Thanks to MagicJava for putting this into a YouTube video at my request:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks to MagicJava for putting this into a YouTube video at my request:
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gene Nemetz (11:35:45) :
Gene Nemetz (11:37:00) :
Gene Nemetz (11:40:22) :
Gene Nemetz (11:43:37) :
Gene Nemetz (11:47:18) :
Gene Nemetz (11:49:07) :
Gene Nemetz (11:52:54) :
Gene Nemetz (11:56:16) :
Gene Nemetz (12:02:27) :
Gene Nemetz (12:04:36) :
Gene Nemetz (12:07:19) :
I think your keyboard repeat is malfunctioning.
Echoing R Shearer above, it appears that the first quote in the presentation that is attributed to Tom Wigley did not come from him, although the second did. We must be fair.
His name jumped out at me because I recently read Email #880476729.txt.
(http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=40&filename=880476729.txt) It reads even better if you have the complete email file from the download, so you can see exactly what he was responding to. In it he tells off a group trying to get him to sign one of those “consensus” letters, because in it they distort the facts. It seems he had better integrity in 1997.
marky48 (12:28:24) :
I guess as a “journalist” you prefer to blindly link, rather than inform.
OK, I’ll do you job for you.
From the NASA link, I see they highlight the “Copenhagen Diagnosis” (no political intent there, I’m sure, but what do I know, I’m not a “journalist”.)
“”The answer is yes, this amplifying feedback has been detected: water vapor does become more plentiful in a warming atmosphere (Dressler et al 2008). Satellite data show that atmospheric moisture content over the oceans has increased since 1998, with greenhouse gases being the cause (Santer et al. 2007).”
I would presume an “amplifying feedback” should actually “amplify”. What is the warming trend since 1998 compared to the ten years prior to 1998?
Of course, one might be tempted to ask how “greenhouse gases being the cause” was determine by Dr. Santer, but he might threaten to beat me up.
First, great great video. I think this is going to get out a lot. Despite detail criticism problems (perhaps these can be dealt with in 2nd edition).
Next, my pennyworth. WHERE IS BEN SANTER?? I haven’t forgotten that he is likely the scientist who edited the IPCC Summary for Policymakers to turn it from science into alarmism, this was not agreed by the rest of the scientists.
Next, marky48. The news has scarcely begun to come through regarding the level of multiple issues of questionable and downright c**p science. I know every single issue where warmists claim to have “debunked” skeptics because I used to believe them all because I’d checked them all with Royal Society, New Scientist, Gristmill and Skeptical Science. Try reading my Primer (click my name).
Next Dave Dardinger. The science is not in re. the cause of the CO2 increase. There are strong arguments (still) for a large proportion of natural processes – but please, not here, not tonight!
tucker (07:54:09) :
Sen Inhofe has sent letters to some of the scientists in the ClimateGate emails informing them the US government is going to investigate. I am almost certain Michael Mann is among them. He could end up testifying before the Senate. All the emails and computer code will be easily seen on C-Span if such a hearing took place.
The only thing most people associate with Penn St. is JoePa and Penn St. football. Now they could have a second face associated with it.
You may want to start considering now how to handle the public relations on that—just in case.
————————–
video of Sen Inhofe letters, 2:55 to 3:35 of this video
Very good information – Lousy Graphics.
This isn’t an art festival display looking for style points.
The White Letting over White and Light Colored background photos
is almost unreadable.
Why defeat the primary objective with a poorly done presentation,
when the primary objective is to transmit information,
via the words on the screen?
Please – if possible – get them to alter the graphic backgrounds
so that the readers don’t just say screw it and stop reading the details
because of the poor presentation of white lettering on white backgrounds.
Some examples:
* Mann’s info over the White PSU logo and his Light wood tree ring.
* Wigley’s info in white over a White Cloud – are you kidding? A White Cloud?
Please give people every chance to get your messages.
Don’t defeat those who try to take the time to view the info.
As they say, “keep the main thing the main thing.”
Print the words in a clear format, so that the reader does NOT have to fight to read them.
Just sayin…
It does “amplify” all the way to 2008. Nothing stopped in 1998 contrary to your gospel. Everything is movin’ on up. One spike in a graph doesn’t make the graph. Everyone knows 10 years is a short time in terms of climate.
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#GlobalTemperature
The global temperature is made to appear very alarming when the y-axis is in tenths of a degree, which greatly amplifies what are actually just small natural fluctuations.
By using a normal y-axis, we can see that there is no reason to panic: click
Global temperatures are very close to their long term average: click. Certainly there is no warming that is not well within normal and natural historical fluctuations.
Can anyone give me some idea just how far the ‘post-normal science’ perversion has spread thru the scientific community in university systems? Is it just in the AGW/climate change/global warming community, or ??
marky48 (13:33:01) :
mehh, screwed up that blockquote. The last two smart a$$ paragraphs are mine.
I think marky48 demonstrates one of the big problems in this debate. Everything s/he has attempted to use as evidence for their case is really just elements of the scientific process. Nothing has been proved. In any normal scientific endeavor these figures (like CO2 residence time) would get tested over the years and the numbers changed along the way as more and more information became available. However, the pols/greens/bankers have jumped upon these “best guesses” as proof of something when it is simply ongoing research. Unfortunately, many climate scientists got caught up in the process and started playing along for a variety of reasons (fame and money ? … or maybe just a belief they were saving the world).
People like marky48 either doesn’t understand the scientific method or simply choose to ignore it to further their own belief system. I hope it’s the former as it simply means s/he is naive.
Well at least my links aren’t fake like Smokey’s here. He lives in his Own Private Idaho, is my take but has plenty of company. Perhaps John M, you could demonstrate why you are smarter than the entire NASA team and every scientific organization on Earth?
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
I’ll be that would take more than pasting a faked graph.
Marky48, quite clearly you are a true believer. If you ever had any science training, you either totally failed to understand it, or you’ve lost it over the years.
Once the credibility of a scientist is seriously called into question on such a basic level, as has occurred here with so many of those that are key in the AGW debacle, then every bit of their scientific work is also questionable and worthless unless or until it can be replicated and verified by more than one other truly independent scientist.
That means that not only is every paper done by each of the involved scientists utterly moot for the time being, but also any other papers that they reviewed, all of their contributions to bodies such as the IPCC, and so on.
Meanwhile, you come here quoting from Realclimate – which was at least in part founded by these same ‘scientists’ and is well known for censoring any actual scientific debate that runs contrary to their political agenda. In other words, you are quoting a non-scientific site as if it had some merit and authority on scientific issues. It does not. That reflects on both a lack of understanding of science, and also rather lazy ‘journalism.’
A decent journalist should also be unbiased in their approach and reporting – you show yourself clearly to be far from unbiased.
So many key linchpins to the entire theory of AGW caused by CO2 have been scientifically either debunked or at the least called into serious question that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the entire field is very much in its infancy, the basic knowledge of the involved systems is so shaky and uncertain that there is no possible way to draw any meaningful conclusions.
Science is not guessing. Its not speculation. Its not experiments that fail to account thoroughly for possible confounding factors. Its not conclusions that go beyond what the data and results can actually support. Its not causation by correlation. Its not politics. Its not agenda driven. Its not socially conscious or social justice or whatever that way. Its not about pushing people into changing their behavior for whatever reason you happen to think is good.
Any of the research or papers or IPCC reports, etc., that are based on things in the above paragraph are automatically MOOT, WRONG, NOT SCIENCE. Any of the research, papers, reports, chapters, etc., that perhaps appear to be scientific, but base their root assumptions, data, or anything that way on bogus science, are therefore also bogus. You cannot base sound science on faulty science. A bad foundation is a bad foundation, and it invalidates any subsequent conclusions.
In other words, as to AGW, or even natural CO2 changes causing GW, at this point in time the body of available science simply does not support those theories. Its that simple. That’s science.
I have written about the orchestration of victories in the climate debate, that happens on the AGW website Real Climate, before. This is the leading AGW alarmist web site, and they seem to have more credibility than others because the people who run the site are published climate scientists and they are cornerstones of the IPCC. I have noticed in the past that there is a pattern to the way that Gavin Schmidt and the other contributors moderate the site so as to appear to be engaging in open discussion and letting skeptics have their say, while at the same time, they censor any and all comments for which they have no adequate answer. In other words, the outcome of the debates are known because Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and the others will always censor their way to winning the arguments. Of course complaints about RC censoring can be found all over the net from hundreds if not thousands of people. I wrote a short piece about my findings regarding RC here:
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2009/11/function-of-real-climate-in-climate.html
I also took some screen shots of comments that I made that were subsequently deleted here:
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-fraudulent-censorship-at-real.html
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2009/10/real-climate-attacks-mcintyre.html
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2009/10/briffa-yamal-data-debate.html
Notice the quality of the debate that Schmidt is not screening out in the comment before mine. That comment passed moderation.
So now it turns out that Climategate has exposed the reality of RC’s debate orchestration policy in Michael Mann’s own words:
Michael Mann:
“Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC. Rein any way that you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can.”
Not only does Mann reveal that RC tactic, but he also reveals a second one that I had suspected but was unsure about. During the Briffa/Yamal debate on RC I asked some questions and made some points concerning those issues. I noticed that my comments remained in a state of moderation for two or three hours at a time. In the meantime, other comments that were posted after mine continued to flow through. So I knew that there was a moderator at work. I wondered why he didn’t simply post my comments or delete them. It occurred to me that Gavin didn’t know how to answer the comments and so he asked for help, either from Keith Briffa, or from another dendrochronologist But I had no way of confirming my suspicion. Now my suspicion has been clearly confirmed by one of the Michael Mann emails.
Michael Mann:
“On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.”
My long held comments were eventually deleted. So I assume that Briffa, or whoever Schmidt went to, was unable to respond to my points.
But the bottom line comes to this, RC may be run by peer reviewed, published, climate scientists that contribute to the IPCC, but they are dishonestly pushing the AGW propaganda on their climate site none the less.
Thanks for putting up the video. And thanks for al the comments.
Just a note that Mick Kelly is still listed as a visiting fellow for CRU. Nice catch on the “record snow” quote actualy being from Kevin Trenberth. I’ll add a note to the video indicating that.
Thanks again. 🙂
I wonder why Keith Briffa doesn’t come into the scene.
Is he a mere backseat player in this affair?
MagicJava
Thanks for the vid. Please post the transcript or text – the vid is a bit slow for those of us who like to read.
marky48 (15:11:47) :
Ahh, when all else fails, resort to appeals to authority and “consensus”.
We’ve already seen how your “scientific training” has served you, with your refusal to respond to specific questions about ice and temperture.
Now, let us return to how marky the “journalist” would have covered the Challenger, Columbia, or Mars Orbital disasters (we’ve already speculated on how our “journalist” friend would have covered the Watergate tapes):
“Perhaps the people complaining about these disasters could demonstrate how they are smarter than the entire NASA team? ”
As far as the “organizations” that have gotten on board this bandwagon? Perhaps you could use your investigative “reporting” skills to find out for us how many of them actually put it up to a vote of their memberships. As a member of one of those organizations, I can tell you that I didn’t get a vote.
ln all seriousness Marky 48 Get a clue:
“This is highly unlikely given the accelerated rates of ice loss and the demonstrated positive feedbacks of water vapor under observed forcings of CO2. Not. Going. To. Happen.”
Siting something known to not be happening (accelerating ice loss) is an interesting way to prove a point. Maybe being a “journalist” gives you some special scientific skills of which lowly physicist types like myself are unaware. Perhaps read my earlier post? If scientific method isn’t followed it ain’t science, simple as that.
Sorry I dropped the quotation marks on Marky’s post in my second paragraph.
Mike McMillan (12:46:58) :
keyboard repeat
Just had a few things to say.
Nice wrap up of the players….
Marky48: Sure a warming world would goose the moisture content of the air.
But then what happens?
The moisture turns into an increased cloud cover, reflecting more sunlight = negative feedback. But this is a bridge too far for the IPCC, etc.
Sorry for the lengthy post, but I’ve never been known for my brevity. One of the video quotes prompted me to uneasily call Anthony as I could not find the source initially and was worried it was not real (please disregard my message–sorry for jumping the gun–I was worried it was a Trojan horse).
Now that I have sourced it (from file greenpeace.txt), I can’t believe it has not been more visible in the media. It is fairly prevalent in the blogosphere, but only two links show up on Google news. It is the quote attributed to Mick Kelly at the 3:07 mark regarding the “globalisation agenda” and reads:
“The IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO.”
The thing that was making it more difficult to find in the files was that the video uses “z” instead of the actual “s” in “globalisation” and “organisations.” There actually is another issue with the quote in that it is from Paul Horsman to Mick Kelly rather than the other way around (perhaps that and the incorrectly attributed Trenberth quote can be fixed in v2 of the video). Regardless, I think it is an explosive revelation.
Considering the initial response from RealClimate I would have thought this would have been played up a bit. They said:
“More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.”
Socialist Communist Vegetarian Overlord is actually on Horsman’s business card. Sorry. I kid, but I have for the past few months been hammering the globalization/redistribution point over on Media Matters for America, lately using the [url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf]Copenhagen negotiating text[/url] as my primary and most contemporary evidence.
My reward for doing so was being told I was (and these are all quotes) clinging to fear, confused, deluded, living in another universe, [believing in] global-tax conspiracy nonsense, like the 9/11 conspiracy people, an ignorant buffoon whose view is based on paranoia…well, you get the point. I even had a lady say, “I hope you drown yourself when the sea level increases.” So much for “tolerance” and “celebrating diversity.”
So I guess I have a vested interest in that particular quote going mainstream public. With that in mind, I would recommend WUWT do a small story on the topic to shed additional light on the globalization angle. I know I will be using the quote judiciously on MMfA (had a blast there last night with [url=http://mediamatters.org/research/200911250005]this thread[/url]–forgive the overly snide tone of my comments but they’ve been all over me for months).
Another thing that I do not think has gotten enough play is the “what do the scientists have to gain” defense I so often get thrown back at me. I know that the $22 million in Jones grants got some press, but what about all of these trips to exotic locales they mention throughout the emails. Without really trying I found Tahiti, Bali, and Hawaii and I’m sure there are others. I know that is a minor point, but all-expense paid “business” trips to places like Tahiti would certainly qualify as something to gain (or lose it would appear).
Finally, one of the funniest things to me in all this is that members of the AGW camp (I have started using the term AGW-fraud deniers) think this is going away, despite the preponderance of evidence that this is actually the death knell (just look at the latest posting on WUWT). The spin isn’t working now nor will it ever work.
I for one am ready to nominate McIntyre, Watts, and an unknown Russian hacker for the next Nobel Peace Prize (unless they think it has been sullied by having been awarded to the likes of Al Gore and the IPCC). Keep up the awesome work. It’s hard to believe, but really this site and others like it have altered world history (for the better I might add).