Prominent hurricane forecaster Dr. William M. Gray, a professor at Colorado State University, appeared at The Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) in New York on March 11 to elaborate on his theory that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures related to the salinity (the amount of salt) in ocean water was responsible for some global warming that has taken place.
Gray also distributed a document containing a scathing critique of Dr. James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who is widely known for his outspokenness on the issue of manmade global warming. Gray's document criticized the American Meteorological Society (AMS), an organization that issues a "seal of approval" to broadcast meteorologists, for awarding Hansen the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal.
"I am appalled at the selection of James Hansen as this year's recipient of the AMS's highest award - the Rossby Research Medal," Gray wrote. "James Hansen has not been trained as a meteorologist. His formal education has been in astronomy. His long records of faulty global climate predictions and alarmist public pronouncements have become increasingly hollow and at odds with reality. Hansen has exploited the general public's lack of knowledge of how the globe's climate system functions for his own benefit. His global warming predictions, going back to 1988 are not being verified."
According to Gray's statement, Hansen's famous 1988 prediction of global warming had turned out "to be very much less than he had projected," but Hansen is still out campaigning about the issue as a global crisis.
"Hansen and his legion of environmental-political supporters (with no meteorological-climate background) have done monumental damage to an open and honest discussion of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) question," Gray wrote. "He and his fellow collaborators (and their media sycophantic followers) are responsible for the brainwashing of a large segment of the American public about a grossly exaggerated human-induced warming threat that does not exist."
Although many have called for Hansen's dismissal, including his former supervisor John Theon, a retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Gray explained why he thought Hansen has survived at NASA with his political stances concerning global warming.
"It is surprising that Hansen has been able to get away with his unrealistic modeling efforts for so long," Gray wrote. "One explanation is that he has received strong support from Senator/Vice President Al Gore who for over three decades has attempted to make political capital out of increasing CO2 measurements. Another reason is the many environmental and political groups (including the mainstream media) who are eager to use Hansen's modeling results as justification to push their own special interests that are able to fly under the global warming banner."
Gray also wrote that the AMS had been commandeered by a number of global warming activists, hence the decision to bestow Hansen with the organization's highest honor.
"We AMS members have allowed a small group of AMS administrators, climate modelers, and CO2 warming sympathizers to maneuver the internal workings of our society to support AGW policies irrespective of what our rank-and-file members might think," Gray wrote. "This small organized group of AGW sympathizers has indeed hijacked our society."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Good for him!
March 12, 2009 - 10:47 ET by Franklins_LockeIt is about time that scientists began to stand up to Hansen, Gore and others and prove that global climate change is a complete farce. It is good that they are beginning to see that this theory is destroying their credibility and they are fighting for their honor.
http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/
It amazes me how Hansen and
March 12, 2009 - 11:46 ET by ThisnThatIt amazes me how Hansen and Gore can stick to these lies, with no data to back them up. What is wrong with people like this?
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
For Hansen and Gore...
March 12, 2009 - 12:36 ET by Jimincam...it is a simple equation:
As CO2 increases, $ increases
Don't forget Hansen's incitement to civil disobedience...
March 12, 2009 - 12:03 ET by Tailgunner...and felony property damage on the grounds that it 'prevents greater damage to the earth'.
In the minds of many young climate change devotees who idolize Al Gore, James Hansen and others, this 'prevention' concept could be expanded to justify even murder.
Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, was reported to have a copy of Al Gore's 'Earth In The Balance' in his cabin. His thinking parallels Gore's so closely that it is nearly impossible to determine from quotations who the author is.
The Unabomber's moral conviction that 'technology' was evil led him to kill and maim over two dozen victims over a 17 year period.
Hansen has become an inspiration to many budding idealists who think direct actions even as dramatic as Kaczynski's can be morally justifiable. Can we expect a new reign of terror based on Hansen's moral sanction for anarchistic violence?
Hansen has helped to marginalize NASA globally by hijacking its credibility for his own benefit. He should have been sh*tcanned years ago.
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
"Ted Kaczynski, aka the
March 13, 2009 - 01:55 ET by DesertBear"Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, was reported to have a copy of Al Gore's 'Earth In The Balance' in his cabin"
Well, I don't see it in the inventory of items at his cabin. Must be something Tony Snow made up.
But I do see "Modern Physics" listed. I guess by the rest of your argument , since he and the AGW groups both used it, we should stop using physics.
Like Hanson's Y2K error and
March 13, 2009 - 06:14 ET by danboLike Hanson's Y2K error and the warmest October (september) ever?
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Google. Learn it. Love it. Live it.
March 13, 2009 - 07:26 ET by Tailgunnerhttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n1_v13/ai_19007864
'Kaczynski, it seems, is a major fan of author Gore. A heavily underlined copy of Earth in the Balance was found in his remote cabin.'
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/1996/cyb19960607.asp#1
'In the "On the Prowl" section, the June American Spectator reported: "FBI agents on the scene are telling colleagues they were amused when, while tearing apart the shack of suspected Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, they came upon Al Gore's 1992 eco-tract, Earth in the Balance. Many sections were underlined in pencil, and there were copious notes in the margins. Why wasn't Gore among the handful of titles listed in press references to the 80 or so books found in the cabin? The FBI and Justice Department haven't commented publicly, but some agents assume the title was clearly suppressed to avoid embarrassing Gore."'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/08/the_unabomber_hates_the_newseu.asp
'Do recall among his only possessions was an underlined copy of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance. '
http://www.aim.org/publications/guest_columns/jennings/2000/03/13.htm
'Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, did not have a Bible in his little bomb-building cabin in the woods, he had Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance," complete with underlined passages;...'
Yes, there may be controversy, but as you may recall, I said it was reported that Gore's book was found in his cabin.
It is indisputable that their philosophies are so intertwined that it is notoriously difficult, if not impossible, to select from a list of quotes those from Gore and those of the Unabomber.
Please try to be a bit more intellectually energetic in the future.
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Gray must have missed AGW Sunday school class...
March 12, 2009 - 10:52 ET by JTPHe is just another denier who did not read the assigned verse from his AGW bible.
"I need more cowbell!" SNL
CLIMATE CHANGE
March 12, 2009 - 11:07 ET by Nortois the way we express it, all their bases are covered. It can go up or down and we still have a manufactured crisis that someone is making big bucks on and socialism is edging closer.
Double Standards
March 12, 2009 - 11:19 ET by slickwillie2001If Hansen, a government employee, was making the opposite case there would be screams from the liberal media for his firing, for insubordination and corruption.
If Hansen was making the opposite case, while receiving funding from Exxon-Mobil, there would be Congressional Preenings to investigate. Instead, Hansen is funded by George Soros as well as getting a salary at NASA, and the liberal media sees that as perfectly okay.
The man is an incompetent and corrupt hypocrite.
Turning Over a Few Rocks
March 12, 2009 - 11:48 ET by dboHansen also received a $250,000 award from Mrs. John Kerry and then turned around and not only endorsed Kerry for 2004 but campaigned for him as well. Here's a few more Hansen tidbits.
dollars to be made by Al Gore
March 12, 2009 - 11:41 ET by JIMMY1660fore he has no credibility anywhere. the planet is thousands of years, and the weather has changed, why, who knows. We only have data for the last 200 or so, and these folks want it to be true, so they screw the info. shame on us for letting them go on without challenge. we need to drill and mine to keep us warm and prosperous. the good doctor telling the truth may help. if not we shall look like afghanistan.
BHO- ill equipped to lead America
Well, since Dr Gray has
March 12, 2009 - 13:31 ET by ConservativeRexWell, since Dr Gray has told the truth, he will not have all of his associations looked into, will have his taxes audited several years in a row, and be ridiculed by a sycophantic press in every weather related release.
That, is how the 21st century democrat party works. It reminds me of some other political asociation...oh yeah, the Commintern.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
March 12, 2009 - 19:08 ET by PopularTechThe Great Global Warming Swindle (Google Video) (1hr 14min)
The Science in The Great Global Warming Swindle (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
So, was his paper at the
March 13, 2009 - 00:50 ET by DesertBearSo, was his paper at the conference "peer-reviewed" by the oncologist quoted in the paper. Because when I want to publish papers on robust control and mu-synthesis, I always get my accountant to look it over...
I guess presenting at a "technical" conference run by a political lobbyist does have some benefits...
Conference Papers are frequently not Peer-Reviewed
March 13, 2009 - 02:54 ET by PopularTechBut these are...
180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
- Beck, Ernst-Georg
50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauna Loa
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, pp. 1017-1028(12), Number 7, 2008)
- Beck, Ernst-Georg
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data
(Climate Research, Vol. 26: 159-173, 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK's Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
- R. S. Courtney
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
- C. R. de Freitas
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Climate Change - A Natural Hazard
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232(18), May 1, 2003)
- W. Kininmonth
Climate change and the world bank: Opportunity for global governance?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-50(24), January 1, 1999)
- S. A. Boehmer-Christiansen
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
- Lee C. Gerhard
- Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
- Lee C. Gerhard
Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
- V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos
Climate Change is Nothing New!
(New Concepts In Global Tectonics, No. 42, March, 2007)
- Lance Endersbee
Climate Change Re-examined
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
- Joel M. Kauffman
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
(arXiv:0809.3762v3, November 2008)
- Richard S. Lindzen
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pages 1 - 9, January 2008)
- G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin
Crystal balls, virtual realities and 'storylines'
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
- R.S. Courtney
Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
- R.M. Carter
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 31, L13207, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels
Does a Global Temperature Exist?
(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, June 2006)
- Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen
Do deep ocean temperature records verify models?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp. 95-1, April, 2002)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
- R.H. Essenhigh
Does human activity widen the tropics?
(arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 2008)
- Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov
Earth's rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
- C.D. Idso
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Evidence for "publication Bias" Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
- Patrick J. Michaels
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
(Physics, arXiv:0707.1161)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Free speech about climate change
(Society, Volume 44, Number 4, May, 2007)
- Christopher Monckton
Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability
(Physical Review Letters, Vol. 89, No. 2, July 8, 2002)
- R. B. Govindan, Dmitry Vyushin, Armin Bunde, Stephen Brenner, Shlomo Havlin, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber
Global Warming
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
- W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
- Dennis Ambler
Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
- Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
- Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong
Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
- M. Leroux
Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
(arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 2008)
- Serge Galam
Global warming: What does the data tell us?
(arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
- E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen
Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for a new approach
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 4, July 2006)
- David Henderson
Governments and Climate Change Issues: The case for rethinking
(World Economics Journal, Volume 8, Number 2, 2007)
- David Henderson
Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres
(IdŰjárás, vol. 111, no1, pp. 1-40, 2007)
- Ferenc M. Miskolczi
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
- S. Fred Singer
Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
- Soon, Willie
Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
- Indur M. Goklany
Key Aspects of Global Climate Change
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 469-503(35), July 1, 2004)
- Ya. K. Kondratyev
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, 2008)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy
Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
- Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
- Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years
(Springer Wien, Volume 95, January, 2007)
- Lin Zhen-Shan, Sun Xian
Nature of observed temperature changes across the United States during the 20th century
(Climate Research, Vol. 17: 45–53, 2001)
- Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Robert E. Davis
New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 327-350, 1 May 2003)
- Landscheidt T.
Oceanic influences on recent continental warming
(Climate Dynamics, 2008)
- G.P. Compo, P.D. Sardeshmukh
On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
- Olavi Kamer
On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
- Response to W. Aeschbach-Hertig rebuttal of "On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?" by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
(Environmental Geology, Volume 54, Number 7, June, 2008)
- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
On the credibility of climate predictions
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671-684, 2008)
- D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides
Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration
(Journal of Climate, Volume 21, Issue 21, November 2008)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell
Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
- A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese
Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration
(Journal of Climate, 2008)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
- Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
- Soon, Willie
Rate of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Controlled by Natural Temperature Variations
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, pp. 995-1011, December 2008)
- Fred Goldberg
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte
Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models
(Social Studies of Science, Vol. 35, No. 6, 895-922, 2005)
- Myanna Lahsen
Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
- Olavi Kärner
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
- S. Fred Singer
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
- Vincent Gray
Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
- Olavi Kärner
The carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18(18), January 1, 1999)
- N. Calder
The cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
- Vincent Gray
The Eco-Industrial Complex in USA - Global Warming and Rent-Seeking Coalitions
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, December 2008)
- Ivan Jankovic
The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
- Douglas J. Keenan
The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis
The "Greenhouse Effect" as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
- H. Jelbring
The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
- A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes
The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 159-185(27), May 1, 2003)
- I. Castles, D. Henderson
The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 1998)
- Vincent Gray
The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change - the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
- William J.R. Alexander
The UN IPCC's Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
- Wojick D. E.
"The Wernerian syndrome"; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
- Lee C. Gerhard
Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
- Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm
Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, 2007)
- Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.
Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?
(Science, Vol. 318, no. 5850, pp. 629 - 632, October 2007)
- Gerard H. Roe, Marcia B. Baker
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Good morning Pop
March 13, 2009 - 03:13 ET by cocodrieThanks for the links.
Reality won't matter to him. The sacred AGW cow must be protected at all costs.
God bless.
Jesus Loves You
May I make a suggestion?
March 14, 2009 - 14:11 ET by TailgunnerMany of your links contain a lot of information that needs to be sorted through to find the source for your particular point.
This is unnecessarily time consuming.
Perhaps you could include the applicable sentence or paragraph from the link in your post to speed up the process.
Thank you.
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
My point is that Peer-Reviewed Papers exist disputing AGW
March 14, 2009 - 19:20 ET by PopularTechMy post proves that point. You might want to follow the discussion.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
AGW Conclusively Disproven By Scientists
March 15, 2009 - 07:30 ET by Tailgunnerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
There's my source.
Get my point?
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Not even related
March 16, 2009 - 13:55 ET by PopularTechThe point was that papers exist disproving AGW. I listed the papers. If you want to learn more about why exactly, feel free to read them.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I'm not arguing for or against AGW.
March 16, 2009 - 17:29 ET by TailgunnerMy point is why must you flood this forum with dozens of sources, each having dozens of pages or more, and expect people to wade through waist deep reams of papers to extract the one sentence or paragraph which is relevant to the particular topic?
Such a 'document dump' can also conceal intellectual laziness. By deluging the reader with huge amounts of irrelevant data which you haven't taken your own time and effort to sort through, you place others at a disadvantage and therefore appear to be intellectually superior.
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Understanding the debate
March 16, 2009 - 18:19 ET by PopularTechNot only do you not comprehend what you are talking about, you don't even understand the argument that is being debated. It was to the relevance of the presentation being peer-reviewed. Which is a typical alarmist tactic to imply that Peer-Reviewed papers disputing AGW do not exist. I proved otherwise.
There is no sentence or point to extract. The list in this case in the point. That is what you don't get. What is intellectually lazy is to whine and complain that you have to do some work to get what YOU are looking for. My point was made when I listed the papers.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Would you please go back and find the post....
March 16, 2009 - 21:41 ET by Tailgunner...where I defended global warming?
I never have. AGW is not why I'm writing to you.
My point, again, is if you want to debate a particular point or issue it would be more convenient and effective to excerpt the applicable portion of your source from a much larger body of information (as I do) rather than dumping the whole library in their lap and expecting them to do your job.
This is not the only time I've seen you post a dozen links with no clear idea what point you're trying to make.
If you don't want to take my suggestion, then don't.
We're on the same side here.
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Comprehension Problem?
March 16, 2009 - 22:53 ET by PopularTechThe list was the debate. Do papers exist? Here is a list. It was not about any particular point from any of the papers.
Again if you don't get it. The point was that Peer-Reviewed Papers disputing AGW exist. This was to his implication that the presentation was not peer-reviewed - implying that peer-review is not important to skeptics or peer-reviewed papers disputing AGW do not exist. They do and I listed them proving this.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
March 16, 2009 - 18:20 ET by PopularTechThe Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Maybe you don't know who you are talking to but please don't accuse me of being lazy.
What I have done is given the reader a huge amount of ammunition against the claim that Peer-Reviewed papers disputing AGW do not exist.
If you are looking for one that that a non-scientist can easily read I recommend:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
Which is an updated version of the one originally published a few years back.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Oncologist?
March 13, 2009 - 03:04 ET by PopularTechWhat are you talking about?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Again Oncologist?
March 13, 2009 - 18:56 ET by PopularTechWho and what are you talking about?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Better than a peer review
March 13, 2009 - 05:58 ET by danboBetter than a peer review by a failed divinity student who took 2 science courses getting a D in one and a C in the other.
Or a peer review in an esteemed science journal. Where when people notice the pictures of two cells were the same cell, you defend the fraud claiming the photos were an error.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Peer review? Like the
March 13, 2009 - 08:39 ET by NL207Peer review? Like the peer review the recent and much ballyhoo'ed Steig paper published in Nature that reports Global Warming in the Antarctic, previously thought to be not occurring received?
Cursory review by an independent reviewer exposed a glaring error in this publication. How did the "independent" peer reviewers of vaunted Nature ever miss such low hanging fruit? I will tell you how: They are not independent. They were not interested in questioning this article for two reasons. (1) Its true sponsor, the fourth author, Dr. Michael Mann, has far too much influence to risk opposing. (2) The article fits the preconceived agenda.
Stick around here long enough and you will find out why there are no bears in the desert.
The recent trolls. Come in
March 13, 2009 - 10:34 ET by danboThe recent trolls. Come in for a few post. Toss out their mantra talking points, then run away. Not enough guts to stick around. Is that Drive-by trolls?
Off to Florida for the weekend. See ya'll later
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
No, still here...
March 13, 2009 - 15:47 ET by DesertBearSome responses, since I'm too lazy to individually write up responses.
Tailgunner: So now there was a conspiracy (as mentioned in one of your links), to hide the fact that the Unabomber read Gore's book? As I said, the point is moot -- he also had chemistry and physics, and literature like Les Miserables. Your argument by association is a strawman and poor one at that. Still, it is always humorous to me how you see grand conspiracies in anything you disagree with, yet never in something you do (like Bush/Cheney decision to invade Iraq).
PopularTech: Your prodigous links make it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Your best links (Science, Geophysical Research, etc.) debate some aspects of the measurements or modeling, but hardly discount the notion of global temperature increase. But I'm sure you knew that...or did you? And just throw out the references to "Energy and Environment", you're embarrasing yourself. Such a thorough, groud-breaking journal, after 12 years in print, it is subscribed to by a whole 26 libraries world-wide.
Like I said. Still
March 13, 2009 - 15:54 ET by danboLike I said.
Still noithing but driving by and dropping the warmer flippy comments and mantra.
I noticed you answered when you thought I was gone. But the weather is looking like rain so we stayed.
Can you handle this?
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
PopularTech is confused about facts vs. opinion
March 13, 2009 - 21:15 ET by DesertBear...that you only plotted from 1998. Why not go all the way back to 1978? Or 1908?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1978/plot/uah/from:1978/plot/rss/from:1978
Popular Tech, I apologize for getting the number of subscriptions wrong at 26. Subscription at 39 libraries is so much more impressive. I wouldn't be so harsh if the Editor-In-Chief didn't let her personal views get in the way of facts.
Not confused at all about peer-review. Your link on the peer-review process is certainly a warning to be open to new and contrarian ideas. It hardly disproves the current system or theories manifested from it. Quantum mechanics was a radical idea -- yet here we are with lasers and tunneling microscopes. A compelling hypothesis is compelling because it continues to be supported by evidence.
So, here climatologist Schneider goes through many of the more prominent contrarians publications...and the contrarians still come up short (in facts and honesty):
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html
Why you got it wrong
March 13, 2009 - 21:44 ET by PopularTechYou got it wrong because you think Wikipedia is a reliable source. I have proven otherwise. This shows your poor understanding of sources. 39 libraries is 39 libraries and it is Peer-Reviewed. Personal opinion can never get in the way of the facts.
There is no evidence to support AGW Theory.
Schneider? Climatologist? LMAO!
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Regardless his page of rhetoric is full of propaganda. The Hockey Stick has long ago been debunked.
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
QUOTE
Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape...
- Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance"
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
- Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance"
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- C. Loehle
Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
- David Holland
A mathematical analysis of the divergence problem in dendroclimatology
(Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9488-8, June 2, 2008)
- C. Loehle
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Do you actually read any links, yours or mine?
March 13, 2009 - 22:59 ET by DesertBearThe link I posted to Schneider discusses some issues with the Ross/McKitrick paper of 2003. For example, they selectively censored some data, used an incorrect data set, and incorrectly mixed some data in their analysis.
Note that Schneider said "I do not question the propriety of McIntyre and McKitrick in challenging methodological issues in Mann et all; in fact that is what science is about."
If we are going to really debate credentials, I will still take a PhD in Engineering, with 30 some years of climatology research, over McIntyre, an economist, and McKitrick, an employee of the mining industry.
And, upcountrywater, some theories suggest the number of hurricanes could go down (see the alternative hyposthesis below for example on Atlantic activity). The effect on hurricanes in general is very hard to predict with current data, though the hypothesis seems to be those that they will be stronger than the current average strength hurricane.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr_webpage.html#section1
You can try to weasel. Fact
March 13, 2009 - 23:15 ET by danboYou can try to weasel. Fact is you identified him not as an engineer but as a "climatologist". While also making an issue of a physician who was trained in scientific observations and methodology. Kind of misleading.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Nice, troll
March 14, 2009 - 00:52 ET by RESTLESS 1You manged to sweep aside the entire post without refuting one single argument.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Your link is full of inaccurate propaganda
March 14, 2009 - 01:01 ET by PopularTech"For example, they selectively censored some data, used an incorrect data set, and incorrectly mixed some data in their analysis."
No they did not. Schneider and you do not even understand the debate:
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
The Hockey Stick debate is one of methods and statistics of which both are qualified:
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
DesertB, from your link..What are you saying?
March 14, 2009 - 01:26 ET by upcountrywaterDB sezs:.... "And, upcountrywater, some theories suggest the number of hurricanes
could go down (see the alternative hyposthesis below for example on
Atlantic activity). The effect on hurricanes in general is very hard
to predict with current data, though the hypothesis seems to be
those that they will be stronger than the current average strength
hurricane."
DB here is the summary:
In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses
of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr
support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases
in either tropical storm or hurricane numbers in the Atlantic.
YOUR OWN LINK IS A DUD... And yes you are wrong.
The oceans are cooling, it will take years for them match the suns diminished output. Burrr its getting cold; drop hurricane coverage
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
Upcountry, didn't I say
March 14, 2009 - 19:07 ET by DesertBearUpcountry, didn't I say that? Reading comprehension, lets work on it together:
First, I said: "some theories suggest the number of hurricanes
could go down". Your summary quote from the link supports that("neither our model(s) nor our analyses...support the notion that greenhous gas-induced warming leads to large increases...").
Second, I said: " The effect on hurricanes in general is very hard
to predict with current data". The link says, in another part of the summary "efforts to project future levels of Atlantic hurricane activity...should be treated as highly speculative at this stage."
Desert, Glad to see you are wrong. No theories just DATA
March 15, 2009 - 15:08 ET by upcountrywaterNo speculation, less hurricane energy this hurricane season.
The effect on hurricanes in general is very hard
to predict with current data"
WRONG DB! Here is a graph, filled with data!
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
The Truth about Hurricanes and Global Warming
March 14, 2009 - 01:35 ET by PopularTechGlobal and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity [still] lowest in 30-years (Florida State University)
Why does this matter? Because the cover of An Inconvenient Un-Truth has a Hurricane on it and the movie was released right after Katrina.
Your hurricane argument is eerily similar to the current - if it is hot it is caused by man-made CO2, if it is cold it is caused by man-made CO2.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Yes it was to 1998. I'm not
March 13, 2009 - 22:53 ET by danboYes it was to 1998. I'm not the one claiming warming is caused by a minor gas.
Despite the ever increases of this minor gas you have 10 years on no warming.
Interesting you chose 1978. You go back to a known cool period. You remember the global cooling concerns don't you. I remember them. Is your next bit of news that it's warmer than the plistocene?
It warmed during the 30's. I suspect you heard of the dust bowl. Warming during a period of stagnant fossil fuel usage due to the depression.
Let's look at the record. As poor and problematic as this record is. (And we're going to look at it how many spaces to the right of the decimal?)
From about 1880 to 1910 the relationship between fossil fuel usage and tempertures is negative. Tempertures went south.
From about 1910 to 1940 there is warming. Despite the depression and stagnant fossil fuel use.
After WWII till the late70's tempertures went south. Inspite of everyone rebuilding and Americas love affair with the internal combustion engine.
From the late 70's to late 90's there is a strong coorelation.
But despite the ever increasing CO2; tempertures since then have been level to down since.
Tempertures have been going up and down since the beginning of time. And have been off and on going up since the little ice age. With or without the use of fossil fuels.
But please let's just cherry pick our dates.
And remember, coorelation does not imply causality. You do understand that?
BTW
Where is he any more a climatologist than poor old dumb Lindzen
or Christy, or Gray, or Grey.
They're just not entitled to a scientific opinion.
BTW Aren't Lindzen, Grey and Christy involved with the IPCC? Part of the 20% that actually work with climate. And they're skeptics?
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Just using the website as it said
March 13, 2009 - 23:18 ET by DesertBearI chose 1978 because the website said they now had 30 years of data.
Maybe I should have suggested 1908.
"BTW Aren't Lindzen, Grey and Christy involved with the IPCC? Part of the 20% that actually work with climate. And they're skeptics?"
And why shouldn't they be? Science is not uniformity of opinion. Lindzen still thinks temps could go up by as much as 1C in this century. And he hasn't said humans aren't responsible, he just doesn't think we can prove they are, yet. It is funny that he doesn't think smoking is a health risk. Smoking = lung cancer (and a bunch of other stuff) is the only solidly proven relationship from cancer epidemiology.
Reread Lindzen. Or listen
March 13, 2009 - 23:44 ET by danboReread Lindzen. Or listen to his speech at the ICCC you put down.
If you listen to Lindzen he points out that the variation is well within the normal variation. That's hardly the same thing as "he hasn't said humans aren't responsible". I call that misleading by omission.
Lindzen: "we are dealing with a small amount of warming (concentrated in two relatively brief episodes) in an inadequately observed system. The proper null hypothesis is that there was no need whatsoever for external forcing in order to produce such behavior."
Is this how your consensus is formed?
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
DB, Get up to date, The Sun drives the climate...
March 13, 2009 - 23:38 ET by upcountrywaterHere is some 2009 DATA on less energy flowing from the Sun, less heat less hurricanes
What has happened in the last 2-3 years? No sunspots that's what!
Next winter will be COLDER than this one...
Global WARMING is good.
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
'Science is not uniformity of opinion'. Please.
March 13, 2009 - 23:45 ET by Tailgunner'Uniformity of opinion' is demanded when it's the opinion of liberals.
Try telling that to Al Gore, James Hansen or any other global warming koolaid drinker who claims the 'science is settled' or 'the debate is over'.
Or try telling that to Obama or any other liberal thug engaged in this socialist coup they're ramming down our throats. See how they treat those who dare to criticize, or even fail to praise highly enough the One's master plan to bankrupt Western civilization.
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
The science is settled...
March 14, 2009 - 19:16 ET by DesertBearAt least danbo and PopularTech attempt to use science.
"master plan to bankrupt Western civilization"
Bush did that pretty good all by himself ($10B/month in Iraq).
You ignored (again) my point.
March 15, 2009 - 07:20 ET by TailgunnerMy point is that liberals do not tolerate any differences of opinion whatsoever in any issue.
If you're going to 'use science', use all of the science.
Don't attack, smear and marginalize the thousands of scientists who disagree, using science, with AGW theory.
Conversely, don't elevate divinity school dropouts with questionable mental stability to the ranks of scientists. (If liberals insist on listening to Al Gore despite his lack of formal scientific training, then don't question Limbaugh, as many do, because of his lack of formal education.)
And, once again, Bush did not pursue the Iraq war 'all by himself'.
Congress voted for the war and for every single penny used to wage it.
In fact, the Iraq War wasn't even a war in itself. It was a continuation of the first Gulf War. Saddam refused to honor the terms of the original ceasefire (for example, Iraq fired on coalition aircraft enforcing the 'no-fly zone over one hundred times) so Bush had every legal right to invade Iraq and finish the job.
Clinton signed a policy paper advocating as a goal the overthrow of Saddam ('regime change') years before the US invaded Iraq.
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Alarmist is confused about Peer-Review
March 13, 2009 - 18:53 ET by PopularTechYou seemed confused about Peer-Review:
Peer Review and Scientific Consensus (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. - Nature Magazine: "Peer to Peer")
The debate is over man's contribution to temperature changes not necessarily the temperature changes themselves (which are in dispute as well). The papers listed cover various aspects of the AGW debate.
You are the one embarrassing yourself citing Wikipedia without checking sources. Energy and Environment is subscribed at 39 libraries including the library of congress as well as major universities. All of which is irrelevant to the journal existing and the papers being peer-reviewed.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
DB, heres a chunk of data, You'll hate.
March 13, 2009 - 19:27 ET by upcountrywaterMore and stronger hurricanes NOT!
Hurricane Depression
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
Yes, there was a conspiracy to invade Iraq....
March 14, 2009 - 00:10 ET by Tailgunner...since you mentioned it...and 81 House Democrats signed on as co-conspirators.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
As far as the 'straw men'' idea goes, you're the person who brought 'conspiracy' up, not me. Citing credible and verifiable sources to support my points does not make me responsible for the conclusions you choose to make from said sources.
You're ignoring the part of the report that FBI agents also commented that Kaczynski's copy of Gore's 'Earth in the Balance' was heavily underlined and had 'copious notes' in places. That can't be said of 'Les Miserables' or 'Modern Physics', I'll wager.
Plus you also failed to address my point that there are ideological similarities between Gore and Kaczynski so pronounced that a list of quotations from both men can be found on the Internet challenging the reader to identify the author of each quote. The point of this exercise is to demonstrate their congruence of thought.
It is clear that Gore and Kaczynski were joined at the hip, at least in their fanatical conviction that Man's evil, uncaring greed and criminal environmental negligence are responsible for an imminent global cataclysm.
It could even be argued that Gore's jeremiad may eventually become more devastating to Western industrialized society than the Unabomber's jihad.
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
There are some similarities
March 14, 2009 - 01:50 ET by JerThere are some similarities to be sure. But, having lived just down the road from the Gores, I'd have to say that Al's place was a little more tastefully furnished than Kaczynski's.
Jer
Maybe, but I'll bet ol' Ted K's pad was a LOT 'greener'.
March 15, 2009 - 11:44 ET by TailgunnerNOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE