This article contends that there is so much government money to be made promoting Man-made global warming that the scientists on the dole will stop at nothing.
But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that “I’ll be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: “I think we should stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that “I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute.”
Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I’m hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it’s becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that’s nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.
Of course, Mr. Russell didn’t look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That’s because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.
#19 I’ll say this once. If you seriously believe that the people evacuated from Katrina were the first to be evacuated because of weather or climate event you are so ignorant you should not be allowed to talk in public if it weren’t for the fact that your total lack of depth of knowledge reveals exactly what your views are truly worth. The end of the old kingdom in Egypt was due to a drought so harsh that the living ate their children and the cities stood empty and abandoned.
The Sahara was once verdant and green but it dried up. The Southwestern Native American farmers perished or fled the four corners. The Maya ran into major problems. The people of Bolivia offered their children to the gods praying for rain but the gods left them to perish wretchedly in a parched land. The Barbarians over ran a Roman army and killed an Emperor in the region of Romania after they got down to trading their children to the Romans for dogs to eat.
Based on that claim,”people who relocated after Katrina were the world’s first climate refugees,” you geniuses have never even heard of the dust bowl! With a knowledge of past events that doesn’t even go back 100 years you want to claim you understand climate! Blah!
# 37 Skeptic
Keep up.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
“The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.”
This is the study.
You claim
“Well there goes THAT argument. That figure has been shown to be fake. There was never a comprehensive poll taken.”
You claim its fake. I assume (hopefully correctly) that you have something to back that up? No need to be coy – lets see it.
What a breath of fresh air (with CO2 at ~390 ppm) from deowll!
More on Katrina and sea level: Sea level has risen steadily at ~3mm/year for the last 20 years or so (that’s 30 cm (about a foot) per century. It rose 20 cm or so in the last century. Not going to be a problem, didn’t have anything to do with New Orleans. Here are the data:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global_sm.jpg
http://globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png/700px-Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
Think for yourself, look at the data, decide for yourself. Don’t swallow anybody’s party line. Scientists (at least good ones) are trained to be skeptics. Don’t believe what you’re told, decide whether the data support what others tell you. In the case of climate change, the case is very very poor.
Surface air temperature measurements are handled and mishandled in remarkably absurd ways by the climate crowd, and they’re mostly meaningless anyway. There is warming, about a degree F over the last century, and neither the rate of warming nor the absolute level are remarkable in last several thousand years. CO2 has increased significantly in that time, there’s no dispute, and it’s humans that have increased it. The basic case of the climate change folks is this: “Since we can’t find another explanation for the increase in temperature, and since we predict that CO2 will increase temperature (even though we don’t really know by how much) it MUST be the CO2 that is causing the temperature to rise.” This is not science, it’s faulty reasoning at best. Correlation is not causation, and the absence of evidence (for another non-CO2 cause for increasing temperatures) is not evidence of absence!
What matters is ocean temperature, since that’s where the vast majority of the heat content of the earth is located. Keep an eye on the Argo project, that’s where the real action is.
This project estimates that the top 2000 meters of the ocean have warmed by 0.06 C in the last 50 years. Pretty small number.
Climate science is an oxymoron. It’s little more than highly sophisticated soothsaying wrapped in a religious fervor. There’s loads of window dressing that masquerades as “science” which measures “impacts” and predicts alarming futures well beyond the time that anyone will remember the forecast (hypotheses that are never tested, or aren’t even testable, don’t constitute science). These predictions rely on models that purport to understand the most chaotic system we know (the climate). Global climate models can’t predict next year, let alone the next century.
But these “scientists” merrily work along studying whatever they like to study (trees, glaciers, lizards) and as long as they add some scary climate change bits, they get their grants and their papers are published in high-impact journals. It’s a convenient foil for making their otherwise very dull work interesting. And it keeps the grant money coming.
The climate boys screwed up. They know it. They can’t back out at this point and their increasingly shrill defense only underscores this fact. They scared the world, mobilized governments, terrified little kids, and can’t face saying they were wrong. Governments likewise can’t back away, especially since they saw a huge new revenue source in regulating CO2. The emperor has no clothes, and the word is getting around.
Hey Scott: I was impressed by the argument you made a few months ago that the “natural” temp of the earth would be MINUS 19C (or whatever) absent the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. You might regurgitate it here again for the knuckle draggers.
There is an “interesting” overall phenomenon here. Science is not ONE FACT–it is a body of work. Just as with evolution, the FACT at issue is not isolated. It gets support and credibility from “all” of science. It is but one sacred self revelatory truth. If you want to take one “issue” and hammer away at it, you miss the larger context.
Then go another way: use common sense. Not a scientific approach, but Einstein made something of it as a theory generator. Start with the notion of cause and effect. Can I dump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and have no consequential effects? Common sense says no. Seems to me the “burden” is on the deniers to advance exactly how those billions of tons of CO2 “make no difference.”
but don’t let a consensus of the experts, common observation, and common sense get in your way.
freddybobs68k, I am aware of that survey.
Do you even read the links you post? You certainly aren’t too critical of what you read.
Here is the first question that garnered 90% affirmation.
“Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?”
That’s like asking if the sky is blue. What is shocking is that 10% of those “American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Department” scientists disagreed!!!
Do you get the implication of that fact? Seriously, they don’t think the earth has warmed at all since 1800? Either 10% of those scientists are idiots, or the survey was tampered with… or some other dishonest manipulation.
AND, the 3,146 scientists surveyed in your sample are a drop in the bucket. Here is a counter survey for you. 31,487 scientists surveyed to date, agree with this statement:
http://petitionproject.org/index.php
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere”
That’s 10 times as many as your survey. I should point out that they don’t state that the earth isn’t warming at all, LOL.
Your survey is also plainly closed and most likely biased. All surveyed were from the “American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.” Compare that to the database of the survey link I posted:
Open to all scientists who “have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.
#44 Skeptic
Okay. So I was hoping for some expose from some reputable source. Your claim was it was ‘fake’ ie completely untrue, constructed precisely to mislead. You did not supply that from a reputable source
So your argument is based on some of your own observations – ie you think its fake. Well fair enough – but thats not what you claimed.
Your it’s fake conviction is from “Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?” has 10% agree. Well lets take your claim that that the 10% that agree must be stupid. Lets say that they were in the 97%. Well that means 87% against 3%…..
So lets look at this
http://petitionproject.org/index.php
Well its not very convincing. Why?
o Because it doesn’t give their credentials
o It’s laughably poorly put together
o Because the people signing it don’t have to have scientific knowledge on the climate(!)
Didn’t they survey TV Weathermen and most of them didn’t believe in AGW or even GW?
Who cares? Well==thats not fair given AGW is based on consensus, fake or real?
The logic of it is sound though, and there is no logic to the opposition. Nit pickers like Skeptic but no analysis, no counter theory, no facts. Just nits.
To clarify ‘because it doesn’t give their credentials’
It does supply a summary of signers overall credentials. But there is no way to verify any of it – because it doesn’t list person, credential, position, contact etc. Moreover its trivial to fake (as other articles point out). Unlike the CNN cited article where the people are from a ‘legitimate’ directory, where you can go and call them up if you like.
Since few people actually understand the climate science, the whole issue is fueled by politics and people take sides based on politics.
I don’t understand the science but I acknowledge that many climate scientists do believe that humans are having a marked effect on climate change. I also acknowledge that there is an industry built around the acceptance of global warming where genuine criticism is rejected without debate.
The actual science has taken a backseat to politics and money, as usual.
“This article contends that there is so much government money to be made promoting Man-made global warming that the scientists on the dole will stop at nothing.”
There are respectable scientists saying that so I think we ought to consider the possibility of it being true.
http://everythingimportant.org/global_warming
What I am getting the biggest kick out of is that the believers of AGW here on DU are super ready to believe what undeniably deceitful pontificaters of the “consensus science” have to say but when challenged from the other side of the argument, the first attack is on the believability of the people that do NOT believe in AGW and are running about saying so.
Irony, is it the comfort that it seems to be???
Al Gore – PROVEN liar
CRU scientists – PROVEN liars
Mike Mann – PROVEN liar
Jim Hansen – PROVEN liar
etc…
Furthermore, it is interesting that where there is not ONE, not even ONE climate model that was trotted out and so sold as the TRUTH and the FUTURE of the earth was even remotely close to right. Not one. BUT!!!!!
If the “deniers” point this out, somehow it is a non sequitur. This is the most specious argument the AGW believers have EVER had. The one element that WOULD have vindicated the believers is constantly shown to be false but if that is pointed out, it is somehow unfair or invalid or non-relevant. This stance is at best disingenuous and at worst conspiratorial deceit by way of apparent and indoctrination.
http://drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
http://climatedepot.com/a/1813/US-Government-Scientists-Shock-Admission-Climate-Model-Software-Doesnt-Meet-the-Best-Standards-Available
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/05/significance-of-climate-model-agreement.html
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2067
Doubling CO2 levels, on its own, increases world temperatures by about 1-1.2C.
The question is what type of feedbacks do you get after that. The scientists have been selling that it is a matter of positive feedbacks dominating, and that’s how they get predictions of 4,5,6C of warming or more.
If it is instead a negative feedback, then the warming will be less than 1C.
#19 Misanthropic Scott
“So, I take it from the fact that you couldn’t dispute the main point of my post, that people are being displaced from islands in Panama right now, but instead attacked me for posting an article claiming that people had already been displaced from their homes by Katrina,….”
No effort was made to dispute the “main” point of your post. I did not attack you unless you feel everyone that does not agree with you fully is attacking you. You are not paranoid people are really out to get you.
“that you accept as fact that people right now are being displaced from their island homes due to sea level rise associated with climate change, correct?”
Put simply, NO.
“Wait. That’s probably too complex a sentence for you.”
Thanks for taking into consideration my reading disability. One of the joys of this blog is learning from an intellect such as yours. Today I learned how not to make a point from you. The next time you pontificate on climet change resist the urge to use New Orleans and Katrina as source material it only shows your ignorant.
I didn’t expect any more that that from you freddybob. A shoddy review on your part. That’s mostly because you don’t want to see anything that disagrees with your mindset.
The list of names along with all the details is available from The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Email them and see what they say. Every signature was filtered for duplicates, fraud (yup, climate alarmists tried to discredit the list by putting in fake names) and most importantly knowledge. You can do physics without climatology, but you can’t do climatology without physics.
You said: “Unlike the CNN cited article where the people are from a ‘legitimate’ directory, where you can go and call them up if you like.”
Well that isn’t exactly true. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that that the directory you refer to lists over 2000 geoscience departments, research departments, institutes, and their faculty and staff and is only available in print. There are conservatively 60,000 – 80,000 names in that book, of which only 3,100 answered he survey…. or less than 5%. Tracking them down would be a daunting task to say the least. It raises another question. Why did only 5% answer the survey when it would be to their advantage to support such a life or death cause? Hmmm?
One reason is because 95% don’t agree with the alarmist view. it’s not life or death to them and they have more important things to do.
So it seems that all your complaints about the Petition Project are unwarranted, and actually more aptly apply to your joke of a survey. It’s typical of the slight of hand tactics that many climatologists are using. Fit’s right in with the topic of this blog entry.
#53 Mextli,
Still no dispute on Panama though. And, at least please learn how to spell climate before posting next time.
Lyin’ MikeN and the hockey stick,
I know that all I need to do is point out once again the many times that the hockey stick has been vindicated and you will go away. You can’t post again because then you’d be admitting that you had seen the vindication and been proven wrong. Then you’d have to stop spreading the ridiculous lies about the hockey stick that has still withstood multiple attacks and come out shining.
Here are just a couple of threads on which we’ve already been through this and you failed to make your points because the hockey stick is indeed valid.
http://tinyurl.com/yzk58pr
http://tinyurl.com/yk4e6te
#26 – deowll,
That’s a lot of hot air just to say that climate changes and land erodes. How do you explain the measured 17cm rise in sea level that is causing these islands in Panama to sink?
You know, you skeptics seem to have a scripted set of questions. Here’s a scripted set of answers complete with links to nearly every point you’re likely to attempt on this thread. Each has links to the data backing it up.
http://tinyurl.com/dlufrj
Of course, it won’t convince anyone who desperately wants to believe that the world will be fine for the duration of their children and their children’s children, and so will not listen to the real evidence.
Remember, you’ll have to do a lot of clicking on any particular issue to get down to the peer reviewed data that is the source of the answer. The blog answers are unlikely to convince anyone. But, click through and there’s real data there.
On any subject that you click through and still don’t find the answer, feel free to ask. I’ll see if I can do better.
# 54 Skeptic
Look this is kinda sad.
“Why did only 5% answer the survey when it would be to their advantage to support such a life or death cause? Hmmm?”
Well you tell me. It sounds like you have a spectacular explanation. Perhaps scientists who don’t believe in AGW don’t believe in surveys? It’s a conspiracy where only the 5% who believe in AGW got the survey?
Oh its “95% don’t agree with the alarmist view”.
Its a survey, not a bomb – if you don’t agree, you mark as such on the survey.
I don’t really have a problem with the Petition Project per se. It just seems weak. There may be respectable people on there who have valid points. But waving it as my stick is bigger than yours doesn’t work – for the reasons pointed out.
Also I’m not saying the CNN survey is definitive either. I’m just saying weighing up the situation, it appears to have more weight than the Petition project for all the reasons discussed.
I mean why is it so clearly such an amateur job? These experts can divine climate even though they are not climatologists but are unable to put together or get the funds to put together a reasonable website.
Actually if you want to find something interesting compare scientific peer reviewed papers on ACW. The percentage that think its real and the percentage not. You don’t even have to factor out papers that were funded by gas, oil, coal.
And its great there are skeptics. Perhaps in the end they’ll prove there is no AGW, or whatever. Could absolutely happen. I saw a program last night on the history of the big bang theory. It was interesting that fred hoyle ‘steady state universe’ model was prevailed for most of the time, it was only as more and more evidence was produced that eventually his nemesis ‘big bang’ theory took hold.
All I’m saying is right now the consensus by scientists knowledgeable in the field is AGW is real. Over the last 10-20 years that position has strengthened with evidence. It may be thrown out, or be wrong. But there it is.
What is amazing to me – is even that reality can be distorted such that people claim that consensus doesn’t exist. But it does – like it or not. That’s not ‘the science is in’ – that’s just the current situation. You may not like it – but if you can deny that, then you are on the road to being able to deny anything.
#55 said: “…And, at least please learn how to spell climate before posting next time.”
When you are left without arguments, switch to syntax police. “Good” strategy.
believing in GW doesn’t make it true.
Fools spouting lists of “scientists” that believe it to be true, somehow think that it’s settled science because somebody signed their petition?
Get real and get a real fucking job instead of spouting on blogs about things that you have NO knowledge of