Climategate leaker: Our civilization is being killed by lying “science

[olger]

Fascinating.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54064

[Bravus]

It's neither the science nor the scientists that are lying in that piece.

Can't even be bothered to go through and rebut it: those who are convinced will remain convinced in the face of the evidence forever.

[olger]

Doesn't matter, David. Beginning with the skewed allegations by the IPCC and the email scandals, ClimateGate is the de-facto calumny of our time. An honest person will look at the email scandal and say "Thank God. I'm glad anthropogenic global warming wasn't real."

A dishonest person looks at the email scandal and says "There is no God. But anthropogenic global warming is absolute truth!"

http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/

`oG

[olger]

Global Microwave Sea Surface Temperature Update through Feb. 2013

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/03/glob...013-0-01-deg-c/

[Bravus]

Leaving aside how much hyperbole there is in 'our civilisation is being killed'.

The money spent bailing out big banks is orders of magnitude greater than would be required to make the US entirely sustainable in energy.

[Bravus]

(and incidentally, energy independent and able to leave the rest of the world alone)

[CoAspen]

Quote:

It's neither the science nor the scientists that are lying in that piece.

Quote:

Doesn't matter, ....

So now we know...how important truth is to some regardless of their rhetoric to the opposite!!

(wish it were funny....)

[BobRyan]

It's neither the science nor the scientists that are lying in that piece.

Can't even be bothered to go through and rebut it: those who are convinced will remain convinced in the face of the evidence forever.

[BobRyan]

More scientists that supposedly "don't exist" that differ with the global warming story.

Quote:

Criticism

See also: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sci..._global_warming

The IPCC's work has been the subject of criticism,[17] and there are small number of climate scientists[18][19] who disagree with aspects of the IPCC's work. Perhaps the best known is Richard Lindzen,[18] professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Royal Society, the UK's national academy of science, has argued that[12] "[there] are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC."

IPCC process

A report by the UK Parliament's House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee (EAC, 2005)[20] contains criticisms of the IPCC's work, including the "SRES" greenhouse gas emissions scenarios,[21] which are used in the TAR. The Economic Affairs Select Committee is made up of members of the House of Lords, which scrutinizes and votes on government legislation. One of the criticisms made by the EAC (2005)[22] is an apparent inconsistency between the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers and a statement made in the full WGII report: "The IPCC Summary for policy makers says that economic studies underestimate damage, whereas the chapter says the direction of the bias is not known."

Interesting list that article links to of scientists that "don't exist".

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

From 0 to 1000 AD there is a .6 temp increase. From 1000 AD to today - a .4 temp increase. Interesting.

[Bravus]

Pretty sure I never said 'scientists who differ with the global warming story don't exist'. Read back.

I said that whoever was writing that article was lying.

The 'hockey stick' graph was discredited years ago and is never used by climate scientists.

And the warming trend has *not* 'returned to zero', or anything like it.

The graph Bob posted above ends before 2004, so it's well out of date.

Here is the most recent data from the UK:

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/change-in-global-average-temperature

So very, very far from 'returning to zero'.

[BobRyan]

Global Microwave Sea Surface Temperature Update through Feb. 2013

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/03/glob...013-0-01-deg-c/

Interesting it seems to be at a leveling off stage.

But what about trends from before that time?

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

The graph Bob posted above ends before 2004, so it's well out of date.

Here is the most recent data from the UK:

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/change-in-global-average-temperature

So very, very far from 'returning to zero'.

I don't think the chart I posted showing warming since the 1500's shows anything like "returning back to zero".

Your chart shows cooling after 2004 - is that what you meant to post as the "additional info"??

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/f...eps/image_large

[Bravus]

If you (cherry)pick 2003-2006 as a starting point. Why would you do that, unless you sought to mislead? Climate has been warming for many decades, and the most usual baseline is 1950-1990 or some other period of that size, not 3 years once much heating had already occurred.

And the original claim was about the 'hockey stick graph - since 1850 - returning to zero.

It simply does not. That is a lie. There are many other lies in the piece, that was just the simplest.

[BobRyan]

So then - accounting for the trend over a longer period of time -- it is.

From 0 to 1000 AD there is a .6 temp increase. From 1000 AD to today - a .4 temp increase. Interesting.

Clearly we can all see that the global trend from 0 to today - is warming.

And if we generalize the graph just looking at 0, 1000 and 2000 as 3 points of interest. It is more or less - a straight line graph with a slightly lower rate of warming from 1000 AD to today- than from 0 to 1000 A.D. due to the mini ice age.

in Christ,

Bob

[olger]

Quote:

It's neither the science nor the scientists that are lying in that piece.

Quote:

Doesn't matter, ....

So now we know...how important truth is to some regardless of their rhetoric to the opposite!!

(wish it were funny....)

My comment was a response to "Can't even be bothered to go through and rebut it.." That does not matter to me.

rejoice always,

G

[olger]

New global warming mea culpa?

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/hansens-mea-culpa-says-man-made-global.html

[Bravus]

It's a good article... and no, not a mea culpa.

Well worth reading the whole article.

It makes a couple of points:

1. There has been a rapid increase in fossil fuel use, mostly coal, and mostly in China and India.

2. To some extent, increased atmospheric CO2 has fertilised green plants so that they can take up more CO2. This explains part of the reduction in the proportion of emitted CO2 remaining in the atmosphere.

3. It's not only the CO2 - coal is a 'dirtier' fuel than oil, and also contains nitrogen, which fertilises.

So far so good, but the main thrust of the paper is around the 'Faustian bargain' of burning coal.

Because it is not a clean fuel - it also contains sulfur and other materials - coal produces a lot of aerosols - small particles in the air. In general these tend to reflect solar energy back off into space, 'shading' the earth and leading to cooling.

The point being made is that these aerosols from the rapidly-growing and coal-fired economies of China and India may well explain much of the much-crowed-about slowing of warming.

But, as the paper notes, it's a Faustian bargain... and in the end, Mephistopheles gets his due. That's because the population of China is not going to put up with the horrendous air pollution it suffers forever. As the Chinese people get wealthier and more comfortable they are going to demand clean air, and measures will be put into place to capture the aerosols instead of releasing them into the atmosphere.

At that point the air cleans up, the shade goes away, and warming resumes at an even more dramatic pace.

The paper is good, fair, balanced, cautious and qualified, but it does *not* say 'warming was a hoax' or 'warming is not happening' or 'we were wrong about the human causes of warming'. It says 'other human factors are currently mitigating the warming, but they will last less long than the warming... so warming is still a major problem'.

Thanks for bringing it, OG, I learned a lot.

[phkrause]

[olger]

Here it comes folks, a complete revamp of public and private land management policies and strategies in the name of helping wildlife adapt to "climate change". This involves the establishment of wildlife "corridors", "rolling conservation easements", and the "retirement" of selected agricultural lands. Private property rights will now be subject to US, UN, and IUCN conservation management goals. Don't miss the significance of this! This was a joint government and NGO effort, heavily supported by the Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation.

One more large footprint of the green dragon.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-adaptation-strategy-20130327,0,4088605.story

[Bravus]

*cough*GishGallop*cough*

[olger]

Diogenes still looking.

g

[Tom Wetmore]

Here it comes folks, a complete revamp of public and private land management policies and strategies in the name of helping wildlife adapt to "climate change". This involves the establishment of wildlife "corridors", "rolling conservation easements", and the "retirement" of selected agricultural lands. Private property rights will now be subject to US, UN, and IUCN conservation management goals. Don't miss the significance of this! This was a joint government and NGO effort, heavily supported by the Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation.

One more large footprint of the green dragon.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-adaptation-strategy-20130327,0,4088605.story

I presume that you prefer the more common and destructive brown and grey dragons that breath fire and belch smoke...

[Bravus]

Diogenes is an odd reference point: his quest was for an honest man.

You have posted things that proved to be untrue, and when that was clearly demonstrated, did not resile or correct, just posted more things that were untrue.

Diogenes should perhaps search in places *other* than anti-environmental blogs...

[olger]

Diogenes may not have found an honest man, however in your support for ACGW he found the cynicism that he fathered. And that is a real truth.