By Joe Bast – Executive director, Heartland Institute via press release
OCTOBER 24 — On October 23, PBS’s “Frontline” program broadcast a special titled “Climate of Doubt.” The Heartland Institute had circulated a commentary prior to the program’s broadcast, which appears below, which said in part, “We hope the program is accurate and fair, but past experience with PBS and other mainstream media outlets leads us to predict it will be neither.” We offered some “facts to keep in mind when watching this program.”
So what did we think of the actual show? It wasn’t as bad as we had feared, but it wasn’t as good as it should have been. The following statement from Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution.
It appears host John Hockenberry spent enough time with global warming “skeptics” to know we are sincere, honest, and effective, but not enough time to learn we are right on the science. Rather than examining the scientific debate directly – “looking under the hood,” as we like to say here at The Heartland Institute – he decided to rely uncritically on the claims of a few alarmists pretending to speak for “climate science.” That choice ultimately makes “Climate of Doubt” a biased and unreliable guide to the scientific debate.
The first half of the program consists mostly of short clips from global warming skeptics and political activists who helped convince majorities of the public and elected officials that man-made climate change is not a crisis. Included in this part of the show is footage taken during Heartland’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change and interviews with Heartland Senior Fellows S. Fred Singer and James M. Taylor and the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell and Chris Horner. This part of the program is generally fair, though surprisingly light on interviews with scientists other than Dr. Singer. More than 100 scientists have spoken at Heartland conferences, nearly all of them skeptical of claims that man-made global warming is a crisis. It’s surprising and disappointing that Frontline didn’t seek interviews with any of them or even show excerpts from their presentations, except Dr. Singer.
The quality of the program starts to deteriorate at about the 20-minute mark. Notorious global warming alarmists Gavin Schmidt, Katherine Hayhoe, Andrew Dessler, and Ralph Cicerone are presented as representative of the mainstream scientific community, which they are not. Rather than use the program to put an end to the myth of scientific consensus on this complex issue, Hockenberry repeatedly invokes the discredited myth of a 97 percent consensus. Evidence in support of that claim is farcical. The issue of what role, if any, consensus should play in science is not addressed at all.
The second half of the program also speculates on the role that corporate and philanthropic funding plays in the debate … but it only addresses the funding of skeptics, not of alarmists. Once again this was a missed opportunity. Why didn’t Hockenberry end the myth, started by Ross Gelbspan but never documented, that global warming skeptics were or are currently being funded by oil companies to “sow doubt”? The Heartland Institute certainly was never part of such a plan, nor were any of the scientists we work with. Yet this libelous smear is repeated without rebuttal by Hockenberry and by the alarmists he interviews.
A third strike against the program occurs at the very end, when the off-camera voices of alarmists assert scientific confidence in predictions of an impending climate apocalypse while images appear of deserts and extreme weather events. Gone is any pretense of a balanced view of the scientific debate. This technique, typical of propaganda films such as “An Inconvenient Truth” and “The Day After Tomorrow,” cheapens and discredits an otherwise thoughtful program.
No scientist interviewed for the program offered proof that any of the climatic events shown at the end of the program were caused by human activity, nor could they. One suspects this ending was tacked on after production to address the expected criticism and disappointment of environmental activists who object to anyone in the mainstream media treating skeptics with respect.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
KR.
Thanks for the courteous response. I will respectfully disagree with your assertion that “1-7 have a strong consensus”. That is only true for 1-3. For 4-7 that’s beyond wishful.
Consider this… if there was such strong “consensus” on items 4-7, how is it possible that none of the model projections were able to anticipate the ongoing lull in warming, despite relentlessly rising CO2 levels? As Kevin Trenberth wrote in 2009: ““The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” That sounds like the exact opposite of consensus to me. (Yes, I’m aware Trenberth was specifically referring to ocean temperatures in his email, but given the relative heat capacity of the oceans vs. the atmosphere it’s a distinction without a difference.)
Basically, the sellers of “consensus” were unanimously wrong on item 7…i.e. “the total amount of warming to expect from past and assumed future GHG emissions”. If they are right on items 1-3 (and I believe they are), then it only means they must have erred on one or more of items 4-6 as follows:
4. They don’t fully understand the natural variability in the system, and the GHG driven warming was offset by unanticipated non-anthropogenic cooling.
5. They don’t fully understand the feedback mechanisms (e.g. clouds!), and they overestimated the amount of warming from a given increase in GHG forcing.
6. They don’t know how long they should have to wait before the supposedly inevitable warming arrives, resulting in claims that warming is indefinitely “in the pipeline”.
If they had gotten all of these right, then there would be no discrepancy between the warming they project and what has been observed.
Moving on…. You wrote “8-9 have widely varying effects depending on which region, which aspect of the climate. While there is a lot of ongoing work on the details, the net effect in 8-9 is expected to be adverse, but with much less consensus on particulars.”
The net effect is negative because the majority of the research has focused exclusively on negative outcomes. There is no incentive to conduct research into the positive impacts of warming. Any “consensus” here is attributable to publication bias. (As a quick aside, I live in Toronto, which was covered by glaciers only 15,000 years ago. One doesn’t need a PhD to understand that a warmer planet comes with a number of obvious advantages.)
Lastly you wrote: “10-12 are economic questions, with strong dependence on the economic assumptions involved (economic voodoo, anyone?), though the average of the studies I’ve seen show adaptations costs 5-10x that of mitigations.”
Any estimates on 10-12 depend entirely on the results of items 7-9, which are riddled with problems. Garbage in, garbage out.
Nonetheless, this economic experiment has already been run once, over the last 150 years, and the evidence points exactly in the opposite direction of what alarmists recommend today.
The world has warmed nearly 0.8C since the beginning of the HadCRUT4 data series. Zero concerted effort was made towards abatement; instead, adaptations were made at the individual and local levels when and where required. Yet, by every economic measure, we are immensely better off than we were in 1850.
So, to sum up…. I’m part of the 97% consensus on items 1-3… (CO2 is a GHG; humans have raised it’s concentration in the atmosphere; some amount of warming is man-made). But I don’t see sufficient evidence on items 4-12 to arrive at an alarmist conclusion.
I won’t speak for others here, but I’d imagine that most rational people who look objectively at the available evidence and are justifiably skeptical of untested projections coming out of a computer model, would come to similar conclusions as I have.
Best regards,
Russ
I await breathlessly Part II, “Climate of Belief”.
Russ R. – “…if there was such strong “consensus” on items 4-7, how is it possible that none of the model projections were able to anticipate the ongoing lull in warming, despite relentlessly rising CO2 levels?”
Please keep in mind that projections given by the IPCC and others are for climate averages, not particulars. As in http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/, where the often-shown average is displayed along with the 2-sigma (95%) range of variation from that average – and showing that the last dozen years are well within that range estimate. Those predictions and model projections have _not_ been invalidated by the last decade.
Climate predictions (as a boundary problem on energies) can tell you about average behavior over the years, but not whether a particular Tuesday (initial value problem) will be at a particular temperature.
Also worth noting is that with artificial data of known characteristics: data which has a given positive trend, exhibits ARMA(1,1) autocorrelation and noise levels as the climate does – you can see 15-18 year periods with negative trend estimates (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/fifteen/) within 100 years of data. That’s the effect of variability. Such lulls (and corresponding steep jumps, too) are entirely expected with the observed variances.
So yes, if you understand the natural variability, you shouldn’t expect monotonic behavior from the climate. Likewise, the total observed warming over the last century is just about what we would expect from the physics, and the forcings, and the time lags. I’m going to have to disagree on just about all points in your post.
And again, thank you for a reasoned discussion.
KR;
WRT the science discussed in the section of the IPCC report you refer to, look at the numbers. The uncertainties in levels of radiative forcing are explicitly shown in http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html – anthropogenic drivers of +1.6 W m^2 with a 0.6 to 2.4 W m^2 90% confidence range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Congrats on bothering to read, and even getting to the next page in the report. From 2.9.2 (which you just quoted) it also says:
“combined aerosol direct and cloud albedo effect exert an RF that is virtually certain to be negative, with a median RF of –1.3 W m–2 and a –2.2 to –0.5 W m–2 90% confidence range. ”
Can you explain how one arrives at a 90% confidence level for a factor that, on the previous page, was assigned a level of scientific understanding of “very low”?
Clearly there is no consensus from one page of the IPCC report to the next!
I note that KR has wisely avoided trying to defend the ridiculous 95/97 ‘consensus’ argument. That was always an indefensible position to take. Now he’s off hand-waving about other beliefs.
“If folks feel that there is not a consensus of opinion in climate science regarding anthropogenic influences on climate change, then show it.”
Actually, I don’t give a rip about “consensus”. I care what actual evidence shows — and CAGW ain’t it.
stefanthedenier:
At October 24, 2012 at 10:25 pm you make a series of illogical questions and statements to D Böehm. I write to address the nature of that post. It begins saying:
The majority know that on this planet it is both “noon” and “before sunrise” all the time but not in the same places.
However, it is true that the global temperature “goes up and down”. It rises by 3.8 deg.C from June to January and falls by 3.8 deg.C from January to June every year, but I suspect that is not known by most physicists, engineers, chemists and geologists.
The remainder of your post is similar.
Richard
KR,
Fair enough… I’ll grant you that 16 years of flat temperatures may be within the modeling margin of error. So, let’s look at a longer time period… to avoid cherry-picking, let’s go all the way back to the start of the modern temperature record… 1850.
According to HadCRUT4, global mean temperature was 0.75 deg C lower then than today (http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut4gl/trend), and atmospheric CO2 was at ~280ppm, vs. today’s ~394ppm.
Some quick calculations on an excel spreadsheet tell me that an increase in CO2 from 280 to 394 ppm represent a smidge less than half a doubling (0.492769 doublings to be precise), And if we were to attribute that 0.75 deg C of warming to the increase in CO2, that gives a climate sensitivity of 1.52 deg C for a full doubling of CO2, which is only half of the supposed “best estimate”.
The only ways to explain the 0.77 deg C long term warming deficit are to:
a) assume that additional warming is still “in the pipeline” (there’s some justification for this argument, since some time is required for the system to settle into a new equilibrium state, but it doesn’t account for anywhere near an additional 0.77 deg C of warming).
b) assume the existence of a very large man-made aerosol cooling effect (however, this would result in greater warming in the southern hemisphere where there is less aerosol pollution… the exact opposite of what’s been observed);
c) assume a natural background cooling trend which offsets some of the man-made warming (and there’s no greater justification for an assumption of natural cooling than warming);
A more plausible explanation that doesn’t rely on such assumptions is that climate sensitivity just isn’t high enough to cause alarm. And this explanation would be entirely consistent with billions of years of the earth’s history, during which there are exactly zero instances of “tipping points” or “runaway greenhouse warming” despite evidence that both mean temperatures and CO2 levels were at various times both much higher and much lower than they are today.
So, if I’ll grant you that 16 years of flat warming can be consistent with climate models, would you accept that 162 years of meteorological observations and 4 billion years of geological evidence are consistent with an argument for low climate sensitivity?
P.S. You still have yet to square Trenberth’s statement with your claim that there is a consensus beyond items 1-3.
Correction… where I typed 0.77 deg C in two places above, it should have read 0.73 deg C.
KR says:
In trying once again to gin up a ‘consensus’: The AGU meeting of “~20,000, with 82% agreement (Doran 2009) on human influence?”
Your ‘82% of 20,000’ comes to only about half of the OISM co-signers, so your claims of ‘consensus’ fail once again. Bad question, anyway, because it does not quantify ‘human influence’, which could mean a very minuscule amount of warming, or land use changes, or badly sited temperature stations, etc.
They need to ask exactly how much warming since the LIA could be anthropogenic, and how much is natural. But they will not ask such a question, because it could lead to a spirited debate, including the fact that the long term global warming trend has not accelerated despite the large rise in CO2.
The membership’s ‘consensus’ would show that most members do not think that AGW is a problem — especially since the planet is to a large extent deconstructing the AGW argument. Therefore, they will not ask the right questions. Because they fear the answers.
Russ R. – Between the ~0.2 C drop in temperature we would have expected from natural forcings (primarily solar decreases, CO2 isn’t the only forcing) and ocean inertia (transient/20-year response is ~2/3 that of equilibrium), we’re right about on schedule.
1.7 W/m^2 forcing change since 1750, or 46% of a 3.7 doubling, gives an expected 1.3C equilibrium warming. Subtract the 0.2 cooling giving 1.1C, if that’s equilibrium then transient response is ~0.7C. Or look at the transient response given recent forcings: 20 years ago CO2 (and approx. scaled forcings) were at 356ppm, a forcing of 1.25 W/m^2, 0.75C response gives a 20-year transient sensitivity of 2.15C [ 3.7 / 1.25 * 0.75 = 2.15C ], and an equilibrium sensitivity of roughly ~3.2C.
You have to consider the time lags – it takes time for the oceans to warm, and we’ve conservatively added ~0.6W/m^2 of forcing in just the last 20 years (20-year running mean of GISS net forcings from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/, 2010-1990 difference of 0.58).
There was a discussion on Skeptical Science on this topic regarding some of Dr. Lindzens claims (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-expected-global-warming.htm); if you’re interested those include calculating full range uncertainties – most likely value 2.4C/doubling, 1.2C/doubling min, no max.. Please – check their math.
I don’t see any contradiction there. There are _many_ estimates of climate sensitivity (Knutti and Hegerl 2008 http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf) including models, response to volcanic activity, paleo data from ice age changes, solar cycle response, etc., and they give 2-4.5C, most likely 3C/doubling. And the 0.75C observed warming over the industrial age is consistent with that estimate.
—
Trenberth’s statement was regarding _tracking_ the energy budget, and in reference to “An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy (Trenberth 2009)” (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf). As he’s stated repeatedly, he was frustrated that the observation network is insufficient to track all of the warming locations as accurately as he would like, such as the oceans below 900m.
A complaint about missing observations due to insufficient equipment is absolutely not an observation of missing energy, much though his statement has been (mis)portrayed in that fashion.
D Böehm – One last time. Raw numbers of one opinion, self-selected, with no check on the numbers of other opinions, mean _absolutely nothing_ regarding consensus. There’s no scaling for the effort in collecting such petitions, in the case of OISM no control for the expertise involved (veterinarians, dentists, anyone with a BS in a technical field???), nothing whatsoever showing what percentage of informed people agree.
You need sampled surveys for that – Anderegg 2010 (97-98% of climate experts concur), Doran 2009 (82% of all scientists, 97.5% of publishing climatologists concur), Oreskes 2004 (75% of all peer-reviewed abstracts on “global climate change” between 1993-2003 explicitly agreeing with the consensus, and zero [0] publications found rejecting anthropogenic climate change) are all surveys looking at the people who study this. Or look at the fact that every national academy of science across the globe that has expressed an opinion agrees with that consensus.
Petitions provide no data about population statistics. Unless/until you can present a sampling survey that includes both +/- answers to determine statistical representation, you’ve presented no argument whatsoever regarding consensus. You’ve presented nothing relevant, and I will not respond further to you unless that changes.
KR,
Keep digging. Your misguided belief in a mythical catastrophic AGW “consensus” has no basis in the real world, as your comments prove. The consensus is entirely on the side of those who know that any putative AGW is at most a minor event, and as such it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. If you have any scientific, empirical evidence to the contrary, post it. Otherwise, you lose the debate.
KR,
I won’t dispute your argument that over 20 years, the oceans will warm only 2/3 of the way to equilibrium. That said, your subsequent math raises two concerns:
“1.7 W/m^2 forcing change since 1750, or 46% of a 3.7 doubling, gives an expected 1.3C equilibrium warming. Subtract the 0.2 cooling giving 1.1C, if that’s equilibrium then transient response is ~0.7C.”
First,If you’re using 1750 (or even 1850) as a start date, you have to expect more than just 2/3 of the equilibrium warming as it’s a lot longer than 20 years.
“Or look at the transient response given recent forcings: 20 years ago CO2 (and approx. scaled forcings) were at 356ppm, a forcing of 1.25 W/m^2, 0.75C response gives a 20-year transient sensitivity of 2.15C [ 3.7 / 1.25 * 0.75 = 2.15C ], and an equilibrium sensitivity of roughly ~3.2C.”
Second, if you’re only looking at the last 20 years for forcing, then you can’t multiply it by the last 162 years of warming.
I might be misinterpreting your approach here, but something doesn’t make sense to me.
Lastly, even if Trenberth was in fact complaining about a lack of equipment and observations, how does that in any bolster your argument for some sort of “consensus”? In fact, it weakens your argument significantly.
Look, I’ll happily grant you your “consensus” on items 1-3… basically the only questions that were addressed in the Doran survey, (and later in the Anderegg paper) were if temperatures had risen, and if human activity was a significant contributing factor to warming . Had I been surveyed, I myself would have been part of that consensus.
However, your attempt to extrapolate that narrow consensus into a broader consensus that covers items 4-12 is not supported by any similar survey that I’ve ever seen… If you’re aware of one, I’d invite you to link to it.
In other words… show me where the “consensus” of experts say that anthropogenic global warming will result in a global catastrophe that can only be avoided by immediate emissions reductions. I can point you to plenty of intelligent, rational scientists who would disagree with this. Which pretty much puts a fork in your expanded claim of “consensus”.
Russ R. said: ”the oceans will warm only 2/3 of the way to equilibrium. That said, your subsequent math raises two concerns: “1.7 W/m^2 forcing change since 1750, or 46% of a 3.7 doubling, gives an expected 1.3C equilibrium warming. Subtract the 0.2 cooling giving 1.1C, if that’s equilibrium then transient response is ~0.7C.” First,If you’re using 1750 (or even 1850) as a start date, you have to expect more than just 2/3 of the equilibrium warming as it’s a lot longer than 20 years. “Or look at the transient response given recent forcings: 20 years ago CO2 (and approx. scaled forcings) were at 356ppm, a forcing of 1.25 W/m^2, 0.75C response gives a 20-year transient sensitivity then you can’t multiply it by the last 162 years of warming. I might be misinterpreting your approach here, but something doesn’t make sense to me”
.
1] not all oceans warm up extra, simultaneously; even some oceans are warmer than normal on one part, but not on other.
2]Talking ”the temperature in the oceans 1750 – 1850…” without stating: who was monitoring regularly the temp on every part of every ocean for you = it tells about your credibility / honesty / intelligence, not about the ocean’s temp.
3] when on part of the ocean temp gets warmer than normal ( which is usually because of increased activity of submarine volcanoes and hot vents) -> evaporation increases = evaporation is cooling process. b] more evaporation -> more clouds; clouds are the ”sun umbrellas” for the land and sea -> more sunlight is intercepted high up, where cooling is much more efficient. c] moire clouds -> more rain; rain brings coldness from high up and cools the land and water
4] you talking about: ”0,75C” That’s precision in one hundredth of a degree; nobody knows the temp in +/ – of 3C, you know in one hundredth of a degree…?! do you want some truth? :
Russ R. said:
Sorry Russ, my post above posted itself, before i finished / something spooky goes on. If you want some truth: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/global-temperature/
Russ R. says: October 25, 2012 at 12:54 pm: ”Correction… where I typed 0.77 deg C in two places above, it should have read 0.73 deg C”
Russ, you know the difference between 0,77C and 0,73C?!?! precision to one hundredth of a degree…?!…
On 99,9999999999% of the area on the planet nobody monitors! b] where is monitored, is taken only the hottest minute of the day – but ignored the other 1439 minutes; in which, the temp doesn’t go up and down as the ”hottest” minute! c] spacing between .two monitoring places of 100km temp goes up by a degree – but spacing between other two of 1300km goes down by 0,5C, is it gone warmer or colder planet, by your ”statistic”?! People like you that leave in Cuckoo’s Land are guilty for a trillionth dollars rip-off and brainwashing the kids in school and university… http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/q-a/
richardscourtney says: ”stefanthedenier: However, it is true that the global temperature “goes up and down”. It rises by 3.8 deg.C from June to January and falls by 3.8 deg.C from January to June every year, but I suspect that is not known by most physicists, engineers, chemists and geologists”
Richard, Richard… the laws of physics say that: ”overall GLOBAL temp cannot .stay warmer, or colder than normal for more than 8-9 minutes! Self adjusting mechanism is infallible! Part / parts of the planet are always warmer than normal / can go to extreme – but simultaneously other parts MUST be colder””
Your 3,8C getting colder; would make even the biggest liars in IPCC blushing. It appears colder in the southern summer; because are LESS monitoring places. Same as: if my and yours salary goes up by 10%, but Bill Gates salary goes down by 2% -> in your ”statistic” would have shown that overall all three of us have more money…?! because more monitoring places on the N/H than on the S/H, deceive
Richard, looks like that you are more ignorant than most; get lots of correct information; so you don’t sound so ignorant: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
Don’t be scared from real proofs; arguing against me is: arguing against the laws of physics! Your pagan believes are the precursor of today’s rip-off
stefanthedenier,
You won’t get your views across with your angry, insulting attitude. It makes sense to be hostile to those pushing the CAGW agenda, because they’re using it to rob us blind. But when you attack your own side there is clearly something wrong. Why all the hatred?
D Böehm,
Probably because he is actually a warmist posing as a skeptic to make skeptics look bad.
Note: I dont know this for a fact, but it sure fits the fact that he seems so similar to the warmist caractures of what skeptics believe.
D Böehm says: ”. It makes sense to be hostile to those pushing the CAGW agenda, because they’re using it to rob us blind. But when you attack your own side there is clearly something wrong”
here are only few of the reasons: warming of the WHOLE planet cannot happen / the laws of physics prove that -> therefore, the Warmist don’t have a case. But deluding, so called ”skeptics”. use localized warmings and localized ice ages as GLOBAL; to cover up the Warmist shame for lying about the phony global warming and rip-off..
2] fake Skeptics aknoweledgement of the misleading data about the GLOBAL temp as real -> therefore they a giving credibility to the Warmist lies. Taking temp on few places, only for the hotest minute and calling it ”GLOBAL temp” is the precursor of all evil. Most of the activist from ”my side” are nothing more than ”Warmist’s Fig Leafs”; covering up the Warmist shame, for all the misleading and rip-of
3] most of the ”Fake Skeptic’s proofs” as LIA, many other ”warmings 1000, 2000, 6000 years ago; were NEVER GLOBAL, Warmist know that; many of those lies the skeptics use have being invented by people that are now in the Warmist camp – they know it’s crap; but the Warmist are exploiting the Skeptic’s Achilles’s Hill – Leading ”Skeptics” EGO is too big, to admit that they have being duped – honest people cope it.
Your ”small” global Warming, not catastrophic” is same as saying that: man can get pregnant, but only little bit. 99% of the people on the street know that: nobody can predict past next Monday – therefore; somebody ”predicting” little bit or little more than that, are the same caliber liars. Because human attitude is: better safe than sorry – the Warmist are wining by using lies… Skeptics can use the laws of physics and have 100% proofs, to put leading Warmist in jail , unfortunately, between the bingo players populism is important, not the truth, not success. I’m on your side; you are against yourself – unless the Skeptics aknowledge that their proofs are not proofs – Warmist will pull them by the nose and fleece them forever. Here are some of the ”Skeptic’s” phony proofs, that are their Achilles’s Hill, don’t run away from constructive advice, every skeptic should read it, then susses is guarantied: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/
Otherwise, one cannot bit lies, with different lies. Prof Mann resonantly said on OZ TV: ”the planet 1000 years ago was cooler by 1C than today”’
It’s easy to prove that: nobody knows what was the GLOBAL temp 1000y ago = Mann is lying. But the ”Skeptics” pretend to know to a hundredth of a degree what was the GLOBAL temperature for every year of those 1000years… and 2000, and 6000 years ago LOOK AT THEIR ”GLOBAL” TEMP CHARTS, Mann and the rest are exploiting that -> as ”code of silence about the truth ”Skeptics” are assisting the Warmist in robbery and oppression. Skeptics are using same lies as the Warmist; only the skeptics are using much more lies and much less convincing lies. I can always prove what I say. All your proofs are similar as: ” only small warming in 100years” Mate, truth and real proofs are not popular in the blogosphere now; but people on the street that are not fed crap every day, prefer real proofs; they are the 99% .
Matt,
I’m beginning to think you’re right. Either that, or stefan hates everybody equally.
“JOHN HOCKENBERRY: A few suspicious-seeming emails, taken out of context, would become “climate-gate.” Even though nine subsequent investigations would find no tampering with data, the impact of these emails would live on”
No mention of illegaly avoiding FOI requests, as usual from the believers.
stefanthedenier;
Whoa up bud, take a deep breath. You’re ranting and it is nearly impossible to follow your logic from one sentence to the next. I’ve no idea what you mean in several sentences, making it impossible to provide you with a detailed response.
That said, your response to richardscourtney is inacurrate. While I will grant that both defining and measuring a “global temperature” is a difficult task, the earth does warm and cool over the course of a year. Contrary to you assertion, the laws of physics require this to be true.
The earth’s orbit is elliptical. The earth is closer to the sun and gets more insolation over all during the northern hemisphere winter (southern hemisphere summer) than it does when the seasons are reversed. On the other hand, the northern hemisphere has most of the earth’s land mass while the southern has most of the ocean. As land heats up and cools off faster than ocean, this also changes the equation.
We can indirectly see that this is happening without making a single temperature measurement. Over the course of a year, CO2 levels rise several ppm, and then fall again. This is due to the rate at which CO2 is both absorbed into the oceans and outgassed from the oceans depending upon temperature. Sure, there are other possible explanations for this, I just haven’t found one yet that I consider more credible.
For the record, I’m a skeptic. But that doesn’t mean I believe all of the physics relied upon by warmists is wrong. Much of it is entirely accurate, and I think you’ll find, if you stop ranting and start discussing the science instead, that richardscourtney is both skeptical of alarmist claims and rather knowleadgeable of the science. When he makes the kind of statement that he did, it is usually with just cause, and you’d be better off asking questions rather than popping off.
D Böehm says: ”Matt, I’m beginning to think you’re right. Either that, or stefan hates everybody equally”
Wrong again! I’m not in a business to hate people; but to expose lies – and that’s what I’m doing. With my limited English, if I didn’t have real proofs b] if the Warmist & Fakes didn’t bark up the same wrong tree – I would have being fishing today; love fishing / hate computer.
See Böehm, same as you cannot point that I’m wrong; same with the Warmist. They would have started spiting the dummy. But, the Warmist are using the Fakes as a shield / buffer, not to face the reality / real proofs and facts. Warmist know that the Fakes are shooting blanks at them, it’s Viagra for the Warmist, to screw the innocent public. But with their phony proofs, the ”Skeptics” are shooting themselves in the foot by machine-gun, instead of pistol. When a ”Skeptic” pretends to know the correct temp 300, 500y ago – even though nobody knows what was last year’s global temp… Warmist know that they have bigger liars than themselves for opponents. Fakes become Warmist’s geldings, riding on the fake’s backs. The truth will win, Fakes like you are prolonging the Warmist robberies – it’s up to the victims to decide who is to hate and penalize more. (when the policeman is helping the thieves, the cop gets bigger penalty) Cheers and happy insomnia.