What possible grounds do they have for keeping it a secret? Quite bizarre.
The grounds that it exposes the "man-made climate change" scam as the pile of cr@p that it is, based on a pack of lies and disinformation? _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:20 am Post subject:
Ha ha.
No information whatsoever, just sleazy attempted innuendo.
No doubt they've just discovered that Hadley doesn't have many groundstations in the arctic, due to their not having many people in the area.
This "news item" has everything to do with a distraction by Watts as he yet again plays the poor oppressed white man card, which is very popular with the rich, overfed, white constituency, especially now that there's a black man in the White House.
The purpose of the distraction being that Watts himself personally slapped a DMCA notice to suppress the latest of Peter Sinclair's
well-known "Climate Crock of the Week" videos, because he dared show the front page of one of Watts' bogus "reports" for a few frames.
As you may or may not know, Watts had a loudly trumpeted campaign that claimed to show that the US temperature record was 'unreliable' due to some weather stations being allegedly located beside air-conditioning radiator outlets, on top of iron smelting plants and other such 'urban heat island' nonsense.
Despite Watts being informed that such readings are already weighted and corrected and statistically bound, he proceeded with his "project", only to find that what he himself agreed were 70 neutrally sited sample weather stations produced almost identical temperature readings to the currently used system.
This wasn't what his denialist chums wanted to hear - and he especially didn't want it bandied about what an ignorant fool he is.
Hence Watts' DMCA slapdown of Sinclair's latest "Crock" video, together with this week's version of Carlin's "suppression" by the EPA (i.e. ludicrous denialist talking points put together by the think tanks were dismissed) as a decoy cover.
Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites
Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists
By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver SunJuly 29, 2009 3:47 PM
Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.
Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.
Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.
It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.
But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.
But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming. This book, Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science, draws together much of his previous work. It springs especially from A Short History of Plant Earth, which was based on a decade of radio broadcasts in Australia.
That book, published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become.
But he did eventually find a small publishing house willing to take the gamble and the book has already sold about 30,000 copies in Australia. It seems also to be doing well in Britain and the United States in the first days of publication.
Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.
While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.
The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.
Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.
(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)
Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.
There is no problem with global warming, Plimer says repeatedly. He points out that for humans periods of global warming have been times of abundance when civilization made leaps forward. Ice ages, in contrast, have been times when human development slowed or even declined.
So global warming, says Plimer, is something humans should welcome and embrace as a harbinger of good times to come.
Excellent post. Yet another crack in the dam of lies that is the man-made climate change scam. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
New York Fails to Hit 90 Degrees for June, July for Second Time
By Brian K. Sullivan
July 31 (Bloomberg) -- The high in New York City today is forecast to hover around 80 degrees, making it only the second time on record that June and July temperatures failed to reach 90, the National Weather Service said.
Central Park thermometers haven’t touched 90 degrees Fahrenheit (32.2 Celsius) since April, and if this holds through today the month would be one of the 10 coolest Julys on record, according to the weather service records.
The only other time a June and July passed in the city without temperatures reaching the 90s was 1996.
“Daily average temperatures have been at or below normal every day but one this month, and for 54 of the 59 days since June 1,” the weather service office in Upton, New York, said in a statement on its Web site.
The average temperature for the month in Central Park so far is 72.6, 3.9 degrees below normal, putting it in a tie for sixth place on the list of coolest Julys, along with 1895, the weather service said. The high for this month was 86 on July 17.
The coolest July on record was 1888, with an average temperature of 70.7.
Preliminary data show 6.4 inches of rain has fallen this month, 1.9 above normal. That doesn’t place it on the top 10 list of the wettest Julys on record.
June was the second-wettest in New York and tied 1897 for the eighth-coldest.
To contact the reporter on this story: Brian K. Sullivan in Boston at bsullivan10@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: July 31, 2009 09:20 EDT
Remember - when records show that there are new highs of temperature it is a sign of man-made global warming but when they show record cool temperatures it shows nothing other than the people who quote them don't understand the difference between "weather" and "climate". You know it makes sense. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Does Record Cold July Mean Cold Winter Ahead?
Topic Author: Chris Bailey
Posted: 12:05 AM Aug 1, 2009
Hello everyone and welcome to August! If you are a fan of Summer... July was a waste and the end of it can't come soon enough. It was one of the coldest and wettest on record for a lot of areas. How does July stack up against history and does it gives us any insight into August or the winter ahead? The blog takes a look at all that and the threat for more storms over the weekend.
As I mentioned... the final numbers are in on July. Here is a graphic to sum it all up...
That is some impressive cold and it is a month that people around here will be talking about for a long, long time. Within that overall cold came MANY daily record low high temps and record low temps across the region. By the way... Huntington also recorded it's 4th wettest July on record.
If you look at the previous top 10 coldest July's on record... you may be able to get a hint of what is to come for the rest of the year into the upcoming winter. Let's take Huntington's top 10 coldest July's on record and put them all into the mix and see how the average of those 10 looked across the country for August....
A cruel summer has brought Manitoba's third-coldest July on record.
According to Environment Canada, only twice before has any year's seventh month in this province been as chilly as the stretch of 31 days we've just passed.
And Manitoba has also completed its third run of eight consecutive months with colder than average temperatures, says meteorologist Natalie Hasell.
The previous couple of eight-month cool spells came between November 1978 and June 1979, and from October 1995 to May 1996.
Despite the fact July is usually one of Winnipeg's warmest months, we never did hit the 30 C mark this month either.
In the midst of the summer that never came, some may forget that the city's normal high for this time of year is actually 26 C.
Today, rain is expected to continue on the way to a chilly high of just 18 C.
As of 1 p.m, we had reached just 16 C.
There's also the risk of a thunderstorm this afternoon.
Rain should finally end this evening but a 60% chance of showers remains as the temperature falls to a dismal low of 10 C.
Sunshine should finally return on Saturday, but the temperature is forecast to again top out at a chilly 18 C.
Sunday and Monday should be sunny and slightly warmer at 21 C and 22 C, respectively.
Are sunspots changing and will that take us to an Ice Age?
August 1, 12:33 PM
The answer to the title question is really, nobody knows. But there are some indications that the sunspot activity is not only reduced but has also changed in ways that may indicate a further reduction of the sunspots including having none. First a little note on the status of the major scientific societies in the US. What do these two disparate facts have to do with each other? Let's see.
I had been familiar with the American Physical Society for the past year or two through my association with Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford. It seems that the leadership of the APS was quite convinced that the IPCC-Al Gore position was right on, but several of the members disagreed. Well that has come to a boil and 70 scientists have called for the removal of the alarmist editor-in-chief of their society publication. They also called for a change in their official position on Climate Change to a more scientific statement, not the alrmist position so commonly heard today that man is responsible, period. As a side note, several of the IPCC members are in the APS. Should be interesting.
Almost simultaneously, members of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest, has asked for the removal of their Editor and to "trade him to the New York Times or the Washington Post" Wow! Harsh words! Accordring to a report from Climate Depot by Marc Morano. "The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that "deniers" are attempting to "derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change." Apparently Baum was "startled" by the condemnation.
This has been typical of professional societies over the past several years and members, fearing for their reputation, have been reluctant to protest. By doing this, en masse, they apparently have found strength in numbers. The tide is turning folks and this is just the beginning.
Another professional group that had come to my attention through my association with the Friends of Science out of Canada, and more specifically, Albert Jacobs, a retired geologist, is the American Geophysical Union. They too were staunch defenders of the IPCC position. Despite a strong bias in that direction, there was an article that appeared recently in their professional publication, EOS, that departed from their Climate Change position. It was entitled, "Are Sunspots Different During This Sunspot Minimum?" According to the authors, Livingston and Penn, the answer is a resounding yes!
The caption below two photographs of sunspots, one group from 2003 and one very recent read, "The (2003) sunspots clearly show a dark central umbra surrounded by a brighter, filamentary penumbra. The magnetic fields range from 1797 to 3422 gauss. (right) An image consisting only of pores—weak sunspots with no penumbral structure—taken from the Michaelson Doppler Imager (MDI) instrument on the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft on 11 January 2009; this is an example of what is observed today at solar minimum. The lower pore (seen as the dot in the center of the black circle) had a magnetic field of 1969 gauss; the others were not measurable". In short, they look different and they are different. The key here is that regardless of the relation to the sunspot cycles, magnetic intensity in sunspots is decreasing.
With 690 spotless days so far in this minimum as of June of this year, that is hardly outside of the range of previous minimums but it ain't over and there is no sign it will be anytime soon. The characteristics of the sunspots are unusual and don't look good to this interested lay person. Is this a lead in to a Maunder Minimum type Little Ice Age or is this the beginning of the big one? Time will tell.
The big story here is not the characteristics of sunspots changing but rather the changing tenor of the professional scientific community to stand up for true scientific debate that has been suppressed for so long. Far too long, in my opinion.
Will you be able to tell your great-grandchildren that you remember liquid water on the surface of the Earth in winter and weren't dead set on cooling the planet?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:41 pm Post subject:
item7 wrote:
Some more people who don't understand the difference between "Weather" and "Climate". Its getting colder because of Global Warming you idiots!!
Yeah, 70 degrees is a rather pleasant minimum (love the totally misleading icicle graphic btw!).
Funny how you don't "report" on the record and unprecedented heat wave the Pacific North West is experiencing presently, and how average temperatures look.
Guess that's what relying on your regional US-centric partisan, industry-fed blog posts does for your regard for the "truth" of global warming.
And remember kids, 2009 even with the miserable UK summer so far, is the fifth hottest in the 130 year record.
_________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
The headline is from a report by Associated Press that July 21 recorded the lowest low temperature for that date since 1877. The irony is exquisite.
From time to time, we comment on the blatant promotion that the planet is "unhealthy" and can only be cured by enormous increases in taxation and regulation. Our January 2008 essay "Intellectual Hysteria" was prompted by the sudden increase in volcanic activity in the Kamchatka Peninsula. Although of moderate dimensions there were enough eruptions to conclude a moderate degree of global cooling.
The point of the essay was that the mania about "Global Warming", which had morphed into "Climate Change", was another example of intellectuals getting excited about personal revelations about a disaster that needed remedy. One example brewed up in the 1860s when England's leading economist, Stanley Jevons, had visions that civilization as they enjoyed it then would end as the primary source of energy - coal - would run out. Modern culture was to blame.
"Peak Oil" has been the equivalent of Jevon's The Coal Question, published in 1865.
The hysteria about massive energy shortages in 2008 was similar to those that crested with crude oil prices in the 1970s. The main difference was that energy crisis was accompanied by the mania about "Global Cooling".
If anything since early 2008, the hysteria has increased. On June 28, Nobel economist, Paul Krugman, wrote "And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking I was watching treason - treason against the planet". Krugman, a leading economist, seems as caught up with intellectual hysteria as Jevons was in 1865. It is hoped that his next whim is not to design airplanes, or elevators.
There has been a series of unusual weather reports:
May 31:
"Frost advisory for New York State" - Lowest temperatures for that date since 1966.
June 6:
"Snow falls in Western North Dakota, not seen in June in 60 years." "Saturday's high temp in Green Bay was 52. That set the record for the lowest high on June 6. Previous was 53 in 1935."
June 15:
"So far, June's chill is one for the record - coldest since records began 50 years ago." That was at Chicago's airport.
June 20:
"Thursday was the 14th consecutive day to stay below 100 degrees. That's the longest stretch of its kind in June since 1913." That was in Arizona.
July 1:
"New York City - coldest June since 1958"
July 15:
"May broke records from one end of the country to the other - it was the coldest May on record."
The last one was from New Zealand, and goes rather well with the record in Nashville.
That global temperatures have been declining extends beyond anecdotal reports. For a constantly updated chart of temperature:
Of interest is that global warmongers have been very excited about the 0.75 C to 1.00 C increase over the past 30 years or so. In the past few years temps have declined by about three/quarters of a degree and the promoters have intensified their efforts to ram their beliefs into regulation.
July 9:
"We have just 96 months to avert irresistible climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it."
That was Prince Charles on his latest hobby-horse. And the real ambition of the left has always been full control over everyone's life. Always for the public's own good, of course.
July 10:
"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources." That gem is from Friends of the Earth (www.foei.org)
July 23:
"July is on track for the second coolest on record."
That is for New York City on data back to 1869.
As the left is trying so hard to ignore, global temperatures have been declining significantly, forced lower by diminished solar activity and an increase in moderate volcanic activity.
By May last year the extension of the minimum on the usual 11-year solar cycle was becoming very interesting and by July sufficient to inspire our cartoon. It is attached and the message is still working.
Deepest Solar Minimum Since 1913
The following tables the numbers as at July 27:
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 17 Days
2009 Total: 159 Days (76%)
Since 2004: 670 Days
Typical Solar Minimum: 485 Days
The count on the solar minimum begins with the first spotless day, and in February solar physicists defined this as the deepest solar minimum since 1913. It continues.
Earlier in the year we pointed out that hundreds of thousands of years of data show that warming trends lead increases in atmospheric carbon by some 400 to 800 years. Our conclusion has been that the carbon-man-caused-warming story is the greatest blunder in the name of science since the Vatican insisted that the solar system revolved around the earth.
The karma of geophysics continues to overwhelm the dogma of global warming religions.
"You must know that the world has grown old, and does not remain in its former vigor. It bears witness to its own decline. The rainfall and the sun's warmth are both diminishing; the metals are nearly exhausted; the husbandsman is failing in the fields."
- Cyprian, c 250 A. D.
Bob Hoye
Institutional Advisors
The opinions in this report are solely those of the author. The information herein was obtained from various sources; however we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. This research report is prepared for general circulation and is circulated for general information only. It does not have regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and the particular needs of any specific person who may receive this report. Investors should seek financial advice regarding the appropriateness of investing in any securities or investment strategies discussed or recommended in this report and should understand that statements regarding future prospects may not be realized. Investors should note that income from such securities, if any, may fluctuate and that each securitys price or value may rise or fall. Accordingly, investors may receive back less than originally invested. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance.
Neither the information nor any opinion expressed constitutes an offer to buy or sell any securities or options or futures contracts. Foreign currency rates of exchange may adversely affect the value, price or income of any security or related investment mentioned in this report. In addition, investors in securities such as ADRs, whose values are influenced by the currency of the underlying security, effectively assume currency risk.
Moreover, from time to time, members of the Institutional Advisors team may be long or short positions discussed in our publications.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:04 am Post subject:
item7 wrote:
http://www.safehaven.com/article-14110.htm
If only he knew the difference between "weather" and "climate" !!! But only a genius could know that!!
The shorter item7:-
'I don't understand it, and my industry astroturf sources (wot I rely on for all my info) pretend not to understand it, so therefore it can't be right and is a priori proof of a scam.
I have no idea if it's warming or cooling, or even how to look it up for myself; nor do I really understand precisely what is meant by the terms "global" or "average".
I just repeat whatever they say and that can change from week to week.
Cos I ain't never, ever, going to read a book or check out any websites that end in .edu or .ac or .gov'.
Phew - I suspect the H1N1 virus has a more coherent grasp of the subject. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Is it apparent to anyone else what hysterical, phuckwitted nonsense certain posters are promoting here?
Seriously and arse-splittingly hilarious, even to closet, authoritarian, right-wingers, wouldn't you agree, "Frank"?
Or anyone else?
Still, pissworthy in excelsis as this diversion into simpletown has been, can't hang about, as a denier troll (Richard Courtney) claiming to be an IPCC AR4 "peer reviewer" (not possible as PR was decided by national governments in pursuit of their ultra-conservative line-by-line unanimous agreement stance) is currently being slaughtered on green fyre's site, and that's a spectacle not to be missed.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/
"chek" sorry I don't know your real name,does anyone?
You are so obviously peddling the mainstream "norm",that what is in actuallity a global tax for carbon foot-printing per individual.
And condemning most of the third world to continual death,despite all that money raised by right minded people.
Remember G8 on 7/7?
The "end poverty" meeting,that was deliberately run off the rails by the
7/7 false flag event?
It's clear to most true truthers the main agenda is one of depopulation,and you "chek" in your own words promote the carbon footprint we are all guilty,we all must pay are condemning everyone to a false tax,and death to many in the third world,as do the globalists.
You are indeed an agent,can I prove it not lawfully,but by your words are
exposed and that is enough for most.
Forum rules prevent a more aggressive expletive,though "chek" posts outside the forum rules so go ahead you silly person.
"Frank", having thought about your mish-mash of generalised self-projection and crocodile-teared right wing blog "talking points" about the poor, the only response that springs to mind is this:
Did you, "Frank", ever see a nonsense or reactionary, corporate, right-wing "talking point"yet that you didn't want to print out on stiff cardboard, take home, roll up, and buttroger yourself senseless with?
I tend to think not, but you know that already. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Top U.S. institute still predicts 'extreme' melting
By Randy Boswell, Canwest News ServiceAugust 2, 2009
Despite predictions from a top U.S. polar institute that the Arctic Ocean's overall ice cover is headed for another "extreme" meltdown by mid-September, the Environment Canada agency monitoring our northern waters says an unusual combination of factors is making navigation more difficult in the Northwest Passage this year after two straight summers of virtually clear sailing.
In both the wider, deep-water northern corridor and the narrower, shallower southern branches of the passage, the Canadian Ice Service says pockets of more extensive winter freezing and concentrations of thicker, older ice at several key "choke points" are complicating ship travel.
The fabled trans-Arctic sea route, zealously sought by European explorers in centuries past as a shortcut to Asia, is increasingly seen in today's era of rapidly retreating sea ice as a potential highway to resources and Arctic tourist destinations.
A record number of vessels passed through Canada's Arctic islands last year, and experts have been predicting a steady rise in ship traffic in both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route, which connects Europe to eastern Asia along Russia's Arctic coast.
In the central part of the passage where the northern and southern routes merge amid narrowings around Prince of Wales Island, the CIS has observed "greater than normal concentrations of thicker, multi-year ice. This is the result of an increased flow of older ice from the Beaufort Sea into the Canadian Arctic archipelago last year."
The result, the agency said, is that ice conditions "are delaying any potential navigability of the Northwest Passage this year. This is opposite to what Environment Canada observed in the last week of July in 2007 and 2008."
Its official - global warming is causing ice to form. After decades of cool temperatures when ice got thicker and thicker we had a period of warming which caused the ice to gradually melt. Now the "experts" wonder why it isn't all replaced immediately with a few years of cooler temperatures. They don't understand the difference between "climate" and "weather" I suspect. We're doomed - we're all doomed - unless you give me all your money NOW!! _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:25 pm Post subject:
item7 wrote:
Its official - global warming is causing ice to form.
Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for July 2009 was 8.81 million square kilometers (3.40 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data.
"Overview of conditions
Sea ice extent averaged over the month of July 2009 was 8.81 million square kilometers (3.40 million square miles). This was 680,000 square kilometers (263,000 square miles) above the record low that occurred in July 2007, 250,000 square kilometers (97,000 square miles) below July 2008, and 1.29 million square kilometers (498,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. Sea ice extent is unusually low in the Kara Sea, Baffin Bay, and along the Russian coast. The only area with significant above-average ice extent is southern Hudson Bay".
The only thing "official" is item7's complete and shameful inability to research anything for himself. No amount of logical backflips and contortions can transform the reality of less into the spinmeister's "more".
item7 wrote:
After decades of cool temperatures when ice got thicker and thicker we had a period of warming which caused the ice to gradually melt. Now the "experts" wonder why it isn't all replaced immediately with a few years of cooler temperatures..
Perhaps item7 has some evidence for this series of assertions?
We already know he doesn't, but it's nice to ask.
[img][/imh]
item7 wrote:
They don't understand the difference between "climate" and "weather" I suspect.
No, it's just you having that difficulty. Which to put into some sort of everyday context, is like the difference between 'daily' and 'annual' (or 30 year annual if we're being pedantic). Which is a concept even most of the dim can grasp.
item7 wrote:
We're doomed - we're all doomed - unless you give me all your money NOW!!
Do you really think this nonsense approach works for anybody?
I can only shudder at the number of people happily settled back down with the USG's 911 story after a scary encounter with your Alice in Wonderland version of logic and reason.
Still, I expect many of the dinosaur mentality have some sort of mental block when it comes to who they put their trust in regarding survival in a form we would recognise today, in say 30 years time. Surely anyone could not help but feel loyally safe following the example of item7's corporatist line on this issue, given his sources' track record of concern for the people of this planet?
megalulz, etc. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Some excellent comments after the article on the above link. I think the only people who still pretend to believe in "Man-made climate change", apart from the criminals who are passing the legislation, are the few on this site who still spout their lies.
Quote:
Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet!
Frank J. Tipler, Pajamas Media, Friday, August 7, 2009
As the Senate considers the fate of the cap-and-trade bill, we should consider what it means for more carbon dioxide to be added to the atmosphere, something the bill intends to prevent.
Carbon dioxide is first and foremost a plant food. In fact, plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the energy from sunlight to combine the CO2 with water to yield glucose, the simplest sugar molecule. Carbon dioxide is also the source of all organic — this word just means “contains carbon” — molecules synthesized by plants. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would be no organic molecules synthesized by plants. The less carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the fewer organic molecules synthesized by plants. All animals depend on plants to synthesize essential organic molecules. Without the organic molecules synthesized by plants, the animal world could not exist. Without plants, there would be no biosphere.
Several million years ago, a disaster struck the terrestrial biosphere: there was a drastic reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The flowering plants evolved to be most efficient when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 1,000 parts per million. But the percentage had dropped to a mere 200 parts per million. Plants tried to adapt by evolving a new, more efficient way of using the little remaining CO2. The new mechanism, the C4 pathway, appeared in grasses, including corn and wheat, which enabled these plants to expand into the plains. If the carbon dioxide percentage had stayed low — or worse, had decreased further — the entire biosphere would have been endangered.
Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet! 150709banner2
Fortunately for the plants and the rest of the biosphere depending on them, a wonderful thing happened about 150,000 years ago: a new animal species, Homo sapiens, evolved. This creature was endowed with a huge brain, enabling it to invent a way to help the plants with their CO2 problem. Gigantic amounts of carbon had been deposited deep underground in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas. Not only were these reservoirs of carbon locked away in rock, but they were in forms of carbon that the plants could not use.
These wonderful humans, however, worked hard to help the plants. Not only did the humans dig the coal, oil, and natural gas, bringing it to the surface, but they converted these raw materials into the only form of carbon that plants could use: carbon dioxide. Due to the diligent plant-saving efforts of the humans, the CO2 atmospheric percentage is now at nearly 390 parts per million. Were humans to continue in their biosphere-rescuing efforts at the present rate, the CO2 level will be returned to normal in a mere few hundred years.
The cap-and-trade bill is designed to stop this effort to save the biosphere. This is a profoundly evil act. In the words of the Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, anyone who supports the bill, or any measure aimed at reducing the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is “guilty of treason against the planet”!
Those who want to reduce the use of fossil fuels are the mortal enemies of the biosphere. They must be stopped at all costs! Write your senator at once!
The astute reader will have noted that Krugman actually accused those who opposed the cap-and-trade bill of “treason against the planet.” What I have done is use well-known science to show that, from the biosphere’s point of view, it is the cap-and-trade bill that is “treasonable.” Remarkably, Krugman assumes that the climatic conditions of a mere century or so ago are the “natural” ones that must not be changed. A very anthropomorphic point of view is being used to denounce humanity. An ultraconservative reactionary political position is being called “progressive.”
Some excellent comments after the article on the above link. I think the only people who still pretend to believe in "Man-made climate change", apart from the criminals who are passing the legislation, are the few on this site who still spout their lies.
Indeed there are some corporately sponsored classics there, but probably not in the way you mean. Still, at least there was one sensible poster who seemed to have a basic knowledge.
Oh, and btw, if you must accuse people of lies, you need to demonstrate it. Yet another of your never-ending threadbare and unfounded claims doesn't wash, and is actually against the rules of most forums including this one. Because I know you by now to be only a harmless and hopelessly uninformed idiot, I'll let it go; this time only.
Quote:
Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet!
Frank J. Tipler, Pajamas Media, Friday, August 7, 2009
As the Senate considers the fate of the cap-and-trade bill, we should consider what it means for more carbon dioxide to be added to the atmosphere, something the bill intends to prevent.
Carbon dioxide is first and foremost a plant food. In fact, plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the energy from sunlight to combine the CO2 with water to yield glucose, the simplest sugar molecule. Carbon dioxide is also the source of all organic — this word just means “contains carbon” — molecules synthesized by plants. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would be no organic molecules synthesized by plants. The less carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the fewer organic molecules synthesized by plants. All animals depend on plants to synthesize essential organic molecules. Without the organic molecules synthesized by plants, the animal world could not exist. Without plants, there would be no biosphere.
... and without a biosphere we wouldn't be here to read this primary-school level junk.
However, it's helpful on one level as an indicator of the intended audience.
It could be argued (were we foolish enough to ascribe roles rather than properties to inanimate matter) that CO2 is first and foremost a heat storing greenhouse gas that raises the mean global temperature from the –19 °C (-2°F) we would experience in it's absence to the +14 °C (57°F) that makes life as we know it possible. IPCC WG1 AR4 Report. IPCC. pp. p97
There's not too much biosphere as we would recognise it in a world where water on the surface is perpetually frozen solid.
Maintaining CO2 at a level that we and our agriculture and our fellow lifeforms on planet Earth are currently adapted to is now the name of the game.
Quote:
Several million years ago, a disaster struck the terrestrial biosphere: there was a drastic reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The flowering plants evolved to be most efficient when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 1,000 parts per million. But the percentage had dropped to a mere 200 parts per million. Plants tried to adapt by evolving a new, more efficient way of using the little remaining CO2. The new mechanism, the C4 pathway, appeared in grasses, including corn and wheat, which enabled these plants to expand into the plains. If the carbon dioxide percentage had stayed low — or worse, had decreased further — the entire biosphere would have been endangered.
There is so much pure unsupported and uncomprehended hogwash here that could only be excused as coming from a physicist who once saw something on TV about biology.
Suffice to say that conditions several million years ago have no relevance to the current conditions our civilisation is located in and suggesting otherwise is hand waving of the most blatant kind expressly designed to help establish a very dubious proposition.
Quote:
Humans and Their CO2 Save the Planet!
When did that happen?
At the rate species are becoming extinct that claim is sheer comedy.
"The area of tropical forests is being reduced, and their large numbers of specialized species, are that we may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction from those habitats alone".
"The past 400 years have seen 89 mammalian extinctions, almost 45 times the predicted rate, and another 169 mammal species are listed as critically endangered."
Fortunately for the plants and the rest of the biosphere depending on them, a wonderful thing happened about 150,000 years ago: a new animal species, Homo sapiens, evolved. This creature was endowed with a huge brain, enabling it to invent a way to help the plants with their CO2 problem. Gigantic amounts of carbon had been deposited deep underground in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas. Not only were these reservoirs of carbon locked away in rock, but they were in forms of carbon that the plants could not use.
These wonderful humans, however, worked hard to help the plants. Not only did the humans dig the coal, oil, and natural gas, bringing it to the surface, but they converted these raw materials into the only form of carbon that plants could use: carbon dioxide. Due to the diligent plant-saving efforts of the humans, the CO2 atmospheric percentage is now at nearly 390 parts per million. Were humans to continue in their biosphere-rescuing efforts at the present rate, the CO2 level will be returned to normal in a mere few hundred years.
The cap-and-trade bill is designed to stop this effort to save the biosphere. This is a profoundly evil act. In the words of the Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, anyone who supports the bill, or any measure aimed at reducing the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is “guilty of treason against the planet”!
Those who want to reduce the use of fossil fuels are the mortal enemies of the biosphere. They must be stopped at all costs! Write your senator at once!
Yes!
Dear Prime Minister,
I'd like to see justice and the right to life reinstated and upheld for species that became extinct several million years ago now!
Please move this to the top of your current agenda, as I have just been advised that this is a required course of action by a retired physicist writing about biology using rhetoric that gives stupidity a bad name.
Quote:
The astute reader will have noted that Krugman actually accused those who opposed the cap-and-trade bill of “treason against the planet.” What I have done is use well-known science to show that, from the biosphere’s point of view, it is the cap-and-trade bill that is “treasonable.” Remarkably, Krugman assumes that the climatic conditions of a mere century or so ago are the “natural” ones that must not be changed. A very anthropomorphic point of view is being used to denounce humanity. An ultraconservative reactionary political position is being called “progressive.”
George Ellis, a co-author of Stephen Hawking writing in Nature once described Tipler's work as
"a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ellis
Though he presumably hadn't yet seen this latest piece byTipler, it's clearly in the same vein.
What the likes of Tipler are doing is pandering to simpletons for corporate political gain. We've all heard about dumbing down, I take it?
Well now the dumbed down are being put to work, from astroturf spoof 'blogscience' sites, and currently at town halls all over the US.
They're against taking action on climate change, universal healthcare and any and all other reforms that challenge corporate dominance.
Tipler is trying to claim that increased CO2 is "good" because it's a plant respiratory medium without explaining how (but not in a journal where actual scientists and technicians would expose his crackpottery).
And while there are a few types of plant that can be grown in CO2 enriched greenhouses that do thrive - because they are also supplied with other minerals and nutrients that enable them to increase their metabolic rate under controlled conditions, studies have shown that increased CO2 alone, out in the wild does not promote healthy growth and that for some important species the imbalance causes loss of vitality.
Neither has Tipler even mentioned the other properties of CO2 which are that it captures and re-radiates heat energy in the atmosphere raising the global temperature that is currently causing concern, and that it is extremely soluble, and is dissolving into the oceans causing an acidic reaction that is unquestionably harmful to carbonate based lifeforms such as coral and shellfish and the ecosystems dependent on them.
The fact that mankind has never before experienced a world with current CO2 levels should, in a rational society, be a cause for caution not recklessness, and especially not on the say-so of some questionable scientist pontificating nonsense. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”
Vaclav Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, ETS Forum - The models are wrong
by William Kininmonth, August 8, 2009
In computer models we trust!
The coming Senate vote on the badly misnamed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) is the culmination of intense propaganda spanning more than three decades. The Senate Bill aims at restricting emissions of carbon dioxide, a colourless, odourless gas essential to life, and has nought to do with smokestack carbon particles and other pollutants that have been regulated since the 1950s. The basis of the Bill is an unsustainable hypothesis that dangerous global warming will be an outcome of continued burning of fossil fuels and the rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It is nearly 20 years since the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) in 1990 gave its first assessment of the likelihood and potential magnitude of human-caused global warming. In their first report in 1990 they confirmed that humans would have an impact on global temperatures as carbon dioxide levels increased. Importantly, the magnitudes of impacts were considered conjectural and subject to large uncertainty, because computer models of the time were rudimentary in their ability to represent the complex processes in the climate system.
The IPCC’s second report in 1995 was more confident, saying that the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence on global climate. By the time of the 2001 third report the IPCC was concluding that the ability of computer models to project future climate had increased and ‘the warming over the past 100 years is very unlikely to be due to internal variability alone, as estimated by current [computer] models’.
In its most recent 2007 report the IPCC has gone so far as to claim that most of the warming of the last half century was very likely due to human activities, especially the emissions of carbon dioxide. Moreover it was claimed that unconstrained emissions of carbon dioxide would lead to a dangerous global temperature rise of between 2oC and 6oC by the end of the century.
Unfortunately the more recent pattern of global temperature does not fit the IPCC scenario. Carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise but global temperatures have flat-lined since 1997.
In light of the recent global temperature record it is appropriate to ask the government – as indeed, Senator Fielding has - why 1998 remains the warmest year in the record and why global average temperatures have persisted at about the same value (0.4oC above the 1961-1990 average) since 1997. After all, given the carbon dioxide emissions that have occurred, even the most conservative IPCC predictions are that the temperature should have risen by at least 0.2oC over the decade, and up to 0.6oC rise could have been expected.
The recent temperature record exposes the logical inconsistency within the IPCC argument for ‘dangerous’ human-caused global warming.
If there is only limited internal variability in the climate system, as IPCC claimed in its 2001 assessment, then global temperature should respond to the increasing levels of carbon dioxide according to the computer model predictions. As the global temperature is not following the trend of increasing carbon dioxide levels, then we must conclude that IPCC and its computer models have got it wrong. Carbon dioxide is clearly not the climate bogey that it has been made out to be.
Those who have an understanding of the climate system recognise the reality of the last decade. Internal variability of the climate system gives rise to important fluctuations, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation. Subtle changes in the surface layer circulation of the equatorial Pacific Ocean have global impact on climate, including Australian rainfall.
There are other well-known multi-decadal variations in the ocean circulation that also impact on the global climate. These include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).
The Rudd government plans to implement its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) on the basis that reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere will avert dangerous climate change. Legislation giving effect to cap and trade permits is awaiting consideration by the Senate. Implementation of the scheme will impact on every Australian; the greater the government commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, so the greater that impact will be.
It is clear that complex computer modelling of the climate and economic systems, both based on questionable assumptions, are respectively the reason and the justification for the cap and trade legislation. For most of us, computer models are synonymous with the magician’s smoke and mirrors; in the experts we trust. Until recently there was no simple benchmark against which to assess the veracity of either the climate or economic computer projections.
However, we now have a decade of independent climate data and the ‘dangerous’ global warming predictions of the IPCC have proved to be a chimera, as global temperatures have not risen.
There is a serious risk that we will end end up with the worst outcomes possible because of the frailties of computer modelling: carbon dioxide will prove to have little impact on climate but implementation of the Rudd government’s cap and trade legislation will seriously raise energy costs and expand unemployment. Additionally, serious power outages have recently been foreshadowed because the cap and trade penalties discourage necessary investment and maintenance for conventional power generation infrastructure.
It is time to make a fundamental re-assessment of our knowledge of climate, especially giving emphasis to past change as a guide to the future. Rather than attempting to control climate through regulating carbon dioxide, the Rudd government would do better to invest in adaptation measures that improve community resilience to known climate hazards, both natural and potentially of human causation.
William Kininmonth is a meteorologist and former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre. He was Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization’s Commission for Climatology (1982-9, including two terms on its management board and is the author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (2004, Multi-science Publishing Co, UK).
Australian Senate Rejects Rudd’s Cap and Trade Emissions Plan
By Gemma Daley
Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Australia’s Senate rejected the government’s climate-change legislation, forcing Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to amend the bill or call an early election.
Senators voted 42 to 30 against the law, which included plans for a carbon trading system similar to one used in Europe. Australia, the world’s biggest coal exporter, was proposing to reduce greenhouse gases by between 5 percent and 15 percent of 2000 levels in the next decade.
Rudd, who needs support from seven senators outside the government to pass laws through the upper house, can resubmit the bill after making amendments. A second rejection after a three-month span would give him a trigger to call an election.
“We may lose this fight, but this issue will not go away,” Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told the Senate in Canberra. “Australia cannot afford for climate change to be unfinished business.”
Five members from the Australian Greens party sought bigger cuts to emissions while the opposition coalition and independent Senator Nick Xenophon wanted to wait for further studies on the plan’s impact on the economy.
Australia’s rainfall is the lowest of the world’s continents, excluding Antarctica, according to the Web site of Melbourne Water, a water management authority owned by the Victorian state government. Years of drought have cut farm output and water supplies in the Murray Darling Basin, the nation’s biggest river system and home to almost half its farms.
Sydney Opera House
Lower rainfall, higher sea and land temperatures, severe storms, increased acidity in the ocean or rising sea levels could all threaten World Heritage sites such as the Sydney Opera House and the Great Barrier Reef, a report from the Australian National University said last week.
Rudd planned to pursue a steeper 25 percent emissions cut pending an international accord stabilizing carbon levels. His administration wants the legislation in place before a December meeting of 200 countries in Copenhagen to replace the Kyoto Protocol. China and the U.S., the world’s largest polluters, have yet to commit to targets for cutting greenhouse gases.
“This defeat doesn’t make any difference to our position in global negotiations and it doesn’t add to momentum for those discussions,” said Andrew Macintosh, an analyst from Australian National University’s Center of Law and Climate Policy. “Copenhagen will provide some impetus for further negotiations on Australian laws.”
Corporate Opposition
The Australian legislation faced opposition from some companies that said the planned cuts were too deep and would have damped economic growth without making much difference to global warming. Advocates of tougher measures to combat climate change said the plan didn’t go far enough.
Royal Dutch Shell Plc’s Australian unit urged the government in May to revise the plan to avoid reducing the ability of local companies to compete internationally.
The U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation in June to limit heat-trapping pollution and create a trading system for pollution permits. The U.S. cap-and-trade bill must still pass the Senate.
The architects of Australia’s plan, approved by the lower house of parliament on June 4, sought to create an economic incentive to cut emissions by forcing heavy polluters to buy carbon credits. Emissions from Australia will grow to 120 percent of the 2000 level without a pollution reduction plan, Wong said earlier this month.
“Australia going it alone before Copenhagen will not make a jot of difference,” Liberal Senator Eric Abetz said. “It is a dog of a plan and we will not support it in its current form.”
Bill Amendments
The government can resubmit legislation after negotiating with industry, Senators and conservationists. Parliament will hold three more two-week sessions this year starting on Sept. 7, Oct. 19 and Nov. 16. It then adjourns until 2010.
“The government will consider any serious amendment,” Wong said. “We will press on for as long as we have to, we will bring this bill back before the end of the year.”
The Copenhagen accord aims to reach an agreement to slow greenhouse-gas emissions and shift the world to low-carbon energy sources.
China and other developing nations reject calls for binding targets, arguing that rich nations fueled their growth while polluting for decades. Getting China, the world’s fastest- growing major economy, to commit to lowering emissions is a key goal for Copenhagen.
The global credit crisis, which has plunged most developed economies into recession, has blunted the fight to tackle climate change. Australia’s government has spent A$90 billion ($75 billion) on economic stimulus.
“Climate has slipped down the list of priorities for Australians and they won’t like going to an early poll on it,” Macintosh said. “Climate has gone on the backburner because of the economic climate we have found ourselves in.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Gemma Daley in Canberra at gdaley@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: August 12, 2009 21:36 EDT
We've lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests
By Andrew Orlowski
Posted in Environment, 13th August 2009 14:35 GMT
The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.
The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of "the science".
Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:
Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
In 2007, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, CRU initially said it didn't have to fulfil the requests because "Information accessible to applicant via other means Some information is publicly available on external websites".
Now it's citing confidentiality agreements with Denmark, Spain, Bahrain and our own Mystic Met Office. Others may exist, CRU says in a statement, but it might have lost them because it moved offices. Or they were made verbally, and nobody at CRU wrote them down.
As for the raw station data,
"We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."
Canadian statistician and blogger Steve McIntyre, who has been asking for the data set for years, says he isn't impressed by the excuses. McIntyre obtained raw data when it was accidentally left on an FTP server last month. Since then, CRU has battened down the hatches, and purged its FTP directories lest any more raw data escapes and falls into the wrong hands.
McIntyre says he doesn't expect any significant surprises after analysing the raw data, but believes that reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific principle, and so raw data and methods should be disclosed. ®
" Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
Well how very "Scientific". Its not as if the truth can stand on its own is it? How do these creeps sleep at night?!! _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:23 am Post subject:
item7 wrote:
Well how very "Scientific". Its not as if the truth can stand on its own is it? How do these creeps sleep at night?!!
They probably sleep very well, I should think, seeing as they're not charlatans stirring up the braindead (who'll believe anything they read on their astroturf sites) for corporate political gain.
For those who don't know, Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU - sometimes shortened to HadCRU) collates data from land and sea weather stations located all over the globe, and is one of the four main sources of global climate information.
Since the sun set on the old Brittanic Empire, the astute reader may well notice that an awful lot of these locations are in sovereign nations and the data is supplied by their sovereign governments, to a common standard set by the World Meteorological Organization. In many cases this data is supplied to Hadley conditionally - usually that it is only for use in academic research and not for commercial gain. HadCRU has no incentive to ignore those conditions if they want to keep receiving the data.
Stephen McIntyre is a retired mining consultant (not an academic or even a graduate) who first attained a minor degree of notoriety by claiming that Mann's 'hockey stick' graph indicating sharply rising temperatures was faulty. As has been posted numerous times in this thread, nine further independent studies showed it wasn't.
In the light of this information, McIntyre with his energy industry links and not being an academic either, is not eligible to receive the raw information, and given his track record subsequently with various right wing, climate denial, free-market think-tanks, his motives are dubious at best.
Maybe he should try to get a job at a university, but I suspect that there aren't too many posts available to hobby idealogues who have been out of work for some time. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
I'll ignore for one last time my rule about not engaging with an obvious lying troll because, finally, Chek has burst through the bottom of the barrel where he usually resides and after washing himself thoroughly in bilge sewage has finally reached Hades where he truly must feel at home.
chek wrote:
In many cases this data is supplied to Hadley conditionally - usually that it is only for use in academic research and not for commercial gain. HadCRU has no incentive to ignore those conditions if they want to keep receiving the data.
"Many" cases? "Usually"?? Nice and vague to muddy the waters. Typical rubbish. Under "freedom of information" acts organisations like this are obliged to release information and cannot withold this kind of data quoting reasons given. More drivel.
Quote:
Stephen McIntyre is a retired mining consultant (not an academic or even a graduate)
Big deal. Being a graduate does not prevent a person from being a liar or even of being correct. ANOTHER ad hominem attack.
Quote:
who first attained a minor degree of notoriety by claiming that Mann's 'hockey stick' graph indicating sharply rising temperatures was faulty. As has been posted numerous times in this thread, nine further independent studies showed it wasn't.
This really takes the prize for incessant trolling. The "Hockey stick" graph has been comprehensively proven to be "faulty". A better word is fraudulent. Chek knows this and he knows the IPCC, the den of "graduate" liars he so admires, has dropped it from their armoury of lies and disinformation as it is too embarrasing even for them to continue with that particular twaddle.
Quote:
In the light of this information, McIntyre with his energy industry links and not being an academic either, is not eligible to receive the raw information, and given his track record subsequently with various right wing, climate denial, free-market think-tanks, his motives are dubious at best.
Well never mind in the "light" of your "information". They say they have "lost" the lot now so nobody can get it. Or assess it. Or validate it. Or prove its use has been twisted and distorted to invent the scam of man-made global warming. No no no!! - I've done it again - sorry. Man-made climate change!!! I keep forgetting that as we cause the world to heat up its going to freeze us to death. Why can't I understand that?!
Quote:
Maybe he should try to get a job at a university...
Maybe he is too busy trying to expose the evil liars of this world like Chek who are trying to help the banksters impose a world system of fascist control over all our lives. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:57 am Post subject:
item7 wrote:
I'll ignore for one last time my rule about not engaging with an obvious lying troll because, finally, Chek has burst through the bottom of the barrel where he usually resides and after washing himself thoroughly in bilge sewage has finally reached Hades where he truly must feel at home.
Not unexpectedly, you've learned nothing about either evidence or forum etiquette in the meantime.
item7 wrote:
"Many" cases? "Usually"?? Nice and vague to muddy the waters. Typical rubbish. Under "freedom of information" acts organisations like this are obliged to release information and cannot withold this kind of data quoting reasons given. More drivel.
So please explain how either US or UK FOI laws are applicable to information not owned by those countries. Hadley have explained the conditions that data from other countries are provided to them. Claiming that domestic FOI laws overturn that is something you just made up.
"We’re consulting with all the meteorological services – about 150 members of WMO – and will ask them if they are happy to release the data”, says Jones. But getting the all-clear from other nations could take several months and there may be objections. “Some countries don’t even have their own data available as they haven’t digitized it".
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090812/full/460787a.html
item7 wrote:
This really takes the prize for incessant trolling. The "Hockey stick" graph has been comprehensively proven to be "faulty". A better word is fraudulent. Chek knows this and he knows the IPCC, the den of "graduate" liars he so admires, has dropped it from their armoury of lies and disinformation as it is too embarrasing even for them to continue with that particular twaddle.
It's really time after six months of this that you learned what goes on outside the odd alternative reality that the corporate astroturf sites feed you. The information linked below has been available for years (and posted in this thread) and blows your dearly-held myth out of the water.
Well never mind in the "light" of your "information". They say they have "lost" the lot now so nobody can get it. Or assess it. Or validate it. Or prove its use has been twisted and distorted to invent the scam of man-made global warming.
I'd really like to see the evidence for this claim, as the Nature article about this mentions nothing of it. It smacks of the faux persecution complex that deniers and the right wing so love to portray themselves as suffering under.
item7 wrote:
No no no!! - I've done it again - sorry. Man-made climate change!!! I keep forgetting that as we cause the world to heat up its going to freeze us to death. Why can't I understand that?!
Well if you only hang out on astroturf sites designed to appeal to morons, some of that ethos is bound to rub off on you, at a guess.
item7 wrote:
Maybe he is too busy trying to expose the evil liars of this world like Chek who are trying to help the banksters impose a world system of fascist control over all our lives.
And (more likely imho) McIntyre's just another uneducated fool working for vested interests desperately grasping for every unregulated cent they can before their activities are subject to controls that put public welfare ahead of private profit.
Why not get a proper scientist or academic to apply for the data, under which inter-governmental conditions Jones at Hadley is perfectly free to supply it? Oh that's right, I was forgetting ... _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 6:55 pm Post subject:
Looks like item7 will soon have much, much more to say on this topic.
Unfortunately it will just be much, much more of the same old corporate talking points that've already been discredited.
Quote:
key climate bill hit by $45m PR campaign"
"America's oil, gas and coal industry has increased its lobbying budget by 50%, with key players spending $44.5m in the first three months of this year in an intense effort to cut off support for Barack Obama's plan to build a clean energy economy.
The spoiler campaign runs to hundreds of millions of dollars and involves industry front groups, lobbying firms, television, print and radio advertising, and donations to pivotal members of Congress. Its intention is to water down or kill off plans by the Democratic leadership to pass "cap and trade" legislation this year, which would place limits on greenhouse gas emissions".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/12/us-climate-bill-oil- gas
What's interesting is that they're increasing their influence buying by 50%, which means the normal spend is $10 million a month, each and every month.
Now that's corporate power in action.
I wonder what they get, and what they're hoping to get for such massive sums?
In an effort to relieve the boredom while we wait to find out, here's the climate denier bingo card of their .. ahem .."arguments" over the past year.
Print it out and tick them off as they happen.
Fun for all the family.
For the more sophisticated reader, have fun trying to guess what degree of mental whiplash holding any (and in some cases all!) of these denier concepts, either in sequence (and in some cases simultaneously!) or random order may cause.
Go back through this thread and see how many contradictory and conflicting views item7 has been spamming for six months now!
You may start.
there is no warming
the warming has stopped
the warming is caused by the sun
the warming is caused by cosmic ray fluctuations as we pass through the galactic plane
the warming is an artifact of sloppy measurement practices
the arctic is melting due to undersea volcanoes
the arctic is no longer melting
carbon dioxide is rising due to natural processes
carbon dioxide is not rising
carbon dioxide is good for us
carbon dioxide is rising because it is warming, not the other way around
carbon dioxide will improve agriculture
water vapor is more important than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas
warming will improve agriculture
scientists are inflating the risk of AGW to get grant money
we can't afford to do anything about AGW anyway
we could afford it but it would be cheaper to fix the results
we shouldn't have to do anything until china and india do
it's a socialist scam _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Looks like item7 will soon have much, much more to say on this topic.
Not at all. I have had enough of trying to counter the propaganda of a liar like yourself. I hope some visitors will have seen that your lies are clear and will have learned that the "man made climate change" is a scam. Up yours. You are losing. The thread is all yours now. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:59 pm Post subject:
Thanks.
And thank you for the unrequested but scary glimpse into the questioning but obedient, bitter yet twisted, fixed and immovable yea, even in the face of hard evidence, belief system of the unwitting blue-collar corporate shill over all this time.
Just like watching The Manchurian Candidate, it's helpful to know how the scum operate and what buttons they push to make you publicly spout and believe the most abject easily disproved rubbish.
Seriously dude whoever you are, there are primary (elementary) school European kids who would be ashamed to say half the absolute nonsense you have stated over the past months.
Go educate yourself and STAY AWAY FROM BLOGS while doing so, at least until you've acquired the ability to critically appraise them.
Can't say any clearer than that.
Take care now y'all and watch out for them thar blacks, librulls, femnists, immgrants, eggheads, the young and whoever else is spoiling things for ya. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
No NO No!!! The science is settled. Go away! There is no need to examine evidence. Trust us!!! We are scientists - we wear white coats. We have never lied or been wrong. We aren't frightened of examining the case for man made climate change - we just don't want to do it. Its not because our scam will be exposed - its erm erm ...the cost of the debate.
Quote:
U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeks trial on global warming
The business lobby, hoping to fend off potentially sweeping emission limits, wants the EPA to hold a 'Scopes'-like hearing on the evidence that climate change is man-made.
By Jim Tankersley
August 25, 2009
Reporting from Washington - The nation's largest business lobby wants to put the science of global warming on trial.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.
Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" -- complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.
"It would be evolution versus creationism," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "It would be the science of climate change on trial."
The goal of the chamber, which represents 3 million large and small businesses, is to fend off potential emissions regulations by undercutting the scientific consensus over climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.
The EPA is having none of it, calling a hearing a "waste of time" and saying that a threatened lawsuit by the chamber would be "frivolous."
EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the agency based its proposed finding that global warming is a danger to public health "on the soundest peer-reviewed science available, which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change presents a threat to human health and welfare."
Environmentalists say the chamber's strategy is an attempt to sow political discord by challenging settled science -- and note that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end.
The chamber proposal "brings to mind for me the Salem witch trials, based on myth," said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist for the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists. "In this case, it would be ignoring decades of publicly accessible evidence."
In the coming weeks, the EPA is set to formally declare that the heat-trapping gases scientists blame for climate change endanger human health, and are thus subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The so-called endangerment finding will be a cornerstone of the Obama administration's plan to set strict new emissions standards on cars and trucks.
The proposed finding has drawn more than 300,000 public comments. Many of them question scientists' projections that rising temperatures will lead to increased mortality rates, harmful pollution and extreme weather events such as hurricanes.
In light of those comments, the chamber will tell the EPA in a filing today that a trial-style public hearing, which is allowed under the law but nearly unprecedented on this scale, is the only way to "make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the actual record of the science."
Most climate scientists agree that greenhouse gas emissions, caused by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, are warming the planet. Using computer models and historical temperature data, those scientists predict the warming will accelerate unless greenhouse gas emissions are dramatically reduced.
"The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable," said a recent letter to world leaders by the heads of the top science agencies in 13 of the world's largest countries, including the head of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
The EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, as proposed in April, warned that warmer temperatures would lead to "the increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves, more wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems."
Critics of the finding say it's far from certain that warming will cause any harm at all. The Chamber of Commerce cites studies that predict higher temperatures will reduce mortality rates in the United States.
No NO No!!! The science is settled. Go away! There is no need to examine evidence. Trust us!!! We are scientists - we wear white coats. We have never lied or been wrong. We aren't frightened of examining the case for man made climate change - we just don't want to do it. Its not because our scam will be exposed - its erm erm ...the cost of the debate.
Back again so soon, eh?
The trouble with your idiotic rhetoric is twofold:
Firstly it's only rhetoric, fact-free and largely a verbal medium which only exposes its own ridiculous lacking in print unless you're Oscar Wilde which you ain't;
and secondly - but far more importantly - it only impresses idiots (which in the original Greek means the uneducated laymen) who don't know any better and are emotionally driven. The people that are impressed by someone like Shillclown, for instance. Until you realise that you're only appealing to those like yourself whose opinions (for the reasons outlined previously) are eminently disregardable, seeing as they are founded on the most insubstantial of criteria.
If you're looking to sway anyone apart from fellow idiots, you need to start dealing with facts and information. Though don't get me wrong - I'm perfectly happy for you to keep self-exposing how threadbare and bare-arsed your adopted worldview is.
Here's the kind of thing I mean:
"Eighth Warmest June On Record For Globe (July 21, 2008) — The combined average global land and ocean surface temperatures for June 2008 ranked eighth warmest for June since worldwide records began in 1880".
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080720215335.htm
"March 2009 Tenth Warmest On Record For Global Temperatures (Apr. 20, 2009) — The combined global land and ocean surface average temperature for March 2009 was the 10th warmest since records began in 1880"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418090255.htm
"Ninth Warmest February For Globe, NOAA (Mar. 16, 2009) — The combined global land and ocean surface average temperature for February 2009 was the ninth warmest since records began in 1880"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090315092035.htm
"Arctic sea ice covered an average of 4.4 million square miles (11.5 million square kilometers) during June, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. This is 5.6 percent below the 1979-2000 average extent. By contrast, the 2007 record for the least Arctic sea ice extent was 5.5 percent below average. Antarctic sea ice extent in June was 3.9 percent above the 1979-2000 average."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090725120303.htm
"The global ocean SST (sea surface temperature) for July 2009 was the warmest on record for the second consecutive month, 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F). This broke the previous July record set in 1998. Sea surface temperatures during July 2009 were warmer than average across much of the world's oceans, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across parts of the North Atlantic Ocean and the southern oceans. Sea surface temperature anomalies in all Niño regions continued to warm during July 2009, where the monthly temperatures were more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) above average. If El Niño conditions continue to mature as projected by NOAA, global temperatures are likely to continue to threaten previous record highs."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
And no recent increases in solar activity to account for any it.
I guess that just leaves CO2 as the driver, then.
All of which illustrates why the live "debate" format isn't suitable for scientific subjects - a denier can spout a claim in seconds that takes an explanation using actual data ten minutes to expose as garbage, slowing the pace of what is essentially an entertainment format - which is of course why deniers love the idea.
The proper forum for denier counter-claims is through peer reviewed science papers, which deniers avoid like the plague because they're involved in an industry PR campaign, not science.
You're primarily a corporate astroturf shill item7 identifiable by all your contradictory corporate think-tank 'talking points'.
Nothing they invent is too distorted or contradictory for you; you just like the tone of what you're hearing and never mind the detail.
Nothing you've said for the past six months has made me doubt that estimation for one instant (cf the US corporate parallel promotion of their anti-science, anti-medicare campaign and various related Icke-type paranoid idiocies).
If Blackwater (now Xe) ever bother with references, let me know. I'll be happy to attest to your unshakeable loyalty. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[/imh]
, including two terms on its management board and is the author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (2004, Multi-science Publishing Co, UK).
