Global Warming Thread IX

[Gary]

Old thread had reached 109 posts.

Arbitrary new thread per David's earlier discussion. He's busy. I did it for him.

Now, have at each other, Brothers.

Gary

[David Flick]

Old thread had reached 109 posts.

Arbitrary new thread per David's earlier discussion. He's busy. I did it for him.

Now, have at each other, Brothers.

Gary

Thanks, Gary! Great job...

. . . . . .Gary's Spur

[Jim]

On this date in 1936 in my town, the temperature rose to 108, after two days at 106 apiece. The rest of the summer in 1936 made it about the hottest on record (many days above 100), as was the entire decade of the 1930s. At that time, I was dreading the first grade. In the 1940s, the cooling started and by the 1970s the “experts” were warning of a new Ice Age. So…this is a bit of reminder that anecdotal stuff regarding the current “heat wave” in some parts of the country is nothing new and just as useless. When it was hot here in 1936 and all of the 1930s, Oklahoma was blowing away toward California – both soil and people. Thankfully, things are very good in Oklahoma now.

[David Flick]

.
.

• The Climategate Whitewash Continues

.
.

[KeithE]

.
.

• The Climategate Whitewash Continues

.
.

For a less bias take on the exoneration of the UEA scientists/DATA.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
Main conclusions:

Conclusions

1. We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work
of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely
that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if
slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of
public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures
were rather informal.

2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that
depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close
collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual
benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a
much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of
temperature specialists.

3. It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were
important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of
environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted
a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by
government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of
processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and
seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in
government.

4. A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of
Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the
CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties
should stay with those who collected it

Also this independent study exonerated Jones and the CRU.

As can be seen from the conclusions these were no whitewash as Pat Michaels (David's denialist link) says. Improvements in data access process and the use of the utmost in statistical methods were recommended.

As for the DATA and the hottest year (Jan-June) ever (partially due to El Nino effects) :

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/10/nasa-hottest-year-solar-minimum/


Blue curve: 12-month running-mean global temperature. Note correlation with Nino index (red = El Nino, blue = La Nina). Large volcanoes (green) have a cooling effect for ~2 years.

But as the article points out, it may drop some in the latter half of 2010 due to expectations of La Nina returning. But the long term upward trend (~0.15C/decade) since 1970 is UNDENIALIABLE by all but those with special interests, dogma, or the duped. And it does not correspoond to so called natural effects since we are at a solar miniumum.

[Ed Edwards]

Strawman AGW Denier argument: No group of earth persons ever caused Global Warming.

Bye Bye argument. All it takes is one exception:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/1007 ... e_mammoths

Of course, that was back before God crated Adam. So we would have to call those Mammoth killers:
Apes

[Ed Edwards]

Brother Jim || ... by the 1970s the “experts” were warning of a new Ice Age ... ||

Better statement: by the 1970s an expert or two warned of a new Ice Age coming in about 20,000 years

by th 1990s many climate experts, paleoclimate experts, geologists, biologists, and kindred experts were warning of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) that would be well on it's way and obvious by 2030. This AGW scare was proved UNTRUE. AGW is now and the AGW is going to increase through 2100 even if we do now what we should have done in 1992 (when we should have elected Al Gore). Fortunately I did not vote for Bush nor Gore. (I figured that we had a Bush already and do not need an american Dynasty!) I guess it was alright to spend a Trillion Dollars killing Iraqi and Afgans - but not alright to spend a Trillion Dollars building dikes?

[David Flick]

Strawman AGW Denier argument: No group of earth persons ever caused Global Warming.

Bye Bye argument. All it takes is one exception:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/1007 ... e_mammoths

Of course, that was back before God crated Adam. So we would have to call those Mammoth killers:
Apes

AGW Dude, that entire article was pure unadulterated baloney cheese. The author (Yereth Rosen) has no clue about the truth of the matter. No credible person or scientist ("credible" being the operative word here) has ever proven that human beings can cause global warming or climate change.

[Howard V]

Those guys probably have it backwards - - - The birch grew farther north because it had already warmed up a bit [makes as much sense as their assumption].

Now let's see - - every time I eat a steak I'm contributing to AGW because there is one less cow to eat the grass therefore the extra grass will absorb more sunlight causing the earth to get hotter. OK. I guess when I pick purple hull peas, tomatoes, peppers, beans, cucumbers, etc. from my backyard garden and chow down on them then I'm surely helping cool the planet because after I've eaten the veggies there is less vegetation to absorb the sunlight to produce more heat. Do I have it right? If so I need to increase my consumption of veggies 'cause it is hot right here right now.

Howard

[KeithE]

Strawman AGW Denier argument: No group of earth persons ever caused Global Warming.

Bye Bye argument. All it takes is one exception:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/1007 ... e_mammoths

Of course, that was back before God crated Adam. So we would have to call those Mammoth killers:
Apes

AGW Dude, that entire article was pure unadulterated baloney cheese. The author (Yereth Rosen) has no clue about the truth of the matter. No credible person or scientist ("credible" being the operative word here) has ever proven that human beings can cause global warming or climate change.

Yeah AGW Dude, David really provides powerful DATA His baloney cheese really proves his points.

From your article we can put the recent temp rises in perspective.

FIRST HUMAN IMPACT ON CLIMATE

If mammoth hunters helped hasten Arctic warming, that would potentially be the first such human impact on climate, preceding that caused by ancient farmers, Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology and a co-author of the study, said on Tuesday.

With the advent of agriculture about 7,000 years ago at more southern latitudes, humans are believed to have modified the climate through deforestation and cultivation of new plants, he said.

The earlier climate consequences of declining mammoth populations were extremely subtle.

The flourishing of plant life as the voracious, vegetarian beasts were disappearing about 15,000 years ago helped warm the Arctic and boreal regions in what is now Siberia and North America by 0.2 degrees Celsius over a period of several centuries, though certain spots saw a temperature rise of up to 1 degree Celsius, the study found.

Ancient human-caused warming was tiny compared to modern-day warming, in which the Earth's temperature has risen about 0.74 degrees Celsius (1.33 degrees F) since the start of the 20th century, with temperatures rising at least twice as fast in the Arctic, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The research attributes about a fourth of the Arctic's vegetation-driven warming to the decline of the woolly mammoth. If human hunters helped kill off the large mammals, they bear some responsibility for warming the climate, the scientists concluded.

"We're not saying this was a big effect," Field said. "The point of the paper isn't that this is a big effect. But it's a human effect."

0.74 C in one century (at least twice that much in the Arctic =1.48C ) vs 0.2C in several centuries in Arctic/boreal regions. Say "several centuries" means at a minimum 3 centuries. Then the 20th century's rate of temp change in the Arctic is at least 20 times that due to early earth agriculture (and I'm am low balling that ratio)

This book Earth's Climate: Past and Future makes the same points as Chris Field does in a very detailed, illustrated, more global fashion.

While absolute 100% certainty is elusive in true earth science, AGW is as near to that level of proof as any earth-related scientific assertion at least to any credible (non-politically biased) earth/climate scientist.

[Jim]

Brother Jim || ... by the 1970s the “experts” were warning of a new Ice Age ... ||

Better statement: by the 1970s an expert or two warned of a new Ice Age coming in about 20,000 years

by th 1990s many climate experts, paleoclimate experts, geologists, biologists, and kindred experts were warning of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) that would be well on it's way and obvious by 2030. This AGW scare was proved UNTRUE. AGW is now and the AGW is going to increase through 2100 even if we do now what we should have done in 1992 (when we should have elected Al Gore). Fortunately I did not vote for Bush nor Gore. (I figured that we had a Bush already and do not need an american Dynasty!) I guess it was alright to spend a Trillion Dollars killing Iraqi and Afgans - but not alright to spend a Trillion Dollars building dikes?

Try these and note especially the Hansen flip-flop:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/;
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Excerpts_from_the_August_1977_book.pdf;
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html;
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=3432.

[KeithE]

Brother Jim || ... by the 1970s the “experts” were warning of a new Ice Age ... ||

Better statement: by the 1970s an expert or two warned of a new Ice Age coming in about 20,000 years

by th 1990s many climate experts, paleoclimate experts, geologists, biologists, and kindred experts were warning of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) that would be well on it's way and obvious by 2030. This AGW scare was proved UNTRUE. AGW is now and the AGW is going to increase through 2100 even if we do now what we should have done in 1992 (when we should have elected Al Gore). Fortunately I did not vote for Bush nor Gore. (I figured that we had a Bush already and do not need an american Dynasty!) I guess it was alright to spend a Trillion Dollars killing Iraqi and Afgans - but not alright to spend a Trillion Dollars building dikes?

Try these and note especially the Hansen flip-flop:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/;
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Excerpts_from_the_August_1977_book.pdf;
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html;
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=3432.

That was 1971 Jim. And it was a Hansen colleague not Hansen himself (who was 30 years old at the time and not even studying global warming - he was maninly studying circulation models of Venus according to his autobiography). Besides the earth's temp at that time had decreased very slightly since 1940 by 0.1C.

It was a mistaken prognostication by Hansen's colleague then. Facts have dramatically changed since then as you should be able to see (if you have eyes to see) above.

Your claim of Hansen flip-flop, flops on all accounts. Same goes for Holdren - some people actual continue to look at data and are man enough to adjust. Some people choose to be comfortably derelict, others eye near-term profits.

The lengths that the denialist go to - bringing up 40 year old newsclips show how desparate they are for information to make their pre-ordained point and not upset their corporate sponsors' short-term profits.

[David Flick]

Brother Jim || ... by the 1970s the “experts” were warning of a new Ice Age ... ||

Better statement: by the 1970s an expert or two warned of a new Ice Age coming in about 20,000 years

by th 1990s many climate experts, paleoclimate experts, geologists, biologists, and kindred experts were warning of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) that would be well on it's way and obvious by 2030. This AGW scare was proved UNTRUE. AGW is now and the AGW is going to increase through 2100 even if we do now what we should have done in 1992 (when we should have elected Al Gore). Fortunately I did not vote for Bush nor Gore. (I figured that we had a Bush already and do not need an american Dynasty!) I guess it was alright to spend a Trillion Dollars killing Iraqi and Afgans - but not alright to spend a Trillion Dollars building dikes?

Try these and note especially the Hansen flip-flop:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/;
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Excerpts_from_the_August_1977_book.pdf;
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html;
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=3432.





That was 1971 Jim. And it was a Hansen colleague not Hansen himself (who was 30 years old at the time and not even studying global warming - he was maninly studying circulation models of Venus according to his autobiography). Besides the earth's temp at that time had decreased very slightly since 1940 by 0.1C.

Keith's Wikipedia graph...

It was a mistaken prognostication by Hansen's colleague then. Facts have dramatically changed since then as you should be able to see (if you have eyes to see) above.

Your claim of Hansen flip-flop, flops on all accounts. Same goes for Holdren - some people actual continue to look at data and are man enough to adjust. Some people choose to be comfortably derelict, others eye near-term profits.

The lengths that the denialist go to - bringing up 40 year old newsclips show how desparate they are for information to make their pre-ordained point and not upset their corporate sponsors' short-term profits.

The lengths to which the warmists will go (e.g. perpetuating the hoax) shows how desperate they are to convince the ever decreasing number of gullible people that man-made global warming/climate change is a reality...

[Ed Edwards]

James 1:8 (KJV1611 edition, e-sword.com edition):

A double minded man is vnstable in all his wayes.


Strong's explains this for the source of the term here translated "double minded".

G1374
δίψυχος
dipsuchos
dip'-soo-khos
From G1364 and G5590; two spirited, that is, vacillating (in opinion or purpose): - double minded.

[David Flick]

Strawman AGW Denier argument: No group of earth persons ever caused Global Warming.

Bye Bye argument. All it takes is one exception:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/1007 ... e_mammoths

Of course, that was back before God crated Adam. So we would have to call those Mammoth killers:
Apes

AGW Dude, that entire article was pure unadulterated baloney cheese. The author (Yereth Rosen) has no clue about the truth of the matter. No credible person or scientist ("credible" being the operative word here) has ever proven that human beings can cause global warming or climate change.




Yeah AGW Dude, David really provides powerful DATA His baloney cheese really proves his points.


David: You bet... Quoting a warmist is powerful DATA. Proves my point quite well...

From your article we can put the recent temp rises in perspective.


FIRST HUMAN IMPACT ON CLIMATE
[By Yereth Rosen]

If mammoth hunters helped hasten Arctic warming, that would potentially be the first such human impact on climate, preceding that caused by ancient farmers, Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology and a co-author of the study, said on Tuesday.

With the advent of agriculture about 7,000 years ago at more southern latitudes, humans are believed to have modified the climate through deforestation and cultivation of new plants, he said.

The earlier climate consequences of declining mammoth populations were extremely subtle.

The flourishing of plant life as the voracious, vegetarian beasts were disappearing about 15,000 years ago helped warm the Arctic and boreal regions in what is now Siberia and North America by 0.2 degrees Celsius over a period of several centuries, though certain spots saw a temperature rise of up to 1 degree Celsius, the study found.

Ancient human-caused warming was tiny compared to modern-day warming, in which the Earth's temperature has risen about 0.74 degrees Celsius (1.33 degrees F) since the start of the 20th century, with temperatures rising at least twice as fast in the Arctic, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


David: Ah yes... Thus saith the No-Name IPCC. We all know how "credible" that bunch is. You can practically mark it down... If the "No-Namers" speak it, there's a 90% likelihood it's false alarmism...

The research attributes about a fourth of the Arctic's vegetation-driven warming to the decline of the woolly mammoth. If human hunters helped kill off the large mammals, they bear some responsibility for warming the climate, the scientists concluded.

"We're not saying this was a big effect," Field said. "The point of the paper isn't that this is a big effect. But it's a human effect."



0.74 C in one century (at least twice that much in the Arctic =1.48C ) vs 0.2C in several centuries in Arctic/boreal regions. Say "several centuries" means at a minimum 3 centuries. Then the 20th century's rate of temp change in the Arctic is at least 20 times that due to early earth agriculture (and I'm am low balling that ratio)

This book Earth's Climate: Past and Future makes the same points as Chris Field does in a very detailed, illustrated, more global fashion.

While absolute 100% certainty is elusive in true earth science, AGW is as near to that level of proof as any earth-related scientific assertion at least to any credible (non-politically biased) earth/climate scientist.


David: I suppose you're trying to convince me that AGW earth-related scientific assertions (i.e. IPCC, Climategate personalities, Algore, Hansen, etc. etc.) are "non-politically biased"?? Nice try there, Keith. Wanna back off and try another response? Those are the most politically biased sources on the face of the globe.

[David Flick]

James 1:8 (KJV1611 edition, e-sword.com edition):

A double minded man is vnstable in all his wayes.


Strong's explains this for the source of the term here translated "double minded".

G1374
δίψυχος
dipsuchos
dip'-soo-khos
From G1364 and G5590; two spirited, that is, vacillating (in opinion or purpose): - double minded.

What's the point here, Ed? How does James 1:18 relate to climate change or global warming??

[Ed Edwards]

Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder; but ugly goes clear to the bone.
The scripture is (metaphorically speaking) a mirror, revealing the inner self, soul, spirit, etc.
I just post scripture, the Lord gives it meaning for the reader.
I plant the seed, God gives the increase.

[David Flick]

Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder; but ugly goes clear to the bone.
The scripture is (metaphorically speaking) a mirror, revealing the inner self, soul, spirit, etc.
I just post scripture, the Lord gives it meaning for the reader.
I plant the seed, God gives the increase.

I'm still not sure how James 1:18 relates to the topic at hand... Maybe it'll come to me sometime in the night...

[KeithE]

Brother Jim || ... by the 1970s the “experts” were warning of a new Ice Age ... ||

Better statement: by the 1970s an expert or two warned of a new Ice Age coming in about 20,000 years

by th 1990s many climate experts, paleoclimate experts, geologists, biologists, and kindred experts were warning of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) that would be well on it's way and obvious by 2030. This AGW scare was proved UNTRUE. AGW is now and the AGW is going to increase through 2100 even if we do now what we should have done in 1992 (when we should have elected Al Gore). Fortunately I did not vote for Bush nor Gore. (I figured that we had a Bush already and do not need an american Dynasty!) I guess it was alright to spend a Trillion Dollars killing Iraqi and Afgans - but not alright to spend a Trillion Dollars building dikes?

Try these and note especially the Hansen flip-flop:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/;
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/dr-holdrens-ice-age-tidal-wave/;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Excerpts_from_the_August_1977_book.pdf;
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html;
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=3432.





That was 1971 Jim. And it was a Hansen colleague not Hansen himself (who was 30 years old at the time and not even studying global warming - he was maninly studying circulation models of Venus according to his autobiography). Besides the earth's temp at that time had decreased very slightly since 1940 by 0.1C.

Keith's Wikipedia graph...

It was a mistaken prognostication by Hansen's colleague then. Facts have dramatically changed since then as you should be able to see (if you have eyes to see) above.

Your claim of Hansen flip-flop, flops on all accounts. Same goes for Holdren - some people actual continue to look at data and are man enough to adjust. Some people choose to be comfortably derelict, others eye near-term profits.

The lengths that the denialist go to - bringing up 40 year old newsclips show how desparate they are for information to make their pre-ordained point and not upset their corporate sponsors' short-term profits.

The lengths to which the warmists will go (e.g. perpetuating the hoax) shows how desperate they are to convince the ever decreasing number of gullible people that man-made global warming/climate change is a reality...

For those with eyes to see, I'll repeat the DATA that David hides calling it "Keith's Wikipedia graph".

It is not Keith's or Wikipedia's graph, it is real DATA from surface station measurements. And it is confirmed by independent satellite DATA as shown here.

You cannot just wish away the AGW problem by quoting 40 year old op-eds or hiding/ignoring the DATA.

[Ed Edwards]

All my best religion I got at Children's Worship.
Sorry to the author of this old Baptist Children's song:

Roll away, roll away, roll away (make rolling motion while singing)
All the burdens of my heart rolled away

Brave Gnu World:

Verse 1:
Wish away, wish away, wish away (make clue-less eye rolling motions while singing)
All the AGW problems wished away!
All my friends, had to sink, neath the rising floods,
Wish away, wish away, wish away!

Verse 2:
Wish away, wish away, wish away (make clue-less eye crossing motions while singing)
All the AGW problems wished away!
All my living peeps moved 12º North,Wish away, wish away, wish away!

I'm sure you get the idea by now
Keith: || You cannot just wish away the AGW problem by quoting 40 year old op-eds or hiding/ignoring the DATA. ||

[David Flick]

1For those with eyes to see, I'll repeat the DATA that David hides calling it "Keith's Wikipedia graph".
Keith's Wikipedia graph #1

2It is not Keith's or Wikipedia's graph, it is real DATA from surface station measurements. And it is confirmed by independent satellite DATA as shown here.
Keith's Wikipedia graph #2

3You cannot just wish away the AGW problem by quoting 40 year old op-eds or hiding/ignoring the DATA.

1) Those with eyes to see will recognize that I'm not hiding anything... I just reduced the Wikipedia graph to a link which makes it possible to see the entire graph. When Keith posts the graph as an image, it's impossible to read the entire graph. Those with eyes to see will observe that the url to the graph is indeed a Wikipedia graph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Record.png

2) Link to Keith's Wikipedia graph #2: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... atures.png

3) Of course... No one can "wish away" the AGW problem. Inasmuch as an AGW problem doesn't exist, you can't wish it away. There is no "AGW problem". You can't wish away something that doesn't actually exist...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incidentally, Keith, you should know that Wikipedia is totally untrustworthy as a quoting source for global warming/climate change. Wikipedia is totally biased to the alarmist side of question. In December of '09 (seven months ago) Wikipedia fired a radical online climate editor. The guy's name is William Connolley. He was a software engineer and host at RealClimate. RealClimate.Org is radical AGW site that relentlessly punished AGW skeptics and lavishly praised alarmists. Connolley changed over 5,000 Wikipedia articles to promote AGW catastrophic speculation. He even altered climate history, most prominently by removing the Medieval Warming Period. But he also described the careers and accomplishments of AGW skeptics in the most unflattering way.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it. More than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred. Over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

I don't trust much of anything that Wikipedia publishes wrt global warming and climate change. It's totally dishonest and biased toward global warmning and climate change alarmism. You can read all about it here...

[David Flick]

.
.Keith, I'm rather surprised that you haven't jumped on the latest "Hottest Ever" bandwagon. It's been all over the news. Many warmists are salvating over the "alarming" news that January through June of 2010 is supposed to be the warmist ever. Here are some links:

• First half 2010 hottest ever: climate change?
• So far, 2010 is warmest ever in recorded history
• Last month was the hottest June recorded worldwide, figures show
• Climate change to blame for hottest summer ever?

The truth of the matter is that the warmists are so desperate to make news these days that they have created another hoax. Here is a triplet of honest articles that express the truth.

• Global Warming Scam: 2010 is Not the Hottest Year
• NOAA’s Jan-Jun 2010 Warmest Ever: Missing Data, False Impressions
• A spot check on NOAA’s “hottest so far” presser

There's a graph in the 3rd article in the second list (immediately above). A quick count of the yellow dots in the graph show that there are 15 depicting normal or below normal temperature records over the last 30 years. By contrast, there are only 13 yellow dots that show above normal temperatures over the same period. Now just about any way you want to describe it, the past three decades cannot be described as "catastrophic" warming. But then the warmists are desparate to find anything that will support their alarmist theories. As I stated in my last post, there is no AGW problem...

[KeithE]

1For those with eyes to see, I'll repeat the DATA that David hides calling it "Keith's Wikipedia graph".
Keith's Wikipedia graph #1

2It is not Keith's or Wikipedia's graph, it is real DATA from surface station measurements. And it is confirmed by independent satellite DATA as shown here.
Keith's Wikipedia graph #2

3You cannot just wish away the AGW problem by quoting 40 year old op-eds or hiding/ignoring the DATA.

1) Those with eyes to see will recognize that I'm not hiding anything... I just reduced the Wikipedia graph to a link which makes it possible to see the entire graph. When Keith posts the graph as an image, it's impossible to read the entire graph. Those with eyes to see will observe that the url to the graph is indeed a Wikipedia graph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Record.png

2) Link to Keith's Wikipedia graph #2: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... atures.png

3) Of course... No one can "wish away" the AGW problem. Inasmuch as an AGW problem doesn't exist, you can't wish it away. There is no "AGW problem". You can't wish away something that doesn't actually exist...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incidentally, Keith, you should know that Wikipedia is totally untrustworthy as a quoting source for global warming/climate change. Wikipedia is totally biased to the alarmist side of question. In December of '09 (seven months ago) Wikipedia fired a radical online climate editor. The guy's name is William Connolley. He was a software engineer and host at RealClimate. RealClimate.Org is radical AGW site that relentlessly punished AGW skeptics and lavishly praised alarmists. Connolley changed over 5,000 Wikipedia articles to promote AGW catastrophic speculation. He even altered climate history, most prominently by removing the Medieval Warming Period. But he also described the careers and accomplishments of AGW skeptics in the most unflattering way.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it. More than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred. Over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

I don't trust much of anything that Wikipedia publishes wrt global warming and climate change. It's totally dishonest and biased toward global warmning and climate change alarmism. You can read all about it here...

Wikipedia publishes consensus data while giving respectful due to non-consensus views as well. To call it "totally dishomest and biased", just shows you don't have a clue about what real scientists working in the GW/CC field actually think and pay more attention to the ideologues and big busiiness interests that suit your biases. Their tactic is to demonize people (Hansen, Gore, Jones, Mann, Connolley, Schneider [who died a couple of days ago]. ...) who are clearly in the majorian scientific viewpoint. A poll of over 3,000 scientists (overlaid with a public poll) is given
here
The more GW science you know, the more AGW one is. The public is being duped.

The denialists also try (and unfortunately succeed to a degree) in creating doubt and fear of regulation. Economic analyses usually show the cost of no action to abate ghg emissions is greater than ghg emission control. Here's a balanced review of the Stern Review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review from none other than Wikipedia. The economic benefits of the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act were made clear to me when I got my Master's in Environmental Management in 1995 from Samford University. This may surprise several readers. I remember clearly in the early 70's many in CA saying Los Angeles will become a ghost town if the CAA was passed. Instead, new industries were built and if the nasty air of the 60's were to still be hovering over Los Angeles, it would not have seen the growth that it has.

Sorry about the oversized graphs, they usually look fine on my screen. It would be big of you to show me how to resize (I've tried several ways).

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.ethicsdaily.com has a word for Flick and KeithE this morning

Straightaway:

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16393

[KeithE]

Some quotes from Fox's link to the Ethics Today article on GW.

2010 (so far) is the hottest ever:

Global warming deniers have had a bad couple of weeks on the truth versus falsehood front, the line between what is and their wishful fantasies. Scientists have thumped the deniers who cling to their beliefs – beliefs in the ideology of laissez-faire capitalism and the theology of literalism.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the "combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2010 was the warmest on record."

June "was also the fourth consecutive warmest month on record (March, April and May 2010 were also the warmest on record)."

NASA reported that the first half of the year was the hottest on record.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported, "Average June ice extent was the lowest in the satellite data record, from 1979 to 2010. Arctic air temperatures were higher than normal, and Arctic sea ice continued to decline at a fast pace."

So much for the claim of global cooling.

The trend is upward but there are oscillations about that upward trend:

In order to avoid what global warming deniers do, a word of caution must be inserted.

"One hot year doesn't, on its own, prove that humans are warming the planet any more than one cold year disproves it," Bradford Plumer wrote in The New Republic.

He added, "That said, there's a clear upward trend here, and reams of evidence that the planet is heating up. It's not just the thermometer record, either – as a recent EPA report noted, there are dozens of indicators, from the changing length of the growing season to shifting species habitats."

Jones and the CRU have been exonerated:

Now add to what scientists are reporting to three independent investigations that have affirmed the studies of climate scientists and cleared scientists of wrongdoing in the bogus scandal related to hacked emails.

"Emails stolen from this university were selectively misused to make serious allegations about the work of the Climatic Research Unit," said Edward Acton, vice chancellor of the University of East Anglia. "Some people accepted those misrepresentations at face value without question and repeated them as fact."

In a statement two weeks ago, Acton noted that "for the third and hopefully for the final time, an exhaustive independent review has exposed as unfounded the overwhelming thrust of the allegations against our science."

He said, "We hope that commentators will accurately reflect what this highly detailed independent report says, and finally lay to rest the conspiracy theories, untruths and misunderstandings that have circulated."

Yet another survey of real GW scientists (inlcuding the 2-3% of scientists who doubt AGW):

On July 16, Jonathan Kay, managing editor for the National Post, addressed the mythical claim that a "growing number of scientists" reject manmade global warming.

"In a new article published in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, a group of scholars from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and elsewhere provide a statistical breakdown of the opinions of the world's most prominent climate experts," he wrote in Canada's national newspaper.

"Their conclusion: The group that is skeptical of the evidence of man-made global warming 'comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers in the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups ...This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that [about] 97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of [man-made global warming],'" observed Kay.

He rightly asked, "How has this tiny 2%-3% sliver of fringe opinion been reinvented as a perpetually 'growing' share of the scientific community?"

Over a year ago, I noted that one of the 700 prominent scientists – identified by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) – who objected to the scientific understanding about manmade global warming was a Southern Baptist creationist without a college degree who was a weatherman at a Fox-affiliated TV station in Bowling Green, Ky.

Of course, the Stanford University report focused on real climate scientists, not bogus ones. Yet together – bogus scientists and those with fringe opinions – create a widespread narrative that scientists are in disagreement about climate change. That false narrative creates public skepticism driven by two forces – the ideological party of short-term greed and the theological party of fundamentalism.

The ideologues and short-term profit takers are driving the denialist boat:

Any number of free-market advocacy groups spew out opposition to the science of climate change. Their goal is to prevent any legislation, any government action, that will redress global warming. Is it likely that they fear action on climate change will eat into the short-term profits of their sponsors and overturn their reverence for laissez faire economics?

In conclusion to the Christian communty:

At the same time, Christian leaders need to challenge those who spout bad religion. They also need to offer sermons, statements, commentaries and Bible lessons that restore earth-keeping to its rightful place in Christian discipleship.

Good science and good religion are not at odds over the truth about climate change. One offers empirical data and objective explanations; the other provides a moral vision.

It is a faith matter!