The “well funded” climate business – follow the money

Flashback, Michael Mann said this on October 5th, 2010:

Our efforts to communicate the science are opposed by a well-funded, highly organized disinformation effort that aims to confuse the public about the nature of our scientific understanding.

Scientists are massively out-funded and outmanned in this battle, and will lose if leading scientific institutions and organizations remain on the sidelines. I will discuss this dilemma, drawing upon my own experiences in the public arena of climate change.

Next time you get challenged on how much money is involved and whose side gets it, point out Mann is delusional by showing them this from 2009, Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopoly on climate science funding.

Climate_money

The starting point was in June 1988 – James Hansen’s address to Congress, where he was so sure of his science, he and Senator Tim Wirth turned off the air conditioning to make the room hotter.

Then show them this from the Daily Caller:

The Congressional Research Service estimates that since 2008 the federal government has spent nearly $70 billion on “climate change activities.”

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe presented the new CRS report on the Senate Floor Thursday to make the point that the Obama administration has been focused on “green” defense projects to the detriment of the military.

The report revealed that from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 the federal government spent $68.4 billion to combat climate change. The Department of Defense also spent $4 billion of its budget, the report adds, on climate change and energy efficiency activities in that same time period.

Inhofe, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that the expenditures are foolish at a time when the military is facing “devastating cuts.”

Video May 17, 2012 by

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and a Senior Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took to the Senate floor today to put the spotlight on the far-left global warming agenda that is being imposed on the Department of Defense by President Obama, which comes at the same time the Obama administration is forcing devastating cuts to the military budget.

Senator Inhofe announced that he will be introducing a number of amendments during next week’s markup of the Defense Authorization bill in the Senate Armed Services Committee that will stop President Obama’s expensive green agenda from taking effect in the military.

As part of that effort, Senator Inhofe is also releasing a document put together by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) which reveals that the federal government has spent $68.4 billion on global warming activities since 2008 — and that’s just a conservative estimate. Instead of focusing on funding our critical defense needs such as modernizing our military’s fleet of ships, aircraft and ground vehicles, the Obama administration’s priority is to force agencies to spend billions on its war on affordable energy; this is further depleting an already stretched military budget and putting our troops at risk.

About these ads

193 thoughts on “The “well funded” climate business – follow the money

  1. Accuse the other side of exactly the things you are doing before they get to do it 1st. It’s probably one of Saul Allinsky’s rules. The sad part is that It often works.

  2. One minor comment: Tim Wirth “turned off the air conditioning to make the room hotter”. They didn’t – according to the video they opened the windows to give the same effect. Not the greenest of solutions…

  3. It is actually amazing that climate skeptics by using the internet and basically crowd sourcing of information have had such an impact on the debate….despite the funding of the climate change industrial complex by the various governments around the world.

  4. I think the words, “Follow the money” apply here.

    I would be interesting to see the comparison of how much government money is being spent on any research that might show the opposite of the CO2 AGW theory.

  5. Apples and Oranges.
    One side is spending nothing on satellites, research, ice-cores, scientists or high end computer systems for modeling.. It only spends on PR aimed at the popular media rather than the science community.

    Its cheap to post articles and print essays rejecting the statements by every national science advisory group that climate change/AGW is a significant problem. Rather more expensive to back up such claims.

    [Correction: All taxpayers pay for spending on satellites, ice cores, etc. ~dbs, mod.]

  6. Here is the wake up call for all Americans, well past time the media recognised this, and did its duty to bring this rort to a halt. Trenberth can call travesty because his heat is missing. just like the data they hid and distorted. But what is really missing is the integrity of science mired in a trough of money that corruptly bought many Climate scientists body and soul.

    Thank goodness that we have had a few outstanding sceptical scientists that stood against the tide of corrupt influences, fought to unravel the web of deception and hypocracy. Time to reform science under new leaders.

    The deception started in America, was refined in the UK , corruptly spread to serve the agenda of those who want to destroy the great economies of the world. It will take decades to undo the vandalism to our world temperature historical records and restore respect to climate science..

    Not to mention the vast waste of monies driven by the ego and agenda of those who stood to profit by this misadventure. That money could have done so much more if properly and wisely used.

    Time to metaphorically tip them out of their self promoted false temples.

  7. You go Senator. Wonder how many flap jackets and extra armor could have been bought for our sons and daughter riding along the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan? How many soldiers came back in a box that could have come back with a fighting chance to live on this side of the war? Those who approved this shameful use of funds owe an apology (that will NEVER be sincere enough) to every mother, father, child and friend of those who’s lives were sacrificed on the immoral AGW Gaia alter. Starting with the president. Actually a fitting apology from him would be for him to lose the next election. And I voted for him the first go-around.

  8. Heroic Inhofe stands alone as always. A few other Repooflicans pretended to be interested during the 2010 election, but they’ve fallen back into their default slavish loyalty to China and Wall Street.

  9. Izen: When you only spend money on research to PROVE AGW, all that is considered to be money spent to promote AGW.

    And if you want to cut to the chase, look at the IPCC’s mandate.

  10. It isn’t just the amount. By setting up the IPCC through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Maurice Strong put all the control in the hands of national weather agency bureaucrats. Most of the government money went to research that was proving the IPCC hypothesis rather than falsifying it, as Popper pointed out is required for an effective scientific method.

    In Canada government research funding for science or the social sciences and humanities are done through arms-length from government agencies. However, climate research funding was all done through Environment Canada (EC) and only to those who agreed with IPCC preudo-science. A former senior EC bureaucrat, who chaired establishment of IPCC, established a climate funding agency with EC money and became its chair immediately after leaving government.

    Politicians are still, for the most part, bamboozled and wrong about the science; Inhofe is an exception. Look at the itemized beliefs of these three Canadian political leaders.

    “If there is one thing on which all federal parties and all national political leaders are agreed, it is that they “believe the science” on climate change. They believe that the earth is warming, they believe its effects are on balance malign, and they believe it is caused by human activity. As such they believe it can and should be mitigated by human action, namely by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/11/andrew-coyne-national-leaders-unanimous-in-their-inaction-on-climate-change/,

    Fortunately, they have the bad economy as an excuse to cut funding and control the bureaucrats, without losing their green credentials. It’s the right action for the wrong reason.

  11. That would be flak jacket. Flap jackets are filled with pancakes, not kevlar. They are quite useful when caught behind enemy lines ’cause you can eat them when you get hungry. Kevlar, not so much.

  12. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 7:45 am
    Its cheap to post articles and print essays rejecting the statements by every national science advisory group that climate change/AGW is a significant problem. Rather more expensive to back up such claims.

    You say AGW is a significant problem? And you say it is expensive to back up the claim that it it not a significant problem? That is no problem! Here is proof that warming has stopped between 10 years and 7 months to 15 years and 6 months ago, depending on your source.

    2012 in perspective so far

    With the UAH anomaly for April at 0.295, the average for the first third of the year is (-0.09 -0.112 + 0.108 + 0.295)/4 = 0.05025. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year.

    With the RSS anomaly for April at 0.333, the average for the first third of the year is (-0.058 -0.12 + 0.074 + 0.333)/4 = 0.05725. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 21st. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year.

    With the GISS anomaly for April at 0.56, the average for the first third of the year is (0.34 + 0.39 + 0.46 + 0.56)/4 = 0.4375. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 13th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.514 to rank it 9th for that year.

    With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for March at 0.305, the average for the first three months of the year is 0.239. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 18th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year.

    With the sea surface anomaly for March at 0.242, the average for the first three months of the year is 0.225. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 14th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.273 to rank it 12th for that year.

    So on all five of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average is colder than their 2011 average value.

    On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 7 months to 15 years and 6 months. Following is the longest period of time (above10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (For any positive slope, the exponent is no larger than 10^-5, except UAH which was 0.00055 per year so it could be questioned whether it can be considered to be flat.)

    1. RSS: since November 1996 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to April)
    2. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3months (goes to March)
    3. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 2 months (goes to April)
    4. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 7 months (goes to April)
    5. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to March)
    6. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
    7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 5 months (goes to April using GISS. See below.)

    See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend

    For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.005 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.004 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 5 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend

  13. Actually, my first attempt at pancakes many decades ago could have been used as a substitute for kevlar.

  14. ah yes- the same CRC that states:
    Virtually all scientists conclude that most of the recent warming is due to human activities, driven by emissions of such greenhouse gases (GHG) as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and other air pollutants, as well as land use changes…..models project GHG-driven change to have important impacts on regional economies, human safety and health, and ecosystems, with the potential for surprising and abrupt shifts.

    And wow really? The “poor military”. 68.4 billion on climate in over 4 years- which is 1/10th of the military budget- not including the military related costs that can more then double actual expenditures.

  15. To even better put it in context, $6BB a year buys you a new carrier not counting the NRE of new classes like the Gerald Ford or their air wing. We presently have 11 commissioned carriers. That means that over the last 4 years we could have completely recapitalized the core of our surface navy with this money. If that doesn’t make you sick, I’m not sure what will.

  16. But back to my condemnation, cooking aside. I had “kids” over there fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. These kids were not my biological kids but once I learned to cook real good, they all came to my house after school when they were young. Some of them even started calling me “Mom”. After graduation they joined the military.

    What they experienced over there, at a time when flak jackets were not part of the uniform and their vehicles were made out of stuff a stink bomb could shred, have left them struggling with the nightmare of body parts flying out of what used to be a transport vehicle. When you have seen what was left of a body blown east, west, north and south, only to find out the government was spending money on twisty lightbulbs instead of armor, you might have an ax to grind. Thankfully, my boys all came back at least physically intact, no thanks to what they and their friends needed to survive Hell.

    This report by the honorable Senator has me dander up and red hair flaming!!!!!

  17. Would anything really have been any different with McCain?
    Archived-Articles: An open letter from The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to Senator John McCain about Climate Science and Policy

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html

    Tires, steel and now solar panels. Trade wars in the past have actually cost jobs.

    http://articles.businessinsider.com/keyword/tariffs/recent/3

    And Romney just regurgitates talking points from Donald Trump. Best to never trash your trade agreements that protect your businesses in the first place.

  18. trbixler says:
    May 19, 2012 at 7:41 am
    Obama’s green agenda will leave the U.S bankrupt and defenseless.

    The US debt to revenue ratio, how much it owes versus tax revenues, is quickly reaching the point where the US makes Greece and Ireland look good in comparison. The more you owe, the more the interest on the debt eats up tax revenues, further increasing the debt.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/dept-to-gdp-revenue-2010-8

  19. Notice the dramatic jump from $20 million per year under Reagan to $1 billion per year under Big Bush for ‘climate endangerment findings’. This is a bi-partican rip off where earmarked ‘green’ tax dollars get laundered to be campaign contributions. This has never been about honest scientific inquiry, but ONLY about slave science providing the Carbon shackles and chains for the, admitted by Big Bush, “New World Order”….and that ‘order’ is all-powerful, unelected, one-world feudal government.

  20. Relevant information on Senator Wirth from:

    http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/SPA/BuechnerInstitute/Centers/WirthChair/About/Pages/SenatorTimothyWirth.aspx

    “Timothy E. Wirth is the President of the United Nations Foundation and Better World Fund. These organizations were founded in 1998 through a major financial commitment from R.E. Turner to support and strengthen the work of the United Nations. Wirth is married to Wren Wirth, the President of the Winslow Foundation.”

    R.E. Turner is Ted Turner, husband of Jane Fonda

  21. Redemocrats are a dime a dozen. McCain being one of them, and Romney. So no, it would not have been better. My voting dilemma is that Obama is hoping for a split vote among those of us entirely disenfranchised by the current president as we vote for the other side, literally in desparation. If Romney wants my vote, he will have to put Ron Paul on his ticket. Otherwise, no deal.

  22. @- Werner Brozek says:
    “You say AGW is a significant problem? And you say it is expensive to back up the claim that it it not a significant problem? That is no problem! Here is proof that warming has stopped between 10 years and 7 months to 15 years and 6 months ago, depending on your source.”

    I admire the effort you have taken to show that there is little evidence of a warming trend in the last 10-15 years of some temperature indices. Personally I keep an eye of the seal level, ocean heat content and SSts as they represent over 80% of the energy that will shape the climate.

    But there is another reason I find your numbers unpersuasive.
    I am a little older than ten years old, Its 40 years since I was a teenager and I do remember those decades. I would be much more sanguine about the possible future trends in the climate if every decade since I was 10 years old had not been warmer than the last. However cold 2012 may be, and wherever in the rankings it may end up (ENSO will have a big influence), it will STILL be warmer than all my teenage years, all the years of my twenties, all the decade when I was in my thirties and all of my forties…

    Do you think there is ANY prospect I will see a winter as cold as the years of my youth again ?

  23. …the Obama administration has been focused on “green” defense projects to the detriment of the military.

    And the taxpayers. SecNav Ray Mabus purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuel for $12 million to “help reduce the Navy’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil.” We’re paying over $26 per gallon for something that the Navy *can’t burn* in its turbines until it’s cut 50/50 with JP-8 — jet fuel — which costs about $3 per gallon.

    The kicker is, you can run a ship’s turbine just as efficiently on #2 heating oil that costs about $2.79 per gallon…

  24. izen~ it will STILL be warmer than all my teenage years, all the years of my twenties, all the decade when I was in my thirties and all of my forties…

    You keep talking as if that actually MEANT anything, compared to the MWP or the Holocene Climate Optimum.

  25. @- JimB says:
    ” When you only spend money on research to PROVE AGW, all that is considered to be money spent to promote AGW.”

    I find it difficult to see how something like the GRACE satellite system which measures small gravity changes can be construed as specifically intended to ‘PROVE’ AGW. Proof is for liquor and mathematics.
    That much of the data supports AGW that comes from the GRACE projects is just a result of reality having a well known liberal bias….
    [grin]

  26. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 8:58 am
    …it will STILL be warmer than all my teenage years, all the years of my twenties, all the decade when I was in my thirties and all of my forties…

    Why are you so nostalgic for a difference in temperature that’s too small to sense with your skin and too small to measure with a household thermometer?

  27. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 8:58 am
    it will STILL be warmer than all my teenage years, all the years of my twenties, all the decade when I was in my thirties and all of my forties…
    ============================
    You felt a 1/2 degree!!!!…………………….rotfl

  28. drugsandotherthings says:
    May 19, 2012 at 8:25 am
    And wow really? The “poor military”. 68.4 billion on climate in over 4 years- which is 1/10th of the military budget- not including the military related costs that can more then double actual expenditures.

    Also included in the defense budget are such *non*-military related costs as funding HomeLand Security, funding the FBI’s counterterrorism activities (both domestic and foreign, as of 2001), and funding for pet Congressional projects such as — no lie — the Special Olympics.

    So, it ain’t all going for $10,000 coffeemakers for the C-5A/B or “gold-plated hammers”…

  29. @- Bill Tuttle says:
    “Why are you so nostalgic for a difference in temperature that’s too small to sense with your skin and too small to measure with a household thermometer?”

    Because while the temperature difference may be too small to sense with my skin or a household thermometer it has easy to sense, and experience the effects on my surroundings. The type of animals and plants change, and when they flower or migrate. –

    http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm

    Winter sights and sports are changing. –

    http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/04/climate-change-continues-melt-glacier-national-parks-icons5669

    And changes in rainfall associated with the warming are altering whole regions. –

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111028115342.htm

    With such obvious, and large-scale changes in the physical and biological environment the inadequacy of the human skin or a household thermometer to record these decadel changes seems… irrelevant?

  30. kellyhaughton says:
    May 19, 2012 at 7:39 am
    It is actually amazing that climate skeptics by using the internet and basically crowd sourcing of information have had such an impact on the debate….despite the funding of the climate change industrial complex by the various governments around the world.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    This made me think of “freedom of the press” in the 1st Amendment. Those who wrote it knew that the free exchange of ideas was vital to keeping this Government they’d just formed in check. “The press” at that time was a patchwork of small independant town papers. They didn’t imagine the Mega Media corporations we have today. The internet with its blogs, message boards, etc. have taken the place of those small town papers.

  31. I completely agree regarding Bush Jr. Was he born with a weather vane???? Don’t get me wrong, I’ve flipped (who hasn’t), but not flopped. And only with regard to my party affiliation. I will never go back to the side I came from.

    Unfortunately, now that I no longer wish to vote for a democrate liberal watermellon, I will have to close my nose against the stench of homophobia, the ugly marriage act, the war against cigs (don’t smoke, but if you want to kill yourself go ahead), alcohol (now that one I do do), pot (don’t smoke or put it in my brownies, but you go right ahead and enhale a stupid stick), and the Republican desire to be involved in what goes on in my body.

    If we take back this out of control government, trust me, I will be working towards freedom regarding these other things as well. But at least I will have a job.

  32. AGW advocates are the suckers W.C. Fields laughed about, they just keep coming back to be kicked. It seems they take turns showing up here with their half truths and wild speculations and expect some to believe them. We, on the side of true science, have long ago learned to examine everything and accept nothing at face value. By the way, we in northwest Oregon , are experienceing a beautiful and average spring. We have had decent pollenization and the weather to promote good fruit crops. I thank a loving God for that. I believe all science leads back to him.

  33. @izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 7:45 am
    “[…]
    Its cheap to post articles and print essays rejecting the statements by every national science advisory group that climate change/AGW is a significant problem. Rather more expensive to back up such claims.”

    Nah… there was a little bit of funding that went into this –

    http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    (Scroll down to graph, though the whole article is a good read.)

    – and note the graph does show that climate change can be quite extreme and may pose a significant problem for anyone not technologically prepared to adapt to the changes.

    But Catastrophic Anthropogenic CO2-based Global Warming? Not seeing it, but from that graph, it sure looks like we could use some were it possible.

  34. Izen, you should know that during cold periods, the looping jet stream and dryer air is making it warmer somewhere else. I could theorize that your experience of the cold of your youth was matched by someone else’s experience of hot, dry weather. So what caused the cold of your youth? What were the atmospheric and oceanic oscillations doing? These are the drivers of cold. Are you saying that the minuscule amount of extra CO2 human development has, based on models, put into the air can now cause these drivers to never occur again? Your premise is absolutely untenable and is thus without merit.

  35. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 8:58 am
    @- Werner Brozek says:
    “You say AGW is a significant problem? And you say it is expensive to back up the claim that it it not a significant problem? That is no problem! Here is proof that warming has stopped between 10 years and 7 months to 15 years and 6 months ago, depending on your source.”

    I admire the effort you have taken to show that there is little evidence of a warming trend in the last 10-15 years of some temperature indices. Personally I keep an eye of the seal level, ocean heat content and SSts as they represent over 80% of the energy that will shape the climate.

    But there is another reason I find your numbers unpersuasive.
    I am a little older than ten years old, Its 40 years since I was a teenager and I do remember those decades. I would be much more sanguine about the possible future trends in the climate if every decade since I was 10 years old had not been warmer than the last. However cold 2012 may be, and wherever in the rankings it may end up (ENSO will have a big influence), it will STILL be warmer than all my teenage years, all the years of my twenties, all the decade when I was in my thirties and all of my forties…

    Do you think there is ANY prospect I will see a winter as cold as the years of my youth again ?

    So let us understand your position. Personally you think it is getting warmer (in your particular part of the world). There are some in the Mongolia area and some in South America who have lost many many head of cattle which froze to death who may disagree with you; however, for you it is warmer.

    Yet when the figures are eventually pulled out of the unwilling hands of the climate ‘scientists’ who have used public money to collect them, it is found that they do NOT show hockey sticks or runaway warming. NONE of their expensively produced predictions/projections/forecasts have come true; there is no tropical tropospheric hotspot, no billions of refugees. Not only that but the emails that have been leaked – and accepted as genuine – show that these ‘scientists’ spent a lot of time knowingly misusing statistics and doctoring the figures with ‘tricks’ when they found that the proxies they had been using were not validated by actual measurements.

    Tell us here Izen why such people who hide and manipulate their data should be trusted when their results have been used to justify reducing the energy available to people such that energy poverty exists even in rich countries like Germany? .Up to 200 old people a day dying due to energy poverty in UK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/22/older-people-cold-energy-bills). And why? Because politicians convinced by the published ‘research results’ of climate ‘scientists’ are spending huge amounts of money on windmills and closing viable power generation systems. And in the USA the EPA is using these ‘convincing research results’ to close down entire industries.

    Yet at the same time, in the real world which you ignore – “A child dies every 3 seconds, a mother every minute”:, Of these “Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.” and $1 can save a life.(so that means by the time you have read here probably 20 children and 3 mothers HAVE DIED)

    Now Izen justify why — with the total failure of climate ‘science’ to forecast anything correctly and the continual and continued hiding of data these people have obtained using public funds — why they should be provided any further funding? How many of those lives could that $68Billion have saved? Why should anything they say be trusted? Why should the world do _anything_ about climate change when the anomaly over 30 years is less than a degree centigrade (even that increase has leveled off in the last 10 years)?

    (And of course as there is a world wide drop in humidity – that entire ‘global temperature anomaly’ could be due just to the lower atmospheric enthalpy and nothing to do with trapped energy at all! ).

    In another 20 years time I would hope that your memories are not regrets.

  36. izen~ That much of the data supports AGW that comes from the GRACE projects is just a result of reality having a well known liberal bias…

    Ahh yes. Like the increase in ice mass in Greenland, or those Himalayan glaciers that put on mass since GRACE went up. ‘liberal’ amounts of snowfall, would be my guess….

  37. izen, if that half of a degree is not irrelevant, then what about the ten degrees (C) difference which occurred during the Holocene Climate Optimum? Why did it not precipitate the catatastrophic consequences we keep being told about, for 2 degrees of change?

  38. Otter says:

    “…if that half of a degree is not irrelevant, then what about the ten degrees (C) difference which occurred during the Holocene Climate Optimum? Why did it not precipitate the catatastrophic consequences we keep being told about, for 2 degrees of change?”

    Got an answer for that, Izen?

    Warming isn’t the problem. Cooling is.

  39. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 9:38 am
    Because while the temperature difference may be too small to sense with my skin or a household thermometer it has easy to sense, and experience the effects on my surroundings.
    ===================================
    The preceding public service announcement was brought to you by Smith Kline…….

  40. Senator Inhofe seems rather selective in his use of the Congressional Research Service as a source of information. For example, there is this report from 2009 by them http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/energy/CRS_Issue_Statement_on_Climate_Change.pdf that says:

    The Earth’s climate is warming, with observable effects on human and ecological systems. Since 1900, the average global temperature has risen some 1.0 to 1.3ºF, with most warming since the 1970s. The current global temperature is approaching, possibly exceeding, the maximum experienced by human civilizations. Virtually all scientists conclude that most of the recent warming is due to human activities, driven by emissions of such greenhouse gases (GHG) as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and other air pollutants, as well as land use changes. Northern high-latitude regions, such as Alaska have warmed the most. Although worldwide precipitation has increased by about 2% since 1900, some regions have gotten wetter, while others have dried, especially Africa. Demonstrable effects of observed climate change include: improved cereal crop productivity in some regions; shrinkage of Arctic ice extent, the Greenland ice sheet, and glaciers globally; accelerated sea level rise; shifts in fisheries; and preliminary evidence of more of the most intense hurricanes in the Atlantic. The wide occurrence of observable impacts has contributed to a growing sense of urgency among scientists and a large part of the public to respond through both mitigation and adaptation.

  41. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 9:38 am
    The type of animals and plants change, and when they flower or migrate.

    Nature is doing what nature always does — it changes. We live on a dynamic planet, not a static one. When I was a kid, there were still groves of birch trees on Long Island. My father told me that they would be gone within a decade, because they were “cold soil” trees, and the world had been getting warmer since the 1800s. He told me that back in 1954.

    Winter sights and sports are changing.

    Yes, they are. Luge wasn’t an Olympic event until 1964. As for winter sights disappearing, did I miss the news that it didn’t snow anywhere it normally snows? We had snow covering most of Iraq in 2008 for the first time in a century. There’s still snow on the south face of the mountains around Kabul, and it’s the middle of May — I’m told it’s usually gone by the last week in April.

    And changes in rainfall associated with the warming are altering whole regions.

    From your link: “Wintertime droughts are increasingly common in the Mediterranean region, and human-caused climate change is partly responsible, according to a new analysis by NOAA scientists and colleagues at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES).” and ” ‘The magnitude and frequency of the drying that has occurred is too great to be explained by natural variability alone,’ said Martin Hoerling, Ph.D. of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.” First, NOAA is a governmental agency, and in this administration, it has a vested interest in keeping up the fiction of AGW. Second, anyone who claims that something is “too great to be explained by natural variability alone” is talking through his hat — not all that long ago, the largest desert on Earth was a huge savannah interspersed with boreal forest.

    With such obvious, and large-scale changes in the physical and biological environment the inadequacy of the human skin or a household thermometer to record these decadel changes seems… irrelevant?

    Yup. Irrelevant. The climate has been changing since Earth first had an atmosphere, and not always in tenths of a degree per decade, and some of the temperature swings that happened before humans ever appeared make the IPCC’s scariest predictions look like a goldfish in the orca tank at Sea World by comparison.

  42. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 9:38 am
    “And changes in rainfall associated with the warming are altering whole regions. –

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111028115342.htm


    That’s exactly what your side uses its billions for – produce as many “scientific” studies showing the public what they can’t feel themselves in their area so they stay in line and pay ever-increasing taxes to keep the “scientific” busybodies comfortable.

    In all your enumerations of the terrible aspects of warmings that you can’t feel but read about in the corrupt media you forgot the worst of them:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7348467/ns/us_news-environment/t/do-dandruff-climate-change-go-together/

    Now! you might say that’s ridiculous but – is not every alarmist study equally scientific? Are there ridiculous alarmists and serious alarmists? Are they not all blessed with the same loving care by razor-sharp government scientist minds?

  43. joeldshore says:
    May 19, 2012 at 10:41 am: [ … ]

    Typical joelshore disinformation: write about Sen. Inhofe, while slipping in a Richard Lugar-promoted link filled with misinformation.

    Lugar is salivating like a starving hyena over the prospect of ‘carbon’ taxes. He has a HUGE financial incentive to misinform the public.

    There is zero evidence that “Demonstrable effects of observed climate change…” are due to human activity. joelshore has been repeatedly challenged to provide direct, testable evidence proving that human CO2 emissions cause any global harm at all. But joelshore has failed to provide any such evidence, because there is no such evidence.

    So enough with the pseudo-scientific political statements by people who have a big financial incentive to alarm the public. It is unethical, immoral, and an outright lie by the Pinnocchio contingent; a mendacious false alarm promoted by joelshore and his ilk.

  44. I guess the sum total of Smokey’s comment is this: If Sen. Inhofe posts something from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) then we can believe it without question but if Richard Lugar posts something straight from the CRS we can ignore it because, although Richard Lugar is a Republican, he is not ideologically-pure enough to satisfy Smokey.

  45. The real shame is most of that money was wasted on duplicate studies…
    With that many different agencies funding studies….the different agencies not knowing what eoch of them is funding….I’m sure most of the money went for duplicate studies

    But then that’s the game….saturate the science so you can claim consensus

  46. @- Otter says:
    “izen, if that half of a degree is not irrelevant, then what about the ten degrees (C) difference which occurred during the Holocene Climate Optimum? Why did it not precipitate the catatastrophic consequences we keep being told about, for 2 degrees of change?”

    But that is rather the point. The massive rise in temperature from the previous glacial period into the Holocene climate optimum was catastrophic for the human social system of tribal hunter-gathers with nomadic pasturalism which had been ticking over stably for several tens of thousands of years through a couple of ice ages.
    By the way, if you think the paleoclimate record indicates a ten degree C rise at the Holocene melt then you would need to adjust climate sensitivity upward accordingly and allow for a ~3degC rise from the energy imbalance produced by rising CO2.

    It was replaced with intensive agriculture and cities with tens of thousands of inhabitants with all the civic governance and specialization that generates. The emergence and evolution of agriculture based societies and the subsequent development of industrial – technological civilization has happened during a uncharacteristically stable period of inter-glacial warming.

    Its a question of timescales.
    True over millions of years the climate may change far more. But the present complexity, and value of human civilization is rooted in its agricultural infrastructure. That in turn is built around an assumption of stability. It is all that has been known for the total history of agriculture. On those occasions when the climate did become unstable, or change it could destroy a society. (Chaco canyon, Mayan, Viking!)

    I rather like living in an advanced technological society. I believe ( I have no proof) that it would be a good thing for more people to share my advantages both now and in the future. Doing that with finite resources and risks to the stable climate which underpins the agricultural foundation of the social complexity providing those benefits is difficult. One obvious problem that all reputable scientific advisory bodies have indicated poses a threat to the progress we have made since the Holocene maximum is the large geochemical change we have made to the atmosphere and the implications that has for the climate.

    That change is happening is undeniable.
    But it is uncertain how much more change will happen, and how robust or adaptable our agricultural infrastructure will have to become.
    Thirty years ago many people made predictions about what the present would be like based on the knowledge they had at the time. Here’s one example. –

    Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960’s and
    1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
    consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
    atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
    luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
    of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
    should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
    century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980’s. Potential effects on
    climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
    America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
    Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
    fabled Northwest Passage.

    Science as a body of shared knowledge has become almost unanimous in recognising this prediction as accurate. It is based on textbook physics on energy transfer that has been unchanged for at least two generations of undergraduate students in the physical sciences.
    Whatever reason that 99% of scientific research attributes as the CAUSE of global warming and climate change, 99% agree temperatures, sea level, rainfall and weather extremes are all going to increase. I understand that some dismiss that as the result of group-think, fraud or political collusion. But given the necessicty of adapting to the present climate changes, the conspicuous abscence of any coherent hypothesis justifying a return to the climate of the past and the other problems of finite fossil fuels, reducing reliance on CO2 emitting energy production appears rational.
    At least.

    @- Smokey says:
    “Warming isn’t the problem. Cooling is.”

    ANY change that exceeds the adaptability of our agricultural infrastructure is a problem.
    Sea level rise will impact coastal trade and farming too.
    Cooling would certainly be a problem. But it seems to be conspicuous by its absence. Do you know of any credible source with a cogent argument that cooling is likely, or even possible ?

  47. Joel Shore,

    That 2009 CRS report is so three years ago.

    More than 20 bills calling for near-term, specific and mandatory GHG reductions were introduced in the 110th Congress, and one saw action on the Senate floor. Majority leaders in both chambers of Congress have stated intentions to pass GHG control legislation in the 111th Congress. Some suggest that passage of a new law in 2009 is unlikely. Interplay between a possible international agreement, due at the end of 2009, and U.S. domestic policy on climate change highlights the importance of the Congressional role in 2009: key issues will include authorities and mandates to abate GHG, adequacy of appropriations and fiscal incentives to achieve goals and meeting international commitments for assistance, and the Congressional-Executive Branch coordination on the form of an international agreement, ratification and implementation.

    That’s as stale as watching an old episode of MASH.

  48. @- Latitude says:
    “The real shame is most of that money was wasted on duplicate studies…
    ….I’m sure most of the money went for duplicate studies”

    I think it is highly unlikely that any studies where exact duplicates.
    Almost always there are differences in the raw data, the processing or the interpretation between different studies even if they are studying the same thing. And that is usually considered beneficial in the rest of science….

    After all, if the Mann hockey stick had not been ‘duplicated’ but with many different sources of data and methodologies such as this recent example –

    http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/news/news/2012-05-17_1000years_graph.html

    It would not have the credibility it has from the validation of similar results from different data and methodologies!
    -grin-

  49. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 11:45 am
    Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960′s and
    1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
    consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
    atmospheric carbon dioxide.
    ========================
    izen, do you think man is responsible for all of the increase in CO2?

  50. Izen, the globe has been warming since the Little Ice Age. It is not shocking to find recent years the warmest.

    ALL of my tallest years havew been since I was eighteen!

  51. Izen says:

    “Do you know of any credible source with a cogent argument that cooling is likely, or even possible ?” You can not be that stupid… can you?

    Apparently you do not think the Northern and Southern Hemisphere ice core evidence is a “credible source”. Those ice cores show regular stadial events interspersed with Holocene-like warming events that last ±10 millennia. The current Holocene is getting long in the tooth, yet from your comment you seem to believe that any global cooling is probably not “even possible”.

    Next, the link you provided above deconstruct’s Michael Mann’s falsified assertion, which erased the MWP and the LIA. Thanx for refuting your own argument and Mann’s with that link.

    Next, you state: “The massive rise in temperature from the previous glacial period into the Holocene climate optimum was catastrophic for the human social system of tribal hunter-gathers with nomadic pasturalism which had been ticking over stably for several tens of thousands of years through a couple of ice ages.”

    Thanx again for your personal opinion — which is plainly contradicted by the fact that human civilization prospered during the warmest periods and turned barbaric during cold periods. And you finish up with this preposterous Argumentum ad Ignorantium WAG:

    “By the way, if you think the paleoclimate record indicates a ten degree C rise at the Holocene melt then you would need to adjust climate sensitivity upward accordingly and allow for a ~3degC rise from the energy imbalance produced by rising CO2.”

    Since you cannot fathom any other explanation, you are presuming it is CO2 that controls global temperatures [when in fact CO2 is largely the result of warming oceans]. So if temperatures rise by tens of degrees Centigrade, your knee-jerk response is: “It’s CO2!! We have to invent a higher sensitivity!”

    But that is a baseless conjecture. There is no evidence supporting your Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy. What you are doing is acknowledging that global temperatures rose and fell by 10’s of degrees — and then you arbitrarily assign the blame to CO2, even though geological evidence shows conclusively that rises and declines in CO2 follow rises and declines in temperature.

  52. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 8:58 am
    Personally I keep an eye …..ocean heat content and SSts as they represent over 80% of the energy that will shape the climate.

    I see that others have responded to other parts of your post, but I would like to comment on the above. First of all, with regards to sea surface temperatures, that was one of the seven I mentioned and it happened to be one of the longer ones with a slope of 0. See

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1995/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend

    Its slope for the last 15 years and 3 months is:
    “#Selected data from 1997
    #Least squares trend line; slope = -0.000155319 per year”
    And if you look at the last data point, 0.242, and where the flat line is, 0.33, I am confident that when the April and May numbers are in, that the time will be extended to 15 years and 5 months with a slope of 0. But we will have to wait and see to be sure.

    Now as for ocean heat content, I assume you saw the recent WUWT post at:
    wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/trenberths-missing-heat-still-missing-new-paper-shows-a-flat-ocean-temperature-trend-0-09c-over-the-past-55-years
    So if the temperature went up 0.09 C over 55 years, it would take over 1200 years to go up 2 C at that rate. Where is the “significant problem” with that?

  53. @- Solomon Green says:
    “izen is probably a little too young to remember the forecasts of the climate community in the sixties and seventies. This site might help him”

    On the contrary I lapped it all up as a scifi devouring geek!
    But there were claims from BOTH directions at the time, in fact the mainstream scientific opinion then was predicting warming.
    However I always liked the iconoclasts and remember reading Fred Hoyles book ‘Ice’ on the dangers of a new ice age.

    While I would claim some precociousness in my reading as a child, I was certainly NOT capable of reading this which was published just about 4 months after my birth! –

    http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf

    @-Werner Brozek says:
    “First of all, with regards to sea surface temperatures, that was one of the seven I mentioned and it happened to be one of the longer ones with a slope of 0.”

    Only if you are selective with the start date.
    try using the year of your birth… ?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1956/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1956/trend

    It may be arbitrarily subjective, but it provides a good indication of what has happened in ones own lifetime.

    @-“Now as for ocean heat content, I assume you saw the recent WUWT post at:
    wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/trenberths-missing-heat-still-missing-new-paper-shows-a-flat-ocean-temperature-trend-0-09c-over-the-past-55-years
    So if the temperature went up 0.09 C over 55 years, it would take over 1200 years to go up 2 C at that rate. Where is the “significant problem” with that?”

    I think you have mistaken the claims made in that case.
    The rough magnitude of the increase in the ocean heat content is not really in doubt, even if the ability and accuracy of our measurement methods is uncertain.
    Sea level rise puts hard constraints on the changes in heat content. There is only so much land-ice that can melt to cause a rise, and only so much evaporation and extra land flooding to offset the rise from thermal expansion.
    You can reduce the amount of energy the oceans have gained by attributing more of the sea level rise to ice melt and reduced precipitation on land, or slower water cycle. But observational data on both global ice melt and precipitation limit the ratio ascribable to those causes.
    That just leaves ‘Waters from the Deep…’ ?!

  54. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 1:51 pm
    try using the year of your birth… ?

    I agree things have gone up since my birth, but they also have gone up way before my birth at rates that are identical to today’s rate. So where is the proof our CO2 has anything to do with it? And if the warming was the same 70 years ago as now, then the sea level rise should have been the same as well. Compare the two slopes in the following 30 year time periods that are 70 years apart.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1912.33/to:1942.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982.25/to:2013/trend

    The most recent 30 year trend with the most CO2 is 0.0153446 per year.
    The 30 year trend from 70 years earlier is higher at 0.0156268 per year.

    So where is our influence? Things go in cycles, either with us or without us.

  55. izen said (May 19, 2012 at 8:58 am)

    “…However cold 2012 may be, and wherever in the rankings it may end up (ENSO will have a big influence), it will STILL be warmer than all my teenage years, all the years of my twenties, all the decade when I was in my thirties and all of my forties…

    Do you think there is ANY prospect I will see a winter as cold as the years of my youth again?..”

    In your limited life-span, you’ve seen warmer years as you’ve gotten older.

    Look at GISS. If you had made that statement in the 80’s, you would have compared it to temps in the 40’s. Your question would have rightly been “Do you think there is ANY prospect I will see a summer as warm as the years of my youth again?”.

  56. Even if there were actually claims from both sides in the 70s (which does not seem to be supported by scientific literature or the popular press of the time, but I’m open to correction), does it not worry you that those most vocal on the “it’s getting colder!” side included John Holdren, the President’s current science Czar, his mentor Paul Ehrlich, a current science “advisor”, and Erhlichs mentor, the late Steven Schneider, a hero to the current climate change crowd?

  57. izen, your response to my question suggests you would prefer to go back to the ice ages. I’d rather it got a bit warmer.

  58. I’m not heartbroken about the loss of some military funding… The real reason our soldiers are suffering is because we constantly got our nose shoved in other countries business. I lean more toward Ron Paul on this issue here.

    As for izen:

    We have seen several alarmist tactics being overplayed time and time again. Like the Polar Bears, the Penguins and Zwally stating that the ice in the arctic could possibly be gone by this summer. For people that are supposed to be the smartest in the world, the alarmist don’t even realize that they shoot themselves in the foot when they over blow these things. You think that the more you push the panic button it will force people to get riled up. And it might work with some people for a while… It does. But people start to tune you out or turn against you and I think your people have done more to hurt your position than you have in helping it.

    I like animals. I don’t want to see any die. And I’m a liberal to a degree, but not at anywhere the same level as the environmentalist/liberal progressive type of people that seem to have taken over science. Guys like Hansen and Mann… ESP Hansen who seems more like an activist than anything these days.

  59. Proud to be an Oklahoman… where common sense still reigns.

    Please help voting Obama and his ilk out of politics. It is very clear they are systematically destroying our great country, across the board, and to the detriment of all who actually like this country.

  60. Werner Brozek says:
    “I agree things have gone up since my birth, but they also have gone up way before my birth at rates that are identical to today’s rate. So where is the proof our CO2 has anything to do with it? And if the warming was the same 70 years ago as now, then the sea level rise should have been the same as well. Compare the two slopes in the following 30 year time periods that are 70 years apart.
    -[link]-”

    That takes some rather careful selection of dates…
    But I would agree that there have been two distinct periods of warming.
    from the deep low in the 1900s until the 40s.
    Then from the mid 70s till the present.

    Here’s another link to woodfortrees with your warming-pause-warming plotted against solar activity and CO2. – (tinyurl-ed because they get ridiculously long with several data-sets and stages of processing.)

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/c6prwrl

    It shows that changes in solar activity and CO2 combined provide a calculable change in the energy balance that matches the temperature trends.

    All that remains is to find another cooling factor of calculable magnitude that increased significantly around the 1950s to offset the increased solar output and initial rise in CO2. And then decreased, or at least stopped increasing in its cooling effect in the mid 70s, to cause the pause.
    Can you think of any candidates ?

    http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf

    (hint page 10, the graph?)

  61. @- Otter says:
    “izen, your response to my question suggests you would prefer to go back to the ice ages. I’d rather it got a bit warmer.”

    No, my response suggest that I favor a climate that minimizes any (further) changes to growing regions or growing dates and has reduced variation/extremes. Because our present agricultural systems are optimized for present conditions.

    The indications are that both options, stability and a bit warmer are not the most probable outcomes. Given the known influences on the climate since the 1900s, and the likely continued introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere as the rest of the sequestered fossil fuel carbon is used to maintain and expand the food and wealth modern societies wish to attain.

  62. @- Werner Brozek says:
    “And if the warming was the same 70 years ago as now, then the sea level rise should have been the same as well. ”

    Interesting point.
    But if the causes were different it does not follow that the rate of sea level rise would be the same. In fact it goes to the matter of attribution. A change in solar energy would have caused thermal expansion of the oceans but less land based ice melt at the poles because its dominant effect is in the tropics.
    CO2 warming on the other hand has the ‘fingerprint’ of more warming at higher latitudes where the glaciers and ice-caps are. So sea level rise would be greater because the thermal expansion is accompanied by more ice-melt rise.

    The historical data is not definitive, but does indicate a small rate of rise in the beginning of the 1900s after several thousand years of minimal variation. Followed by a much faster trend when temperatures started to rise again in the 70s.

  63. Izen, an old Chinese proverb for you: 三十年河東,三十年河西
    Thirty years on the east bank, thirty years on the west bank.
    You’re only forty. Give it another couple of decades and check your perspective again.

  64. “”””” drugsandotherthings says:

    May 19, 2012 at 8:25 am

    ah yes- the same CRC that states:
    Virtually all scientists conclude that most of the recent warming is due to human activities, driven by emissions of such greenhouse gases (GHG) as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and other air pollutants, as well as land use changes…..models project GHG-driven change to have important impacts on regional economies, human safety and health, and ecosystems, with the potential for surprising and abrupt shifts.

    And wow really? The “poor military”. 68.4 billion on climate in over 4 years- which is 1/10th of the military budget- not including the military related costs that can more then double actual expenditures. “””””

    Well druggy, the explanation is quite simple, and readily available for anyone to read, in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution; first paragraph even.

    The “poor military” is one of only two things the Congress is authorised to raise taxes to pay for; the other being to pay the national debt.

    Sorry; nowhere is the Congress authorised to levy one penny of taxes to pay for climate activities, nor for that matter, for drugs and other things.

    We’d all be able to afford to live high on the hog (those of us who work), if we were only paying for the “poor military”, and leave the rest to private enterprise; including drugs and other things. Climate can take care of itself so it needn’t cost us a penny.

  65. Izen, the globe has been warming since the Little Ice Age. It is not shocking to find recent years the warmest.

    ALL of my tallest years have been since I was eighteen “””””

    And it is reported that some of the highest altitudes on earth can be found up in the mountains.

  66. Izen says:

    “The historical data is not definitive, but does indicate a small rate of rise in the beginning of the 1900s after several thousand years of minimal variation. Followed by a much faster trend when temperatures started to rise again in the 70s.”

    Wrong again. The long term warming trend since the LIA remains intact. It is not accelerating above it’s long term parameters.

    Take your baseless scare stories elsewhere, they don’t stand up to scrutiny here.

  67. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 4:20 pm
    No, my response suggest that I favor a climate that minimizes any (further) changes to growing regions or growing dates and has reduced variation/extremes. Because our present agricultural systems are optimized for present conditions
    ===================
    That wouldn’t happen even if we were not here at all……..

  68. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 12:01 pm
    After all, if the Mann hockey stick had not been ‘duplicated’ but with many different sources of data and methodologies such as this recent example –

    http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/news/news/2012-05-17_1000years_graph.html

    It would not have the credibility it has from the validation of similar results from different data and methodologies!
    ======
    I’ll give you that one…….because they duplicated mann’s hockey stick….including splicing real temp measurements onto the end of a paleo reconstruction
    You see anything wrong with that?……………..

  69. @- Smokey says: Re:-
    “-{Izen says:“The historical data is not definitive, but does indicate a small rate of rise in the beginning of the 1900s after several thousand years of minimal variation. Followed by a much faster trend when temperatures started to rise again in the 70s.”}-
    |
    Wrong again. The long term warming trend-[link]- since the LIA remains intact. It is not accelerating-link]- above it’s long term parameters.
    Take your baseless scare stories elsewhere, they don’t stand up to scrutiny here.”

    When I scrutinize your link they are both to surface temperature records.
    But the rise, and differing trend rates under discussion in the post you quote are about SEA LEVEL.

  70. trbixler says:
    May 19, 2012 at 7:41 am

    Obama’s green agenda will leave the U.S bankrupt and defenseless.
    _____________________________
    Of course. That is the plan. How else are you going to impose “Global Governance” where the USA abandons its sovereignty? The goal is to convince people that the US Constitution is subordinate to “treaties” and global governance.

    ….Secretary of State John Foster Dulles promulgated what some call the “Dulles Doctrine” that treaties, executive agreements, and votes in the United Nations, could effectively amend the U.S. Constitution and expand the powers of the federal government without limit….

    Is International Law Really Law?

    Heck the CIA is even in on the plans of moving the USA towards “Global Governance” This was found using FOIA. Here are some links:
    Original url: http://www.foia.cia.gov/2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf

    Foia Cia Gov Global Governance 2025 At A Critical Juncture Inquiries Regarding This Report May Be Made To Mathew BurrowsCounselor To The National Intelligence Councilon 703 May 19th, 0711 Download and Read Online Of PDF Files http://www.freeownersmanualpdf.net/ebook/foia-cia-gov.pdf

    The National Intelligence Council also released a copy with an explanation: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_home.html
    Who the “The National Intelligence Council” is: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_about.html
    Who is the “Intelligence Community”: http://www.intelligence.gov/about-the-intelligence-community/
    On the one hand they say:
    “The men and women of the Intelligence Community (IC) are the frontline of defense against hostile actions aimed at the United States. Our workforce collects, analyzes and distributes information to America’s decision makers that saves lives and secures the Nation.” Source
    And on the other hand they say: Our Community:A global network of thousands of people working together

    Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the World Trade Organization, at a speech at Oxford University on March 8, 2012: Spotlight on Sovereignty

    Lamy calls for strengthened system of global governance 15 March 2010: http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl149_e.htm

    Our Global Neighborhood: Report of the U.N. Commission on Global Governance
    Analysis: link
    From Carroll Quigley to the UN Millennium Summit: link

    If the USA is economic and militarily weak then she may be forced into giving up the US Constitution and become a “member state” of the UN instead of a sovereign state, where either the United Nations or the World Trade Organization becomes an overarching body similar to the European Union only more so. Pascal Lamy explains exactly what the plan is.

    https://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/56/

    Other references:
    Global Network Schools: http://globalschoolsnetwork.org/

  71. izen says:

    May 19, 2012 at 4:36 pm
    …”CO2 warming on the other hand has the ‘fingerprint’ of more warming at higher latitudes where the glaciers and ice-caps are. So sea level rise would be greater because the thermal expansion is accompanied by more ice-melt rise.
    The historical data is not definitive, but does indicate a small rate of rise in the beginning of the 1900s after several thousand years of minimal variation. Followed by a much faster trend when temperatures started to rise again in the 70s
    ==========================================
    No izen, the rate of SL rise is linear, with a marked slowing since 2005. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
    ——————————-
    izen cont…Its cheap to post articles and print essays rejecting the statements by every national science advisory group that climate change/AGW is a significant problem.
    ——————————————————————————————————–
    really, I do not think one of those “national scientific advisory groups” has bothered to submit a petition to their membership. Also, I am not certain any of them have confirmed the “C” in CAGW. Please show the statements.

  72. @- AJB says:
    “Izen, an old Chinese proverb for you: 三十年河東,三十年河西
    You’re only forty. Give it another couple of decades and check your perspective again.”

    Check your math, four more years in the middle, not waving but drowning!
    -grin-

  73. Pamela Gray says: @ May 19, 2012 at 8:26 am
    ….This report by the honorable Senator has me dander up and red hair flaming!!!!!
    ______________________

    My hair isn’t red but I am behind you 100%. One of the few legitimate uses for my taxes is to support a standing army. However I am not happy we are over their in the first place.

    If the USA had spent the piddling little amount to follow through on the research on thorium back in 1964 instead of tossing Dr. Alvin Weinberg out, we would not be having to fight wars over resources.

    http://energyfromthorium.com/history.html

    LFTR in 5 Minutes – THORIUM REMIX 2011 (video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbucAwOT2Sc

  74. David A says: @ May 19, 2012 at 5:51 pm
    ….really, I do not think one of those “national scientific advisory groups” has bothered to submit a petition to their membership….
    _________________________________
    I do know the American Chemical Society did not ask our opinion on the matter. Heck in the forty years I was in ACS the only surveys they did was on highest degree level vs salary by catagory.

  75. George Daddis says:

    Even if there were actually claims from both sides in the 70s (which does not seem to be supported by scientific literature or the popular press of the time, but I’m open to correction), does it not worry you that those most vocal on the “it’s getting colder!” side included John Holdren, the President’s current science Czar, his mentor Paul Ehrlich, a current science “advisor”, and Erhlichs mentor, the late Steven Schneider, a hero to the current climate change crowd?

    You are right in the sense that the claims were not evenly split in the scientific literature on both sides in the 70s. In fact, there were more scientists talking of warming than cooling: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf

    As for Schneider, he published one paper in the early 70s, the first of its kind that tried to quantify the various climatic effects using a primitive model. And, their first attempt at quantification did predict that the cooling effects of aerosols would be larger than the warming effects of CO2. However, it is important to remember that in the early 70s, it was not obvious that the U.S. and other Western nations would adopt the Clean Air Act and other legislation that put aerosol emissions from those nations on a totally different path than what was true up until then. (In addition to this, they apparently made another error that underestimated the warming effect of CO2.) Within a year or two after that, Schneider realized his prediction was erroneous and did what any good scientist does when confronted by evidence that contradicts their hypothesis.

    When the National Academy of Sciences was asked to weigh in on climate change in the mid 70s, they issued a report that cogently outlined the various cooling and warming effects on climate and then stated that it was premature to be able to predict which of these effects would win out and thus what the future course of climate would be. They called for more research but no direct action to try to mitigate climate change. This is in direct contrast to what they are saying over 35 years later, which is that we now have a much better handle on the problem and that global warming is a serious threat that we must address with meaningful actions.

    So, what lesson does should people take away from this history? I think one learns a few things:

    (1) Don’t take Newsweek or other popular media as your source of scientific information. Ask the scientific community (through, e.g., NAS) to give you their expert opinion.

    (2) While a few individual scientists might have had strong opinions about where they thought the climate was headed, the National Academy of Sciences correctly distilled that information to produce a report that has held up very well over time…and they were not shy about saying where the uncertainties were simply too large to make a prediction.

    Overall, we can see that the scientific community as a whole came out looking quite good in retrospect…although popular journalism not so much.

  76. I agree completely that these alternate fuel mandates for ship and aircraft are a complete waste of money. It’s unnecessary to have a new source of fuel for them because we created the strategic petroleum reserve for just this sort of thing.

    However, I do support alternative energy for the Army. In Afghanistan, we use petroleum to run every from our vehicles to our generators and hot water heaters. Shipping that fuel in ends up costing about $400 a gallon by the time it gets to the end user, not to mention all the Soldiers who put themselves in harms way hauling it across IED infested roads. In that context, solar and wind makes sense, regardless of the environmental impact.

    Some of this funding has gone towards alternative energy kits containing small solar and wind farms for forward deployed troops. They aren’t big enough to run everything, especially without power storage, but if it takes one less convoy off the road and saves the taxpayer a little money, I’m all for it.

  77. Hummmm, how much money is and or has been spent on the study of natural climate variation ?

    Just sayin >>>>>

  78. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 4:03 pm
    Can you think of any candidates ?

    Yes, around that time, the US and USSR were testing many bombs and then treaties were drawn up to limit them. But I do not know how relevant this is since climate seems to go in 60 year cycles anyway. See

  79. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 4:36 pm
    a small rate of rise in the beginning of the 1900s after several thousand years of minimal variation. Followed by a much faster trend when temperatures started to rise again in the 70s.

    Not even Phil Jones will back you up here! See

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

    Here are the trends and significances for each period:
    Period Length Trend
    (Degrees C per decade) Significance
    1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
    1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
    1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
    1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

  80. Wow, I read this interview when it first came out. Now the numbers have changed since its inception. No BS, the link does not now represent the initial information contained in such. It has been adjusted. I can assure you, the numbers in it are not the same as when the article was first produced.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

  81. From the non-stop, off-topic Izen rants, I can tell that this thread has the catastrophists in full panic mode. Nothing hurts like the truth.

  82. @- Smokey says:
    “Here -[link]- are Phil Jones’ trends in chart form.

    And the red arrows are very pretty.
    Do they have any (mathematical?) relationship to the data they are drawn over ?
    They don’t correspond to the list of dates and trends in the bottom left of the graphic…

    This (tinyed) woodfortrees link however does have a mathematical relationship between the two flat and two steep trend lines that can be imposed on the Phil Jones’ temperature data.

    http://tinyurl.com/ck7xk8j

    But unless there is a physical explanation for specific date selection such arbitrary parsing of the data is meaningless.

  83. joeldshore [the old “Joel Shore”?] says on May 19, 2012 at 6:19 pm


    (1) Don’t take Newsweek or other popular media as your source of …

    ‘course not Joel D. Shore.

    But, what if they are quoting a source or citing a reference? You know, a living source like a Michael Mann, a Keith Briffa, a James Hansen or a Gavin Schmidt?

    What then? Is it still “Don’t take Newsweek or other popular media as your source of ______” (fill in the blank as required)?

    What then if it is a Steve McIntyre or Lindzen that is quoted or their work that is cited?

    Gander and goose get the same sauce or no?

    .

  84. “The Congressional Research Service estimates that ‘since 2008′ the federal government has spent nearly $70 billion on “climate change activities.”
    ———-
    Shouldn’t that read “through 2008….”
    I hope.

  85. OssQss says:
    May 19, 2012 at 7:25 pm
    I can assure you, the numbers in it are not the same as when the article was first produced.

    I have often quoted from here and I do not see any difference in the numbers. Which particular numbers are you thinking of?

    Thank you Smokey.

    Thank you izen.

    As for the red arrows on Smokey’s graph, they merely illustrate what Phil Jones said in the interview. The point is that warming is no faster now than in the past, even though there is much CO2 in the air now and there was little before. So the implication is that CO2 does not have a huge effect on climate. The warming is NOT accelerating as was sometimes claimed.

  86. _Jim says:
    May 19, 2012 at 9:06 pm
    joeldshore says on May 19, 2012 at 11:12 am

    I guess the sum total of Smokey’s comment is this: …

    Joel D. Shore – is this __THE__ ‘Joel Shore’?

    Why the image change … a ‘repackage’ for some reason?

    It’s probably due to WordPress’s new log-in setup. I’ve been repackaged thereby from my old handle, Roger Knights.

  87. This is just the same behaviour of a farter. He who smelt it delt it. ;-)

    Warmists know full well where the well funded disinformation campaign is. This is like David V 1,000 Goliaths but David will still win because David just needs the truth on his side.

    Finally, it’s interesting to note that only part of Heartland’s ~$6.5 million annual is actually spent on climate. Also think about all the other governments of the world, organisations and private contributors who contribute to AGW alarmism in all the other countries.

  88. izen says:
    May 19, 2012 at 7:45 am
    ………………………….
    Its cheap to post articles and print essays rejecting the statements by every national science advisory group that climate change/AGW is a significant problem.

    [my bold]

    Off course they do. Now look again at the amounts of money involved and that’s not to mention countries around the world and you will understand why there is a consensus. Finally, consensus has absolutely nothing to do with science.

    Please go look up information on Continental Drift / Plate Techtonics and Helicobacter Pylori and you should understand that consensus has nothing to do with science. Authority has nothing to do with science.

  89. so they an blow some 70 billion on fiction over Carbon pollution?
    yet?
    this place and hundreds of others get naff all remediation or attention, soil air and water are toxic for real, so they ignore it and move people out and pretend its a non event?
    loved the bit re making it a wildlife park, suuuure the parks folk weren’t so stupid, they said NO.
    so now flog it to idiots who dont know to grow crops or shoot deer and presumably eat them, lead in grass = lead in deer (before they got shot)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/magazine/last-ones-left-in-treece-kan-a-toxic-town.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120520

  90. @- Jimbo says:
    “Please go look up information on Continental Drift / Plate Techtonics and Helicobacter Pylori and you should understand that consensus has nothing to do with science. Authority has nothing to do with science.”

    I find I am in complete disagreement with you.
    Both consensus and authority are key aspects of science and we all use them to inform our understanding and decisions.

    The two examples of ‘paradigm shifts’ in areas of science rather make the point for me.

    First, stomach ulcers had no consensus causal explanation in medicine, it was treated symptomatically and ‘stress’ (that catch-all of medicine!) was nominated as a exacerbating factor. At the time the ability of bacteria to live in extreme conditions was not well recognized within the medical field although it was a hot topic in evolutionary biology, and the widespread presence of commensurable acidophiles in the stomach was not suspected.

    There was no scientific concensus about the cause of stomach ulcers, and little authority behind anything but symptomatic treatment.

    When Marshall and Warren showed that H. Pylori was a significant co-factor and stomach ulcers could be treated by eradicating the bacterial ‘infection’ it did not overthrow a previous consensus on cause or treatment, it ADDED to the sum of scientific knowledge in this area and with supporting evidence rapidly became part of the consensus and acquired the authority derived from solid research.
    However, it is wise to remember that the majority of the population carry H. Pylori as commensals, the majority who carry the bacteria do not get ulcers and a small proportion of those with ulcers do not have H. Pylori ‘infections’.

    Second, plate tectonics and its precursor are a good comparison with AGW.
    Some geologists, (as well as many geometrists!) had fitted Africa into South America and wondered if they had shared a closer relationship. But seductive though that speculation was, without a hypothesis about the physics there was no concensus about the shape, stability or evolution over time of the continents and oceans.

    It was only when better physical evidence of a link emerged, and a coherent physical process for moving the continental plates was suggested that a consensus emerged. That consensus was driven by the authority of the evidence – the mid-floor spreading shown by the magnetic transitions – and the coherence of the explanation; the floating of less dense crust on convective currents in the molten upper mantle.

    There are interesting parallels with AGW. Like continental drift it was a speculative suggestion around the 1900. But lack of evidence and credible hypothesis for the mechanism prevented any consensus.
    Then, around the same time Plate tectonics gained authority, AGW also gained from the removal of the objection that oceans would absorb any additional CO2 from human sources when Revelle explained the bicarbonate buffer, and the accurate calculation by Plass and others of the way energy is transfered through the atmosphere. Both those advances in evidential backing and physical explanation conferred authority on the theory and generated the scientific consensus behind it.

    In science authority comes from the evidence and the consilience of the explanation. The more authority that has, the greater consensus forms behind it.
    A consensus is a measure of the authority of the evidence.
    This is why when faced with a serious medical problem most of us first turn to the consensus view. We recognize that the consensus is a indicator of the authority carried by the evidence. It may be that the consensus is weak, there is no authoritative evidence or coherent hypothesis explaining the condition we want treated. Then perhaps we would look for alternatives…

    But for a mainstream condition, well understood and explained with solid evidential support for over fifty years we would be extremely foolish to reject the consensus and authority that has accumulated around the problem.

    Unless the diagnosis is obesity and we wish at all costs to avoid accepting the clear inference that we would need to reduce our calorie consumption!

  91. izen says:
    May 20, 2012 at 4:36 am
    “But for a mainstream condition, well understood and explained with solid evidential support for over fifty years we would be extremely foolish to reject the consensus and authority that has accumulated around the problem.”

    The only problem is that the CO2+water vapor AGW theory has made only the prediction that water vapor content should rise as a consequence of rising CO2 and that the tropospheric height should rise. And both of these are falsified. This means: Theory kaput.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/simple-disproof-of-runaway-greenhouse.html

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/03/simple-disproof-of-runaway-greenhouse.html?showComment=1332558067400#c2031512486689428024

  92. All izen is doing is diverting from the issue, and that is ,a huge disparity of funding all propping up a meme that is fast falling apart.

    Pointless even bothering to put up with his well monied and well oiled meanderings. A glieke crying wolf in sheeps clothing..

    Just make sure that the worst waste is defunded and he won’t be in such a comfortable position. Lets see how fast his tune changes when CAGW rorts get chucked out. Might even get him to consider the cyclic changing of weather, its variability and ways to better predict and warn those that habitually live in precarious flood and extreme weather prone areas.

    How fast he will scuttle to find another trough, another meme. !! If he was at all genuine in his concern, he should be the first to complain at the deception used by Hansen and his cohort, its advocacy not science to jack up the heat and spin their panic message, and worse still to crow about it to their cronies.

    That deception started the money flow, and they have rolled around in the slime of that deception ever since. That’s the be all and end all. Climategate was just a confirmation of how low this “joke” of climate sceince fell.

    Just put the boot on the other foot and see how it feels. All the rest just gives them room to spin and smarm to protect their inevitable exposure.

  93. izen says:
    May 20, 2012 at 4:36 am
    Both consensus and authority are key aspects of science and we all use them to inform our understanding and decisions.

    Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one. All it means is that — regardless of the presence or absence of evidence — a majority of some defined group believe something. Consensus necessitates having a belief in something, and that belief need not be proven. I remember when the “medical consensus” flipped from “coffee is okay” to “coffee is bad for you but decaffeinated coffee is okay” back to “coffee is okay.” There was no *evidence* for the “coffee is bad for you but decaf is okay” belief, but that was the consensus.

    And that consensus was formed by advertising agencies who were hired by the makers of Decaf to push their product. Those who believed the consensus were somewhat shocked a few years later when they discovered that coffee beans were soaked in formaldehyde in order to neutralize the caffeine, and they’d essentially been drinking dilute embalming fluid in order to “be healthy.”

    The way we attribute authority to someone can be tricksy — someone whose field of expertise is the novels of Charles Dickens and the Bronte sisters may not know squat about Christina Rosetti, but he’s very likely to have the press designate him as an authority on Victorian literature based solely on the fact that your average MSM scribbler equates Dickens and the Brontes with “Victorian Literature.”

  94. joeldshore says…..
    Trying to rewriting history again Joel?

    I was alive and reading Scientific American and Popular Science etc back then. Even the science fiction magazine Analog had a “Snowball Earth” short story that was rather gruesome. All the stories back then were about the coming Ice Age. Heck Kukla and Mathews warned President Nixon and the CIA looked into it.

    George Kukla, together with Robert Matthews of Brown University, convened a conference in 1972 entitled “The Present Interglacial: How and When will it End?”, and reported it in Science magazine… [note the date]

    Kukla and Matthews alerted President Richard Nixon, and as a result the US Administration set up a Panel on the Present Interglacial involving the State Department and other agencies. None of us knew then that the mid-century cooling was about to be punctuated by a warming spell from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s….. http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/next-ice-age/

    The 1974 CIA document, A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems even shows how the earth has been cooling since the climate optimum 4,000 to 5,000 years ago using “pollen zones” on page 20. This is part of the text from page 18.

    …Investigations indicate interglacial periods never extended beyond 12,500 years nor has the period been less than 10,000 years (figure 5). The glacial periods may be characterized by large continental ice sheets that extended across vast regions of Europe, North America, and Asia. This phenomena is well documented on the North American continent and came to an end approximately 10,000 years ago. The present interglacial era is characterized by a thermal maximum which occurred about 5,000 to 3,000 B.C. During this time, many major deserts in the world – as we know them – were formed, such as the Sahara, the Arabian, and the great Mongolian Deserts.

    Climate change at the end of these interglacial time periods is rather sharp and dramatic. Excellent historical evidence exists from areas on the European plains which once were oak forstes and were later transformed into poplar, then birch and finally into tundra within a 100-year span….

    Joe Romm over at Climate Progress stated:
    “Absent human emissions, we’d probably be in a slow long-term cooling trend due primarily by changes in the Earth’s orbit — see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds…”

    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

    “..Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present… As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250-1850 AD), when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent…”

    This paper also agrees that we are at the point in the earth’s Milankovitch cycle that ushers in an ice age. Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)

    …Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….

    Joel you lose all credibility when you try to pedal propaganda meant to rewrite history. Even “Your Side” agrees that we are at the tail end of the present interglacial.

  95. izen: “ANY change that exceeds the adaptability of our agricultural infrastructure is a problem.”

    I’ve done a fair share of farming during my life. Let me tell you that if the climate would suddenly turn 2 degrees warmer, (even during a few years), farmers would greet it as a positive thing. The results would be increased productivity.

    We choose what we produce, based on the climate. If it is warmer, it gives us bigger harvests and lets us choose from a wider variety of grains. If it is colder, we choose grains that can cope with a shorter growing season. If it gets really warm, we can even start getting two harvests in a year instead of one.

    There’s absolutely no point in being scared of a warmer climate because of agriculture.

  96. izen says:
    May 20, 2012 at 4:36 am
    In science authority comes from the evidence and the consilience of the explanation. The more authority that has, the greater consensus forms behind it.
    A consensus is a measure of the authority of the evidence.

    What we have with CAGW, unfortunately, isn’t actual science, but an agenda-and-money-driven pseudoscience, akin more to Lysenkoism. The consensus claim itself, even if CAGW was science-based instead of ideologically-driven is a fraudulent one, meant to prop up what amounts to a big lie.

  97. _Jim says:

    Joel D. Shore – is this __THE__ ‘Joel Shore’?

    Why the image change … a ‘repackage’ for some reason?

    Because this website has been asking me to log in with my WordPress account. And, when I do that, that is what WordPress puts up as my id.

    But, what if they are quoting a source or citing a reference? You know, a living source like a Michael Mann, a Keith Briffa, a James Hansen or a Gavin Schmidt?

    What then? Is it still “Don’t take Newsweek or other popular media as your source of ______” (fill in the blank as required)?

    What then if it is a Steve McIntyre or Lindzen that is quoted or their work that is cited?

    I think that quotes from anybody in the popular media should not be taken too seriously The science is best summarized in reports produced by reputable scientific organizations like IPCC, NAS, Royal Society, etc.

  98. Of course, the top post is an apple-oranges comparison based on a false premise. The vast majority of the government climate science spending is for science itself — collecting and analyzing and understanding data; improving theories to organize and explain the data; developing computer models to fit and predict and explore; training new scientists. As such, it is intrinsically neither pro-AGW nor anti-AGW. To claim that the money spent collecting and analyzing data is “pro-AGW” is to admit that the data itself is indeed “pro-AGW”. Similarly, money spent on technology and tax breaks will encourage spending on specific green technologies, but it does not all go to swaying public opinion.

    Or consider that Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Spencer are among those receiving this government support for research. No one accuses them or their results of being “pro-AGW”.

    So Anthony seems to be comparing on the one hand,

    ALL the money spent on research and technology (including pro-AGW results and anti-AGW results and neutral results; including administration, foreign aid, and tax breaks; including office equipment and satellites and research assistants and pro-AGW PR efforts)

    with

    money spent specifically on anti-AGW PR efforts

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Yes, Hanson’s (and others’) PR efforts are funded in part by this money.
    Yes, there may well be a bias toward funding research that is expected to confirm the AGW hypothesis.
    Yes, a lot of people stand to make money from green technology (just like many people stand to make money from traditional CO2-producing industries).

    But it is simply ridiculous to try to equate this entire graph of federal spending on all climate research & technology to money spent specifically on anti-AGW PR.

  99. Gail Combs says:

    joeldshore says…..
    Trying to rewriting history again Joel?

    I gave you a peer-reviewed paper that surveys the peer-reviewed literature of that time. If you don’t believe it to be correct, find all of those peer-reviewed papers that they left out.

    I was alive and reading Scientific American and Popular Science etc back then. Even the science fiction magazine Analog had a “Snowball Earth” short story that was rather gruesome. All the stories back then were about the coming Ice Age. Heck Kukla and Mathews warned President Nixon and the CIA looked into it.

    I was talking about the peer-reviewed literature, not the popular media…although as pointed out in the paper that I linked to, the discussions in the popular media were more split than those who really are rewriting history would have one believe. For example, the 1973 movie Soylent Green had as one of its premises that we had caused global warming. And, the book “Hothouse Earth” was published in 1975.

    Joel you lose all credibility when you try to pedal propaganda meant to rewrite history. Even “Your Side” agrees that we are at the tail end of the present interglacial.

    Actually, there is considerable debate on the issue of whether we are really that close to the tail end. The best analog for the current interglacial in terms of the various orbital parameters is one several (~400?) thousand years ago that lasted considerably longer.

    However, it is also not contradictory to anything I was saying. While most scientists agreed that the long term natural trend would be toward a new ice age, they also recognized that this was over longer timescales and in the absence of anthropogenic effects. For example, Hays et al.’s pivotal paper in Science in 1976 on the Milankovitch cycles and climate ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/194/4270/1121.abstract ) made it clear that their prediction of cooling was over long timescales and ignoring any anthropogenic effects:

    Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends-and not to such anthropogenic effects as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

    One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in an exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the longterm trend over the next 20,000 years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).

    People like George Will have quoted part of the last sentence while ignoring the rest of what they said because it is inconvenient for their myth.

  100. As all the rationalizers and defenders of the status quo pour in, it’s worthwhile to review the concepts of “vested interest”.

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

    Now I’m sure all these folks who are trying to pretend “there’s nothing to see here” have spent a lot of time arguing that huge amounts of Defense Spending, “Fossil Fuel Subsidies”, and government real estate incentives don’t lead to beneficieries of such policies behaving in a certain way.

    I’m sure they have.

  101. tjfolkerts says: @ May 20, 2012 at 7:44 am….
    _________________________________
    Then how do you explain Dr Jaworowski being refused funding when he wanted to look into CO2 measurements done in ice cores and whether they were valid?

    Until now such a scrutiny was not done. A project on such experimental study in Norway was dumped before it started in 1994, because it was defined as “immoral” by a high rank governmental bureaucrat (see Chapter 7 in: (Solomon, 2008).

    http://www.co2web.info/NZCPR-08.pdf

    Caspar and the Jesus paper is another example.

    Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing Resigns from Fallout Over Our Paper is an additional example.

    There are also all the Climategate e-mails were “The Team” discussed how to keep skeptics from publishing and how to keep skeptic papers out of the IPCC reports.

    So yes some of that funding might have gone to actually funding science but it was still twisted to suit the agenda or trashed.

    The Goat ate my homework

    “Adjusting” data graph

  102. It seems izen is trying to justify the expenditure on the AGW scam – which is rather sad, as the money wasted on the sham science could have been put to much better use.
    Those commenters that have tried to respond to izen have seemingly wasted their efforts! He just izen’t getting it!

    I would like to think that in 10+ years time, izen will still be around and apologising profusely? But I fear, no member of the warmist camp is unlikely to ever apologise because it’s not the science they care about – it’s the theme and the advocacy. If it was the science and it was being reported correctly, virtually ALL the CAGW indicative type papers would have the following caveat in bold in the findings ‘Warning, this work is based on conjecture, modelling (of guestimated and assumed unknown parameters) and adjusted data – values may go up or down in the future,etc’ – and indeed, all the pro-AGW folks would be reminding us of this ALL the time! Funny though, they never seem to do that……..

    By direct contrast, the skeptic camp are simply being skeptical BECAUSE the proof has never been demonstrated and therefore whether right or wrong – they will have no need to apologise!

    I don’t care what anyone says, the real science is done from a skeptical approach i.e. you always try and disprove ones own theory – only when it stands the test of a million disproofs, does it then stand even a ‘chance’ of being correct. This is the opposite of course, of the AGW theory (which isn’t a theory really but never mind) which has been ‘accepted’ (hence the psuedo science term ‘concensus’ LOL) without either proof or ADEQUATE attempts at disproof BY the supporting/proposing scientists. That is serious scientific malfeasance and/or psuedoscience in my book. Of course, when a real scientists starts to look into the actual climate science – he/she starts to ‘see’ the flaws and failures – the assumptions, the models (LOL), etc, etc.

    I confess to getting really frustrated because the efforts of the climate science ‘team’ are so clearly advocacy and sadly, so are those of the ‘faithful’ ….

  103. Folkerts says: The vast majority of the government climate science spending is for science itself
    Wrong. If it doesn’t have a pro-CAGW hook, it doesn’t get funded. Agenda-driven science isn’t science at all. But then, you Alarmists have shown time and again that you don’t really know what science is.
    One other pro-CAGW arm that isn’t even mentioned because it’s “free” is the MSM, which has willingly acted as the mouthpiece for anything and everything that is pro-Alarmist. That pro-Alarmist stance of the MSM, over time has probably been worth multi-$billions.

  104. _Jim says: Joel D. Shore – is this __THE__ ‘Joel Shore’? Why the image change … a ‘repackage’ for some reason?

    joeldshore says on May 20, 2012 at 7:35 am:

    Because this website has been asking me to log in with my WordPress account. And, when I do that, that is what WordPress puts up as my id.

    AND you don’t see the ‘Change’ option near the bottom of the screen?

    One wonders what the perception/perceptive abilities ARE of some ppl … really!!

    No wonder the IPCC is capable of such sway; y’all seem to accept whatever ‘authority’ can assert it’s will your direction! I have the same ‘issue’ with WP too, ya know; it’s a constant battle to assure the underscore-incorporating moniker is displayed versus the one WP would prefer to use automatically …

    (Okay, apologies, but this rolling-over attitude displayed by posters re: ‘handles’ forced by WP just chaps my hide.)

    .

  105. @- DirkH says:
    “The only problem is that the CO2+water vapor AGW theory has made only the prediction that water vapor content should rise as a consequence of rising CO2 and that the tropospheric height should rise.”

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/humidity

    http://www.math.nyu.edu/~gerber/pages/documents/santer_etal-science-2003.pdf

    @- “And both of these are falsified. This means: Theory kaput.”

    As you can see from the links above, both are confirmed; Theory validated.

  106. Kev-in-UK says:
    May 20, 2012 at 9:01 am
    Those commenters that have tried to respond to izen have seemingly wasted their efforts! He just izen’t getting it!

    Sure, he iz — %$#@! — is. That’s why he talks about Revell and ocean surface tension being a barrier to CO2 absorbtion, then nips behind the curtain for a quick change into “woe is me, I’ll never see another cold winter” and then pops behind thoe Ormolu screen to emerge spouting such nonsense as consensus being a crucial element in science.

    He’s flailing.

  107. What does a well-funded and well-organized disinformation campaign look like?

    http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

    Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

    1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. √
    2. Become incredulous and indignant. √
    3. Create rumor mongers. √
    4. Use a straw man. √
    5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. √
    6. Hit and Run. √
    7. Question motives. √
    8. Invoke authority. √
    9. Play Dumb. √
    10. Associate opponent charges with old news. √ (ie: Yamal Yawn, Two year old Turkey)
    11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions √ (ie: CO2 – Temp correlation)
    12. Enigmas have no solution. √
    13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. √
    14. Demand complete solutions. √
    15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. √
    16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. √
    17. Change the subject. √
    18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. √
    19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. √
    20. False evidence. √
    21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. √
    22. Manufacture a new truth. √
    23. Create bigger distractions. √
    24. Silence critics. √
    25. Vanish.

    Seems to me it’s the CAGW folks that are running a well-funded and well-organized disinformation campaign. I’m just waiting for #25, they’ve done all the rest.

  108. izen:

    Careful of the trump card.

    Eventually, all your sources cited could become invalidated in this comment thread if someone claims all peer reviewed journals/organizations are corrupted and only contrarian blogs are acceptable citations.

  109. otter17 says:
    May 20, 2012 at 11:32 am

    well – to be fair – (even though your comment is a little silly, IMHO), the peer reviewed journals have been at least strongly tilted in favour of pro-AGW support/reporting. But I suppose thats what happens in the ‘Concensus’ Science World ?
    The ‘concensus crew’ are misdirected and deliberately kept misinformed. As has been said before, if the theory was correct and demonstrable in anything like an unambiguous manner – there would be no discussion and most would certainly ‘accept’ the concensus view would seem likely to be correct.
    However, as already described, concensus science is not real science and the howling of concensus is no more than the pack howl of rabid dogs/wolves desparate to defend their territory. I hope the pack followers turn on their leaders when they realise that they have been led up the garden path!
    Those that have shouted and forced the concensus view down our throats will be due recompence when, if the time comes, those that have been ‘forced’ to comply, rebel and ‘take’ the concensus for themselves. I only hope that ‘concensus’ doesn’t revolve around revenge? – after all, a few million starving/dying people may not prick your conciences right now – but if they were joined in ‘concensus’ against those that have kept them in fuel poverty etc – well, I’d dread to imagine! I don’t suppose the ‘concensus crew’ would be so keen to hold up the concensus as ‘correct’ in that instance, do you?

  110. Then how do you explain Dr Jaworowski being refused funding when he wanted to look into CO2 measurements done in ice cores and whether they were valid?

    Where have we heard these sorts of complaints about discrimination before? Oh, I know, we’ve heard it with every scientific hypothesis or pseudoscientific hypothesis which has lost in the scientific competition of ideas: http://executableoutlines.com/cc/cc_08.htm

    We explain Dr Jaworowski not getting funding by the fact that his work is ridiculous nonsense.

  111. Bruce Cobb says:

    One other pro-CAGW arm that isn’t even mentioned because it’s “free” is the MSM, which has willingly acted as the mouthpiece for anything and everything that is pro-Alarmist. That pro-Alarmist stance of the MSM, over time has probably been worth multi-$billions.

    Actually, the media have given way more “play” to people like Patrick Michaels and Richard Lindzen than they get through legitimate scientific means. It is because of the media’s desire for “balance”. If most scientists argued that the moon was composed of what it is composed of and Patrick Michaels and Richard Lindzen argued it was composed of green cheese, many of the media stories would be written as “Scientists disagree about composition of the moon”.

  112. The money is really important but I notice that the chart stops around 2009. Would it be possible to regularly update this data? Say quarterly?

  113. izen says:
    May 20, 2012 at 10:39 am
    @- “And both of these are falsified. This means: Theory kaput.”
    As you can see from the links above, both are confirmed; Theory validated.

    In your first link, atmospheric water vapor in all three studies peaked in ’97 with the anomaly between 0.20 and 0.35, then dropped sharply while CO2 continued to rise. Dai ends in 2005 with the anomaly at 0 and HadCRU has been wavering between 0 and 0.1 – all while CO2 has continued to rise. *best Inigo Montoya voice*: “That chart does not mean what you think it means.”

    As far as tropospheric height rising, you evidently just read the title and not the paper: “Without this tropospheric warming effect in the model, simulated height changes would be markedly reduced, and the correspondence that we find between modeled and observed pLRT would be substantially degraded. The inference is that human-induced tropospheric warming may also be an important driver of observed increases in tropopause height. Both the direct and indirect lines of evidence support the contention that the troposphere has warmed during the satellite era.”
    However, Santer’s weasel wording at the end of the paper is the money quote: “We have shown that both stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming lead to increases in tropopause height. However, the relative importance of these two factors is uncertain.”

    In other words, *reverting to Inigo Montoya voice*: “That paper does not mean what you think it means.”

    Theories *not* validated.

    You were doing better with your hand-wringing over winters not being as cold as they were when you were a yoot’ — even though you couldn’t feel any change…

  114. joeldshore says:
    May 20, 2012 at 5:47 pm
    Actually, the media have given way more “play” to people like Patrick Michaels and Richard Lindzen than they get through legitimate scientific means. It is because of the media’s desire for “balance”.

    Which media? The media’s desire is to be *perceived* as balanced, but most of the fishwrappers — the Scripps-Howard chain, in particular — don’t even make the effort to pretend anymore. The NYT is bleeding circulation numbers because it is so obviously in the tank for the Democrats and their agenda, including pushing the notion that AGW is an established fact rather than just one more unproven theory.

  115. otter17 says:
    May 20, 2012 at 11:32 am
    Eventually, all your sources cited could become invalidated in this comment thread if someone claims all peer reviewed journals/organizations are corrupted and only contrarian blogs are acceptable citations.

    A source doesn’t become invalid solely due to consensus, exactly as a source shouldn’t be considered impeccable solely due to consensus.

  116. joeldshore says:
    May 20, 2012 at 5:38 pm
    “Then how do you explain Dr Jaworowski being refused funding when he wanted to look into CO2 measurements done in ice cores and whether they were valid?”
    We explain Dr Jaworowski not getting funding by the fact that his work is ridiculous nonsense.

    Nice. You disagree with Dr. Jaworowski’s premise that the sun, rather than an increase in CO2, warms the Earth and then link to a creationist paper as an example of how ridiculous you consider his premise?

    Are you always this intellectually bankrupt?

  117. If Galileo had the internet the earth would not have been flat by consensus, look up guys, planets are round, also it is warmer when the sun shines that when it does not. Maybe just maybe it is the solar cycle not CO2 which is warming and cooling the Earth. Papal Infallability does not extend to Hansen, the carbon religion is from a false prophet, for profit.

  118. Joeldshore:

    At May 20, 2012 at 5:38 pm you say;

    “We explain Dr Jaworowski not getting funding by the fact that his work is ridiculous nonsense.”

    Say what!?
    The late Zebeniev Jaworwski is the ‘father’ of ice core studies for determination of environmental effects. He conducted dozens of expeditions to obtain ice-cores and devised most of the techniques now used to analyse ice-cores.

    When the Chernobyl disaster occurred the UN appointed Zbigniew Jaworowski to investigate how the releases from that incident had spread around the globe. He was from the same side of the Iron Curtain as the incident but no person and no country objected to his appointment because he was outstandingly – and indisputably – the world’s leading authority on radiological protection and the leading authority on the use of ice-cores as a method to determine the dispersal of radionucleatides.

    He was appalled at the misuse of the techniques which he devised to misrepresent what Ice-core analyses indicated concerning past atmospheric concentrations of e.g. carbon dioxide and wrote several papers to explain those misrepresentations.

    His investigation of the Chenobyl disaster is how I came to be involved with him and his work. He was a communist-bloc scientist in the nuclear industry and I was a material scientist working for the British coal industry – i.e. a competitor of nuclear – so he thought working with me could assist ‘credibility’ of whatever his investigations revealed. Decades later his deteriorating health prevented him presenting his paper at the first Heartland Institute Climate Conference and he gave me the honour of presenting it on his behalf. I count it a very great honour to have been associated with so great a scientist as Zeb throughout the final decades of his life.

    Indeed, even Wicki says this of him;

    “Zbigniew Jaworowski was chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1981–82). He was a principal investigator of three research projects of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and of four research projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He has held posts with the Centre d’Etude Nucleaires near Paris; the Biophysical Group of the Institute of Physics, University of Oslo; the Norwegian Polar Research Institute and the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo.”

    And a troll like you says;
    “his work is ridiculous nonsense.”

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Richard

  119. OOOPS!
    I wrote “Zebeniev” when I meant “Zbigniew”.
    This error is because he was always “Zeb” to his friends.

    Sorry.

    Richard

  120. Joeldshore

    Nice to see you again Joel.

    I have often commented that you-and many on the cagw side -appear to lack a solid knowledge of history, its players and the various works and observations that have become the basis of climate science over the centuries. Unfortunately the Lambian view of the world-of which I am a minor strand- became unfashionable 20 years ago and were replaced by computers,maths, models and the more far fetched ideas that the current climate is unprecedented. Its not.

    This stands out time and time again and I witness personally as I work through the physical records in the Met office and such places as Exeter Cathedral- I take the trouble to physically go there in order to research material for my articles and actually look at what our ancestors tell us. It would be useful if more people took their heads out of their computers and did the same. Really, your comment about Zbigniew Jaworowski is not one I would expect to see from you.
    tonyb

  121. tonyb:

    At May 21, 2012 at 3:52 am you say to Joeldshore

    “ Really, your comment about Zbigniew Jaworowski is not one I would expect to see from you.”

    I have to disagree. My experience leads me to expect that kind of comment from Joel Shore.

    Richard

  122. Richard

    I guess the Olympic flame went close to you on Saturday and it passed behind our house yesterday.

    I think few of the more alarmist warmists would win gold medals and some shouldn’t even be in the team. The trouble is they have a very narrow view of the world and are fixated on co2 and ignore other factors, so are ill prepared for the competition .

    In that respect, whilst Joel would not win any medals in the climate change olympics he ought to get a mention for at least turning up here to compete.I certainly wouldnt call him a troll.
    tonyb

  123. Bill Tuttle says:

    Nice. You disagree with Dr. Jaworowski’s premise that the sun, rather than an increase in CO2, warms the Earth and then link to a creationist paper as an example of how ridiculous you consider his premise?

    Are you always this intellectually bankrupt?

    Let me help you with the logic here:

    A claim was made that the fact that Jaworoski could not get funding for his work claiming that everybody else in the field was wrong about ice cores and CO2 is evidence of some nefarious plot by which research of good quality is suppressed if it disagrees with a certain point-of-view (or something like that). However, another interpretation is simply that it is evidence that the research proposal was a poor one.

    And, the point in linking to the creationist paper is to point out that this claim of bias in the scientific community is made all the time by people who support scientific hypotheses that have lost in the rough-and-tumble world of scientific research. That is just the way things go.

  124. Richard, tonyb: I must admit that I tend to mix up Jaworowski and Beck and did so in this case. Jaworowski is probably not as far out on the “crackpot scale” as Beck is…and so perhaps my words were a little strong. However, his views on this subject of CO2 and ice core measurements are still pretty far out there…and not accepted by the scientific community and even the more science-based “AGW skeptics”, like Willis Eschenbach and Hans Erren.

  125. tonyb:

    I wrote:
    “My experience leads me to expect that kind of comment from Joel Shore.”

    For an example of that experience please see the thread at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/consensus-argument-proves-climate-science-is-political/

    and my post at May 4, 2012 at 6:09 am then Shore’s subsequent embellishments of his untrue smears.

    It is a value judgement as to whether or not Shore is a “troll” but it certainly leads me “to expect that kind of comment from Joel Shore.”

    Richard

  126. joeldshore says:
    May 21, 2012 at 7:41 am
    Bill Tuttle says: “Are you always this intellectually bankrupt?”
    Let me help you with the logic here:

    You do that. Then I’ll help you with your English comprehension.

    A claim was made that the fact that Jaworoski could not get funding for his work claiming that everybody else in the field was wrong about ice cores and CO2 is evidence of some nefarious plot by which research of good quality is suppressed if it disagrees with a certain point-of-view

    Jaworowski didn’t claim that everyone else in the field was wrong, he said it was disturbing that that so much of what was then being published was at odds with earlier findings. His proposal was to re-examine the cores to confirm the validity of the original data. Show me one ethical scientist who doesn’t periodically review his work.

    (or something like that).

    Translation: “I didn’t read the proposal and I didn’t read tjfolkert’s links, so I pulled my answer out of my… uh… hip pocket.

    However, another interpretation is simply that it is evidence that the research proposal was a poor one.

    Whose interpretation, aside from yours? And yours wasn’t an interpretation, it was an assumption.

    And, the point in linking to the creationist paper is to point out that this claim of bias in the scientific community is made all the time by people who support scientific hypotheses that have lost in the rough-and-tumble world of scientific research.

    The point in linking to the creationist paper was to equate Dr. Jaworowski’s proposal with a statement by a “non-scientific” religious group, and thereby hold up his ideas to mockery.

    That is just the way things go.

    No, that’s just the way the worms in your brain twist.

  127. joeldshore says:
    May 21, 2012 at 7:45 am
    Jaworowski is probably not as far out on the “crackpot scale” as Beck is…and so perhaps my words were a little strong. However, his views on this subject of CO2 and ice core measurements are still pretty far out there…

    From tjfolkert’s link:

    “British engineer, G.S Callendar may be truly regarded as the father of this hypothesis {AGW}, and of this assumption [that atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not exceeded 280ppm prior to 1800] (Callendar, 1938; Callendar, 1940; Callendar, 1949; Callendar, 1958). This assumption was made possible by the arbitrary rejection of more than 90,000 technically excellent, direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia and Europe, during 149 years between 1812 and 1961. Some of these direct measurements were carried out by Nobel Prize winners. Callendar rejected more than 69% from a set of 19th century CO2 measurements ranging from 250 to 550ppm (Figure 11).”

    Jaworowski’s view was that direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 content should neither have been cherry-picked nor discarded in favor of measurements taken from ice cores.

    I rather doubt that either Willis Eisenbach and Hans Erren would think that viewpoint was “pretty far out there…”

  128. Bill Tuttle:

    It is important to note that I, Jaworowski and Beck each conducted climate-related work at personal cost and with no funding for our work from anyone else. Shore’s smears are intended to hide that fact.

    So, I thank you most sincerely for your defence of Jaworwski from the malign defamations of Joel Shore.

    In particular, in your post at May 21, 2012 at 9:06 am you defend Jaworwski against the outrageous implication by Shore that Jaworowski was a creationist.

    Socialists and communists are political enemies, and Christians and atheists are religious opponents. When I first knew Jaworowski he was a communist and an atheist, and he remained a staunch atheist to the end of his life. I am a socialist and a Christian who is proud to say that Jaworowski and I were friends. Any assertion that he was a creationist is an insult to the honesty of his adherence to atheism.

    Furthermore, Shore having been ‘called’ on his defamation of the late Zbigniew Jaworowski, at May 21, 2012 at 7:45 am Shore attempts to transfer his untrue smear to the late Georg Beck whom I also had the privilege of having known.

    Jaworowski and Beck are late, lamented and honest scientists whose climate-related works were of the highest quality and were conducted at personal cost with no funding from others. Shore’s defamations of them are despicable.

    Richard

  129. richardscourtney says:
    May 21, 2012 at 3:03 am

    Joeldshore…..

    Say what!?
    The late Zebeniev Jaworwski is the ‘father’ of ice core studies for determination of environmental effects. He conducted dozens of expeditions to obtain ice-cores and devised most of the techniques now used to analyse ice-cores….
    __________________________________
    Thank you very much for your information on Dr. Zebeniev Jaworwski, we have lost a great man.

  130. Prof Mann has past history of getting figures upside down. When he cannot get it right in his scientific papers, there is little hope anything better outside of his area of expertise.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/told-ya-so-more-upside-down-mann-in-his-latest-paper/

    I might be getting a tad cynical, but no matter how much the errors are exposed, they will continue to be recycled and used as a basis for policy.

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/13/the-epa-and-upside-down-mann/

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/29/upside-down-proxies-baffle-the-team/

  131. izen says:
    May 21, 2012 at 10:55 am

    @- Richard
    Here is why everyone who follows the subject thinks Jaworowski is talking nonsense and explains why he gets no funding –

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

    As you can see the mistakes are easy to find and hardly ‘rocket science’!
    The other classic example of a Prof ‘gone Emeritus’ of course is Neils-Morner
    ________________________
    And there are several of us here at WUWT who do not believe Engelbeen. I see he finally gave up trying to push his views here at WUWT where he had to contend with those who were not push overs. Now he can sing to the chorus without fearing rebuttal.

    Engelbeen is not fit to walk in Jaworowski’s shadow.

  132. richardscourtney says:
    May 21, 2012 at 10:27 am
    @ me: In particular, in your post at May 21, 2012 at 9:06 am you defend Jaworwski against the outrageous implication by Shore that Jaworowski was a creationist.

    Thank you, sir, but I can’t take credit for that. My defense was aimed at Shore’s unfair comparison of the proposal of a man whose scientific work was not influenced by his inherent beliefs with an outline of Christian talking points.

    am a socialist and a Christian who is proud to say that Jaworowski and I were friends. Any assertion that he was a creationist is an insult to the honesty of his adherence to atheism.

    I am a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, somewhat-to-the-right-of-Attila-the-Hun conservative and what’s known in my circles as a Roamin’ Catholic. It matters not what his religion was, or was not — judging from his proposal, he was an ethical man with a passion for doing what was right, and your defense of him confirms that for me.

    * * * * * * * * * * *
    Yanno, Joel, if it hadn’t been for your gratuitous insult, I’d never have read Dr. Jaworowski’s paper — thanks for the extra ammo…

  133. izen:

    Not content with supporting Shore’s untrue defamation of Jaworowski, at May 21, 2012 at 10:55 am you attempt to defame “Neils-Morner”. I assume you are trying to defame Nils-Axel Mörner.

    Since you like the statements approved by Connolley on Wicki, I quote this from there.

    Nils-Axel Mörner, born 1938, is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University. He retired in 2005. He was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Commission on Neotectonics (1981–1989). He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997–2003). He is a critic of the IPCC and the notion that the global sea level is rising. He was formerly the Chairman of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and led the Maldives Sea Level Project

    Defamations and smears are the only response of ‘warmists’ when confronted with evidence refuting AGW-scares from world-renowned authorities. It is a method for them to put their fingers in their ears and to shout “La, la, la”.

    And your link is useless because Ferdinand dismisses anything which suggests ice-core data is less than gospel truth. His ‘plumbing model’ of the carbon cycle relies on ice-core data.

    Richard

  134. Joel Shore said

    “Richard, tonyb: I must admit that I tend to mix up Jaworowski and Beck and did so in this case. Jaworowski is probably not as far out on the “crackpot scale” as Beck is…and so perhaps my words were a little strong. However, his views on this subject of CO2 and ice core measurements are still pretty far out there…and not accepted by the scientific community and even the more science-based “AGW skeptics”, like Willis Eschenbach and Hans Erren.”

    Yeah come on Joel, I cant keep defending you when you’re not around. I still remember that time I sided with you regarding Hansen and his Mars program :)

    You really ought to read Jaworowski. He is far more lucid on the subject than the dubious ice core material which has such severe problems with fractionation. As for Beck, he was also very lucid on the subject of co2. I had the privilege of him dropping in to an article I wrote on co2 when he was very ill, just a few months before he died .I have still never had a satisfactory explanation as to how Keeling (who I also defend here as a fine scientist) despite having no expertise in the field, managed to immediately get his co2 measurements correct whilst his peers had apparently been getting them wrong for the previous 120 years. Perhaps you can tell me?.

    By the way, when you say Hans Erren are you sure you don’t mean Ferdinand Engelbeen? I will also have to defend him in his absence. I met him when we went to a talk given By Dr Iain Stewart (of Tv’s ‘climate wars’) Ferdinand is very knowlegable and very patient and a sceptic. I happen to think hes wrong on co2, but even then Ferdinand does not believe that the stuff can cause the problems that the warmists believe.
    tonyb

  135. Richard

    I followed your link but then had to read the entire thread in order to get the full flavour.

    I don’t know if you saw it but I think that Joel was (sort of) apologising by the end. Joel should perhaps not try to enter the diplomatic corp, is very blinkered and has a woeful grasp of historical climatology. He also gets names wrong.

    However….I give him credit for turning up here in a hostile environment and defending his corner. . With the demise of R Gates we are in danger of all singing from the same hymn sheet and that can only be detrimental to debate.
    .
    You clearly won the debate but I note Joels change of fortunes over the last few years and perhaps that has an effect on the manner in which he debates.
    tonyb

  136. izen says: May 19, 2012 at 8:58 am

    “…Do you think there is ANY prospect I will see a winter as cold as the years of my youth again?”

    I have to agree with izen. In my youth I had to wear a coat, a hat, and boots (for the snow) to school. Now, I can’t even remember the last time I had to wear a hat!

    Of course, then I lived in the Colorado Rockies. Now I live in Southern California. Regardless, it feels warmer! And there seems to be a reason I moved to from Colorado to So. Cal… what is it… it sure isn’t the idiot politicians!

  137. joelshore says:

    “I must admit that I tend to mix up Jaworowski and Beck and did so in this case. Jaworowski is probably not as far out on the “crackpot scale” as Beck is…”

    Speaking of crackpots, Joel Shore is also mixing up himself with Dr. G.E. Beck, who was a diligent, detail-oriented scientist. Beck collated more than 90,000 independent CO2 measuremennts taken by internationally esteemed scientists, including Nobel laureates [from a time when the Nobel Prize really meant something]. Those scientists measured CO2 levels that were significantly higher than the IPCC’s numbers, therefore Beck must be demonized by crackpots like Joel Shore.

  138. izen says:

    “unless there is a physical explanation for specific date selection such arbitrary parsing of the data is meaningless.” [As izen arbitrarily selects specific dates in his WFT chart.]

    Here is a WFT chart that goes back as far as the WFT data base goes. Note that there is no accelerating warming. Global temperatures remain within the same parameters since the LIA. The planet has been warming — naturally — since the LIA, along the same long term trend line [the green line] and within the same parameters. Thus, any putative effect from the rise in CO2 is too small to measure.

  139. tonyb:

    At May 21, 2012 at 1:06 pm you say to me concerning Joel Shore:

    However….I give him credit for turning up here in a hostile environment and defending his corner. . With the demise of R Gates we are in danger of all singing from the same hymn sheet and that can only be detrimental to debate.

    Yes, I completely agree. In fact, it is rare for me to not agree with anything you say.

    However, nobody should be allowed to smear reputations of the recently deceased in a public forum without very good reason, and a desire to hear all view points should not lead to such smears going unchallenged. Shores presentation of such untrue smears of Jaworowski and Beck (with whom I was acquainted) offended me as it would all who knew them.

    Richard

  140. Richard

    I agree. As I say, Joel is not destined for a life in the diplomatic corp.
    tonyb

  141. tonyb says:

    By the way, when you say Hans Erren are you sure you don’t mean Ferdinand Engelbeen?

    Probably…Those are two other names that occupy the same brain cell for me! I seem to be a bit dyslexic with names today.

    Richard S Courtney says:

    In particular, in your post at May 21, 2012 at 9:06 am you defend Jaworwski against the outrageous implication by Shore that Jaworowski was a creationist.

    Since there was no such implication, you are just posturing (or you have severe reading comprehension problems). What I was pointing out was that the claim that the scientific community is discriminating against scientists with certain views is a claim that is made by nearly all of the losers in scientific debates and I was noting how you can find the same sort of claim made by creationists.

    However, nobody should be allowed to smear reputations of the recently deceased in a public forum without very good reason, and a desire to hear all view points should not lead to such smears going unchallenged.

    I did not smear them…I gave my opinion of their work that is relevant to the current discussion, an opinion that is likely shared by most of the scientific community. (And, to be honest, I haven’t kept track of whether they were recently deceased or not.) If you want to see smears, I suggest you look at any thread where commenters mention Michael Mann or Jim Hansen (which, come to think of it, doesn’t narrow things down much!), where you will find all sorts of nasty things stated , and the ones of which that make specific factual claims (including claims of fraud and what-not) are almost invariably completely unsupported by evidence.

    By contrast, I haven’t said that Beck and Jaworowski are frauds. I have just said that their work regarding CO2 measurements was nonsense.

  142. Regarding the $4 billion that the military spends, it could be that they’re wasting a lot less money than it seems. After all, that’s a category that would include both climate boondoggles and research on lighter batteries for soldiers’ gear. My guess is they’re being nice team players and looking for things to include in this category.

  143. joeldshore:

    I read your post at May 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm and this post says all that is needed as a response.

    Richard

  144. joeldshore says:
    May 20, 2012 at 5:47 pm
    Actually, the media have given way more “play” to people like Patrick Michaels and Richard Lindzen than they get through legitimate scientific means. It is because of the media’s desire for “balance”. If most scientists argued that the moon was composed of what it is composed of and Patrick Michaels and Richard Lindzen argued it was composed of green cheese, many of the media stories would be written as “Scientists disagree about composition of the moon”.

    You can’t be serious. The vast majority of the stuff they write is pro-CAGW. Any mention of the opposing side or of a skeptic is to create the illusion of balance, when in fact what they really are doing is some sort of hatchet job with loads of smear and ad hom thrown in.
    The climate “scientists”, in your moon analogy would actually be the ones claiming the moon is made of green cheese. The article would say something like “the overwhelming majority of scientists, backed by years of research and countless peer reviewed scientific papers states unequivocally that the moon is almost certainly made of green cheese. A few, with the backing of Big-oil funded think-tanks such as Heartland have tried to make the case that perhaps it isn’t. Meanwhile, though, the moon does appear to be becoming cheesier at an alarming rate, so it is important that we act now before it is too late.”

  145. joeldshore says:
    May 21, 2012 at 7:45 am
    Jaworowski is probably not as far out on the “crackpot scale” as Beck is…

    And then

    joeldshore says:
    May 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm
    “Richard S Courtney says: … a desire to hear all view points should not lead to such smears going unchallenged.”
    I did not smear them…I gave my opinion of their work that is relevant to the current discussion, an opinion that is likely shared by most of the scientific community.

    That first quote wasn’t an opinion of their work, it was an opinion of their mental capacity. And kindly point me to the link for the announcement that *you* had been appointed spokesman for “most of the scientific community” — I missed that in the thread.

  146. Joel said

    ‘What I was pointing out was that the claim that the scientific community is discriminating against scientists with certain views is a claim that is made by nearly all of the losers in scientific debates and I was noting how you can find the same sort of claim made by creationists.’

    Come on Joel, you have been around long enugh to know that equating creationists (and tobacco lobbyists) with climate sceptics makes us just roll our eyes. However you did say something very interesting in the quote I excerpted above.

    I suspect that like in many industries there are fashions in thoughts and research, for example my brand of historical climatology-and here I am standing on the shoulders of giants like Hubert Lamb-are highly unfashionable. Indeed much of the carefully recorded contemporary observations of our ancestors are routinely dismissed in a sneering fashion as ‘anecdotal’. as is touched on here;

    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/lambs-science-to-the-slaughter/#more-3254

    it is surely no coincidence that hard graft desk research (or in situ at such places as archives) have become displaced by computer modelling, and if the data doesnt exist in digital form it doesnt exist at all fror some modern model based researchers. So for ‘losers’ perhaps read ‘currently unfashionable.’

    You do seem to have a blind spot with the historical aspect of climate science and I suspect only read material that relates to your particular viewpoint and automatically reject everything else. Can I respectfully suggest you read one of Lambs books? ‘Climate History and the Modern World’ would be a very good start point, which might give you renewed respect for the very wide breadth of climate related matters someone like him had?

    In my own modest way I try to bring that type of material to a wider internet based readership, as otherwise we would focus entirely on trying to rationalise a still very unknown climatic process by way of dubious modelling and manipulation of statistics. What I wouldnt give for some serious research money, but alas the generous funding from Bg Oil seems to have dried up before it even reached me.

    By the way, I was sorry to hear of your change of fortunes. Hope the economy picks up soon, but judging by the way that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum on this side of the pond as regards the nonsensical Euro, it may take some time before we are all in the comfortable place we would like to be.

    Ps Just a friendly tip-you might find it useful to hone your diplomatic skills a little. to suggest that someone like Richard has severe reading comprehension prolems is nonsensical, especially when you mixed up your names and didn’t know the demise of important sceptical players. I do agree however that more respect from all sides would help, as soon as certain names are mentioned there is an immediate knee jerk reaction eg Beck and Mann..

    tonyb

  147. @- theOtherJohninCalif says:
    “I have to agree with izen. In my youth I had to wear a coat, a hat, and boots (for the snow) to school. Now, I can’t even remember the last time I had to wear a hat!
    Of course, then I lived in the Colorado Rockies. Now I live in Southern California.”

    Haha
    If you had not moved you might have noticed less warming, but as this data shows you would have noticed some…

    http://nature.nps.gov/ClimateChange/docs/NCPN_CC.pdf

    I see the defenders of the ridiculous are emerging. Jaworowski, Beck, Morner…. Next it will be Virial theory, G&T or the bary(ec)centrics. It shows a lack of discrimination of judgement. Or perhaps a judgement that only measures the degree of contradiction it has with mainstream AGW theory and uses that as the criteria.

    To try and drag things back to the thread topic, however tenuously, the same lack of discrimination is apparent in the judgement of what is spent on ‘promoting’ AGW. The 60billion claim obviously includes things that are not AGW promotion, posters here have already mentioned the military use of solar and wind turbines for mobile power for infantry. Comparing like with like would clearly take a good deal more discrimination to identify the ‘promotional’ elements from the research, development and implementation aspects.
    While something like Heartland has none of those costs.

    Just as a matter of perspective, the 60billion total mentioned is around 2 months of exxon profits. Thats the relative magnitude, and influence, of the interests against AGW compared to the total spend researching it.

  148. Izen:

    Your post at May 22, 2012 at 2:04 am is another example of your misdirection and misinformation. Every statement in that post is mendacious. I cite some for illustration.

    You say;

    I see the defenders of the ridiculous are emerging. Jaworowski, Beck, Morner…. Next it will be Virial theory, G&T or the bary(ec)centrics. It shows a lack of discrimination of judgement. Or perhaps a judgement that only measures the degree of contradiction it has with mainstream AGW theory and uses that as the criteria.

    It is hard to imagine a more clear example of psychological projection than that!
    Jaworowski, Beck, and Morner each conducted excellent work. Indeed, the scientific community recognised the worth of their work by showering Jaworowski and Morner with honours. And you claim to value the opinion of the scientific community when it fits your purpose. So, it is clear that any “lack of discrimination of judgement” is being exhibited by you.

    Can you explain any significant fault in the work of Jaworowski, Beck, and Morner? No, you can’t, and that is why you apply the unfounded and unjustifiable smear of them being “ridiculous”.

    And there is no “mainstream AGW theory”. There is merely the AGW-hypothesis which is refuted by all – yes, all – empirical evidence.

    As for your saying;

    To try and drag things back to the thread topic, …

    I remind that it was you who introduced a smear of Morner (whose name you got wrong) so requiring a rebuttal of that smear.

    Then having said you wanted to “drag things back to the thread topic” you say;

    Just as a matter of perspective, the 60billion total mentioned is around 2 months of exxon profits. Thats the relative magnitude, and influence, of the interests against AGW compared to the total spend researching it.

    That is not “perspective”: it is a falsehood.
    The oil industry funds e.g. the infamous AGW-promoting CRU. And the oil industry funds pro-AGW NGOs as ‘protection money’ to avoid another Brent Spar incident.

    If you think that Exxon has $billions to oppose the AGW-scare then perhaps you could tell me how I can get some of it? I would take every cent.

    Richard

  149. izen says:
    May 22, 2012 at 2:04 am
    The 60billion claim obviously includes things that are not AGW promotion, posters here have already mentioned the military use of solar and wind turbines for mobile power for infantry.

    Major League FAIL. The post clearly states, “The report revealed that from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 the federal government spent $68.4 billion to combat climate change. The Department of Defense also spent $4 billion of its budget, the report adds, on climate change and energy efficiency activities in that same time period.” My emphasis.

    Which brings the total to $72,4 billion spent on solely on “climate change and energy efficiency activities.” The solar and wind projects for the ground-pounders are *projects* and are separately funded.

  150. @- richardscourtney says:
    “Your post at May 22, 2012 at 2:04 am is another example of your misdirection and misinformation. Every statement in that post is mendacious. I cite some for illustration.”

    Thank you for all the effort you put into critiquing my posts. I find your meretricious comments most supportive.
    Probably because the greater our disagreement the more confident I am in the validity of my position.

    @- Jaworowski, Beck, and Morner each conducted excellent work. Indeed, the scientific community recognised the worth of their work by showering Jaworowski and Morner with honours.

    True to a point. However the excellent work for which they are recognised is NOT the opinions they express about aspects of the evidence for AGW which get them so extensively quoted by those rejecting AGW. Here are some links that show what the scientific opinion is of their contrarian positions. –

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

    http://womm.leolincourt.com/crikey-climate-change-deniers-also-believe-in

    I know it can be difficult to accept that people you rely on for information have feet of clay, it is the reason it is wise to look at ALL opinions and discriminate on criteria other than conformity with your own prejudices.
    One reason for attending to blogs and sites that conflict with your own views!

  151. izen:

    Please at least try to be more sensible than your post at May 22, 2012 at 6:06 am.

    It again smears Jaworowski, Beck, and Morner (i.e. they “have feet of clay”) and claims to dismiss their excellent work by linking to the blogs of Engelbeen and some blog I have not heard of.

    Both Gail Combs and I previously rejected your assertions about Engelbeen’s views, and I see no reason to bother reading a blog from some nobody whom you commend.
    If you have a valid criticism of the work of any of them then state it, otherwise go away.

    Richard

  152. @- tonyb says:
    “You do realise that Ferdinand is a sceptic don’t you?”

    Yes.
    Thats why I cited him rather than the many more mainstream peer reviewed sources that refute Beck, Jaworowski, and Morner. I thought that might overcome the resistance that some here have to ANY view contary to their own! {grin}
    I find his analysis of Jaworowski, and Beck, cogent and convincing, certainly much more so than Jaworowski and Beck, published {but not peer reviewed!} opinions.

    Morner of course confirms his ‘crackpot’ status without the need of close scientific analysis. The water and metal divining and the racial/archeological beliefs put him in with the cranks.

    Becks claims about high CO2 levels, interpriting local measurement as global, fail on the ground of the consevation of mass. Unfeasible amounts of carbon would need to appear and vanish by ‘magic’ if those numbers were accurate global levels.

    Jaworowski claims fractination and diffusion processes which are dependent on physical parameters just happen to give the same results for ice cores with very different physical parameters which would have very different fractionation and diffusion rates – if these were altering the data.

    Its reliance on the sort of easily refuted nonsense that comes from people like these that destroys the credibility {such as it is} of much of the ‘skeptic’ side.

  153. Izen

    Richard makes a very good point. Why don’t you actually-in your own words- cite some valid and meaningful scientific criticism of the work of the three people you mentioned?

    I don’t agree with Engelbeens analysis either, and whilst he holds those views on ice cores etc he is sceptical of the devastating effects of co2

    tonyb

  154. izen says:
    May 22, 2012 at 6:06 am
    However the excellent work for which they are recognised is NOT the opinions they express about aspects of the evidence for AGW which get them so extensively quoted by those rejecting AGW. Here are some links that show what the scientific opinion is of their contrarian positions.

    You *do* realize that you just said “when the subject is AGW, opinion trumps science,” don’t you?

    …it is the reason it is wise to look at ALL opinions and discriminate on criteria other than conformity with your own prejudices. One reason for attending to blogs and sites that conflict with your own views!

    Place your opinions in one hand and spit into the other one — see which fills up first.

    That’s how much opinion counts for when you’re discussing *facts*.

  155. Izen

    So, as you are so fond of quoting Engelbeen you must therefore agree with his analysis that co2 doesn’t have much of an effect. You wouldn’t want to be inconsistent would you?.

    By the way, as well as Morner, we can also presumably discount Arrhenius because of his racial views? Is Hansen extreme enough for you in quoting a 15metre rise by 2100?
    tonyb

  156. Izen:

    You have come here spreading smears and falsehoods like confetti but have not substantiated any of them despite my calls for you to provide some justification of them.

    For example, part of my response to your assertion about Exxon’s “influence” asked you:

    If you think that Exxon has $billions to oppose the AGW-scare then perhaps you could tell me how I can get some of it? I would take every cent.

    Since then you have provided two more posts which each provides more smears but does not answer my question.

    I now write to address your latest smears.

    You say;

    Morner of course confirms his ‘crackpot’ status without the need of close scientific analysis. The water and metal divining and the racial/archeological beliefs put him in with the cranks.

    Bollocks! Stupidity is an inadequate description of your assertion.
    Whatever Morner thinks and/or believes about “water and metal divining and the racial/archeological beliefs” says nothing about the quality of his scientific research.

    Isaac Newton believed in astrology but that says nothing about the quality of his scientific research. But, according to you, that makes Newton a “crank” so his Laws of Motion and his Principia must be wrong and should be ignored.

    As Einstein pointed out, Aryan science does not exist but science does.

    Then you write;

    Becks claims about high CO2 levels, interpriting local measurement as global, fail on the ground of the consevation of mass. Unfeasible amounts of carbon would need to appear and vanish by ‘magic’ if those numbers were accurate global levels.

    More bollocks!
    It seems to that your desire to proclaim your ignorance has no bounds. To begin to remove some of that ignorance you can read the excellent discussion in the thread at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/06/the-bern-model-puzzle/

    Here I merely refute your silly assertion of “carbon” (i.e. CO2) needing to “to appear and vanish by ‘magic’ “.

    For each year the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the residual of the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere (~1.5 ppmv/year which corresponds to ~3 GtC/year) is equal to almost half the human emission (6.5 GtC/year). However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated. There are several other and much larger CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year with 150 GtC/year of this being from natural origin and 6.5 GtC/year from human origin. So, on the average, 3/156.5 = ~2% of all emissions “accumulate” in the air.

    The most rapid change indicated by Beck’s data (not really his, but he collated it) is the fall from 440 ppmv in 1942 to 320 ppmv in 1952. That equates to a fall of 240 GtC over the ten years or 24 GtC/year.

    In each year of the Mauna Loa data the natural emission and the natural sequestration is each observed to be over 150 GtC/year.

    So, the most rapid change indicated by Beck’s data would result from a variation of natural sequestration or natural emission of less than16%. And if both varied to create the fall then the needed natural variation would only be 8%.

    That is not “magic”.
    And similar variation in the opposite direction would induce faster rise than is observed in the Beck data.

    A scientific argument would be a discussion of any possible limits to the variability of the seasonal variability of the carbon cycle. It would not include blatantly untrue claims about “magic”.

    Not content with your ludicrous twaddle about “magic” concerning Beck’s data, you assert a magical effect when you say;

    Jaworowski claims fractination and diffusion processes which are dependent on physical parameters just happen to give the same results for ice cores with very different physical parameters which would have very different fractionation and diffusion rates – if these were altering the data.

    Say what!?
    Ice is ice. Air is air. And water turns to ice at its freezing temperature. So, diffraction and diffusion properties of the gases in air are subject to the same physical parameters in each ice core.
    Unless, of course, you are claiming the different physical parameters are induced by magic.

    I have had enough of you. Your nonsense is a waste of space on this thread. GO AWAY.

    Richard

  157. richardscourtney says:

    Jaworowski, Beck, and Morner each conducted excellent work. Indeed, the scientific community recognised the worth of their work by showering Jaworowski and Morner with honours. And you claim to value the opinion of the scientific community when it fits your purpose. So, it is clear that any “lack of discrimination of judgement” is being exhibited by you.

    Really?!?! Would you care to share with us the details of these honors that were showered upon them for the work that we are discussing. That should be a fascinating read!

  158. tonyb says:

    Come on Joel, you have been around long enugh to know that equating creationists (and tobacco lobbyists) with climate sceptics makes us just roll our eyes. However you did say something very interesting in the quote I excerpted above.

    Well, if AGW skeptics don’t want to be equated with them, then they ought to stop stealing the creationist arguments, i.e., arguments like, “The scientific community is discriminating against us and so that is why we can’t get published in the peer-reviewed literature” or “They refuse to publicly debate us”.

    I think you need to do a little soul-searching and ask yourself, “Why are we being equated with creationists, not just by some members of the scientific community like Joel, but also by the most important group that was working to fight to defend the teaching of evolution in our schools and has recently expanded their work to include fighting to defend the teaching of climate science (as understood by the scientific mainstream) in the schools?” ( http://ncse.com/news/2012/01/ncses-climate-change-initiative-launched-007149 )

    I am really trying to help you guys turn away from pseudoscientific nonsense and at least try to make coherent scientific arguments that won’t be laughed off by the scientific community. Unfortunately, there seems to be great resistance to this.

  159. richardscourtney says:

    Isaac Newton believed in astrology but that says nothing about the quality of his scientific research. But, according to you, that makes Newton a “crank” so his Laws of Motion and his Principia must be wrong and should be ignored.

    Newton was a product of his time. I think in the modern era, when people say things like “Intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism” (http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/08/faith-based-evolution.html), it is quite sensible to use this as piece of evidence in considering the person’s scientific judgment. This is particularly true when many people around here’s belief system rests on the notion that this particular scientist is right and nearly everyone else in the field is wrong, and that we should thus elevate his work above all the other work by all the other scientists who get reach different conclusions.

  160. Richard S Courtney says:

    The most rapid change indicated by Beck’s data (not really his, but he collated it) is the fall from 440 ppmv in 1942 to 320 ppmv in 1952. That equates to a fall of 240 GtC over the ten years or 24 GtC/year.

    In each year of the Mauna Loa data the natural emission and the natural sequestration is each observed to be over 150 GtC/year.

    So, the most rapid change indicated by Beck’s data would result from a variation of natural sequestration or natural emission of less than16%. And if both varied to create the fall then the needed natural variation would only be 8%.

    That’s quite the impressive variation given that nothing nearly like that has happened once Keeling starting measuring CO2 accurately! I guess this is the quantum theory of CO2 in the atmosphere: It varies like crazy when we don’t look at it but all of a sudden settles down and behaves completely differently once we start measuring it!

    Basically, what you are saying is this: If we abandon everything we know about how CO2 transfers between different reservoirs, based on a half century of good empirical data and 3/4 of a million years of ice core records…And, if we believe measurements that we know for a fact were not taken in ways that make them accurate measurements of background CO2…And, if we believe that the CO2 variations magically average out in ice cores to give a very flat signal, on multiple time scales (since the various ice cores have very different snow accumulation rates and thus very different times over which they average)…Then, one might be able to justify Beck!

    Yes, I will now apologize for comparing such arguments to those of Young Earth creationists. The Young Earthers that I have interacted with actually have some more compelling arguments!

  161. joeldshore says:
    May 22, 2012 at 2:28 pm
    Well, if AGW skeptics don’t want to be equated with them, then they ought to stop stealing the creationist arguments, i.e., arguments like, “The scientific community is discriminating against us and so that is why we can’t get published in the peer-reviewed literature” or “They refuse to publicly debate us”.

    You’re rather conveniently ignoring the fact that the Climategate e-mails validate the argument for discrimination. You’re also conveniently forgetting that Mann et al. do, in fact, duck public debates — most recently illustrated here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/19/a-first-hand-report-on-dr-michael-manns-embarrasing-disneyland-episode/

    I am really trying to help you guys turn away from pseudoscientific nonsense and at least try to make coherent scientific arguments that won’t be laughed off by the scientific community.

    Says the primary proponent for pseudoscientific nonsense on the thread.

  162. Joel said;

    ‘Well, if AGW skeptics don’t want to be equated with them, then they ought to stop stealing the creationist arguments, i.e., arguments like, “The scientific community is discriminating against us and so that is why we can’t get published in the peer-reviewed literature” or “They refuse to publicly debate us”.

    There you go, putting all of us who disagree with the cagw proposition into one large box you conveniently like to label ‘mad sceptics-do not open.’

    Have you EVER heard me say this about peer review etc? No. The variety of views sceptics hold is at once our greatest strength and our greatest weakness, but the majority of us are not knuckle dragging neanderthals. We are rational people-many of whom once held your views-who have actually taken the time to examine the evidence.

    Where have I been recently trying to do this in order to research my next two articles? Sitting reading reports about creationsust or admiring the tactics of the tobacco lobby? No. I have breen spending my time and my money visiting the Met office library. The Met office archives. The library of Exeter Cathedral. The excellent records office which has documents back to the 12th Century. Next month I am off to the Scott Polar institutre in Cambridge. Plus there is a massive amount on line. Indeed, I have accessed some 500 polar articles over the last few months and had to pay for some of them. I’ve been in contact with the librarian of Universities in the polar regions and talked to explorers out there. When I was researching my sea level article, did I sit here wondering about creationism or did i actually visit several sites to look at what was happening?

    Joel, the problem I have is that-despite the expers saying otherwise- what we are experiencing is not unprecedented, sometimes its not even unusual. There is a load of evidence out there -anecdotal and scientific- that says otherwise.If the physics are so sound why do warnists persist in trying to redraw the past?

    Way up the thread I asked you this, perhps you could answer it now as you have touched on it with Richard in your last post.

    ” As for Beck, he was also very lucid on the subject of co2. I had the privilege of him dropping in to a (thread) I wrote on co2 when he was very ill, just a few months before he died .I have still never had a satisfactory explanation as to how Keeling (who I also defend here as a fine scientist) despite having no expertise in the field, managed to immediately get his co2 measurements correct whilst his peers had apparently been getting them wrong for the previous 120 years. Perhaps you can tell me?’

    Ps For the record I do not believe in creationism, the tobacco arguments, the conspiracy theories surrounding Princess Diana and 9/11.That the moon landing was faked or that aliens create crop circles. I am an entirely rational modern person who has taken the trouble to read and research widely and who thinks that tree rings should never have been used to create a climate story not borne out by many other sources.
    tonyb.

  163. joeldshore:

    At May 22, 2012 at 2:13 pm you ask me:

    Would you care to share with us the details of these honors that were showered upon them for the work that we are discussing.

    Well, as an example, Morner was awarded the ‘Golden Contrite of Merits’ by Algarve University in recognition of his work on sea-level change in the Maldives. But such examples are not the point.

    The fact is that these gentlemen are highly respected scientists whose scientific achievements are acknowledged by the awards they have been given by the scientific community. You assert the authority of the scientific community when it suites your purpose. But when it comes to the scientific credibility of these gentlemen then you claim that authority is not relevant.

    Instead, you smear the work of these gentlemen “that we are discussing” without any stated reason except that you do not like its findings.

    And your post at May 22, 2012 at 6:14 pm is plain daft. It accurately quotes me as saying;
    In each year of the Mauna Loa data the natural emission and the natural sequestration is each observed to be over 150 GtC/year.

    So, the most rapid change indicated by Beck’s data would result from a variation of natural sequestration or natural emission of less than16%. And if both varied to create the fall then the needed natural variation would only be 8%.
    That 150 GtC/year is the variation (+ and – ) of the CO2 in the air during each year (i.e. it is the seasonal variation). Therefore, the natural emission and the natural sequestration could vary – but probably does not – by up to double that during each year.

    And you say;
    That’s quite the impressive variation given that nothing nearly like that has happened once Keeling starting measuring CO2 accurately! I guess this is the quantum theory of CO2 in the atmosphere: It varies like crazy when we don’t look at it but all of a sudden settles down and behaves completely differently once we start measuring it!

    But something much greater than that happens during every year. It is the seasonal variation.

    And you abandon both reality and veracity when you write;
    “It [i.e. atmospheric CO2 concentration] varies like crazy when we don’t look at it but all of a sudden settles down and behaves completely differently once we start measuring it!”

    Beck’s data is a collation of measurements of it. His data shows that most of the time (e.g. from 1865 to 1930) the variation over decades is similar to that observed at Mauna Loa since 1958. But in some decades (e.g near 1820 and near 1940) atmospheric CO2 makes excursions up to 440 ppmv.

    So, Beck’s data and the Mauna Loa data show similar atmospheric CO2 concentration over decades except that the Mauna Loa data has not been obtained for a time which includes an excursion.

    And your comments about the carbon cycle and ice cores are stupidity based on ignorance. You say;
    Basically, what you are saying is this: If we abandon everything we know about how CO2 transfers between different reservoirs, based on a half century of good empirical data and 3/4 of a million years of ice core records…And, if we believe measurements that we know for a fact were not taken in ways that make them accurate measurements of background CO2…And, if we believe that the CO2 variations magically average out in ice cores to give a very flat signal, on multiple time scales (since the various ice cores have very different snow accumulation rates and thus very different times over which they average)…Then, one might be able to justify Beck! “

    That is so wrong that it would require writing a book to explain all that is wrong with it!

    I provide a few comments sufficient to show it is daft.

    Firstly, I object to your putting words in my mouth. If you really want to know what I am saying then read one of our 2005 papers; viz.
    Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)

    We know ‘sweet FA’ about how CO2 transfers between different reservoirs, but we do know that the sizes of the reservoirs and the flows between them both vary greatly but in unknown ways.

    The ice core records are “smoothed”. The firn (i.e. the top of the forming ice) takes time to seal to become solid ice: the IPCC says this takes 83 years. During that time the firn contains open porosity. Therefore, variations in atmospheric pressure will mix the air in the firn while diffusion will reduce high concentrations and increase low concentrations of gases in that air.

    Assuming the IPCC 83-year closure time is correct, then the smoothing is equivalent to conducting an 83-year running mean on data obtained from ice that sealed in a single year. This very large smoothing means it is not possible for ice cores to show variations similar to those indicated by Beck’s data. Indeed, it means the ice cores cannot show a rise such as that in the Mauna Loa data if that rise is a fluctuation that has duration less than ~167 years.

    And the “multiple time scales” of formation of different cores only affects the degree of the smoothing. The very-fast-formation ice only provides very recent data so tells nothing about Beck’s data.

    That is physics: it is not “magic”.

    Importantly, I do not need “to justify Beck!“ His data has no known flaw.

    You need to explain a flaw in Beck’s data but you cannot so, instead, you have tried to say it must be wrong because it does not fit other data which you prefer. That is NOT science: it is prejudice. And, as I have shown, Beck’s data DOES fit the other data.

    Richard

  164. Richard

    I was interested in your earlier comments on the potential amount of outgassing and the specific examples you gave of a peak co2 reading in the 1940’s and 1820’s

    I don’t know if you ever caught the article I wrote on co2 some 3 years ago which was carried over at the Air Vent? The article was primarily intended to look at the historic and social background to co2 readings from 1820 to the advent of Mauna Loa rather than their accuracy.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/

    Ernst himself eventually participated in the discussion although even at the time he must have been very ill. Although my interest initially was in the background to the measurements it soon became clear the measurements were considered to be so accurate that British legislation was passed in the 1880’s in order to regulate co2 levels in cotton factories. References were also made in popular novels of the time and patents on the measuring equipment passed. The levels were also considered matter of fact in science journals of the time (which at the least demonstrates that science is never settled)

    That so many people apparently managed to get it so wrong for so many years until Keeling came along and did it right first time (even though he had no prior expertise in the subject) has never been satisfactorily explained to me. That the start point of the pre industrial era levels of co2 were cherry picked to be on the low side was abundantly clear from reading Callendars archives.

    I came to think that the methodology, equipment and people were often so good that large mistakes were unlikely, and believe that an audit of the more credible scrutinised readings would be worthwhile and dispel the queries either way once and for all.

    Going back through my article again with your comments uppermost I was struck by two items in the bloggers responses
    “NASA/GISS is broken down by hemisphere, and several latitude bands. Graph them all and it is spaghetti. So here’s just global and another graph showing just arctic zones. The scale on the left is temperature anomaly in 100′ths of degrees:
    http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/arctic-zones-vs-global.png

    So, unusually in the record, both the polar regions warmed at the same time which presumably would have an effect on outgassing. This period was exactly around the time –the 1930’s- that the high measurements were recorded .

    Someone else commenting after I announced Becks death on the thread said;

    “I also wanted to send him some interesting links:
    For example, this with: ‘Global and European temperature (CSI 012) – Assessment published Jun 2010’,
    showing that the land (Europe) temperature changes during the period 1910-1950, were “shockingly” abrupt (this a propos: “cannot explain the rapid decrease after 1940”).

    Sure enough this abrupt spike in temperatures can be seen.

    As for the 1820’s co2 spike, this is surely connected with the rapid warming of the arctic around that period that I wrote about here?

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/

    tonyb

  165. Tonyb:

    Thankyou most sincerely for your post addressed to me at May 23, 2012 at 5:16 am.

    Your article in your first link (i.e.
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/ )
    is fascinating and contains much historical information which I did not know. It is an interesting, entertaining and informative read for anybody. In my opinion it deserves a wider audience.

    Is it possible for you to get Anthony to put it up as a Guest Post on WUWT?

    I did know the information in its ‘Section Two’ titled ‘How 280ppm became the accepted pre industrial norm’. But your account of that is lucid and is part of why I think your paper deserves a wider audience.

    I thought this aside was notable;

    As an aside, there was friction even then between the two sides who had their own way of taking samples and who constantly criticised each others science. Kreusler being said to having taken ‘great exception to his critics’ over his methodology to which he retorted they related to ‘but one set of samples which had already been identified as false and withdrawn.’

    Clearly, real science was being conducted by scientists who were challenging each other on their methods and results.

    And this is very informative;

    In 1902 Krogh took some Greenland samples said to be accurate to .0005 to .01%. measured at 700 ppm

    [snip]

    The very high Greenland figures (620 to 700 ppm) appear absurd and the analysis at the time says;

    “The one inexplicable phenomenon is the abnormally high percentage of carbon dioxide found in the air of Greenland by Krogh.” Recent examination demonstrates that there may have been previously unidentified volcanic activity that increased the background figure.

    These results provide a demonstration of the limitations of Greenland ice-cores as indicators of short time periods when high atmospheric CO2 concentration existed.

    And your defence of Jaworowski is good. (Erren’s fly-by in the comments was roundly – and rightly – rejected by other commentators).

    Your second link is about Arctic ice; i.e.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/

    It looks good to me, but I think commentators on that thread have more knowledge of that than me so I am not willing to add to those comments on it.

    However, you ask me a specific question; viz.

    As for the 1820’s CO2 spike, this is surely connected with the rapid warming of the arctic around that period that I wrote about here?

    I think you are right: but the “spike” and the Arctic warming may be coincidental.

    Similarly, as you observe, it is interesting that both polar regions warmed around 1940 when the data collated by Beck also shows a “CO2 spike”.

    But – with the present state of knowledge of the carbon cycle – the mechanisms responsible for these “spikes” cannot be known. *sigh*

    Richard

  166. Richard

    Thank you for your kind comments. As I say I was initially interested in the historical and social background to co2 and started to write it on that basis . It became clear that there were many other issues all mixed in with the subject which meant anyone writing about Beck without being extremely rude about him was automatically a crackpot. It was consdered so highly controversial that I understand that the Air vent was advised not to run it.

    I thought the input from supporters and enemies alike was fascinating and I subsequently added links to other threads on the subject which i think makes the article an invaluable resource whichever side of the fence you sit.

    Ernst was not always good at expressing himself-not surprising as he wrote in a foreign language- and I think he came to regret launching his papers as he did, complete with some rather old fashioned looking graphs and some bold assertions that were guaranteed to get up the nose of the climate establishment.. He very substantially upgraded hs presentation in later years but by that time the damage was dome. Ernst rowed against the tide and I hope that someone out there is continuing his work and pushing for an independent audit of the material. I for one would make a small financial contrubtion to that end, as I think this matter needs to be settled once and for all, one way or the other.

    Incidentally I am currently writing Part two of ‘historic variations in arctic ice’ and it is clear that through the Holocene there have been some seven substantial arctic meltings and no doubt many minor ones. Whether they coincided with the antarctic warm phase I dont know, but clearly the relative steadiness of the co2 in the atmosphere seems somewhat at odds with nature, which normally progresses in fits and starts rather than a slow steady predictable change.
    tonyb.

  167. Follow the Money says:
    May 22, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    Left wing, blah, blah; socialism blah blah. . Obama’s crew is both in the pocket of cap and trade wall street AND Nat gas and nuke industries. Industries use the government to gain competitive advantage … increased profits. That’s business. Follow the Money. Who profits by the actions?
    ___________________________
    Correct.

    I some times think “Marxism” was the biggest hoax ever foisted on the masses by the would be ruling classes intent on turning a profit. WAR is a big money maker for banks and certain corporations. Politicians will follow the dictates of the big bucks funding their campaigns and ideas.

    Let’s face it “Marxism” with its anti-property, anti-capitalism, pro-big government, pro-big taxes is ready made for those who want maximum control and the minimum competition. The world as it is today is a great example with its consolidation of industry into the hands of a few and vertical integration within business sectors. Meanwhile attention is diverted from what is actually happening by various “socialist” activism like “green Energy” “Sustainability” and other idiocy.

  168. To the moderators:

    So let’s try this again… You can post unsourced information and as soon as someone provides an alternative view from a non-mainstream source that refutes all points made you just censor it because you have no rebuttal? Wow, glad to know that rather than trying to have an intelligent conversation about the issue we are now reduced to selective censoring to support your points of view. How very conservative of you.

    Again… The truth is all around you if you only understood the scientific method.

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/accusations-that-climate-science-is-money-driven-reveal-ignorance-of-how-science-is-done/

Comments are closed.