Oppenheimer makes several (at least 3) statements that are factually incorrect. Is he deliberately lying? The critics have NOT had access to the data much less for decades,that was a bald faced lie and the point of the FOIA requests that the wistle blower used . No one claimed a “massive Fraud”. Saddly with there effort to block journals and control peer review they made the “large conspiracy” unnecessary. There are not 2500 scientists by any honest definition involved in IPCC. Seriously talking points is one thing this crosses the line into the BS zone.
He then points to 3 other groups with the same result NASA, NOAA and some Japanese group. Well for years the only claim the NASA and NOAA groups had to accuracy was that they were the same as CRU. We all know there are huge problems with fudge factors and “corrections” in those products. I have never seen anything from the supposed Japanese group. How do I know they have the same result? In WUWT we have read about the Japanese Geophysical Union I believe refuting the CAGW idea.
liberalbiorealist
December 8, 2009 11:03 am
Alan W,
I wouldn’t underestimate the positive effect of McIntyre’s performance. I would describe it as insidiously rational. Both Oppenheimer and Horner came across like shills for a cause. McIntyre projected instead an image of someone concerned about the legitimacy of the underlying science.
In the end, the real battle here is over the scientific process. What seems unquestionable to me is that it has largely been hijacked by a group of scientists to reinforce a particular thesis they believe in. Some of these players seem quite dishonest and pretty vicious to me, but the great majority seem instead to be doing nothing worse than engaging in groupthink.
Groupthink poses the greatest peril in areas of science that are subject to considerable uncertainty, and in which ideology or institutional commitment can play a role. The uncertainty allows data to be interpreted in ways favorable to the prevailing paradigm. The ideology or institutional commitment creates powerful, if often completely unconscious, personal incentives to trim the data in ways favorable to one’s beliefs.
What McIntyre has been doing quite effectively over the years, and did quite well in this performance, is to attempt to bring the currently out-of-control scientific process to heel, and to demand that it operate according to correct underlying methodology.
Introducing transparency is an absolutely key part of this makeover. When real transparency takes hold, the argument over global warming will take off on a very different direction, I believe; I suspect it will deeply unsettle a considerable amount of what is now so often described as settled science. It may be, for all we know, that much of the certainty claimed for CAGW hypothesis will nonetheless survive this event. If so, we can at least be reassured that any actions we may take are based on well grounded science.
But emphatically we need to know, and have a right to know.
McIntyre is playing this longer game, I believe — and he’s playing it well.
tj
December 8, 2009 11:06 am
These reporters are not liberals, they work for some of the most ultra conservative people on the face of the earth. Stay out of the left/right box they try to put you in — by pretending to be in one themselves. Communism and fascism are the alpha and the omega of a circle of totalitarian rule. They are the same thing.
Picked this up from another website
“284 Plato. Sorry, don’t have the link, but a recent study by volunteers in the US found that virually all of the 1200 or so ground weather stations collecting ground temperatures in the US broke the rules for data collection by being either too close to hot air vents or being surrounded by too much asphalt. That rather indicates that what the US stations have been recording is urban, not global, warming.
by TimT December 8th, 2009 at 6:48 pm ”
Can anyone substantiate this – my source is very reliable on other subjects.
Michael
December 8, 2009 11:13 am
We are not going to debate as to what degree of TYRANNY we are willing to accept. Not with the UN, not with the EU, not even with our own government!
B. Smith
December 8, 2009 11:14 am
Mr. McIntyre was subdued and reserved; perhaps too much so. However, his demeanor on camera should nullify any AGW proponents attempts to assassinate his character or blow him off as just another tinfoil-hat denier to the voting public.
Chris Horner was loaded for bear and it would have been great to see him use his attorney’s interrogative skills with Oppenheimer. CNN would never let that happen.
Frankly, I would have liked to see Mr. McIntyre challenge Dr. Oppenheimer’s arguments with dispassionate, mathematics-based facts about the corrupted data used by all those other groups Oppenheimer mentioned. The problem with a venue like CNN is that there is never sufficient time to do anything in-depth. A real interview, with tough, probing, show me questions by a real journalist (not a talking head) would be the best possible way to do this. However, I don’t know if there are any real journalists left who could do that sort of interview.
Robert
December 8, 2009 11:18 am
Off topic, but lately I’ve seen the phrase “thousands of climate scientists agree” in several places on these interwebs. Does anyone know just how many climate scientists exist? I’ve never met one. I don’t remember anyone in college studying “climate science”, probably because there was no such thing then.
Vincent
December 8, 2009 11:18 am
Ken,
“The only people he reached were those that already agreed with him. In other words, he didn’t much help the cause.”
No, I disagree. There will be many educated viewers who will have understood Stephens arguments and seen through Oppenheimer. Of course, there will be many thicko’s who won’t get it. But that’s not the point. You have to step back and take broader perspective. This is one of many broadcasts with many more to come. Some viewers will respond to Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh, other’s to Stuart Varney, and yet other’s to Stephen’s performance here.
There is no “one size fits all” format.
Oppenheimer makes the classic logical error of Coincidental Correlation or Correlation is not causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc)
The name in Latin means “after this therefore because of this”. This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other.
The obvious correlations are that:
Fossil fuel use is increasing,
CO2 is increasing, and increases atmospheric absorption
“Global” temperature is increasing, which presumably
Increases water vapor, increasing atmospheric absorption, and that
Hotter temperatures melt glaciers and increase ocean levels.
The alarmist projection of coincidental correlation is that therefore:
continuing fossil fuel use will kill millions of people in low lying countries etc.
Some unexamined and unvalidated links are:
How is cloud cover changing and why?
How is specific humidity changing and why?
How are atmospheric convection and latent heat flows changing?
The mantra “global warming” has purposely been changed to “climate change”. This enables the political accusation (and logical fallacy) that:
If you question reducing fossil fuel by 80%,
you must be denying the obvious fact that climate is changing and that
you care nothing for the poor in developing countries.
This ignores:
Svensmark’s measured impacts of the sun and cosmic rays on clouds.
McKitrick’s statistics that half global warming is the Urban Heat Island effect.
Bangladesh’s delta is rising faster than the ocean etc. etc.
ClimateGate exposes numerous problems with the received wisdom. We must require open transparent science with full auditing and validation of the causation links, not just feel good correlations and requiring us taxpayers to shell out trillions of dollars to be controlled by unelected bureaucrats in a centralized global government.
Nick Griffin does a MUCH better job of defending science against the Carbon Cult.
Michael
December 8, 2009 11:29 am
“The IPCC encountered a problem when the planet began to measurably cool beginning in 1998. Satellite data since then has demonstrated that the average global temperature has been dropping, mostly in response to the Sun whose solar radiation has moved into what is called “a solar minimum”, a reduction in magnetic storms. This is a natural cycle the Sun has gone through many times over the billions of years of the Earth’s existence”
Copenhagen: The Next Sneak Attack http://www.therealitycheck.org/?p=9095
MB
December 8, 2009 11:31 am
The false logic at the end is astounding.
He posits that you have to accept that there is a massive conspiracy between all 2500+ scientists involved in IPCC (although we know that those 2500+ people did not repeat any of the data analysis and are just nodding dogs, victims of their trust in the peer review process – in fact it is worse since some of them are not scientists and some of them are shaking their heads anyhow) before you can accept that there was any wrong doing at CRU.
We can separate two questions here. i) Is there a massive conspiracy between 2500+ scientists … well, I don’t think there is – and we all need to say so, very loudly; ii) Are some the analyses of the CRU in need of independent and open review with full disclosure of all data and all methods in light of ClimateGate … well, I think so – and that is all we should be asking for.
The AGW alarmists are trying to make out that the “skeptics”, the “deniers”, are “conspiracy theorists” who believe in Rosswell aliens, that JFK was murdered by the government (or who ever you want to pick), 911 was an inside job, the Catholic Church rules the world, wait, no, he Jews rule the world, no wait, scratch that, it is the Freemasons etc… But this is just a desperate and pathetic smoke screen. Unfortunately it might succeed though.
I do not think that any honest person can deny that we need of independent review of the CRU outputs in light of ClimateGate. The CRU ought not object to this, since they are honest scientists and science is based around independent verification. Indeed they should be thrilled to bits that we are so interested in their work that we wish to repeat it. So I do not see what the problem is.
yonason
December 8, 2009 11:34 am
There are no “mountains of evidence” for AGW. CRU was all they had. It’s all in the toilet now, but they want to serve it to us for dinner anyway, and charge us premium prices for it, to boot.
Pragmatic
December 8, 2009 11:37 am
The arguments put forward in the NZ televised debate best represent the real issues. Neither author is a “climate scientist,” Morgan is an Investment Manager most likely with a stake in green energy, Ian Wishart is the author of “Air Con,” a skeptic with a stake in book sales. http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/climate-change-confusion-you-decide-3241785/video
Morgan, a multi-millionaire who hired a research/ghost writer for his book “Poles Apart” uses a studied, laconic delivery to claim he only cares for the “science.” We are led to believe he’s something of a scientist himself – yet he only refers to one skeptical scientist, Svensmark that, “I had access to.” No mention of the APS Petition, or 30,000 men and women who signed the Orgegon petition, or of Soon, Happer, Dyson, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Akasofu, Douglass, Loehle, Zoriata, Scaffeta, Pielke, Von Storch, Idsos, etc. ???
Morgan does offer this thoughtful plea: “But for God’s sake, don’t use a hammer to crack a nut!” Indeed! something in Denmark should smell rotten – given the “balance of evidence” Morgan presents. BTW Gareth, I find about the only thing that does the job on a Brazil nut – is a hammer.
Poll results: 77% to 23% for Mr. Wishart’s arguments.
Ron de Haan
December 8, 2009 11:43 am
Bad interview.
They did not grab the guy spitting nonsense about rising sea levels, melting ice caps, increasing ocean acidity and rising temperatures by the balls.
It is possible they did no hear him make this remarks.
We should ask them if this has been the case, anyhow the harm has been done, the lies are still standing, very bad interview.
What is standing is the fact that the science is rotten and measures are underway.
Next time send in Lord Monckton who in my opinion is the Champion of the debate.
He would have buried the guy and convince the public. Missed opportunity I say.
P Walker
December 8, 2009 11:47 am
tj (11:06:55) – Frank Caulfield sits on the board of Time Warner , the owner of CNN . He is also a founding partner of Kleiner Perkins . Does that ring any bells ?
Henry
December 8, 2009 11:52 am
Could McIntyre have talked any slower or stammered more? Frustrating to watch. In the controlled environs of CNN one must be prepared with more than just information. Skeptics must be ready to pounce given the limited face time we get. I hate to admit it but Oppenheimer owned this. As much as I disagree with him he was ‘tanned, rested and ready’. I almost launched a brick at the screen while he glibly regurgitated the AGW hypno-mantra. As much as I respect Horner he could have been more effective.
yonason
December 8, 2009 11:55 am
There are no “2500 scientists” who support the IPCC conclusions. That’s another part of their big lie. http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/climate-liars-the-political-elites-myth-of-2500-climate-sceintists-has-now-shrunk-to-25-fallout-from-climategate.html
Whenever you hear someone parroting that line, you know they are either ignorant, or lying. That alone should disqualify all of their testimony. If they can’t get such a simple fact correct, why should I trust them on the more complicated material?
It’s the same as the argument in defense of CRU, “yes they were lying about a few things, but you can believe the rest of what they say.” NO!
TheGoodLocust th
December 8, 2009 11:57 am
That bald POS lied nearly everytime he opened his mouth – a deluge of deception. Too bad that Campbell Brown lady wouldn’t let the others interrupt – if I was there I would’ve called him out on every single one of his damn lies.
Smiling knave!
DRE
December 8, 2009 12:10 pm
There may be problems with some of the research —- but magically the data that has been tampered with is just like the real data.
What are the odds of that?
Jeremy
December 8, 2009 12:18 pm
Robert: I don’t remember anyone in college studying “climate science”, probably because there was no such thing then.
I took atmospheric physics in college in the early 80’s, judging by the size of the class (7 people out of a University of 50,000) there are not many people who understand the science (although atmospheric physics is not what I would call rocket science – it was actually one of the easier subjects I took). Those that do understand it and who are honest with themselves will admit that it is fairly complex on a global scale when trying to predict tiny variations of a few degrees – a heinously unscientific oversimplification is required to come up with the looney idea that CO2 is the main driver…
Michael
December 8, 2009 12:34 pm
31,000 scientists agree man-made climate change is a fraud, and they signed a petition to Congress to that effect. Is this correct. This should be the immediate counterpoint to their claim their scientists agree.
anna v
December 8, 2009 12:38 pm
DRE (12:10:30) : There may be problems with some of the research —- but magically the data that has been tampered with is just like the real data.
What are the odds of that?
100% if there is an incestuous connection between the world data banks of “real/homogenized” data, as the australian data was shown to be. Have a look at the top article http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ .
Jason
December 8, 2009 12:43 pm
Fact: Co2 lags Temp increase.
Fact: Co2 is what breeds life on this planet.
Fact: the Vikings once Farmed GREENLAND.
Fact: Michael Oppenheimer fails to admit that the earth has been much warmer then we are today without the massive population we currently have.
Opinion: Michael Oppenheimer is perpetuating the lie that Green House Gasses cause the earth to warm.
TitiXXXX
December 8, 2009 12:44 pm
humm what is that japanese study about global temperature Oppenheimer is speaking about?
Oppenheimer makes several (at least 3) statements that are factually incorrect. Is he deliberately lying? The critics have NOT had access to the data much less for decades,that was a bald faced lie and the point of the FOIA requests that the wistle blower used . No one claimed a “massive Fraud”. Saddly with there effort to block journals and control peer review they made the “large conspiracy” unnecessary. There are not 2500 scientists by any honest definition involved in IPCC. Seriously talking points is one thing this crosses the line into the BS zone.
He then points to 3 other groups with the same result NASA, NOAA and some Japanese group. Well for years the only claim the NASA and NOAA groups had to accuracy was that they were the same as CRU. We all know there are huge problems with fudge factors and “corrections” in those products. I have never seen anything from the supposed Japanese group. How do I know they have the same result? In WUWT we have read about the Japanese Geophysical Union I believe refuting the CAGW idea.
Alan W,
I wouldn’t underestimate the positive effect of McIntyre’s performance. I would describe it as insidiously rational. Both Oppenheimer and Horner came across like shills for a cause. McIntyre projected instead an image of someone concerned about the legitimacy of the underlying science.
In the end, the real battle here is over the scientific process. What seems unquestionable to me is that it has largely been hijacked by a group of scientists to reinforce a particular thesis they believe in. Some of these players seem quite dishonest and pretty vicious to me, but the great majority seem instead to be doing nothing worse than engaging in groupthink.
Groupthink poses the greatest peril in areas of science that are subject to considerable uncertainty, and in which ideology or institutional commitment can play a role. The uncertainty allows data to be interpreted in ways favorable to the prevailing paradigm. The ideology or institutional commitment creates powerful, if often completely unconscious, personal incentives to trim the data in ways favorable to one’s beliefs.
What McIntyre has been doing quite effectively over the years, and did quite well in this performance, is to attempt to bring the currently out-of-control scientific process to heel, and to demand that it operate according to correct underlying methodology.
Introducing transparency is an absolutely key part of this makeover. When real transparency takes hold, the argument over global warming will take off on a very different direction, I believe; I suspect it will deeply unsettle a considerable amount of what is now so often described as settled science. It may be, for all we know, that much of the certainty claimed for CAGW hypothesis will nonetheless survive this event. If so, we can at least be reassured that any actions we may take are based on well grounded science.
But emphatically we need to know, and have a right to know.
McIntyre is playing this longer game, I believe — and he’s playing it well.
These reporters are not liberals, they work for some of the most ultra conservative people on the face of the earth. Stay out of the left/right box they try to put you in — by pretending to be in one themselves. Communism and fascism are the alpha and the omega of a circle of totalitarian rule. They are the same thing.
Picked this up from another website
“284 Plato. Sorry, don’t have the link, but a recent study by volunteers in the US found that virually all of the 1200 or so ground weather stations collecting ground temperatures in the US broke the rules for data collection by being either too close to hot air vents or being surrounded by too much asphalt. That rather indicates that what the US stations have been recording is urban, not global, warming.
by TimT December 8th, 2009 at 6:48 pm ”
Can anyone substantiate this – my source is very reliable on other subjects.
We are not going to debate as to what degree of TYRANNY we are willing to accept. Not with the UN, not with the EU, not even with our own government!
Mr. McIntyre was subdued and reserved; perhaps too much so. However, his demeanor on camera should nullify any AGW proponents attempts to assassinate his character or blow him off as just another tinfoil-hat denier to the voting public.
Chris Horner was loaded for bear and it would have been great to see him use his attorney’s interrogative skills with Oppenheimer. CNN would never let that happen.
Frankly, I would have liked to see Mr. McIntyre challenge Dr. Oppenheimer’s arguments with dispassionate, mathematics-based facts about the corrupted data used by all those other groups Oppenheimer mentioned. The problem with a venue like CNN is that there is never sufficient time to do anything in-depth. A real interview, with tough, probing, show me questions by a real journalist (not a talking head) would be the best possible way to do this. However, I don’t know if there are any real journalists left who could do that sort of interview.
Off topic, but lately I’ve seen the phrase “thousands of climate scientists agree” in several places on these interwebs. Does anyone know just how many climate scientists exist? I’ve never met one. I don’t remember anyone in college studying “climate science”, probably because there was no such thing then.
Ken,
“The only people he reached were those that already agreed with him. In other words, he didn’t much help the cause.”
No, I disagree. There will be many educated viewers who will have understood Stephens arguments and seen through Oppenheimer. Of course, there will be many thicko’s who won’t get it. But that’s not the point. You have to step back and take broader perspective. This is one of many broadcasts with many more to come. Some viewers will respond to Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh, other’s to Stuart Varney, and yet other’s to Stephen’s performance here.
There is no “one size fits all” format.
Oppenheimer makes the classic logical error of Coincidental Correlation or Correlation is not causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc)
The obvious correlations are that:
Fossil fuel use is increasing,
CO2 is increasing, and increases atmospheric absorption
“Global” temperature is increasing, which presumably
Increases water vapor, increasing atmospheric absorption, and that
Hotter temperatures melt glaciers and increase ocean levels.
The alarmist projection of coincidental correlation is that therefore:
continuing fossil fuel use will kill millions of people in low lying countries etc.
Some unexamined and unvalidated links are:
How is cloud cover changing and why?
How is specific humidity changing and why?
How are atmospheric convection and latent heat flows changing?
The mantra “global warming” has purposely been changed to “climate change”. This enables the political accusation (and logical fallacy) that:
If you question reducing fossil fuel by 80%,
you must be denying the obvious fact that climate is changing and that
you care nothing for the poor in developing countries.
This ignores:
Svensmark’s measured impacts of the sun and cosmic rays on clouds.
McKitrick’s statistics that half global warming is the Urban Heat Island effect.
Bangladesh’s delta is rising faster than the ocean etc. etc.
ClimateGate exposes numerous problems with the received wisdom. We must require open transparent science with full auditing and validation of the causation links, not just feel good correlations and requiring us taxpayers to shell out trillions of dollars to be controlled by unelected bureaucrats in a centralized global government.
Nick Griffin does a MUCH better job of defending science against the Carbon Cult.
“The IPCC encountered a problem when the planet began to measurably cool beginning in 1998. Satellite data since then has demonstrated that the average global temperature has been dropping, mostly in response to the Sun whose solar radiation has moved into what is called “a solar minimum”, a reduction in magnetic storms. This is a natural cycle the Sun has gone through many times over the billions of years of the Earth’s existence”
Copenhagen: The Next Sneak Attack
http://www.therealitycheck.org/?p=9095
The false logic at the end is astounding.
He posits that you have to accept that there is a massive conspiracy between all 2500+ scientists involved in IPCC (although we know that those 2500+ people did not repeat any of the data analysis and are just nodding dogs, victims of their trust in the peer review process – in fact it is worse since some of them are not scientists and some of them are shaking their heads anyhow) before you can accept that there was any wrong doing at CRU.
We can separate two questions here. i) Is there a massive conspiracy between 2500+ scientists … well, I don’t think there is – and we all need to say so, very loudly; ii) Are some the analyses of the CRU in need of independent and open review with full disclosure of all data and all methods in light of ClimateGate … well, I think so – and that is all we should be asking for.
The AGW alarmists are trying to make out that the “skeptics”, the “deniers”, are “conspiracy theorists” who believe in Rosswell aliens, that JFK was murdered by the government (or who ever you want to pick), 911 was an inside job, the Catholic Church rules the world, wait, no, he Jews rule the world, no wait, scratch that, it is the Freemasons etc… But this is just a desperate and pathetic smoke screen. Unfortunately it might succeed though.
I do not think that any honest person can deny that we need of independent review of the CRU outputs in light of ClimateGate. The CRU ought not object to this, since they are honest scientists and science is based around independent verification. Indeed they should be thrilled to bits that we are so interested in their work that we wish to repeat it. So I do not see what the problem is.
There are no “mountains of evidence” for AGW. CRU was all they had. It’s all in the toilet now, but they want to serve it to us for dinner anyway, and charge us premium prices for it, to boot.
The arguments put forward in the NZ televised debate best represent the real issues. Neither author is a “climate scientist,” Morgan is an Investment Manager most likely with a stake in green energy, Ian Wishart is the author of “Air Con,” a skeptic with a stake in book sales.
http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/climate-change-confusion-you-decide-3241785/video
Morgan, a multi-millionaire who hired a research/ghost writer for his book “Poles Apart” uses a studied, laconic delivery to claim he only cares for the “science.” We are led to believe he’s something of a scientist himself – yet he only refers to one skeptical scientist, Svensmark that, “I had access to.” No mention of the APS Petition, or 30,000 men and women who signed the Orgegon petition, or of Soon, Happer, Dyson, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Akasofu, Douglass, Loehle, Zoriata, Scaffeta, Pielke, Von Storch, Idsos, etc. ???
Morgan does offer this thoughtful plea: “But for God’s sake, don’t use a hammer to crack a nut!” Indeed! something in Denmark should smell rotten – given the “balance of evidence” Morgan presents. BTW Gareth, I find about the only thing that does the job on a Brazil nut – is a hammer.
Poll results: 77% to 23% for Mr. Wishart’s arguments.
Bad interview.
They did not grab the guy spitting nonsense about rising sea levels, melting ice caps, increasing ocean acidity and rising temperatures by the balls.
It is possible they did no hear him make this remarks.
We should ask them if this has been the case, anyhow the harm has been done, the lies are still standing, very bad interview.
What is standing is the fact that the science is rotten and measures are underway.
Next time send in Lord Monckton who in my opinion is the Champion of the debate.
He would have buried the guy and convince the public. Missed opportunity I say.
tj (11:06:55) – Frank Caulfield sits on the board of Time Warner , the owner of CNN . He is also a founding partner of Kleiner Perkins . Does that ring any bells ?
Could McIntyre have talked any slower or stammered more? Frustrating to watch. In the controlled environs of CNN one must be prepared with more than just information. Skeptics must be ready to pounce given the limited face time we get. I hate to admit it but Oppenheimer owned this. As much as I disagree with him he was ‘tanned, rested and ready’. I almost launched a brick at the screen while he glibly regurgitated the AGW hypno-mantra. As much as I respect Horner he could have been more effective.
There are no “2500 scientists” who support the IPCC conclusions. That’s another part of their big lie.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/climate-liars-the-political-elites-myth-of-2500-climate-sceintists-has-now-shrunk-to-25-fallout-from-climategate.html
Whenever you hear someone parroting that line, you know they are either ignorant, or lying. That alone should disqualify all of their testimony. If they can’t get such a simple fact correct, why should I trust them on the more complicated material?
It’s the same as the argument in defense of CRU, “yes they were lying about a few things, but you can believe the rest of what they say.” NO!
That bald POS lied nearly everytime he opened his mouth – a deluge of deception. Too bad that Campbell Brown lady wouldn’t let the others interrupt – if I was there I would’ve called him out on every single one of his damn lies.
Smiling knave!
There may be problems with some of the research —- but magically the data that has been tampered with is just like the real data.
What are the odds of that?
Robert: I don’t remember anyone in college studying “climate science”, probably because there was no such thing then.
I took atmospheric physics in college in the early 80’s, judging by the size of the class (7 people out of a University of 50,000) there are not many people who understand the science (although atmospheric physics is not what I would call rocket science – it was actually one of the easier subjects I took). Those that do understand it and who are honest with themselves will admit that it is fairly complex on a global scale when trying to predict tiny variations of a few degrees – a heinously unscientific oversimplification is required to come up with the looney idea that CO2 is the main driver…
31,000 scientists agree man-made climate change is a fraud, and they signed a petition to Congress to that effect. Is this correct. This should be the immediate counterpoint to their claim their scientists agree.
DRE (12:10:30) :
There may be problems with some of the research —- but magically the data that has been tampered with is just like the real data.
What are the odds of that?
100% if there is an incestuous connection between the world data banks of “real/homogenized” data, as the australian data was shown to be. Have a look at the top article http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ .
Fact: Co2 lags Temp increase.
Fact: Co2 is what breeds life on this planet.
Fact: the Vikings once Farmed GREENLAND.
Fact: Michael Oppenheimer fails to admit that the earth has been much warmer then we are today without the massive population we currently have.
Opinion: Michael Oppenheimer is perpetuating the lie that Green House Gasses cause the earth to warm.
humm what is that japanese study about global temperature Oppenheimer is speaking about?