More Global Warming Debate
Timothy Birdnow
Here is more of the argument at Second Hand Smoke.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/08/28/global-warming-hysteria-hurricane-irene-and-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-34107
This is part II in the series (and hopefully the last part). Part I can be viewed here http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/a_global_warming_debate
Harryhammer had this to say:
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
Timothy,
You managed to squeeze quite a bit of nonsense into a single comment.
It’s going to take more than just a few paragraphs on my part to address your multiple lines of baloney.
Your words:
“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.”
The six major investigations include:
• House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK).
• Independent Climate Change Review (UK).
• International Science Assessment Panel (UK).
• Pennsylvania State University (US).
• United States Environmental Protection Agency (US).
• Department of Commerce (US).
In response to the Climategate controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus, with the AAAS concluding “based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway…it is a growing threat to society.”
More of your baloney:
“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.”
The American Geophysical Union issued a statement that they found “it offensive that these emails were obtained by illegal cyber attacks and they are being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change.”
They reaffirmed their position statement on climate change “based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth’s climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor.
Nothing in the University of East Anglia hacked e-mails represents a significant challenge to that body of scientific evidence.”
Your words:
“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.”
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming:
• Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
• Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
• Bray and von Storch, 2008
• STATS, 2007
• Oreskes, 2004
• Bray and von Storch, 2003
On hide the decline:
The Office of Inspector General of the National Science Foundation closed an investigation about 2 weeks ago that exonerated Michael Mann of charges of scientific misconduct.
The report found that Mann had not falsified data, destroyed emails, misused privileged information, or seriously deviated from accepted scientific practices.
Reader Paul D. replies to Harryhammer:
@Harryhammer, I am surprised that you are defending “the hide the decline”. For starters, let’s make sure we understand what the issue is. Keith Briffa created a proxy reconstruction of temperatures prior to the existence of instrumental temperature record. . In a proxy reconstruction, quantities such as tree ring growth are thought to be correlated with temperature over time. By calibrating such proxies with actual temperatures during the period when we have an instrumental record, it is possible to estimate with the proxies the temperatures that occurred back in time before the instrumental record.
With Briffa’s temperature reconstruction, the proxies he used were reasonably correlated with the actual temperatures measured by thermometers up until about 1960. After 1960, however, that was an obvious divergence between the proxies, which went down, and the actual temperatures, which went up.
This is called “the divergence problem.” The divergence problem is acknowledged, but not resolved, in the professional literature. For most analysts, the seemingly unavoidable question would be –if tree rings didn’t respond to late 20th century warmth, how one would know whether they failed to respond to possible medieval warmth. In short, the divergence problem raises a basic question whether the quantities used as proxies for temperatures are valid proxies.
The issue discussed in the climate gate emails was how to deal with the divergence problem in the IPCC report for policy makers, who were relying upon the IPCC to summarize the scholarly literature. The solution discussed in the climate gate emails and adopted in the final IPCC report was truly “ingenious”. The IPCC report simply truncated Briffa’s proxy data at 1960 so as to “hide the decline” in the proxies. In other words, the IPCC report simply does not show the adverse data.
I really don’t care what all of your commissions think about this issue. One does not need to be a scientist to understand why what the IPCC did was misleading. The climategate emails make clear that the truncation of adverse data was intentional and designed to obscure the divergence problem.
Hammer: Do you defend this?
Harryhammer's reply to reader Paul
@pauld,
PaulD,
It wasn’t misleading at all.
I can see that it might seem misleading to someone who knows little or nothing about science.
For starters, the word “decline” refers to tree ring density, not global temperatures.
Senator James “Mountain Jim” Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin were acting as if the word “decline” was in reference to a decline in measured global temperatures even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.
(That wasn’t a cheap shot Mr. Smith)
Much of the uproar was over the use of the word “trick,” such as when Phil Jones wrote:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Deniers see this as some sort of conspiracy when in fact it is really is just a mathematical way of dealing with a problem (a mathematical “trick”) and reflects scientists interacting with each other.
You can Google it.
It’s used in science all the time.
The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context “trick” was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.
You should have watched the odd episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy when you were a kid instead of just the Flintstones.
He went head to head with one of your heroes.
Bill Nye and Patrick Michaels go head to head on CNN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffgj6Deni_Y
The most significant revelation to come from all those hacked emails is that we now know for sure that the most published and peer-reviewed climate change experts that exist think that Patrick Michaels is clueless.
Reader Paul D made the following comment:
August 31st, 2011 at 9:42 pm
@Harryhammer, Is that the best you can do? It is not clear to me whether you honestly do not understand the issue or whether you are beong intentionally obtuse.
What Palin et al say about the issue is a red herring. They do not properly describe it. The word “trick” is also a red herring. It was usedin the climategate emails in connection with a misleading graph of Michael Mann. It invol es an entirely different issue than Briffa’s “hide the decline” climateaudit.org describes carefully Mann’s “Nature trick” and Briffa’s “hide the decline.” The only similarity they share is that both were intended to mislead.
The essence of “hide the decline is a failure to disclose adverse data that woild cause a reasonable observer to question the validity of Briffa’s temperature proxies. Now to avoid talking past each other if you think hide the decline involved a different issue, please describe it.
Harryhammer's comment
Timothy,
More of your twisted words:
“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.”
No it doesn’t.
From the actual press briefing:
“We have found that natural rates of atmospheric ionisation caused by cosmic rays can substantially enhance nucleation under the conditions we studied – by up to a factor of 10.”
“Ion‐enhancement is particularly pronounced in the cool temperatures of the mid‐troposphere and above, where CLOUD has found that sulphuric acid and water vapour can nucleate without the need for additional vapours.”
“This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate.”
“However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.”
More of your hysterics:
“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.”
A more accurate version:
Wars for oil fundamentally reorder human civilization, killing millions in the process through starvation and deprivation as the industrialized nations throw away their wealth to make a handful of giant corporations rich at the expense of all others.
Apparently, it makes anxiety-ridden conservatives such as you feel good?
My comment:
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. These smears get really old. 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? http://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.
Harryhammer comment:
@Timothy Birdnow,
Timothy,
Fact:
Every scientific organization on the planet disagrees with you.
I’m betting on every scientific organization in the world, not James “Mountain Jim” Inhofe and friends.
I’m betting on the scientists who write the books that you’d have to study if you were ever to pursue and satisfactorily complete even a single course of study in geophysics.
I’m betting the scientific organization that publishes several scientific periodicals, including eighteen peer-reviewed research journals, most notably the Journal of Geophysical Research and Geophysical Research Letters.
I’m betting on the 58,287 scientists that belong to the AGU, some of which have I.Q.’s comparable to and even higher than that of an Albert Einstein or an Isaac Newton.
The AGU was established over 90 years ago, and for more than 50 years has operated as an unincorporated affiliate of the National Academy of Sciences.
These aren’t “NOBODIES.”
The National Academy of Sciences is like the Supreme Court of science; they are the best of the best when it comes to science, of an entire nation.
It should also ease your mind that the American Geophysical Union is a non-profit organization and inter-disciplinary.
Disseminating scientific information is what they do.
The subject of geophysics includes the shape of the Earth, its gravitational and magnetic fields, the dynamics of the Earth as a whole and of its component parts, the Earth’s internal structure, composition and tectonics, the generation of magmas, volcanism and rock formation, the hydrological cycle including snow and ice, all aspects of the oceans, the atmosphere, ionosphere, magnetosphere and solar-terrestrial relations, and analogous problems associated with the Moon and other planets.
Geophysics is also applied to societal needs, such as mineral resources, mitigation of natural hazards and environmental protection. Geophysical survey data are used to analyze potential petroleum reservoirs and mineral deposits, to locate groundwater, to locate archaeological finds, to find the thicknesses of glaciers and soils, and for environmental remediation.
As preconditions to becoming a Nominated AGU Fellow, an applicant must be considered exceptional by his peers, and he must also have previously made a brilliant scientific contribution to mankind.
The opinion of the American Geophysical Union is a hell of a lot more important than the opinion of any of your favourite deniers like James “Mountain Jim” Inhofe.
The AGU recently issued a position statement on climate change.
This is how it begins:
The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system–including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons–are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
Honestly, comparing any of the most vocal global warming deniers that exists to a Nominated AGU Fellow is kind of like comparing a kid working part time at Jiffy Lube to Michael Schumacher’s chief mechanic.
My reply:
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!
Timothy,
You’re doing exactly what you accused me of doing.
I don’t care if Noam Chomsky is left or right or purple.
I care about the fact that he has more awards and honours than you have teeth in your head.
I care about the fact that in 2005 he was voted the leading living intellectual and in 2006 was voted 7th on the list of heroes of our time.
I care about the fact that he has been teaching at M.I.T. for 55 years.
The soul of MIT is research.
For 150 years, the Institute has married teaching with engineering and scientific studies—and produced an unending stream of advancements, many of them world-changing.
On the list of faculty members and staff that are currently or have previously been associated with MIT you will find:
• 76 Nobel Laureates
• 50 National Medal of Science recipients
• 35 MacArthur Fellows.
Comment by reader Glau:
@Harryhammer, for all Dr. Chomsky’s academic credentials as a linguist and his experience as a political commentator, he isn’t an expert on climatology. (Of course, neither is any of us, Mr. Smith included.) So citing him is bordering on off-topic.
On the other hand, Harryhammer’s mention of scientific organizations and climatologists supporting climate change is relevant. Experts are not everything, but they are better than non-experts, all else being equal.
My reply to Harry:
Oh, and Harry, PaulD says it quite well. what do you think "hide the decline" meant? Why did it have to
be hidden? You yourself made the point that tree rings show something different than the temperature
record (which, as I have pointed out, is suspect). YOU HAVE ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION; the decline had to
be HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC. How was that accomplished? Through Mike's nature trick.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
From Anthony Watts;
"But there is an interesting twist here: grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually
the original “Mike’s Nature trick”! Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he
stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC
over here. (Note: Try not to click this link now, CA is overloaded. Can’t even get to it myself to mirror
it. -A)
When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the
instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending
1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one
needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a
smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards
— a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the
smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s
Nature trick”)."
End excerpt.
You seem incapable of actually looking at this yourself.
As to your many studies on concensus, please get in touch with reality. Oreskes was full of balogna, and
rebutted by Bennie Peiser (please note that Nature wouldn't run Peiser's piece, then rejected it when
parts leaked out, so it never received a real hearing.) Bray did little different, and was rebutted by
Dennis Avery. Here is a rebuttal of Doran and Zimmerman http://www.freerepublic.com/%
5Ehttp://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/
These studies all rely on the same techniques, which I have already outlined for you; ask if the scientist
thinks climate has changed (well, duh!) and if humans have anything to do with it (double duh - a dam
changes the climate in it's local region.) These studies are acts of climatological onanism.
The fact is, your concensus is a lot of hot air. At least you are presenting some solid facts; I feared
you were incapable of it.
As to your "independent reviews" perhaps you should read Ross McKittrick's demolishion of five of the six.
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf
These groups used the same technique, and naturally got the same results. They were never intended to do
anything but stop the bleeding. I find it less than compelling that you cite the Union of Concerned
Scientists or the notoriously alarmist AAAS and NAS. Nas, for instance, stands to lose a lot of government
money if this generation long War of the Worlds scare is ended.
And Frederick Seitz, past president of the NAS, was a staunch AGW skeptic. Oh, but he once received
coupons for money off on a carton of Pall Malls, so he doesn't count!
Again, these groups making grand statements do not mean squat; the facts on the ground are what matter.
And those facts are against AGW.
Interesting; you fail to read the quote that you yourself posted;
“We have found that natural rates of atmospheric ionisation caused by cosmic rays can substantially
enhance nucleation under the conditions we studied – by up to a factor of 10.”
“Ion‐enhancement is particularly pronounced in the cool temperatures of the mid‐troposphere and above,
where CLOUD has found that sulphuric acid and water vapour can nucleate without the need for additional
vapours.”
“This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate.”
End quote.
What does that mean? It seems pretty clear. Yes, there are weasle words in the end, because they don't
want to speak too baldly, but it supports Svensmark. This is catastropic to AGW theory. Even if a dearth of cosmic rays only contributes a quarter to the blistering 1* temperature rise, what does that say? How much does the many unknown or poorly understood mechanisms contribute? At what point do we dismiss this notion of 8* temperature rises based solely on computer simulations? This is growing thin indeed.
Despite confident assumptions by the IPCC to the contrary, there is considerable uncertainty as to the amount of contribution that solar variability plays. http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf The IPCC would disagree, but then they also falsely reported that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035, so what do they know? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/himalayan-glaciers-melt-claims-false-ipcc Meele et. al. showed that small changes in total solar irradience can be amplified by stratospheric and oceanic conditions. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827141349.htm
The effects of solar magnetic effects are also open for debate. Also, the amount of variation of the solar spectrum is likewise open for debate. What is obvious is that there are significant factors that are not taken into account by the IPCC and other alarmist models.
How far can we subdivide the causes of this warming before CO2 is considered statistically insignificant? Remember; it works logarithmically. A doubling of CO2 only gives us half again as much warming, until it peters out at about 2*. After that, feedbacks are critical. We see no evidence of positive feedbacks.
And about those wars for oil; it really surprises me because since WWII (a war not for oil) we have had Korea, the Berlin Airlift, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan. Who would have guessed that oil was such a critical reason for going into any of these places! We did Iraq twice; remind me of how much oil we took from there again, please. And Your hero Obama has taken us into Libya; doesn't seem to be dropping oil prices too much.
The reality is that oil is going to be with us for the forseeable future, and efforts to end drilling will see oil replaced with coal or natural gas. What we aren't going to see is a reduction in greenhouse gases; electricity to run cars and the like has to be made from fossil fuels. If you think solar and wind will do the job I still have that bridge for you, and it's cheap! You can always use a second bridge...
But the economic downturn caused by draconian regulations of fossil fuels will certainly cause a worldwide economic slowdown (in fact, it's part of the current economic mess) and the poor will suffer worldwide as a result. It's already happening with the spike in food prices as a result of turning corn into the environmentally approved ethanol. And you guys hate nuclear, too.
Noam Chomsky once observed;
"Walter Lippmann ... described what he called “the manufacture of consent” as “a revolution” in “the practice of democracy”... And he said this was useful and necessary because “the common interests” - the general concerns of all people - “elude” the public. The public just isn't up to dealing with them. And they have to be the domain of what he called a "specialized class" ... [Reinhold Niebuhr]'s view was that rationality belongs to the cool observer. But because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith. And this naive faith requires necessary illusion, and emotionally potent oversimplifications, which are provided by the myth-maker to keep the ordinary person on course. It's not the case, as the naive might think, that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy. Rather, as this whole line of thinkers observes, it is the essence of democracy."
End quote.
Chomsky is a communist who wants to fundamentally change human civilization. He is not a climatologist. Using Chomsky as a reference would be like using Heinrich Himmler to discourse on biology.
From reader Glau:
@Timothy Birdnow, By equating an academic whose views you oppose with someone who oversaw the murder of millions, you trivialize Himmler’s crimes against humanity and inflame the discussion.
Perhaps Chomsky is wrong, even dangerously wrong, but he is not a war criminal.
From Hammer:
You won’t find too many biologists who agree with you either.
If you think Chomsky doesn’t know anything about sciences, think again.
He’s forgotten more about sciences than you’ll ever know.
He’s a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society.
In addition, he’s a recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award, the 1999 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and others.
He’s twice winner of The Orwell Award, granted by The National Council of Teachers of English for “Distinguished Contributions to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language” (in 1987 and 1989).
He’s a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Department of Social Sciences.
He’s is a member of the Faculty Advisory Board of the MIT Harvard Research Journal.
In 2005, Chomsky received an honorary fellowship from the Literary and Historical Society.
In 2007, Chomsky received The Uppsala University (Sweden) Honorary Doctor’s degree in commemoration of Carolus Linnaeus.
In February 2008, he received the President’s Medal from the Literary and Debating Society of the National University of Ireland, Galway.
Since 2009 he is honorary member of IAPTI.
In 2010, Chomsky received the Erich Fromm Prize in Stuttgart, Germany.
In April 2010, Chomsky became the third scholar to receive the University of Wisconsin’s A.E. Havens Center’s Award for Lifetime Contribution to Critical Scholarship.
Chomsky has an Erdős number of four.
Chomsky was voted the leading living public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll conducted by the British magazine Prospect.
In a list compiled by the magazine New Statesman in 2006, he was voted seventh in the list of “Heroes of our time”.
In June 2011, Chomsky was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize, which cited his “unfailing courage, critical analysis of power and promotion of human rights”.
If you think Chomsky doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to scientific subjects you better give your head a shake.
And a reply from me:
Point taken, Glau, although one must remember that it was men who thought much like Chomsky who created the worst mass-murdering states in human history. The U.S.S.R. was responsible for more deaths than ever the Nazis, and they were there with the tacit support of such men.
The Black Book of Communism estimates one million killed by the communist Vietnamese regime, and Chomsky was an ardent supporter of said regime. Perhaps his intentions are not to murder people, but that is the end result. Yet people like Hammer here do not seem to care that a man could be so spectacularly, immorally wrong and still advocate for the same.
END
FINAL NOTES FROM TIM:
No doubt Hammerhead here will keep this up until the last trump, and I have better things to do with my time than argue with a communist about endless committees and arrays of reports. I think the case has pretty well been closed. The facts do not support AGW theory. The criticisms of AGW supporters are leaky and based largely on a concensus they themselves have manufactured. They are the ones making money, and using money, with this. They are the true whores to those with power. Appeals to authority are the last acts of those who have lost an argument, and that is what they are reduced to doing. It's really quite pathetic.
So, why did I bother with tHis? Because trolls such as Hammer and Sickle should be thrashed occasionally. They go to websites to start trouble, and to try to trick those casual readers who haven't followed the topic all that well with talking points. They need to be challenged and called out. THEY do such things on their own websites; we have to deal with them occasionally. Fortunately, I am the man for that particular job.
At any rate, the days when the Left can say whatever they want and get away with it are over - and we need to make that abundantly clear to them!
Here is more of the argument at Second Hand Smoke.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/08/28/global-warming-hysteria-hurricane-irene-and-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-34107
This is part II in the series (and hopefully the last part). Part I can be viewed here http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/a_global_warming_debate
Harryhammer had this to say:
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
Timothy,
You managed to squeeze quite a bit of nonsense into a single comment.
It’s going to take more than just a few paragraphs on my part to address your multiple lines of baloney.
Your words:
“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.”
The six major investigations include:
• House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK).
• Independent Climate Change Review (UK).
• International Science Assessment Panel (UK).
• Pennsylvania State University (US).
• United States Environmental Protection Agency (US).
• Department of Commerce (US).
In response to the Climategate controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus, with the AAAS concluding “based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway…it is a growing threat to society.”
More of your baloney:
“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.”
The American Geophysical Union issued a statement that they found “it offensive that these emails were obtained by illegal cyber attacks and they are being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change.”
They reaffirmed their position statement on climate change “based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth’s climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor.
Nothing in the University of East Anglia hacked e-mails represents a significant challenge to that body of scientific evidence.”
Your words:
“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.”
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming:
• Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
• Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
• Bray and von Storch, 2008
• STATS, 2007
• Oreskes, 2004
• Bray and von Storch, 2003
On hide the decline:
The Office of Inspector General of the National Science Foundation closed an investigation about 2 weeks ago that exonerated Michael Mann of charges of scientific misconduct.
The report found that Mann had not falsified data, destroyed emails, misused privileged information, or seriously deviated from accepted scientific practices.
Reader Paul D. replies to Harryhammer:
@Harryhammer, I am surprised that you are defending “the hide the decline”. For starters, let’s make sure we understand what the issue is. Keith Briffa created a proxy reconstruction of temperatures prior to the existence of instrumental temperature record. . In a proxy reconstruction, quantities such as tree ring growth are thought to be correlated with temperature over time. By calibrating such proxies with actual temperatures during the period when we have an instrumental record, it is possible to estimate with the proxies the temperatures that occurred back in time before the instrumental record.
With Briffa’s temperature reconstruction, the proxies he used were reasonably correlated with the actual temperatures measured by thermometers up until about 1960. After 1960, however, that was an obvious divergence between the proxies, which went down, and the actual temperatures, which went up.
This is called “the divergence problem.” The divergence problem is acknowledged, but not resolved, in the professional literature. For most analysts, the seemingly unavoidable question would be –if tree rings didn’t respond to late 20th century warmth, how one would know whether they failed to respond to possible medieval warmth. In short, the divergence problem raises a basic question whether the quantities used as proxies for temperatures are valid proxies.
The issue discussed in the climate gate emails was how to deal with the divergence problem in the IPCC report for policy makers, who were relying upon the IPCC to summarize the scholarly literature. The solution discussed in the climate gate emails and adopted in the final IPCC report was truly “ingenious”. The IPCC report simply truncated Briffa’s proxy data at 1960 so as to “hide the decline” in the proxies. In other words, the IPCC report simply does not show the adverse data.
I really don’t care what all of your commissions think about this issue. One does not need to be a scientist to understand why what the IPCC did was misleading. The climategate emails make clear that the truncation of adverse data was intentional and designed to obscure the divergence problem.
Hammer: Do you defend this?
Harryhammer's reply to reader Paul
@pauld,
PaulD,
It wasn’t misleading at all.
I can see that it might seem misleading to someone who knows little or nothing about science.
For starters, the word “decline” refers to tree ring density, not global temperatures.
Senator James “Mountain Jim” Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin were acting as if the word “decline” was in reference to a decline in measured global temperatures even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.
(That wasn’t a cheap shot Mr. Smith)
Much of the uproar was over the use of the word “trick,” such as when Phil Jones wrote:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Deniers see this as some sort of conspiracy when in fact it is really is just a mathematical way of dealing with a problem (a mathematical “trick”) and reflects scientists interacting with each other.
You can Google it.
It’s used in science all the time.
The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context “trick” was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.
You should have watched the odd episode of Bill Nye the Science Guy when you were a kid instead of just the Flintstones.
He went head to head with one of your heroes.
Bill Nye and Patrick Michaels go head to head on CNN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffgj6Deni_Y
The most significant revelation to come from all those hacked emails is that we now know for sure that the most published and peer-reviewed climate change experts that exist think that Patrick Michaels is clueless.
Reader Paul D made the following comment:
August 31st, 2011 at 9:42 pm
@Harryhammer, Is that the best you can do? It is not clear to me whether you honestly do not understand the issue or whether you are beong intentionally obtuse.
What Palin et al say about the issue is a red herring. They do not properly describe it. The word “trick” is also a red herring. It was usedin the climategate emails in connection with a misleading graph of Michael Mann. It invol es an entirely different issue than Briffa’s “hide the decline” climateaudit.org describes carefully Mann’s “Nature trick” and Briffa’s “hide the decline.” The only similarity they share is that both were intended to mislead.
The essence of “hide the decline is a failure to disclose adverse data that woild cause a reasonable observer to question the validity of Briffa’s temperature proxies. Now to avoid talking past each other if you think hide the decline involved a different issue, please describe it.
Harryhammer's comment
Timothy,
More of your twisted words:
“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.”
No it doesn’t.
From the actual press briefing:
“We have found that natural rates of atmospheric ionisation caused by cosmic rays can substantially enhance nucleation under the conditions we studied – by up to a factor of 10.”
“Ion‐enhancement is particularly pronounced in the cool temperatures of the mid‐troposphere and above, where CLOUD has found that sulphuric acid and water vapour can nucleate without the need for additional vapours.”
“This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate.”
“However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.”
More of your hysterics:
“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.”
A more accurate version:
Wars for oil fundamentally reorder human civilization, killing millions in the process through starvation and deprivation as the industrialized nations throw away their wealth to make a handful of giant corporations rich at the expense of all others.
Apparently, it makes anxiety-ridden conservatives such as you feel good?
My comment:
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. These smears get really old. 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? http://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.
Harryhammer comment:
@Timothy Birdnow,
Timothy,
Fact:
Every scientific organization on the planet disagrees with you.
I’m betting on every scientific organization in the world, not James “Mountain Jim” Inhofe and friends.
I’m betting on the scientists who write the books that you’d have to study if you were ever to pursue and satisfactorily complete even a single course of study in geophysics.
I’m betting the scientific organization that publishes several scientific periodicals, including eighteen peer-reviewed research journals, most notably the Journal of Geophysical Research and Geophysical Research Letters.
I’m betting on the 58,287 scientists that belong to the AGU, some of which have I.Q.’s comparable to and even higher than that of an Albert Einstein or an Isaac Newton.
The AGU was established over 90 years ago, and for more than 50 years has operated as an unincorporated affiliate of the National Academy of Sciences.
These aren’t “NOBODIES.”
The National Academy of Sciences is like the Supreme Court of science; they are the best of the best when it comes to science, of an entire nation.
It should also ease your mind that the American Geophysical Union is a non-profit organization and inter-disciplinary.
Disseminating scientific information is what they do.
The subject of geophysics includes the shape of the Earth, its gravitational and magnetic fields, the dynamics of the Earth as a whole and of its component parts, the Earth’s internal structure, composition and tectonics, the generation of magmas, volcanism and rock formation, the hydrological cycle including snow and ice, all aspects of the oceans, the atmosphere, ionosphere, magnetosphere and solar-terrestrial relations, and analogous problems associated with the Moon and other planets.
Geophysics is also applied to societal needs, such as mineral resources, mitigation of natural hazards and environmental protection. Geophysical survey data are used to analyze potential petroleum reservoirs and mineral deposits, to locate groundwater, to locate archaeological finds, to find the thicknesses of glaciers and soils, and for environmental remediation.
As preconditions to becoming a Nominated AGU Fellow, an applicant must be considered exceptional by his peers, and he must also have previously made a brilliant scientific contribution to mankind.
The opinion of the American Geophysical Union is a hell of a lot more important than the opinion of any of your favourite deniers like James “Mountain Jim” Inhofe.
The AGU recently issued a position statement on climate change.
This is how it begins:
The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system–including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons–are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
Honestly, comparing any of the most vocal global warming deniers that exists to a Nominated AGU Fellow is kind of like comparing a kid working part time at Jiffy Lube to Michael Schumacher’s chief mechanic.
My reply:
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!
Timothy,
You’re doing exactly what you accused me of doing.
I don’t care if Noam Chomsky is left or right or purple.
I care about the fact that he has more awards and honours than you have teeth in your head.
I care about the fact that in 2005 he was voted the leading living intellectual and in 2006 was voted 7th on the list of heroes of our time.
I care about the fact that he has been teaching at M.I.T. for 55 years.
The soul of MIT is research.
For 150 years, the Institute has married teaching with engineering and scientific studies—and produced an unending stream of advancements, many of them world-changing.
On the list of faculty members and staff that are currently or have previously been associated with MIT you will find:
• 76 Nobel Laureates
• 50 National Medal of Science recipients
• 35 MacArthur Fellows.
Comment by reader Glau:
@Harryhammer, for all Dr. Chomsky’s academic credentials as a linguist and his experience as a political commentator, he isn’t an expert on climatology. (Of course, neither is any of us, Mr. Smith included.) So citing him is bordering on off-topic.
On the other hand, Harryhammer’s mention of scientific organizations and climatologists supporting climate change is relevant. Experts are not everything, but they are better than non-experts, all else being equal.
My reply to Harry:
Oh, and Harry, PaulD says it quite well. what do you think "hide the decline" meant? Why did it have to
be hidden? You yourself made the point that tree rings show something different than the temperature
record (which, as I have pointed out, is suspect). YOU HAVE ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION; the decline had to
be HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC. How was that accomplished? Through Mike's nature trick.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
From Anthony Watts;
"But there is an interesting twist here: grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually
the original “Mike’s Nature trick”! Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he
stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC
over here. (Note: Try not to click this link now, CA is overloaded. Can’t even get to it myself to mirror
it. -A)
When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the
instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending
1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one
needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a
smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards
— a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the
smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s
Nature trick”)."
End excerpt.
You seem incapable of actually looking at this yourself.
As to your many studies on concensus, please get in touch with reality. Oreskes was full of balogna, and
rebutted by Bennie Peiser (please note that Nature wouldn't run Peiser's piece, then rejected it when
parts leaked out, so it never received a real hearing.) Bray did little different, and was rebutted by
Dennis Avery. Here is a rebuttal of Doran and Zimmerman http://www.freerepublic.com/%
5Ehttp://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/
These studies all rely on the same techniques, which I have already outlined for you; ask if the scientist
thinks climate has changed (well, duh!) and if humans have anything to do with it (double duh - a dam
changes the climate in it's local region.) These studies are acts of climatological onanism.
The fact is, your concensus is a lot of hot air. At least you are presenting some solid facts; I feared
you were incapable of it.
As to your "independent reviews" perhaps you should read Ross McKittrick's demolishion of five of the six.
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf
These groups used the same technique, and naturally got the same results. They were never intended to do
anything but stop the bleeding. I find it less than compelling that you cite the Union of Concerned
Scientists or the notoriously alarmist AAAS and NAS. Nas, for instance, stands to lose a lot of government
money if this generation long War of the Worlds scare is ended.
And Frederick Seitz, past president of the NAS, was a staunch AGW skeptic. Oh, but he once received
coupons for money off on a carton of Pall Malls, so he doesn't count!
Again, these groups making grand statements do not mean squat; the facts on the ground are what matter.
And those facts are against AGW.
Interesting; you fail to read the quote that you yourself posted;
“We have found that natural rates of atmospheric ionisation caused by cosmic rays can substantially
enhance nucleation under the conditions we studied – by up to a factor of 10.”
“Ion‐enhancement is particularly pronounced in the cool temperatures of the mid‐troposphere and above,
where CLOUD has found that sulphuric acid and water vapour can nucleate without the need for additional
vapours.”
“This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate.”
End quote.
What does that mean? It seems pretty clear. Yes, there are weasle words in the end, because they don't
want to speak too baldly, but it supports Svensmark. This is catastropic to AGW theory. Even if a dearth of cosmic rays only contributes a quarter to the blistering 1* temperature rise, what does that say? How much does the many unknown or poorly understood mechanisms contribute? At what point do we dismiss this notion of 8* temperature rises based solely on computer simulations? This is growing thin indeed.
Despite confident assumptions by the IPCC to the contrary, there is considerable uncertainty as to the amount of contribution that solar variability plays. http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf The IPCC would disagree, but then they also falsely reported that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035, so what do they know? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/himalayan-glaciers-melt-claims-false-ipcc Meele et. al. showed that small changes in total solar irradience can be amplified by stratospheric and oceanic conditions. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827141349.htm
The effects of solar magnetic effects are also open for debate. Also, the amount of variation of the solar spectrum is likewise open for debate. What is obvious is that there are significant factors that are not taken into account by the IPCC and other alarmist models.
How far can we subdivide the causes of this warming before CO2 is considered statistically insignificant? Remember; it works logarithmically. A doubling of CO2 only gives us half again as much warming, until it peters out at about 2*. After that, feedbacks are critical. We see no evidence of positive feedbacks.
And about those wars for oil; it really surprises me because since WWII (a war not for oil) we have had Korea, the Berlin Airlift, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan. Who would have guessed that oil was such a critical reason for going into any of these places! We did Iraq twice; remind me of how much oil we took from there again, please. And Your hero Obama has taken us into Libya; doesn't seem to be dropping oil prices too much.
The reality is that oil is going to be with us for the forseeable future, and efforts to end drilling will see oil replaced with coal or natural gas. What we aren't going to see is a reduction in greenhouse gases; electricity to run cars and the like has to be made from fossil fuels. If you think solar and wind will do the job I still have that bridge for you, and it's cheap! You can always use a second bridge...
But the economic downturn caused by draconian regulations of fossil fuels will certainly cause a worldwide economic slowdown (in fact, it's part of the current economic mess) and the poor will suffer worldwide as a result. It's already happening with the spike in food prices as a result of turning corn into the environmentally approved ethanol. And you guys hate nuclear, too.
Noam Chomsky once observed;
"Walter Lippmann ... described what he called “the manufacture of consent” as “a revolution” in “the practice of democracy”... And he said this was useful and necessary because “the common interests” - the general concerns of all people - “elude” the public. The public just isn't up to dealing with them. And they have to be the domain of what he called a "specialized class" ... [Reinhold Niebuhr]'s view was that rationality belongs to the cool observer. But because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith. And this naive faith requires necessary illusion, and emotionally potent oversimplifications, which are provided by the myth-maker to keep the ordinary person on course. It's not the case, as the naive might think, that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy. Rather, as this whole line of thinkers observes, it is the essence of democracy."
End quote.
Chomsky is a communist who wants to fundamentally change human civilization. He is not a climatologist. Using Chomsky as a reference would be like using Heinrich Himmler to discourse on biology.
From reader Glau:
@Timothy Birdnow, By equating an academic whose views you oppose with someone who oversaw the murder of millions, you trivialize Himmler’s crimes against humanity and inflame the discussion.
Perhaps Chomsky is wrong, even dangerously wrong, but he is not a war criminal.
From Hammer:
You won’t find too many biologists who agree with you either.
If you think Chomsky doesn’t know anything about sciences, think again.
He’s forgotten more about sciences than you’ll ever know.
He’s a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society.
In addition, he’s a recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award, the 1999 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and others.
He’s twice winner of The Orwell Award, granted by The National Council of Teachers of English for “Distinguished Contributions to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language” (in 1987 and 1989).
He’s a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Department of Social Sciences.
He’s is a member of the Faculty Advisory Board of the MIT Harvard Research Journal.
In 2005, Chomsky received an honorary fellowship from the Literary and Historical Society.
In 2007, Chomsky received The Uppsala University (Sweden) Honorary Doctor’s degree in commemoration of Carolus Linnaeus.
In February 2008, he received the President’s Medal from the Literary and Debating Society of the National University of Ireland, Galway.
Since 2009 he is honorary member of IAPTI.
In 2010, Chomsky received the Erich Fromm Prize in Stuttgart, Germany.
In April 2010, Chomsky became the third scholar to receive the University of Wisconsin’s A.E. Havens Center’s Award for Lifetime Contribution to Critical Scholarship.
Chomsky has an Erdős number of four.
Chomsky was voted the leading living public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll conducted by the British magazine Prospect.
In a list compiled by the magazine New Statesman in 2006, he was voted seventh in the list of “Heroes of our time”.
In June 2011, Chomsky was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize, which cited his “unfailing courage, critical analysis of power and promotion of human rights”.
If you think Chomsky doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to scientific subjects you better give your head a shake.
And a reply from me:
Point taken, Glau, although one must remember that it was men who thought much like Chomsky who created the worst mass-murdering states in human history. The U.S.S.R. was responsible for more deaths than ever the Nazis, and they were there with the tacit support of such men.
The Black Book of Communism estimates one million killed by the communist Vietnamese regime, and Chomsky was an ardent supporter of said regime. Perhaps his intentions are not to murder people, but that is the end result. Yet people like Hammer here do not seem to care that a man could be so spectacularly, immorally wrong and still advocate for the same.
END
FINAL NOTES FROM TIM:
No doubt Hammerhead here will keep this up until the last trump, and I have better things to do with my time than argue with a communist about endless committees and arrays of reports. I think the case has pretty well been closed. The facts do not support AGW theory. The criticisms of AGW supporters are leaky and based largely on a concensus they themselves have manufactured. They are the ones making money, and using money, with this. They are the true whores to those with power. Appeals to authority are the last acts of those who have lost an argument, and that is what they are reduced to doing. It's really quite pathetic.
So, why did I bother with tHis? Because trolls such as Hammer and Sickle should be thrashed occasionally. They go to websites to start trouble, and to try to trick those casual readers who haven't followed the topic all that well with talking points. They need to be challenged and called out. THEY do such things on their own websites; we have to deal with them occasionally. Fortunately, I am the man for that particular job.
At any rate, the days when the Left can say whatever they want and get away with it are over - and we need to make that abundantly clear to them!
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home