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 Ed Edwards » Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:06 pm

I got an interesting e-mail from my Brother across town :-)

Dear Bro. Ed:

I get my news from:
http://www.theonion.com/

I get my views from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

I get my theology from:
http://www.chick.com/default.asp

YBIC,
Bro. Duh
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:55 am

.
.
Down through the years, the global warming alarmism game has sallied forth with so many wild and fraudulent scams that it's difficult to keep count of them all. Catastrophic global warming was declared to be the work of man. According to the alarmists, the blame for the catastrophic global warming is the rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 which is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Of course, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of thoughtless people who are addicted to their coal, oil, and petroleum products. Mankind is cause of the global warming, hence "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW). It's all man's fault.

Following James Hansen (back in 1988 with his wild "Tipping Point" alarms), Al Gore blasted onto the scene with his "Inconvenient Truth" book and slide show. The UN IPCC began producing pseudo science which claimed that the world was experiencing a catastrophic global warming trend. The alarmism in the first IPCC Report in 1990 (WG 1) was based largely on Michael Mann's original hockey stick graph, which claimed that global temperature has risen at an unprecedented rate over the last part of the 20th century. Like mushrooms, the radical environmentalists sprang up everywhere, chiming in with all manner of blogs and scientific "experts." These various global warming scams acquired "-gate" names (i.e. Climategate, Glacier-gate, Amazon rainforest-gate, Antarctic sea ice-gate, Acceleration of sea level rise-gate, Coral reefs-gate, Hockey-stick-gate, and the like).

One blogger has compiled a comprehensive list of the various global warming related "-gates." There are 129 of them:

Climate Science Scandals – List Of Gates Balloons To 129

By P Gosselin on 7. Dezember 2010

Hockey stick chart - the mother of gates.

And as long as the science refuses to clean up its corruption and fraud, many more scandals are sure to join the list in the future. It’s the great swindle that just keeps giving.

35 new gates have been added since August.

To offer an anecdote, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote a post a while back boasting (prematurely) how Amazon-gate had been debunked. So I left a reader comment congratulating him, along with a link to my previous list of 94 gates suggesting he get to work on the remaining 93.

Needless to say, my comment was deleted. I know he doesn’t have much to do in Potsdam, except surfing in the internet and doing PR damage control, and so I hope this new list can help him pass the time.

New gates are designated with “NEW!“. Some gates involving people are filed under their first names, e.g. Judith Lean-gate (No. 70), or Jeff Greene-gate (no. 65). Surely I’ve missed some gates, as I’m not always focused on looking for them.

I hope this helps bloggers, journalists and readers in finding and citing sources as we wage our campaign against the merchants of junk AGW science and bad policy. Continue here...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby Ed Edwards » Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:20 pm

I checked one of the things from the location mentioned by Elder Brother David:

118. Tropical storm-gate (Florida State University).
Claims that GW is causing more and stronger storms are bogus, more fear-mongering.


Uses this page:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

attempting to show that the 2010 Hurricane season showed that TREND WRONG.
Well, that data from FSU of Florida does not show "there will be MORE BAD HURRICANES due to global warming" wrong.
That data from FSU of FLorida shows that the 2010 Hurricane season was less bad than before.

What needs to happen to show that the "there will be MORE BAD HURRICANES due to global warming" wrong is compare rusults like shown for 2010 for each and every year 1900 to 2010 and see what the trend is. The type data in that FSU page
cannot show a trend - not enough data. Sorry, go count some hurrican strengths.

Conclusion, Item #118 on the list is an untruth.

There is a chart of about 1970-2010 It says:

// Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE] remains near decades low .. \\

However, the chart itself shows that the general trend is up -- proving the idea that
GW is causing more and stronger storms .
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

GW is causing more and stronger storms

Postby Ed Edwards » Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:38 pm

The chart at the top of this page:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

suggests that 2010 was less than many of the years 1972-2010 to 2009
and that is correct . However, also correct: the high for 2010 is higher than about 5 of the years in
the early 1970s and late 1970s; the low is also higher than about 4 of those years. This
reading of mine shows an increase of tropic storm intensity, in general, 1972-2010.

But here is another fact showing the upward trend:

The low in 1993, 1998, and 2006 is each HIGHER than all the highs 1972 to 1990

Yep that chart shows (according to my trained eyeballs): GW is causing more and stronger storms .
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 David Flick » Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:32 am

.
.
(1) I am revisiting a paragraph that Keith wrote in this post:
On Sat Dec 04, 2010 @ 10:42am, KeithE wrote:The rhetoric and political grandstanding will go on (unfortunately), but the science is settled! And 97% of the scientists most published and most involved in GW studies agree according to not only one poll but two polls (posted many times herein).


(2) On Sunday, Dec 05, 2010 @ 1:23 am I responded thus to Keith's false claims about "settled science" and consensus polls:
KeithE wrote:The rhetoric and political grandstanding will go on (unfortunately), 1but the science is settled! 2And 97% of the scientists most published and most involved in GW studies agree according to not only one poll but two polls (posted many times herein).

    Responding to Keith, David wrote:1 False. Global warming science is not settled, Keith. Even Phil Jones admits the truth. Richard Lindzen agrees with Jones. Other sources declare the same. See here, here, here, here, here, and scores of other sources which you can easily google.

    2 Not true. We've been over this numerous times already. There are no polls that declare that 97% of the scientists agree that the science is settled. I choose not to recycle my responses about those two bogus polls (i.e. the Doran/Zimmerman survey and the Anderegg, Schneider, et. al. "survey"). If you or a lurker should wish to follow our discussion on those two polls, they can begin here and read all about it.

    Following up on my points above, here's a very long (321 pages), detailed, and thoroughly document article debunking the notion of a consensus on the science of global warming. There are now more than 1,000 International scientists who are dissenting over man-made global warming claims, the same of which continue to debunk the fading “consensus” in 2008 & 2009 & 2010. Parouse your way down through the article and see the thorough documentation and the names of the dissenting scientists. Take particular note of who they are, their credentials, and who they represent.

(3) Responding in another post on Monday, Dec 06, 2010 @ 7:27am
KeithE wrote:As normal. 1I've have pointed out the truth of the science involved and how the dm (denialist machine) has cherry-picked old data (e.g. passiing off Central Europe data as if it were global) 2and fought again totally resolved data analysis items(e.g. Mann's paleoclimatic hockey stick). 3David has been cornered by the DATA 112+ times and then David changes the subject and just turns to the latest of the dm screedal articles.
[...]
4I characterize the dm as "grasping for straws" and resorting to misrepresentations (aka lying) in face of the increased evidence for GW; 2010 data certainly cements the issue of GW as being a real threat.

    1) Call the skeptics by whatever names you wish, Keith, but they are far more honest than the alarmists. You have never been able to document a single case of data cherry picking on their part. You're simply parroting what has been written on alarmist websites such as Skeptical Science, Climate Progress, Desmogblog.Com, and others. The alarmists, beginning with James Hansen, Al Gore, Phil Jones, Michael Mann & friends have, for years on end, fabricated false global warming data and passed it off as truth. Long before Climategate, which occurred in November of "09, the fabricated data of the alarmists were being exposed. Climategate was simply the latest nail in the coffin of the dying alarmist movement. That said, the Medieval Warming Period was a global phenomenon. No question about it.

    2) Not true. Michal Mann's data analysis items (e.g. Mann's paleoclimatic hockey stick) has never been resoplved. Nor will it ever be resolved. Mann and the University of Virginia are in a world of hurt right now. If this thing ever comes to trial, and I believe it will, Mann will lose big time.

    3) I've not been cornered. I will, however, own up to posting scores of links to skeptical arguments & research. I certainly don't deny that. So I guess you can honestly call me a "denialist." However, I'm hardly a "machine."

    4) There is no evidence for "increased" global warming. In fact, there has been no global warming for the last 15 years. The facts are there. Even Phil Jones declares there has been no global warming over the last 15 years. Here's an article that appeared yesterday (12/8/09) that confirms Jones' comment. Characterize the skeptics however you wish, but they are neither grasping for straws nor are they misrepresenting (aka lying about) the facts. Finally, there is no data that cements the issue of GW as being a real threat. There is no threat associated with global warming. The notion of global warming being a threat to humanity is an alarmist myth.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby KeithE » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:41 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
(1) I am revisiting a paragraph that Keith wrote in this post:
On Sat Dec 04, 2010 @ 10:42am, KeithE wrote:The rhetoric and political grandstanding will go on (unfortunately), but the science is settled! And 97% of the scientists most published and most involved in GW studies agree according to not only one poll but two polls (posted many times herein).


(2) On Sunday, Dec 05, 2010 @ 1:23 am I responded thus to Keith's false claims about "settled science" and consensus polls:
KeithE wrote:The rhetoric and political grandstanding will go on (unfortunately), 1but the science is settled! 2And 97% of the scientists most published and most involved in GW studies agree according to not only one poll but two polls (posted many times herein).

    Responding to Keith, David wrote:1 False. Global warming science is not settled, Keith. Even Phil Jones admits the truth. Richard Lindzen agrees with Jones. Other sources declare the same. See here, here, here, here, here, and scores of other sources which you can easily google.

    2 Not true. We've been over this numerous times already. There are no polls that declare that 97% of the scientists agree that the science is settled. I choose not to recycle my responses about those two bogus polls (i.e. the Doran/Zimmerman survey and the Anderegg, Schneider, et. al. "survey"). If you or a lurker should wish to follow our discussion on those two polls, they can begin here and read all about it.

    Following up on my points above, here's a very long (321 pages), detailed, and thoroughly document article debunking the notion of a consensus on the science of global warming. There are now more than 1,000 International scientists who are dissenting over man-made global warming claims, the same of which continue to debunk the fading “consensus” in 2008 & 2009 & 2010. Parouse your way down through the article and see the thorough documentation and the names of the dissenting scientists. Take particular note of who they are, their credentials, and who they represent.

(3) Responding in another post on Monday, Dec 06, 2010 @ 7:27am
KeithE wrote:As normal. 1I've have pointed out the truth of the science involved and how the dm (denialist machine) has cherry-picked old data (e.g. passiing off Central Europe data as if it were global) 2and fought again totally resolved data analysis items(e.g. Mann's paleoclimatic hockey stick). 3David has been cornered by the DATA 112+ times and then David changes the subject and just turns to the latest of the dm screedal articles.
[...]
4I characterize the dm as "grasping for straws" and resorting to misrepresentations (aka lying) in face of the increased evidence for GW; 2010 data certainly cements the issue of GW as being a real threat.

    1) Call the skeptics by whatever names you wish, Keith, but they are far more honest than the alarmists. You have never been able to document a single case of data cherry picking on their part. You're simply parroting what has been written on alarmist websites such as Skeptical Science, Climate Progress, Desmogblog.Com, and others. The alarmists, beginning with James Hansen, Al Gore, Phil Jones, Michael Mann & friends have, for years on end, fabricated false global warming data and passed it off as truth. Long before Climategate, which occurred in November of "09, the fabricated data of the alarmists were being exposed. Climategate was simply the latest nail in the coffin of the dying alarmist movement. That said, the Medieval Warming Period was a global phenomenon. No question about it.

    2) Not true. Michal Mann's data analysis items (e.g. Mann's paleoclimatic hockey stick) has never been resoplved. Nor will it ever be resolved. Mann and the University of Virginia are in a world of hurt right now. If this thing ever comes to trial, and I believe it will, Mann will lose big time.

    3) I've not been cornered. I will, however, own up to posting scores of links to skeptical arguments & research. I certainly don't deny that. So I guess you can honestly call me a "denialist." However, I'm hardly a "machine."

    4) There is no evidence for "increased" global warming. In fact, there has been no global warming for the last 15 years. The facts are there. Even Phil Jones declares there has been no global warming over the last 15 years. Here's an article that appeared yesterday (12/8/09) that confirms Jones' comment. Characterize the skeptics however you wish, but they are neither grasping for straws nor are they misrepresenting (aka lying about) the facts. Finally, there is no data that cements the issue of GW as being a real threat. There is no threat associated with global warming. The notion of global warming being a threat to humanity is an alarmist myth.


David, there are millions of scientists out there and many have caught the laisse-faire conservative bug and others are just wishful thinkers not really wanting to face changes. So I'm not at all impressed that 1000 have signed some dm petition. I will peruse through the 321 pages put together by the dm. But again (boy are you dense) I'm talking about a poll (Doran) who categorized "earth scientists" chosen at random (not that self identify by some petition) which said 97% of those scientists who were categorized as (climatologists who are actively researching GW as demonstrated by their publications of such) agree in man-caused GW. That poll was in 2009 and it was confirmed by another poll (Anderegg) in 2010 but the number increased to 97-98%. The margin of error was about 4% for Doran and 2% for Anderegg. Morever, the Doran poll shows convincely that the more a scientist is actually involved in GW research, the more AGW s(he) is.

1) You don't think passing off the Central England data as global is dishonest? You don't think the Monckton cherry picking 2000-2008 is dishonest ignoring 90%+ of the available instrumental data?? and not recanting since 2009/2010 data arrived??? Don't have time to count all the times I have cornered you with some dishonest dm tactic/data misrepresntation, but the number runs into the hundreds. You need to read Merchants of Doubt or other books like that to balance your reading on the subject, my firend.

2) Uhmhmmm- the National Academy of Science settled that in Mann's favor wrt his main conclusion of the 20th century being the faster temp rise in the paleoclimatic regime (last 2000 years). DM'ers will never let this go despite the fact the the MWP (if it was global and it may be global) only has anomlaies [url]at most[/url] 0.2C (really 0.0C if you average all the reconstructions) while the 2010 temp is above 0.6C on the same scale (1950-1980 baseline).

3) OK no you are not a machine, you are a human being. Just beholding to an agenda with greed/maintaining their profits and/or ideology (not truth) as it's motive.

4) The dm has taken Jones out of context. I will supply that context after maybe by this weekend (busy Th/F night). And that period 1995 -2009 was fairly flat (especially since 2000-2009), just stuck on high. My remembrance was Jones was given a series of rapid fire periods and asked if warming was statistically significant during that period. For most periods he answered in the affirmative. I know I would have answered the that in the negative if the period was say 1998-2008. Probably would not have done so for 1995-2009 since 1995-1998 showed big increases.

Now in 2010 (really starting in June 2009) it is no longer stuck but has increased. Is it a noise event like 1998 or 2008? maybe. But note the long term trend per decade tells the real story as I showed and repeat here:
Decade / temp anomaly / decade change from previous decade
1970's / - 0.0732C
1980's / + 0.0983C / 0.1715C per decade
1990's / + 0.2406C / 0.1423C per decade
2000's / + 0.4114C / 0.1708C per decade

This shows an approx 0.16C/decade change when averaging over recent decades periods. That means 1.6C= 2.95F (if no feedback occurs) in 100 years. But most all GW scientist believe positive feedback will enhance that leading to the 2007 IPCC range of temps at 2100 of 1.8 - 5.9C increase. Even the 0.8C we have already experienced since 1900 has caused many harmful and costly effects (agricultural losses, water resources declines, droughts, heat waves, severe weather, ocean acidity changes, 40% planckton depletion, glacier loss, sea ice volume losses, hurricane intensity-arguably, but the rest there is no arguably about it).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:29 pm

User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby Ed Edwards » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:59 pm

Quoted above: // There is no evidence for "increased" global warming. In fact, there has been no global warming for the last 15 years. \\

So far I have found nobody who tells me the numbers for this
or even what it means. The statemement gets copied more than
most chain letters. I am beginning to see this as the swan call
for non-believism in AGW -- the last quack of the quacks :-)
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 Ed Edwards » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:01 am

All my crosses are teed,
all my dots are eyed,
time to hit the "Submit" button :D
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:11 am

Ed Edwards wrote:Quoted above: // There is no evidence for "increased" global warming. In fact, there has been no global warming for the last 15 years. \\

1So far I have found nobody who tells me the numbers for this
or even what it means. The statemement gets copied more than
most chain letters. 2I am beginning to see this as the swan call
for non-believism in AGW -- the last quack of the quacks :-)

1) Ed, I rather think that you haven't been paying very close attention. The information is all over the internet. Try reading these articles: 2) Sounds of the "swan call" appear to be coming from the vocal chords of the AGWers. Phil Jones, Archbishop of the Church of AGW, is the person who made the call about no global warming since 1995. That point can't be denied. The skeptics (i.e. non-believers in AGW) didn't pull this one out of thin air...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby Ed Edwards » Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:34 am

I do not have a conversation going with Phil Jones.
I have a conversation going with Elder Brother David.
What does David think "no global warming in the last 15 years " means?

I was thinking one way I could help cool the earth just a bid: grow native grass in my front yard. The grasses native to exciting central OKlahoma tend to run about 2-feet high and 4-foot deep roots. They can survive 2" of rain years (but only one in a row).
The native grasses fix CO2 in their roots, stalkis, and leaves. This stores CO2 out of the air, where it keeps in heart. The 'micro weather' around the plants lowers the heat escaping the ground (some of which bounces back and forth between the grass and the extra CO2 in the air.

One problem: My city rules are: Grass cannot average more than one foot deep over a yard.

Yet I keep getting messages from the City Mayor telling how green my city is, the greenest city in Oklahoma!

-
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 Ed Edwards » Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:41 pm

Consider this statement:

no global warming in the last 15 years
When did it first come about?

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa ... niers.html

a comment dated 01 Feb 2010

http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/b ... lost/3334/

a comment dated 10 Mar 2010.
However, the post
itself warns of methane release

// If Siberia’s methane is being released suddenly
into the atmosphere, and even the basics of climate
change science is true, it could mean another
8 million metric tons of methane
going into the atmosphere this year, and
more next year.

// That’s a fraction of the 440 metric tons total
from all the grass, cows, fires, and unlit farts
around the world each year. But it could be enough
to tip the balance. \\

So the 'data' says AGW but the comment says (without data) no AGW.
I am sticking with the data

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/0 ... -to-blame/

22 July 2010
Time-CNN News article, comment

Here is what the article says:

// We just lived through the hottest month on record,
on track for the hottest year ever.
Climate change is frightening.
As Al Gore said in a statement today:
"The truth about the climate crisis—inconvenient
as ever—must be faced." He's still right. \\

I see a trend, the people with the platform are saying AGW,
the deniers are bleating
no global warming in the last 15 years
Like the Braying sheep from ANIMAL FARM
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 » Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:38 pm

David Flick wrote:
Ed Edwards wrote:Quoted above: // There is no evidence for "increased" global warming. In fact, there has been no global warming for the last 15 years. \\

1So far I have found nobody who tells me the numbers for this
or even what it means. The statemement gets copied more than
most chain letters. 2I am beginning to see this as the swan call
for non-believism in AGW -- the last quack of the quacks :-)

1) Ed, I rather think that you haven't been paying very close attention. The information is all over the internet. Try reading these articles: 2) Sounds of the "swan call" appear to be coming from the vocal chords of the AGWers. Phil Jones, Archbishop of the Church of AGW, is the person who made the call about no global warming since 1995. That point can't be denied. The skeptics (i.e. non-believers in AGW) didn't pull this one out of thin air...


Here is Entire BBC's Interview with Phil Jones that led to the torrent of denalist articles that David gives above. Read it and it is clear that all of the dm articles (that David links) cherry pick incomplete quotes from the Phil Jones interview to a extreme degree. Let me quote that interview on this matter to bring to front the whole picture of what Jones said about warmng trends and their significance in total.

Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails.
The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA's press office.
A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Yes,
but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.



The only part that all the torrent of articles David lists is the isolated quote in red above stopping mid-sentence, and does not mention the qualifications to that cherry picked statement in blue that immediately follow. That is cherry picking interview data in the extreme gven what else Jones says. His level of confidence that the 0.12C/decade rise is real (not noise) is "close to" 95% which is the traditional very tough standard in statistic inference to assign the term "statistically significant" to a hypothesis. Note that overall, for the 20th century, the answer to Question A is a resounding YES, the warming is statistically significant- a fact that none of the articles David lists bothers to mention. Yet all the torrent of dm articles attempt to paint the picture of Jones having to admit 'there is no global warming for the last 15 years" when in fact he says it warmed at a 0.12C/decade trend. Some of the articles do not even mention the time period implying 'no global warmng at all'. Total BS.

Certainly the articles are not a fair rendition of Dr. Jones's agreement with the IPCC's attribution of GW to human activity as given in chapter 9 of the WG1 of the 2007 IPCC. See his answer to Question E in green. More misrepresentation/dishonest reporting from the dm.

Cherry picked DATA and cherry picked interviews. That is the modus operandi of the denialists. David is duped to say the least. Need I say more.

But I will say more!

I'm quite sure that Jones would call the trend in the period 1995-Nov 2010 (latest data) as "statistically significant" since the latest datasets (Hadley and GISS) are higher than even 1998 or 2005 (the warmest years respectively). In fact GISS just posted its Nov totals today and if you look at the column marked D-N for year 2010, you will see that Dec 2009-Nov 2010 is the hottest year ever more than 2005 or 1998. It's at 0.65C (just like I was predicting). I think Dr. Jones's "Yes, but just only" answer to Question B is now "No, it is statistically significant" (that is more than 95% confident).


Some other quotes from the Harrabin-Jones interview:

G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.


I'll add that the warmth today (>0.6C see GISS data linked above) is greater even the highest reconstruction during the MWP (<0.2C see below), therefore the "if" statement in red just above applies not the sentence before it.
Image


Q - Let's talk about the e-mails now: In the e-mails you refer to a "trick" which your critics say suggests you conspired to trick the public? You also mentioned "hiding the decline" (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?
This remark has nothing to do with any "decline" in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.
The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.
This "divergence" is well known in the tree-ring literature and "trick" did not refer to any intention to deceive - but rather "a convenient way of achieving something", in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.
I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time - an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report.
The misinterpretation of the remark stems from its being quoted out of context. The 1999 WMO report wanted just the three curves, without the split between the proxy part of the reconstruction and the last few years of instrumental data that brought the series up to the end of 1999. Only one of the three curves was based solely on tree-ring data.
The e-mail was sent to a few colleagues pointing out their data was being used in the WMO Annual Statement in 1999. I was pointing out to them how the lines were physically drawn. This e-mail was not written for a general audience. If it had been I would have explained what I had done in much more detail.


S - The e-mails suggest you were trying to subvert the process of peer review and to influence editors in their decisions about which papers to publish. Do you accept that?
I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions. I undertook all the reviews I made in good faith and sent them back to the editors. In some e-mails I questioned the peer-review process with respect to what I believed were poor papers that had appeared. Isn't this called freedom of speech? On some occasions I joined with others to submit a response to some of these papers. Since the beginning of 2005 I have reviewed 43 papers. I take my reviewing seriously and in 2006 I was given an editor's award from Geophysical Research Letters for conscientious and constructive reviewing.


U - Now, on to the fallout from "Climategate", as it has become known. You had a leading role in a part of the IPCC, Working Group I. Do you accept that credibility in the IPCC has been damaged - partly as a result of your actions? Does the IPCC need reform to gain public trust?
Some have said that the credibility in the IPCC has been damaged, partly due to the misleading and selective release of particular e-mails. I wish people would spend as much time reading my scientific papers as they do reading my e-mails. The IPCC does need to reassure people about the quality of its assessments.


As usual, setting the record straight.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:19 am

KeithE wrote:As usual, setting the record straight.

As usual, more AGW spin... Do you deny that Jones agreed that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming? You can spin the AGW-generated data from now until Kingdom come will not be able to honestly refute the fact that there has been no significent global warming in the last 15 years.. You can spin Mann's reconstituted hockey stick graph (which feebly attempts to include both the MWP & LIA) until the cows come home and you'll not be able to honestly refute the fact that the MWP was much warmer and for a much longer period of time than today's warmest temperatures.

Put whatever spin on it that you will, you can't honestly deny the fact that Jones did agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:48 am


Here's a followup article on the the "Gore Effect" during the COP16 in Cancun, Mexico. Amazingly, there have been, count'em, six (6) straight days of record low temperatures in Cancun. Al Gore must be feeling a lot like Al Capp's Lil Abner comic strip character, Joe Btfsplk, who was the world's worst jinx who always traveled with a dark cloud over his head. :lol:
“Gore Effect” on Steroids: Six straight days of record low temperatures during COP16 in Cancun Mexico – more coming
Posted on December 10, 2010 by Anthony Watts

The irony, it burns. Do you think maybe Gaia is trying to send the U.N. and the delegates a message? One record low was funny, three in a row was hilarious, a new record low for the month of December was ROFL, but now six straight days of record lows during the U.N. COP16 Global Warming conference? That’s galactically inconvenient. The whole month so far has averaged below normal: (Continue reading here)


To enjoy a few more chuckles, read the comment section below the article. I enjoyed this one, which can be sung to the tune of "Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer."
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby Jim » Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:50 pm

David Flick wrote:

Here's a followup article on the the "Gore Effect" during the COP16 in Cancun, Mexico. Amazingly, there have been, count'em, six (6) straight days of record low temperatures in Cancun. Al Gore must be feeling a lot like Al Capp's Lil Abner comic strip character, Joe Btfsplk, who was the world's worst jinx who always traveled with a dark cloud over his head. :lol:
“Gore Effect” on Steroids: Six straight days of record low temperatures during COP16 in Cancun Mexico – more coming
The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to an empty chair this year. The same was true in 2007.
Posted on December 10, 2010 by Anthony Watts

The irony, it burns. Do you think maybe Gaia is trying to send the U.N. and the delegates a message? One record low was funny, three in a row was hilarious, a new record low for the month of December was ROFL, but now six straight days of record lows during the U.N. COP16 Global Warming conference? That’s galactically inconvenient. The whole month so far has averaged below normal: (Continue reading here)


To enjoy a few more chuckles, read the comment section below the article. I enjoyed this one, which can be sung to the tune of "Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer."
.
.

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to an empty chair this year. The same was true in 2007.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby KeithE » Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:54 pm

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:As usual, setting the record straight.

As usual, more AGW spin... Do you deny that Jones agreed that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming? You can spin the AGW-generated data from now until Kingdom come will not be able to honestly refute the fact that there has been no significent global warming in the last 15 years.. You can spin Mann's reconstituted hockey stick graph (which feebly attempts to include both the MWP & LIA) until the cows come home and you'll not be able to honestly refute the fact that the MWP was much warmer and for a much longer period of time than today's warmest temperatures.

Put whatever spin on it that you will, you can't honestly deny the fact that Jones did agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming.


He said that for the period 1995 to Dec 2009. But let's look at what else he said. He pointed out that the temp trend (I'm assuming a least squares fit) was +0.12C over that period. And he said that was just barely not statistically significant (SS) while pointing out several other periods in the late 19th and 20th century were SS . In scientific verbiage they demand a confidence level of 95% to claim SS. The dm is utilizing that very limited statement to try to say there has been no warmng soince 1995 (as the dm press headlines you linked said)

dm headlines per David wrote:Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
THERE has been no global warming for 15 years,
Hot News: No Global Warming for 15 Years
No Global Warming for 15 Years
Climate Scientist Admits No Warming in 15 Years
THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE RETREAT
No Global Warming For The Last 15 Years!
Scientist admits there has been no global warming since 1995
Phil Jones Admits No Global Warming For 15 Years!
No Global Warming Since 1995
UK - There has been no global warming for 15 years
DR PHIL JONES, CLIMATEGATE, DROPS BOMBSHELL - NO GLOBAL WARMING IN 15 YEARS
UEA Phil Jones BBC Interview: Admits No Global Warming Since 1995
THERE HAS BEEN NO GLOBAL WARMING SINCE 1995
Climateagte scientist admits no global warming since 1995


All these headlines are WRONG. In fact he said there has been a global warming trend of 0.12C/decade over the last 15 years. He just said it didn't quite reach the tough criteria of 95% confidence to be called statistically significant (as several other earlier periods had).

Now I know you do not know the details of statistical inference talk; I do. But still headlines that claim Jones says 'no warming for 15 years' is NOT TRUE and even you should be able to admit to that. It is there in black and white in the interview transcript (I'll bold it for you)
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods
.
He also was honest enough to say that the period from Jan 2002-Dec 2009 (7 years) was a negative trend (-0.12C/decade). But he said that trend was not statistically significant (it would be even more insignificant in that the period is shorter - 7 years vs 15 years at the same absolute value of trend 0.12).
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.


So it is clear to any reasonable person that the DM (denailist machine) press misrepresented Jones by cherry picking a statement, not explaining what he meant by it, and ignoring many other statements that show Dr. Jones is still on the AGW side of this PR debate. The scientific debate is for all intense and purpose over.

The DM (denialist machine) in this case cherry picks approx 5% of Jones interview (one of 20 questions) and misrepresents that. Reminds me of Monckton cherry picking 6.9% of global surface temp measurements (11 years[1998 to ~Sept 2008] out of the available 160 years) and making astounding conclusions . And I note Monckton has not recanted based in the 2009, 2010 data - an honest man would.

Likewise, David you ought to recant the conclusions proclaimed on the graph below:
Image
recognizing that this plots ends in Dec 09 and the temps have risen since then. By the end of Nov 2010 the temp anomaly is at 0.65C while the high point of 1998 was 0.57C according to the GISS. However the AMSU satellite data as given on Roy Spencer's website (when looking at the 13 months running average) has Nov 2010 about equal to 1998. And if it weren't for the perturbing influences of the abnormally strong El Nino year in 1998 and the cooling caused by Mt. Pinatubo in 1992, we would have an upward trend of 0.4C over 31 years or 0.13C/decade just like the average since about 1950 and greater by a factor of 6 in terms of rate than any time in history (MWP and deglaciation periods included).
Image

But using any dataset, 2010 has seen a substantial temp rise that makes the rise since 1995 statistically significant. Likewise the 2009 and 2010 data invalidates the Monckton claim (made in sept 2008) that the temps are cooling since 1998.

My "grasping at straws" comment stands. And the straws are very weak.
Last edited by KeithE on Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:25 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby Ed Edwards » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:20 pm

Thank you, friend KiethB.

Here is what Jones actually said (and it is the truth, to the 95% confidence level):
// "no statistically-significant global warming" 1995 \\
appears in google 663 times

Here is how Glen Beck and other's quote4d Jones (not even true at the 0.5% level, i.e. A LIE):
// "no global warming for the last 15 years" \\
appears in google 9120 times

so the lie appears 14 times as often as the truth

I think that is something pastors should note,
being the pastors who serve the TRUTH which is Messiah Yeshua.
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 Ed Edwards » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:24 pm

Not to mention the futility of discussing HISTORY when we aught to study current events.

Jones appartently said his stuff prior to 2010.
The propaganda machine has been using the distorted statements of Jones
throughout every month of record setting heat in 2010. Yep, if the news
does not fit your bias, quote history :-)


-
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 Ed Edwards » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:36 pm

BTW, I invested in the housing market with a like 58% confidence
level of Republican endorcement in 2002.
It still costs 15% of my retirement every month (and I lost my investment)

BTW, I invested in the auto market (new car) with a like 42%

confidence level of Republican endorcement in 2006.
It still costs 5% of my raetirment every month (and I hav
e no car - that is just the difference between what I
owed and what the auto was worth.

So today I invest my time (I have no money left save the Democratic
entitlement program which I am entitled unto)
in the 97% confidence level of the World Government that
Global Warming is happening and I can do a bit about
it.

I note the 20% extra I am paying is the same 20% extra I was giving the US Governments.
The Lord only wants 10% -- but I still pay 30% to the US Governments.

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.
The Governments just take away

Hug a tree For Jesus!

(I love the reactions athiests are giving me about this
statement on AGW discussion boards :-)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby Ed Edwards » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:55 pm

David: // Sounds of the "swan call" appear to be coming from the vocal chords of the AGWers. Phil Jones, Archbishop of the Church of AGW, is the person who made the call about no global warming since 1995. That point can't be denied. \\

I deny that. I proved it above. The deniers of AGW are one in spirit with the deniers of God:

Psalm 14:1 (KJV1611 Edition, e-sword.com edition):
[To the chiefe musician, A Psalme of Dauid.]
The foole hath sayd in his heart, There is no God:
they are corrupt, they haue done abominable workes,
there is none that doeth good.
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 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:02 pm

Ed Edwards wrote:Thank you, friend KiethB.

Here is what Jones actually said (and it is the truth, to the 95% confidence level):
// "no statistically-significant global warming" 1995 \\
appears in google 663 times

Here is how Glen Beck and other's quote4d Jones (not even true at the 0.5% level, i.e. A LIE):
// "no global warming for the last 15 years" \\
appears in google 9120 times

so the lie appears 14 times as often as the truth

I think that is something pastors should note,
being the pastors who serve the TRUTH which is Messiah Yeshua.

Good research Ed. The Denialist Machine is working overtime but they lie with cherry picked DATA and cherry picked interviews.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:37 am

Ed Edwards wrote:David: // Sounds of the "swan call" appear to be coming from the vocal chords of the AGWers. Phil Jones, Archbishop of the Church of AGW, is the person who made the call about no global warming since 1995. That point can't be denied. \\

I deny that. I proved it above. The deniers of AGW are one in spirit with the deniers of God:

Psalm 14:1 (KJV1611 Edition, e-sword.com edition):
[To the chiefe musician, A Psalme of Dauid.]
The foole hath sayd in his heart, There is no God:
they are corrupt, they haue done abominable workes,
there is none that doeth good.

My goodness, Ed!!!! So as a denier of AGW, I'm one in the spirit with deniers of God? Where, oh where, on earth did you come up with that looney idea? Are you questioning my salvation by that comment? Where have you ever in your life seen a single word that I've written which declared that I deny God? Where have I ever stated that there is no God? How am I corrupt? How have I done abominable works? I find it amazing that you could possibly draw such a conclusion? Yes, I do deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but how does that make me a denier of God, corrupt, and a worker of abomination?

As to "proving" that Phil Jones did not agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming, both you and Keith failed. You can spin what Jones said and accuse the skeptics of lying and "cherry picking" the data, but the facts do not change. It's a common understanding among credible climate scientists and those who know the truth that the belief in anthropogenic global warming is false. For the genuine truth about these matters, you can read one or all of these books.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby David Flick » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:51 am

KeithE wrote:
Ed Edwards wrote:Thank you, friend KiethB.

Here is what Jones actually said (and it is the truth, to the 95% confidence level):
// "no statistically-significant global warming" 1995 \\
appears in google 663 times

Here is how Glen Beck and other's quote4d Jones (not even true at the 0.5% level, i.e. A LIE):
// "no global warming for the last 15 years" \\
appears in google 9120 times

so the lie appears 14 times as often as the truth

I think that is something pastors should note,
being the pastors who serve the TRUTH which is Messiah Yeshua.

Good research Ed. The Denialist Machine is working overtime but they lie with cherry picked DATA and cherry picked interviews.

Actually the lies are being told by by the alarmists.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread XI

Postby KeithE » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:34 pm

David Flick wrote:
Ed Edwards wrote:David: // Sounds of the "swan call" appear to be coming from the vocal chords of the AGWers. Phil Jones, Archbishop of the Church of AGW, is the person who made the call about no global warming since 1995. That point can't be denied. \\

I deny that. I proved it above. The deniers of AGW are one in spirit with the deniers of God:

Psalm 14:1 (KJV1611 Edition, e-sword.com edition):
[To the chiefe musician, A Psalme of Dauid.]
The foole hath sayd in his heart, There is no God:
they are corrupt, they haue done abominable workes,
there is none that doeth good.

My goodness, Ed!!!! So as a denier of AGW, I'm one in the spirit with deniers of God? Where, oh where, on earth did you come up with that looney idea? Are you questioning my salvation by that comment? Where have you ever in your life seen a single word that I've written which declared that I deny God? Where have I ever stated that there is no God? How am I corrupt? How have I done abominable works? I find it amazing that you could possibly draw such a conclusion? Yes, I do deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but how does that make me a denier of God, corrupt, and a worker of abomination?

As to "proving" that Phil Jones did not agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming, both you and Keith failed. You can spin what Jones said and accuse the skeptics of lying and "cherry picking" the data, but the facts do not change. It's a common understanding among credible climate scientists and those who know the truth that the belief in anthropogenic global warming is false. For the genuine truth about these matters, you can read one or all of these books.


I have read all of them except the Deniers Fully Revised (but I have read the Deniers). I find them low on DATA and when they do give some it is usually truncated. They actually make me more AGW as I see their ridiculous arguments. Red Hot Lies (by CEI's lawyer) is the worst- one plot ill-marked. Climate Confusion (Spencer, Rush's Chief Climatologist) starts out each chapter with a sarcastic cartoon- David would love it. The Great Climate Blunder (Spencer again) claims to have solved why the earth has warmed -it's the clouds stupid - but offers no evidence at all for that theory- none. The Deniers (Solomon) gives stories from 16 denialist scientists and how they are so oppressed - zero discussion of DATA; also many of those "deniers" weren't deniers after all and told Solomon so, including Drs Weiss, Bromwich, Tol, Landesea, Solanti. To boot most had a limited set of some aspect of GW studies that they questioned and are in fact AGWers. Solomon even claimed Roger Revelle (now deceased) as a denier - read about him here . IOW the book The Deniers is highly fabricated to say the least.

Although I generally read opposing views as much as sympathic views, I don't think I'll buy the Deniers Fully Revised due to his first book and the first review given for this "revised" book below:

First a warning is in order. Amazon's description of this 2010 revised edition (paperback) is not accurate, as actually this edition just has one new chapter (regarding global warming affirmers), not two as announced (the seal in the cover correctly states that there is only one new chapter).

This new chapter (actually is kind of author's postscript) is short and Solomon deals quite harshly with the recent developments regarding Climategate and the recently discovered IPPC blunders in its 2007 Report. Each subject is analyzed briefly and in a very sarcastic way. For those who already read the original edition it is not worthy to expend $12 for almost the same content.

Sounds to me alike a reprint with a brief postscript to get more $$s from the overzealous denialist clan who love unsupported sarcasm and to incredibly spin scientists viewpoints (like they did with Dr. Jones)

I do notice again, I have caught David linking incredibly WRONG denialist articles and proven them as such - Dr. Jones did not say the global temprature has seen no warming for 15 years as his linked articles headlines and texts said. In fact, Jones said that warming was +0.12C/decade with something close to 95% confidence but not quite that high (maybe 90% confidence) and most certainly has not backed down from his GW or AGW viewpoint. David does not admit it and just loads up another pile of denialist junk.

I will say I do not question David's salvation, just his sanity on this subject.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests