The American Denial Of Global Warming, and other environmental issues. Options

[aerohead]

Global Warming is a win win for them, no matter which way
it ends up. They own the oil, the patents for alternative energy
products and the politicians who will give them the big fat
contracts.

But the BIG WIN is if "Global Warming" gets rammed down
everyone's throat. Not only will they get to become even more
disgustingly wealthy mass producing their "revolutionary new products"
(that have been sitting on their shelves for the past 60 yrs) they will get
to come into our homes and fine/jail us if we do not "comply" with their
"Global Government Standards". If we give up our nations Sovereignty
for this disgusting lie, we deserve everything we get.

And if it fails, they get to continue to pump liquid gold out of the ground and
continue to hold us all hostage with its price. Unless, of course, these
companies are found to have conspired to defraud the American public
(and the rest of the world) with the intention destroying our Republic,
and would then be seized by the Republic.


Just some FYI........
Exxon Mobil set a record for the highest profit of any U.S. company
in the 4th quarter of 07 11.66 Billion
And then beat its own record in the 2nd Quarter of 08 11.68 Billion.
"Ironically" the recession started at EXACTLY the same time.... late 07.
The price of oil rocketed up during the summer of 07, with it went the
"me too" natural gas prices, food and every other thing that needs to
manufactured and transported. IMO,(and many others)
THIS is what broke the back of our country and bankrupted us all.
The same people that make up the secret organizations and the NWO.
I believe John Rockefellers' Exxon Mobil (and many others) were the weapons of
mass destruction that were intenionally used to imploded and financially ruin America
to further the need for a new currency...... a world currency and world government.
While we were desperately trying to put food on our tables for our families in 07 and 08,
they were raking in RECORD profits. Then the big "sell off" of stocks in a massive profit taking, started
in OCT 07 slowly tanking the stock market. Then instead of bankrupting the banks and giving the taxpayers
the financial help we desperately needed, they give it to the banks that they and their buddies own....
Alot of Americans are now in a state of poverty, fear and confusion, and with
the philosophy of "dont let any crisis go to waste (manufactured or not), the
Global Climate Treaty was hammered out and set to fly under the radar to make the last move of a
a 60+ yr old plan of Global Governance and world domination..........by them, for them and through them.


Not on our watch..........

Save the Republic

Global Warming is bullshit.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Nov 2 2009, 04:37 AM

[Omega892R09]

I have yet to find free iron in nature, it is all oxidized.

Did I say it wasn't?

Plants did it, they converted most of the CO2 into free Oxygen,
with a little help from sun and rain.

Wow! I never knew that shit happened!

As for the Earth being a green house, it is,

No it isn't.

In a greenhouse heat movement by convection stops at the glass, with the exceptions of some conductive losses through the glass, a relatively poor conductor, or open vents.

That is rather different to the mechanism that asserts itself in the atmosphere WRT GHGs.

Green House Gas is an unfortunate term for, as I have explained above, it is not strictly accurate. But that is the term and usage we are now stuck with.

Besides, your statement was:

We live in an air tight green house.

I was mostly arguing with the air tight bit in my earlier reply because the atmosphere is not strictly air tight.

But then as I have just pointed out, neither does it make a greenhouse.

You pick nitts so I'll have a go. Satisfied?

[Omega892R09]

Global Warming is bullshit.

Well certainly bullshit contributes to some of it.

However in itself your statement is being economical with the truth.

Have you studied any books on climate at all, or the effects which are now swinging into action?

You folk in North American have been sadly mislead into believing AGW is a hoax. It isn't. The real hoaxers are the likes of Cato, Heartland, CEI and George C Marshall Institutes and the mouthpieces they use such as the wonderfully unqualified Monckton.

Monckton, he who is lauded by the likes of Limbaugh and Glenn Beck - does that not ring alarm bells?

If those bells are not ringing then I diagnose an epidemic here of collective cognitive dissonance.

The gang has decided, and will probably have the last word as my energy nears the end.

[lunk]

The moon isn't a green house, by my description,
as it has no atmosphere to moderate the surface temperature.

I wonder what would happen if all the air was pumped out of a greenhouse,
would the temperature differentiations fluctuate more with sunlight?

i think so.

[aerohead]

Well certainly bullshit contributes to some of it.

However in itself your statement is being economical with the truth.

Have you studied any books on climate at all, or the effects which are now swinging into action?

You folk in North American have been sadly mislead into believing AGW is a hoax. It isn't. The real hoaxers are the likes of Cato, Heartland, CEI and George C Marshall Institutes and the mouthpieces they use such as the wonderfully unqualified Monckton.

Monckton, he who is lauded by the likes of Limbaugh and Glenn Beck - does that not ring alarm bells?

If those bells are not ringing then I diagnose an epidemic here of collective cognitive dissonance.

The gang has decided, and will probably have the last word as my energy nears the end.

Omega,
Im not trying to belittle you or say your stupid. I was leaning towards believing
in global warming when the "Internet Creator" made his "Nobel Prize Winning Masterpiece".
But i have come to see the agenda behind it, and the massive number of scientists
that debunk it as a fraud. 31,000 of them...........here in the U.S. alone.

[Sanders]

Well said, Aerohead.

O, you keep alleging that we all listen to the propaganda of "Cato, Heartland, CEI," ... etc. Who are they??? I don't even know.


I predict that in 5 years the Hudson river will freeze over, and Omega will still be going on about global warming ... please quote me (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Omega892R09]

Omega,
Im not trying to belittle you or say your stupid. I was leaning towards believing
in global warming when the "Internet Creator" made his "Nobel Prize Winning Masterpiece".
But i have come to see the agenda behind it, and the massive number of scientists
that debunk it as a fraud. 31,000 of them...........here in the U.S. alone.

You seem to be unaware of the infamous nature of The Oregon Petition which started this 30000 Scientists meme and I have argued against this in the thread of similar name cited in an earlier post.

But seeing as folk here appear not to want to look at stuff that may knock their conceptual constructs askew I'll add to that here.

For a starter check out this article, and please don't believe Monckton's bullshit anout Real Climate and DesMogBlog as he is making stuff up again as a search on these sites and elsewhere will reveal.

Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey

A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) received a package in the mail this week. The package consists of a colour preprint of a ‘new’ article by Robinson, Robinson and Soon and an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. If you get a feeling of deja vu, it is because this comes from our old friends, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 “Oregon Petition“.

The article itself is just an update of the original article, minus an author (Baliunas), with a switch of Robinson children (Zachary’s out, Noah is in), but with a large number of similar errors and language. As in previous case, this paper too, is not peer reviewed.

Since this is a rehash of the previous paper plus a few more cherry-picked statistics of dubious relevance, instead of tediously going through the whole thing ourselves, we are going to try something new – an open source debunking.

As we’ve mentioned previously, we’ve set up a Wiki to provide a one stop shop for articles debunking some of the worst climate contrarian pseudo-science. So, we’ve therefore set up a page for the new OISM paper, and what we’d like to do here is to start collecting material on this paper.

So, in the comments, please catalog any:

links to articles dealing with debunkings of the previous incarnations of this paper
obvious errors
clear cherry-picking of data
interesting edits between versions
and we’ll collate all the pertinent stuff on the RC-Wiki page. To make things easier, please label all comments by the section or figure numbers.

Just to get you started, all versions of the paper make a mistake in the dating of Keigwin’s Sargasso Sea record by 50 years (Figure 2 in early versions, Figure 1 now) since they do not notice that the published dates are in ‘years BP’ (Before Present) which is conventionally dated from 1950, not 2000. And that’s even without getting into the question of why this is the only paleo-record they highlight, or on what logical basis they put the ‘2006′ value on.

In another example, the authors appear to think that human breathing out of CO2 is contributing to accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Actually since that carbon comes directly and indirectly from recent plants taking it out of the air, our breathing is carbon neutral). Additionally, they take the ratio of temperature change to CO2 change in the ice core record and assume that is the climate sensitivity of climate to CO2 as opposed to the other way around.

There is much, much more. Have at it!

But it is worth visiting the original article to pick up on links.

Here is more:

The 30,000 Global Warming Petition is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be an understatement.

I thought it would be timely to once-again breakdown this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda after it was mentioned last night in Daily Show host Jon Stewart's interview with US Energy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu.

.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology

The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise for those who have signed the petition.

In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

Atmospheric Science (113)

Climatology (39)

Meteorology (341)

Astronomy (59)

Astrophysics (26)

So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.

The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable [see my section on 'unverifiable mess" below].

This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.

When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to Dermatologist, I go to a Cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in Medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.


In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn't surprising given its questionable beginnings.

The Petition's Sordid Beginnings

The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM) [their headquarters are the Photo Inset].

Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson's group co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since deceased) a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.

Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

An Unverifiable Mess

Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you'll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.

For example,

"Munawwar M. Akhtar" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Fred A. Allehoff" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Ernest J. Andberg" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Joseph J. Arx" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

"Adolph L. Amundson" - a paper by Amundson on the "London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage." [PDF]

"Henry W. Apfelbach" - an Orthopedic Surgeon

"Joe R. Arechavaleta" - runs an Architect and Engineering company.

And this is only names I picked in the "A's." I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn't stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.

Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that "global warming is a hoax" completley misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.

Or, then again, they could just be in it for the money.

It is a good thing to check up on what you are being fed by the usual suspects in the MSM.

[Omega892R09]

O, you keep alleging that we all listen to the propaganda of "Cato, Heartland, CEI," ... etc. Who are they??? I don't even know.


I predict that in 5 years the Hudson river will freeze over, and Omega will still be going on about global warming ... please quote me (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

That you do not know who Cato, Heartland andd CEI are speaks volumes on how you are ill-informed and how you have been so easily hoodwinked.

I would have thought that by now, somebody with the internet search skills to find out all that stuff in the Dragon Blood Line would have been able to find out about these so called 'Think-Tanks'. Well you would have if you had wanted to. Scared about what you may find?

Whatever. The roles of all these 'think-tanks' are well explained in that new book 'Climate Cover-Up' which I have cited earlier. Try finding a copy. Your a smart guy Sanders and one, I think, who does not like being ignorant about issues, so find a copy and read it.

What follows is a review of the book, which in the original version at:

Climate Cover-Up: A (Brief) Review

contains links to follow to make finding out easier for you.

We often allude to the industry-funded attacks against climate change science, and the dubious cast of characters involved, here at RealClimate. In recent years, for example, we’ve commented on disinformation efforts by industry front groups such as the “Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Fraser Institute, and a personal favorite, The Heartland Institute, and by industry-friendly institutions such as the Wall Street Journal editorial board, and other media outlets that assist in the manufacture and distribution of climate change disinformation.

When it comes to the climate change disinformation campaign, we have chosen to focus on the intellectually bankrupt nature of the scientific arguments, rather than the political motivations and the sometimes intriguing money trail. We leave it to others, including organizations such as SourceWatch.org, the sleuths at DeSmogBlog, authors such as Ross Gelbspan (author of The Heat is On, and The Boiling Point), and edited works such as Rescuing Science from Politics to deal with such issues.

One problem with books on this topic is that they quickly grow out of date. Just over the past few years, there have been many significant events in the ‘climate wars’ as we have reported on this site. Fortunately, there is a book out now by our friends at DeSmogBlog (co-founder James Hoggan, and regular contributor Richard Littlemore) entitled Climate Cover Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming that discusses the details of the contrarian attacks on climate science up through the present, and in painstaking detail. They have done their research, and have fully documented their findings, summarized by the publisher thusly:

Talk of global warming is nearly inescapable these days — but there are some who believe the concept of climate change is an elaborate hoax. Despite the input of the world’s leading climate scientists, the urgings of politicians, and the outcry of many grassroots activists, many Americans continue to ignore the warning signs of severe climate shifts. How did this happen? Climate Cover-up seeks to answer this question, describing the pollsters and public faces who have crafted careful language to refute the findings of environmental scientists. Exploring the PR techniques, phony “think tanks,” and funding used to pervert scientific fact, this book serves as a wake-up call to those who still wish to deny the inconvenient truth.

There are interesting new details about the Revelle/Singer/Lancaster affair and other tidbits that were new to me, and will likely to be new to others who been following the history of climate change contrarianism. Ross Gelbspan who has set the standard for investigative reporting
when it comes to the climate change denial campaign, had this to say about the book:

absolutely superb-one of the best dissections of the climate information war I
have ever seen. This is one terrific piece of work!

There is an important story behind the climate change denial effort that goes well beyond the scientific issues at hand. Its not our mission at RealClimate to tell that story, but there are others who are doing it, and doing it well. Hoggan and Littlemore are clearly among them. Read this book, and equally important, make sure that others who need to do as well.

See also this article:

A Scary Halloween for the Climate Denial Industry

Follow some of the large blue charactered links on that.

Remember these instutes employ people who have already compromised themselves in the campaign to deny the health damage casued by smoking tobacco. And, as I recall, Monckton's hero Thatcher had a considerable interest in the fortunes of R J Reynolds.

Recent controversial books have been written by AGW deniers and this includes that of Ian Plimer who has managed to destroy any credibility he has by his antics and in particular with his engagement with George Monbiot. That line yields much food for though for those serious about understanding how this issue has become distorted.

And then there is:

Error-riddled "Superfreakonomics"
See how these deniers just keep getting it wrong.

EDIT: PS. The Hudson River froze over in early 72 when I was there so that would be hardly something new. We had a hell of a time just getting ashore from Ark Royal to Staten Island and NYC was so 'cold' with the wind-chill something else.

Here are a couple of shots I took one afternoon, temperature in degrees Fahrenheit of course.

(IMG:http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/Misc/42Broad20.jpg)

(IMG:http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/Misc/42Broad18.jpg)

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Nov 3 2009, 12:27 PM

[lunk]

There are usually more than 2 sides to every story,
and 3 sides to every triangle.

This story is about environmentalists versus big oil,
and big oil pretending to be environmentalists.

What on earth could the outcome of all this be?

everybody hopping on the band wagon and signing some accord?

sustainable development=economic stagnation.
unsustainable development, who would want that?
austerity=forced poverty

economic Darwinism,
survival of the wealthiest,
by their elimination of the poorest.

It's a strange world we live in,
but there is something very nourishing about
this dung heap we grow out of.

just some thoughts.

[aerohead]

Omega,
Either you dont understand what this treaty means
and how it violates our Constitution or you are on their side.

We should not, can not and will not allow a global entity to dictate
policy and governance to the United States in any way shape of form.

We are a Sovereign Constitutional Republic and will remain so
forever. Period. Global Warming or not. Swine Flu or not.
Economic collapse or not, Terrorists or not.
WE WILL REMAIN FREE AMERICANS, AND LIVE UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION
FOREVER. PERIOD.

Sovereign countries are just as important as the 50 Sovereign
States. Its called freedom to govern yourself as you see fit.
We dont need or want a global government of any kind.

The world needs, and must have, real leaders that serve the people
of their country. They would be shocked to find that most of their people
want freedom, peace and prosperity.

Global Warming and its treaty is slavery to the NWO.
Yes, taxes ARE slavery and its something we desperately
need to address here in the U.S.
Especially since they are being spent on things that we are not
being told and would never approve of.

[Omega892R09]

Omega,
Either you dont understand what this treaty means
and how it violates our Constitution or you are on their side.

So. Rather than challenge me on the points that I raised you throw your constitution and sovereignty at me.

Did not the mouth pieces of the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and Glenn Beck violate the tenets of your constitution?

These are some of the same people championing the AGW deniers like Monckton who makes much noise but based on foundations of sand. Note how he like to overawe his audience with Latin – pompous clown.

Monckton has succeeded in making American's worried that by joining in the campaign to counteract the worst that AGW may bring you will be surrendering US powers to some international super power.

This most certainly is not the case. There are opportunities in such an endeavour. The US is a nation with much scientific talent and potential for development in this the successful use of which could strengthen the US. If you want to steer your countrymen into allowing other countries in the world gain the advantage here then that is up to you.

For my part I would like to see the UK take a more positive stance into alternative energy but sadly this country has been run by those with a Classics based education such as Monckton who often turn to law or accountancy for gainful employment and by understanding little science have stymied many a UK invention or development from full exploitation by others in the country of origin.

One time guru of artificial intelligence Edward A Feigenbaum explained Britain's loss, in a whole chapter, in his interesting book, with Pamela McCorduck, (1984), 'The Fifth Generation: Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World'. Unfortunately I don't have my copy to hand to specify further.

As for Monckton and the new world order, I'll say again Monckton has got the treaty wrong.

Warming treaty to usher in one-world government?

Extract, note that the framework for negotiating link is acttive:

Problem is, Monckton's reading of the proposed framework for negotiating -- hardly a completed treaty -- was woefully inaccurate. And that's a nice way of putting it. The document clearly does nothing whatsoever to promote any sort of world government, and indeed, it refers to the efforts of national governments repeatedly.

Here's the sole evidence in the framework for Monckton's claim:


The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

(The COP to which that language refers is the Conference of the Parties, which the official U.N. Web site explains as, "the 'supreme body' of the Convention, that is, its highest decision-making authority. It is an association of all the countries that are Parties to the Convention ... [and] is responsible for keeping international efforts to address climate change on track.")

Unfortunately for Monckton and those who've fallen for what he said without doing some rudimentary checking of the document's language, there's more than one meaning of the word "government." There's the conventional definition, the one he used, and then there's this one, which is very clearly the one intended in this case: "direction; control; management; rule: the government of one's conduct."

Update: As if on cue, Glenn Beck picked up on Monckton's comments, and interviewed him for his radio show Monday. Beck also told Monckton, "what I'd like to do is I'd like to, I'd like to spend an hour with you, quite honestly, Lord Monckton, and have you on the TV show and maybe bring in ambassador John Bolton about this as well."

Another account of the situation can be found at:

British climate-change skeptic says Copenhagen treaty threatens "democracy," "freedom"

So no I have not got the situation wrong.

You have been lied to.

Once again it is a good idea for you to check stuff out before parroting.

[lunk]

Many people are questioning if man made global warming is an agenda,
foisted upon us by a small group of unethical elite minded academics.

Britain's University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit Hacked; Damning Emails Call Into Question The Integrity of Climate Science

The University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit is the world's preeminent climate research center. It's data played a key role in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.

Sample of some hacked emails from the
researchers and academics who brought you
the fiction of AGW:

From Nick ***** (modifying data):

“The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?”

From Dr. Phil ***** (modification of data to hide unwanted results):

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

From Kevin ********* (failure of computer models):

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?a...281474977910534

A 62 mb file of assorted data and climate change files and emails was put up on the internet, world wide, showing intentional blatant manipulation of climate data for the benefit of the allegory.

The file was reluctantly confirmed to be real by the BBC.

Hackers target leading climate research unit

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

And added that the file was so enormously big,
they couldn't say, absolutely for sure, that every bit of it was true,
because they haven't checked it all yet, i guess.

Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.

(edit) added

The climate research unit site
(cru) is down at the moment.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

Links to the 61.9 mb file can be found on this page:

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-...ents-and-emails

This post has been edited by lunk: Nov 21 2009, 09:59 AM

[Omega892R09]

Many people are questioning if man made global warming is an agenda,
foisted upon us by a small group of unethical elite minded academics.

Britain's University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit Hacked; Damning Emails Call Into Question The Integrity of Climate Science

Yes. I have been reading about this over the last hour or so.

Yes of course the likes of Watts and Delingpole are going to try to make hay of this but they are taking comments out of context and spinning again. They do nothing else.

For a more balanced view look at:

The CRU hack

having looked at that work your way through the comments. That will provide much needed extra perspective.

and

Climate contrarians spinning hard with stolen email files

Now I have to fly to get wife from hospital. Maybe quiet for a bit now.

[Omega892R09]

More on the CRU hack:

Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU

Extract:

A CRU spokesperson confirmed that their server was hacked; however, the spokesperson told the BBC, “Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.”

As far as I can tell, the worst of the allegations currently circulating involves a few quotes plucked out of context, such as this one from private correspondence between CRU researcher Phil Jones and Pennsylvania State University’s Michael Mann (author of the infamous “hocky stick graph” of rising global average temperatures):

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards), and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” wrote Jones.

I’ll save you from the science wonkery and allusions here (check out RealClimate for a more detailed explanation), but noisy climate skeptics are jumping on two parts of that sentence. Guess which ones? Yup, “trick” and “hide the decline.” The legitimate climate scientists over at RealClimate have an indepth response to the allegations being made against the CRU folks, which include some of their own contributors. They translate the science slang at work here: “Scientists often use the term ‘trick’ to refer to ‘a good way to deal with a problem,’ rather than something that is ‘secret,’ and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.” As for the “hiding” part, they admit it is a poor choice of words. But in this case, it is an “appropriate” use of a certain kind of data that is actually “‘hidden’ in plain sight.”

RealClimate’s level-headed response to the event is worth reading,

So whilst the denialist fiddle with words the science is telling us that the globe is warming, still. The idea of any cooling trend is Disneyesque. Whilst the deniers still fiddle with words extreme weather events continue to cascade (and threaten geological events being triggered).

In the UK in the last 48 hours, with more to come:

Police officer swept away as major floods hit Cumbria

and a bit nearer home lunk:

B.C. approves disaster relief for flooded communities

and the evidence for warming, note that latent heat of phase changes is huge compared to the heat required to raise a substance by 1 degree C, grows:

New photography project provides stark proof of melting glaciers on the roof of the world

I guess that as water starts turning the sands into quick-sands you will have to pull your head out.

[lunk]

Yes, we are getting some strange weather here, where i am.
The wind has been constant for about a week,
and the temperature is just above freezing.
And i have a first hand account of a glacier in BC that has disappeared,
over the last few years, in BC.
A factor that i have seen is the humidity in winter, is way up.
It used to be a dry cold, not so miserable.
The salmon didn't come back this year, as predicted, but
they did show up elsewhere around the world in record numbers.

This could be all caused by the sun, and probably is.
If this is the case, there is little, people can do about it.

As for the revealing data, stolen from the cru,
it's not right to steal, but it is also not right to
exaggerate and manipulate data to get financial grants.

They should all be fired.

[Sanders]

I guess that as water starts turning the sands into quick-sands you will have to pull your head out.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)


Us?


Weather happens. Temps go up and down. They are headed down. The global-warming alarmists don't have much longer to argue their case, the present cooling trend will just become too obvious to everyone. Then they'll probably blame that on global warming too, pointing to gulf stream currents going wacky or something like that.

[Omega892R09]

Weather happens.

Uh! Oh! Ground-hog day warning:

Temps go up and down. They are headed down.

Sure as winter approaches.

Except that we had a deluge over here as the result of a mass of warm air tracking up from Africa and keeping its heat much longe than normal. Temperature4s have again been above average here.

The global-warming alarmists don't have much longer to argue their case, the present cooling trend will just become too obvious to everyone. Then they'll probably blame that on global warming too, pointing to gulf stream currents going wacky or something like that.

That's it keep repeating the old discredited mantra and using precise language like 'wacky'.

There is no cooling trend at present, the actions of the environment most everywhere increasingly tells us this.

How can you miss the significance of all this? Only by NOT looking at stuff for example the charts I pointed at recently.

Get with it Sanders, you are smarter than this.

[Sanders]

...Get with it Sanders, you are smarter than this.

Yawn.


If I'm so smart, why am I so stupid? ... I don't have any desire to argue the Global Warming scam with you Omega, I've wasted too much of my time already doing so. I'm sorry I even posted.

A couple years from now, this will all become more clear.

(Brrrrrrrr.)

[lunk]

Karl Denninger, is looking into the zip file taken from CRU,
and has drawn some conclusions from his, so far, partial analysis.
Especially on the not so scientific methods,
revealed by climate research units' emails.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archive...rther-Look.html

Instead computations are being "fudged" to fit data to expected previously claimed results and/or data sets simply discarded or modified that do not fit with either previously-published numbers or desired outcomes.

[Omega892R09]

Yawn.


If I'm so smart, why am I so stupid? ... I don't have any desire to argue the Global Warming scam with you Omega, I've wasted too much of my time already doing so. I'm sorry I even posted.

A couple years from now, this will all become more clear.

(Brrrrrrrr.)

So rather than actually look into this topic you will do as Sarah Palin and that creationism limited James Inhofe and adopt a 'don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up' stance. That is the only valid explanation of your continued take on this issue. You have avoided looking at stuff that I have cited.

The trouble is, short of keeping muttering about how cold it is getting (and I have time and time again explained that and cited sources) you offer no back up arguments to support your position.

Now read this article and watch the embedded video – it contains a section of Patrick Michaels, a well known skeptic, telling his buddies to stop projecting the last ten years of global cooling canard:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week/1998 Revisited

Note the chart of global warming/cooling of the type I mentioned above in another post. Try reading some of those and following the links.

EDIT:

More on the topic of the spreading of the Global Cooling meme:

Monster List: Skeptics Have Touted "Global Cooling" Theory Anywhere They Could

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Nov 22 2009, 08:11 AM