Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Climate Change Skeptics Out of Hand, Again
Traders-Talk.com > TTHQ Directory > Sanity & Health Club
salsabob
There are several threads under this sub-forum that deal with Climate Change, nearly exclusively from the skeptics’ point of view. It use to be confined to the "Decade of cooler Temperatures" thread but that peter-out with my reporting there on the findings of Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) effort that clearly shows the climate has been warming -

http://www.traders-talk.com/mb2/index.php?...st&p=600353

I noted there that one of the three legs of the skeptic's stool had now been clearly knocked out. I also noted there that a second leg, i.e. temperatures in the last decade have leveled off or actually be cooling, may also be in doubt given that the effect is based on the month with the smallest data set and greatest uncertainty (see that thread). The third leg, which I believed the wiser of skeptics would turn to, remained as to whether any of the warming, past, present or future, was anthropogenic - I expressed my own agnostic belief and my openness to further study on that matter. I did note, however, that a one-legged stool is also known as a shaft and perhaps skeptics should be careful in their continued insistence on perching themselves upon it.

That thread obviously became a lot less fun for the skeptics and seems to have faded from view on the forum. My hope was that its fading signal an end to: presenting moot issues about e-mails and lost papers of other scientists; local weather reporting of the latest snowstorm that disproves the works of hundreds of scientists and thousands of research projects; and most hopefully, the end to cherry picking base years for "decade of cooling" nonsense. I'd recognized the skeptics’ need to attempt to throw a former member of their merry band, Dr. Mueller, under the bus, but I figured that eventually would die out as well. Certainly, as evident on the "Decade of cooler" thread, their initial pathetic attempts to use statements from Mueller's co-project leader, Dr. Curry, as a wedge proved more useful in exhibiting the skeptics’ "megaphone" use of the Internet to transmit false or misleading information over the Internet than it did in meeting their objective to dispute the BEST findings.

Since then, little has changed in real science world. There has been no credible refuting of the BEST findings. However, as reflected in the many new threads here, we have certainly gotten back to the entire nonsense megaphone shouting about lost papers and e-mails, local weather reports, cherry-picking start dates to prove cooling, and most of all, attempts to discredit people rather than the science.

I've held my tongue (or more accurately, my keyboard) for some time as this forum has slipped back into the pattern. We are now not only back to the above but also back to calling climate scientist pathetic and spewing garbage - that they should be ashamed for their enticing mobs with pitchforks.

Until someone here deals with the findings of the BEST project (and in a rational, logical manner that doesn’t' rely on trying to discredit the people involved or taking 3rd hand reporting of misquotes or any of the other tricks so evident to date on these climate-related threads), then what they claim as being those negative attributes of climate scientists is what is called in psychology a "projection of themselves onto the other.” Look it up.

I'm not really interested in further displays of cognitive dissonance on this topic. I'm here to learn about trading markets from experts (and that certainly includes from some of those who are most skeptical about this off-topic), but really at some point, one needs to respond to the stink of the pile getting higher and deeper once again on a forum that otherwise deserves considerable respect.

If, rather than provide more gibberish, you can actually take on the BEST, then do it. If you can't, maybe you should consider that other alternative to “putting up” .... at least on this topic.
diogenes227
One of these is actually serious, as nutty as it gets:

1 ) Immigrants

2) White Collar Criminals

biggrin.gif

stocks
From: Phil Jones (p.jones@uxxxxx.uk)
To: "Michael E. Mann" (mann@vxxxxxx.edu)
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

[...] I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow
- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers, Phil
salsabob
QUOTE (stocks @ Apr 18 2012, 09:11 PM) *
From: Phil Jones (p.jones@uxxxxx.uk)
To: "Michael E. Mann" (mann@vxxxxxx.edu)
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

[...] I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow
- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers, Phil


From a science perspective, the BEST project makes all the e-mail [non-]scandal a moot issue. Your continuing to cling and post it just makes you look awful silly.

It's like being on the Titanic as it begins to slip under the waves, and complaining about how dirty your bathroom sink was left by the maid.

Can you at least try to take it up a notch or two?

You know, you could at least argue sunspots or something.
diogenes227
QUOTE
THE naturalist and philosopher Henry David Thoreau coined a wonderful word for an imagined instrument in his 1854 book, “Walden”: the “realometer.” Thoreau’s realometer would allow an inquiring person to measure the reality of his perceptions, to push past the “mud and slush of opinion, and prejudice, and tradition, and delusion, and appearance ... to a hard bottom.”

The hard bottom? Flowers bloom earlier now than when Henry David walked the earth.

EARLY BLOOMERS

P.S.

I especially like the quote from Thoreau in the last line of the story.

stocks
Climategate 2.0 leaked emails:

I think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which, for all our sakes, may not be too clever in the long run.
Thorne, UK met office

I criticized the Mann hockey stick; I just refused to give an exclusive interview to Spiegel because I will not cause damage to climate science.
Wanner, NCCR

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions yet sounding like a pro-greenhouse zealot.
Briffa

Getting people we know and trust into the IPCC is vital.
Phil Jones

The important thing is to make sure they are losing the PR battle. That's what the site Realclimate is about.
Michael Mann

It will be very difficult to make the medieval warming period to go away in Greenland.
Pollack

What if climate change appears to be just a natural fluctuation. They would kill us probably.
Wils

I am not convinced that the truth is always worth reaching at the cost damaged personal relationships.
Crowley

I am sure you agree the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published.
Bradley

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff and not letting the science move ahead.
Cook

Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not enough middle and low level clouds.
Phil Jones

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she thinks she's doing, but it is not helping the cause.
Michael Mann


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgyEUBJKqjM...ture=plpp_video
Rogerdodger
No anthropogenic component could be determined by Muller's study.

Skeptics do not dispute that there has been 20th century warming (although the accuracy of its measurement is uncertain). They’ll talk for ages at the drop of a hat about the medieval warm period and the little ice age and the Roman warm period and the Minoan warm period and the Holocene optimum and all the other variations of our climate past. The idea that the climate might change is not controversial. The idea that the global climate had been totally flat up to the start of the 20th century, when it suddenly took off like a rocket is what is controversial. Showing a rise over the 20th century does not in any way prove skeptics wrong.

The last ten years is an argument about terminology. When you say “global warming” do you mean the increase in temperature, or do you mean CO2′s positive contribution to temperature? When you say “global warming in the last ten years” do you mean the trend in the last ten years’ data, or do you mean the last ten years of the trend in the last forty years’ data? They’re different. As is the question of what it means.

(The 10-year problem was made worse here by an error in one of the papers, in which the trend was calculated but an outlying point in January 2007 pulled the trend artificially high. Because it doesn’t fit the Normal distribution, the trend calculation method used is invalid. Muller had initially thought the data showed no slowdown in the last 10 years even as the skeptics defined it, and said so in his initial interviews, but on seeing the data plotted agreed that it had.)

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/12/did-mullers-best-study-cool-the-heated-global-warming-rhetoric/
Rogerdodger
It's humorous that the title of this thread is "Global Warming er... "Climate Change Skeptics Out of hand, Again" (Sorry about that. I forgot you had to change the name once we hit all of that record cold in the last decade of lower temperatures.)

Anyway, who is out of hand?

Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics' Homes...


Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.
Fewer and fewer Americans are convinced by the pseudo-science behind man-made global warming, promulgated as it is by control freaks like Zwick who care more about money and power than they do the environment, AGW adherents are becoming increasingly authoritarian in their pronouncements.
Even as the science itself disproves their theories – Arctic ice is thickening, polar bears and penguins are thriving, Himalayan glaciers are growing – climate change alarmists are only becoming more aggressive in their attacks against anyone who dares question the global warming mantra.

Earlier month we highlighted Professor Kari Norgaard’s call for climate skeptics to be likened to racists and ‘treated’ for having a mental disorder. In a letter to Barack Obama, Norgaard also called on the President to ignore the will of the people and suspend democracy in order to enforce draconian ecological mandates.


No anthropogenic component could be determined by Muller's study.
Who's out of hand?
SemiBizz
Give it a few more years and then everyone will be freaking out over global cooling...

Like they were in the 70s.

What goes around, comes around.

laugh.gif
salsabob
QUOTE (stocks @ Apr 20 2012, 09:10 PM) *
Climategate 2.0 leaked emails:

I think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which, for all our sakes, may not be too clever in the long run.
Thorne, UK met office

I criticized the Mann hockey stick; I just refused to give an exclusive interview to Spiegel because I will not cause damage to climate science.
Wanner, NCCR

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions yet sounding like a pro-greenhouse zealot.
Briffa

Getting people we know and trust into the IPCC is vital.
Phil Jones

The important thing is to make sure they are losing the PR battle. That's what the site Realclimate is about.
Michael Mann

It will be very difficult to make the medieval warming period to go away in Greenland.
Pollack

What if climate change appears to be just a natural fluctuation. They would kill us probably.
Wils

I am not convinced that the truth is always worth reaching at the cost damaged personal relationships.
Crowley

I am sure you agree the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published.
Bradley

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff and not letting the science move ahead.
Cook

Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not enough middle and low level clouds.
Phil Jones

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she thinks she's doing, but it is not helping the cause.
Michael Mann


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgyEUBJKqjM...ture=plpp_video


Can you explain how any of this has anything to do with the fact that global warming has occurred as determined by the BEST project?

Thomas Paine: 'To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.'
Rogerdodger
QUOTE
the fact that global warming has occurred as determined by the BEST project


Global warning AND cooling have BOTH occurred throughout for millenniums.

I'll say it slower:
No anthropogenic component could be determined by Muller's BEST project.
And errors in his data have been discovered which may alter the "fact".

"The last ten years is an argument about terminology. When you say “global warming” do you mean the increase in temperature, or do you mean CO2′s positive contribution to temperature? When you say “global warming in the last ten years” do you mean the trend in the last ten years’ data, or do you mean the last ten years of the trend in the last forty years’ data? They’re different. As is the question of what it means.

(The 10-year problem was made worse here by an error in one of the papers, in which the trend was calculated but an outlying point in January 2007 pulled the trend artificially high. Because it doesn’t fit the Normal distribution, the trend calculation method used is invalid. Muller had initially thought the data showed no slowdown in the last 10 years even as the skeptics defined it, and said so in his initial interviews, but on seeing the data plotted agreed that it had.)"
Rogerdodger
Average temperatures did not rise slowly and smoothly to present levels following the last glacial period. Instead, average temperatures increased fairly rapidly until about 8,000 years ago, at which time they were close to current levels.
But then, warming continued for almost two thousand years, rising to higher levels than we have seen recently.


Around six thousand years ago, average temperatures dropped rapidly; reaching levels lower than today, and stayed lower for a thousand years.

In fact, over the past seven thousand years, there appear to have been six significant cycles of interglacial cooling and warming.

Warm periods have coincided with significant periods of societal change and architectural accomplishment in many parts of the world. The Medieval Warm Period, from about 850 until 1250 AD, was a time of unusually warm climate in Europe. Other warm periods spanned the peak of Egyptian civilization (2600 to 2200 BC), the late Roman Republic and peak of the Roman empire (roughly 100 BC through 200 AD) , and the Twentieth Century.



The Medieval Warm Period was followed by a cooler period which is often referred to as the Little Ice Age. It lasted from about the mid to late 1300s into the late 1800s, almost 500 years. The the bitter cold winters depicted in scenes of the American Revolution, in the 1770s, occurred during this period.

A hundred years ago, following the end of the last prolonged cool period, the Titanic hit an iceberg that was one of many which were released as a then-welcome spell of global warming began to be felt.

The end of the "Little Ice Age" period, in the mid to late 1800s, roughly coincided with the start of a significant rise in industrial activities. Some people claim that industrialization is the cause of the warming trend since then. It may be equally true that the warming trend spawned the vibrant growth of society and industry that began as temperatures began to rise.

It is currently popular to point to the increasing industrialization of the world, coupled with significant human population growth, as primary factors contributing to increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, it is very likely that there are multiple interrelated links between the rise in average global temperatures and the rising carbon dioxide content of air over the past hundred years.
LINK
salsabob
QUOTE (Rogerdodger @ Apr 21 2012, 11:11 AM) *
It's humorous that the title of this thread is "Global Warming er... "Climate Change Skeptics Out of hand, Again" (Sorry about that. I forgot you had to change the name once we hit all of that record cold in the last decade of lower temperatures.)

Anyway, who is out of hand?

Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics' Homes...


Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.
Fewer and fewer Americans are convinced by the pseudo-science behind man-made global warming, promulgated as it is by control freaks like Zwick who care more about money and power than they do the environment, AGW adherents are becoming increasingly authoritarian in their pronouncements.
Even as the science itself disproves their theories – Arctic ice is thickening, polar bears and penguins are thriving, Himalayan glaciers are growing – climate change alarmists are only becoming more aggressive in their attacks against anyone who dares question the global warming mantra.

Earlier month we highlighted Professor Kari Norgaard’s call for climate skeptics to be likened to racists and ‘treated’ for having a mental disorder. In a letter to Barack Obama, Norgaard also called on the President to ignore the will of the people and suspend democracy in order to enforce draconian ecological mandates.


No anthropogenic component could be determined by Muller's study.
Who's out of hand?



As to whether the global warming proven in the time frame covered by the BEST study is just a longer natural cycle and not anthropogenic, I am rather agnostic. I'm not sure how anyone rationally could be otherwise at this time given the data. I would likely support skepticism here against the certainty that the warming is not natural and will continue unabated beyond a point of major impacts. However, the certainty that the warming is natural and will eventually cycle is just as silly conjecture.

Also, I have stated that the jury is still out over whether global temperatures have either flatten or in fact declined since the cherry-picked hottest year on record of 1998, 2005 or 2010 depending on record set. What I find puzzling is why anyone would use such a sophomoric trick as obvious as cherry-picking the base year and thereby risk losing any credibility that they might otherwise have - particularly on a board where graphical data analysis is so prevalent, understood and prized - you're not fooling any one.

I also noted on the other thread that Muller has hinted that the data and findings they will be reporting will indicate that any recent cooling is based on the smallest and most uncertain set of monthly data in the entire multi-year data set. He hasn't formally reported that out but he sure is telegraphing that he plans to hit the "decade of cooling" pretty hard - given that he's already made the big splash by confirming the longer-term warming trend, he needs to have another shoe to drop to make a second splash for BEST when it is formally reported. If I were a skeptic, I would be a little circumspect about clinging to the rather silly "decade of cooling."

Why do you need to? There are plenty of issues revolving around the bigger question of whether this is just part of a larger natural cycle - you're insights on solar activity is very good. It doesn't help your case to bring in all the vitriol and moot issues. I realize that maybe Stock can't figure out that the e-mail 'scandal' revolves around the issue of the legitimacy of a data set that is now no longer in question, e-mails or not, but you should know this. Why the continued local weather reporting when even before BEST you know and have stated that they are meaningless?

It's just weird on a board that is not only about expertise in reading actual data and graphs but about the discipline of not allowing extraneous noise interfere with cold hard logic and avoiding what your emotions know as certainty. Its really off-key to what the dominate thought-processes that this forum seems to be about and wants to convey.
stocks
QUOTE (stocks @ Apr 20 2012, 08:10 PM) *
Climategate 2.0 leaked emails:

I think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which, for all our sakes, may not be too clever in the long run.
Thorne, UK met office

I criticized the Mann hockey stick; I just refused to give an exclusive interview to Spiegel because I will not cause damage to climate science.
Wanner, NCCR

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions yet sounding like a pro-greenhouse zealot.
Briffa

Getting people we know and trust into the IPCC is vital.
Phil Jones

The important thing is to make sure they are losing the PR battle. That's what the site Realclimate is about.
Michael Mann

It will be very difficult to make the medieval warming period to go away in Greenland.
Pollack

What if climate change appears to be just a natural fluctuation. They would kill us probably.
Wils

I am not convinced that the truth is always worth reaching at the cost damaged personal relationships.
Crowley

I am sure you agree the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published.
Bradley

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff and not letting the science move ahead.
Cook

Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not enough middle and low level clouds.
Phil Jones

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she thinks she's doing, but it is not helping the cause.
Michael Mann


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgyEUBJKqjM...ture=plpp_video


Mainstream media reporters want to see Michael Mann’s climate emails now


17 news organizations, including NPR, WaPo, AP, now have grown a spine and filed an amicus brief (see download below) to OPPOSE in court Michael Mann’s effort to keep his UVa CLIMATEGATE-related e-mails secret.

Mann’s attempt at hiding his emails of work done on public funds and time from public view has backfired, and now is a story that has “legs” in reporter parlance.

Basically what has happened is that journalists are afraid that if Mann wins, it will set a legal precedent that will be used to restrict the ability of the press in future issues where work products and emails discussing research are needed for journalist investigations, but will be made off limits. So, they are going to throw Mann under the bus to keep their FOIA ability intact.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/17/wow-...uva-emails-now/

salsabob
QUOTE (stocks @ Mar 18 2014, 08:05 AM) *
QUOTE (stocks @ Apr 20 2012, 08:10 PM) *
Climategate 2.0 leaked emails:

I think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which, for all our sakes, may not be too clever in the long run.
Thorne, UK met office

I criticized the Mann hockey stick; I just refused to give an exclusive interview to Spiegel because I will not cause damage to climate science.
Wanner, NCCR

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions yet sounding like a pro-greenhouse zealot.
Briffa

Getting people we know and trust into the IPCC is vital.
Phil Jones

The important thing is to make sure they are losing the PR battle. That's what the site Realclimate is about.
Michael Mann

It will be very difficult to make the medieval warming period to go away in Greenland.
Pollack

What if climate change appears to be just a natural fluctuation. They would kill us probably.
Wils

I am not convinced that the truth is always worth reaching at the cost damaged personal relationships.
Crowley

I am sure you agree the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published.
Bradley

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff and not letting the science move ahead.
Cook

Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not enough middle and low level clouds.
Phil Jones

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she thinks she's doing, but it is not helping the cause.
Michael Mann


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgyEUBJKqjM...ture=plpp_video


Mainstream media reporters want to see Michael Mann’s climate emails now


17 news organizations, including NPR, WaPo, AP, now have grown a spine and filed an amicus brief (see download below) to OPPOSE in court Michael Mann’s effort to keep his UVa CLIMATEGATE-related e-mails secret.

Mann’s attempt at hiding his emails of work done on public funds and time from public view has backfired, and now is a story that has “legs” in reporter parlance.

Basically what has happened is that journalists are afraid that if Mann wins, it will set a legal precedent that will be used to restrict the ability of the press in future issues where work products and emails discussing research are needed for journalist investigations, but will be made off limits. So, they are going to throw Mann under the bus to keep their FOIA ability intact.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/17/wow-...uva-emails-now/


I repeat -

"It's just weird on a board that is not only about expertise in reading actual data and graphs but about the discipline of not allowing extraneous noise interfere with cold hard logic and avoiding what your emotions know as certainty. Its really off-key to what the dominate thought-processes that this forum seems to be about and wants to convey."
*JB*
QUOTE (salsabob @ Mar 18 2014, 11:00 AM) *
I repeat -

"It's just weird on a board that is not only about expertise in reading actual data and graphs but about the discipline of not allowing extraneous noise interfere with cold hard logic and avoiding what your emotions know as certainty. Its really off-key to what the dominate thought-processes that this forum seems to be about and wants to convey."


What is weirder is you think you're the one talking sense...with your appeal for sticking to rational thought and facts.

"Actual data" argues that CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming, but the result of warming.

There have been MANY times the CO2 in the atmosphere in the past than now -- including during ice ages.

There is "actual data" that strongly supports the premise that SUN CYCLES and SOLAR ACTIVITY produces warming/cooling....on this planet (and the rest in the solar system that warmed at the same time) -- not .0038ths of the earth's atmosphere (CO2).

Yes we have had warming, coming our of a mini ice age ending about 1870 or so.

The rest here is a discussion of the false religion of AGW and the dishonesty of it's prophets -- plus how badly the models have proven to be.
Rogerdodger
Don't be a "Climate FACTS Denier!"

Repeat after me:
The climate has been changing since day one.
The climate has been changing since day one.
The climate has been changing since day one.
Sun cycles correlate to climate patterns.
It has been warming ever since records have been kept because it was much colder when the temperature records began to be kept.
The late 1800's, early 1900's saw some of the coolest temperatures ever recorded and they saw the least solar activity ever recorded.

Thank G0D it began to warm up a bit in the 20th century!
Solar cycles #21, 22 & 23 were the most active on record and Al Gore made a fortune off of it! and blamed human activity,
Just as ancient witch doctors blamed weather calamity on bad human behavior and lack of sacrifice, so did Al and profited nicely from the "sacrifices."
But now the sun may be changing that pattern, AGAIN.
"Long Cold Winter" as SOLAR CYCLE #24 is challenging record books"

Third Straight Year of Record Low Tornado Activity...


It's for "THE GREATER GOOD!"
(NOTE THE HAPPY SUN IN THE SKY)
salsabob
QUOTE (*JB* @ Mar 18 2014, 10:34 PM) *
QUOTE (salsabob @ Mar 18 2014, 11:00 AM) *
I repeat -

"It's just weird on a board that is not only about expertise in reading actual data and graphs but about the discipline of not allowing extraneous noise interfere with cold hard logic and avoiding what your emotions know as certainty. Its really off-key to what the dominate thought-processes that this forum seems to be about and wants to convey."


What is weirder is you think you're the one talking sense...with your appeal for sticking to rational thought and facts.

"Actual data" argues that CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming, but the result of warming.

There have been MANY times the CO2 in the atmosphere in the past than now -- including during ice ages.

There is "actual data" that strongly supports the premise that SUN CYCLES and SOLAR ACTIVITY produces warming/cooling....on this planet (and the rest in the solar system that warmed at the same time) -- not .0038ths of the earth's atmosphere (CO2).

Yes we have had warming, coming our of a mini ice age ending about 1870 or so.

The rest here is a discussion of the false religion of AGW and the dishonesty of it's prophets -- plus how badly the models have proven to be.


The e-mail attack is against Michael Mann, best known for his "hockey stick" which is representative of global warming; some would say unprecedented rapid global warming (an issue put to bed by former skeptic Richard Muller's BEST study - one of those very rare skeptics that actually has a PhD and does research in a field of inquiry relevant to the issue; not some non-credential former TV weatherman).

But that's not what you addressed.

Instead, you retreat to the "it's not CO2." One would think that after being so obviously wrong about the presence of rapid global warming, you all would be a little bit more humble in now making your certain assertions about its cause. rolleyes.gif That is, however, not so much off key here on this forum - folks irrationally wedded to market positions are pretty much a dime a dozen.
stocks
QUOTE (salsabob @ Mar 19 2014, 03:30 PM) *
The e-mail attack is against Michael Mann,


Publishing his emails (paid for by the taxpayer and justifying policy) is an email attack.

purebs.gif purebs.gif lighten.gif

We'll see if the "climate scientists" are above the FOI law.
stocks
QUOTE (stocks @ Mar 19 2014, 05:11 PM) *
QUOTE (salsabob @ Mar 19 2014, 03:30 PM) *
The e-mail attack is against Michael Mann,


Publishing his emails (paid for by the taxpayer and justifying policy) is an email attack.

purebs.gif purebs.gif lighten.gif

We'll see if the "climate scientists" are above the FOI law.



“Most transparent” White House ever rewrote FOIA to exclude its docs


This gives the White House the ability to delay release of such information until it is politically beneficial for them to do so (or, in reality, not at all):

In one case cited by Cause of Action, the response to a request from a Los Angeles Times reporter to the Department of the Interior for “communications between the White House and high-ranking Interior officials on various politically sensitive topics” was delayed at least two years by the equities review.

And that isn’t the only department in which such delays have become common:

“Cause of Action is still waiting for documents from 16 federal agencies, with the Department of Treasury having the longest pending request of 202 business days.

“The Department of Energy is a close second at 169 business days. The requests to the Department of Defense and Department of Health and Human Services have been pending for 138 business days,” the report said.

This is what political subversion looks like.


http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/19/most...clude-its-docs/
*JB*
QUOTE (salsabob @ Mar 19 2014, 03:30 PM) *
QUOTE (*JB* @ Mar 18 2014, 10:34 PM) *
QUOTE (salsabob @ Mar 18 2014, 11:00 AM) *
I repeat -

"It's just weird on a board that is not only about expertise in reading actual data and graphs but about the discipline of not allowing extraneous noise interfere with cold hard logic and avoiding what your emotions know as certainty. Its really off-key to what the dominate thought-processes that this forum seems to be about and wants to convey."


What is weirder is you think you're the one talking sense...with your appeal for sticking to rational thought and facts.

"Actual data" argues that CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming, but the result of warming.

There have been MANY times the CO2 in the atmosphere in the past than now -- including during ice ages.

There is "actual data" that strongly supports the premise that SUN CYCLES and SOLAR ACTIVITY produces warming/cooling....on this planet (and the rest in the solar system that warmed at the same time) -- not .0038ths of the earth's atmosphere (CO2).

Yes we have had warming, coming our of a mini ice age ending about 1870 or so.

The rest here is a discussion of the false religion of AGW and the dishonesty of it's prophets -- plus how badly the models have proven to be.


The e-mail attack is against Michael Mann, best known for his "hockey stick" which is representative of global warming; some would say unprecedented rapid global warming (an issue put to bed by former skeptic Richard Muller's BEST study - one of those very rare skeptics that actually has a PhD and does research in a field of inquiry relevant to the issue; not some non-credential former TV weatherman).

But that's not what you addressed.

Instead, you retreat to the "it's not CO2." One would think that after being so obviously wrong about the presence of rapid global warming, you all would be a little bit more humble in now making your certain assertions about its cause. rolleyes.gif That is, however, not so much off key here on this forum - folks irrationally wedded to market positions are pretty much a dime a dozen.


"retreat to it's not CO2"??? That has been the foundation to most respected skeptics all along. Why, because EVERY action by the AGW crowd -- governments especially -- to stall/fix global warming has been about CO2 -- PERIOD.

I didn't retreat, I never left. The point IS that ALL AGW "campaigns" are not based on Methane and water vapor -- or any combination of the "potent" greenhouse gases -- just CO2.

As for the disdain for the Hockey Stick being put to bed by Muller, and the BEST study, that is absolutely false. He NEVER recanted his criticism of Mann's Hockey Stick.

In fact -- in no way -- did BEST include ANY consideration of "proxy data" (the basis for the Hockey Stick) -- at all. He did not include ocean, ice, tree rings, et al, in any way.

BEST was all about modern surface data -- (again, period). Yes, Muller changed from someone who thought there was NO global warming (something I never believed). In BEST, he came to believe the SURFACE TEMP studies that showed .8 C increase over 50 years. He also -- with the disclaimer that sensor data was very scant -- concluded that it has risen 1.2 C over 250 years.

Muller -- outside of the BEST study -- has said he believes that it is AGW.

BUT -- Muller makes no claim (I ever saw) that focuses on any specific gas...including C02. The "to come" extension of the BEST study may get into the examination of specific CAUSES since looking at potential mitigation is a stated focus for the further work. I do know that Muller has stated that the focus needs to be on the true polluters, like China and India -- concluding that any pointed focus on the US (THE focus all AGW attacks) would have little effect.

It is important to note that Muller clearly stated -- SINCE the latest release of BEST -- ""Much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerate, or just plain wrong"".
*JB*
QUOTE (salsabob @ Mar 19 2014, 03:30 PM) *
The e-mail attack is against Michael Mann, best known for his "hockey stick" which is representative of global warming; some would say unprecedented rapid global warming (an issue put to bed by former skeptic Richard Muller's BEST study - one of those very rare skeptics that actually has a PhD and does research in a field of inquiry relevant to the issue; not some non-credential former TV weatherman).


BTW -- Michael Mann -- as of January 2014 -- SLAMS Muller as a "Koch Brother's Hack". He REALLY does not feel vindicated by him.

Might want to read Mann's article -- after the part where he rags on the New York Times for printing Muller -- in the Huffington Post --> LINK
Rogerdodger
Just as Al Gore said:
Number of hurricanes reaches 30-year low... laugh.gif
stocks
Prof Richard Muller is an honest guy doing the best he can. He's not one of the climate cretins like Al Gore or Michael Mann

Muller speaks:

On Climategate – “What they did was, I think, shameful - it was scientific malpractice - if they had done this at Berkeley or Stanford, I think they would have been shamed. The standards held over there at the University of East Anglia are just not up to what we consider standard scientific methods.

Richard Muller: “right after Katrina, 2005, people said “We can now expect a whole bunch of more storms”. In the next year, not a single hurricane hit the U.S.”

When people exaggerate, they try to come up with dramatic examples to convince the public. That’s the wrong way to go. People now feel as if they’ve been misled.”

Richard Muller: “The NOAA announced that this is the warmest year on record for the United States – that immediately surprised me because I’ve been looking at the world record, and I’d seen that the temperature had actually gone down, compared to the last five years.

So I looked it up, and sure enough, the 2% of the world that happens to be the United States is a record warm, the 98% of the world, the rest of it, was actually cool.

To call that “global warming” – and the globe isn’t warming - is just an attempt to grab headlines .. to get the public interested in this important issue.”

Vice President Al Gore had so many exaggerations in his movie, that I think there’s a backlash now.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/a-fa...ic-malpractice/

salsabob
QUOTE (stocks @ Mar 21 2014, 03:58 AM) *
Prof Richard Muller is an honest guy doing the best he can. He's not one of the climate cretins like Al Gore or Michael Mann

Muller speaks:

On Climategate – “What they did was, I think, shameful - it was scientific malpractice - if they had done this at Berkeley or Stanford, I think they would have been shamed. The standards held over there at the University of East Anglia are just not up to what we consider standard scientific methods.

Richard Muller: “right after Katrina, 2005, people said “We can now expect a whole bunch of more storms”. In the next year, not a single hurricane hit the U.S.”

When people exaggerate, they try to come up with dramatic examples to convince the public. That’s the wrong way to go. People now feel as if they’ve been misled.”

Richard Muller: “The NOAA announced that this is the warmest year on record for the United States – that immediately surprised me because I’ve been looking at the world record, and I’d seen that the temperature had actually gone down, compared to the last five years.

So I looked it up, and sure enough, the 2% of the world that happens to be the United States is a record warm, the 98% of the world, the rest of it, was actually cool.

To call that “global warming” – and the globe isn’t warming - is just an attempt to grab headlines .. to get the public interested in this important issue.”

Vice President Al Gore had so many exaggerations in his movie, that I think there’s a backlash now.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/a-fa...ic-malpractice/


And do note that Professor Muller does not change his status of one-time skeptic to now being an advocate of his science-based conclusion by the BEST study of undeniable global warming as laid out famously here -

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/...?pagewanted=all

QUOTE
The Conversion of a Climate Change Sceptic” in the New York Times (28th July 2012).


His willingness to step into the scientific meaningless poo of East Anglia should give credibility to his own position that global warming is real - except, of course, to the most closed-minded dead-enders on the planet. The latter are easily discerned by their posting the rantings of a non-credential former TV weatherman WattsUp dead-ender who's even less credible than Faux News, Rush-to-Judgement Limbaugh, tiny angry man Rich Santelli or the Krotch Brothers.

Simply -



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkbl...ill-heating-up/

QUOTE
Sick of the winter chill? New research shows why the planet is still heating up

It seems like a new report on climate change is coming out every month. Not only did the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change release its latest state of the science assessment last fall. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, has also put out a report, albeit a much shorter one, that seeks to educate the public on "what we know" about climate change. Additionally, each year the World Meteorological Organization — a U.N. agency like the IPCC — releases a report summing up the state of the world's climate. Here's a roundup of key findings from this year's report, which came out just today:
1) 2013 tied with 2007 for the sixth-warmest year on record. The global temperature, averaged over the surface of our planet, was 0.5 degrees Celsius (or 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it was on average between 1961 and 1990. Only 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003 and 2002 were hotter. 2013 was just slightly warmer than it was between 2001 and 2010, the hottest decade on record. WMO arrives at this ranking by combining information from three temperature datasets: two from the U.S. and one from the United Kingdom.
2) Thirteen of the 14 warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century. The only year outside the 2000s that is in the top 14 is 1998, which was unusually warm because a strong El Niño occurred that year. Still, individual years don't matter as much as the long-term trend. To that end, this chart, which assigns each decade a color, shows how the warmest 50 years stack up against one another. Notice that the years don't line up in perfect chronological order, but years of the same color (and thus decade) are clustered closely together, with years from the most recent decade topping the chart.

[more at the link]


All your soap opera pooy about e-mails, Stocks, doesn't change the science.

Duh.
Rogerdodger
"Climate Myopia" = Ignoring history.


Did you notice that even the Aztecs had a bit climate change?
Too much carbon?
laugh.gif

"The upturned figures literally represent an inversion of the natural order,
when people died as a result of nature's failure to function in a predictable way."

See: http://mexicauprising.net/One_Rabbit_and_Drought.pdf


1332-1336-Fours years without any rain.
1447- Year of the fatal blizzard
1450-54-Great famine and drought. "One Rabbit"
1503-Year of great rains, flooding of Tenochtitlan.
1512-Series of three great earthquakes rocks the valley of Mexico, seen as a bad omen. (Too much fracking by Cortez?)
1514-Cold weather causes extensive crop failures, Famine occurred.
Rogerdodger
It's funny how the Aztecs understood cycles, but today's "experts" profit by ignoring them.

"nature's failure to function in a predictable way." 500 years ago?

THE CURSE OF "ONE RABBIT."
Aztec cosmology placed great emphasis on the prophetic nature of their calendar. The year One Rabbit begins each 52-yr calendar cycle and was strongly associated with the occurrence of catastrophic events such as famine. In reference to the famine in the first One Rabbit year of the Colonial Era (1558), the annotation in the Codex Telleriano-Remensis states that "In this year one rabbit [1 Rabbit], if one looks carefully at this count, it will always be seen that in this year [Rabbit] there was famine and death. . . . And thus they consider this year as a great omen, for it always falls on one rabbit."
See: http://mexicauprising.net/One_Rabbit_and_Drought.pdf

Coldest October-March in 102 Years... 102 years? That's almost 2 rabbit years apart.
Rogerdodger
Global Warming...Err Climate Change...or Climate Myopia ignorance?

Scientist warned of Washington mudslide danger 15 years ago
"I knew it would fail catastrophically in a large-magnitude event," though not when it would happen, said Daniel Miller, a geomorphologist who was hired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to do the study. "I was not surprised."
The 1999 report raised questions about why residents were allowed to build homes on the hill and whether officials had taken proper precautions.
The area has long been known as the "Hazel Landslide" because of known landslides over the past half-century.

"Geomorphologist?" Yes, the earth has been "morphing" since day one.
The climate has been changing since day one.

But the real deniers think it all just began the day they were born, a few decades ago.
Looks like another case of "Climate Myopia"
salsabob
QUOTE (*JB* @ Mar 19 2014, 09:26 PM) *
QUOTE (salsabob @ Mar 19 2014, 03:30 PM) *
QUOTE (*JB* @ Mar 18 2014, 10:34 PM) *
QUOTE (salsabob @ Mar 18 2014, 11:00 AM) *
I repeat -

"It's just weird on a board that is not only about expertise in reading actual data and graphs but about the discipline of not allowing extraneous noise interfere with cold hard logic and avoiding what your emotions know as certainty. Its really off-key to what the dominate thought-processes that this forum seems to be about and wants to convey."


What is weirder is you think you're the one talking sense...with your appeal for sticking to rational thought and facts.

"Actual data" argues that CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming, but the result of warming.

There have been MANY times the CO2 in the atmosphere in the past than now -- including during ice ages.

There is "actual data" that strongly supports the premise that SUN CYCLES and SOLAR ACTIVITY produces warming/cooling....on this planet (and the rest in the solar system that warmed at the same time) -- not .0038ths of the earth's atmosphere (CO2).

Yes we have had warming, coming our of a mini ice age ending about 1870 or so.

The rest here is a discussion of the false religion of AGW and the dishonesty of it's prophets -- plus how badly the models have proven to be.


The e-mail attack is against Michael Mann, best known for his "hockey stick" which is representative of global warming; some would say unprecedented rapid global warming (an issue put to bed by former skeptic Richard Muller's BEST study - one of those very rare skeptics that actually has a PhD and does research in a field of inquiry relevant to the issue; not some non-credential former TV weatherman).

But that's not what you addressed.

Instead, you retreat to the "it's not CO2." One would think that after being so obviously wrong about the presence of rapid global warming, you all would be a little bit more humble in now making your certain assertions about its cause. rolleyes.gif That is, however, not so much off key here on this forum - folks irrationally wedded to market positions are pretty much a dime a dozen.


"retreat to it's not CO2"??? That has been the foundation to most respected skeptics all along. Why, because EVERY action by the AGW crowd -- governments especially -- to stall/fix global warming has been about CO2 -- PERIOD.

I didn't retreat, I never left. The point IS that ALL AGW "campaigns" are not based on Methane and water vapor -- or any combination of the "potent" greenhouse gases -- just CO2.

As for the disdain for the Hockey Stick being put to bed by Muller, and the BEST study, that is absolutely false. He NEVER recanted his criticism of Mann's Hockey Stick.

In fact -- in no way -- did BEST include ANY consideration of "proxy data" (the basis for the Hockey Stick) -- at all. He did not include ocean, ice, tree rings, et al, in any way.

BEST was all about modern surface data -- (again, period). Yes, Muller changed from someone who thought there was NO global warming (something I never believed). In BEST, he came to believe the SURFACE TEMP studies that showed .8 C increase over 50 years. He also -- with the disclaimer that sensor data was very scant -- concluded that it has risen 1.2 C over 250 years.

Muller -- outside of the BEST study -- has said he believes that it is AGW.

BUT -- Muller makes no claim (I ever saw) that focuses on any specific gas...including C02. The "to come" extension of the BEST study may get into the examination of specific CAUSES since looking at potential mitigation is a stated focus for the further work. I do know that Muller has stated that the focus needs to be on the true polluters, like China and India -- concluding that any pointed focus on the US (THE focus all AGW attacks) would have little effect.

It is important to note that Muller clearly stated -- SINCE the latest release of BEST -- ""Much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerate, or just plain wrong"".


You're still conflating the issue of global warming as a now widely-recognized occurrence (except for truly hopeless deadenders - my primary point about Stock's continuing foolishness) with the cause for such warming - the latter was your point, not mine and not the original.

My secondary point is that since (a) the science is not there yet to either attribute or NOT attribute the unprecedented rise in historical temperature records nor can it yet establish impacts on regional/local weather, and (b) the skeptics have been proven so very embarrassingly wrong about the unprecedented rise (as validated by Muller), that one might expect that they would be a little bit more humble about their ideological-driven certitude on these current scientific questions - at least those with 1/2 a brain that don't worship at the feet of the Krotch Brothers. Even after decades of life, I find it truly amazing how ideological blindness can make obviously intelligent people completely stupid when it comes to certain issues.
salsabob
QUOTE (*JB* @ Mar 20 2014, 04:00 AM) *
QUOTE (salsabob @ Mar 19 2014, 03:30 PM) *
The e-mail attack is against Michael Mann, best known for his "hockey stick" which is representative of global warming; some would say unprecedented rapid global warming (an issue put to bed by former skeptic Richard Muller's BEST study - one of those very rare skeptics that actually has a PhD and does research in a field of inquiry relevant to the issue; not some non-credential former TV weatherman).


BTW -- Michael Mann -- as of January 2014 -- SLAMS Muller as a "Koch Brother's Hack". He REALLY does not feel vindicated by him.

Might want to read Mann's article -- after the part where he rags on the New York Times for printing Muller -- in the Huffington Post --> LINK


The BEST study was partially funded by the Krotch Bros -much to their dismay I'm sure. banana.gif
*JB*
QUOTE (salsabob @ Mar 26 2014, 12:09 PM) *
You're still conflating the issue of global warming as a now widely-recognized occurrence (except for truly hopeless deadenders - my primary point about Stock's continuing foolishness) with the cause for such warming - the latter was your point, not mine and not the original.

My secondary point is that since (a) the science is not there yet to either attribute or NOT attribute the unprecedented rise in historical temperature records nor can it yet establish impacts on regional/local weather, and (b) the skeptics have been proven so very embarrassingly wrong about the unprecedented rise (as validated by Muller), that one might expect that they would be a little bit more humble about their ideological-driven certitude on these current scientific questions - at least those with 1/2 a brain that don't worship at the feet of the Krotch Brothers. Even after decades of life, I find it truly amazing how ideological blindness can make obviously intelligent people completely stupid when it comes to certain issues.



Fair enough. I did get in the middle of an issue that I was not aware was the point.

Given your later statement, I will NOT quibble. I do believe warming has occurred...the cause and effect -- and degrees of each -- issues I'll let lie.

I would point out the outlandish claims we see every day from "scientists" -- based on nothing but irresponsible supposition. Two very recent examples, "3 scientists" say that flight 370 debris can't be found because of climate change...OR, mud slide in Washington State due to Global Warming.

With media/academics/self appointed non-scientist activists/politicians/et al calling for the personal destruction of skeptics -- you might understand the heft of the resentment felt by those trying to seek the truth and question such greatly exaggerated claims. the honest AGW group would do well to disown the "Al Gores" and his like. If they AGWs are right -- it would be even be more important to silent the vicious in their camp.

salsabob
QUOTE (*JB* @ Mar 26 2014, 03:48 PM) *
QUOTE (salsabob @ Mar 26 2014, 12:09 PM) *
You're still conflating the issue of global warming as a now widely-recognized occurrence (except for truly hopeless deadenders - my primary point about Stock's continuing foolishness) with the cause for such warming - the latter was your point, not mine and not the original.

My secondary point is that since (a) the science is not there yet to either attribute or NOT attribute the unprecedented rise in historical temperature records nor can it yet establish impacts on regional/local weather, and (b) the skeptics have been proven so very embarrassingly wrong about the unprecedented rise (as validated by Muller), that one might expect that they would be a little bit more humble about their ideological-driven certitude on these current scientific questions - at least those with 1/2 a brain that don't worship at the feet of the Krotch Brothers. Even after decades of life, I find it truly amazing how ideological blindness can make obviously intelligent people completely stupid when it comes to certain issues.



Fair enough. I did get in the middle of an issue that I was not aware was the point.

Given your later statement, I will NOT quibble. I do believe warming has occurred...the cause and effect -- and degrees of each -- issues I'll let lie.

I would point out the outlandish claims we see every day from "scientists" -- based on nothing but irresponsible supposition. Two very recent examples, "3 scientists" say that flight 370 debris can't be found because of climate change...OR, mud slide in Washington State due to Global Warming.

With media/academics/self appointed non-scientist activists/politicians/et al calling for the personal destruction of skeptics -- you might understand the heft of the resentment felt by those trying to seek the truth and question such greatly exaggerated claims. the honest AGW group would do well to disown the "Al Gores" and his like. If they AGWs are right -- it would be even be more important to silent the vicious in their camp.


Nothing to disagree with there.

I could say that a lot of skeptics replace any thinking on the matter with knee-jerked evil big govt dingos coming to take their babies (you need a fake Australian accent to really pull this off), but then the counter is a lot of the true believers replace their thinking with evil big oil dingos coming to take their babies! So, a draw for now. I guess pull up a chair, get the popcorn and watch the show unfold some more! banana.gif
Peace.
*JB*
pre-release report -- IPCC, Climate Change Reconsidered II --

""The new report summarizes scholarly research published as recently as January 2014 on the impacts, costs, and benefits of climate change. Hefty chapters summarize thousands of peer-reviewed studies of the impact of rising levels of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas produced during the burning of fossil fuels – on plants and soils, agriculture, forests, wildlife, ocean life, and humankind.

The authors find higher levels of carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures benefit nearly all plants, leading to more leaves, more fruit, more vigorous growth, and greater resistance to pests, drought, and other forms of “stress.” Wildlife benefits as their habitats grow and expand. Even polar bears, the poster child of anti-global warming activist groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), are benefiting from warmer temperatures.

Despite thousands of scientific articles affirming numerous benefits of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2, IPCC makes almost no mention of any positive externalities resulting from such,” said one of the report’s lead authors, Dr. Craig D. Idso. “Climate Change Reconsidered II corrects this failure, presenting an analysis of thousands of neglected research studies IPCC has downplayed or ignored in its reports so that scientists, politicians, educators, and the general public can be better informed and make decisions about the potential impacts of CO2-induced climate change.”

The authors look closely at claims climate change will injure coral and other forms of marine life, possibly leading to some species extinctions. They conclude such claims lack scientific foundation and often are grossly exaggerated. Corals have survived warming periods in the past that caused ocean temperatures and sea levels to be much higher than today’s levels or those likely to occur in the next century.""



LINK to WHOLE "pre report"
*JB*
NOT to Mislead, this is the NONgovernmental IPCC report, from the heartland Institute.

QUOTE (*JB* @ Mar 26 2014, 04:16 PM) *
pre-release report -- IPCC, Climate Change Reconsidered II --

""The new report summarizes scholarly research published as recently as January 2014 on the impacts, costs, and benefits of climate change. Hefty chapters summarize thousands of peer-reviewed studies of the impact of rising levels of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas produced during the burning of fossil fuels – on plants and soils, agriculture, forests, wildlife, ocean life, and humankind.

The authors find higher levels of carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures benefit nearly all plants, leading to more leaves, more fruit, more vigorous growth, and greater resistance to pests, drought, and other forms of “stress.” Wildlife benefits as their habitats grow and expand. Even polar bears, the poster child of anti-global warming activist groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), are benefiting from warmer temperatures.

Despite thousands of scientific articles affirming numerous benefits of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2, IPCC makes almost no mention of any positive externalities resulting from such,” said one of the report’s lead authors, Dr. Craig D. Idso. “Climate Change Reconsidered II corrects this failure, presenting an analysis of thousands of neglected research studies IPCC has downplayed or ignored in its reports so that scientists, politicians, educators, and the general public can be better informed and make decisions about the potential impacts of CO2-induced climate change.”

The authors look closely at claims climate change will injure coral and other forms of marine life, possibly leading to some species extinctions. They conclude such claims lack scientific foundation and often are grossly exaggerated. Corals have survived warming periods in the past that caused ocean temperatures and sea levels to be much higher than today’s levels or those likely to occur in the next century.""



LINK to WHOLE "pre report"

*JB*
iNTERESTING ARTICLE --

Biofuels do more harm than good, UN warns

Growing crops to make “green” biofuel harms the environment and drives up food prices, admits the United Nations

FULL ARTICLE
Rogerdodger
QUOTE
I do believe warming has occurred.


That often happens...especially coming out of the little ice age ending around 1850, about the time that many early temperature records were beginning to be kept.
Rogerdodger
'INCONVENIENT TRUTH' Producers Talking Sequel...

Crackdown ordered on UK climate skeptics...

Green Guru Reverses Belief: 'I don't think anybody really knows what's happening. They just guess'...
I’m not funded by some government department or commercial body or anything like that.

Lovelock dismissed the entire basis for global warming concerns in his BBC television interview. “Take this climate matter everybody is thinking about. They all talk, they pass laws, they do things, as if they knew what was happening. I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess. And a whole group of them meet together and encourage each other’s guesses,” Lovelock explained.

BBC interviewer Jeremy Paxman noted to Lovelock during the April 3 program: ”Sure. But you then, after publishing these apocalyptic predictions, you then retracted them.”

The newly skeptical Lovelock responded: ”Well, that’s my privilege. You see, I’m an independent scientist. I’m not funded by some government department or commercial body or anything like that. If I make a mistake, then I can go public with it. And you have to, because it is only by making mistakes that you can move ahead.”
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.