IPCC concludes:

“Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

Wars have always been a financial boon for investors. If you want to bitch about profiteering, start with WWI. You have a lot of catching up to do.

So they grasp at ‘plagiarism’ straws.

BTW, thanks for putting ‘blog postings’ in bolds. It belies your insecurities.

I see. Is that the second wave of attempting to discredit the report–saying it’s all just some baseless blog drivel?

Have you noticed the world is in a cooling trend? Manmade co2 continues to rise rapidly. But the earth is cooling—are you ok with that?

“In discussing their results I find some very interesting language, to say the least….Again, I tend to say this moulin link to drowning the World Trade Center Memorial is nonsense, and the empirical evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor.”

Where exactly do you see Alan Carlin saying these are his original ideas? I don’t see it anywhere. I think those ‘inquiring minds’ do.

This is silly!! But don’t let me stop you from looking silly.

How about focusing on the science for once? That is the heart of the issue. And that is one thing you have talked about.

Care to talk about the science?

“Possible? Sure. Likely? Not so much.”

I don’t think we have enough information about Carlin’s activities within EPA or the source of posted content on Michael’s web page to assess the likelihood, one way or another. I certainly wouldn’t put money on the outcome that Carlin was the original source of the material on Michael’s site, but on the other hand, I wouldn’t be shocked if turned out that he was. The link you provide, if anything, makes it more plausible that Carlin was the original source given that we know that his material is publicly disseminated and that he drew from prior material of his when preparing his comments.

My point is that these kinds of possibilities should be considered before leveling a charge of plagarism at someone.

Michael Searcy (05:53:56)

……….
Of course, all of this sidesteps the fact that Carlin’s report relies on blog postings.

Of course, your postings sidestep one point (and the only point that is of any importance) –
The fact of suppression of this report.
The report could be complete junk. It could be total gibberish. All EPA needed to do is to say ” We looked at it and it is wrong”. Instead they suppressed it.
That is a critical mistake.
And no amount of you trying to dig dirt on the author of this report makes it go away.
You have to admit that point before we can intelligently discuss anything else.

Statements such as the following say otherwise…

“In discussing their results I find some very interesting language, to say the least….Again, I tend to say this moulin link to drowning the World Trade Center Memorial is nonsense, and the empirical evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor.”

kurt (20:28:07) :
it simply could have been a derivative of presentation material obtained from one of Carlin’s seminars and posted anonymously with his permission

Possible? Sure. Likely? Not so much. Especially considering a year prior in 2007, “Carlin argues that the collapse of the major ice sheets is one of the most serious threats we face.”

So, could Carlin have been the source of the WCR posting? I guess anything is possible.

Of course, all of this sidesteps the fact that Carlin’s report relies on blog postings.

Regarding Deep Climate, he accurately points out that sections of Carlin’s report are lifted almost word-for-word from contrarian blog postings without attribution, with the pronouns in Carlin’s report indicating his personal ownership of the work.”

One problem is that Deep Climate jumps the gun and assumes that this proves plagarism. It does not. For one thing, if you look at the web site allegedly plagarized from, there is no attribution as to who wrote the article. We know that Carlin prepared and conducted seminars at EPA that were attended by climate scientists/reasearchers. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if, when presenting one of these seminars, Michaels or some of his colleagues were in attendance. It’s possible that the web article was based on Carlin’s or his co-author’s own work, i.e. it simply could have been a derivative of presentation material obtained from one of Carlin’s seminars and posted anonymously with his permission.

This is a perfect example of a tendency by AGW advocates to fail to think through all possible scenarios, and jump to a conclusion that they want to reach. I personally have no idea who was the original author of the seemingly identical material at issue here. Neither does Deepclimate. But without first identifying the name of the orignal author of the material, any allegation of plagarism is premature.

Best regards,

Gene Nemetz

aka, Just Want Results…

formerly,

Just Want Truth… (I’ve got the truth, now I want results)

EXCELLENT VIDEO Klockarman!!

————————————————-

————————————————-

http://algorelied.com/?p=2377

Hopeful regards,

Gene JWT

It’s all over the news now—except CNN for obvious reasons.

It is not plagiarism.

————————————————-

plagiarism–noun—1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism

———————————————-

(n) plagiarism (a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarism

———————————————

Plagiarism…”use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

———————————————

(v) plagiarize…(take without referencing from someone else’s writing or speech; of intellectual property)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=plagiarize

———————————————

plagiarizing :

transitive verb : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own : use (another’s production) without crediting the source intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarizing

———————————————–

plagiarism–”the deliberate or reckless representation of another’s words, thoughts, or ideas as one’s own without attribution in connection with submission of academic work, whether graded or otherwise.”

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/plagiarism.html

————————————————

Carlin does not claim that it is his original ideas.

Can this be the end of the plagiarism accusations now please?

Class dismissed.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/source-inside-epa-confirms-claims-of-science-being-ignored-by-top-epa-management/

Regarding Deep Climate, he accurately points out that sections of Carlin’s report are lifted almost word-for-word from contrarian blog postings without attribution, with the pronouns in Carlin’s report indicating his personal ownership of the work. The evidence is openly there for anyone to examine. Whether or not DC associates his name with the discovery is immaterial, as you concluded with your anonymous EPA source. How those actions reflect on Carlin is for the reader to decide.