60 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  1. LOCK PHASERS ON TARGET LOCK PHOTON TORPEDOS ON TARGET SQUAWK SQUAWK CRUSH,KILL DESTROY EXTERMINATE,EXTERMINATE,EXETERMATE, TAKE NO PRISONERS SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK

  2. While I have a skeptical view of certain issues, I consider myself “green” in many ways, and I promote the idea of energy savings and alternate energy generation. Unlike many who just talk about it, I’ve put a 10KW solar array on my home, plus a 125 KW solar array on one of our local schools when I was a school trustee. I’ve retrofitted my home with CFL’s and better insulation, as well as installed timer switches on many of our most commonly used lights. I encourage others to do the same.
    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/about/
    While trying to determine where the weatherman whose work this post is based on, works, I discovered the above in his personal info area.
    I really liked this part, “and I promote the idea of energy savings and alternate energy generation.”
    Hugger

  3. I wouldn’t worry too much about RCMP sourced visits. I’ve had them, too.
    And the SCOC, DOD, DRE, CSIS, NORAD, the list goes on and on ad infinitum… and I’m pretty sure the Chinese Communist Party has spied on my site recently…
    Guess I’m popular, too! 🙂

  5. Unfortunately, when we swing from global warming to global cooling it will still be our fault, at least as far as Gore and the Greens see it. Wait for CO2 to become “a cooling gas at higher concentrations.”
    I’m always amazed at how these things swing from calamity to calamity. According the Australian artical, global warming (the greatest threat ever) might be over. Isn’t that reason to celebrate? No! We have to swing directly to global cooling (the greatest threat ever.)
    All the plans to release methane into the atmosphere are a little far fetched. First, it doesn’t persist, you’d have to continually release more and more. Second, where is it going to come from? There are lots of methane hydrate deposits off the west coast of North America. If we do release the methane in these hydrates, we’ll probably cause a very great number of tsunamis as the sea floor slumps.
    The question of what happened in 1981 that would cause an abrupt swing from catastrophic cooling to catastrophic warming might be answered by James Hansen, it was about that time that he invented AGW.

  6. Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1138510800&en=0a858f5230677507&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
    The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
    In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.
    Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. “the most liberal” media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch said his job was “to make the president look good” and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch’s priority.
    But she added: “I’m a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a scientist. That’s not our job. That’s not our mission. The inference was that Hansen was disloyal.”
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/
    The notion that humans could override nature and force the globe to warm intrigued Hansen. “It had been known for more than a century that increasing carbon dioxide could have an effect on global temperature,” Hansen said (referring to the pioneering work of John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius in the 1800s). But global warming in the near future? That was another matter.
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/
    At the outset Hansen knew that weather fluctuations would introduce short-term temperature anomalies into the weather station dataset that are not the same thing as climate change. But he reasoned that by taking averages over several years, and appropriately “weighting” the weather stations’ data, it should be possible to determine meaningful temperature changes over longer time periods. In the mid-1970s, he hired Jeremy Barberra, a New York University undergraduate student at the time, to automate the processing of Jenne’s dataset.
    They decided to process the data to produce average temperature changes, and not absolute temperature. “If you focus your analysis on temperature change, and not on determining absolute temperature values, then the station coverage is adequate,” Hansen explained. “What matters is the long-term mean over large scales, not single measurements from individual stations.”
    Hugger

  7. This is my first visit to SDA,
    Two things have been mentioned here, one the poor placement of some of the temperature sensors, and the potential for bad information from those sites to affect the global measurements. The other thing mentioned, indirectly, was the trend of global temperatures downwards from 1998, which is the warmest year on record.
    For a single or even a number of poorly sited sensors to affect the global temperatures, which is what we are talking about here, not just the US temps, it(they) would have to read considerably higher than even that produced by poor placement. In fact you would have to stick a candle just inches from the sensor and leave it there for a very long time.
    Even so, the scientists, who are anything but stupid, are aware of the US placement problems and carefully take them into consideration when adjusting the values and determining the error bars. The argument that bad placement in the US, which constitutes just 1.2% of the surface area of the Earth and therefore is just a drop in the bucket, is nothing more than a red herring.
    Taking 1998 as an endpoint for a trend line is ingenious at least. 1998 was an unusual departure from the long term trend line established previously so using it as an endpoint will artificially inflate the variance from that line. To see the affect 1998 has on trend lines all you have to do is look at a couple of years previous to 1998. All of the years from 1999 to the present have been above the years preceding 1998.
    Include even 10 years before 1998 in the trend line and there has been no downward trend. At all.

  8. hugger, if you enjoy the “silencing” of scientists, you must just love the orwellian muzzling of university profs & others who attempt to discredit AGW; lack of grants, blackballing, character assassination… As for “credentials”, wasn’t Hansen the one many years ago crowing about a new “Ice Age”?
    Gary Bohn, doubtless the scientists who “are aware of the US placement problems” find it much easier to “take them into consideration”, rather than dispose of the data and demand proper field data collection. After all, that’s probably a snippet or two of code in the wondrous climate model, and should produce the correct result, namely, that increases in man-made CO2 are the cause for “global warming”.
    And the hockey stick fraud was just an “anomaly” or “analytical aberration”, and that the otherwise accurate analysis of temperature shows 1998 to be the hottest year on record, even though it’s 1934.
    Insignificant trifles, really. The method isn’t important; shifting the analysis subtly to support the premise is the main thing, for the “scientists” who rely on AGW for their daily bread.
    Must. Support. AGW. CONSENSUS.
    Because after all, science is really based on “consensus”, and not merciless research and testing and replacing of hypotheses with alternate models when more facts and research are available. “Scientific fact through politicized agreement”; now THAT’s a principle that should make scientists proud!
    Why the Right is made out to be the mouth-breathers on this issue, I’ll never understand. We’re not the ones falsifying research, misrepresenting studies, buiding computer models to produce results based on the premise they are supposed to prove or disprove, trashing opponents and even invoking the Holocaust to silence the unbelievers; it’s the Left and their lackies doing that.
    The AGW jihadists are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
    mhb23re
    at gmail d0t calm

  9. Posted by: mhb at April 23, 2008 9:51 PM
    I want you to look at a couple of things from your post.
    “As for “credentials”, wasn’t Hansen the one many years ago crowing about a new “Ice Age”?”
    “Because after all, science is really based on “consensus”, and not merciless research and testing and replacing of hypotheses with alternate models when more facts and research are available.”
    Isn’t that what Hansen did? Replacing of hypotheses with alternate models when more facts and research were available?
    Hugger

  10. mhb: “Why the Right is made out to be the mouth-breathers on this issue, I’ll never understand.”
    I have just had a conversation with a couple of people on this very site who maintain that an object that emits IR radiation will not emit it to another body that is warmer than the first. Do you agree with this statement?
    Regards,
    John

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation