lol, let's take one of the most complex systems ever studied, with millions of inputs and feedback loops.... and then let's isolate one single tiny input to that system and claim that it is the biggest lever with which we can control the entire incalculable system.

This makes complete sense and if you express any doubt then you're just a backwoods redneck with no IQ.

2/11/2010 10:56:04 AM

**** THE OFFICIAL Solinari LIST OF BACKWOODS REDNECKS WITH NO IQ:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://timeforchange.org/main-cause-of-global-warming-solutions
http://planetsave.com/blog/2009/04/18/human-global-warming-what-are-the-main-causes/
http://blog.sustainablog.org/prevention-of-global-warming-understanding-the-main-causes/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/deforestation-the-hidden-cause-of-global-warming-448734.html
http://www.acoolerclimate.com/Articles/GlobalWarmingMainFactsAndMyths.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=en&hs=dqw&q=causes+of+global+warming&aq=f&aqi=g-c3g1g-c3g1g-c2&oq=

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&rls=en&hs=dqw&q=causes%20of%20global%20warming&oq=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi


man you literally broke the entire WHOLE of the internet with your dumbassery!!

[Edited on February 11, 2010 at 11:17 AM. Reason : 5]

2/11/2010 11:16:37 AM

If global warming is real, why is it so cold outside hmmm?

2/11/2010 11:18:27 AM

pack_bryan, what are you talking about? I started page #44 with the claim that global warming deniers were backwoods rednecks. Geez... reread my post

hyper sensitivity in this thread.

2/11/2010 11:35:59 AM

^he's a troll/alias, you're best off just ignoring him.

2/11/2010 1:32:33 PM

It's been a slow week for news because it's been a big week for weather. The East Coast is covered in snow, and Time magazine blames global warming. No, seriously: "There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm." The New York Times says the same thing, though two-sidedly: "The two sides in the climate-change debate are seizing on the mounting drifts to bolster their arguments."

The Time story notes that climate is not the same thing as weather:

Quote :

"Ultimately, however, it's a mistake to use any one storm--or even a season's worth of storms--to disprove climate change (or to prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this week, to global warming). Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries. And while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate."

Wait a minute, "scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate"? We thought global warming was settled science, and anyone who doubted it was a knuckle-dragging lackey or handmaid of Big Oil! (Sorry for the mixed metaphors, but at least we're gender inclusive.)

To be sure, the global warmists are right to distinguish between weather and climate. A short-term condition sometimes can run counter to a long-term trend, as when a growing economy goes through a recession, or a generally healthy man suffers an acute illness (though in the long run, we're all dead).

The problem is that for years, global warmists have claimed that the weather proved their claims about the climate. This is a New York Times story from June 24, 1988:

Quote :

" The earth has been warmer in the first five months of this year than in any comparable period since measurements began 130 years ago, and the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution, a space agency scientist reported today. Until now, scientists have been cautious about attributing rising global temperatures of recent years to the predicted global warming caused by pollutants in the atmosphere, known as the "greenhouse effect." But today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere. Dr. Hansen, a leading expert on climate change, said in an interview that there was no "magic number" that showed when the greenhouse effect was actually starting to cause changes in climate and weather. But he added, "It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here." "

Breitbart.tv has a collection of clips from the past decade depicting Democratic congressmen blaming global warming for shortfalls of snow. But perhaps the classic of the genre is a piece from the Boston Globe, dated Aug. 30, 2005, which begins: "The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming."

The author, Ross Gelbspan, goes on to blame global warming for "a two-foot snowfall in Los Angeles"--something that never happened--along with high winds in Northern Europe, droughts in the American Midwest and Southeastern Europe, rain in India and even a heat wave in Arizona.

It gets better. Gelbspan faults the media for failing to take global warming seriously:

Quote :

" When the US press has bothered to cover the subject of global warming, it has focused almost exclusively on its political and diplomatic aspects and not on what the warming is doing to our agriculture, water supplies, plant and animal life, public health, and weather. For years, the fossil fuel industry has lobbied the media to accord the same weight to a handful of global warming skeptics that it accords the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the United Nations."

It is now clear that even if Gelbspan had been describing the media's approach to the subject accurately, they still would have been assigning too much authority to the IPCC. Yesterday London's Guardian, a left-wing paper that has long been squarely in the global-warmist camp, carried a damning report titled "How to Reform the IPCC":

Quote :

" The IPCC says its reports are policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive. Perhaps unknown to many people, the process is started and finished not by scientists but by political officials, who steer the way the information is presented in so-called summary for policymakers [SPM] chapters. Is that right, the Guardian asked? "The Nobel prize was for peace not science . . . government employees will use it to negotiate changes and a redistribution of resources. It is not a scientific analysis of climate change," said Anton Imeson, a former IPCC lead author from the Netherlands. "For the media, the IPCC assessments have become an icon for something they are not. To make sure that it does not happen again, the IPCC should change its name and become part of something else. The IPCC should have never allowed itself to be branded as a scientific organisation. It provides a review of published scientific papers but none of this is much controlled by independent scientists.""

And of course the University of East Anglia emails showed that the so-called independent scientists manipulated data and tried to blacklist colleagues who did not accept the global-warmist hypotheses.

It's true that cold weather, while providing an occasion to mock global warming, does not disprove it. But the mocking would be far less effective had global warmists not spent the past quarter-century making a mockery of the scientific method.

-- from Best of the Web --
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059270348147154.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

2/11/2010 4:41:11 PM

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214

global warmning pwnt. stay home.

2/15/2010 10:01:27 AM

I heard this on Glenn Beck driving to work and I just knew I would see it pop up here.

Does anyone have a link to the actual interview? Some of this quotes sound too good to be true for climate skeptics, so I am betting they are.

[Edited on February 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM. Reason : ``]

2/15/2010 11:35:15 AM

we have corroboration here...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

2/15/2010 1:00:22 PM

Scientists dispute skeptic's claim that US weather data is useless:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/climate-sceptic-us-weather-data

Another article about Phil Jones with new information:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data

[Edited on February 15, 2010 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2010 1:44:48 PM

Skeptics dispute Scientists who dispute Scientists who dispute skeptic's claim that US weather data is useless:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/climate-sceptic-scientist-sceptic-us-weather-data

[Edited on February 15, 2010 at 3:32 PM. Reason : 3]

2/15/2010 3:30:34 PM

actual interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

2/15/2010 5:22:06 PM

Wait wait wait...so all of that data that Socks`` had up is totally crap?

How can this be?

I mean, didn't President Bush say there was global warming?

2/15/2010 6:58:16 PM

2/15/2010 7:18:56 PM

we know you have a fantastic lack of any grasp of physics. to propose that we aren't seeing any warming right now because of latent heat of fusion is absurd. It would require that all of the heat being generated via CO2 be absorbed in the ice at the polar regions, which is patently impossible

2/15/2010 9:42:31 PM

Quote :

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. "

A clearly positive trend, but it just doesn't quite hit statistical significance. Why did this reporter choose to ask about 1995 to 2009? Why not 1990? Or 2000?
15 data points is kind of a small sample.

2/15/2010 10:03:23 PM

Quote :

"Wait wait wait...so all of that data that Socks`` had up is totally crap?"

Only if you're insane and think you know more about climate science than 90% of climate scientists.

Aaronburro is the only exception to this rule because he got an engineering degree from State, so that means he can confidently comment on any scientific topic.

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 7:56 AM. Reason : ``]

2/16/2010 7:56:15 AM

Quote :

"Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 By Jonathan Petre The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’. The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory. Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made. Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data. The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions."

I'm guessing he's finally coming clean since he's seen the writing on the wall. Rest of the article is on the site: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490

2/16/2010 8:59:20 AM

^ Or you can get the direct quotes from the link I posted just a couple of posts up

Quote :

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. "

Quote :

"G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented? There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions. Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented. We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere. "

2/16/2010 10:07:43 AM

my apologies. i wasn't keeping up with this thread over the weekend and when I checked back there were like 4-5 links which I didn't click on at the time...and then later forgot to check

2/16/2010 10:14:39 AM

more proof of global warming

http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&article=2

2/16/2010 1:23:50 PM

It would be nice if some of the people who debate climate change actually knew the difference between weather and climate

2/17/2010 10:31:05 AM

It would be nicer if some of the people who use aliases would stop pretending to be someone they aren't and act with some fucking sense.

2/17/2010 10:44:06 AM

Obama's Admin takes another hit! BP, Conoco-Philips, and Caterpillar all quit USCAP (US Climate Action Partnership) today. It's about time, I never understood why Caterpillar belonged to an organization that lobbied to put the coal industry out of business (coal industry is Caterpillar's biggest client). I guess they decided to listen more to their shareholders.

http://www.cleanskies.com/articles/bp-conocophillips-caterpillar-leave-uscap

2/17/2010 1:23:00 PM

Quote :

"we know you have a fantastic lack of any grasp of physics. to propose that we aren't seeing any warming right now because of latent heat of fusion is absurd. It would require that all of the heat being generated via CO2 be absorbed in the ice at the polar regions, which is patently impossible "

obviously you're the one with the lack of a grasp on physics.

Or you just intentionally ignore the fact that water can take in twice as much energy as ice and still raise by the same temperature. O, my bad, that would debunk the whole "why aren't the oceans warming up" theory.

Heat is increasing globally and for the reason stated AND OTHERS, that won't always mean a direct temperature increase in the short term.

2/24/2010 8:08:56 AM

it is difficult enough to prove that the earth is actually warming. it is orders of magnitude more complex to prove any cause to that warming, and even harder still to single out one dominant cause and attribute it to man. speculation != proof

2/24/2010 8:20:11 AM

ZOMG the record snow and cold in DC and the north east is OBVIOUS proof that global warming is complete bullshit!!!

2/24/2010 8:56:48 AM

what does the temperature average for ONE MONTH have to do with AGW you tool?

2/24/2010 10:07:03 AM

I am not saying it does you tool!!!!

AGW dissenters (like Glenn Beck) though use the record snow and cold in DC as well as the north east as evidence that AGW does not exist. They fail to account for world wide temperature anomalies which were above normal. This though still is a false conclusion even "if" the world temperatures were below normal. January was no more proof that AGW does not exist then an overly active hurricane season is proof that it does. Both sides draw
false correlations and are predisposed to biased data judgement in order to reach the conclusions they want.

I believe the comment Glenn Beck used was that "Al Gore is hiding in his igloo" since obviously if DC is colder than normal then the entire world must be free of any threat of climate change even a Natural one.

2/24/2010 10:15:32 AM

Stop perpetuating stupid mindsets. Just b/c both sides of the argument apply this logic doesn't mean we need your diarrhea posts in here.

2/24/2010 10:56:50 AM

^^^^ Is 30-years a large enough base to determine weather abnormalities? I don't know from a scientific standpoint, just wondering.

2/24/2010 11:51:35 AM

Considering that i have not posted in this thread in months if anything my post could be considered "constipation."

2/24/2010 12:09:27 PM

what the fuck are you talking about, mambatroll? you mentioned latent heat of fusion, I refuted that, and now you act like you were talking about the different amount of heat needed to heat ice versus water? make up your mind.

2/24/2010 6:16:38 PM

Quote :

"Is 30-years a large enough base to determine weather abnormalities? I don't know from a scientific standpoint, just wondering."

The difficulty with making definitive statements about climate is exactly related to this issue, which is to say there are 47 different ways to slice any geospatial panel data, and you can cherry-pick your specification to match nearly any conclusion you want to draw.

This latest interview with Phil Jones is a good example, how he was referencing global warming only since 1995. But when he says he "calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009," there is a lack of specificity in what that means, and also a lack of clarity in what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from it. What global average did he use? Is it annualized, is he comparing between the same months between years, how is the averaging done geospatially? What is the significance of choosing 1995? If you want there to be less of an effect, just choose 1998; it was hotter than 1995, so starting then would presumably deflate the conclusions, just as starting in 1994 when it was cooler would inflate the trend. This should tell you that picking any one year as a baseline is a bad idea, and similarly that any isolated time series has its own flaws because it has a particular starting and ending cutoff. (You should be questioning how I asserted that 1998 was hotter and 1994 was cooler at this point. There's a method to the madness, but these are important questions that are rarely conveyed by journalists for public consumption.)

Then, if you have a 30-year baseline, it's equally flawed to draw conclusions from a comparison of that 30-year baseline to only one year's observations. It gives a nice picture, and sure it's another data point, but it's very difficult to draw a policy-relevant conclusion from it. Alternatively, you could track something like a rolling 10-year average of temperature trends, but maybe that smooths out variation too much. The point being that no method is perfect, and even a "95% confidence interval" is arbitrarily accepted in the scientific community; within some social sciences, they frequently use a 90% confidence interval.

Statistics is fuzzy, but people have an inherent distrust of fuzziness, and policy-makers have a particularly tough time dealing with it. I deal with climate change research on a daily basis in my work, and the ideal result is one that is robust across a wide range of model specifications.

On a related note, I think it's interesting that Phil Jones is being given so much weight all of a sudden as a "key scientist" in the debate after being thrust into public prominence as part of a scandal. Because he was involved in breaching the public trust, now he's a trustworthy interview source? It's fascinating how the media works.

2/24/2010 7:54:37 PM

To answer the question about a 30-year baseline more directly:

When choosing a baseline for comparison, there are two main things to consider. One is that you want the period to be long enough to smooth out noise from random variation; if there was one year that was super-hot for who-knows-why and fuck-all if we can explain it, you don't want that year to have too much weight (similarly if there's a very cold outlier). This is why it can be nice to use an average as a baseline in the first place.

The other consideration is that if there are cyclical trends in the data, you want to encompass the entire wavelength of the cycle. Also, if you have only a small number of periods in your dataset, you want to have a whole-number multiple of periods. Seasonality is one of the shortest cycles that are an example in this case. If your goal is to get an "average annual temperature," your results would obviously be biased if you only measure from April to September. Similarly, it would also be biased if you collect data for 2.5 years instead of 2. There would be much less bias from collecting 30.5 years instead of 30, though.

An example of a longer cycle skeptics talk about is the solar cycle, which causes variations in sunspot frequency. This cycle has a variable period, but on average the period is about 10 or 11 years. IF it has an effect on global temperature, your choice of baseline should account for it. A 30-year baseline is reasonably close to an integer multiple of the cycle length, so maybe that's ok.

An issue that's under debate is whether there is another longer-term cycle that we just don't understand; if we point to the medieval warming period and little ice age, etc., we can question whether that's indicative of a bigger cycle that we have not accounted for in the baselines we're reaching modern conclusions on. Even if it is, it remains to be seen whether that means the current warming trends are a result of being on another rising wave of that cycle or whether it's caused by man, or both, or what exactly. And that is the global warming debate in a nutshell; the baseline matters quite a lot.

[Edited on February 24, 2010 at 8:11 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2010 8:08:51 PM

30 years was picked for the period since we only have 30 years of satellite info.

Phil Jones's recent admission is significant b/c he's finally admitting what he denied for so long.

2/25/2010 12:34:35 PM

Quote :

"Phil Jones's recent admission is significant b/c he's finally admitting what he denied for so long."

Ha, I wonder how many people who say this stuff actually read the Phil Jones interview before they read the Daily Mail's spin job of it?

Its a shame a scientific issue like this is so politicized. This reminds me of what it must have been like during debates about evolution in the 20th century. Amateur biologists claiming one thing or another about why it happened, confident they knew much more about biology than the people that actually studied it for a living.

Hopefully, this issue doesn't take 100 years to settle. We don't have the time.

2/25/2010 12:40:22 PM

^I'm sure you're not talking specifically at me, but I have read the full interview. And some of the realist reports of the interview do put a little spin on it via their editting.


OT (in regards to last post)

I find it quite humorous that Lisa Jackson says 15 years of slight cooling mean nothing, when most of the GW argument is based on a warming spell that only lasted 17 years.

2/25/2010 2:58:23 PM

brilliant. Phil Jones said that one reason he failed to follow the law and comply with an FOI request was because Swedish weather station data wasn't available. Too bad its fucking PUBLIC DOMAIN AND FREELY AVAILABLE. good work, liar.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/pressrel0305eng.pdf

hey, FINALLY a scientific organization blasts the CRU debacle.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
some of the goodies...

Quote :

"1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context. 2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. ... 6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation."

3/6/2010 11:12:21 PM

^ That is EXACTLY what I've been saying for years.... I am a smart guy - I don't deny the possibility of AGW. The problem is that there is no fucking credibility in climate science.

3/7/2010 9:50:44 AM

nah. I'll bet that organization was just paid off by oil companies anyway. it's not like there's much money in the AGW business.

3/7/2010 2:11:03 PM

Big Oil funds the skeptics? Hardly. They're funding AGW, itself.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/possibleblogpost030710.pdf

Quote :

"The facts are that quite the opposite is the case. For example, let’s take “Big Oil”. BP has contributed over $500 Million to UC Berkeley, one of the Bay Area’s centers of AGW support, for its Energy Biosciences Institute. Stanford University has received $225 Million from ExxonMobil, Toyota and Schlumberger for its Global Climate and Energy Project. That money will be combined with a $50 Million donation from alumnus Jay Precourt whose career as an oil engineer included such companies as Hamilton Oil and Tejas Gas Corp. ... Compare these numbers with a total of ~$6.4 Million over a 4-year period between 2002-2005 provided to non-academic and presumably more conservative think tanks by ExxonMobile according to data acquired by EDF ... As for individuals active in the promotion of AGW, Susan Solomon, a Phd from Stanford and a lead author of the 2007 IPC Report was a recipient of the 2004 Blue Planet Prize, a 50 Million Yen (~$460,000) cash award from the Asahi Glass Foundation , see "

3/9/2010 10:16:07 PM

How's this for letting "the science speak for itself?" Good stuff.

Quote :

"Climategate: The Warmers Strike Back Walter E. Williams, Washington Times, Wednesday, March 17, 2010 Stephen Dinan’s Washington Times article “Climate Scientist to Fight Back at Skeptics,” (March 5, 2010) tells of a forthcoming campaign that one global warmer said needs to be “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to gut the credibility of skeptics. “Climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of ‘being treated like political pawns’ and need to fight back...” Part of their strategy is to form a nonprofit organization and use donations to run newspaper ads to criticize critics. Stanford professor and environmentalist Paul Ehrlich, in one of the e-mails obtained by the Washington Times said, “Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.” [wait, who has more funding, again? A "couple skeptics" or a $10b a year in funding from gov'ts? ] Professor Thomas Sowell’s most recent book, “Intellectuals and Society,” has a quote from Eric Hoffer, “One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputation.” Environmentalist Professor Paul Ehrlich, who’s giving advice to the warmers, is an excellent example of Hoffer’s observation. Ehrlich in his widely read 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” predicted, “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.” Ehrlich also predicted the earth’s then-5 billion population would starve back to 2 billion people by 2025. In 1969, Dr. Ehrlich warned Britain’s Institute of Biology, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Despite these asinine predictions, Ehrlich has won no less than 16 awards, including the 1980 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ highest award. Stanford University professor and environmentalist activist Stephen H. Schneider is another scientist involved in the warmer retaliation. In a 1989 Discover Magazine interview, Professor Schneider said, “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Former Colorado Sen. Tim Wirth, now president of the United Nations Foundation, in 1990 said, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we’ll be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Environmental activist predictions have been dead wrong. In National Wildlife (July 1975), Nigel Calder warned, “… the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” In the same issue, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization warned, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” George Woodwell’s, founder of the Woods Hole Research Center, comments suggest that the warmers are gearing up for a big propaganda push. In one of his e-mails, Woodwell said that researchers have been ceding too much ground. He criticized Pennsylvania State University for their academic investigation of Professor Michael Mann, who wrote many of the e-mails leaked from the Britain’s now disgraced Climate Research Unit. Stephen Dinan’s Washington Times article reports, “In his e-mail, Mr. Woodwell acknowledged that he is advocating taking ‘an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach’ but said scientists have had their ‘classical reasonableness’ turned against them,” adding, “‘We are dealing with an opposition that is not going to yield to facts or appeals from people who hold themselves in high regard and think their assertions and data are obvious truths.’” Fortunately, for the American people, Sen. James M. Inhofe, R- Okla., is considering asking the Justice Department to investigate whether climate scientists who receive taxpayer-funded grants have falsified data. He has identified 17 taxpayer-supported scientists who have been major players in the global warming conspiracy."

stunning, just fucking stunning

3/19/2010 5:51:08 PM

woops!
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/press-release.php

Quote :

"21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations' Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card released today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,500 sources cited in the report – finding 5,600 to be not peer-reviewed. "

that's almost a third of the sources that WEREN'T peer reviewed. fuck

4/20/2010 10:28:56 PM

it doesn't need to be peer reviewed if it "feels" like it should be right

silly rationalist. don't you understand the significance that emotions play when determining scientific truth?!

4/20/2010 10:32:42 PM

Quote :

"5,587 references in the IPCC report were not peer-reviewed. Among these documents are press releases, newspaper and magazine articles, discussion papers, MA and PhD theses, working papers, and advocacy literature published by environmental groups."

I don't understand how referencing a press release for a peer-reviewed paper is somehow not referencing a peer-reviewed paper.

Many of the referenced newspaper and magazine articles are reports that reference peer-reviewed papers. I'm not sure why they would be indirectly referenced by the IPCC, but it might be for the purpose of easier access for the public, since peer-review journals generally require membership or press credentials.

Out of 40 referenced thesis papers, 3 weren't published.

Regarding "advocacy literature," nearly all the references to the WWF and Greenpeace are peer-reviewed papers, but since they are the WWF and Greenpeace, that term apparently isn't valid.

So, it's completely disingenuous to say that ALL of those references are not peer reviewed. But, yes, there do seem to a few non-peer-reviewed references.

4/21/2010 1:03:35 AM

I love how this type of nitpicking is constantly going on about a subject that has long ago been established as fact by the entire field of atmospheric science. Its like if people still tried to argue only gay people can get aids.

4/21/2010 2:13:30 AM

or like trying to argue that the earth revolved around the sun when it has clearly been proven that all the celestial bodies revolve around the earth

Galileo and all the other skeptics can suck my dick!!

4/21/2010 8:08:53 AM

^^troll is trolling

4/21/2010 8:45:08 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/06/climate-science-open-letter

Open letter: Climate change and the integrity of science

An open letter from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences in defense of climate research.

Quote :

"We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modelling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial— scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts." For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend. Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change: (i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact. (ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. (iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes. (iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic. (v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more. Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business- as-usual practices. We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels. We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option."

[Edited on May 6, 2010 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2010 3:02:44 PM