Global Warming

Global Warming

The subject of global warming is controversial. A report published by the UK government is outlined in the BBC NEWS site in an article on 30 January, 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm
In it

Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said the report's conclusions would be a shock to many people.
"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people.

Given the timespan of a thousand or so years, the likelihood of common action is questionable. The Bush administration has already demurred on a national plan and other countries have fudged.
While it is easy to focus in on that bad news, the likelihood of China, India and other rapidly developing nations to adopt stringent regulations is slim.

What do we do?
............................
Outcomes of the 2005 report are available at:
http://www.stabilisation2005.com/outcomes.html

Originally posted by fanfaron:

And with that you really start to dig into some of the political/philosophical problems I have with AGW advocates. It's ultimately nihilistic.

You're still not digging into anywhere. You're only uncovering the surface of your political agenda. Finally. Thanks for this. So, what exactly is nihilistic about the ecological view? I say 'ecological view' because this makes the subject existential/philosophical, or political if you will, instead of scientific, which nobody normal can have any issue with.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Q. Which spatial scales do you (Redem) deem important to include, & which spatial scales do you (Redem) deem unimportant so they can be excluded?

Silence......................................................

That was not your original question, which wasmore open and pretty much invited a 3 hour lecture on the subject of modelling. Regardlses, upon requesting clarifictation you exposed your reasons for the question, not seeking information or clarificatin, or even discussion, but simply an attempt at mockery.

Do you really expect me to bother responding to that?

Originally posted by IDX2:

It becomes subjective when one scientist has a dissenting view on something another scientist has a vested interest in promoting. Manipulating the peer review process, destroying and altering data only circumvents the peer review process. How can science be good, if dissenting views are squelched? AGW scientists at CRU did this very thing.

Given that by "vested interest" you imply that ever scientist has a vested interest in the science they're involved in, and thus cannot be trusted. And that by "squelched" you mean that they don't find someone else's work worthy of publication, your statement really translates to;

It becomes subjective when one scientist has a dissenting view.
...
How can science be good, if dissenting views are disagreed with? AGW scientists at CRU did this very thing

Not so scary.

As for the rest. Prove that data was destroyed or altered. Such a thing would be the death of a career.
And As I said earlier, discussion of the merits of papers and the reputation of scientists and journals IS the peer review process, not a "manipulation" of it.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Just how massive do you think the climate research community is?

Depends how finely you want to define it, maybe a thousand people or two.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

And with that you really start to dig into some of the political/philosophical problems I have with AGW advocates. It's ultimately nihilistic.

What was quoted was not nihilistic. The principle that more people puts greater strain on the earth is not a particularly controversial one, resources are clearly finite. Nor are efforts to introduce family planning in nations that have high birth rates.

The only truly crazy stuff came from the reporter, not from the people he's quoting. (Not counting PETA of course)

Originally posted by grysmn:

Apparantly not very large, otherwise others would have stepped forward with their figures supporetd by raw data. Climate Change has more political adherants than scientists.

Welcome to the wonderful world of scientific Journals and papers, as well as data archives. The data and the figures are available to anyone who really wants them.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

The term Climate Change is quite deceptive.
Climate Change could mean two things:
1. Global Warming
2. Global Cooling.

I would argue that the term is simply more nuanced. Global warming and global cooling effects are more descriptions of processes than they are predictions of the outcome of them.
There are also other effects that are not simply temperature related that are probably going to result from them, such as changes in wind and rainfall patterns.

I wonder about the divide in the U.S. with anti-evolutionism, global warming skepticism, republicanism and Christian fundamentalism all on the same side of the sheet. Is there a philosophical thread running through the mix? I really don't know, but guess that there is. The battle never ends here.

Among those Americans who believe intelligent design deserves its place alongside Darwin in the classroom is George W Bush
..........
In August Bush declared, "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought"; he added that he thought intelligent design should be on the syllabus "so people can understand what the debate is about".
..........
http://www.newstatesman.com/200510170026

In that same year, a court equated intelligent design with creationism, which had been banned under the separation clause, and banned it in public school science classes. This ain't going away, folks.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

If you disagree with Dr. Soon, why?

How about, because he's an astrophysicist?

Originally posted by IDX2:

Why is it a bad thing? Because it is introducing a purely subjective standard of assessment to a science that is supposed to be based on objectivity. It's like this:

Redem says to String..."Have you heard the latest gossip on that kook named Einstein?"
String...."yeah, hes a real odd-ball. None of what he's been saying agrees with what we've been saying"
Redem" That's true. We can't allow his hypothesis to get around. We might lose our jobs, we might look bad"
String...."yeah......... Let's trash his hypothesis! Keep him out of the peer review process! Blacklist his name at universities! Propagate the idea that his hypothesis is "religious"! "
Redem "That's a great idea! What better way to get rid of a great scientific hypothesis than to trash it! If we just keep up the bad press, then he'll never get published!"
String..."yeah! Kinda like what we'll try to do with Intelligent Design!"

Sure, yeah, it is exactly like that, isn't it? That's why that crackpot Einstein and his crazy ideas were locked away forever and no-one's ever heard of him since!

Originally posted by IDX2:

Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

You obviously have no experience in scientific hermeneutics and therefore I shall dismiss your comment with a wave of the hand.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Can we not stick with what it was originally called? Global Warming

Because climate change is the effect on the planet, global warming is how it's happening. The greenhouse effect causes global warming, global warming causes climate change. That includes rainfall, winds, the whole shebang.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I wonder about the divide in the U.S. with anti-evolutionism, global warming skepticism, republicanism and Christian fundamentalism all on the same side of the sheet. Is there a philosophical thread running through the mix?

Distrust of "secular authority", perhaps? Or perhaps simply an attitude of scoffing certainty that simply doesn't require empirical valication or reason.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I wonder about the divide in the U.S. with anti-evolutionism, global warming skepticism, republicanism and Christian fundamentalism all on the same side of the sheet. Is there a philosophical thread running through the mix? I really don't know, but guess that there is. The battle never ends here.

That's about as meaningful as wondering about all those so-called "watermelon" environmentalist "commies". In other words, not very. And what's "republicanism"? Lumping in AGW skepticism with Christian fundamentalism and anti-evolutionism. What a novel idea.

Originally posted by ersi:

You're only uncovering the surface of your political agenda. Finally. Thanks for this. So, what exactly is nihilistic about the ecological view? I say 'ecological view' because this makes the subject existential/philosophical, or political if you will, instead of scientific, which nobody normal can have any issue with.

I don't really have a political agenda. As for the rest, why don't you specifically address the opinion piece I cited?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I wonder about the divide in the U.S. with anti-evolutionism, global warming skepticism, republicanism and Christian fundamentalism all on the same side of the sheet. Is there a philosophical thread running through the mix? I really don't know, but guess that there is. The battle never ends here.

This one is actually pretty easy. The thing that ties all of these groups together is the maintaining the status quo. In fact, this is where the term "conservatism" comes from, "to save".

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by schapel:

It looks like we'll be generating more of our electricity from natural gas and less form coal. Coal is the fossil fuel that contains the most carbon and natural gas contains the least, so that will help us reduce carbon dioxide emissions. See, it's not so scary as the alarmists make it sound, after all!

That's great, but how are you going to punish China when they ramp up coal production?

World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen to discuss agreeing to limit greenhouse gas emissions. If China doesn't abide by the agreement, we can impose sanctions.

Originally posted by parkerjm:

This one is actually pretty easy. The thing that ties all of these groups together is the maintaining the status quo. In fact, this is where the term "conservatism" comes from, "to save".

And what's motivating them to maintain the status quo is fear. The religious fear a breakdown of society, because they consider atheism to be at the heart of everything bad in society.

People who argue against AGW seem to fear that they'll have to give up their lifestyle, even though no one is proposing lifestyle changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The proposals for reducing emissions are:
1) Increase energy efficiency.
2) Generate energy from sources that emit fewer greenhouse gasses.
So go out and buy energy efficient light bulbs, appliances, and cars. You'll see there's nothing to fear. It will actually save you money!

Originally posted by schapel:

And what's motivating them to maintain the status quo is fear. The religious fear a breakdown of society, because they consider atheism to be at the heart of everything bad in society.

People who argue against AGW seem to fear that they'll have to give up their lifestyle, even though no one is proposing lifestyle changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The proposals for reducing emissions are:
1) Increase energy efficiency.
2) Generate energy from sources that emit fewer greenhouse gasses.
So go out and buy energy efficient light bulbs, appliances, and cars. You'll see there's nothing to fear. It will actually save you money! " width="17" height="26">

But when one starts advocating political taxation measures which would in turn effect the whole economy (literally everything will go up in price, not in tune with any wage increases either.), so that pretty much nearly forcing the individual to make that not a personal choice but a life or death situation is called Facism.

The tax is merely to incentivise investment in low carbon release, it wouldn't signficantly affect the day to day cost of living for people.

Sorry, but "life or death" it is not. Nor is the principle of taxing to redress a pollutant released in any way assocaited with fascism.

Originally posted by shoust:

But when one starts advocating political taxation measures which would in turn effect the whole economy (literally everything will go up in price, not in tune with any wage increases either.), so that pretty much nearly forcing the individual to make that not a personal choice but a life or death situation is called Facism.

I hate to inject some reality into this discussion, but non-fascist governments tax their citizens all the time. Cigarettes are taxed. Is that fascist also? Gasoline is taxed. Fascist? Property is taxed. Fascist? It seems like you're just trying to make a lame excuse for not taxing something you don't want taxed.

Does this cry of Fascism! strike anyone as, uh, say, alarmist?

Originally posted by shoust:

But when one starts advocating political taxation measures which would in turn effect the whole economy (literally everything will go up in price, not in tune with any wage increases either.), so that pretty much nearly forcing the individual to make that not a personal choice but a life or death situation is called Facism.

No, it's called Economics.

Originally posted by schapel:

World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen to discuss agreeing to limit greenhouse gas emissions. If China doesn't abide by the agreement, we can impose sanctions.

Oh yeah, that'll stop that coal from burning.

Originally posted by schapel:

People who argue against AGW seem to fear that they'll have to give up their lifestyle, even though no one is proposing lifestyle changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Ummmm, not really. There are AGW skeptics who wouldn't argue that encouraging carbon emission-reducing measures is a bad thing. They just don't hold to it with such quasi-religious fervor, maybe.

Indeed, no matter if you believe in AGW or not, reducing carbon emissions is expedient to comfortably continuing life on Earth for several other reasons.

The targets have been pledged, now it's up to countries to action their promises.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

The greenhouse effect causes global warming, global warming causes climate change. That includes rainfall, winds, the whole shebang.

I am sticking with the term GW.
Climate Change sounds quite deceptive.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

The greenhouse effect causes global warming, global warming causes climate change. That includes rainfall, winds, the whole shebang.

I am sticking with the term GW.
Climate Change sounds quite deceptive.

Stick with "AGW" (anthropogenic global warming). There's no question that climate changes, or that there is/has been warming and cooling, historically.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

There's no question that climate changes, or that there is/has been warming and cooling, historically.

Good point.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Stick with "AGW" (anthropogenic global warming).

Will do.

Actually, "climate change" was the original and more accurate term, "global warming" is the PR term for it, meant to sound a little nicer.

In the Mail on Sunday, David Rose has dug into the email correspondence at the heart of the East Anglia CRU ‘Climate-gate’ scandal and found that, far from being a few carelessly written messages taken out of context, they are – surprise, surprise — a game-changer.

SOURCE and SOURCE

The now infamous email that states that there was a “trick” to “hide the decline” is now put into context by Mr. Rose:

However, the full context of that ‘trick’ email, as shown by a new and until now unreported analysis by the Canadian climate statistician Steve McIntyre, is extremely troubling. Derived from close examination of some of the thousands of other leaked emails, he says it suggests the ‘trick’ undermines not only the CRU but the IPCC.

There is a widespread misconception that the ‘decline’ Jones was referring to is the fall in global temperatures from their peak in 1998, which probably was the hottest year for a long time. In fact, its subject was more technical – and much more significant.

It is true that, in Watson’s phrase, in the autumn of 1999 Jones and his colleagues were trying to ‘tweak’ a diagram. But it wasn’t just any old diagram. It was the chart displayed on the first page of the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ of the 2001 IPCC report – the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph that has been endlessly reproduced in everything from newspapers to primary-school textbooks ever since, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a dizzying, almost vertical rise in the late 20th Century.

In September 1999, Jones’s IPCC colleague Michael Mann of Penn State University in America – who is now also the subject of an official investigation –was working with Jones on the hockey stick. As they debated which data to use, they discussed a long tree-ring analysis carried out by Keith Briffa.

Briffa knew exactly why they wanted it, writing in an email on September 22: ‘I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”.’ But his conscience was troubled. ‘In reality the situation is not quite so simple – I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.’

Another British scientist – Chris Folland of the Met Office’s Hadley Centre – wrote the same day that using Briffa’s data might be awkward, because it suggested the past was too warm. This, he lamented, ‘dilutes the message rather significantly’.

Over the next few days, Briffa, Jones, Folland and Mann emailed each other furiously. Mann was fearful that if Briffa’s trees made the IPCC diagram, ‘the sceptics [would] have a field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith [in them] – I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!’

Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.

According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed – but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.

This is the context in which, seven weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ – as simple as it was deceptive. All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase. On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated – but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.

‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. ‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’

It seems that the practice by climatologists who need to evidence AGW is to keep in mind that if they’re not getting what they want to show from one set of data through time, just use it until it becomes troublesome and switch to another set of data, midstream, for the rest of the time, and don’t tell anyone that it’s a hodgepodge.

Read it all.

AGW theory is deader than Monty Python’s parrot. Get over it. SOURCE and SOURCE

Originally posted by IDX2:

AGW theory is deader than Monty Python’s parrot.

Yep, just like the theory of evolution.

You don't need to rely on a hodgepodge of data to show AGW. You can rely on the instrumental temperature record to show the warming. If you distrust the instruments (and some climatologists do!), you can simply look at the worldwide melting of ice. If you want to disprove AGW, you're going to have to show some evidence that it is not happening, not attack the evidence that it is happening. That's the ID approach -- attack the "opposing" theory and claim that if you show one thing wrong, you're proving ID. Even if you show that every paper concluding that AGW is happening is wrong, you still haven't disproved the theory, only that the papers written so far have been wrong.

What we would need to prove the warming is not anthropogenic is to show what the warming is due to. Simply saying "it's natural, dangnabbit!" isn't a valid hypothesis, because it cannot be tested.

Originally posted by IDX2:

In the Mail on Sunday, David Rose has dug into the email correspondence at the heart of the East Anglia CRU ‘Climate-gate’ scandal and found that, far from being a few carelessly written messages taken out of context, they are – surprise, surprise — a game-changer.

Lol, Mail on Sunday. They have about as much credibility as the National Enquirer.

Originally posted by IDX2:

It is true that, in Watson’s phrase, in the autumn of 1999 Jones and his colleagues were trying to ‘tweak’ a diagram. But it wasn’t just any old diagram. It was the chart displayed on the first page of the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ of the 2001 IPCC report – the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph that has been endlessly reproduced in everything from newspapers to primary-school textbooks ever since, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a dizzying, almost vertical rise in the late 20th Century.

Nope, it was not. It was a different chart

For this report, specifically.

The chart on the front page. Created from a couple of proxy data lines.
The "famous" hockey stick graph is created from dozens of them.

The trick was to use instrumental data in the period where the proxy data was known to be faulty.

The rest of the article is simply bullshit.

Originally posted by Redem:

Sorry, but "life or death" it is not. Nor is the principle of taxing to redress a pollutant released in any way assocaited with fascism.

Actually it is the internationalist agenda with a fascist face.

Originally posted by ristof:

The targets have been pledged, now it's up to countries to action their promises.

At least in Obama's case it is not his to make treaties it is up to the United States Senate to make treaties. He is going to try to get the EPA to try and get around the Senate. What do you expect from a man who goes around taking personnel responsibility for everything and apologizing for everything. Has Obama apologized for GW yet?


More of do as I say not as I do.
----------------------------------article excerpt
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146265/Prince-Charles-Executive-jet-with-big-carbon-footprint-gets-him-to-climate-change-talks

....The Prince, who will offset the pollution he caused by using taxpayers’ money to invest in environmentally-friendly initiatives, generates an annual carbon footprint of 2,601 tons, compared to 11 tons for an average UK citizen. He was one of numerous VIPs at the £130million summit, which will generate 40,500 tons of carbon dioxide over 12 days, the equivalent to the emissions of York, Portsmouth or the African country of Malawi in the same period.....

Originally posted by schapel:

If you want to disprove AGW, you're going to have to show some evidence that it is not happening, not attack the evidence that it is happening. ...

What we would need to prove the warming is not anthropogenic is to show what the warming is due to. Simply saying "it's natural, dangnabbit!" isn't a valid hypothesis, because it cannot be tested.

If saying "it's natural" isn't valid, how is saying "it's primarily due to human causes"? Neither is a valid hypothesis without corroborating evidence. Or rather both are valid.

Originally posted by schapel:

What we would need to prove the warming is not anthropogenic is to show what the warming is due to.

So if we can't pinpoint the exact cause(s) with certainty, it must necessarily be anthropogenic? You see, that's a religious position. "What we would need to prove that God didn't create the universe is to show what did create it."

From that man Lindzen again:

For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community).

Source. Open to rebuttal.

Look, I'm not saying that AGW isn't true or is some global hoax. I'm just saying that significant questions about it have been raised.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

If saying "it's natural" isn't valid, how is saying "it's primarily due to human causes"? Neither is a valid hypothesis without corroborating evidence. Or rather both are valid.

But neither is what's being proposed by climate change science - it's a caricature to state that the choices are 'only natural' or 'only unnatural'. There is natural warming, that is without question. Natural cycles have an effect on the overall climate. The problem that we're seeing is that the natural cycles are being accelerated by the greenhouse effect. A temperature change that, based on what historical data we have, would normally take hundreds of years, is happening faster - too fast for ecology to adapt, or that natural processes that would equalise the temperature are being disrupted. Of course, what we're really concerned with (in our typically human way) is saving our own miserable hides, we'll leave the animals and plants to adapt their own way out of it, right?

But for some reason, some 'skeptics' seem to think that the proposal is that temperatures can only be going up because of human activity. In short, they're fighting against a boogeyman that never existed.

Originally posted by IDX2:

AGW theory is deader than Monty Python’s parrot.

Originally posted by jax:

Yep, just like the theory of evolution.

You're getting it! Yay!

Originally posted by Redem:

The rest of the article is simply bullshit.

...he says as he gently, slowly, carefully...inserts head into sand.

The Challenge of AGW

Given enough time and assuming an individual is willing to cooperate, between ninety to ninety-five percent of all people are hypnotizable to some degree. Accounting for this, it is then most productive to speak about the five to ten percent that seem to be un-hypnotizable. There are a number of conditions that may inhibit these individuals from going into hypnosis. Most of the people who exhibit one of these conditions will find it difficult to go into hypnosis. It is not always impossible for them to go into hypnosis, but it may prove to be very challenging. Exhibiting more than one condition will make it even more challenging. The short list below contains five of the more common examples of those who will find it difficult to go into hypnosis.

* Severely psychotic individuals will find it difficult to go into hypnosis.
* Individuals who lack attention span, who are unable to concentrate for more than a few moments,
or who are severely mentally deficient (IQ below 70) will have great difficulty learning to go into hypnosis.
* Individuals totally devoid of imagination or totally unable to visualize.
* Individuals unable to comprehend (such as infants).
* Individuals wanting to prove the hypnotist wrong.

[/IMG]


We are your friends. Friends, Friends, Friends. Indisputable facts are indisputable facts, there's no need for further questioning. No Need, No Need, No Need. Are you too blind to see? It's settled science. Settled, Settled, Settled. AGW is not a hoax, AGW is deadly serious. Deadly, Deadly, Deadly. Life and death is in the balance. We must act now before it's too late. Now, Now, Now. Too Late, Too Late, Too Late. Now, Now, Now. Now, Now, Now.

Originally posted by IDX2:

Originally posted by Redem:

The rest of the article is simply bullshit.

...he says as he gently, slowly, carefully...inserts head into sand.

Says the clown who sticks his head up his rear end and proudly tells everyone about it:

Originally posted by IDX2:

[ + ] posted by ignored flyhighdivelow on Thursday, 17. December 2009, 01:19:12
[ + ] posted by ignored flyhighdivelow on Thursday, 17. December 2009, 01:21:56

Originally posted by IDX2:

[ + ] posted by ignored Macallan on Thursday, 17. December 2009, 01:40:28

Oh the hypocrisy

Originally posted by grysmn:

Actually it is the internationalist agenda with a fascist face.

What is this "internationalist agenda" and what precisely makes efforts to reduce a pollutant "fascist"?

Originally posted by IDX2:

..he says as he gently, slowly, carefully...inserts head into sand.

None of his claims have been borne out through any investigations, Bantay. Sorry, but the article is a load of horse crap.
And this is the series of quotations I've put the most effort in to researching. He is wrong, simple as that. And I think he knows he's wrong, so that makes him a liar too.

SOURCES

Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:

This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.

By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled "The Climate Science isn't Settled," for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity. A copy can be found among the items at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u, and a visit to http://www.ClimateDepot.com can fill in the details of the scandal, while adding spice.

What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)

We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.

None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.

If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS ccallan@princeton.edu, with the single word YES in the subject line. That will make it easier for him to count.

Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

SOURCES

ExxonMobile, and some physics professors. Uh-huh.

And the content claims that the evidence has been discredited, this is simply false. At best you can claim that a single groups' work is discredited, and even then you have had no success in proving that beyond innuendo and slander.

Originally posted by Redem:

What is this "internationalist agenda" and what precisely makes efforts to reduce a pollutant "fascist"?

It is the tactics that make it Fascist. The Climate Change alarmists stated that "everything has been debated and settled and there was nothing more to discuss." The skeptics are still waiting for conclusions supported by raw data

Originally posted by grysmn:

It is the tactics that make it Fascist.

Bravo! You've outdone yourself.

Originally posted by grysmn:

The Climate Change alarmists stated that "everything has been debated and settled and there was nothing more to discuss."

Is this a quotation or something you created to lull yourself to sleep.
.........................................
What could be a reasonable discussion has turned into a playground fracas.

Originally posted by grysmn:

It is the tactics that make it Fascist.

"Tactics" are not fascist unless they are associated with fascist politics. So be specific, please.

I should note, I suppose, that I am trying to pin you down enough to force you to admit you're simply using the word "fascist" as a general perjorative, rather than as anything substantial. So let's skip the foreplay and get into it. What precisely about the "tactics" of the scientists warning the world about the warming of the planet and the probable results of that warming?

Originally posted by grysmn:

The Climate Change alarmists stated that "everything has been debated and settled and there was nothing more to discuss."

Then you will find no problem quoting a major climate scientist or organisation saying that, right? Or something similar, at least.

Originally posted by grysmn:

The skeptics are still waiting for conclusions supported by raw data

They have them, they just don't like them.

Originally posted by grysmn:

The skeptics are still waiting for conclusions supported by raw data

Well, Climategate marches on much to the dismay of AGW proponents. AGW Skeptics are making simple demands from within the talks in Copenhagen, & the 'Settled Science' camp is getting un-settled about it.

Recorded Russian Temperature Fraud Exposed

Global warming vs Cooling heads: 'Climategate' cross talk

Here, in this interview, is more eye-opening background on the Climate Fiasco, apply named 'Climategate', & why the AGW camp is getting it's panties in a twist. Why? Because no matter what they say or do it just wont go away!

Will Climategate uncover fraud?

Were major AGW Scientists involved in outright fraud?

Have millions been lied to by AWG proponents about impending doom all based on skewed data?

I dunno, you decide for yourself, but I would hope that if nothing else there should be some extremely high level inquiries into the matter being uncovered, & still yet to be uncovered, in the ongoing debacle called 'Climategate'. People of the world should DEMAND the truth, nothing but the truth!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Here, in this interview, is more eye-opening background on the Climate Fiasco, apply named 'Climategate', & why the AGW camp is getting it's panties in a twist. Why? Because no matter what they say or do it just wont go away!

Ouch!

Originally posted by grysmn:

It is the tactics that make it Fascist. The Climate Change alarmists stated that "everything has been debated and settled and there was nothing more to discuss." The skeptics are still waiting for conclusions supported by raw data

I'm still not seeing any evidence that AGW isn't happening. There really isn't any debate if one side presents no evidence, now is there?

Originally posted by schapel:

I'm still not seeing any evidence that AGW isn't happening. There really isn't any debate if one side presents no evidence, now is there?

You're probably not "seeing" any evidence that AGW is happening, either. Like the rest of us, you're relying on what scientists are telling us from whatever side.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Recorded Russian Temperature Fraud Exposed

An anonymous russian "think tank" makes an unsubstantiated claim, and you label this as "fraud exposed"? You're more than a little desperate to jump on any rumour as if it were verified fact.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Here, in this interview, is more eye-opening background on the Climate Fiasco, apply named 'Climategate', & why the AGW camp is getting it's panties in a twist. Why? Because no matter what they say or do it just wont go away!

Fox news? Damn you're desperate for validation.

The interviewer makes the same superficial claims that I've exposed as untrue already.

Do you read the things you respond to?

You're right, it won't go away. Not because there's substance to the allegations, but because the public loves a good scandal and because it's a bone for the desperately hungry denialist camp that raelly has no substantial points to make in the scientific arena itself.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Will Climategate uncover fraud?

Were major AGW Scientists involved in outright fraud?

Have millions been lied to by AWG proponents about impending doom all based on skewed data?

No, no, and no.
These have been covered already.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I dunno, you decide for yourself, but I would hope that if nothing else there should be some extremely high level inquiries into the matter being uncovered, & still yet to be uncovered, in the ongoing debacle called 'Climategate'. People of the world should DEMAND the truth, nothing but the truth!

That won't suffice and you know it. They, being those calling for blood, don't want teh truth, they want validation of their "scepticism".
The scientists on their side have been utterly incapable of providing it, afterall.

Originally posted by IDX2:

a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity.

Richard Lindzen? Balanced? You're having a laugh, right? I don't doubt his achievements and credentials for one second, but...

Lindzen has been characterized as a contrarian. Former student Daniel Kirk-Davidoff argued that this encourages him to choose a stance counter to consensus views, saying that “If you want to prove yourself a brilliant scientist, you don’t always agree with the consensus. You show you’re right and everyone else is wrong ... He certainly enjoys showing he’s right and everyone else is wrong."

This characterization has been linked to Lindzen's view that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. Writing in Newsweek, Fred Guterl stated "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette" – an observation that was later echoed by Robyn Williams.

The Elitists and self proclaimed leaders went to a conference in Copenhagen being the worst examples of what they were telling everyone to quit doing. Now the conferance is exposed as the largest farce since the Emperor discovered that he hasn't any clothes. Everyone is standing around in Copenhagen looking like a school boy caught with his hand in a cookie jar.

Grysmn....We can't help them now. AGW has become dogma, and sadly, even for some AGW supporting scientists. Those who support it do so out of belief, not because the evidence unambiguously demonstrates it.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by IDX2:

a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity.

Richard Lindzen? Balanced? You're having a laugh, right? I don't doubt his achievements and credentials for one second, but...

Lindzen has been characterized as a contrarian. Former student Daniel Kirk-Davidoff argued that this encourages him to choose a stance counter to consensus views, saying that “If you want to prove yourself a brilliant scientist, you don’t always agree with the consensus. You show you’re right and everyone else is wrong ... He certainly enjoys showing he’s right and everyone else is wrong."

This characterization has been linked to Lindzen's view that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. Writing in Newsweek, Fred Guterl stated "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette" – an observation that was later echoed by Robyn Williams.

Right, I wouldn't want him to be a physician. But that doesn't in itself contradict his observations in climatology.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Right, I wouldn't want him to be a physician. But that doesn't in itself contradict his observations in climatology.

I agree. He may not be well liked by those who disagree with him, but that doesn't mean his observations are false. Rather, it appears that AGW dogmatists would rather demonize the guy and seek to discredit his point of view than demonstrate proof of their own.

Originally posted by grysmn:

The Elitists and self proclaimed leaders went to a conference in Copenhagen being the worst examples of what they were telling everyone to quit doing.

They aren't telling others to quit using energy. We will be reducing carbon dioxide emissions by turning to alternative energy sources and improving energy efficiency, not by changing our lifestyles. What they're agreeing to in Copenhagen has nothing to do with asking others to make different personal choices.

Originally posted by schapel:

Originally posted by grysmn:

The Elitists and self proclaimed leaders went to a conference in Copenhagen being the worst examples of what they were telling everyone to quit doing.

They aren't telling others to quit using energy. We will be reducing carbon dioxide emissions by turning to alternative energy sources and improving energy efficiency, not by changing our lifestyles. What they're agreeing to in Copenhagen has nothing to do with asking others to make different personal choices.

That may be what you think, but you're probably out of the "mainstream" when it comes to political AGW-ism or whatever -- especially judging from some of the stuff you see from Monbiot in the Guardian:

This is a meeting about chemicals: the greenhouse gases insulating the atmosphere. But it is also a battle between two world views. The angry men who seek to derail this agreement, and all such limits on their self-fulfilment, have understood this better than we have. A new movement, most visible in North America and Australia, but now apparent everywhere, demands to trample on the lives of others as if this were a human right. It will not be constrained by taxes, gun laws, regulations, health and safety, especially by environmental restraints. It knows that fossil fuels have granted the universal ape amplification beyond its Palaeolithic dreams. For a moment, a marvellous, frontier moment, they allowed us to live in blissful mindlessness.

Then in an exchange with a reader of that column:

Farofa:

"That is a reactionary position. It says inequalities must stand. The poor shall remain poor and the rich rich."

Perhaps then you could explain why I call for redistribution.

The battle is precisely between those who wish to defend the poorest and weakest people from exploitation and those who wish to rip their lives apart in the pursuit of profit. Is that really so hard to understand, if you don't bend your mind to misunderstanding it?

Sorry, but the appearance of "left-wing politics by scientific means" doesn't do AGW proponents any good at all.
Source. And note the title of the piece: "This is bigger than climate change. It is a battle to redefine humanity."

SOURCE

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations. IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

SOURCE