Green Affected Silencing global warming critics
|
August 26 2010
The Warmists are at it again, attempting to manipulate media coverage of global warming, in a manner reminiscent of JournoList members attempting to downplay troublesome Obama stories in the 2008 election. The is not the first time for such media manipulation, either.
Now, a reader tip at Anthony Watt's popular blog site seems to indicate the Union of Concerned Scientists has set up, instead of a network to coordinate talking points, a media alert request page that could end up being an intimidation system against certain journalists. At the UCS web site, we are instructed to "Monitor the print and broadcast media outlets in your area and alert us to misrepresentations about global warming". Considering the multi-tens-of-thousands of people reading Watts's blogs, I think his followers are likely to crash the UCS email system with alerts about overblown reports of man-caused global warming. Following the article, one hilarious comment by Accu-Weather's Joe Bastardi suggests a counter-group called "The Union of VERY concerned scientists."
Trouble is, this isn't exactly the first time UCS has set up an alert system. Back in 1997, as seen at this web page copy (save your own copy in case this one gets scrubbed) their Sound Science Initiative had out-flowing alerts and directives with talking points, in this case to thwart the efforts of the Oregon Petition Project:
"This message from the Union of Concerned Scientists is to caution you about a petition effort to reject the Kyoto Protocol that is circulating throughout colleges, universities, and research institutions nationwide.... The Petition Project is apparently a deliberate attempt by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the Marshall Institute - identified as the article authors' affiliations - to deceive the scientific community with misinformation on the subject of climate change. The Project's conclusions reflect the authors' political ideology, not objective peer-reviewed science. If this petition is circulating in your department, please consider urging your colleagues NOT to sign it."
The page continues with some various directives. Among them:
ACTION: Monitor your local newspaper for coverage of the Petition Project's release, and write a letter-to-the-editor (LTE) in response, if you see a story.
MAIN MESSAGE: Contrary to the petition's misleading claims, there is an [sic] strong consensus in the world's scientific community that the threat of global warming is very real and action is needed immediately.
DEADLINE: Monitor your paper this week and send your LTE within two days of the story's appearance.
Perhaps most entertaining of all much further down the page is the "letter...submitted to the Wall Street Journal in December 1997 (but not published)", written by Thomas Karl (famous for his doctor problems), Kevin Trenberth (famous for hurricane harbinger problems) and James Hansen (famous for civil disobedience, among other things)", which was "endorsed and circulated" by such current luminaries as Obama's current NOAA Director Jane Lubchenco, and Science Czar John Holdren.
In all this effort, has the UCS ever actually engaged the skeptic scientists in head-to-head debate on the underlying science of man-caused global warming, and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt how they prevail? In all the UCS' reliance on Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets.org for its accusations that big oil & coal corrupts the skeptics, have they ever shown smoking gun evidence such as "...according to Oil Company document ‘X' dated ‘Y' going to ‘Z' accompanied with the instruction to fabricate ‘AB' science document having ‘CD' conclusion about natural global warming..."?
For some incredibly odd reason, the suicidal idea that a small group of people can manipulate the news and suppress criticism prevails, as opposed to a more logical approach where debate is won though the presentation of incontrovertible evidence.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work. Emails not shown.
Use your Gravatar username and email address to show your custom avatar. Want your own avatar? Sign up here.
If you post an image, please upload to a photo-sharing service like ImageShack or TinyPic and use the link they provide you. Do NOT link directly to the photo's source unless you have permission.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to Admin' link. If you find your post gone, it is because you violated the TOS above or it was in reply to a deleted comment.
Comments
And CCF wonders why it and denialist blogs aren't taken seriously.
And this is the best possible defense you can come up with? What I find so baffling about this entire issue is the continual suicidal attempt to put all the AGW eggs in the one basket that says "don't listen to the skeptic side, they're all corrupt, ignorant, politically driven, etc". When you are unable to prove the corruption, ignorance, and political ideology, what is your fallback position?
It's equally surprising to me that the AGW side isn't more furious with their chief spokespeople, Al Gore and IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, for not openly welcoming the opportunity to destroy the skeptics' science conclusions and assessments with irrefutable rebuttal, and then proving to all the world with undeniable proof how big coal & oil directed skeptic scientists to fabricate specific papers with errors so egregious, it's child's play to point them out. In... that... order. Surely such opportunities is something they would embrace, not run away from, as our friend James Cameron did just recently. What fun it would be to watch them shame the skeptics into quivering masses of embarrassment. So why isn't the AGW crowd calling for this?
Why the AGW side chooses a backwards, utterly unconvincing guilt-by-association approach is beyond me to understand. It's no wonder the AGW side is losing the American public more and more every day, and losing AGW believer scientists who are now discovering the myriad faults in not only the IPCC, but also the presentation of the issue by the mainstream media.
Tell us.
I think you mean "losing" argument. Loose is what's happening to the marbles and grasp on reality in Derecho64's roomy skull. :)
All the best.... Jeff
You set yourself up for inevitable failure when you take a backwards approach. Why not try the other way? Do you not have any proof to help you take that approach?
I offer you a defense that would silence skeptics for all time, the suggestion that your leaders need to prove skeptic scientists wrong with incontrovertible evidence of their faulty conclusions and assessments, and proof of their corruption in a public forum that leaves no doubt of who's right and who's wrong. Why would you not embrace such a defense?
The science underpinning anthropogenic climate change hasn't been fundamentally altered in any way - no matter how many emails get stolen, no matter how many right-wing op/eds get written, no matter how many lousy denier papers get into E&E...
Deniers are driven by an agenda that has nothing to do with science, but rather by a dogmatic attachment to a bizarre form of economics, a paranoia regarding the proper roles of government, and a displaced slushy hatred of reason, fact, logic, and evidence.
Add in a healthy leavening of talk-radio and Faux News blowhards, corporate-sponsored think tanks and unethical "scientists", a concerted FUD campaign, and a media obsessed with creating "conflict" where there really isn't one, and we end up with this bogus nonsense called "denialism".
Are you able to provide any proof whatsoever that 'corporate-sponsored think tanks' have any control over what is said by skeptic scientists, and any proof of what is 'unethical' about those scientists? When a supposedly 'corporate-sponsored think tank' reprints a peer-reviewed, science-journal published paper that predates its existence, what happens to your argument about corporate influence? Do you have to go back to square one and disprove the paper's conclusion now?
And on your last two points, which happen to be talking points gathered from Ross Gelbspan's 1997 The Heat is On book, would you care to explain the contradiction you see in the media's 'obsession of creating conflict where there isn't one' compared to the sheer lack of balance I pointed out at just one news outlet in my 7/29 article "The Left and Its Talking Points" ( www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/the_left_and_its_talking_point.html ). Are you fundamentally unaware that skeptic scientists do not deny the existence of global warming, but are simply skeptical that human-induced CO2 is driving the situation? Do you use the Gelbspan talking point "denier" because it is so easily equated with "Holocaust Denier"?
Speaking of Gelbspan, assuming you hold his work in great regard, are you aware the so-called 'smoking gun' coal industry PR memo he supposedly discovered that everyone says is irrefutable proof of skeptic scientists' corruption, is one that has never been seen in its full context in any of the sites praising it, including his own? What is your explanation for that, and doesn't that fact prompt questions about why it was never shown?
Can you explain why no other investigative book author has never come to the same independently researched conclusion about corruption of skeptic scientists? Why do they consistently point back to Gelbspan as their source of information, and why does he never say where he got the memo from?
The other day, Pat Michaels (one of the deniers' darlings) confessed that he got ~40% of his funding from the oil industry. There's your corruption right there.
I use "denier" because the denialists deny reality - that CO2 is increasing, we are causing that increase, and that the climate is changing because of that. Only a handful of hardcore ideologues, driven by an anti-science, anti-reason, anti-fact agenda, dispute that. Some of them post regularly here.
I don't rely on Gelbspan for any of my views - I've not read his book. My views come from years of studying the science.
You wrote earlier of the my approach being backwards - what's truly backwards is the tack taken by the denialists. Between their anti-government, anti-reason, paranoiac and odd opinions about economics, they oppose any effective policies to address manmade climate change. They then take that opposition and push it backwards onto the science. They hate the potential policies, so they attack the science and smear the scientists.
Singer and Idso aren't credible. The same credibility-damaged handful of "scientists" keep popping up to prop up the denialist dogma. Explain.
Overall, the denialist campaign has nothing to do with the science - it's driven by reasons that have nothing to do with science.
2. Not even good enough, guilt-by-association proves nothing as I pointed out before. Prove the existence of specific directives by oil / coal industry execs to fabricate false conclusions or assessments, and you prove the corruption. Try presenting as superficial 'evidence' as you've done in a court of law and a cross examiner would wipe out your argument in a heartbeat. Did you notice how Fareed Zakaria did not ask the two other panelist about their funding or advocacy? www.cato.org/mediahighlights/index.php?highlight_id=1424
3. Skeptics do not deny CO2 is increasing, they are skeptical humans are the main drivers of. When science reports suggest other causes, how could it be said they deny it, if the contradictions simply cause them to be skeptical about one source for the increase?
4. Where in your studies of science is there evidence of oil corruption of skeptics? If you didn't read Gelbspan's book, where did you get the idea the media gives too much fair balance to skeptics, other publications or web sites? Where did they get the idea from? Follow the evidence, it may surprise the daylights out of you.
5. Where is there evidence of all these characteristics among skeptic scientists. What odd opinions about economics does, for example, does Willie Soon hold? Are AGW scientists free of such characteristics?
6. Two words: Prove it. Or direct us to those who say they aren't credible, and show their proof. Who are the other 'credibility-damaged handful of "scientists"'? "Handful of scientists" is from the cover of Naomi Oreskes latest book. Her accusations against skeptic scientists come from her infamous 2007 powerpoint presentation that was all over the internet. She cited the Ross Gelbspan coal industry memos, which she herself did not show in their full context. As for Michaels "popping up", when was his last appearance on a mainstream media nationwide broadcast that everyone could see? How about Fred Singer? If you can't show much frequency, what happens to your argument?
You seem to be stuck on Gelbspan. Why?
Have you taken a look at "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming" by Hoggan and Littlemore? They present compelling evidence that front groups for various corporate and industrial interests are behind the attacks on the science and the scientists.
Explain this:
www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/IREA-memo.pdf
Michaels was on CNN very recently:
thinkprogress.org/2010/08/16/oil-fueled-pat-michaels
Again, the real science is in the journals, not Gore or Pachauri's news bites. Anytime Gore is mentioned by denialists, that's a big ol' alarm that they've run out of arguments.
My nominee for climate hypocrite of the year is, strangely enough, not Al Gore.
Instead Canadian PR man James Hoggan of DeSmogBlog takes line honours.
This man has just published a new book, favourably reviewed by the sycophants at Hot Topic.
I'm not holding that against him. What irks me is this – his book (and his blogsite) allege climate skeptics are in the pay or control of big oil. The possibility of genuinely held belief based on genuine science appears to have escaped him. Hoggan is the master of this conspiracy theory.
"Unfortunately, a well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign is poisoning the climate change debate. Using tricks and stunts that unsavory PR firms invented for the tobacco lobby, energy-industry contrarians are trying to confuse the public, to forestall individual and political actions that might cut into exorbitant coal, oil and gas industry profits. DeSmogBlog is here to cry foul - to shine the light on techniques and tactics that reflect badly on the PR industry and are, ultimately, bad for the planet."
This would be the same James Hoggan, PR man, who got paid $300,000 to set up a website attacking critics of global warming. That's right, DeSmogBlog is bought and paid for, and the irony is that its founding donor John Lefebvre, although a greenie, is now a convicted criminal done on money-laundering conspiracy charges. His company reportedly was also dabbling in carbon trading allowances as an offshoot from its online gambling business.
One wonders what Hoggan needed $300,000 for. The fee for a blogsite is around $10 a month. The only other investment is your time.
Hoggan's client list, meanwhile, reads like a who's-who of alternative energy, as Canada's Financial Post noted:
"There has been no mention on the blog, nor on The Fifth Estate, of James Hoggan's client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science."
Expressed another way, PR hack Jim Hoggan's DeSmogBlog is a godsend for Hoggan's paying PR clients, spinning everything that could help them get a financial edge in the new carbon emissions markets.
Interestingly, the DeSmogBlog founder also has Air New Zealand as a client, which may explain that airline's mad rush to fly its jets on mung beans and lentil emissions.
Hoggan throws down the gauntlet in his new book urging people to check sourcewatch for the dodgy connections of various players:
"Whatever you do, you must keep a wary eye. By all means, read the sites that deny the reality of climate change. But then check on www.sourcewatch.org to see who paid for those opinions. Read the DeSmogBlog. Don't accept the word of people who pass themselves off as "skeptics."
And yet. And yet. When you go to sourcewatch, strangely there is no mention of James Hoggan's alternative energy clients or that pesky $300,000 payment to fund his website from felon John Lefebvre.
To be cont'd...
"So who's who at DeSmogBlog? Apart from paid shill James Hoggan, there's former Boston Globe editor Ross Gelbspan who I pinged in Air Con. Gelbspan wants the UN given the power to tax all international currency transactions (anything you buy and sell from overseas):
"I think we need to use a tax on international currency transactions to finance the transfer of climate-friendly technologies to the developing world…the currency transaction tax was conceived by Dr James Tobin."
The UN, as noted in Air Con, estimates it could earn US$1.5 trillion a year from imposing the Tobin Tax on everyone.
Gelbspan apparently doesn't believe in free speech, either, or balance. He only wants you to hear his (and DeSmogBlog's) point of view:
"[Journalists] have a responsibility not to report what [skeptical] scientists say!"
Then there's Kevin Grandia, Hoggan's right-hand man at DeSmogBlog, and we know he doesn't have an agenda, right?
"Kevin Grandia has been trained by Al Gore as part of The Climate Project, an initiative designed to educate the public about climate change."
And get this, as an employee of the Hoggan Public Relations firm, Grandia should know how to manipulate the poor simple fools who read DeSmogBlog and believe it, because he is a trained psychologist.
Who else is DeSmogBlog in bed with? Greenpeace and the Rainforest Action Network, and Hoggan sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation, a radical environmental group.
Hoggan donated money to the British Columbia Liberal Party, and also happened to receive lucrative BC government contracts.
The B.C. Liberal Party received six donations totaling $8,943 from James Hoggan and Associates from 2005 to 2008. Hoggan's company was paid $353,855 by the B.C. government from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, according to Public Accounts. Contracts included the Sea-to-Sky Highway expansion project and Canada Line.
Let's turn now to RealClimate, spiritual home of global warming belief because of its association with climate scientists Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann. Turns out RealClimate is being financially supported with its website provided by a company called Environmental Media Services, who are in turn a front for another PR company, Fenton, and also intricately hooked up to The Tides Foundation.
Readers of Air Con will know that the Tides Foundation is funded by drug liberalization billionaire and convicted crook George Soros, thus proving the point I made in Air Con about the little publicized PR network funding various Chicken Little bloggers. RealClimate's launch was handled by Fenton and EMS, although RealClimate denies any major funding or influence, Still, as Hot Topic's Gareth Renowden has said, "with friends like these…"
We're sitting here at Investigate magazine on video news footage from one of the agencies we are affiliated to, and a story about how 90 "opinion-setting" climate bloggers were brought on an all-expenses paid junket to Copenhagen so they could learn how to spin climate change on the internet and "save the planet" ahead of the conference proper next month.
To be cont'd...
"[23-Sep-2009] Ahead of COP15, the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December, 92 young climate bloggers from all over the world visited Denmark to get a perspective on the climate related efforts in the country. Bloggers from 40 countries visited, among other things the eco village of "Dyssekilde" in the north of Sealand. The future climate journalists are building up impressions for a web-debate leading up to the summit. Available material includes soundbites from the young bloggers..."
Who paid for it? Well, you'll read and see more on that in due course. There is also a plan to further indoctrinate youth leaders on global warming belief:
The contribution from the Netherlands enables 50 youthful delegates from developing countries to attend the Copenhagen climate summit in mid December. Ten children from what are known as the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) will head to Copenhagen. Rising sea levels directly threaten the very existence of these countries, including Fiji and Haiti. Five children from the developing countries will participate in the Children's Climate Forum. In addition, 25 young reporters from developing countries will have a workshop on climate change issues.
So next time Soros' paid minions at global warming websites take a poke a skeptics, remember that they are hypocrites funded or helped by cynical PR companies and UN agencies to brainwash the public and further the positions of "green" companies who, like Al Gore, stand to make (collectively) trillions of dollars if carbon trading becomes compulsory.
This is not about the fact that oil companies have funded some groups fighting carbon emissions. For what it's worth, those same oil companies have often funded the alarmists as well. Nonetheless, the issue is well known. But there is next to no coverage of the much bigger funding to global warming belief sites, so the purpose of this post is to shine a little light in those corners.
Hot Topic relies heavily on RealClimate, DeSmogBlog, Climate Progress (Soros-funded) and other tainted websites for its spin. Remember that.
And remember this: The Briefing Room, Howling At The Moon etc have not been paid a cent to write an opinion, article or book on climate change. Nor have the leading skeptic sites WattsUpWithThat or ClimateAudit.
It's a matter of trust, at the end of the day.
Ooopsy!
briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/look-whos-paying-global-warmings-top-bloggers.html
What a sucker!
Great sources D!
I bring up Gelbspan because AGW believers are stuck on Gelbspan, whether they know it or not. James Hoggan's DeSmogBlog has provided a blog to Gelbspan for all but 8 months of their existence. The Hoggan/Littlemore book cites Naomi Oreskes' 2007 powerpoint presentation as the source for the "smoking gun" coal industry memo that supposedly proves coal/oil corruption of skeptic scientists. Oreskes, as I pointed out before, cites Gelbspan. She also repeated the same tobacco accusation. See a pattern there yet?
In case you didn't notice, the IREA memo is from the Hoggan/Gelbspan DeSmogBlog site, and in case you didn't actually read the memo, it points out all the contradictions between skeptics and the IPCC. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to prove how the IREA prompted the people cited in the report to fabricate false conclusions. Fail to do so, and your accusation has no merit.
Yes, Michaels was on CNN recently, and apparently you didn't notice you provided a link to the same show segment as I did. My question was, when was his last appearance -- meaning prior to the Aug 16 CNN program -- on a mainstream media nationwide broadcast that everyone could see? Poor wording on my part, I admit. And I repeat my others: How about Fred Singer? If you can't show much frequency, what happens to your argument?
Again, if the real science is in the journals, not Gore or Pachauri's news bites, where are the papers I asked about that disprove skeptics' papers within their own, and are you not frustrated that Gore or Pachauri make no effort whatsoever to publicize such so-called victories in the journals? Wouldn't it be invaluable if they both brought out the news of that?
Not gonna happen.
Indeed, one can discuss the science with no reference to either of the two of them - and mentioning them is *de facto* evidence that the discussant is more interesting in smearing and making the debate personal. Those things are not science.
Overall, the denialists have to focus on the personalities, because the science doesn't support their arguments. They have to attack Gore/Pachauri/etc. because that's about all they can do.
I'm giving you invaluable advice on a silver platter - don't stop short with guilt-by-association accusations or nebulous claims the science journals prove skeptics wrong. Get proof showing oil/coal execs caused fabricated conclusions and assessments, line up all those papers debunking skeptics' papers, write an in-depth article about it and submit it here and everywhere else. You'll be a hero for your efforts.
Drop in here with a quip about "an op/ed piece from a very hard-right rag" while being utterly unable to prove from the start whether I have a right-wing ideology or even what (if any) political affiliation I have, and you've dug a hole for yourself that's hard to get out of. You only dig the hole deeper when you don't back up your claims.
And with that, we've come full circle to my first question, when you are unable to prove corruption, ignorance, political ideology, etc, what is your fallback position? The answer is obviously, we all will have to compare the IPCC reports to the skeptics' reports, as in the NIPCC and any others. If you are certain the IPCC side will prevail, then you should have no fear of embracing this comparison. The continuous effort to silence or otherwise diminish skeptics and all associated with them only undermines the AGW side, and erodes public confidence in the claims that we need to stop global warming.
I recommend reading the IPCC AR4 and the other periodic assessments of the science that have been published since then. Then dig into the papers that go into these assessments. Those papers are where the science is at, not in what Gore or Pachauri say. Relentlessly focusing on those two shows that you're not serious about the science.
About all the denialists have is *ad hominem* and guilt-by-association; the climate scientists have science on their side. Sure, Enquirer-style "exposes" about climate scientists and political score-settling make for dramatic "journalism", but that's just laziness and going for the tawdry to generate publicity.
As part of the journalism community, Mr Cook, it behooves you to report the facts, not engage in smear campaigns. I recommend you get your house cleaned up.
I'm from a bluer than blue state, would classify myself a liberal independent, and I still find the AGW theory a crock of unappetizing spumoni. To not find the AGW theory convincing crosses all ideological lines, so statements like yours only furthers the deleterious effects to one's mind of useless, denigrating remarks.
I'm happy to opine that I think the Dems are going the way of the dodo this election. I truly want our politicians to succeed when it's in the people's best interests, but the Dems have lost all touch with the working class. I hope when the Repubs regain power they learn from the Dems' mistakes and govern our country with us in mind, not some idealized socialist country.
With so many seats up for grabs, it'll be interesting to see if we Americans can shake up the status quo. We desperately need to get out of this recession and right now our fearless leaders are doing anything but leading. We just have to stop following and demand more.
Not for quite a few decades, certainly.
I remember seeing "truth squads" formed by political police unions that threatened to prosecute any "misinformers" who spread "lies" about Obama before the last election. The left is infamous for facism. Shout down dissent and smear those who speak in oppostion.
When your ideas cannot compete in the open market, control the market.
I would have to guess from D's last comment that he is either a Democrat or Progressive, they are the only parties that regularly smear conservatives. I myself am a Libertarian and proudly independent of both major parties! No dogma here.
It's disappointing to see so many libertarians abandon reason when it comes to climate change. Their ideological blinders and attachment to "free" markets keeps them from realizing that climate change is one of the things that show that libertarianism doesn't work in the real world. I'll let you think about that and come up with a response.
From the Libertarian party preamble...
"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.
These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands."
Now, from Webster's...
"dog·mat·ic /dɔgˈmætɪk, dɒg-/ Show Spelled[dawg-mat-ik, dog-] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas; doctrinal.
2. asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.
You are nothing but a contrarian, like a child, as I have previously observed. You cannot face facts and truth, only the dogma you preach (see above).
Now go hide your empty skull in shame!
How do capitalism dogmatists explain how markets deal with negative externalities that aren't confined to a specific piece of property and the effects of which extend across decades or centuries?
Perhaps you can give it a shot.
"Libertarians are some of the most dogmatic folks there are..."
What an absolute fool you are!
I'm quite familiar with the ideology. Some nice aspects, some truly whacky ideas.
That said, libertarians' impractical obsession with laissez-faire leaves them unable to intellectually assess the problem of climate change, and you've proven that with your *ad hominem* silliness.
LIAR!
Explain.
More like a masturbatory troll amused by the fact he can type with one hand while the other is preoccupied.
Sheesh.
All this time and you never caught on... thanks you've been my biggest catch...
All the best.... Jeff
PS... All that and the catch wasn't even a Loudmouth Bass... turned out it was a Sucker!!!
Explain what's wrong with the stats - if you can. Otherwise you're just another CCF loser (but I repeat myself).
PS - It's OK to be scared by math. Just don't pretend you're not.
A derecho (from Spanish: "derecho" meaning "straight") is a widespread and long-lived, violent convectively induced straight-line windstorm that is associated with a fast-moving band of severe thunderstorms in the form of a squall line usually taking the form of a bow echo. Derechos blow in the direction of movement of their associated storms..."
He's just a straightup blowhard for his movement!
All the best..... Jeff
Well that's great coming from you, I have never insulted you but you done plenty towards me.
Anyway, just think on this, if there is one thing that makes ol' Joker happy, it is the fact that I am annoying you and people like you.
I'm gonna enjoy lots of Imported Beer this weekend, had a few last night in fact.
Hope the blood vessels are standinn' out on yer neck in rage.
Hee Hee Hee
I spent a few holidays in Scotland, and I've travelled extensively in Scandinavia, and when I was in the States I visited the Grand Canyon.
They all have one thing in common, they were originally formed by glaciers millions of years ago and for countless centuries were filled with water, especially the Grand Canyon, so what caused the warming that led to their dissappearance.
Fred Flintsone and Barney Rubble must have been drivin around in their 55' Chevvies an awfull lot in them there prehistoric times.
The blood must be shootin' outta your ears by now Derecho64.
Oh ho ho ho ho
In any case, that climate has changed over the geologic past does not mean that climate cannot be changing because of us today.
A defense attorney for an arsonist wouldn't get very far by pointing out that since lightning causes fires too, his client is innocent.
Well while you guys were feeling exonerated, as well as yourselves, the rest of us looked on in horror and donated what we could.
Cheers.
Off for some IMPORTED CARBON FOOTPRINT type Chekoslovakian Budvar.
Bee back sometime on Monday after a swell weekend of Drinkin and listenin to music.
Keep a smilin
I too am about to "drop out" for the weekend. My tiny lords and masters (hummingbirds) are probably rioting back at the ranch waiting for their feeders to be filled. It is going to be a beautiful weekend, lows in the 50's!
Are you actually able to point to something that really does support the A in AGW?
So far all you have provided, to my recolection, is an appeal to authority, the fact that there was some warming in the last 20 years of the last century and an old bit of physics that shows that CO2 can cause a very small bit or warming to a point.
Not a bit of that supports the theory that Global Warming was caused by the tiny little bit of CO2 that man has released.
So ...... is there something that you are holding back?
Would love to see it.
Start with Fourier. Then look into Arrhenius and Callendar. Increasing CO2 causing increasing warming is an idea that's over a century old.
Also look into the isotopic composition of the carbon in CO2. The evidence is clear - we've increased CO2 by 40% or so in the last ~150 years, and the indisputable fact is that the climate is changing as a result.
Clearly CO2 has increased and a little of that was man made.
Also it is clear that CO2 has a small warming effect.
It is also that CO2 looses it capacity to induce additional warming exponentially as the density increases.
It is also clear that CO2's capacity to add warming is maxed out.
Alos clear that Watervapor is a far more important GHG.
you might want to revies a late breaking peer reviewed study showing that historical CO2 levels showed not causal effect on temperature.
In fact it has always be temperature increases that drive CO2 levels higher.
So once again you have not shown anything that supports your mythical claim.
Care to try again?
Actually D64 ... It is very disputable.
Clearly CO2 has increased and a little of that was man made.
Also it is clear that CO2 has a small warming effect.
It is also clear that CO2 looses its capacity to induce additional warming exponentially as its density increases.
It is also clear that CO2's capacity to add warming is nearly maxed out.
Also clear that Water vapor is a far more important GHG.
You might want to review a late breaking peer reviewed study showing that historical CO2 levels showed no causal effect on temperature.
In fact it has always been temperature increases that drive CO2 levels higher.
So once again you have not shown anything that supports your mythical claim.
Care to try again?
www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
and
www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/RamAmbio.pdf
Again, water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.
The interplay between CO2 and temperature isn't simple cause-and-effect, BTW. That's another strawman by the denialists.
You really need to read what people say.
the reason I said "Nearly saturated" is because the warming effect will always increase with CO2 density.
It simply increased exponentially less with each doubling.
IE: A doubling from 180 to 360 ppm will have a measurable effect. A doubling form 360 to 720 will have a Statistically computable but nearly unmeasurable effect.
A doubling form 720 to 1440 will have an agruable effect but completely unmeasurable.
Your link does not dispute those FACTS.
The second link is about Climate sensitivity.
Now that is the real issue.
Climate was once thought to be very sensitive and that is why we have the fear mongering pseudo science of AGW.
This is really what the real debate is about.
The AGW side makes huge assumptions and exptrpolates to "the sky is falling"
The actual science is showing that those assumptions were unwarrented and very like 180 degrees from reality.
Climate sensitivity is turning out to be very low.
I would link, but you would not believe any "Peer Reviewed" paper that did not support your preconceived notions so there is no point.
Likewise, if you want to claim all climate changes are driven primarily by solar activity, then you need climate sensitivity to be very high.
Deniers contradict themselves with their own arguments!
"Increasing CO2 causing increasing warming is an idea that's over a century old."
So is Creatonism.
So what?
Being an old idea does not make it a credible idea.
However, It is clear that CO2 does cause a small amount of warming. Less and less as it increases to be sure, but some in any event.
So what? The Whole AGW myth is based on Assumed Feedbacks.
Without the Feedback Assumptions, the theory is junk science.
Therein lies the problem.
The assumptions have no valid support. They are just assumptions.
There is now a lot of good peer reviewed (for what that is worth) research showing that the Water Vapor and Cloud feed backs could be neutral and possible even negative.
Sorry but that is the bottom line on the Theory.
Until those assumptions can be substantiated, the theory is just a wild guess promoted by an industry and political movements that stands to gain unthinkable money and power.
Still nothing convincing D64,
Again????
www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
Now i'm reading this.
www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf
And this. Quote: geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!592.entry
I'm not impressed by arguments that start off with such a huge mistake.
That there is such Uncertainty in the Climate Sensitivity figures suggests there are one or more effects not yet accounted for.
Quote: www.drroyspencer.com/
I am guessing you define credible the same way most alatmist lefties do.
If they agree with you they are credible.
Is that about right?
Credibility is defined by adherence to reality. Spencer has something of a history of being intellectually dishonest in his scientific work, i.e., he has an agenda that informs how he does his science. I've read some early commentary on this paper that indicates that Spencer is doing the same thing.
However, it's early, and folks who are much more expert on the subject of feedbacks will have plenty to say about the paper, I'm sure.
Actually D64; You are completely wrong on both of those statements.
Models ARE the only backing for the Myth and Models most certainly do have sensitivity factors built in.
They simply don't have a single figure called sensivity. They instead encorporate the assumptions that generate sensitivity.
Without the sensitivity factors, the models would not show anything scarry at all.
Thus they could not be used to drive the Hoax.
If the models are the "only" backing, how do you explain all the observational evidence? Coincidence?
Most of the 0.66 degrees of warming occurred prior to World War II. The planet then cooled down during a period of high fuel use in the 1960's and 70's. Since then 0.2 degrees of this warming has occurred since 1938, despite alot of fossil fuel use. Since 1938 we have a net increase of .2C or about .51 C per century?
And if .5 C of the trend is natural? whats left to blame on man? .1 per Century? And that only based on assumption.
You still don't get it.
Warming, melting glaciers, sea level rise, etc etc etc. are not in ANY way evidence of AGW.
They are evidence of Warming.
The two are NOT the same.
Observations of thing warming are meaningless, irrelevent, merely interesting.
The ONLY relevent factor is the CAUSE.
Do you get that???????
Hellooooo. Earth to D64......
BTW the required hot spot.... Ummmmm Missing.
All hat, no cattle, son.
If you think there is no fraud, I have a bridge for sale.
Oh, and leave out the stolen emails.
Oh, and as for libertarianism, if you're one of its best proponents, no wonder their political power has never gotten much above dog-catcher, and that only barely.
If it were possible to engage you in intelligent debate I would be glad to do so. But for weeks now everyone at this site (excluding cmb) has tried to get you to have an honest debate and like child you refuse (or may be incapable). So do not expect anymore singing lessons from me.
I recommend growing a thicker skin and getting yourself some knowledge. You haven't answered a single question I've asked - why? All you do is respond with yet more bluster and a poor-little-me victimhood act.
Care to share?
Oh yeah - the mystery rebuttal that proves manmade global warming as a hoax, and for all time.
Care to share?"
God you are slow.
No.
It sure is blustery 'round these parts!
It is not MY evidence. And yes OJ was also found innocent.
You do not have the mental flexibilty to understand, I'm sorry.
I'm not much impressed by relativism that extends to reality.
A dogmatist through-and-through. What's so scary about reality that you have to deny it?
To quote a movie, "You can't handle the truth!"
I pity anyone who cohabitates with you.
Now, which ones are legitimate and credible?
So far, all you got is the null set, and that doesn't convince anyone.
As for cherry-picking a start date, deniers do that all the time by telling us it's been "cooling" since 1998. If you want to see rampant intellectual dishonesty, start in your own house, son.
Clearly we're supposed to take what you as pure truth, and any questioning is an unforgivable personal attack. You'd make one heck of a lousy scientist.
Hope the weekend isn't a total loss, all the best back at ya.
Now ranch duty calls. I'm going to don that hat you are so infatuated with and rustle some hummingbirds. Good luck with your therapy!
More collusional delusional doomer propaganda, right from Soros' boy!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTrreN4aGF8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw
The video I posted shows CO2 is not the "blanket" that traps heat.
If you think CO2 isn't opaque to IR, you're going to have to toss out all of physics.
I take great pride in the fact that such an idiot disagrees with me!
The climate has not been cooling for ten years - that's a lie.
Climate undergoes changes due to non-anthropogenic causes. Doesn't mean it cannot change because of us. Likewise, people die for non-anthropogenic causes. Doesn't mean don't die as a result of murder. Duh.
Quoting Derecho64:
The CRU's (Climategate) own data shows the decade long cooling. You can clearly see it on this graph www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
It will at be at least a week before I comment again, because I'm going away for a bit.
Don't bother with the graph - take a look at the list of annual averages they provide. 1998 was a very strong El Nino event; take out that cherry-pick, and you cannot say "cooling". Haven't you figured that out yet?
Have a great weekend, I'll be spending mine here at the ranch!
We disagree on much, but it is intelligent debate. I haven't written back to him lately because I have become disheartened by the nature and tone of the current level of 'discussion' around here. Don't get me wrong, I am more than guiltier than the next man but we don't have a chance to discuss real and fundamental differences in a rational manor.
I don't want people to think like me because a) I'm nuts and b) if we only have one vision we only have one option.
I used to be right all the time... till I met my wife!!
Have a great weekend... all the best.. Jeff
So sad when some people don't even realize that they have already lost the debate.
Sorry to hear about your weekend.
Dogma: 1: Something held as an ESTABLISHED opinion; a definite AUTHORITIVE tenet.
Libertarian: 1: An advocate of the doctrine of FREE WILL.
Flunky the Communist Clown thinks skeptic and gullible are synonyms, and that libertarian means dogmatic. All credibilty has been lost D.
P.S. How much is Soros paying you?
Care to give me a libertarian solution?
Or simply handwave reality away? There's your dogma.
Tell Mr Soros we all said howdy.
Libertarians do that a lot - ignore reality when it doesn't fit into their dogma. Denialism is one of their problems. And a big one of yours.
Talking about ignoring reality.
You Said:
"We are pushing the climate system beyond where it has been during the entirety of human civilization."
Does that mean you Deny the reality that there have been 5 warm period in this interglacial and all of them were warmer than the current one???
Ever hear of the holociene or Roman warm periods?
Or the Mideaval Warm period that is now conclusively accepted (By an intellegent person) as a global event.
Or do you still believe Al Gore's fantasy flick that says current temps are the highest ever?
Please don't admit to that. it would really make you look dumb.
Besides, to make those claims, you have to rely on proxies, yet denialists claim that proxies are garbage. Yet another denialist self-contradiction.
And no, Roman art depicting people in short togas does not mean the global was warmer than today. Sheesh.
As a matter of fact, a reconstruction of temperatures WORLDWIDE was conducted using over 6000 bore holes and it confirmed the MWP was GLOBAL and WARMER.
Thanks.
Looks like my pig is tone deaf!
All hat, no cattle. As I said quite some time back now.
You're one of the worst advocates for the denier view that I've seen. If I was a denier, you'd best help by shutting up.
Defraudo64, I do not advocate for "deniers", I advocate for science. You see in science the only "side" is the truth. You on the other hand
advocate for radically changing our world, not
science.
Again I have an awesome hat but never claimed any cattle here at the ranch. What color is the sky on your world?
I'm calling you out. Either put up or shut up.
One thing you don't do is promote the truth. You just bloviate, and any skepticism prompts personal attacks. You play the man, not the ball. And you call yourself an "advocate for science". You're just plain lying with that one!
What we need is a cadre of scientists, well-versed in the nastier aspects of PR, debate, and so on, to take the denialists head-on. No more ****-footing around. The denialists have taken their shots, time to return fire - and from now on, start lofting shells that they'll have to answer. Being on one's back foot all the time is not the way to win a war - and yes, it's a war. Time to go on offense, instead of playing a weak defense (if at all).
Let's put Plimer, McIntyre, Watts, Monckton, Bolt, Delingpole, and all the other morons, on notice. The science community isn't going to play it nice anymore. Yes, be honest - but be ruthless and show them for the charlatans, frauds, liars and scum that they are.
Can you tell I'm pissed? Good!"
I see you!
Name, please.
Hmmm. Interesting.
Person? PersonS.
Only Deniers reject the reality of the MWP.
Which person*S* claim that the MCA was global, and, upon what grounds? Remember, we've been told many times that proxies are garbage by your fellow deniers.
Heil Romm!
Wow! As for your plethora of rhetoric, most blowhards do!
What abou that Soros money Defraudo64?
What we need is a cadre of scientists, well-versed in the nastier aspects of PR, debate, and so on, to take the denialists head-on. No more ****-footing around. The denialists have taken their shots, time to return fire - and from now on, start lofting shells that they'll have to answer. Being on one's back foot all the time is not the way to win a war - and yes, it's a war. Time to go on offense, instead of playing a weak defense (if at all).
Let's put Plimer, McIntyre, Watts, Monckton, Bolt, Delingpole, and all the other morons, on notice. The science community isn't going to play it nice anymore. Yes, be honest - but be ruthless and show them for the charlatans, frauds, liars and scum that they are.
Can you tell I'm pissed? Good!"
Your advocacy is showing
"Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 863 individual scientists from 513 separate research institutions in 43 different countries ... and counting! "
List of Scientists that are cited in this study:
www.co2science.org/data/mwp/scientists.php
List of Research institutes involced in the study
www.co2science.org/data/mwp/institutions.php
Overview of the project:
www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Now .... Since We know you. And we know you will simply say "None of these references are Credible" I don't actually expect you will even look.
But Others will and your derision will add credibility for them.
Thanks
There's some interesting details, but I want more science.
Oh, and all this stuff is based on proxies - and we've heard that proxies are so utterly unreliable that anything based on them is garbage. Don't believe me? Ask the folks who are constantly bashing Mann et.al.
You are a denier of science and a useful idiot to the likes of Soros and Gore.
Mann has shown his "hockey stick" exists without tree rings at all. Explain.
Besides, the whole "hockey stick" thing is a sideshow - even if it didn't exist at all, doesn't mean we're not changing the climate now.
Anyone who still believes Mann's purposefully fraudulent hockey stick is still credible has serious mental deficiencies. It has Benny destroyed by more than one analytical method. Bit of course you will NEVER understand. Died in the wool doomer zealot that you are. I at least held out that man's CO2 contributions could be effecting our climate and even had doubts about my beliefs. That was until I witnessed the massive fraud perpetrated on the GHCN. Why not just remove all stations except for one at the equator? I mean I'm sure that the saints at CRU could extrapolate worldwide temperatures from there. Just "homogenize" the rest. Because in Defraudp64's world, all things are possible thru the IPCC.
The relentless ignorance on your part is appalling. You're slinging around serious accusations without the smallest shred of evidence other than what you've read on some blog somewhere. Clearly, you're not the least bit interested in the science - or facts, reason, and evidence. You just want to happily repeat blatant untruths because they comport with your libertarian dogma (which you cannot defend against even the most cursory questions).
Toss in juvenile name-calling silliness, and you're the complete denier package.
Tell George we said howdy!
The science content of your comments (given your prolixity) is epsilon. A couple CCF regulars at least try; you've long since abandoned anything resembling adult discussion.
I see you broke out the thesaurus, big words. Maybe crack a few more refernce books and try again.
Apparently Soros hires as long as there is at least a GED or equivalent.
Over 800 of them.
So having to admit there are a lot of scientists that agree, you fall back to dumb remarks about Proxy science.
Are you really saying that there is no way to tell if the current temps are abnormal?
isn't it one of the pillers of the theory that current temps are "unpresidented".?
So if you can't possibly tell if it is or not, how can you honestly suggest that AGW is real and not just a normal natural warm spell.
Oh, and one more thing. Sceptics have never said that all proxy science is bad.
Mann's paper was clearly fraudluent. That does not mean all proxies are bad. Just his.
There are many lines of evidence aside from Mann's "hockey stick" that show us that we're causing the current climate change. Please do some reading about them.
Which of Mann's papers was "clearly fraudluent" [sic]? That's a serious charge; provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or withdraw the accusation.
Get some reading glasses, son.
Or get checked for severe cognitive dissonance.
All of Mann's papers that supported the Hockey stick were fraudulent.
It has been dealt with ad nosium all over the net and you know it very well.
Your pretend ignorance does not impress.
Furthermore, I will not retract anything because you demand it.
You are clearly Nobody and have not credibility or authority and I really don't care a wit what you think about any of that.
I only engage you because it is amusing to see you stick your foot in your mouth so often.
other than that, your dogma driven Faith based and totally closed minded drivel is menaingless.
Do you realize that MBH '98 was the target of a politically-motivated witch hunt, and that M&M '03 was a fatally flawed non-response?
Are you aware that multiple independent (despite what Wegman plagiarizes) groups and studies have essentially replicated Mann's work?
You've bought into the whole mythological slaying of the "hockey stick", spread by denier disinformation in the blogosphere. The irony is that the "hockey stick" is virtually irrelevant to ACC, more of an interesting bit of trivia than a foundational element. It's the deniers that have puffed it up to some sort of elemental core of ACC, which is entirely wrong.
Thanks again for the lovely compliment earlier. You are absolutely right, I would be a lousy AGW scientist because I have someting called ethics. And unlike a member of the IPCC I once debated, I would not make personal attacks against fellow members who simply disagreed with me. I do have the email and even shared it with the smeared panel member. I have seen what you consider a scientist and have recoiled in disgust.
Care to share?
These are powerful allegations - care to come forward and save our honored liberty, freedom and individual rights from these power-mad demagogues? Isn't that what good men do? Fight the good fight?
What do cowards do? Oh yeah - talk big on denier blogs. Never mind. You haven't the guts.
PS - I didn't say "lousy IPCC scientist". I said "lousy scientist".
Ponder this - the scientific constructs that allow you to have an iPhone are the same as the ones that say we're warming the planet. Now think really hard!
is this now another "foundational element" of AGW/ACC/Snakeoil?
Has anyone ever told you Santa Claus is not real? OMG I hope I didn't just ruin Christmas for you!
What we need is a cadre of scientists, well-versed in the nastier aspects of PR, debate, and so on, to take the denialists head-on. No more ****-footing around. The denialists have taken their shots, time to return fire - and from now on, start lofting shells that they'll have to answer. Being on one's back foot all the time is not the way to win a war - and yes, it's a war. Time to go on offense, instead of playing a weak defense (if at all).
Let's put Plimer, McIntyre, Watts, Monckton, Bolt, Delingpole, and all the other morons, on notice. The science community isn't going to play it nice anymore. Yes, be honest - but be ruthless and show them for the charlatans, frauds, liars and scum that they are.
Can you tell I'm pissed? Good!"
We see you!
OK.
I just wanted to make sure I've got your ethics down pat.
I'm reminded of this:
Don: Hey, Napoleon. What did you do last summer again?
Napoleon Dynamite: I told you! I spent it with my uncle in Alaska hunting wolverines!
Don: Did you shoot any?
Napoleon Dynamite: Yes, like 50 of 'em! They kept trying to attack my cousins, what the heck would you do in a situation like that?
Don: What kind of gun did you use?
Napoleon Dynamite: A freakin' 12-gauge, what do you think?
Napoleon Dynamite is a nice touch. I hear you young fellas really enjoyed that cult classic. But that nonsense has no bearing on reality. It was just a movie.
Please continue to display your shallow method of thought. It really does make me laugh out loud, not just the silly lol.
Saving your brother's career at the expense of letting the ACC "hoax" continue (at what cost?) just sounds selfish and rather silly. It's all so very convenient for you. The name dropping is cute.
Overall, my original estimation of you still stands - you're all bluff and bluster.
As for sibling rivalry, yes we fought like cats and dogs. My brother almost always won but then again he is 7 years older. I admire my brother for what he has accomplished and feel no jealousy. What I have is more than my wildest dreams imagined. I live a charmed life and would not trade with anyone. I hope someday you too can find happiness, hopefully witout cheering on armegeddon.
I live on a bluff and it is blustery up here, is that what you meant little buddy?
There are few more dangerour to get into a pissing match with than a zealot on a misson.
They will expend unbelievabel energy trying to track down your reletives to make trouble for them.
Cultist members can be really annoying that way, sometime dangerous/
I'm not interested in Gator's family - I'm interested in this unassailable proof of his of the falsity of manmade global warming. Certainly his brother can get another job - we're talking the future of truth, justice, and the American Way here!
"I think it's time for the climate science community to take on the denialists, their blogosphere minions (often one and the same) and the crap "journalists" head on. They've been trashing the community for years - and ignoring them, or hoping they'll go away, or that the literature is sufficient, is a big mistake. They aren't going away, they have far more influence than they should, and they don't care about the literature.
What we need is a cadre of scientists, well-versed in the nastier aspects of PR, debate, and so on, to take the denialists head-on. No more ****-footing around. The denialists have taken their shots, time to return fire - and from now on, start lofting shells that they'll have to answer. Being on one's back foot all the time is not the way to win a war - and yes, it's a war. Time to go on offense, instead of playing a weak defense (if at all).
Let's put Plimer, McIntyre, Watts, Monckton, Bolt, Delingpole, and all the other morons, on notice. The science community isn't going to play it nice anymore. Yes, be honest - but be ruthless and show them for the charlatans, frauds, liars and scum that they are.
Can you tell I'm pissed? Good!"
We can see your agenda!
Now let's look at how Defraudo attacked me for not giving up my identity and
what utter disregard he has for others.
This is D-lusional discussing his need for anonymity...
".. made a couple of ill-advised statements there that Anthony took out of context and posted at WTFWT. I suspect he contacted Morano, who then linked Watts’ post at his site. That was noticed by my bosses all the way to the top, including the legal department. I haven’t used my real name since. Basically, I got Watts’ goat (by refusing to give him irrelevant personal information) and he got his revenge by embarrassing me professionally. I learned my lesson .. ”
Next he attacks myself and my brother. I explained my views could have negative impacts on my brother's illustriuos career and this is his reaction.
"Your brother's political career at NASA is more important than saving America..."
Coming from someone who himself hides behind a pseudonym, this is the height of hypocrisy. Defraudo claims humans are destroying the Earth yet does not have the conviction to reveal his id. Now we can all see just what kind of person D really is.
And the poster child for the IPCC has been rendered puckless. It's broken and discredited despite all the interests groups who are trying to salvage the clown career of Mann.
And if CO2 has such a positive effect on temperatures why is the sea ice incresing:
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews
Why are the seas not accelerating:
joannenova.com.au/2010/08/south-pacific-sea-levels-no-rise-since-1993
Why are AGWers so selective in pointing out temperauter extreems:
icecap.us/images/uploads/Selective_Memory.pdf
For the past 10 years + the satellite and balloon temp data has shown no temperature increase in the troposphere, only NASA and it's massaged surface temp data has. Some one must be rewriting the heating transfer laws in order to balance the GCM program books. Could that be Hansen's GISS team?
The facts are clear, the empirical data doesn't match the AGW head fake science. Trenberth
Arctic sea ice isn't increasing; even Curry admits that the seemingly contradictory growth in Antarctic sea ice is compatible with ACC (despite not knowing that Manabe figured that out in 1992); Joanne Nova is a dork, and icecap.us is yet another denier blogosphere site with no cred.
There hasn't been cooling for "10 years +"; if there had been, 2000-2009 wouldn't have been warmer than 1990-1999, as it was.
Recycled old denier talking-points are pathetic. Come up with new material.
PS - WFTWT is the land of morons. Try harder next time.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/19/comparing-the-four-global-temperature-data-sets/
climatedepot.com/.../...
The facts are clear, the empirical data doesn't match the AGW-IPCC head fake science. Except for those who deny real science sources. If it's not off of one of their science Inquisition sites it's not Kosher. Like you got it from the grocery store, even though it came from the gourmet shop.
What we need is a cadre of scientists, well-versed in the nastier aspects of PR, debate, and so on, to take the denialists head-on. No more ****-footing around. The denialists have taken their shots, time to return fire - and from now on, start lofting shells that they'll have to answer. Being on one's back foot all the time is not the way to win a war - and yes, it's a war. Time to go on offense, instead of playing a weak defense (if at all).
Let's put Plimer, McIntyre, Watts, Monckton, Bolt, Delingpole, and all the other morons, on notice. The science community isn't going to play it nice anymore. Yes, be honest - but be ruthless and show them for the charlatans, frauds, liars and scum that they are.
Can you tell I'm pissed? Good!"
Yeah, that's an open mind!
Perhaps in the world of deniers, lies are A-OK.
I say they have way more crediblity than you. I would love nothing more than to see you take any one of them on in a debate. But my guess is you would do a Cameron Fried Chichen And run! HAHAHA!!
We all see how desperate that is.
Get some new material.
RSS feed for comments to this post