Category: Humor, Really, really bad calls, UnScience

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

62 Responses to “Climate Change: Fact or Fraud Conference (postponed)”

  1. Francois says:

    The very concept that scientific facts can be debated as if they were “just another opinion” is a great demonstration of the number of useful idiots the American Right harbor within their ranks.

  2. RW says:

    Funny, and I suspect things will get a lot worse (and a lot less amusing) over the next few decades, but a few bad storms or even a few bad storm seasons won’t confirm things — that’s weather, not climate; cyclical, not secular (yet) — but what get’s me is that we even need something like global climate change to scare us into doing the right thing; e.g., it was obvious more than a half century ago that coal and oil weren’t just environmental problems they were energy and macroeconomic dead ends.

  3. Chad says:

    What really annoys me is that it doesn’t matter if climate change is real or not. It is obvious that we are running out of oil or at the minimum out pacing cheap oil with our energy needs. And, at the minimum coal is just dirty. On top of that energy is a blatant national security issue for the West, China and Japan, so a new renewable source is vital.

    Another issue is that we send $600-800 billion a year overseas for oil. If we even kept half that here we would have a substantially stronger economy.

    Basically, pick your the issue that fits with either your left or right beliefs and it points to the need for a cheap renewable source. “Drill baby drill” is just something stupid people say. I’m done with it. Anyone who argues against renewable energy immediately brings their intelligence into question.

  4. carleric says:

    I grew up in the center of the Spindletop Oil Field and a major refining center (Port Arthur, TX)…the idea of not using oil was anethma to me….but “the times they are a changin”……somehow we need to overwhelm the oil and coal interests and move forward to replace these materials or at a minimum severely reduce their consumption. My close friend works for an international alternative energy source company (solar) and he finds it remarkable how other societies are eagerly open to adoption and we desperately cling to the past. Of course as long as oil and coal companies and their allies have paid for and gained control of the US Congress we seem stuck in the past….is there anything sillier, less cost effective, more damaging to the environment than ethanol? And yet the people of Iowa keep sending Grassley to Congress and this is just one example. It is going to take more than lip service from our “leaders” to get us on the right path.

  5. JamesT says:

    That’s a good point, Francois. Facts are facts.
    That’s why Stephen McIntyre’s relentless destruction of the, in the end, unsupported representations of Michael Man and Keith Briffa should be respected. Perhaps the single most amazing anecdote in A.W. Montford’s book, The Hockey Stick Illusion, was his recounting how when McIntyre asked the editor of one climate science journal for the data and processing code behind one paper it had published the editor essentially said that no one, including his reviewers, had ever asked for that before.

    You see, Francois, you’ll appreciate this because you want facts to be respected. “Peer review” has actually seldom meant complete review. Mann and Briffa and others had their work feted by people who never actually truly checked their work. McIntyre did and showed that, at best, it was shoddy to the point of not supporting their trumpeted conclusions. At worst they were engaged in advocacy or what’s sometimes termed “noble cause” corruption, the sort in which a cop lies on the stand to help convict a person he’s sure is guilty. Or maybe a scientist cuts a few corners, maybe more than a few in order to make a case for a policy he thinks is right.

    Facts should be respected, Francois, and policy decided on the basis of them. And those interested in the issue should be willing to confront facts which run counter to their predisposition. Honest people dedicated to the notion of not just some climate change taking place, not just some cyclical change but AGW, should be honest enough to challenge themselves and read Montford’s book. It’s really impossible to respect facts and read that book and believe Mann and Briffa and Jones.

  6. Romberry says:

    @Francois: You should be aware that “scientific facts” get debated all the time. That debate is a fundamental part of how science works. I’m not talking about politicized/opinion debate here. I’m talking about scientific debate based on evidence. That debate is how we find out that many “scientific facts” are in error and replace those erroneous “facts” with answers that we believe are more…uh…factual. Look at the debate over plate tectonics as recently as the 1950′s (when the idea that the earth’s crust was a series of plates in constant motion was still considered to be a crazy notion.) Look at current notions about the size of the universe, or the expansion of the universe, or the fact that the expansion is accelerating rather than slowing down.

    I firmly believe that climate change is happening, and that some portion (maybe even most or all) is attributable to what we as a species have done and continue to do to our planet/environment. But I am reasonably certain that many of the “scientific facts” as we currently understand them will be replaced with better facts that show what we currently believe is in many cases wide of the mark. One example of that would be the “facts” that science settled on concerning the pace of climate change. Current indications are that those “facts” will perhaps be wildly optimistic and that climate change is happening much more quickly than we thought. (Personally, I think we will discover at some point that we passed the tipping point for climate change at least a decade ago.)

  7. katphiche says:

    Here is a link to a 1975 Newsweek article “The Cooling World” which states “Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend as well as its specific impact on local weather conditions.

    But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

    The last sentence of the article says it all, only a generation ago it was global cooling, not warming, “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climate change once the results become a grim reality.”

    The sky is falling again. If only we could protect ourselves from the arrogant certainty of the media and scientific experts who say “trust us, we are certain we’ve diagnosed the problem and have THE answer.” Now, if the “solution” is implemented worldwide, it could cost us trillions of dollars.

    http://tinyurl.com/2vwvuz

    ~~~

    BR: I assume you are aware that Climate modeling has improved since the Pre-Computer age 38 years ago . . .

    If I have to choose between “Arrogant Scientists” and profit driven Oil companies, I suspect those without a profit motive are much more likely to be telling the truth.

    Fail.

  8. derekce says:

    I’m old enough to remember the harsh weather in the ’70′s and ole timers sitting around griping we were ruining the weather sending those newfangled rockets into space and going to the moon. Bad weather brings out doomsday scenarios, much like social unrest brings out apocalypse warnings from religious zealots or market fluctuations brings out the perma bears. It’s a form of the recency effect and the fact that we remember negative emotion stronger in our memory.(How well can you remember 9-11-01 compared to 9-11-10.). I’m all for renewable energy but it’s been as elusive as a cure for cancer. Since that harsh weather in the ’70′s, we still power our cars with gas and treat cancer with chemo and radiation. After all this time, hope and money spent on those two endeavors, such little progress make me feel like they’re other forms of alchemy.

  9. mathman says:

    By now we’ve moved on past climate-change (which “our elected leaders” are completely ignoring) to (population and) bottleneck (which won’t be ignored).

    There’s no way to avoid it, as it’s already begun, and the tell-tale signs of resource scarcity (including potable water, see Texas e.g.); increasing problems with food production (and, as Peak Oil really takes hold, distribution); disease more identified with equatorial Africa hitting the tropics – like Dengue Fever, Yellow Fever, etc. – and becoming more prevalent in other areas (like Florida, for example, and spreading from there northward as things heat up); plants and trees as well as necessary bugs (that we rely on for pollination) severely stressed due to warming conditions, blight, parasites, and other disease; chaotic weather wreaking havoc (tornados, flooding, severe drought, extreme heat) on populations everywhere along with food shortages as a result of all this will lead to political instability (from the lower classes), resource wars (among neighbors, states, and countries), and a culling of the human (and many other) species.

    It would be a different story if the population of the planet was sustainable, but since we’ve long since passed the carrying capacity of the earth, we’re going to witness a severe drop (like housing prices) as a result of the above reality.

  10. willid3 says:

    i suspect climate change is happening. but that we won’t do any thing about it, but try to adapt to it. and its not the hyperbole of destroying the planet (some thing that we could barely do with nuclear weapons. lots of them). what we can do though is change the ecology. we have in fact done so in the past (think of the dust storms of the 1930s. caused by bad farming practices. by humans). oil is finite. we use it for more than just energy (lots of materials, drugs etc are based on it). so long before it goes short we will lots more problems with it. just doubt we will do anything till its painfully obvious. and science is always based on facts, its he interpretations and technology that change. sort of like the old theory that the earth was the center of the universe. only to find out using new technology (telescope) that we weren’t. and scientists are always debating the theories. unlike economists who can’t seem to debate EMH, they just accept as real

  11. Greg0658 says:

    “be aware that scientific facts get debated all the time”
    and Financial Theories must pass the “make Me* wealthier more than it breaks Me” test

    * – time frame dependant

  12. QOTD: “Money and women. They’re two of the strongest things in the world. The things you do for a woman you wouldn’t do for anything else. Same with money.” —Satchel Paige

    re: “…Another issue is that we send $600-800 billion a year overseas for oil. If we even kept half that here we would have a substantially stronger economy…”

    We should wonder..

    or, at least, recall http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=August+15%2C+1971

    (bet We’re not going to have any “40th Anniversary” *Celebrations of ‘that’ Date..)

    and, http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=U.S.+PetroDollar+Economy

    LSS: our “Addiction to Oil” has much, if not ~Everything, to do with out ‘Oil-Standard’ “Paperback”

    also, note http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9140us2a.htm growing until ~’71, then levelled off (by mere *Accident..)

    “Elastic” Currency ~ Elastic *Reality

  13. Kort says:

    Well, we know that obesity is, literally, killing Americans left and right, as well as our budgets. But, what do we do—-we eat more Happy Meals.

    Even if climate change could be proven 100% to every American—they wouldn’t, couldn’t, “go green” knowing that Brazil, India and/or China were still going to kill the climate anyway.

    The climate has been changing for hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of years. If a species (humans) that has been on the planet for a nanosecond of the earth’s existence has pushed the climate this far, this fast—we won’t last another 100 or 1,000 years anyway.

  14. JimRino says:

    Today in the news, English soil moisture content = that of the desert.
    While in the North East US we’re getting record precipitation, that we don’t want.
    I’d go so far as to say, the NE is getting Texas’s precipitation.

    http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

    I guess the most disappointing this is JamesT’s comment.
    When much of the population is SUCKERED by the Koch’s 100 Million Dollar Investment in Bullshit Science, and 87 right wing “think tanks”, instead of things they can now see with their VERY Own Eyes, we’re going to be destroyed by Sociopathic Billionaires and their horde of paid for web-blog, propaganda books, astro-turf commenters. [ There is photographic evidence of massive glacier melt on the web for anyone to view ].

    We are going to have to do something about the fact that as long as the Koch’s can Buy Politicians: Citizens United [ Against America ], that we don’t Live In a Democracy. We are being ruled just like in England in 1776, by Crazy George, no crazy David & Charles Koch, the King, the Dummy Kings. And going to have to ask ourselves, “Does Pure Capitalism Make Us Stupid?”.

    When the only thing you care about is money, then you’re a Business Screwup.

    The Stupidity of the Right has deep roots, going back to Milton Friedman:
    http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

    A Business’s Only Responsibility is Profit?
    - Kill the Planet.
    - Kill your customer: Healthcare Rescission?
    - Kill your customer: China’s meat laced with chemicals?

    Was this Milton’s actual thinking, or was he Paid for this Paper by the Rich Sociopath of his day.

  15. JimRino says:

    JamesL, you’d do better to actually read journals like Science, and Scientific America.
    In 2008 a Yale scientist PREDICTED multi-year El Nino event’s, like those being “enjoyed” by Texas today.

  16. GrafSchweik says:

    @JamesT

    I won’t waste any more of my typing ”breath’ other than to thank you for using “the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge”…

    and confirming my own axiom that ‘sentience is an intermittent phenomenon’.

  17. PJB says:

    I’m surprised that nobody commented on the irony that the only actual event (that I know of), like that depicted in the cartoon, was to the opposite effect – Senate hearings on climate change were postponed due to snow in early 2010:
    http://marcovilla.instablogs.com/entry/senate-postpones-global-warming-hearing-due-to-snow-storm/

    The Cancun conference had the slightly embarrassing detail that, during the conference, Cancun experienced record cold temperatures.

    In regard to Joke Romm’s very selective data, here’s one longer term chart:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DUSTBOWL6.jpg

    Time’ll tell, I suppose

  18. rootless says:

    @JamesT:

    So, your claims about climate science in general, or the works by Mann et al. in particular, are based on believing the hearsay you read in a book written by someone (Montford) who has a clear non-scientific agenda and who isn’t even a climate scientist. This is very convincing. I suppose you are also an avid reader ob all the obscure blogs of the deniers of AGW. What about you bring some real scientific arguments, which are based on findings in scientific research, not just some sound bites you copy from obscure sources?

  19. JimRino says:

    It doesn’t mean anything…
    Interesting Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhCY-3XnqS0

  20. rootless says:

    @Romberry:

    One example of that would be the “facts” that science settled on concerning the pace of climate change. Current indications are that those “facts” will perhaps be wildly optimistic and that climate change is happening much more quickly than we thought.

    I don’t think that the scientists who actually work in the field generally claim something as easily as a settled fact like you present it here.

  21. romerjt says:

    I’m expecting a sort of rapture-like moment of where the collective public opinion realizes the climate has already changed and the humorous point made in the cartoon is the new normal . . . followed by, “oh shit, what do we do now”? Short the climate change deniers.

  22. rootless says:

    Here is a review of Montford’s book on RealClimate, a blog maintained by actually working climate scientists:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

  23. ByteMe says:

    JimRino: Texas (and the US in general) is not in the throws of a El Nino situation today… we’re in La Nina, where the tradewinds are slower going from west to east, so more severe storms will likely hit the USA… and more drought in the southern USA.

  24. gms777 says:

    If I were running for president, I would begin each speech by holding up a 100 watt incandescent light bulb and saying, “If you elect me, the first thing I will do as President is rescind regulations banning the lightbulb (or work to change federal law causing its banning). The second thing I will do is rescind the EPA regulations that are causing the closure of power plants that’s causing your power bills to go up. Send the signal, America, put a light in your window. Burn a light through the night for liberty, freedom from big government. Let the light you burn be liberty’s torch in your neighborhood.”

    Maybe this is ecologically stupid, but politically I think it’s a winner.

  25. fred2 says:

    Really strange that on a blog normally so perceptive and intelligent, especially from Barry’s lead but also with many great commenters, the climate change issue still doesn’t register. The world is changing, leading companies are jumping into the future. (eg. Total just bought 60% of Sunpower).
    What’s not to like about energy that is renewable, cost competitive, and doesn’t require wars to secure?
    Anyway, I’ve stopped arguing about it, I just work with people who can see the future.

  26. formerlawyer says:

    For a knowledgeable takedown of climate change deniers see:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/

  27. ubnutsagain says:

    @ fred2: “…with many great commenters, the climate change issue still doesn’t register.”

    There’s a reason it doesn’t register, at least in the way one might prefer.

    Most people have an inherent common sense, and can see that neither the so-called AGW triggered by excessive release of CO2 nor the flat out denial thereof make any sense.

    It doesn’t make sense for the simple reason that no-one, whether CO2-driven climate change advocates or so-called deniers, can prove their case via omniscient scientific truths that rationally include the effects of all the factors that drive global temps up or down.

    That is, the scientific community simply does not understand all the myriad factors that cause global temps to rise or fall over sustained periods of time.

    You don’t know, I don’t know, and informed sources including climate scientists we may look to for guidance don’t fully understand the climate system. We still have a long way to go before either side can reasonably forecast global temperatures 30, 50, or 100 years into the future.

    So when groups like the UNIPCC or Watts Up make lots of noise about the future levels of global temperatures, that inherent common sense kicks in and says, in a word, “b___s__t”.

    That’s why it doesn’t “register”.

  28. Ny Stock Guy says:

    I’m sure eventually we will figure out a way to make renewable energy work, but I’m also sure that we won’t really try until we start seriously running out of oil.

    As Churchill once said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”

  29. DeDude says:

    “the scientific community simply does not understand all the myriad factors that cause global temps to rise or fall over sustained periods of time”

    Actually they understand enough to have build complicated multi-factorial models that have been excellent at predicting the shifts in global temperatures. That would not be possible if they had “missed” some major factor with significant influence. The problem is that most of those models are so complicated that it would take years of intense studies for even scientifically trained individuals to make a detailed justified professional evaluation of them. For most of us it boils down to things like: 1) experimental physics clearly demonstrate that humans use of fossil fuel release gas and particles that simple physics experiments have proven to have a “green house” effect. 2) temperature records and old photos of glaciers/ice-sheets clearly demonstrate a remarkable increase in temperatures at places all over the world (and no similar remarkable decrease has been documented anywhere on earth). So although I cannot fully understand the complicated models that makes a scientific proof (at p<0.05) of AGW it certainly makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to reject it. Now if the climate scientists who previously rejected AGW had not changed their opinions or if some of them had taken the political opportunity under Bush to enhance their career with a little science based counter-arguing then I would say there still was a basis for being sceptic.

  30. JamesT says:

    So, DeDude. Don’t the emails released from East Anglia in which Phil Jones and others are quoted agonizing about the fact that observed temperatures do not match their predictions give you pause?

    If that doesn’t, what about the skepticism of Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen and others?

    Doesn’t the fact that we’ve had strong cyclical fluctuations of temperature throughout the earth’s history give you some pause? The AGW theory is not one thing. It is two, at least two. It’s a belief that temperatures are significantly rising and that this is caused by human actions.

    There are myriad different ways to see this which don’t accept this theory in its most common form. One could agree about temperature rises but find that the proffered causal relationship to human actions is lacking. Or one could agree in part with the claimed temperature rise or one could agree in part with the suggested causal relationship to human activity. The blanket, moronic use of terms like “deniers” refuses to acknowledge the variety of difference of opinion out there, which is quite sad.

    It’s also quite sad that sites like RealClimate, which swallowed whole, without objection, the discredited Michael Mann Hockey Stick and the claims of Keith “One Tree” Briffa suffer no penalty whatsoever in the eyes of nearly religious adherents. Is it really so excruciatingly painful to admit that a mining engineer was right and that tenured climate scientists were wrong? Isn’t the truth or falsity of a proposition more important than the curriculum vitae of its advocates?

  31. peter9810 says:

    So . . . You think you know quite a bit about Obama and his band of thieves.

    Read on and see just how little you know. All of this comes together in the last part… a must read. This is an interesting story put together from various articles and TV shows by the British Times paper. It shows what Obama and his friends are really all about. It’s not hope and change, it is money.

    I warn you, the first part is a little boring, but stick with it. The second part connects all the dots for you (it will open your eyes). The end explains how Obama and all his cronies will end up as multi-billionaires. (It’s definitely worth the read. You will not be disappointed).

    A small bank in Chicago called SHOREBANK almost went bankrupt during the recession. The bank made a profit on its foreign micro-loans (see below) but had lost money in sub-prime mortgages in the US. It was facing likely closure by federal regulators. However, because the bank’s executives were well connected with members of the Obama Administration, a private rescue bailout was arranged. The bank’s employees had donated money to Obama’s Senate campaign.

    In other words, ShoreBank was too politically connected to be allowed to go under.

    ShoreBank survived and invested in many “green” businesses such as solar panel manufacturing. In fact, the bank was mentioned in one of Obama’s speeches during his election campaign because it subjected new business borrowers to Eco-litmus tests.

    Prior to becoming President, Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, a liberal charity. This foundation was originally established by Joyce Kean’s family which had accumulated millions of dollars in the lumber industry. It mostly gave funds to hospitals but after her death in 1972, the foundation was taken over by radical environmentalists and social justice extremists.

    This JOYCE FOUNDATION, which is rumored to have assets of 8 billion dollars, has now set up and funded, with a few partners, something called the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE, known as CXX. It will be the exchange (like the Chicago Grain Futures Market for agriculture) where Environmental Carbon Credits are traded.

    Under Obama’s new bill, businesses in the future will be assessed a tax on how much CO2 they produce (their Carbon Footprint) or in other words how much they add to global warming. If a company produces less CO2 than their allotted measured limit, they earn a Carbon Credit. This Carbon Credit can be traded on the CXX exchange. Another company, which has gone over their CO2 limit, can buy the Credit and “reduce” their footprint and tax liability. It will be like trading shares on Wall Street.

    Well, it was the same JOYCE FOUNDATION, along with some other private partners and Wall Street firms that funded the bailout of ShoreBank. The foundation is now one of the major shareholders. The bank has now been designated to be the “banking arm” of the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CXX). In addition, Goldman Sachs has been contracted to run the investment trading floor of the exchange.

    So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts.

    One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported the bank and are small investors.

    Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama’s late mother. Obama’s mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for the Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner. Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years.

    Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter.

    The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist.

    Nash was also a member of Obama’s White House transition team.

    (To jog your memories, Bill Ayers is a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He founded the Weather Underground, a radical revolutionary group that bombed buildings in the 60s and 70s. He had no remorse for those who were killed, escaped jail on a technicality, and is still an admitted Marxist).

    When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he “funneled” thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund.

    Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, the terrorist.

    Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc., a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.

    (You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. Years prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko’s company and helped him get more than

    43 million dollars in government funding. Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama).

    Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.

    Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for “green” projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University. You will remember that Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.

    Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs. Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shorebank attended. (They are all friends).

    Interesting? And now the closing…

    Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a money-generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress and into law.

    Obama knows he must get this passed before he loses his majority in Congress in the November elections. Apart from Climate Change he will “sell” this bill to the public as generating tax revenue to reduce our debt. But, it will also make it impossible for US companies to compete in world markets and drastically increase unemployment. In addition, energy prices (home utility rates) will sky rocket.

    But, here’s the KICKER (THE MONEY TRAIL).

    If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 TRILLION dollars each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 billion dollars to split between its owners, all Obama cronies. At a 2 percent rate, Goldman Sachs would also rake in 200 billion dollars each year.

    But don’t forget SHOREBANK. With 10 trillion dollars flowing though its accounts, the bank will earn close to 40 billion dollars in interest each year for its owners (more Obama cronies), without even breaking a sweat.

    It is estimated Al Gore alone will probably rake in 15 billion dollars just in the first year. Of course, Obama’s “commissions” will be held in trust for him at the Joyce Foundation. They are estimated to be over 8 billion dollars by the time he leaves office in 2013, if the bill passes this year. Of course, these commissions will continue to be paid for the rest of his life.

    Some financial experts think this will be the largest “scam” or “legal heist” in world history. Obama’s cronies make the Mafia look like rank amateurs. They will make Bernie Madoff’s fraud look like penny ante stuff.

  32. peter9810 says:

    CFACT at UN conference: CO2 not the culprit – Watch now!

    [CFACT press briefing at UN conference in Bonn]
    CLICK TO WATCH NOW

    Share on Facebook: [Facebook]

  33. A7L-B says:

    So little talk of the changing climates on other planets in our solar system.

    Odd…

  34. Greg0658 says:

    peter9810 interesting read up there (did you write it?) .. a connected to moneyed interests POTUS .. um / where have I seen that before .. thump for who gets you there (as well as the majority of your neighbors) (does it with legality) .. for me GOP goes to capital as Dems goes to labor .. is America its business or its people .. MSM reports balance sheets of big business are in good shape (if the balance sheets are real)

    I will ditto your distaste of the trade’g floor concept & climate change credits (but alas its probably the only thing this system can get going)

    a line from the Jaycee Creed “That government should be of laws rather than of men;”

  35. rootless says:

    @JamesT:

    So, DeDude. Don’t the emails released from East Anglia in which Phil Jones and others are quoted agonizing about the fact that observed temperatures do not match their predictions give you pause?

    You can’t really refute what has been published on climate change and global warming in scientific studies, using scientific arguments. So that is to what you and others have to resort: Some free interpretation of a few mined quotes from some hacked emails. And this is supposed to convince us of what?

    If that doesn’t, what about the skepticism of Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen and others?

    Richard Lindzen works on climate. His skepticism is noted. He is quite a lonely one among the working climate scientists. It doesn’t mean per se that he has to be wrong, though. Which of his arguments do you find convincing and why? What do you think about the arguments, which have been provided against what Lindzen says?

    Why do you mention Feeman Dyson? What research has he done on topics of climate science?

    Doesn’t the fact that we’ve had strong cyclical fluctuations of temperature throughout the earth’s history give you some pause?

    What exactly is your argument here? Temperature has changed throughout history on various time scales. As if any climate scientist didn’t know this and said anything different. What is supposed to follow from this regarding anthropogenic climate change? That temperature has change in Earth’s history before humans could change it, is one of the straw man arguments used by AGW deniers.

    The blanket, moronic use of terms like “deniers” refuses to acknowledge the variety of difference of opinion out there, which is quite sad.

    Of course there is a variety of difference of opinion. Anyone can have an opinion on anything. One doesn’t need to know anything to have an opinion on anything. There is a vast difference between opinion and actual scientifically based knowledge about something, though.

    The “deniers” are the ones who don’t try to refute published science on their own grounds using actual scientific arguments, different to how true scientific skeptics would do it. Deniers use other, non-scientific approaches, like personally attacking the climate scientists instead, e.g., based on some obscure and absurd conspiracy theory. Deniers can’t refute the science, which says something they don’t like, often because it is contrary to their economic, political, or ideological agenda or believes. The relationship of the AGW deniers to climate science and global warming is quite similar to the relationship of creationists to the biological sciences and evolution. And for those, the term “deniers” is quite appropriate.

    It’s also quite sad that sites like RealClimate, which swallowed whole, without objection, the discredited Michael Mann Hockey Stick and the claims of Keith “One Tree” Briffa suffer no penalty whatsoever in the eyes of nearly religious adherents. Is it really so excruciatingly painful to admit that a mining engineer was right and that tenured climate scientists were wrong? Isn’t the truth or falsity of a proposition more important than the curriculum vitae of its advocates?

    Well, that is your claim that the work of Mann and Briffa has been discredited. And I know that this claim is a perpetuated meme in the denier blogosphere. But is it true just because AGW deniers like to claim this? On what facts is this claim based? Who decides whether some scientific studies are discredited? Do the deniers decide this because this is their wishful thinking? Or, to consider the work by Mann and Briffa as discredited wouldn’t they actually have to be discredited in the scientific community of the people who work on these topics instead? Can you present any facts according to which the works by Mann and Briffa are discredited there?

    The deniers still like to talk about some work by Mann et al. published in 1998/99, and present some alleged flaws of these early works to talk about an allegedly discredited “Hockey stick”. And they like to ignore that there has been a whole set of additional studies with reconstructions of historic climate using proxy data since then. The more recent studies have confirmed the basic scientific findings by Mann et al., adding new data and refining the methodology.

  36. KeithOK says:

    @katphiche
    One of the clearest ways to show one is not interested in the facts is to pretend there was some global cooling debate in the 70s analogous to the global warming/climate change debate now. It’s just not true. There was a small debate over whether the earth was, if we ignore anthropogenic effects, the earth was cooling. The conclusion by the National Academy of Sciences was that there was not enough information to know.

    There was no “sky is falling” alarmist element to the debate. Most people did not even know it was going on. It made it into a couple non-scientific sources like an issue of Newsweek that wrote a non-scientific article. So what? The point is, there was no similar consensus as there is in the current debate. It was a minor debate, minuscule compared to the current debate in terms of amount of scientific work or coverage. To claim that science has made a 180 from global cooling to global warming requires a great degree of ignorance about what happened, or lack of concern about the truth.

    The lies, of course continue. Carlson Tucker once stated that if you were at the first Earth Day celebration you would have seen “Stop global cooling” signs, a total lie. I’ve seen more recent claims that the first Earth Day was based on opposition to global cooling. Global cooling was never even an issue with environmentalists. The lies about the “global cooling movement” just keep growing.

    So in summary, back in the 70s a few scientists, mainly paleo-climatologists, thought we might be entering a global cooling period. Others didn’t. This minor debate resulted in the conclusion that the earth may or may not be in a long term cooling, but the data wasn’t good enough to reach a conclusion.

    Now there is an overwhelming consensus that the earth is warming significantly vs. long-term trends (though not uniformly and with changes other than just average temperature, thus “climate change”). There is a slightly smaller, but still strong, consensus that the change results from human activity. Tremendous advancements in data collection and analysis and in the number of studies since the 70s support this view.

    Such a contradiction! How can we know what to believe?

    It’s like arguing with new Earth creationists, who all repeat the same non-sensical arguments against evolution, without any real understanding of what they are arguing about.

  37. peter9810 says:

    [CFACT press briefing at UN conference in Bonn]
    CLICK TO WATCH NOW

  38. peter9810 says:

    CO2 not the culprit…From the UFCCC Bonn Conference

    Dr. Ewert informed the press that his “evaluation of long-term temperature readings . . . disprove that we have man-made global warming.” He presented the results of his analysis of over 1,100 temperature curves from around the world, concluding, “the final result is that in 74% of all stations of the world we had no warming.”

    While the UN has often been told there will be terrible consequences if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere remains at or increases from the current 390 parts per million (ppm), Dr. Ewert pointed out that “in the geological past, we had the greatest glaciation of the earth (the glacier went down to 35 degrees north) when we have carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere of 1400 [ppm]. That means it was several times higher than today.” In other words, the historical evidence proves CO2 does not control earth’s climate.

    Dr. Ewert summed up his presentation nicely when he declared, “It is necessary to conclude that the particular effect of manmade carbon dioxide production is not recognizable, in other words, does not exist.”

    With the Kyoto protocol about to expire the global warming folks are desperate to obtain a new climate treaty in Durban. The expiration of Kyoto places the hopes and dreams of carbon profiteers in peril as their carbon trading markets are set to expire along with the protocol.

    The expiration of Kyoto also places the fortunes of those seeking to cash in on offset, subsidy and other raids upon the treasuries of developed nations in jeopardy. The UNFCCC is using all its power to get new agreements before it is too late. We cannot let down our guard. CFACT will continue to inject cold hard facts into this weeks negotiations and at COP17 in South Africa.

  39. JamesT says:

    Rootless. The proof is supplied in quite sufficient detail in Montford’s book. But the shortest route to seeing the proof of Mann being discredited is the way his work quietly disappeared. Why isn’t it front and center in IPCC reports any more? Because it was an embarassment to anyone professing to believe the AGW theory who had any integrity. Briffa’s work reliant upon a single Yamal tree (again debunked by McIntyre) is suffering an even more quiet but similar fate.

    As to refining Mann’s methodology, that’s kind of funny. How would anyone know what to refine? Because despite repeated requests for Mann to share or divulge his processing code, he never has. Along with trying to keep secret his data, though that eventually slipped out despite him, Mann never allowed anyone reviewing his work to review what would constitute his methodology. This is the “scientist” immediately preferred by some over McIntyre the mere mining engineer.

  40. rootless says:

    @JamesT:

    But the shortest route to seeing the proof of Mann being discredited is the way his work quietly disappeared. Why isn’t it front and center in IPCC reports any more?

    Why should it be in the front and center, if there have been more recent studies with updated data and methodology?

    But has it quietly disappeared as you claim as alleged proof? Is this a fact? Have you checked it?

    Here is Figure 6-10 of the most recent IPCC report published in 2007:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html

    Mann et al. is still there. And no “Hockey stick” in the analyses, including the more recent ones?

    And here is what the text says:

    The TAR discussed various attempts to use proxy data to reconstruct changes in the average temperature of the NH for the period after AD 1000, but focused on three reconstructions (included in Figure 6.10), all with yearly resolution. The first (Mann et al., 1999) represents mean annual temperatures, and is based on a range of proxy types, including data extracted from tree rings, ice cores and documentary sources; this reconstruction also incorporates a number of instrumental (temperature and precipitation) records from the 18th century onwards. For 900 years, this series exhibits multi-decadal fluctuations with amplitudes up to 0.3°C superimposed on a negative trend of 0.15°C, followed by an abrupt warming (~0.4°C) matching that observed in the instrumental data during the first half of the 20th century. Of the other two reconstructions, one (Jones et al., 1998) was based on a much smaller number of proxies, whereas the other (Briffa et al., 2001) was based solely on tree ring density series from an expansive area of the extratropics, but reached back only to AD 1400. These two reconstructions emphasise warm season rather than annual temperatures, with a geographical focus on extratropical land areas. They indicate a greater range of variability on centennial time scales prior to the 20th century, and also suggest slightly cooler conditions during the 17th century than those portrayed in the Mann et al. (1998, 1999) series.

    The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has been the subject of several critical studies. Soon and Baliunas (2003) challenged the conclusion that the 20th century was the warmest at a hemispheric average scale. They surveyed regionally diverse proxy climate data, noting evidence for relatively warm (or cold), or alternatively dry (or wet) conditions occurring at any time within pre-defined periods assumed to bracket the so-called ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (and ‘Little Ice Age’). Their qualitative approach precluded any quantitative summary of the evidence at precise times, limiting the value of their review as a basis for comparison of the relative magnitude of mean hemispheric 20th-century warmth (Mann and Jones, 2003; Osborn and Briffa, 2006). Box 6.4 provides more information on the ‘Medieval Warm Period’.
    [...]
    McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,b) raised further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998) method, principally relating to the independent verification of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis. The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C; for further discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005).
    [etc.]

    (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html#6-6-1)

    So much for quietly disappeared. The work is still mentioned, among the others which have been carried out since then and which have confirmed the basic findings about the “Hockey stick”. And it is mentioned that the results have been reproduced in follow up studies.

    Briffa’s work reliant upon a single Yamal tree (again debunked by McIntyre) is suffering an even more quiet but similar fate.

    Let me guess. You have copied this claim from Montford’s book, which you blindly believe. I tell you it’s a lie that you are believing.

    Perhaps, your references on which you rely aren’t really the best ones to get informed?

    As to refining Mann’s methodology, that’s kind of funny. How would anyone know what to refine? Because despite repeated requests for Mann to share or divulge his processing code, he never has. Along with trying to keep secret his data, though that eventually slipped out despite him, Mann never allowed anyone reviewing his work to review what would constitute his methodology. This is the “scientist” immediately preferred by some over McIntyre the mere mining engineer.

    I won’t make any statement regarding the handling of the data, since I only would have to rely on the claims made by one side or by the other side. You obviously have made your choice who you want to believe.

    The methodology of a scientific study is usually described in the published paper. Any qualified scientist who knows about principal component analyses, which is a standard statistical technique, should be able to reproduce the results provided by Mann et al in their study after reading the paper, given the data are available. That is what is scientific reproducibility about. It’s not about using the exactly same programming code or the exactly same lab equipment that has to be shipped to the scientific group first who wants to reproduce some scientific results, before the results can be reproduced.

  41. Hey You says:

    “BR: I assume you are aware that Climate modeling has improved since the Pre-Computer age 38 years ago . . .

    If I have to choose between “Arrogant Scientists” and profit driven Oil companies, I suspect those without a profit motive are much more likely to be telling the truth.”

    As my wife is a research scientist, if one wants to submit grants that have a ghost of a chance for funding, it had better assume that global warming is God’s own truth as set down by Albert Gore; his prophet. Extra credit is given to those who are going to use the grant to “study” blah blah and how it affects what is known to be truth, global warming. The motive is a funded grant which is a great step up to a tenured proffessorship. Maybe not a profit motive but a nice office, a fat salary, and a super secure job, full benefits and a great retirement is not too bad of a deal.

  42. rootless says:

    @peter9810:

    The knowledge about global warming is based on a large body of scientific research accumulated over many decades and published in many scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals of the field.

    What do you have to offer? Some propaganda with unsubstantiated claims which you copy from some obscure AGW denier blogs.

  43. rootless says:

    @kathpiche:

    The sky is falling again. If only we could protect ourselves from the arrogant certainty of the media and scientific experts who say “trust us, we are certain we’ve diagnosed the problem and have THE answer.”

    The funny thing is what you quote at the beginning of your comment is this:

    “Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend as well as its specific impact on local weather conditions.

    And going to your link I also find this where a report of the National Academy of Science is cited:

    Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions

    So, where is the certainty in those statements allegedly claimed by the experts back then?

    It looks like you have a cognitive bias, when reading this kind of news article.

    The global cooling was a legit hypothesis back then. But neither was there a consensus among scientists about this, nor was it understood well enough what was going on. Today, this cooling can be reproduced well in climate modeling studies when historic reconstructions of reflecting aerosols from anthropogenic sources are included as climate drivers. Today, we also know that the warming effect by increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has overwhelmed the cooling effect by reflecting aerosols since then.

  44. rootless says:

    @kathpiche:

    The sky is falling again. If only we could protect ourselves from the arrogant certainty of the media and scientific experts who say “trust us, we are certain we’ve diagnosed the problem and have THE answer.”

    The funny thing is what you quote at the beginning of your comment is this:

    “Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend as well as its specific impact on local weather conditions.

    And going to your link I also find this where a report of the National Academy of Science is cited:

    Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions

    So, where is the certainty in those statements allegedly claimed by the experts back then?

    It looks like you have a cognitive bias, when reading this kind of news article.

    The global cooling was a legit hypothesis back then. But neither was there a consensus among scientists about this, nor was it understood well enough what was going on. Today, this cooling can be reproduced well in climate modeling studies when historic reconstructions of reflecting aerosols from anthropogenic sources are included as climate drivers. Today, we also know that the warming effect by increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has overwhelmed the cooling effect by reflecting aerosols since then.

  45. GrafSchweik says:

    Alright. Who let Peter9810 out of his rubber room without making sure he’d taken his meds????

    @JamesT:

    Conservative Climatology is the flip side of the coin to Soviet Economics: in other words, not only is your cognitive dissonance showing, you’re also wanking off in public. Neither makes for an edifying sight.

    Please take your assiduously cultivated ignorance and go back to your club or your cubicle in the bowels of Murdoch’s beast where you can indulge yourself to your heart’s content without disgusting the rest of us.

    And take Hey You with you while you’re at it. His mendacity plays really well to your obtuseness. I bet both of drive cars with plastic statues of Milton Friedman on the dashboards…

  46. V says:

    Barry,

    Your comment about scientists not being profit driven whilst strictly true, discounts what happens in the academic world as far as the competition between groups of scientists to secure grant funding and protect their ‘nest’ as it were. Unfortunately this is the reality of today’s world of scientific research. Having worked in the field I can tell you that motives aren’t necessarily as pure as the broader public would like to believe.
    It is almost akin to the faith shown in bankers pre-crisis to self-regulate.
    The positive I take out of it all is that only time can really reveal the truth as on this subject there have been many predictions made on all sides of the argument. I find it interesting to go back and start looking at the first IPCC modeled projections and compare with what actually happened.

  47. ubnutsagain says:

    V: “It is almost akin to the faith shown in bankers pre-crisis to self-regulate.
    “The positive I take out of it all is that only time can really reveal the truth as on this subject there have been many predictions made on all sides of the argument.”

    There’s something about “V” that I like …

    “V” recognizes the truth: The issue of CO2-driven global warming – relabeled “climate change” by its proponents as a matter of salesmanship – has taken on religious overtones.

    It’s a faith-based belief system regardless of which side – pro or con – one has chosen to follow.

    Advocates always argue the science and “consensus”, but the science is far from complete as is attested to by the some 1,000 scientists who question the argued conclusions. The claimed “consensus” appears overwhelming to the public because government-driven, and substantial, research funding has been directed to proving their point, and their management of the media has provided them with a higher noise level.

    Opponents also argue the science, but suffer the same limitation of incomplete science. With far less research funding, opponents have less research to draw from, plus they have been stonewalled via the peer review process that has been admittedly corrupted (see UEA emails).

    Bottom line: What should be pursued via solid scientific research unimpeded by “faith based attitudes” has, in fact, become a religion to both parties.

    So sad.

  48. freejack says:

    The ‘funniest’ thing about this whole ‘debate’ is that; even as the rate at which the dead bodies are piling up like so many cords of firewood increases every year, when we finally do hit a tipping point and the world is hit with a lack of fresh water, famine, wars (secondary to lack of water and food), epidemics, etc… the denialists will be telling us “…but, no one could have predicted…” and “….It’s God’s will..”

    Sociopaths.

  49. rootless says:

    @ubnutsgain:

    It’s a faith-based belief system regardless of which side – pro or con – one has chosen to follow.

    Total nonsense. It’s not equally faith based on both sides. The scientific findings about climate change and global warming are based on theory in physics, chemistry, and biology backed up with a large body of empirical evidence. On the other side, the denialism is mostly quasi-religious belief w/o the empirical evidence. This is why deniers preferably attack climate science with non-scientific approaches and arguments, e.g. by making up polls of alleged scientists who allegedly question the validity of the scientific findings. It’s very similar to biological sciences and evolution vs. creationist believes.

    Advocates always argue the science and “consensus”, but the science is far from complete as is attested to by the some 1,000 scientists who question the argued conclusions.

    Please show me the list of the alleged 1000 scientists with names, degree, and field of work. How many of them are actually scientists who do research and publish on Earth’s climate? I call you out on your propaganda.

    And what was the question posed, anyway? Whether they believe the science was “complete”? This question by itself would already be a bugaboo. As if this was about whether the science was “complete”. What sane scientist would claim it was? Science is never “complete”. It’s about whether there is sufficient evidence to support the major conclusions about climate change with a high degree of certainty. Science doesn’t have to be “complete” for latter. Otherwise one never could make any scientific statement about knowing something with a degree of certainty. Because there is always something incomplete in science.

  50. DeDude says:

    @JamesT

    “Phil Jones and others are quoted agonizing about the fact that observed temperatures do not match their predictions”

    That is exactly how you develop a model of highly complicated systems. You find discrepancies and debate the mismatch between model and reality such that you identify new parameters not accounted for in the model – and use them to improve the model.

    “the fact that we’ve had strong cyclical fluctuations of temperature throughout the earth’s history”

    That further strengthens the model because we know certain things about natural fluctuations in climate and can take into account how massive volcanic eruptions and greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere previously have affected it. So to the extend that we currently experience massive volcanic eruptions and/or green house gas release we can include such natural phenomena in our models (and see if there are any residuals in climate change that do not have a natural explanations).

    “the discredited Michael Mann Hockey Stick and the claims of Keith “One Tree” Briffa suffer no penalty whatsoever in the eyes of nearly religious adherents”

    If some piece of a specific scientists work was discredited (and lets assume it was), that does not mean that the whole field or even that specific scientist was discredited for life. Errors and correction of errors as well as grey zones of debate are important parts of the scientific process that eventually pulls well documented scientific truths out of that grey zone of uncertainty and debate.

  51. DeDude says:

    @Hey you;

    “one wants to submit grants that have a ghost of a chance for funding, it had better assume that global warming is God’s own truth as set down by Albert Gore; his prophet”

    So during the Bush administration Cheney used his considerable influence to ensure that only grants assuming global warming were funded? The actual scientists within the field have been reporting on being subjected to a huge political pressure in the other direction. The fact that the models during Cheney/Bush passed the threshold and no longer could be stretched to explain observed data without including human effects, says a lot about the likelihood of human causes. Cheney used all kinds of hardball political interference in the scientific process, yet he could not get a single credible model build that could “naturally” explain the observed data? As pointed out by “V” science is indeed subject to pressures that can make for biases in the products. The fact that the consensus held up in spite of Cheney’s strong push and incentives to break from it, would suggest that breaking from it would be the equivalent of being a “flat earther” and so embarrassing that the rewards simply could not compensate for the professional humiliation.

  52. ubnutsagain says:

    @ rootless:

    First: ““Total nonsense. It’s not equally faith based on both sides.”

    Had you carefully read my post, you would find that’s not what I said. Nuance may not be your strong suit, so while rereading what I wrote, perhaps you can add some thinking in the process.

    Second: “Please show me the list of the alleged 1000 scientists with names, degree, and field of work. How many of them are actually scientists who do research and publish on Earth’s climate? I call you out on your propaganda.”

    OK, here ya go. The link below is more than you asked for since it not only contains the information you wanted, it also provides links so you can read each and every peer-reviewed article these folks have written.

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    My apologies, but this group only includes 900 scientists. After you’ve read and fully understood both their credentials and their writings, let me know and I’ll fire up the remaining 100 … I’ll check back around Christmas Day to see how you’re doing … that way you won’t have to bother reading more than 5 a day.

    Third: “Science is never “complete”.

    Oh really? Then I guess there is still some question whether two parts hydrogen combined with one part oxygen make up water. Right?

  53. moonmullins says:

    Not the Global Warming Conference??!! Too bad neither the artist, nor Barry, chose to expose the hypocrisy and selective amnesia of the left. Don’t let the facts get in your way, guys.

    But love the imagery – proves what the rest of us have been saying all along!!!

  54. mathman says:

    In case anyone missed this:

    http://questioneverything.typepad.com/

  55. rootless says:

    ubuntsagain:

    Had you carefully read my post, you would find that’s not what I said. Nuance may not be your strong suit, so while rereading what I wrote, perhaps you can add some thinking in the process.

    Perhaps, nuance and thinking are not my strong suit. What about you help me. I can’t find the nuance in following statement:

    It’s a faith-based belief system regardless of which side – pro or con – one has chosen to follow.

    I see a very strong statement here, that doesn’t leave much room for nuance. In the remainder of your comment I see your claim about the alleged “1000 scientists”, and lamenting about the disadvantage the ones allegedly have who oppose the conclusions which are said to be the consensus. Perhaps, it’s not my thinking after all? Perhaps, it’s your writing?

    My apologies, but this group only includes 900 scientists.

    No, it is a list of papers, not of scientist. Steven McIntyre appear 12 times as author. And he isn’t the only one with multiple papers in it. But I strongly suspect this list wasn’t what you had in mind before. Could it be that you had referred to the infamous Inhofe-list of allegedly “1000 International Scientist” before, which is basically fraudulent?

    And haven’t you made the bold assertion before that opponents had been “stonewalled” in the peer-reviewed literature? How does this go together with presenting this list by you now, that is supposed to prove how strong the opposition against the “consensus” in the peer-reviewed literature was?

    After you’ve read and fully understood both their credentials and their writings, let me know and I’ll fire up the remaining 100 … I’ll check back around Christmas Day to see how you’re doing … that way you won’t have to bother reading more than 5 a day.

    Nice posing that you do here, with a list that you just may have found through Google search. As if you had understood or even read all the papers listed there. Are you claiming you have? And if you are please tell me what your qualification is, particularly since you are trying to belittle me here.

    So, what did you want to back up? You wanted to back up this assertion:

    Advocates always argue the science and “consensus”, but the science is far from complete as is attested to by the some 1,000 scientists who question the argued conclusions.

    Let’s look at the list. What do I find?

    1. Papers which don’t even cover topics regarding the basic conclusions on global warming, e.g., many papers under the sections “Death”, “Disease”, “Droughts, Floods”, “Ecological” and papers on paleoclimate topics.

    How can those papers support your assertion?

    2. Papers which discuss certain aspects of climate, but for which a consensus isn’t claimed and it is acknowledged that this can’t be answered with high certainty so far, e.g., “Gulf Stream”, “Hurricanes”.

    What are these papers in the list proving, regarding your assertion?

    3. Papers in non-field journals, Cato Journal, economic journals, petroleum journal, ethic journal, medicine journals, and similar. One can strongly suspect that there hasn’t been a proper peer-review process by scientists in the climate research field for those articles.

    How can those papers support your assertion?

    4. 10 papers from the 1970s, about 51 papers from the 1980s, about 182 papers from the 1990s.

    How can those papers support your assertion about what views on the conclusions in climate science scientist have today?

    5. I number of papers by skeptics, which reject the consensus regarding central IPCC conclusions, which are considered as highly likely, regarding climate and global warming.

    I don’t see that the number of those add up to even closely 1000, or even a hundred. Not among the ones who publish in peer-reviewed climate journals. Anyway, your list of papers isn’t suitable to prove your assertion to be true for the reasons above.

    Oh really? Then I guess there is still some question whether two parts hydrogen combined with one part oxygen make up water. Right?

    Are you sure they always do? Under any physical environment? And do you believe that is all what the science that involves oxygen, hydrogen, and water is about, that they “make up” something, and when this is answered than the science about those elements and their interactions is complete? I would say you haven’t carefully thought through your argument.

  56. V says:

    http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/

    My real annoyance is the diversion this issue has created from issues that are actually solvable on the environmental front. Billions spent that could be used to address real issues.

    http://www.petermartin.com.au/2011/06/we-are-trying-to-manage-co2-we-cant.html

  57. Chad says:

    All these arguments and none of them matter.

    Oh, and anyone who uses the term global warming in their argument is already down one in the debate.

  58. jcmcn5 says:

    When all the elites who keep telling me there’s an AGW crisis a hand actually act like there’s a crisis, then I’ll believe there’s a crisis. As long as those who are so much smarter than I continue to fly their Gulfstream’s to Climate conferences, take helicopters to Southampton, maintain multiple houses around the world in addition to the 10,000 square foot house that is their primary residence, then I’ll continue to gas up my 12 year old Volvo, try to feed my kids and pay as much attention to this silly debate as it deserves.

  59. rootless says:

    @V:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/

    What do you believe you see there?

    My real annoyance is the diversion this issue has created from issues that are actually solvable on the environmental front. Billions spent that could be used to address real issues.

    There is a non-negligible probability that Earth’s globally averaged temperature reaches values near the ones of the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum within a few hundred years, or even higher.

    But some people think this was just a non-issue for human civilization, about which one doesn’t need to be really concerned.

  60. Thor says:

    Rootless – thank you for that today, it’s always beautiful to watch someone expos propaganda for what it is. My favorite are the one’s (most of them?) who never move past their own bruised eog to see what’s staring them right in the face.

  61. V says:

    @rootless

    I see a slight increase in the rate of temperature change per year, that at least according to this data does not follow the runaway rate of change ‘predicted’ by 1990 models. However the lack of error bars on the measured data or the modeled data makes drawing any firm conclusion impossible because the significance of this
    is not knowable.

    My question to you then if you watched that video, is what does this tell you?