Good morning to our regular media hounds sniffing around for tips – have we got a doozy for you!
Roger Pielke Sr. ;
The hard work of of Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) and Anthony Watts (www.surfacestations.org) has resulted in the identification of a significant error in the assessment of the rankings of what have been the warmest years in the United States as identified by GISS. The current warmest year is 1934.
Much more in the comments there – “As it stands, we are looking at a bladeless “Hockey Stick”, and for all intents and purposes at the falsification of the anthropogenic warming hypothesis for North America. Of particular note is that the Climate Audit piece indicates that GISS has erased the old [unadjusted] data, giving it the makings of an excercise in covering one’s tracks. The legality of this must be questionable given that we are dealing a federally funded agency. Astounding.”
(Climate Audit is currently down – I suspect in the same way SDA goes down when I post on Marc Emery’s cannibus cult…)
Update: My hunch was right. Climate Audit is under DOS attack.
Climate Audit:
Or as explained by commentor Chris Christner. “Congratulations Steve! On your own you’ve managed to reduce temperatures more than the Kyoto Protocol ever could!”
More here from Anthony Watts: “Here’s a story of scientific investigation and discovery I’m proud to have had a small part in.”
And here too.
Michelle Malkin has another roundup
I know what we need to solve all this. A Royal Commission. They solve everything. Here is the best part. They time needed for committee selection, hearings, interpretation, reports etc. This will keep the politicians, bureaucrats and advocates busy for long time. Hopefully, long enough for the AGW skeptical scientists to produce more published work. They need time to catch up to the big central control type politicians and AGW profiteers.
Right now the AGW crowd are like high pressure sales shysters. A slick sales pitch but still a product of questionable quality.
Hmmm, so Smoke, can you explain why the ice caps on Mars are melting ?
,
Alberta Girl sez: “The Fruit Fly Guy and the Failed Presidential Candidate both have made MILLIONS off idiots like you who somehow think that what is happening today had NEVER happened before.”
Yes self interest is front and center with the MMGW evangelists…We see Gore with massive wealth from his Occidental Petroleum associations and Moe Strong is a perennial energy patch profiteer who has investment in cola-fired Chinese industrialization as well as big investment in pushing the Chinese development of Iranian oil fields.
Then of course there is the fruitfly guy who soaks up money from petroleum giants.
Idealist dipwads like Smokey boy there live in some naive world that thinks the hard left is full of boy scouts and saints….get real.
Dr. Fruit Fly . . tainted by Big Oil Money.
Go figure.
CanuckInMI: you have made a number of specific statements, perhaps we could look at them one by one.
The IPCC itself has admitted that the sea is not rising as much as they thought it would previously
This may or may not be accurate depending on the values you use. If you could provide a reference we could determine if it is accurate or not.
Kilimanjaro glacier is melting because of local deforestation.
There is no peer-reviewed paper that supports this position. A news piece in Nature ran once looking at a proposal to wrap Kilimanjaro in a tarp to save it and that article mentioned deforestation as a possible cause, but the opinion backed up by nothing.
Mars, Jupiter, Saturn all seem to have warming trends
In regards to Mars, there are many explanations for this. Orbital mechanics seem to be the most likely. We can’t tell anything from Jupiter for the next 100 years and we are seeing less than an annual cycle in Saturn so we can’t say anything about it. But more importantly, we have seen no increase in solar output. A warming on all the bodies mentioned could be cause by an increase in solar radiation but it just is not happening.
Kate’s system doesn’t like too many links so I did not put any in, but if you would like to discuss them one by one I will supply the necessary references.
Regards,
John
Careful with Smokey there. A lawsuit for defaming his good name may be coming soon.
Appropos of nothing in particular, Chretien sucks.
enough
Mr. Smoke, Alby and the rest of you apologists. Instead of just blasting you like you deserve, I’m going to ‘splain to you why it is you need blasted.
Here we have an on-going series of photographic evidence, which taken together indicates a serious scientific fraud in climatology. Like, nobody with a brain puts a thermometer next to an air conditioner condenser by -accident-. Therefore either all these site administrators have no brain, or something else is at work. Like fraud.
Us crazy Conservative types are saying, WTF is this?!!! Fraud? This bears further investigation, because if a fraud has been committed then all this global warming public policy is crap.
You, on the other hand, just hit the nitrous button on the global warming manure spreader. Far from wanting to look into it, you’re wanting everyone to look -away-.
And that, my dear Mr. Smoke and company, is why you deserve every flame you get.
Kate’s post is blowing the lid off of the AGW fraud. Big time !! Because of Chretien/Dion/Martin and their “advisers” Canada had a part in the scam.
The Trolls, especially Smoke (is it really WK ?) have gone ballistic. They tried to squash the thread early but became sda road kill when Kate reminded them that it was Hansen and the GISS themselves that admited their scam was exposed —- another broken hockey stick.
I thank John Cross for graciously admiting at 9:06am that Hansen’s books were, in effect, cooked.
I have no idea if Smoke is in fact WK, but someone like smoke could be fanatically upset by a couple of things this morning.
1) The great Liberal scam is dying. The great hope of Maurice Strong, Martin, Dion, Chretien to replenish Liberal coffers with Kyoto-credit $$s is a bust. And so gone is the hope of the hanger-ons’ “careers”.
2) Kate, of small town fame, and others, have won. Without the Internet, blogs and knowlegable commenters the Hansen/GISS/Mann/Dion/Chretien frauds would not have seen the light of day;
“And you think bloggers, sitting in their basements, with no education, no training as researchers, no money and no expertise are going to give you factual answers to those questions?”
Posted by: Mark Bourrie
Mark – I posted a quote that gave you an explicit example of the information firehose that is available to media, if they only would turn on the valve.
It’s a template developed and proven effective by bloggers – and somehow you still didn’t notice it before you wrote.
In other words, “It’s the readers, stupid.” Bloggers give their audience a voice. They open their pages to instant correction, revision, context, opinion, experience, eyewitness reports and technical expertise.
The audience has always had at their disposal knowledge, information and experience that outstrips the resources of the best funded MSM outlet by several orders of magnitude. Until the internet came along, the ability of that information to poke above the filter was minimal – if you were lucky, a heavily edited letter to the editor might appear. Or a small correction placed deep in the back pages.
Today, that’s no longer the case, and it’s one reason for the collapse of circulation. The people who once read a story and noted glaring errors of fact are now comparing notes with thousands of others, and coming to some pretty basic conclusions: the industry is deeply flawed. It is not a reliable source of information and often willfully devoid of context.
Until mainstream news realizes what has happened and makes the changes necessary to improve the quality of their product, more people will simply drift away and rely less and less on traditional reporting for their information. That’s neither better or worse. It’s a consequence of industry malpractice.
Posted by: Kate at August 2, 2007 12:21 PM
Has the Canadian media reported the GISS fraud yet ??
Actually, John Cross, there is a lot of data and analysis rejecting GW and Kilimnjaro. Check out Nature, Nov 24, 2003, for some comments by John Daly. And Braithwaite, in Progress in Physical Geography, 2002/26, pp 76-95. And James Taylor of Env’t New, Feb 1, 2004. And Douglas Hardy, U of Mass at Amherst. You can google Kilimanjaro metling deforestation and come up with loads of scientific analysis.
I don’t think that ‘we could determine if it’s accurate or not’ – with regard to your rejection of the fact that seas are not rising as much as expected. ‘We’ – and that includes you – are not experts in this particular branch of science and are not, at the moment, involved in research in those areas. All we can do, is accept or not accept, based on our reasoning and logic, whether some data is ‘sufficient’ to convince us. But as to our ability to verify accuracy – no.
If the other planets are warming due to natural causes (orbital mechanics) then there is absolutely no scientific reason to exlude our planet from natural causes.
G&M; no AGW fraud yet — Arar dominates.
Poll there — most important item at Premiers’ meet
GW 51%
Provicial trade 46%
John,
The problem is that politics has crept into the “science” of global warming. Peer reviewing means nothing when the so-called peers are trying to fit the facts into preconceived notions. AGW proponents tout interference by Bush lackeys interfering in science from US government organizations, but discount entirely that this may be push back to the religious zeal of AGW proponents.
Interesting that orbital mechanics can explain away Mars yet somehow not apply to earth.
Politics and religion has entered the debate. Gllobal warming is currently a faith based argument. When data is looked at, it has been falsified and manipulated. The numbers are simply not to be trusted. When questioned, instead of a debate, there ensues vilification and attacks.
Kyoto is a great example. The long and short of Kyoto is that the developed countries either have to lower greenhouse gas production or payoff China, Russia and India. Those countries have no reason to lower there production while at the same time their production has also dramatically increased. Deny Kyoto and you are now labbelled a “denier”.
enough
CTV; no Hansen, GISS, Kyoto fruad yet.
More Arar, “killer” storm heading to China.
Alby has an amazing ability to completely miss the point – which is, serious errors in methodology have been uncovered that weaken the AGW argument. The timeframes mentioned are still short to come up with meaningful conclusions.
I understand Mann used proxies (tree rings) for his hockey stick, which were not a full representation of climate, but acceptable scientifically, except he mined for his data.
Frankly, I don’t care, this is boring. A simple change of reference – get off fossil fuels, is all that’s needed.
Put all that money given to AGW research to development of alternative energy sources, which will also eliminate CO2 emissions. Go after the real pollution and also mitigate possible climate change.
Nobody seems to want to do that. They’d rather argue about the number of angels on the head of a pin, or use AGW to support their agenda – world socialism, get rich, become next US president.
A side point: we’re all subject to a bias known as “anchoring.” What the term means is, we tend to seize upon a single data point as the base; we also measure changes with respect to it.
The winters back in the late 1970s and early 1980s were terribly cold where I lived – Toronto, to be specific. I actually remember delivering papers, early in the morning, in -40 degree weather. On Christmas Day 1980, I was so cold that I couldn’t open the front door with my hands: I had to push the doorbell to get in.
Obviously, I would remember that day. Any winter that didn’t feature such a cold day would strke me as comparatively warm.
Thus, because of this anchoring, I would see a winter that wasn’t bitterly cold in some part of it as unusually warm. This anchoring has made me open to the claims of “global warming emergency” in a way that I wouldn’t be had I been delivering papers in Toronto during (say) the 1950s, and/or had gotten used to 1950s winters as “normal” ones.
I suspect that this anchoring is why so many people my age (I’m 37), from similar regions, find the AGM case intuitively plausible.
CBC; no AGW fraud yet.
A spash about Mansbridge and his “informative” ‘show’ — and more Arar.
Ok, I will throw my 2 cents in.
Global Warming vs. Global Cycle
Of course, as far as a Global Cycle is concerned, my theory has been and still is Planetary Alignment. Every century (give or take a few years) Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus and Mercury all fall in the same eliptical plane opposite from the Earth’s eliptical plane. Now that’s a lot of magnetic power on display. You cannot have 5 of the 9 planets all in the Western Sky on the same eliptical plane diametrically opposed to Earth’s position without somekind of dimensional compression * in the Earth’s Orbit. Our Planets’ orbit is directly proportional to the magnetic pull from the sun, and having 5 planets like ducks in a row in the opposite quadrant of our orbit every century is going to have a significant effect on our weather, like cooling and heating when you pull your hand away from the fire the 5 planets in orbital alignment pulls Earth closer and farther away from the sun, hence; A Global Cycle.
So, you see, it’s not Global Warming, it is a Global Cycle, not caused by man, but God, seeing as how he built the solar system we live in, and seeing as how this is causing the Democrats and Liberals so much grieve he and his son must be smiling amongst the Stars.
,,,,, 😉
,
*www.astropix.com
OT: Taliban Jack wants Chuck Strahl’s fired
Off with his head i say, off with his head
Smoke, all the global warmers are in the pay of big government and big NGOs. They have received 2500 times more money than the so-called denialists.
Your post, and others here, demonstrate that when your cult is threatened, you will resort to heretic burning.
You disgust me.
Shamrock, nothing wrong with fossil fuels, or nuclear.
Governments should leave the money they spend on global warming in the pockets of the popualtion to do as they wish.
The elephant in the room that the blind left is constantly bumping into but can’t see is that they will never get consensus on such a b.s. theory. Everyday, new evidence comes out to debunk AGW. Not only that, but fraudulent efforts to support AGW are being unmasked.
Perhaps the most serious problem is that the left is attempting to focus the world’s attention on an unproven theory (hard to even call it theory, rather it’s a political tactic), which is eclipsing real environmental problems that nations may all agree to solve.
That is criminal.
But then what would you expect from the left?
I hope that eventually, the leaders of this scam – perhaps modern history’s greatest fraud – will be punished. And their names will be equated with such in perpetuity.
Smoke has read a lot of posts that he is incapable of crafting a retort to (as he is dead wrong) so he will abandon this thread and will pop up again somewhere else. Sort of like and insect.
Smoke is not Kinsella as Kinsella has far too big an ego to not take full credit for anything he says.
Let’s just unplug the Sun; there must be a switch somewhere, and then see how long it takes before people figure out that the Sun is the true culprit of earth warming. Once the Al Gore’s of the world figure that out and accept it as fact,…..could be awhile, they can commence their Global Freezing kick.
DrWright, actually they do. Satellites have been monitoruing atmospheric temperature gloablly for 30 years now and sees very little of the icnrease that the warmenizers say should be happening.
“heretic burning” would cause global warming, wouldn’t it?
Any blame on “Big Oil” for pollution or carbon dioxide seems misplaced. If it wasn’t for “Big Oil” providing us relatively clean oil and gas to burn, we’d have many more coal fired generators.
ET: I did not say that Kilimanjaro’s melting was being caused by global warming (a certain amount of it is, but that is a different argument). I was pointing out that there is no link between deforestation and the melting of Kilimanjaro. For example you reference John Daly in Nature, but in fact John Daly has never published in Nature and I cannot even find the Nov 24, 2003 issue (there is a Nov 20, and a Nov 27 but I can’t find the article in either of these).
In regards to Dr. Braithwaite, he does not even mention Kilimanjaro in his article, let alone deforestation. The George Taylor reference appears to be back to the same Nature article that can’t be found.
In regards to sea level rise, my analysis was going to very cursory and only related to the numbers.
Finally, orbital mechanics do affect the earth (hence ice ages) but they are in the correct phase to cause the current warming.
John
Then again this sounds like a Smoke 🙂
[Cherniak was nyah-nyahing me yesterday that he has 1,000 Facebook friends and I only have 700. My pithy response: I make way more money, Jason. And I live in a nicer neighbourhood.] WK musings
Can you believe anyone would put that on their website ??
Nuff. On to democracy-threatening items;
Can you imagine the headlines if Hansen would have changed his data to a ‘2003 now accompanies 1998’ at the top ?? —– Stop the presses !! WE ARE COOKED !!
But when lowly old 1934 is moved to the top ….. nothing. Pathetic.
A now the other shoe has dropped — and our beloved Canadian press has so far ignored it. Even though a Canadian, Steve McIntyre, untied the laces.
[Mann’s findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann’s work also had its critics, particularly two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.]Lawrence Soloman, NP
Mann’s work a fraud — clunk !!
Hansen’s work a fraud — clunk !!
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0
john cross – you most certainly did say that deforestation was not the cause of Kilimanjaro ice melting, by saying that there was no ‘peer-reviewed link’ – of which YOU are aware. That leaves AGW as the cause, by default – since you downplay other GW causes. My point is the scientific error of reductionism in reducing a complex system, such as climate, to one causal factor.
I suggested that you google the three words of Kiliminajro ice melting and deforestation. You’ll find all the references.
Whether your sea level analysis was cursory or not, the point is – you can’t claim any conclusion of accuracy – and yet, you clearly stated that this was your agenda.
I can only repeat, that my view is that AGW is not a scientific but a ‘fictive’ narrative. It rests on the longheld western cultural ideas about Human Sin based in individualism, and on the Apocalyptic results of Human behaviour. The tactic to absolve oneself of the horrific results of the sins of ‘crass materialism’ is, in this narrative, achieved by moving away from individualism into the utopian cloud dwelling realm of socialism, anti-capitalism, anti-individualism etc. That’s the basis for AGW – and I reject this narrative for the fiction that it is.
Hey SDA’ers, what’s it like being the willing victims of the denial machine? After all, the link between corporate funding and the anti-global warming punditry is real and well-documented. Nobody involved likes to talk about it, but they don’t actually deny it either.
Posted by: Smoke
You mean like how Suzuki gets money from automaker then shills for hybrid cars?
http://no-libs.com/?p=1458
So well documented they usually refuse to post source data, then use things like smoothing that is undocumented in many cases, or how they put temperature sensors next to airconditioners?
How can you be so sure that you’re on the side of truth? Because you always like what you hear from them? Shouldn’t that tell you something?
Posted by: Smoke
Because someone who says they haven’t found the truth is looking for it. Someone who says there is a consensus and the others are liars, is not of the same mold of Einstein, Bohr etc.
So lets look at the “Truth” suzuki says tens of thousands of species are going extinct get him to name 5 that have in Canada in the last 50 years.
John Cross, Wimpy Canadian
I understand they are active above us but were missing from the last IPCC report this year unless they released it in the details which I have yet to see.
If i’m wrong and they have put something out feel free to email.
maddinosaur [at] hotmail.com
I’m willing to be told I’m wrong. That’s what science is about. Theories are made to be shattered.
PS I’m still waiting for my 10,000$ cheque.
“Hey SDA’ers, what’s it like being the willing victims of the denial machine? After all, the link between corporate funding and the anti-global warming punditry is real and well-documented. Nobody involved likes to talk about it, but they don’t actually deny it either.
Posted by: Smoke”
The above, by ‘Smoke’ is a good example of the logical Fallacy of Ignorance. That illogical assertion emerges when Smoke/Someone claims that if there isn’t any evidence of X (corporate funding linked to the rejection of AGW)that means that it DOES exist. It’s just that no-one is saying anything – either for or against it. So, the Fallacy of Ignorance rests on a claim of a Conspiracy of Silence. Neat. And fallacious.
http://newsbusters.org/node/13698
More kyoto kult lies
WC, there is something “wrong” with fossil fuels, though not in the morality play context ET refers to. What’s wrong is the developing world, particularly India and China, will wreak ecological devastation if they continue to burn fossil fuels. If we give ourselves enough time, 50 years at least, to transition out of fossil fuels and make those fuels even cleaner in the meantime, we can get off fossil fuels eventually. Heck, even Nigeria, with vast oil reserves, could develop too, rather than the doctrinaire poor noble savage crap coming from the moonbats.
Problem – as ET points out, this is political science primarily (not from well meaning and thoughtful folks such as John Cross) by those who as Patrick Moore put it, want to put it to the man, to in essense destroy the oil industry and capitalism itself in the bargain. Punishing capitalists and imposing some world government socialism, like Kyoto, is their true goal. That is why Moore broke from Greenpeace.
DrWright: The IPCC AR4-WG1 document covers satellites. Section 3.4.1.2 is titled “The Satellite Microwave Sounding Unit Record” and gives a good review of the topic.
Regards,
John
et: your logic is a little faulty here. I did say that the melting was not caused by deforestation but that does not mean that I accept that it was caused by global warming. There are any number of factors that cause glaciers to lose mass. For example if they melt faster than snow can build up. This could be due to a precipitation decrease.
You are correct in one point, I am not aware of any peer-reviewed papers that talk about deforestation as the cause of the reduction in Kilimanjaro.
John
John,
The precipitation decrease is thought (not proven) to be brought about by deforestation. They are one and the same as it refers to the theory regarding Kilimanjaro.
Shamrock: Thank you. By posting on here and having my views challenged by some thoughtful posts I tend to learn more than I would otherwise.
Regards,
John
Ironic headline alert:
Gore police confirm McIntyre to be charged
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/southlandtimes/4157766a6568.html
Rob. Huh?
Glaciers have been melting for eons; otherwise, the earth would still be covered in them. Change is good.
Who decides when the remaining glaciers should stop melting? Al Gore? Why do people follow such pin-heads.
Right, john cross. You said that YOU were not aware of any peer-reviewed papers linking Kilimanjaro and deforestation. That does not mean anything other than your statement about yourself. It does not mean that such papers do not exist; it does not mean that such might not be ONE cause in the deglaciation. All it means – is that YOU aren’t aware of any such papers. Period.
I think one has to be aware of that fascinating fallacy of ‘ignorance’.
Fabulous! Now this is real ammo to fight Peel region’s fraudulent water rate increase… It will be hard for them to dispute NASA information.
Well the story has nothing to do with Al Gore or Steve McIntyre, but I’m sure if the Goracle had a police force at his disposal, McIntyre’s act of blasphemy would surley be cause for his arrest.
Didn’t the devout lose the argument when they morphed AGW into climate change?
Where is Gore? In Singapore.
Here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/al_gore_slings_bogus_borrowed.html
Scientific American and New Scientist both have articles this month on AGW and climate change.
I notice their articles haven’t appeared here yet. Too scientific?
You are, “anon” – like everyone else – welcome to use Reader Tips for your suggested links any time you like.
…keep up the good work Kate.
Anon,
New Sensationalist magazine has lost readershiup due to it’s hysterical enviro-mentalist editorial stance.
I refuse to be drawn into the dueling studies vortex. For every study supporting global warming there’s another refuting it, each smeared with accusations of being tainted by vested interests.
Global warming isn’t about science or the environment, it’s about politics, money and power. Socialists invented the global warming myth to gain yet more control over free enterprise and peoples lives, thereby empowering and enriching themselves. They’re always doing that.