Skeptics win one! NOAA/NCDC to hold the CCSP report

NOTE: In the headline, the word “pull” has been replaced with the word “hold” which better represents the process that will now occur. My thought for that word was “pull from the planned schedule”, but that was the wrong word to use. Note the paragraph below that speaks of the plan, based on criticisms received, to publish all parts of the Unified synthesis report first. These must be published before the main report, containing conclusions, can go forward. – Anthony

Regular readers may recall on August 1st a posting where I stated my views on the NCDC report being produced by Dr.’s Karl and Peterson of NCDC (National Climatic Data Center) called Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. They also had a little help from Susan Hassol, writer of the HBO Special Too Hot Not to Handle, produced by none other than Laurie David. That explains the “emotionally based graphics” in a science document.

I wrote then:

To say the least, I’m shocked that NCDC’s leadership has changed from being the nation’s record keeper of weather and climatic data, to being what appears to me now as an advocacy group. The draft document reads more like a news article in many places than it does a scientific document, and unlike a scientific document, it has a number of what I would call “emotionally based graphics” in it that have nothing to do with the science.

About the same time, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. revealed that Ms. Hassol appeared to simply move some of her website’s claims into this self-proclaimed official U.S. government “highly influential scientific assessment.”

In that posting, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr also noted that we had a post outlining how NCDC had used a photoshopped image to illustrate flooding. Something of a no-no in  “science” document:

Image above taken directly from the CCSP report. Read more here

And finally you may also recall the posting where I advertised for comments on the NOAA CCSP report, shown below:

Dr. Ben Herman of the University of Arizona was kind enough to offer a guest post outlining the flaws of this document. You can read his essay here.

Dr. Herman writes:

It is my feeling that these bullets and the additional detail discussions contain much information that requires further input due to it being still controversial, incomplete, and in some instances very misleading.

Readers were invited to submit comments to NCDC about the CCSP Report, and I’m pleased to report that many of you did. The National Chamber of Commerce also got involved, and submitted a very strong rebuttal to this document.

Chris Horner writes on NRO Planet Gore:

…the U.S. Chamber pointed out that a preponderance of the 21 reports that had purportedly been “synthesized” had not actually been produced yet. Sure, that sequence sounds odd in the real world, but is reminiscent of the IPCC, to which the USP appealed as the authority for certain otherwise unsupported claims (though the IPCC openly admits that it, too, performs no scientific research). This is a point we also made in our comments. I’m informed that NOAA has now agreed to publish the underlying documents first and then put out their desired USP. The Chamber should have a release out soon.

…Key absurdities included breakout points in the Executive Summary of “Urgency of Action,” “Irreversible Losses,” “The Future Is in Our Hands” and ‘Tipping Points” (even though nowhere else did the document actually offer a discussion of “Tipping Points” that could be summarized), as well as calls for adoption of a certain policy agenda, all in a supposedly scientific document.

What a concept; publish the basis for the claims first, THEN publish the document that outlines the claims (The CCSP report seen above). But nobody is rushing anything, right? “Tipping points” with no definitions, calls for policy? That’s advocacy, not science.

We’ll keep a watchful eye on this as there remains potential to “synthesize” abuse of the public trust.

My sincere thanks to everyone from this blog who provided comments and insight. And lets give the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a salute for taking point on this. Lots of people contributed to forcing this change; including Pielke Jr and Senior, Joe D’Aleo of Icecap, Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Steve McIntyre, Chris Horner, Marlo Lewis, and  dozens of bloggers who helped get the word out, plus thousands of readers.

Warning, strong opinion follows: This report’s contents and the “cart before the horse” way it was produced is the biggest official “crock” perpetrated on the American public I’ve ever been privy to. On a personal note, there are days when I struggle to keep doing this, at times I think I’ll just shut down the blog, turn off the surfacestations website, and return to a normal and hassle free life. Days like this keep me going.

About these ads

128 thoughts on “Skeptics win one! NOAA/NCDC to hold the CCSP report

  1. Kudos to Anthony, who was probably the real reason this propaganda was stopped. Lots of other blogs picked up on the story from here and ran with it. The resulting flood of critical emails made the difference. The NOAA/NCDC was cornered and wisely backed off.

    REPLY: I was just a small piece of the puzzle, there were many more powerful forces mustered behind the scenes that you didn’t see.

  2. Testament to the steadily increasing power of blogs to mobilize people to act. I like the fact the environazis are having their maumauing tactics used against their agenda by smarter and better informed people.

  3. Now that this is over, let’s start the wholesale firing of the individuals involved.

    REPLY: It’s not over, just shelved for the time being.

  4. Wow, I got the sense when I was reading through the document that the authors intended it to be published with no changes. The total pressure that forced the withdrawal must have been impressive. If only the flies on the wall could report….

  5. Now that the science fiction has been retired for the time being, perhaps the focus can turn to science fact. That since the 18th century the climate has warmed and the mechanism that caused such warming is not clearly understood; that the current climate appears to have begun cooling and it is not known for sure if this is a brief decade pause or if cooling will get serious for several decades. And let’s make it clear that climate models are merely an exercise for computer programmers in the very early years of developing a climate/weather AI system.

  6. Hey, I read this site almost everyday. I hope you don’t decide to close it down…

    And good job on getting this report taken care of!

    As for the photoshopped house, not a big deal to me. Now if it was something like a photoshopped melting glacier, that would be a different story.

    Mark

  7. Congrats and my sincere personal thank you to Anthony and all involved in outing this polemic dressed up in the guise of science. As a lifelong ‘science guy’ it really bothers me that a blatant advocacy propaganda piece could have gotten this far. Had it been issued, it most likely would have become part of most Earth Science curriculae in the western world.

    And Anthony, the price for freedom is eternal vigilance. Like Batman in “Dark Knight” you’re doomed! :)

  8. The people that wrote the document are still on the governments payroll. They will be paid to resurrect the document because they have invested so much work in said document. They still believe that CO2 is the problem and that ‘global warming’ is a man made event. They will be back with a new scheme, new and improved models etc. Hopefully the sun gets it spots back in spite of the government spending huge dollar amounts to produce worthless papers.

  9. It’s never over. People with an agenda will keep trying hoping that the rest of us eventually become exhausted or distracted enough so that they manage to get something through. The rest of us have lives, they have dogmas.

  10. It’s okay to celebrate for a little while. But that report will resurface. The question: Will it be in a similar form? All NOAA has agreed to do is publish the rest of the underlying 21 references for the CCSP report first. Is there any reason to believe the report we’ve just seen will change? Not unless they have a reason to change it. The real work will be to critique each of the references when they are released for public comment. That should be fun. I’m actually looking forward to it.

  11. Anthony, thanks for all that you do. You are my inspiration for continuing to follow the global warming issues and alert people to the political consequences. Yes, there are times when I think about hanging up the pen and shutting down the blog as the pile of stupidity grows high and higher. But, there you are every morning with another useful thought, and another important fact, another bit of inspiration. Please take sustenance from this win and continue the fight. We are winning, slowly but we are winning, and with the help of Mother Nature, the truth will be know sooner, rather than later.

  12. Good job, the increasing flow of pebbles coming down the slope have dislodged their first big rock. Keep it up Anthony, Science eventually corrects itself, but it takes people like you and those you mentioned (and those movers behind the scenes that we don’t know about) to get it done.

    There are millions of us who want our Science back, out of the hands of the politicians. Science should speak truth to power, not the other way around. Keep up the good work.

  13. Congratulations from a non-scientist for Anthony Watts’ and others’ wonderful success in squelching propaganda. It is time that those who “mis-perform” get fired. Science is science and the unknown is the unknown — as yet. Pretenders at science in jobs for scientists should (indeed, must) be shown the door. Democracy depends on competence and a modicum of integrity. We are in some of the darkest days of our democracy, it seems, because too many incompetents and those with malevolent intent are slapped on the hands or promoted (or their report is simply shelved).

  14. “Money, we want money, we want lots and lots of money…” Leon Brozyna

    Can’t we just pay off the Science Phd’s with a guaranteed $200,000 a year and let them not be motivated by grant money?

    A mere $1billion dollars might buy some integrity from 50,000 science Phd’s.

  15. We owe you, Pielke Jr and Senior, Joe D’Aleo of Icecap, Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Steve McIntyre, Chris Horner, Marlo Lewis, Lucia a heart felt thank you for all your efforts.

  16. Is this a sign of a hidden struggle going on within NOAA. I mean, there are scientifically trained people in that organization and only the most obtuse couldn’t notice the facts and lack of facts concerning global warming.

  17. Hmm, sorry for the lack of notice, but do we have anyone on Cape Cod?

    http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./ccsp/unified_synthesis_meetings.jsp says

    Global Climate Change: Impacts in the United States.
    Unified Synthesis Product Committee Meeting # 3
    *Day 1 – Thursday, August 21, 2008;
    Convene at 8:00 a.m. EDT, Adjourn at 5:00 p.m.
    *includes a 30-minute public comment period from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.

    Day 2 – Friday, August 22, 2008;
    Convene at 08:30 a.m. Adjourn at 5:30 p.m. EDT

    Location:
    J. Erik Jonsson Center of the National Academies
    14 Quissett Avenue
    Woods Hole, MA 02543

    I imagine the public comment session may not happen as it’s been rendered moot, but perhaps one reason to can the doc was the timing of this meeting.

  18. hyonim,

    ironically, man-made global warming is man-made. Just like any other work of fiction.

    And I too thank Anthony for his enormous work.

    I’m not in the States, but urge everyone who can to help with the survey. Even if it is only one just round the corner from where you live.

    The final results will, I suspect, be devastating.

  19. Anthony and Russ Steele:

    I share your opinions. Sometimes the power and epic idiocy of “heroic” politicians and activists involving this fraud make me feel like ignoring climate science blogs and issues and just turn my attention as far away as possible, and not come back to it until I start taking Earth science classes in 2010. And, even though the Lieberman/Warner Climate Bill is Freddy and the CCSP report is Jason, this does show that this is a winnable “war”. Thank you Anthony and the the growing rebel fleet. (cue Star Wars music) :-)

  20. NObody, noBODY, nobody beats the Rev!

    And for heaven’s sake, don’t go away! Not after all you have accomplished. There is simply no one to replace you.

  21. As the great Yogi Berra used to say, “It ain’t over til it’s over.”

    Although this appears to be a short term victory, I suspect it’s only the beginning of things to come. The Pogies have seen the crack in the dike getting wider and wider and will not tolerate a permanent stop to publicizing this crazy thing. Goffy Gore and Hansen, along with so many other parasites in NOAA and NASA, must have all kinds of plans in the works to torpedo anything us skeptics do.

    So hang onto your hat, the ride has just begun! But the way Anthony has been able to retain so many fine bloggers on this site, along with his leadership, I personally think we’ll prevail and restore a sense of integrity to science and the scientific method!

    Way to go, Anthony!

    Jack Koenig, Editor
    The Mysterious Climate project
    http://www.climateclinic.com

  22. I appreciate your efforts to make the truth fit the facts but I would uderstand if you ever gave up the ghost.

    “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” Acts 26:14

  23. Anthony,

    It may be true:
    “REPLY: I was just a small piece of the puzzle, there were many
    more powerful forces mustered behind the scenes that you didn’t see.”

    But your work is the link that I and many of us need.

    Keep up the good work!

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack

  24. Anthony, you have my (our) heart’felt thanks for establishing and maintaining this blog at great expense and personal sacrifices.
    YOU PERSONNALLY ARE MAKING A DIFFERANCE in this quest for the “truths” about AGW and World Climate Change.

  25. “at great expense and personal sacrifices.” buck036

    Well, there is the donate button. And lest I be a hypocrite…

  26. Thanks so much for your websites, Anthony.
    You turned me from a Gore-wannabe to a true sceptic, much to my father’s delight… and I *know* that I’m not the only one who has had her head turned around by your work.

    Now if you could just do something about that quiet sun… ;)

  27. Anthony,

    Here here enough said, keep the faith and the Open Mind. LOL thats a joke from Tammyland!

  28. Anthony. I am a Biotechnology scientist not a ‘climate expert but, as a somewhat ‘biotechnology expert’, let me just say that we should all be very, very interested in what the future climate is going to turn out to be because within the next ten years, human aging is going to be either stalled or reversed leaving those who wish to be recipients of these technologies around for a long time to endure either global warming or global cooling!

    REPLY: Sage advice. I have significant sensory-nueral hearing loss. Anything on the horizon for cochlear nerve cell regeneration?

  29. Thanks for your efforts, Anthony.

    A bit OT, but have you seen this? According to AP, the Farmers Almanac is predicting colder than average temperatures.

    http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/031815.html

    REPLY: Yes I have. As a television meteorologist, I loathed the Farmers Almanac, because I’d run something that looked a few months ahead, and I’d inevitably get telephone calls telling me how I either agreed or disagreed with that publications forecasts.

    A colleague of mine, Jan Null, the former lead forecaster for the NWS in northern California did a study a few years back on the farmers almanac forecasts, which you can read here:

    http://ggweather.com/farmers/farmers2001.htm

    and here is what he found:

    In Region 15, the Pacific Northwest, there were a total of 13 precipitation forecasts. Only 23% of the forecasts were correct, 38% were quantitatively wrong and 38% were not only wrong but had the wrong sign. For the 21 Region 15 temperature forecasts 33% verified as correct, 38% were quantitatively wrong and 29% had the wrong sign. Overall in the Pacific Northwest only 29% of the forecasts verified as being correct.

    For California, Region 16, a total of 11 precipitation forecasts and 19 temperature forecasts were evaluated. Of the precipitation cases 36% were correct, 27% were quantitatively wrong and the remaining 36% had the incorrect sign. The temperatures for region 16 were only correct 16% of the time, had the wrong sign in 32% of the cases and were quantitatively wrong 53% of the time. Overall the California forecasts were correct only 23% of the time.

  30. I too have been reading this site every day since I found it.
    I can sum up my reasons for doing so in one word – integrity.

  31. statePoet1775 (19:56:05) :
    “Well, there is the donate button. And lest I be a hipoctite”

    Yes you are, stick to writing poem’s that rhyme. most of them I enjoy, but that isn’t one of your better ones.

    My post was not intended to be blog “donate button”, just admiration for a job well done, by a dedicated man voluntarily providing his time, effort and resources for the benefit on us all.
    Thanks again Anthony!

  32. I’ve never heard of anyone having to withdraw a Fairy Tale before. This has to go down as a first.

  33. The Farmers Almanac = Ouija Board. Though for myself, the Almanac’s complete failure to predict weather and their continued public credibility year to year, led me to recognize the Global Warming hoax very early on. This is not the first time that weather has been used a political tool and a get rich quick scheme.

  34. Pingback: STAY WARM, WORLD… Roger Carr « Stay Warm, World…

  35. Forgive what is probably a stupid question.

    Who is Susan Joy Hassol?

    REPLY: See this site

    http://www.climatecommunication.org/

    Don’t let the “all seeing eye” freak you out.

    Notice this graphic of the front page of the CCSP report BEFORE she did her work on it

    And see the current CCSP cover in the post above

  36. Pingback: Alex Jones’ Prison Planet.com Skeptics win one! NOAA/NCDC to pull the CCSP report

  37. Appreciate your efforts, Anthony. I don’t know how you do it: The revenue bearing work, Surface Stations and this site. Beyond all that, you’ve got a family life to keep on the rails…and an electric car you need to find some fun time for. Guess you’re just one of those tuff individuals.

    jeez, thanks go out to you, too, for helping to keep things going.

    No doubt, I would last only about half a day trying to monitor the volume of comments that roll into THIS site. ugg!

    By the way, how IS that electric car doing? Any costly maintenance or down-time?

    REPLY: The first electric car has been sold becuase I purchased a newer, faster, more powerful model. And I have yet another one coming even better than that. Working on these and learning the details has been my sanity saver. I’ll blog on it soon.

  38. check the moovie. “the day after after tommorow” i think it explains well about the global warming effects.

    anywaist. love the post. nature lover.

  39. On the subject of scientific integrity at the NOAA, last year I came across a particularly blatant piece of mis-information on the NOAA site:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

    I quote: “When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.” Sound familiar?

    Of course, we now know this is false and that CO2 changes occur *after* temperature changes.

    I posted about this at Climate Audit in April. Here’s the link to my post at CA:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=262&p=5652#p5652

    Some CA readers did send emails. How about you guys at this site? I think it’s time I sent the NOAA another email….

    Best regards,
    Chris

  40. Good one tina,
    We all know that movies are the ultimate font of wisdom and truth. Two other movies known for their veracity: “An Inconvenient Truth” and “Dumb and Dumber”.
    Thanks,
    EcoMike

  41. Hi Anthony,

    Farmers’ Almanac sees a cold winter this year. According to this article:

    http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/031815.html

    I thought it was interesting that they talk a little bit about their methods. It almost looks sort of reasonable. Instead of studying the weather, they study meta-data which tends to be related to weather.

    One of the things they watch are sunspots.

    James

  42. tina (03:11:03) :

    check the movie. “the day after after tomorrow” i think it explains well about the global warming effects.

    The science in the movie is so bad that I was surprised the science advisor’s name is not a pseudonym.

    Check out my critique of the movie and the science behind sudden climate change in my essay 2016: The [Next] Year without a Summer. Recent data (e.g. global cooling) make that less likely. I picked 2016 solely as a counterpoint to my earlier essay 1816: The Year without a Summer about that year in New England.

    OTOH, given the solar activity of late, people in 2016 may well be noting similarities with 1816.

  43. Connecting some dots, CimateDebateDaily (http://climatedebatedaily.com/) put up a link yesterday to an article where another NOAA meteorologist, from their hurricane research division, stated, “Not all scientists agree that the warming we’ve seen is necessarily anthropogenic. It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”

    For the NOAA scientists involved in real-world hurricane modeling, and research in which human lives and millions of dollars in property are at stake every year, for them to be told how to think by some other research division that has produced nothing verifiable has got to be wearing a bit thin.

    Switching gears: pulling the paper to publish the articles that were “synthesized” sounds like face-saving to me. They couldn’t very well acknowledge the uproar from all the scientists who responded to it, could they? That would crack consensus myth. And by “publish” I assume they mean “peer review”? No? More public comments instead? This is science?

    On second thought, maybe public comment is a good thing, better than having them peer reviewed by all their buddies, with whom they’ve already co-authored a bunch of like-minded papers.

    I want my Science back!!

  44. That Al Gore is a certifiable nut should come as no surprise to anyone. His treachery is limitless.

  45. Pingback: Fresh Bilge » Nexus

  46. Now is not the time to gloat over a small “victory.” Instead, it’s time to build relationships with the folks who wrote the CCSP report. Critics (ie, semi-peer reviewers) ought to be part of the process from the beginning rather than late-to-the-party “obstructionists.” Anthony, you attempted this earlier this summer with your visit to the surface stations administrators. I hope some of the big names can follow up in the same way on this report so that it tells a reasonable story. We need honest assessments – even if inconclusive – and not over-hyped public relations. This ship won’t turn immediately, but steady constructive participation by “our side” is the only thing that will turn it to where it needs to go.

  47. We should be wary of NOAA resurrecting this piece of propaganda.

    Two reasons; 1) Facts (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with religious faith, and 2) The winner of the next US presidential election will support their view (doesn’t matter who wins, as both seem to be drinking the same climate koolaid).

  48. Here is the text of my email to Richard Black at the BBC.

    Dear Mr Black,

    Further to my email of 26th June, I hope you might be interested in learning that NOAA/NCDC are to pull the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Unified Synthesis Report (USP) due to the fact that only 11 of the 21 reports(last: SAP 3.1 on Jul 31) have been issued; thereby making their requested comments impossible.

    You will find the two links below very instructive.

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/an-important-call-for-public-comment-on-the-nasa-climate-change-science-program/

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/skeptics-win-one-noaa-pulls-the-ccsp-report/

    We already know that the BBC is biased favourably towards the AGW scam, but Al Gore and Jim Hansen are both fighting a loosing battle against the scientific reality that climate always has changed and that the planet is probably now headed towards a period of quite severe cooling. As much of the EU philosophy is predicated upon AGW, it will be entertaining to watch the slow disintegration of cooperation between the 27 members as Europe freezes next winter. You should read http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ to garner the real news, but don’t let the BBC catch you doing it.

    Yours truly,

    Perry

    I wonder if I’ll get a reply?

  49. I guess they could just be waiting until the pressure dies down. And as we saw with the Hockey Stick, the warmers never give up in trying to have ther “emotion-based” graphics and studies continue to be published (as opposed to true scientific method studies).

    But this is a significant victory. Not the least of which is that global warming scientists have to take note of what happens today to the scientists like Mann and Karl who significant distort and exagerate the science.

    A little more objectivity, and they continue to maintain their reputations and lead the field. Continued exageration and their reputations bite the dust. They still get invited to all the great global warming parties, but objective scientists in the field no longer provide the hero worship they use to get.

  50. It will be interesting to hear al-Gore’s speech at the convention. Will he ‘warm’ us or ‘climate change’ us? In either case, massive research grants are needed, as well as huge restrictions on what we can do. Perhaps even what we can say.

    O.T.: FoxNews had a story about the ‘catastrophic’ tropical storm pounding Florida. Must be a slow news day.

    Anthony, you have done a great job. This site is a catalyst for science and commentary. A good balance.

    I also have severe neural hearing loss. No solutions apparent. :(

  51. Could this prove one of those ‘tipping points’ against the Gore provoked hysteria?

    Well done Anthony. Don’t know how you keep on, but please continue.

  52. Thank you, Anthony. I want to recognise all the work and integrity that you and everyone involved puts forth. Not only on this document, but keeping us afloat in the sea of propaganda as regards climatology. Keep up the good work.

  53. Is there a way of pulling together the comments received by NCDC? Was NCDC going to make them part of the public record in any way? At the moment we are speculating as to the volume and significance of the criticisms – though publishing ahead of the reports on which it is based is probably sufficient to require that this report be pulled.

  54. Thanks Anthony, I look forward to every new entry on your blog. Your research into the accuracy of the US weather sensor network hooked me with the first read. The energy and time you dedicate to this blog is much appreciated.
    You have tapped into a pool of reasoned, logical individuals tired of the propaganda perpetuated by the MSM, gov’t, and certain citizens/organizations.
    Please keep up the excellent work.

    ps Roger Carr – the CAUTION comment, priceless

  55. Thank you Anthony. Don’t even think about shutting down this site. Let’s all put something in the tip jar to help!

  56. “In Region 15, the Pacific Northwest, there were a total of 13 precipitation forecasts. Only 23% of the forecasts were correct, 38% were quantitatively wrong and 38% were not only wrong but had the wrong sign. For the 21 Region 15 temperature forecasts 33% verified as correct, 38% were quantitatively wrong and 29% had the wrong sign. Overall in the Pacific Northwest only 29% of the forecasts verified as being correct.”

    How does this compare to the average TV meteorologist? ;*)

  57. Here’s for the underdog!

    Yeuh!

    Sensibility is the equilibrium. We are the damping force against zealotry.

  58. “I also have severe neural hearing loss” retired engineer

    I am sorry about that. If you are willing, I would try a long water fast (with doctor’s approval of course). It has ton’s of mental and physical benefits.

  59. As the great Yogi Berra used to say, “It ain’t over til it’s over.”

    He also said “It’s deja vu all over again.”

    The same smart, arrogant guys making the same dumb arrogant mistakes over the same sort of issues. Maybe this time they will learn the lesson the Club of Rome SHOULD have taught them? (Naaaaah.)

    The cost of idiocy is the necessity of eternal vigilance.

  60. I would beseech everyone to keep a close eye and ear on the rumblings of the “new and improved” Fairness Doctrine that is being talked about in Washington. Supporters of the revival of this blatant attempt to stifle free speech have specifically said they would expand the doctrine to cover the internet and BLOGGERS. I’m sure the “powers that be” are none too happy about the grassroots input that quashed their little plan.

  61. Just visited Susan Hassol’s website. The AGW crowd is filled with enormous egos – Gore, Hansen, Mann, etc. The room must get very crowded when even a handful gather.

  62. Is there an official statement on the withdrawl of the rpeort? I do not seem to see one and the pro-AGW sites are indicating that we may be over-reacting.

  63. In my opinion this is simply a correction of procedure and will this will start all over again when released properly, with many of the problems unchanged.

    I agree this is an overreaction.

    REPLY: In the headline, the word “pull” has been replaced with the word “hold” which better represents the process that will now occur. My thought for that word was “pull from the planned schedule”, but that was the wrong word to use. Note the paragraph in the post that speaks of the plan, based on criticisms received, to publish all parts of the Unified synthesis report first. These must be published before the main report, containing conclusions can go forward. – Anthony

  64. What I love about your blog is that you stick to the science. This is not – and should not be – a political issue. The science, as I read it, does not support the man-made global warming PR campaign.

    Climate change is a scientific fact on this planet and always will be. My view is that some chose to mix this fact with legitimate concern for the environment and create a crisis in the minds of the planet’s population – particularly the young.

    I’m not sure what they hoped to gain from doing so, but it never made sense to me. I’m glad for this small victory.

    Keep up the great work on the blog!

  65. It is hard to find sources of information as well informed as this blog and its readers. Thank you Anthony for all that you do. And thank you to all the great posters who add so much.

  66. Well done Anthony et al.

    I have two apologies to make:

    First I called you Andrew and second, I doubted your optimism and influence on the issue of commenting on the CCSP report. (August 14)

    This result is stunning, even if it could be only temporary. Who would have thought this a few months ago?

    People like yourself and Steve McIntyre are having a wonderfully positive influence on the AGW debate, especially here in Australia. (Until a few months ago there was no debate – only a one-sided tirade of misinformation and lies.) Now even some of the mainstream media are questioning and correcting our polititians and the activists.

    Keep up the good work.

    Herman Dobrowolski
    Australia

  67. Anthony, can I nominate you, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, jeez, Monckton, and a few others for sharing the next Nobel Peace Prize, not only to credit you guys but to restore integrity to that prize and to Science. What a fortnight, “My, look what the cat brought in” from Steve, the story of Wahl and Ammann from Bishop Hill, snow in both hemispheres, Monckton trounces DeSmogBlog in debate, and now this.

    I’ve been polishing up my introduction to the whole Climate Science story (from my perspective as a U-turner) to be ready for the next generation, and to help newcomers to precious sites like this one, so that people don’t need to keep on explaining too much. I’ve also been collecting all really good intros I can find – mine is not the only intro going, after all. At present they are simply further down my main page as a nice little list.

    I don’t ever want to lose that sense of science actually HAPPENING as you trawl through the replies here. This is the most exciting outcome of working under cover, to see the transfer of real scientific research into the truly public domain, when dedicated bloggers can keep the threads clean, fun, and not too OT. And here’s one of my own benefits from your site that I want to feed back to you because it’s worthy of more notice: Josh Hall’s use of WFT for differential pairs of comparisons, to strongly suggest what is cause and what is effect. I’ve put his temp/CO2 pair of graphs HERE because they deserve to be seen and used. If my eyes don’t deceive me, I think they’re a clincher with wide applications to prevent nonsense in future.

    Thank you everyone.

    Reply:surfacestations.org and this site are Anthony’s projects. I am simply a volunteer moderator, and while an occasional thank you is appreciated I simply do not belong in that list above~charles the moderator aka jeez

    REPLY2: Thanks Lucy, but I’m simply not of Nobel caliber. But I do appreciate the kind words – Anthony

  68. NOAA- a corrupt agency.

    NOAA cheated me out of over one thousand dollars. This was money out of pocket, not simply lost pay.

    I took a physical and caught a temporary berth NOAA “ship”, had my gear broken into and reported it requesting transfer to my permanent ship after one week aboard.

    NOAA is extremely politicized with activities going on that are basically “black ops” to discredit on board at least one vessel.

    A cover-up was going on and I was “hired” specifically to conduct a discrediting operation, I was lied to, and fired, then cheated out of all the expenses of travel for everything start to finish.

    The deception, political misuse of NOAA, intentional lies of the top officials, and retaliations in a discrediting process personally removes any and all confidence that NOAA today is capable of recording and reporting data from their studies or anything else they do or say.

    A word to the wise- the data recorded is no different from using the above in a cover-up.

    Take all NOAA data with a grain of salt. This is not what NOAA used to be now.

  69. Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  70. The Farmers Almanac = Ouija Board. Though for myself, the Almanac’s complete failure to predict weather and their continued public credibility year to year, led me to recognize the Global Warming hoax very early on. This is not the first time that weather has been used a political tool and a get rich quick scheme.

    I’d call it more like the newspaper Astrology page. A bunch of generalized crap that has a 50/50 chance of being right/wrong at any given moment.

  71. Patti:

    “new and improved” Fairness Doctrine

    Say What? Any congressional big names on board with that?

    Top Posts « WordPress.com

    Number 1!

    Nobody beas the Rev!

  72. Sorry if this is already answered. Where is the official retraction? Is it front and center on the official website? I could not find it….

    Thanks

  73. The bill below was introduced in 2005 but congress did not act upon it. As you will see further below, others in congress are trying to revive it. An unfortunate fact in the world that we live in is that everything is political, including the relationship between AGW and the new and improved Fairness Doctrine. A means to an end.

    In the 109th Congress (2005-2007), Representative Maurice Hinchey (Democrat of New York) introduced legislation “to restore the Fairness Doctrine”. H.R. 3302, also known as the “Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005″ or MORA, had 16 co-sponsors in Congress.[21]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#cite_note-12

    “There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”

    “FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks. ”

    http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080812160747.aspx

    The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during ’08. In ruling out a vote on Pence’s proposed Broadcaster’s Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” — which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185

    “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-preps-for-talk-radio-confrontation-2007-06-27.html

    Does anyone else have flashes of George Orwell’s 1984? I hear double-speak.

  74. Anthony
    I have the same feelings, but don’t give up. I look forward to your insight and that of your posters. I’m a little fish, but you big’uns are of worth to me.
    Mark

  75. OK, Anthony and jeez, Nobel nomination was a little tongue-in-cheek, but it would be nice to honour the many who have held out, at personal cost, for good science, and keep on holding out for good science… I think you all deserve the Nobel Peace Prize more than Al Gore.

    OT – While the battle continues, it would be nice to see a post on “Does CO2 even have a greenhouse effect as stated officially”

  76. REPLY2: Thanks Lucy, but I’m simply not of Nobel caliber. But I do appreciate the kind words – Anthony
    Neither is AL Gore and look what happen.

  77. Well, there you go. Does it make a midget taller to cut off the leg of giant?

    Al Gore is a good man, a great man. He was right about saving ARPANet — you profit from that, and you owe him thanks — and he was right about organ transplant registries, and organ transplant pharmaceuticals. He was right about cleaning up grossly polluted sites. He was right about staying home with young Albert to make sure the kid healed up. He was graceful in his concession to Bush, a concession a lesser man wouldn’t have made (though the nation now suffers from his concession).

    Gore raised a good point. We need to act against pollution, and whether or not there is a smoking gun that proves humans are causing warming of the climate, the climate warms, and we can act now to do something to ameliorate and alleviate the harms, and maybe save significant portions of the planet, or we can do nothing and leave creation much worse off.

    It’s telling that you celebrate the political repression of a report here, instead of pointing to some science that might make the case and making the case. And just to make the case, sort of a dog dropping on the ice cream, you try to denigrate a Nobel winner.

    “Going green” shouldn’t mean “let your jealousy show.”

  78. “and leave creation much worse off.” Ed Darrell

    I’m glad you brought “creation” up. I am puzzled about where carbon burning is forbidden by the world’s major religions. Oppressing the poor is condemned by at least two of the world’s major religions so I suggest caution when “saving the planet” comes at their expense.

  79. statePoet1775 (19:35:50) :
    “Oppressing the poor is condemned by at least two of the world’s major religions so I suggest caution when “saving the planet” comes at their expense.”

    I hardly agree, well said Poet!

  80. OOPs
    I hard(i)ly agree!!!

    Reply: Before anyone makes fun of you, we know you meant heartily agree.~charles the moderator

  81. [snip - no religious discussions please]

    Oppressing the poor is well evidenced when we consider that the chief human victims of warming are the poor. Not only are polluting industries, and roads, generally built where they affect the poor disproportionately, but we have tens of millions of people living in river deltas and other lowlands that are already disproportionately damaged by warming. Think about those injured by the Indian Ocean tsunami, or those displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, you begin to see the problem. If we can slow warming, or stop it, it is the poor who benefit most. Of course, the poor also have the weakest lobby among political powers. Kudos to the Rockefeller family for calling Exxon-Mobil on the carpet for spending millions to support your side with false data and false conclusions. (Anthony — when do you take after Exxon-Mobil for their PhotoShopping equivalents?)

    Saving the planet comes at the benefit of all of us. If you’re completely ignorant of the history of pollution control, you might have a difficulty time believing that — but you can cure your problem with education. You’ve never heard of Donora? Look it up.

    REPLY: Ed, Katrina and Rita have nothing to do with climate change. The link between individual storms, and even storm frequency trends tied to “global warming: has been disproven. Read up.

    I find your suggestions that I am somehow involved with Exxon Mobil laughable. Don’t raise those suggestions again please, because they simply aren’t true. I don’t get any money from oil companies nor do I use “false data”. Show a place here on this forum where I’ve used anything but the publicly available datasets. You really are over the line and it is encumbent upon you to prove such things before making those claims. It seems to be the standard excuse “oh, he doubts AGW, must be on the take from big oil”. That is the ultimate in lazy arguments.

    As for photoshopping, other than the “coal cliff” (Peabody if I recall correctly) I don’t know of any others. I would have called that one out too. So far I’ve only seen one example of photoshopping in a report, the one highlighted here. So, expressing frustration that I haven’t “taken after Exxon Mobil” is again just a lazy argument.

    Using photoshopped images has no place in science or policy reports no matter where.

    Please read my “about” page, available on the menu bar, and look at all the things I’ve done, then if you can put your obvious dislike and prejudice of me aside, tell me how you think then. Be sure to note my solar projects and my electric car I drive daily.

    I ask you sir, other than complain about others, what have you done? You want to reduce pollution and end waste. So do I, and I’ve put my money (note the “my” not Exxon’s) where my mouth is and actually done those things because they make good sense to me econimically and from a pollution standpoint (CO2 excepted, as it is not pollution). In the way of conservation and energy efficiency, what have you done to walk the talk? I’d love to see pictures of what sort of energy conservation projects like solar or driving an electric car that you’ve done. Feel free to post any examples you have here. – Anthony

  82. Ed Darrel. I’m going to leave your latest post embargoed for awhile. We do not allow religious discussions here and while statePoet1775 started it, I’m now stopping it. There are also rather offensive use of words in your post which I’m going to leave to Anthony to judge. He may allow the post, but I’m leaving the judgement to him.

    statePoet1775, try not to do that.

    ~charles the moderator.

  83. state Poet 1775, “Bad” is in the eyes of beholder. I’m with you!

    REPLY: Maybe so, but keep the religion in one’s own personal domain please. – Anthony

  84. Sorry Anthony, not intended to be about “religion”, but common sense. We all lose if we don’t convince the world we are right.

  85. Ed, Katrina and Rita have nothing to do with climate change. The link between individual storms, and even storm frequency trends tied to “global warming: has been disproven. Read up.

    Regardless whether warming has anything to do with the cause of the storms, they illustrate the point I was making, which you cannot “disprove,” that the poor are harmed by disasters disproportionately over people with money. I assume you just missed the point, and are not dodging the issue. Pick any effect from climate change you choose, the poor are harmed in greater proportion than the non-poor. That is true for almost all policy issues. The claim that fighting environmental damage harms the poor is historically inaccurate. If you can cite one environmental issue where the poor were not the chief victims, I’d like to see it.

    I find your suggestions that I am somehow involved with Exxon Mobil laughable. Don’t raise those suggestions again please, because they simply aren’t true.

    Again, I’ll assume you’re not intentionally dodging the issue. I said nothing about your financing. I only note that the Rockefellers called Exxon-Mobil to stop spreading disinformation about climate change and do something constructive about it. If anyone is in the inside on what the oil companies are doing, it’s the Rockefellers. Your silence on the issue is telling — not about your financing (though now I’m curious why you’re so sensitive about it), but about your biases.

    REPLY:

    You wrote: Anthony — when do you take after Exxon-Mobil for their PhotoShopping equivalents?) Perhaps its the way you worded it, but the “take” implied to me “on the take”.

    I’m happy to talk about it. I started surfacestations.org out of my own pocket, I own the server, and pay the monthly server co-lo fees ($130/month) myself. I put that server out of my office because I feared it would be attacked by agenda wielding hackers, and I didn’t want to risk my network and servers at my business for a hobby project. Serving up thousands of pictures that I make available to the public also takes bandwidth. So off-site for that server was indeed the best choice. This blog is hosted by wordpress.com, and is a free service, so I pay nothign there. But if wordpress is owned by an oil company, then I suppose you have me there, I didn’t ask. I also bought the Stevenson Screens to do the paint tests with, and the dataloggers/probes to the tune of about $5000 total. I do get some donations to help pay the bills on occasion from the PayPal button. I have no corporate sponsors, I pay most of this out of my own pocket, and I get help from like minded people. Most of this project is sweat equity. I like to accomplish things, to do experiments, and I like to write. I write from work, from home, from the coffee shop, and from airports and hotels when I travel thanks to WiFi. Many of the surfacestation photos have come from time I make to do this while on buiness travel. A few trips here in California and Nevada were done specifically for the pupose of survey. One trip this year to NCDC was financed by donations from my readers. There you have it, that’s it.

    As for biases, well you’d probably be amazed to learn that I once very much believed in global warming being caused by CO2 alone, so much in fact that shortly after the 1988 speech by Hansen, I took it upon myself to do something about it. In 1990 and again in 1991, I created and managed “Arbor Day Weather Week” which provided computer graphics outlining the benfits of planting trees and narrative to TV meteorologists all over the country to coincide with Arbor Day. This was sent by satellite video feed. The push was to plant trees to offset CO2. Over 250,000 trees were planted (based on the orders for saplings Arbor Day Foundation got) each year. about 175 TV stations participated. Since then I’ve learned a lot more about the data and mechanisms, and slowly, I changed my mind based on study. By about 1997, I no lomger thought CO2 was the root of “global warming” and that the answers would be found in instrumentation issues, and natural variation. But I never did anything with it.

    The catalyst came last year on this blog when I spoke with another engineer about thermometers.

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/03/31/in-search-of-the-perfect-thermometer/

    You made no mention of the sorts of things you are doing in pollution reduction and energy conservation, so it appears that you have intentionally diodged that issue. I’ll ask the question again Ed, other than complain about others, what have you done to practice what you preach?

  86. Pick any effect from climate change you choose, the poor are harmed in greater proportion than the non-poor.

    Hmmm…picking effects from climate change (not necessarily man made, but they could be).

    Longer growing seasons don’t hurt the poor.

    Milder weather doesn’t hurt the poor.

    Warmer winter nights don’t hurt the poor.

    More reliable rain fall doesn’t hurt the poor.

    More snowfall in mountains above farmland doesn’t hurt the poor.

    Fewer hurricanes don’t hurt the poor.

    Fewer tornadoes don’t hurt the poor.

    Ed Darrell, the examples above illustrate your central fallacy–that we are somehow or were, say ten or twenty years ago, living in the best possible climate in every single part of the planet, and that any change must hurt those most vulnerable. What you are completely unaware of is that there is no solid trend in any of the items cited above.

    None, there are simply no clear trends. The weather is as it has always been, unpredictable and without a clear direction as to any changes worldwide. Are there regional changes such as warmer winters in Siberia? Possibly, but I guarantee you the people in Siberia are not complaining. Are there colder trends elsewhere? Yes.

    Weather trends change. They have always changed, and people either take advantage of improved conditions or adapt to harsher conditions. That has been occurring since before the invention of agriculture, and now we are much much better at adapting.

    As for your question:

    If you can cite one environmental issue where the poor were not the chief victims, I’d like to see it.

    All conversion of prairie or forest to agriculture can be considered environmental damage-destroying natural habitats of plants and animals and replacing them with man made artifacts of mass food production.

    Does all agriculture harm the poor or perhaps does it help them eat?

    Fishing destroys living natural fish–killing them instead of letting them live.

    Does a poor fisherman benefit from fishing or is he harmed by this ongoing environmental damage?

    All construction takes place on what was once pristine natural landscape. All construction rapes the natural environment replacing it with monstrous human artifacts. Do you live in a house Ed Darrel? Are you poor? Do you know of any poor people that make take shelter from the outdoors in a building on once what was a natural environment.

    It is very difficult to take such dogma as yours seriously Mister Darrell.

    I know you will respond that somehow damage is only done by those large corporations or you meant things like Love Canal (by the way, dioxin isn’t remotely dangerous to humans at those levels), or Three Mile Island, or perhaps a case where actually some harm was caused like the Exxon Valdez incident. You will talk about “sustainable” agriculture as an alternative (BTW less productive and more environmentally damaging than conventional agriculture). You will distance yourself from the fact that you live and are supported by the raping of nature.

    You will tell yourself that you have a low carbon footprint and that you donate to good causes, but when it all comes down to it Ed Darrell, you exist because you participate in the raping of nature by human civilization, and can continue to eat and sleep under a roof because of it. The poor want to eat, have shelter, and access to more than a bare existence. You are not helping the poor by telling them they can’t build damns or coal fired plants to generate electricity, or roads to help transport their goods to market.

    And you are really not helping them by burning food, driving up food prices worldwide so that millions can no longer afford it because it makes you feel you are saving the world instead chasing mythical environmental chimeras.

    [I apologize to all posters if it appears I have stepped over the line~jeez]

    Oh and one more point. By definition, poor people have fewer resources to deal with problems than people who are less poor. To somehow claim there is something unique about the effects of environmental problems on the poor is twisted logic. The poor are less able to deal with all problems, whether they be environmental, economic, mobility, job security, housing–it doesn’t matter. By definition poor people have fewer resources to cope with problems, any kind of problem.

    The way to help the poor is to help them be less poor. To help them with the infrastructure required to generate economic prosperity–yes growth. Attempting to keep the poor under a glass jar in a misguided attempt to preserve the status quo does not help them one iota.

  87. The assumption that to help the poor we must profligately and wastefully use fossil fuels in the dirtiest way possible is simply incorrect.

    Industries argued that controlling particulates would absolutely stop the use of coal in the U.S. Didn’t. They said control of NOX and SOX from autos would be impossible, or at least double the price of the cars. Didn’t. Health improved with each of those changes, industry flourished, and poverty expansion occurred for other reasons well beyond the cleaning of the air.

    One might do well to recall that the first connection of air pollution to cancers was the discovery that soot causes scrotum cancers — discovered among the chimney sweeps in London, not exactly your upper class group. One might do well to recall why we have “vitamin D” in milk, to overcome the rickets among the middle and poor classes caused by industrial pollution’s blotting out the sunshine. One might want to pay some attention to the idea of “environmental justice,” to see which groups are usually injured by industrial pollution, and why they don’t have powerful lobby groups and attorneys to protect them.

    Don’t ignore the entire history of conservation in the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, please.

    So the challenge is the same: Offer any example by which cleaning the air hurt poor people. It’s a wild claim, completely unevidenced, and so far as I can see, totally disconnected from reality, certainly disconnected from history.

  88. Ah, I see — yes, if we define all progress as “pollution,” then stopping pollution would harm progress.

    Get in the real world, please. Wise use of the land, wise development, does not need to be environmentally destructive.

    And especially if you want to talk development, you need to control pollution. Recall that it was siltation that wiped out Babylon. Remember it was erosion of the mountains caused by profligate wasting of the Cedars that doomed Lebanon to be a desert some thousands of years ago. Remember that it was poor conservation practices that led directly to the Dust Bowl, which chased off the land the very people who you claim could be helped.

    Development need not be wasteful. Wasteful and polluting development almost always produces crippling harms.

    Tourists to Easter Island don’t go there to see the thriving forest products industry among the tens of thousands of happy people. History does not bear out the claim that destructive development is necessary, nor beneficial to poor people, in the short run and especially the long run.

  89. “Offer any example by which cleaning the air hurt poor people.” Ed Darrell

    Well, I dispute that CO2 (plant food) is a pollutant. But for the sake of argument let’s assume it is. As jeez mentioned, ethanol from corn (which is supposed to be carbon neutral but apparently isn’t) has caused food shortages and even food riots. So, an attempt to clean the air of a “pollutant”, ends up hurting the poor.

    Ed, this is not about lead or mercury poisoning or particulates in the air. It is about one of the most natural and necessary substances there is. Furthermore, CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuels for energy. Energy is vital to the world’s economy. Damage to the economy can lead to political instability which can lead to war. One of the least consequences of war is damage to the environment.

  90. The assumption that to help the poor we must profligately and wastefully use fossil fuels in the dirtiest way possible is simply incorrect.
    Straw man argument, Ed. Let us know when you have any actual science. Thanks for playing.

  91. Pingback: Another chance to make comments on climate change « Watts Up With That?

  92. Ed Darrell
    What does your view about real pollution have to do with CO2 drives the climate theory?
    If you use the theory as a means to justify the end then you are no better than Enron was.

  93. Congratulations, Anthony. Love your website too. Let us not forget the EPA is asking for public comments on the ridiculous “CO2 is a pollutant ” issue that the Supreme Court ruled on earlier. 120 days from July 30th allowed for comment. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-3018
    On line http://www.regulations.gov
    For e-mail comments “a-and-rDocket@epa.gov
    FAX 202-566-9744.
    Maybe , the power of the people is a possibility!

  94. jeez (03:26:55)

    That was a really excellent response! Folks like Mr. Darrell are long on Malthusian/Luddite guilt trips for others, but I suspect very short on personal charitable giving themselves. Darrell states:

    The assumption that to help the poor we must profligately and wastefully use fossil fuels in the dirtiest way possible is simply incorrect.

    Mr. Darrell’s implication is clear: the U.S. is a filthy polluter, and if we only followed his expert advice, America wouldn’t be such a dirty polluter. But Darrell’s assumption is completely false.

    Maybe Mr. Darrell is a young’un, but I remember Pittsburgh in the 1950’s, when you couldn’t look across the river and see the other side due to all the industrial smoke. Now the air is clear. And I remember when the Cuyahoga river in Cleveland caught fire in the ’60’s from all the industrial pollution. Now people fish there, and the EPA says the fish are fit for human consumption.

    Today the U.S. is one of the very cleanest, if not the cleanest countries on Earth — with a much higher population.

    We’ve already cleaned up the country without the help of the Darrells. Now, the most effective thing Mr. Darrell could do for the poor would be to dig deep into his own pocket, and give his dollars to any charity he thinks is doing a good job helping poor folks, instead of telling everyone else what bad people they are.

    Telling other folks [that's us] that we should be taxed to fund Darrel’s great ideas reminds me of a point that economics professor Walter E. Williams often makes: when you dig in your own pocket to help out someone less fortunate, that is charity. But when you want the government to dig onto someone else’s pocket… that’s something completely different.

  95. “The assumption that to help the poor we must profligately and wastefully use fossil fuels in the dirtiest way possible is simply incorrect.”

    Straw man argument, Ed. Let us know when you have any actual science. Thanks for playing.

    You’re right, it’s a straw man argument, completely unevidenced. I didn’t make it, you guys did. Let the world know when the [snip we don't use that word here] have some real science. Please get out of the game until you do.

  96. Mr. Darrell’s implication is clear: the U.S. is a filthy polluter, and if we only followed his expert advice, America wouldn’t be such a dirty polluter. But Darrell’s assumption is completely false.

    No, Jeez. It was your assumption. I responded to your claim that cleaning the air would harm poor people.

    The U.S. in fact refutes your claims. We have cleaned the air while expanding our economy, and in fact clean air has played a huge role in the expansion. Getting lead out of our gasoline raised the national IQ. Smarter people use resources more efficiently, make more money, pay more taxes, stay out of poverty better, expand the economy more.

    As I said, your original claims, that we can’t clean up the air without damaging the poor, are simply absurd.

  97. Feel free to cut and paste. I’m sure you could improve it. My organizational structure was a bit weak, but it was a semi drunken rant at 3:30 in the morning.

  98. “As I said, your original claims, that we can’t clean up the air without damaging the poor, are simply absurd.” Darrell

    No one here is in favor of pollution only CO2 is not a pollutant. The differences between CO2 and lead for instance are numerous. You seem to be pro-human and that is good. Some of the radical greenies would like to see most of us gone (themselves excluded of course).

  99. Pick any effect from climate change you choose, the poor are harmed in greater proportion than the non-poor.

    Naturally. The poor are always more vulnerable.

    Look what baleful effects the combo of the current global cooling and the ethanol crunch have had on the poor. We have seen sporadic food riots all over the third world.

    And direct mitigation efforts (on the Kyoto or Stern Models) harm the poor FAR more than the non-poor.

  100. PattI: That’s terrible. And sublimely unliberal. I will keep my ears open for it.

    Lucy, are you British, by any chance?

    While the battle continues, it would be nice to see a post on “Does CO2 even have a greenhouse effect as stated officially”

    I think it is a greenhouse gas and has a small effect, but without positive feedback loops it amounts to little more than spit in the ocean.

  101. He was graceful in his concession to Bush, a concession a lesser man wouldn’t have made (though the nation now suffers from his concession).

    I must respectfully beg to disagree. He unleashed party operatives to interfere in the dispute. I think that was a direct and serious threat to the democratic process and did the country terrible, terrible harm. (This is quite apart form any opinion of Bush, which is beside the point.)

    Also, I heard his concession speech and did not consider it to be gracious. YMMV, of course. Besides, once the court hand bunged him 7-2, what would have been his choice in the matter?

    Your mileage may vary, of course. I know I am in a minority among my liberal brethren in this opinion.

  102. Not only are polluting industries, and roads, generally built where they affect the poor disproportionately,

    But you need to consider that the poor are direct beneficiaries as well. Look at poverty in India or China fifty years ago and compare it with that of today.

    It comes down to an unavoidable choice between permanent poverty (which knocks decades off life expectancy) and two or three decades of pollution (which is bad, but not nearly as bad) followed by a massive cleanup when they achieve affluence (for the exact same reasons the west cleaned up once it achieved affluence).

    but we have tens of millions of people living in river deltas and other lowlands that are already disproportionately damaged by warming.

    If you are thinking “Bangladesh”, they are gaining, not losing ground. Sedimentation has been occurring faster than sea level has been rising. (And over the last couple of years, sea level has dropped, even with the applied positive “adjustments”.)

  103. The assumption that to help the poor we must profligately and wastefully use fossil fuels in the dirtiest way possible is simply incorrect.

    Depending on your definitions, it may be an awful lot closer to correct than you may think.

    Remember, this is a temporary situation. Once China and India achieve basic affluence, they will become much more environmentally responsible. The cleanup will probably take a lot less time than it took the industrialized west. But first things first.

    We have cleaned the air while expanding our economy, and in fact clean air has played a huge role in the expansion.

    This is true. But it did not occur until we were very well off economically. And the east will follow the same path. It’s all part of a demographic process.

  104. You made no mention of the sorts of things you are doing in pollution reduction and energy conservation, so it appears that you have intentionally diodged that issue. I’ll ask the question again Ed, other than complain about others, what have you done to practice what you preach?

    Sometimes this place appears like a rabbit hole, complete with hatters.

    Anthony, my question is this: When do you criticize Exxon Mobil for their photoshopping work promoting the idea that there is no global warming, that there is little or no human effect on warming, and there is little humans can do? If it’s the photoshopping that concerns you, and if you’re fair, you’ll criticize photoshopping wherever it appears to advance an agenda contrary to the evidence. The history of your efforts here is impressive, but not at all what I was talking about.

    You make no mention of the efforts you’re taking to stop urban crime, advance education among economically-depressed peoples, or relief for Darfur. I won’t do you the disservice of accusing you of dodging those questions. They weren’t on the table.

    I’m fail to see what relevance my conservation efforts have to this discussion, other than your attempts to find a wider barn for your commenters to shoot at.

    You need to get cracking on your comments, they’re due today.

  105. You make no mention of the efforts you’re taking to stop urban crime, advance education among economically-depressed peoples, or relief for Darfur. I won’t do you the disservice of accusing you of dodging those questions. They weren’t on the table.

    Nice misdirection, Ed.

    The difference is you’re telling us “skeptics” that we’re all mad and that AGW is real and a catastrophe is in progress. Therefore you MUST be doing something to mitigate the problem, such as not using a computer (oops!), giving up a modern lifestyle to return to a hunter-gatherer survival existence (oops!), etc, ad nauseum. Since you’re not doing any of those things, which, insidentally, are the only way to reduce human industrial CO2 emissions to any meaningful degree, you must not really believe in the catastrophe.

    Dodge all you like, but your presence here speaks volumes about your commitment.

  106. Keep up the good work, liars like Al Gore and his many politically correct minions must be taken to task!

    Every bit helps, tell your friends, lobby your local politician about the hoax
    that ‘Global warming’ is.

    Perhaps even the NOAA will think twice about spreading such propoganda.

Comments are closed.