Re: CLIMATEGATE

Boomer

How is it that MSM refuses to report on the Climate corruption as well as the BBC.  Could it be that they have a vested interest in Global Climate Change Dimming bla bla hysteria.  The BBC for one has invested millions of British pounds in carbon credit companies.  GE (wind turbines) owns NBC.  At least FOX ( which I disagree with on most issues ) is willing to look at the science.

You're joking, right?

FOx is not looking at the science. They bring in people who agree with the point they want to make. Period. They'll occasionally bring in someone from the opposing camp, but when they do that, they never give anyone enough time to adequately explain the issue. Climate change is not a simple issue that can be explained to the lay public in a 3 minute interview - but that is what they make actual climate scientists try to do the few times they allow one on (an actual one, not just one who plays one on TV).

Mike

Exaggeration and alarmism have been a chronic weakness of environmentalism since it became an organized movement in the 1960s. Every ecological problem was instantly transformed into a potential world-ending crisis.

Your dogma is what Global Scams are made of.  Check the facts not the hype and hysteria.  Follow the Money

Mike......You're joaking, right?

wattsupwiththat.com/.../daily-mail-the-jones-u-turn

Boomer

Mike

Exaggeration and alarmism have been a chronic weakness of environmentalism since it became an organized movement in the 1960s. Every ecological problem was instantly transformed into a potential world-ending crisis.

Your dogma is what Global Scams are made of.  Check the facts not the hype and hysteria.  Follow the Money

I am not an environmentalist, I am a scientist. I have no dogma, just the scientific method. On this issue, the science agrees with the environmentalists.

I suggest that it is you who needs to check the facts (and hint: they are not to be found on Fox News. They are to be found by learning the science involved).

Boomer

Mike......You're joaking, right?

wattsupwiththat.com/.../daily-mail-the-jones-u-turn

What exactly are you pointing to on that page? Perhaps the claim that there has been no warming since 1995? Ok, they link a letter from Lindzen at MIT, who has made a living as a warming skeptic. See the graph he gave them:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/11/a-note-from-richard-lindzen-on-statistically-significant-warming/

He is saying there has been no warming since 1997 (i.e. the current temperatures are not warmer than the avg temp in 1997), and no statistically significant warming since 1995. Two problems. First, he is using one set of data - HIS set from satellite measurements, which are notoriously hard to correct for properly (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/ ), and have been used by many people to falsely claim there is no warming (see that link) - by cherry picking one set of satellite data. When using ground measurements away from cities, there has been significant warming since 1997 (1998 was warmer, 2001 was almost as warm as 1998, etc.. See http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282246.html  - note that was from 2002).

Second, with his cherry-picked data set - 1997 was an anomalously hot year - a spike well above neighboring years. The temperatures of the last few years at the end of his graph (early 2000-2005) averaged about the same as the spike of 1997. That is definitely an upward trend, when sustained average temperatures rise up to a previous spike.

Anyway, try some much more informative sites, like

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-ice-age-volcanoes.htm

etc.

IPCC Gate Du Jour – now IPCC hurricane data questioned

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Mike, This one you posted is 5 years old.  How about some up to date links.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

Boomer

IPCC Gate Du Jour – now IPCC hurricane data questioned

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Mike, This one you posted is 5 years old.  How about some up to date links.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

Why does it matter that it is 5 years old? The science hasn't changed.

Anyway, if you want something up to date, just go to

http://www.realclimate.org/

If you want something specific to the link you gave earlier, then see

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/

Instead of just putting up a link to a website from someone with no understanding of the science involved, how about trying to discuss the science involved, as I did?

Mike,

How much longer can they keep up the pretense that AGW is valid? I’d say approximately – forever, because AGW is not a science, it’s a religion. And religions aren’t upset by mere facts. For example: lack of snow proves AGW, just as too much snow does, lack of hurricanes proves AGW, just as too many hurricanes do, and lack of fog proves AGW, just as to much Fog does. It’s How much longer can they keep up the pretense that AGW is valid? I’d say approximately – forever, because AGW is not a science, it’s a religion. And religions aren’t upset by mere facts. For example: lack of snow proves AGW, just as too much snow does, lack of hurricanes proves AGW, just as too many hurricanes do, and lack of fog proves AGW, just as to much Fog does.

simple; whatever happens is proof enough for the pure of heart.

Boomer

Mike,

How much longer can they keep up the pretense that AGW is valid? I’d say approximately – forever, because AGW is not a science, it’s a religion. And religions aren’t upset by mere facts. For example: lack of snow proves AGW, just as too much snow does, lack of hurricanes proves AGW, just as too many hurricanes do, and lack of fog proves AGW, just as to much Fog does. It’s How much longer can they keep up the pretense that AGW is valid? I’d say approximately – forever, because AGW is not a science, it’s a religion. And religions aren’t upset by mere facts. For example: lack of snow proves AGW, just as too much snow does, lack of hurricanes proves AGW, just as too many hurricanes do, and lack of fog proves AGW, just as to much Fog does.

simple; whatever happens is proof enough for the pure of heart.

You have demonstrated that you are completely incapable of discussing the science behind the topic, presumably because you don't actually know squat. When you are capable of and/or interested in trying to actually discuss the science involved, rather than just state baseless opinions, I'd be happy to engage you in that conversation.

Mike,

I am not a climatologist and do not intend to engage you in debate over GW,AGW, Temperature anomalies or any other thread.  I have merely attempted to post some links that call into question the climate dogma that has been fostered by the MSM.  Why are the alarmists so militant regarding skeptics.  If the clams on either side of the issues are incorrect they should be corrected.  I am interested in alternative fuels and am all for a cleaner more productive earth.  I do not however want to line the pockets of the likes of Al Gore with their CO2 Crap & Trade scam.  Once again I suggest: FOLLOW the MONEY

Boomer

Mike,

I am not a climatologist and do not intend to engage you in debate over GW,AGW, Temperature anomalies or any other thread.  I have merely attempted to post some links that call into question the climate dogma that has been fostered by the MSM. 

The main-stream media has not fostered "climate dogma". The science clearly indicates that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, which we are doing by burning fossil fuels, traps more heat in the atmosphere and leads to increased *average global* temperatures (which does *not* mean that every place on earth has the same increase in temperature, or even any at all. The altering of the global conveyors, as I explained, translates into some places getting cooler). That's what the science says, regardless of whether the media agrees or not.

Why are the alarmists so militant regarding skeptics. 

Huh? Who is "militant"?

Sure, some of us scientists get annoyed and angry. The same as we do when people make similarly absurd claims, such as promoting creationism over evolution. We live in worlds of logic and science, where you can definitively prove things. And we get annoyed when people make absurdly false claims - particularly when the media gives them attention, such that the public begins to think that they are valid. The public is woefully ignorant when it comes to matters of science, and it doesn't help matters when there are similarly ignorant people out there getting a lot of attention for the pure garbage they are spewing.

Science does not work like democracy - it's not majority rule. What the majority of the public thinks does not change whether we are warming our atmosphere, just as it does not change whether the sky is blue. The media treats scientific debates as if they are matters of opinion, not matters of science. See for example how the media likes reporting on what percentage of Americans think global warming is real. As if that matters.

If the clams on either side of the issues are incorrect they should be corrected.  I am interested in alternative fuels and am all for a cleaner more productive earth.  I do not however want to line the pockets of the likes of Al Gore with their CO2 Crap & Trade scam.  Once again I suggest: FOLLOW the MONEY

Whether some people are trying to make a buck off of things like cap and trade does not have anything to do with whether the science behind anthropogenic global climate change is valid or not. Cap and trade is an attempt at internalizing the external costs due to CO2 pollution. Not a great attempt, but that is how the idea was started. The problem is that:

a.) Assessing the lifecycle GHG emissions from different technologies is not a simple matter, and there is disagreement in the results. Particularly when people with agendas start trying to get involved in the issue, and start publishing poorly done studies claiming that technologies other than the one they like best have much higher GHG emissions than is reasonable (this is done a lot, particularly by wind/solar advocates looking to make technologies like nuclear look bad. I could go on for hours about this....). FOr cap and trade to work, we would need to have accurate assessments of the GHG impacts of different technologies, to accurately assign an amount of CO2 emissions to different technologies. Instead, what is being done is trying to only count direct fossil fuel uses as CO2 emissions, and then let different non-fossil technologies get different amounts of credits.

But, the amount of credits different things get is being skewed by politics and money. For a good example of how this is happening in the UK, see http://www.pickinglosers.com/blog_entry/bruno/20090322/ere_mate_can_you_spare_few_billion_wind_farm

Wind power companies are asking (demanding really) that wind get considerably more credit than other technologies, since it will mean more profit for them, and it is hard for wind to compete without favorable treatment (and solar needs massively favorable treatment).

b.) All cap and trade approaches are being written up by combinations of politicians and companies, all with vested interests, lining each others' pockets. The idea itself was developed by scientists as a rationale way of internalizing external costs due to pollution. But, of course, politicians (from any party or country) won't leave it up to scientists to figure out how to implement it - since there are plenty of companies and other vested interests eager to line the politicians' pockets to get the actual implementation written in a favorable way.

The fact that humans - and politicians in particular - are selfish, greedy bastards, does not affect the scientific merit of anthropogenic global climate change. Instead, it just brings a whole bunch of people into the debate, with vested interests, and no clue about the science - who think that their opinion is perfectly valid even though they have no idea what they are talking about.

And *THAT* is why we scientists get so peeved about this issue (or any other issue in which uninformed people want to interject their "opinions", thinking they are just as valid as what the science says, since apparently everyone's opinion should have equal weight).

The great thing about global warming is that you can blame anything on it, and then deny it later.

http://www.weatheraction.com/

This more like science than the CO2 fraud.

more Science!

climaterealists.com/index.php

AGW is not a religion but a clear theory based on climate science. But the real scary monster in the room is not the AGW, its the acidification of the oceans that will likely do us in. A collapse of the oceans would wipe out over 1/2 our population in a generation.