So, the truth has finially come out...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
Man created global warming has been politicized to the point that scientists have been rigging the results of tests to get the desired result. This is not science, and all those "scientists" should lose their grants, teaching licenses, and be barred from ever touching a beaker
Seriously, has science died? What has the world come to that the nations of the world were getting close to passing greatly limiting, taxing and controling treaties all based on false information? What should be done with the whole "green" agenda that has now been proven to be based on lies?
Thoughts?
--- Over 1000 replies makes this a very hot topic ---
Therefore I will continue to update with the unraveling of the IPCC and politicized science. (new articles will be placed first)
Please keep the topics a little more on point from here on out, thanks.
- Glacer calculation show to be false, and scientist refuses to apologize...
- More errors in report?
- Opinion paper - Rigging climate 'consensus'
I never could figure out why one was, and one was not. Maybe plate techtonics?
Why did this thread suddenly turn into a financial conspiracy theory thread?
Please restrict yourself to only *one* conspiracy per thread.
If you feel compelled to discuss a totally different subject then you should open up a new topic and not threadjack this one.
However, I wouldn't call that image ridiculous. It's actually quite effective and it again highlights that the true goal of denialists (as opposed to true skeptics) is only to cause confusion. There is no need to "prove" anything, all burden of proof is on the other side and any such proof that's offered can simply be further argued thus extending the "controversy". All that's required is to be able to demonstrate the pretense of a debate so as to give those ideologically predisposed to be against the proposed solutions some reason no matter how tenuous to base their opposition.
This is the scientific equivalent of "trolling" and as everyone knows they only thing you can do with a troll is to not feed them. Is it any wonder why "true" climate scientists might begrudge giving data, models and other fruits of their labor to people that are only going to cherry pick, distort and outright lie about what that data means. There is no other scientific field where this occurs. There is absolutely NO credible scientific dissent and yet climate scientists continually have to respond to the crap dredged up by former TV weathermen that never graduated from college or any other nut case capable of creating a blog. Can you imagine if physicists had to operate in that kind of environment? That is what is ridiculous.
The blog that I use is http://www.realclimate.org/ which is the only blog whose membership consists of "real" climate scientists. In opposition there are literally hundreds of denier sites, after all how much does it cost to create a website?
Anyway regarding that gif image, what better way to cause confusion then to quickly flash a sequence of graphs, the point or detail of which is not totally obvious, to lead someone to believe that current temperature levels today are totally ordinary and normal.
I will have to look into it in more detail but one thing I can say off the top of my head is that showing long term graphs of temperature over 10's of thousands of years without regard to what other conditions exist on the planet is disingenuous at best. For example they clearly show deep temperature troughs that existed 10's of thousands of years ago without mentioning that at that point in time sea level was some 200 feet below were it was today. In the same manner they also make no mention of where sea level was during the peak temperature periods either. Perhaps it has been hotter than it is currently, however if sea levels were 30 feet higher at the time then that's not much solace.
I don't know for sure this is the case but like I said this is something that should be discoverable.
Also the GISP2 data happens to indicate a higher temperature during the MWP than what exists currently whereas the hockey stick does not. However what the gif shows is a single record in isolation whereas the hockey stick graph uses multiple records from different locations.
Like I've said all along there is no credible scientific denial of the hockey stick graph. The only "disproof" of it comes from internet sites with demonstrated ulterior motives and when you ask the question as to why aren't any of these "so called" disproofs published the only response is that some kind of global conspiracy of climate scientists prevents it.
If conspiracy theories are your prime defense then thats simply not the side that I care to be on.
I apologize, but I don't see how that is any more derailing than anything that has happened on the last 20 pages here. Informed users have addressed the fallacy of using that incident as a way to discredit current scientific consensus on AGW, and then the conversation has pretty much been derailed into he said, she said, and pretty much every other unrelated facet of this subject. I don't see how me bringing that up is any worse.
I was just responding to a theme I saw pop up among some posts. Perhaps you were skipping over their garbage, but failed to skip over my feeling toward their sentiment.
Not True! Here is a sampling of some other sites worthy of visiting:
Climate Audit - Steve McIntyre - Science of StatisticsClimate sanity - Tom Moriarty Senior Scientist at the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.Climate Science - R.A. Pielke Sr. Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado in Boulder Professor Emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins M.S., Ph.D., Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, 1969, 1973 CO2 Science - CRAIG D. IDSO, Ph.D. - former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, Missouri, and is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, Association of American Geographers, Ecological Society of America, and The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi.ICECAP - Joseph D’Aleo, Executive Director, Certified Consultant Meteorologist Robert C. Balling Jr., Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist Thomas A. Birkland, Director of the Center for Policy Research in the Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University of Albany Reid A. Bryson Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., Global 500 Laureate, Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, Emeritus Prof. of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI Robert Carter, Researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia John Coleman, Founder of The Weather Channel, TV Meteorologist KUSI-TV, San Diego William Cotton, Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University Chris De Freitas, climate scientist in the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist Dr. Mel Goldstein, Chief Meteorologist for News Channel 8 in Connecticut. Dr. Vincent Gray is an “Expert Reviewer” for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeDr. William Gray, Meteorologist Ben Herman, Professor and former Head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at the University of Arizona and former Director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics Dr. Christopher Horner, Counsel, Cooler Heads Coalition and Senior Fellow, CEI Dr. Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, retired Meteorologist, formerly with Environment Canada Dr. David Legates, Associate Professor in Climatology, University of Delaware Dr. Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia Dr. Pat Michaels, Research professor of environmental sciences, University of VirginiaDr. Tad Murty, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences and Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa Dr. James O’Brien, Director Emeritus of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University Dr. Gary Sharp, Scientific Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study Dr. S. Fred Singer, President of the Science & Environment Policy Project Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama Jennifer Marohasy - Dr. Jennifer Marohasy - Director of the Environment Unit World Climate - Patrick J. Michaels is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the School of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia
The criticism in my reply #902 was related to the derailing into a discussion about the financial crisis which as far as I can tell you had nothing to do with.
When I said only one conspiracy theory per thread I was really simply trying to exclude the financial conspiracy talk to derail the AGW talk. I suppose that was short-sighted on my part because there really are *many* possible conspiracy theories just associated with the anti-AGW position.
Hope that clears up any confusion.
Here is a great article that I was reading that actually shows the scientific work that goes into some of the research that scientists do. It also goes into explain how just because there are variations in interdecadal data doesn't change the overall larger trend that is occurring. Scientists make mistakes for sure. But, one of the quotes that I especially thought was good was at the very end where it quoted:
“Models are not perfect,” says Syd Levitus. “Data are not perfect. Theory isn’t perfect. We shouldn’t expect them to be. It’s the combination of models, data, and theory that lead to improvements in our science, in our understanding of phenomena.”
Here is the article:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
It also highlights why peer-review is so important. I recommend reading it. It is a good read for the science process if anything. It is something you don't often read in climate articles. Too often people just post graphs and interpret it for themselves and that is how things can be taken out of context from what the original researchers actually intended.
Regardless of what side of the debate you are on, you have to like good science!
Very nice rebuttal to Burton. But some feel the number of errors in An Inconvenient Truth is much higher and that Burton kept his to the most overt. Indeed the following article lists 35: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
I don't care who ya are, now that's funny.
This level of ignorance from someone paying enough attention to know the names of the failed institutions is rather frightening. Lehman Brothers wasn't even a bank, they were a brokerage firm. There was no impact when they went under either. A bunch of brokers lost their jobs, and NYC lost a major source of tax income. Goldman Sachs is the same thing, a brokerage firm. Being labeled an investment bank doesn't make them anything resembling your local deposit. When you make high risk investments, you're supposed to expect the outcome. They gambled, they lost. Outfits like E-trade have been taking them out of their primary market anyway. The number of actual bank failures had been minimal, barely above normal. When everyone went into a panic, it was even below the typical rate for a downturn. Getting excited over some piddly little investment bank with a few billion in debt and a few million in assets was really stupid.
Systemic risk is a work of fiction. There's no such thing. If five hundred banks have over-invested in a security with no actual value, five hundred banks are going under. There's nothing systemic that causes them all to fail because one fails. They all fail because they bought something that wasn't worth what they paid. The overwhelming majority of banks are doing wonderfully right now, despite our government cornholing us with a few trillion in deficit spending. That catastrophic fuckup is what's tanking the economy, it only took a nose dive after they started the spending spree. No one gave a shit about a few hundred brokers being unemployed, knocking 20% off the value of the dollar in a years time, that's a problem though. We're fucked, courtesy of the Federal Reserve and the US Congress.
What is it with you yanks who cry "socialism" at every opportunity? i've never understood it. why does nobody in America seem to know what socialism actually is? lol.
Education in progress. ACORN pickets bank, bank loses customers, bank goes under. Bank gives into ACORN, makes risky loans, bank goes under. Both options end in bank going under, nothing gets accomplished. Fannie and Freddie were reworked to get around this little stalemate in results, now bank makes the loan, and sells it to them. They then repackage those loans and sell them as guaranteed securities. The guarantee is the US tax payer bailing them out the first time we have a downward turn in the housing market. Everyone that bought those securities is who lost the money, Fannie and Freddie only lost money because they weren't selling them all. The banks only lost money because they were investing in the same junk securities they'd originally gotten rid of.
That institutions subject to the CRA were stupid enough to buy their own money pit is the only thing that should be surprising. That the bailout funds went to keep rich people employed instead of insuring the individual investors should make someone like you livid. TARP was a payoff for political backers in the financial sector, it's completely natural that it was paid out to political backers, as opposed to the banks that have continued to fail since then.
You should probably read up on socialism too, this argument I really wont bother with. It inevitably leads to utter morons admitting something is socialism while at the same time denying it. Your following post perfectly demonstrates this by calling that progressive fuckup for a reserve chairman a rabid free marketer.
When it comes to money you don't know much about the world outside your window, do you?
No production, no untransferable assets, billions in losses, and an employee count well below anything resembling a major manufacturer. When you're losing money like that, you've already been worked out of the market, so the market isn't going to miss you. As you have no production, your output doesn't exist either. With your only assets being things that can be sold and used by someone else, the loss of you as owner aslo poses no problem. Your losses have already been lost, so the money not being there isn't a problem either.
The only impact left is your employees. You go bankrupt, the building you'd already leveraged is returned to the people that actually own it, the mortgage holders. Your investments and other capital are sold off to pay your debts, and your employees start looking for work. The people that bought your assets actually have something of value that they can make money off, since they didn't pay so much for it to begin with.
While you're losing your sanity, would you mind telling me why the country should give a shit that NYC lost a source of tax income and a minor employer? Laughing and crying is all very well, but you didn't actually come up with a reason. Systemic risk is just a buzz word to scare idiots into going along with it, being old doesn't make a company irreplaceable.
I wont bother linking things for Mumbles anymore, but I'll go ahead and give this another shot.
You say there is a trend showing the plain relation between CO2 and temperature increases. You're also saying to look through the 1900's to see it. Have you looked past the 1900's? Play with this site.
Yeah, I know, it's an evil denier site. I checked, his graphs are correct. I checked the hard way too, went to the original data sources and matched them all up. It's the same information you global warmers are using, he just bothers to show another time scale besides the entire 400k year one.
So I had this long post typed out, then I lost it all...Lovely!...
Ok, I am not one to call out poor sources, but that is bad. I was willing to go through 9 points from Burton's claims. But, that website takes Burton's claims and runs with them in an expotentially exageratted method. Almost all of the sources for that article come from FF.org. That is a politically backed conservative think tank. It even says this in their mission statement:
"...whose mission is to promote conservative public policy based on the principles of individual freedom, peace through strength, limited government, free enterprise, and traditional American values as found in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."
So while I am not denying their claim of errors, I am questioning their scientific proof and methods and that is all I care about. All I care about is science. I don't care about politics or semantics.
Most of what that articles goes through is placing doubt through semantics. They use editing errors and Gore's semantics to claim error to the science behind it all and that is what I have a problem with. Come to me with sources from scientific organizations and you'll have my attention completely.
What Al Gore does do is claim a lot of the high end of figures that have been given at the time of the movie. While they may not be the more likely of predictions, that doesn't make him wrong. That may give others reason to call him an alarmist or whatever you want to call him, but he isn't wrong. A good analogy is in advertising. Let's say you see and advertisment for broadband internet that claims 20Mbps download speed. So you order it and come to find out you are only receiving 5Mbps download speed. Well it turns out that you only receive the 20Mbps download speed under "perfect" conditions. That doesn't make the advertisment wrong. You may call it misleading or whatever you want to call it, but if they didn't advertise it as 20Mbps, would the ad be nearly as effective? Probably not.
Sometimes, to get the publics attention you need to scream. That is what Gore did. He has been at this a long time and he originally thought he could just make his case and people would catch on. That is not the case as it turns out. So when making a documentary, why wouldn't he advertise the fullest extent? If you want to get their attention, you'd better do so. Sure, eventually later down the road climate models will make the documentary completely irrelevant. But at the time it was just what was needed to raise awareness on an important issue.
I will touch on a couple things from the article. One of the things they talked about that Gore did actually say what that he said the intensity of cyclones will increase as ocean temperatures rise. The article claimed that there is no trend over the last century that the severity has risen even though ocean temperatures have been gradually rising. This is true. But, it is grossly misunderstood on the subject. There IS a trend over the last decade that the severity has been getting worse, but not over the last century. This is mainly because of a term called thermal inertia. Thermal intertia is the way heat transfers through a material until it reaches a balance. As we all know water warms and cools slower than land and air does. It is also known that cyclones require ocean temperatures to be at LEAST 80F degrees for them to form.
What researchers have found is that by taking measurements across different environments and mediums, they have found an imbalance in heat energy. They've found that this imbalance of heat energy shows that the ocean is not yet at equilibrium. There is a ton of heat energy found in the upper atmosphere that grows each year. This is not in dispute. They've found that there is an increasing imbalance per square meter in the ocean that concludes the ocean temperatures are going to continue to rise, but slightly lagging behind air and land temperatures. The reason for the fact that cyclones have not grown in intensity until recently (and thus no trend has yet to occur) is because of the fact that cyclones require at least 80F to form.
But because A+B=C, it comes to reason without a doubt that as ocean temperatures continue to rise over the next several decades, tropical storm intensities will continue to rise. We may not have a century long trend to show it, but there is more evidence without a doubt to show that will likely happen.
I'm sorry, but most of the graphs on that website are clear misrepresentations of data, so much so that I can't take it seriously. On the temperature graph, they show it being in relation to temperatures "now" as a deviation. But, then on the CO2 graph, they just show the numbers in ppm. The CO2 graph shows the usual hockey stick graph. But, the temperature graph (in order to throw the reader off) uses a deviation in relation to temperatures now. Considering the deviation value to temperatures now will always be 0, you will never get a hockey stick graph from those values. This is portrayed in this method to throw readers off to show that there is no relation between CO2 and temperature. When a website stops misleading readers like that in such a blatant way, then that is when I will take it serious. I don't mind if website exaggerates data or outcomes, but when they misrepresent data, that is what gets me.
I wonder if any readers of this thread have changed their mind on the subject.
I came upon this thread with the conception that AGW was a real phenomena, with a rigourous scientific treatment and that the main reason for the seeming slowness in response to agw by governments was due to reliance on fossil fueled economies. Now I am not so sure. Not because of the stolen - or possibly leaked - emails. Rather the attitude of some (or all) of the members of RC and other blogs that exist to desseminate the idea of agw. A long with some important scientific facts I have learned trying to understand this thread. But scientific facts are not what this post is about.
When RC uses weasel words to address the issues raised by McKitrick and McIntyre on MBH98
At MYTH #4 the RCbloggers write:Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al ...[this suggests that there may in fact be no errors in Mann et al but later the following is said:This corrigendum simply corrected the descriptions of supplementary information that accompanied the Mann et al article detailing precisely what data were used.
When the first sentence of the corrigendum indicates that it is due to the M&M paper of 2003.
And then when MumbleFratz goes on and on at length in post #851 about Yamal and McIntyre it comes across as enraged panic. MF is it concievable that McIntyre has raised the level of science that the RC crew engages in? Obviously he is not one of their peers but I think he helps them improve their own understanding of what they are trying to do.
Attacking Monckton -and others like him- personally is fitting as he comes across as a bedwetting bully much like the agw proponent that was stomping around in here a few pages ago but attacking McIntyre is low, uncalled for, and hurts the scientific arguement of agw proponents.
So I am closer to the sceptic position. I think that the argo project should recieve a serious uptick in funding as that is probably the best method of obtaining reliable data.
Some interesting alexa rankings:
climateaudite 40,271realclimate 44,912wattsupwiththat 14,481
I was surprised that RC was not the highest of the 3. But who uses an alexa toolbar.
Nor would I expect you to go over 35. 9 was well done. But what you did point out with your rebuttal, both on the 9 errors, and then the over view of the 35, is that An Inconvient truth is a shoddy piece of work. While there may be no libelous errors, clearly there is confusion, mis-statements, and nebulous points attempted to be made. Which is fine for a fictional piece like The Day after Tomorrow. But hardly worthy of a documentary. And in that, it not only got him an oscar, but a Nobel prize.
I would have to conclude based upon the quality of the work that either both were political and not merited, or one or the other or both were a result of greatly reduced standards that cheapen the awards for all the others who have recieved them.
Huh? I was expecting something other than a realization of the obvious, but you've blown away any expectations with this one... I'm speechless, what a rare event.
Mumbles, I appologize for deciding he was more worth my time. I have gravely insulted you. Wow.
The irony is McIntyre never pretended to be a climatologist and indeed does believe in Global Warming. But he is a very accomplished statistician (a science all in itself) and wanted to just verify the data. If Mann and Briffa had enlisted his help, maybe none of this would have happened (discrediting of their work). It might have taken them longer to come up with the evidence they need to support their hypothesis, but they would not be facing embarrasing questions now along with possible criminal charges.
I think many skeptics are not denying that something with the temperatures has been happening, but they are embarrassed by the shoddy and fraudlent work put forth so far by the inner circle of East Anglia (which includes the likes of Schmidt, Mann, et,al.).
And the fact that those who want to beleive in AGW are so quick to demean and denigrate any one who asks a simple a question as "How" or "why" does not do their side well in the long run.
You are right, most will not be swayed by this discussion who were already set one way or the other. But too many are like that woman in Copenhagan that clearly was clueless. And at least the smart ones like that will do some research. And unfortunately, until the Climatologist clean up their house, that research is going to show it is one big house of cards - with very little foundation or substance.
Your response to this shows that you clearly don't get it. Do you know what a deviation is? OK, so then why show two graphs on the same page where one shows the DEVIATION in temperature and the other shows the VOLUME of CO2 in the air. The volumes of CO2 graph will give you the hockey stick. But, the DEVIATION graph will yield a graph that shows plot points all over the place. When you look at the two graphs and check each plot point, there is no way to tell if there is a correlation between the two when there really is. Why do this?!? The two graphs are NOT comparable!! They do this for one reason and one reason only....
to mislead READERS! They lost all credibility when they did this. Sorry if you don't understand that.
Honestly, I could care less if I am worth your time or not. If you don't understand something, that isn't my fault. But, perhaps that is why it wasn't worth your time...because it was over your head.
One caveat emptor before going into all of this is that just because someone takes money from ExxonMobil doesn't necessarily mean anything. But it is something that should be considered when using anyone or any site as a source.
Plus I never said that there are absolutely *zero* credible skeptics, only that they are substantially outnumbered by credible proponents (hence the scientific consensus). In fact true qualified skeptics are a definite benefit to the science but their existence merely adds to my argument.
Basically throughout this thread I have maintained that what is "settled" is (1) that the planet is warming and (2) that human activity is a significant contribution to that warming. Period. Arguments about how much warming, how fast that warming will occur, what the consequences of that warming will be and what if anything we can do about it are all things about which reasonable people can hold a wide range of opinion. I simply maintain that it is not reasonable to deny the above two stated premises of AGW.
The fact that there are true skeptics with contrary opinion that are fully qualified and thoroughly familiar with the peer reviewed publishing process and yet there is still no credible scientific peer reviewed evidence that denies AGW strengthens my argument and requires the belief in some global conspiracy to disprove.
I submit that my acceptance of AGW is not a "religious belief" as some here claim but is merely putting my trust in the established science and is no different in the trust I place in the physics community to explain the intricacies of string theory.
I further claim that there is far more "religious acceptance" required by those whose belief system requires the existence of some kind of global conspiracy for the current state of affairs to exist.
McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. As of 2003, he was the strategic advisor of CGX Energy Inc.
"Strategic advisor" for an oil and gas exploration company, no conflict of interests there. Also referred to as Climate Fraudit.
Tom Moriarty is a Senior Scientist at the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. He has extensive experience in testing photovoltaic devices of all varieties, from basic silicon to the highest efficiency multi-junction devices and newly emerging organic technologies.
He has a masters degree in Physics and previous experience in two other national laboratories, Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. Additionally, he worked for several years in the Gates Rubber Company Advanced Materials Analysis Lab in Denver, Colorado.
Not sure how "extensive experience in testing photovoltaic devices of all varieties" relates to an expertise in climatology but I suppose anything is possible.
Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces. He has said: "the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers".
However, Pielke has criticized the IPCC for its conclusions regarding CO2 and global warming and accused it of cherry picking data to support a selective view of the science.
Seems this one is a true skeptic and not just a denier. I guess it just goes to show that such things do exist. What isn't totally clear is what specific website he's associated with as there seem to be a couple of them but Climate Science has in fact moved to http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/. I have to admit that this probably is a legitimate resource.
Anyway from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change.
The Center produces a weekly online science newsletter called CO2 Science Magazine.
In October 1999 Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso mentioned that they had "recently completed a project commissioned by the Greening Earth Society entitled "Forecasting World Food Supplies: The Impact of the Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentration." The Greening Earth Society, is a front group of the Western Fuels Association. Donald Paul Hodel, chairman of Summit Power Group is listed among the "scientific advisors" to the Center.
The Center states on its website that it "accepts corporate, foundation and individual donations" and that "all donations are kept confidential". However, Sherwood Idso confirmed that Exxon "made some donations to us a few times in the past".
Connections to big oil, big coal and a power plant development group, what more do you need to know?
This is pretty much the entirety of the "experts" listed at http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts. Thankfully there are a few "experts" left off the list along with mere "members".
When dealing with something like this there are a couple of key references that I use.
The first one is Who's Who on Inhofe's List of 400 Global Warming Deniers. This in turn references the following useful links. The above link lists each of the 400 individually, also see Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked for a summary of the list.
http://www.sourcewatch.org, http://en.wikipedia.org, and http://www.exxonsecrets.org. All of these resources can be used to look up the organization and/or the individual.
As it turns out most all of the names listed above are among Inhofe's 400 and so for brevity I'll simply list each entry from the Who's Who.
85. Joseph D'Aleo, served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation. Served as chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. Involved with industry-funded groups such as the Fraser Institute, and the website icecap.us http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1276 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joseph_D'Aleo
22. Dr. Robert Balling, heavily involved with industry-funded groups. Has received money from Exxon for studies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Balling http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=5
21. Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass. Heavily connected to many industry-funded groups. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=3 http://www.desmogblog.com/sallie-baliunas
55. Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences). Was one of the people who thought we were facing global cooling in the 70's.
59. Dr. Robert. M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. Paleoclimate scientist. Member of the institute of public affairs, a Industry funded think tank that takes money from places like Monsanto, Big Tobacco and so on. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/
72. John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel, which he was allegedly forced out of within one year.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(meteorologist)
79. Dr. William R. Cotton of the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Cotton
124. Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, the University of Auckland, N.Z. One of several scientists who offered an amicus brief organized by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which receives funding from Exxon among others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas
144. Dr. Mel Goldstein, PhD, TV weathernman/meteorologist. http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=27202 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Goldstein
149. Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, New Zealand. Associated with coal research, has not published any peer-reviewed work in regards to climate. Hasn't published anything in over 17 years. Also a member of the NRSP, which gets funding from energy companies such as Exxon. http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1215 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Gray_(scientist)
150. Dr. William Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the school's Tropical Meteorology Project. Well-respected hurricane specialist, but has been criticized by other scientists for his views on climate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray
167. Dr. Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona. In the very article Inhofe's report links to, Herman says in his own words, "I am, myself, not a climate expert." And then goes on to say that we need to do everything we can to lower/lesson CO2 levels. http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/04/06/guest-weblog-by-professor-ben-herman-of-the-university-of-arizona/
175. Douglas V. Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired), and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland. http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/bio.htm
199. Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist with Environment Canada; Editor of "Climate Research" (03-05); Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards," IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007. Connected to multiple industry-funded groups. http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1358
220. David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, U.S. Connected to industry-funded groups. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=18
233. Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S. Connected to industry-funded groups and scientists. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=152
255. Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia. Admits he is industry funded. http://www.cato.org/people/michaels.html http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels
273. Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tad_Murty
279. James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University. Connected to the George C. Marshall Institute and the Fraser Institute, both of which receive money from ExxonMobil and other corporate interests. http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/bios/obrien.html http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1133 http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=134
335. Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA, U.S. marine biologist and connected to industry-funded groups. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gary_D._Sharp
344. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service. connected to several industry-funded groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer
353. Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Meteorologist, creationist and has many industry-funded connections. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
Many of these folks are positively infamous and deserve far more than the little space dedicated here. A handful of folks from the above quote were not on the list but one in particular deserves the effort it takes to look him up separately.
Christopher Horner is a practicing attorney and specializes in FOIA act requests. He associated both with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Heartland Institute whose Oil and Tobacco industry connections have been well documented.http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Chris_Hornerhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institutehttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
Had enough? I know I have.
I also want to take a look at that gif that purdyaw pointed out from earlier in the thread.
Don't stop! I'm almost there! Seriously though, you guys are beating a stick with a dead horse.
I don't believe it, you've said something even more retarded than you started with. How dumb can you possibly be? My brain hurts, I can't think stupid enough to come up with an explanation for this.
This is going to give me nightmares. The end is nigh, the stupocalypse approaches!
I found this very interesting and perfectly pertinent. A little 'thick' due to the translation from German, I suspect, but makes me wonder which horse is really dead.
I met the Stupocalypse once; he was shorter than I thought he'd be.
psychoak, in an effort to be more "worth" your time, I will attempt to help answer your question, despite the fact that you source completely misleading websites in your claim. You claim that because temperature after ice ages go up first followed by CO2 climbs, then CO2 does not cause temperature to go up. This is false.
Read this for an explanation:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
If you don't have time for me or the article, here is a quick summary:
What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth’s wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the “carbon pump” (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.
[quote who="clonmac" reply="897" id="2508047"]Quoting Dr Guy, reply 891ClonMac:Thank you Clonmac! I do appreciate the viewership. No, Greenland is an island, not a continent.You're welcome. ...and yes, I know. Simple mistype on my part, lol. Wow, yet another person essentially calling me a socialist? You're simplistic views on the economy are very ignorant. You are an idealist who feels that all encompassing and complete laissez faire is good laissez faire. That is so far from how things work it isn't even funny. I am a capitalist. On the side I run an internet company along with my full time job. I love it and I wouldn't have it any other way. People calling me a socialist and even indirectly implying like you have is and insult and as I have said only shows your ignorance on the issue. Government regulation in certain aspects of the economy is needed, plain and simple.Again, your views on comparing simple consumer electronics upgrades to the troubles of the green sector just shows how simple your economic views are. It is much more complex like that. LCD TVs are simply an upgrade to an existing technology. Everyone has a spot in there living room ready for a new TV to replace their current one. Everyone sits down at night to watch a TV each week. Such is the consumer electronics market. The same goes for cell phones, computers, etc. People already have cell phones and upgrading to the next requires practically nothing of the consumer or the business.However, the green sector is something new entirely. Fossil fuels have been used for centuries and for the most part, they have been used in the same way. The thing that has changed over time is how they are refined. But, when it comes to using them...we simply burn them. But, here comes "green" technology set to change all that. This is something that only happens a few times a millenium. When new young technologies look to compete with a technology that has been in existance for longer than anyone has been alive. To compare it to upgrading your TV is just plain wrong.Many of these green startup companies are going against a much stronger competitor in the oil companies. The oil companies already have the infrastructure and the wealth in place. The startups don't. How do we ever expect companies to adopt new methods and technologies by giving up their old habits that are so easy? People can't simply buy an electric car for their driveway. Companies won't simply adopt new technologies without incentives.But the part that you don't understand is that incentives don't come from no where. You go along with me in saying that incentives are OK, but where do you expect those incentives to come from? Government just can't simply throw incentives out left and right. It is that thought that has run up the biggest budget deficit ever in just 8 years. So what do we do to get those shiny incentives? We have to tax. And contrary to your belief, we don't have to tax companies into the red. And "Joe the Plumbers" won't go belly up because of taxes. If a company goes belly up, it is because of poor management, not because of taxes.So while you say that it wasn't lack of regulation that sent the American auto industry into the red, but poor management, you are exactly right. When there is lack of regulation, all that is left is poor management. There is no other excuse, but poor management. The is why when it comes to companies making right choices with the good of consumers, the earth, and resources in mind, then a little government watching is a good thing.As far as your other Gore article, the reason why I didn't comment on it was because I had already wrote a page long post to your other article. Sorry I disappointed you. I don't care was stake Al Gore has in any company. The plain fact of the matter is that both sides have stake or money in companies. You can name people on the "green" side that receive money from companies and I can name just as many that receive money from oil companies. That is why I don't bother looking at that stuff. That is just how the world operates. What I do look at is what they did BEFORE they started receiving money. Al Gore wasn't receiving money from carbon trade company's all his life and that is the fact that you ignore when you see things like that. What you also don't realize is that Al Gore has been studying and fighting for global warming awareness for much longer. So, no, I don't need to respond to your Al Gore article because it is pointless for me to do so.
First of all, i am sorry if i offended you by implying youre being socialist. However if someone is calling for more government regulation, i really do not know how to call such person. Off course there are nuissances, but sorry, i do not care about them, for me simply state regulation = socialism. I live in central Europe in the post-communistic society, so i have fair share of experience with this. If you are American, certainly more than you.
You say you have your own company. I find it pretty funny you dont mind the government incentives we are talking about. Just for a moment try to imagine you run oil company instead the internet company of yours. And the government will start to give their incentives and support your competition. If you have problem with this analogy, let´s just stay with your internet business and replace the green company with something what might be competition to you here (have no idea right now, but the point stays.)
Government is treating you and your company unfairly. How do like that?
I believe you do not, and i tell you why. In capitalistic society the point of government is not to give incentives and f*ck with the market. The role of government is to enforce law,order, partially medical care, and some other things. But certainly not giving incentives.
Regarding the auto-industry, sorry, but your view that if government regulated the auto-comany stronger, there won´t be any poor management. Just LOL. Again it is not the role of government to check if private company is managed properly or not. By the way do you believe that state-appointed management would fare better? We have old saying over here: The blood does not bleed from the strange. Unfortunately i could not find appropriate translation to english, so this is my poor attempt to do it on my own. Basically it means you always care more, if your (not someone elses) own good is at stake. Surely you understand what i am implying here in regard to state-management.
And the crisis of american auto-industry is from global point of view nothing serious at all. So what that GMC collapsed, as i said, if they deserved it, it serves them well. Another, more succesful company will claim their place.
You are right about one thing, i have my ideals, how the society should work. I believe in free trade and i would love if the global trade was free, without any taxes and tolls respectively. No state protection of companies and export/import at all. I would dissolve the income tax and leave consumer taxes only. This would actually motivate people to go green much more than your carbon taxes. They would much more think if they really need to go by car, or if they wont spare more money by choosing some energy-efficient equipment.
Finally there will not be any government interfering with the market (aside law enforcement). You said things do not work that way, but oh yes they do...we just do not let them to work like this and keep constantly interfering with the market...because this and that needs to be protected, regulated blah blah blah....No. Simply no. If the company is unsuccesful, it will fail. No bail outs, no mercy. Strong will surive, weak will die. This is how it works in nature and it seem to work just fine. It is the natural way, it does not need to be fixed. The same applies to libertarian, free trade.
Sorry for off topic. But for me in the end the AGW debate is just another skirmish between lefties and right-wingers.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
