Global Warming Thread XI

[David Flick]

.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Global Warming Thread: A diversion

Inasmuch as the Global Warming Thread X has exceeded 100 replies (now at 107 Replies & 600 Views), I'm starting a new one. While Keith and I are basically the only ones posting on these GW threads, many of you are reading them...

Perhaps many of you have noticed the wide range of images associated with fantasy world of AGW internet articles and blogs. I thought it might be interesting to post links to several of these images. Some are clever, some are interesting and some are just plain silly. Also, a few are the same or similar but all came from different blogs & internet articles. Here are the links:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 21
• 22
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• 29
• 30
• 31
• 32
• 33
• 34
• 35
• 36
• 37
• 38
• 39
• 40
• 41
• 42

[David Flick]

.
.

. . . . . . . . .Judith Curry

Amazing... Almost unbelievable... Incredible... Dr Judith Curry once was known as the "High Priestess of Global Warming." No longer. She is in the process of moving away from being a warmist. She definitely has no use for the IPCC. She now admits to being duped into being a supporter of the IPCC. News about her hit the blogosphere yesterday (10/25/10) when she published the following article on her website: "Heresy and the creation of monsters".

The world of global warming alarmism is coming apart at the seams. This is evident when scientists of the stature of Dr. Curry disavow the propaganda of the IPCC. Here are some additional articles about her:

• I’m Happy To Help, Judith Curry: Overconfidence In IPCC’s Detection And Attribution
• Quote of the Week – Judith Curry asks warmists: “How are Things Going for You Lately”?
• IPCC, dogma, heretics, and Judith Curry

[David Flick]

.
.

. . . . . . . . .Judith Curry

Amazing... Almost unbelievable... Incredible... Dr Judith Curry once was known as the "High Priestess of Global Warming." No longer. She is in the process of moving away from being a warmist. She definitely has no use for the IPCC. She now admits to being duped into being a supporter of the IPCC. News about her hit the blogosphere yesterday (10/25/10) when she published the following article on her website: "Heresy and the creation of monsters".

The world of global warming alarmism is coming apart at the seams. This is evident when scientists of the stature of Dr. Curry disavow the propaganda of the IPCC. Here are some additional articles about her:

• I’m Happy To Help, Judith Curry: Overconfidence In IPCC’s Detection And Attribution
• Quote of the Week – Judith Curry asks warmists: “How are Things Going for You Lately”?
• IPCC, dogma, heretics, and Judith Curry

Here's a short follow-up article on Judith Currie. Apparently the state of Georgia never experienced any global warming at all:

• No Warming Ever Recorded In Judith Curry’s Georgia

[David Flick]

.
.My mistake... I posted the wrong url to Judith Curry's website. I've edited the two posts above. Here's the correct one:

• Heresy and the creation of monsters

Let me ask you this. So how are things going for you lately? A year ago, the climate establishment was on top of the world, masters of the universe. Now we have a situation where there have been major challenges to the reputations of a number of a number of scientists, the IPCC, professional societies, and other institutions of science. The spillover has been a loss of public trust in climate science and some have argued, even more broadly in science. The IPCC and the UNFCCC are regarded by many as impediments to sane and politically viable energy policies. The enviro advocacy groups are abandoning the climate change issue for more promising narratives. In the U.S., the prospect of the Republicans winning the House of Representatives raises the specter of hearings on the integrity of climate science and reductions in federal funding for climate research.

What happened? Did the skeptics and the oil companies and the libertarian think tanks win? No, you lost. All in the name of supporting policies that I don’t think many of you fully understand. What I want is for the climate science community to shift gears and get back to doing science, and return to an environment where debate over the science is the spice of academic life. And because of the high relevance of our field, we need to figure out how to provide the best possible scientific information and assessment of uncertainties. This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.

Article from the Scientific American:

• Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues

[Jim]

.
.My mistake... I posted the wrong url to Judith Curry's website. I've edited the two posts above. Here's the correct one:

• Heresy and the creation of monsters

Let me ask you this. So how are things going for you lately? A year ago, the climate establishment was on top of the world, masters of the universe. Now we have a situation where there have been major challenges to the reputations of a number of a number of scientists, the IPCC, professional societies, and other institutions of science. The spillover has been a loss of public trust in climate science and some have argued, even more broadly in science. The IPCC and the UNFCCC are regarded by many as impediments to sane and politically viable energy policies. The enviro advocacy groups are abandoning the climate change issue for more promising narratives. In the U.S., the prospect of the Republicans winning the House of Representatives raises the specter of hearings on the integrity of climate science and reductions in federal funding for climate research.

What happened? Did the skeptics and the oil companies and the libertarian think tanks win? No, you lost. All in the name of supporting policies that I don’t think many of you fully understand. What I want is for the climate science community to shift gears and get back to doing science, and return to an environment where debate over the science is the spice of academic life. And because of the high relevance of our field, we need to figure out how to provide the best possible scientific information and assessment of uncertainties. This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.

Article from the Scientific American:

• Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues

You’re doing yeoman’s work in pointing out the fraud connected to manmade global warming/manmade climate change. My congressman voted for cap-and-trade and you should hear him spout the “line.” By the time the healthcare bill came around he had seen the light and voted against it but I think he may lose in this heavily democratic district anyway. Of course, he hadn’t read either bill so what’s new? Curry perhaps is hammering the final nails in the alarmist coffin. I admire anyone who admits a mistake and especially so if she attempts to straighten it out.

[David Flick]

You’re doing yeoman’s work in pointing out the fraud connected to manmade global warming/manmade climate change. My congressman voted for cap-and-trade and you should hear him spout the “line.” By the time the healthcare bill came around he had seen the light and voted against it but I think he may lose in this heavily democratic district anyway. Of course, he hadn’t read either bill so what’s new? Curry perhaps is hammering the final nails in the alarmist coffin. I admire anyone who admits a mistake and especially so if she attempts to straighten it out.

Thanks, Jim. AGW alarmism is falling apart slowly but surely. With the breaking of the Climategate scandal last November and the total failure of the COPENHAGEN Climate Conference 2009, I thought the movement would fall more rapidly but the warmists keep hanging on for dear life. I believe it's only a matter of time before the general public wakes up.

I suspect that you are keeping watch on the best source for climate change news. For lurkers who are interested following the latest news (from both sides), here's the link to website on the internet:

• Climate Depot

[Jim]

You’re doing yeoman’s work in pointing out the fraud connected to manmade global warming/manmade climate change. My congressman voted for cap-and-trade and you should hear him spout the “line.” By the time the healthcare bill came around he had seen the light and voted against it but I think he may lose in this heavily democratic district anyway. Of course, he hadn’t read either bill so what’s new? Curry perhaps is hammering the final nails in the alarmist coffin. I admire anyone who admits a mistake and especially so if she attempts to straighten it out.

Thanks, Jim. AGW alarmism is falling apart slowly but surely. With the breaking of the Climategate scandal last November and the total failure of the COPENHAGEN Climate Conference 2009, I thought the movement would fall more rapidly but the warmists keep hanging on for dear life. I believe it's only a matter of time before the general public wakes up.

I suspect that you are keeping watch on the best source for climate change news. For lurkers who are interested following the latest news (from both sides), here's the link to website on the internet:

• Climate Depot

Here’s one of the funniest accounts I’ve seen lately (off that web-site, incidentally). Gore Frantically Saving the Planet. Also discovered that climate-change-alarm is going south while the new project for the UN is biodiversity. Perhaps the problem could be solved by having each country hold a lottery and simply offing the losers according to a certain percentage in order to keep too many people from using up the earth.

[David Flick]

Here’s one of the funniest accounts I’ve seen lately (off that web-site, incidentally). Gore Frantically Saving the Planet. Also discovered that climate-change-alarm is going south while the new project for the UN is biodiversity. Perhaps the problem could be solved by having each country hold a lottery and simply offing the losers according to a certain percentage in order to keep too many people from using up the earth.

That was hilarious. Gore's hypocrisy is mind boggling. Speaking of interesting articles, here's one about the 2010 Climate Fools Day Event in London. You may recall that the first "Climate Fool's Day" ocurred in October of 2008 when the British Parliament adopted a Climate Change Act that committed Britain to cutting its CO2 emissions by 80 percent by 2050 at a cost of £18.3 billion every year for the next four decades. On very day the Act was debated a massive snow storm occurred in London, which, BTW was the first October snowfall since 1922. (Source...).

Here's the link to the afore mentioned article:

• Final Phase of Global Warming War and Another Legal Defeat for Doomsayers

[Jim]

Here’s one of the funniest accounts I’ve seen lately (off that web-site, incidentally). Gore Frantically Saving the Planet. Also discovered that climate-change-alarm is going south while the new project for the UN is biodiversity. Perhaps the problem could be solved by having each country hold a lottery and simply offing the losers according to a certain percentage in order to keep too many people from using up the earth.

That was hilarious. Gore's hypocrisy is mind boggling. Speaking of interesting articles, here's one about the 2010 Climate Fools Day Event in London. You may recall that the first "Climate Fool's Day" ocurred in October of 2008 when the British Parliament adopted a Climate Change Act that committed Britain to cutting its CO2 emissions by 80 percent by 2050 at a cost of £18.3 billion every year for the next four decades. On very day the Act was debated a massive snow storm occurred in London, which, BTW was the first October snowfall since 1922. (Source...).

Here's the link to the afore mentioned article:

• Final Phase of Global Warming War and Another Legal Defeat for Doomsayers

Your “source” article is an absolute gem, witty and factually fatal to alarmists, describing lawmakers as either addle-brained or with agendas designed (indirectly, of course) to line their pockets and those of their science-genius friends. The graphics are pure technical art. Senators Kerry and Graham should read this every morning, noon and night until they predictably bay at the moon (through nearly 250,000 miles of trash CO2 emanating from Air Force One and Algore’s speeches) and visit China to see what makes the world go around. The House members, fearing for their very lives and expecting the “tipping point” to get here well before Armageddon, couldn’t bear to read the cap/trade bill it passed (and didn’t read it), the better not to get physically/emotionally ill and thus possibly exposed to the healthcare death panels.

[David Flick]

.
.Here's a followup article about Gore and the idling car. It's from a Swedish newspaper:

Here Al Gore at idle

[David Flick]

.
.The the NEXT Big Lie — Biodiversity.

• Goodbye Global Warming, Hello Biodiversity

Micheal Mann now lawyering up...

• Fraudster Michael Mann now getting legal advice?

.
.

[Ed Pettibone]

.
.Here's a followup article about Gore and the idling car. It's from a Swedish newspaper:

Here Al Gore at idle

Ed; David
Under
https://mail.google.com/mail/?source=na ... 3a13b903b1
Find
# 2. Chevy Volt Ripped as an ‘Electric Edsel’

The writer makes some great points but I sort of resent the Edsel slam. I had a 58 that I bought in 61, loved it.


#1. On wind farms is also interesting.

[David Flick]

.
.There will always be scientists, willing to prostitute themselves for research funds or just to bask on the media limelight to lend credence to the alarmism of the day

Breaking News! The earth is warming! No wait, it’s cooling! No wait...

By Troy Media Thursday, November 4, 2010
-Art Horn, Meteorologist and Michael J. Economides, Editor in Chief, Energy Tribune

Warnings of global warming have been with us now for two decades, courtesy of the news media. And surely these respected and long-lived newspapers, magazines and television networks can be trusted to tell us what the current state of the climate is and what it will do?

A least one would think so.

Interestingly, the history of climate reporting is not unlike the reporting of so many other doomsday scenarios, from the “population bomb” which should have caused the death of two billion people by the 1980s, to aids which should have infected the majority of Americans by 2000, to the Y2K disaster that never came to be.

Could be a comedy routine
A careful look back at the history of climate stories in the media presents the re-occurrence of a remarkably consistent theme. It borders on a comedy routine, had it not had such a massive public impact during the last few years.

All of the recent media reports of unrelenting global warming and its dire consequences are in fact old news, a mere regurgitation of decades old stories. As the global temperature has cycled over the last 115 years from cold to warm to cold to warm again, the media has simply been following in almost lock step with it. In fact, media cycles of climate doom, which mirror the climate cycles themselves, have roughly a 10- to 15-year time lag. It seems whenever the world warms up, the number of global warming stories increases to match the trend; conversely when the climate cools down, the media pull up on their long johns and warn of the next ice age.

Whatever is popular will be immediately copied and embellished to fit each media outlet’s particular brand. It is simple really: whatever sells it, sells and if it “bleeds, it leads.” Reporting on climate is no different and history proves it. [Continue reading...]

.
.

[David Flick]

Ed; David
Under
https://mail.google.com/mail/?source=na ... 3a13b903b1
Find
# 2. Chevy Volt Ripped as an ‘Electric Edsel’

The writer makes some great points but I sort of resent the Edsel slam. I had a 58 that I bought in 61, loved it.

Ed, I didn't find the article under the url you posted above. But I did find an article by the same title under this url: Volt ripped as an "Electric Edsel". I agree with you with respect to the Edsel. My favorite model was the last one Ford made. I loved the 1960 Edsel Corsair which came out a year after I graduated from high school. I believe Ford discontinued the Edsel in mid-year of 1962. In my opinion, the Edsel was one of the most beautiful cars Ford ever made. If I had the money to afford it, I would purchase a restored Edsel of any year.

#1. On wind farms is also interesting.

I didn't locate a story about wind farms. Guess I must've found the wrong article...

[Ed Edwards]

Finally I found out the ALT code for " ± " (plus or minus). This is the mathematical symbol used in science to indicate how correct the measurment is. Which my Meter Stick I can only measure something to the nearest two mm (milli-meter). So the length of the middle part of my left index finger is 27mm ± 2 mm. that is, the length of that part of my body is now somewhere between 27-2 = 25mm and 27+2=29mm. People who know about this accuracy indicator understand Science reports more (unfortunately, a lot of news reporters do not know about the ± acuracy indicator - so the message is lost).

ALT0177 (zero, one, seven, seven) is the code for ±
(or, if you grab it in your buffer, you can copy it all over the place)
ALT only works with the numeric key pad and not with the top row (numbers).
Hold down ALT, type on the keypad: 0177. When you release the ALT, the symbol will appear: ±

[Ed Edwards]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... te-heretic

This item is called: Climate Heretic
Sub topic: Why can't we have a civil converstaion about climate?

// Climate policy is stalled.The public needs to understand that scientific uncertainty is not the same thing as ignorance, but rather it is a discipline for quantifying what is unknown. \\

And I really have a problem with die-hard Young Earthers (YE) when I say this:

The world has used up half the fuel it took God's process 800 Million years to 'cook'.
And the USA used up 1/4 of all (200 million years of oil) in the past 60 years -- the
rest of the World has taken notice


-

[David Flick]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic

1This item is called: Climate Heretic
Sub topic: Why can't we have a civil converstaion about climate?

// Climate policy is stalled.The public needs to understand that scientific uncertainty is not the same thing as ignorance, but rather it is a discipline for quantifying what is unknown. \\

2And I really have a problem with die-hard Young Earthers (YE) when I say this:

EdE's quote: The world has used up half the fuel it took God's process 800 Million years to 'cook'.
And the USA used up 1/4 of all (200 million years of oil) in the past 60 years -- the
rest of the World has taken notice

1) The answer to why we can't have a civil conversation about the climate lies squarely with the alarmists. They are pushing two false ideas: a) The idea that CO2 is a polutant that drives climate change (global warming). And b) the idea that man (through human activity) created global warming (AGW) by excessively burning fossil fuels.

Both ideas are patently false. First, carbon dioxide does not drive climate change (global warming). It never has in the past, doesn't in the present, and will not in the future. That myth has been perpetrated by the likes of James Hansen, Al Gore, their numerous true-believing friends, and the amazingly loud alarmist blogosphere. Secondly, in the history of global climate change (global warming & cooling), man has had absolutely no impact on climate change one way or the other. The arrogance of those who believe that man can cause climate change by creating excessive amounts of CO2 through burning fossil fuels is palpable. The notion that human activity is the driver of climate change is false. The reason it's impossible have a civil conversation about climate change is that the alarmists (warmists) refuse to acknowledge that it's impossible for man to affect, influence, or otherwise control climate change. So long as the alarmists continue to push these two false ideas, there will never be peace between them and the skeptics. It may take a few more years before the alarmists come to their senses, but the day will come when, as Roy Spencer predicted: "... at some point in the future we will realize that the fear of catastrophic climate change was the worst case of mass hysteria the world has ever known."

2) Ed, you have no earthly idea whether or not: a) the world has used up half the fuel it took God's process 800 million years to 'cook', or b) the USA used up 1/4 of all (200 million years of oil) in the past 60 years. In the first place you have no idea what the total amount fuel God cooked is. How in the world can you determine what the total amount is? To suggest that the world has used up half of the existing fuel is wild speculation. Virtually nobody knows that figure. God alone knows that figure and he ain't said a thing to anybody I know about what that figure is. Secondly, since you have no earthly idea what the total existing amount of fuel is, you have no idea whether or not the USA has used 1/4 of it all in the past 60 years. Again, that's a majorly wild speculation on your part.

[KeithE]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic

1This item is called: Climate Heretic
Sub topic: Why can't we have a civil converstaion about climate?

// Climate policy is stalled.The public needs to understand that scientific uncertainty is not the same thing as ignorance, but rather it is a discipline for quantifying what is unknown. \\

2And I really have a problem with die-hard Young Earthers (YE) when I say this:

EdE's quote: The world has used up half the fuel it took God's process 800 Million years to 'cook'.
And the USA used up 1/4 of all (200 million years of oil) in the past 60 years -- the
rest of the World has taken notice

1) The answer to why we can't have a civil conversation about the climate lies squarely with the alarmists. They are pushing two false ideas: a) The idea that CO2 is a polutant that drives climate change (global warming). And b) the idea that man (through human activity) created global warming (AGW) by excessively burning fossil fuels.

Both ideas are patently false. First, carbon dioxide does not drive climate change (global warming). It never has in the past, doesn't in the present, and will not in the future. That myth has been perpetrated by the likes of James Hansen, Al Gore, their numerous true-believing friends, and the amazingly loud alarmist blogosphere. Secondly, in the history of global climate change (global warming & cooling), man has had absolutely no impact on climate change one way or the other. The arrogance of those who believe that man can cause climate change by creating excessive amounts of CO2 through burning fossil fuels is palpable. The notion that human activity is the driver of climate change is false. The reason it's impossible have a civil conversation about climate change is that the alarmists (warmists) refuse to acknowledge that it's impossible for man to affect, influence, or otherwise control climate change. So long as the alarmists continue to push these two false ideas, there will never be peace between them and the skeptics. It may take a few more years before the alarmists come to their senses, but the day will come when, as Roy Spencer predicted: "... at some point in the future we will realize that the fear of catastrophic climate change was the worst case of mass hysteria the world has ever known."

2) Ed, you have no earthly idea whether or not: a) the world has used up half the fuel it took God's process 800 million years to 'cook', or b) the USA used up 1/4 of all (200 million years of oil) in the past 60 years. In the first place you have no idea what the total amount fuel God cooked is. How in the world can you determine what the total amount is? To suggest that the world has used up half of the existing fuel is wild speculation. Virtually nobody knows that figure. God alone knows that figure and he ain't said a thing to anybody I know about what that figure is. Secondly, since you have no earthly idea what the total existing amount of fuel is, you have no idea whether or not the USA has used 1/4 of it all in the past 60 years. Again, that's a majorly wild speculation on your part.

The civility is lost with David's strident answers that do not have any data behind them, just repititious hot air.

Ed, you are right about CO2 affecting air and ocean temperatures. That is simple physics - CO2 absorbs the re-radiated earth infrared radiation particularly in the 12-20 micron region which is a control valve for earth's temperature. The ocean also increases it's temperature slightly and it's acidity with the uptake of CO2.
CO2 sensitivity is confirmed as 2-5C for doubling CO2

Ed, you are almost certainly right about human's causing global warming. Certainly has grown from ~67% in 2001 to 90% by 2007 to near 100% today by the world's best informed scientists which has considerable more weight than David's hot air and the denialogosphere.
Multiple lines of evidence show human CO2 emissions as the cause

Ed, I believe you are also right about being past "Peak Oil" and that the US is responsible for >1/4 of it. But it will take more time than I have right now to provide the DATA to make sure. But you can start with first graph on the last link.

[Ed Edwards]

...
Ed, I believe you are also right about being past "Peak Oil" and that the US is responsible for >1/4 of it. But it will take more time than I have right now to provide the DATA to make sure. But you can start with first graph on the last link.

Actually such statements as this:
Brother Elder David:
// 1) The answer to why we can't have a civil conversation about the climate lies squarely with the alarmists. They are pushing two false ideas: a) The idea that CO2 is a polutant that drives climate change (global warming). And b) the idea that man (through human activity) created global warming (AGW) by excessively burning fossil fuels.

// Both ideas are patently false. //

nave no data to prove them false. So no amount of data will ever prove them true to people who

From Deacon Stephen's last sermon before martyrdom:

Act 7:51 (KJV1769 type editon, e-sword.com edition, bold by Ed):

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears,
ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Actually both statements are true -- deadly true. Fortunately us elders may not be around to see the dire results. Check with an even more elder than you about the Great Dustbowl/Depresssion of the 1920s

[Haruo]

Well, there are revisionist notions about what caused the Dustbowl, too. And as for the bison, they just decided to die off...

[KeithE]

Ed, I believe you are also right about being past "Peak Oil" and that the US is responsible for >1/4 of it. But it will take more time than I have right now to provide the DATA to make sure. But you can start with first graph on the last link.

First Read This

Then look carefully at some of its DATA.

2004 U.S. government predictions for oil production other than in OPEC and the former Soviet Union.

Some things to note:
1) The US is well beyond peak oil production (that year when half the oil has extracted and used) which was in 1971 (as Hubert predicted) except fro Alaska which peaked at 1988-9.


2) Most countries are past their peak in oil production, but note this plot explicitly does not include OPEC countries (Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela) and the Former Soviet Union (particularly near the Caspian Sea)
(Interesting side note: the US is in some sort of conflict with several of these and courting others).

3) When one does include those OPEC /ex-Soviet countries, estimates vary as below:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/PU200611_Fig1.png/783px-PU200611_Fig1.png
All but few (4) estimates predict Peak Oil will occur before 2015. A few (5) say it has already occurred. The others have it very soon, 2011-2013.

So Ed is probably technical right, but it is close. But he is certainly right-on that it deserves attention, soon. Consider the plot (linked in my earlier post, and repeated below) concerning our alarming increases in fossil fuel emissions.

Looking at the area under the curve for 1950-2010, that amounts to (8000+1600)/2 metric tonnes x 60 years = 288,000 metric tonne-years. Continuing on at the rate of increase (8000-1600)/60 years = 108 metric tionnes/year), we would use up the other half of the world's reserve in ~ 30 years ((8000+108x30)+8000)/2 x 30 =288,600 metric tonne-years. And this assumes no acceleration in fossil fuel use from that involved over the last 60 years - i.e. optimistic.

Many here at BL are young enough to see that depletion by 2040 and/or a great cost increase. One would hope that market forces pushing toward alternative sources of energy and control of emissions will alleviate this. The control of emissions is needed for Global Warming control well before then, if we are smart (despite what David thinks).

Ed is also right about the US being responsible for at least 1/4 of the fossil fuel consumption to date as shown below.

In 1980, we did about 1/3 of the world's consumption; in 2003 it was about 1/4; and in 2007 it was about 23.5%. Today it is 22% if that trend holds. But overall since 1980 teh US is responsible for about 28% of the world's fosile fuel consumption.

Good points Ed!

David's quick dismissal of Ed's points is "hot air" , "wishful thinking", and "stiffnecked".

[KeithE]

For your reading and listening and studying pleasure.

Abraham vs Monckton

[David Flick]

David's quick dismissal of Ed's points is "hot air" , "wishful thinking", and "stiffnecked".

Keith droned on about my points to EdE, dismissing them as being "hot air", "wishful thinking", and "stiffnecked", all the while using Wikipedia articles & graphs which are notoriously inaccurate unreliable. I'm surprised that a man as intelligent as Keith would trust Wikipedia as a reliable source when most credible university professors refuse to allow their students to cite Wikipedia at all. I don't have time at the moment to respond to this post or the Abaraham vs Monckton post but will do so in the next couple of days.

In the meantime, however, I'm posting a link to an article that Keith's crosstown neighbor, Dr. Roy Spencer, wrote yesterday. It's a very interesting article about how a significant number of AGW alarmists are falling all over themselves planning a campaign against the skeptics. Alarmists everywhere are waking up to the fact that they are losing the debate big time. Here's the link. Enjoy...

• Climate Scientists Plan Campaign Against Global Warming Skeptics

[KeithE]

David's quick dismissal of Ed's points is "hot air" , "wishful thinking", and "stiffnecked".

Keith droned on about my points to EdE, dismissing them as being "hot air", "wishful thinking", and "stiffnecked", all the while using Wikipedia articles & graphs which are notoriously inaccurate unreliable. I'm surprised that a man as intelligent as Keith would trust Wikipedia as a reliable source when most credible university professors refuse to allow their students to cite Wikipedia at all. I don't have time at the moment to respond to this post or the Abaraham vs Monckton post but will do so in the next couple of days.

In the meantime, however, I'm posting a link to an article that Keith's crosstown neighbor, Dr. Roy Spencer, wrote yesterday. It's a very interesting article about how a significant number of AGW alarmists are falling all over themselves planning a campaign against the skeptics. Alarmists everywhere are waking up to the fact that they are losing the debate big time. Here's the link. Enjoy...

• Climate Scientists Plan Campaign Against Global Warming Skeptics

I see why you like Roy Spencer- he's a trash talker just like you. But if you look at his DATA (link on top right and plotted below), you will see ups and downs in the SST which he only seems to point out the downs on when the overall trend since 1979 is positive ((about (.42- (-.17)/3.1 decades)= .190C/decade).

Spencer never seems to mention this basic fact. It's like a trash talker harping on a touchdown in the last minute of a game when his team has lost.

The 0.196C/decade trend is actually more than GISS (0.163C/decade) or CRU (0.148C/decade) instrumental data shows over that same period (1979-2010). Sources:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

Any of these rates are greater than ever witnessed on earth (highest being ~0.021C/decade during a deglaciation period from 241792 to 237866 years ago) by factors of 7 -9 (I've heard that factor is 6 in some article, so I may not have found the actual highest trend in the Vostok data). But nontheless late 20th century temperature increases have been UNPRECEDENTED. Same goes for the whole of the 20th century. Data source is the Vostok DATA:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt

As for the 700 scientists being rallied by AGU, it is about time AGW scientists (by far the majorian scientific viewpoint) speak up to grab the PR frontline which has been dominated by FoxNews /Rush Limbaugh (Dr. Spencer is his chief climatologist) / Jim Inhofe lately. But it's timing has more to do with impending legislation (or the killing of such) than the denialogosphere well-funded PR efforts.

As for Wikipedia, they demand documentation for their DATA which you can trace back to the fundamental source. Take the hour to listen to the Abraham discussion of Lord Monckton's so-called DATA which often is not even attributed. When it is attributed, Abraham asks the attributed authors whether Monckton's interpretation is right and guess what - they don't back up Monckton. I'll take Wikipedia anyday over the denialogsphere.

[Ed Edwards]

KiethE: // I'll take Wikipedia anyday over the denialogsphere. \\

Amen, Brother -- Preach it.