Global Warming Thread X

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

Moderator: Jon Estes

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:34 am

Lightly read your reply - will do more probably tonight.

Immediate response is that you did not defend how you (and your "sources") turned the Doran and Anderegg surveys from 97 (97-98) % of the most involved / most GW published climatologist are AGW to 3% are (via misuse of the survey data and use of an old petition-not a survey). That is what you tried to say - claimed 97% was really 3%. Instead your post above for the most part is personal attacks on some of the authors.

WRT to all of the 26 Independent Teams members having a prior "overt bias", you made no headway at all that I can immediately say.

I'm trying to make you realise how over-the-top some of your blustery statements are.

Need to go to work right now.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9320
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:22 pm

Even the statement from the GWPF about its main purpsoe shows its belligerent nature when it says:
GWPF wrote:Our main purpose is to bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant.


And their logo at their website clearly shows deception in that it cherry picks 2001- 2009 temps to plot (following Lord Monckton no doubt). Look at it:
Image
I'll give them a pass on not plotting the 2009 1/2 data point which would be 0.23C higher (a marked upturn). But the lack of plotting all the available measured temps is a deliberate choice to withhold data that hurts their case. That's dishonest propaganda.

Here is the rest of the story.
Image

Actually David I did print out and read the summary and conclusions the Montford report and I was well aware that he was the author of The Hockeye Stick Illusion a book I own and have read (and see the lack of understanding therein). You know (don't you) that the whole paleoclimatic data could be found seriously in error and nothing would change the case for AGW (but even so the paleoclimatic data was corrected for the inconsequential dropping of the low frequency data via PCA and the stick still stands - the 20th century has seen the most rapid rise in temp ever 0.09C/decade vs 0.015 C/decade during deglaciation periods).

When reading what I have from the Montford report I find suspicions of a lack of deep inquiry but when when I read the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP) final report I see an investigation with plenty of probing inquiry and bad comment on the CRU lack of transparency, non - use of professional statisticians as well as good understanding of the nature of such research (it is difficult to maintain records that are impeccable with all conditions recorded, I know that in my work). I have found nothing (yet) in the Montford report that disproves the DATA (and I scanned it for DATA plots) just some aspects of handling it and much correct suspicion of reluctancy in attitudes towards data release.

Have you read the SAP final report, David?
Has the email servers at Climate Audit, WUWT, GWPF, CEI, Heartland, OSIM, GWF been opened for scrutiny of their attitudes? and DATA (if they have any)?

You also claim that Montford "exposed" the bias in the teams
David wrote:All three of so-called "Independent Teams" were "overtly biased." The Montford report exposed the bias of the teams.

It did not do so in any systematic way. The closest statements (all unsubstantiated) I have yet found to that effect are:
Insuffcient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence.

They [Lord Oxburgh's team] were, in reality, selected by UEA itself and were apparently approved by its director, Professor Phil Jones.

but did not show any proof that Jones had approval authority.

What Montford said was the results of the Independent Teams were biased (in his opinion) but he did not provide any evidence that any on the team were "overtly bias" with ties to AGW supporters as they entered the investigation, let alone all 26 of them as you have wildly claimed when you said:
David, on 27 Aug wrote: Keith, verified data supporting AGW from independent reviewers simply do not exist. There are virtually no "independent" reviewers who support AGW. I challenge you to name a single "independent" reviewer who verifies data supporting something (AGW) that doesn't exist. I can guarantee you that whoever you name as an "independent" reviewer can be traced back one way or another directly to AGW supporters.

It is been almost a month and you have not backed up those wild claims yet David (despite prodding by me).

David, on 23 Aug wrote:Do you actually believe that 97% of the "real" climate scientists believe in AGW?? That's the biggest bunch of B.S. you've come up with to date. You're not even close, my friend. 97% of Scientists Do Not Believe in the Theory of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

Likewise it has been a month since I challenged you on the gem above and you have not explained how you turned a 97% number into a 3% number (as to the number of the most involved/published climatologists that are AGW). You tried other approaches (linked an article with that title but the article did not live up to its bombastic title, badmouthed Doran and Zimmermann, claimed their survey was not from a reputable source like Gallup so it must be bad, offered Petitions that have accumulating only the answers they want for 11 years after leading with a denialist Fred Seitz letter (now theres' a no-no when doing a survey), claimed a Harris poll showed a drop from 71% (in 2007) to 41% (in Dec 2009) of the public are AGW when the Harris Poll actually said it was 51% instead of 41% (not so different from the 2008 Gallup poll used by Doran for the public that had it pegged at 58%), and used a conference for skeptics to gauge the percentage of climtologists that are AGW. These inadequate attempts to back up what you have said are mostly here. I offered that all polls have margins of error so in the case of Doran poll that percentage could be as low 91% or as high as 100%. I offered up the Anderegg poll that verified Doran (it had the percentage as 97-98% with even smaller margin of error). But never have you backed up how you changed a 97% to a 3%.

I will quit prodding and ask that you admit to your overstatements and let the BL readers judge for themselves.

David wrote:1) I'm not interested in AGW "red meat" propaganda. I'm interested in the truth. From the way you describe the book, it sounds as though it's written from the typical alarmist view. Any book that claims "GW is a strong threat to be dealt with" is going to be biased toward alarmist propaganda. The fact of the matter is that GW is no threat to anyone or anything.

2) If you say the book is "unbiased," about Climategate, that's enough for me to to know that it's strongly biased toward AGW. I may get around to reading it one of these days, but I have plenty of good reading to get done before I get to it. I'm currently reading Global Warming False Alarm: The Bad Science Behind the United Nations' Assertion that Man-made CO2 Causes Global Warming. I've read about half of it. Excellent book...

3) So you say that Pearce is "unbiased about Climategate" but is "sure that the basis for AGW is sound?" That's totally incongruous. If he's unbiased about the Climategate scandal, how could he possibly be so sure that the basis for AGW is sound. Ridiculous. Doesn't make sense...

1) Yeah why read any other viewpoint. David knows the truth.

Truth comes with DATA (all of it) not rhetoric in the scientific arena. David has never showed me a 20th/21th century plot of global temps that was flat or declined or that rose as slowly as the fastest in natural history (0.015 C/decade during deglaciation periods, MWP was a slow roller [less than 0.01C/decade] if it was really global at all). Ditto with sea level rise and ocean temps and coral bleaching and planckton population and sea ice volume and glacier volume. Just rhetoric that comes from sources that are usually ideologically-driven and nit-picky about data that, if correction is needed, are inconsequential.

2) I ordered Global Warming False Alarm today on Kindle and actually ordered another denialist book today as well Fixing Climate by Roger Pielke Jr. (along with his dad, a denialist). It has some economic data about cost of disasters and cost of ghg control in it when I looked it over at B&N. I'll take data whereever I can get it and I often find logical flaws by reading the other side and occassionally change my mind (but I'm well founded in factual DATA on AGW that will not likely happen). Now if I only had time to read all the books I buy; but I do scan them reading conclusions and noting DATA.

3) Being unbiased on the CRU emails (and what it portrays about the attitudes of the emailers) is different than being unbiased on AGW. The emails do not make a dent into GW DATA; they do show frustration with the ever nit-picky denialists request for data that takes much time away from their work (if had to respond to endless request for missile defense signature data, I would be overwhelmed; fortunately we have people funded to do so at the Missile Defense Data Center and it takes lots of time; not so at CRU with a staff of about 6 and they no doubt have have much more data requests, much of it calling for data from many years ago well before they were born). Besides people can reach rationale conclusions in an unbiased manner that David happens not to believe in. That unless David posits that he is the world's best scientist wrt GW, incapable of being wrong.

David wrote:More about Stephen Schneider, the principal contributor of the Anderegg/Schneider survey. Schneider is the wamist who, together with several others, authored the "survey." It's a feeble attempt to prop up the Doran/Zimmerman survey. It appears to be a peer-reviewed article but is, rather, a propaganda piece. Prior to his recent death, Schneider was one of the most vocal radical AGW alarmist on the scene.

IN May of 2009, Schneider boasted that he could he could 'slaughter skeptical scientists in public debate. Not long before his death, he answered questions to a room full of skeptics at a university in Australia. He got hammered and didn't realize it.

You may or may not recall that Schneider was originally a global cooling alarmist. During the Ice Age Scare of the 1970s, he was one of it's foremost advocates. He published a book titled "The Genesis Strategy" at this time, warning of the coming glaciation, and wrote glowing a testimonial on the back cover of a popular `Ice Age' book of the time - (Ponte, Lowell. "The Cooling", Prentice Hall, N.J., USA, 1976), in which the author claimed that the climatic cooling from 1940 to the 1970s was but the precursor to the main event - the coming Ice Age. In 1971, he claimed that an 800% increase in CO2 would be needed to raise global temperature by +2 deg. By the late 1980s, he promoted the UN view that a mere 100% increase in CO2 would be enough to raise temperature by +1.5 to +4 deg. He promoted the idea that the next Ice Age was imminent. However, when catastrophic global cooling didn't pan out, he changed his alarmist tune. By the mid-1980's and into the 1990s, he equally vigorously promoted the idea that world was about to suffer a catastrophe caused by Global Warming. (You can read about Schneider here) He couldn't make up his mind on which climate catastrophe to to champion. First it was global cooling. Then it was man-made global warming. He was wrong on global cooling and he was wrong on global warming.

The bottom line is "Schneider" of the Anderegg/Schneider survey was basically an environmentalist wacko. His contribution to the defense of the Doran/Zimmerman survey confirms that it was little more than propaganda. He was determined to help "prove" that the Doran/Zimmerman 97% consensus was valid. Heck, Easteregg, Friedegg, Boiledegg, Scrambledegg, et. al. could have done a better job of proving a 97% consensus than Anderegg, Schneider, et. al. did. :wink:


-eggs - cute David.
Wacko? - certainly a "balanced" statement.
Propaganda? - it was survey data, David.

Wrt to your diatribe against Stephen Schneider (a Stanford Professor) who did once cautioned against global cooling in the 70's , I'll offer up this: Look at the temp plot above (the GISS one not the GWPF one). In the 70's, it appeared that temps were cooling from that in 1940. Many were saying it was due to atmospheric particulants that increased with the onset of worldwide air pollution that overcounteracted the known rise due to increases in CO2 that caused teh increases from 1910 to 1940. Many nations (including the US Clean Air Acts of 1963, 1970, 1983) started air pollution abatement programs that has effectively cleared our air (look at LA then and now). Schneider had the wherewithal/integrity to see that the times they were achanging (along with Bob Dylan) and he shifted his emphasis to CO2 control which is what is needed at this time. I credit him for that.

Wrt to David's report of Schneider's debate boasting, let's look at how actually Schneider answered a question put to him by a journalist.
Question: More specifically, the principal skeptic websites (Watt's Up With That, Climate Skeptic, Climate Audit and Climate Science) that I look at regularly seem to think they are winning the day. They think data is coming in that questions the established paradigm.

Schneider: They have been thinking that as long as I have observed them and they have very few mainstream climate scientists who publish original research in climate refereed journals with them--a petroleum geologist's opinion on climate science is a as good as a climate scientists opinion on oil reserves. So petitions sent to hundreds of thousands of earth scientists are frauds. If these guys think they are "winning" why don't they try to take on face to face real climatologists at real meetings--not fake ideology shows like Heartland Institute--but with those with real knowledge--because they'd be slaughtered in public debate by Trenberth, Santer, Hansen, Oppenheimer, Allen, Mitchell, even little ol' me. It's easy to blog, easy to write op-eds in the Wall Street Journal.

Not so boastful after all.

I have no doubt the denialist camp thinks they are "winning the day" and they believe they can beat "alarmists" in debate, but the surveys prove otherwise especially wrt to the most knowldegable people. Such triumphalism is nonsense in the face of the survey facts.
Image
Even with the US public, it's 58% AGW, 38% denialists , 4% unsure. That is a landslide in a political race.
And in Australia it's 80% AGW. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/80_of_australians_accept_that.php where the PR onslaught and the anti-regulation fever is not as strong.

And ClimateGate has not changed the US public's mind much as shown in 2010 Polls
A couple of quotes:
The poll also found that 77% support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

For example, only 9% of respondents said they knew about the East Anglia e-mail messages and believed they indicate that climate scientists should not be trusted, and only 13% said the same about the controversial IPPC reports


Despite David's blustery confidence the GW "alarmism" has been debunked that is decidedly not true. And the DATA keeps growing that we are harming the earth.
Coral reef bleaching
NY Times article
Image

Good night.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9320
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:26 am

.
.
This article appeared yesterday (Tuesday).

.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:37 pm

David Flick wrote:.
.
This article appeared yesterday (Tuesday).

.
.


David,

I've been trying to make you see how overstated your argumentation is - "all ClimateGate investigators were 'overtly biased' ", "97% of scientists do not believe in AGW".

But I see you have continued in that vein with the linking of this article that criminalizes climate researchers (if they do not reached your conclusions).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9320
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:31 am

KeithE wrote:
David Flick wrote:.
.
This article appeared yesterday (Tuesday).

.
.


David,

I've been trying to make you see how overstated your argumentation is - 1"all ClimateGate investigators were 'overtly biased' ", 2"97% of scientists do not believe in AGW".

3But I see you have continued in that vein with the linking of this article that criminalizes climate researchers (4if they do not reached your conclusions).

1) I'm not overstating the argument to say that all the Climategate investigators were "overtly biased." The whitewash cover-up cleared CRU, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et. al. There is no climate change catastrophe. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) does not exist.

2) Keith, I've never argued that 97% do not believe scientists do not believe in in AGW. What I have argued is that the Doran/Zimmerman "survey" (which declares that 97% of scientists do believe AGW is reality) is bogus. The Anderegg, Schneider, et. al. "survey" (which attempts to prop up Doran/Zimmerman) is equally bogus. There's no credible source on the planet that supports the notion that 97% of scientists believing in AGW.

3) Alan Caruba is correct. The Climategate scientists did fleece the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom of billions in public funds in the name of “climate research” by manipulating the data to advance the “global warming” hoax. You cannot deny that Phil Jones acted criminally when he “deleted loads of emails” (his words)* to avoid being exposed lest someone bring a Freedom of Information Act request. Patrick Michaels was correct when he observed that at the heart of the yet unresolved issues are “professional misconduct, data manipulation, and the jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data.” This investigation is far from over. I predict the day will come when the criminals of Climategate are fully exposed.

4) These aren't my conclusions, Keith. I'm simply reporting what others are writing...
________________________________________
    *Jones admitted that he had "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. Source...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:24 am

.
.
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:51 am

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:
David Flick wrote:.
.
This article appeared yesterday (Tuesday).

.
.


David,

I've been trying to make you see how overstated your argumentation is - 1"all ClimateGate investigators were 'overtly biased' ", 2"97% of scientists do not believe in AGW".

3But I see you have continued in that vein with the linking of this article that criminalizes climate researchers (4if they do not reached your conclusions).

1) I'm not overstating the argument to say that all the Climategate investigators were "overtly biased." The whitewash cover-up cleared CRU, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et. al. There is no climate change catastrophe. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) does not exist.

2) Keith, I've never argued that 97% do not believe scientists do not believe in in AGW. What I have argued is that the Doran/Zimmerman "survey" (which declares that 97% of scientists do believe AGW is reality) is bogus. The Anderegg, Schneider, et. al. "survey" (which attempts to prop up Doran/Zimmerman) is equally bogus. There's no credible source on the planet that supports the notion that 97% of scientists believing in AGW.

3) Alan Caruba is correct. The Climategate scientists did fleece the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom of billions in public funds in the name of “climate research” by manipulating the data to advance the “global warming” hoax. You cannot deny that Phil Jones acted criminally when he “deleted loads of emails” (his words)* to avoid being exposed lest someone bring a Freedom of Information Act request. Patrick Michaels was correct when he observed that at the heart of the yet unresolved issues are “professional misconduct, data manipulation, and the jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data.” This investigation is far from over. I predict the day will come when the criminals of Climategate are fully exposed.

4) These aren't my conclusions, Keith. I'm simply reporting what others are writing...
________________________________________
    *Jones admitted that he had "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. Source...


1) David judges the "Overt biasness" of an invesitgation team by the results of that team. If they do not agree with his pre-ordained answer, then they must be biased from the start and the team was chosen to perform a "whitewash" job. The fact that 3 teams confirmed the integrity of Dr. Jones and his DATA just proves more collusion, he says. The only evidence he has offered that any investigation team member on any of the 3 teams had an "overt bias" going into the investigation is that Dr.Geoffrey Boulton once worked for UEA for 18 years. He left UEA over 5 years ago and never did work at the CRU within the UEA. Heck one team had a current BP employee; David and the denialist don't bring that one up which is a clear OCI (organization conflict of interest) in appearance at least. And when judging for OCI, an ex-employee can be ruled as biased against his former employer as easily as being ruled as being biased for his previous employer. (I'm often involved in such OCI issues when evaluating proposals and the against is the more prominent reason in my world at least.) In this case the facts make it clear that Boulton may have been biased against UEA (if anything) as evidenced by this response letter from Keith Briffa and Tim Osborne (both of CRU) answering an evidently contentious Boulton probe into certain Paleoclimatic data of Briffa that came up during the Muir-Russell Investigation.
[url=http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/6%20May%20Briffa%20Osborn%20response.pdf]RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS RAISED BY
PROFESSOR GEOFFREY BOULTON[/url]
If Boulton is the best that the denialist team can come up with wrt a prior "overt bias", then the teams must be pretty clean from prior bias. But this is typical magnification to absurd levels of any bit of info that the denialist team can come up with.

As a reminder, there are 26 members on the investigative teams, and David claims all were "overtly biased" because they did not reached the conclusion he wanted. Still waiting.

2) Glad to hear you do not necessarily think that only 3% of scientists are AGW. But that is what you said on 23 Aug post with the provocative article title "97% of Scientists Do Not Believe in the Theory of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming".
David on 23 Aug wrote:Do you actually believe that 97% of the "real" climate scientists believe in AGW?? That's the biggest bunch of B.S. you've come up with to date. You're not even close, my friend. 97% of Scientists Do Not Believe in the Theory of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming
Of course the article didn't prove that assertion but such is the state of denialist "journalism". My claim comes from surveys (2 of them and they are recent). David's claims comes from his "feel" after reading such denialist "journalism". I do not play tricks with provocative titles, as David did, but is apparently is retracting now (since I caught him). I also note that David continues to refer to this population as simply "scientists" when the Doran survey has more specific categories as to degree of involvement in GW/CC research. I always point out that the 97% (actually 97.4%) are from a population of professional climate researchers with strong GW/CC publication records (or the "most involved GW scientists" or some such caveat).

I also have pointed out that the margin of error for the Doran survey (sample size of the most involved GW researchers being 77) is 89-99.4% (to 95% confidence) and for the Anderegg survey (sample size = 1372, much larger) that margin of error is 96.0%- 98.8% (95% confidence). So the lowest credible number (not just pulled out of David's mind, as polluted it is on this subject) of the most involved GW/CC researchers that ascribe to AGW is 96% (after the lower end of the Anderegg survey). Any claim lower than that is on thin ice. I believe in DATA, David pulls stuff out of his imagination. From what he links herein, I can see where he comes up with such a skewed imagination.

As to the numbers of "earth scientists" that believe in AGW, I have no resaon to doubt that only 77% believe in AGW (that's what the DATA says). Note below only 8% of "earth scientists" explicitly disagree with AGW (that's a >9:1 ratio in AGW believers vs non-believers, which is quite a majority). And the poor public (subject as it is the PR from both sides) have it as about 58% AGW and 38% disagreeing. The real point about the Doran poll is that the more one knows about GW, the more one is likely to be AGW.
Image

3) First of all you have no evidence of the claims made in red above - none. Nothing in the whole investigations have turned over any hint of data manipulation. Fleecing of billions you say - what do you think we should not be monitoring the earth's temp and other factors?? - that would be the height of irresponsibility. Heck the whole grant funding from EPA is $1.1B/year for all subject matters (global warming and/or climate change a fraction thereof). Sorry I could not find exact details, but "fleecing of billions", please. Make your case with real numbers not your imagination.

Sure there have been instances of witholding info from FOI release (due to the fact they knew darn well what the receivers of that data were going to do and the loss of productive work that will entail). And sure there have been instances of trying to get journals to not publish what they know is rubbish - this is an everyday occurences is the scientific publishing world. The skeptics have their own journal Energy and Environment that they control quite thoroughly. I still like to see the email servers from the denialist's orgaizations (and record of what has been deleted).

Wrt to Jones' "deleted loads of emails", your source added the phrase "to avoid being exposed lest someone bring a Freedom of Information Act request". I checked and the purported Jones quote “deleted loads of emails” is not in the hacked emails selection. So we really do not know the context. Heck I delete emails virtually everday. At work last Friday, I got 653 emails. Your "source" implies that the emails he was referring to was related to an exchange which are in the hacked CRU emails where Jones clearly orchestrated a group deletion about the fact that some Briffa data got into the IPCC AR4 past the cutoff deadline - a fact they were trying to hide. Maybe the "deleted loads of emails" is related, but that has not been established. Besides that is not exactly a criminal act (trying to get one's latest research into a study) and it certainly presents no basis for concluding that CRU has been manipulating the data to advance the “global warming” hoax. Yet another example of making a mountain of a molehill.

4) So you do not stand behind all the inane articles you link?? Glad to know that.
Last edited by KeithE on Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:45 am, edited 4 times in total.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9320
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:52 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
.
.


Your "source" reports only for about 31% of 2010 (the winter period in the NH). If he would have plotted the whole range in the CU data since late 1992, you would have seen a sea level rise of 52.24 mm or 3.01 mm/year (close to other published altimeter data- see below). That is an good example of extreme dishonest cherry picking (and you dare to accuse the CRU of "data manipulation").

He also reports a temp for only one location, which shows a large increase ~ 3.0C in 2010 (probably the largest he could find, since he is trying to cast doubt on 2009/2010's global temp rise [~0.2C globally since June 2009] assuming falsely the temp rise and sea level rise are correlated temporally with no lag between them). Truth is there is no reason to expect correlation timewise between temps and sea level rise. Sea level rise is more related to an integral over past temps and other factors (e.g. degree of seaa ice/glacier breakup). There is a lot of reason to doubt this source's scientific understanding as well as his truthfulness.

The global, multiyear picture is below- a constant increase (not accelerating much but at a linear growth of about 2 mm/year since 1910; the later altimeter data is more like 3.1 mm/year). And there is confirmation from two independent data sources over many years - tidal gauges (120 years) and satellite altimetry (16 years). The sky might not be falling but the sea level is rising.

Image

Now let's judge the accuracy of David's "source". It claims Dr. Hansen (presumably Dr. Jim Hansen of the GISS) believes sea level will rise " 3-6+ metres " this century. Where did he get such predictions from Dr. Hansen? I found where recently Dr. James Hansen thought 18 inches (= 0.46 metres) this century "may be far too low" but no where have I found Dr. Hansen making such a claim of 3-6+ metres. May be true, but your source does not provide any proof and I have come to question all info from denialist sources. Denialists have a way of putting DATA into the mouths of whoever they demonize. Your "source" needs to source stuff as well David.

The 2007 IPCC had the sea level rise by 2100 as somewhere in the [0.18 to 0.59 metres] range with the proviso that there is no "rapid dynamical changes in ice flow". Lately researchers have noticed dynamical changes in ice flow in Greenland and elsewhere. The current thinking centers on ~1 meter by 2100 although one researcher claims an uncertainty range of 0.8 - 2 meters (with preference for the lower values). Not "3-6+ metres".

Just as a reminder, the Al Gore number of 21 feet (=6.4 meters) was if Greenland's glaciers totally melted (and he is accurate in that assertion). He made no claim about what the sea level would be by 2100. Again the denialist machine has a way of putting DATA into the mouths of whoever they demonize. They have to, because they have no scientific case!

No recognized SLR (sea level rise) researcher claims 3-6+ meters and no recognized SLR researcher claims, as your linked article proclaims, the "Sea Level is Falling in 2010". What passes as denialist "journalism" is appalling.

But not to worry, David does not stand behind what he links. He's just giving other people's conclusions.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9320
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:46 pm

KeithE wrote:1) David judges the "Overt biasness" of an invesitgation team by the results of that team. If they do not agree with his pre-ordained answer, then they must be biased from the start and the team was chosen to perform a "whitewash" job. The fact that 3 teams confirmed the integrity of Dr. Jones and his DATA just proves more collusion, he says. The only evidence he has offered that any investigation team member on any of the 3 teams had an "overt bias" going into the investigation is that Dr.Geoffrey Boulton once worked for UEA for 18 years. He left UEA over 5 years ago and never did work at the CRU within the UEA. Heck one team had a current BP employee; David and the denialist don't bring that one up which is a clear OCI (organization conflict of interest) in appearance at least. And when judging for OCI, an ex-employee can be ruled as biased against his former employer as easily as being ruled as being biased for his previous employer. (I'm often involved in such OCI issues when evaluating proposals and the against is the more prominent reason in my world at least.) In this case the facts make it clear that Boulton may have been biased against UEA (if anything) as evidenced by this response letter from Keith Briffa and Tim Osborne (both of CRU) answering an evidently contentious Boulton probe into certain Paleoclimatic data of Briffa that came up during the Muir-Russell Investigation.
[url=http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/6%20May%20Briffa%20Osborn%20response.pdf]RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS RAISED BY
PROFESSOR GEOFFREY BOULTON[/url]
If Boulton is the best that the denialist team can come up with wrt a prior "overt bias", then the teams must be pretty clean from prior bias. But this is typical magnification to absurd levels of any bit of info that the denialist team can come up with.

As a reminder, there are 26 members on the investigative teams, and David claims all were "overtly biased" because they did not reached the conclusion he wanted. Still waiting.

2) Glad to hear you do not necessarily think that only 3% of scientists are AGW. But that is what you said on 23 Aug post with the provocative article title "97% of Scientists Do Not Believe in the Theory of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming".
David on 23 Aug wrote:Do you actually believe that 97% of the "real" climate scientists believe in AGW?? That's the biggest bunch of B.S. you've come up with to date. You're not even close, my friend. 97% of Scientists [size=150]Do Not Believe in the Theory of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming
Of course the article didn't prove that assertion but such is the state of denialist "journalism". My claim comes from surveys (2 of them and they are recent). David's claims comes from his "feel" after reading such denialist "journalism". I do not play tricks with provocative titles, as David did, but is apparently is retracting now (since I caught him). I also note that David continues to refer to this population as simply "scientists" when the Doran survey has more specific categories as to degree of involvement in GW/CC research. I always point out that the 97% (actually 97.4%) are from a population of professional climate researchers with strong GW/CC publication records (or the "most involved GW scientists" or some such caveat).

I also have pointed out that the margin of error for the Doran survey (sample size of the most involved GW researchers being 77) is 89-99.4% (to 95% confidence) and for the Anderegg survey (sample size = 1372, much larger) that margin of error is 96.0%- 98.8% (95% confidence). So the lowest credible number (not just pulled out of David's mind, as polluted it is on this subject) of the most involved GW/CC researchers that ascribe to AGW is 96% (after the lower end of the Anderegg survey). Any claim lower than that is on thin ice. I believe in DATA, David pulls stuff out of his imagination. From what he links herein, I can see where he comes up with such a skewed imagination.

As to the numbers of "earth scientists" that believe in AGW, I have no resaon to doubt that only 77% believe in AGW (that's what the DATA says). Note below only 8% of "earth scientists" explicitly disagree with AGW (that's a >9:1 ratio in AGW believers vs non-believers, which is quite a majority). And the poor public (subject as it is the PR from both sides) have it as about 58% AGW and 38% disagreeing. The real point about the Doran poll is that the more one knows about GW, the more one is likely to be AGW.
Image

3) First of all you have no evidence of the claims made in red above - none. Nothing in the whole investigations have turned over any hint of data manipulation. Fleecing of billions you say - what do you think we should not be monitoring the earth's temp and other factors?? - that would be the height of irresponsibility. Heck the whole grant funding from EPA is $1.1B/year for all subject matters (global warming and/or climate change a fraction thereof). Sorry I could not find exact details, but "fleecing of billions", please. Make your case with real numbers not your imagination.

Sure there have been instances of witholding info from FOI release (due to the fact they knew darn well what the receivers of that data were going to do and the loss of productive work that will entail). And sure there have been instances of trying to get journals to not publish what they know is rubbish - this is an everyday occurences is the scientific publishing world. The skeptics have their own journal Energy and Environment that they control quite thoroughly. I still like to see the email servers from the denialist's orgaizations (and record of what has been deleted).

Wrt to Jones' "deleted loads of emails", your source added the phrase "to avoid being exposed lest someone bring a Freedom of Information Act request". I checked and the purported Jones quote “deleted loads of emails” is not in the hacked emails selection. So we really do not know the context. Heck I delete emails virtually everday. At work last Friday, I got 653 emails. Your "source" implies that the emails he was referring to was related to an exchange which are in the hacked CRU emails where Jones clearly orchestrated a group deletion about the fact that some Briffa data got into the IPCC AR4 past the cutoff deadline - a fact they were trying to hide. Maybe the "deleted loads of emails" is related, but that has not been established. Besides that is not exactly a criminal act (trying to get one's latest research into a study) and it certainly presents no basis for concluding that CRU has been manipulating the data to advance the “global warming” hoax. Yet another example of making a mountain of a molehill.

Keith, if posting excessively lengthy responses (this one is 1,175 words long) and recycling the same old tired propaganda points could prove a AGW to be true, you would be the clear winner in this debate. Over the past several weeks, you have continually recycled the same stuff and increased the number of words in each reply. I confess that on several occasions I've recycled my responses. I'm not going to continue playing that game...

KeithE wrote:4) So you do not stand behind all the inane articles you link?? Glad to know that.

Call them inane, call them whatever you like, but I do stand behind the articles to which I link. I wouldn't post them if I didn't stand behind them...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:32 pm

David Flick wrote:Keith, if posting excessively lengthy responses (this one is 1,175 words long) and recycling the same old tired propaganda points could prove a AGW to be true, you would be the clear winner in this debate. Over the past several weeks, you have continually recycled the same stuff and increased the number of words in each reply. I confess that on several occasions I've recycled my responses. I'm not going to continue playing that game...

Some of your posts are quite lengthy as well, my friend.

I keep posting the Doran survey because:
1) you continue to not understand that the 97.4% refers to the most involved GW/CC researchers who are both climatologists and have multiple publications in that area not just any "scientist" as you continue to say; they are the rightmost bar in the Doran graph.
2) I was making a new point bowing to your category of "scientist" although strictly speaking the 77% is from a population of "earth scientists" that do not make the more highly GW/CC-involved levels. That category is not as high as the 97.4% belief in AGW, but only 77% (as I readily admitted). In that category only 8% explicitly disagree with AGW (15% "I'm not sure") making it a >9:1 ratio (AGW vs anti-AGW). The DATA was shown on the Doran graph, so that is why I repeated it - it not merely to irritate you. I also thought that just maybe you would grasp it's real meaning - that the more involved one is in GW/CC studies, the more AGW one is.

I think I see one area where our frameworks for discourse is quite different by looking at the text in green above. You tend to speak specifics without actually checking up on those specifics (e.g. you yourself have counted words in my posts and this latest one is 1175 words while an earlier one was over 3000 words by your own count. Yet you can say what you said in green above that I have "increased the number of words in each reply"). That (and other inaccuracies & overstatements) are indicative of a lack of precision in your written words, that is bothersome to my framework for discourse. I think perhaps you meant to say - You write too much KeithE.

David wrote:
KeithE wrote:4) So you do not stand behind all the inane articles you link?? Glad to know that.

Call them inane, call them whatever you like, but I do stand behind the articles to which I link. I wouldn't post them if I didn't stand behind them...


Here's the sequence of posts:
David links this article Why Are Climategate Charlatans Still Free? saying "If I had engaged in activities that involved fleecing the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom of billions in public funds in the name of “climate research”, and it was found that I had manipulated the data to advance the “global warming” hoax, wouldn’t I be facing charges of fraud?"

To which I answered
KeithE wrote:But I see you have continued in that vein [overstatements] with the linking of this article that criminalizes climate researchers (4if they do not reached your conclusions)


David wrote:4) These aren't my conclusions, Keith. I'm simply reporting what others are writing...


At face value that implies you do not stand behind the conclusions of the articles you link ("these are not my conclusions"), you're just reporting what others write and their conclusions. I guess it is just your way of backpeddling for the moment. But alas you have buckled down in your denialist/skeptical bunker again and "standing by" your numerous linked articles from the machine.

Try a little reading from the other side- maybe "Global Fever" by William Calvin. It is at a non-technical level that you might be able to understand (and I trust he is not a Calvinist. :wink: ). You can order it for $7.50 on Amazon third party. I finished "Global Warming False Alarm" (a truly GW skeptical book) at your suggestion and wrote a detailed review on Amazon.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9320
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:09 pm

David Flick wrote:.
.
.
.


Here's Skeptical Science's comeback to the story above. Pretty much repeats what I said about cherry picking in my 2 Oct 8:52 post.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9320
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:34 am

KeithE wrote:
David Flick wrote:Keith, if posting excessively lengthy responses (this one is 1,175 words long) and recycling the same old tired propaganda points could prove a AGW to be true, you would be the clear winner in this debate. Over the past several weeks, you have continually recycled the same stuff and increased the number of words in each reply. I confess that on several occasions I've recycled my responses. I'm not going to continue playing that game...

Some of your posts are quite lengthy as well, my friend.

I keep posting the Doran survey because:
1) you continue to not understand that the 97.4% refers to the most involved GW/CC researchers who are both climatologists and have multiple publications in that area not just any "scientist" as you continue to say; they are the rightmost bar in the Doran graph.
    You continue not to understand that the entire Doran/Zimmerman "survey" (text & graph) is pure unadulterated AGW propaganda.
2) I was making a new point bowing to your category of "scientist" although strictly speaking the 77% is from a population of "earth scientists" that do not make the more highly GW/CC-involved levels. That category is not as high as the 97.4% belief in AGW, but only 77% (as I readily admitted). In that category only 8% explicitly disagree with AGW (15% "I'm not sure") making it a >9:1 ratio (AGW vs anti-AGW). The DATA was shown on the Doran graph, so that is why I repeated it - it not merely to irritate you. I also thought that just maybe you would grasp it's real meaning - that the more involved one is in GW/CC studies, the more AGW one is.
    It's quite easy for me to grasp the real meaning of AGW propaganda. It's not a matter of "AGW vs anti-AGW." Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) simply does not exist. Neither you nor any of your alarmist sources have ever proven that global warming can be caused my man. Man is incapable of causing global warming. For that matter, man is incapable of causing global cooling. Man is incapable of changing climate or controlling climate. Our planet has warmed and cooled numerous times throughout history. Not one of those climate swings from cool to warm or warm to cool occurred because of the activities of man. The recent warming trend (which ended in 1998) was not man-caused.
    . . .As to the notion that "the more involved one is in GW/CC studies, the more AGW one is," I'd say that's false. Inasmuch as AGW doesn't exist, the true believers of such are merely spreading the propaganda higher and deeper.


KeithE wrote:
David wrote:
KeithE wrote:4) So you do not stand behind all the inane articles you link?? Glad to know that.

Call them inane, call them whatever you like, but I do stand behind the articles to which I link. I wouldn't post them if I didn't stand behind them...


Here's the sequence of posts:
David links this article Why Are Climategate Charlatans Still Free? saying "If I had engaged in activities that involved fleecing the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom of billions in public funds in the name of “climate research”, and it was found that I had manipulated the data to advance the “global warming” hoax, wouldn’t I be facing charges of fraud?"

To which I answered
KeithE wrote:But I see you have continued in that vein [overstatements] with the linking of this article that criminalizes climate researchers (4if they do not reached your conclusions)

David wrote:4) These aren't my conclusions, Keith. I'm simply reporting what others are writing...

1At face value that implies you do not stand behind the conclusions of the articles you link ("these are not my conclusions"), you're just reporting what others write and their conclusions. 2I guess it is just your way of backpeddling for the moment. 3But alas you have buckled down in your denialist/skeptical bunker again and "standing by" your numerous linked articles from the machine.
    1) Your reading comprehension isn't very good, Keith. I do report what others write. And I generally agree with the conclusions of what others write (i.e. the real climate scientists/experts). I'm merely reporting (linking to) what they are writing.

    2) Me? Backpeddling?? That's hilarious... :lol: I don't backpeddle...

    3) Yeah, that darned denialist/skeptical "machine" keeps poking holes in your alarmist arguments. Sorry 'bout that. That's just the way it is. As Roy Spencer said, "I predict that 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." That point in the future is drawing closer with each passing day.

1Try a little reading from the other side- maybe "Global Fever" by William Calvin. It is at a non-technical level that you might be able to understand (and I trust he is not a Calvinist. :wink: ). You can order it for $7.50 on Amazon third party. 2I finished "Global Warming False Alarm" (a truly GW skeptical book) at your suggestion and wrote a detailed review on Amazon.
    1) I do read the other side. I'm still collecting those GW tipping point articles. Ive read over 1K of them plus many of the alarmist articles that appear Climate Depot. Climate Depot publishes articles from both sides of the the debate.
    . . . .Incidentally, have you been following that controversy that broke a couple of days ago? It's about the video created by some alarmists wherein skeptics (children) were exploded/assassinated for disagreeing with the alarmist view of cutting CO2 emissions. If you haven't seen it, I would invite you to take a look at this.

    2) I read your review. Amazing! You outdid yourself on that one for sure. My hat's off to you. Your ability (in 2,254 words, more or less) to quote and expand AGW propaganda/DATA is second to none. You should quit your job there in Huntsville and move to England and help bail Phil Jones out of his pickle. Better yet, you should move University Park, PA and join the Penn State University staff and help Michael Mann work though his problems. I'm sure he could use your help with the AGW propaganda campaign. :wink:
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:51 pm

David wrote:You continue not to understand that the entire Doran/Zimmerman "survey" (text & graph) is pure unadulterated AGW propaganda.

It's quite easy for me to grasp the real meaning of AGW propaganda. It's not a matter of "AGW vs anti-AGW." Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) simply does not exist. Neither you nor any of your alarmist sources have ever proven that global warming can be caused my man. Man is incapable of causing global warming. For that matter, man is incapable of causing global cooling. Man is incapable of changing climate or controlling climate. Our planet has warmed and cooled numerous times throughout history. Not one of those climate swings from cool to warm or warm to cool occurred because of the activities of man. The recent warming trend (which ended in 1998) was not man-caused.

As to the notion that "the more involved one is in GW/CC studies, the more AGW one is," I'd say that's false. Inasmuch as AGW doesn't exist, the true believers of such are merely spreading the propaganda higher and deeper.

Your reading comprehension isn't very good, Keith. I do report what others write. And I generally agree with the conclusions of what others write (i.e. the real climate scientists/experts).

All of the above is blowhard nonsense - trying to use strong lanuage without meaningful data or logic.

David wrote: Me? Backpeddling?? That's hilarious... :lol: I don't backpeddle...

Only true words you have spoken.

David wrote:[/b] I read your review. Amazing! You outdid yourself on that one for sure. My hat's off to you. Your ability (in 2,254 words, more or less) to quote and expand AGW propaganda/DATA is second to none. You should quit your job there in Huntsville and move to England and help bail Phil Jones out of his pickle. Better yet, you should move University Park, PA and join the Penn State University staff and help Michael Mann work though his problems. I'm sure he could use your help with the AGW propaganda campaign. :wink:


Thank you. I sometimes muse to myself that the threat to the world from Global Warming might be greater than that from a missile-borne nuclear strike. Not as instantaneous for sure, but more certain if we don't change our ways. I actually would enjoy working on GW research, even here at UAH. Christy and Spencer's boss (Dr. Ron Welch) is what you would term an "alarmist". He enjoys having classroom debates with John Christy. When I asked him about Roy Spencer, he said nothing but his rolling eyes told the story.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9320
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:05 pm

KeithE wrote:
David wrote:You continue not to understand that the entire Doran/Zimmerman "survey" (text & graph) is pure unadulterated AGW propaganda.

It's quite easy for me to grasp the real meaning of AGW propaganda. It's not a matter of "AGW vs anti-AGW." Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) simply does not exist. Neither you nor any of your alarmist sources have ever proven that global warming can be caused my man. Man is incapable of causing global warming. For that matter, man is incapable of causing global cooling. Man is incapable of changing climate or controlling climate. Our planet has warmed and cooled numerous times throughout history. Not one of those climate swings from cool to warm or warm to cool occurred because of the activities of man. The recent warming trend (which ended in 1998) was not man-caused.

As to the notion that "the more involved one is in GW/CC studies, the more AGW one is," I'd say that's false. Inasmuch as AGW doesn't exist, the true believers of such are merely spreading the propaganda higher and deeper.

Your reading comprehension isn't very good, Keith. I do report what others write. And I generally agree with the conclusions of what others write (i.e. the real climate scientists/experts).

All of the above is blowhard nonsense - trying to use strong lanuage without meaningful data or logic.

There is no "meaningful" data or logic in the AGW argument. Since AGW doesn't exist, it isn't possible to present meaningful or logical data to support it.

KeithE wrote:
David wrote: Me? Backpeddling?? That's hilarious... :lol: I don't backpeddle...

Only true words you have spoken.

Thanks...

KeithE wrote:
David wrote:[/b] I read your review. Amazing! You outdid yourself on that one for sure. My hat's off to you. Your ability (in 2,254 words, more or less) to quote and expand AGW propaganda/DATA is second to none. You should quit your job there in Huntsville and move to England and help bail Phil Jones out of his pickle. Better yet, you should move University Park, PA and join the Penn State University staff and help Michael Mann work though his problems. I'm sure he could use your help with the AGW propaganda campaign. :wink:

Thank you. I sometimes muse to myself that the threat to the world from Global Warming might be greater than that from a missile-borne nuclear strike. Not as instantaneous for sure, but more certain if we don't change our ways. I actually would enjoy working on GW research, even here at UAH. Christy and Spencer's boss (Dr. Ron Welch) is what you would term an "alarmist". He enjoys having classroom debates with John Christy. When I asked him about Roy Spencer, he said nothing but his rolling eyes told the story.

Classic AGW alarmism... If you really think the threat of global warming is more certain than a missile-borne nuclear strike, I feel genuinely sorry for you. I don't know how you manage to sleep at night with that sort of mindset. I certainly couldn't live comfortably under that kind of fear...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:15 am

David Flick wrote:
Classic AGW alarmism... If you really think the threat of global warming is more certain than a missile-borne nuclear strike, I feel genuinely sorry for you. I don't know how you manage to sleep at night with that sort of mindset. I certainly couldn't live comfortably under that kind of fear...


I sleep just fine. Rather bleary eyed at the moment. The effects of GW have come on slowly and will get worse with time. Those effects are already felt in places like the Amazon basin, the Arctic, and our oceans. Europe saw a heat wave that killed 40,000 in 2003 that was at very least aggravated by GW. All signs point towards an even less habitat-friendly environment for our grand kids. So I do have a concern for them. My fear is heightened by the "I'll take freely from the earth" ideology that denialists and short-term profiteers exhibit. My fear is worked off by trying to change those lack-of-care-of-creation attitudes as well as the militaristic attitudes around the world. By turning fear into action, one's conscience is clear and one sleeps very well.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9320
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:36 am

.
.
.
It appears that Michale Mann's "hockey stick" troubles are far from over.
Cuccinelli reissues global warming subpoena to U-Va.
Source: Wash Post

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has sent a new civil subpoena to the University of Virginia, renewing a demand for documents related to a work of a former university climate scientist that was stymied when a judge blocked his previous request in August.

The new Civil Investigative Demand revives a contentious fight between Cuccinelli and the university over documents related to the work of Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist whose research concluded that the earth has experienced a rapid, recent warming. Mann worked at U-Va. until 2005; he is now employed by Penn State University. Continued here...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:29 pm

.
.
.
For the unvarnished truth about global warming/climate change alarmism, watch this 5-part series of youtube videos (45 minutes): Michael Coren with Dr. Tim Ball
.
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:27 am

.
.
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby KeithE » Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:36 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
.
.

Not Humorous.
Far from the truth.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9320
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:42 am

KeithE wrote:
David Flick wrote:.
.
.
.

Not Humorous.
Far from the truth.

. . . . . . . . . :lol:
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Jim » Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:05 am

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:
David Flick wrote:.
.
.
.

Not Humorous.
Far from the truth.

. . . . . . . . . :lol:

A few more:

Carbon credit: tax-exemption for citizens who ration their breathing at two inhalations for each exhalation.

Cap-and-trade: The act of capping pages read to one of each increment of 20 in all legislation and trading the knowledge gained for that of fellow legislators who hopefully have read the other 19.

CRU: Climate Regulators United.

IPCC: Idiot Producers of Climate Change.

Climate Truther: Informed citizen who correctly credits Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, Osama bin Laden, and the Tooth Fairy for global warming.

Fossil fuel: Anything ingested by anyone over the age of 75.

Hockey Stick Graph: Climate history of warm ages exclusively.

CO/2: Correct observations by half, remarking the half-wits who devise Nobel Peace Prize recipients.

Inconvenient Truth: Nobel Peace Prize has nothing to do with peace.

Global warming: Heat intensity within the skull melting the brains of alarmists.

Tipping point: The 15% of alarmists who can find their way to the thermostat.

Climate czar: The Obama aide who makes sure Obamessiah’s Marlboro smoke is impounded in an underground vault.
Jim
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby David Flick » Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:38 pm

David Flick wrote:

    KeithE wrote:Not Humorous.
    Far from the truth.

      David Flick wrote:. . . . . . . . . :lol:

        Jim wrote:A few more:

        Carbon credit: tax-exemption for citizens who ration their breathing at two inhalations for each exhalation.

        Cap-and-trade: The act of capping pages read to one of each increment of 20 in all legislation and trading the knowledge gained for that of fellow legislators who hopefully have read the other 19.

        CRU: Climate Regulators United.

        IPCC: Idiot Producers of Climate Change.

        Climate Truther:
        Informed citizen who correctly credits Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, Osama bin Laden, and the Tooth Fairy for global warming.

        Fossil fuel: Anything ingested by anyone over the age of 75.

        Hockey Stick Graph: Climate history of warm ages exclusively.

        CO/2: Correct observations by half, remarking the half-wits who devise Nobel Peace Prize recipients.

        Inconvenient Truth: Nobel Peace Prize has nothing to do with peace.

        Global warming: Heat intensity within the skull melting the brains of alarmists.

        Tipping point: The 15% of alarmists who can find their way to the thermostat.

        Climate czar: The Obama aide who makes sure Obamessiah’s Marlboro smoke is impounded in an underground vault.


        . . . . . . . . . . . .Image
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8490
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Haruo » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:20 am

A miracle: five days without a GW post! Oh, rats, I ruined it. I was two hours early. ;-(
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13114
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Ed Edwards » Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:49 pm

Nothing like humor to ruin a good argument.

Kinda like the night I went to a BRAWL and it all got burned out in the middle when a
HOCKY GAME BROKE OUT :D
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

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

Re: Global Warming Thread X

Postby Haruo » Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:57 am

I remember that night, Ed! What a sad end to an otherwise glorious contretemps!
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13114
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron