Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
The Guardian
Friday February 2, 2007
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
...Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.
Bribes Offered to Deny Global Warming
-
Doug
- Posts: 3388
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville, AR
- Contact:
Bribes Offered to Deny Global Warming
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
-
Hogeye
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Contact:
Scientists offered cash to promote environmental alarmism
Scientists and economists have been offered hundreds of thousands of dollars by political and lobby groups funded by some of the world's largest governments in order to promote a global warming apocalypse scenerio. These bribes are funded by groups such as the U.S. Department of Energy, the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (a UN propaganda arm), and the Nationalist Science Foundation. Such bureaus and "think tanks" are designed to promote fear and a sense of crisis in populations, making them more suseptible to ramp-ups of government power. Massive regulation, social surveillance, interference in food production and manufacturing, and higher taxes and inflation are the expected results.
(The point: everyone gets paid. Do you trust monopoly government (and cartels of such), or do you trust the competing diverse firms and groups of society, to come up with reliable information?)
Scientists and economists have been offered hundreds of thousands of dollars by political and lobby groups funded by some of the world's largest governments in order to promote a global warming apocalypse scenerio. These bribes are funded by groups such as the U.S. Department of Energy, the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (a UN propaganda arm), and the Nationalist Science Foundation. Such bureaus and "think tanks" are designed to promote fear and a sense of crisis in populations, making them more suseptible to ramp-ups of government power. Massive regulation, social surveillance, interference in food production and manufacturing, and higher taxes and inflation are the expected results.
(The point: everyone gets paid. Do you trust monopoly government (and cartels of such), or do you trust the competing diverse firms and groups of society, to come up with reliable information?)
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
-
Doug
- Posts: 3388
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville, AR
- Contact:
DOUGHogeye wrote:(The point: everyone gets paid. Do you trust monopoly government (and cartels of such), or do you trust the competing diverse firms and groups of society, to come up with reliable information?)
Everyone gets paid. But some get paid to lie and some get paid to do their jobs as scientists.
I trust the global warming "alarmists" who support their claims with hard evidence--and a solid consensus among their peers.
Or is it just a coincidence that the "scientists" who deny global warming just happen to be funded by companies who promote oil interests? Why aren't any non-bribed scientific organizations denying global warming? ONLY those who get paid by oil interests deny global warming. Hmm...
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
-
Doug
- Posts: 3388
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville, AR
- Contact:
Cheney's Investment Manager Turns On Him
The oil-based energy policies usually associated with Vice President Dick Cheney have just come under scathing attack. There's nothing remarkable about that, of course -- except the person doing the attacking.
Step forward, Jeremy Grantham -- Cheney's own investment manager. "What were we thinking?' Grantham demands in a four-page assault on U.S. energy policy mailed last week to all his clients, including the vice president.
Titled "While America Slept, 1982-2006: A Rant on Oil Dependency, Global Warming, and a Love of Feel-Good Data," Grantham's philippic adds up to an extraordinary critique of U.S. energy policy over the past two decades.
What Cheney makes of it can only be imagined.
"Successive U.S. administrations have taken little interest in either oil substitution or climate change," he writes, "and the current one has even seemed to have a vested interest in the idea that the science of climate change is uncertain."
Yet "there is now nearly universal scientific agreement that fossil fuel use is causing a rise in global temperatures," he writes. "The U.S. is the only country in which environmental data is steadily attacked in a well-funded campaign of disinformation (funded mainly by one large oil company)."
That's Exxon Mobil.
...There is also a political and economic cost to our oil dependency, Grantham notes. Yet America could have eliminated its oil dependency on the Middle East years ago with just a "reasonable set of increased efficiencies." All it would take is 10% fewer vehicles, each driving 10% fewer miles and getting 50% more miles per gallon. Under that "sensible but still only moderately aggressive policy," he writes, "not one single barrel would have been needed from the Middle East." Not one.
Read the rest here.
Step forward, Jeremy Grantham -- Cheney's own investment manager. "What were we thinking?' Grantham demands in a four-page assault on U.S. energy policy mailed last week to all his clients, including the vice president.
Titled "While America Slept, 1982-2006: A Rant on Oil Dependency, Global Warming, and a Love of Feel-Good Data," Grantham's philippic adds up to an extraordinary critique of U.S. energy policy over the past two decades.
What Cheney makes of it can only be imagined.
"Successive U.S. administrations have taken little interest in either oil substitution or climate change," he writes, "and the current one has even seemed to have a vested interest in the idea that the science of climate change is uncertain."
Yet "there is now nearly universal scientific agreement that fossil fuel use is causing a rise in global temperatures," he writes. "The U.S. is the only country in which environmental data is steadily attacked in a well-funded campaign of disinformation (funded mainly by one large oil company)."
That's Exxon Mobil.
...There is also a political and economic cost to our oil dependency, Grantham notes. Yet America could have eliminated its oil dependency on the Middle East years ago with just a "reasonable set of increased efficiencies." All it would take is 10% fewer vehicles, each driving 10% fewer miles and getting 50% more miles per gallon. Under that "sensible but still only moderately aggressive policy," he writes, "not one single barrel would have been needed from the Middle East." Not one.
Read the rest here.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
-
Doug
- Posts: 3388
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville, AR
- Contact:
The 'Two Sides' of the Climate Debate
Bad Actors and their enablers have been pushing a particular spin on the climate debate: it has "two sides," the denialists and the alarmists...
Only 13 percent of congressional Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover, the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.
OK, there are the denialists: 87% of the Republicans in Congress.
Now, where are those alarmists?
...But we survey the Democrats and find a patchwork of apathy and equivocation. We find endless hearings and tepid cap-and-trade proposals. Only two bills -- Waxman's Safe Climate Act in the House, Sanders' Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act in the Senate -- even pretend to target the 80% emissions reductions by 2050 scientists say will be needed to avoid irreparable damage...
So if the alarmists are not in Congress, where are they?
...Perhaps the fact that one of America's two political parties is led almost entirely by ignoramuses poses a somewhat larger barrier to commonsense climate policy than, say, the indelicacy of Al Gore's remarks on hurricanes.
Read the rest here.
Bad Actors and their enablers have been pushing a particular spin on the climate debate: it has "two sides," the denialists and the alarmists...
Only 13 percent of congressional Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover, the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.
OK, there are the denialists: 87% of the Republicans in Congress.
Now, where are those alarmists?
...But we survey the Democrats and find a patchwork of apathy and equivocation. We find endless hearings and tepid cap-and-trade proposals. Only two bills -- Waxman's Safe Climate Act in the House, Sanders' Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act in the Senate -- even pretend to target the 80% emissions reductions by 2050 scientists say will be needed to avoid irreparable damage...
So if the alarmists are not in Congress, where are they?
...Perhaps the fact that one of America's two political parties is led almost entirely by ignoramuses poses a somewhat larger barrier to commonsense climate policy than, say, the indelicacy of Al Gore's remarks on hurricanes.
Read the rest here.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
-
Hogeye
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Contact:
Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming
Special to the Financial Post
Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
Dear Prime Minister:
As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.
While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.
We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.
CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources
- - -
Sincerely,
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
9link
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming
Special to the Financial Post
Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
Dear Prime Minister:
As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.
While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.
We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.
CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources
- - -
Sincerely,
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
9link
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
DARDoug wrote:Why aren't any non-bribed scientific organizations denying global warming? ONLY those who get paid by oil interests deny global warming. Hmm...
What's amazing is that even with all of their bribe money they still can't buy any decent pseudo science. They get clowns like Tim Ball, an actual climatologist, (unlike the vast majority in Hogeye's list above) who hasn't published anything in what, almost 20 years?
If the people in the above list have a case to make refuting the concerns about global warming made by those who actually know they are talking about, why don't they make their case by attending conferences and publishing scientific papers and participating in the peer review process? Because they can't. Just like the creationists.
D.
-
Barbara Fitzpatrick
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Well, the group Hogeye posted were right that "observational evidence" doesn't match the climate models - it shows we're getting global warming twice as fast as originally thought. What really shows where their money is coming from is that old bromide about how getting off fossil fuels is going to destroy the economy. (Oh sorry, is an "irrational" use of funds.)
Barbara Fitzpatrick
-
Hogeye
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Contact:
Typical alarmist fallaciousness. Darrel tries to poison the well rather than addressing the issues in the letter. Barbara invents a strawman ("that old bromide about how getting off fossil fuels is going to destroy the economy") that isn't even mentioned in the letter. One has to wonder if they read it at all.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
DARHogeye wrote: One has to wonder if they read it at all.
I didn't, although I am sure I read it when it was a current news story almost a year ago. I did peruse the list of signers and noted that few of them have expertise on the topic. Lots of rightwing economists, a miner or two. No surprise there. Creationists make similar lists of fundie scientists that just happen to have no competence in biology and other pertinent sciences.
Oh, and Singer (and no doubt many others on the list that can't play the game anymore) have now jumped, like rats, from the sinking GW denial ship. So it's out of date, crap.
D.
-
Hogeye
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Contact:
Earlier tonight I went to an Omni sponsored presentation about global warming and gave the skeptic point of view. Robert McAfee, trained by Al Gore himself, gave the presentation. I passed out copies of that chart from Wikipedia with ten different temperature reconstructions all showing a clear Medieval Warm Period. (Even a later Mann study, Jones and Mann 2004, shows it!)
Most people there had severe misconceptions of what skeptics/deniers say. E.g. most thought that we denied that climate change or global warming is occurring. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. We deny that man-made greenhouse gasses are causing catastrophic climate changes. A similar misconception: some thought we denied man-made climate changes. No, most skeptics do not deny man-made changes at all. Many even stress man-made land use issues as a cause. What we deny is that (all together now) man-made greenhouse gasses are causing catastrophic climate changes. We (in general) don't even deny that greenhouse gasses have some effect on climate. (Of course, you can probably find some denier somewhere that satisfies the caricatures, just as you can probably find a freethinker somewhere that believes in leprechauns.)
Anyway, I was glad to be a voice of reason in a crowd of true believers. The presentation itself was heavy on anecdotal "evidence" and short on science. Everything from deforestation to hurricanes were blamed on unicorns, er, I mean global warming. I was happy to underline points glossed over, e.g. that 300 ppm CO2 that is presented as massive (Gore even climbs a ladder in his propaganda flick as I recall) works out to a mere .03% of the atmosphere. And of course I pointed out in the infamous paleoclimate graph overlaid with the CO2 levels graph, that the CO2 levels rose 500-800 years after the temperature rise. (Thus refuting the implied cause and effect ruse intended by the alarmists.)
Freethinker at play.
Most people there had severe misconceptions of what skeptics/deniers say. E.g. most thought that we denied that climate change or global warming is occurring. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. We deny that man-made greenhouse gasses are causing catastrophic climate changes. A similar misconception: some thought we denied man-made climate changes. No, most skeptics do not deny man-made changes at all. Many even stress man-made land use issues as a cause. What we deny is that (all together now) man-made greenhouse gasses are causing catastrophic climate changes. We (in general) don't even deny that greenhouse gasses have some effect on climate. (Of course, you can probably find some denier somewhere that satisfies the caricatures, just as you can probably find a freethinker somewhere that believes in leprechauns.)
Anyway, I was glad to be a voice of reason in a crowd of true believers. The presentation itself was heavy on anecdotal "evidence" and short on science. Everything from deforestation to hurricanes were blamed on unicorns, er, I mean global warming. I was happy to underline points glossed over, e.g. that 300 ppm CO2 that is presented as massive (Gore even climbs a ladder in his propaganda flick as I recall) works out to a mere .03% of the atmosphere. And of course I pointed out in the infamous paleoclimate graph overlaid with the CO2 levels graph, that the CO2 levels rose 500-800 years after the temperature rise. (Thus refuting the implied cause and effect ruse intended by the alarmists.)
Freethinker at play.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
DARHogeye wrote:Earlier tonight I went to an Omni sponsored presentation about global warming and gave the skeptic point of view.
Dear god, I hope you didn't associate yourself with our group. No really. OMNI had to formally give you the boot because of your antics.
DARRobert McAfee, trained by Al Gore himself, gave the presentation. I passed out copies of that chart from Wikipedia with ten different temperature reconstructions all showing a clear Medieval Warm Period. (Even a later Mann study, Jones and Mann 2004, shows it!)
I just roasted your assertions regarding this in this thread showing you don't know what the hell you are talking about with regard to this chart. I will make this information available to friends at OMNI.
a) Several of those reconstructions reveal in their titles that they do not refer to global temperatures
b) Mann and many others involved in the science supporting that chart do not believe the MWP was global, as I have shown you many times.
c) I can handle the insanity but please stop, being, dishonest.
DARMost people there had severe misconceptions of what skeptics/deniers say.
Including you! Skeptics/deniers are all over the place on these issues.
DAR(Of course, you can probably find some denier somewhere that satisfies the caricatures,...
You mean like Tim Ball, the leading scientist in your favorite Friends of Science group?
DARjust as you can probably find a freethinker somewhere that believes in leprechauns.)
Anarchy might be a better example.
DARI was happy to underline points glossed over, e.g. that 300 ppm CO2 that is presented as massive (Gore even climbs a ladder in his propaganda flick as I recall) works out to a mere .03% of the atmosphere.
How patently misleading of you!
DARAnd of course I pointed out in the infamous paleoclimate graph overlaid with the CO2 levels graph, that the CO2 levels rose 500-800 years after the temperature rise.
Misleading and dishonest. For shame.
D.
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
DAR
Observation:
I noticed that when scientist and Global warming expert Bill Chameides came to town:
Hogeye sat on the back row and kept his yap shut. He didn't even raise his hand to try floating a single bit of GW Denier quackery. Chameides would have given it the slap down, and pronto. Hogeye knew better than to even try. But now when this little Arkansas guy, apparently a non-scientist trained by a non-scientist, gives his presentation Bill is all about performing the GW denial position.
Update:
I had two responses from people who were at the OMNI event on global warming last night. They said the Hoggy performance was no big deal. No one takes his contrarian rants seriously. They just roll their eyes and wait for the silliness to stop. Apparently the presenter was smart enough to know better than to engage and waste time with his denier material (fiction writer Michael Crichton and all). Sometimes I wish I was that smart. I did tell them that if they have any questions about what he brought up, anything that might have made them go "hmmm, I wonder if Hogeye has a point there" to be sure and pass it along for a good spanking. It's not like he has put forward a single GW Denier claim that hasn't been completely roasted over and over in these archives (sunspot, land use, hockeystick, MWP warmer, CO2 time lag, gov conspiracy etc).
D.
Observation:
I noticed that when scientist and Global warming expert Bill Chameides came to town:
Hogeye sat on the back row and kept his yap shut. He didn't even raise his hand to try floating a single bit of GW Denier quackery. Chameides would have given it the slap down, and pronto. Hogeye knew better than to even try. But now when this little Arkansas guy, apparently a non-scientist trained by a non-scientist, gives his presentation Bill is all about performing the GW denial position.
Update:
I had two responses from people who were at the OMNI event on global warming last night. They said the Hoggy performance was no big deal. No one takes his contrarian rants seriously. They just roll their eyes and wait for the silliness to stop. Apparently the presenter was smart enough to know better than to engage and waste time with his denier material (fiction writer Michael Crichton and all). Sometimes I wish I was that smart. I did tell them that if they have any questions about what he brought up, anything that might have made them go "hmmm, I wonder if Hogeye has a point there" to be sure and pass it along for a good spanking. It's not like he has put forward a single GW Denier claim that hasn't been completely roasted over and over in these archives (sunspot, land use, hockeystick, MWP warmer, CO2 time lag, gov conspiracy etc).
D.
-
Hogeye
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Contact:
Robert McAfee is a trained climatologist. Here's an article on climate change which critiques the recent politically motivated IPCC "assessment." It goes into the biased assumptions of the alarmist climate models, and the efforts to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
Climate chaos? Don't believe it
By Christopher Monckton
Climate chaos? Don't believe it
By Christopher Monckton
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
DARHogeye wrote: Here's an article... By Christopher Monckton
I would love to take the time to give this a line by line response but I have covered almost every bit ot of it many times before. So it would be redundant (hockeystick crap etc). George Monbiot gives this insightful comment regarding 2 very similar articles (many identical claims) Monckton has recently published in The Telegraph:
This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong
"to a good many journalists and to thousands of delighted bloggers, this paper clinches it: climate change is a hoax perpetrated by a leftwing conspiracy coordinated by the United Nations.
So which was the august journal that published it? Science? Nature? Geophysical Research Letters? Not quite. It was the Sunday Telegraph. In keeping with most of the articles about climate change in that publication, it is a mixture of cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish. But it has the virtue of being incomprehensible to anyone who is not an atmospheric physicist.
The author of this "research article" is Christopher Monckton, otherwise known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications. But he is confident enough to maintain that - by contrast to all those charlatans and amateurs who wrote the reports produced by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - he is publishing "the truth".
The warming effects of carbon dioxide, Lord Monckton claims, have been exaggerated, distorted and made up altogether. One example of the outrageous fraud the UN body has committed is the elimination from its temperature graphs of the "medieval warm period", which, he claims, was "real, global and up to 3C warmer than now". He runs two graphs side by side, one of which shows the temperature record over the past 1,000 years as rendered by the UN panel, and the other purporting to show real temperatures over the same period.
The world was so hot 600 years ago, he maintains, that "there was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none". By contrast the planet is currently much cooler than climate scientists predicted. In 1988, for example, the world's most celebrated climatologist, James Hansen of Nasa, "told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch)".
Most importantly, "the UN repealed a fundamental physical law", doubling the size of the constant (lambda) in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. By assigning the wrong value to lambda, the UN's panel has exaggerated the sensitivity of the climate to extra carbon dioxide. Monckton's analysis looks impressive. It is nonsense from start to finish.
snip detailed roast of specific points
"The howlers go on and on. There is scarcely a line in Lord Monckton's paper which is not wildly wrong."
DAR
So, "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish" and "nonsense from start to finish" and "scarcely a line which is not wildly wrong." And this is surprisingly easy to show. Who would be interested in wasting time with such silliness? He even gives specific examples of Monckton clearly lying, and then how this lie made it before congress only to be recycled and passed along in, guess where: Crichton's book. Imagine that.
I'll just roast one bit which Monibot didn't bother with:
"Sami Solanki, a solar physicist, says that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years, contributing a base forcing equivalent to a quarter of the past century's warming. That's before adding climate feedbacks."
Just think for a moment. How does Sami (notice the comment is unreferenced) know how warm the sun was 1,000 years ago, a 11,400 years ago? I have checked into this solar forcing claim many times and I have found that the experts say the following:
"Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York: "there has been no effective change in any solar indices since about 1950..." source
And:
"solar contributions [are about] 10% or less for 1950-2000 and near 0% and about 10% in 1980-2000 using the PMOD and ACRIM data, respectively. source
And:
"According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.
There has been work on reconstructing past trends in solar irradiance over the last century before satellite records were available. Acording to the Max Plank Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940."
source
Here is a chart showing solar cyclesgoing back to about 1978:
DAR
Monckton, a journalist/politician (he was Thatcher's policy advisor) is just passing along the same old junk. And he is clearly dishonest (specifically with regard to his claim about what Jim Hanson predicted, etc.), so he can't be trusted.
Edited by Savonarola 200702142016: fixed URL
-
Hogeye
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Contact:
Darrel's "roasts" are howlers. He can't get around Hansen's 1988 claim to Congress that temperature would rise .3C, so he tries to confuse the issue by bringing up an unrelated story about three graph scenerios! Other "roasts" are equally fraudulent.
There was a good editorial in the NWATimes today about free speech and climate catastrophe skepticism.
There was a good editorial in the NWATimes today about free speech and climate catastrophe skepticism.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
DARHe can't get around Hansen's 1988 claim to Congress that temperature would rise .3C, so he tries to confuse the issue by bringing up an unrelated story about three graph scenerios!
As I was afraid would happen, either you didn't read the article, or you didn't grasp the blatant point of dishonesty. I meant to come back and put it up anyway. Here it is for others who didn't have time to read the article either.
again
***
"As for James Hansen, he did not tell the US Congress that temperatures would rise by 0.3C by the end of the past century. He presented three possible scenarios to the US Senate - high, medium and low. Both the high and low scenarios, he explained, were unlikely to materialise. The middle one was "the most plausible".
As it happens, the middle scenario was almost exactly right. He did not claim, under any scenario, that sea levels would rise by several feet by 2000. But a climatologist called Patrick Michaels took the graph from Hansen's paper, erased the medium and low scenarios and - in testimony to Congress - presented the high curve as Hansen's prediction for climate change. A memo sent in July from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, a US company whose power is largely supplied by coal, revealed that Michaels has long been funded by electricity companies. "In February this year, IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr Michaels." Michaels, it says, meets periodically with industry representatives to discuss their activities in countering stories about climate change.
Pat Michaels's misrepresentation of Hansen's claims was picked up by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear, and somehow transmuted into an "error" of 300%. Monckton gives no source for his claim about Hansen, but Crichton's novel features in his references. The howlers go on and on. There is scarcely a line in Lord Monckton's paper which is not wildly wrong."
***
This is such blatant mispreresentation by your author I am surprised you can't see it.
Just kidding!
D.
-----------------------
"There does appear to have been a slight warming in some parts of the northern hemisphere [during MWP]. There is no reliable evidence that this was a global phenomenon. As for the Chinese naval squadron sailing round the Arctic, it is pure bunkum - a myth long discredited by serious historians." --ibid
Imagine, a GW denier peddling pure bunkum? Why would they do that? We really are down to the hardcore true believers now. They'll say or believe anything to not have to eat that giant crow, right now. Soon.
-
Doug
- Posts: 3388
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville, AR
- Contact:
National Climatic Data Center
09 January 2007
U.S. and global annual temperatures are now approximately 1.0°F warmer than at the start of the 20th century, and the rate of warming has accelerated over the past 30 years, increasing globally since the mid-1970's at a rate approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend. The past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record.
See here.
09 January 2007
U.S. and global annual temperatures are now approximately 1.0°F warmer than at the start of the 20th century, and the rate of warming has accelerated over the past 30 years, increasing globally since the mid-1970's at a rate approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend. The past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record.
See here.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
-
Hogeye
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Contact:
As I was afraid might happen, Darrel automatically assumes that Hansen's "rise by 0.3C by the end of the past century" claim was his high scenerio. He fell for George Monbiot's bait and switch argument.
Darrel asks, "How does Sami know how warm the sun was 1,000 years ago, a 11,400 years ago?" That's easily answered:
Darrel attempts to trivialize solar effect on climate, yet his own biased RealClimate source admits, "This is not to say that there is no solar influence on climate change, only that establishing such a link is more difficult then many assume." (The lure of solar forcing)
Darrel asks, "How does Sami know how warm the sun was 1,000 years ago, a 11,400 years ago?" That's easily answered:
Note that these are the same sources alarmist use to construct their hockey stick.Some associations however have been observed between historical records of solar activity and climate change and also between variability in cosmogenic proxies for solar variability and millennial scale variability in paleoclimate records from moraine sequences, Greenland ice cores, and lake sediments by Climate Change Institute researchers (Denton and Karlen, 1973; O'Brien et al., 1995; Mayewski et al., 1993, 1997, 2004; Stager et al., 2004). - Solar Forcing of Climate Through
Changes in Atmospheric Circulation
Darrel attempts to trivialize solar effect on climate, yet his own biased RealClimate source admits, "This is not to say that there is no solar influence on climate change, only that establishing such a link is more difficult then many assume." (The lure of solar forcing)
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
DARHogeye wrote:Darrel automatically assumes that Hansen's "rise by 0.3C by the end of the past century" claim was his high scenerio. He fell for George Monbiot's bait and switch argument.
Such dishonesty is breathtaking. I don't make a charge like this lightly. I did some checking and found Hansen responding indepth to the blatant dishonesty of your Crichton and Michaels (Bold mine). As Monibot said, Hansen's "b" forcast was very close and Michaels dishonestly deleted Hansens B, and C forcasts in his testimony before congress. They ought to lock him up for lying.
If you have trouble with the text, it has a picture which shows that Hansen was very close with his "B" forcast. Michaels' dishonestly on this matter is plain as day.
Short version for those in a hurry, from Hansen:
"But when Pat Michaels testified to congress in 1998 and showed our 1988 predictions (Fig. 1) he erased the curves for scenarios B and C, and showed the result only for scenario A. He then argued that, since the real world temperature had not increased as fast as this model calculation, the climate model was faulty and there was no basis for concern about climate change, specifically concluding that the Kyoto Protocol was "a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty"."
Longer version:
***
James Hansen
Columbia University Earth Institute and Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Michael Crichton’s latest fictional novel, “State of Fear”, designed to discredit concerns about global warming, purports to use the scientific method. The book is sprinkled with references to scientific papers, and Crichton intones in the introduction that his “footnotes are real”. But does Crichton really use the scientific method? Or is it something closer to scientific fraud?
Several people have pointed out to me that Crichton takes aim at my 1988 congressional testimony and claims that I made predictions about global warming that turned out to be 300% too high. Is that right?
In my testimony in 1988, and in an attached scientific paper written with several colleagues at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and published later that year in the Journal of Geophysical Research (volume 93, pages 9341-9364), I described climate simulations made with the GISS climate model. We considered three scenarios for the future, labeled A, B and C, to bracket likely possibilities.
Scenario A was described as “on the high side of reality”, because it assumed rapid exponential growth of greenhouse gases and it assumed that there would be no large volcanoes (which inject small particles into the stratosphere and cool the Earth) during the next half century. Scenario C was described as “a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined”, specifically greenhouse gases were assumed to stop increasing after 2000. The intermediate Scenario B was described as “the most plausible”. Scenario B had continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions at a moderate rate and it sprinkled three large volcanoes in the 50-year period after 1988, one of them in the 1990s.
Not surprisingly, the real world has followed a course closest to that of Scenario B. The real world even had one large volcano in the 1990s, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which occurred in 1991, while Scenario B placed a volcano in 1995.
In my testimony to congress I showed one line graph with scenarios A, B, C and observed global temperature, which I update below. However, all of the maps of simulated future temperature that I showed in my congressional testimony were for scenario B, which formed the basis for my testimony. No results were shown for the outlier scenarios A and C.
Back to Crichton: how did he conclude that I made an error of 300%? Apparently, rather than studying the scientific literature, as his footnotes would imply, his approach was to listen to “global warming skeptics”. One of the skeptics, Pat Michaels, has taken the graph from our 1988 paper with simulated global temperatures for scenarios A, B and C, erased the results for scenarios B and C, and shown only the curve for scenario A in public presentations, pretending that it was my prediction for climate change. Is this treading close to scientific fraud?
Crichton’s approach is worse than that of Michaels. Crichton uncritically accepts Michaels’ results, and then concludes that Hansen’s prediction was in error “300%”. Where does he get this conclusion?
Let’s reproduce here (Figure 1) the global temperature curves from my 1988 congressional testimony, without erasing the results for scenarios B and C. Figure 1 updates observations of global temperature using the same analysis of meteorological station data as in
our 1988 paper (which removes or corrects station data from urban locations)1. The 2005 data point is a preliminary estimate based on the first eight months of the year.
The observations, the black curve in Figure 1, show that the Earth is indeed getting warmer, as predicted. The observed temperature fluctuates a lot, because the real world is a “noisy”, chaotic system, but there is a clear warming trend. Curiously, the scenario that we described as most realistic is so far turning out to be almost dead on the money. Such close agreement is fortuitous. For example, the model used in 1988 had a sensitivity of 4.2°C for doubled CO2, but our best estimate for true climate sensitivity2 is closer to 3°C for doubled CO2. There are various other uncertain factors that can make the warming larger or smaller3. But it is becoming clear that our prediction was in the right ballpark.
So how did Crichton conclude that our prediction was in error 300%? Beats me. Crichton writes fiction and seems to make up things as he goes along. He doesn’t seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about. Perhaps that is o.k. for a science fiction writer4.
However, I recently heard that, in considering the global warming issue, a United States Senator is treating words from Crichton as if they had scientific or practical validity. If so, wow -- Houston, we have a problem!
Acknowledgement. I thank Makiko Sato for reproducing and updating the figure.
Footnotes
1 The warming is slightly less (change less than 0.1°C) in our analysis of observations if we combine ocean temperature measurements with the meteorological station data. However, the result is slightly more warming in the British analysis of observations by Phil Jones and associates. So the observational analysis shown in Figure 1 is representative of the various analyses of global surface temperature change.
2 Climate sensitivity is usually expressed as the equilibrium global warming expected to result from doubling the amount of CO2 in the air. Empirical evidence from the Earth’s history indicates that climate sensitivity is about 3°C, with an uncertainty of about 1°C. A climate model yields its own sensitivity, based on the best physics that the users can incorporate at any given time. The 1988 GISS model sensitivity was 4.2°C, while it is 2.7°C for the 2005 model. It is suspected that the sensitivity of the 2005 model may be slightly too small because of the sea ice formulation being too stable.
3 Our papers related to global warming can be obtained from pubs.giss.nasa.gov
4 Discussion of Crichton’s science fiction is provided on the blog the blog
LINK
DAR
I have been comparing creationists to global warming deniers but I may be wrongly impuning creationists. They are often very dumb/ignorant but I don't remember them being as consistently dishonest as I am finding these GW deniers to be.