D'Aleo on NOAA and NASA

whoops – I forgot to check “Notify me of follow-up…” so I’m checking it with this message.

Smoking Frog says:
January 19, 2011 at 5:42 am
I think some (not all) who appear to believe it actually only accept it for the sake of argument. The reason would be that there are skeptical arguments that work even if the planet is warming. In any difficult field, not only science, a great deal of argument uses premises accepted for the sake of argument. I’ve noticed that many people find this hard to understand. If you argue that way, they think you believe something which actually you either do not believe, or only believe might be true.

I certainly understand accepting a premise simply for the sake of argument, and I certainly understand that the existence of GW doesn’t give any credence to AGW – and surely doesn’t give any credence to CAGW.
However, I’m asking about skeptics that truly believe that the planet is warming – that truly believe in GW. Have they reached this conclusion after looking at unadjusted temperature data which was properly collected and/or adjusted for UHI effect?

dp says:
January 18, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Regarding Google searches – the Google results depend entirely on what kind of history Google has compiled on you. Flush all your cookies and try again. It would be astonishing if the results don’t change dramatically.
Alternatively dont use Google, use Scroogle, it give the same results as google, but without the cookies!

The beauty of AGW is that after the real data has been properly “adjusted” and “interpreted” by the “climate experts” we will still have “the warmest ever” as our present anomaly. And it not, then it was just “weather” which should never be confused with “real climate change”.

I see that Snapple is taking a well-earned pasting here. On 11th Richard Littlemore ran an article attacking Kent Clizbe (Note 1) then on 21st he was onto the back of Tim Ball. Along with that we had his fellow disciple of the CACC doctrne Snapple renewing his attacks on John O’Sullivan, just as he was on that other disciple, Joe Romm’s Climate Progress (Note 2) on 16th.
Romm was a bit nasty, suggesting that “ .. Clizbe is either an ex-CIA contractor – a mercenary who finds that anti-Islamic “counter-terrorism” is no longer paying the bills, forcing him to take money from people who want to make trouble for legitimate climate scientists. Or he’s a kook”.(Maybe he’s simply a “spook”).
“Snapple”, also make nasty comments involving associates of mine with his “ .. A propagandist named John O’Sullivan .. a fossil-fuel mouthpiece called The Canada Free Press. .. One of the editors of the CFP is the infamous Canadian denialist Tim Ball. .. ”. Well, at least John and Tim and Kent do have the courage of their convictions by publishing their names, background and contact details.
I visited “Snapple”’s blog (Note 3) and took a look at his “complete profile” and what are we told there? Only that his blog is “Legend of Pine Ridge”, just where we started. What convictions does “Snapple” have?. It would seem that he is not proud of those he hold about climate change, otherwise he’d be happy to let all of us know who he is (as I have said on another of your threads, I have low regard for those who hide behind false names).
On that page “Snapple” has an article “Kooky Kent Clizbe Does Not Speak for the CIA” which makes mention of “ .. Kooky Kent’s promoter, blogger John O’Sullivan . ” and “ .. the malignant denialist Tim Ball .. ”. Well, I can see why he’s scared to let people know who he is, but he shouldn’t think that he can hide on the Internet. I’m sure Kent could easily use his CIA contacts to track him down, then watch the libel action. After all, John is not only “ .. the world’s most popular Internet writer on the greenhouse gas theory .. ” but is also a “Science writer and legal analyst specializing in anti-corruption .. ” who has been “ .. successfully litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. federal 2nd circuit. .. ” (Note 4). Watch out Snapple, he may come to get you.
Convictions proudly held are to be respected, which does not mean accepted so let’s get back to someone with the courage of his convictions, John O’Sullivan. I don’t see eye-to-eye with John on everything but I do have respect for his courage. His opinions on climate change are not only in the Canada Free Press but, like mine, are plastered all over the Blogosphere.
Not only that but John has assembled “the Slayers” (Note 5), a powerful team of climate science critics to publish books that expose the flaws in the IPCC’s interpretation of science. First off the press QUOTE: In a world’s first ‘Slaying the Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ brings together some of the planet’s most powerful critics to expose the fraud that you always instinctively knew existed UNQUOTE” with another due out in the Spring. The promoters of that first book “ .. proudly present the world’s first full volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory-that junk science construct that props up the discredited international religion that blames you for harming the planet.”
Having managed to “ .. debunk of the greenhouse gas theory .. ” (Note 6), the next major objective appears to be the formation of Principia Scientific International an International. PSI is planned to be a not-for-profit association of scientists and other interested parties aiming to spread scientific truth globally, starting with climate science. Anyone interested in helping it to be set up can make a charitable donation to this fledgling global scientific association at the Go Fund Me site (Note 7).
You can find out all that you need to know at the PSI Web-site (Note 8) which advises that “Our PROPOSED Board of Directors is: Dr. Martin Hertzberg; Dr. Claes Johnson; Joseph A. Olson; Alan Siddons; Dr. Charles Anderson; Rev. Philip Foster; John O’Sullivan; Hans Schreuder ”.
On the GlobalWarmingSuperheroes “O’Sullivan’s Selective Myopia” thread (Note 9) one Jeff Daley claimed that “I was told John Osullivan is going to announce in Janaury the setting up a new science association called Principia Scientific International to sue all your criminal warmist buddies for fraud”. That is nonsense dreamed up by someone with a very vivid imagination. As I said on that thread “Taking a look at PSI’s Articles of Association (Note 4) I could find no mention of any intention “ .. to sue all your criminal warmist buddies for fraud”, so please Jeff, let us all know who told you that fairy tale – or were you just telling porkies? .. ” (NOTE 10).
BTW, I submitted this comment to Realclimate today and – surprise surprise – it hasn’t yet appeared. I wonder if it will get past the “hockey team” without being “snipped”.
NOTES:
See following comment
Best regards, Pete Ridley

Sherman,
College-bound students study global warming. This information is well-established and is presented in the science books. All the scientific organizations such as the National Academies say global warming is happening. The posters on the walls in science classes are from NASA, not the SPPI mailbox in the parcel post store.
The Pentagon and the CIA also are studying how to respond to global warming. Many of my students are from highly-educated families in government service, and they expect their children to learn what the scientific research says.
Certainly Catholic schools teach global warming because the Vatian says there is global warming. For Catholics and many Christians, global warming is a social justice issue and students are even encouraged to be advocates on behalf of the climate change issue.
I doubt that the CIA is chasing me since I am saying exactly what the CIA says on my blog. According to media reports, head of the CIA’s Center on Climate Change and National Security is named Kobayashi. As in, “My name is Kobayashi, I work for Keyser Soze.
It’s more likely that the CIA is tracking foreign-sponsored disninformation about climate change, just like they tracked the people who spread the KGB propaganda about the Pentagon making AIDS.
The CIA gives security clearances to the best climate scientists so they can study the information gathered from the satellites, so the CIA isn’t hunting teachers who say there is global warming.
To learn what the CIA says in the public domain about climate change, visit my site.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/

I notice that the Canada Free Press has retracted their allegations about the Canadian climate expert Dr. Weaver. I also notice that the Canada Free Press seems to have removed the retraction as well as the article by blogger John O’Sullivan which describes how Kent Clizbe–supposedly a former CIA case officer–is spaming professors at Dr. Michael Mann’s Pennsylvania college and offiering them millions to denounce Dr. Mann.
The Canada Free Press claims to be very pro-American, but they are denigrating US, British, and Canadian scientists as well as mischaracterizing the position of the CIA on global warming.
If the Canada Free Press, John O’Sullivan, Kent Clizbe, and Pete Ridley wish to report on what the CIA thinks about climate change, they should contact the CIA, not Kent Clizbe. Perhaps they would like to disagree with what the CIA is finding with its satellites and other national technical means, because Kent Clizbe is not a reliable source on the CIA position.
For more information about the CIA’s role in preparing America to meet the national security threat posed by climate change, search “Center on Climate Change and National Security” and search the CIA site for “climate.”
Northwestern University’s prestigious Medill School of Journalism’s National Security Reporting Project is also running a series of articles based on interviews with CIA, Pentagon, and National Academy of Sciences officials.
http://global-warning.org/main/

Hi “Snapple”, it’s all very well using you real name in E-mails to Russell and O’Sullivan but do those people know that you also hide behind the false name Snapple when it suits you? I doubt it, because I’ve just E-mailed John O’Sullivan for your real name and he doesn’t know any Snapple. Let’s at least have a first name so that we can exchange opinions on a friendly first-name basis, otherwise I might start calling you Steve and no-one else will know who I’m addressing. When you comment about me I’m perfectly happy for you to refer to me by my full name or even just Pete rather than calling me a “blogger-moron”. By the way, you once again formed a totally incorrect opinion with your “ .. A blogger-moron who is angry that I defend climate scientists criticizes me for using a nom de plume on my little blog .. ” (Note 1). I’m not angry with you, just sorry that you appear to have swallowed hook, line and sinker the propaganda dispensed by the UN’s IPCC. I didn’t criticise you for using a nom-de-plume, I criticised your hiding behind a false name, giving the strong impression that you are a coward who does not have the courage of your convictions, unlike Kent Clizbe, John O’Sullivan and his crusading team of dragon-Slayers.
You harp on about global warming being taught to your students but do you also teach them about the enormous uncertainties that exist among scientists about the causes of all that global warming and cooling that goes on. Ecologist Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University put that point beautifully back in April 2009 when he said “ .. There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers .. ” (Note 2 – but please read the whole paragraph because Barry gets very upset when I only quote what I see as being the most significant piece – and note that implication of his that we know 95%, a figure pulled out of the air without justification).
Brook made that admission in his article criticising fellow Adelaide Professor, geologist Ian Plimer’s excellent book “Heaven and Earth”, claimed in promotional bulletins to QUOTE: .. Professor Plimer said his book would “knock out every single argument we hear about climate change”, to prove that global warming is a cycle of the Earth. “It’s got nothing to do with the atmosphere, it’s about what happens in the galaxy. “You’ve got to look at the whole solar system and, most importantly, we look back in time. “There’s a lot of talk out there that there isn’t any science that supports my view, but I have 2111 scientific references in this book.”
Professor Plimer has been awarded two Eureka prizes, for science promotion and best science book, and a Centenary Medal for his geological contribution to Australian society UNQUOTE (Note 3).
What impact did that book have on global climate-change policy-making? I suggest NONE. Nearly two years later we have another book “Slaying the Sky Dragon .. ” with its publicists making no less extravagant claims (see the links in my previous comment). It will be interesting to see what criticism this one and its authors attract from the disciples and followers of the CACC doctrine.
Not satisfied with one book which it is unconvincingly claimed “ .. expertly debunks the established theory of man-made global warming- the so-called ‘greenhouse gas effect.’ Prepare to be astounded .. ” (Note 4), the Slayers have plans to take their crusade world-wide. Of course that could depend upon raising enough money from charitable donors (Note 5). If the first 9 days are anything to go by it could take a while for them to achieve their objective, but maybe there are things going on behind the scenes that will move the launch along. Then again, maybe potential donors are waiting for something more convincing than QUOTE: .. the world’s first full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory that was “the talk of the Cancun Climate Conference” (Viscount Christopher Monckton) UNQUOTE even if it might be a “best-seller” (Note 6).
Perhaps we will see followers of the CACC doctrine taking a closer look at the claims made for and in that book and at the level of relevant expertise of its authors. VJ briefly hinted at this with his mention of claims about Tim Ball’s previous position at the University of Winnipeg. The Canada Free Press 2007 article “Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?” (claimed to be by Tim) says “ .. I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg .. ” (Note 7). There have been suggestions that Tim was Professor of Geology and had lied about his position but I think that this has been an unfounded accusation. My understanding is that Tim was Professor of Geology and also taught climatology in the Geology Department but has been deliberately misquoted out of context. Desmogblog ran a short article on Tim which included comments like QUOTE: .. Ball and the organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the “first Canadian PhD in climatology.” Ball once claimed he was “one of the first climatology PhD’s in the world.” Many have pointed out that there have been numerous PhD’s in the field prior to Ball. His degree was in historical geography and not climatology .. UNQUOTE (Note 8). Maybe Tim will make the time to clarify this point.
In late December I was invited into the expanding group of sceptics that has been debating the future for “the Slayers” and its fledgling scientific organisation Principia Scientific International (PSI). Shortly afterwards I did some “due diligence” research into PSI so if anyone is interested we could have a discussion around that.
You may recall that in my last comment I mentioned trying unsuccessfully to get a similar comment to the first one that I submitted here posted on the “hockey team’s” RealClimate blog. Another believer in the doctrine that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic changes in those different global climates (Note 9) is dear old IT-man Ben Lawson of Wotsupwiththat (Note 10). Ben makes a feeble attempt to challenge the real thing (Note 11) but, despite his “ .. interest in endurance sports sports such as triathlons and marathons .. ” (Note 12) runs shy (like Snapple) of revealing his true identity. Ben seems equally shy of facing the wrath of “the Slayers”. He has kept my comment about them “awaiting moderation” since 23rd. What’s wrong with you DAGWers?
BTW, Snapple, “ .. It might be good to look at some of the business interests that own/control publishers/magazines .. ” including the owners of Stairway Press and E-book Partnership. You might find that “ .. They probably become gatekeepers .. ”, because, as you say “..the major media is often owned by fossil-fuel interests .. ” (Note 13). Then again, maybe you are just a conspiracy theorist in disguise.
On another matter altogether (nowt to do with those poorly understood causes of climate change) did those donations a year ago to the Haiti fund make any significant difference to their miserable existence? (Note 14). According to the latest reports they are still barely existing while we grow fat and enjoy all of the benefits of a modern lifestyle. The word “hypocrite” springs to mind, or do you chose to deny yourself of those benefits? If so then I sincerely apologise.
NOTES:
I will be posting these subsequently.
Best regards, Pete Ridley

[snip]