The Salt Lake Tribune – July 16, 2009
Article Excerpt: Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004, is listed as one of 450 IPCC “lead authors” who reviewed reports from 800 contributing writers whose work in turn, was reviewed by more than 2,500 experts worldwide. (Tripp, a metallurgical engineer, is the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.) […]
At Thursday’s [Utah Farm Bureau] convention, Tripp found a receptive audience among the 250 people attending the conference. He said there is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made. “It well may be, but we’re not scientifically there yet.”
Tripp also criticized modeling schemes to evaluate global warming, but stopped short of commenting on climate modeling used by the IPCC, saying “I don’t have the expertise.” Full article here:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am wondering if any changes in worldwide usage of hydrocarbons over time (and especially in this recession) have been visible at all in the CO2 ppmV data.
Dear Anthony and Mr Moderator.
The following is not intended for posting so I will summarise course you can post it if you like:-
1 I post at the Guardian Comment is Free.
2 It seemed uncensored but after a while I realised that Monbiot’s and Hickman’s bloggs especially seemed to be covered by three agressive posters.
I did wonder whether the three were in cahoots.
3 The strategy I now realise was to insult and abuse.
4 Most responses to this abuse were subsequently moderated out but the abusers comments remained. I am a big boy and it didn’t worry me except when I started getting moderated.
5 This moderation was especially noticeable, if adverse comments were made about censorship at RC . Posting links to your site or Climate Audit resulted in more abuse Climate Fraudit etc.
6 About two weeks ago I was put in pre-moderation and except for some anodyne comments all my posts have been censored. This coincided with comments about censorship after Leo Hickmans article about Mr Schmidts, noise and signal argument in support of censorship.
7 The three untouchables go by the name of MeFinny2, Nefastus and Jezebel216.
I have copied my post using messages from two of the parties here:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/16/climate-change-milband-2020?commentpage=2&commentposted=1
Recommend? (1)
Report abuse
Clip | Link sonofgood
18 Jul 09, 2:01am (1 minute ago)
@Nefastus
Jezebel216: “nefastus in answer to your posting on another thread – I did! ;-D”
and I’ll reply on the other thread as well.
@Jezebel216
Absolutely nefastus! and I’ll check it out (if that thread hasn’t closed)
How sweet and they call it puppy love.
The temperature is rising and you will see why here at this thread
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/16/sexual-healing-repulsed-by-sex?commentpage=2&commentposted=1
@Nefastus
Jezebel216: “At least you are open to considering sex to be a normal human activity. Personally, I wouldn’t follow the advice of the people here who have posted ‘use a prostitute’ – because I don’t see how that would do anything other than reinforce the sex is bad message.
The big key is to meet the right person – but that really is easier said than done. Meanwhile, you could make a mental note of which people, whether in real life or on TV/movies – you find yourself physically attracted to, because nothing’s gonna happen unless you are attracted in the first place. And as some others have said, take it slowly, there’s no need to rush, slow is good.”
I cannot recommend this more.
My late wife and I were at it hammer and tongs day in, day out.
Whilst I’ve dated after her death, nothing has come close.
Attraction is both physical and mental.
Porn doesn’t do it !
@Jezebel216
nefastus
Attraction is both physical and mental.
Porn doesn’t do it !
Porn seems to do it for a lot of men, some women too, but pornography is ultimately soulless. It appeals to that animal instinct, not the fragile veneer of humanity we desperately try to cling to.
We’ve all been superficially attracted to someone purely based on physical appearance, only to discover that there was nothing substantial to it, and the attraction just disappears overnight (even though they’re still the same gorgeous hunk/woman). Mental attraction is the only one that has staying power.
Well done Nefastus use the dead wife to chat someone up.
Hows your mate MeFanny hopefully not jealous youv’e gone off post.
Comment is free if you agree.
Don’t mess with the grown ups
Dear Anthony
These are vicious posters who the Guardian allow otherwise I would not do this.
Take care
Sonicfrog (18:01:08) :
The smart ones have taken stock of the seaworthiness of the ship, and are taking to the lifeboats.
The dumb ones have visions of glory and invincibility filling thier eyes..
“Iceberg Dead Ahead” .
“we’re not scientifically there yet.”
A lot of us have been saying that for a while now, some for a long time.
Jim (16:06:25) : This is the other Jim. Looks like the spot isn’t there …
http://www.spaceweather.com/
Juraj V. (11:17:42) : “Whats that funny graph, ending in 2007?”
Does it not end in 2008?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jacob Mack (14:59:15) : “The data seems to still be repeated and thus validated enough to point towards a warming trend,”
A warming trend began about 17,000 years ago as the last major glacial period ended. This warming seems to be continuing in fits and starts with examples being the MWP and the LIA. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why we should not expect this pattern to continue.
I’m quite surprised at the number of posts showing reverence for experts. What’s up with that?
quote If it was just waterboarding, I don’t think we would be complaining so much, but we have battery cables, racks, iron maidens, and don’t forget, most of all, the Procrustean bed. unquote
I think you mean Procrustean statistics.
JF
Neil (15:39:34) :
….and for the opposition Conservative Party viewpoint:
Dear Mr Hyde, ….
Neil,
It has become clear how effective the IPCC strategy of a “closed circuit”
has become.
The IPCC has become the “exclusive” supplier of climate data and is “trusted” by the ruling establishment including the opposition.
Not only have they isolated our politicians but they also have effectively shut out any opposition to their publications.
This is a dangerous situation which can lead to very “bad political decissions”.
As this model proves successfull we wil see it emerge in all corners of our society.
Because such a system is per definition undemocratic, even totalitarian, it is a threat to our freedom.
Therefore we should fight it to the bone.
These kind of practices undermine our society and our progress.
We are not only fighting the semi science, the wrong conclusions based on this semi science but also the system that is build lour our politicians into this web of scam.
We do not want to be ruled by such methods.
This is pure fascism and I am sure everybody visiting this blog will reject it.
Ed Scott (10:04:09) : Hansen is still ranting against the plain evidence.
Unless John Christy is around.
I am forced to admit that RC censors heavily and even I, as a general supporter find my posts indicating my doubts of the current severity in AGW due to the currrent “pause.” As far as CO2 rising and falling and such (and other) changes due to natural climate variability, well, yes of course. The models are still heavily flawed, and not all of us can do all those computer apps. The physics and chemistry are major components, but the actual, natural system input/output and non-linear activity are not well understood.
So there isn’t even a consensus amongst the warming brigade…
Mark Hugoson (09:58:35) :
Coherent comment. One of my favorites.
“we’re not scientifically there yet.”
My vote also for this as QOTW.
my personal vote for quote of the week
RICH (09:28:23) :
The planet is stable, it’s the alarmists that are not.
I was just watching,with my loving Wife, a Red tinted volcanic ash enhanced sunset.
NE Oregon. We are finally seeing itsy tomatoes on our plants.Reading this and other
signs of possible cracks in the plaster of the AGW statue -think cheap mexican ceramic
of AlGore nude with a clock in his stomach stuck on five mintues to midnight-gives me some hope…
“John F. Hultquist (19:31:06) :
Does it not end in 2008?”
No, seems to end in November 2007. I meant, why not to use data till 2009, where the recent drop is much more visible. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/scale:150/offset:250/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997
Curiousgeorge (10:17:41) :
taxing us into oblivion based on nothing more than the vaporware produced by suspect climate models.
ITYM vapadata produced by scareware.
Neil (15:32:13) :
If you want to know where the US is heading if your politicians refuse to listen to their electorate , follow the European/British model , where your views will become irrelevent :
THE PRIME MINISTER
2 February 2009
I have the original signed letter in PDF , if anyone wants a copy
Yes please. Part of my evidence when I take the govt to the small claims court for the return of the fuel levy on my last 3 years of flights. rog at tallbloke dot net
> “This is the same James Hansen who in 2008
> called for > trials of climate skeptics for ‘high
> crimes against humanity.’ ”
> Hansen said Thursday in an e-mail » “I have never
> said any such thing about ‘climate skeptics,’
Next thing you know, the AGW types will be telling us that back in the 1970’s, the scientific community never forecast an ice age… oops. By the way I think that Hansen shot a gaping hole in his credibility . See http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798 which is titled…
“Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later
by James Hansen on June 23, 2008”. And I quote…
> CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are
> doing and are aware of the long-term consequences
> of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these
> CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity
> and nature.
> But the conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal
> CEOs will be no consolation if we pass on a runaway
> climate to our children.
That was a guest article by Hansen himself, so he can’t claim to be misquoted, words put in his mouth, etc, etc. I urge others here to download and save a copy of that webpage, before the Winston Smiths of AGW turn it into an “unarticle”.
I initially came to WUWT because it validated my own suspicions about mainstream global warming theory, that it was more hype than substance, and was politically motivated. However, to combat this politicized issue, it has become necessary for many skeptical websites to offer their own counter arguments against renewable energy and in support of continued unflagging use of fossil fuels. I frankly find this disappointing because I would like to see the science of global warming debated without the usual partisan bickering.
Whether or not you subscribe to the theory of “Peak Oil”, it is irrefutable that fossil fuel is a finite resource. In skeptical blogs it’s common to see the opinion expressed that renewable energy is a myth that offers no future promise of freedom from fossil fuel. Intrinsically, this has nothing to do with climatology, and only raises suspicions that a conservative agenda is at work in debunking global warming. Because of the limited supply of petroleum, every barrel taken from the ground is a step closer to a world where our children will be faced with the eventuality of energy sources with modest EROEI, or the renaissance of fission nuclear energy with its attendant issues of waste and runaway reaction. Research continues on fusion energy, which will one day be the solution to our energy problems. In the meantime, the gathering of second-hand fusion energy from the sun, combined with all other renewable sources, are the only options we have in a honest long-term appraisal of our energy portfolio.
Here is an essay that purports to debunk Peak Oil, while accepting that oil will peak someday. In spite of this apparent contradiction, “CONFESSIONS OF AN EX-DOOMER” is a journey through several epiphanies, and makes good reading:
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/07/307-confessions-of-ex-doomer.html
Even though mainstream global warming is dubious at best, we should accept that renewable energy is still in its infancy, and refrain from viewing the debate as anti-AGW / pro-fossil fuel.
“Not Scientifically there yet!”
The truth is, If the whole AGW thing was about the application of the Scientific method…. AGW would have been a discredited Hypothesis a long time ago.
However, it is not about science or empirical evidence. It is about Politics and specialised agendas. The Policy makers don’t have to be “Scientifically” anywhere…. Those mob always work best by playing on people’s emotions.
The equilibrium temperature of Earth’s climate system is not set by the sea surface temperature as normally defined.
The equilibrium temperature is set by the net global average temperature of the oceanic water which lies just below the layer of ocean surface involved in the evaporative process.
The temperature of that water is shielded from any changes in the composition of the air by the evaporative process. It is
however affected by changes within the oceans which alter the rate of energy emission to the air and by variations in solar input.
The evaporative process ensures that a change in the composition of the air affecting the radiative properties of the air does not alter the rate of energy release from that layer of water which lies below the region affected by evaporation.
Changes in the composition of the air alone can only result in a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle with no effect or no significant effect on the net global average temperature of the air.
The level of climate debate has stooped to the level of convenience. If someone agrees with a certain AGwarmist point of view, his expertise is highly regarded and talked up. If he has a cooler attitude, his (perhaps equivalent) expertise is disregarded. Thats just how the game is played. Attacking the messenger is standard practice when you have nothing else of substance and especially if the messenger is pointing to the really cool elephant in the room.
The level of political debate is the point of least resistance and plausible denial. It is far easier to blame a “panel of 2500 experts” than actually take a personal stance that might be criticized. It is the glorious “rule by committee” where no one is really responsible and either way, if I can get a good deal for my constituents, I might even come out looking good.
You don’t have to be a PhD or anything to establish that the actual reason the room is so cold is that someone placed the heater next to the temperature sensor for the air conditioner. Cause and effect isn’t always understood in the realm of narrow expertise but is populated by people who have a broader understanding and can draw from each specialty and provide a unified hypothesis.
I see the power of this forum as being able to bring different questions to the table and also contributors who can offer different expertise and explanation to build a greater understanding. I am also really impressed how the collective enthusiasm of the contributors over at CA can dissect a paper so quickly. Why would you bother with peer review when you can be so thoroughly examiner in so short a time?
neil,
The scariest thing about the letter from the opposition is the comment about the leading national academies being all on side on AGW. I think this is true and indicates that at some level at least there has been an international conspiracy. Probably initially some kind of “environmentalists” working to get “the environment” higher on the agenda. From what I’ve seen it’s quite easy to take over a scientific organisation because most members don’t want anything to do with the administration/politics. So if a small group shows some enthusiasm for that side of things they are welcomed because because most people are relieved that they don’t have to do it.
The next step as I see it is that AGW, whether literally true or not, advances the broad agenda. I’ve often heard the view that whether AGW is happening it’s a good thing that we (meaning you) lower our (meaning your) consumption. What’s missing is what everyone here knows (nearly) the economic impacts will be. Never mind, we are a wealthy country (yes. I have a not very well paid gubmint job,but they wii just keeep paying, whatever) so we can afford it (whatever it is).