Global Warming Thread XI

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:11 am

KeithE wrote:For your reading and listening and studying pleasure.

Abraham vs Monckton

Goodness, Keith, are you just now getting around to finding John Abraham's juvenile attack on one of Christopher Monckton global warming presentations? Abraham’s 83-minute lecture with 115 slides purported to demolish a talk about climate change that Lord Monckton had given in St. Paul, Minnesota, in October 2009. But he failed miserably. It was "pleasurable" to the warmists, but filled with lies and propaganda.

Abraham is a lightweight in climate change debates. In boxing parlance, he is a strawweight. Monckton, on the other hand, is a heavyweight. He's the alarmists' worst nightmare. No one can hold a candle to him when it comes to talking global warming & climate change. Al Gore and the world of global warming alarmism are intimidated by him. Back in April of 2009, the Democrats refused to allow Monckton to testify alongside Gore at a Congressional hearing. Such is their fear of probably the most prominent skeptic on the globe. It's rather humorous to watch the warmists (Gore & friends) squirm and refuse to debate him.

Anyway, in July Monckton responded to Abraham's lecture with a 99 page written reply that exposed Abraham shallow knowledge of the truth global warming/climate change. In essence, Monckton destroyed Abraham's lecture by taking it apart slide by slide and almost sentence by sentence.

I am posting this, to borrow your words, for your reading and listening and studying pleasure. :D

      Image
      . .John Abraham. . . . . . . . .Christopher Monckton
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't really expect that you'll take time to view these YouTube clips of Monckton refuting Abraham, but here they are. Perhaps a lurker or two might take the time to view a few of them. They're excellent...

User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby KeithE » Sun Nov 14, 2010 9:26 am

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:For your reading and listening and studying pleasure.

Abraham vs Monckton

Goodness, Keith, are you just now getting around to finding John Abraham's juvenile attack on one of Christopher Monckton global warming presentations? Abraham’s 83-minute lecture with 115 slides purported to demolish a talk about climate change that Lord Monckton had given in St. Paul, Minnesota, in October 2009. But he failed miserably. It was "pleasurable" to the warmists, but filled with lies and propaganda.

Abraham is a lightweight in climate change debates. In boxing parlance, he is a strawweight. Monckton, on the other hand, is a heavyweight. He's the alarmists' worst nightmare. No one can hold a candle to him when it comes to talking global warming & climate change. Al Gore and the world of global warming alarmism are intimidated by him. Back in April of 2009, the Democrats refused to allow Monckton to testify alongside Gore at a Congressional hearing. Such is their fear of probably the most prominent skeptic on the globe. It's rather humorous to watch the warmists (Gore & friends) squirm and refuse to debate him.

Anyway, in July Monckton responded to Abraham's lecture with a 99 page written reply that exposed Abraham shallow knowledge of the truth global warming/climate change. In essence, Monckton destroyed Abraham's lecture by taking it apart slide by slide and almost sentence by sentence.

I am posting this, to borrow your words, for your reading and listening and studying pleasure. :D

      Image
      . .John Abraham. . . . . . . . .Christopher Monckton
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't really expect that you'll take time to view these YouTube clips of Monckton refuting Abraham, but here they are. Perhaps a lurker or two might take the time to view a few of them. They're excellent...



Monckton is a classics professor and adept at speaking. He is also a RW idealogue who thinks unfettered free enetrprise is nearly always the best course. That explains his amatuerish attempts at debunking GW and AGW.

He has an integrity problem in that he cherry picked data from 2002 to 2008 to claim the earth is cooling.

GISS data:
Image

If you claim "cooling" for the slight decrease (~0.1C, about the 1 sigma noise level shown with the green bar ) from 2002 to 2008, you must point out the much higher increases from 1976 to 1998 (~0.6C) and from 1910 to 1943 (~0.45C) if you have any integrity at all. There was also a decrease ( ~.3C) from 1943- 1976.

Looking at the 5 year averages (red line) is to be preferred to take out some of the noise caused by such events as El Nino's/La Nina's/volcanoes. When one does that, you see that the so-called "cooling" was only the small downward blip (perhaps as little as 0.02C) around 2005. Overall it has increased ~0.85C from 1880 until 2009. As for now from last Oct 2009 through Sept 2010, the temp anomaly is 0.655C (off the graph), but that is only one point. In fact that warming began in earnest in July 2009. If Monckton continues to claim only the latest several years matter, he certainly would have recanted his 2008 article by now. He hasn't.

The so-called "alarmists" are very careful not to overstate things and usually only claim a 0.7C increase from the pre-industrial days although some are saying (with justification) 0.8C. The so-called "denialists" spout off when changes (to their liking) occur even when those changes are within the noise level; they are mum when it goes the other way even when that magnitude is much larger. Spencer does the same thing with his satellite data which when you look at it in it's entireity since 1979 supports the trends (including monthly upturns/downturns) quite well - see below:
Image
I know I have plotted this before and said this before, but David has not really faced up to the facts. Both the ground direct measurements (GISS above and Hadley) and the Satellite data (both UAH reduced and RSS reduced) are self confirming (if one is wrong they all are wrong) and there is a substantial trend since 1980 in all of this data and that upward data trend extends back into the 1800's for the direct measurements as reduced by both GISS and Hadley. In fact that trend (over the 1880-2010 of .065C/decade) is at least 6 times faster that ever witnessed ever during deglaciation periods (16 times faster if one restricts the trend to 1979-2010 of 0.18C/decade). If David cries "but that is Wikipedia"; well note that the sources of the raw data are given here.

I have listened to Monckton's first video and he is continuing in his rhetoric (no DATA) saying Abraham did not give him the courtesy of a response prior to making his video. Maybe true, I do not know. I doubt that the good Lord asked mainstream scientists about his cherry-picking argument before he went public with his 2008 article. But thus is the hyprocrisy of the AGWD crowd (anthropogenic global warming deniers).

Abraham has asked for a debate and what did Monckton do? Did he inform Abraham to discuss it before publishing as he says any good sceintist would do? No. He called it libelious in the press and tried to get Abraham's university to censure him and remove his video from their website. Read about it here and here and here. The university has rallied to his defense.

I'll listen to more of the good Lord's high sounding rhetoric, but I do so with much doubt about his scientific/data analysis abilities and his integrity.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9211
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:15 am

.
.
Next Friday is the first anniversary of the Climategate scandal. The climate change scare is dying. The Chicago Carbon Exchange folded. Carbon is worth a nickel a ton. The the warmist position on climate change is in a state of collapse. Things couldn't be worse for them...

The climate change scare is dying, but do our MPs notice?
By Christopher Booker

Nothing more poignantly reflects the collapse of the great global warming scare than the decision of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, the largest in the world, to stop trading in "carbon" – buying and selling the right of businesses to continue emitting CO2.

A few years back, when the climate scare was still at its height, and it seemed the world might agree the Copenhagen Treaty and the US Congress might pass a "cap and trade" bill, it was claimed that the Chicago Exchange would be at the centre of a global market worth $10 trillion a year, and that "carbon" would be among the most valuable commodities on earth, worth more per ton than most metals. Today, after the collapse of Copenhagen and the cap and trade bill, the carbon price, at five cents a ton, is as low as it can get without being worthless.

Here in Britain, as the first snows fall, heralding what may be our fourth cold winter in a row, it is time we addressed one of the most glaring political "disconnects" in our sadly misgoverned country.

Next Friday is the first anniversary of the leaking of the "Climategate" emails – the correspondence of a small group of scientists at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). By exposing their manipulation of data and suppression of dissent, these called their reputation as disinterested scientists seriously into question. But that was only the first in a series of events that, in the past year, saw the climate scare going off the rails.

Continue reading...

.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby KeithE » Mon Nov 15, 2010 7:00 am

David Flick wrote:Next Friday is the first anniversary of the Climategate scandal. The climate change scare is dying. The Chicago Carbon Exchange folded. Carbon is worth a nickel a ton. The the warmist position on climate change is in a state of collapse. Things couldn't be worse for them...


Meanwhile the temperatures of the earth's lower atmosphere keeps rising since May 2008 according to the satellite DATA.

Image

Looking at the 13 month averages (red line), we have a temperature rate of (0.5-0.06)/2 years = .22C/year = 2.2C/decade. And David is crowing that the "climate change scare is dying".

Now not even I think the 2.2C/decade will be sustained. But 0.2C/decade (0.5 - (-0.1))/3 decades) like the long term trend above is likely. That is a larger rate than earth has ever experienced. It is just interesting how David crows at all the wrong times (if he would value DATA more than the "hot air" from the denialist crowd like journalist Christopher Booker ).

BTW, "cap and trade" is not a good workable solution and thus the end of the Chicago Carbon Exchange. "Cap" is better like the world accomplished wrt CFC's to take care of the ozone hole. And that is essentially the new harder-line approach the Obama administration has been taking by declaring CO2 a pollutant that needs controlled emission (aka "caps") via the existing Clean Air Act. Read about it here. Unfortunately not at all sure that the new congress will take a serious stand on GW and there will be attempts to end this harder-line approach. But leave it to the denialist propaganda machine to cast the closure of the Chicago Carbon Exchange (CCX) as a sign of the death of the GW movement when it really is a sign of a new harder-line, necessary stand following that of Europe and Japan. Just hope and pray it is not too late.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9211
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby Ed Edwards » Mon Nov 15, 2010 7:50 pm

Tee Hee, the language & science might be to much for some.

There is lots of difference between:

the Earth's temperature is going down
and
the Earth's temperature is going up more slowly.

And the classic 1976 statement "leading scientists predict a new (hopefully short) ICE AGE"
cannot be used for much of an "anti-Global Warming" argument. If the the temperature is
supposed to "go down" but is going up slowly -- that is a proof for GLOBAL WARMING.
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

more: XI: Global Warming Thread

Postby Ed Edwards » Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:14 pm

THE NEXT 200 YEARS
A Scenario for America and the World
by Herman Kahn, et. all
(William Morrow and Company, Inc; 1976)
ISBN 0-688-08029-4 - paperback edition

The Difficult Long Term Environment chapter:

p175 // ... it is necessazry to improve substantially the simulations and calculations of natural heat-balance changes as well as the effects from man's activities in order to achieve sufficient understanding of these phenomena. And there would seem to be plenty of time to do this -- and even to take corrective action if necessary. \\

Yes, the future is just not what it used to be :-)
Now in 2010 there is not enough time to continue to study; time has come to do something. And the One World Economy (there is just one, you know -- I know i get personally pinched when Greece has an enocomic crises -- but it isn't through the 20 Denarius coin I hold ;-)

p 176 // This increase in CO2, concievably has one main effect -- the trapping of long-wave infrared radiation from the surface of the earth ... The observed increase in average global temperature of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit btaween 1850 and 1940 was attributed to this cause (fossil fuel). ... It has been calculated that a doubling of the CO2 content would lead to an increase in average temperature of 4 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit, but it seems unlikely now that the carbon dioxide content will ever double unless mankind wants it to happen ... a carbon dioxide catastrophe does not appear to be imminent. \\

In 2010 the catastrophe is upon us.

p 174 // ... a 3 percent annual growth in energy consumption could liberate enough heat to cause the oceans to boil after about 350 years. \\

Please note that 350 is several election cycles down the road, even today.
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby KeithE » Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:53 pm

Ed Edwards wrote:Tee Hee, the language & science might be to much for some.

There is lots of difference between:

the Earth's temperature is going down
and
the Earth's temperature is going up more slowly.

And the classic 1976 statement "leading scientists predict a new (hopefully short) ICE AGE"
cannot be used for much of an "anti-Global Warming" argument. If the the temperature is
supposed to "go down" but is going up slowly -- that is a proof for GLOBAL WARMING.

That's a good point Ed. The Miklanovitch cycles have us going down in temperature (slowly but surely). The warming we have witnessed is not only faster than ever but also over a counter trend of natural cooling.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9211
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby KeithE » Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:43 pm

Monckton Refutes Abraham: Introduction wrote:
David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:For your reading and listening and studying pleasure.

Abraham vs Monckton

Goodness, Keith, are you just now getting around to finding John Abraham's juvenile attack on one of Christopher Monckton global warming presentations? Abraham’s 83-minute lecture with 115 slides purported to demolish a talk about climate change that Lord Monckton had given in St. Paul, Minnesota, in October 2009. But he failed miserably. It was "pleasurable" to the warmists, but filled with lies and propaganda.

Abraham is a lightweight in climate change debates. In boxing parlance, he is a strawweight. Monckton, on the other hand, is a heavyweight. He's the alarmists' worst nightmare. No one can hold a candle to him when it comes to talking global warming & climate change. Al Gore and the world of global warming alarmism are intimidated by him. Back in April of 2009, the Democrats refused to allow Monckton to testify alongside Gore at a Congressional hearing. Such is their fear of probably the most prominent skeptic on the globe. It's rather humorous to watch the warmists (Gore & friends) squirm and refuse to debate him.

Anyway, in July Monckton responded to Abraham's lecture with a 99 page written reply that exposed Abraham shallow knowledge of the truth global warming/climate change. In essence, Monckton destroyed Abraham's lecture by taking it apart slide by slide and almost sentence by sentence.

I am posting this, to borrow your words, for your reading and listening and studying pleasure. :D

      Image
      . .John Abraham. . . . . . . . .Christopher Monckton
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't really expect that you'll take time to view these YouTube clips of Monckton refuting Abraham, but here they are. Perhaps a lurker or two might take the time to view a few of them. They're excellent...



Monckton is a classics professor and adept at speaking. He is also a RW idealogue who thinks unfettered free enetrprise is nearly always the best course. That explains his amatuerish attempts at debunking GW and AGW.

He has an integrity problem in that he cherry picked data from 2002 to 2008 to claim the earth is cooling.

{snip the proof of his cherry picking - look above}

I have listened to Monckton's first video and he is continuing in his rhetoric (no DATA) saying Abraham did not give him the courtesy of a response prior to making his video. Maybe true, I do not know. I doubt that the good Lord asked mainstream scientists about his cherry-picking argument before he went public with his 2008 article. But thus is the hyprocrisy of the AGWD crowd (anthropogenic global warming deniers).

Abraham has asked for a debate and what did Monckton do? Did he inform Abraham to discuss it before publishing as he says any good sceintist would do? No. He called it libelious in the press and tried to get Abraham's university to censure him and remove his video from their website. Read about it here and here and here. The university has rallied to his defense.

I'll listen to more of the good Lord's high sounding rhetoric, but I do so with much doubt about his scientific/data analysis abilities and his integrity.


Well I will take the time to dissect Monckton's refutations - it's kinda fun.

Let's take on Monckton's lead-in argument he made (his slide 3 of his Oct 2009 talk in Minneapolis) where it says "We[GW alarmists] are all gonna lie" (later he uses "lah" for "lie") and for so-called evidence he quotes Sir John Houghton as saying "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen". This is found on segment 6 of Abraham video Abraham vs Monckton and further discussed in segments 7,8,9. Monckton gave no source for that quote at his original talk or his refutation after Abraham's video. Even Monckton's 99 page written reply did not provide the source for that quote (I e-searched it). Houghton has been asked and he denies it.

Now Christopher Booker (another UK based denialist) said it was from Sir John Houghton in Houghton's book "Global Warming: The Complete Handbook" - Read the fine print on segment 8 of Abraham. I have that book and it is not in it that I could find - Houghton does not discuss policy tactics at all, the closest chapter being chapter 10 "A strategy for action to slow and stabilize climate change". I re-read that chapter (it's mostly about Protocols and stabilization options, not public policy tactics) and scanned the book for other policy sections. That quote (or anythng like it) is not there. Booker did not provide his source by page number. Benny Peiser and Roger Helmer (2 other UK based denialists) said an apology should be given to Houghton unless that quote can be found - Read the fine print on segmemt 9 of Abraham.

Truth is Monckton probably dreampt this quote up because he desired that Houghton said it and thought it would be a good lead-in to his Oct 2009 talk. He has offered no defense and he has had several chances. So it turns out it is his "lah" until he can come up with the quote.

Another point - Abraham did write Monckton and Monckton sent some articles about this episode back to Abraham; but those articles (included in Abraham's video segments 8,9) do not supply the source of that supposed Houghton quote either. But in the Intro section of Monckton refutation repeated here: Monckton Refutes Abraham: Introduction, Monckton makes a big deal about Abraham never giving him the courtesy of responding to the points made in his talk before going public. Hmmm. Once again, he is making things up he wishes happened and denying events that did happen.

And just listening to Monckton talk about Abraham's "snide" comments when he does so much more of that sort of talk, well it is laughable and the height of hyprocrisy.

BTW, Monckton had just spoke to Congress in March 2009 on GW and it was only Joe Barton who invited him to speak again not the Bpxer committee. Congress is hardly the site for a Gore/Monckton debate and it was not cast in that light - another fabrication (not by Monckton but by Climate Depot).

Monckton's integrity is further in the dumps. David, admit it!

I'll tackle his scientific deductions and data analysis capabilities next (when I need some more fun).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9211
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:04 pm

KeithE wrote:1Monckton's integrity is further in the dumps. David, admit it!

2I'll tackle his scientific deductions and data analysis capabilities next (when I need some more fun).

1) In your wildest dreams, Keith. Monckton's integrity is intact. Like Al Gore's, Abraham's integrity is under water. Why should I admit a "lah" emanating from my favorite AGW alarmist... :lol:

2) You are exceedingly gullible. Enjoy yourself in in your nice little AGW fantasy world. :D
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:20 am

.
.
German Scientist: CO2 Not The Cause of Climate Change – Cold Period Is Anticipated
By P Gosselin on 16. November 2010

The European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) released a paper today written by German physicist Dr. Horst Borchert. The paper reveals a clear relation between solar activity and ocean cycles, and thus act as the main climate drivers. Measured data shows no CO2 impact on climate.

Continue...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby Jim » Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:52 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
German Scientist: CO2 Not The Cause of Climate Change – Cold Period Is Anticipated
By P Gosselin on 16. November 2010

The European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) released a paper today written by German physicist Dr. Horst Borchert. The paper reveals a clear relation between solar activity and ocean cycles, and thus act as the main climate drivers. Measured data shows no CO2 impact on climate.

Continue...

Back in May 2009 I chanced upon some interesting stuff regarding the climate in ultra-antiquity. It had to do with the time the experts say that the Tropics bordered the polar circles, obviously a time of global warmth absent all the human activity that the current alarmists blame for causing a bit of warming between 1975 and 1995, when evil people continued to heat the earth indiscriminately, but without dinosaurs and the like to help out a bit. Of course, 49 million years ago there might have been human loonies that drove vehicles and built things to the point of annihilating themselves and God had to start over. Anyway, a few choice words then about the state of Germany: Ode to Climate-Change.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby KeithE » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:19 am

David Flick wrote:2) You are exceedingly gullible. Enjoy yourself in in your nice little AGW fantasy world.


David Flick wrote:.
.
German Scientist: CO2 Not The Cause of Climate Change – Cold Period Is Anticipated
By P Gosselin on 16. November 2010

The European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) released a paper today written by German physicist Dr. Horst Borchert. The paper reveals a clear relation between solar activity and ocean cycles, and thus act as the main climate drivers. Measured data shows no CO2 impact on climate.

Continue...


Speaking of gullibility, David takes the cake. He immediately believes the conclusion of a third party (P Gossellin who keeps up a denialist web site) regarding this paper. The paper's abstract (in English, paper in German) contains some nuanced conclusions about the "relevance of CO2". Without reading the paper, conclusions like 'it's all due to the sun' are premature to say the least. But one fact stands clear, the statement of this third party
As a consequence the global temperature of the Southern Hemisphere, like the Northern Hemisphere, shows a stagnation and has a downward trend since about 2009.

is patently false. The Southern Hemisphere temps have increased markedly in 2009 and 2010. Data:
GISS Annual
Hadley Monthly

Every textbook I have says that solar effects (it's variable output, its sunspot 11 year cycle) are a minor GW forcings (1/10 of that due to ghg's) and does not explain earth's temps in magnitide of changes or trends (ghg's do explain it, in both theory and DATA). Let's wait and see what the scientific community says about Dr. Brochert's theories which are really not clear in his abstract alone. Heck let's wait and see if Dr. Brochert corrects P Gosselin's take on his paper. Sorry I don't read German, else I'd study it myself. I know I do not take a denialist (such as P Gosselin) word as final. I'm not that gullible. David jumps at each announcement coming from rabid denialist sources.

Now theories proven by real DATA, that can convince me. This theory (as interpreted by Gosselin) is not collaborated by the 2090/2010 Southern Hemisphere DATA, that much is clear. But I will research it more including similar thoughts by Svensmark as well as challenges to Svensmark (when I have time).
Mike Lockwood of the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Center in Switzerland published a paper in 2007 which concluded that the increase in mean global temperature observed since 1985 correlates so poorly with solar variability that no type of causal mechanism may be ascribed to it, although they accept that there is "considerable evidence" for solar influence on Earth's pre-industrial climate and to some degree also for climate changes in the first half of the 20th century.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9211
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:11 am

User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:50 am

KeithE wrote:
David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:For your reading and listening and studying pleasure.

1Monckton is a classics professor and adept at speaking. 2He is also a RW idealogue who thinks unfettered free enetrprise is nearly always the best course. 3That explains his amatuerish attempts at debunking GW and AGW.

    1) Obviously you haven't done the research on Monckton. You're simply regurgitating the feeble attempts of the alarmists to discredit him. He is a recognized expert on Climate change. Here's the real scoop on the man:
    Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK: -- Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986, and gave policy advice on technical issues such as warship hydrodynamics (his work led to his appointment as the youngest Trustee of the Hales Trophy for the Blue Riband of the Atlantic), psephological modeling (predicting the result of the 1983 General Election to within one seat), embryological research, hydrogeology (leading to the award of major financial assistance to a Commonwealth country for the construction of a very successful hydroelectric scheme), public-service investment analysis (leading to savings of tens of billions of pounds), public welfare modeling (his model of the UK tax and benefit system was, at the time, more detailed than the Treasury's economic model, and led to a major simplification of the housing benefit system), and epidemiological analysis. On leaving 10 Downing Street, he established a successful specialist consultancy company, giving technical advice to corporations and governments. His two articles in the Sunday Telegraph late in 2006 debunking the climate-change "consensus" received more hits to the newspaper's website than any other in the paper's history: the volume of hits caused the link to crash. His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA. He has lectured at university physics departments on the quantification of climate sensitivity, on which he is widely recognized as an expert, and his limpid analysis of the climate-feedback factor was published on the famous climate blog of Roger Pielke, Sr. His lecture to undergraduates at the Cambridge Union Society on climate change has been released by SPPI as Apocalypse? NO!, a full-length feature movie on high-definition DVD (available from http://www.greatswindle.com). Apocalypse? NO! been described by Professor Larry Gould of the University of Hartford, Connecticut, "as one of the best films ever made…" Source...

    2) Moncton may be a right winger, but an RW ideologue he definitely is not. He's a climate realist. Try as they might, the alarmists can't stop the rapid rise of climate realists. Anyway, there are many people who believe unfettered free enterprise is nearly always the best course. Nothing new there...

    3) Nothing amateurish about Monckton. Abraham is the amateur in this debate. Inasmuch as AGW doesn't exist he (Monckton) speaks truth in the current debate. Anthropogenic global warming is a myth. No one has ever documented or proved that global warming (climate change) is caused by human activity or the burning of fossil fuels. Not one person. It's a lame myth perpetrated entirely by the AGW alarmists. Until now --save for the the community of skeptics-- the gullible public has been thoroughly duped by the myth.
He has an integrity problem in that he cherry picked data from 2002 to 2008 to claim the earth is cooling.

    No cherry picking on of data on Monckton's part. Obviously you've missed out on the fact that there's been no global warming in the last decade (which stopped in 1998).
GISS data:
GISS graph

If you claim "cooling" for the slight decrease (~0.1C, about the 1 sigma noise level shown with the green bar ) from 2002 to 2008, you must point out the much higher increases from 1976 to 1998 (~0.6C) and from 1910 to 1943 (~0.45C) if you have any integrity at all. There was also a decrease ( ~.3C) from 1943- 1976.

Looking at the 5 year averages (red line) is to be preferred to take out some of the noise caused by such events as El Nino's/La Nina's/volcanoes. When one does that, you see that the so-called "cooling" was only the small downward blip (perhaps as little as 0.02C) around 2005. Overall it has increased ~0.85C from 1880 until 2009. As for now from last Oct 2009 through Sept 2010, the temp anomaly is 0.655C (off the graph), but that is only one point. In fact that warming began in earnest in July 2009. If Monckton continues to claim only the latest several years matter, he certainly would have recanted his 2008 article by now. He hasn't.

    Say what?? You say, "From last Oct 2009 through Sept 2010, the temp anomaly is 0.655C (off the graph)??" Where the heck did you come up with that silly notion? There has been no "off the chart" rise in global temperatures in more than 12 years now. Heck, there isn't any global warming happenihng except in the figment of the imagination of warmist minds and their brilliant global warming artwork. (more about the artwork below) As I have documented time and time again, there has been no global warming at all through the last decade. Check it out here, here, and here to document a three places. Yes, I know the alarmists have had numerous conniption fits over this. No doubt you can cite numerous they've written in their attempts to refute the obvious. That said, there's no need for Monckton to recant the 2008 article. He was correct. Your spin on his conclusions is consistently off the mark.
The so-called "alarmists" are very careful not to overstate things and usually only claim a 0.7C increase from the pre-industrial days although some are saying (with justification) 0.8C. The so-called "denialists" spout off when changes (to their liking) occur even when those changes are within the noise level; they are mum when it goes the other way even when that magnitude is much larger. Spencer does the same thing with his satellite data which when you look at it in it's entireity since 1979 supports the trends (including monthly upturns/downturns) quite well - see below:
Wikipedia temperature graph
1I know I have plotted this before and said this before, but David has not really faced up to the facts. Both the ground direct measurements (GISS above and Hadley) and the Satellite data (both UAH reduced and RSS reduced) are self confirming (if one is wrong they all are wrong) and there is a substantial trend since 1980 in all of this data and that upward data trend extends back into the 1800's for the direct measurements as reduced by both GISS and Hadley. In fact that trend (over the 1880-2010 of .065C/decade) is at least 6 times faster that ever witnessed ever during deglaciation periods (16 times faster if one restricts the trend to 1979-2010 of 0.18C/decade). 2If David cries "but that is Wikipedia"; well note that the sources of the raw data are given here.

I have listened to Monckton's first video and he is continuing in his rhetoric (no DATA) saying Abraham did not give him the courtesy of a response prior to making his video. Maybe true, I do not know. I doubt that the good Lord asked mainstream scientists about his cherry-picking argument before he went public with his 2008 article. But thus is the hyprocrisy of the AGWD crowd (anthropogenic global warming deniers).

    Keith, your claim that Monckton and other skeptics (or other AGWDs) were involved in cherry picking is false. Furthermore, the hypocricy isn't with the so-called AGWDs. It's with the AGW alarmists...
Abraham has asked for a debate and what did Monckton do? Did he inform Abraham to discuss it before publishing as he says any good sceintist would do? No. He called it libelious in the press and tried to get Abraham's university to censure him and remove his video from their website. Read about it here and here and here. The university has rallied to his defense.

    I read those articles from ScienceBlogs, Desmogblogs.Com, and other alarmist websites. They obviously were doing their darndest to come to Abraham's rescue, but they fall short. And yes, the university "rallied" to his defense, but it was much the same as as Penn State rallying to Michael Mann's defense. Those who know Monckton as an expert in the global warming/climate change debate know full well that Abraham was an amateur attempting to show up the expert.
I'll listen to more of the good Lord's high sounding rhetoric, but I do so with much doubt about his scientific/data analysis abilities and his integrity.

    I seriously doubt that you'll give much attention to listening to Monckton's videos. Nor do I expect that you give much attention to the 99 page response to Abraham, which BTW contains more than 100 graphs as well as hundreds documentations. In the event you haven't scanned it all the way to the end, there are no less than 466 individual points of reference for Abraham...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:13 pm

.
.
Here's the most revealing article on Climategate yet to appear. (Click on the video and follow the script)

User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby KeithE » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:19 am

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:1Monckton is a classics professor and adept at speaking. 2He is also a RW idealogue who thinks unfettered free enetrprise is nearly always the best course. 3That explains his amatuerish attempts at debunking GW and AGW.

    1) Obviously you haven't done the research on Monckton. You're simply regurgitating the feeble attempts of the alarmists to discredit him. He is a recognized expert on Climate change. Here's the real scoop on the man:
    Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK: -- Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986, and gave policy advice on technical issues such as warship hydrodynamics (his work led to his appointment as the youngest Trustee of the Hales Trophy for the Blue Riband of the Atlantic), psephological modeling (predicting the result of the 1983 General Election to within one seat), embryological research, hydrogeology (leading to the award of major financial assistance to a Commonwealth country for the construction of a very successful hydroelectric scheme), public-service investment analysis (leading to savings of tens of billions of pounds), public welfare modeling (his model of the UK tax and benefit system was, at the time, more detailed than the Treasury's economic model, and led to a major simplification of the housing benefit system), and epidemiological analysis. On leaving 10 Downing Street, he established a successful specialist consultancy company, giving technical advice to corporations and governments. His two articles in the Sunday Telegraph late in 2006 debunking the climate-change "consensus" received more hits to the newspaper's website than any other in the paper's history: the volume of hits caused the link to crash. His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA. He has lectured at university physics departments on the quantification of climate sensitivity, on which he is widely recognized as an expert, and his limpid analysis of the climate-feedback factor was published on the famous climate blog of Roger Pielke, Sr. His lecture to undergraduates at the Cambridge Union Society on climate change has been released by SPPI as Apocalypse? NO!, a full-length feature movie on high-definition DVD (available from http://www.greatswindle.com). Apocalypse? NO! been described by Professor Larry Gould of the University of Hartford, Connecticut, "as one of the best films ever made…" Source...

    2) Moncton may be a right winger, but an RW ideologue he definitely is not. He's a climate realist. Try as they might, the alarmists can't stop the rapid rise of climate realists. Anyway, there are many people who believe unfettered free enterprise is nearly always the best course. Nothing new there...

    3) Nothing amateurish about Monckton. Abraham is the amateur in this debate. Inasmuch as AGW doesn't exist he speaks truth in the current debate. Anthropogenic global warming is a myth. No one has ever documented or proved that global warming (climate change) is caused by human activity or the burning of fossil fuels. Not one person. It's a lame myth perpetrated entirely by the AGW alarmists. Until now --save for the the community of skeptics-- the gullible public has been thoroughly duped by the myth.
He has an integrity problem in that he cherry picked data from 2002 to 2008 to claim the earth is cooling.

    No cherry picking on of data on Monckton's part. Obviously you've missed out on the fact that there's been no global warming in the last decade (which stopped in 1998).
GISS data:
GISS graph

If you claim "cooling" for the slight decrease (~0.1C, about the 1 sigma noise level shown with the green bar ) from 2002 to 2008, you must point out the much higher increases from 1976 to 1998 (~0.6C) and from 1910 to 1943 (~0.45C) if you have any integrity at all. There was also a decrease ( ~.3C) from 1943- 1976.

Looking at the 5 year averages (red line) is to be preferred to take out some of the noise caused by such events as El Nino's/La Nina's/volcanoes. When one does that, you see that the so-called "cooling" was only the small downward blip (perhaps as little as 0.02C) around 2005. Overall it has increased ~0.85C from 1880 until 2009. As for now from last Oct 2009 through Sept 2010, the temp anomaly is 0.655C (off the graph), but that is only one point. In fact that warming began in earnest in July 2009. If Monckton continues to claim only the latest several years matter, he certainly would have recanted his 2008 article by now. He hasn't.

    Say what?? You say, "From last Oct 2009 through Sept 2010, the temp anomaly is 0.655C (off the graph)??" Where the heck did you come up with that silly notion? There has been no "off the chart" rise in global temperatures in more than 12 years now. Heck, there isn't any global warming happenihng except in the figment of the imagination of the warmists and their brilliant global warming artwork. (more about the artwork below) As I have documented time and time again, there has been no global warming at all through the last decade. Check it out here, here, and here to document a three places. Yes, I know the alarmists have had numerous conniption fits over this. No doubt you can cite numerous they've written in their attempts to refute the obvious. That said, there's no need for Monckton to recant the 2008 article. He was correct. Your spin on his conclusions is consistently off the mark.
The so-called "alarmists" are very careful not to overstate things and usually only claim a 0.7C increase from the pre-industrial days although some are saying (with justification) 0.8C. The so-called "denialists" spout off when changes (to their liking) occur even when those changes are within the noise level; they are mum when it goes the other way even when that magnitude is much larger. Spencer does the same thing with his satellite data which when you look at it in it's entireity since 1979 supports the trends (including monthly upturns/downturns) quite well - see below:
Wikipedia temperature graph
1I know I have plotted this before and said this before, but David has not really faced up to the facts. Both the ground direct measurements (GISS above and Hadley) and the Satellite data (both UAH reduced and RSS reduced) are self confirming (if one is wrong they all are wrong) and there is a substantial trend since 1980 in all of this data and that upward data trend extends back into the 1800's for the direct measurements as reduced by both GISS and Hadley. In fact that trend (over the 1880-2010 of .065C/decade) is at least 6 times faster that ever witnessed ever during deglaciation periods (16 times faster if one restricts the trend to 1979-2010 of 0.18C/decade). 2If David cries "but that is Wikipedia"; well note that the sources of the raw data are given here.

I have listened to Monckton's first video and he is continuing in his rhetoric (no DATA) saying Abraham did not give him the courtesy of a response prior to making his video. Maybe true, I do not know. I doubt that the good Lord asked mainstream scientists about his cherry-picking argument before he went public with his 2008 article. But thus is the hyprocrisy of the AGWD crowd (anthropogenic global warming deniers).

    Keith, your claim that Monckton and other skeptics (or other AGWDs) were involved in cherry picking is false. Furthermore, the hypocricy isn't with the so-called AGWDs. It's with the AGW alarmists...
Abraham has asked for a debate and what did Monckton do? Did he inform Abraham to discuss it before publishing as he says any good sceintist would do? No. He called it libelious in the press and tried to get Abraham's university to censure him and remove his video from their website. Read about it here and here and here. The university has rallied to his defense.

    I read those articles from ScienceBlogs, Desmogblogs.Com, and other alarmist websites. They obviously were doing their darndest to come to Abraham's rescue, but they fall short. And yes, the university "rallied" to his defense, but it was much the same as as Penn State rallying to Michael Mann's defense. Those who know Monckton as an expert in the global warming/climate change debate know full well that Abraham was an amateur attempting to show up the expert.
I'll listen to more of the good Lord's high sounding rhetoric, but I do so with much doubt about his scientific/data analysis abilities and his integrity.

    I seriously doubt that you'll give much attention to listening to Monckton's videos. Nor do I expect that you give much attention to the 99 page response to Abraham, which BTW contains more than 100 graphs as well as hundreds documentations. In the event you haven't scanned it all the way to the end, there are no less than 466 individual points of reference for Abraham...


73% (11/15) of David's replies (burnt orange above) are merely bluster without rationale - equivalent to 2 playground kids saying "my daddy is better than yours". "no my dad is better than yours" without any reason given at all. He stands convicted of such blustery in most of his posts on this subject. Here's one example:
David wrote: 3) Nothing amateurish about Monckton. Abraham is the amateur in this debate. Inasmuch as AGW doesn't exist he speaks truth in the current debate. Anthropogenic global warming is a myth. No one has ever documented or proved that global warming (climate change) is caused by human activity or the burning of fossil fuels. Not one person. It's a lame myth perpetrated entirely by the AGW alarmists. Until now --save for the the community of skeptics-- the gullible public has been thoroughly duped by the myth.


13% (2/15) amount to personal slams on Drs. Rohde and Mann again w/o much real info as to why they should be slammed.

-Wrt Rohde, he is a PHD in Physics from UCB* with undergrad deg in physics and mathematics. He references his DATA plots very well. I would prefer he provide more frequent periodic updates but his charts are excellent communication of the facts surrounding many aspects of GW. And the facts/data don't lie - blusterers do through neglect and prior idealogical biases. David provides no reason to doubt Dr. Rohde's DATA that he plots; David just doesn;t like facts/DATA when they burst his bubble.

-Wrt Mann, David may have in the past provided some nit-picky technical critiques (that did not effect Mann's major conclusion of a dramatic upturn in the 1900's) on Mann original hockey stick. And he graciously shows the corrected plots (with added DATAsets, btw) -linked above - look at them please to see the upturn in the 20th century. But does he realise that the major point (the dramatic upturn in the 1900's) has always been shown to be true - the 1900's blade is still there and it is a more rapid rise than the MWP or any period in the Vostok ice core proxy by factors of 6 or more? No! And does he realise also that there are many hockey sticks (ghg emisions, CO2 atmsopheric, concentrations, ocean heat content, ocean surface temp, ocean acidification.....) with 20th century "blades" not just the surface air temp? No! He merely points out the Mann, etal made a virtually inconsequential error back in 1998 which nulled out the MWP (which may be a just European effect). Does he realise that even if there was no proxy data reconsructions of the last 2000 years via tree rings/etc. the evidence for GW in the 20th century would be just as strong? No! And does he realise that all substantive critiques of Mann are coming from highly motivated researchers that are pooring over all GW DATA to find errors and continue to harp on a few early errors that have been corrected for many years now? No! The "blade" still stands! As does the CRU/Hadley data! And that Hadley data is independently confirmed by the satellite data (since 1979) from David's own favorite AGWD (Roy Spencer and his AMSU DATA) who appears to wear blinders when looking at his own DATA.

7% (1/15) [David's last reply] is David's guess of how much I will delve into the Abraham/Monckton battle, presumably in hopes I don't dig deeper. You'll probably right that I won't spend my time dissecting each and every claim/counterclaim. But I will do several forays into key areas (already have, and will get into BL maybe later this weekend).

Only in 1 of 15 replies (7%) [paragraph that starts out "Say what?"] did David even attempt to bring counter DATA or even counter arguments! Incredible. And when David did so, it was really quite hilarious since all three supporting articles ( denialist Carter April 2006, columnist Murdoch May 2008, 9/11 conspiricist** Watson April 2008) were written prior to the Oct 2009-Sept 2010 period under discussion. The 0.655C came from the GISS quarterly data given over the last 4 quarters found at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (scroll to bottom right) which now that i look at it is really Sept 2009-August 2010 (a fact that no doubt Steve McIntyre would latch onto if he were a BLfer and therefore claim every DATA point I ever make is suspect and we can just forget about GW). But the truth of the upturn in surface air temps this past year or so is still very true. And truth also calls for looking at all the available surface air temp DATA (yep here it comes again):
Image
I don't know what the 2010 data point will be precisely, but for the year Sept 2009-August 2010 it is 0.655C (same scale, same measure source, same processing) and that is confirmed by the satellite (Spencer's data). That 0.655C data point is just barely off the top of the graph. So imagine a point above that graph at a y-value of 0.655 and an x-value of 2009.75 point.

Now stand back and look at that trend in perspective, look at the errors bars (green). Look at the trends. The 1998-2008 so-called cooling trend is really short-lived and is almost within the 1 sigma error bar (aka noise). Note the 2000's are the hotter decae on record but there is little doubt in my mind that something subletly different has happened in the 2000's to cause a leveling off until June 2009. But that leveling off has ended in late 2009 and 2010. Now there may be some underlying physical reason for this leveling off - but look how minor it really is by looking at the 5-year averages in red (not unlike small perturbations in 1982-4, 1991-95 but certainly not of the longevity of 1940-1977 relatively level period). Honest analysts look at the overall trend and do not dwell only on temporary leveling off periods. Many have tried to come up with a scientific reason for the leveling off from 2001-2008, but none are wholly accepted. La Nina/El Nino's don't really explain it. Susan Solomon's article is probably the most credible reason but even she is not sure about the how that happened - real scientists are restrained sorts as she showed in her IPCC 2007 WGI leadership role. But note that the 2009 point and the expected 2010 point quell (if not totally end) that hope of GW demise. To ignore ghg emission control / alternative energy development/preparedness/geoengineering cooling is irresponsible (God is weeping).

With respect to Lord Monckton, here is a bio of him. He has a classics and journalism degree - no PHD. He is a "lord" by birth not by being in the House of Lords. He is a good speaker style wise but content is often very flawed. I have no idea where you got the information that he has the status of a Nobel Peace Laureate! Defend that statement in green above, David, which you probably got from some other denialist "source". I think I'll stick with the refereed Wiki instead ofgetting a bio from such denialist sources as SPPI. He is now 58 years old and only entered the fray about global warming in 2006. As a high level science policy advisor mostly from an economic viewpoint, he probably has done little in the realm of scientific data analysis as evidenced by his sarcastic/longwinded/flowery tone (scientists are not normally as sarcastic as he is and not as flowery in speech - I know, I is :wink: one).

Abraham is far from the only scientists that refute virtually all his arguments. Read Climate Scientists Respond where 21 PHD Global Warming Specialists (each with much more experience in GW studies than Monckton's 4 years of motivated attacks into GW science) refute most all of Monckton's claims. He is easy game.

*I often jokingly tell my brother (PHD in statistics from UCBerkeley) that a MS in Engineering from Stanford (my degree) is just as good as a PHD at UCB. Today we find out who has the best football team.

** Do read some of Paul Joseph Watson's other articles like this one.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9211
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Denialist caught plagiarizing

Postby KeithE » Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:50 am

Experts claim 2006 climate report plagiarized
Wegman in his dispute wrt the Mann, Bradley , etal 1998 "hockey stick" plot borrowed whole sentences from Bradley's text book w/o attribution. Now he is refusing to release emails concering the whole nasty affair.

As for the technical issue involved in this dispute, USA Today has it right when it says:
A 2006 report by the National Research Council (NRC), which examines scientific disputes under a congressional charter, largely validated Mann, Bradley and the other climate scientists, according to Texas A&M's Gerald North, the panel's head. The NRC report found the Wegman report's criticism of the type of statistics used in 1998 and 1999 papers reasonable but beside the point, as many subsequent studies had reproduced their finding that the 20th century was likely the warmest one in centuries.


I have that NRC report in booklet form and it is excellent. The hockey stick stands! And even if it falls on the proxy data, there are several other 20th "hockey sticks" with more accuracy and certainty. But that reasonable correction was done in subsequent reocnstructions and Mann's main point vindicated, but the denialist keep harping. Sick.

This story points out the character of the denialists who are not about to open up their email servers so all can see their prejudcial language with far outstrips that of Jones/CRU/mainstream scientists by a long shot.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9211
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Some Good News

Postby KeithE » Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:40 pm

CO2 Emissions fell in 2009. This turn of events is not expected to continue however. And the CO2 concentrations in the air continued it's upward rise at about 2-3ppm/year (from 385ppm at end of 2008 to 387 ppm at end of 2009 and homing in on at 390 ppm by end of 2010).
Image

The red line is a monthy average of all global measurement sites of CO2. The black line is a 12 month average effectively taking out the seasonal trend.

Most sane (i.e. non-denialist) scientists say we must decrease the CO2 concentration (along with deforestation efforts) to 350ppm to keep the earth's global air temperature to a 2C rise which will still have some ill-effects. Remember the natural variability in CO2 concentration cycled from 180 to 280 ppm (~125,000 year cycle) prior to the industrial revolution and great increase in CO2 emissions since that time.

But at least we are heading in the right direction due to the economy tanking. What we need is alternative energy to both grow jobs/economy and decrease fossil fuel emissions. It can be done but it will take persistence and controls. The ozone hole was closed through the banning of CFCs with the Montreal Protocol in a matter of 20 years; this will be more difficult.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9211
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Denialist caught plagiarizing

Postby David Flick » Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:03 pm

KeithE wrote:Experts claim 2006 climate report plagiarized
Wegman in his dispute wrt the Mann, Bradley , etal 1998 "hockey stick" plot borrowed whole sentences from Bradley's text book w/o attribution. Now he is refusing to release emails concering the whole nasty affair.

As for the technical issue involved in this dispute, USA Today has it right when it says:
A 2006 report by the National Research Council (NRC), which examines scientific disputes under a congressional charter, largely validated Mann, Bradley and the other climate scientists, according to Texas A&M's Gerald North, the panel's head. The NRC report found the Wegman report's criticism of the type of statistics used in 1998 and 1999 papers reasonable but beside the point, as many subsequent studies had reproduced their finding that the 20th century was likely the warmest one in centuries.


I have that NRC report in booklet form and it is excellent. 1The hockey stick stands! And even if it falls on the proxy data, there are several other 20th "hockey sticks" with more accuracy and certainty. But that reasonable correction was done in subsequent reocnstructions and Mann's main point vindicated, but the denialist keep harping. Sick.

2This story points out the character of the denialists who are not about to open up their email servers so all can see their prejudcial language with far outstrips that of Jones/CRU/mainstream scientists by a long shot.

1) Keith, Mann's hockey stick has been irrepairably broken from day one. It's been broken for years. (Check here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and scores of other places) It has "stood" only in Mann's mind and to those who spend inordinate amounts of effort attempting to help him prop it up. There are no credible climate scientists who put any stock whatsoever in the broken stick. Take a deep breath and think about it for a moment. If the hockey stick graph ever actually stood, why would Mann have had to go back and reconstruct it so many times? Something must've been wrong with the original if he had to go back and reconstruct it even once. But no, he's reconstructed it twice and still didn't get it right. the crazy thing about the two reconstructions is that neither even begin to resemble a hockey stick. (reconstruction #1, resonstruction #2) It's a fraud, pure and simple.

2) Actually, the story points out the character of the alarmists, a character, which proliferates lies about those who side with the skeptics (deniers). The truth of the matter is that the alarmist very feebly sought to discredit Wegman through untruth. Here's the response:
Dan Vergano of USA TODAY wrote:Climate science critic responds to allegations
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY

The author of a report critical of climate scientists defended himself against plagiarism charges Tuesday, and denied he was pressured by Republicans to tilt the report.

Offered the chance to further respond to plagiarism allegations, reported Monday in USA TODAY, George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman said in an e-mail that "these attacks are unprecedented in my 42 years as an academic and scholar."


Wegman was the lead author of a 2006 congressional climate science report that has become central in the debate over whether findings of global warming are warranted by scientific evidence.

REACTION: Scientists respond
BACKGROUND: Experts claim 2006 climate report plagiarized

Three plagiarism experts contacted by the newspaper said excerpts in the Wegman report were likely plagiarized from various sources.

The charges first surfaced on the Deep Climate website in 2009 and later in an analysis by retired computer scientist John Mashey of Portola Valley, Calif.

GMU spokesman Dan Walsch said in an e-mail that the university is investigating the matter.

"I will say that there is a lot of speculation and conspiracy theory in John Mashey's analysis which is simply not true," Wegman said.

"We are not the bad guys. … We have never intended that our Congressional testimony was intended to take intellectual credit" for other scholars' work.

Wegman said he and his report co-authors felt "some pressure" from a House committee to complete the report "faster than we might like." But he denied that there was any attempt to tilt the influential climate report politically.

He said the committee "wanted our opinion as to the correctness of the mathematics" used in two climate studies.

"They wanted the truth as we saw it," Wegman said. Source...

Bottom line is that the alarmists will do just about anything they can to discredit those who are telling the truth. They will spin any story to safe face. The link you posted is mere propaganda...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby Ed Edwards » Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:08 pm

// Bottom line is that the alarmists will do just about anything they can to discredit those who are telling the truth. They will spin any story to safe face. The link you posted is mere propaganda... \\

Strangely, the 'alarmists' remind me of this:

Brother Elder David will be judged by the lost as though he is of the same mind as Phelps'es family: hopless bigots.
I know Brother Elder David is a good Baptist (and other several nice things that is public knowledge) and works hard for the Lord.

Likewise, the best alarmist will be judged as if they are the worse alarmist.
Strangely, we probably aught to dis the average alarmist for UNDERSTATING THEIR CASE. It might already be to late to avoid the +2°C crises (2011-2014) the +4°C crises (2016-2020). But we might miss the 2050 death of 1/3 of the word population - if anybody cares a tad.

Strange, that the 0.24% (24 out of 1,000) data in error rate invalidates the conclusion of the other 100% (to two decimal places) of the data.

But we have made our bed and must lie in it. BTW, did anybody notice that the 1/6 of the world that is Muslim, armed, and (some) angry will suffer the most from Climate Change when their water is gone. Did anybody knotice that the Fundamentalist Athiests (China, the one with nuclear arms) also know that nuclear war can mitigate the ill effects of thier smoking smokestacks?
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Denialist caught plagiarizing

Postby KeithE » Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:56 pm

David Flick wrote: Bottom line is that the alarmists will do just about anything they can to discredit those who are telling the truth. They will spin any story to safe face. The link you posted is mere propaganda...


Bottom line is denialists will plagiarise and hack into computers (which are both against the law) to discredit mainstrean scientists or their DATA (and they do not discredit the data to effect any significant conclusion). The blades (paleoclimatic proxies and instrumental temp data and satellite temp data) still stand!

I'm on vacation (Thanksgiving with my sister and then a 3 day cruise) so I won't be arguing back at David for a while.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9211
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Denialist caught plagiarizing

Postby David Flick » Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:55 am

KeithE wrote:
David Flick wrote: Bottom line is that the alarmists will do just about anything they can to discredit those who are telling the truth. They will spin any story to safe face. The link you posted is mere propaganda...


1Bottom line is denialists will plagiarise 2and hack into computers (which are both against the law) to discredit mainstrean scientists or their DATA (and they do not discredit the data to effect any significant conclusion). 3The blades (paleoclimatic proxies and instrumental temp data and satellite temp data) still stand!

4I'm on vacation (Thanksgiving with my sister and then a 3 day cruise) so I won't be arguing back at David for a while.

1) Absolutely not true. Keith, there's absolutely no truth whatsoever to the global warming doomsayers' claim that Wegman was guilty of plagiarizing. You fell hook line & sinker for a boatload of BS offered by your alarmist sources. No matter how you spin it, the plagiarism charge is false. Wegman’s accusers are two self-styled “plagiarism experts” - Pace University climate writer Andrew Revkin and retired computer scientist, John Mashey of Portola Valley, California. The accusation was first made a year ago and the “experts” appear to have no qualification or legal training in this field, although they are both known environmental activists. Here's what skeptic John O'Sullivan wrote at the Climate Realist website:
Non-story With No Legal Legs to Stand on

Under law, Bradley has no case against Wegman and these latest allegations are ineptly contrived. As we shall see below, the claims cannot be backed up by bona fide copyright lawyers for good reason.

The pro-green media appear to endorse the argument that Wegman ought to have compiled his document according to academic standards rather than the legal and constitutional ones applicable under congressional committee privilege – a patently absurd proposition.

But under the ‘fair use’ doctrine and rules that apply to reports commissioned by Congress Wegman’s conduct is faultless. His report correctly cites Bradley 35 times and in the reference section under, “BIBLIOGRAPHY Academic Papers and Books”, Bradley again appears 13 times. As the law stands Wegman is bulletproof and there’s no plagiarism or copyright infringement here. Source...

    Here's another take on the Wegman report (and the CRU emails) given by Tim Ball. As any fair-minded observer can see, the plagiarizing charge against Wegman is BS. But then, I'm unable say that you're a fair-minded observer. You come at this argument with the mindset as a doomsayer/AGW alarmist.
2) As for the "hacked" email story, that also is untrue. No one "hacked" the CRU computers. They were leaked by an unidentified insider.

3) While the blades to Mann's various & sundry hockey stick graphs may stand, they still fail to show the truth. The highest point of the any of the three hockey stick graphs (original, reconstruction #1, resonstruction #2) don't come close to showing that the warmist temperatures in climate history. Mann's original graph completely omitted both the Medieval Warming Period (which was far warmer than today's high or the Little Ice Age). The MWP and the LIA are falsely plotted in both the first reconstruction and the second reconstruction. The graphs below show the unvarnished truth.
    Image
    Scientific data used to create the 'hockey stick' graph (top) were 'fudged' to create the
    false illusion of global warming increasing - the bottom graph shows actual European
    climate change over the past 1,000 years Source...

4) Hope you have a great cruise and enjoy yourself. We'll resume when you're ready...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by David Flick on Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:34 pm

Ed Edwards wrote:// Bottom line is that the alarmists will do just about anything they can to discredit those who are telling the truth. They will spin any story to safe face. The link you posted is mere propaganda... \\

Strangely, the 'alarmists' remind me of this:

Brother Elder David will be judged by the lost as though he is of the same mind as Phelps'es family: hopless bigots.
I know Brother Elder David is a good Baptist (and other several nice things that is public knowledge) and works hard for the Lord.
    So I'm a "hopless" bigot??? Oh my goodness gracious sakes alive!! Where, oh where has my "hop" gone? I don't mind being a "hopeless" bigot when it comes to opposing AGW alarmist, but this "hopless" bigot stuff surely takes the cake. I still plenty of "hop" left in my step to debunk anthropogenic global warming alarmism. :lol:

    Seriously, however, it's mighty interesting how one can be a hopeless bigot by opposing AGW alarmism. Oh well, such is the life of a skeptic... :)

Likewise, the best alarmist will be judged as if they are the worse alarmist.
Strangely, we probably aught to dis the average alarmist for UNDERSTATING THEIR CASE. It might already be to late to avoid the +2°C crises (2011-2014) the +4°C crises (2016-2020). But we might miss the 2050 death of 1/3 of the word population - if anybody cares a tad.
    You think the alarmists understate their case? Ed, I believe you OVERSTATED YOUR CASE on the death of the world's population by 2050. That's a ridiculous assumption. It ain't gonna happen. Besides, neither of us will be around in 2050.

Strange, that the 0.24% (24 out of 1,000) data in error rate invalidates the conclusion of the other 100% (to two decimal places) of the data.

But we have made our bed and must lie in it. BTW, did anybody notice that the 1/6 of the world that is Muslim, armed, and (some) angry will suffer the most from Climate Change when their water is gone. Did anybody knotice that the Fundamentalist Athiests (China, the one with nuclear arms) also know that nuclear war can mitigate the ill effects of thier smoking smokestacks?
    Fundamentalist athiests?? Smoking smokestacks?? I honestly don't know what you're talking about.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by David Flick on Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:06 pm

.
.
.
.
Image

Global Warming Threads Continue to be the Hottest
. . . . . . . . . . . .(pun intended)

Ever wonder who wrote the first global warming post? That would be Don Wilke. He heisted the first post in the first thread on the hot topic back in March of 2006 . Here's the post:
Land Says there is No Global Warming
Post by wilkey » Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:11 pm

SBC's ethics head claims there is no global warming according to the most recent Church and State. Land joined forces with James Dobson and other Religious Right leaders to denounce Rick Warren who has fallen into the devil's trap and become a tree huggin pagan taking a recent stand against the green house affect of global warming. Land, who has been a long time leader to promote the war in Iraq is sure this idea about global warming is some trumped up fabric of the imagination of people who don't like Exxon.
Meanwhile, the biggest activity in our own local association is the preparing of churches to deal with upcoming diasters, mainly in the form of future hurricanes caused by the warming of Gulf waters. Most of our churches still support Richard Land's agency but in a strange way don't take his ideas that seriously. Foy Valentine once told me that he noted the increase in temperatures at his mountian cabin. Foy, who was Land's predessor minus one, never to my knowledge made such guarantees the way that Land does about human events. Source...

I wrote the first reply just a little over an hour after Wilkey started the thread. It's interesting how global warming threads continue to be the hottest in BL.Com forums.

Ever wonder how many global warming threads have been created since march of 2006? The answer is 60. Below is a survey of all the global warming related threads to date. Going back through the forum archives from most recent to earliest (not in exact order but close), the list below contains the all the threads along with number of replies & views:

  1. Global Warming Thread XI; 47 Replies; 320 Views
  2. Global Warming Thread X; 107 Replies; 623 Views
  3. Global Warming Thread IX; 103 Replies; 491 Views
  4. Global Warming Thread VIII; 102 Replies; 1450 Views
  5. Global Warming Thread VII; 60 Replies; 276 Views
  6. Global Warming Thread VI; 69 Replies; 496 Views
  7. Global Warming Thread V; 149 Replies; 924 Views
  8. Global Warming Thread IV; 108 Replies; 758 Views
  9. Global Warming Thread III; 110 Replies; 671 Views
  10. Global Warming Thread II; 82 Replies; 710 Views
  11. New Global Warming Thread; 168 Replies; 1048 Views
  12. Global Warming a Top Priority for Americans in 2010; 5 Replies; 56 Views
  13. Pascal's Wager and the global Warming Debate; 26 Replies; 314 Views
  14. Climategate; 118 Replies; 1815 Views
  15. Church of Global Warming now Convening; 7 Replies; 243 Views
  16. Global Warming XLV; 7 Replies; 66 Views
  17. #3 Global Warming Quiz; 9 Replies; 64 Views
  18. Creationists as Prominent Scientists in Global Warming Report; 28 Replies; 218 Views
  19. 650 scientists comment on global warming assertions; 37 Replies; 348 Views
  20. Now this is a plan to fight global warming; 4 Replies; 129 Views
  21. 2008 the year man-made Global Warming was disproved; 95 Replies; 994 Views
  22. Global Warming's low priority; 18 Replies; 139 Views
  23. 650 scientists comment on global warming assertions...; 37 Replies; 384 Views
  24. Now this is a bold plan to fight global warming... ; 4 Replies; 129 Views
  25. New Global Warming Book; 42 Replies; 554 Views
  26. Manmade global warming will cause mass cannibalism...; 0 Replies; 117 Views
  27. Global Warming Chuckle...; 3 Replies; 126 Views
  28. New evidence finally persuades Flick on Global Warming; 13 Replies; 167 Views
  29. Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers...; 22 Replies; 266 Views
  30. If the debate on Global Warming is over...; 34 Replies; 477 Views
  31. Appropriate Smiley for Global Warming Et. Al; 3 Replies; 93 Views
  32. Global warming cultists...; 40 Replies; 461 Views
  33. Speaking of Global Warming; 3 Replies; 94 Views
  34. Pascal's Wager and the Global Warming Debate; 26 Replies; 314 Views
  35. Climategate; 118 Replies; 1850 Views
  36. Hundreds of scientists DISSENT on Global Warming; 10 Replies; 163 Views
  37. Global warming scam...science for sale ; 41 Replies; 540 Views
  38. Respected conservative David Gushee on global warming; 34 Replies; 477 Views
  39. Global warming scam II ... $5000 "baby levy" ; 2 Replies; 124 Views
  40. Moose in crosshairs of Global Warming ; 14 Replies; 170 Views
  41. Global Warming, the ultimate and perfect liberal foil ; 4 Replies; 110 Views
  42. Peanut Butter and Global Warming... ; 6 Replies; 185 Views
  43. Global Warming '...how foolish..." ; 112 Replies; 1288 Views
  44. Twins Pinckney & Flickney on Gore, BF&M2K, global warming ; 5 Replies; 123 Views
  45. Global Warming Deniers Debunked ; 30 Replies; 272 Views
  46. Global Warming denier's page... ; 35 Replies; 673 Views
  47. The Global Warming Denial Machine - The Insiders Talk ; 42 Replies; 499 Views
  48. The Great Global Warming Swindle - Thread III ; 7 Replies; 142 Views
  49. The Great Global Warming Swindle - Thread II ; 117 Replies; 2091 Views
  50. Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutin ; 11 Replies; 173 Views
  51. Time to redirect energy on Global Warming... ; 3 Replies; 166 Views
  52. The Great Global Warming Turnaround ; 8 Replies; 249 Views
  53. Global Warming my hind leg... ; 45 Replies; 1158 Views
  54. The Great Global Warming Swindle; 247 Replies; 5836 Views
  55. The Christians are coming, the Christians are coming!!; 6 Replies; 257 Views
  56. Going out to play in the global warming; 5 Replies; 218 Views
  57. Global Warming Poll; 99 Replies; 2206 Views
  58. What! Scientists question global warming?; 0 Replies; 145 Views
  59. Have scientists oversold global warming?; 53 Replies; 2157 Views
  60. Land Says there is No Global Warming; 27 Replies; 1997 Views
    Totals: Sixty Global Warming Threads; 2,585 Replies; 40,478 Views

Conclusion: Without a doubt, the global warming threads continue to be the hottest on the BL.Com forums.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby Ed Edwards » Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:41 am

So you agree: Global Warming is warming up BL :-)
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron