Members quitting the American Meteorological Society over stance on climate

This can’t be good:

It gets worse:

h/t to Steve Milloy

213 thoughts on “Members quitting the American Meteorological Society over stance on climate

  1. I just followed the twitter link. I think I need a shower…

    Do people actually believe this sh!t??? eg: Black Forest Fire most destructive in Colorado history- 360 homes lost & no containment this posted with the hashtag climate, by a member climatereality they should be ashamed of themselves.

    PS I did not link to the tweet itself because I did not want to give it any publicity.

  2. The Black Forest fire was destructive because of where it was. Right on the outskirts of Colorado Springs. One report that I saw stated that there are over 12,000 homes in that area. That over 500 of those homes burned is a tragedy, but not a surprise. It isn’t even the largest fire so far this year in terms of total acres burned. It’s just that most fires burn where there are few houses.

  3. Way to go, Science Heroes for Truth!

    You are heroes in the spirit of Hal Lewis:

    “Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

    Anthony Watts describes it thus [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/]:

    This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.
    It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment. (H/T GWPF, Richard Brearley).

    Dear Curt:

    When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

    How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

    So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

    1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate.

    2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

    3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

    4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

    5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

    6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition. APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

    I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

    I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
    Hal

    Harold Lewis [was] Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety; Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making).”

    [By James Delingpole – London Telegraph – Last updated: October 9th, 2010]

  4. What is new is that they are just now speaking up. What the alarmists are doing they have been doing, but it is good to see others now standing up for their integrity.

  5. I am sorry I was a bit hasty. I apologise to anyone affected by the fires, and if it is indeed the worst ever I apologise again.

    However h**p://thinkprogress.org/climate/ are linking this event to climate change, and I do not think this is right or proper. I apologise again if I seemed insensitive about this issue.

    • @Roy UK – no apology necessary. It is not the worst. The fire of 1898 burned a lot more acreage. This one burned more houses, but then there are a lot more people living there today than in 1898.

  6. HEY…teacher…leave those kids alone
    Making love out of nothing at all
    Hey,hey,hey, good bye. Nah nahnahnahnahnah,goood bye.
    (with apologies to Pink Floyd,Meat Loaf, and Queen)

  7. There’s no difference between this and some fundamentalist linking the fires to the Wrath of God for our wicked ways. There’s just as much evidence for one as for the other. (Especially if you consider using carbon based fuels to be “wicked”)

  8. Roy UK says:
    June 21, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    The problem is how do you define “worst”. If it’s in terms of acres burnt. It’s not even close, there was a fire back in the 30’s that was close to 100 times bigger. If it’s terms of damage to property, it is definitely the worst, by a significant margin. But as I pointed out, that is entirely a function of where it burned. Much like the problem of hurricanes becoming more expensive. It’s not that hurricanes are bigger or more powerfull, it’s just that there is more stuff in the way compared to years ago.

  9. Greater than 50% of Meteorologists don’t buy the AGW scam. So it’s a puzzle that the American Meteorological Society’s position doesn’t reflect this. Funny how it’s meteorologists that know that weather isn’t climate, while it’s climatologists that keep trying to insist weather (as hurricanes etc) is climate.

    The Economist has another great piece of agw titled “A Cooling Consensus.” Here we have this liberal MSM publication, as so many others now, puzzling over the slowdown in warming or the “warming plateau.” Climatologists have been trying to run a diversion play by changing the name of their crisis from global warming to climate change, and by talking always about the weather, not about the temperature, or their failing models. Meteorologists know better. They know that the weather is just as its always been. There’s nothing wrong with the climate.

    [and I fixed this one for you too, please learn how to use HTML features – mod]

  10. Their recent policy statement regarding climate science being “the core to science education” is an eye-opener.
    It is blatantly anti-scientific syrup of IPeCaC-flavored propaganda.
    I’m surprised they’re not leaving in droves.

  11. It’s why I haven’t become a member of the AMS. I am a member of the NWA and prefer their approach to the topic.

  12. Re the Colorado wildfires:

    “Despite the recent wildfire activity, the nation’s year-to-date burned area–0.49 million acres by June 17–was just 29% of the 10-year average.”. — source: USDA Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletin dated 06.18.2013 at page 3. (USDA is United States Department of Agriculture)

    I have No comment on the wisdom of fire management practices, regulations on brush clearances from homes, or building flammable structures in fire-prone areas. I live in an area that is subject to earthquakes, tsunamis, radiation poisoning from nuclear power plant rupture and meltdown, wildfires, torrential rains and flooding, and mudslides. I live in Southern California.

  13. The Hayman fire was worse in terms of lost life – the only metric that should matter. It was also far more scorched acreage than the current blaze. I was staying at a “dude” ranch 5 miles south of the initial blaze and watched the the first wave of aircraft make drop after drop. It was futile and the fire burned nearly 140,000 acres. We were all on short notice to get out fast if the wind changed direction. Doesn’t matter in the long run what is or isn’t the worst – wildfire isn’t a contest.

    Congratulations to those who have voted with their feet to leave the AMS.

  14. Only 14,000 more members to go.

    http://ametsoc.org/MEMB/

    Apparently they had a problem with this:

    http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

    There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.

    ———–
    This happens to be the position of :
    American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
    American Geophysical Union
    US National Research Council[
    American Chemical Society[48]
    American Institute of Physics[49]
    American Physical Society[50]
    Australian Institute of Physics[51]
    European Physical Society[52]
    American Astronomical Society[90]
    American Statistical Association[91]
    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
    Royal Society of New Zealand
    Geological Society of London
    Geological Society of America
    European Geosciences Union
    European Federation of Geologists
    United States National Research Council
    International Union for Quaternary Research
    American Quaternary Association
    World Meteorological Organization
    Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
    Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
    European Science Foundation
    European Academy of Sciences and Arts
    Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)[92]
    International Association for Great Lakes Research[93]
    Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand[94]
    American Academy of Pediatrics[82]
    African Academy of Sciences
    American College of Preventive Medicine[83]
    American Medical Association[84]
    American Public Health Association[85]
    Australian Medical Association in 2004[86] and in 2008[87]
    World Federation of Public Health Associations[88]
    World Health Organization[89]
    American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[72]
    American Institute of Biological Sciences
    In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US scientific societies and organizations sent an open letter to the United States Senate reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) adopted this letter as their official position statement:[73][74]The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise and increases in extreme weather events, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.[75]American Society for Microbiology[76]
    Australian Coral Reef Society[77]
    Institute of Biology (UK)[78]
    Society of American Foresters issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC[79] and the UNFCCC.[80]
    The Wildlife Society (international)[81]
    National Association of Geoscience Teachers
    International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS)
    InterAcademy Council

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

    —————————
    But I am sure that the hundreds of thousands of scientists and members of these professional societies are all just in it for the research grant money. . .

    • Now compare the list of organizations and Universities posted above that are true believes of AGW – Now go to the Government financial records of GRANTS and the lists will be remarkably similar – – it is about POLITICS of power and control of the citizens. These imitation scientists are nothing but PROSTITUTES they sell their wares for a few dollars more.

      Take the money away from the Government and they will all return to honest endeavors and here is how the money is removed from the equation.

      http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/article-v—group-overview-and-proposal.html

    • #Jai – I do not ask my Gastro intestinal doctor to diagnose my car problems. So why would anyone but a fool ask the AMA about AGW?

      But then maybe they are just in it for the pile on effect.

  15. Why has it taken them so long and how can this not be good? To my mind, no evidence for GW or any of its more recent acronyms and obfuscations existed in the 1990s when I was reading the excellent articles posted by the late John Daly on his Waiting for Greenhouse website.

  16. jai mitchell says:

    June 21, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    Follow the money . . .
    Or – is it follow the fashion?
    But the latter is a simulacrum of the former.
    And doesn’t explain why data seems to have been adjusted; weather stations (away from tarmac) have been closed – in their hundreds and thousands; ad hominem attacks have been made on ‘sceptics'; every attempt is made at allowing governments – and supra-governmental bodies – to have more control over our lives; and why there has ben no statistically significant warming for fifteen [or more] years (some series have that at twenty-plus . . . .
    Even Ed Davey [a graduate in Politics, Philosophy and Economics] and a UK minister [Secretary of State for Energy Climate Change and Popcorn or something] can’t square the circle. He may have a 16 plus qualification in a science subject – if so, it’s not on his Wikipedia page [remember, Wikipedia is the fount of all trust and truth].
    Yet weather [including temperature] is cyclic; there are daily cycles, annual cycles, and there appear to be longer cycles.
    Are we on a down-swing on a sixty-year cycle? Or a longer cycle still?
    If so, I bet millions of Americans will give praise to fracking.
    Brits would too – if fracking gets past the watermelons . . . .

    Auto, in a pessimistic mood.

  17. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    Look at my big consensus
    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    Jai, when you grasp the very fundamental fact of science that “lots of believers doesn’t make it true” you might be worth listening to.

    • There is no principle in Real Science for “CONSENSUS OF OPINIONS” – That silly notion is reserved for Politics which is where the MONEY is flowing from – I debated a NASA Ph.D for months before he finally was forced to admit that Consensus is not equal to a “PROOF” by peer review and that no peer review was ever possible as no one had the complete data sets that made up the Computer simulator . . GIGO . . is the correct term.

  18. I am originally from the Pacific Northwest and was a long time resident of Colorado Springs. One of my so-workers lost his house. As a young man, some of my friends spent the summer cutting firebreak. Several from the church we attended lost their homes.

    My heartfelt sympathy goes out to those who died and lost their homes.

    That said – Black Forest was a disaster waiting to happen.

  19. Jai M is in love with his Wiki list. He, like the other ecos’ thinks the surface impression is all that there is … such a shallow grasp, however, typical of the greens.

    Perhaps he will add to his list, a date, showing when each organization took such position ?
    Perhaps he will remove from such an update, all organizations that are composed of members in fields OTHER than geology, solar physics, and atmospheric scientists ?
    Then, and ONLY then we can begin an intelligent discussion of this resultant list.

    I am waiting …

  20. Then again, both Christianity and Islam (between them over half the world’s population) believe in predestination. So, using jai’s consensus logic, it’s really not worth worrying about climate change because que sera sera :)

    • Why am I not surprised to see BM is Jai source of truth . . E=GREEN FALSE NEWS . . AGW is not a Theory it is Hypothesis if it is to be serious science and the Hypothesis has failed all peer reviews not one single PROOF was ever issued . . Consensus science is failed . .

  21. “There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.”

    Jai. Do you truly comprehend that last sentence? The reason I ask is that that is the crux of our argument with all this… stuff.

    There truly was “… unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking …”

    Attributing alarm and fear to any of the above is pure politicking, but “… The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities … ”

    Real-ah-hee ??? You know you could poke somebody’s eyes out with that thing….

    We demand to see some evidence for that blanket statement. Why do you think the majority of the members of those once respected societies you appeal to don’t demand to see some evidence for the hot air coming out of their steering committees?

    Could it be that they just took (multiple) someones’ word for it? Because they are overwhelmingly busy with their own shizz? Surely not?

  22. Joe says:

    June 21, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    I know that consensus doesn’t prove a theory. That is absolutely true in the study of science and science history.

    I hope you will excuse the language in this, please disregard if you are offended by bill maher but he had a very important thing to say about “consensus”.

    with regard to evolution, gravity and, yes, anthropogenically caused climate change:

    This is a very good discourse with Bob Lutz from GM
    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZYMD0oSQQQ ]

    however, if you want to get the real lowdown on bill maher’s perspective then watch this:
    warning, he does swear in this one so if you are offended by profanity, don’t watch it!

    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OwFSLm4pII ]

  23. Joe:

    In a way the Old Testament has it right: “The fire next time”. If not the heat of an asteroid chunk or comet impact, then eventually the end will come when the sun goes red giant. But even before then, its increasing radiative output & the subduction of continents dragging water with them will leave Earth dry as Mars. Any living things left will be subterranean microbes.

    Our planet is about half way through its complex life phase, which might last a billion years total. The first large animals with hard body parts become apparent in the fossil record some 543 million years ago, at the start of the Cambrian Period of the Paleozoic Era of the Phanerozoic Eon. In around another 500 million years, it will be back to small multicellular life or more likely already just single-celled microbes.

    You want climate change, you got climate change.

  24. Drunk again, we see. What a clown.

    Magic Gas Mitchell doesn’t work where
    he works ON anything.

    How do I know?

    He believes in that
    MaGiCK GAiS!

    Ya’W.
    ====

    Magic Gas Mitchellsays:
    June 21, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.

  25. Jai, Bill Maher is an idiot, and the very fact you posted those videos speaks volumes about your intelligence, or lack thereof. Not that there was much doubt before.

    • @Bruce Cobb – Maher is also a racist and misogynist bigot. I am a bit surprised any sentient being listens to or quotes him. But I guess as long as there is prejudice and hatred, he will have followers.

  26. [snip – sorry smoking not allowed on WUWT – both of my parents died from smoking related illnesses, and I don’t care to have you bloviate about it here – Anthony]

  27. Great move Jai, quoting Wikipedia as your source….

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

    Second highest number of (named) edits in this ‘article’, 213.
    William M. Connolley 2003-09-24 – 2013-04-07

    All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

    And the fraudulent lying Green Party activist is still at it.

  28. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:18 pm
    ———————————–

    Why does it not surprise me that you get your anti-scientific opinions from an anti-vaccine crusading comedian?

    News for both you & your guru: Newton & Darwin’s theories did not gain acceptance by consensus, but because they went long periods without being shown false. Do you need the Feynman video posted again, so that you grasp the scientific method?

    In fact Newton was eventually falsified by Einstein, but for much of the universe, his math & model of gravitation remain good enough for government work. Darwin didn’t know how heredity worked, since apparently he never found Mendel’s (cherry-picked) research, so his theory stayed incomplete until combined with genetics in the early 20th century synthesis (which owed much to his cousin Galton’s pioneering statistical thought). Evolution through natural selection & (now understood) stochastic processes has not been falsified. It’s accepted not due to consensus but because competing hypotheses & theories, such as the repeated or continuous special creations advocated by many of his contemporaries & teachers, have been falsified.

  29. But I am sure that the hundreds of thousands of scientists and members of these professional societies are all just in it for the research grant money. . .
    Please link and quote all these professionals and societies for verification. Thanks

  30. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    “Only 14,000 more members to go…”

    ===============================

    That looks like pretty much the same number and type of organizations that endorsed Eugenics in the 1930’s. So what was your point?

  31. “Congratulations to those who have voted with their feet to leave the AMS.”

    I will second that. CAGW is the reason I left ACS (American Chemical Society) after more than thirty years.

  32. As regards Jai Mitchell, to all others trying to reason with him, when someone is making a fool of themselves, shut up, get out of their way, and let them do so (you’re doing a marvelous job of that Jai). Another good quote for Mr Mitchell is ” tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool l than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt”

  33. The fact is that the science behind the warming we are experiencing has been settled, determined and studied, published on and predicted (very accurately) for over 50 years.
    ====
    Jai, the problem is…science and scientists promote themselves as being smarter and more advanced than they actually are…..and the dim-wits that fall for it

    …our science is not that advanced..we are not that advanced….just look around you

    and for the past 50 years, they have been trying to convince everyone the science is settled…

    2 + 2 = 4……that’s settled…that’s a fact….and that’s why it’s settled

    …we’ve still got a long long way to go

  34. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    The fact is that the science behind the warming we are experiencing has been settled, determined and studied, published on and predicted (very accurately) for over 50 years.

    it isn’t some new thing.
    ———————————-

    You’re still confused as to what constitutes science & what a fact is.

    Science is hardly ever settled, least of all for complex phenomena like climate. A settled scientific conclusion is that the Earth orbits the sun. That CO2 is the main driver of climate is not only unsettled, but laughable.

    The behavior of a CO2 molecule when hit by a photon of IR energy is not even settled, although it might be fairly well understood, but subject to debate & possibly controversy. The effect of this physical phenomenon on air temperature is definitely conjectural & controversial. More importantly, it is not only unsettled that this effect is the primary climate forcing, but all available evidence is against this baseless assertion.

    Name a single accurate prediction based upon the science you imagine has been settled for 50 years as to CO2 & climate. Much of the problem with consensus “climate science” is that it’s afraid to make predictions, hence is anti-scientific, & the few that some “scientists” have made have been shown false. Indeed fear of falsification is why “man-made GHG global warming” morphed into “climate change”.

  35. Jai Mitchell,

    Have you chosen to put your faith in people who assure you that “The Science is Settled?” Did you study any science yourself in school, along the lines of, could you evaluate the evidence yourself and decide for yourself whether it is credible? If you did not, here you risk exposure as a fool, as many many commenters on here did, and will torch your credulous statements. You should read rgbatduke, a true deep thinker, posts on here all the time.

    In what areas of life do you think for yourself? Apparently this is not one of them. Did you know that Michael Mann defended his PhD in 1996, but did not receive it until 1998 when he was persuaded to write the “Hockey Stick” paper? I think he actually flunked but took the only option given him, to sign up to be the poster boy for AGW.

  36. Let’s quit answering the Jai troll.

    On the substance of the post. Can you imagine the effect on public opinion if all of the more than 50% of meteorologists who don’t “believe” in global warming took the same principled stance as Anthony Watts and went on the air on their local television stations and said. “The global warming scare is bunk.”, and backed their statement up with the evidence.

  37. Jai –

    “The JASON climate model suffers from a number of fundamental weaknesses. The role of clouds in determining albedo is not adequately taken into account nor are the asymmetries between the northern and southern hemisphere. We expect, however, that models intermediate between the large GCMs and the primitive analytic models can yield insights into the nature of climate change.”

    How’s that working for ya?

    The assumptions made by the JASON group are manifold (not just in this field BTW). It is what they were paid to holiday together 5 months of the year to produce. Ifs, buts and maybes abound, along with this early reliance on models.

    We should demand some evidence before embarking upon the dismantling of a system that, inequalities aside, keeps billions fed, watered and sufficiently entertained that they may spend a proportion of their free time expounding their ignorance of multiple fields of human endeavor using the very tools they would remove from those who currently ‘enjoy’ them and deny them entirely to the greater number who would like to.

  38. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    A wrong statement is still a wrong statement, regardless of how many agree with it for political reasons.

  39. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    1) Micro evolution has been proven.
    2) Macro evolution is the best explanation for what we see in the fossil record, but that still doesn’t make it proven.
    3) The evidence is in, gravity exists. As to what causes it, that’s still under debate.
    4) That AGW exists is also not under debate, whether 1% or 99% of the warming that may have been measured over the last 100 years is caused by it, is till a matter of debate.

  40. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    Typical liberal think.
    I’m right and the only reason why you disagree with me is because evil people have paid you to do so.

  41. Roy,

    Just saw your post and understand your – difficulty with the “most distructive” label. Yes, 509 by last count homes burned, some 14,200 acres. This fire is the most distructive in dollars in state history because many of the homes burned were over $1 million in value. The Black Forest is not only close to Colorado Springs, it is probably the most affluent in the area. The Waldo Canyon fire that burned some 360 homes was a middle class neighborhood by contrast.

    We’ve had four years of little rain and homes in timber areas are in danger from explosive fire activity – for real and true. We have some 9 fires burning in the state now, about half by my count are human caused like the Black Forest Fire. The rest are dry lightning…

    Hope that helps.

    Mike

  42. The tide is most definitely changing. It will be interesting to watch the process as scientific organizations, scientists, and politicians abandon the AGW fiasco. After 16 years of no warming, there is now the first observational evidence of cooling.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/climate-change

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

    A colossal amount of money has been wasted on green scams to fight climate ‘change’. Subsidizing green scams results in the loss of real jobs. The higher and higher cost of energy is one of the reasons why there is record unemployment in the EU and why the EU is no longer competitive.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/the-data-is-in-more-green-jobs-means-less-real-ones/

    The comments made in this interview with IPCC lead author Hans Van Storch are an unprecedented admission of the failure of the general circulation models that were used by the IPCC to make alarmist predictions and the first public admission from a lead warmist that the climate ‘science’ was fudged.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/20/if-things-continue-as-they-have-been-in-five-years-at-the-latest-we-will-need-to-acknowledge-that-something-is-fundamentally-wrong-with-our-climate-models/

    Hans Van Storch: “There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”

    William: Less CO2 warming does not explain no warming for 16 years. As atmospheric CO2 continues to rise planetary temperature must increase in a wiggly manner as the CO2 forcing does not go away. It appears at least 0.45C of the 0.7C warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar modulation of planetary clouds. The latitudes where the warming has occurred are the latitudes that are most strongly affected by solar modulation of planetary cloud cover. There is a lack of warming to explain and the fact that the latitudinal pattern of observed warming does not match the AGW forcing pattern.

    Hans Van Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more — and by the end of this century, mind you. That’s what my instinct tells me, since I don’t know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.

    William: Give us a break. We will see less than 1C warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2. ‘Skeptic’ scientific analysis puts the estimated warming at 0.3C. There is no need to ask people what their ‘instinct’ tells them. Enough is enough, the warmists propaganda has to stop and will stop, as the planet is cools.

  43. Jai, if you believe that first video was a “very good discourse” then there’s really no point engaging any firther with you. Lutz is a pillock, and he was nicely set up by a TV company to score cheap points off.

    As for the second one, no I don’t find the swearing offensive. But I do find the idea that members of my own species could consider that sort of banal diatribe worth wasting electricity (and fossil fuels) to broadcast very sad indeed.

    Still, you obviously consider such trite mindless garbage worth watching, so I’ll let you crack on mate :)

  44. When I was a kid my parents dragged me off to church every Sunday. One day that church took a political stand on an issue (no need to mention the issue). The majority of the church members were actually opposed to this political stand. They were counted as being “for”, even though they were “against”

    The end result was about half of the membership, many of whom had put thousands of their own money and hundreds of hours into that church, leaving and forming a new church.

    I see absolutely no difference between the two. Being a member of a science society has benefits beyond purely scientific, including the ability to get employment and/or grants. This is why so many members simply ignore the political stance of their organization and go with the flow, in spite of being completely against whatever political position the organization is promoting.

    Thankfully, there are a few that don’t need the sheltering umbrella of their organization and are able to call it what it is. The end result may be new societies springing up to provide the same benefits for those who are opposed to the hijacking of science by the current political winds.

  45. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    Only 14,000 more members to go.
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    It’s exciting to see you posting here as I only know you by reputation. Margaret Hardman’s wild eyed, mouth frothing hysteria has turned rather predictable so I’m looking forward to your brand of lunacy for a change of pace. Dazzle me!

    Wait… what if Jai Mitchell = Margaret Hardman…O…M…G…mind blown!

  46. All, as a post script to my message to Roy,

    Please don’t read into my statements that “Climate Change” other than a time of dry weather has anything to do with the current fires. If anthropologists have it right the ancient peoples who inhabited Mesa Verde left during a dry spell that lasted a decade or better. That was 800 years back or so…

    Mike

  47. Have lived in Colorado my whole life.

    We’ve always had forest fires, but not building booms in the mountains.

    It has really changed over the decades. Places once empty of human habitations are now filled with very nice homes.

    I don’t want to see anyone lose their home, but it takes very little imagination to see the risks one runs when building that romantic home in the midst of nature.

    I feel so very bad for individuals losing all they have. It is upsetting to see the color of the sky take on the hues of another conflagration pouring its ash into the sky and seeing the ash settle on the hood of the car.

    It is obvious, from the way the authorities are behaving this was an arson. All fires are considered arson until proven otherwise but the investigation is going far beyond that. Because we have deaths, it is now a murder investigation.

    One of my closest colleagues serves as a peace officer in one of the local jurisdictions. Last year during Colorado Springs last nightmare, he was out looking for arsonists. Someone, or several someones, was setting fires in campgrounds. Yes, there are evil and wicked people in our midst. These types are actively working against our safety.

    How do you treat them when caught? Another ethical challenge our society struggles with.

    So sad.

  48. milodonharlani says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:56 pm

    A settled scientific conclusion is that the Earth orbits the sun.

    ————————————————————————————————————————

    Sorry, got to take issue with that seeing as the whole universe revolves around my left little toe. Granted, the maths to describe that me-centric universe are a little more complicated than other versions, but it’s still scientifically valid given the right frame of reference ;)

    That aside (and I only mentioned it to bolster your point about “settled science” btw) all good points, which will be met (if at all) by jai using an appeal to the consensus and / or models, with possibly a wiki quote thrown in for veracity.

  49. MarkW says:
    June 21, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    1) Micro evolution has been proven.
    2) Macro evolution is the best explanation for what we see in the fossil record, but that still doesn’t make it proven.
    3) The evidence is in, gravity exists. As to what causes it, that’s still under debate.
    4) That AGW exists is also not under debate, whether 1% or 99% of the warming that may have been measured over the last 100 years is caused by it, is till a matter of debate.
    ————————–

    Perhaps quibbles, but I feel scientific expression requires both linguistic precision & accuracy.

    Proof is more of a mathematical than scientific concept. Showing a prediction false means that the hypothesis upon which it’s based isn’t true, or has been invalidated, but technically does not “prove” it wrong. Maybe this sounds like a distinction without a difference, but it’s important in the philosophy of science, & sometimes practically as well.

    Both micro- & macroevolution have been observed & are hence “facts”. Macroevolution is microevolution working over a longer time (usually but not always). The body of theory to explain how they work is always being refined, just as are the theory of gravitation, germ theory of disease & other generally accepted theories.

    IMO anthropogenic global warming might well exist, but the hypothesis is debatable, since if it occurs, its miniscule effect falls within the margin of experimental error. Urban heat islands surely do exist, for instance, & skew global average temperature, but the contribution to 20th century observed (to what degree questionable) warming of man-made CO2 is so tiny it might not be statistically significantly measurable.

  50. @ jai mitchell says: Do I believe Bill Maher or the fact that there’s been no statistically significant warming in the past 20 years? I have to go with the facts. No choice. Which means global warming by humans is a hoax.

    It’s laughable that anyone even remotely thinks that significant global warming caused by humans is possible considering the fact that there is no warming. How do you get warming without warming? That’s what I don’t get from pro-CAGW proponents.

  51. Numerous organizations, not just the AMS, have lost members and magazines have lost subscribers over this issue. Most folks simply do not renew. Unless a person is well known and has a way of reaching an audience there is little else to be done. Well, a person could go to a national meeting and make a scene – and be called a crank and get arrested. That’s hansenian – no thanks!

    —————————————–
    Regarding the Black Forest fire:
    Last fall forests fires in our area (east of Cle Elum, Washington) started in Ponderosa Pine forests. Houses were burned. We had the pickup hooked to a loaded trailer but did not have to leave. Ten miles from us trees ignited and fire shot up through them. Natural wind was 35 mph and the updrafts carried burning material a half-mile in seconds. One simply gets out of the way. If you don’t know, Ponderosa pines are adapted to dry habitats and frequent low intensity fires. Houses and one’s property can mimic the adaptation, with effort and expense.

    Here are the coordinates for where Shoup Road (move east) enters such a forest.

    39.012749, -104.753009

    Move around this area. Use Google Street view. Try to find a house with a “Firewise” perimeter.

    http://firewise.org/about.aspx

  52. The Economist has another great piece of agw titled “A Cooling Consensus.” Here we have this liberal MSM publication, as so many others now, puzzling over the slowdown in warming or the “warming plateau.”

    I’ve read it. it looks to me that it’s from a blog operating under the Economist’s umbrella, not part of the magazine itself.

  53. I allowed my membership in the AMS to expire about 25 years ago when I realized it’s executives and officials and procedural committees frequently acted in support of political rather than scientific objectives. The highlight of my professional life was being named Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year by the AMS in 1982. But, still I just could not handle the conduct of the society at its Annual Meetings and and its policy statements that followed. For me, there is plenty of good professional life after the AMS.

  54. Jai, in response to your absurd consensus argument here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/members-quitting-the-american-meteological-society-over-stance-on-climate/#comment-1343593

    I have to wonder why you make a complete fool of yourself with that list because there is no evidence that the FULL memberships of all those organizations ever voted in support of declarations you are so fond of.

    You wrote this: “Only 14,000 more members to go.” yet you fail to realize they did not vote on the declaration as shown in your wikipedia link:

    “The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:”

    Notice that it was the COUNCIL that adopted the statement not the membership.

    You are another consensus moron the rest of us rational people have to put up with.

  55. Jai Mitchell,

    Did you know that the word “it’s” is a contraction of “it is?” I think you were looking for, “its.” And by the way, still waiting for that fossil-fuel-industry check, as are virtually all here. Where do you get your checks?

  56. John Coleman says:
    June 21, 2013 at 3:40 pm

    I allowed my membership in the AMS to expire about 25 years ago when I realized it’s executives and officials and procedural committees frequently acted in support of political rather than scientific objectives.

    ==================================================================
    Many organization have been subverted or diverted from their original purpose by the leadership being, for lack of a better word, infiltrated by or succumbing to those with a different purpose.

  57. There is a problem! Yes, they are doing everything based on money and political motivation. The problem is that I like it warmer. If we are correct [no question that we are], to have correct climate science prevail: the climate must stay the same, or [horrors] cool. If it is based on the Sun, then we are in for years of cold, very cold, and extremely cold weather.

    If we, I don’t want to say the word “win”, prevail; the entire planet will cool making life more difficult. But true science will always prevail.

    Isn’t it fitting that the ones who caused this mess are going the be the ones who suffer the most, i.e., England, East Anglia University. As the Gulf Steam cools, enjoy your peat stoves, since there will be no coal.

  58. jai mitchell says: “millions of dollars spent by the fossil fuel industry to promote baseless scientific theories”
    More than 99.9% of money spent on climate is by warmists, to promote their baseless scientific theories.

  59. John F. Hultquist says:
    June 21, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    Numerous organizations, not just the AMS, have lost members and magazines have lost subscribers over this issue. Most folks simply do not renew. Unless a person is well known and has a way of reaching an audience there is little else to be done. Well, a person could go to a national meeting and make a scene – and be called a crank and get arrested. That’s hansenian – no thanks!

    In order to make a bit more of an impact, disgruntled members should not merely let their memberships lapse, but (if the option is available) CANCEL their memberships by going to the organization’s website and finding the place to do so. It may even be that they’ll be given a text box to explain your resignation.

  60. The planet warms, the planet cools,the planet warms, the planet cools. We are just starting a cooling trend, so where does this leave the hockey stick that the warmists still believe in and have their governments act on? Next thing, the warmists are going to come up with some poppycock that global warming causes global cooling! It is quite plain to see that the science is certainly NOT settled. It is totally fake. CO2 levels continue to rise(lucky plants) and the planet is about to go the opposite way, so the hypothesis blaming human recycled CO2 for catastrophic planet burning hell-on-earth inferno is totally wrong.

    Fame, Fortune and Funding drives the Fakery. Those pulling the strings are high up. The IPCC, a political wing of the UN are the chief promulgators of the AGW scam, so the buck stops with the UN and its string pullers(eg Maurice Strong.) There are some who propose the end of Democracy itself to deal with the AGW problem, but hang on, they are from the UN. Looks like the UN is using the concocted AGW fraud to end Democracy itself and form a One World Government(led by themselves of course)- pretty heavy incentive to lie. Come on Jai, don’t be lazy, look this up for yourself.

    The Christmas 2012 revelation by the UK Met office that there has been no warming for at least 16 years should have been cause for mass celebration “we are not all going to burn in hell on earth” but no, it was greeted by being denied and swept under the carpet. Think about that, Jai Mitchell. Don’t you get a bit suspicious? The end of AGW would be the end of the gravy train for those scientists, so their continuing lifestyle drives them to continue the lie. There are plenty of paid liars out there, such as lawyers, politicians, salespersons…..

    It would be wise for more scientists to come out before the cooling trend becomes established.A lesson from history- in cooling trends with the subsequent crop failures, witch hunts begin, but this time, those who were so certain of the wrong result will have the blame thrown at them. Do you really think humanity has miraculously and permanently evolved out of its retribution seeking roots simply because we are told this is the case? The trickle of scientists abandoning the sinking ship will hopefully soon become a flood, leaving just a few diehards to “Mann” the ship as it sinks.

  61. Are we seeing an AGW Spring? Open defiance of the “97% Consensus”? Professory “Lewny” Lewadowsky must be feeling another paper coming on! “The Explosive Spread of Virulent Denialism in a Scientific Community in the Face of Proven Science: Exploring Possible Epidemiological Based Control Methods including Legal Sanction and Psychiatric Confinement”

  62. Think about that. What other scientific theory forbids questioning and outlaws dissenting? Quantum Theory? Tectonic shift? String theory? Relativity?

  63. @ Jai Mitchell:
    SRI is a respected institute usually doing expert and precise work, so I took a look at the PDF paper you referenced @

    http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/co2.pdf

    A highlight:
    “Using the JASON climate model shows an increase of average temperature of 2.4 deg. for a doubling of CO2, equatorial temperature increases by 0.7K while the poles warm up by 10 to 12K.”

    Scary stuff….. However, the model used has a few problems (except for JASON, all caps are mine):

    “The JASON climate model suffers from a number of FUNDAMENTAL WEAKNESSES. The role of clouds in determining the albedo is not adequately taken into account nor are the asymmetries between the northern and southern hemispheres.”

    “ASSUME the atmosphere is everywhere in radiative equilibrium…”

    “ASSUME that in addition to radiative processes, heat is transported meridionally from equator to pole in the oceans and atmosphere by eddy diffusion.”

    “ASSUME that the basic equation describing atmospheric motion can be solved numerically”

    Concerning Global Circulation Models:
    “but of necessity approximate VERY ROUGHLY cloud formation, air-sea integration,and albedo change.”

    At least they are honest but this might as well be GIGO for that computer model and I don’t think that the models have improved much since then.

  64. Hallelujah! I think Jai Mitchell has finally realised what’s going on.
    Quote
    “But I am sure that the hundreds of thousands of scientists and members of these professional societies are all just in it for the research grant money. . .”
    The old pay-cheque is a very persuasive tool!

  65. jai mitchell says: “millions of dollars spent by the fossil fuel industry to promote baseless scientific theories”

    Jai, would you kindly name the skeptics who have gotten funding from the FFI & the amounts they received. Show me the millions!

    You can put Anthony down for, what was it, 40 grand from the Heartland Institute, which gets some small fraction of its financing from the FFI. Please correct me if wrong, Mr. Watts. Then please compare that with Jimmy Hansen & Mikey Mann’s millions, to say nothing of hypocritical, seashore-dwelling Al “Manatee” Gore’s hundreds of millions from Big Oil & other environment-ravaging commercial sources.

    You are aware, are you not, that the charlatan perpetrators of the CACCA fraud get tens of billions every year from governments & organizations, including Big Oil, to fund their lies, hypocrisies & hoaxes, mostly at taxpayer & energy-buyer expense?

    Thanks.

    REPLY: Actually Heartland didn’t provide that money, they connected me with a donor who ran a technology company.

    The work that was funded to make the NOAA data for the CRN easily viewable (since they NEVER mention this new state of the art network in the monthly state of the climate reports) is still in progress here http://climatereferencenetwork.org

    – Anthony

  66. Bruce Cobb says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:29 pm

    1+

    Everything about leftist emotionalism, deceit, totalitarianism with the AGW meme in one video. How many straw-dogs did you recognize in the video?

    Remember, they’re smarter and you should do what you are told. That meme dates back to G. K. Chesterton’s battles with Progressive elitism and beyond.

  67. “The fact is that the science behind the warming we are experiencing has been settled, determined and studied, published on and [b]predicted (very accurately) for over 50 years.”[/b]

    Hahaha. Oh man… you’re killing me, Jai. I didn’t realize this was a comedy bit!

  68. “I debated a NASA Ph.D for months before he finally was forced to admit that Consensus is not equal to a “PROOF” by peer review… .” [Profit up 10% (cool!) at 1:59PM today]

    Way to hang in there, Profit.

    “His knowledge did not serve him,
    for his heart was in the lie.” [George MacDonald, 19th century]
    ********************************************************************

    John Coleman, WAY TO GO! Another principled scientist in our midst.

    [re: J.C. at 3:40PM today] “I allowed my membership in the AMS to expire about 25 years ago when I realized [it] … frequently acted in support of political rather than scientific objectives.”

  69. Jai wrote: The fact is that the science behind the warming we are experiencing has been settled, determined and studied, published on and predicted (very accurately) for over 50 years.
    it isn’t some new thing.
    ++++++++++
    From 1560 to 1670, witchcraft persecutions became common as superstitions became associated with the devil. (source Wikipedia)

    Witchcraft had a longer stretch than AGW hypothesis. So by Jai’s logic, it’s credible to believe some people are witches –and must be killed. My question to you Jai is:

    Which belief has led to more deaths? Policies as a result in the belief of witches or AGW?

  70. John Tillman says:

    June 21, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    due to financial pressure, the Fossil Fuel Industry has dramatically scaled back their funding of climate skeptic “science” and propaganda outlets.

    Hey Anthony!

    Can you provide the industry that your “technology company” donor works in?

    ————————-

    The funding of climate denial organizations follows the same operations direction as the funding of opposition groups working to cloud the science behind the medical facts of smoking and second-hand smoke. They did it through anonymous donors

    its called the “donor’s trust”

    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrsnCR6TMJw ]

    146 million dollars to climate change denial groups in a decade, 20 to 70 percent of their funding.

    REPLY: Why not ask Peter Gleick, I’m sure he has plenty of stolen information yet to be revealed. I’m not going to share since the goal of him and people like you is to hassle those people.

    As for your laughable YouTube video which you cite as a credible source, I counter with this.

    Let’s for the sake of argument suppose that 140 million claim is true, compared to the greens, the climateers, and the NGO’s it is just a drop in the bucket.

    And Jai, since you seem to like NGO’s like Greenpeace, did you know some of them take “big oil” money? GASP!

    The WWF’s Vast Pool of Oil Money

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/

    You really need to stop with the regurgitated hate-talking points. All you are succeeding in doing is showing people how little you really know and how biased you are. – Anthony

    As for me and WUWT, all the answers are on my FAQs page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/faqs/

    Can we get a FAQs on “Jai Mitchell”? For example, is that your real name or a fake, what NGO’s do you belong to, and who pays you to spread this stuff here?

    – Anthony

  71. There are an awful lot of very wet people on the Planet right now, and it’s starting to get bit chilly. Bugger I’ll never get a grant.

  72. Jai mitchell
    Apparently you are a Bill Maher fan. That is all I need to know about your thought process. Bill Maher viewers are either adolescents or adults with adolescent brains. Try expanding your knowledge from other sources. It will be amazing what you learn,

  73. REPLY: Actually Heartland didn’t provide that money, they connected me with a donor who ran a technology company.

    The work that was funded to make the NOAA data for the CRN easily viewable (since they NEVER mention this new state of the art network in the monthly state of the climate reports) is still in progress here http://climatereferencenetwork.org

    – Anthony

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Thanks for the info, which I should have recalled.

    I note that Jai keeps refusing to answer direct questions, but just keeps making more baseless assertions & shameless allegations.

    My favorite slur along these lines however remains Mann’s questioning Steve McIntyre’s “funding”, which of course is mainly his own pocket, proving real science–including not just statistical analysis but collecting tree ring data–doesn’t need the government grants upon which fake, self-appointed “climate scientists” rely.

  74. [snip – questions upstream require your attention before going further, since you have been skipping them, I’m going to help you remember – Anthony]

  75. Anthony,

    I didn’t ask for specifics, I don’t care who gives you money. It was only in the interest of the topic of discussion. If your donor in some way associated with the fossil fuel industry? That shouldn’t be too revealing to your sponsor.

    Have a good weekend!

    REPLY: “Technology company” should be plainly evident as NOT being a fossil fuel company.

    So no FAQs from you? Like if you are a fake name or employed by an NGO to be here? – Anthony

  76. No Technology company does not in any way shape or form indicates they are involved with the fossil fuel industry, since you said they are not then that’s enough, thanks for answering my question!

    REPLY: so why are you afraid to answer questions put to you? – Anthony

  77. If you Google for “Jai Mitchell” climate
    it comes up with this picture of someone who often posts about climate:

  78. I don’t know what kind of “questions” you are talking about but the ones I didn’t answer don’t deserve to be answered.

    I think you are censoring the term “donor’s trust”

    good luck with that.

    REPLY: Nope, just your rude and baseless accusations – Anthony

    • @Jai Mitchell, to be clear the questions are:

      1. Is Jai Mitchell a fake name?
      2. Are you a member of an NGO that has issues with WUWT?
      3. Are you paid by an organization to be commenting on blogs? The reason I ask is that you don’t seem to be employed during the day, and you have a constant stream here.

  79. “The trickle of scientists abandoning the sinking ship will hopefully soon become a flood, leaving just a few diehards to “Mann” the ship as it sinks.”
    [High Treason at 4:07PM 6/21/13]

    Well put! Nice essay.

    ********************

    “What other scientific theory forbids questioning and outlaws dissenting?” [Fred Manzo at 4:12PM 6/21/13]

    Excellent point. And, I get your meaning (AGW proponents allow NO dissent from the “consensus,”) but, there is a theory, quite popular with many on WUWT, in fact, which is often DOGMATICALLY defended far beyond the evidence supporting it. In fact, if a scientist merely acknowledges an alternative view (Intelligent Design Theory), he or she is in danger of losing his or her job.

    Richard Sternberg, former editor of “Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington” (affiliated with the Smithsonian), who has two Ph.D.s in Evolutionary Biology was fired for merely reviewing an article by a proponent of Intelligent Design Theory:

    A former professor of Sternberg’s says the researcher has an intellectual penchant for going against the system. Sternberg does not deny it.

    “I loathe careerism and the herd mentality,” he said. “I really think that objective truth can be discovered and that popular opinion and consensus thinking does more to obscure than to reveal.”

    [emphasis mine]

    [Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html%5D

  80. Jai, here’s a question you evaded just from recently today, never mind all those from prior days:

    “Jai, would you kindly name the skeptics who have gotten funding from the FFI & the amounts they received. Show me the millions!”

    Please back up your baseless claims & shameless, clueless calumnies. If you can, I take back the baseless, shameless, clueless bits.

    Thanks again.

  81. RE: Jai Mitchel.

    I patiently addressed some of your concerns on an earlier thread. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/18/two-years-to-a-1740-type-event/#comment-1341800

    As you did not have the common decency to reply, I can only assume you do not want to have a conversation. Please inform me if I am incorrect.

    RE: Everyone Else

    Jai is not the topic of this tread. The topic is the behavior of gutsy men who are standing up for, in my humble opinion, Truth. The meteorologists who are telling the AMS that the AMS does not stand for the Truth are worth our admiration and deserve a standing ovation, praise, and every available shred of support.

    In essence these true men are standing up to a somewhat shapeless bully. The bully has power, money and all sorts of intangible influences. Recent news has informed us the bully can sniff through our phone records and tax records, delay the issuance of permits, and snoop in Lord knows how many other ways, and make life difficult in Lord knows how many other ways.

    These men who have the guts to oppose this bully may find it hard to publish excellent papers, and face harassment if they do find a publisher. Funding may dry up. Weaker people may be afraid to be seen with them, or to talk with them, or even to email them.

    What have they got to gain? Are any of us in this for gain?

    Time to quote Thomas Paine:

    “THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph….”

    • @Caleb

      Since he is a disruption, and won’t engage, Jai is now on moderation, his comments will always get the attention of a moderator at this point

  82. jaymam,

    If that pic is our ‘jai mitchell’, it backs up my previous comment that mitchell is a wet behind the ears youngster…

  83. Mario Lento! Grazie!!! Wow. After I just spent quite awhile writing my above post, I went back and found your wonderful encouragement. THANK YOU, SO MUCH. From you, someone whose posts I ALWAYS admire (for both content and style), that is powerful. Thanks for taking the time to encourage a non-scientist who has far more enthusiasm than knowledge!

  84. andrewmharding says:
    June 21, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    [snip -sorry – smoking not allowed on WUWT, both of my parents died from it – Anthony
    ———-

    My deepest condolences, Anthony. Shattering. My aunt died of smoking-induced, pernicious lung cancer aged 63.

  85. The shirt in the picture I posted above appears to have the words “power to the planet” on it, which leads me to websites saying this:

    Power to the Planet
    Element was created with an unwavering dedication to making a positive difference in the world. We continue this quest by supporting great causes, creating school programs and camps, and nurturing our sustainable and organic product lines. Recently, over 60 Element family members joined together to tell their stories, inspire others, and raise social and environmental awareness. “Power To The Planet” is about taking stand, having a voice, and making a change.
    —————–
    Element takes its first step to reduce the company’s carbon footprint with the Power To The Planet Collection. Made of sustainable materials with eco-friendly manufacturing techniques, the collection currently includes three limited edition skate shoes

  86. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 5:44 pm

    Anthony,

    I didn’t ask for specifics, I don’t care who gives you money. It was only in the interest of the topic of discussion. If your donor in some way associated with the fossil fuel industry? That shouldn’t be too revealing to your sponsor.

    Have a good weekend!

    REPLY: “Technology company” should be plainly evident as NOT being a fossil fuel company.

    So no FAQs from you? Like if you are a fake name or employed by an NGO to be here? – Anthony

    =====================================================================
    I’d like to add, So what if Anthony does or doesn’t get a discount from his “Speedy Rewards” card. Multiple industries are being trashed under the label of “The Fossil Fuel Industry”. Sheesh! What have they done wrong besides providing affordable energy to the masses and so improve their lives?
    Who funds the “Environmental Movement Industry”? What do they seek to gain at the expense of the rest of us (including “3rd world” countries)? Are they out to “save the planet” or control it?
    Jai, really follow the money. You might not like where it leads.
    (“Speedy” is a gas station in parts of the US.)

  87. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    Jai,

    Do you comprehend the gravity of the moment? Your contribution accomplished something extremely rare among the readers of these pages.

    Consensus.

  88. At least WUWT is keeping Jai off the streets of Seattle, where his fellow self-important, data base-free slackers enjoy making work for glaziers while making themselves feel good about how wonderful they are, to be saving the planet & combating greedy globalists who provide goods & services that people want at prices they can afford.

    And doesn’t glass production to replace all that shattered in anti-globalist riots have quite a large, scary carbon footprint? I could be wrong.

  89. Wow. I JUST accessed the link in my post (to the Washington Post article about Richard Sternberg) and it said: “We are unable to locate the page you requested.
    The page may have moved or may no longer be available”

    Too weird! I accessed for my research (via a Bing.com search) for my post less than half an hour before the link shut down!

    So, I did another Bing search and here’s the link to the WaPo article that Bing gave me (that I just used while in Bing.com and successfully linked to the article — if this link does not work for you, I just copied all the article’s text into a word doc. Just ask and I will paste it into a post — it would be awfully long, though… ):

    Bing link to WaPo Article about Sternberg:

    Editor Explains Reasons for ‘Intelligent Design’ Article

    http://www.washingtonpost.com › Politics › The Fed Page

    Aug 19, 2005 · Richard Sternberg came under fire from Smithsonian scientists over an article questioning evolutionary theory. (By Michael Williamson — The Washington Post)

    ****************

    Sorry for the extensive attempt to cite my source, here, but I was shocked when the link to an article I had just accessed didn’t work!

  90. Jaymam, et. al.: Yes, this is the Jai Mitchell. https://www.facebook.com/jai.j.mitchell

    Per FB, He likes the consensus of 97% scientists who supposedly believe man is causing warming. Says he lives in Willits, CA and came from Hawaii,and studied “Newclear” Engineering at UC Berkeley… he spelled Berkeley correctly though.

  91. The warmists need to take responsibility for the appalling ecological damage that this a direct consequence of their alarmist and their effort to stifle scientific/engineering criticism.

    What is happening, justified to stop climate ‘change’ is insanity.

    I challenge John Cook or any of the other warmists to respond to the atrocious policies that are in direct consequence of his blog’s distortion of the truth and the other warmists propaganda and distortion of the science. The planet was started to cool, The warming affects due to the atmospheric CO2 rise are benign and limited. Plants eat CO2. If there is no dangerous warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2, then the increase in atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to all life on this planet.

    The conversion of food to biofuel is a particularly egregious direct result of the AGW movement. John Cook, the other warmists, and the EU bureaucracy should be ashamed of the food to biofuel fiasco.

    http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/313699/news/world/singapore-demands-action-from-indonesia-on-haze

    The illegal burning of forest on Indonesia’s Sumatra island, to the west of Singapore, to clear land for palm oil plantations is a chronic problem, particularly during the June to September dry season.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22998592

    http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/forests/palm-oil

    Biodiesel fuelling palm oil expansion
    Commitments from various governments to increase the amount of biofuels being sold are pushing this rise in demand, because they’re seen as an attractive quick fix to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By 2020, 10 per cent of fuel sold in the EU will be biofuel and China expects 15 per cent of its fuel to be grown in fields, while India wants 20 per cent of its diesel to be biodiesel by 2012. The irony is that these attempts to reduce the impact of climate change could actually make things worse – clearing forests and draining and burning peatlands to grow palm oil will release more carbon emissions than burning fossil fuels.

    But this phenomenal growth of the palm oil industry spells disaster for local communities, biodiversity, and climate change as palm plantations encroach further and further into forested areas. This is happening across South East Asia, but the problem is particularly acute in Indonesia which has been named in the 2008 Guinness Book of Records as the country with fastest rate of deforestation. The country is also the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, largely due to deforestation.

    Much of the current and predicted expansion oil palm expansion in Indonesia is taking place on forested peatlands. Peat locks up huge amounts of carbon, so clearing peatlands by draining and burning them releases huge greenhouse gases. Indonesia’s peatlands, cover less than 0.1 per cent of the Earth’s surface, but are already responsible for 4 per cent of global emissions every year. No less than ten million of Indonesia’s 22.5 million hectares of peatland have already been deforested and drained.

  92. Sorry if biology is off topic, although scientific censorship surely is. Here’s Sternberg’s bio & statement of faith or credo, which is what it is. Scientists are allowed to hold religious or spiritual beliefs.

    http://www.richardsternberg.com/biography.php

    It appears that while he was fired for allowing an ID article to be published, he may not advocate biological ID (which is unscientific), but universal ID, which is a less contentious position, shared to some degree by a number of respectable astrophysicists & cosmologists.

  93. William Astley says:
    June 21, 2013 at 6:27 pm
    ———————————

    People in the Americas & Africa have starved because of the US corn-based ethanol for fuel instead of food program, which so raised the price of maize for tortillas & other similar breads.

  94. William Astley, as usual, you are SO RIGHT!

    Thanks for all the above powerfully salient info..

  95. @jaymam

    “Element takes its first step to reduce the company’s carbon footprint with the Power To The Planet Collection. Made of sustainable materials with eco-friendly manufacturing techniques, the collection currently includes three limited edition skate shoes”

    Exposing the scam threatens his line of business.
    A large part of the modern day ‘Green’ movement is funded by products and services combatting non-existent problems.

  96. It’s nice to see Tim Kelley get a post here, he and I exchange some notes from time to time, I’ll invite him to drop in. Guess I’ll have to apologize that “his” post has been redirected by an execrable troll.

    Tim and Matt Noyes make up the core of the NECN (New England Cable News) weather team. The studios are in Needham Massachusetts, southwest of Boston. I send in weather observations when I think I have something useful, e.g. when snow starts, to provide some ground truth to go with the radar view.

    It’s a big thing when a TV met resigns from the AMS because their “seal of approval[*]” is a very important deal in some markets. News stations in New England generally don’t note on the air that their staff has AMS certification, they pretty much need better skills than that to forecast New England weather. I assume Tim is well enough regarded that he doesn’t need support from the AMS. This was one of the reasons people considered it a Big Thing when Heidi Cullen called on the AMS to revoke certification of meteorologists who spoke against the consensus. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/01/22/weather-channel-issues-ultimate-professional-insult/

    Well done, Tim. Gotta meet you in person some day.

    [*] The AMS may have recently changed a lot about how their certification is done and what it represents. I don’t need to tell who the good Mets are, so I don’t pay much attention to it (or the rest of the AMS).

    The AMS is based in Boston, I assume some of the board knows who Tim is, so I hope this has a bigger than average impact at their offices.

  97. As a Meteorologist and Historical Climatologist, I quit the AMS some years ago for this very reason. Their “agenda” is not new. And we all know who the principal players are. Their Conferences and Publications lost credibility circa 2000.

  98. Anyone who can seriously cite the Wikipedia as a ‘source’ on anything to do with climate here on WUWT has clearly not been following the arguments or the ‘politics’ of so-called ‘climate science’ in the least degree

    But then, we already knew that about Jai from his other ludicrous and unfounded statements. I fear however he’s not deliberately trolling: he really has swallowed the whole preposterous scam, hook line and sinker – as have so many people more intelligent than him.

    I wonder how it is that so many find ‘consensus’ such an alluring idea: it’s almost a necessity for them that we all conform to it. Are we humans so deeply imbued with the herd instinct?

    There can be no consensus in science – no such word as ‘incontrovertible’, as Prof Lewis remarked. Anyone who fails to understand that cannot be taken seriously. They have zero grasp of what science *is*

  99. Wow, when “jai Mitchell” invokes the “denial” term my knees begin to shake.
    Not.
    I’ll just enjoy the show, while lamenting the time wasted on replies.
    Mine, would have been snipped for language anyway.

  100. “… Tim Kelley … I’ll invite him to drop in … .” [Ric Werme at 6:33PM 6/21/13]

    Do! He is our hero!

  101. From Twitter:

    Tim Kelley NECN ‏@SurfSkiWxMan 10h

    Just Accepted lunch invite from Keith L. Seitter, Executive Director American Meteorological Society 45 Beacon Street Boston, MA #climate

  102. I would like to expand on my ‘June 21, 2013 at 6:33 pm’ post.

    Not only does their livelihood depend on keeping the scam alive, their actions and policies cause and exacerbate the very problems they claim to combat.
    It’s the perfect self perpetuating money-power scheme.

  103. Wayne Delbeke says: “Not sure if this works or is allowed but I am sure Jai has a sense of humour:”

    That photograph shows a puerperal exhibit in a medical museum. It is not particularly funny.

  104. To all who have endured jai mitchell:

    I’ve had to deal with jai on a few other threads this week. I have the feeling he is a true believer in his AGW cause and that he hopes his presence here will convert a few skeptics—not realizing, like many other proponents of the hypothesis of human-induced global warming, that his limited grasp of reality, or his willingness to misrepresent it, is hurting, not helping, his cause.

    I too wonder why he recently popped up here. Like other true believers before him, jai seems to have suddenly appeared here at WUWT, parroting dogma, and simply getting on everyone’s nerves. If he’s the best that some NGO can produce in an effort to create converts, then they are surely lacking in those resources.

    But one thing is for sure, I do find jai’s limited grasp of reality very, very entertaining.

    Regards

  105. @Roy UK No apology necessary, these fires were not only expected but inevitable. People who do not understand wildland fire have been busy moving into the forest here for 30+ years, in an environment adapted and dependent on periodic fires. Many of the forest stands here in Colorado are populated with fire species specifically adapted to wild fires and burn every 60-120 years regardless of mans presence or actions. Pine beetle kill has turned large areas in Colorado into tinderboxes just waiting for a match. The emergency management community in Colorado was involved in active wildland fire education 20+ years ago. Even back then it was not a question if the forest residential areas would burn it was simply a question of when.

    This has nothing to do with climate other than it is just apart of the natural cycle of the forests in this part of the country. There will be many more devastating fires here in the next few decades as we have used up most of the normal quite period between burns in much of the front range areas which have been heavily encroached on by folks who refuse to use good wild land fire building methods or practice sensible fuel load management near their homes. The build homes snuggled right up to the forest, many of them with large pine trees growing right beside the house, large picture windows with no fire shutters which guarantee interior furniture ignition via radiant heating alone when large portions of the window view area is burning, no direct ignition needed. Unscreened wood porches often with fire wood stacked below, and flammable roof coverings provide ample opportunity for structure ignition.
    Last the residents have no fire plan or defensible zone for the fire fighters to work in to save the house and precious few have any sort of nearby water like a pond or stream suitable for fire pumpers to draft water from. In short there is no saving the homes if they catch fire, and they are death traps for any fire fighters who try to defend them.

    Until fire codes and building practices catch up with reality and these costly lessons trump local building and zoning codes which sometimes require poor practice like wood shake roofs, these losses will follow each year.

    One of these days the Evergreen Gennesee area will burn off and it will be a front page story as billions of dollars of very expensive homes on narrow winding access roads houses go up in smoke.

    It is a self inflicted wound for most of these home owners. Most do not realize the forest they love burns every 2-4 generations and we are already well into the 2nd or 3rd generation since the last burn in most of the front range.

  106. I’m about to display my ignorance again, but, what is an “NGO”?
    (My “A Skeptic’s Marching Orders” must still be in the mail.)

  107. When James Hansen was given the Rossby Award (The most prestigous award of the organization), I stopped paying my dues.

  108. Karl says:
    June 21, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    When James Hansen was given the Rossby Award (The most prestigous award of the organization), I stopped paying my dues.

    ===========================================================
    Didn’t you mean “Raspberry Award’?

  109. Gunga Din says:

    June 21, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    I’m about to display my ignorance again, but, what is an “NGO”?
    (My “A Skeptic’s Marching Orders” must still be in the mail.)
    ===============================
    We are all ignorant, seeking answers, it brought us here.

    NGO ?
    Here is one definition:
    A non-governmental organization (NGO) is any non-profit, voluntary citizens’ group which is organized on a local, national or international level. Task-oriented and driven by people with a common interest, NGOs perform a variety of service and humanitarian functions, bring citizen concerns to Governments, advocate and monitor policies and encourage political particpation through provision of information. Some are organized around specific issues, such as human rights, environment or health. They provide analysis and expertise, serve as early warning mechanisms and help monitor and implement international agreements. Their relationship with offices and agencies of the United Nations system differs depending on their goals, their venue and the mandate of a particular institution.
    ————————————
    The “marching orders” have not yet achieved a consensus, sadly.
    Give it another 5 years :)

  110. Hi, Gunga Din! When I get a chance to actually answer a question – I jump on it! “NGO” means “non-governmental organization.” People often laugh about them, though, for many of them are almost completely funded by tax revenues of a government and controlled by a country’s gov’t. There are, of course, lots of legit NGO’s.

    ***********************************
    Re: formatting posts:

    For anyone ignorant (as I was FOREVER) of how to format (bold, italics, etc… (well, not really much etc… (ahem — good ol’ Word Press, smile))) –see in right margin of your screen, just below the calendar, “Ric Werme’s Guide to WUWT.” Very helpful.

    Someone (above, I think) tried to “bold” using [b]. The greater than and less than signs must be used instead of brackets. You may wonder, “Why didn’t she just use the symbols themselves?” Because when you put them opposite each other like this ( ), everything inside — POOF! — disappears! (at least I think that’s why my text disappeared one time!

  111. I’d like to add a bit about my experience with knowledgeable people who feel compelled to bite their tongue. To protect the person involved, I must not give too many identifying details.

    The person is highly educated in chemical engineering, and works in the US government. After I presented my skeptic views on CO2 as the primary driver of global warming, the person told me that (s)he understood completely, but could not agree publicly or at work for fear of retaliation. (S)he said, in my office, there is a certain orthodoxy, and it is dangerous to go against it.

  112. “Raspberry Award” — Gunga Din. LOL, good one. That’s what he earned.

    Oops! — about my duplicating u.k. (us)’s much more thorough post.

  113. “To protect the person involved, I must not give too many identifying details. … .”

    That said it all right there. How sad.

    How about inviting her to enjoy the camaraderie with all the brilliant scientists of WUWT? Your colleague could post under a fake name … . Might be a lot of fun for her.

  114. Janice Moore says:

    June 21, 2013 at 8:24 pm
    ====
    Umm, how did you determine it was a “her” ?
    Bias ?? :)
    Just playing.

  115. Gunga Din asks: what is an “NGO”?

    It’s a QUANGO*.

    Does that clear it up?☺

    [*Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organization; Brit for NGO.]

  116. Hi, U.K. (US),

    Re: “How did you determine it was a “her” ?”

    I didn’t! I just goofed. My subconscious may be biased, or, my spectacularly wonderfully intuitive mind may have given me a message, or, I may have just made a spectacle of myself. Who knows?

    Thanks for pointing out my slip. Good catch. I need to be more careful when I write!

    Janice

  117. Brant Ra says:
    June 21, 2013 at 12:22 pm

    When the walls – come crumbling down…. ~John Cougar

    _________________________________________________________

    Brilliant and so simple.

    When you think about it folks, how long does dodging the truth last for most ?

    Eventually “Truth” wins out!

    Some can only circumvent the inevitable facts for so long.

    I think, with respect to our obvious under-understanding of climate and forcing, the velocity and volume of the non-consensus voices being heard will become much harder to ignore. As exemplified by this post subject matter.

    Just look at how much scrutiny is starting to surface on the MSM that a couple years ago would have been left out. When wallets tighten and people feel the pain of policy and or the invasion of privacy and assault on liberty, they react.

    The progressive movement to governmentalize control of climate will fail. It is based upon model fallacy in the end, no?

    Speak up and protect the low information voters. They truly need help. . . . .

    Somebody has to do it!

  118. @Roger sowell
    Same here in Australia Roger, almost two years ago, at a family gathering one of the extended family mentioned employment in the Goverments Climate Change Department, and when I idly suggested that many questioned the official government line, that person said “yes, most of us at work have the same opinion, but of course we can’t publically say so, lest it get back to the Department heads, so we just have to play at their game to keep our jobs. Mind you there are some who really believe fanatically and we need to be careful what we say when they are around.” A job is a job these days.
    In speaking with University friends, it seems that most question the meme, but keep a very low profile as such is the vengence of those “believers” and grant protectors, a good paying position could be at risk. When questioned on this, they shrug their shoulders and hope that someone else will risk their job first, or hope that science will wake up and fix itself as it has done in the past. It is in most cases left to the retired and knowlegeable to speak out.

  119. Not does the AMS Statement misrepresent and distort the science, it exhorts members to proselytize on behalf of its alarmist stance in their private activities. We thus have the spectacle of a national scientific society actively calling on its members to cross the line between science and politics. Let there be no misunderstanding. This society and the AGU are little more than political action groups. Their tax status needs to be reviewed by the IRS.

  120. It was obvious to me that Jai was a complete troll who has limited knowledge or just simply wanted to post garbage for the fun of it when he posted that 2004 “CIA Secret Document” on the threats from global warming as a piece of viable evidence…which contained several points now refuted strongly by peer reviewed literature.

    He seems to have a lot of trouble (or again is just trolling for fun) realizing that most skeptics don’t reject global warming but simply question the magnitude of it going forward (and to a lesser extent, the past) as per the IPCC reports. Climate sensitivity is the biggest debate now.

  121. @KenB

    The same here in New Zealand.
    Dr Chris de Freitas is about the only academic who dares to stand publicly up to the nonsense.

    On top of all the attacks from the ‘consensus establishment’ and the well known climate activists he also has to endure adolescent brainwashed trolls.

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2013/05/its-climate-denial-all-right/#more-17180

    A lot of scientists have (rightly so) taken note of the harassment and Stalinist purges (David Bellamy being one of the more notable.) that have occurred over the last 20 years.

  122. Jai managed to cotton this discussion off the rails – I don’t accept that was anything less than intentional – regulars should know by now not to feed the trolls. Newbies – pay attention.

  123. @jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    Your consensus crap means nothing.
    An old cockney joke punch line goes something like this… “… ‘at’s wot I been tryin a tell ya; there ain’t no ‘fn cod”
    Figure it out for yourself.

  124. Joe says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    Then again, both Christianity and Islam (between them over half the world’s population) believe in predestination. So, using jai’s consensus logic, it’s really not worth worrying about climate change because que sera sera :)
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Wrong – some christians believe in predestination but it is not the view of Christianity.

  125. @jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    Jai Mirchell is looking forward to being government controlled. He can’t think for himself and would rather have the government do his thinking for him.

    • Where does the Federal government find authority to provide GRANTS AND AIDS to study or fund research for any item? http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/know-your-constitution.html

      James Madison, Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate “On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees – JAMES MADISON
      The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.

  126. @KenB, Janice Moore,

    Exactly. There are so many government departments and agencies that are involved with climate change, it seems to have infected everything. The military branches, Departments of Agriculture, Energy, NASA, NOAA, NWS, just to name a few. My friend told me that (s)he had only a few more years to retirement, and then could speak freely. After his/her retirement, I’m hoping that my friend writes a whistle-blower book on his/her experiences, if such a thing is allowed.

    It is quite interesting to compare the AGW scare with its long-term (supposed) catastrophic consequences, yet the very real economic and social damage done by minimum wage laws and prevailing-wage laws (read: high-priced labor unions) receives almost zero media attention. US’ high wages killed many portions of the economy since manufacturers cannot compete with foreign, low-wage producers. US’ high wages also attract millions of illegal aliens who cross our borders and create a drain on the social services, plus commit crimes.

    Minimum wages are causing real harm, while CAGW is phony. Yet, climate change gets the headlines and high-level political attention.

  127. milodonharlani says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:38 pm
    “…
    In fact Newton was eventually falsified by Einstein, but for much of the universe,
    …”

    [+ emphasis]
    Only a suggestion to your very good post in that I think it woud be better, say, to use the word refined for “falsified” because, as you pointed out, Newton works just fine within its limitations.

  128. jai mitchell says: June 21, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    …American Geophysical Union
    US National Research Council[
    American Chemical Society
    American Institute of Physics
    American Physical Society
    [ect…]

    —————————
    But I am sure that the hundreds of thousands of scientists and members of these professional societies are all just in it for the research grant money. . .

    Wow, this is big news,

    Can you show me where all these hundreds of thousands of scientists and members signed a petition endorsing these scientific organization’s policy statements?

  129. Aaaan, wi’ regard tuh joy m’chl,

    “… ‘at’s wot I been ‘a tell ya;… ” [F. Ross 9:41PM]

    — they rain’t no u’s in troyin’.

    Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! #[:)]

    Ow, bloimy, that was fun.

  130. Hi Janice. Libby loved your fantasy phone conversation.

    Now on topic or what was the topic before Jai hijacked it.

    The greatest respect should be given to those who have jumped the shark and been critical of the global warming hoax. I predict the worm will turn as it always does, and they will eventually be widely regarded as the heroes they are. The process is already under weigh

    If there is an open thread this weekend I intend to make a lengthy post about trolling. Teaser: I have been doing something akin to trolling myself..

  131. Hi, Stan (say Hi to Libby)! Glad she liked that, heh, heh. Did she like Schmidt?

    Looking forward to reading (likely not until after the weekend, though) of your troll adventures.

    Take care.

  132. Sam the First says:
    June 21, 2013 at 6:36 pm
    Anyone who can seriously cite the Wikipedia as a ‘source’ on anything to do with climate here on WUWT has clearly not been following the arguments or the ‘politics’ of so-called ‘climate science’ in the least degree…
    ++++++++++++
    With regard to politics, climate and such, they are left leaning… and I cannot and do not believe they are credible sources of unbiased information about these subjects. But I did see it fitting to you Jai Mitchell’s beloved source to metaphorically compare him to people who believed in witches.

  133. Good. I resigned from IEEE about 5 years ago due to their idiotic stance on car on based energy and their moronic promotion of “renewables”. These tyrants are only going to learn the hard way. Take away their avenues of power and watch these scoundrels flop around like fish out of water. Good riddance.

  134. Let’s not talk about, what happens to villagers that thought U.S. forces would bring change to their lands, cus it is gonna be a massacre when we pull out.
    They are used to it, they are good at it.

    Can it compete with a “troll adventure” ?

  135. I believe the late Professor Marcel Leroux resigned his membership of this organization for that reason. So Jai, to paraphrase Einstein, you can have 14,000 members of this organization staying but when people of quality like Leroux -who you won’t find anymore in Wikipedia courtesy of William M. Connolley’s grave digging witch hunt- leave, that talks volume.

  136. Jai Mitchell says:
    146 million dollars to climate change denial groups in a decade, 20 to 70 percent of their funding.

    Those boldfaced words misleadingly suggest that the groups receiving the money have no other activity that “denying” climate change. But actually that activity is a tiny focus of conservative and free-market think tanks. Even Heartland, the most active group opposed to the CACCA Cult, devotes only 20% of its resources on climate change–and that 20% amounts to under $2 million per year. You can work out from that how little is going to denialism from other sources.

    This “suppresso veri, suggesto falsi” (that any group that expresses and /or supports skepticism about catastrophic warmism is a group exclusively focused on doing so, and thus that all monies it receives can be assigned to denialism’s account), is a standard smear found in the propaganda of environmental organizations. Its continued employment says much about their trustworthiness.

    Further, as Judith Curry has pointed out, the impact of the scientists employed by such think tanks has been considerably less than the impact of unfunded skeptics in academia.

    Another red herring is this:

    Jai Mitchell says:
    There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.

    This happens to be the position of :
    [many scientific organizations]………

    That may be so. I don’t deny it–and I don’t think that most contrarians do, either. So that’s not what the debate is about, although warmists nearly always misrepresent it as such–another instance of suppresso veri, suggesto falsi. The debate is not about whether carbon dioxide significantly contributes to present (actually past) warming. Most contrarians accept that. It’s about:

    * How much that rise would continue under business-as-usual;
    * How bad the consequences of a rise would be;
    * Whether it would be wise to wait and see if the rise continues before mitigating;
    * Whether adaptation would be a wiser policy than mitigation;
    * Whether the developing world can or will significantly mitigate;
    Whether mitigation in the developed world alone or as a trail-blazer would make a dime’s worth of difference,
    * Whether “renewable” energy is an affordable or workable option;
    * Whether the voting public in the developed world will continue to accept paying more, directly or indirectly, for renewable energy once the costs start to really bite, or whether it will come to see it, in light of inaction in Asia, as futile feel-goodery.

  137. Roy UK says:
    June 21, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    I am sorry I was a bit hasty. I apologise to anyone affected by the fires, and if it is indeed the worst ever I apologise again.

    I read your original comment. What are you apologising for? What did you say that was “insensitive?” Is it insensitive to quote facts where deaths are involved? Others routinely and opportunistically use tragedies to forward their political agenda. That is certainly “insensitive.”
    Please retract your apology, unless you believe that truth should be another casualty of this disaster.

  138. The warmists must resort to propaganda and ad hominem. The warmists must attempt to disrupt discussion in each and every thread as they cannot defend the extreme AGW theory and green scams based on logic and reason. Billions upon billions have been wasted on green scams as a direct result of the warmists propaganda. Unscrupulous leaches and fanatics have taken advantage of well meaning people.
    P.S.
    I am deeply thankful to Anthony Watts, the many contributors to WattsUp, and the Moderators efforts at http://wattsupwiththat.com/ which help to make this one of best blogs (in my opinion the best blog in the world) in the world to get up to date information concerning the climate wars and issues related to climate ‘change’.

    Challenge to warmist pseudonym Jai Mitchell or any other warmist. We see that you cannot defend the extreme AGW hypothesis using logic and reason and must hence appeal to video links to Bill Maher’s rants. We notice that you must attempt to distract the subject away from the science. Why is that so?

    Do you want to debate the observational fact that there has been 16 years of no warming and that there is now the first observational evidence of global cooling? The tide is most definitely changing. It will be interesting to watch the process as scientific organizations, scientists, and politicians abandon the AGW fiasco. We see that you have no scientific response to lack of warming.

    There is no response to the fact that the paleo climate record shows there are nine warming and cooling cycles in this current interglacial period, all of which correlate to solar magnetic cycle changes. The latitudes where the warming followed by cooling occurred in the past are the same latitudes where we have experienced warming in the last. Curiously latitude of warming patterns in the last 70 years does not match the AGW theory.

    Do you want to ‘debate’ the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes?

    Do you want to debate the observational fact that solar cycle 24 is an abrupt slowdown in solar magnetic cycle?

    Do you want to debate that the solar magnetic cycle in the last 70 years was at its highest level and at its longer duration at a high level for over 8000 years. Solar cycle 24 is an abrupt slow down the solar magnetic cycle. The scientific consensus is that solar cycle 25 will be Maunder like minimum.

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

    Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
    “… according to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode…”

    Do you want to debate the comments made in this interview with IPCC lead author Hans Van Storch which is an unprecedented admission of the failure of the general circulation models that were used by the IPCC to make alarmist predictions?

    Do you want to debate the public admission from lead IPCC Storch that the climate ‘science’ was fudged? Storch: “Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.” Yes, global cooling would be a surprise.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/20/if-things-continue-as-they-have-been-in-five-years-at-the-latest-we-will-need-to-acknowledge-that-something-is-fundamentally-wrong-with-our-climate-models/

    Hans Van Storch: “There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”
    William: Less CO2 warming does not explain no warming for 16 years. As atmospheric CO2 continues to rise planetary temperature must increase in a wiggly manner as the CO2 forcing does not go away. It appears at least 0.45C of the 0.7C warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar modulation of planetary clouds. The latitudes where the warming has occurred are the latitudes that are most strongly affected by solar modulation of planetary cloud cover. There is a lack of warming to explain and the fact that the latitudinal pattern of observed warming does not match the AGW forcing pattern.

    Hans Van Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more — and by the end of this century, mind you. That’s what my instinct tells me, since I don’t know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.
    William: Give us a break. We will see less than 1C warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2. ‘Skeptic’ scientific analysis puts the estimated warming at 0.3C. There is no need to ask people what their ‘instinct’ tells them. Enough is enough, the warmists propaganda has to stop and will stop, as the planet is cools. There are nine warming and cooling periods in the current interglacial. The warming and cooling phases are called Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. Each and every warming and cooling period has an increase in solar magnetic cycle activity during the warming phase and a decrease during the cooling phase. The Medieval Warm Period has followed by the Little Ice Age.

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf

    Persistent Solar Influence on the North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene (William: Holocene is the name for the current interglacial period. The late Gerald Bond was able to track 23 of the cyclic warming and cooling cycles through the current interglacial period and into the glacial period. As he notes in this paper there are cosmogenic isotopes change that correlate with the cyclic warming and cooling which indicates that solar magnetic cycle changes cause the cyclic warming and cooling. Later research determined the sun causes the cyclic warming and cooling by modulating the amount of planetary clouds.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/11/08/1000113107.abstract

    Synchronized Northern Hemisphere climate change and solar magnetic cycles during the Maunder Minimum

    https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf

    The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
    Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
    A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8.
    The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years.

    http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1999/QuatSciRevvGeel/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf

    “The role of solar forcing upon climate change”

    “A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases… most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) … the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations.”
    “… we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change.”
    Last 40 kyrs
    Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)… “conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records”
    Recent Solar Event
    “Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) “…coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age… (van Geel et al 1998b)
    Periodicity
    “Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 … from tree rings and …from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core … believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation..”

  139. @stan.

    “Teaser: I have been doing something akin to trolling myself..”

    I, myself, would never say anything designed to deliberately provoke the warmist sap into making idiotic comments. (they generally do it all by themselves).

    Towards 700pmm, !!

  140. Anthony Watts says:
    June 21, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    @Caleb

    Since he is a disruption, and won’t engage, Jai is now on moderation, his comments will always get the attention of a moderator at this point
    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    Anthony, while I fully accept that this is your trainset, and completely respect your judgement, I hope the moderators will take a light-handed approach to approving jai’s posts – assuming he’s not already walked away claiming to have been “banned” or “censored”.

    We all know what real censorship is from the way most of the alarmist sites handle comments and, so fat at least, “our” side have very much held the moral high ground on that. They stifle debate by removing valid points they can’t answer but, in their own justification, would say that they’re simply clearing out irrelevent dross.

    It’s entirely appropriate that insults and “fighting words” designed to cause confrontation should be removed, but censoring someone simply because they’re wrong, even if they’re repeatedly and boringly making the same wrong points, hands ammunition to the other side. Besides, it goes against what a sceptical mindset should stand for – if “wrong” (by the conventions of a given group) is automatically censored, rather than engaged with, then scepticism within that group is futile. It’s akin to saying “the debate is over”!

  141. philjourdan says:
    June 21, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    @Bruce Cobb – Maher is also a racist and misogynist bigot. I am a bit surprised any sentient being listens to or quotes him. But I guess as long as there is prejudice and hatred, he will have followers.
    ————————————————
    Absolutely, just look at David Duke and his racist democratic followers.
    cn

  142. u.k.(us) says:
    June 21, 2013 at 8:03 pm
    Janice Moore says:
    June 21, 2013 at 8:15 pm
    dbstealey says:
    June 21, 2013 at 8:38 pm
    =================================================================
    Thanks for explaining what a “NGO” is.

  143. ***
    MarkW says:
    June 21, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    The Black Forest fire was destructive because of where it was. Right on the outskirts of Colorado Springs. One report that I saw stated that there are over 12,000 homes in that area. That over 500 of those homes burned is a tragedy, but not a surprise. It isn’t even the largest fire so far this year in terms of total acres burned. It’s just that most fires burn where there are few houses.
    ***

    Exactly. Extrapolate a situation where every square inch of a region is crowded w/suburban properties, and then every little brush fire is a potential disaster. Like the outskirts of Los Angeles.

  144. Difficult to believe that an organization of a country who champions liberty does not allow to differ. What an irony ?!

  145. First off even if this was true; which is probably isn’t because we have no names of the said people or statements from them, there are 14000 professionals in the AMS!!! The guy running this page doesn’t even have a climate degree! Look at his about section. You people are gullible as hell.

  146. The following interview by Spiegel of IPCC lead author and senior climate scientist Hans Van Storch validates the so called skeptic’s position (see also links to peer review papers that support the skeptics position) that the something is fundamental incorrect with the general circulation models that have been used by the IPCC to make alarmist predictions (the planet is going to warm less than 1C due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 rather than the predicted 3C) and that climate ‘science’ has been fudged.

    The reason warmists must try to change to the subject way from a scientific discussion and try to disturb threads is they cannot defend the warmist position using logical, observations, and peer reviewed papers.

    The warmist alarmism is being used to justify green scams. Large industrial interests that benefit from the scams and ignorant green parties are pushing spending billions upon billions of dollars on green scams which have and will reduce the competiveness of Western countries, increase our unemployment, and indirectly increase Western debt (due to higher energy costs consumers have less money to tax). Furthermore the green scams have had no effect on reducing world CO2 emissions which is not a problem. The greens scams do not significant reduce CO2 emissions they only increase the cost of energy.

    The fact that the observed temperature change (no warming for 16 years) does not agree with the general circulation models indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the general circulation models (GCM). (See Roy Spencer’s summary of the data and comparison of the GCM model predictions above.)

    The reason for the fact that the planet has not statistically warmed for the last 16 years is the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes by increasing or decreasing cloud cover in the tropics to reflect more or less radiation in to space. (See Lindzen and Choi’s recent paper and the Idso’s 1998 classic paper on the planet’s response to forcing changes which both provide data and analysis to support that assertion.) If the planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (positive feedback) forcing changes the warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C. Based on Idso and Gray’s analysis the estimated equilibrium warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is around 0.3C.

    The general circulation models that have been used by the IPCC to make alarmist predictions assume the planet amplifies rather resist forcing changes. As the assumptions in the general circulation models have been proven to be incorrect, the IPCC alarmist predictions are also incorrect. William M. Gray’s monogram provides a good explanation of the technical issues.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications by Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. … …We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …. … However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (William: for the zero feedback case, warming will be less than 1C if the feedback response is negative) (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. …

    http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

    The Physical Flaws of the Global Warming Theory and Deep Ocean Circulation Changes as the Primary Climate Driver
    Increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases will not be able to bring about significant climate disruption in the next 75-100 years. The main problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is the false treatment of the global hydrologic cycle which is not adequately understood by any of the AGW advocates. The water vapor, cloud, and condensation-evaporation assumptions within the conventional AGW theory and the (GCM) simulations are incorrectly designed to block too much infrared (IR) radiation to space. They also do not reflect-scatter enough short wave (albedo) energy to space. These two misrepresentations result in a large artificial warming that is not realistic. A realistic treatment of the hydrologic cycle would show that the influence of a doubling of CO2 should lead to a global surface warming of only about 0.3°C – not the 3°C warming as indicated by the climate simulations. Idso Skeptics View of Global Warming http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/20/if-things-continue-as-they-have-been-in-five-years-at-the-latest-we-will-need-to-acknowledge-that-something-is-fundamentally-wrong-with-our-climate-models/

    J Bryan Kramer writes of this interview with IPCC lead author Hans Van Storch in SPIEGEL.
    Storch: …. ….Temperature increases are also very much dependent on clouds, which can both amplify and mitigate the greenhouse effect. For as long as I’ve been working in this field, for over 30 years, there has unfortunately been very little progress made in the simulation of clouds.
    Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness along the lines of the climate protection brochures recently published by Germany’s Federal Environmental Agency under the title “Sie erwärmt sich doch” (“The Earth is getting warmer”). Pamphlets like that aren’t going to convince any skeptics. It’s not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them. The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public’s trust. We went through something similar with deforestation, too — and then we didn’t hear much about the topic for a long time.
    Storch: …Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people (William: James Hansen for example. The problem is once you have stated the sky is falling and the science is settled it is very, very difficult to admit you were 100% incorrect.). What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I’m driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can’t simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I’ll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.
    Storch: … Natural science (William: Climate science) is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises. (William: Yes, the planet is going to cool.)

  147. Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
    June 21, 2013 at 7:30 pm

    Excellent write-up, Larry. Your post should be remedial reading for every ignorant journalist who ever breathlessly connected Colorado and western wildfires to global warming.

    You are right about the naivety and negligence of many mountain homeowners. It is also true that some of today’s most experienced wildland firefighters live in the danger area of the wildland-urban interface (it’s easy to guess what motivates them in the first place). I believe that the wildfire danger awareness of the mountain residents and the general public is growing and I hope it will bring about more rational behavior in the coming years and decades.

    @Roy UK:

    Roy, I know from personal experience that people from non-arid parts of the world like the UK or Central and Northern Europe have trouble understanding the fires of the American West and Southwest. A picture of the Rockies taken from the plains with snow-covered peaks in the background evokes images of alpine landscapes of Bavaria. Those who hiked the lush sub-alpine meadows and forests in the foothills of the Alps and enjoyed their meals at local forest restaurants may be wondering what in the world makes Colorado burn every year. There are occasional wildfires in Bavaria—like the 2011 Schwarzberg fire near Lenggries—but they are quite rare. The typical alpine hiker’s experience looks like this:

    The same hiker should see what it looks like when a wildfire is threatening a home built in Colorado’s Black Forest *):

    The firefighters decided in this case that based on the fire path, wind, fuel loading and other local specifics they had an opportunity to defend and save the structure. They could get there in the first place and there must have been a safe escape path—otherwise the incident command would have disallowed the engagement. Their comfort level was high enough to send their cameraman there.

    The home was not even in the direct fire path. The main fire skirted sideways within considerable distance from the structure. The fire that crept sideways from the main path to the home was only a ground fire—not a crown fire. The ground around the house was reasonable well prepared. The trees were limbed up. The grasses were still green (they will turn brown later into the summer). The home had stucco siding and stucco wrapped posts. There was a concrete driveway and concrete sidewalk around the house. There were no wooden decks. There was no clutter against the house walls. Despite all these favorable conditions it was quite possible that the home would have been destroyed if the firefighters were not present.

    In my experience it takes only one time to see the ground burn like this and one’s outlook is changed forever. I think it’s likely that even the owners of this comparably well prepared home with reasonably well fire-mitigated landscape will find additional opportunities to give themselves a better chance to survive the next wildland fire. They could reconsider the mulch next to the home and some of the trees that are too close for comfort. It would not have taken much for ladder fuel on unmitigated neighboring properties to make the grass fire climb into the tree tops—or a random wind-driven ember starting a crown fire directly–which would have immediately changed the nature of the fire and the firefighters’ response. Despite all the owners’ preparations this home would likely have been destroyed in such a case. The surface of the structure—and its interior through the windows—would have been exposed to too much radiant heat (as Larry Ledwick wrote above).

    *) The Colorado Black Forest is east of the I-25 highway and I think the residents would not even consider it being in the mountains. It is sandwiched between the Rocky Mountain Foothills to the west, the Colorado Piedmont in the valleys of the South Platte River to the north and Arkansas River to the south, and the grassland plains to the east. It is in many ways an unusual forest in an unusual place that normally would be dominated by prairie grasses (e.g. An Ecological Study of the Black Forest, Colorado, Robert B. Livingston, 1949). It should also be obvious that the Colorado Black Forest is very different from its German namesake.

  148. Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
    June 21, 2013 at 7:30 pm

    Colorado Wellington says:
    June 22, 2013 at 10:03 am

    “… remedial reading for every ignorant journalist who ever breathlessly connected Colorado and western wildfires to global warming.”

    Besides the social activists that went into journalism because they wanted to change the world but were too lazy and bad at math and sciences, the esteemed scholars in the leadership of the American Meteorological Society would also do well to read Larry Ledwick’s post.

  149. Joe says:
    June 22, 2013 at 4:48 am
    Anthony Watts says:
    June 21, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    @Caleb

    Since he is a disruption, and won’t engage, Jai is now on moderation, his comments will always get the attention of a moderator at this point
    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    Anthony, while I fully accept that this is your trainset, and completely respect your judgement, I hope the moderators will take a light-handed approach to approving jai’s posts – assuming he’s not already walked away claiming to have been “banned” or “censored”.
    +++++++++++++
    You present a nice response to being moderated. Moderated is not banned by any sense. We were all moderated (not banned) not too long ago. Anthony presented good reason to moderate. Jai is specifically trolling and changing the subject matter of posts enough to distract from the subject matter at hand –like this post for instance. Jai is not contributing to rational thought processes. He’s crowded many of the posts with boat loads of intentional nonsense and if unmoderated, will destroy people’s interest in the debate.

  150. William Astley, an excellent post. I see Jai has done his usual and disappeared when difficult questions have to be answered. I asked him one on another thread this morning and I am still waiting for an answer (19:10 BST here).
    I would also like to sympathise with those who suffered from the forest fires in the US. We were in Spain last summer and some friends of ours were left with a car a motorbike their dogs and the clothes they were wearing, their house was completely burned out The Spanish fireman were fantastic but it still took over a week to get it under control. We were about 15 miles away from it, but downwind and the ash had covered everything in the back garden, I never will forget that smell of burning.

  151. @ Gunga Din — You are very welcome (not that I told you much!).

    @Larry Lewick, Colorado Wellington, John Hultquist, and any others above (too lazy to re-read for names) who informed us about forest fires. Thanks! Informative and important posts. Glad you didn’t have to step on the gas and high-tail it out of the Cle Elum area last summer, Hultquist. That must have been pretty nerve-wracking. Sounds like you could not be better prepared.

    U.S. National Forest Service mis-management (not allowing the natural burns to do their job) of the “fire-climax” forests (need a good burn every so often to clear away underbrush so seedlings of the evergreens can grow to adult size) has done a lot of harm, too.

  152. Mario Lento says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:06 am

    You present a nice response to being moderated. Moderated is not banned by any sense. We were all moderated (not banned) not too long ago. Anthony presented good reason to moderate. Jai is specifically trolling and changing the subject matter of posts enough to distract from the subject matter at hand –like this post for instance. Jai is not contributing to rational thought processes. He’s crowded many of the posts with boat loads of intentional nonsense and if unmoderated, will destroy people’s interest in the debate.
    ——————————————————————————————

    Oh, I totally agree with you, but I’m sure the moderators on places like SS would claim exactly the same things about ” crowd[ing] many of the posts with boat loads of intentional nonsense” if they could be pinned down about their reasons for deleting posts by skeptics.

    Similarly, it doesn’t matter whether or not he’s actually been banned – he can legitimately claim that his posts aren’t being allowed through, which is enough to cause apparent damage to the skeptic position of completely open debate. As long as posts aren’t overtly threatening / confrontational / defamatory or wildly off topic (which he hasn’t been on the posts that have been left on here), it’s generally better for a forum to let them stand for the sake of it’s own credibility.

    UWT has nothing to prove to regulars, but the message doesn’t spread beyond those regulars if casual or new readers see what could be painted as heavy censorship of opposing ideas.

  153. The USFS & contracted fire-fighters have a vested interest in letting small fires get big. And they do.

  154. The AMS has some great programs and good scientific journals. During my 30 year membership as a professional meteorologist though, I saw political correctness creep in while dues rose — nothing worthwhile to show for my membership either. The quality of the Journal of Climate and the AMS Bulletin has really fallen. I dropped out 2 years ago, and it will take major changes for me to go back.

  155. Given the threat to unleash the EPA on coal-fired electricity generation it needs to be publicized that change to the level of atmospheric CO2 has had no significant effect on average global temperature.

    This is demonstrated at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . This paper presents a simple equation that calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a single external forcing, a proxy that is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated temperature anomaly trajectory overlaid on measurements.

    All changes not explicitly considered must find room in the unexplained 10%.

  156. More power to the members, these organizations are easily hijacked, just as universities and trade unions are.
    The best recourse of all free men is to abandon institutions they can not stomach.
    The new concern troll did a fine diversion of this thread, guess don’t feed the troll needs repeated.
    We live in interesting times, far too many “learned societies, charities, Qangos & so on are in the hands of delusional followers.
    A good example of this is the decline in volunteerism. When you turn out to provide your skills and labour for free to further a public good, but find the organization in the hands of time wasting nitwits, who seem to delight in preventing any work being done, what is your reaction?
    My rule now is no volunteering if govt involved.I can waste my own time far more productively.
    I have begun to suspect that this take over and destruction of organizations of the common good, is deliberate and designed to destroy the cooperation that binds society.
    This tool, the internet, should be a fine way to reach all members of the AMS, who doubt and mobilize a change or lose our money ultimatum.After all each member knows 3 or 4 others and a viral network grows quickly.

  157. Sherry says:
    June 22, 2013 at 9:20 am
    “First off even if this was true; which is probably isn’t because we have no names of the said people or statements from them, there are 14000 professionals in the AMS!!! The guy running this page doesn’t even have a climate degree! Look at his about section. You people are gullible as hell.”

    James Hansen has no climate degree. Neither has Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. The gullible is you because you believe that climate scientist’s computer programs are capable of predicting the future of the climate. They failed already. For the last 17 years there has been no warming yet the models predicted warming over this time. It’s a failure. The scientists, if we want to call them that, now need to shut up and come up with better models. When they return with such, we need to validate the models at least for a decade before we can place any trust in the new models. This should have been done in the first place. It is how science works. Climate scientists want us to trust them without ever having gotten anything right. This trust is misplaced.

    And to be honest I’d fire all of them and make them an Enron style process.

    • Think about using Computer modeling that attempt to predict future events by looking at past events . . if this could be done accurately the inventor would own the entire world in a few weeks of trading on the Stock markets . . but as we all know the Computer trading just allowed of more an quicker errors in judgement. They went so fast the models collapsed the markets and panic selling set in on automatic.

      Is this not the same event we see unfolding with the Climate or Weather prediction a unknown data set processing at super computer speeds massive amount of data from Buoys around the world. Then they say well it is changing – duh we have know that for all of recorded history – last 5,000 or 6,000 years.

  158. milodonharlani says:
    June 22, 2013 at 11:52 am

    ”The USFS & contracted fire-fighters have a vested interest in letting small fires get big. And they do.”

    Huh?

    You just managed to smear an entire group of people with an unsubstantiated statement. I expect better from you. My response:

    1. Not the people I know.
    2. Many of the “contracted fire-fighters” are wildland-trained individuals who normally volunteer their time for free to their local fire departments—many of which are self-governed so-called special districts here in Colorado, formed as divisions of local government. You’d encounter a very civic-minded set among them if you’d meet any.
    3. Well, by definition most wildfires start small. However, also by definition, the recent windland fires in the populated areas of Colorado that were declared federal fires, e.g. the Fourmile Canyon Fire, the Waldo Canyon Fire, the High Park Fire and the Black Forest Fire, became very large by the time they were federalized. Until additional county or federal resources are called in, the first responders are typically volunteers from local fire departments, who by definition have a vested interest in putting out the fires because it threatens their homes. If the fires are not caught early and the local resources get overwhelmed, they get big on their own without any help of your suggested vested interests.
    4. The federal firefighting organization is by definition a large bureaucratic entity with its own budget, its legal and political underpinning, its own culture and also its problems. It exists and operates at the difficult interface of division of power between local, state and federal governments. However, there are plenty of wildland fires every season without anyone’s help.
    5. You could say the same thing about any professional group of people: policemen would have a vested interest in worse crimes, servicemen in more destructive wars, doctors in deadlier diseases, etc. You know it would make no sense as a blanket statement.
    6. There are bad apples in every trade or profession.
    7. Most of the good people I know personally have heard such stuff before and would just ignore it. There are also people I have not met but who I know went through hell and came back; firefighters who nearly died and saw others die. It stands to reason anyone’d be better off to not make similar suggestions to them in person.

  159. Colorado Wellington says:
    June 22, 2013 at 2:09 pm
    ————————————-

    You’re right I didn’t substantiate, but I’ve witnessed & experienced the fact of my statement repeatedly. But you rightly ask for documentation as to contractors:

    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-30/news/mn-32792_1_forest-fire

    One reason the USFS took out all its lookout towers was so that fires would get bigger before detection. Like all bureaucracies, the Forest Service wants to keep its budget growing every year. Having built all the roads it can, it needs to beef up other areas.

    When prescribed burns were forced on them, they made sure that those fires got out of control, too. Same thing happened with the US Park Service in Yellowstone in 1988.

  160. jai mitchell,
    Please read carefully:
    98% of computer models said the world should have warmed in the last 15 years.
    2% of computer models & observations show that the computer consensus model is wrong.
    An appeal to authority is the last refuge of the rogue. Even if 6.5 billion people believe in unicorns it doesn’t make them right.

  161. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    [snip – sorry smoking not allowed on WUWT – both of my parents died from smoking related illnesses, and I don’t care to have you bloviate about it here – Anthony]

    Anthony, you can delete my reply to Jai if you feel it necessary but I think we have to deal head on with these people no matter tobacco, oil or what. Here is my reply.

    Jai, here is a small part that tobacco has played in the climate change fight.
    The BBC Pension fund, as at 31 March 2012, had investments in the following tobacco companies:
    British American Tobacco
    Imperial Tobacco
    Reynolds American
    Altria Group
    Philip Morris International

    Al Gore, the climate change campaigner, has been quoted in 1996 by the New York Times saying:

    “Throughout most of my life, I’ve raised tobacco,”……..”I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve chopped it. I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.”

    Earlier in the same article the New York Times said:

    “Six years after Vice President Al Gore’s older sister died of lung cancer in 1984, he was still accepting campaign contributions from tobacco interests. Four years after she died, while campaigning for President in North Carolina, he boasted of his experiences in the tobacco fields and curing barns of his native Tennessee….”


    In 2007 the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report called “ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science”.

    The Union of Concerned Scientists has in the past received funding from the Grantham Foundation, which is bankrolled by hedge-fund manager Jeremy Grantham. At the time of the funding the foundation had holdings in tobacco giant Philip Morris. In August of 2011 his fund owned millions of shares in fossil fuel companies such as Exxon Mobil.

    One of the founders of the wildlife and climate campaigning WWF is Dr. Anton Rupert. The now deceased Dr. Rupert made his fortune from the cigarette manufacturing company called Voorbrand, re-named Rembrandt, now consolidated into Rothmans.
    Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1508360/Anton-Rupert.html

    H/t

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/tag/tobacco/

  162. milodonharlani says:
    June 22, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    … documentation as to contractors:

    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-30/news/mn-32792_1_forest-fire

    Ernest Earl Ellison, a transient in a depressed northern California town, was sentenced to 15 ½ months for setting hillside fires during 1992-93 near Hayfork in Trinity National Forest to help his brother’s water tanker business and make some small change himself. The largest fire was 20 acres, two smaller ones at 2 acres and all were contained quickly.

    A 20-year old case and not exactly the “contracted fire-fighter” I’d have in mind and not quite firefighters “letting small fires get big” but OK.

    At least we can both agree that Ernest Earl Ellison did not claim that increased levels of carbon dioxide made him do it and no AMS members will quit over our stance on this.

  163. Sherry says:
    June 22, 2013 at 9:20 am

    Oh! For Heavens sake! Will all you sad ar$ed trolls please go jump off a cliff ! Join your alarmist lemming friends if you wish, but you are wasting your time commenting here with such crass and puerile statements! (sorry mods, but patience is getting a little thin now)

  164. Colorado Wellington says:
    June 22, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    ————————————

    Yes, we can be thankful for that, but the incident was 20 years ago. Note however the comment in the story that the practice was regarded as common then. It still is.

    Maybe your fire-fighting friends would want to punch me out, but mine are the main source of my knowledge of USFS practices, since I no longer fight wildfires myself. My two best friends are present & former public & private forest fire fighters who have worked throughout the West & assure me that the same malfeasance we know of here in Oregon happen everywhere in the region. I can’t comment on the East, where an even higher share of wildfires are caused by arson, out of whatever motive.

    As a Coloradan, you’re no doubt aware of the cause of the Hayman Fire, which used to be your state’s most destructive. Among its victims were five of my fellow Oregonian firefighters.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/19/national/19FIRE.html

    Her neighbors doubted USFS employee Barton’s story about burning a letter. They suspected that she didn’t want to be shipped out of state to fight fires in order to stay home with her daughters, so intentionally set one during a no-burn period & zone.

    There’s no reason why you should credit an anonymous blog commenter, but it’s common knowledge among firefighters in the Pacific NW & California that USFS personnel & contractors set fires, & that the Forest Service lets little fires get big. Last year a directive went out to stop doing that, but we’ll see.

  165. I sometimes wonder what the CRU emails look like today. What are they sending each other? What are they saying about the temperature hiatus? One can only speculate but they are certainly worried.

    Ref.
    Dr. Paul Jones, Dr. Travesty et. al.

  166. PS: The new order from on high blamed global warming for the change from letting little, naturally-set fires burn to stepping on any & all that might run away out of control. But the real reason is probably budgetary, with sequestration looming.

  167. Jimbo says:
    June 22, 2013 at 4:58 pm

    Dr. Travesty came up with a travesty of a way to explain the flat line, his own version of hide the decline in Davey (aka Paul) Jones’ locker.

  168. Jimbo says:
    June 22, 2013 at 4:58 pm
    I sometimes wonder what the CRU emails look like today.
    ============
    Obama knows……………..

  169. I konw it’s not right to try and tell Anthony how to run his pages – but with regard to Jai in moderation – my thoughts are ‘sod it !’ – and ‘let the blighter hang himself!’. Seriously, these kind of muppets do more FOR the skeptic movement than any advertising campaign or careful reposts – simply by showing their obvious ignorance. The best bit is that when these (likely paid?) trolls pass by – they are clearly seen to be inadequate on the actual science – and for that, we (the skeptics) should be truly grateful.

  170. milodonharlani says:
    June 22, 2013 at 4:52 pm

    You are right, 10 years later there seems to be even more doubt about why and how Terry Barton started the Hayman Fire. She clearly acted as an individual but she is not telling:

    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_20769983/decade-after-hayman-fire-questions-linger-about-fires

    And I remember the 5 very young firefighters from Oregon and Idaho that died in a van rollover accident on I-70 near Parachute. Several others were seriously injured if I recollect right.

    On your other subject, I understand how bureaucracies function. There was the March 2012 Colorado State Forest Service prescribed burn—in hindsight incredibly stupid given the wind strength forecast—that resulted in the perfect storm of the deadly Lower North Fork Fire *).

    I have not heard any other talk or rumors about USFS or anyone else intentionally starting fires near the populated areas of Colorado’s Front Range.

    I suspected you knew more than you originally mentioned. Maybe you are better plugged in. Let’s see how this keeps unfolding.

    Oh, and my firefighting friends would probably not want to punch you out. They are a pretty level-headed bunch.

    *) “They were skilled professionals doing state of the art implementation,” Governor Hickenloooper said.

    http://kdvr.com/2012/04/16/lower-north-fork-fire-report-big-changes-needed-for-prescribed-burns/

  171. Colorado Wellington says:
    June 22, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    Forest management is woefully under-reported & misreported, since few if any journalists know anything about it. Which is not surprising, since most forestry grads don’t either.

    Logging on USFS land is almost a thing of the past & grazing is on its way out, with fewer acres leased every year. I supported roadless Wilderness Areas, but not the way that the USFS chose vindictively to manage them, & now whole national forests are being run practically as “wilderness”, at least on those with which I’m most familiar, the Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman, Malheur, Ochoco, Deschutes, Willamette & Mt. Hood.

  172. jai mitchell says:
    June 21, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    “http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

    There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming”

    I thought the warming was missing, and allegedly just found deep in the ocean.

  173. How do you know three dropped out? Certainly there was a group of three last week, but there have been a lot of weeks lately. (About 52 a year, from what I understand.) Tim Kelley held the AMS TV broadcaster Seal of Approval, see http://www.ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listoftv.cfm

    I don’t understand how they count them, they note at the top that there are “Total Active TV Seals 614, *** = Retired [43], * = Deceased [36], ** = Not Active (Renewal not received) [664], **** = Not Active (Professional Development Portfolio not submitted) [53].” However, seal numbers go beyond 1800.

    The total membership figure includes various non-meteorologsts. My father was a member for a while in the 1970s, but hadn’t done any meteorology since WW II.

    I’m sure a lot of the 664 non-renewals are from people who’ve left the TV business, but there’s likely several who disagree with with AMS policy.

  174. Do any of the former or current members see any reasons to suspect the AMS has committed some form of fraud against its members by misrepresentations of the membership rights at the same time it solicited membership and other funds from the members? For example, did the AMS represent the membership fees entitled a member to a member participation that is now being denie with respect to the AMS promotion of a Global Warming–Climate Change fraud?
    ?

  175. [snip . . mod]

    Guess Calgary not your place today, Anthony? To many scary facts and so on :)

  176. Joe says:
    June 21, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    Then again, both Christianity and Islam (between them over half the world’s population) believe in predestination.

    I believe in post destination. You will know where you were going after you get there.

  177. Average global temperature actually has little to do with meteorology (the study of how energy moves around the planet) so the wrong experts have been trying to figure it out. It is more correctly understood as a problem in radiation heat transfer, and a fairly simple one at that. It consists of only average surface temperature and effective surface emissivity and average cloud altitude (temperature) and average effective cloud emissivity, or, of slight change in average cloud area. As shown at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/ increase in average cloud altitude of less than 200 meters (and thus reduction in average cloud temperature and reduction of energy radiated to space) or a decrease of albedo (or reflectivity which is a bit more than albedo) from 0.3 to the slightly lower value of 0.2928 would account for all of the 0.74 °C average global temperature increase of the 20th century.

  178. Hal Lewis best line:
    “the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

    Use it often, with feeling.

Comments are closed.