AAAS withdraws "impossible" global warming paper

@Donna Peters Laframboise,
Excellent article, as usual!

Peter Gleick (above) claims to be a sceptic and calls ‘us’ all ‘deniers’.
His article at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/a-brief-lesson-in-the-int_b_811295.html says
“Gavin Schmidt, for example, a NASA climatologist, quickly wrote: “2.4C by 2020 (which is 1.4C in the next 10 years – something like six to seven times the projected rate of warming) has no basis in fact.’ ”
I recall Gavin had no problem with the claim that all the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Why this sudden change of attitude? Was he perhaps living in denial for years?
“Unfortunately, I’m sure we’ll see some media stories simply parroting the report’s conclusions, without bothering to check with climate scientists.”
Peter, why would anyone check anything with ‘climate scientists’ given their wholly unsavoury reputation for clubby exaggeration? It makes no sense. Ask for a second opinion from a geologist or a physicist capable of understanding the claims in context, not someone with the feed bag strapped around their head.
The article was written and ran because the alarmist community is filled with opportunists with partial knowledge of complex matters and confidence that no fallout will accrue for publishing blatantly, unscientific nonsense.
How’s that historical CO2/warming rate correlation working out for you?
“All scientists are, by definition, skeptics. Hence the motto of the Royal Society of London, one of the world’s oldest scientific academies (founded in 1660), Nullius in verba: ‘Take nobody’s word.’ ”
I will start by not taking yours.

Michael A. Lewis, Ph.D. says:
January 19, 2011 at 8:47 pm
“Since when does science need a Public Relations firm?”
Ever since the scientists became corrupted by politics and the huge sums of public money they receive off the backs of the taxpayers.
Fortunately, with the new Congress, climate science in particular may finally be in for some long overdue downsizing…

I’m still waiting for a convincing demonstration that the ocean bulk does in fact absorb heat (from increased Downward Longwave Radiation) from more GHGs after accounting fully for the thermal effects of increased evaporation caused by the very same GHGs.
Some warming of the ocean skin does seem to occur but the evidence is lacking as to whether the subskin warms cools or stays the same as a result.
Since evaporation and radiation both combine to cause the subskin to be cooler than the ocean bulk below then one would have thought that an increase in either would intensify the cooling of the subskin rather than warm it.
However on balance I think that the extra DLR just results in a zero effect on the ‘normal’ upward energy flow because all the DLR would be used up in enhancing the rate of evaporation and accounting for the energy deficit caused by that enhancement of evaporation by virtue of the enthalpy of vapourisation (vapourisation has a net cooling effect).
I haven’t yet seen any evidence that a DLR warmed ocean skin does actually slow down the rate of energy flow from the subskin below it.
It is often said that because the temperature gradient (from subskin to skin) changes then the rate of upward energy flow must slow down but that would not be the case if the enhanced rate of evaporation speeds up the rate of flow again to negate the expected slowdown from a decreased gradient.
I think this is a critical issue for the entire AGW construct because if the extra DLR from more GHGs cannot add to ocean heat content then only the effects on the air need be considered and that would be insignificant in the face of oceanic control of surface air temperatures.

I’ve read these comments and stopped laughing.
Facts are that those who consider themselves to be ‘our handlers’ have begun to fall into a pit of their own making. We are ‘front row center’ at the opera where many have ‘ooohh’d and ahhh’d’ in tacit agreement and now…now, we know ‘the planet’ has been – had.
The point that many (myself included) should’ve understood was that ‘our handlers’ (both on the elite Left and the elite Right) are sad guys and gals of little depth. I now ask you to imagine ‘the horror’ of being born ‘them’. Never to have had the love of a parent. Hustled off to boarding schools for others to tend to them… I can’t believe it.
I am actually developing empathy for these bankrupt souls who imagine themselves ‘our handlers’.
They are not going to ‘harm’ anyone in this ‘global community’ of their making… Why?
They have ‘fear’ at the core of their beings. Soros, Clintons, Freud (Bernay’s uncle, for goodness sakes) Sanger…even each bozo at the U.N… and their ‘hits’ just akeep on comin’… Megalomaniacs. All of them. And, why? Why?
Because they want to eventually find a ‘sense of self’. Validity of Self. because guys like Prince Charles or even…Blair ~ never have the moments of trial and joy and heartache that all of us have weathered through.
They were ‘groomed’. They were never ‘allowed’ to fail or to ‘reach for the stars’. They didn’t have to scratch out a living…and eventually, all that comes with it – Character of Self.
THAT’S why ‘they’ need to think of us as ‘serfs’ ~ THAT is why ‘they’ enjoy imagining us as an aimless herd to be prodded… ‘They’ have been told that ‘they’ are ‘in control’ – therefore they must rule at any cost. For without ‘their herds’ – they have nothing. It’s pathetic.
And, this really DOES tie into this article Guys. I swear it does. It’s ‘why’ ‘they’ chose something so, so so…. grandiose as imagining that we’d ‘fall for’ Climate Change.
They’ve been playing a boring game of Monopoly combined with Risk and out of their total ignorance ~ they thought we’d fall for it. Wowie Zowie. Do any of you guys like Chess? I never was very good at it. Wanna know why? (yeah yeah Les, I can hear you already…. ‘Miss Scarlett…’ well, jus’ don’t read this, okay?! (warm smiles) But, I was never good at Chess ’cause my heart wouldn’t let me. I always placed my personality ‘into’ and imagined myself – the Queen (the only truly feminine piece on the board, so – it was not ‘ego’ that did that) and I’d go ‘off’ onto the board to DEFEND AND PROTECT the rooks, the pawns, et al. I sucked at Chess. The Queen always protected though… She always gave selflessly. That’s why Chess – sucks. It’s Character, my Scientific friends. Character ~ or, rather, sadly – the lack of it – that has turned this little globe on it’s ear. And, games such as Monopoly, Risk, & Yes, Chess ~ all ‘teach’ us that the ‘herd is expendable’…when that’s the farthest thing from the Truth there is.
Now, individuals of character are standing and joining with each other – as we all realize that our respective ‘handlers/’leaders’ are in sore need ‘intensive therapy’ and real debate will surface and men and women of integrity may again enjoy (some maybe for the first time…I’m thinkin’ China) the freedom which character alone, only – brings.
We’re gonna win this. Reason SHALL prevail…and Les needs to build that home of his. We’re all gonna be part of the GREATEST Generation this World has ever hosted. I can feel it. I truly can…and now I just ride horses for fun…no more board games for me, not ever.
C.L. Thorpe

I’m sure the results will still end up in the next IPCC assessment report.

The Fundación Ecológica Universal have a web page here: http://www.feu999.org/main.htm

Adrian Wingfield says:
January 19, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Leaving aside the minor typo, Michael (11.17am) does have a very valid point.
———————————
I agree. There are many parallels between the war on terror and the pushing of AGW, the use of the precautionary principle in government policy formulation being a major one. The Power of Nightmares is an excellent documentary, I thank Micheal for reminding me of it and I’m watching it again now.