From an AP story interview, we have a what I’ll call a “Lubchencoism”.
“There is a well-orchestrated and fairly successful effort under way to confuse and sometimes cherry-pick information,” Lubchenco said.
Heh. Apparently she’s never reviewed how USHCN and GHCN came to have their station lists.
But here’s the quote that had me ROTFL
“I don’t view our role as trying to convince people of something,” she said. “Our role is to inform people.”
Apparently she’s never read the NOAA CCSP synthesis report. See this:
NCDC: Photoshopping the climate change report for better impact
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
George M (13:29:32) :
“Someone needs to assemble the financial numbers for support of the CAGW fraud…”
What about this article by Joanne Nova?
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm
George M (13:29:32) :
“Someone needs to assemble the financial numbers for support of the CAGW fraud…”
Here;
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm
John F. Hultquist (11:34:54) :
At 27 comments into this session we still haven’t had a reference to
George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. So I’ll nominate Jane Lubchenco as the Minister of Truth.
John I hate to tell you but actually —- she got that job from the UN last week. Too late I’m afraid.
During the last few month’ of whining climate cultists I believe this hollywood quote is on the bulls eye, something like this:
Just because I’m suffering from paranoid schizophrenia doesn’t mean that they’re not out to get me.
And this quote from bagdad bob which serves so well fro all the climate bobs:
“These cowards have no morals. They have no shame about lying”
Rob (11:51:42) :Can someone explain this graph to me, please?
If you mean the map that has a lot of red on it and a little pale blue it appears to say that the winter temperature of 2010 has been nearly the same “as normal” along the US-Canadian border near the center, while as one goes north, NW, and especially NE, the temperature was, on average, warmer — as much as 7+ C degrees.
Near the bottom the dates indicate the graphic was created in June of ’02 and then re-designed a year later – and then updated with new data since then. The dates of the new data are at the top.
Seems simple enough, so maybe I don’t grasp your problem with this?
Rob (11:51:42) said:
Can someone explain this graph to me, please?
http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/figmapt_e.html?season=Winter&date=2010
__________
Rob, if that chart is accurate, it would reflect the fact that during the negative AO index that we’ve seen this winter, the cold air gets forced south, as high pressure and higher temperatures take over the arctic areas. Someone on another thread commmented about the “record cold” that the N. Hemisphere had seen this winter, but that really was not accurate. Only parts of the N. Hemisphere have seen unusually cold weather…and on average the N. Hemipshere temps in January were actually something like the 4th warmest, and the S. Hemisphere was warmer still. Botton line: the warmer arctic temps prevented the arctic sea ice from going into a positive anomaly for the 6th winter in a row– but of course, the AGW skeptics made much ado about the snow in Florida, etc., but now from the chart you referred to, we see where that cold air came from. The N. Hemisphere (and entire planet) is seeing record warmth right now in the troposphere…exactly as predicted by AGW models, and despite the recent deep solar minimum…
Is this worthy of next week’s quote? Seen in Andrew Bolt’s blog (Australia)
“It’s being reported in Europe (Bishop Hill blog) that subsidies for alternative energy are now so high that it is profitable to buy solar panels, shine arc lamps on them (using coal-fired power) and sell the resulting electricity back to the grid at hugely subsidised rates. I guess the next step is to bypass the arc lamps and wire the base load power inlet direct to the subsidised alternative energy outlet. “
Rob, the DMI graph has shown the north of 80 deg temperature this winter to be pretty much in line with the historical average. I think you’re suffering the effects of the intentional dropout of cold latitude temperature stations which was necessary to propagate the myth of AGW.
Notice how the warmers are so quick to point to warmness due to El Nino as proof of AGW. When the El Nino fades, they’ll say we’re cherry picking data when we point out temperatures have returned to their average.
It has occurred to me that a lot of these ‘mistakes’ are so obvious, that they could almost be deliberate. Perhaps what we are seeing is a campaign of ‘civil disobedience’ from within the climate change industry. After all given the current financial situation no one wants to risk their family’s well-being, by finding themselves fired for coming forward and speaking out in public. So instead they are undermining the credibility of AGW. By appearing to toe the party line, but over saucing the pudding to the point where no one can miss it.
Just a thought!
Not one of the approximately two dozen GCMs [computer climate models] were able to predict the flat to cooling temperatures over most of the past decade: click
And if the Arctic is warming, why was the North Pole ice-free in 1986, and in 2000? Notice that the North Pole is solid ice again, despite scary predictions to the contrary. What made it freeze up? Global warming?
Climate models are almost always wrong. You could do better by flipping a coin: click. When one prediction out of many happens by chance to occur, the “I told you so” chants start. But it’s like losing a football game 42 – 3, and the losing team pointing to their one field goal and screaming, “That proves we were right all along!” As if.
This provides an easy to understand explanation: click
The ginned-up controversy comes from the overstated claims that anyone can accurately measure tiny fractions of a degree changes in temperature. The recent deconstruction on WUWT of the un-calibrated satellite PRTs show that the error bars are much larger than the supposed tenth of a degree-scale temperature variations.
The warmist arm-waving comes from those presumed minute changes, which are well within the margin of error; down in the noise. But when the y-axis is measured normally, this shows what the planet has been doing: click
Nothing occurring now is outside the parameters of past natural climate variability. Nothing. The planet is acting completely normally. Rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature on all time scales. There is no cause and effect relationship between increasing CO2 followed by increasing temperature; the reverse is true. As the planet naturally warms from the LIA, CO2 is outgassed from the oceans.
Since CO2 as a cause of global warming has been debunked, the goal posts are now being moved to make methane the next scare.
Smokey,
First, if the north pole happened to have been ice free in 1986, and again in 2000 (I’ll have to take your word for this, as you don’t cite any references), then it would have been a polynya, and not indicative of anything, especially not that the entire arctic was free of ice– for we know that did not occur in those years, or any years in modern history. The total sea ice extent in the arctic has been dropping for many years, and whether or not the exact north pole happens to be covered with ice at any given time, tells us very little about the condition of the whole arctic sea ice extent.
Second, of course CO2 has not been “debunked” as you say, as a cause of global warming, for certainly we know that it is– and thank god it is, or we’d all be frozen solid! The issue isn’t whether or not CO2 causes global warming, for certainly we know that it does, but rather, does whether or not the excess CO2 caused by human activities causes global warming enough to bring about climate change. If you don’t even aknowledge that CO2 helps to warm our planet, along with then other GH gases, then we have aboslutely nothing we can agree on…
Binny (19:03:55)
“It has occurred to me that a lot of these ‘mistakes’ are so obvious, that they could almost be deliberate”
The “mistakes” are not “mistakes”. They are a deliberate attempt to deceive.
The AGW movement ran into 2 problems. One, the weather did not cooperate. Two, the resistance, or the blog auditors as they are called today, proved to be effective.
Solution. Expose some of these mistakes to the public at large, expose those who made them (a human sacrifice if you will, ala Watergate), replace the fraudsters in the public domain with more Honest Scientists (actually, no more honest), and try to win over some of the blogs who have been critical (access to information, a respectful name-in auditors-as opposed to deniers, perhaps even some donations). At the end of the day, when the weather turns back to a warmer cycle, declare problem solved, science is good again, and terrorize the population at large with more alarmism.
This stuff happens all the time in business (only different words are used).
I don’t live in the US, but I hear many folks are not getting the word about Climategate aside from the earliest reports. This is a favorite tactic of those who control the MSM, report the story so you can not be accused of censoring it, but stop reporting on it after awhile. The average person does not remember what was on the news last month unless it is constantly rehashed by the MSM, so it goes down the memory hole when the MSM ignores it. For those who do happen to recall due to their blogging, they might be duped into thinking something has changed. Nothing has changed. Just an army in retreat and regathering it’s strength for another go.
Scientists are controlled via the following mechanisms:
a) grants for research, most of them issued by the government, which supplement their income and provide them with research that allows them to publish papers which gives them status and promotions
b)pleasing those who grant tenure and promotions
c)those who grant tenure and promotions are driven by pleasing those who fund the endowments (the powers that be)
d)pleasing those who invite them to attend or speak at conferences (arranged by the powers that be)
e)pleasing those who publish their papers (owned by the powers that be)
f)pleasing anonymous reviewers who must approve their paper before publishing, and who is likely conflicted by one or more of the above
Nothing has changed in this regard. Money and self-interest drive all professions. The money is behind AGW, and that is where science will go.
Try to get a grant to disprove the CO2 hypothesis, or a paper published that does not say kind words about AGW even if their data conflict with the hypothesis. Scientists have to eat too. This is not to say most scientists will do bad things that compromise their integrity, thats limited to a chosen few, a minority. The majority will just deal with the reality, and play the game by researching that which is of interest within their narrow window of expertise, an area likely to get them a grant, tenure, whatever, and speak/write carefully to not offend the AGW powers that be.
It’s only the retired scientists who dare speak out on AGW.
The education system being what it is, with false paradigms being taught by those taught the false paradigm themselves, after 20 years or so, those who can see through the fraud will either have died off or be old enough to not care. Folks who can afford it will pay the equivalent of 100 dollars for a pound of hamburger, payable in carbon credits via implanted chips that also measure your oxygen consumption and CO2 production for tax purposes.
R. Gates (20:45:06),
I have repeatedly provided this reference: click. Claiming ignorance is no excuse. Read the references for enlightenment.
And note that I always say “measurable” when referring to CO2. That is the critical point. It is empirical science. If the putative warming from CO2 is so small that it is not empirically measurable, then it’s best for the alarmists to move on to their next scare; if something can not be quantified, it is simply a conjecture.
A small fraction of a degree warming – whether caused by CO2 or natural variability – or both – is nothing to get alarmed about. Rational people will take a few tenths of a degree warming over global cooling any time.
The amount of anthropogenic CO2 attributable to human activity is vanishingly small: click
Those are the IPCC’s own numbers. Face it, human activity is nothing compared with natural climate change. Time to move the goal posts to the methane scare. CO2 as a cause is a dead duck.
Smokey (21:03:30) :
R. Gates (20:45:06),
Don’t cast your pearls, Smokey.
Anybody who continuously refers to “the AGW hypothesis” or “AGW models” like they are some sore of robust “it”…well….let’s just say….
The words…”Survival of the Fittest” comes to mind.
Here is another poster’s “Smokey-like” response from another thread which I thought I would reproduce here for everyone’s enjoyment:
R Gates: “So, now that we’ve come to the end of the deep solar mimimum, how do AGW skeptics explain that we still did have not seen a positive arctic sea ice anomaly since 2004. and global temps continue at near, or above record levels?”
kirkmyers: “ You continue to talk about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as if it were a proven fact. It is an unproven hypothesis. There is no empirical evidence to support the hypothesis; only computer models that have been manipulated to conform to a political consensus driven by powerful monied interests.
Let’s start at the beginning. CO2 molecules capture a small portion of surface energy and transfer this energy to the other gas molecules in the atmosphere. Some of this energy escapes into space and the rest finds its way back to the surface, where it’s eventually re-radiated.
Note that CO2 doesn’t actually retain energy; it acts only to transfer captured energy to the other molecules in the atmosphere through collisions. In short, the greenhouse effect of CO2, even at concentrations well below current levels, is energy-limited and not concentration-limited.
Some climate scientists claim that water vapor amplifies the radiative “forcing” of man-made CO2 — creating a sort of magic “multiplier effect” that raises surface temperatures. But where’s the proof? There isn’t any. (“The models all agree,” isn’t proof.)
Hundreds of thousands of radiosonde measurements have failed to find a pattern of upper trophospheric heating predicted by the models. Global temperatures flatlined in the late 1990s and have been declining slightly since 2002. The IPCC models predicted a steady upward trend, not a decline. Ergo, their predictions have been falsified.
Scientists don’t understand how the sun works, they don’t understand how clouds work, they have a rudimentary understanding of how oceans work, and they’re still studying the impact of volcanic eruptions. In other words, they still have a lot to learn about the earth’s climate system. Yet, the AGW camp is absolutely certain human-induced CO2 emissions cause global warming.
There’s not a single piece of evidence in the data record that supports the AGW hypothesis. It is a belief driven by money and a hatred of “polluters,” those nasty capitalists on a mission to destroy Mother Earth through their relentless efforts to raise mankind’s living standards. All of its claims are based on inaccurate, incomplete and misleading analysis. As such, it ranks in the same scientific category as a belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
But there are still save-the-earth diehards who cling to the bogus man-causes-warming theory.
Give em hell, Kirk and Smokey!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Smokey,
Do you have any scientific (as opposed to AGW skeptics) data you’d like to posi? John Daly and his AGW skeptic focued website is hardly a neutral party (rest his soul). Please give me a peered reviewed, published study that show that CO2 has no significant effect in terms of global warming. Of course you can’t, so I won’t hold my breath. Of course CO2 causes global warming (thankfully!)– just how much does the extra CO2 pumped out by humans affect the climate– that’s the issue.
Also, your point in the previous post about CO2 beging “outgassed” by the oceans…this is just plain wrong. The oceans have been large net CO2 sinks, taking UP much of the excess CO2 that we humans have managed to generate. See:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ocean-acidification
Really Smokey, give me some CREDIBLE sources, and get your science right before making such unsupportable statements…
R Gates — John Daly and his AGW skeptic focued website is hardly a neutral party (rest his soul).
Given that the peer review process seems owned and controlled by the warmer interests (or money behind them), it’s tough to find “neutral.” AGW skeptic sites aren’t all the rage at university campuses worldwide. You expected a link from… where, precisely? Link to Watts or McIntyre, and the warmers go “hey, link to sites from the pros, not a weatherman or a hasbeen accountant fed by corporate mining.” The link is the link. Dispute WHAT THE LINK SAYS, not the originator of the data.
You (and your fellow warmist travelers) remind me of the old guys who used to yell at teenagers — “Get a job!” Teenager says “I’m trying; every place I apply to says I have to have experience, and I can’t get the experience to land a job without a job.”
Catch-22 certainly seems like a common debating argument given the sheer number of people who employ it.
Please give me a peered reviewed, published study that show that CO2 has no significant effect in terms of global warming.
Logically impossible since the term “global warming” presumes CO2 by definition. On top of this it’s a loaded request — disprove a given by disproving the given’s given. I mean… seriously? Dude.
Also, your point in the previous post about CO2 beging “outgassed” by the oceans…this is just plain wrong.
You must be new at this. Oceans both soak and emit; it’s part of the standard bits of knowledge herein. Do your own homework. It’s not smokey’s job to do it for you.
G. L. Alston, Enjoyed your comments concerning the frustrations of the enlightened. The enlightenment has become dark. “….and the tranquil waterway leading to the utmost ends of the earth….seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness.” ( Joseph Conrad.’Heart of Darkness.’)
G.L. Alston (23:09:07) :
Very good points.
The troll is not satisfied by logic an reason, though.
He/she would rather just clog up everyone’s time with smoke and mirrors and sophistry.
The good thing is…everyone who has a logical mind….sees through the used-car-salesman approach to science.
Not sure what his/her agenda is…..I would guess that they don’t have anything better to do with their time than a 24-hour non-stop attempt at throwing a lame monkeywrench in the argument.
What a waste of energy and time, nonetheless. Off to bed for me….geez talk about wasting energy and time. Its 4:30 daylight savings time. Crap.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
The last sentence in the referenced article states:
“NOAA recently announced plans to consolidate its climate studies and plans to set up a new Climate Service in parallel to the National Weather Service.”
So is there now an officially defined boundary between weather and climate, or will they remain labels of convenience?
At the point, the shark has officially been jumped.
R Gates simply ignores all the evidence that debunks his CAGW conjecture, and instead constructs his own mental world, like the UFO cultists in Dr Leon Festinger’s When Prophecy Fails.
Anyone who casually dismisses the role of the oceans’ effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration is being deliberately ignorant. Surely Gates can’t be serious. But of course in his own mind, he is.
The graph posted above showing the direct relationship between water temperature and CO2 is ignored because it doesn’t fit the CAGW conjecture – just as Festinger’s UFO cultists ignored the fact that the flying saucers didn’t appear on the predicted date. They simply rescheduled the arrival of the flying saucers, unwavering in their true belief.
The CAGW cultists move the goal posts in exactly the same way as the UFO cultists. They confidently predicted a fast ramping up of global temperatures due to increasing CO2. When that didn’t happen, other excuses were invented on the spot, obeying Prof Langmuir’s laws of pathological science.
Cognitive dissonance is the hallmark of cultists everywhere. Scientific skepticism is the antidote, but skepticism requires an open mind and the understanding that those proposing a hypothesis [or a conjecture like CAGW] have the burden of providing real world, testable, verifiable evidence of their claims. They fail, because no such empirical evidence exists.
Skeptics have nothing to prove. The burden is entirely on those proposing the fantastic notion that a tiny trace gas will cause runaway global warming. There is no evidence supporting that preposterous conjecture, yet those afflicted with cognitive dissonance never question it. As in Hoffer’s The True Believer, they take comfort in their belief system; skepticism is rigorous and hard. Beliefs are comfortable and easy.
Cognitive dissonance is the enemy of the scientific method, which requires that those putting forth a hypothesis have the duty to also give all the reasons that their hypothesis might not be valid. Richard Feynman explained that it isn’t science if they don’t cover all the bases, both pro and con.
When have we ever heard the promoters of CAGW seriously try to refute their own CAGW hypothesis, showing why it might be invalid? Answer: never. Thus, CAGW is propaganda, not science. It is pseudo-science; science fiction. It is anything but science.
CO2 induced runaway global warming will be proven at about the same time the flying saucers arrive.
R. Gates (22:28:01) :
“Do you have any scientific (as opposed to AGW skeptics) data you’d like to post? John Daly and his AGW skeptic focued website is hardly a neutral party”
Good grief Gates! Have you been over there looking at the plots? Do you know where the data comes from?
Its raw data, Gates! Not homogenisised. Not fudged.
Please.
MartinGAtkins (11:55:31) :
That is a great anti AGW speech.
savethesharks — The good thing is…everyone who has a logical mind….sees through the used-car-salesman approach to science.
I don’t know that this is true either. Unlike the True Believers we skeptics seem to be all over the map.
e.g. smokey seems to be to be the type I’d call a denier. Extreme deniers would be the ones who think the entire thing is invented from the ground up and is a leftist plot. I’d call these guys the “hoaxers” (they believe it’s a hoax.)
Me, I’m probably what you’d call a lukewarmer. It seems clear that temps have gone up a bit since the LIA; likewise, it seems that Arrhenius was right. Man affects his environment (as all living creatures do by definition) so it seems illogical to presume that man is incapable of cumulative effect.
That said, where it concerns ramifications of policy I come down firmly on the side of the skeptics. I don’t have the quasi-religious belief of the True Believers who seem to posit that an environment is in stasis, e.g. a rainforest stays a rainforest forever except for evil human meddling. That sort of assumption is breathtakingly stupid. Living systems are dynamic.
As with all things objective Trvth is likely somewhere in the middle ground between deniers and True Believers — yes, man changes the climate, and it can’t hurt to be careful; i.e. use nuclear power as we can; start lofting solar power sats. However, that doesn’t mean we need Enlightened socialist overlords dictating to all via the latest human version of theocracratic rule.
What we all seem to share here is the anti-theocratic meme; we can all see where the Enlightened overlords are going with it.
Of course, I’m just one voice, and I’m probably full of it. But that’s my take.