[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your first scientist from the IPCC report;


These guys were IPCC scientists? What did I miss?

You missed that there were higher qualified IPCC scientists in Durkin's Global Warming Swindle documentary who completely disagree with the idea of man-made global warming and whose names have been used without permission by the IPCC, and who have fought with the IPCC to have their names removed from the report summaries after they found their words either twisted, contorted, changed, deleted or replaced by non-scientists with political agendas.

Congrats to Super Mario for squishing these three closet-communist mushroom people

It's only natural that every forum on the internet will have appeasers and lovers of totalitarianism and over the years we have found MacNN's in the form of Uncle Skeleton, WarrenPease, SayfAllah, Lilbabykitten and ShortcutToMoncton.

[PaperNotes]

http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=128

Temperatures were warmer in the 1930s and 1940s in Greenland. They cooled back to the levels of the 1880s by the 1980s and 1990s. In a GRL paper in 2003, Hanna and Cappelen showed a significant cooling trend for eight stations in coastal southern Greenland from 1958 to 2001 (-1.29ºC for the 44 years). The temperature trend represented a strong negative correlation with increasing CO2 levels.

“There exists an agreement in estimating temperature tendencies prior to 1950. Practically all (old and new) of the papers which cover this time period concentrate on the analysis of the significant warming which occurred in the Arctic from 1920 to about 1940. Estimates of the areal average Arctic temperature trend in the second half of the 20th century are inconsistent.

“The second phase of contemporary global warming in the Arctic [since 1970] is either very weakly marked or even not seen at all. For example, the mean rate of warming in the last 5-year period in the Arctic was 2–3 times lower than for the globe as a whole.

“In the Arctic, the highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s. Moreover, it has been shown that even in the 1950s the temperature was higher than in the last 10 years.”

[Chongo]

A visit to Algore Motors

[PaperNotes]

http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/555283.html

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Us working class people hammer out all kinds of details. Take the thread on Global Warming that you've been engaged in, anyone's mind changed yet? I engaged that thread for several pages of exhaustive material, explaining why their IPCC "authors" weren't scientists either. I went into great pains to compare the credentials of IPCC "scientists" with those that dissent the hype, but did it work? Of course not. I used their own criteria for the comparison, but was it effective? Yeah, for me. The reply? "They're all in the tank of Big Oil!" or "you're a poop-butt stinky face!". Once the Preferred Ideology™ has been accepted, the mind-numbing refrains become eyesight. Once someone is this entrenched, they cannot see anything else.

This is just silly, and you know it.

Your "list" wasn't met with such claims. Your list was met with "you've got a handful of contrarian scientists, which is valid, while the rest of your dissenting scientists don't even work in the field, don't publish in the field, are retired and no longer work in the field, or are actually just propaganda mouthpieces specifically paid to act as a contrarian."

And when the views of your "valid contrarian scientists" can be shown to be in contradiction with the rest of modern science, then while they're still valid, they just don't hold much weight.

Finally, to my knowledge, no where has anyone said that the IPCC authors weren't scientists. There are some who aren't, and I think that's probably a good thing. But the overwhleming majority of authors for the IPCC reports include many (if not most) of the best scientists in the world in those fields.

greg

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Your "list" wasn't met with such claims.

greg

ebuddy, myself, Super Mario, lots of others have destroyed and raped you in this debate. We have exposed you as a closet totalitarian sympathiser not just on this thread but on others. Ecology is not what you're interested in. It's the political and industrial damage that the Red-Green alliance inflicts that attracts you to this subjects. Every time the political angle comes up, or when I mention Patrick Moore insider revelations, you and your two lovers go.....totally....quiet.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ahhh yes. Your Youtube videos, magazine editorial opinion pieces and "amateur contrarian" fanboi articles have totally "destroyed and raped" the published, peer-reviewed scientific papers that have been provided to rebut your claims.

You still haven't managed to explain, and have totally ignored, how I'm a member of this "Red-Green alliance" while simultaneously voting for the most right-wing, conservative, economics-based, climate-change-action-hostile political party available in my country. I suppose I'm somehow infiltrating them from the inside?

greg

[sek929]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Every time the political angle comes up, or when I mention Patrick Moore insider revelations, you and your two lovers go.....totally....quiet.

Maybe because the only one harping on about politics is you, while Greg simply posts irrefutable scientific evidence which you conveniently ignore. Maybe because when discussing cold-hard science bringing political BS into it is merely a distraction meant to divert attention away from your terrible sources and 'proof.'

Then it's back to your tired one-liners and insulting banter about Greg being a communist. It's really quite apparent, for an onlooker, that you and mario are absolutely clueless about how to make an argument based in scientific study, and Greg's patience and understated pwnage of both of you has been overwhelming.

This is another case of "you disagree with me therefore you must be a dirty commie" which is your MO down to a 'T.'

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

Every encyclopedia, every ice-core sample and every climate scientists worth his weight in gold will tell you that the Medieval Warming Period was hotter than today, which completely contradicts your claim to the extreme contrary.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

*chuckles*

The quote you provided about warmer temperatures during the MWP was about sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic.

Apparently, you failed to read the excerpt exactly two paragraphs above your sentence. This isn't surprising, given your clear disinclination to read anything in this thread, but it does put quite the damper on your use of Wikipedia as a source link:

Originally Posted by The Source You Provided

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2] Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.[4]

*pats head*

There there.

I've also noticed you disagreed with the suggestion that there were other warm periods hotter than today. You're clearly out of your league. The Holocene Climatic Optimum from 9000 to 5000 years ago is another period that was hotter than it is today, and the ancient world only got to see temperatures roughly equal to now around 2000 years ago. During the peak of the HCO it was on average 4 degrees C at the North Pole, clearly too warm for any major ice flows to have existed in the Northern Hemisphere.

What?!? You're saying there were no ice flows in the northern hemisphere within the last 9000 years?!

So you're saying all our glaciers up here just appeared in the last 5000 years, despite the absence of an ice age within that time? Oh, you're getting better and better.

That means for much of Earth's history since the last major Ice Age temperatures have been higher than today. Yet again we see periods of Earth's history when temperatures were high and it wasn't due to human industry.

ebuddy and I have already extensively discussed the HCO, in this very thread of course. First off, you don't mention that the "HCO" corresponded with a Milankovitch cycle.

Secondly, no one's arguing that the earth wasn't hotter before. Everyone accepts this. What's your point?

greg

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Secondly, no one's arguing that the earth wasn't hotter before. Everyone accepts this. What's your point?

greg

Therein lies your dilemma.

[PaperNotes]

Part I

Fortnight Of The Undead

By Christopher Monckton in Nusa Dua, Bali

Down the Poxy, our local fleapit late on a Saturday night, voodoo flicks like Night Of The Undead were always popular when I was a lad. To shrieks of scornful merriment from the teenage audience, mindless zombies would totter aimless across the clumsily-constructed sets with lugubrious expressions frozen on their messily-made-up death-masks until the hero, with the lurv interest wrenched screeching from the clutches of the late Baron Samedi and draped admiringly on her rescuer’s extravagantly-muscled arm, triumphantly saved the day.

Thus it was in Bali during the Fortnight Of The Undead. There was surreality in the air. The overwhelming majority of the governmental delegates, journalists, quango stallholders, fortune-hunters and environmental lobbyists who attended the UN climate conference in the soulless Nusa Dua conference centre tottered aimlessly among the clumsily-constructed sets with lugubrious expressions frozen on their messily-made-up death-masks. Monckton’s Rule: the further Left, the tackier the make-up. The only laughter came from our gallant band of doubters, the heroes of this otherwise gloomy production.

I nearly didn’t go to Bali. The UN, which had not wanted any dissent at this carefully-staged event, rejected my journalistic credentials out of hand, and without explanation. However, a non-government organization came to the rescue and the high priests didn’t dare to say No a second time. That would have looked too obvious. I proved my journo-cred by writing a major article in the Jakarta Post on day 1 of the conference, cheekily claiming my share of the Nobel Prize because the IPCC had made a correction to its latest Holy Book at my suggestion, and concluding that, since our influence on the climate is a non-problem, and the correct approach to a non-problem is to do nothing, my fellow-participants should have the courage to do nothing and push off home.

The Post circulated the article to all delegates and syndicated it worldwide, provoking weeping and gnashing of dentures among the zombies at my challenge to the scientific accuracy of the Holy Books of the IPCC. I don’t think the UN will dare to question my journalistic credentials again.

The UN’s sinister bureaucrats were furious that their attempt to stop me writing in the newspapers from the conference had failed. So they interrupted a presentation by me to delegates, threatened to have me thrown out by Security if I addressed any meeting open to the Press in the conference venues, and cancelled without reason a room they had previously booked for our team’s daily conferences. The room wasn’t even needed for someone else: it stood empty. So we mounted a demo outside the conference: half a dozen scientists (and me) in white lab-coats and (for some reason) wrap-around shades, holding a banner saying, “New science drives out old fears: Kyoto 2 is not needed”.

The UN, whose pot-bellied goons had taken over the entire Nusa Dua conference zone from the leaner and more competent Indonesian and Balinese security forces, moved us on within minutes, while allowing anti-nuclear protesters, Greens and even Hilary Benn, described as a UK Minister, to mount demonstrations for hours on end.

The official propaganda mantra at the conference, first suggested by a UK pressure-group last year and now enthusiastically adopted by the UN, was that “The Science Is Settled”. The zombies, led by the outgoing and incoming conference chairmen, recited this mantra with glazed but increasingly desperate pietism.

An IPCC lead author came to one of the press conferences we managed to hold before the UN showed its alarm at our effect on the delegates by shutting us down. He said a mere layman like me had no business challenging the supposed “consensus”. And he tried to maintain that a table of figures in the latest Holy Book had been added up correctly when, as a slide I was showing made quite clear, it had not added up to within a factor of two of the right answer. In the land of the zombies, two plus two equals nine.

Outside the conference hall, I went up to a fragrant Japanese lady manning one of the exhibits set up by the ever-growing number of taxpayer-funded quangos with bewildering but important-sounding initials that are profiting by the lavish State handouts available to anyone willing to proselytize for the cult of the wrathful God Siotu. “What disasters?” I enquired, with an expression of shambling, potty-Peer innocence. This usually provoked a lurid list of plagues, droughts, floods, deaths, cataclysms and mass extinctions worthy of St. John the Divine at his most hyperbolic. The UK High Court judge who condemned Al Gore for exaggerations of this sort would have locked up most of the stallholders and sent me the key.

But this lady had somehow escaped the zombies. She drew me to one side and whispered, “Don’t tell my boss, but two-thirds of the delegates here are mad.” They would have been mad, if they’d had minds at all. One of the most enduring impressions on all of our team was that the Enlightenment has been switched off. Enter the Dark Age of Unreason. Ever since the high priests tampered with the scientists’ text of the IPCC’s 1995 Holy Book, deleting multiple references to the absence of credible evidence for any anthropogenic effect on climate and inserting the directly contrary statement that there was now a discernible human influence, anyone who dares to check the science is regarded as a heretic for daring to question the Holy Books of voodoo. Never mind the facts: just believe the nonsense, even when it doesn’t add up.

I couldn’t resist baiting the stallholder at the stand run by a certain national weather bureau. This particular tax-gobbler, reliably Messianic in its Siotological fervour, had a childishly imaginative poster that ramped up the imagined disasters as global temperature rose by each additional degree Celsius. At just 2 degrees, the poster said the Greenland ice sheet would be permanently destabilized. Oo-er. The message was illustrated by the usual picture of a glacier calving spectacularly into the water.

“’Scuse me,” I said, Earl-of-Emsworth expression in place, “but isn’t that a picture of a glacier that cuts across a freshwater lake in Argentina?” For it wasn’t Greenland. It looked suspiciously like a grainy vid-grab from the traditional collapsing-glacier footage shown every few minutes on the unspeakable BBC. As the waters of the freshwater lake build up behind the glacier, it breaks apart spectacularly every eight years. Or rather, as I pointed out to the stallholder, every five years these days, because much of the southern hemisphere is cooling. This image did not demonstrate “global warming” but regional cooling.

The stallholder robotically reached for the IPCC’s latest Holy Book and showed me graphs of sharply-rising temperatures in South Africa, Australasia and South America. She didn’t show me the Antarctic, of course: that has been cooling for half a century. It had not occurred to the poor dear to wonder why the IPCC’s temperature graphs for all continents but one were shown as rising steeply in recent years, when the global mean temperature has not shown any statistically-significant rise since the IPCC’s previous Holy Book came out in 2001. The thing about stable average temperatures is that if some have risen others must have fallen. Or so it seems to me. But then I’m not a zombie.

“Anyway,” I said, “doesn’t the 2007 rewrite of the Holy Book say that the Greenland Ice Sheet would only lose significant ice-mass if a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius or more were to be sustained for several millennia?” That, after all, was what a UK High Court judge had recently found, when he condemned Al Gore’s ludicrous hundredfold exaggeration of sea-level rise as alarmist and told ministers to correct this and eight other flagrant errors in Gore’s rocky-horror movie before exposing hapless schoolchildren to it.

Here’s a question. If the science behind the scare is as certain as the zombies say, why are they so terrified of a few doubters? Google me and you’ll find hundreds of enviro-loony websites, such as Wikipedia, now an international music-hall joke for inaccuracy, that call me a fraud (for writing about climate science when I’m not a climate scientist), a plagiarist (for citing learned papers rather than making up scare stories), and a liar (for saying I’m a member of the House of Lords when – er – I’m a member of the House of Lords, though, being merely hereditary, I don’t have a seat there).

One of these bedwetting sites even has a “Monckton Watch” page, with a hilarious collection of colourful stories, including the story of how I told the stallholder that much of the southern hemisphere was cooling. No mention that the location of the BBC’s favourite glacier has indeed been cooling. And, of course, no mention of the elephant in the room – that a national weather bureau had flagrantly exaggerated the Holy Book’s official ramblings about Greenland on its silly, taxpayer-funded poster.

You’ll find precious little science on the zombie websites. They specialize in global whingeing ad hominem, rather than scientific argument ad rem. The frenetic personal assaults have become so self-evidently ludicrous that I’m getting an increasing number of emails from people who have first heard of my work from the Kool-Aid slurpers and have gone on to find, to their surprise, that the peer-reviewed science to which my climate papers politely draw attention does suggest that the Holy Books have exaggerated both the influence of Siotu over temperature and the consequences of warmer weather.

An example. A couple of months back I posted a paper citing peer-reviewed evidence that the fingerprint of greenhouse-gas warming – temperature rising over the decades at a rate three times faster six miles up in the tropical troposphere than at the surface – is absent from all of the real-world records of actual temperature change throughout the past half-century. During the Bali conference, I presented my own linear regression analysis going back 25 years and demonstrating that the rate of change in temperature falls with altitude, while the IPCC’s models predict that if CO2 is at fault it should be increasing with altitude. Two days later our team of heroes had the pleasure of circulating to delegates a paper just published by the formidable John Christy and his colleagues, spectacularly and definitively confirming this result.

We circulated a one-page summary of the Christy paper showing the tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot” as predicted in the Holy Book, and the total absence of the “hot-spot” in the observed data. We explained that, in the words of Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT, who knows more about the bad behaviour of the atmosphere than anyone, the missing “hot-spot” means that the IPCC’s estimate of the impact of greenhouse-gas enrichment on temperature is at least a threefold exaggeration.

As I was handing our flyer round the Press tent, a “development journalist” angrily said: “How dare you criticize the IPCC’s scientists?” I sat down and said: “I don’t attack the scientists, though they certainly attack me. I attack the bad science.”

“Well, then,” he said, “how dare you substitute your judgment for that of thousands of climate scientists?” I said that the crucial chapter in the Holy Book attributing rising temperatures to Siotu had been written by only 53 people, not all of whom were scientists, and that – by coincidence – 53% of the comments by 60 reviewers had been rejected by the authors of the chapter. Not exactly the 2,500 scientists claimed by the high priests, and not exactly a consensus either.

I explained that I was an old-fashioned scribbler who had been taught to be sceptical of all sides of every debate, and that the authors of the Holy Book were obviously not good at sums. “Give me an example,” he said. So I did.

The Holy Book saith: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20% during the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5% higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1%, not 20%. The high priests have exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.

“So how are you so nauseatingly certain that you’re right?” he asked. “Well,” I said, “because I worked out that the proportionate increase in CO2 between 1995 and 2005 was 5%, not 20%, and then did a simple calculation from this to work out the radiative forcing. It’s called ‘checking’.” He looked baffled. Voodoo has indeed replaced science, and the paradox is that the new religion claims to worship science.

The zombies seem listlessly incapable of checking even the most elementary facts. Take Yvo de Boer, the UN archpriest at the conference. He made an impassioned speech saying that the sceptics had had their day and that everyone now accepted that, for instance, the island nations of the Pacific were facing an imminent threat from rising sea levels. Er, no. Corals have been around for 275 million years. They’ve survived temperatures up to 7 degrees Celsius warmer than today’s. And has it never occurred to the poor sap to wonder why, after a rise of 400 feet in sea level over the past 10,000 years, the sea has – by some startling concidence – exactly reached the surface of all the coral atolls?

No, it’s not a coincidence, because corals grow to meet the light. They can outpace at least ten times the Holy Books’ high-end estimate of sea-level rise, which is anyway down by a third since just six years ago. We know this, because the mean centennial rate of sea-level rise since the end of the last Ice Age has been – get this – at least double the high priests’ highest estimate of future sea-level rise. Nine-tenths of the land-based ice sheets of the world have already melted. There’s so little left that even if it began to melt (which it won’t) the rise in sea level would be very, very slow.

The new Australian prime minister got a dutiful round of applause from the zombies when he announced that his first official act had been to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. He didn’t tell them that back home he’d also let it be known that Australia had not the slightest intention of complying with the protocol. But then, practically no one else is complying with it either.

For me, it was this laughable disconnection between rhetoric and reality that was the most striking feature of the conference. Anyone with half a brain can see, after making the most elementary of enquiries, that greenhouse gases can’t have all that much effect on temperature, that even if they did the consequences would be minimal and largely beneficial. For this reason – since Heaven has a sense of humour – global temperature has now been stubbornly failing to rise for the best part of a decade, and (unless you’re James Hansen, who started the scare in the first place) 2007 will yet again fail to be a “record year for temperature” – and the zombies go back only 150 years.

Since CO2 can’t be exercising more than a minuscule influence on temperature, and since the temperature is accordingly failing to rise as predicted (or, in the past seven years, at all), the entire conference was unnecessary, but the zombies didn’t know, and they didn’t care, and – either way – they were getting rich at taxpayers’ expense thanks to the most elaborately-conceived scare of modern times.

Bryan Leyland, the leader of our delegation and an engineer far too highly-qualified to be an IPCC reviewer, asked the IPCC lead author how many more years of temperatures failing to rise as predicted would convince him to give up the pretence that the IPCC’s predictions have any connection with reality. Answer came there none.

[PaperNotes]

Part II

I had a quiet word with the US delegation before the conference began, just to confirm that they were not about to go soft and goofy as Australia has done. A solidly-constructed Congressman gave me the clear message that as long as George Bush was in the White House there would be no nonsense. That meant that both this conference and the next one – at Poznan in Poland this time next year – will merely mark time until President Bush isn’t. Nothing can happen until Copenhagen in two years’ time.

I also said Konichi-wa to the Japanese delegation, whose members diligently turned up half an hour before each session, while the rest were still drying out their hangovers. They politely read our daily messages to delegates, and joined the US and Canada as the pariahs of the conference, refusing to shuffle along with the zombies.

The Luxembourgeois delegation were not so polite. A peasant-faced minister took one look at the High Court judge’s list of the errors in Al Gore’s movie and rudely tore it up in front of me, throwing the pieces on to the floor. Not enough Luxe, too much bourgeois, one feels. Unusual animation for a zombie, though. One of his colleagues began collecting up copies of the judge’s list of Gore’s bloopers as I was distributing them. I remonstrated politely and she desisted, deciding to go and complain to Security instead. On the way, she murmured that she had a black belt in karate. “So do I,” I said, with equal mendacity, trying my geriatric best to look like James Bond.

Back at the Poxy, the only time the zombies used to show any animation was when Baron Samedi came on set. They would set up an eerie, unpleasant keening, and would jerk chaotically in their frenzied excitement. So it was in Bali when, on the eve of the closing Friday, not so much Baron Samedi as Baron Thursdi, Al Gore private-jetted and motorcaded in with his vast retinue to receive the plaudits of the faithful, and to hell with the carbon footprint. Gore did what I had been taught never to do. He attacked his own country for withstanding the voodoo cult. The zombies loved it. The keening and screeching and jerking were exactly as I had remembered them.

Gore needs to pretend that the situation is urgent when it is becoming increasingly plain to everyone that it isn’t. The robust corn-stalk chewers of Iowa, polled recently about election issues, ranked “global warming” so low that fewer than one in 200 thought it mattered at all.

Therefore, to whip up the flagging panic that keeps the gravy-train of “global warming” rolling, Baron Thursdi came up with a new, improved list of 50 errors and exaggerations:

• Floods in 18 countries, plus Mexico: Four errors in one. First, individual extreme-weather events cannot be attributed to “global warming”. Secondly, the number of floods is not unprecedented, though TV makes them more visible than before. Thirdly, even if the floods were caused by warming, the fact of warming does not tell us the cause. Thirdly – and it was astonishing how few of the zombies knew this – there has been no statistically-significant increase in mean global surface temperature since the last IPCC Holy Book in 2001. “Global warming” has stopped.
• The Arctic ice-cap will be gone within 5 to 7 years: Six errors in one. First, as a paper published by NASA during the conference demonstrates, Arctic warming has nothing much to do with “global warming”: instead, as numerous studies confirm, it is chiefly caused by decadal alterations in the ocean circulation affecting the region. Thirdly, it was warmer in the Arctic in the 1940s than it is today. Fourthly, thinner pack-ice is surprisingly resistant to melting, so the ice-cap will probably be still there for many years to come, even if (which is unlikely) the warming trend resumes. Fifthly, the ice-cap was probably absent during the mediaeval warm period, and almost certainly absent during the Bronze Age climate optimum, when temperatures were higher than today’s for almost 2,000 years. Sixthly, the Greenland ice sheet melted completely away 850,000 years ago. There cannot have been an Arctic ice-cap then. So the disappearance of the Arctic ice-cap, even if it occurred, would be neither unprecedented nor alarming.
• Forest fires are causing devastation: Five errors in one. First, most forest fires are caused by humans – power-lines sparking in the wind, carelessly-tossed cigarette-butts, or even arson. Secondly, individual events of this kind cannot be attributed to “global warming”. Thirdly, warmer weather is generally wetter weather, because – as the Clausius-Clapeyron relation demonstrates – the space occupied by the atmosphere can carry near-exponentially greater concentrations of water vapour as the weather becomes warmer. Fourthly, it has not got warmer since 2001, so there is no factual basis whatsoever for attributing more forest fires to warmer weather. Fifthly, the fact of warming does not tell us the cause.
• Many cities are short of water: Four errors in one. First, water shortages arise from too much demand on too little supply. Secondly, one cannot attribute individual events of this kind to “global warming”. Thirdly, there has been no “global warming” for the best part of a decade. Fourthly, the fact of warming does not tell us the cause.
• There are more severe storms: Six errors in one. First, the scientific literature is divided on the question whether warmer weather will intensify storms. Secondly, the scientific literature is unanimous that the warmer weather which stopped happening in 2001 has not in fact caused more severe storms: the number of landfalling Atlantic hurricanes shows no trend for 100 years, and, in the 30 years for which we have records, the number of tropical cyclones and of typhoons has actually fallen steadily. Thirdly, outside the tropics warmer weather is likely to mean fewer severe storms. Fourthly, even if there had been more severe storms, they cannot be attributed to “global warming”. Fifthly, there has not been any “global warming” for the past seven years. Sixthly, even if there had been any warming, the fact of warming does not tell us the cause.
• West Antarctica has lost an area the size of California: Four errors in one. First, the bulk of Antarctica is cooling (Doran et al., 2004). Secondly, Gore’s movie says there were seven areas the size of Rhode Island that had melted (in total, 1/55 of the size of Texas), so his figures are inconsistent. Thirdly, Antarctic sea-ice extent reached record levels in September this year. Fourthly, even if Antarctica had warmed, the fact of warming does not tell us the cause.
• Deserts are growing: Three errors in one. First, some deserts are growing; others are not. Secondly, Gore’s movie says the southern Sahara is plagued by new drought, but the Sahara has shrunk by 300,000 square kilometres in the past 30 years, giving place to vegetation. Nomadic tribes are returning to territories they have not occupied in living memory. Thirdly, the fact of warming does not tell us the cause.
• Sea level is rising: Eight errors in one. First, sea level has been rising ever since the end of the last Ice Age. Secondly, it has been rising at a mean rate of 4 feet per century, more than double the latest Holy Book’s highest estimate of future sea-level rise. Thirdly, Gore himself does not believe his ridiculous estimate that the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will raise sea level by 20 feet imminently: he has just bought a $4 million condo in the St. Regis Hotel, San Francisco, a few feet from the Bay. Fourthly, the Holy Book shows that the combined contribution of these two ice sheets to sea-level rise over the next 100 years will be just two and a half inches. Fifthly, most of the 1 ft 5 in sea level rise that is the IPCC’s best estimate over the coming century will occur not from ice-melt but from thermosteric expansion of sea-water. Sixthly, Nils-Axel Morner, the world’s greatest expert on sea level, says even the IPCC’s forecast is exaggerated. Seventhly, the UK High Court judge condemned Gore for his “alarmist” exaggeration of sea-level rise, yet Gore seems unwilling to accept that he has erred. Eighthly, even if sea-level were rising at record rates, which it is not, the fact of the warming that caused the increase does not tell us the cause of the warming.
• CO2 is “global warming pollution”: Seven errors in one. First, CO2 is a naturally-occurring substance, not a pollutant. Secondly, CO2 concentrations, in geological terms, are at record low levels – less than 400 parts per million compared with 7,000 ppm in the Cambrian era. Thirdly, CO2 is food for trees and plants. With chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential constituent in photosynthesis, without which there would be no plant life as we know it. Fourthly, CO2 is harmless to animals even at very high concentrations – indeed, the concentration in the room where Gore spoke, with a thousand zombies yelling lustily, is likely to have well above 1000 ppm, but none of the zombies came to harm. Fifthly, CO2 is harmless to plants even at concentrations of 10,000 ppm, as laboratory tests have demonstrated. Sixthly, you breathe out CO2 every time you exhale. Seventhly, CO2 forms the bubbles in sparkling drinks like Coca-Cola and champagne, and it also forms the spaces between the solid matter in bread. For all these reasons, it is not a pollutant, and we are doing no more than to restore to the atmosphere the normal levels that have harmlessly prevailed in the past, playing their part in the emergence and development of life itself.
• Venus has experienced a runaway greenhouse effect, and the EU says Earth is the sister planet of Venus: Four errors in one. First, Venus is much closer to the Sun than the Earth is, and the incoming solar radiation of 236 watts per square meter at the surface is far too little to create a runaway greenhouse effect. Secondly, the surface temperature on Venus, chiefly because of its proximity to the Sun, is 455 degrees C, compared with the Earth’s 15 degrees C. Gore mentioned these figures, but led the audience falsely to imagine that the difference in temperature is chiefly attributable to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of Venus. Thirdly, CO2 concentration reached 7000 parts per million in the Cambrian era, compared with less than 400 ppm today, and temperature rose only to 22 degrees Celsius, so Gore’s comparison with the 455 degrees C obtaining on the surface of Venus is a 20-fold exaggeration of the maximum temperature likely to arise on Earth. Fourthly, a concentration of 7000 parts per million could only be reached if today’s concentration were to increase 18-fold. In 1994 Gore said that there were canals on Mars, with water in them. Best not to take his word on other planetary bodies. He would have been more to the point if he had admitted that warming has recently been observed on Mars, on the surface of Jupiter, on the largest of Neptune’s moons and even on distant Pluto. All those SUVs in space, one supposes. Or could the guilty party, perhaps, be the Sun, which has been more active in the past 70 years than at almost any similar period in at least the past 11,400 years?
• The IPCC’s 2007 Holy Book is “unanimous”: Five errors in one. First – and this cannot be repeated often enough – science is not a democratic process, and it does not matter how many scientists reach a conclusion if that conclusion is contrary to the objective truth. Secondly, the Holy Book is in fact very far from unanimous: it quotes numerous peer-reviewed papers that disagree with its conclusions. Thirdly, the Holy Book fails to quote many hundreds of further peer-reviewed papers that disagree with its conclusions. Fourthly, the IPCC’s Holy Books are divided into chapters, each with about 50 authors, and the authors sign off only on their own chapters. Fifthly, the high priests of voodoo try to secure unanimity by rejecting the nomination of authors, such as Paul Reiter, who knows that malaria is not a tropical disease and would not be spread by “global warming”, whose views are known to be contrary to the teachings of the Holy Books. Fifthly, Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes, resigned from the IPCC process, condemning it as unduly political, when Kevin Trenberth, his lead author, appeared on a public platform advocating the notion that “global warming” causes more frequent hurricanes. He is by no means the only resigner from the supposedly “unanimous” IPCC process.
• Svante Arrhenius made 10,000 calculations 116 years ago, demonstrating that temperature would rise “many degrees” in response to CO2 doubling: 4 errors in one. First, Arrhenius’ paper making that erroneous claim was published in 1896, 111 years ago, not 116. Secondly, his calculations are now known to have been inaccurate, since he had relied upon lunar spectral data that were defective. Thirdly, Arrhenius could have spared himself the trouble of his 10,000 calculations if he had used the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation, which integrates radiant-energy emission spectra across all wavelengths and converts the energy to temperature. In 1906, once he had come across the equation, he wrote a little-known paper in German, in which he revised his calculations and concluded that the warming in response to a CO2 doubling would be 1.6 degrees C, or exactly half the IPCC’s exaggerated current central estimate. Fourthly, even this estimate is probably too high.

As with the 35 errors in Gore’s movie, so with the 50 in his speech to the zombies in Bali, comfortably exceeding his personal best – all the errors tend towards an extreme and scientifically-unwarranted exaggeration of the imagined threat posed by “global warming”. The zombies, of course, lapped up every word handed down from on high by Baron Thursdi, for Bali was a science-free, fact-free zone, question-free zone. The probability that all 43 of Gore’s latest errors could have pointed by mere accident and ignorance in the direction of excessive alarm is less than one in a million billion.

Therein lies a danger that Gore has not yet seen. For he failed, yet again, to declare his financial interest before whipping up worldwide alarm with his trademark errors and exaggerations in Bali. He is a director of Lehman Brothers, a global finance house that wants to control the worldwide managed market in carbon-emissions trading. He founded his own “green” corporation, Generation Investment Management. He is a paid member of the Board of a renewable-energy company. In the UK, if he made a speech containing so many deliberate and unidirectional errors as he did in Bali, and if he failed to declare his financial interest, he would be committing a criminal offence.

It is surely only a matter of time before a complaint is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, alleging that, through the numerous, extreme and scientifically-unwarranted exaggerations which Gore has relentlessly continued to peddle notwithstanding the warning in the UK judge’s verdict, he is in effect fraudulently promoting a false prospectors to potential investors. Indeed, his exaggerations are on such a scale, and have commanded such attention, and have done so much damage, that he may even have committed an offence under the Federal racketeering statute. I wanted to ask Gore about his failure to disclose his financial interest, but – as usual – he does not dare to take questions.

The day Gore spoke in Bali, I received an email (one of hundreds from all over the world in response to my article in the Jakarta Post) from one of the Port Commissioners of Washington State. He said his fellow-Commissioners, solely on the basis of Gore’s rantings, were proposing to increase the height of the sea-walls by 20 feet. Real economic and environmental harm is now being caused by these unscientific exaggerations, which have gained credence among the zombies merely by their repetition on the lips of a former Vice-President of the United States.

The US delegation did not crumble in Bali. It stood firm in the cause of right and truth and common sense. So it was not possible for the zombies to go as far as they wanted in inflicting pointless, economically-disastrous and climatically-irrelevant policies on the world. For the sake of being seen to do something while they wait for Copenhagen, they have laboriously drawn up a “Bali Roadmap”. Like the Middle East Roadmap, the Bali Roadmap is a non-map of a non-existent road to nowhere. Meantime, we have alarmed the alarmists, and that is a first step towards the dawn of truth.

[Chongo]

Now that I have looked up some info on the Viscount I understand why his critics are trying to discredit him. Not only is he doing a good job of disproving MMGW, he is anti EU. No wonder Algore will not debate him.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Part II

Let's see, mountains of irrelevant text, repetitive and unverifiable sources, egomaniacal chest-pounding... PaperNotes have you ever heard of or written from a place called "aberdeen?"

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Therein lies your dilemma.

What dilemma? I just said that everyone's okay with the earth previously being hotter. Clearly, I don't have a dilemma. You have the dilemma.

Again: what's your point?

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This is just silly, and you know it.

Not silly at all. It was a perfectly valid breakdown of how things transpired.

Your "list" wasn't met with such claims.

It was met with such and worse.

Your list was met with "you've got a handful of contrarian scientists which is valid, while the rest of your dissenting scientists don't even work in the field...

I showed how many of the IPCC "scientist/authors" don't work in the field either, they're referencing the work of others. Many of which had been retired.

don't publish in the field

This was when I went back and forth with someone on what their criteria of "the field" was since their examples couldn't be shown to work "in the field" either. Their "field" would change as I disproved them. As far as published peer review, on several instances demonstrated how they published more work than their IPCC counterpart.

are retired

Like many of the "IPCC scientists" who were referenced.

and no longer work in the field

Again, not unlike many of the antiquated works referenced in the IPCC report from those that had been retired.

or are actually just propaganda mouthpieces specifically paid to act as a contrarian.

This is a red herring and you know it. There are all kinds of personal gain to toeing the IPCC line also such as; getting published, notoriety, networking, funding, etc... Propaganda like drafting "science" for policy-making? Mmhhmm. Everyone's paid for something. I dare say there are few people in this world who would slap their children and their globe down on a game of "I know the earth is going to burn up, but if I just choose to oppose this policy I'll get some oil kickbacks." A handful of contrarian scientists are valid indeed. They will be the affirmed scientists of tomorrow. Right about the time you'll be denying global cooling and the zealots here will be showing you charts and graphs showing you why your antiquated scientists and studies are all just propaganda machines for "big ____"

And when the views of your "valid contrarian scientists" can be shown to be in contradiction with the rest of modern science, then while they're still valid, they just don't hold much weight.

I decided I was having enough when I saw little gems like "Solar/celestial phenomena used to be the primary drivers of climate throughout all of history until about 1984."

Finally, to my knowledge, no where has anyone said that the IPCC authors weren't scientists. There are some who aren't, and I think that's probably a good thing. But the overwhleming majority of authors for the IPCC reports include many (if not most) of the best scientists in the world in those fields.

There are contributing scientists and there are authors. Sometimes they comprise both. Give me some names of IPCC scientists from the 2007 Assessment.

Wanna do this again?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Sure, knock yourself out. I just pasted this from the first page (out of 13) of contributors to the 2007 FAR, Part I (of 3): "The Physical Science Basis."

I haven't checked it myself, so I'm interested in seeing what proportion are dead, retired, don't publish in the field, or don't work in the field.

ACHUTARAO, Krishna
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
USA

ADLER, Robert
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
USA

ALEXANDER, Lisa
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction
and Research, Met Offi ce
UK, Australia, Ireland

ALEXANDERSSON, Hans
Swedish Meteorological and
Hydrological Institute
Sweden

ALLAN, Richard
Environmental Systems Science
Centre, University of Reading
UK

ALLEN, Myles
Climate Dynamics Group, Atmospheric,
Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Department
of Physics, University of Oxford
UK

ALLEY, Richard B.
Department of Geosciences,
Pennsylvania State University
USA

ALLISON, Ian
Australian Antarctic Division and
Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems
Cooperative Research Centre
Australia

AMBENJE, Peter
Kenya Meteorological Department
Kenya

AMMANN, Caspar
Climate and Global Dynamics Division,
National Center for Atmospheric Research
USA

ANDRONOVA, Natalia
University of Michigan
USA

ANNAN, James
Frontier Research Center for Global
Change, Japan Agency for Marine-
Earth Science and Technology

ARBLASTER, Julie
National Center for Atmospheric Research
and Bureau of Meteotology Research Center
USA, Australia

ARCHER, David
University of Chicago
USA

ARORA, Vivek
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling
and Analysis, Environment Canada
Canada

ARRITT, Raymond
Iowa State University
USA

ARTALE, Vincenzo
Italian National Agency for
New Technologies, Energy and
the Environment (ENEA)
Italy

ARTAXO, Paulo
Instituto de Fisica, Universidade
de Sao Paulo
Brazil

AUER, Ingeborg
Central Institute for Meteorology
and Geodynamics
Austria

AUSTIN, John
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Geophysical
Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
USA

BAEDE, Alphonsus
Royal Netherlands Meteorological
Institute (KNMI) and Ministry of Housing,
Spatial Planning and the Environment
Netherlands

BAKER, David
National Center for Atmospheric Research
USA

BALDWIN, Mark P.
Northwest Research Associates
USA

BARNOLA, Jean-Marc
Laboratoire de Glaciologie et
Géophysique de l’Environnement
France

BAUER, Eva
Potsdam Institute for Climate
Impact Research
Germany

BENESTAD, Rasmus
Norwegian Meteorological Institute
Norway

BENISTON, Martin
University of Geneva
Switzerland

BERGER, André
Université catholique de Louvain,
Institut d’Astronomie et de
Géophysique G. Lemaitre
Belgium

BERNTSEN, Terje
Centre for International Climate and
Environmantal Research (CICERO)
Norway

BERRY, Joseph A.
Carnegie Institute of Washington,
Department of Global Ecology
USA

BETTS, Richard A.
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction
and Research, Met Offi ce
UK

BIERCAMP, Joachim
Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH
Germany

BINDOFF, Nathaniel L.
Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems
Cooperative Research Centre and CSIRO
Marine and Atmospheric Research
Australia

BITZ, Cecilia
University of Washington
USA

BLATTER, Heinz
Institute for Atmospheric and
Climate Science, ETH Zurich
Switzerland

BODEKER, Greg
National Institute of Water and
Atmospheric Research
New Zealand

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I showed how many of the IPCC "scientist/authors" don't work in the field either, they're referencing the work of others. Many of which had been retired.

I don't remember this. Tried searching, but this thread is just a beast.

This was when I went back and forth with someone on what their criteria of "the field" was since their examples couldn't be shown to work "in the field" either. Their "field" would change as I disproved them. As far as published peer review, on several instances demonstrated how they published more work than their IPCC counterpart.

Yes yes, I believe "in the field" was eventually defined as "in a field related to examining climate change," not your definition of "in a field such as being a physicist who has an opinion on climate change." After all, I think you were the one who probably brought up "the list" first, and you definitely used the distinguished Fred Singer as a primary source on climate change. Apparently you still don't see the problem with sourcing a man who has been a paid industry lobbyist for most of the big debates of our time, such as the smoking/cancer link, or the CFC/ozone hole link.

Like many of the "IPCC scientists" who were referenced.

I'm interested in seeing the result of those names now!

Again, not unlike many of the antiquated works referenced in the IPCC report from those that had been retired.

No, that's completely different. An old publication is completely valid to reference, as long as it has not been called into question by new publications. An old publication by a retired author is similarly valid. Furthermore, an old publication by a retired author who doesn't believe in AGW is also valid.

Do you see the difference? I think much of this debate stems from your refusal/failure to grasp this point. We should be debating the science (i.e. publications), not the opinions of the people involved.

This is a red herring and you know it. There are all kinds of personal gain to toeing the IPCC line also such as; getting published, notoriety, networking, funding, etc... Propaganda like drafting "science" for policy-making? Mmhhmm. Everyone's paid for something. I dare say there are few people in this world who would slap their children and their globe down on a game of "I know the earth is going to burn up, but if I just choose to oppose this policy I'll get some oil kickbacks." A handful of contrarian scientists are valid indeed.

Unfortunately for you, "contrarian scientists" paid by the pro-industry side of a debate have a piss-poor track record. However valid, they just won't get any weight. Get used to it.

They will be the affirmed scientists of tomorrow. Right about the time you'll be denying global cooling and the zealots here will be showing you charts and graphs showing you why your antiquated scientists and studies are all just propaganda machines for "big ____"

Why would I deny global cooling, if the science suddenly starts pointing out that global cooling is in fact the correct event to occur? I for one am not tied to the idea of global warming, unlike what you and PaperNotes seem to think. I see no shame in having to change my stance should the evidence start to tack that way; because after all, it's merely a scientific question, not a personal belief, right? Right? *looks at PaperNotes' paranoid rants*

I decided I was having enough when I saw little gems like "Solar/celestial phenomena used to be the primary drivers of climate throughout all of history until about 1984"

Well I think most would now say earlier than 1984, but I see no huge problem with that (admittedly simplified) statement. Care to elaborate?

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I showed asked how many of the IPCC "scientist/authors" don't work in the field either, they're referencing the work of others. Many of which had been retired.

I don't remember this. Tried searching, but this thread is just a beast.

It's pretty easy with google. Unfortunately, it's not quite as ebuddy remembers:
"Have any vocal authors and/or contributors to the IPCC or any of their assessment reports retired tie?"

[PaperNotes]

European ministers meeting right now are saying enough is enough to this Climate Change bollocks and are hammering out a deal to end this costly lie. One bit at a time the Green agenda will be dropped and forgotten because now that the credit crunch has hit home, so has the Red-Green agenda to cripple industry.

To make matters even worse for the Green agenda, even the very leftwing press is turning against it. The Guardian presents this article by economist Bjorn Lomborg (who used to be a global warming believer) that states the science quite simply. Carbon emissions have kept on rising but warming is no longer happening. Game over for the scare mongers, the closet communists and everyone else who wanted to destroy us. The end of the world is indeed coming, but not for the democratic industrialised world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...fclimatechange

Have you noticed how environmental campaigners almost inevitably say that not only is global warming happening and bad, but also that what we are seeing is even worse than expected?

This is odd, because any reasonable understanding of how science proceeds would expect that, as we refine our knowledge, we find that things are sometimes worse and sometimes better than we expected, and that the most likely distribution would be about 50-50. Environmental campaigners, however, almost invariably see it as 100-0.

If we are regularly being surprised in just one direction, if our models get blindsided by an ever-worsening reality, that does not bode well for our scientific approach. Indeed, one can argue that if the models constantly get something wrong, it is probably because the models are wrong. And if we cannot trust our models, we cannot know what policy action to take if we want to make a difference.

Yet, if new facts constantly show us that the consequences of climate change are getting worse and worse, high-minded arguments about the scientific method might not carry much weight. Certainly, this seems to be the prevailing bet in the spin on global warming. It is, again, worse than we thought, and, despite our failing models, we will gamble on knowing just what to do: cut CO2 emissions dramatically.

But it is simply not correct that climate data are systematically worse than expected; in many respects, they are spot on, or even better than expected. That we hear otherwise is an indication of the media's addiction to worst-case stories, but that makes a poor foundation for smart policies.

The most obvious point about global warming is that the planet is heating up. It has warmed about 1C (1.8F) over the past century, and is predicted by the United Nations' climate panel (IPCC) to warm between 1.6-3.8C (2.9-6.8F) during this century, mainly owing to increased CO2. An average of all 38 available standard runs from the IPCC shows that models expect a temperature increase in this decade of about 0.2C.

But this is not at all what we have seen. And this is true for all surface temperature measures, and even more so for both satellite measures. Temperatures in this decade have not been worse than expected; in fact, they have not even been increasing. They have actually decreased by between 0.01 and 0.1C per decade. On the most important indicator of global warming, temperature development, we ought to hear that the data are actually much better than expected.

Likewise, and arguably much more importantly, the heat content of the world's oceans has been dropping for the past four years where we have measurements. Whereas energy in terms of temperature can disappear relatively easily from the light atmosphere, it is unclear where the heat from global warming should have gone – and certainly this is again much better than expected.

We hear constantly about how the Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than expected, and this is true. But most serious scientists also allow that global warming is only part of the explanation. Another part is that the so-called Arctic oscillation of wind patterns over the Arctic Ocean is now in a state that it does not allow build-up of old ice, but immediately flushes most ice into the North Atlantic.

More importantly, we rarely hear that the Antarctic sea ice is not only not declining, but is above average for the past year. IPCC models would expect declining sea ice in both hemispheres but, whereas the Arctic is doing worse than expected, Antarctica is doing better.

Ironically, the Associated Press, along with many other news outlets, told us in 2007 that the "Arctic is screaming," and that the Northwest Passage was open "for the first time in recorded history." Yet the BBC reported in 2000 that the fabled Northwest Passage was already without ice.

We are constantly inundated with stories of how sea levels will rise, and how one study after another finds that it will be much worse than what the IPCC predicts. But most models find results within the IPCC range of a sea-level increase of 18-59cm (7-23in) this century. This is of course why the thousands of IPCC scientists projected that range. Yet studies claiming one metre or more obviously make for better headlines.

Since 1992, we have had satellites measuring the rise in global sea levels, and they have shown a stable increase of 3.2mm per year (1/8 of an inch) – spot on compared to the IPCC projection. Moreover, over the last two years, sea levels have not increased at all – actually, they show a slight drop. Should we not be told that this is much better than expected?

Hurricanes were the stock image of Al Gore's famous film on climate change, and certainly the United States was battered in 2004 and 2005, leading to wild claims of ever stronger and costlier storms in the future. But in the two years since, the costs have been well below average, virtually disappearing in 2006. That is definitely better than expected.

Gore quoted MIT hurricane researcher Kerry Emmanuel to support an alleged scientific consensus that global warming is making hurricanes much more damaging. But Emmanuel has now published a new study showing that even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries. That conclusion did not get much exposure in the media.

Of course, not all things are less bad than we thought. But one-sided exaggeration is not the way forward. We urgently need balance if we are to make sensible choices.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

What dilemma? I just said that everyone's okay with the earth previously being hotter.

greg

No, you giggled like a little paedophile when I previously asserted that it was hotter during the Iron and Bronze Age, and the Medieval Climate Optimum, than it is today yet we are a huge magnitude more industrialised today. The majority of the Earth's history since the dawn of civlisation has seen warmer temperatures than today. Our pathetic 1 degree rise in the last 120 years is nothing but us coming out of the Little Ice Age. If it was true carbon warmed the climate we would be roasting to death right now.

It's game over for the Climate Change scaremongers. You watch the media now. They'll give up this fallacious story very soon.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's pretty easy with google. Unfortunately, it's not quite as ebuddy remembers:
"Have any vocal authors and/or contributors to the IPCC or any of their assessment reports retired tie?"

Be sure to scroll upwards from where you linked. It is in fact, exactly as I remembered.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Pedophile? Your insults are getting less and less professional I see.

And you've just changed your story. "Earth's history" is much different than the "dawn of civilization." One is, oh, a couple order of magnitudes larger than the other, see.

Your "roasting to death" hyperbole is just silly.

But in any case, keep on posting your editorial pieces, and keep on ignoring all the evidence.

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Be sure to scroll upwards from where you linked. It is in fact, exactly as I remembered.

Where? The string "retired" only comes up 3 times in this thread (before this page), and only once by you, and it's a question not a statement.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

He does go through a couple names and debates their validity, such as questioning the number and/or recent-ness of their papers and/or work (mostly papers though I think). Yeah there's a lot of back and forth in that area of this thread.

I do think that his analysis showed a lack of context, although he probably wouldn't agree, haha! "Going against" the mainstream scientific view, in my opinion, requires a much higher standard of proof than "agreeing with the mainstream." For example, if you have two scientists who are both accomplished, but both are 70 years old and haven't been producing papers in the last 20 years, then there's much less weight accorded to the one who dissents, rather than the one who agrees. (Or said alternately, a "higher standard of proof" is required for the one who dissents.)

I think PaperNotes and eBuddy would probably find this to be a "double standard" but I think it's one that is completely appropriate, for obvious reasons, and one that is applicable in most areas of life.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I think PaperNotes and eBuddy would probably find this to be a "double standard" but I think it's one that is completely appropriate, for obvious reasons, and one that is applicable in most areas of life.

You just saved me a hell of a lot of time.

I was going to go through each of the supplied climatologists, meteorologists, paleoclimatologists, paleogeophysicists, etc... who contributed to the IPCC and show how their "work in the field" was no different than the climatologists, meteorologists, paleoclimatologists, and paleogeophysicists who challenge the anthropogenic hype. Problem is, there are many fewer opponents than proponents. While this alone does not constitute a degree of certainty, many will use this "consensus" argument to shut down opposition. If people are so quick to do it here and elsewhere popularly, it is not a stretch to assume this occurs among those in the discipline as well. I'm no scientist, but IMO this expertise is not necessary to understand that a global panel formed with the express intent of drafting policy to address anthropogenic warming will likely not entertain much to the contrary.

There is in fact a double-standard and I'm not sure I disagree with you on the legitimacy of this phenomena. At least not enough that I'll go back through the pains of research for something of such little value to anyone. The only thing that will affirm my skepticism or the skepticism of others is time. This was the crux of my point to Papernotes.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You just saved me a hell of a lot of time.

You speak too soon!

I was going to go through each of the supplied climatologists, meteorologists, paleoclimatologists, paleogeophysicists, etc... who contributed to the IPCC and show how their "work in the field" was no different than the climatologists, meteorologists, paleoclimatologists, and paleogeophysicists who challenge the anthropogenic hype.

First of all: that's impossible. The names I posted aren't even the first page. There's 13 more to go. In all, hundreds, and that's just for one of three reports (although there is some overlap).

Second of all: all those names are good. Like, quite good. Go ahead, try them. I got bored while studying today, haha, and started randomly googling them. I was impressed. I'd guarantee you that any "skeptic" list won't include near the standard of quality and relevance to the field on that first page alone, let alone in the other 400-odd names.

Problem is, there are many fewer opponents than proponents. While this alone does not constitute a degree of certainty, many will use this "consensus" argument to shut down opposition. If people are so quick to do it here and elsewhere popularly, it is not a stretch to assume this occurs among those in the discipline as well. I'm no scientist, but IMO this expertise is not necessary to understand that a global panel formed with the express intent of drafting policy to address anthropogenic warming will likely not entertain much to the contrary.

I would certainly agree with this. You also have to take in mind however that at an individual level, most of these are scientists who work in the field and research in the field. And if you know scientists, you know that they're very proud of the noble ideology behind their work and the great myth of the scientific method being the ultimate discoverer of truth. If there was mounting scientific evidence against AGW, I guarantee you that a lot of flags would be raising. As it stands now, there's certainly opinion against AGW, and small amounts of scientific evidence, but nothing that's ultimately incompatible with current theory. Until they start producing the evidence to back their claims, the opinionated naysayers are really just preaching to the athiests, as it were.

greg

[PaperNotes]

It's nonsense and an illusion that there are fewer opponents than proponents. The media is bought off and won't give scientists and critical thinkers a voice any longer. This is about the rich serving the rich and politically motivated groups and organisations practising censorship and using intimidation and defamation to silence dissent. It's a miracle at all that the The Guardian allowed Lomborg's article.

You go around to public forums and it's the majority who agree this global warming scare is a politically motivated crock. It's only a few closet communists and radicals who hide their agenda, like the three people we have here, who think they're the majority. When The Great Global Warming Swindle aired, there were six calls to Channel 4 in support of it for every one person who phoned in and ranted like a religious maniac about "the children of the future". Got to love the use of children in propaganda

More:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/sc...ss&oref=slogin

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/1...till-climbing/

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

More:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/sc...ss&oref=slogin

Do you even read your own articles? You continue to provide links to articles which rebut your own claims, which is absolutely hilarious to me.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you apparently don't even read the articles you provide? Where are you getting these articles?

Originally Posted by The Article YOU Provided

Still, the scientists, at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., said that the ice in the Arctic this summer was 33 percent below the average extent tracked since satellites started monitoring the region in 1979 and that the trend continued toward an ice-free Arctic Ocean within a few decades.

This summer also was notable because scientists confirmed that two fabled shipping routes, the Northwest Passage over Canada and the Northern Sea Route over Russia, were briefly open simultaneously.
...
Global warming from the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases almost certainly contributes to the Arctic ice retreats, according to a host of Arctic specialists. But many say natural variations in Arctic winds and cloud cover probably had a role in shaping the particularly large ice losses in the past two summers.

Dr. Meier said that small variations from one year to the next were less significant than the long-term trajectory, which remained toward progressively more open water. “It’s hard to see the summer ice coming back in any substantial way,” he said.

Thanks for the update on anthropogenic global warming effects on the Arctic PaperNotes! Good stuff!


greg

[PaperNotes]

[PaperNotes]

http://atoc.colorado.edu/wxlab/atoc1...ing%20quiz.ppt

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hah hah, nothing to say huh? Not even an excuse before you just move on to posting homemade articles on global warming?

No shame.

greg

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Hah hah, nothing to say huh? Not even an excuse before you just move on to posting homemade articles on global warming?

No shame.

greg

That was from a scientist, not homemade nonsense from the IPCC who altered the words of scientists.

More:

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Glob...atural-PDO.htm

The evidence continues to mount that the IPCC models are too sensitive, and therefore produce too much global warming. If climate sensitivity is indeed considerably less than the IPCC claims it to be, then increasing CO2 alone can not explain recent global warming. The evidence presented here suggests that most of that warming might well have been caused by cloud changes associated with a natural mode of climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

I am posting this information in advance of publication because of its potential importance to pending EPA regulations or congressional legislation which assume that carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate change. Since the mainstream news media now refuse to report on peer-reviewed scientific articles which contradict the views of the IPCC, Al Gore, and James Hansen, I am forced to bypass them entirely.

Roy W. Spencer, PhD
Principal Research Scientist
The University of Alabama in Huntsville

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

That was from a scientist, not homemade nonsense from the IPCC who altered the words of scientists.

More:

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Glob...atural-PDO.htm

Now you see the value of "citation," hmmm??

Thanks for the actual abstract, though. It's good stuff; I'll keep an eye out for the paper when it comes out.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

And as an interest read for you:

Artic Fall temperatures at record 5 degrees ABOVE normal

greg

EDIT: Whoops, originally wrote "below" instead of "above." Arctic temps are higher, not lower.

[Buckaroo]

Lorne Gunter: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...s-go-poof.aspx

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Lorne Gunter: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

Damn you beat me to posting that article. The media is starting to get brave now that the UN and the EU are trying to punish industry to reward their rich masters (like Al Gore who are earning big money off the carbon trade) during these hard times.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And as an interest read for you:

Artic Fall temperatures at record 5 degrees ABOVE normal

I read it on Yahoo two days ago and it made me laugh at how many errors it made. At 5 degrees C there shouldn't be an ice cap at the moment. This summer saw the ice cap's size increase by 10% over last year. Further, the stupid article like other bad journalism says the Northwest Passage has been traversed for the first time in recorded history when we know it was crossed a hundred years ago. That article is bad journalism that provides no photos, no video either. Just semantics that anyone can make up.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

That article is bad journalism that provides no photos, no video either. Just semantics that anyone can make up.

*snort*

The article is bad, for other reasons. I posted it just because you seem to take such high stock of the writings of people with journalism degrees, rather than science degrees.

But to call it bad journalism because it doesn't provide photos or video? Oh man, you're laughable.

greg

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I read it on Yahoo two days ago and it made me laugh at how many errors it made. At 5 degrees C there shouldn't be an ice cap at the moment. ...

I guess the temperatures can seem astounding if you believe that the state of the ice cap is anything but diminishing.

I won't ask that you (again) consider the counter evidence.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

*snort*

The article is bad, for other reasons. I posted it just because you seem to take such high stock of the writings of people with journalism degrees, rather than science degrees.

But to call it bad journalism because it doesn't provide photos or video? Oh man, you're laughable.

greg

I too would call it bad journalism. Any hysterical propaganda involving regions of the world that they say are changing dramatically, yet fail to show us those changes in an age of ubiquitous cameras and internet connections, is bad journalism and open to the most severe deceit.

[Super Mario]

How to deal with the Enviro-fascists

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarmi...andbook1-4.pdf

[Super Mario]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10...greenpeace_no/

[Super Mario]

CO2 charges cancelled. Ken Livingstone's Eco-communist charges overturned

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cong...ging/7394.aspx



Two wannabe dictators

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

I too would call it bad journalism. Any hysterical propaganda involving regions of the world that they say are changing dramatically, yet fail to show us those changes in an age of ubiquitous cameras and internet connections, is bad journalism and open to the most severe deceit.

Because thawing permafrost makes such compelling video.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Super Mario 

I too would call it bad journalism. Any hysterical propaganda involving regions of the world that they say are changing dramatically, yet fail to show us those changes in an age of ubiquitous cameras and internet connections, is bad journalism and open to the most severe deceit.

But...they have pictures. Clearly neither you nor PaperNotes bothered to look at the report.

greg

[PaperNotes]

You are talking rubbish, commie fanboi Moncton. Here you're uncle has something to say

http://www.americanthinker.com/print..._viscou_1.html

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You really can't wrap your mind around the fact that I'm a right-wing conservative who believes what climate scientists say, huh?

Question: why should I believe what Monckton has to say? Who is he? Is he an expert on climate change? What research has he done on climate change?

greg

[Chongo]

he's super cereal!

[PaperNotes]

Question: why should I believe what Lord Monckton has to say? Who is he? Is he an expert on climate change? What research has he done on climate change?

greg

More than you, Prophet Al Gore (peace be upon him) and the unelected, unaccountable and uncorruptable gods at the UN/IPCC apparently.

Have you got a problem with his free speech and ability to study the facts that you can't debate?