BPSDB
- from David Bellamy
- and John Boehner and the GoP
- and the Cato Institute
- about Swanson and Tsonis
- about CO2
- about Al Gore and sea level
BONUS: Debates V
A quick round up of some of the recent climate change Denier memes, frauds and lies:
from David Bellamy
Our old friend David Bellamy is at it again, and has been thoroughly vivesected by George Monbiot with “Bellamy the Bearded Bungler doesn’t disappoint.” As stated in my earlier post on Bellamy, it a sad end for what was otherwise an honourable career.
from John Boehner and the GoP
No longer able to actively suppress climate science, the Republicans have to make do with simply lying about it. In an attempt to prevent any actual action of any form on climate issues the Republicans have been misrepresenting the work of John Reilly of MIT.
Time for the media to call conservatives out for repeatedly exaggerating and distorting the work of MIT — and the cost of climate action in general, which is “one tenth of a penny on the dollar.” In fact, MIT found the costs on lower and middle income households can be “completely offset by returning allowance revenue to these households.”
John Boehner, the Say Anything Republican
You have to give it to John Boehner when it comes to looking out for his own interests. That would be $188,700 worth of interests in the form of campaign donations from coal, oil and gas lobbyists in 2008.
The Vacuous Mr. Boehner and the Energy Act
It’s easy to tell when Boehner is lying. His lips move. If this is the best that the Republican Party can do, then they’re in for a very long time in the wilderness.
Conservatives Falsely Assert That Green Economy Legislation Would Impose $3,100 Tax On Families
This is a deliberate lie.
They seem to be getting this number from an intentional misinterpretation of a 2007 study performed by a group of researchers at the MIT.
In an interview with PolitiFact, John Reilly, an MIT professor and one of the authors of the study, explained about this $3,100 claim:
“It’s just wrong. It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”” […]
and the Cato Institute
The industry PR firm posing as think tank known as the Cato Institute (aka front for Patrick Michaels) recently published ads in newspapers. The ads are a petition to the President, signed by a hundred scientists, which calls the reality of anthropogenic climate change into question.
RealClimate’s With all due respect… discusses how none of the science that this PR campaign references actually says what they claim it does (what? Deniers misrepresent and lie?)
Not only doesn’t support their stance, but as Climate Progress points 
out New study quoted by Cato Institute deniers concludes “warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models.”
Rabett Run looks at the credentials of some of the signatories in Resume Stretching The Oregone Institute, as does the International Journal of Inactivism in And now, the Orgone Petition, Capital Climate in With All Due Respect and George Monbiot with Climate change deniers: the usual suspects with no credibility.
EconoSpeak: Annals of the Economically Incorrect has issues with the economic claims being made Misleading Cato Petition Ad On Climate.
One of the more curious posts I found was Why I didn’t sign the CATO Institute ad by William M. Briggs. Some of you will recognize Briggs as one of the Morano cabal as describe in REVEALED: Marc Morano’s Pack Of Climate Denial Jokers. Have a look and see what a dyed in the wool Denier sees as wrong with this scam.
Apparently the Cato Institute has defended the effort, see I hereby propose the William Happer Award for Best Mixed Analogies
A little background on the Cato Institute
Behind the Climate Skepticism Curtain: The Koch Family and the Cato Institute
“Bigger in size than either Microsoft or AT&T, Koch Industries tends to fly under the public radar screen. Yet as the Center has previously reported, Koch — which owns refineries that can process over 800,000 oil barrels a day, and operates some 4,000 miles of pipeline — is a prolific political donor. Today, Koch is the second-largest privately held company in America.”
The Center for Public Integrity
Ad features 100 scientists willing to stoke the climate crisis
“Who on earth might have, say, half a million dollars to drop on an advertising campaign aimed at getting Americans to doubt the well-established science of climate change?
Well, if you answered “the oil industry,” you might be on a good track. The Cato Institute, which sponsored a series of full-page ads in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, is famously a paid apologist for organizations like the American Petroleum Institute (API).”
and Patrick Michaels:
about Swanson and Tsonis
One of the studies cited by the Cato Ad is Swanson and Tsonis, which has been making the rounds of Denialosphere seperately from the Cato meme. As RealClimate points out:
“The use of the recent Swanson and Tsonis paper is simply opportunism. Those authors specifically state that their results are not in any way contradictory with the idea of a long term global warming trend. Instead they are attempting to characterise the internal variability that everyone knows exists.”
Jeremy Jacquot at DeSmogBlog looked at this one in more detail in:
- Hot or Not? Making Sense of Climate Variability
- Earth to Jacoby: I Got Your Global Warming Right Here
about CO2
For some reason it is once again faddish in the Denialosphere to be terminally stupid about CO2 science. The recent outbreak of the pestilence include Avery:
Global warming denier Dennis Avery doesn’t know the difference between growth and growth rate
“The American Daily has just published this laughably wrong piece of disinformation by long-term global warming denier Dennis Avery, “Now CO2 is Declining as well as Temperatures.” Before AD and Avery take it down, let’s look at what passes for analysis among the deniers.”
Then there is the Competitive Enterprise Institute (another bogus think tank) and their ‘CO2 is your friend’ campaign:
One of the stupider arguments making the rounds in the media is that “carbon-dioxide-is-not-pollution– it’s life”.
In fact, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) produced a hilarious commercial saying just that.
Grumbine feels it necessary to answer the question Does CO2 correlate with temperature?
Lately I’ve been seeing the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have no correlation with temperature changes, particularly not over the last 100-150 years. I discussed a form of this, where the site was asking you to estimate the correlation by eye and doing a misleading job of it. It’s a bizarre claim, however, given that even at the eyeball level the figures in that previous note of mine show a pretty good correlation.
And Michael Tobis exposes one of the CO2 frauds making the rounds in And What’s Wrong with This Picture?
Well worth the read for a lesson in how Deniers manipulate the data to tell their lies.
about Al Gore and sea level
A new “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” 🙂
BONUS: Debates & Heartland
Two points I have made before are affirmed by the International Journal of Inactivism in Bet: bad. Debate: good. Thus said Galileo viz Deniers:
- HATE bets (see here and Brian Schmidt) where they have to put their money where their mouth is and state clearly what it is they are actually saying;
- LOVE the public circus of debates where they can gush lies and nonsense and “win” through performance rather than content (here, here, here, and here);
Pharyngula has a wonderful post of the invitation to Nicholas Gotelli to debate Creationism and his marvelous response (How to respond to requests to debate creationists). In reading it simply substitute ‘climate change denial’ for ‘creationism.’ Enjoy!
A couple more posts on the Heartland Institute and their pretend conference being added to the list:
- Rush Limbaugh and the Heartland Institute: I am Ignorance, Hear Me Roar
- Last Cries From The Climate Denial Extremists
I doubt very much that it’s their last cry, but more on that later. Take home lesson? climate change Denierism, it’s all lies.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 162 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS:
Greenfyre's 
[…] the hell wants Obama to fail. I just don’t think they matter enough for me to give a crap Climate change, lies, lies and more lies – greenfyre.wordpress.com 04/07/2009 BPSDB from David Bellamy and John Boehner and the GoP and the […]
I enjoyed Briggs’ closing statement: “I suspect the real reason I didn’t sign is that I am a contrarian.”
I wonder if at some point he’ll be so honest and admit “I suspect the real reason I stood against ACC is that I am a contrarian.”?
You can show the warming trend anyway you want to but the fact is that warming stalled in 2001 and there has been no warming for the last 8 years.
The question is, why did warming stall?
—-
You can show the warming trend anyway you want to but the fact is that cooling stalled in 2001 and there has been no cooling for the last 8 years.
The question is, why did cooling stall?
Ya know, if I had said it was cooler since 1998, that would be cherry picking. If I say that been no warming since 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 0r 2007, well, that is not cherry picking. If you look at the five year running average of temperature anomaly from CRU. It seems that Jones thinks that we have not been warming, but who knew.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Your playing games with the 100 month running average, why, because 100 months is over 8 years so the lack of warming since 2001 does not show. In case your mathmatically challenged, if you want to hide a trend, then make your running average time be more than the lenght of trend’s period.
Want to make the last 150 years warming disappear? Do a trend with 200 year running average for the last 2000 years. What it is still cooling? How could that be.
It does not do your cause any good to deny reality. The fact is that warming has paused since 2001 is fact. It does not mean that warming is not going to start again but why deny the fact, it does not make you position stronger.
Vernon:
Hint: YES IT IS.
— bi
Wow Vernon,
Some people truly amaze me. You alone have found the GIANT loophole in the AGW theory!!!
If there has been no warming since 1998, explain why 2005 was equally as hot as 98. And 98 was an extremely hot anomaly year caused by a strong el nino. Why not simply READ as others have instructed instead of making yourself look ill informed.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/
Try to spin this temp data in anyway to support your hypothesis. Clearly 2005 is higher than 1998. Even with this cold year, the last 10 years are warmer than any year before 98. Not sure how this constitutes cooling.
For all that disagree with me. If I am wrong, why does CRU and Jones also show that warming has stagnated.
bi, be sure to let Jones and CRU know they are cherry picking.
Aaron,
Please. The first link offers the same data and shows that warming has paused. The RC link is why the pause does not mean that the models are wrong.
Where did I say it was cooling. I said it is not warming. They are not the same.
Vernon,
I have no problem if you say that warming has “stalled” or “stagnated” over the last several years, provided you understand what that means. It means that short-term fluctuations have acted so that with some metrics the continuing warming trend has been offset. Sometimes shorter term changes will make the background trend appear smaller, and sometimes shorter term changes will make the background trend appear greater. There is no good reason to believe the process continuing to drive the overall warming trend with its basis in relatively simple physics has stopped.
Where I live, warming has “stalled” or “stagnated” since mid/late-March. I live in the Northern Hemisphere so given the theory of seasons early April would be expected to be warmer than mid/late-March, but it has actually been cooler! Does this mean summer is not coming this year? No. It means that (this should sound familiar) short-term fluctuations have acted so that the continuing warming trend has been offset. Sometimes shorter term changes will make the background trend appear smaller, and sometimes shorter term changes will make the background trend appear greater. There is no good reason to believe process continuing to drive the overall warming trend with its basis in relatively simple physics has stopped.
—-
gmo,
I happen to agree with you. The cooling was most likely due to the PDO and AMO shifts. I am just saying that to deny that warming has paused does ill service to anyone reading the site. It gives people the impression that reality is being rejected which leads to people blowing off the site. Rather it is better to explain why the pause happened and what it means.
Vernon,
Fair enough. You didn’t state that the earth was cooling. My point is the same as others have pointed out. We are seeing noise on an upward trend. You could have chosen any number 5 year time series to show some kind of leveling off or ‘stagnation’ in the global temp. This is why statistically 30 year time periods are used to assess climate trends.
But it all comes down to interpretation. You can pull out a metric and interpret it as “no warming” for the last several years. Using that same metric of some agency’s global temperature index, it is at least as valid to interpret the data from the last several years as continuing to be consistent with a warming trend.
With the inherent short-term fluctuations in the climate system such as ENSO it is basically inevitable (at least in the current climate state) that over the long run there will be several year periods where it may appear warming has “stalled” or “stagnated”. A flattish trend covering several years is well within the expected bounds of a long-term warming trend. So it is still correct to hold that warming has not paused.
Considering how statements like yours about recent global temperatures are used to try to tear down well-established theory on climate, I do not see that claiming warming has not paused is bad at all. Considering the clumsy terminology I think that is actually the more appropriate description.
This illustrates one reason why “climate change” is a superior term to “global warming”. Whichever term you like, the process has continued with no pause or stall. However, with unrelated variations also affecting temperature, that variable may not always represent that.
If spring was called “getting warmer” instead, would a period like I described above lead to people questioning it the same way many say “how can there be global warming it is not warming?” I doubt it since you do not find people trying to attribute meaning to early April not being warmer than late March the way you do people trying to highlight a several year period with roughly consistent global average temperature.
If you drive somewhere, it is likely that at times the road takes you for some time not closer and perhaps even farther away from your destination. But you do not say you have stopped going there, rather the road is just not a straight line from here to there.
I think a greater disservice is done in trying to press the point that “warming has paused” for several years without explicitly citing that such an interpretation is wholly consistent with continuing warming trend.
Mike,
You would do better to remove that example. It is not a valid use of statistics and anyone with any knowledge will blow you off. You can only use statistics to forecast what you do not know, based on a valid population and selection criterion. Namely a population is any entire collection of people, animals, plants or things from which you can collect data.
Your defined population and sample criteria are not valid for the experiment you were doing. The experiment was simply: What is my projected future temperature.
Now if you had a model and were going to forecast the summer based on those weeks that would be valid (we call them weather and climate models) but to do that you are not projecting a trend based on those weeks, you projecting a year based on comparing those weeks with the same weeks in other years. What your doing may work with the mathematically challenged but anyone else.
If you doubt me, check with someone that knows stats.
—-
Am I missing something here? You’re critiquing the statistics on a satire piece? The link mike gave showed a total misuse of data and statistics to show how meaningless dwelling on a small time series is. He used similar techniques that deniers would have to use to perpetrate their “global cooling: look at last 2 years” ideas. Mike just takes it to the next level to show how faulty that line of thinking is.
Maybe you can elaborate on this if I’m missing your point.
Actually, I am all for proper education of those that lack understanding of the issues, processes, problems. I just do no like bad examples that, to some one that does not know the climate issues but does understand the math, looks at the presentation and thinks, “This is the reason to not think it is cooling now? What, am I stupid.” When it should be an explanation of, “Yes, in the short term, climate warming signal is being over come by short term cooling in the Atlantic and Pacific, it has happened in the past, see such and such, and will resume and here is why.”
Maybe putting up bad stats works. I could be wrong, would not be the first time, but I have found that education is much better.
—-
Vernon,
“What, am I stupid?”
Yes.
There seem to be two groups of relevance to the current discussion – both are not well-versed on climate science and one has a solid background in math/stats (“math folks”) while the other does not (“non-math folks”).
The target of the statements at the top like the ad from the CATO Institute appears likely to be the non-math folks. Targeting that group with the real science is best done on a different wavelength than with the math folks. You do not want to be inaccurate in either case, but you say different things to different audiences.
For a general audience of non-math folks you want to be less technical and more illustrative – An Inconvenient Truth as opposed to journal articles. There may be some things that one more in-the-know could say, “well, technically it may be better said like this…” But it does not make much sense to try to build a huge lawyerly case for the non-math folks if it is not going to connect and simpler ideas like that some years with a flattish trend line in temperature data does not mean “global warming” is not continuing just like a cold snap in spring does not mean summer is not coming.
For the math folks I would expect them to seek out more technical information and be more critical. If they blow blow off climate change because of one satirical use of statistics, I doubt they are really “math folks”. More likely they are not going to think critically on the issue, and they can demonstrate that if they then fall for arguments like the above based on less than a decade and with graphs meant to mislead like the one with temp & CO2 set with 1deg temperature change scaled equally to about 30ppm CO2 change.
Someone dissuaded by the link Vernon did not like and not persuaded by the various other debunkings like just in this post is probably a lost cause and looking for a reason to not buy into the science. I think (hope) there are few people like that around and believe that there is likely to be greater positive resonance with people helping make the connection that just like every day in spring is not warmer than the previous, with global warming every year is not necessarily warmer than the previous.
Re: the Crock video above…
I actually watched the Gore movie recently for the first time and was surprised to not find the alleged errors so commonly mentioned.
Sure he mentions 20ft sea rises (6m) and the some ice sheets melting. But he doesn’t mention any time scales. Am i missing something???
Paul..
You’re good.
gmo,
and there is the third point of view, which is mine. Namely, doing simple tricks to prove a point only makes those who recognize the trick not trust the presentation. I believe that to be self defeating.
Vernon…
So in other words, a proven point is not believable because a trick was used to prove it?
Tom,
Actually yes, if something is true then use the truth rather than using a trick. If you have to use tricks, you weaken you case, which was my point from the beginning.
Vernon…
A truth is a truth regardless how it is proven.
If a trick has to be used to get to a truth it is more a reflection on the learning ability of the student, not the teacher.
Lack of ability can range from a simple mental block to a deliberate refusal to learn.
Most of us here understand what satire is…you apparently do not.
We understood the trick…you did not.
You are trying to make an issue of the method of proof and thereby lessen the value of the truth.
It is still the truth.
Tom G,
Nicely written.
Unlike the mockery engaged in by deniers (which shows contempt for truth and borders on contempt for other people) a smart and funny piece of satire (such as this) is aimed at truth and beauty.
This was not an ugly trick: it reveals the deceit and stupidity of a usual climate change denier strategy and in so doing, seeks to make the world a better place.
I can see, however, how someone motivated by contempt and lies would experience it negatively.
Frankbi,
I seem to recall that you love irony. 😉
M
Tom G,
How do you convince someone of the truth by showing them a lie? I happen to think that you show some one the truth by showing them something that is true. [1]
I take it from the general opinion voiced here that the using misleading statistics is acceptable for a good cause. I happen to think that if the cause is based on truth, then truth will prove it. That doing less actually undermines the truth. That was my opinion, and I voiced it. I will not post on this subject again. Greenfyre has made it plain he does not agree and I will respect his wishes.
I have not take exception to the satire that has been presented a various times. Well presented comedy can be a great communications tool.
—-
“How do you convince someone of the truth by showing them a lie?”
Now you’re asking the right question, but of the wrong people.
The lie did not originate here.
It originated at the denier sites.
Mike merely took the lie to an extreme to show the blatant manipulation of data at those sites.
Satire.
If you want the truth you must take all the data, all the information…not just that which appeals to you.
Truth ignored is a very dangerous thing.
Ignored it is an implacable foe.
You can run or hide, but it is always there.
Always.
—-
Vernon,
What tricks are you referring to??
Paul,
Gain what you can from the thread, I am not discussing that subject.
Vernon (the feckle head), no one is denying that warming has abated recently.
However, if you look at the graph over the last 150yrs this has happened frequently. But the global average has still risen.
And it still will, because we now now what the process is. You mess around here, but realize not what’s in store for your gene pool.
This guy is much more eloquent than most….and he is from auz, where they know about what it is like on the curve of climate change…
http://www.onlineincomesreviewed.co.uk/ make money online
Dude, no one is buying it anymore. You fought a good fight but science won out–GW is not man-caused:
http://environmentalrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/04/sea-change-23-believe-global-warming.html
Scott, a higher proportion of Americans belive in zombies.
Your entire post falls under the argumentum ad populum fallacy and has nothing about “science winning out”. Indeed, since when has science had a strong impact on public opinion? That’s the role of PR and the media.
Scott, it seems more like lies, lies and more lies won out. I can image you find that something to celebrate.
What I find as a reason to celebrate is that we (hopefully) won’t spend insane amounts of money on a non-issue. Spend the money on real environmental issues like CERCLA/Superfund, the CWA, the CAA, RCRA and others.
GW was a feel-good issue that was easy for the media to spin while the other programs fell by the wayside. What is more pertinent: GW that has never been proven and the data bear out doesn’t exist or will not have an effect for a hundred years or a PCB-contaminated site in a community that people have to live near? I work on those sites regularly and see kids playing in chromium soil or MGP residuals.
If you all had any clue about environmental issues beyond “ice caps melting” and “rising oceans” you’d know that this to be true.
Scott…give your head a shake.
Science by voter survey?
If you think the opinion of voters, ordinary people, outweighs the expertise, observations and studies of scientists from around the world….you truely have a misplaced sense of reality.
If you needed major heart surgery and decided you wanted a second opinion, would you get it from another doctor or would you conduct a survey of the voters in your neighbourhood?
Tom G,
Wake up, dude. It’s not science by voter survey but science the way science used to be…fact.
A great many “scientists” have reputations invested in their data and to admit they are wrong at this point would make them look amateurish. They don’t realize they look more amateurish by not admitting that they may have been wrong.
Remember when Newsweek came out with an entire issue on “global cooling” and had to rescind it thirty years later? If not, here’s the gist:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2006/20061024143134.aspx
Quoth the editor:
“Some scientists indeed thought the Earth might be cooling in the 1970s, and some laymen – even one as sophisticated and well-educated as Isaac Asimov – saw potentially dire implications for climate and food production,”
Indeed, those with as much on the line as the scientists who staked their careers on AGW will be the last to come around and will manipulate data to make their hypotheses work. They will look foolish in the process.
Science is fact and science is disproving things. AGW has been disproved and you all need to get a grip on that fact.
LOL. The AGW crowd keeps accusing the sceptics of cherry picking data even as it picks the end of the Little Ice Age as its own starting point. How is that credible and who would not expect warming after a cooling trend ended?
The real issue is what has caused the warming that we have noted since the LIA and on that front the AGW crowd has little support from the science. For one, the data clearly shows some distinct cooling trends while CO2 emissions were going up along with CO2 concentrations. The models do not predict and cannot account for these trends. (The fact that they coincide with the cool phase of the PDO is dismissed by the politicians and the political appointees at the IPCC.) Sadly for the AGW side the first big bit of evidence, the ice core studies, now suggest that the AGW side mixed cause and effect. The ice core data shows that it is the changes in temperature trends that drive changes in concentration, not the other way around. The other big bit of evidence, the infamous ‘hockey stick,’ was exposed as either a fraud or a very bad piece of science by the NAS committee that performed the review.
From what I see this issue is about money as most issues tend to be. The IPCC ‘scientists’ get funding because they promote the notion that man is responsible for climate change and will lose that funding if it is found that there are other, natural factors at work that provide the explanation. Given the amount of money involved the people involved have every incentive to keep the deception going as long as they can. Many companies have jumped on board because regulations will weaken their smaller competitors and costs can be passed on to the consumers. Others have jumped aboard because there is a lot of subsidy money being thrown around and there aren’t many things that appeal to people as much as money does.
That having been said, there will be an end point that spoils the party for the AGW community. With Bush gone many voters are coming to their senses and re-examining the issue objectively. Instead of buying into any argument that was in opposition to the President they are paying more attention to that actual arguments. Sadly for the AGW crowd, the voters are finding the arguments less than convincing and the polls are showing scepticism, particularly when they are asked to pay more for energy to fight a warming that they do not see and that many would welcome.
Boy you two are really in your own little dream worlds.
But since you both are so sure of yourselves why not take a little look at the links Mike so thoughtfully left at the right side of the page…try Debunking Nonsense for starters.
I’m sure you might find something of interest.
After all it’s all about you.
“Boy you two are really in your own little dream worlds.
But since you both are so sure of yourselves why not take a little look at the links Mike so thoughtfully left at the right side of the page…try Debunking Nonsense for starters.
I’m sure you might find something of interest.
After all it’s all about you.”
I have looked at most of the links. Most of the positions that they supported have been debunked already.
I am much more interested in specifics rather than generalities but it seems that most of the people on this site do not want any part of it. As far as I am concerned the specifics expose the hype as mere alarmist nonsense. To keep things simple let me make a few points that you can try to counter with real data instead of make believe stories. Here we go.
1. The data shows that ice cover is now over the average. As such there is no basis for the argument that the ice is melting away. Sea ice always melts in the summer and may melt more or less than usual for various factors other than air temperatures. It can melt because changes in wind or ocean current patterns pushes it further south into warmer waters. It can melt because changes in the current patterns bring more warm water further north. These have nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
I maintain that for a global ‘ice melt crisis’ story to have support you will need data to support it. You don’t.
2. The ice core data shows that temperature changes lead changes in CO2 concentrations by a lag of 800 years or more.
3. The historical data shows several periods of cooling that have occurred even as CO2 emissions were rising. The models do not predict such multi-decadal cooling periods.
4. The IPCC models have overestimated the observed temperature and CO2 concentration changes. They failed to predict that temperatures would be lower today than they were in the late 1990s. We are still cooler than we were in 1998 and the data is showing a cooling trend as the models predict warming. (The AGW sites you mention are spinning the facts into claiming the oceans are ‘hiding’ the warming but the ARGOS data shows the oceans stopped warming in 2003.)
5. The ‘hockey stick’ studies were shown to be invalid by the NAS. One of the clear findings was the improper use of bristlecone and foxtail pine proxies, which respond to CO2 fertilization by growing faster. Subsequent studies cited by the linked sites are full of the same inappropriate proxies.
***
You can choose to ignore the specifics and give a general response like, ‘go look at the linked sites,’ but that does not take us very far. In a debate and in science all that matters are specific facts and real world observations but, as usual, the AGW side avoids both.
Vangel is still repeating his dishonest nonsense over and over again. Not one word of what he says as any truth to it. Most intelligent people understand that so stop using up band width with your lies and dishonesty.
If you really had anything useful to say why is it not published in the peer reviewed scientific literature? Short answer, because it is rubbish.
There is nothing dishonest about the data that I presented. The simple fact is that there has been no warming since 1998, that the ARGOS buoy system shows a cooling trend in the oceans and the satellite measurements do not agree with GISS, which uses algorithms to adjust the raw data.
For the record, there are many papers that show that natural drivers explain climate change when CO2 emissions do not. It isn’t my problem that you do not read those papers. This site and others also keep referencing published papers that have been shown not to go through an independent reviews and to have used improper statistical techniques that cannot be justified by the data cited.
The bottom line is that it is your side that keeps lying about catastrophes that are not happening. Polar bear populations have grown and survived the MWP warming so they have shown to be capable of survival. Corals evolved when CO2 concentrations were ten times the current levels. There is no data to support an ice melting crisis. Global sea ice cover is now over the average. Ocean temperatures are not rising. The UHI effect is ignored by the AGW supporters even though it has been proven to effect the data.
Why do you keep being so dishonest. Cherry picking is not science.
Nasty web of deceit you have there Vangel.
Ian Forrester
Why do you keep being so dishonest. Cherry picking is not science.
You are correct. Cherry picking is not science. But unlike the AGW crowd I do not need to cherry pick to support my position. It wasn’t me who was screaming about an ice melt crisis but the AGW proponents. It isn’t me who looks at temperatures by picking a start point that happens to be the ending of the Little Ice Age.
The bottom line is that we have real data that shows that there is no warming crisis. It shows that it is temperature change that drives CO2 concentrations and not the other way around. It shows that the earth had equatorial glaciation at a time when CO2 levels were more than ten times the current level. It shows decadal cooling trends even as CO2 emissions were rising. It shows that the MWP was warmer than today and that when it was warmer the polar bears didn’t die out.
The bottom line is that there is no scientific basis for the AGW argument. It is only supported by computer models and data sets and algorithms that are unavailable for an independent review and audit. No wonder that you guys are scared debating the sceptics. If I didn’t have the evidence I would hide too.
Shorter Vangel, “I like to distribute rubbish, I say the same things over and over again. If I do it often enough it will be accepted”.
Utter rubbish Vangel and you should know it.
web
It’s that popular global corporatist recipe: “all the facts don’t fit my agenda muddle stew.” It’s very simple to make: add big dollars, small minds, stir until muddled, serve with your favorite conspiracy theory.
The irony. The arrogant poser who keeps resorting to ad hominem attacks accuses others of repetition.
The point is simple Ian. When the data supports one view all one has to do is to keep posting it to nullify the opposing position. I don’t need to come up with a different story because the science is with me. The ice is not melting. The ice cores show that CO2 changes are driven by changes in temperature, not the other way around. The MWP and Holocene Optimum were warmer even though there were no SUVs. The earth was much colder during some periods when CO2 levels were ten times higher than today. Until you have a real answer for those points your narratives and diversions will not work.
Vangel, if you really wanted to know what was actually happening you would read the peer reviewed scientific literature. After finding papers that supported your nonsense you should quote them. Instead, all you do is cut and paste rubbish which is demonstrably false from denier web sites. Then you repeat it over and over again even though you have been told by most of the intelligent people who visit this site that you are spreading lies, disinformation and rubbish.
You are pathetic.
Ian Forrester
Vangel, if you really wanted to know what was actually happening you would read the peer reviewed scientific literature. After finding papers that supported your nonsense you should quote them. Instead, all you do is cut and paste rubbish which is demonstrably false from denier web sites. Then you repeat it over and over again even though you have been told by most of the intelligent people who visit this site that you are spreading lies, disinformation and rubbish.
You are pathetic.
I read the reviewed literature. The problem with it is that the reviews are sometimes so poor that even I can spot the errors. That is what happened to the MBH98/MBH99 findings, which were the centre point of the 2001 IPCC report only to be discredited by a review once the problems with the data and methodology became apparent.
Sadly, I have noticed that the palaeoclimatology community up to its old tricks. It seems that the reviewers have missed the fact that the NAS panel made it clear that bristlecone pine proxies should not be used in temperature reconstructions. Yet, you look at their papers and they all are still using them.
No matter how you spin it Ian, the raw data is showing less ice cover.
“No matter how you spin it Ian, the raw data is showing less ice cover.”
Is Vangel finally catching on? 😛
gmo
“No matter how you spin it Ian, the raw data is showing less ice cover.”
Is Vangel finally catching on?
Sorry about the typo. My son has the flu and I am juggling. The point still stands. You can’t spin away from the facts no matter how hard you try. The ice cover has recovered and global ice cover stands above the average. The polar bear population is much larger than it was during the cooling phase from 1945 to 1975 when you guys were worried about the next ice age. The ice cores show that in the past it was temperature that was the driver of CO2 concentrations, not the other way around. The public is finally catching on and will no longer buy into the massive tax grabs that are being pushed by governments trying to divert wealth from consumers in order to reward politically connected companies and special interests.
Vangel…
You’re full of crap.
Ian Forrester
Vangel is still repeating his dishonest nonsense over and over again. Not one word of what he says as any truth to it. Most intelligent people understand that so stop using up band width with your lies and dishonesty.
If you really had anything useful to say why is it not published in the peer reviewed scientific literature? Short answer, because it is rubbish.
There is nothing dishonest about pointing to the real data instead of unsupported model predictions. It is a fact that the ice core data shows that temperature changes lead changes in CO2 concentrations by several hundred years. It is a fact that polar bear populations are significantly higher today than they were during the 1945-1975 cooling trend. It is a fact that ice cover has recovered and that the global anomaly is now above the average.
Tom G
Vangel…
You’re full of crap.
LOL. Is this what the AGW faithful are left with? No wonder they keep running away from debate.
Vangel hates the truth, especially when it is told about him. This is someone whose idea of “scientific” response is to link to an anti-science site, wattswrongwithwatt, which has a paper by Lindzen who is one of the most dishonest of climate scientists. Check out his presentation to the House of Lords in the UK as one example of his dishonesty.
vangel…the only debate left is how bad our future is going to be. If left to you, it’s going to be very bad.
But as for your crap:
The NAS (National Academy of Science) has never, ever accused Dr Mann of fraud. His hockey stick graph is valid and has been backed up by 10 or so other studies including one by Dr Hans Von Storch who was very critical of Mann’s methods. Mann himself has produced another graph which relies far less on tree data but still produces the same profile.
You say ice coverage is above normal, how did you do that?
By combining Arctic and Antarctic levels that’s how. You failed to mentioned how Arctic sea ice coverage is currently 500,000 square km below the 1979/2000 levels. But why is the Antarctic above average? You failed to mention the ozone hole that’s how. The same hole that’s maintaining the East Antarctic ice sheet’s stability but not not strong enough to help the West Antarctic ice sheet in general or the West Antarctic Peninsula in particular. Witness the collapsing ice shelves as evidence. Wilkins the latest and the shelf collapse is working its way south.
The ice is definitely melting. The Grace satellites are telling us Greenland and Antarctica have huge net losses every year. Ground observation around the world is showing retreating glaciers. The Beaufort Sea in the Canadian Arctic was totally ice free last year. A number of private sailboats travelled the North West Passage without a problem, one of them a 25 year old fibreglass 33 foot called the Berrimilla. Check it out…Berrimilla is quite famous boat in the sailing world. Google it.
This stupidity about a 800 year lag in CO2 levels and temperature levels…pure strawman, but don’t take my word for it, check out Climate Denial Crock of the Week. It is explained how that cherry pick of a 800 year lag originates and then goes on to tell the rest of the study that you don’t want us to hear. Go ahead, check it out, no reading required.
About those links that Mike has provided…they are there to debunk you and your nonsense so of course you’re going to try to dismiss them with a wave of your hand, but they aren’t going anywhere.
angel…the only debate left is how bad our future is going to be. If left to you, it’s going to be very bad.
I agree with the first statement but not the second. Given the meddling being done by governments around the globe and the massive transfer of wealth from consumers and taxpayers to politically connected corporations and special interests things are bound to fall apart.
But this is supposed to be a debate about climate and on that front things are not looking good either because the reduced solar activity means that cooling is in our future and that crop yields are going to be an issue, particularly if farmers are slow to use seeds that have been modified to grow faster.
The NAS (National Academy of Science) has never, ever accused Dr Mann of fraud. His hockey stick graph is valid and has been backed up by 10 or so other studies including one by Dr Hans Von Storch who was very critical of Mann’s methods. Mann himself has produced another graph which relies far less on tree data but still produces the same profile.
No, Wegman is too polite and too politically savy to directly accuse Mann and his co-conspirators of fraud. He just said that they used a method that made random inputs into hockey sticks, used proxies that were known to be inappropriate and statistical methods that were not valid. He also said that the reviews were not independent.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climateaudit.org%2Fpdf%2Fothers%2F07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf&ei=WWH0SdTHJonAM5vj3b4P&usg=AFQjCNHNPMvkp-jY2gyKnNtKcRw-NCgILA&sig2=IFeKe0g6D11YoYFarIfdsg
You say ice coverage is above normal, how did you do that?
By combining Arctic and Antarctic levels that’s how. You failed to mentioned how Arctic sea ice coverage is currently 500,000 square km below the 1979/2000 levels. But why is the Antarctic above average? You failed to mention the ozone hole that’s how. The same hole that’s maintaining the East Antarctic ice sheet’s stability but not not strong enough to help the West Antarctic ice sheet in general or the West Antarctic Peninsula in particular. Witness the collapsing ice shelves as evidence. Wilkins the latest and the shelf collapse is working its way south.
The ice is definitely melting. The Grace satellites are telling us Greenland and Antarctica have huge net losses every year. Ground observation around the world is showing retreating glaciers. The Beaufort Sea in the Canadian Arctic was totally ice free last year. A number of private sailboats travelled the North West Passage without a problem, one of them a 25 year old fibreglass 33 foot called the Berrimilla. Check it out…Berrimilla is quite famous boat in the sailing world.
Wrong. First, there is no ‘huge’ net loss of ice from either Greenland or Antarctica. The hype about Greenland’s glaciers has run its course because people are beginning to figure out that those Viking farms are still under permafrost and Greenland is still much colder than it has been in the past. The fact that glaciers melt in the spring and summer is not an unexpected event. .
As for ice cover it makes sense to look at global coverage when you are worried about global warming. But even if you don’t and look at the Northern Hemisphere you find that the ice cover this spring is greater than it has been the past seven years and above the average for the equivalent dates since the satellite record began.
While I am at it, let me point out that some of the satellite data is certainly questionable because during last year’s hype it was discovered that the sensors were showing open water in areas that were frozen. There was an obvious sensor problem that underestimated the amount of ice for part of last year. That does not mean that the sensor issue was really meaningful in the overall scheme because the amount of ice ‘loss’ could not be considered statistically significant. The simple fact is that we know that ice cover varies. After all, the Northwest passage was first sailed in a wooden ship and still isn’t navigable today unless you have a big ice breaker, very accurate maps and GPS guidance.
This stupidity about a 800 year lag in CO2 levels and temperature levels…pure strawman, but don’t take my word for it, check out Climate Denial Crock of the Week. It is explained how that cherry pick of a 800 year lag originates and then goes on to tell the rest of the study that you don’t want us to hear. Go ahead, check it out, no reading required.
About those links that Mike has provided…they are there to debunk you and your nonsense so of course you’re going to try to dismiss them with a wave of your hand, but they aren’t going anywhere.
In the real world the cause comes before the effect. The only place where that does not have to be true is the area of faith, which is what the AGW is all about.
Ian Forrester
Vangel hates the truth, especially when it is told about him. This is someone whose idea of “scientific” response is to link to an anti-science site, wattswrongwithwatt, which has a paper by Lindzen who is one of the most dishonest of climate scientists. Check out his presentation to the House of Lords in the UK as one example of his dishonesty.
Lindzen is one of the experts in his fields and did research of the highest quality. The IPCC was certainly impressed enough to invite him to participate in its evaluations. But being an honest man who tends to worry about the truth he resigned as soon as it became apparent that the IPCC was interested in political rather than scientific goals.
But I am not asking you to accept Lindzen’s word for anything. All I did is point you to a reference that provided a scientific rather than theological argument and used scientific results as support. I still find it strange that you guys keep arguing about warming without being able to point to it. As Lindzen says, the warming stopped around 1995 and since then the auditable data shows a flat trend. And that is why your side is starting to lose support in the general public and why it is running away from debate.
Vangel, you are the biggest joke on this site. Everyone, except for poor Vernon, is laughing at you and your continual posting of rubbish. You don’t have a clue. Have you ever been to a glacier? Do you know the difference between glaciers and permafrost? I thought not. Do you know the difference between a forcing and a feedback? Didn’t think so.
Time to do some real reading Vangel and stay away from dishonest denier sites. It always amazes me how someone so lacking in scientific knowledge as Vangel does always migrate to the dishonest denier sites for their information. That tells me that they are looking for answers that support their right wing libertarian mindset rather than wanting to understand the science.
You are pathetic.
Ian Forrester
Vangel, you are the biggest joke on this site. Everyone, except for poor Vernon, is laughing at you and your continual posting of rubbish. You don’t have a clue. Have you ever been to a glacier? Do you know the difference between glaciers and permafrost? I thought not. Do you know the difference between a forcing and a feedback? Didn’t think so.
Time to do some real reading Vangel and stay away from dishonest denier sites. It always amazes me how someone so lacking in scientific knowledge as Vangel does always migrate to the dishonest denier sites for their information. That tells me that they are looking for answers that support their right wing libertarian mindset rather than wanting to understand the science.
You are pathetic.
I actually do plenty of reading Ian and am amazed at just how clueless your movement is. For one, it is clear that climate change is normal and that temperatures have been warmer in the past when you couldn’t pin the changes on man. For another, the science is clear that changes in temperature trends drive CO2 levels by changing the solubility of CO2 in the oceans, which are the biggest source/sink of carbon dioxide on this planet.
Then there is the whole issue of the amount of warming. While one expects to see warming if we pick the end of a long cooling period as a starting point the simple fact is that the amount of the warming has been trivial and very beneficial. History shows us that longer growing seasons and warmer winters are good for humans and life on this planet. It also shows that cooling trends lead to shorter growing seasons, poverty and misery.
This is very important at this particular period of time. In case you haven’t noticed it, economies are contracting and people are not going to be happy if governments force them to pay more in taxes and fees. Once Bush was voted out of office the Greens lost a big positive for their case and they now have to work a lot harder because they will be asked to back up their contentions with facts. Already we have seen countries like India, China, Poland and Australia either reject the AGW case or undergo a major change in sentiment that is putting pressures on their governments to pull back on promised initiatives.
And just in case you forgot, global ice cover measurements show that ice cover has recovered and now stands above the average for the satellite era. The polar bear populations are still much higher than they were during the cooling period from 1945-1975. And those Viking farms are still under permafrost. It seems to me that you have no science to support your arguments and that reality is finally setting for the public, which is tired of self interested charlatans like Gore making hundreds of millions by pushing others to make changes in their lifestyles that they are not willing to make themselves.
Ice loss:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123181952.htm
Your 800 year strawman on cause and effect:
About Dr Wegman and the hockey stick: He was the head of an independent committee commissioned by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tx) and not representing the National Academy of Science.
This spring’s Northern Hemisphere ice coverage:
You say the North West Passage isn’t passable ‘today’ without ‘a big ice breaker’. That’s only true because it’s still Spring, not late Summer after a season of ice melt. The Berrimilla was not in the North West Passage in April.
You also say Greenland is still much colder than it has been in the past. So what…in prehistoric times it has been ice free and in the past when much of North America was covered in ice it was no doubt colder than it is today.
Climate change in the past has been normal and up to the Industrial Age of Mankind, has always been normal. That doesn’t mean it can’t become abnormal. That’s why the current climate change is called Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I always have trouble with You Tube.
Type in Climate Denial Crock of the Week and “Temp leads carbon” Crock is the first one up.
Vangel,
Your wrong on polar bear population. There have not been any recent studies into the actual size of the polar bear population. There are more reports of polar bears sighted near human habitation but that means nothing. On the other side of the case, there are studies that show that polar bears are living longer but are loosing mass. Those studies “think” that might mean something but once again, no studies into the actual size of the polar bear populations. If you can find a study that supports your position, not a link to another site, please provide it.
Tom G,
Vangel is misquoting the NAS report which, which fell short of what Vangel is saying, did state that Mann’s premises that the 20th century is the warmest century in 1000 years, and that the 1990’s was the warmest decade was not supported. It went further to say that the use of strip bark proxies is not recommended. Which for them is a pretty big slap down. The newest Mann hockey stick still has the strip bark proxies and to make it even funnier, he reverses the temperature correlation of the same proxy at different times.
Vernon
The studies from the 1960s had populations that were 2.5 to 5 times lower than those today. I read a government of Canada report that was put out around two years ago. It was a review of studies of local bear populations. For some populations there wasn’t enough data to make a meaningful comment (although that does not seem to stop the AGW movement). Two populations in Western Hudson Bay showed declines while the other populations were stable or growing. The population numbers in the Davis Strait area had grown substantially.
And I do not see how increased reports of bear sightings can be said to be unimportant. Inuit are reporting sighting many more bears all year around. That can’t be dismissed as hungry bears looking for food when the ice cover is gone in the summer.
I also don’t see how you can claim that the NAS report ‘fell short’ in its criticism. It made clear that the palaeoclimatology community was too inbred and did not conduct truly independent reviews on its research. It pointed out that the algorithm used turned random red noise into hockey stick forms. It made it clear that MBH98/MBH99 used inappropriate proxies that responded to CO2 fertilization. It made it clear that the statistical knowledge in the palaeoclimatology community was inadequate. When the statistical errors were corrected the LIA and MWP reappeared once again and the Mann conclusions were invalidated. Frankly, given the nature of the investigation I don’t see how things could have gone worse for Mann and company.
Vangel,
The NAS report says this about the Mann et al (1998) study. There is high confidence for the findings from 1600AD to present. There is less confidence on findings from 900AD – 1660AD, and very little confidence for any findings prior to 900AD. What you are citing is the Wegman report. While I personally consider dendroclimatology to be a poor a poor proxy for climatic temperature reconstruction, the NAS only had issues with strip bark (bristle cone and foxtail) pines. I do consider the Wegman finding that Mann et al’s made a questionable use of statistics to be a valid point, however, your statements about the NAS report are just wrong.
You can read it for free here: http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676#toc
As I stated,
Please provide a recent report that show what current populations are. The fact that the bears are now seen closer to human habitation does not mean there are more bears. There could be many reasons for this change. Likewise, there are no studies that show that polar bear populations are declining due to warming. There are some that feel there ‘maybe’ or ‘could’ stress to the bears due to warming, but none that have any data to support the feeling.
Sorry Vernon but you have it wrong. Here is the excerpt from the report.
This is from the findings section”
In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
So what we have are findings that Dr. Mann and his co-authors are not competent when it comes to the use of statistical methods. (If they were competent and still produced the study there would have been no choice but to conclude outright fraud.) What we also have is acknowledgement of a lack of independent review and a statement that the Mann conclusions could not be supported.
Here is the comment on the inappropriate use of bristlecone pine proxies.
Bottom line is that Mann chose as proxies trees that are fertilized by CO2 additions and tried to claim that the faster growth was due to temperature increases. Although the NAS has said that these proxies are not appropriate the palaeoclimatology community is still using them because without these proxies there is no way to support the false claims that the AGW community is pushing.
Then there is the method used by Mann. As M&M showed, it turned random noise into hockey stick shapes because it used data mining methods to find hockey stick shapes and gave a greater preference to these series than to others that showed a flat or the opposite trend.
As mentioned in earlier discussions, PCA seeks to identify the largest contributor to the variance. It is not inherently a smoothing mechanism. The MBH98 offset of the mean value creates an ‘artificially large deviation’ from the desired mean value of zero.
Sorry but I do not see how you can interpret the NAS finding as anything but a spanking of the palaeoclimatology community. The NAS panel avoided calling the entire study a fraud by taking the easy way out and calling Mann and his co-authors statistically incompetent.
You can find a copy of the original report at the link below.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climateaudit.org%2Fpdf%2Fothers%2F07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf&ei=KeX1Sa6qFY2-MqCVrbwP&usg=AFQjCNHNPMvkp-jY2gyKnNtKcRw-NCgILA&sig2=o3QOC-mCjIaRxvo0z6Dpug
Even more interesting is the Wegman response to questions by Stupak.
Click to access StupakResponse.pdf
I found this statement particularly telling of what the whole issue really was:
“The shape of the graph will depend on the underlying data. To reiterate our testimony, the decentering process as used in MBH98 and MBH99 selectively prefers to emphasize the hockey stick shape. This is because the decentering increases the apparent variance of hockey sticks and principal component methods attempt to find components with the largest explainable variance. If the variance is artificially increased by decentering, then the principal component methods will “data mine” for those shapes. In other words, the hockey stick shape must be in the data to
start with or the CFR methodology would not pick it up. What we have shown both analytically and graphically in Figure 4.6 is that using the CFR methodology, just one signal when decentered will overwhelm 69 independent noise series. The point is that if all 70 proxies contained the same temperature signal, then it wouldn’t matter which method one used.
But this is very far from the case. Most proxies do not contain the hockey-stick signal. The MBH98 methodology puts undue emphasis on those proxies that do exhibit the hockey-stick shape and this is the fundamental flaw. Indeed, it is not clear that the hockey-stick shape is even a temperature signal because all the confounding variables have not been removed.”
One note about the Stupak link. For some reason UofG is using equipment that makes a download extremely slow. It took me three hours to finally get the document. That said, it is a great reference that shows exactly what happened during the review and brings up some issues that have not gotten much attention.
Vangel,
That is the Wegman report your quoting. Go to the link I provided and read the NAS report. Even your link is to the Wegman report. The Wegman report and the NAS report are two different things.
Post again when you have read the NAS report. There is a free to read copy at the following site:
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676#toc
Vernon. Wegman was put in charge of the NAS committee that did the evaluation and provided his report to Congress. The report is very clear about the lack of statistical competence, the use of inappropriate proxies, of methods that make random red noise into hockey sticks and of a lack of independent review. There is no reason to dispute any of these clear findings no matter how politically correct they may be reworded in the NAS report. The bottom line is that Mann’s conclusions were not valid, which is the reason that even the IPCC did not emphasise them in the latest report as it did in 2001.
I hope that you look at the response to the Stupak questions. When asked who reviewed the report Wegman gave a list also claimed that there were two other reviewres who, “asked that their names not be revealed because of potential negative consequences for them.” There is a lot of money at stake in this game and most researchers who blow the whistle or are seen to disagree are afraid of losing their funding and their positions. That is the irony here. The AGW movement talks about how ‘industry’ buys off sceptics when the AGW side gets significantly more money from governments eager to find another source of revenue that they can justify by a tall tale about some imagined common good. I know that in my case I am going to make much more money if the idiots in Congress divert cash into ‘green energy’ initiatives because the supply chain disruptions are about to create massive opportunities for people who know what they are doing.
Vangel,
Wegman was not in charge of the NAS panel. Your starting to look pretty stupid at this point. I do not know what site your quoting but you would do yourself a favor by doing your own research. A google search of the Wegman report or the NAS report on Mann(98) would show you that they are too different things that happened at about the same time.
Wegman was talking about the informal review he had done of his report. Tell you what, since you will not believe the information, how about you read this or the other link to the full NAS/NRC report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Look it up and quit sounding stupid. I actually give you the links to the reports and you still do not read them.
You are right Vernon. You are talking about the NAS report that you cited and I am talking about the independent report that was requested by Congress. As I pointed out, the report was chaired by Edward J. Wegman and a number of statisticians who concluded that the methods used were invalid.
That said, the NAS report does not dispute any of the Wegman findings and North’s testimony made it clear that the only confidence the NAS had was that Mann’s statement that the 20th century was warmer than the LIA was valid. Well, nobody had disputed that fact except Mann, who implied that the LIA and MWP were minor local phenomenon in his papers.
Before I get to the detail let me ephasise a few points. First, it is clear that the Mann methodology turns random red noise into hockey stick formations. Second, it is clear that Mann used bristlecone and foxtail proxies, which should be avoided in temperature reconstructions according to the NRC. (These are still used by the palaeoclimatology community even though the trees respond to CO2 fertilization and as such can’t be trusted as a temperature response indicator.) Third, in his testimony to Congress North admitted that there were methodological problems with the statistical techniques used by Mann. They seemed to go easy on Mann because they agreed with the AGW argument and took the palaeoclimatology authors at their word without looking into the lack of independence or the shocking lack of knowledge about basic statistics.
I suggest that you take the time to look at the NAS report that you cited as carefully as you seem to look at other data. Frankly, I am surprised that you did not spot the obvious problem in the Summary. While the that the palaeoclimatology proxy reconstructions yield similar results it ignores the fact that the studies use strip-bark proxies such as bristlecone and foxtail pines, which respond to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, rather than increasing temperatures and as such are not recommended by the NRC. (There are comments made about the inappropriate use of these proxies but that does not seem to disqualify studies that actually use them. How that is scientific is something that you have to wrestle with because that would not have been considered acceptable when I was doing research in university.)
I provided you with a link to the Wegman’s responses to Bart Stupak and his committee on the record. Here is the comment about methodology.
Wegman also pointed out to Congress that in his testimony to Congress, Dr. North agreed with the incorrectness of the methodology. (I am sorry but you can’t spin that into the NAS accepting Mann’s work as being valid. If it were valid North would have disagreed with Wegman in his Congressional testimony.)
The bottom line is that Mann did not use proper methods. Not only did he use inappropriate proxies but he used a method that ‘data mined’ the inputs for hockey sticks. As I said, the revelation that the 20th century was warmer than the LIA is nothing new or nothing disputed.
And as I said, Wegman testified that North had no problem with his conclusions that the methodology was flawed.
I have to go and look after my son, who still has the flu so I will end this here. I suggest that you download the Stupak responses that I linked to see just how screwed up the palaeoclimatology papers really are. The testimony is on the record to Congress and has not been refuted on the record. (RC’s rantings and the posturing and screaming on this blog does not count as credible because we don’t go to jail if we stretch the truth and make false statements. As I said, if North really exonerated Mann, he would have said that the methods and conclusions were correct. He didn’t.
Anthropogenic global warming is a political movement, not a scientific movement, as your incessent attacks on the messenger and not the message make clear.
Global Warming Notes
1. There are natural long-term temperature cycles, including 100-year and 1000-year cycles. For example, 800 years ago — many centuries before humans began to burn fossil fuels in significant quantities — the Earth’s atmosphere was considerably warmer than the highest average global temperature of the past two decades, whereas in between then and now there were periods when temperatures were much lower than they are today. The fact is that global warming periodically occurs, as does global cooling. Polar bears have obviously been able to adapt to these temperature cycles.
2. There are shorter-term temperature cycles of around one decade in length that appear to be influenced to the greatest extent by sunspot activity. The sizeable decline in the average global temperature over the past two years, for example, has coincided with a large decline in sunspot activity (a large rise in the number of “spotless” days).
3. The sunspot-related temperature decline of the past two years has been “inconvenient” for the Global Warming Alarmists because it has resulted in the polar ice caps expanding to their average level of the past 30 years and the global temperature dropping back to 1980s levels, despite the greater amount of CO2 now in the atmosphere. But as discussed in item 5 below, the Alarmists have an ace up their collective sleeve.
4. Some time ago it was discovered that there has been a positive correlation over the millennia between temperature and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Al Gore used this correlation to dramatic effect in his much-heralded promotion of the Global Warming cause, but additional data collected since then shows that the CO2 level FOLLOWS the temperature change, not the other way round. In other words, the empirical data suggest that if there is a long-term cause-effect relationship between CO2 and temperature it works the opposite way to the way in which Gore and Co. claimed.
5. There is evidence that the world has embarked on a cooling cycle, but not to worry: the term “Global Warming” is in the process of being replaced by the more general term “Climate Change”. Altering the terminology in this way is smart because the Earth’s climate has been changing since the beginning of time and will continue to do so REGARDLESS of what mankind does or doesn’t do. In other words, the climate alarmists are ensuring that they will have justification for imposing their collective will no matter what.
6. Some scientists extrapolated the most recent upward trend in temperature to yield cataclysmic forecasts. This was akin to someone in the Northern Hemisphere noticing, in August, that the temperature had been rising month after month since March and exclaiming: “If this keeps up we’ll all be dead by December!”
7. The claim made by the current US President and other politicians that the science of Global Warming is beyond dispute is a lie. Many scientists dispute the idea that human-generated carbon emissions have a significant effect on global temperature, including the more-than 100 scientists who signed the petition at Web Link and the 31,000 scientists who signed the petition mentioned in this Telegraph article.
8. Despite the US Environmental Protection Agency’s assertion to the contrary, CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
To be clear, global warming (the man-made variety) is most likely a giant hoax, but the political ship has set a course that it probably won’t deviate from regardless of the facts. Additionally, whether or not mankind’s burning of fossil fuels is an important cause of “climate change”, all things being equal it would certainly be better to have less air pollution. And at this time it seems that the most economically feasible way to achieve a meaningful reduction in GLOBAL air pollution is to expand the use of nuclear power.
Most of the world’s pollution is generated by the 5 billion poor people, which means that for a cleaner-energy solution to be truly viable it must also be cheap. The expensive clean-energy solutions that are presently fashionable within the ranks of the 1.2 billion rich people not only don’t have the ability to bring about a material reduction in global pollution, they will very likely cause pollution levels to INCREASE by making relatively dirty energy sources even cheaper for the most inefficient energy consumers. For example, the less coal that gets used in the US the lower the international coal price will become, leading to more coal being burned in countries such as China that use energy less efficiently than the US. Lastly, governments put their own economies at a major disadvantage when they force the use of expensive energy alternatives.
The economics of fuel come down to this: per unit of energy delivered, coal costs one-fifth as much as oil but contains one-third more carbon. High carbon taxes (or tradable permits, or any other equivalent) sharply narrows the price gap between oil and the one fuel that can displace it worldwide & in the here and now. The oil nasties will celebrate the green war on carbon as enthusiastically as the coal industry celebrated the green war on uranium 30 years ago.
The other 5 billion are too poor to deny these economic realities. For them, the price to beat is 3-cent coal-fired electricity. China and India won’t trade 3-cent coal for 15-cent wind or 30-cent solar. As for us, if we embrace those economically frivolous alternatives on our own, we will certainly end up doing more harm than good.
By pouring money into anything-but-carbon fuels, we will lower demand for carbon, making it even cheaper for the rest of the world to buy and burn. The rest will use cheaper energy to accelerate their own economic growth. Jobs will go where energy is cheap, just as they go where labor is cheap. Manufacturing and heavy industry require a great deal of energy, and in a global economy, no competitor can survive while paying substantially more for an essential input. Wannabe carbon police such as yourselves acknowledge the problem and talk vaguely of using tariffs and such to address it, but carbon is far too deeply embedded in the global economy, and materials, goods, and services move and intermingle far too freely, for the customs agents to track.
…So the suggestion that we can lift ourselves out of the economic doldrums by spending lavishly on exceptionally expensive new sources of energy is absurd. “Green jobs” means Americans paying other Americans to chase carbon while the rest of the world builds new power plants and factories. And the environmental consequences of outsourcing jobs, industries, and carbon to developing countries are beyond dispute. They use energy far less efficiently than we do, and they remain almost completely oblivious to environmental impacts, just as we were in our own first century of industrialization. ****A massive transfer of carbon, industry, and jobs from us to them will raise carbon emissions, not lower them.****
Obviously, there are policy and social and economic implications. However these are separate from the facts of the science.
I have to ask you – is this a joke?
Polar bears are adapting?
Sunspots are the trouble?
CO2 lags temp?
Al Gore?
Is there any denier nonsense that you have not repeated here?
Let’s see.
“Some scientists extrapolated the most recent upward trend in temperature to yield cataclysmic forecasts. This was akin to someone in the Northern Hemisphere noticing, in August, that the temperature had been rising month after month since March and exclaiming: “If this keeps up we’ll all be dead by December.”
Which scientists? Please cite a source for this ridiculous statement. No climate scientist mistakes the concept of short-term weather trends for a long-term climate trend. Weather is not climate. Unlike you, they get that.
“There is evidence that the world has embarked on a cooling cycle.”
Climate change 101: every record high is followed by a cool period.
“Many scientists dispute the idea that human-generated carbon emissions have a significant effect on global temperature.”
The Oregon Petition fraud? Are you for real?
Please consider educating yourself by reading the posts on this site. That’s what they’re here for, so do the biologist who blogs here and the rest of us a favour and read credible science and research sites. Takes about as much time as reading denier pseudoscience.
To be honest with you, your ‘points’ are among the most simple-minded and obviously fraudulent of the denier talking points, so they will only interest someone interested in talking about unicorns.
You don’t even pretend to cite a climate science source i.e., peer-reviewed, published science.
Most of your ‘arguments’ on your site are made using what is called ‘circular reasoning’: you state your point, as evidence for your point. It’s not exactly compelling, when there is overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change.
Please visit this and follow the links to the science.
Martha
Obviously, there are policy and social and economic implications. However these are separate from the facts of the science.
I have to ask you – is this a joke?
Polar bears are adapting?
Polar bears are thriving. Their population is at least twice what it was when the greens were calling for an extinction in the 1960s and 1970s.
Sunspots are the trouble?
No, solar activity is the trouble. The earth only has life because of the energy that is emitted from the sun and the protective effect of the heliosphere. When there are changes they effect climate on this planet and on other planets of the solar system. The observed warming was not unique to our planet; there were reports of other planets and solar bodies warming up. (You can’t blame SUVs for Mars losing its polar caps or Pluto warming even as it was moving away from the Sun.)
CO2 lags temp?
By around 800 years according to the ice core studies. That means that temperature is driving CO2 levels, not the other way around.
Al Gore?
Is a self interested hypocrite. He is telling people to cut down on their carbon footprints even as he owns houses that use more energy in one month than the average home in a year. He takes limos, private aeroplanes and other vehicles that use up far more energy than necessary even as he tells others to cut back. And he is pushing carbon trading even as he holds an interest in carbon trading businesses. He certainly is much smarter than his followers because he has made millions pushing his message.
“Some scientists extrapolated the most recent upward trend in temperature to yield cataclysmic forecasts. This was akin to someone in the Northern Hemisphere noticing, in August, that the temperature had been rising month after month since March and exclaiming: “If this keeps up we’ll all be dead by December.”
Which scientists? Please cite a source for this ridiculous statement. No climate scientist mistakes the concept of short-term weather trends for a long-term climate trend. Weather is not climate. Unlike you, they get that.
James Hansen is a perfect example.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal
Romm piles on and plays the panic card along with Hansen.
http://www.grist.org/article/the-hansen-et-al-ultimatum
http://www.grist.org/article/another-must-read-from-hansen
Canada has its own imbeciles who keep making incredible claims while claiming to be conservative.
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=89206&keybold=global%20warming%20catastrophic
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2009/04/19/9187816-sun.html
“There is evidence that the world has embarked on a cooling cycle.”
Climate change 101: every record high is followed by a cool period.
It is good for you to admit that one would expect warming after the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course, while you are right about cycles, you are wrong about the claim of a record high. The US was certainly warmer in the 1930s and global temperatures have been much higher in the past, including the Medieval Warming Period, the Roman Warming, the Holocene Optimum, etc.
You also need to start thinking. If the Holocene temperatures were considered to be ‘optimum’ it is hard to see how warming up to reach those levels would be a bad thing.
“Many scientists dispute the idea that human-generated carbon emissions have a significant effect on global temperature.”
The Oregon Petition fraud? Are you for real?
Please consider educating yourself by reading the posts on this site. That’s what they’re here for, so do the biologist who blogs here and the rest of us a favour and read credible science and research sites. Takes about as much time as reading denier pseudoscience.
To be honest with you, your ‘points’ are among the most simple-minded and obviously fraudulent of the denier talking points, so they will only interest someone interested in talking about unicorns.
You don’t even pretend to cite a climate science source i.e., peer-reviewed, published science.
Most of your ‘arguments’ on your site are made using what is called ‘circular reasoning’: you state your point, as evidence for your point. It’s not exactly compelling, when there is overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change.
Please visit this and follow the links to the science.
Please pay attention. There are many scientists who have shown the AGW claims to be without substance. That is exactly why Hansen and Gore will not debate the sceptics and that is why the sentiment is changing. The polls show that voters are no longer as gullible and no longer buy the AGW story. It is amazing what happens when an idiot like Bush steps away from the presidency and the knee-jerk automated support for anti-Bush positions have to start relying on logic and facts.
Martha
Obviously, there are policy and social and economic implications. However these are separate from the facts of the science.
I have to ask you – is this a joke?
Polar bears are adapting?
Polar bears are thriving. Their population is at least twice what it was when the greens were calling for an extinction in the 1960s and 1970s.
Sunspots are the trouble?
No, solar activity is the trouble. The earth only has life because of the energy that is emitted from the sun and the protective effect of the heliosphere. When there are changes they effect climate on this planet and on other planets of the solar system. The observed warming was not unique to our planet; there were reports of other planets and solar bodies warming up. (You can’t blame SUVs for Mars losing its polar caps or Pluto warming even as it was moving away from the Sun.)
CO2 lags temp?
By around 800 years according to the ice core studies. That means that temperature is driving CO2 levels, not the other way around.
Al Gore?
Is a self interested hypocrite. He is telling people to cut down on their carbon footprints even as he owns houses that use more energy in one month than the average home in a year. He takes limos, private aeroplanes and other vehicles that use up far more energy than necessary even as he tells others to cut back. And he is pushing carbon trading even as he holds an interest in carbon trading businesses. He certainly is much smarter than his followers because he has made millions pushing his message.
“Some scientists extrapolated the most recent upward trend in temperature to yield cataclysmic forecasts. This was akin to someone in the Northern Hemisphere noticing, in August, that the temperature had been rising month after month since March and exclaiming: “If this keeps up we’ll all be dead by December.”
Which scientists? Please cite a source for this ridiculous statement. No climate scientist mistakes the concept of short-term weather trends for a long-term climate trend. Weather is not climate. Unlike you, they get that.
James Hansen is a perfect example.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal
Romm piles on and plays the panic card along with Hansen.
http://www.grist.org/article/the-hansen-et-al-ultimatum
http://www.grist.org/article/another-must-read-from-hansen
Canada has its own imbeciles who keep making incredible claims while claiming to be conservative.
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=89206&keybold=global%20warming%20catastrophic
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2009/04/19/9187816-sun.html
“There is evidence that the world has embarked on a cooling cycle.”
Climate change 101: every record high is followed by a cool period.
It is good for you to admit that one would expect warming after the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course, while you are right about cycles, you are wrong about the claim of a record high. The US was certainly warmer in the 1930s and global temperatures have been much higher in the past, including the Medieval Warming Period, the Roman Warming, the Holocene Optimum, etc.
You also need to start thinking. If the Holocene temperatures were considered to be ‘optimum’ it is hard to see how warming up to reach those levels would be a bad thing.
“Some scientists extrapolated the most recent upward trend in temperature to yield cataclysmic forecasts. This was akin to someone in the Northern Hemisphere noticing, in August, that the temperature had been rising month after month since March and exclaiming: “If this keeps up we’ll all be dead by December.”
Which scientists? Please cite a source for this ridiculous statement. No climate scientist mistakes the concept of short-term weather trends for a long-term climate trend. Weather is not climate. Unlike you, they get that.
James Hansen is a perfect example among many. He suggested that we would have an ice free Arctic into the not too distant future, has been calling for a much higher rise in sea levels than any credible scientist and has made a number of predictions that have proven to be wrong.
“There is evidence that the world has embarked on a cooling cycle.”
Climate change 101: every record high is followed by a cool period.
It is good for you to admit that one would expect warming after the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course, while you are right about cycles, you are wrong about the claim of a record high. The US was certainly warmer in the 1930s and global temperatures have been much higher in the past, including the Medieval Warming Period, the Roman Warming, the Holocene Optimum, etc.
You also need to start thinking. If the Holocene temperatures were considered to be ‘optimum’ it is hard to see how warming up to reach those levels would be a bad thing.
“Many scientists dispute the idea that human-generated carbon emissions have a significant effect on global temperature.”
The Oregon Petition fraud? Are you for real?
Please consider educating yourself by reading the posts on this site. That’s what they’re here for, so do the biologist who blogs here and the rest of us a favour and read credible science and research sites. Takes about as much time as reading denier pseudoscience.
To be honest with you, your ‘points’ are among the most simple-minded and obviously fraudulent of the denier talking points, so they will only interest someone interested in talking about unicorns.
You don’t even pretend to cite a climate science source i.e., peer-reviewed, published science.
Most of your ‘arguments’ on your site are made using what is called ‘circular reasoning’: you state your point, as evidence for your point. It’s not exactly compelling, when there is overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change.
Please visit this and follow the links to the science.
Please pay attention. There are many scientists who have shown the AGW claims to be without substance. That is exactly why Hansen and Gore will not debate the sceptics and that is why the sentiment is changing. The polls show that voters are no longer as gullible and no longer buy the AGW story. It is amazing what happens when an idiot like Bush steps away from the presidency and the knee-jerk automated support for anti-Bush positions have to start relying on logic and facts.
You are clearly not reading or citing any science sources i.e., peer-reviewed, published science. This is a science forum by a biologist, not a forum dedicated to the discussion of your personal beliefs.
1) “Polar bears are thriving.”
Current source? And make your source a polar bear biologist. I already responded to your clueless comments, April 24 2009 at 11:58 on the ‘George Will socket puppet’ thread.
2) See the posts and many discussions on this site that address that particular b.s., including previous discussion with you.
3) See the posts and many discussions on this site that address that particular b.s., including previous discussion with you.
4) Al Gore reported on the science. If you are concerned about poverty and other equity issues, I agree that the science indicates the delta regions of Africa, Asia, and island nations, and regions of the high North, are especially vulnerable to massive displacement and since they do not have the infrastructure to deal with these crises, the social justice issues must be addressed. Indeed, there are many equity and health issues associated with climate change. Since you have already explained that you believe that climate change is a war on the principle of individual liberty and the free market, I am wondering how your concern about Al Gore is related to either the facts of the science, OR to global social justice issues. You have explained that you believe that climate change is a myth manufactured by government (corruption) in order to infringe on (your) property rights. It is not possible to be responsive to the equity and health issues related to climate change without shared international plans, including shared government action(s). I appreciate the problem for you. However, your comments on this site have been racist, so I really feel the need to skip your pretensions regarding social justice.
5) See the posts and numerous discussions on this site that address that particular b.s., including pervious discussion with you.
6) “James Hansen is a perfect example among many. He suggested that we would have an ice free Arctic into the not too distant future, has been calling for a much higher rise in sea levels than any credible scientist and has made a number of predictions that have proven to be wrong.”
Source? He is on record as saying “Arctic sea ice will disappear in the summer season within the next few decades” [if we do not reduce fossil fuel emissions substantially] from UK Guardian, February 15 2009. He suggests we will see the end of Arctic sea ice DURING THE SUMMER SEASON in the next few decades (if we do not reduce fossil fuel emissions to an acceptable level). You clearly don’t have a clue about the Arctic or the changes our Northern people are observing.
7) “It is good for you to admit that one would expect warming after the end of the Little Ice Age” .
I appreciate your flair for writing. However, every record high tends to have been followed by A FEW YEARS of cool temps. Your creative writing sprees are courtesy of denier sites, not actual science.
Martha
You are clearly not reading or citing any science sources i.e., peer-reviewed, published science. This is a science forum by a biologist, not a forum dedicated to the discussion of your personal beliefs.
1) “Polar bears are thriving.”
Current source? And make your source a polar bear biologist. I already responded to your clueless comments, April 24 2009 at 11:58 on the ‘George Will socket puppet’ thread.
You are free to pick any source you wish. The polar bear population is known to be over 25,000 today. That compares to the estimate of 5,000 to 10,000 in the 1960s. Some populations, like the Davis Strait area, are over-abundant and need to be reduced because they may present a danger to locals.
4) Al Gore reported on the science. If you are concerned about poverty and other equity issues, I agree that the science indicates the delta regions of Africa, Asia, and island nations, and regions of the high North, are especially vulnerable to massive displacement and since they do not have the infrastructure to deal with these crises, the social justice issues must be addressed.
The problem is that the push towards biodiesel and ethanol has made poor people worse off. Food prices have exploded because corn and other crops are being diverted to mandatory fuel production even though the process uses up about as much energy as is provided by the fuel.
Indeed, there are many equity and health issues associated with climate change.
Actually, there are few issues with warming and many with cooling. The world has seen a warming of 0.7C since the end of the LIA. I don’t think that anyone who is a rational thinker would prefer the cold of the LIA to the current temepratures. Cold spells kill plants and reduce crop yields. Warm spells extend growing seasons and make crops more abundant.
Since you have already explained that you believe that climate change is a war on the principle of individual liberty and the free market, I am wondering how your concern about Al Gore is related to either the facts of the science, OR to global social justice issues.
Al Gore does not have anything in the way of credible science to support his position.
The ice cores he cited certainly refute the idea that CO2 concentrations drive temperatures.
Gore said that there was link between global warming and increased hurricane activity but that has been proven to be unsubstantiated.
Gore blamed global warming for the loss of water in Lake Chad even though he knew or should have known that NASA concluded that changes in grazing patterns and local water-use were the likely cause.
Gore claimed that the Arctic is going through unprecedented warming but he ignores the fact that that temperatures in the 1930’s and 1940s were as warm or possibly warmer.
Gore claimed 20 foot and more sea level increases while even the IPCC provides a much lower number.
I could go on but I have made these points before and there is no need to repeat them.
You have explained that you believe that climate change is a myth manufactured by government (corruption) in order to infringe on (your) property rights. It is not possible to be responsive to the equity and health issues related to climate change without shared international plans, including shared government action(s). I appreciate the problem for you.
When the UN and government bodies get involved in something it usually is about power and money. Kyoto was a perfect example. If all the countries had signed up trillions would have been wasted but there would have been no measurable effect on the climate. Fortunately for the US Clinton and Bush did not sign the treaty and Americans were largely spared the extra costs borne by the Europeans. Ironically, the US emission record was better than that of Europe and the average temperature went down while Bush was in office.
And this may be news to you but government mandates hurt the poor and those who are not long stupidity. I do not have that problem and will get very rich if Obma and Gore do as much damage to the US economy as I believe they will. Many companies will make fortunes as consumers are forced to subsidize a shit in the economy and given money to support companies that could not compete in the free market. And while they are taking their lumps I’ll be there collecting my money as I help solve problems that were created by governments.
However, your comments on this site have been racist, so I really feel the need to skip your pretensions regarding social justice.
Please stop with the race card. I know it is popular to use it when losing a debate but it is a bit transparent even for the nutcases on this board.
6) “James Hansen is a perfect example among many. He suggested that we would have an ice free Arctic into the not too distant future, has been calling for a much higher rise in sea levels than any credible scientist and has made a number of predictions that have proven to be wrong.”
Source? He is on record as saying “Arctic sea ice will disappear in the summer season within the next few decades” [if we do not reduce fossil fuel emissions substantially] from UK Guardian, February 15 2009. He suggests we will see the end of Arctic sea ice DURING THE SUMMER SEASON in the next few decades (if we do not reduce fossil fuel emissions to an acceptable level).
Hansen fails to point out that the Arctic has been relatively ice free in the summer before. That is what summer means; lots of sunshine and melting ice. Hansen is another old fraud who has gotten rich while collecting a government salary at the same time as he makes a fortune selling the AGW case to the alarmists, gullible and the self-interested. But those days are running out as the world becomes a bit more aware that there is a reason why people like Hansen refuse to take part in honest debates. After all, how much longer will people pay attention when it has been 10 years since the warming stopped?
You clearly don’t have a clue about the Arctic or the changes our Northern people are observing.
Please stop playing the ‘our northern people’ card because you have shown yourself to be totally clueless on the northern position on polar bears. Unlike the USGS or the population modellers the northern people actually live in the north and deal with the wildlife there. They clearly report a large increase in sightings of bears during all of the seasons and have dismissed the scare stories about the bears. While they will certainly play along and ask for compensation if any is being given away they prefer -45C temperatures to -75C temperatures. They also understand that ice cover and thickness changes over the years and have certainly noticed that the ice is thicker and much more abundant this year than when the alarmists were screaming about the loss of ice.
Vangel, you are just an ignorant denier who tells lies to support your right wing political agenda. You have clearly shown that you know next to nothing about actual science and how it is conducted.
You should be ashamed of what you say on this blog. Ooops, I forgot, you are so ashamed you won’t even use your real name.
Vangel, you are just an ignorant denier who tells lies to support your right wing political agenda. You have clearly shown that you know next to nothing about actual science and how it is conducted.
You should be ashamed of what you say on this blog. Ooops, I forgot, you are so ashamed you won’t even use your real name.
You couldn’t be more wrong. I think that the right wing nutcases are just as screwed up as you are. The main difference between the two sides used to be an argument about which special interest groups and which favoured corporations get to steal from taxpayers and consumers but even that distinction has narrowed.
Vangel, I am not “screwed up.” You are a complete denier who does not cite any science papers but always cuts and pastes from denier web sites.
You are pathetic. Do you even know what the truth is all about. Do you lie in your everyday business with colleagues and friends? Why do you lie to us?. You are a pathetic and ignorant troll who has no business discussing science with knowledgeable people. You know nothing about science.
Ian,
If possible, he continues to become more stupid!
The industry of sport hunting of bears is the main issue of contention and that is a modern interest – not a traditional one. The core of the debate is related to the issue of the listing of the bears, as this would greatly impact livelihood in relation to sport hunting. Subsistence hunting would not be negatively affected by listing, because of the nature of the current system.
The best current research on the impact of climate change on polar bear populations takes into account traditional knowledge and is informed by the concerns of local people. That is the research and research perspective that has been recommended.
The government of Nunavut has acknowledged that the bear population in the western Hudson Bay region is down and the hunting quota has been lowered.
Northern people (Earth to Vangel: the Inuit are not the only Northern people) are being impacted by climate change caused by industry in the south. What does or doesn’t happen regarding the debate over listing the bears is not going to make a difference to climate change. What we do about climate change will, however, help avoid further losses for Northern people and bears.
Vangel’s mention of the 2007 Davis Strait study is irrelevant because that study is no longer considered accurate by anyone, due to methodological issues.
Denier sites that continue to cite it are a little behind on their own b.s.
“Please stop with the race card.”
Unfortunately, it’s an accurate description. Libertarian proselytizing is not inherently racist, of course. I think only one other individual in the entire history of discussion here has been told he is racist. If the observation of racism is a ‘card’, it seems rather underplayed by anyone on this site.
“Please stop playing the ‘our northern people’ card because you have shown yourself to be totally clueless on the northern position on polar bears.”
Many people are aware of currently voiced traditional knowledge on this issue but he is not one of them if his comments are any indication. His ‘estimates’ and other nonsense are word-for-word cut and pastes from denier sites that are completely irrelevant to traditional hunters, governments and communities in the North.
“Vangel, I am not “screwed up.” You are a complete denier who does not cite any science papers but always cuts and pastes from denier web sites.”
Denier? Aren’t you the person who is denying that the ice core studies show that temperature changes lead changes in CO2 concentration by 800 years. Aren’t you denying the fact that the ARGO buoys show that the oceans have not been warming since 2003? Aren’t you the one who is denying the fact that the IPCC predicted warming signature is missing even though I provided you with the links put out by the AGW side that actually admit that fact. Aren’t you the one who is denying the documented fact that we have not seen warming for more than a decade?
I simply state the obvious. The world’s climate is not constant and changes today just as it has changed in the past. I point out that there is a very high correlation between climate trend panics and the PDO index and that we can see from the data that there is a solar component that is being ignored by the IPCC. I point out that the GCMs are nearly worthless because they have no predictive value, use plug in factors to explain the past and can’t handle changes in cloud cover. I also point out that the satellite and sea buoy data clearly show that the warming trend that we saw when the PDO was in its warm phase and solar activity was high is now over.
“You are pathetic. Do you even know what the truth is all about. Do you lie in your everyday business with colleagues and friends? Why do you lie to us?. You are a pathetic and ignorant troll who has no business discussing science with knowledgeable people. You know nothing about science.”
Like the man says, who are you going to believe? Al Gore or your lying thermometer? I suggest that the real world observations are much more important than models. And the real world observations are clear that we don’t have a warming problem, that warmer periods of history are preferable to colder periods, that there is no ice melting crisis, and that the polar bears are doing fine.
“he government of Nunavut has acknowledged that the bear population in the western Hudson Bay region is down and the hunting quota has been lowered.”
Really? Then why is it pushing the feds for more hunting tags?
“Vangel’s mention of the 2007 Davis Strait study is irrelevant because that study is no longer considered accurate by anyone, due to methodological issues.
Denier sites that continue to cite it are a little behind on their own b.s. ”
Of course it isn’t considered relevant. It showed that there was no problem.
The method is exactly the same. When you have a study that shows that warming isn’t a problem just change the data and the methods. Go out and use computer models that count bears without actual observations and have the models tell you what is going on because direct observations are not reliable.
But you can’t change reality by making up stories. Those idiots who were going out to the North Pole expected warming conditions to help them in their journey only to find what the reality of severe weather means. They expected thin ice and open water only to find the ice much thicker than they imagined and a solidly frozen sea that was much harder to cross than they imagined. That means that polar bears are not endangered from melting ice because the ice cover is not a problem.
The bottom line is that there is no ice melting crisis and if the polar bears survived when the north was much warmer than it is today they will have no problem adapting the the cooler temperatures that we are seeing today.
Vangel, if you had read any decent science you would understand why the “lag” appears in the ice core record. Read up on the difference between a “feed back” and a “climate driver”. Hint: during the ice ages CO2 had a feed back response, at present it is driving the climate change.
Why do you pretend that you know anything about science when it is obvious that you are completely ignorant of science and how it works?
About that ice loss not happening…
Goggle: Chacaltaya
Author: Ian Forrester
Comment:
Vangel, if you had read any decent science you would understand why the “lag” appears in the ice core record. Read up on the difference between a “feed back” and a “climate driver”. Hint: during the ice ages CO2 had a feed back response, at present it is driving the climate change.
Why do you pretend that you know anything about science when it is obvious that you are completely ignorant of science and how it works?
I know perfectly well how things work. A cause comes before the effect. We know that cancer does not cause smoking because the smoking precedes the cancer. We know that CO2 does not cause temperature changes because the temperature changes come first. What are you, a tobacco industry lawyer?
Tom G
About that ice loss not happening…
Goggle: Chacaltaya
The AGW movement was up in arms about disappearing sea ice. The satellites show that global sea ice cover is well above the average. That falsifies the hype and it is time we move on.
If you want to bring up another topic that is fine but let us keep an eye on the ball. Mountain glaciers continually advance and retreat. While Chacaltaya has disappeared some of the Central Asian glaciers have grown. A lot depends on the wind patterns that bring moisture to the areas in question. In some cases, like Kilimanjaro, the dominant factor is land use and the glaciers are not effected by temperature changes because the ice loss is through sublimation at below freezing temperature levels.
Tom,
you dont bother with context do you?
Tom,
My goodness — Vernon has a little case of projection there.
Vangel,
Absolutely not true.
The author of the Davis Strait study, Dr. Elizabeth Peacock, is employed by the government of Nunavut and is increasingly reporting in both traditional and mainstream media as confirming the negative impact of climate change on the Arctic and on polar bear populations, particularly in the Hudson Bay and Beaufort Sea areas. Her fieldwork appeared to confirm the relative stability of the Davis Strait-Baffin Bay bear population (only one of many in the North) but she also acknowledges that general declines are more severe than that one field study suggests.
You are against government intervention, yet you cite a government source that you think supports your position. Dr. Peacock’s role is to intervene with recommendations for policy-making.
More recently, the wildlife board is considering the Nunavut government’s proposal i.e., based on Dr. Lily Peacock’s information, to reduce the Baffin Bay hunting quota — from 105 polar bears a year to 64 bears or less — or put a temporary outright ban on the hunt there.
Did you want her research since the Davis Strait study, or can ya find it on your own?
You completely misrepresent the import of one field study by Dr. Peacock. Given the availability of the correct information in context by the author herself, and unless you wish to suggest she is herself unfamiliar with traditional ecological knowledge (hint: don’t do that), you will need to stop quoting the Davis Strait study.
But feel free to contact her to confirm all of this, and to update yourself on the current science AND the dialogue with community leaders:
epeacock@gov.nu.ca
The rest of your comments are similar. A crumb of correct information and a wildly distorted conclusion. You don’t understand that the issue at this time is essentially sport hunting and that the ‘Northern postion’, as you put it, is one of dialogue and discussion.
Regardless, the facts of climate change are not being disputed: both scientific and traditional knowledge confirm it. The discussion involves differing perspectives on the current impact on the polar bear population.
Your ‘debate’ on this topic is facile, irresponsible and uninformed.
Feel free to keep talking with yourself, though: like Vernon, you are very clearly your own favourite audience and you post obvious lies and contextless distortions, in a compulsive and repetitive manner that disregards everything and everyone else.
I must ask GreenFyre to open a peer-support thread for you and Vernon.
Let us know when you have contacted Dr. Peacock.
Vangel refuses to understand even when he gets part of it right.
“A cause comes before the effect.”
Yes.
Ice core records tells us warming caused melt which effected an increase of CO2.
That was then, this is now.
Then: was at the end of a glacial age.
Now: is more than 11000 years into an interglacial age called the Holocene.
We, the human species, by burning millions of years worth of sequestered carbon as fuels, are causing ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere effecting an increase of global temperature.
Cause: increased CO2.
Effect: increase of global temperature.
If CO2 does not cause temperature change, why is it called a greenhouse gas?
Where do you get the idea that global sea ice cover is “well above the average”?
Antarctic sea ice extent is above the 1979-2000 mean average by about 900,000 sq km but is actually below last years level at this time by approx 500,000 sq km, and the Arctic is very slightly above last years level at this time, but 500,000 sq km below the 1979-2000 mean.
It should also be pointed out that global extent is dropping right now and if it continues at its present rate will likely be below the mean average by this time next month.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Vangel said: “I know perfectly well how things work”. No you don’t! You are ignorant of the science and your rubbish posts show that you have not bothered to read even the most elementary of backgrounders on climate science.
You should be ashamed for your blatant dishonesty.
Vernon…
Sometimes the less said the better.
The author of the Davis Strait study, Dr. Elizabeth Peacock, is employed by the government of Nunavut and is increasingly reporting in both traditional and mainstream media as confirming the negative impact of climate change on the Arctic and on polar bear populations, particularly in the Hudson Bay and Beaufort Sea areas. Her fieldwork appeared to confirm the relative stability of the Davis Strait-Baffin Bay bear population (only one of many in the North) but she also acknowledges that general declines are more severe than that one field study suggests.
If this is true why does the local government keep asking the feds to issue more hunting permits? And why isn’t there a ban on hunting polar bears in Canada?
The actions tell us a lot more about what is going on than the words do. And I have not seen Dr. Peacock suggesting that there are fewer bears now than there were in the 1970s when the warming began? Or suggesting that having Arctic ice cover at a seven year high is a bad thing for bears that had to deal with much more melting in the 1950s, 1930s, during the MWP and other warming episodes. If the polar bear population survived warming periods there is no reason why they can’t survive now.
I also think that if we wanted more bears there is a better way to get them than to regulate CO2. We saw how private reserves saved the elephants and rhinos in Africa. We saw similar operations save the the bison in North America. If polar bear populations were the real issue we could do the same for them. But we are not because the data shows that polar bear populations are much bigger than they were when the warming scare began.
No matter how you try to spin the story what matter are the numbers and they show less than 10,000 bears in the 1960s versus more than 25,000 today. That means that warming did not harm the polar bear population and that it is not currently in trouble. The only way to claim that there will be trouble is to use computer models to make unjustified assumptions and project imagined trends into the future.
“Vangel said: “I know perfectly well how things work”. No you don’t! You are ignorant of the science and your rubbish posts show that you have not bothered to read even the most elementary of backgrounders on climate science.
You should be ashamed for your blatant dishonesty.”
There is nothing dishonest about pointing out that your claimed cause appears 800 years after the claimed effect. There is nothing dishonest about pointing out that the ice melting scare is not supported by measurements that show that global ice cover is above the mean.
The facts are simple and not in dispute. The ice didn’t melt as predicted. In fact, it is above the average. And science requires that causes happen before effects, not centuries after. Also, science requires that any study needs to allow both its data and methods to be reviewed independently by any interested outsiders before those papers can be considered to be credible.
Vangel continues to show that he is ignorant of climate science and cause and effect.
Keep it up Vangel, you show us all how ignorant AGW deniers really are. You are doing quite a disservice to more intelligent deniers. Keep it up.
Someone needs to tell you that causes come before effects. This isn’t Gore’s divinity classes and in the real world logic and facts matter.
You still don’t understand that there is a difference in what is happening now and what happened thousands of years ago. Hint: humans are emitting huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Thus CO2 is now a driver of climate change, not a feed back. Too simple for your addled brain I suppose.
Vangel
Pay attention to Ian.
What was once the effect is now the cause.
We humans are the third party that caused this role reversal.
Do you seriously think that when we burn millions of years worth of sequestered fossil fuel within the space of 200 years that nothing will happen?
Your current lack of concern about current sea ice levels is meaningless.
The concern is about Summer sea ice levels.
Summer.
There has been a few predictions of an ice-free summer Arctic Ocean in 2013. I don’t blindly believe that, but if I was a gambling person, I would bet against it.
I wouldn’t bet against it….drat.
Author: Ian Forrester
Comment:
You still don’t understand that there is a difference in what is happening now and what happened thousands of years ago. Hint: humans are emitting huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Thus CO2 is now a driver of climate change, not a feed back. Too simple for your addled brain I suppose.
Right. This time the laws of physics are different. Good luck with that approach
Vangel
Pay attention to Ian.
What was once the effect is now the cause.
We humans are the third party that caused this role reversal.
Do you seriously think that when we burn millions of years worth of sequestered fossil fuel within the space of 200 years that nothing will happen?
Your current lack of concern about current sea ice levels is meaningless.
The concern is about Summer sea ice levels.
Summer.
There has been a few predictions of an ice-free summer Arctic Ocean in 2013. I don’t blindly believe that, but if I was a gambling person, I would bet against it.
Right. Things must be different now. Now we have rain causing clouds and cancer causing smoking.
While we are at it, let us cover the sea ice issue. The bottom line is that there is nothing unusual about open water in the Arctic during the summer. The Northwest Passage was navigated in a wooden ship early last century and subs were surfacing in open water at the North Pole as early as May during the 1950s. The Vikings used to farm land that is now under permafrost during the MWP. Don’t you think that there would have been less ice cover during that period? And if the polar bears survived warm summers before why should we assume that they can’t do it now?
Author: Tom G
Comment:
I wouldn’t bet against it….drat.
Typos are normal and your intent seemed clear. But as I said, it would not be unusual to have some years when most of the sea ice in some areas has melted in summer because summer melts are normal. Given the lag inherent in the system we should see very low ice cover during certain years during the late summer. But that is not a bad thing for the people of the north or the polar bears because they have gone through warmer periods before. Climate is variable and the assumption that colder is better is not supportable.
More rubbish from Vangel. He doesn’t even understand what permafrost is. Things don’t get covered in permafrost. Permafrost is beneath the surface.
Get your self an education, then you wouldn’t look like a fool every time you type some thing.
You are just a dishonest troll who is spreading misinformation and lies. You should not be allowed to spread your lies here.
Vangel
No, not just open water or low sea ice levels during the arctic summer.
No sea ice.
None.
You didn’t answer my question.
I will repeat it.
Do you seriously think that when we burn millions of years worth of sequestered fossil fuel within the space of 200 years that nothing will happen?
Another question.
Do you actually read what you are posting here?
You obviously do not understand the cause and effect difference issue between 11000 years ago and the present, but your statement about permafrost is a glaring error.
Permafrost does not cover, it is below the surface.
Ian Forrester
More rubbish from Vangel. He doesn’t even understand what permafrost is. Things don’t get covered in permafrost. Permafrost is beneath the surface.
Get your self an education, then you wouldn’t look like a fool every time you type some thing.
You are just a dishonest troll who is spreading misinformation and lies. You should not be allowed to spread your lies here.
Of course I know what permafrost is. It is very inconvenient for you that the old Viking farms still can’t be worked due to permafrost but that is just the way it is. Like I said, the world has been warmer when there were no SUVs to blame.
You might want to follow your own advice about getting an education.
What Greenland farms can’t be worked because of permafrost?
You always offer up rubbish (which you claim to be your opinion) but bever offer any way to verify your outrageous claims.
There is far more farming in Greenland today, with a much wider variety of crops, than there was when the Vikings tried to farm it. Just do a little bit of reading and you will expose your rubbish for what it is, denier lies.
Do you seriously think that when we burn millions of years worth of sequestered fossil fuel within the space of 200 years that nothing will happen?
Of course not. When we use fossil fuels people can have a much better life than they could get without it. The reason why you are able to have enough leisure to post these messages is entirely due to the type of cheap energy that fossil fuels allow us. Without fossil fuels there would be many fewer people and they would have a significantly lower standard of living.
Of course, those are not the effects that you are talking about. You are worried about climate. But there is nothing to suggest that burning fossil fuels will do very much to the climate. After all, the effect of CO2 additions are logarithmic, which means that newer molecules of CO2 have a lower effect than the previous ones that were added. It is a lot like painting your old red room with white paint. The first coat does a good job of hiding the first paint job and each subsequent paint layer has a smaller and smaller effect. The IPCC knows that, which is why the debate is not about the direct effect, which is minor but about feedbacks. The problem for the IPCC is that observations do not support the feedback assumptions used in the models, which is why the models are so far off and need new plug-in factors to excuse the differences.
Do you actually read what you are posting here?
I do read what I post. That does not mean that I am always clear or that I do not make typos because I am usually posting stuff as I deal with the kids and their activities. Right now the kids are not here but I have some issues with concentrations because I just finished a half marathon and my muscles are telling me that they didn’t like it.
You obviously do not understand the cause and effect difference issue between 11000 years ago and the present, but your statement about permafrost is a glaring error.
Of course I understand. The point is that the laws of physics haven’t changed. And if you sit back and pay attention to the ice core data, they predict an increase in CO2 800 years after the MWP began as warming of the deep water oceans cause more CO2 to be emitted to the atmosphere.
As for the permafrost issue, I had read one article in which the coastal farms had permanently frozen ground that was supposedly only three feet thick. I believe it was supposed to imply that the warming today is close to that of the MWP. If you believe that is wrong and that the MWP was much warmer than today then I have no trouble accepting that argument. And I am sorry but I see no major problem with the wording. The soil in which the Vikings grew crops is still under the permafrost boundary. Instead of trying to argue technical details you might look at the implications of the issue. If the old farms can’t support crop growth today it is hard for you to make the Greenland is warming so much that it will lose all of its glaciers argument. If it didn’t lose them during the MWP the brief warming that we have seen so far is immaterial.
Permafrost does not cover, it is below the surface.
Let me be clear here just in case you missed it above. There is a boundary between the unfrozen soil and the permafrost. The roots of the plants grown by the Vikings would have reached below that boundary. In some cases near the coast the permafrost is not supposedly very thick according to some of the AGW folks who are trying to claim that the temperatures during the MWP were not much warmer. If they are correct than the roots could reach not only below the permafrost boundary but below the permafrost layer. I do not believe that in the coastal areas where the Vikings used to farm we are looking at the 1,000 meter depths of permafrost that are supposedly found in some other areas of the globe because the moderating effect of the ocean is too great for that to happen.
Vangel you haven’t got a clue of what you’re talking about.
Your last posts prove it.
The 800 year lag indicated by ice core samples have absolutely nothing to do with the MWP.
That 800 year lag was all about the warming after the glacial period.
We haven’t had a glacial era for 11000 years.
If the Vikings actually did any farming in Greenland the soil they used would have been above the permafrost.
To say the soil they used is below the permafrost layer is total absolute nonsense.
Permafrost does not cover the soil.
It is the soil.
Any ground that they were able to use would remain above any existing permafrost below it. When they forced out of Greenland the ground they farmed would have been frozen and became part of the permafrost. But it would remain above the original permafrost. Just exactly how is it supposed to do a flip and the bottom layer now becomes the top?
And to say the roots could reach below the permafrost is beyond being stupid. Any root in permafrost would be frozen.
Frozen plants do not grow.
Are you making this stuff up?
If you’re not, from whoever you’re getting it certainly is.
Vangel, what a load of drivel. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
Roots going below the permafrost, what a joke!!!
Go and get an education. You are so stupid yet you think you know more than the scientists who have spent their whole lives studying the science.
Your ignorance is not my problem. The Viking history of Greenland is well documented and the discovery of settlements, farms and graves under permafrost (of in permafrost if the statement above confuses you) is not a surprise to anyone who has looked at both sides of the AGW issue.
Those farms are still incapable of producing crops because they are still under permafrost. That does not mean that you can’t grow any crops in other location or that the extensive use of greenhouses cannot produce produce for today’s farmers. This is not about greenhouses and the farming of some plots in the south but the production of crops in the original Viking settlements. As I said, the farms, graveyards are still under permafrost.
In addition we have very good records that tell us that ice between Iceland and the original Viking colonies was virtually unknown for quite some time. By the time the 15th century came around ice made the old sailing lanes between Iceland and Greenland impossible to navigate safely and the people had to abandon the settlements or die in the harsh winters. (Sadly, the excavation of these areas show that many could not escape and died from starvation.)
Try following your own advice and get an education. Your postings certainly show that you can use one. Start by looking into the history of the western settlement and move on to the other settlements.
Ian Forrester
Vangel, what a load of drivel. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
Roots going below the permafrost, what a joke!!!
Go and get an education. You are so stupid yet you think you know more than the scientists who have spent their whole lives studying the science.
I am not talking about hundreds of meters thick permafrost. I am talking about very thin strips near the coastal areas that may only be a few feet thick. But even if you don’t like the idea of thin strips of permanently frozen ground there is little doubt that plant roots and graves are still below the permafrost boundary. All you need to do to see that is to read how archaeologists are finding graves and farms under the permafrost in the locations of the original Viking settlements. If it were as warm today they would not be frozen today.
And today’s gardens and greenhouses are not the equivalent of the old farms when it was warmer. You do know that it was warmer during the MWP, don’t you?
They found one farm which was buried by sand and silt not ice or permafrost. As soil levels increase from deposition of sand and silt the level of permafrost also rises since it is the distance from surface which is important.
You are so stupid, I don know why they continue to allow you to post you nonsense and lies on this site. I guess the administration likes to have a few idiots like you posting just so we can get a laugh at the nonsense you post.
Unfortunately, people like you are a bad example of our education system, assuming that you did go through it, though I sometimes wonder that anyone can be as stupid as you and claim to have an education.
Once again, farms cannot be under permafrost. Permafrost is under the soil. You are so stupid, even when you are told repeatedly that you are wrong you keep repeating your nonsense. That is a sign of a troll and I thought trolls were to be banned?
Vangel, I have had enough of your insults. Please stop.
uthor: Ian Forrester
Comment:
They found one farm which was buried by sand and silt not ice or permafrost. As soil levels increase from deposition of sand and silt the level of permafrost also rises since it is the distance from surface which is important.
You are so stupid, I don know why they continue to allow you to post you nonsense and lies on this site. I guess the administration likes to have a few idiots like you posting just so we can get a laugh at the nonsense you post.
Unfortunately, people like you are a bad example of our education system, assuming that you did go through it, though I sometimes wonder that anyone can be as stupid as you and claim to have an education.
You are wrong. There are several settlements and hundreds of buildings and farms. Most are still under the permafrost boundary. As I said, your ignorance is your problem, not mine.
Vangel, I have had enough of your insults. Please stop.
Insults? Aren’t you the guy calling everyone that disagrees with you a liar? I just point out that you are ignorant of facts that should be common knowledge to anyone who is paying attention to the debate.
It is a fact that there is no ice melting crisis.
It is a fact that the ice core data shows that temperature changes led CO2 changes by 800 years.
It is a fact that the polar bear population is several times what it was during the cooling period in the 1960s.
It is a fact that we have not seen cooling in more than a decade.
It is a fact that the predicted signature of CO2 is not detectable by satellites and radiosonde data.
It is a fact that the ocean buoy data shows that the oceans are not warming as expected by the AGW theory.
I am only suggesting that you start reading the literature so that you can get rid of your ignorance. It that is insulting to you that is your problem, not mine.
When you continue to hurl insults and tell lies (lies which are obvious to anyone who cares to read the scientific literature) it is not insulting to call a spade a spade or a liar a liar. I challenge you to show how competent you are in science by responding accurately, something you refuse to do and continue to cut and paste lies from denier sites.
You have no background or ability in science. You are doing a disservice to the intelligent people who frequent this site with your dishonesty and lack of knowledge.
You should be banned since this is supposed to be a site where science is discussed in an honest manner, something which you refuse to do.
You are an embarrassment to your friends, relatives and co-workers, if they ever knew how you behaved.
Vangel, I call you a liar, not because you disagree with me but because you distort the facts of real science as portrayed in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
You have shown that you completely lack scientific understanding and just cut and paste rubbish you read on denier web sites. There are no “Greenland farms covered in permafrost”. That sentence is complete rubbish and shows that you do not know what you are talking about.
Vangel can claim that he is Jesus. Nothing is stopping him.
However, the reality is that he is just a compulsive poster of cut and paste denier talking points.
Of course he wishes to be seen as more important and more sophisticated than this.
So he continues to attempt to insert himself into complex discussions that are part of the dialogue of Northern people’s ADAPTATION to the CURRENT NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSED BY EMISSIONS IN THE SOUTH and their governments’ ASSISTANCE TO CITIZENS.
The facts of the cause of climate change are not being debated in any of these local discussions: the facts are assumed by these discussions.
He wishes to discuss Greenland. Fine. The current problems with ICE CAP MELT and SEVERE WEATHER SUCH AS HEAVY RAIN STORMS AND HURRICAN-WINDS are known to all Greenlanders (hello!) and the discussion in the country is regarding the difficulties these effects of climate change are posing e.g. problems maintaining infrastructure such as roads. Inuit hunters are having the problems already identified repeatedly on this thread. Apparently, Vangel is incapable of lifting his head up long enough from the computer to acquaint himself with the real world around him.
His opinions are irrelevant to the people already dealing with the problem.
Also well-known, of course, are the local discussions about how people are hoping to adapt e.g. by growing vegetables in southern Greenland, selling freshwater to regions of the world that will not have access to fresh water due to climate change, harnessing ice cap melt for hydroelectric power, etc.
He is so busy being stupid that he has completely lost track of the discussion. He does not see that his points are part of the discussion of the reality of climate change: people are talking about adaptation and governments are assisting them because they are dealing with the effects of climate change, not natural warming.
Vangel is the stupidest individual I have ever seen on this site.
He is also one of the most unethical. The only reason his repetitive, industry-driven spamming from denier sites has been allowed to go on for so long here is that he is an opportunist who knows there is no site maintenance because the blogger is away for personal reasons.
Disgusting.
When you continue to hurl insults and tell lies (lies which are obvious to anyone who cares to read the scientific literature) it is not insulting to call a spade a spade or a liar a liar. I challenge you to show how competent you are in science by responding accurately, something you refuse to do and continue to cut and paste lies from denier sites.
What lies? It is a fact that the ice core studies show that temperature changes lead changes in CO2 by around 800 years. It is a fact that the MWP was warmer. It is a fact that there are more polar bears today than we had in the 1960s during the cooling trend that got people like Schneider and Ehrlich so scared that they were calling for an ice age. It is a fact that global ice cover is above the mean. It is a fact that the sea temperatures are not rising as predicted by the AGW theory. It is a fact that the warming signature that is so important to the GHG theory (see Section 9 of the IPCC Assessment Report) has not been detected by the satellites and radiosonde measurements.
You are free to try to contradict any of the statements that I made but please refrain from making up excuses and narratives. Just stick with the real data.
You have no background or ability in science. You are doing a disservice to the intelligent people who frequent this site with your dishonesty and lack of knowledge.
I am an engineer by training. For each person that applied for the program that I graduated from dozens were rejected. Half of the class was forced to drop out in the first year and go into the regular engineering program. Most of the people who dropped out wound up in the top 10 of their new class. I think that makes me qualified to understand simple logic and basic scientific arguments.
You should be banned since this is supposed to be a site where science is discussed in an honest manner, something which you refuse to do.
That is the problem with you AGW types. As soon as you start getting your butts kicked in a debate you want to silence the opposing view. Science is about debate, not consensus. If your position is right it will be able to withstand the challenge because real world observations will support it. If it is wrong then it is up to you to find a new explanation.
You are an embarrassment to your friends, relatives and co-workers, if they ever knew how you behaved.
All I can do is control what I say and what I do. How that affects other individual’s perceptions of me is out of my control. But being more interested in principle and less about popularity I really don’t care about what others think of me. All I care about is the truth. Why don’t you?
Why do you continue with your lies and arrogance? It is getting you nowhere. Try and be honest and a little humble and you won’t look so stupid.
Vangel, you obviously don’t “care about the truth”. That is just another of your dishonest statements.
If you are an engineer, don’t they have a code of ethics? I’d be surprised if you are following them in your discussions on AGW.
However, the reality is that he is just a compulsive poster of cut and paste denier talking points.
You need a reality check. The truth is the truth and the sceptics do not need to make up stories and be creative as your side does. If there is no ice melt crisis why should I do anything else but point out the satellite measurements that support my contention? If the polar bear population is more than twice what it was in the 1960s I don’t need to make up any stories; all I have to do is provide the data.
Of course he wishes to be seen as more important and more sophisticated than this.
No. I wish to see the AGW argument exposed to the real world observations.
So he continues to attempt to insert himself into complex discussions that are part of the dialogue of Northern people’s ADAPTATION to the CURRENT NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSED BY EMISSIONS IN THE SOUTH and their governments’ ASSISTANCE TO CITIZENS.
Stop pretending to care about the northern people and trying to play the race card. As I said, the northern papers are quite clear that there is no polar bear population crisis and are pushing the government to approve more hunting tags.
The facts of the cause of climate change are not being debated in any of these local discussions: the facts are assumed by these discussions.
He wishes to discuss Greenland. Fine. The current problems with ICE CAP MELT and SEVERE WEATHER SUCH AS HEAVY RAIN STORMS AND HURRICAN-WINDS are known to all Greenlanders (hello!) and the discussion in the country is regarding the difficulties these effects of climate change are posing e.g. problems maintaining infrastructure such as roads. Inuit hunters are having the problems already identified repeatedly on this thread. Apparently, Vangel is incapable of lifting his head up long enough from the computer to acquaint himself with the real world around him.
Like I said, Greenland was warm in the 1940s and was warmer during the MWP. Those were not caused by SUVs but by normal conditions.
His opinions are irrelevant to the people already dealing with the problem.
There is no AGW ‘problem.’ People all around the globe have to deal with the fact that climate changes and no matter of professed love for some group or another will change that fact.
Also well-known, of course, are the local discussions about how people are hoping to adapt e.g. by growing vegetables in southern Greenland, selling freshwater to regions of the world that will not have access to fresh water due to climate change, harnessing ice cap melt for hydroelectric power, etc.
Growing vegetables is still difficult because of the short growing seasons. Greenhouses are a possibility but they require energy and make very little sense except in a limited way. The people in Greenland are better off importing vegetables. They certainly will have to import more if the climate cools as you hope. Sadly, that will require that more energy is used to keep Greenland’s inhabitants alive but that is something that they will have to deal with.
He is so busy being stupid that he has completely lost track of the discussion. He does not see that his points are part of the discussion of the reality of climate change: people are talking about adaptation and governments are assisting them because they are dealing with the effects of climate change, not natural warming.
Nonsense. I am with Lomborg on the issue of adoption. It is easier and cheaper than spending several percent of global GDP for imperceptible effects. It is the AGW side that avoids talking about adoption to the ever changing environment and believes in controlling the weather.
Vangel is the stupidest individual I have ever seen on this site.
You mean to tell me that you can’t afford a mirror.
He is also one of the most unethical. The only reason his repetitive, industry-driven spamming from denier sites has been allowed to go on for so long here is that he is an opportunist who knows there is no site maintenance because the blogger is away for personal reasons.
I make no secret of the fact that I intend to take full advantage of the damage the AGW movement does to the US economy and that I hope to get very rich off of it.
I look around and see see US industries being forced into a desperate situation that will force the purchase of REEs from China, which has a virtual monopoly in the area. I wish to help by allowing the US to purchase REEs from companies that I invest in. You will be happy because there will be more hybrid cars, more solar panels, fluorescent lighting, etc., all of which will require more terbium, europium, praseodymium, and other rare earth elements. Of course, I may not make much money from my direct investments in REEs because China is playing a much bigger game. By being able to control prices in the sector it will guarantee that it is the world’s biggest supplier of wind turbines, hybrid cars, low energy light bulbs, solar panels, specialized magnets, etc. So while GE makes a profit from selling wind turbines, its factories will be in China and most of the benefits will go to the Asian producers of its specialty products. (You can see this already in the solar panel business, where American companies are well behind their foreign competition.)
As I see the AGW advocates pushing for the rejection of coal power plants I look around and see that the American utilities are dusting off plans for nuclear power plants. I also notice that uranium mining capacity is unable to keep up with the new demand from India, China and elsewhere even before any American power plants are built. To help out I have been investing in uranium explorers and producers. Many are up 300%+ in the past few months without even getting noticed by the retail investor yet.
I see the AGW side scaring off individuals from investing in American coal, oil, and gas production. I do my part by investing in new production in other areas of the world. As crude capacity declines and brings daily production down below demand (which has fallen due to the economic slowdown) I expect to do very well when higher prices become necessary to force the marginal users out of the markets.
Frankly, I suspect that we are both looking forward to $10 a gallon gasoline in two or three years. You will be happy because it will force Americans to drive a lot less while I will be happy because I expect to make a few bucks by producing barrels at the margin to keep prices lower. Of course, I doubt that the poor people who desperately want lower energy prices will be happy but the AGW movement does not seem to care as much about them as it does about the theoretical temperature a century from now. Of course, if I am right and the cooling trend continues I will be even richer because demand will rise substantially at a time when depletion is steep and investment is insufficient to meet the increase in demand.
Then we have the food situation. As the AGW idiots support such idiotic schemes as diverting food crops to fuel production I am quite happy to sell the farmers all the potash and phosphorous that they wish to buy. I am very happy to do a great deal of good for my fellow man by keeping prices lower than they would otherwise be and make a few bucks in the process.
And as the AGW movement is pushing for the diversion of scarce resources into unproductive uses I see the dangers for the general economy and the 100% fiat currency system that we have had since Nixon listened to Volker and closed the gold window. As such, I am quite happy to take advantage of the opportunity being presented and follow the advice of people like Rogers, Faber, Buffett, Grantham and others. If you guys have your way I expect to make a much bigger fortune than I could have without your help.
Vangel, you are such a pathetic person. You have no idea of the science which you so venomously deny. Try and get a science education. Are you convinced that there is a massive conspiracy of scientists all whom are writing fraudulent papers to justify their position? That is the only way you can account for your nonsense.
Ian,
Vangel’s every statement is wrong, irrelevant, without context, and deliberately misleading and dishonest. Just like Lomborg.
Like Lomborg, he should be ashamed. He ignores the facts that are documented and presented to him by scientists and many others, and writes thesis-length posts that could not be more loaded with deliberate lies and distortions if they came from Lomborg himself!
Like Lomborg, every single sentence is flawed by false information. Or at best, information that, were it to be provided with relevant and accurate context, would be right – but it isn’t, since it is either without any context or inserted into a deliberate falsehood. Bits and pieces of correct information are severely abused and it becomes impossible to respond without an exhausting debunking of just about every word of every line of b.s.
Which is of course itself just a strategy, and typical of deniers like Lomborg who are at the high end of the nutbar-ladder.
Fortunately, Lomborg’s crap sandwich on polar bears and his denial of the negative impact of climate change in Northern regions is well-debunked.
I’m thinking there’s no need to repeat ourselves?
🙂
Ian Forrester
Vangel, you are such a pathetic person. You have no idea of the science which you so venomously deny. Try and get a science education. Are you convinced that there is a massive conspiracy of scientists all whom are writing fraudulent papers to justify their position? That is the only way you can account for your nonsense.
Models are not science and science does not work on false claims of consensus. The simple fact is that what I wrote above is based on real world observations and not models as your claims seem to be.
Even the people that you keep citing admit that the ice core studies show that temperature changes lead changes in CO2 by around 800 years. (They just make up a story about how that does not falsify the AGW thesis even though it clearly does.)
It is a fact that the MWP was warmer. And it is a fact that the warming improved crop yields and increased life expectancy from around 38 to 48 years. That is a significant jump that was made possible by the greater prosperity that warming brings. That prosperity is the reason for the great explosion in cathedral building and the great advancement in the arts and science that was seen during the warming period.
It is a fact that there are more polar bears today than we had in the 1960s during the cooling trend.
It is a fact that global ice cover is above the mean. That is why you guys have started to ignore Antarctic ice entirely.
It is a fact that the sea temperatures are not rising as predicted by the AGW theory. The best your side can do is claim that the warm readings it used to hype up warming were overestimated and to throw out current readings it considers low. Sadly for you even that does not eliminate the cooling trend.
It is also a fact that the warming signature that is central to the GHG theory and described so clearly in Section 9 of the IPCC Assessment Report has not been detected by the satellites and radiosonde measurements. That is why your side insists on using wind shear measurements that are run through computer algorithms to come up with an INDIRECT way to show temperatures. (I see the makings of another Nature article that gets discredited.)
Face it Ian, you have nothing but insults, false accusations and tall tales told to children to scare them about a crisis that will not happen. I just can’t figure out why you persist in spreading those falsehoods. I oppose them yet I will benefit greatly if the AGW side has its way and forces changes in the US economy that will force American industries to buy various commodities that are essential to a green strategy. If the damage is sufficiently bad I have other investments that should make me a lot of money even as most Americans are forced to suffer greatly. I know that Al Gore stands to become a carbon billionaire as his carbon trading businesses turn into the next baby Enron. But what exactly do you get out of it?
Martha
Ian,
Vangel’s every statement is wrong, irrelevant, without context, and deliberately misleading and dishonest. Just like Lomborg.
Like Lomborg, he should be ashamed. He ignores the facts that are documented and presented to him by scientists and many others, and writes thesis-length posts that could not be more loaded with deliberate lies and distortions if they came from Lomborg himself!
Like Lomborg, every single sentence is flawed by false information. Or at best, information that, were it to be provided with relevant and accurate context, would be right – but it isn’t, since it is either without any context or inserted into a deliberate falsehood. Bits and pieces of correct information are severely abused and it becomes impossible to respond without an exhausting debunking of just about every word of every line of b.s.
Which is of course itself just a strategy, and typical of deniers like Lomborg who are at the high end of the nutbar-ladder.
Fortunately, Lomborg’s crap sandwich on polar bears and his denial of the negative impact of climate change in Northern regions is well-debunked.
I’m thinking there’s no need to repeat ourselves?
As usual, you present lots of hot air but no actual evidence to prove any point that has to do with this discussion. Why am I not surprised.
I don’t know what reform school you went to but in the real world repeating a false statement often enough does not make it true.
Martha,
before you go off on how the warming in the high latitudes is so terrible for the “native peoples” that live there how about getting a few facts right. First, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s-1940’s peroid than it is now. There are a bunch of studies that show this but I will give you one to start with:
Polyakov et al (2003) The composite temperature record shows that since 1875 the Arctic has warmed by 1.2°C, so that over the entire record the warming trend was 0.094°C decade−1, with stronger spring- and wintertime warming. The Arctic temperature trend for the twentieth century (0.05°C decade−1) was close to the Northern Hemispheric trend (0.06°C decade−1). The oscillatory behavior of Arctic trends results from incomplete sampling of the large-amplitude LFO. For example, the Arctic temperature was higher in the 1930s–40s than in recent decades, and hence a trend calculated for the period 1920 to the present actually shows cooling. Enhancement of computed trends in recent decades can be partially attributed to the current positive LFO phase.
Current “extreme” warming is only extreme because they set the baseline in a relative cool period. If you actually look at the long term trends, arctic is not warming at an accelerated rate, but only slightly more than the Northern Hemisphere.
Vangel, the truth is never an insult. You are one of the most dishonest people on this site. You continually post material from denier sites that has been shown by me and others to be totally false.
I think it is time you are either moderated from this blog or you start behaving in an honest and ethical manner. How can a supposed “engineer” be so unethical in their behaviour? Does your professional body, assuming you belong to one, knew of this unethical behaviour?
Ian,
You cannot refute so you must silence?
Ian Forrester wrote, “Vangel, I have had enough of your insults. Please stop.”
I responded with, “I am only suggesting that you start reading the literature so that you can get rid of your ignorance. It that is insulting to you that is your problem, not mine.”
Ian got whinny again and wrote,“When you continue to hurl insults and tell lies (lies which are obvious to anyone who cares to read the scientific literature) it is not insulting to call a spade a spade or a liar a liar. I challenge you to show how competent you are in science by responding accurately, something you refuse to do and continue to cut and paste lies from denier sites.”
I did as he requested and wrote, “What lies? It is a fact that the ice core studies show that temperature changes lead changes in CO2 by around 800 years. It is a fact that the MWP was warmer. It is a fact that there are more polar bears today than we had in the 1960s during the cooling trend that got people like Schneider and Ehrlich so scared that they were calling for an ice age. It is a fact that global ice cover is above the mean. It is a fact that the sea temperatures are not rising as predicted by the AGW theory. It is a fact that the warming signature that is so important to the GHG theory (see Section 9 of the IPCC Assessment Report) has not been detected by the satellites and radiosonde measurements.” The science actually support the claims that I make. There is no global ice melting crisis. There has been no warming in a decade. The IPCC models have not been able to predict the future or explain the past. But Ian is not really interested in the truth but the AGW version of the truth, which is not actually supported by any credible and transparent science.
Ian follows up with the latest posting, which is more of the same.
“Ian Forrester
Vangel, the truth is never an insult. You are one of the most dishonest people on this site. You continually post material from denier sites that has been shown by me and others to be totally false.
I think it is time you are either moderated from this blog or you start behaving in an honest and ethical manner. How can a supposed “engineer” be so unethical in their behaviour? Does your professional body, assuming you belong to one, knew of this unethical behaviour?
My response is the same as it always has been. My statements of fact are supported by the science as well as the AGW sites. The people at RC know that there is no CO2 warming signature as was expected by the IPCC models and the GHG theory. They know and admit that the ice core data shows that CO2 concentrations lag changes in temperature trends. They know that the seas have stopped warming and that the atmospheric satellite measurements show no warming for a decade. All of these sites accept the facts but differ on what the facts mean. They make up excuses and come up with plug factors that might explain why the AGW theory is not working out. They talk about wind shear masking the real atmospheric warming and the CO2 warming signature. They claim that the lag is not important because of some other factors related to CO2. They talk about hidden heat in the system that does not show up as warming. They no longer talk about global ice cover but only about Arctic ice cover. They make excuse after excuse after excuse as typical deniers of the facts do. But the public is paying attention and the AGW proponents are now in the minority. I guess the public is sick and tired of predictions that do not come true and charlatans that ask that people live as they themselves choose not to. And they are trying to wonder why they should pay more for their energy so that Al Gore, who has already made $100 million pushing AGW panic, could become a carbon billionaire.
Facts are not insults Ian and when confronted with data that shows that your argument is wrong you should reconsider your position. But that is what rational people do. People who belong to cults and cannot rationally examine the foundations of their beliefs have a harder time with the facts. Some take years to see the truth while others never seem to make it.
Vangel,
Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah.
Vernon
“If you actually look at the long term trends, arctic is not warming at an accelerated rate, but only slightly more than the Northern Hemisphere.”
-More recent studies and observations than what deniers cite show amplification in Greenland and Antarctica. You need to read more, and more often. I want you to seek out current research by yourself on the Internet.
-I didn’t comment that the trend was accelerated in the North: I said the impacts on the North would be among the most negative, and I mentioned several other regions in the world (hint: not in the North), too.
“before you go off on how the warming in the high latitudes is so terrible for the “native peoples” that live there how about getting a few facts right”
-I prefer to listen to the people of Arctic countries, and indigenous communities and government, for a sense of what’s going on. Apparently a dialogue with any complexity that includes both the facts of the science AND the well-being of communities is too challenging for deniers.
“First, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s-1940’s period than it is now”
-Yes. It is one of those details that leads deniers to misinterpret the data. The 1990s were pretty warm, yet the 60’s were cool — so a few scientists wrote a few papers about the idea of an ice age. The vast majority of scientists suggested no such thing.
Regarding your deliberate misrepresentation of information and conclusions from research sites. You have reproduced a whole paragraph of Polyakov et al 2002 — not 2003. There is a 2003, but this is not from it. The 2002 paper appeared in the AMS journal in 2003. It reminds me of the time you repeatedly and mistakenly quoted from the nonexistent ‘4th TAR’. You also pretend that researchers’ ideas, and even their own words, are your own. That is called plagiarism. Please learn to use quotes. Howeve,r since the entire research report is protected by copyright it may not be reproduced here.
The research goal was to increase understanding of natural variability in longterm weather patterns in the Arctic so that climate change can be better understood.
Relevance is also worth mentioning. The research was attempting to evaluate the role of natural low-frequency variability in explaining the arctic ice loss from 1980 to the 90’S. I think we all know that the most accelerated ice loss is more recent. Certainly Polyakov does.
Polyakov et al. 2002 (and also 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 2007, 2008 and 2009) tells us that understanding climate – and especially Arctic climate — is complicated and that there is both natural and anthropogenic causes. Who knew?
Anyone can read the research at:
frontier.iarc.uaf.edu and follow the link to the paper.
ams.allenpress.com and follow the link to the paper.
For most current from that research team:
gi.alaska.edu/~bhatt/publications/polyakov_etal_2009.pdf
“Current “extreme” warming is only extreme because they set the baseline in a relative cool period.”
-It is a feature of your unique self-concept that you believe climate scientists make the most facile mistakes in their understanding, and that you, JVB, have caught them. They do make mistakes, but your worries on this particular point are a figment of your imagination: they know how to interpret a selected climatological baseline period and they know about adjustment techniques and baseline corrections. Your knowledge can be increased at any number of credible research sites.
Here’s an easy to read government site if you prefer:
http://www.cccsn.ca/Help_and_Contact/
Baseline_Climate_Data-e.html
You have been asked by the site owner to stop repeatedly posting comments or questions that the site has addressed ad nauseum and that are so obviously intended to mislead and misrepresent. There are many interesting and critical questions being asked regarding climate change, but they aren’t raised by your repetitive denier nonsense and breathtaking stupidity.
Pretty soon, everyone will rightly conclude you’re a nut.
Have a good weekend, everybody.
Vernon is being whacked over at Deltoid so comes back here where he things he is safer.
Get a life, Vernon.
As for Vangel, he is as pathetic as ever. I have a broken record which is less irritating.
“Martha
-More recent studies and observations than what deniers cite show amplification in Greenland and Antarctica. You need to read more, and more often. I want you to seek out current research by yourself on the Internet.”
Cite the studies please. And think about how you can be talking about warming amplification when the north was much colder this winter than it has been for quite some time.
“-I didn’t comment that the trend was accelerated in the North: I said the impacts on the North would be among the most negative, and I mentioned several other regions in the world (hint: not in the North), too.”
Why is a -45C winter night more negative to the inhabitants of the north than a -65C winter night? Doesn’t a warmer winter mean much less need for artificial heat sources?
““before you go off on how the warming in the high latitudes is so terrible for the “native peoples” that live there how about getting a few facts right”
-I prefer to listen to the people of Arctic countries, and indigenous communities and government, for a sense of what’s going on. Apparently a dialogue with any complexity that includes both the facts of the science AND the well-being of communities is too challenging for deniers.”
Most people will tell you that they prefer -45C winter nights to -65C winter nights. Do you really think that they would prefer colder winters?
““First, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s-1940’s period than it is now”
-Yes. It is one of those details that leads deniers to misinterpret the data. The 1990s were pretty warm, yet the 60’s were cool — so a few scientists wrote a few papers about the idea of an ice age. The vast majority of scientists suggested no such thing.”
Plenty did. There were books on the subject of the new ice age and people like Brown, Ehrlich, Hansen, Schmidt and others who became very active in the AGW movement were warning of a die-off due to a shortage of food as temperatures forced yields lower. When the PDO went into its positive phase they switched to arguing for global warming.
“Regarding your deliberate misrepresentation of information and conclusions from research sites. You have reproduced a whole paragraph of Polyakov et al 2002 — not 2003. There is a 2003, but this is not from it. The 2002 paper appeared in the AMS journal in 2003. It reminds me of the time you repeatedly and mistakenly quoted from the nonexistent ‘4th TAR’. You also pretend that researchers’ ideas, and even their own words, are your own. That is called plagiarism. Please learn to use quotes. Howeve,r since the entire research report is protected by copyright it may not be reproduced here.”
There is nothing deliberate. If you have a paper that refutes the one that is cited than you are free to post it. The bottom line is that we know there were cooling trends while emissions were rising. All of the papers are clear on that point.
“The research goal was to increase understanding of natural variability in longterm weather patterns in the Arctic so that climate change can be better understood. Relevance is also worth mentioning. The research was attempting to evaluate the role of natural low-frequency variability in explaining the arctic ice loss from 1980 to the 90’S. I think we all know that the most accelerated ice loss is more recent. Certainly Polyakov does.”
Actually, Arctic ice cover is now higher than it has been for seven years. It is called variability.
“Polyakov et al. 2002 (and also 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 2007, 2008 and 2009) tells us that understanding climate – and especially Arctic climate — is complicated and that there is both natural and anthropogenic causes. Who knew?”
Yes, it is complicated. And it has nothing to do with AGW.
Since you are so interested in Polyakov you might want to actually read his statement about sea ice. He supports my argument, not yours, when he claims that, “We examined the long-term observational records of fast-ice thickness and ice extent from four Arctic marginal seas … the analysis indicates that long-term trends are small and generally STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.”
“Anyone can read the research at:
frontier.iarc.uaf.edu and follow the link to the paper.
ams.allenpress.com and follow the link to the paper.
For most current from that research team:
gi.alaska.edu/~bhatt/publications/polyakov_etal_2009.pdf”
By all means try to read Polyakov but make certain that when you do you pay attention to the words. He opposes the ice melting hype and says that it can’t be blamed on AGW because there is no significant trend noted in the records.
“-It is a feature of your unique self-concept that you believe climate scientists make the most facile mistakes in their understanding, and that you, JVB, have caught them. They do make mistakes, but your worries on this particular point are a figment of your imagination: they know how to interpret a selected climatological baseline period and they know about adjustment techniques and baseline corrections. Your knowledge can be increased at any number of credible research sites.”
Yes, they make far too many mistakes. So why should we treat them as being credible?
“Here’s an easy to read government site if you prefer:
http://www.cccsn.ca/Help_and_Contact/
Baseline_Climate_Data-e.html
You have been asked by the site owner to stop repeatedly posting comments or questions that the site has addressed ad nauseum and that are so obviously intended to mislead and misrepresent. There are many interesting and critical questions being asked regarding climate change, but they aren’t raised by your repetitive denier nonsense and breathtaking stupidity.
Pretty soon, everyone will rightly conclude you’re a nut.”
I think that the person who is a nut is the one who cites papers that actually show that her argument is a false one. Like I said, try reading the Polyakov studies that you cite. The first paragraph of the conclusion clearly states, “Examination of records of fast-ice thickness and ice extent from four arctic marginal seas (Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi) indicates that long-term trends are small and generally statistically insignificant, while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the long-term tendencies due to strong low-frequency variability in these time series, which places a strong limitation on our ability to resolve long-term trends. Ice variability in the arctic marginal-ice zone is dominated by the multidecadal LFO and, to a lesser degree, by decadal fluctuations. The LFO signal decays eastward, and is strongest in the Kara Sea, whereas in the Chukchi Sea, ice-extent and fast-ice variability is dominated by decadal fluctuations, and there is no evidence of the LFO.” The paper does not even mention CO2 because it has nothing to do with ice thickness or cover.
Ref. http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/~igor/research/ice/index.php#2003b
“Ian Forrester
Vernon is being whacked over at Deltoid so comes back here where he things he is safer.
Get a life, Vernon.
As for Vangel, he is as pathetic as ever. I have a broken record which is less irritating.”
Once again, you resort to empty words because you cannot use evidence to support your position.
Vangel, the evidence is easily available for any intelligent person to access. It is only dishonest deniers like you who refuse to cite real science as found in the peer reviewed scientific literature and spend their time wallowing in the cesspools of lies found on denier sites.
Martha,
Do not be stupid. You make the claim how the present CO2 warming is so bad for the people up there. Basically your a liar. It is no warmer now that it was 70 years ago. An no Martha, it is not one of those details that makes people not believe in AGW, it is on of those facts that proves the models are wrong. There are two thing that must happen for the models to be true. First, there must be amplified warming at the poles. Guess what, there is not any. The Arctic is not warming at a greater rate than the Northern Hemisphere and the Antarctic has been cooling for the last 40 years. Second, there is suppose to be a hot spot at the equator in the upper troposphere but that is not there either.
Martha, the claim is that current warming is exceptional, but the fact is that the studies that created this claim have been proven to under estimate the low frequency variance.
Christiansen et al (2009)The underestimation of the amplitude of the low frequency variability demonstrated for all of the seven methods discourage the use of reconstructions to estimate the rareness of the recent warming. That this underestimation is found for all the reconstruction methods is rather depressing and strongly suggests that this point should be investigated further before any real improvements in the reconstruction methods can be made.
D’Arrigo et al (2007)on divergence. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures.
Datsenko et al (2008) It is found that the Mann et al. reconstruction drastically underestimates low-frequency temperature variations, whereas the Moberg et al. reconstruction reproduces them much better, although with a certain underestimation rather than overestimation, as Mann et al. have recently argued.
Von Storch et al (2009) The methods are Composite plus Scaling, the inverse regression method of Mann et al. (Nature 392:779–787, 1998) and a direct principal-components regression method. … All three methods underestimate the simulated variations of the Northern Hemisphere temperature, but the Composite plus Scaling method clearly displays a better performance and is robust against the different noise models and network size.
Riedwyl et al (2008) This paper presents a comparison of principal component (PC) regression and regularized expectation maximization (RegEM) to reconstruct European summer and winter surface air temperature over the past millennium. … For the specific predictor network given in this paper, both techniques underestimate the target temperature variations to an increasing extent as more noise is added to the signal, albeit RegEM less than with PC regression.
The basis for the current warming being exceptional has been proven to have no foundation. The predicted regional impacts for the GCM’s have been shown to be non-existent.
As to things the site has addressed, well, that is what is cool about science, it does not stop. The fact is that newer studies show that much of what was considered settled is not.
Oh, and the study was from 2003 you idiot. It goes by the publication data, and in this case it was published in Nature in 2003.
Interesting that Vernon doesn’t even know how to correctly cite references. Maybe he doesn’t want us to read them since he usually completely fabricates what they say or cherry picks the data to make it say something completely different from what the authors say.
Vernon, did you even read the paper by Riedwyl et al.?
It would appear that their data show that the warmest period from 1500 to the present was iin the range of 1700 to 1800. Wasn’t that when you deniers insist that it was so cold because of the “LIA”?
Vernon, maybe I am misinterpreting what you are trying to tell us. Maybe you are really into comic relief rather than science. That would explain a lot.
I won’t bother checking your other cites.
Ian,
in your world how do you cite studies published? The standard that I know of is in short to list the author and the year of the publication. Actually, that appears to be the standard way for the world.
or the full citation:
Polyakov, I., Bekryaev, R., Bhatt, U., Colony, R., Maskshtas, A., & Walsh, D., (2003) Variability and Trends of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875–2000, Journal of Climate, 16 (June): 2067–2077
For those of you, like Martha that cannot find papers if the author does more than one a year. Polyakov et al (2003) is the correct cite.
Your funny. Can you say the word REGIONAL? But nice piece of misdirection. These studies were not temperature reconstructions, but rather these studies looked into the specified statical methodologies, in Riedwyl’s case, principle component regression and regularized expectation maximization. He found that both under estimated. Which if you had read the paper would understand that that team, like the rest I listed found that low frequency variation was under estimated.
Get that Ian, the current studies, the whole reason that the claim that we are warmer now than any other time in the 20th century is not supportable. Mann’s studies in particular were found to under estimate typically 20%–50%.
Well Vernon, if their data showed that the LIA didn’t exist and was in fact the warmest period then it doesn’t say much for their methods.
Any scientists knows that you give the full citation (if you want people to actually find the article), in your case I don’t think that you want the papers to be found since they usually say th eopposite of what you are claiming.
You are as pathetic as your pal Vangel.
The pair of you are wannabe scientists who actually know nothing about it but think they can prove all real scientists wrong. As I said, pathetic.
And only author and date is not the “standard way for the world”.
Just some thing else which shows that you are ignorant of how science is conducted.
How on earth is someone supposed to find a citation with only name and year? Do you think that Journal title , volume and page number are unimportant?
Pathetic.
Ian,
hand waving, hand waving, hand waving, hand waving, hand waving, hand waving, hand waving, hand waving, hand waving, hand waving, hand waving, hand waving, & hand waving.
Actually that is pretty much all you do is hand waving. The studies support my position. Feel free to find one that supports yours.
Ian, just another way of saying DENIER.
Vernon, you don’t understand the studies that you cite (or you are deliberately misinterpreting them). You are an ignorant fool who has a vastly over inflated ego who thinks that they are smarter then the scientists who have spent their lives studying the science.
Vernon, who has spent too long on denier web sites thinks he is smarter. If you are so smart, why do you not write up your nonsense and submit it to a peer reviewed scientific journal?
Vernon, you are pathetic.
Lets see both sides of the argument.
Vernon – cites peer reviewed works of scientists.
Ian – hand waves and adhom attacks.
Yep, that Ian is really smart, NOT!
Still in denial Ian?
“Ian Forrester
Vernon, you don’t understand the studies that you cite (or you are deliberately misinterpreting them). You are an ignorant fool who has a vastly over inflated ego who thinks that they are smarter then the scientists who have spent their lives studying the science. ”
Actually Ian, there is no reason to believe that Vernon doesn’t understand. And while I believe you to be capable of understanding the science, it is quite apparent you do not seem to want to uderstand.
The problem with you is that yours is a faith based belief, but you want to appear respectable so you argue using something that resembles science. You remind me of those people who believe that the world is 6,000 years old, don’t believe that dinosaurs ever existed but refuse to look at any scientific argument that exposes their false position.
More drivel from Vangel and Vernon.
They continue to show with every post that they are not scientists, have a hatred of science and scientists and are becoming more and more desperate that they are going to have to pay for the effects of global warming.
Well, you can pay a little bit now (maybe even break even) or you can pay much, much more down the road when the effects become obvious, even to Luddites like you.
Your political and big business pals are willing to destroy our way of life but you are too arrogant and greedy to consider the path we are on.
You are both pathetic examples of the human race.
Ian,
What effects? Per the models, for AGW to be happening, there would be amplification at the poles and a hot spot in the upper troposphere at the equator. None of those things are happening.
Warmest period for the poles, both Antarctic and Arctic was back during the 1930s – 40s. There is warming in the Arctic but it is less that past warming last century. The Antarctic has been cooling for over the last 30 years (30 years, that would be climate?).
New studies in to tree rings shows that they do not make a good method for determining past temperatures. Additional studies show that the statistical methodologies under estimate low frequency variation.
What it comes down to is that there is no proof that the present is the warmest period in the last 1000 or 2000 years. That the models predicted indicators are not present.
Ian, all you do is wave your hand and call people names. Sorry for proving that your faith is false.
Vernon, you are posting the same rubbish on many science blogs on the Internet. Everyone is telling you how wrong you are but you refuse to read up on the science. That is the height of arrogance and anti-science syndrome (ASS).
Since you claim that I am not pointing you to sites where the real science, as opposed to your anti-science nonsense, is found, try reading what is posted at Realclimate, Openmind, Skepticalscience, Coby Beck’s blog, Spencer Weart’s “Discovery of Global Warming” (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html).
If you refuse to read what is found on these sites (and what is found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature) you will only show what we have all known for a long time, YOU ARE A DENIER.
Your comments about “arm waving” just show how juvenile you are. Grow up and join the adults.
And for you and Vangel, trying to compare climate scientists with creationists is just simply stupid and shows us your real agenda, i.e. anti-science worshipers who are upset that science shows how wrong their political ideology is. You are arrogant, greedy and selfish if you try and ignore the consequences of AGW.
“Ian Forrester
More drivel from Vangel and Vernon.
They continue to show with every post that they are not scientists, have a hatred of science and scientists and are becoming more and more desperate that they are going to have to pay for the effects of global warming.”
As I said, I will get rich if you and your fellow AGW cultists push for carbon trading or green alternatives. It makes no difference to me if you try to screw the poor because I have done all I can to oppose such actions.
“Well, you can pay a little bit now (maybe even break even) or you can pay much, much more down the road when the effects become obvious, even to Luddites like you.”
It is you who is the Luddite. You are under the impression that climate is supposed to be stable, that cold temperatures such as those during the Little Ice Age are preferable to those of the much warmer Medieval Warm Period, and that fossil fuels are a bad thing. I don’t know about you but I would look forward for another 0.7C in warming. I certainly don’t find the climate too hot and prefer longer growing seasons, more biodiversity, and less need for heating a good thing.
“Your political and big business pals are willing to destroy our way of life but you are too arrogant and greedy to consider the path we are on.”
It is you who is supporting transferring wealth form consumers to General Electric, Siemens, IBM, Iberdrola, Toyota, Honda, Suntech Power, Q-Cells, Canadian Solar, Yingli Green, Dow Chemical, carbon trading firms, etc. It is also you who wishes to destroy the current way of life and to go to a low energy world where the standard of living is much lower and taxes are much higher. I guess that is why the polls are showing that voters are rejecting the AGW proposals.
Ian, why not try real science and not advocacy sites. Your link goes no where. Why not try a link that works? What I refuse to believe those sites and I read the studies of actual science to make a decision. You should give your religion a pass and try science.
I notice that you have never bothered to site any modern studies that support your position. You just rant and point to advocacy sites. Why not try facts.
Vernon, as I suspected you do not know what real science is. It is you who use advocacy sites, not me.
I am a scientist and I know how science works. You keep showing that you do not understand science and, even worse, refuse to try and understand science. You are in complete denial.
Vangel’s comments are not even worthy of a reply since he is even worse that you in his science denial.
If you two are so expert and knowledgeable on climate science where are your papers showing how all the accepted climate science is wrong? Can’t produce any, why am I not surprised?
You both show that whatever education system you went through it really is not doing a good job in science education.
Ian,
Once again your off to attacking the person and ignoring the science. It is easy to say your a scientist, prove it, point out to some peer reviewed published works. But I truly doubt that you are since you lie so much. Please point out where I have pointed to an advocacy site as a reference? You cannot because I have have. I have always pointed to actual studies published in peer reviewed journals.
You are the one that keeps pointing to advocacy sites. Guess what, I did post on Coby’s site. I addressed the talking points that untrue based on current science. Coby tried to defend his position but in the end he gave up, the science does not support him.
So you can hand wave all you want but the science does not support your position. You react like a true believer, not a scientist. So far, your only response has been to disparage me, you never address the science.
Administrator please stop this arrogant and insulting person from posting. He has gone way over the limit.
He accuses me of lying when it is in fact he who is lying or gets his information from dishonest sites.
See for example his comment: “Per the models, for AGW to be happening, there would be amplification at the poles and a hot spot in the upper troposphere at the equator. None of those things are happening.”
These comments are completely false.
Vernon look at the figures here:
Click to access 2009+2005+2007.pdf
I have shown the data in pictorial form since you have difficulty understanding the written word.
Please tell us what you see from these figures. Where is most of the warming occurring?
As for your comment about the supposed lack of a hot spot in the tropical troposphere this has been proved again and again to be wrong.
Models produce an enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere when there is warming at the surface. Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Nino’s, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced. So what you are sayingn is completely wrong.
The tropical troposphere temperature change depends not on GHG warming but any warming.
For a detailed discussion of this see:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/langswitch_lang/fr
Just about everything you post here and elsewhere is cut and pasted from denier sites.
You and real science are not well acquainted. Try reading some elementary science text books. Good grief, most kids in elementary school have a firmer grasp of climate change than you do.
Ian,
You are just strange. Did you look at the figure you cited and bother to read the works I have cited. The Arctic was warmer in the 30’s and 40’s. If you had read Polyakov et al (2003) you would know that the GISS base line is one of the coldest periods in the Arctic. It was warmer than today in the 30s and 40s. The high anomalies are an artifact of picking that baseline. In fact, the 50s-80s just happens to be one the cooler periods for the 20th century.
I see you ignore the fact that there is no polar amplification. The Antarctic has been cooling for 40 years and the Arctic is warming at only a slightly higher rate than the NH has. I agree all warming should have caused a upper tropospheric hot spot but there is not one. That would indicate that the models are wrong because it has been warming but there is no hot spot.
I see that rather than citing scientific works you prefer to point to advocacy sites.
As for your being a liar, well, you accuse me of quoting advocacy sites which is patently untrue. I cite and quote peer reviewed studies, you on the other hand claim to be scientist but do not bother to point to papers that support your position, but rather to advocacy sites. Hence, I find you strange.
You cannot refute what I post so you ask that I be silenced. Odd that you would ask others to be silenced when you’re the most abusive poster here. You habitually are abusive and rude, yet I rarely call you names. By citing where you told untruths and calling you on your untruths is not being abusive or rude, it is being factual. Factual is not something that spend much time on.
Now I am not a scientist but unlike you I can read and understand. You refuse to understand, either the basis for you own position or what the current research that is slowly tearing it down.
Vernon, you are the most dishonest person to post on this blog. You don’t have a clue and are unwilling to accept what real scientists are saying. You admit that you are not a scientist but you continue to say that all the science is false and you know better.
You are a thoroughly dishonest, arrogant and selfish person. You continually claim to know more than all the climate scientists put together. You are suffering from some sort of delusional psychosis. Get treatment!
Ian,
I see that once again you refuse to address the facts or the science but choose to attack me as an individual. Is this the best that you can do, ignore the science and attack the individual.
Start telling the truth and people wont call you a liar. Very simple isn’t it? You are completely delusional. Get treatment.
Ian,
Which study that I presented is a lie? How am I misrepresenting them? What am I distorting from the studies? Why not address what I am wrong about rather than your normal name calling. If I am not misquoting the studies, then your a scientist, point out where the studies are wrong.
It would appear that you do not understand the science and just keep going to the advocacy sites for yet more talking points. To back the talking points have not kept up with the science.
Vernon, too many to describe them all. Most intelligent people who frequent this blog realize that what I say about you is in fact true. You re-enforce their opinion of you every time you add to your denier nonsense.
I don’t think that I “do not understand the science and just keep going to the advocacy sites for yet more talking points”.
My knowledge of climate science and science in general is far superior to yours since you constantly misinterpret (do you do that on purpose?) everything that you read. It is hard to determine just how much of your misinformation is from basic ignorance of the subject or purposeful deceit.
Ian,
I presented the studies, I drew conclusions. Why not point out which study I misrepresented and how I was wrong in the conclusion that I drew, based on the study.
I really do not think you can do that, but you might surprise me. I have come to believe that all you can do is call names since the science appears to be beyond you.
Vernon, just about everything you say is nonsense. I don’t quite know why you do not realize that since it has been pointed out to you numerous times by more than just me. You have been scolded and whacked at numerous sites, not just this one, but you still post your nonsense.
Anytime you quote from a denier site, and don’t deny just about everything you say originates from denier sites, you are guilty of some form of scientific malfeasance.
Just because you cherry pick and provide actual references does not mean that what you post is not nonsense. You have to look at the big picture, something you refuse to do.
Cherry picking and quote mining is how deniers operate not scientists.
Ian,
You cannot point to any time I have quoted from any “denier” site. If you could, you would, but you can’t so you just make it up.
I quote current studies. As I have said time after time, if you believe I am wrong, feel free to point out where I mis-quoted the study. You don’t. You can’t. Sucks to be you.
Vernon, you find references to original papers on denier sites, just like your reference to the Polyakov paper. You then take what they say out of context or quote mine for a sentence which you think will disprove AGW. That is not science that is sophistry.
Here is a quote by Coby Beck on your antics over at his blog. You do the same denial nonsense at many reputable science sites and get shown to be a typical denier at every one. Why do you keep doing this?
Here is Coby’s comment: “He cites a paper by Polyakov et al that he claims shows temperatures in the arctic were warmer than they are now earlier in the 20th century.
I don’t have access to the paper or time to research it well, does anyone else have any comments? My initial impression is that it is about ocean temperatures in one region of the north Atlantic, and I do not trust the numbers he quotes which came from CO2 Science, a site that habitually misrepresents the papers it highlights. But that is hardly enough to base a respectful reply upon”.
So I am not the only one who understands your denier nonsense.
Give it a rest, you are just wasting the time of everyone who has to dig around to collect proper information which disproves what you are saying.
Idiot,
If read the first post I pointed out to Coby where the paper was and got on to him for making an unfounded claim. I did not get the anything from CO2science.
Oh, and as you always, no cite, no science, just garbage from you.
Vernon, please edit your post so that it is written in grammatically correct English. Your poor use of proper syntax makes me believe that you are even less educated than I previously thought.
Can someone answer this question? Why are AGW deniers so lacking in basic command of the English language? It makes them seem even more stupid than there postings would indicate.
Lots more ad hominems I see. I thought you didn’t like ad hominems. I guess you think it is smart to direct them at people correcting your poor understanding of science.
Still cannot deal with the science, so far the only person using add homs is you
How can I respond when it is impossible to interpret what you say with your poor English syntax.
You are pathetic. I see you are spreading your drivel over an even larger slice of the blogsphere.
You get the same treatment at every site you post. Are you not smart enough to realize that you are spreading nonsense and lies? Your interpretation skills are zero. Every time you “quote” some research paper you get it completely wrong. I guess if you try it often enough you will get it right once. However, once out of a hundred is still a failing grade.
“How can I respond when it is impossible to interpret what you say with your poor English syntax.”
I don’t think that is your problem. Your problem is that you have nothing that resembles objective evidence to support your position.
What, someone else turns up to support Vernon? Is this tag team trolling?
Author: guthrie
Comment:
What, someone else turns up to support Vernon? Is this tag team trolling?
How is supporting the objective evidence considered trolling?
Vangel you wouldn’t recognize objective evidence even if it jumped out of a closet and smacked you along side of your solid bone head head with a 2 by 4.
By the way, are you related to Tom Harris…like Really closely??
TomG
Vangel you wouldn’t recognize objective evidence even if it jumped out of a closet and smacked you along side of your solid bone head head with a 2 by 4.
By the way, are you related to Tom Harris…like Really closely??
I don’t know Tom. And the objective evidence is quite clear. The RSS/UAH are reporting nothing unusual; temperatures went up when when the PDO was in a warm phase and have gone down now that the PDO has flipped into its cool phase. I was surprised to see UAH show the June anomaly sitting right on the mean because I expected the positive ENSO to have it go up. (Perhaps that will happen the next six months.) At the same time the raw surface data is showing that the warmest decade in the US came in the 1930s and that we are yet to reach those temperatures. Fully two thirds of the warming since the 1920s turned out to be created by a data handling error at GISS, which leads one to conclude that the people there are either deliberately dishonest or simply incompetent. CRU is no better because it will not even allow access to the data that is used to create its reports citing intellectual property rights for data that is generated by public funding.
Sorry but no matter how you spin it there is no global warming crisis and most of the world has chosen not to commit economic suicide by limiting CO2 emissions. From what I can see, the US Senate has decided to kill Waxman-Markey and China, India and Russia have made it clear that Copenhagen is dead.
Yup…proved my point.
TomG
Yup…proved my point.
Yours is a faith based position. It requires no proof because everything can be used as proof.
It appears as if Vangel has returned with more of his ridiculous comments. Vangel, understanding and arguing based on scientific facts is not being “faith based”. You, like all deniers, have it backwards, it is the gaggle of deniers who use faith based arguing. They either never produce any scientific reality into their arguments or take accepted science and distort it and torture it till it says the opposite of what was originally found.
That just shows how dishonest and stupid you people are if you think that it will not be noticed by the intelligent people who post on this blog.
Unfortunately, deniers like you tend to drive the honest and intelligent people away with your disgusting tactics.
Get an education and a life.
I think you really do know Tom Harris. Quite well in fact.
Interesting that you state that I have a faith based position and then you use the torturous statement “It requires no proof because everything can be used as proof.”
I take that to mean that as you proved my point, you are not acceptable as proof because your proof is part of my “faith”.
Unfortunately, deniers like you tend to drive the honest and intelligent people away with your disgusting tactics.
Get an education and a life.
It seems to me that the AGW alarmists have finally gotten an education and have come around to my argument. Over at RealClimate your pals have just admitted that they didn’t really understand what they were talking about. We have a guest post by Kyle Swanson, who writes, “If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.” That would make it 22 years without a warming trend, hardly an argument that CO2 is a major driver of temperature change.
No wonder the AGW cult and the big money interests that fund it are so desperate to pass Waxman-Markey. It seems that the public has seen the light and that support is fading fast. I guess that you really can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
Author: TomG
Comment:
I think you really do know Tom Harris. Quite well in fact.
Interesting that you state that I have a faith based position and then you use the torturous statement “It requires no proof because everything can be used as proof.”
I take that to mean that as you proved my point, you are not acceptable as proof because your proof is part of my “faith”.
As I said, I do not know Tom Harris. And my point stands; a person who takes a faith based position as you do does not need proof because everything is used as proof even when it falsifies the belief. Your side has already shown that when it tried to explain away the ice core results by arguing that a cause can come 800 years after the effect, when it made up excuses for the multi-decadal cooling periods that coincided with the cold PDO phases and when it tried to come up with the wind shear argument when the predicted warming signature failed to appear in the satellite and radisonde data. And when the surface data showed that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s the cult tried to change the data.
Ian, I agree.
Vangel says
>>>>By all means try to read Polyakov but make certain that when you do you pay attention to the words. He opposes the ice melting hype and says that it can’t be blamed on AGW because there is no significant trend noted in the records.
No trend? No role for AGW?
“Our analysis demonstrates that the recent warming over the North Atlantic is linked to both long-term (including anthropogenic and natural) climate change and multidecadal variability (MDV, ~50–80 years).” Polyakov et al. (2009), North Atlantic warming: patterns of long-term trend and multi-decadal variability, Climate Dynamics, doi:10.1007/s00382-008-0522-3.
But science reporting is notoriously cautious, even conservative. What does Polyakov say out loud? He is quoted in the NYT in 2007 as saying “I do not think that there was anything like we observe today” in the 1930’s and 40’s [a period studied in his research, repetitively misquoted by the likes of Vernon and Vangel]
Vangel says
>>>>Like I said, try reading the Polyakov studies that you cite.”
Indeed. It would be great if he could consider dragging himself up past 2005 and especially past 2007 – for reasons known to anyone with the most basic knowledge of the science in relation to ice melt. And off denier sites.
Vangel is evidently obsessed with the misconception that the necessary interventions will ruin the economy. He is so deliberate and repetitive in his posting of such a wide range of easily-exposed pseudo-science lies and frauds and all manner of nonsense that I must confess, I too am having to admit he is far more stupid than I thought. I don’t like it when my initial impression is so far off base. Of course, his lack of ethics has been transparent from the beginning, as has his remarkable capacity for projection which ensures that he believes the opposite.
Well, we can’t help everyone.
Regarding his comrade in the most repetitive and tedious spamming, Vernon.
Every month is a new obsession. Above, he wishes to claim that the current warming is not exceptional and he bases this not on the overwhelming observed and simulated/direct and indirect evidence, all posted within easy reach on this and any other credible climate science site, but rather on this, his most recent ruse — namely, a list of regression studies. It seems he believes that anytime he makes an impressive-looking list, it is compelling. Ian, do they all go to the same tactical school, these deniers?
None of those citations demonstrates that what happened in the past is relevant to now.
But here’s an amusement.
He cites Christiansen 2009. I just looked at it and can that it is current literature in the field of climate modeling i.e., regression-based modelling. Good. I have previously encouraged him to read current and targeted model research, in keeping with his interests; and apparently he is doing that. I guess this was a little too targeted for him, though, because while I’m thrilled that he is interested in problems with reconstructions, once again, he does not want to understand what he has read. 😦
As we explained to him many months ago, the problem in 2009, for anyone who understands the theoretical and practical import of the more recent papers cited, is that science has learned that the model biases require more correction under global warming conditions.
In response, he asked us ‘Do you just make this stuff up?’ (Denier vs. Septic)
Is it possible that he does not see that he has found and cited a source that demonstrates that the most current research shows more model bias under global warming conditions? Ian, why doesn’t he ever understand what he reads?
I believe he does read, despite the wild fluctuations in his language and conversational style (cut/paste? instability?). The the report is interesting, and highlights some of the difficulties using regression (as discussed with V. previously, regarding Xiao) but it is merely part of the broader dialogue in the climate science community regarding recent advances in climate modeling. He continually believe he has ‘found’ something that no one else knows about.
As you generously attempt to explain, above, there are too many ridiculous errors in his spam than anyone should ever expect another person to address. Who has the time? No one who values their time or others’.
Ditto Vangel.
And Ian, I agree that these two of have relentlessly harassed and spammed this information site for so many months that it is a bit much. Other than observing their psychological problems (alot of that on the Internet, I’m afraid) we have to wonder if someone employs them to lie and b.s. and waste time.
Martha said: “Ian, why doesn’t he ever understand what he reads?”
That is a very good question Martha. I am never sure of the answer. Are they so stupid and intelligence challenged that they just don’t understand what they read or are they deliberately distorting the information?
I get round that by calling them both stupid and dishonest and they can choose which category they fall into, usually both:-)
As to your other question, I’m afraid I don’t know which mother ship they answer to. They definitely follow distinct pathways in their denier postings. Vernon follows the path of endless lists of peer reviewed papers which he claims supports his claims. On checking with the papers, which of course is a very time consuming exercise, they say nothing of the sort. Dishonest or deliberately misleading, take your pick.
Vangel on the other hand cuts and pasts from denier sites over and over again even though he is continually told that they are not correct.
If you check other science based blogs you will find the same two patterns, mostly with different names. Whether they are using sock puppets or are just missionaries from the same mother ship is unknown.
Vangel, Vangel, it’s quite plain to see that you have a close realationship with Tom Harris.
You know of course, that if I accept any of your “proofs”, this action would make them part of my “faith” and that would be totally unacceptable to you. Especially any falsifying proof. Wouldn’t want to use a false truth now would we?
However, what must be noted, is your perservenance in bringing forth your dedicated selection of information to this post. What is the going rate for this dedication? A grand? Two grand? Ten grand? How about 30?
And yet on RC they are saying there will be no expected warming till 2020. I expect that they do not believe that but it does give them an out for the next eleven years.
—-
“TomG
Vangel, Vangel, it’s quite plain to see that you have a close realationship with Tom Harris.”
As I said, I do not know Tom Harris.
“You know of course, that if I accept any of your “proofs”, this action would make them part of my “faith” and that would be totally unacceptable to you. Especially any falsifying proof. Wouldn’t want to use a false truth now would we?”
Truth is not false. It is what it is. Of course, when it falsifies your belief you reject it or make up some excuse.
“However, what must be noted, is your perservenance in bringing forth your dedicated selection of information to this post. What is the going rate for this dedication? A grand? Two grand? Ten grand? How about 30?”
I have no clue what you are talking about. I suspect that you do not either.
Mike,
How about I did and it says that cooling is going to be in and warming on hold till 2020. I pointed out this study here quite a while ago as the basis for the warming cooling shifts. Was not good when I presented it but it is ok if RC does.
Martha:
Vangel says
>>>>By all means try to read Polyakov but make certain that when you do you pay attention to the words. He opposes the ice melting hype and says that it can’t be blamed on AGW because there is no significant trend noted in the records.
No trend? No role for AGW?
Polyakov is very clear. The ice conditions are based on fluctuating multidecadal effects. The trend is very small and AGW is not much of a contributor to it.
The conclusion seems pretty clear to me. “We examine long-term variability of the Atlantic Water (AW) using high-latitude hydrographic measurements starting in the late 19th century. Despite gaps in the early part of the record, our analysis provides evidence that AW variability is dominated by multi-decadal fluctuations with a timescale of 50-80 years (low-frequency oscillation = LFO, Polyakov and Johnson 2000). Associated with this variability, the Atlantic Water temperature record shows two warm periods in the 1930-40s and in recent decades and two cold periods in the earlier century and in the 1960-70s (Figure 1, top). Over recent decades, the data show a warming and salinification of the Atlantic layer, accompanied by its shoaling and, probably, thinning. Our estimate of the Atlantic Water temperature variability shows a general warming trend which for 1893-2002 was about 0.13+/-0.04 standard deviation of the annual mean AWCT per decade. However, over the 100-year record there are periods (including the recent decades) with short-term trends strongly amplified by multi-decadal variations”
The driver of ice changes is the MDV that interests Polyakov. While he does not entirely dismiss AGW effects he points out that much more understanding is required before the effect can be quantified. Obviously the NAO is a much bigger factor. Clearly the observations show that the recent warming is not unusual because we had one in the 1930s and 1940s.
Martha wrote:
Indeed. It would be great if he could consider dragging himself up past 2005 and especially past 2007 – for reasons known to anyone with the most basic knowledge of the science in relation to ice melt. And off denier sites.
I simply responded to the work that you had cited but misread. If you have recent studies that you wish to discuss please list them and I will be happy to go over them and discuss what they say.
http://www.physorg.com/news166966122.html
Martha writes:
As we explained to him many months ago, the problem in 2009, for anyone who understands the theoretical and practical import of the more recent papers cited, is that science has learned that the model biases require more correction under global warming conditions.
As I pointed out, we know that the models failed to predict what happened and you are now scrambling to come up with excuses.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115207&org=OLPA&from=news
Even the boys at RealClimate have seen the writing on the wall and are making up excuses that would allow a further decade without warming.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
The satellites are certainly not showing any dangerous warming trend.
You are on the wrong side of the science. The sooner you figure it out the better.
http://www.physorg.com/news166966122.html
Vangel, of course you have a relationahip with Tom Harris. Like peas in the pod.
“Truth is not false. It is what it is.”
Indeed. Except when a small truth is used to cover up an overall truth. Of course you wouldn’t know anything about that, now would you?
I’ll give an example of a “falsifying proof”:
“Greenland ice cover is thickening.” A small truth since the ice is indeed thickening in the north central spine of the island. This little truth is used in an attempt to cover up the truth that Greenland is suffering a huge net loss of ice in other areas. According to an article in Science Daily Oct. 10, 2008, the Grace satellites observed there was an average yearly ice loss of 195 cubic km/year between the years 2003 and 2008. In the last full 2 years the average yearly loss has increased to 222 cubic km/year.
Another “falsifying proof” is using the truth that late winter sea ice extent in the Arctic is at normal levels. True, but this is used to cover up where the true concern lies. Ice loss during the Late Summer. Although the extent loss was not as great in 2008 compared to 2007, the thickness is declining and the survival rate of multi-year ice is dropping year by year.
NASA Icesat data is showing multi-year ice loss from 62% of total ice in 2003 to 32% in 2008. Of course everyone know that multi-year is harder and thicker ice, more resistant to melting.
No clue as to what I’m talking about?
Earlier Vangel you stated:” I make no secret of the fact that I intend to take full advantage of the damage the AGW movement does to the US economy and that I hope to get very rich off of it.”
And yet here you are doing everything possible to sabatoge your future good fortune.
Kind of odd for a rewards oriented person don’t you think?
“Greenland ice cover is thickening.” A small truth since the ice is indeed thickening in the north central spine of the island. This little truth is used in an attempt to cover up the truth that Greenland is suffering a huge net loss of ice in other areas. According to an article in Science Daily Oct. 10, 2008, the Grace satellites observed there was an average yearly ice loss of 195 cubic km/year between the years 2003 and 2008. In the last full 2 years the average yearly loss has increased to 222 cubic km/year.
Actually, the survey conducted in 2007/2008 found that the melting was back to the 2000 levels and that the claims of a crisis were exxagerated.
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/greenlands-ice-armageddon-comes-end
Also, studies that have looked at the past 100 years show a great deal of atmospheric and ocean current variability. Decadal-scale oscillations have been documented for the Arctic Oscillation and the existance of a multi-decadal low-frequency oscillation that tend to dominate effects.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu%3A8080%2F~igor%2Fresearch%2Fpdf%2F50yr_web.pdf&ei=RUNhSv2SG8iQtgeroYTsDw&usg=AFQjCNFirk2aVDpNbybPp9EQTRsxQp1IDQ&sig2=qmxaAtQVjhIxfFgfoQKwmA
What you have is the observance of natural variation over a limited time period and assumptions that the trends will continue even though other observations show that they have reversed. That doesn’t seem very scientific.
There is also the credibility problem. This spring we were being told by the experts that although ice cover was recovering we still had a big problem because the ice was very thin. The thickness values came from satellite data so we were assured that it was unbiased and clean. But another survey, which used electronic equipment that was flown low to the surface revealed that the thickness values were off slightly. The experts managed to be wrong by 100%. I prefer real world observations that are being verified and that make sense. No matter how you try to spin it, when we have WW II era aeroplanes that were parked on the ice wind up 250 feet under the ice I know that the thickness of the ice sheet increased over 50 years. I can speculate about other areas but until I get actual measurements over a reasonable period all I can do is speculate about the rest.
Another “falsifying proof” is using the truth that late winter sea ice extent in the Arctic is at normal levels. True, but this is used to cover up where the true concern lies. Ice loss during the Late Summer. Although the extent loss was not as great in 2008 compared to 2007, the thickness is declining and the survival rate of multi-year ice is dropping year by year.
As Polyakov has pointed out in many of his papers, what we have are oscillations of different variations that effect Arctic conditions. These have made ice cover decrease in size and increase in size long before human emissions were a major factor. That is what this debate is about; the effect that is man having on climate. So far the results show that the major effects are local and are related to land use, not CO2 emissions.
Shorter Vangel:
If the ice is melting slowly, then it means it’s not melting.
If the globe is warming slowly, then it means it’s cooling.
Also, if the globe is warming slowly (which means it’s cooling), the warming is obviously not caused by carbon dioxide. Therefore the globe is cooling.
Also, I heard from someone who heard from someone who said that the experts were wrong. Therefore, well, the experts were wrong.
— bi
If the ice is melting slowly, then it means it’s not melting.
You are missing the other end; the precipitation that increases ice cover. What matters is the balance between the two and on that front there isn’t much that we can say at this period of time except to note that sea level increases due to the melting of ice are much lower than they have been at various periods over the past 10,000 years. There is no ice melting crisis and nothing that we have seen is unusual when compared to the past.
If the globe is warming slowly, then it means it’s cooling.
Whether the globe is warming or cooling depends on the starting point that is chosen. If you pick 1976 as the starting point then it is obvious that current temperatures are higher. But 1976 was the time when the PDO switched into a warm phase and the cooling that began in 1945 ended. If you pick 1998 or 2001 as a starting point you will notice a cooling trend that coincided with the reversal of the PDO.
If we pick the end of the Little Ice Age than we can say that the globe has warmed up by around 0.6-0.7 C give or take a bit. But that warming is about the same as the warming since 1600, which had nothing to do with human CO2 emissions. In fact, human emissions became significant in the 1940s but since then the globe has not warmed much if at all.
If we pick the Roman Warming, Medieval Warm Period or the Holocen Optimum than we have seen cooling. The bottom line is that the climate is not a linear system and variations are very high. Trying to look at one period and ignore the rest is not very scientific or very meaningful.
Vangel, your Tom Harris slip is showing…
Another little truth attempt to counter the overall truth?
Two glaciers that slowed in 2006 to disprove increasing ice loss in 2007 and 2008.
Should this be considered as some sort of back to the future thing?
How about:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/headlines/news/article_08_11_05_en.html
By the way, resilientearth isn’t very nice referring to James Hansen as an “activist” It’s Dr James Hansen. Little insulting don’t you think?
About your other reference, the Polyakov one…
Borrowing from Martha’s comment from July 14:”It would be great if he (that would be you Vangel) could consider dragging himself up past 2005 and especially past 2007– for reasons known to anyone with the most basic knowledge of the science in relation to ice melt.”
So what do you do?
You produce a Polyakov study dating from October 4, 2000.
More back to the future?
Electronic equipment flown low to the surface revealed thickness values were off slightly. And “slightly” makes them 100% wrong? How does slightly=100%?
And are you referring to the Wegener Institut/University of Alberta Polar 5? As far as I can tell they’re still crunching data and haven’t released official numbers.
It should be noted that Wegener Institut is predicting a massive melt in Arctic sea ice this summer with up to a 28% chance of beating 2007 levels.
http://www.awi.de/en/home/
About those old WW2 aircraft maybe this save you some speculating:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html
Is Vangel a shortened form of e-vangel-ist?
TomG
Vangel, your Tom Harris slip is showing…
What is with your TH obsession? As I wrote, I have no idea about TH or his views.
Another little truth attempt to counter the overall truth?
Two glaciers that slowed in 2006 to disprove increasing ice loss in 2007 and 2008.
Should this be considered as some sort of back to the future thing?
How about:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/headlines/news/article_08_11_05_en.html
There is nothing here that counters my argument. As I wrote above, we have had similar changes in the recent past when CO2 was not a factor. The research shows that there are several natural factors and shows that the so-called ”ice Armageddon” is no longer an issue.
By the way, resilientearth isn’t very nice referring to James Hansen as an “activist” It’s Dr James Hansen. Little insulting don’t you think?
It is accurate. The evidence shows that Hansen is an activist who is using his position to draw attention to himself.
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2009/06/17/get-arrested-with-james-hansen-to-stop-mtr/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/nasa-scientist-appears-in-court-to-fan-the-flames-of-coal-power-station-row-918057.html
About your other reference, the Polyakov one…
Borrowing from Martha’s comment from July 14:”It would be great if he (that would be you Vangel) could consider dragging himself up past 2005 and especially past 2007– for reasons known to anyone with the most basic knowledge of the science in relation to ice melt.”
So what do you do?
You produce a Polyakov study dating from October 4, 2000.
More back to the future?
I pointed out that I would be happy to discuss any Polyakov study that you wish to cite. The papers that deal with long term variability were written in 2000 and 2004 and I am unaware of any changes to their conclusions. There has been nothing written by Polyakov since to invalidate his findings.
As I said before, the evidence of previous warming episodes is very clear and has been clear for decades. Please cite a Poyakov paper that you wish to discuss and I will go over it.
Electronic equipment flown low to the surface revealed thickness values were off slightly. And “slightly” makes them 100% wrong? How does slightly=100%?
There were off by 100%. The slight error brings into question the use of satellites to measure ice thickness. Frankly, I am surprised they got as close as they did.
“And are you referring to the Wegener Institut/University of Alberta Polar 5? As far as I can tell they’re still crunching data and haven’t released official numbers.
It should be noted that Wegener Institut is predicting a massive melt in Arctic sea ice this summer with up to a 28% chance of beating 2007 levels.
http://www.awi.de/en/home/”
It was the Polar 5 survey.
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radiobremen.de%2Fwissen%2Fnachrichten%2Fwissenawipolararktis100.html&sl=de&tl=en&history_state0=
It will not matter if ice cover goes to the 2007 levels because variation has been just as high in the past and because the melting is obviously not due to warmer temperatures.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
In the link above you can see that during 2007 the melt temperatures were below the mean just as they have been
for most of the years since 2000. That means that changes in ocean currents and wind are the dominant driver of ice cover, not air temperature.
About those old WW2 aircraft maybe this save you some speculating:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html
The point stands. The aeroplanes were under more than 200 feet of ice, showing that there is a lot more to the story than the AGW cult is discussing. As I pointed out, we need to look at both accumulation and melting and so far we have nothing to indicate that we are observing anything unusual.
Interesting logic you have there e-Vangel.
A couple of glaciers stopped retreating in 2006 so we don’t have to be concerned about the continuing increase of ice loss in the following 2 years.
Nice.
But don’t get the idea the problem has gone away…
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/01/rapid_retreat_of_greenlands_ou.html
About discussing Polyakov…why?
I don’t notice much “variability” up in the Arctic as of late.
Seems pretty much all longterm downhill to me.
About the Polar 5 survey…you had better find more sources of information than just Radio Bremen.
Their numbers don’t anywhere match a release from Science Centric on May 4, 2009 or one from Research in Germany on May 5, 2009.
Radio Bremen (your source) says the 2 year ice at the North Pole area is up to 4 meters thick and yet both sources I found say the 2 year ice in the same spot is 2.5 meters thick and the perennial ice in Canadian offshore regions is of 4 meters thickness. See a problem here?
I think I’ll wait for the official release of data.
About the WW2 aircraft…I simply provided a link to explain why they were so deep in ice. Nothing more.
They landed on the coast where it snows.
A lot.
Then you go off on a tangent on AGW cult.
What are you…paranoid? Geez.
About Tom Harris…Your statement:
“As I wrote, I have no idea about TH or his views.”
Really?
Anybody who has been paying attention in any detail to the ongoing Climate Change issue knows of the existance of Tom Harris. He’s been the Executive Director of 2 PR and lobbying groups for the past number of years.
He, like you, pretends AGW is not happening and from some sources I’ve read, is supposed to get paid a fair price to pretend.
Of course, if you (dedicated “sceptic” that you are) don’t know Tom Harris exists….that kinda means he’s failing miserably.
An encouraging sign I suppose…
My vacation ends today and since I am amongst the lucky with a full time job, my excess spare time comes to an end.
I can’t dally any longer in your ‘pretend it isn’t happening world’.
Your world of pretend and little truths is much like trying to fit a size 10 dress on a 800 pound gorilla. Besides not fitting, you’re going to make him really mad.
Used Name Brand, Metal structures are?Complex patterns The, as the Capital.Interesting thing about, Nebenwirkungen Auch die.Learned these basics Mystery methane belched out by megacities, five ways you the lime could.So they dont, for spiritual growth.,
TomG
Interesting logic you have there e-Vangel.
A couple of glaciers stopped retreating in 2006 so we don’t have to be concerned about the continuing increase of ice loss in the following 2 years.
That is not what I said. I made it clear that you have no evidence of any unusual global activity, that what we are seeing in the Arctic is unprecedented, or that it has anything to do with CO2 emissions.
You keep making statements that CO2 is causing glaciers to melt but you have no evidence of it. As I showed you, Arctic melt temperatures have been below the norm since 2000 so they had nothing to do with the glaciers.
But don’t get the idea the problem has gone away…
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/01/rapid_retreat_of_greenlands_ou.html
Did you read the material at the link that you provided? The authors in the paper that is being discussed wrote that, “Uncertainties in the predictions of mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet have therefore been highlighted as one of the main limitations in forecasting future sea levels” Clearly the authors acknowledge the uncertainty that I pointed out. The problem is that they do not do much about that uncertainty because they really rely on computer models that are clearly not proof of anything. But even if we are to accept the simulations the authors conclude that the, “results imply that the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland’s outlet glaciers are transient and should not be extrapolated into the future.”
About discussing Polyakov…why?
I don’t notice much “variability” up in the Arctic as of late.
Seems pretty much all longterm downhill to me.
But it isn’t downhill. Polyakov points out that there has been a great deal of variability and that what we have observed is nothing out of the ordinary.
About the Polar 5 survey…you had better find more sources of information than just Radio Bremen.
Their numbers don’t anywhere match a release from Science Centric on May 4, 2009 or one from Research in Germany on May 5, 2009.
Radio Bremen (your source) says the 2 year ice at the North Pole area is up to 4 meters thick and yet both sources I found say the 2 year ice in the same spot is 2.5 meters thick and the perennial ice in Canadian offshore regions is of 4 meters thickness. See a problem here?
I think I’ll wait for the official release of data.
The source I cited got the results from the scientists that took part in the survey. The ice was clearly a lot thicker than was expected.
About the WW2 aircraft…I simply provided a link to explain why they were so deep in ice. Nothing more.
They landed on the coast where it snows.
A lot.”
Correct. It snows and ice builds up. Some of that ice makes it to the outlets where it melts into the sea. That is normal and nothing to get excited about. Yet, the AGW movement tends to jump up and down about ice loss without looking at the ice gains.
Then you go off on a tangent on AGW cult.
What are you…paranoid? Geez.
That is exactly what we have; a cult that only looks at a part of the picture and ignores the reality in favour of fantasy.
About Tom Harris…Your statement:
“As I wrote, I have no idea about TH or his views.”
Really?
Anybody who has been paying attention in any detail to the ongoing Climate Change issue knows of the existance of Tom Harris. He’s been the Executive Director of 2 PR and lobbying groups for the past number of years.
Like I said, I do not pay attention to Tom Harris or PR groups. I leave that up to people like you, who seem to thrive on material sent out by lobbyists for the green industry.
He, like you, pretends AGW is not happening and from some sources I’ve read, is supposed to get paid a fair price to pretend.
I am prepared to look at evidence that shows that the 0.6C warming since the end of the LIA was caused by CO2 emissions but have yet to find it. The correlation between human emissions and temperature changes is very poor when compared to natural factors.
And I need no payment for arguing for the truth. That does not mean that I will not profit from the AGW legislation and activities because I have plenty of investments that should do very well if the Obama administration pushes the US economy over the abyss and it forces consumers to buy energy from green sources. One of my favourite REE plays is up 210% in the past three months and should be at least a twenty-bagger if the Senate passes the climate act. If it doesn’t I will still be happy with 500-800% over two years. Of course, the much bigger gains come if Obama does the damage to the bond market and the USD that I suspect is inevitable.
Of course, if you (dedicated “sceptic” that you are) don’t know Tom Harris exists….that kinda means he’s failing miserably.
An encouraging sign I suppose…
I wouldn’t bet on that. The US voter has already figured out the AGW scam is about power and money and has nothing to do with climate.
My vacation ends today and since I am amongst the lucky with a full time job, my excess spare time comes to an end.
Good for you. A job builds character and teaches good habits, particularly if performance matters. It will be good for you to earn a few bucks and get out of your mom’s basement and on your own.
I can’t dally any longer in your ‘pretend it isn’t happening world’.
You are confused. I have always maintained that the world is a dynamic non-linear system that is always in flux. You seem to deny that and believe that there is some ideal equilibrium that is defined by temperatures from the 1940s to the 1970s.
Your world of pretend and little truths is much like trying to fit a size 10 dress on a 800 pound gorilla. Besides not fitting, you’re going to make him really mad.
That is a little weak. Even for you.
Well e-Vangel I don’t have much time but I’ll say this…
You are still in a pretend cherry picked world.
You cherry picked what my glacier link had to say, but that’s ok since anybody lurking about has the same opportunity to click the same link and read what it says in its entirety.
As in, why it can’t retreat any more because of the shallowing of the fjord that it occupies and that other glaciers in deep fjords will continue to retreat.
Of course the south eastern Greenland glaciers that have stopped retreating are still flowing.
They haven’t quit.
They are still emitting a lot of ice.
Something like 100 cu km per year.
BTW, you’ve heard about Petermann Glacier?
Extreme north western Greenland?
Estimated 100 sq km 5 billion tonne ice cube about to be dumped any day now?
It’s a little bigger than last year’s 25 sq km cube.
Your source for Polar 5 is still a radio station…nothing more.
You seem to think a radio station out ranks Scence Centric and Research in Germany.
Right…whatever you say…not.
I will wait for the official results, but I think I’ve already said that now haven’t I?
What is it about you with the airplanes?
They were covered with snow.
It accumulated over the years.
End of story I would of thought.
I made no side statements about AGW.
The aircraft are simply located on a coastal area where it snows alot.
Then you go off ranting about cults.
It snows alot in a quite a few places.
Buffalo NY for instance.
They deal with it.
They understand the details about heavy snow in a coastal/marine environment.
It’s pretty obvious that you don’t.
And what would you consider material from the green industry to be?
Money saving coupons for thermostats, shower heads and those twisty light bulbs?
Oops, guilty. Get them all the time.
I like saving money when I buy something and I love it when the items I buy saves me money.
People like Greenpiece?…naw. I guess they don’t know my address.
“And I need no payment for arguing for the truth.”
I’m beginning to think that you are Tom Harris.
And finally:
“…and get you out of your mom’s basement and on your own.”
Was that supposed to be an insult?
I haven’t had a laugh over something like that in a long time.
Consider the first 3 letters of the word ASSume.
You ASSume that I’m some wet behind the ears punk just beginning to learn which way is up.
You’ve lead us to believe that you have young children at home…once a son with the flu.
Unless you had a late start in life as a family man I’m going to guess you might be in your thirties.
If that’s true I was turning wheels in a truck before you drew your first breath.
An eighteen wheeler not a Tonka toy.
Yeah Vangel, I’m just an ordinary truck driver and I’ve been drawing a pay cheque before you were even thought of.
LOL!
—-
TomG
Well e-Vangel I don’t have much time but I’ll say this…
You are still in a pretend cherry picked world.
You cherry picked what my glacier link had to say, but that’s ok since anybody lurking about has the same opportunity to click the same link and read what it says in its entirety.
It isn’t cherry picking. It is called reading. The article makes it clear that the loss of ice from Greenland is poorly understood. As such, you can’t go around making up statements that imply an understanding that isn’t there. You are also engaging in cherry picking when you isolate a handful of glaciers when the world has more than 10,000 of them, particularly when some are clearly growing and when observations show that the retreats are not unusual and that they have happened in the past.
As in, why it can’t retreat any more because of the shallowing of the fjord that it occupies and that other glaciers in deep fjords will continue to retreat.
As I pointed out before, reports about the 2007/2008 survey at the 2009 AGU meeting made it clear that the speed-up came to an end. As Tavi Murray stated, the glaciers, “sped up and slowed down together. They’re not in runaway acceleration.” The Greenland panic is just another in a series of false catastrophes that were manufactured by the AGW industry and exposed by careful observation.
Of course the south eastern Greenland glaciers that have stopped retreating are still flowing.
They haven’t quit.
They are still emitting a lot of ice.
Something like 100 cu km per year.
Why should glaciers ‘quit?’ There is plenty of snow falling and packed into ice. That ice pushes the glaciers outward and they flow into the sea. And in the summer some portions of the glaciers melt as they always have on this planet.
BTW, you’ve heard about Petermann Glacier?
Extreme north western Greenland?
Estimated 100 sq km 5 billion tonne ice cube about to be dumped any day now?
It’s a little bigger than last year’s 25 sq km cube.”
The Petermann Glacier has been around for a long time and will still be around a long time into the future. There is nothing unusual about any of the activity that we are observing. And I don’t know what you mean by the word ‘dumped’ because the Petermann Glacier has a huge section that is already floating. If that section melts nothing happens to sea levels just as nothing happens to the level in a glass when the ice cubes melt.
Your source for Polar 5 is still a radio station…nothing more.
You seem to think a radio station out ranks Scence Centric and Research in Germany.
Right…whatever you say…not.
I will wait for the official results, but I think I’ve already said that now haven’t I?
The scientists made it clear that the ice was a lot thicker than what was expected. I guess we can wait until the results are ‘adjusted’ to fit the expectations but I doubt that will matter very much. As I said, the experts were a tad off and according to the scientists interviewed the ice turned out to be 100% thicker than expected.
What is it about you with the airplanes?
They were covered with snow.
It accumulated over the years.
End of story I would of thought.
Yes, end of story. We know that the ice grew more than 200 feet thicker over 50 years. That provides a counter argument to the ice is melting scare being pushed by the AGW industry.
I made no side statements about AGW.
The aircraft are simply located on a coastal area where it snows alot.
Then you go off ranting about cults.
It snows alot in a quite a few places.
Buffalo NY for instance.
They deal with it.
They understand the details about heavy snow in a coastal/marine environment.
It’s pretty obvious that you don’t.
The last time I was in Buffalo I didn’t notice any glaciers. And that is my point; it snows in many places in Greenland. That snow makes the ice thicker and the pressures from the ice accumulation pushes the glacier ice out towards the sea. This is natural and has happened time after time long before SUVs were adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
The aeroplanes provide a clear and known reference point that show exactly what has happened to the ice in the area. It grew because it snowed and the accumulated snow builds up over time. A warmer planet will mean more moisture in the atmosphere and will mean more snow falling over Greenland. It would take a huge amount of warming to offset the increase of snowfall so the scare stories being pushed by Gore and the AGW make no sense even in theory.
And what would you consider material from the green industry to be?
Articles that create temperatures where there is no data. Articles that use bad methods and faulty statistics to hide real world observations. Outright lies. Claims that cannot be supported by real science.
Money saving coupons for thermostats, shower heads and those twisty light bulbs?
Oops, guilty. Get them all the time.
I like saving money when I buy something and I love it when the items I buy saves me money.
By all means try to save money by making a voluntary choice to cut back on energy. Many of us did that a long time ago. But voluntary choices are something different than regulatory mandates that eliminate choices and transfer wealth from consumers to special interest groups and corporations. That is what I have a problem with.
I’m beginning to think that you are Tom Harris.
I notice that facts don’t seem to matter to you because what you feel and think are more important than the reality.
You ASSume that I’m some wet behind the ears punk just beginning to learn which way is up.
No. I know that you have a serious problem with facts and logic. You can be old and foolish just as easily as being young and foolish. And raw intellectual ability is usually not a factor. I have run into some very smart idiots in my time.
You’ve lead us to believe that you have young children at home…once a son with the flu.
Kids have a tendency to get sick. Mine seem to have a problem washing their hands often enough so they tend to get the flu more often than I would like.
Unless you had a late start in life as a family man I’m going to guess you might be in your thirties.
You are a bit off. I am in my late forties. My first son was born when I was in my late thirties.
If that’s true I was turning wheels in a truck before you drew your first breath.
An eighteen wheeler not a Tonka toy.
Yeah Vangel, I’m just an ordinary truck driver and I’ve been drawing a pay cheque before you were even thought of.
I am a bit surprised by that. Most truck drivers that I have known have a lot more common sense. They do not fall for hype and lies the way that academic types tend to. And few truck drivers that I know would be calling for higher fuel taxes and lower economic activity because they like to continue to draw pay cheques.
Of course, if you were a truck driver that would explain why you know so little about the actual science and the real world observations.
—-
Dropped.
—-
Just because we’re having a mini ice age, doesn’t mean we should forget about the environment impact of our actions. The temperature of the Earth will naturally fluctuate, but the POINT is we shouldn’t make these changes worse, which is what will happen. It’s just that people have been so badly affected by it this year, especially the Eurostar travellers this year…
Jen.
You do realise this was a rather old thread with no-one on it? Why did you post on it and wake up vangel?
Ebbsfleet
Just because we’re having a mini ice age, doesn’t mean we should forget about the environment impact of our actions. The temperature of the Earth will naturally fluctuate, but the POINT is we shouldn’t make these changes worse, which is what will happen. It’s just that people have been so badly affected by it this year, especially the Eurostar travellers this year…
Jen.
Nobody is claiming that we should not respect the environment. The sceptics simply point out that the proposed measures suggested by the IPCC and governments will not have any positive noticeable effect even if the models are correct. The temperatures would not be noticeably different if CO2 emissions were cut as proposed but because we would all be a lot poorer there would be less money to fund other efforts to improve local environments.
The fact is that the science shows AGW to be a scam. The proponents of the myth are eager to jump up and down, write all kinds of personal attacks, and shout as loud as they can about the science having been settled, but are somehow unable to point to a single credible paper that uses empirical data to support the notion that changes in CO2 concentrations are an important driver of temperatures. (For their part, the sceptics are happy to point to the very ice core studies that Al Gore used to show that CO2 concentration is the effect, not the cause of change in temperature trends.) An even bigger problem for the AGW movement’s credibility is the inability to reproduce the published temperature reconstruction from the original global data set. All those reconstructions that we see from various sources come from the adjusted data that came from CRU, which has resisted all requests to make its original data available to independent researchers.
The bottom line is that unless we can see original data and come up with the same conclusions as the IPCC, we cannot even agree if the world is warmer now than it was during the 1930s. And if we have not seen statistically significant increases since the 1930s why are we so worried about CO2 emissions when there are serious environmental problems that should be looked at instead?
Odd that Greenfyre let this through. [1]
Listen, it is very simple: the RAW (as well as the corrected) data you so desperately look for is available at the Global Historical Climate Network. You can download the code for GISTEMP, so you can check how it handles the data from GHCN. We have SEVERAL independent groups using the same data from GHCN coming to the same conclusion: it is statistically significantly warmer this decade than the 1930s.
HADCRU is NOT THE PROVIDER OF DATA. If somebody is feeding you that nonsense, call him out for being the fraud he is. HADCRU uses data from the GHCN. An extra 5% of its data comes from Meteorological Organisations that require payment for most people to use its data.
Contrary to your desired outcome, the warming effect of GHGs, including CO2, is now well and firmly established. The self-declared skeptics who point to CO2 rises as merely a result of warming can’t explain the magnitude of the observed temperature increases. They can’t explain why the temperatures were not MUCH lower during several of the ice ages, especially those in the distant past (without invoking the Greenhouse effect, most of the billions of years of the earth’s existence, it should have been one giant iceball). They can’t even explain the observed stratospheric cooling, which contradicts any solar influence, unless they invoke the Greenhouse effect. Finally, everyone who pays a little bit of attention knows that the tropospheric hotspot HAS been observed, but those articles are conveniently ignored by self-styled ‘skeptics’.
—-
Vangel once again shows that he is completely ignorant of science, climate science in particular.
Time to read some honest texts instead of parroting what you cut and paste from your favorite denier web sites.
Listen, it is very simple: the RAW (as well as the corrected) data you so desperately look for is available at the Global Historical Climate Network. You can download the code for GISTEMP, so you can check how it handles the data from GHCN. We have SEVERAL independent groups using the same data from GHCN coming to the same conclusion: it is statistically significantly warmer this decade than the 1930s.
First, as I wrote before, some of the data that is necessary to do the reconstruction is not available. Phil Jones, after spending years fighting information requests, claimed that he destroyed much of the pre-1980 data. That is what the FOI argument is all about and if you want to read more about it I suggest that you follow the story at CA.
Second, the data for the US is certainly not showing any warming since the 1930s. And if you look at the Australian data you find that it agrees with the US temperatures. The Australian data came from ‘adjustments’ to the original temperature measurements, not from the measurements themselves.
Below is the GHCN data for Darwin.
Here is what the adjustment does to the cooling trend.
You can read about it here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
AS for the US data, Hansen and his colleagues at GISS admitted that, “The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.” In 2007, after Steve McIntyre caught an error that was made by GISS, Hansen had to admit that the top warmest years, in order, were, 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939. Of course the data will be changed again and for some undisclosed reason Hansen will figure out a way to lower the temperatures from the past and to make the current readings look higher than they are.
If you look, you will see the NOAA’s minor adjustment to the US data. It adds about a 0.5F artificial signal to the actual measurements but for some reason has a hard time explaining why some of the changes are made.
I don’t know about you, but I would be interested in figuring out why the data handlers took a cooling trend from a station that has been in the same place for around 100 years and turned a cooling trend into one that showed warming. The bottom line is that the man made warming is not due to CO2 emissions but to computer adjustments. It isn’t real but only exists in the imagination of a few people who miscalculated their ability to keep their manipulation from being exposed.
You keep digging yourself into further LIES. First you claimed ALL data used by everyone else came from HADCRU. You did not even acknowledge that this was a lie. Then the 5% of the non-available data, which only affects some areas of the HADCRU reconstruction: you can reconstruct just about all grids without that data. Of course, that 5% data is under confidentiality agreements, and handing out that data would constitute A CRIME.
Moreover, Phil Jones never destroyed data. They did remove pre-1980s RAW data in the early 1980s, because they already had the value-added data and were not a repository of raw data. That data is available at GHCN and at the individual meteorological organisations.
The fact you point to Willis Eschenbachs FRAUDULENT analysis of the data at Darwin is even more laughable. The one station Eschenbach screams about has been moved several times, has seen the introduction of a screen, it has even been bombarded away!
Oh, and please tell birds, glaciers, beetles, plants, and farmers that their behavior is at odds with your claims. They should start listening to you and stop altering their migration patterns, stop melting, stop moving northward, stop flowering earlier and earlier, and stop having to shift their periods of sowing. Since there is no warming, they shouldn’t be doing all that, right, Vangel?
Vangel’s pattern of internet lies and frauds hasn’t changed.
He trolls and spams and frolicks 24/7 and a favourite strategy is to deliberately quote out of context.
“The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.”
Climate change is not being questioned in that paper. Quite the opposite.
That is from From ‘Whither U.S. Climate‘, Hansen et al (1999).
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
The research question raised in that paper was: How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the “answer” is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far.
It is now 2010 and the U.S. has been experiencing record highs for the last decade – as predicted in the same paper.
You keep digging yourself into further LIES. First you claimed ALL data used by everyone else came from HADCRU.
No. I claim that there is no independent global data set that is available to do a full reconstruction. To get some of the data from certain places you will need to go to CRU and use what they keep. The problem is that the original data that was used to create the global data set has been destroyed. (I did not make the last part up. It was announced by Phil Jones.)
You did not even acknowledge that this was a lie. Then the 5% of the non-available data, which only affects some areas of the HADCRU reconstruction: you can reconstruct just about all grids without that data. Of course, that 5% data is under confidentiality agreements, and handing out that data would constitute A CRIME.
It if was a crime, why was it shared with some sympathetic researchers? You might be more credible if you kept your story straight.
Moreover, Phil Jones never destroyed data. They did remove pre-1980s RAW data in the early 1980s, because they already had the value-added data and were not a repository of raw data. That data is available at GHCN and at the individual meteorological organisations.
Phil Jones said that the data was destroyed. Period. End of story.
When that did not go over well, the story was changed slightly. I do not believe it because the CRU e-mails show that Jones is a liar and that he conspired to commit a criminal act by avoiding the FOI Act requirements.
The fact you point to Willis Eschenbachs FRAUDULENT analysis of the data at Darwin is even more laughable. The one station Eschenbach screams about has been moved several times, has seen the introduction of a screen, it has even been bombarded away!
The raw data supports Willis. He did a great job so the warmers attacked him instead of coming up with valid arguments against his work. As I pointed out, the GHCN showed a cooling trend. The adjustment changed that into warming.
Oh, and please tell birds, glaciers, beetles, plants, and farmers that their behavior is at odds with your claims.
I can’t tell the birds much because they have gone south due to the extreme cold. And it might help you if you looked at historical records. We still can’t grow grapes as far north in the UK as we could during Roman times or during the MWP. And the last time I looked the Chinese orange groves were still hundreds of kilometres south of their position during the MWP.
They should start listening to you and stop altering their migration patterns, stop melting, stop moving northward, stop flowering earlier and earlier, and stop having to shift their periods of sowing. Since there is no warming, they shouldn’t be doing all that, right, Vangel?
As I said, there is nothing usual in what we are seeing. There were stories about Arctic ice melting away in the 1920s and 1930s and it was much warmer during the MWP. What part of the phrase, ‘natural variation,’ do you have trouble understanding?
“No. I claim that there is no independent global data set that is available to do a full reconstruction.”
Which is a LIE. The GHCN offers a global data set that is available to do a full reconstruction of global temperatures.
“To get some of the data from certain places you will need to go to CRU and use what they keep.”
Another lie (#2). You need to go to GHCN and several meteorological organisations. THEY are the gatekeepers of the original data.
“The problem is that the original data that was used to create the global data set has been destroyed. (I did not make the last part up. It was announced by Phil Jones.)”
Repetition of lie 2. The original data is available at the meteorological societies.
“It if was a crime, why was it shared with some sympathetic researchers? You might be more credible if you kept your story straight.”
The raw data was not handed over to ‘sympathetic researchers’. Lie 3. It was a file containing *homogenised data*. McIntyre, hardly on any list of ‘sympathetic researchers’, received it, too.
“Phil Jones said that the data was destroyed. Period. End of story.”
You said Phil Jones destroyed the data. He didn’t. Lie 4.
“When that did not go over well, the story was changed slightly. I do not believe it because the CRU e-mails show that Jones is a liar and that he conspired to commit a criminal act by avoiding the FOI Act requirements.”
He conspired to avoid the obvious abuse of the FOI Act.
“The raw data supports Willis. He did a great job so the warmers attacked him instead of coming up with valid arguments against his work. As I pointed out, the GHCN showed a cooling trend. The adjustment changed that into warming.”
Willis admitted, openly, that he knows corrections are often necessary. Raw data is worth zilch if you do not correct for obvious and known biases. Willis KNEW that. And yet he decided not to look at the required corrections:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
“I can’t tell the birds much because they have gone south due to the extreme cold.”
And yet they have been going fewer and fewer kilometers south over the last few decades.
“And it might help you if you looked at historical records. We still can’t grow grapes as far north in the UK as we could during Roman times or during the MWP.”
Lie number 5. http://www.winelandsofbritain.co.uk/lecture.htm
Look at the map, they ARE further north than during the MWP. It’s also an outdated map, (commercial!) vinyards are already much further north today, such as one in Leeds (which is at the 2050 line on the map).
“And the last time I looked the Chinese orange groves were still hundreds of kilometres south of their position during the MWP.”
Care to provide evidence? Your history of factual accuracy is, to put it midly, not impressive. You’ll have to be significantly above the Yangtze river.
“As I said, there is nothing usual in what we are seeing. There were stories about Arctic ice melting away in the 1920s and 1930s and it was much warmer during the MWP. What part of the phrase, ‘natural variation,’ do you have trouble understanding?”
It was much warmer during the MWP…sigh. If you meant globally, you lie (#5).
Vangel shows us that he is living in a fairy tale world where truth in his world becomes lies, where nonsense is accepted as fact. What a weird world you live in, how do you mange to actually get through a day at work or at home without getting so lost you never appear again? (wishful thinking on my part).
He trolls and spams and frolicks 24/7 and a favourite strategy is to deliberately quote out of context.
“The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.”
Climate change is not being questioned in that paper. Quite the opposite….
I took nothing out of context. I simply pointed out that even Hansen, a true believer in AGW, had to admit that the US did not warm over a sixty year period during which CO2 emissions exploded. NASA claims that global temperatures warmed but that conclusion depends on CRU being right and honest. Given the fact that nobody has been able to reconstruct the same temperature profile from the original surface data the reconstruction does not pass the smell test. (In science results have to be reproducible.)
And I have already stated how you can convince me about AGW. Stop talking about consensus and provide credible objective evidence that shows that CO2 emissions drive temperature change. I keep asking but you and your AGW pals keep avoiding the issue and have never been able to provide the evidence.
Vangel is promulgating lies, as you would expect.
1) CRU has nothing to do with NASA GISS – they both take the same raw data, process it in slightly different ways, and get broadly similar answers. The CRU hack does not affect this in any way.
2) Results are reproducible, if you actually know what you are doing, as you don’t.
3) CO2 drives temperature change, as noted by the likes of Arhenius and others since then.
Ian:
Vangel shows us that he is living in a fairy tale world where truth in his world becomes lies, where nonsense is accepted as fact. What a weird world you live in, how do you mange to actually get through a day at work or at home without getting so lost you never appear again? (wishful thinking on my part).
Show credible evidence that CO2 has been the driver of temperature change and you might have some credibility. Until you do all you have is faith.
Vangel, for goodness sake, CO2 has been shown to be a greenhouse gas for over 150 years. Do you know what it means to be a greenhouse gas? Didn’t think so.
You are so very wrong that is past being comical.
You never studied science did you? I hope not since it would say very bad things about your educational institute if you had studied science since climate science is pretty simple science (it is the interpretation and statistics used which get a bit complicated). Simple science tell us that CO2 allows more heat (energy) to be retained by the atmosphere than would be retained with either less or no CO2, thus causing temperatures to be higher. It is that simple.
Other potential drivers have been examined and they have not varied enough to be responsible for the recent rise in temperatures.
I’m freezing this thread until I’ve had a chance to catch up.
S2
[…] There are a lot of blogs dedicated to climate change and some of them spend a lot of time dealing with the denial meme. Greenfyre’s has a new entry on these deniars, Climate Change, Lies, Lies, Lies. […]