him to see 100 specialists.
97 of the top guys in the field say your kid needs an operation right away or he might die.
Whereas, three of the bottom guys in the field say “go home, relax, don’t worry about it.”
Only an idiot would go home and relax.
You’re being equally idiotic.
Timothy,
There were 6 separate independent inquiries, not one, and they all found no wrongdoing.
After the July 2010 reports, the New York Times referred to Climategate as a “manufactured controversy,” and expressed the hope that reports clearing the scientists “will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies,”
The Columbia Journalism Review criticized newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels, and said that “readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever.”
CNN media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.
In June 2010 Newsweek called the controversy a “highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal.”
Incidentally, I don’t believe you when you say that you read all of the emails.
The theft involved about 160 MB of data containing more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents.
That’s the equivalent of about 7 feet of encyclopaedia sized books on a shelf.
I seriously doubt that you’ve read that much in your life time.
At best, you skimmed a few cherry-picked phrases, pulled them completely out of context, and then proceeded to twist them into a worldwide Al Gore led conspiracy like every other conservative hack.
No significant warming since 1995:
When it suits your purpose, you want to go back to the medieval period and now you want to stop at 1995.
Climate change is a multi-decadal phenomenon.
Short-term temperatures are strongly affected by natural variability.
To best assess if the warming over the past 40 years has continued into the most recent decade, analysts do a simple test.
They calculate the trend in temperatures for the period from 1970 to 2000, and use it to predict what temperatures over the last decade would be expected to have been prior to actually knowing them.
By the way, I didn’t ignore the Leipzig, Heidleberg, Oregon, and other petitions.
I looked at them all in depth.
Name your best source out of the bunch and I’ll explain to you what conflict of interest and below par research means:
• Fred Singer?
• Patrick Michaels?
• Frederick Seitz?
• Robert Stevenson?
• Chauncy Starr?
• Robert Balling?
My reply:
Harryhammer, you are a font of dubious information that is not sourced.
First, tell me about the six “independent” inquiries. You do not give any details. Why is that? Likely because you only know the talking points. Again, I ask you HAVE YOU READ THE ACTUAL E-MAILS? Is that really hard to answer the question? Not all of them, but enough of the pertinent parts. I do not need panels of inquiry to tell me that my eyes are lying to me. It’s plain what was happening when you bother to actually look to the source.
O.k. I suppose the Oxburgh investigation was better? Oxburgh was heavily invested in “green” technology and had a clear conflict of interest. http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/23/another-tainted-inquiry/
See more about “hide the decline and the Oxburgh commission here. http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/31/disinformation-from-kerry-emanuel/
Both Russell and Oxburgh’s reviews were slammed by MP’s on the Science and Technology Committee for their ineptitude. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8279368/Official-inquiries-into-the-Climategate-scandal-unsatisfactory.html
Do you REALLY believe that Penn State would find evidence of wrongdoing, or the U.K. Royal Society, which is notoriously alarmist about AGW? None of these investigations could be called independent; they were a series of whitewashes. CRU has refused to cooperate with any serious investigators. They have deleted e-mails. They have deleted raw data. Now, why do you suppose that is?
Even if your correct and they aren’t guilty of fraud, they ARE guilty of scientific malpractice on a titanic scale. They are either liars or incompetent bunglers.
Amazing how you take the word of a mainstream journalism community as Gospel on this issue; were I to present such evidence you would scoff at the lack of scientific credibility they possess. I always take my que from the New York Times when they pronounce something a “manufactured controversy”.
Again, perhaps we should use our own eyes and brains and not simply accept what Simon Says.
You say;
“No significant warming since 1995:
When it suits your purpose, you want to go back to the medieval period and now you want to stop at 1995.”
I want to go back to what Phil Jones himself said, which is that there has been no statistical warming since 1995. It demolishes your theory. Climate changes all of the time. Yes we talk about the Medieval Warming period because it was there, and warmer than the present day. Michael Mann has labored to eliminate it, because it shows that this is not an abnormal period.
Also, you argue that:
1.) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
2.) The relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Really? Again, you fail to cite sources. But this is no surprise because everyone agrees planetary temperatures rose in the 20t century (the Little Ice Age ended in the 19th) and human activity has definitely contributed to it. Land use change, for instance. Roger Pielke Sr. would be placed in the camp of that 97% although he doesn’t see CO2 rise as all that significant. Even people like Patrick Michaels would fall into your 97%. This is a clever fraud, Hammer.
Do you know what happened at CERN? Svensmark’s theory about cosmic rays has been validated by experimentation. This explains the difference between solar output and temperature rise. Did you know that sea levels actually dropped last year? Did you know that a recent study shows that the Earth lost more heat than any of the models predicted, shattering the IPCC predictions. http://www.iceagenow.com/New_NASA_Data_Blow_Gaping_Hole_In_Global_Warming_Alarmism.htm
Sorry, but the Earth is not really sick, and does not need a doctor. Not even a geologist, climatologist, or meteorologist. There is no reason to fundamentally reorder human civilization, killing millions in the process through starvation and deprivation as the industrialized nations throw away their wealth to make guilt-ridden liberals such as yourself feel good.
And you have some gall disparaging men like John Christy, Roger Pielke Sr. even Roger Revelle (who thought global warming would end at 2* and was more of a curiosity than a crisis). This while IPCC reports were being written by men from Greenpeace and the Sierra Club!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/a-blunder-of-staggering-proportions-by-the-ipcc/
But then it’s easier to smear people than to actually debate the facts. I notice you stopped debating the facts a while ago. That’s an old lawyer trick.
In the end, it’s the facts that matter, and they are seriously against you AGW hysterics.
HarryHammer's reply:
Timothy,
Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
Soon you’ll be adding your mama to the list of Al Gore conspirators.
The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring is as strong as ever and remained unchanged at the end of the investigations.
Believe me, if there was any dirt whatsoever, James “Mountain Jim” Inhofe would have found it.
He has been one of the most vocal global warming deniers that exist and he headed the last inquiry.
He was recently cornered in the hall:
http://planetsave.com/2011/02/17/hertsgaard-nails-inhofe-oil-lobbyists-amazing-video-interviews/
Incidentally, one of the smartest women in the world is a 41-year-old Australian named Laura N. Kochen; a Olympiq Society member.
Her membership is quite the impressive achievement given that since January 1, 2001, the Olympiq Society has only accepted 14 members (12 full and 2 prospective), of which only 2 are women, and Laura Kochen is one of them.
The most cited living author has been teaching at M.I.T. for 55 years.
He recently spoke on this:
http://www.thenation.com/video/158093/noam-chomsky-how-climate-change-became-liberal-hoax
Timothy,
You can label me all you want.
Labels don’t change facts.
You mentioned Patrick Michaels.
Dr. Patrick Michaels is actually the best expert that global warming deniers currently have because he’s one of the few deniers with any relevant scientific credentials.
Michaels was a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia from 1980 to 2007.
Did you know that the overall median 9 month salary for all professors in the United States is about $73,000.
Dr. Michaels has never had it so good as he has as a global warming denier:
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-skeptic-pat-michaels-admits-cnn-forty-percent-his-funding-comes-oil-industry
Incidentally, he said that 3% of the more than $4,200,000 he received came from oil and gas interests when in fact it was closer to 40%.
Why would he lie about that?
http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/waxman-asks-upton-to-examine-dr-patrick-michaels-s-testimony
My reply:
Harryhammer, you are again arguing the messengers when you should be arguing the message. As I pointed out, that is an old lawyer trick; when the facts are against you smear the opposition. But since you want to bring this up...
In the last year alone the U.S. has funded global warming studies to the tune of $8.7 Billion dollars. That's direct funding, I might add. There is other ancillary funding, like green energy, that is not accounted for in this figure. Who has the greater motivation? If Patrick Michaels is receiving 40% of his funding from oil, why shouldn't he? He's certainly not going to get any help from the "mainstream" sources. AND his work is peer reviewed. Science is science, Hammer; if he's wrong it's up to the scientific community to refute his work.
How about Joanne Simpson? Ever heard of her? She was the first woman meteorologist who pioneered studies of cloud models and hurricanes. A big name at Nasa. When she retired (and only when she retired) she came out blazing against the climate of oppression by the AGW crowd. http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/ Seems she was intimidated to speak against global warming, intimidated by the same people (Hansen and company) who have tried to claim this is about science over politics. It should come as no surprise; the CRU e-mails show that the hockey team was actively working to suppress "deniar" papers in science journals and to peer review their own.
Ah, but then Dr. Simpson probably owned a car; proof positive she's in the pocket of Big Oil.
Why do you refuse to see the money coming from Think Progress, from the Sierra Club, from the Tides Foundation, from governments throughout the world and instead focus on the opposition's funding, an opposition that really has no other choice if it wants to continue it's research?
Why do you ignore the vast fortunes made by carbon traders on Wall Street (such as J.P. Morgan http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/11/technology/jpmorgan_carbon.fortune/) or Al Gore? You worry about oil money, but what of investor's money? What of fat-cat Wall Street tycoons. What do they expect for THEIR money?
But facts are stubborn things, and the facts are that we aren't seeing the principle predictions made by the climate models bearing out. Did you know that attempts to use the IPCC models to predict current conditions from past data have failed miserably? Why trust models that cannot be made to predict current conditions?
And there is considerable evidence for fraud. James Hansen's GISS once published September data in October for the Arctic and claimed it was the hottest October on record. They quietly pulled back, but the press releases had already gone to the public. They also trumpeted that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. but quietly corrected that. How about the National Snow and Ice Data Center losing 93000 miles of ice? www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8966 These may be simple errors, but it's surprising how these errors always go in favor of AGW. They are generally corrected quietly AFTER the results have been trumpeted to the public.
I would like to direct your attention to the Endangered Atmospheres Conference. Chaired by Margaret Mead, this was a get-together of some of the most famous (or infamous) activist scientists (guys like James Lovelock, John Holdren, William Kellogg etc.) with the purpose of coming up with some atmosphere-related issue to draw in the general public. They chose global cooling, but had global warming on their short list. It was part of an effort to make the Earth's atmosphere a matter of international law, to ultimately fundamentally change the relations of nations and the world economic system. And it was the same people who first demogogued global cooling then, without skipping a beat, switched to global warming. Why? Because nature wasn't cooperating with GC. I remember watching it happen. Here is a good overview of it http://pumasunleashed.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/1975-%E2%80%98endangered-atmosphere%E2%80%99-conference-where-the-global-warming-hoax-was-born/. (Most of the links for the conference notes are pay sites, although I have read Kellogg's piece in the past. http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/898089 )
Again, Roger Revelle himself (the granddaddy of AGW theory) thought this more a curiosity than anything else; he understood the logarithmic nature of CO2 to heat. Remember, CO2 is a minor trace gas, with less then four molecules in every ten thousand molecules of air. What is argued about are feedbacks; are they positive or negative? The IPCC and other alarmists insist they are positive, that CO2 will warm the planet, triggering more water vapor, triggering a release of methane, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. This disregards the warmer periods in history where it DIDN'T happen that way. That was why Michael Mann was so determined to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period. It's why alarmist researchers are trying to downplay the Ordovician period (where CO2 levels were ten times as high as today, but the temperature of the planet was cooler.)
Facts are stubborn things.
Oh, and Harry, citing leftists like Noam Chomsky does your case no good. Neither does citing a Greenpeace activist, even if she is in Mensa.
http://hell.iqsociety.org/hellia-members/laura-n-kochen/
Sorry, but a whitewash is a watewash, and I don't need Mensa-ites to tell me to disregard my own eyes.
And if my mother should become a global warming alarmist I would rightly conclude that her recent stroke has driven her into dementia. At least she would have an excuse!
END
I'll keep everyone updated on future exchanges between myself and Hammerhead here.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:49 AM
|
0 comments
