Global Warming Thread XV

[KeithE]

.
.James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), has been at the forefront of the alarmist wing of climate scientists regarding the human influence on global climate from 1988 until today. He is the original AGW alarmist. Other than Al Gore, he is the world's best known AGW activist. Wikipedia paints him as something of a hero. Although the alarmists vehemently deny it, Hansen is well known for manipulating temperature data to push his agenda. Here is an article that delineates how he corrupted global temperature data.

• GISS Temperature Trend Is Complete Garbage

David, this is slanderous. Hansen is a well respected scientist and not a manipulator of data in any biased manner. All data analysts "manipulate data” for data quality control, but honest ones do w/o biases as to results. To demonstrate Hansen’s (GISS) honesty, I'll post a chart and accompanying article that shows how 4 agencies (2 US, 1 British and 1 Japanese) have independently data analyzed the same DATA (historical surface temperature measurement) in different manners and come up with remarkable agreement.

Larger image available here
Accompanying article with explanation of the differences in data handling. All however, come up with the same story - rapid temp rise of about 0.9C since pre-industrial days. And I'll point out, that that temp rise is at least 6 times that of any other periodic (~130,000 years due to Miklanovitch cycles) temp rapid rises, all before human civilization. That is why it is referred to as “rapid”.

To boot the Koch Brothers were the biggest sponsor of a 2010 (Berkeley Earth Study Temperature-BEST) study that sought an independent review of all 39,000 land-based measurements. Koch brothers were no doubt hoping for proof that GISS/HADCRU/NCDC/JMA had erred in their data analysis by deleting measurements and they could go on polluting at will. So far BEST has dealt with the land based surface measurements and found remarkable agreement in temperature trends over 1850-20009 especially with the GISS and NCDC data (Had/CRU data was slightly less “alarming”). See below:

The 10 year average data shows BEST agreement is slightly better matched to the NASA/GISS and NOAA/NCDC data than the Had/CRU data:


BEST is headed up by a denialist-leaning* (at the time) scientist (Dr. Robert Muller) and included also Dr. Judith Curry a full-fledged denialist. In fact all the leaders were chosen because they were “climate skeptics". Yet here is their conclusion to the question Has global warming slowed down?:

Some people have suggested that there has been no global warming over the past 13 years, and they ask whether our land-only analysis verifies that. The graph shows the results of our analysis with 1-year averaging (to smooth it) for the last 6 decades so you can better see the period in question. The blue curve is the result of our analysis, and the grey lines represent our 95% confidence limits

The large fluctuations up and down that take place every few years correlate very strongly with the North Atlantic temperatures (the AMO index) and with El Nino (ENSO index 3.4). See our paper on "Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures" for analysis of that. The presence of these fluctuations makes any strong extrapolations from short-term behavior uncertain.

Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.

And here is their website which gives more details of their study which so far has not dealt with the ocean temps or attribution. But it has confirmed that the land surface temperature data is robust (not manipulated as David has slanderously claimed).

*Dr. Muller was the author of Physics for Presidents (2008) in which he points out the uncertainty about both GW and AGW (like denialists do) and recommends no action other than existing energy source efficiency improvements and conservation (see page 346, I have the book). While not the most outlandish denialist, he certainly tended that way. The BEST Study has apparently changed his mind. Sorry Koch Brothers your investment failed.

Here's some info on David’s slanderous source Steve Goddard (apparently not his real name). Even Anthony Watts had to throw him overboard.

[Ed Edwards]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Myth Busters: Better than the Weekday Afternoon Soap Opera ("Soap OperaS" is out, just one in the afternoon on TV now

[David Flick]

.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hey Keith,

I just purchased the latest climate hoax book by the Mann himself.

• >{ The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines [Kindle Edition] }<

I'm through the first chapter already. It's shaping up to be a typical whiny, "woe-is-me-I'm-being-attacked-by-evil-denialists" book. He compares the "deniers" to predator lions seeking to attack a vulnerable zebra at the edge of a herd. And that analogy was in the Prologue.

Mann will make a mint off this book on top of the millions he's already made in raking in all those alarmist grant$...

I spent some time reading the the Customer Reviews. There's quite a debate going on between the alarmists and the skeptics. As usual, the alarmists are whining full throttle about the skeptical reviews. Humorous, it is.

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A couple of weeks ago I purchased the Kindle version of Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change [Kindle Edition], by Harold Ambler, a card-carrying Liberal warmist who turned skeptic. I dont have a lot of time to read these days and it took me a week to get it finished. It's a good read, but you probably wouldn't like it because Ambler tells the truth...
.
.

[KeithE]

I just ordered Mann’s book as well (just was published) The chapter on Principal Component Analysis (PCA) should be interesting; not so much his early bio.

After reading Ambler’s “Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted” I see no reason to buy his book. His point 1. is merely playing with words - no warmist has said weather doesn't change w/o ghg’s. In point 3 he calls warmist “flat-earthers” after decrying the use of such terms in Point 2. Point 4 postulates a feedback cycle that has never been confirmed despite years of monitoring. It also shows he does not understand the PDO which when it returns to its positive values (if it ever does) will cause temps to rise greatly. Likewise solar minimums and ENSO minimums, which all have suppressed the temps for the last decade and all are scheduled to reverse, causing temp rates to climb.

I get enough such bluster w/o good science from you, David. I favor more scientific books. And I already have over ten denialists books. But I see where you would like it.

[David Flick]

I just ordered Mann’s book as well (just was published) The chapter on Principal Component Analysis (PCA) should be interesting; not so much his early bio.

After reading Ambler’s “Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted” I see no reason to buy his book. His point 1. is merely playing with words - no warmist has said weather doesn't change w/o ghg’s. In point 3 he calls warmist “flat-earthers” after decrying the use of such terms in Point 2. Point 4 postulates a feedback cycle that has never been confirmed despite years of monitoring. It also shows he does not understand the PDO which when it returns to its positive values (if it ever does) will cause temps to rise greatly. Likewise solar minimums and ENSO minimums, which all have suppressed the temps for the last decade and all are scheduled to reverse, causing temp rates to climb.
1 I get enough such bluster w/o good science from you, David. I favor more scientific books. 2And I already have over ten denialists books. But I see where you would like it.

1) Yeah, you're such a smart guy...

2) And I have as many alarmist books, including in James Hansen's classic doomsday thriller, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity [Hardcover]. I'm on pins and needles waiting for the end to come...
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.

[David Flick]

1David, you may not have truncated data from the tabloid* article with the graph below, 2but that graph is truncated big time (>90% removed) to show what David Rose (and you) want to show.

1 Nice try to discredit the article simply because it appeared in the Daily Mail Online. While the the Daily Mail is conservative publication, it nevertheless is a major British news source and definitely not a "tabloid" similar to the National Inquirer as the Wikipedia article would have you to believe.
2 Keith, you can deny it until you're blue in the face, but the graph doesn't truncate a solitary thing. Nothing is removed from the graph. It shows precisely what David Rose wanted to show. Your eagerness to prove that AGW is true falls woefully short of reality.

I am aware of the SkepticalScience.Com website's feeble attempt to make the claim that global temperatures are continuing to rise. The alarmist's (namely "Alex C") very feeble attempt to hide the decline in global temperatures is found down half way through the article in the section entitled "The Earth is still heating up." In that section he posted this 6-frame moving graph. Alex C, with classic alarmist tactics, attempts to hide the decline of temperatures over the the last 15 years. You will notice that the first so-called "Realist" graph covers a 40 year period of temperatures. This is blatantly dishonest because the article didn't focus on the past 40 years, rather it focused specifically on the last 15 years. Alex C, to his credit did show the partial truth in the skeptical view of the graph because does show a decline in temperatures over the last 8 years. However, it's not an accurate depiction of the truth. A more accurate depiction of the truth is that there has been a decline in temperatures over 15 years. This has been thoroughly documented. See #4 below.

1Sure the temperature growth has slowed but it is "stuck on high" 2and real scientists strongly suspect it is a temporary reprise. 3I hope they are wrong for humanity's sake, but doubt it. 4Certainly no [sic] going to advocate for ignoring the problem which is what David wants to do.

1 Once again you are wrong. The article which David Rose wrote didn't focus on the long term rise on temperatures, which, BTW were neither unprecidented nor alarming. The article focused only on the last 15 years of global temperatures which have completely ceased over the last 15 years. In fact, they have regressed. All you need to do is look objectively at the graph above. There has been no rise in global temperature since 1998. The notion that temperatures are "stuck on high" is an alarmist myth. You are denying the truth if you believe that temperature is "stuck on high" but continuing to rise. There is no one among credible climate scientists who accepts the notion that temperatures are continuing to rise.

2 And just who are your so-called "real scientists"? They would be, of course, the 38 scientists from the NAS who signed the rebuttal to the article by 16 scientists who declared there was no reason to panic over global warming. The so-called "real scientist" who wrote the rebuttal was Kevin Trenberth. He has a nice record of manipulating climate data. He's a well known dishonest scientist. Roy Spencer even had bad experience with him.

3 Not to worry, Keith. They are wrong. It's not temporary. Credible scientists are saying that we may have another 30 to 50 years of cooling, which will most likely exceed both out lifetimes on planet earth. It most certainly will be for me. (Here, here, here, here, here, here, here)

4 I'm not ignoring a thing, Keith. There is no problem with global warming. It's not occurring and hasn't been for the last 15 years. That's fact. It's reality. See here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here and dozens of other places

* The DailyMail appears to be the National Enquirer of the UK with a conservative bias.

Not so. Wikipedia, which is in the tank for AGA propaganda, would have you believe The Daily Mail is a propaganda rag for the alarmists. True it's a conservative publication, but it's definitely not on the level of National Inquirer. It's a major UK conservative publication.

Furthermore David claims that graph comes from the Met Office when he said:

This graph, produced by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, clearly shows that temperatures have declined since 1997.

First note it does not show a decline (as David hopes), it shows an essentially level temperature for that period. David might be claiming the small almost unreadable difference between 1997 and 2011 amounts to a "decline", he certainly should acknowledge the far greater increases since 1850 (that he truncates away).

Yes it does show a decline, Keith. Look at the graph again. There is no year, not one, wherein global temperatures exceed those of 1998. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern a decline in temperatures. It's not flat, it's a decline, which blows the notion that temperatures are continuing to rise completely out of the water,

Also "That Graph" did not come from the Met Office; it used truncated data from the Met Office, but it did not come from the Met Office as is. In fact here is The Met Office response to the David Rose/DalyMail article:

In a "he said, he said" exchange between an alarmist and a skeptic, I'm taking the skeptical side. The alarmist argument never represents truth or reality.

Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.
For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:
A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.
“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.
“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”
Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.
It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

Here is the decadal summary of the DATA with the Met Office insignia

And here is their latest annual data:

and the comparable data from the GISS:

It is true that the temperature rise has mediate in the 2000's (in fact the Met Office data has lowering a bit since 2005; but the GISS data reduction shows continued but slowed growth). Satellite data taken since 1979 confirms these trends.

At the very least, this temperature rise over the recorded timeperiod deserves the characterization of "stuck on high".

Not true at all. To say that global temperatures are "stuck on high" is false and nothing more than alarmist propaganda.

But truth is that when taking out the known transient effects that leveling off disappears as previously shown and repeated here with remarkable agreement between land measurements (GISS,NCDC,CRU) and satellite measurements (RSS, UAH).

Scientific/data analyst literates can read the details here. I have read it, and it makes sense to remove transient effects. When that is done the 2000's show a consistent temp rise as the 80'a and 90's. But I noted (and have told them so - no response yet) that it does not account for the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)**, which when it swings to being high, will accelerate the warming as it did about 1977 (look above).

** Spencer says the PDO accounts for the leveling off on the temperatures in the 1940-1977 timeframe, but fails to add the clear consequence when the PDO becomes positive.

Temperature trends react slowly (due to multiple exchanges with the ocean) to inputs like increases in ghgs and we have not yet had the consequences of the dramatic rise in CO2 we have been doing to ourselves. The projections by the best scientists do not paint a pretty picture

Note that even with substantial ghg controls (47% reduction) the temp anomaly will be somewhere in the range 2.1-2.8C and we have already seen bad effects with the 0.9C we have experienced so far.

That's a mighty colorful graph, but it's pure propaganda. It's a great example of alarmist scare tactics. Neither CO2 nor other human generated emissions have any affect on climate change. The alarmist myth that CO2 is the direct cause temperature rises is perhaps the biggest myth of all in the AGW arguments. CO2, a harmless gas (and not a pollutant), doesn't drive global warming at all. The rise and fall of CO2 lags behind temperature increases and declines by 800 years. Here is one of the best videos that debunks the notion that CO2 and human created ghgs drive global warming. Your alarmist buddies have attempted in vain to discredit these prominent scientists (including John Christy). Their attempts have failed on every occasion. The only people who believe the myth are AGW alarmists.

David may attempt to comfort himself with the hope that our temps will reduce, but that is reckless to say the least.

You can call it "reckless" if you want, but I'm quite comfortable knowing that man-made global warming (man-caused climate change) is a myth. Never in the history of mankind, have humans had the capacity to change climate or control global temperatures.

Time to get ready for church.

I do hope you are able to concentrate on the sermon this morning...

[KeithE]

Last week's sermon was good. You’d been mulling over a response that long?

But this week I just got called and have grandfather duties for a sick boy. Both parents are ministers and must be at church. I’ll miss our guest speaker for the Weatherly Lecture Series (Robert Benson). He’s been good on Friday night and Saturday morning. Subject was Prayer.

And it is 18F right now in Huntsville - coldest of the year so far. Guess that proves w/o a shadow of doubt the GW is all a hoax.

[David Flick]

Last week's sermon was good. You’d been mulling over a response that long?

No, I was talking about this morning's sermon. I work 70 hours a week at two different jobs and Saturday night is my best night to do internet stuff. I had my responses immediately upon reading your reply, but needed time to to chase and copy the links. I don't have as much free time as you apparently do...

But this week I just got called and have grandfather duties for a sick boy. Both parents are ministers and must be at church. I’ll miss our guest speaker for the Weatherly Lecture Series (Robert Benson). He’s been good on Friday night and Saturday morning. Subject was Prayer.

Sorry to hear about the sick grandson. My prayers are with the child and with you as you care for him.

And it is 18F right now in Huntsville - coldest of the year so far. Guess that proves w/o a shadow of doubt the GW is all a hoax.

Well, not exactly. AGW was proven to be a hoax many years ago.

[Ed Edwards]

WOE!
Woe is EOW backwards.
EOW = End of World

but we all know that already

[David Flick]

.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .FakeGate/GleickGate: Corruption Abounds Among AGW Alarmists

The Heartland Institute, founded in 1984, is the AGW warmist’s worst nightmare. For years Heartland has been, among other endeavors, effectively debunking the global warming hoax. The Institute has produced more sound research on climate change than all but a very small number of very elite government and university-based organizations. Their publication, Climate Change Reconsidered alone is 2 volumes totaling more than 1,200 pages of pure science and economic analysis. They have hosted 6 international climate change conferences attended by over 3,000 people. They are on the cutting edge of debunking the AGW hoax.

Last week the DeSmogBlog website, which is not an environmental group but a for-profit PR firm created to attack conservatives, libertarians and all who oppose the man-made climate change theories, posted a fake “confidential” strategy document along with some Heartland documents that were deceptively obtained. For nearly a week, it was not known exactly how the fake memo and the stolen documents were obtained. The alarmist blogosphere went bonkers over the released information, believing that they had found dirt on Heartland.

Turns out that a radical alarmist by the name of Peter Gleick fraudulently obtained the Heartland documents (which incidentally had nothing whatsoever to do with the climate change debate) by posing as an Heartland Institute board member who recently changed his email address. Gleick then forwarded the material (most likely creating the fake memo himself) to the DeSmogBlog website. Both Gleick and the radicals at DeSmogBlog have hated Heartland with a passion over the years. It goes beyond hate, rage is the better adjective. It’s easy to understand the hatered because Heartland has consistently and persistently debunked and blown the AGW theory to smithereens. Gleick and fiends have smeared, besmirched and slandered not only Heartland, but virtually every skeptic and skeptical organization they can.

Here’s the kicker. Gleick is (or was until a few hours ago) the Chairman of the American Geophysical Union Task Force on Scientific Ethics. According to the AGU webpage: The Scientific Ethics Task Force is responsible for reviewing and guiding the Union’s standards, principles, and code of conduct on ethics and integrity in scientific activities. Interestingly, as I was writing this, the people at American Geophysical Union scrubbed his name from their website. Here’s a screenshot of the AGU Task Force on Ethics members. Here’s a direct link to the website, which has his name scrubbed. Imagine how embarrassing it must be for the AGU to have had such an unethical fellow as chairman of an ethics task force.

The scandal, now known as “Fakegate” or “Gleickgate” is rapidly unfolding. DeSmogBlog is feverishly publishing massive amounts of propaganda, which is being hopelessly defended by a cadre of diehard alarmist individuals and groups including notables such as Ray Bradley, PhD, Director of the Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts, David Karoly, PhD, ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia, Michael Mann, PhD, Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University, Jonathan Overpeck, PhD, Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Ben Santer, PhD, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Gavin Schmidt, PhD, Climate Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Kevin Trenberth, ScD, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research (Source...)

For a complete blow by blow account of the scandal, here’s the link to view.

The climate alarmist machine will do anything they can to destroy credibility of their opponents. They will lie, cheat, steal, forge documents, manipulate data, slander opponents, and you name it. They will do anything for the cause because they believe the ends justifies the means. They have no shame. Glieck and DeSmogBlog are but two examples that exists in the lives of those who support the man-made climate change hoax. Gleick and the DeSmogBlog are in for a world of hurt in the days ahead. They will pay a heavy price for pulling this silly, unethical stunt. The Heartland Institute is going to sue the pants off these fellows. They had better begin getting a legal defense fund together because they are going to lose this one big time.

[David Flick]

.
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dr. Peter Gleick

• Why the Climate Skeptics Are Winning
  

  True, Heartland’s board documents reveal seven-figure contributions for their climate work from one “anonymous donor,” but environmental organizations take in many multiples of Heartland’s total budget in anonymous donations washed through the left-wing Tides Foundation. The Environmental Defense Fund thanks 141 anonymous donors in one recent report. “Well-funded”? Heartland’s total budget for all its issues, which include health care, education, and technology policy, is around $4.4 million, an amount that would disappear into a single line item in the budget for the Natural Resources Defense Council ($99 million in revenues in 2010). Last year, the Wall Street Journal reports, the World Wildlife Fund spent $68.5 million just on “public education.”
  
  The dog that didn’t bark for the climateers in this story is the great disappointment that Heartland receives only a tiny amount of funding from fossil fuel sources​—​and none from ExxonMobil, still the bête noire of the climateers. Meanwhile, it was revealed this week that natural gas mogul T. Boone Pickens had given $453,000 to the left-wing Center for American Progress for its “clean energy” projects, and Chesapeake Energy gave the Sierra Club over $25 million (anonymously until it leaked out) for the Club’s anti-coal ad campaign. Turns out the greens take in much more money from fossil fuel interests than the skeptics do.

  
  
  
• Fakegate Illustrates Global Warming Alarmists' Deceit and Desperation
  

  The real story in this Fakegate scandal is how the global warming movement is desperate, delusional and collapsing as global warming fails to live up to alarmist predictions. People with sound science on their side do not need to forge documents to validate their arguments or make the other side look bad. Also, people who are so desperate as to forge documents in an attempt to frame their rivals are clearly not above forging scientific data, studies and facts to similarly further their cause.

  
  
• The Gleick affair is further proof of the warmists' endless credulity
  

  When the history of the decline and fall of the world’s most damaging scare comes to be written, l’affaire Gleick will only be a brief footnote. But it does suggest how desperate those who wish to keep the scare alive have become.

[KeithE]

Here is Gleick’s statement:

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

Whether the document is “fake” or not is yet to be determined (Gleick denies he changed anything in his contrite statement above - see red highlight). Also unknown is who the “anonymous” emailer was who sent the Heartland’s climate strategy to Gleick.

What is clear is that Heartland is creating GW denialism material for use in schools - which is their perfect right to attempt.

I’ll start arguing when school districts actually start using this material and not presenting the 97% consensus view of climatologists and virtually all professional organizations. As for now, this is much ado about nothing. Any hint of possibly biased treatment (as in Gleick) or consensus GW scientists sarcasm (as is Climategate) gets top billing at FoxNews and RW Blog sites. If every time a denialist were to be called on the carpet by the media for showing biased treatment, or cherry picking data, or sarcasm directed towards consensus GW scientists, there would not be enough print stock available without serious deforestation.

As for Heartland's Climate Change Reconsidered, there again they have a right to publish what they wish. But it is hard to take seriously a report that says in it’s Section 3 Intro:

The authors also reported satellite temperature data showing a much more modest warming trend in the last two decades of the twentieth century and a dramatic decline in the warming trend in the first decade of the twenty-first century.

Here is that satellite DATA straight from Roy Spencer (UAH).


The interpretation from Heartland is “much more modest warming trend in 1980’s and 1990’s” and a “dramatic decline in the 00’s". I admit that the data has leveled off in the 00’s and possible reasons for this have already been explained herein at BL and more completely here and more completely yethere.

As for the “much more modest warming trend in the last two decades of the twentieth century”, I searched and searched in Section 3 and elsewhere in Climate Change Reconsidered for anything even showing any alteration of the trend (from satellite data or from anywhere) to widely accepted MEASURED temp growth rate in the 80’s & 90’s (somewhere between 0.13 and 0.18 C/decade). The closest I found was only some discussion of model “hindcasts" in the 80’s and 90’s wrt ENSO predictions in Section 3.5 (page 87); the trouble is models don’t predict ENSO events - nobody claims that. This rest of the Section 3 gives cherry picked locations of proxy paleo data from several continents (whichever ones support a prominent MWP and downplays the rapid rise in the 1900’s) demonstrating a lack of technical truthfulness. The overall (all dataset) paleo DATA charts from the 2007 IPCC are found at http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-6-10.jpg
MWP may be a true event for the Northern Hemisphere (the older data has larger error bars), but the rise in the 1900’s is of a totally different, more consistent (lower error bars), and more pronounced effect that has shown no signs of ending and coincides wit the rapid rise in ghg emissions.


And to call the 00’s a ‘dramatic decline” shows a great impairment of their technical judgment. Flat is not a “great decline”.

I also note the Heartland’s whole report does not deal with the instrumental surface temperature measurement DATA which has far superior measurement accuracy than the paleoclimatic data they choose to pick on (paleo DATA uses proxy data). Below is that surface direct measurement DATA:

To call the 00’s DATA “a dramatic decline” in light of the long term temperature measurement DATA is laughable.

Incredible lack of ethics, yet they jump and holler when Gleick used a pseudonym to obtain their documents.

A side note about his plot from Spencer himself:

The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.

Side note from me: Spencer tries to minimize the positive trend in his data by (1) not drawing a linear slope which gives the rise of 0.13C/decade* in the lower troposphere (LT) (~5km altitude) while (2) stretching the plot with a largely horizontal display to downplay the trends and anomalies.

* That rise is consistent with that given by the surface measurements at ~0.16C/decade (it is a differing quantity - surface vs LT) and nearly identical to that of the other satellite LT data reducer (RSS). Here are the warming rates for 3 surface temperature data (GISS, NCDC, CRU) and 2 satellite Lower Troposphere (RSS and UAH) over the same period (Jan 1979 -Dec 2010). The satellite data began in 1979 and that is why they start the date comparisons in 1979.

Black dots are for the globe, red for the northern hemisphere, blue for the southern hemisphere, so pay most attention to the black dots. Look at the graph, the science agrees. All show positive temp trends only and this only begins at 1979 (when the Satellite data started). Truth is the global temp has risen ~0.9C since the Industrial Revolution.

Note that even with the lowest of the uncertainty range of the lowest estimate (UAH of course) we still have a 0.10C/decade (1C/century) temperature rise over the period of 1979-2010 globally. And we keep pouring in more and more CO2 into the atmosphere; yet David and those that dupe him, say “don’t worry, trust us”. Truth is we have not paid the price for the ghgs/deforestation we have already given to this earth and “business as usual” predictions say by 2100 we will have an additional temp rise between 2.4-6.4C (95% confidence limits)(source: 2007 IPCC SPM Scenario A1F1) and even that assumes some mitigative steps.

[KeithE]

.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hey Keith,

I just purchased the latest climate hoax book by the Mann himself.

• >{ The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines [Kindle Edition] }<

I'm through the first chapter already. It's shaping up to be a typical whiny, "woe-is-me-I'm-being-attacked-by-evil-denialists" book. He compares the "deniers" to predator lions seeking to attack a vulnerable zebra at the edge of a herd. And that analogy was in the Prologue.

Mann will make a mint off this book on top of the millions he's already made in raking in all those alarmist grant$...

I spent some time reading the the Customer Reviews. There's quite a debate going on between the alarmists and the skeptics. As usual, the alarmists are whining full throttle about the skeptical reviews. Humorous, it is.

My copy has come in as well. I’ve read through Chapter 5 so far. Chapter 4 had some technical lessons about what PCA is; but I have a dim hope that you understand it so that you can intelligently address the Hockey Stick data analysis. You have demonstrated to me on several occasions that you simply do not understand basic data interpretation; your eyes drift to see whatever you wish and in fact you often truncate data series. Nor do you have statistical background or the motivation to understand PCA. As such no use arguing technically with you; but if others indicate their interest, I will explain it in more detail.

But you should be able to understand that the customer reviews at Amazon that you pointed out are running 64 positive reviews (5 or 4 stars) vs 22 negative reviews (2 or 1 stars). That’s 2.9:1.

You seem to think Mann has made millions off his work, implying I guess that that is his motivation. Not sure how much he makes from book royalties, but I assure you his pay as a professor getting grants is not in that range. And his motivation was supplied in the book (pages 4-10) which I thought you said you read. His motivation was to work in his chosen field of physics on a “big picture problem” that was important. (page 9, ~ 1/3 way down). Why not accept his word on what his motivation is instead of manufacturing one?

Personally I do not think this is “humorous” given what is at stake.

But I do think God might be trying to get your attention. (TIC)

Figure 1. County-level map of federally-declared weather-related disasters between 2006 – 2011. Tornadoes and severe thunderstorms in the Midwest, and heavy rains and snows from Nor’easters, hurricanes, and other storms in the Northeast gave those two regions the most disaster declarations. An interactive version of this map that allows one to click and see the individual disasters by county is on the Environment America website.

[David Flick]

.
.This reply moved here from another thread:

Somehow, I'm not surprised at ET's comment above.

When there is no climate change nor global warming, it's easy to ignore the hate in Limbaugh's declaration!!!

Whoever said there is no climate change or global warming?

David Flick.

Keith is incorrect. I have never said that there is no climate change or global warming. What I have declared, however, is that there is no anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). Man is completely incapable of causing climate change or global warming. For that matter, man is incapable of causing global cooling. I am on record as saying that all climate change (global warming & global cooling) is natural and not caused by human activity. The notion that human activity and/or human generated CO2 causes catastrophic global warming is a cruel myth perpetrated by global warming alarmists.

A couple of days ago, Dr. Vincent Gray, wrote an article declaring that there is not a scrap of evidence in any IPCC reports that human emissions of CO2 have any harmful effect on the climate. Dr Gray has exposed the myths and falsehoods of global warming alarmists.

Climate alarmists have consistently attempted (and failed) to destroy the credibility of skeptical climate scientists. One such attempt was published on the internet by the propagandists over at the DeSmogBlog.Com. Three years ago (2009), they published a "disinformation database" on Dr. Gray, which, in the minds of the DeSmogBloggers, discredits him. However, if one will read Gray's articles & papers (cited in the resources), s/he will quickly discover the truth the IPCC and climate alarmism.

Less than a month ago, the DeSmogBloggers made fools of themselves when they supported Peter Gleick, a noted California scientist and environmental activist who admitted that he assumed a false identity to obtain and distribute a fake memorandum and internal documents from the Heartland Institute. The alarmists can't win a global warming debate straight up so they seek to destroy the opposition.

[Gene Scarborough]

David---

I have ridden at low altitude in a Cessna and felt the bumps of rising air off a 4-lane highway. Not too far from me the massive asphault ribbon of NC-64 is diverting rain clouds in the summer. The clouds encounter an invisible curtain of rising air and continue to move east rather than sinking to the south and over our Beaufort County heads and fields needing rain.

From this simple illustration, I dispute your contention that "man cannot change weather."

We are denuding South America of trees in our lust for timber wealth. The forming hurricanes out of West Africa pass by this super-heating continent and our storms have been more and more intense in recent years.

I think you might want to re-think your position as we become more destructive of Mother Nature with our greenhouse gasses and polution taking place all over the world. The US is environmentally conscious, but we are not having much influence over other places where our Corporations are still raping and pillaging this earth. They love production which has no environmental eye attached---and which costs them big bucks in compliance.

[KeithE]

.
.This reply moved here from another thread:

Somehow, I'm not surprised at ET's comment above.

When there is no climate change nor global warming, it's easy to ignore the hate in Limbaugh's declaration!!!

Whoever said there is no climate change or global warming?

David Flick.

Keith is incorrect. I have never said that there is no climate change or global warming. What I have declared, however, is that there is no anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). Man is completely incapable of causing climate change or global warming. For that matter, man is incapable of causing global cooling. I am on record as saying that all climate change (global warming & global cooling) is natural and not caused by human activity. The notion that human activity and/or human generated CO2 causes catastrophic global warming is a cruel myth perpetrated by global warming alarmists.

A couple of days ago, Dr. Vincent Gray, wrote an article declaring that there is not a scrap of evidence in any IPCC reports that human emissions of CO2 have any harmful effect on the climate. Dr Gray has exposed the myths and falsehoods of global warming alarmists.

Climate alarmists have consistently attempted (and failed) to destroy the credibility of skeptical climate scientists. One such attempt was published on the internet by the propagandists over at the DeSmogBlog.Com. Three years ago (2009), they published a "disinformation database" on Dr. Gray, which, in the minds of the DeSmogBloggers, discredits him. However, if one will read Gray's articles & papers (cited in the resources), s/he will quickly discover the truth the IPCC and climate alarmism.

Less than a month ago, the DeSmogBloggers made fools of themselves when they supported Peter Gleick, a noted California scientist and environmental activist who admitted that he assumed a false identity to obtain and distribute a fake memorandum and internal documents from the Heartland Institute. The alarmists can't win a global warming debate straight up so they seek to destroy the opposition.

Glad you agree there has been climate change and global warming albeit not human-caused.

As for Dr, Vincent Gray, he is just another retired non-climatologist (89-90 year old chemist in this case) who used to work for the Coal, Oil or Mining industries. Dr. Gray is called “an expert IPCC reviewer” by his proponents in that he has chosen on his own to comment on most of the IPCC documents since his retirement. He does not have the credentials to be a contributing author or even a peer-reviewer.

Consistently since 2007, 95%-98.65% of current climatologists or climate researchers believe in AGW. Admit it David.

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[109] [110]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries....To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago in 2009 received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[113]

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[114][115]

That is five studies about what real climate researchers believe about AGW since 2007. And it is at least 95% believe it. You are up a creek David and it is time you stop spewing your nonsense on BL, voluntarily.

And as for scientific professional organizations:

The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:
The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]

If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11]

The gigantic denialist industry onslaught has had toll on the public opinion about AGW since at least 2003 (which we overhear about due to Fox News) but the tide may be turning.



BTW, I’m done reading Mann - it was informative mostly about the attacks on his personhood (wish it had more technical details). I have started Inhofe’s "The Greatest Hoax” -what a bunch of unsupported bluster is my comment so far - you would love it, in your own world of denialism.

I’ll go with the real experts/Mann vs ideologues/Inhofe.

[David Flick]

Glad you agree there has been climate change and global warming albeit not human-caused.

As for Dr, Vincent Gray, he is just another retired non-climatologist (89-90 year old chemist in this case) who used to work for the Coal, Oil or Mining industries. Dr. Gray is called “an expert IPCC reviewer” by his proponents in that he has chosen on his own to comment on most of the IPCC documents since his retirement. He does not have the credentials to be a contributing author or even a peer-reviewer.

You've been reading way too much DeSmogBlog propaganda, Keith. The DeSmoggers, who are the leading purveyors of global warming propaganda, couldn't win a GW debate if their lives depended on it. So in order to prop themselves up, they seek to discredit any and all who don't agree with their propaganda. Virtually all of your talking points regarding Dr. Gray come from the DeSmogBlog website. I suppose you feel smug that you've discredited him as a voice in the GW discussion, but it's only in your mind that you've done so.

Consistently since 2007, 95%-98.65% of current climatologists or climate researchers believe in AGW. Admit it David.

Consistently since 2007, the silly notion that 95%-98.65% of current climatologists or climate researchers believe in AGW is propaganda. There has never been, nor will there ever be anything close to a 98% consensus of climatologists or climate researchers who believe in AGW. Such a notion is pure BS. I refuse to admit to believing propaganda pushed and published by alarmist propagandists. I want no part of such nonsense.

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[109] [110]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries....To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago in 2009 received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[113]

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[114][115]

1That is five studies about what real climate researchers believe about AGW since 2007. 2And it is at least 95% believe it. 3You are up a creek David and 4it is time you stop spewing your nonsense on BL, voluntarily.

1) The five studies you cited above don't prove a solitary thing other than expressing the opinions of various groups of people. Opinions do not reflect reality. They merely reflect what people are thinking. In this case the surveys reflect primarily the thinking of AGW alarmists. As far as your so-called "real climate researchers" are concerned, I'm not a bit impressed. Real climate researchers don't fall hook, line, and sinker for the notion that human activity can affect or change climate. Real climate researchers know and understand that man cannot control global climate. Real climate researchers don't manipulate the data and corrupt the science to conform with their preconceived ideas (a la James Hansen = here, here, here, here, here, and here; Phil Jones = here & here; Michael Mann= here, here, here, here, et al). There's one thing certain about skeptic scientists. They do not manipulate data to support their views.

One more point about your surveys. That Doran/Zimmerman survey and the 97% consensus is totally false. I've already debunked it numerous times in past discussions. In fact, I've discussed this bogus study in at least 17 posts. I'll post you links to each of the posts, beginning from the earliest going to the latest, wherein I've discussed this bogus survey: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15 #16, #17. I have nothing more to say about it in this post.

2) As I have stated many times prior to now, there is not now, nor has there ever been, a 95% (or a 97%) consensus among climate scientists about AGW. Such a notion is completely false.

3) I'm not up a creek at all, Keith. Such a notion is simply a figment of your imagination.

4) Is that a threat, Keith? What if I don't "voluntarily" stop disagreeing with you? Are you going to ban me from BL.Com if I continue to disagree with your views? Am I not free to express my views here on BL.Com?

And as for scientific professional organizations:

The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:
The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]

No climate scientist or climate study has proven that human activity or human generated CO2 or ghgs cause global warming. That's only a theory derived from global warming alarmists. CO2, whether generated my human activity (which amounts to only about 3% of the total) or CO2 which which occurs naturally, being only a trace gas, does not drive global warming. CO2 simply doesn't drive global warming. The notion that CO2 causes global warming is a myth...

If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]

Again, greenhouse gasses do not drive global warming. The Medieval Warming Period, which lasted 400 years, was much warmer than the present and CO2 did not cause it. Most certainly the MWP was not caused by human generated CO2. There's no truth to the myth that human generated CO2 causes global warming

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11]

The gigantic denialist industry onslaught since 2003 has had toll on the public opinion about AGW (which we overhear about due to Fox News) but the tide may be turning.

You're mistaken, Keith. Public opinion, whether by Fox News or otherwise, is swaying in favor of climate skepticism. Catastrophic global warming is on the decline. The alarmists, a la Peter Gleick and friends, are now resorting to lies and thievery in attempts to silence the truth. Your crusade of alarmism is a losing cause. None of the grand predictions touted by Al Gore, James Hansen and friends are coming true. It may be a while yet in the future, but global warming alarmism is dying on the vine. People of sound minds are seeing through the fraud.

BTW, I’m done reading Mann - it was informative mostly about the attacks on his personhood (wish it had more technical details). I have started Inhofe’s "The Global Warming Hoax” -what a bunch of unsupported bluster is my comment so far - you would love it, in your own world of denialism.

I also have completed both books. Mann's book is is reveling. It's a pitiful attempt to prove the existence of something that doesn't exist, i.e. an unprecidented rise in temperatures over the last century, which is, of course, false. There has been no unprecidented rise in global temperatures and furthermore, there will be none in the near future. As for Inhofe's book, he nails the truth about global warming alarmism. I am thankful for his efforts to expose the fraudulent views of CAGW. As an Oklahoma voter, he will have my vote and support as long as he chooses to run for the US Senate. He's doing a very good work.

If you are of a mind to read something really wild and crazy, I suggest that you get a copy of James Hansen's, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. I read it awhile back almost entirely in one sitting. If you're an alarmist and believe that kind of stuff, it'll send chills up your spine. If you're a skepctic, you'll be amazed at the nonsense of what Hansen writes. It's really a wild book. The man actually believes that there's a climate catastrophe around the corner and that we have only one last chance to save humanity.

I’ll go with the real experts/Mann vs ideologues/Inhofe.

Actually Mann and friend are the ideologues whereas Inhofe is the one supporting the truth.

[KeithE]

Whatever.

[David Flick]

Whatever.

Yep...

[David Flick]

.
.Idiocy on Parade: It Doesn't Get Much More Insane Than This

I had originally thought James Hansen and Al Gore were the nuttiest alarmists on the radical environmentalist block. But alas, along comes one who tops both of them. There's an "enviro-sociologist" professor in Oregon who now claims that climate skeptics must be treated for mental illness. According to her dubious research, "Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized and treated before real action can be taken to effectively address threats facing the planet from human-caused contributions to climate change." It doesn't much more insane that what the nutty professor is advocating.

There is, as one would expect, a push-back by more than one skeptic thinker.

• Climate-change scepticism must be 'treated', says enviro-sociologist
• Resistance to warmism must be 'treated'
• Something is sick, and it’s not the sceptics

[KeithE]

I used you as an example today in the intro to the SS class - what was the best April Fool’s joke you’ve been involved in. They loved it.

[David Flick]

I used you as an example today in the intro to the SS class - what was the best April Fool’s joke you’ve been involved in. They loved it.

Thanks for the chuckle. The joke's on you inasmuch as there's no scientific evidence whatsoever that catastrophic global warming is caused by human activity. There is no catastrophic global warming, man-made or otherwise...

[KeithE]

I used you as an example today in the intro to the SS class - what was the best April Fool’s joke you’ve been involved in. They loved it.

Thanks for the chuckle. The joke's on you inasmuch as there's no scientific evidence whatsoever that catastrophic global warming is caused by human activity. There is no catastrophic global warming, man-made or otherwise...

So says the Oklahoman self-proclaimed experts.

[David Flick]

I used you as an example today in the intro to the SS class - what was the best April Fool’s joke you’ve been involved in. They loved it.


Thanks for the chuckle. The joke's on you inasmuch as there's no scientific evidence whatsoever that catastrophic global warming is caused by human activity. There is no catastrophic global warming, man-made or otherwise...


So says the Oklahoman self-proclaimed experts.



So say more than 1000 International Scientists. ["International" = "from around the globe"]

[David Flick]

.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Death of the Mythical Global Warming Tipping Point

The Global Warming Tipping Point is Dead. Actually, it never lived, but the CAGW alarmist believed it was alive. The earliest known reference to a global warming "tipping point" appeared 2005 in an article in the Guardian written by Ian Sample. In 2006, Deborah Zabarenko, a writer for Reuters wrote an alarming article about GW tipping points. In August of 2008, Karin Kloosterman posited that a climate change tipping point would appear within 100 Months. In July of 2006, the alarmist website, RealClimate.Org posted an article about "Runaway tipping points of no return."

In 2007, James Hansen, the father of global warming alarmism, got into the act by writing an article which delineated the gorey details of global warming tipping points. Hansen's article set the global warming alarmism world on fire. It wasn't long before every alarmist and his brother was sallying forth with alarming articles about various and sundry global warming tipping points. From 2007 to 2010, thousands of articles about global warming tipping points appeared on the internet. In February of 2007, I began collecting articles about global warming tipping points. I created a webpage and posted links to the huge number articles that appeared. I wanted document the length of time the fever pitch of global warming articles would be posted before the scare fizzled and died. Over a period of four years (2007 through 2010), I collected and posted links of these articles. By the middle of 2010, articles about the mythical GW tipping point began to slow to almost nothing.

Late in 2010, very few articles about tipping points appeared on the internet. In December of 2010, I quit collecting and posting links to my website. I ended my research project with a total of 1,505 articles. I haven't posted a link to my website in over a year. One can still google a recent article about the GW tipping points, but for all practical purposes, no one even thinks about the GW tipping points these days. I have concluded from my study, which is admittedly unscientific, that there is no global warming tipping point. Since there has been no global warming over the last 17 years, the notion of a global warming tipping point is impossible. There was never a danger of runaway tipping points of no return. Inasmuch as there is presently no catastrophic global warming/climate change, there is nothing for anyone to fear. There will never in our lifetime be a catastrophic global warming tipping point.