 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
It doesn't take me more than 16 minutes to read two paragraphs of tripe. That is purely a political petition, that has NOTHING to do with the validity of climate change science or a legitimate challenge of the same.Originally Posted by sandyg
Again, petitions don't change the laws of physics and nature.
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!
Good one...
OK, since you both seem to be a little thicker than usual today I'll have to explain it. The petition isn't to take a vote on the laws of physics, it's to urge "the US government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto". Now pull your heads out of your a$$es and go back to sleep!
Better one...
Well, since you're just as thick as you always are, I'll explain it to YOU. It says reject Kyoto, and any other similar proposals. It then goes on to reject the scientific findings regarding climate change. This inability or refusal to look at facts, lies at the root of the problem. This is no different from the flat earth crowd, the geocentric crowd, and other blinded ideologues.
The likely new chairman of the energy committee says we don't have to worry about global warming. Why-you ask? Because God told Noah as he built his ark, that He wouldn't destroy the earth ever again.....ergo....no global warming. See?
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!
No, I don't see.
Somehow I think the dog in your avatar is smarter than you...
Gore's climate group shrinking
By: Darren Samuelsohn
December 6, 2010 04:39 AM EST
One of Al Gore's campaigns to save the planet has scaled back its field operations since climate legislation failed earlier this year in Congress.
The Alliance for Climate Protection was operating in about 25 states at its peak, including Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
But the group now has field offices in just seven states.
"We've always believed it’s a mobile and nimble operation," said Sean Sarah, the non-profit group's spokesman. "We move to areas where it’s most effective. Of course the situation in Congress has changed. So our strategies and tactics have changed along with it."
Sarah didn't disclose which states the Alliance still has workers in. But he said the group retains its same staff size and headquarters in Washington and Gore's hometown of Nashville.
Gore in 2008 launched a $300 million advertising and lobbying campaign through the Alliance to help pass climate legislation on Capitol Hill, telling CBS' 60 Minutes at the time it was a “blitz as sweeping and expensive as a big corporation's rollout of a new product.” (See: Gore, but not forgotten)
The group has not disclosed how much of that money it ultimately spent.
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC
Sandi,
As much as you would like to crown Al Gore as the Scientist-in-Chief, of the climate change movement, I got news for you. HE IS A POLITICIAN, NOT A SCIENTIST!!!
The vast majority of people, including reputable scientists who work in a lab or in the field every day, (not making political ads and niche companies) look to the peer-reviewed scientific journals for information regarding climatology.
If you did the same, you would see facts, instead of political banter. But if you have an ultra-conservative agenda to push, I can see why you would rather reclassify a politician as a scientist to discredit the mounting evidence that is against you.
Have a nice day.
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!
Yet again, you're wrong.
Climate-change industry shaken by e-mail scandal
By JONAH GOLDBERG
Dec. 3, 2009, 7:39PM
By now you might have heard something about the scandal rocking the climate-change industry, though you can be forgiven if you haven't, since it hasn't gotten nearly the coverage it should. Computer hackers broke into the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and downloaded thousands of e-mails and other documents. The CRU is one of the world's leading global- warming data hubs, providing much of the number-crunching to global policymakers on climate change. And boy, can they crunch numbers.
In a long string of embarrassing e-mail exchanges, CRU scientists discuss with friendly outside colleagues, including Penn State University's Michael Mann, how to manipulate the data they want to show the world, and how to hide the often flawed data they don't. In one exchange, they discuss the “trick” of how to “hide the decline” in global temperatures since the 1960s. Again and again, the researchers don't object just to inconvenient truths but also inconvenient truth-tellers. They contemplate and orchestrate efforts to purge scientists and journals who won't sing from the same global-warming hymnal.
In one instance, Phil Jones, the CRU director, says a scientific journal must “rid (itself) of this troublesome editor,” who happened to publish a problematic paper. In another, Jones says we “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
These documents reveal the trick behind how they hide the dissent. Climate change activists often dismiss critics by noting that the skeptics haven't offered their arguments in peer-reviewed literature. Hence why they work so hard to keep dissenters out of the literature! Indeed, whatever the final verdict on the CRU's shenanigans, two things are already firmly established by even a sympathetic reading of these documents.
First, the climate change industry is shot through with groupthink (or what climate scientist Judith Curry calls “climate tribalism”). Activists would have us believe that the overwhelming majority of real scientists agree with them while the few dissenters are all either crazed or greedy “deniers” akin to flat-earthers and creationists. These e-mails show that what's really at work is a very large clique of scientists attempting to excommunicate perceived heretics for reasons that have more to do with psychology and sociology than physics or climatology.
Second, the climate industry really is an industry. Climate scientists make their money and careers from government, academia, the United Nations and foundations. The grantors want the grantees to confirm the global warming consensus. The tenure and peer-review processes likewise hinge on conformity. That doesn't necessarily mean climate change is untrue, but it does mean sloppiness and bias are unavoidable.
How big a scandal this is for the scientific community is being hotly debated on the Internet. But in big newspapers and TV news, the story has gotten less attention. And that's a scandal, too. The New York Times' leading climate reporter, Andrew Revkin (whose name appears in some of the e-mails), won't publish the contents of the e-mail on the grounds it would violate the scientists' privacy. Can anyone imagine the Times being so prissy if such damning e-mails were from ExxonMobil, never mind Dick Cheney?
Indeed, the closer you look at the scandal, the more you realize it's all one big outrage. The same journalistic tribalism that allowed Dan Rather to destroy his career over “Memogate” keeps reinforcing itself. Rather picked sources who said what he wanted to hear, then he reported what they said as if it were indisputable. The same thing is happening on climate change. Ideological bias is a major factor in the news media's work as a transmission belt for the climate industry. But part of the problem is also that the journalists do a bad job when the majority of so-called respected experts agree on anything complicated. For instance, it was pretty impossible for reporters to independently investigate whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and since the most established authorities agreed he had to have them, the news media reported the consensus, which turned out to be wrong.
Likewise, most journalists aren't qualified to work through the climate data. So they opt for the consensus. But there are important differences, too. While there's often reason for governments to hide classified intelligence, there's no reason for climate data to be classified. If the science is a slam dunk, why are CRU researchers keen on hiding their research? After the WMD fiasco, journalists agonized over their mistakes. Why no soul-searching over the CRU fiasco? Climate change hasn't been debunked by these documents. But the integrity of the consensus has been.
Also, keep in mind that the stakes are higher. In Copenhagen this month, the U.S. government will try to join the global bandwagon to spend trillions in fighting climate change. That money will not only enrich corporations, weaken U.S. sovereignty and hinder global growth, it will come out of funds that could be spent on fighting disease and poverty. Surely that's worth some journalistic skepticism?
Another UK publication
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ar-record.html
Too bad people are wasting time disputing this climate change thing. Finding alternatives to fossil fuels makes sense in its own right. Wish they'd spend all the money spent on disputing climate change to finding economically feasible fuel alternatives. Of course, I guess the bunch of politicos are contributing to the Mexican economy with their stay in Cancun. Guess they decided it was a nicer place to meet than chilly Cophenhagen.The maths isn't complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees hotter by the century's end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately, it isn't.
Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.
They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.
When the Met Office issued its December 2009 preThere-diction, it was clearly expecting an even bigger El Nino spike than happened in 1998 - one so big that it would have dragged up the decade's average.
But though it was still successfully trying to influence media headlines during Cancun last week by saying that 2010 might yet end up as the warmest year, the small print reveals the Met Office climbdown. Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been reduced to 14.52C.
That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8 degrees, it is quite a big deal. Above all, it means the trend stays flat.
Meanwhile, according to an analysis yesterday by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2010 had only two unusually warm months, March and April, when El Nino was at its peak.
The data from October to the end of the year suggests that when the final figure is computed, 2010 will not be the warmest year at all, but at most the third warmest, behind both 1998 and 2005.
There is no dispute that the world got a little warmer over some of the 20th Century. (Between 1940 and the early Seventies, temperatures actually fell.)
But little by little, the supposedly settled scientific ' consensus' that the temperature rise is unprecedented, that it is set to continue to disastrous levels, and that it is all the fault of human beings, is starting to fray.
Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.
Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for much of the 20th Century warming.
Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.
One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.
He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'
After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.
The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?
G.Clinchy@gmail.com
"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim
I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote