Chairman Eric Schmidt should heed his own advice – and base energy policies on facts
Guest essay by Paul Driessen and Chris Skates
In a recent interview with National Public Radio host Diane Rehm, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said his company “has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts. And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. We should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.”
While he didn’t vilify us by name, Mr. Schmidt was certainly targeting us, the climate scientists who collect and summarize thousands of articles for the NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered reports, the hundreds who participate in Heartland Institute climate conferences, and the 31,487 US scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition, attesting that there is no convincing scientific evidence that humans are causing catastrophic warming or climate disruption.
All of us are firm skeptics of claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. We are not climate change “deniers.” We know Earth’s climate and weather are constantly in flux, undergoing recurrent fluctuations that range from flood and drought cycles to periods of low or intense hurricane and tornado activity, to the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD) and Little Ice Age (1350-1850) – and even to Pleistocene glaciers that repeatedly buried continents under a mile of ice.
What we deny is the notion that humans can prevent these fluctuations, by ending fossil fuel use and emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide, which plays only an insignificant role in climate change.
The real deniers are people who think our climate was and should remain static and unchanging, such as 1900-1970, supposedly – during which time Earth actually warmed and then cooled, endured the Dust Bowl, and experienced periods of devastating hurricanes and tornadoes.
The real deniers refuse to recognize that natural forces dictate weather and climate events. They deny that computer model predictions are completely at odds with real world events, that there has been no warming since 1995, and that several recent winters have been among the coldest in centuries in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, despite steadily rising CO2 levels. They refuse to acknowledge that, as of December 25, it’s been 3,347 days since a Category 3-5 hurricane hit the US mainland; this is by far the longest such stretch since record-keeping began in 1900, if not since the American Civil War.
Worst of all, they deny that their “solutions” hurt our children and grandchildren, by driving up energy prices, threatening electricity reliability, thwarting job creation, and limiting economic growth in poor nations to what can be sustained via expensive wind, solar, biofuel and geothermal energy. Google’s corporate motto is “Don’t be evil.” From our perspective, perpetuating poverty, misery, disease and premature death in poor African and Asian countries – in the name or preventing climate change – is evil.
It is truly disturbing that Mr. Schmidt could make a statement so thoroughly flawed in its basic premise. He runs a multi-billion dollar company that uses vast quantities of electricity to disseminate information throughout the world. Perhaps he should speak out on issues he actually understands. Perhaps he would be willing to debate us or Roy Spencer, David Legates, Pat Michaels and other climate experts.
Setting aside the irrational loyalty of alarmists like Schmidt to a failed “dangerous manmade climate change” hypothesis, equally disturbing is the money wasted because of it. Consider an article written for the Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers’ summit website by Google engineers Ross Koningstein and David Fork, who worked on Google’s “RE<C” renewable energy initiative.
Beginning in 2007, they say, “Google committed significant resources to tackle the world’s climate and energy problems. A few of these efforts proved very successful: Google deployed some of the most energy efficient data centers in the world, purchased large amounts of renewable energy, and offset what remained of its carbon footprint.”
It’s wonderful that Google improved the energy efficiency of its power-hungry data centers. But the project spent countless dollars and man hours. To what other actual benefits? To address precisely what climate and energy problems? And how exactly did Google offset its carbon footprint? By buying “carbon credits” from outfits like the New Forests Company, which drove impoverished Ugandan villagers out of their homes, set fire to their houses and burned a young boy to death?
What if, as skeptics like us posit and actual evidence reflects, man-made climate change is not in fact occurring? That would mean there is no threat to humans or our planet, and lowering Google’s CO2 footprint would bring no benefits. In fact, it would keep poor nations poverty stricken and deprived of modern technologies – and thus unable to adapt to climate change. Imagine what Google could have accomplished if its resources had been channeled to solving actual problems with actual solutions!
In 2011, the company decided its RE<C project would not meet its goals. Google shut it down. In their article, Koningstein and Fork admit that the real result of all of their costly research was to reach the following conclusion: “green energy is simply not economically, viable and resources that we as a society waste in trying to make it so would be better used to improve the efficiencies in established energy technologies like coal.”
Skeptics like us reached that conclusion long ago. It is the primary reason for our impassioned pleas that that the United States and other developed nations stop making energy policy decisions based on the flawed climate change hypothesis. However, the article’s most breathtaking statement was this:
“Climate scientists have definitively shown that the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere poses a looming danger…. A 2008 paper by James Hansen, former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies… showed the true gravity of the situation. In it, Hansen set out to determine what level of atmospheric CO2 society should aim for ‘if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted.’ His climate models showed that exceeding 350 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere would likely have catastrophic effects. We’ve already blown past that limit. Right now, environmental monitoring shows concentrations around 400 ppm.…”
We would never presume to question the sincerity, intellect, dedication or talent of these two authors. However, this statement presents a stunning failure in applying Aristotelian logic. Even a quick reading would make the following logical conclusions instantly obvious:
1. Hansen theorized that 350 ppm of atmospheric CO2 would have catastrophic results.
2. CO2 did indeed reach this level, and then exceeded it by a significant amount.
3. There were no consequences, much less catastrophic results, as our earlier points make clear.
4. Therefore, real-world evidence clearly demonstrates that Hansen’s hypothesis is wrong.
This kind of reasoning (the scientific method) has served progress and civilization well since the Seventeenth Century. But the Google team has failed to apply it; instead it repeats the “slash fossil fuel use or Earth and humanity are doomed” tautology, without regard for logic or facts – while questioning CAGW skeptics intelligence, character and ethics. Such an approach would be disastrous in business.
We enthusiastically support Eric Schmidt’s admonition that our nation base its policy decisions on facts, even when those facts do not support an apocalyptic environmental worldview. We also support President Obama’s advice that people should not “engage in self-censorship,” because of bullying or “because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of someone whose sensibilities probably need to be offended.”
In fact, we will keep speaking out, regardless of what Messsrs. Schmidt, Hansen and Obama might say.
______________
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the save-the-earth money machine. Chris Skates is an environmental chemist and author of Going Green: For some it has nothing to do with the environment.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
He is really shooting his boot there as it is the alarmist movement which opposes changes in climate and demands that it remain static.
Yes! I don’t think that’s what he meant to say, but I agree with what he said.
And they are forced into a double denialist corner unable to explain why earth’s temperature has not ‘obeyed’ their lame models for ~18 years or why the current level of warmer temperature has miserably failed to produce a “climate catastrophe”.
He’s Eric at his best! (don’t ask about why he set fire to four suvs in San Francisco a weekend ago … tee he he, Thanks Eric for ya):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-vGo49Ki2s
Many of ‘us’ strive to see what is. I myself in diologue with ‘them’ had the same. Obumma said to Africans ‘ if we give you power the world will heat up n the oceans will boil’
Anger rising.
Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
Due to the Google’s official positions on climate change, whenever possible I have chosen to use alternative search engines and on-line tools. It is impossible to escape all of Google’s reach, but one can minimise the engagement.
IF Google should go on facts not on political belief, then none of their leading persons would go on babbling about Climate Change due to Human activity!
* In the world of Science where Theories of Science is used, there exist no such thing as Everyone knows nor is Consensus a Scientific term – only a political one…
There are several Fallacies in argumentation, Norah4science page English text to be taken into account when ever someone calls for “consensus”. Consensus is a political term with no connection what so ever to Theories of Science.
The new faith of IPCC: Humans are Universe’s centre
People are allowed to be stupid…. but it’s not wise showing stupidness off…
Where have all the money gone and where have all the basic knowledge learnt in 7th grade, such as Archimedes Principle, Photosynthesis, the simple fact that seasons change every year depends on the Earth’s tilt and solar incidence angle…..
The answer my friend MUST be blowing in the wind.
Might have been heard by one ear but lost in “action”…
Maybe Eric didn’t get the memo – there is a major political, economic and military war in progress in the Middle East over – guess what? – control of fossil fuel supplies, transportation and markets. Projects of hundreds of billion dollars that will provide trillions in sales of fossil fuels are in the balance, along with the economies of many of the world’s superpowers. This is what the big boys are up to these days.
Do you think Putin or the leader of Iran will take Eric’s call and agree to stop producing and shipping fossil fuels “for the sake of the children?” China has already pissed on Obama. Will Eric have bettter luck? Oh but wait, it’s the head of *Google* calling – That’s different… /sarc off
The fossil fuel economy that drives the world economy is in no danger from the likes of Eric.
Schmidt is pro-choice and only concerned about surviving children and grandchildren. He supports an unprecedented violation of human rights on the order of millions annually. Not only a violation of human rights, but premeditated murder through lethal injection, decapitation, and dismemberment of wholly innocent human lives. Schmidt et al believe in spontaneous conception of human life that is used to rationalize abortion of unwanted human lives when they are uniquely vulnerable. It’s difficult to take these people seriously, when they hold such extreme hypocritical positions on morality and science.
We should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying. Right, Schmidt? You don’t really believe in the fairytale of spontaneous conception, do you? It calls into question the substance and motive of your other firmly held beliefs.
I would prefer to address each issue separately on their merits. Unfortunately, Schmidt et al set the mood and atmosphere for this debate. They want to establish a moral frame of reference and argue from a higher ground, indefensible though it may be. Perhaps we can indulge them just long enough to focus their attention. I have responded to Schmidt on his terms.
Thanks, Paul and Chris, for speaking truth to power.
Google already seem to lower the ranks of skeptic’s websites.
Regarding the double standard, and the willful ignorance of how science works, Schmidt’s interview is truly shameless and offensive.
I wonder what their morality is grounded upon as any entry into the realm of moral evil begs that question.
He’d change his tune if there was a tax levied on all internet advertising revenue to pay for climate change mitigation.
That’s not a bad idea. Just imagine the amount of CO2 produced by all that electricity wasted downloading animated ads.
Bingo and why shouldn’t he anyway?
By the time I read to the end of the comments I forgot what I was going to comment on….
Good stuff all the way around.
The thing that popped into my head after thinking about forcing, after reading the base article and some subsequent posts.
Have we ever really quantified CO2 atmospheric injection from volcanic activities?
Is there a reanalysis of the Pinotubu affect as an example?
I think our new sat tool will provide for such, if permitted. Think about what we have already learned from it recently…..
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov
Coming Soon!
Neither Schmidt nor Obama wrote their speeches; some one else, someone in the PR or HR department, wrote them with a eye mostly to corporate, politically correct positioning and individual (corporate officer) social status. As a result, neither considers himself accountable for his words; he was a mouthpiece for sensitive thoughts that show the Corporate or the Government has the “best interestes of the majority” in mind.
You cannot have a debate with someone who parrots the party line it is not ‘his” truths, misinformation or lies you find abhorrent, but those of “others”, people who mean well but may have overstated themselves due to enthusiasm for doing the Right Thing. If accountabiity were real, Al Gore would have fixed the errors in his movie, and Micheal Mann would have updated his tree-ring graphs.
We live in a dangerous time. The Patriot Act passed and exists with minimal fuss because it came from a point of view that trying to do the noble thing is more important than achieving the noble thing. Green energy is a fantasy that is beyond reproach because if it were economically and technologically reasonable, we would support it; that it is not either of these does not mean the push should be stopped, because, in principle, it is part of the Right or Noble thing.
Google rides the wave because the elite maintain, even enhance, their financial, political and social positions by standing for the Right and Noble goals, unachievable or ultimately destructive they may be. Their wealth and power cushion them from their errors. How do we get beyond this?
There are only two ways. The first is regulatory obstruction, in which legal challenges at the municipal, state/provincial or federal level grind away and stop these processes through time and (for example) by removing tax or subsidy support for them (like de-funding the UN). The second is revolution – not necessarily through violence, though historically that has been the way of the world – but by the revolution of either the ballot box (“Through the Bums Out”) or corporate, municipal, state/province and federal non-compliance. People refuse, and the numbers who refuse are simply too great for enforcement, a civil disobedience, like Pennsylvania simply saying they will not comply with Clean Air Acts that result in the (premature) termination of coal-fired powerplants, or will not allow the collection of taxes that are collected from car manufactures in their State and transferred out-of-State to Tesla to support electric car manufacturing plants elsewhere.
It worked before to end the 55 mph Federal speed limits. The principle just needs to be expanded.
Ghandi showed the way. Many other peoples found freedom the same way.
I’m not really sure why you’re bringing this up again. It’s not new, and as noted, the renewables thing has since been shot down from within Google by their own engineers. Hopefully Eric will make more time to actually look at the facts for himself before he spends more time on the golf course.
An example of Eric “The Ice Cream Man” Schmidt at his best: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-01/san-francisco-sued-over-google-bus-project-by-community-group.html
Ha ha
Doug said
Quote
The first is regulatory obstruction, in which legal challenges at the municipal, state/provincial or federal level grind away and stop these processes
Unquote
I disagree, the best way to end the EPA tyranny is to force it to do its job. They found co2 dangerous, they issued the endangerment notice , so they must enforce it. Stop soft drinks adding co2, stop co2 in beer, stop co2 farming, reduce emissions of co2 at all levels. If not they are failing in their fiduciary duty.
Alright!
Let’s get Obama to tell Holder to force the EPA to follow the law.
Yeah, that’ll work.
“… and the 31,487 US scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition…” – Still holding on to this sham huh? Only a third of the signatories have PhDs and in who knows what. Oh, but clearly a doctor of Sociology would know better about the truth of climate change because everyone with a PhD in climate science is part of a global conspiracy to destroy Capitalism and get more grant money. Pathetic.
James,
You are confused. Every co-signer had to have a degree in at least one of the hard sciences. Sociology would not qualify anyone, unless that degree was in addition to a degree in the hard sciences. Even a medical doctor is precluded from signing — unless he earned a degree in one of the hard sciences. Compare that hackground with the rabble of climate alarmist scientists like Lew and others.
Out of approximately 32,000 OISM co-signers, about 9,000 also have PhD’s.
Look at it this way: taking every petition, poll, and every other co-signing statement by the alarmist crowd, where each person is identified, then all of those alarmist names would not equal one-tenth the number of OISM co-signers.
Thus, the clear consensus [for whatever that is worth in science; alarmists seem to think it’s important] is heavily on the side of scientific skeptics.
Yes, climate skeptics have the overwhelming ‘consensus’ on their side. Sorry about that. But skeptics didn’t start the ‘consensus’ food fight.
dbstealey: “You are confused. Every co-signer had to have a degree in at least one of the hard sciences.”
No. Every co-signer had to CLAIM to have a degree in at least one of the hard sciences. The Oregon Institute did not initially verify any of the signatories’ backgrounds, leading to many fake names being attached to the petition. The Institute claims to have since verified 95% of the signatories, but has not released its methodology for doing so.
Furthermore, only 39 of the signatories had a background in climate science. That’s less than 1% of the number of signatories.
“Look at it this way: taking every petition, poll, and every other co-signing statement by the alarmist crowd, where each person is identified, then all of those alarmist names would not equal one-tenth the number of OISM co-signers.”
This is so absurdly false that I have a hard time believing that you actually believe it.
“Furthermore, only 39 of the signatories had a background in climate science. That’s less than 1% of the number of signatories”.
Give it up Chris. “in climate science”
That’s like me saying: “Only construction workers have “right” to fault the design of a building.”
So, please go fine the missing “Hot Spot” and prove Mr. James Henson right before I demand my tax dollar be spent on something other than “climate science”.
Chris,
Congratulations! You’ve worked your troll magic and taken this thread off- topic. Good job!
Edward teller signed the Oregon Petition. You can add up all the Michael Manns and James Hansens and such and multiply by ten and that dim product will come nowhere close to the luminescence of the mind of Edward Teller.
By the OISM’s standards, the USA has about 10,600,000 people who are qualified to sign the petition.
31,000 represents about 0.3% of the qualified population
..
In other words, about 99.7% of the people holding degrees in “hard sciences” did not sign the petition.
..
Besides, science is not done via petition.
Nor by consensus. Which is the point (to disprove the consensus). Welcome to the skeptic side.
David your comment is clueless in its baseless ignorant assumptions.
If your statement is true it should be easy for you to do your own petition stating the opposite of the Oregon Petition; something to the affect that…
“The human caused increase in CO2 will be catastrophic to humans, causing disastrous increase in droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and sea level rise.”
Now find me such a petition. By the way you must use the same criteria as the Oregon Petition does, meaning social scientist need not apply.
David, I think a cat will have your tongue for a long time.
Alan,
It is very unlikely that the real Edward Teller signed that petition. He was one of the first prominent people to speak of the danger of climate change and the greenhouse effect of CO2.
Someone may have signed Teller’s name, but since the group behind the petition has not revealed how they verified the identities of the signers, there is no way to know whose names are real and whose are forgeries.
Prove he did not. So far, you have no evidence except verb tense and that only proves that you “were” a moron,
@chris & ‘socrates’:
I like how you both argue by assertion. You haven’t given a single verified example to support your belief, and you haven’t taken my challenge to produce even one alarmist survey with anywhere near the OISM’s number of names.
As Janice says below:
…do remember: The burden of proof is on the detractors of the petition to discredit it. So far, they have not. Not one shred of negating evidence.
All you are doing is emitting bluster. Both of you.
Chris, the Oregon petition has nothing to do with this thread. The issue is Google. What is it about Google that you are trying to hide via distraction? Could it be $539 million in taxpayer money?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/08/world-largest-solar-plant-applying-for-federal-grant-to-pay-off-its-federal/
Socks says:
Besides, science is not done via petition.
As an erstwhile commenter used to respond:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
‘Science via petition’ is the alarmists’ “consensus” argument. But when the shoe is on the other foot, skeptics can’t use it??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
This makes eminently more sense: We see your 97% (that we’ve debunked) and raise it with an equally debunkable OP, then complain when you try to use yours and don’t let me use mine. Too much logic and critical thinking in that methodology for most, don’tcha think DB? Well played.
I’ve had your number all along, haven’t I?
@James Baldwin:
Greetings from Earth!
Ours is a Nickel-Iron planet with an Oxygen-Nitrogen atmosphere. Due to water vapor the sky is predominantly blue.
What color is the sky on your world?
Chris, there is no climate change. Have you missed the fact that for the last 18 years there has been no warming whatsoever? Do you know that the greenhouse theory of IPCC has been forecasting warming for every one of these 18 years and getting nothing? Do you know that in science a theory that predicts impossible things is considered invalid and must be discarded? Do you understand that 18 wrong predictions in a row is enough to prove that it belongs in the waste basket of history? Simply because it does not obey the laws of nature. An alternative greenhouse theory that does obey the laws of nature is called the Miskolczi greenhouse theory. It predicts what we see: addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, contrary to what you have been told, does not warm the world. That takes care of the alleged greenhouse warming that IPCC has been babbling about.. With that, anthropogenic global warming or AGW is proven to be non-existent. It is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific fantasy, cooked up by over-eager climate workers to justify their greenhouse hypothesis which has turned out to be false. But based on this falsehood, we are subjected to irrational laws of emission control and other worthless and very expensive efforts to stop a non-existent global warming.
CarbonBrief, funded by the European Climate Foundation, recycles a September piece targetting students, this time for a Christmas audience. Phil Jones’ response is fascinating!
25 Dec: CarbonBrief: Simon Evans: 25 inspirational texts about climate change
Did Santa bring any of these this Christmas?
***We asked 25 thinkers, writers and journalists a simple question: What books or readings inspired you to get involved in climate change-related work?…
Phil Jones, Director of research at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia: “…When I started it was climate research. There wasn’t climate change then!
“We have prospective MSc students wanting to read something before they come. I always recommend the Rough Guide to Climate Change – which seems now in its third edition. Not really inspirational, but gets across simply many of the points we want to instill into a new set of students.”
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/12/25-inspirational-texts-about-climate-change-christmas-2014/
CarbonBrief: 25 inspirational texts about climate change
15 Sep 2014, 16:15
Simon Evans
Around this time each September, thousands of students will go off to study climate change at university. But sometimes climate and environmental issues can be pretty dry.
***So we asked 25 thinkers, writers and journalists a simple question: What books or readings inspired you to get involved in climate change-related work?..
COMMENT by Bob Henson:
Excellent compilation–my list of “need to read this” books has just expanded. Many thanks to Phil Jones for the kind words about my “Rough Guide to Climate Change”! The latest (fourth) edition has just been released under a new name and publisher: “The Thinking Person’s Guide to Climate Change,” by AMS Books (American Meteorological Society)…
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/09/25-inspirational-texts-about-climate-change/
Absolutely boring, so unimaginative no wonder they cannot think, so sad especially Jones “its just a job” as millions freeze
Can you please address the criticisms of the Origon Petition, specifically that most of the signatures are faked or not from scientists?
Your claim is false: that most of the signatures are faked or from non-degreed, non-technical, non-“scientific” people who ARE qualified to analyze heat transfer, chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, fluid flow, analysis, computer programming, optics, reflectivity, seismology, dynamic or static modeling or any other physics-dominated field.
Some information to help you WWF:
1. http://www.petitionproject.org/
2. http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
3. “A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition. To view the entire article in html, 150-dpi PDF, 300-dpi PDF, 600-dpi PDF, Spanish or figures alone in powerpoint or flash, click on the appropriate item in this sentence.”
{http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php}
Okay. That should get you started.
However (ahem) … do remember: The burden of proof is on the detractors of the petition to discredit it. So far, they have not. Not one shred of negating evidence.
That is, just as the null hypothesis wrt human CO2 emissions causing catastrophic climate change is: NO KNOWN FACTS PROVE AGW IS TRUE, I.E., THE AGW HYPOTHESIS MUST BE PROVEN.
So, too, the null hypothesis with the Oregon Petition is: NO KNOWN FACTS PROVE (to any degree at all, much less a significant one) THE OREGON SIGNATURES INVALID, I.E., THE AGWer’s HYPOTHESIS THAT THEY ARE INVALID (to a significant degree) MUST BE PROVEN.
Oh, brother! Did I call AGW a “hypothesis?” Aaaaaarrgh.
It does not rise even to THAT level. AGW is, as of this second, mere unsupported conjecture. A “hypothesis” could be proven false: AGW cannot. Given the facts known about oceans and volcanoes and air and ocean circulation and the troposphere, etc… AGW IS SPECULATION.
“However (ahem) … do remember: The burden of proof is on the detractors of the petition to discredit it. So far, they have not. Not one shred of negating evidence.”
Both of these assertions are false.
1) The Oregon Institute claims that the 30,000 signers are all real scientists. But they’ve offered no proof and no explanation of how they verified the identities of every signer. No one is under any obligation to believe their claims at face value. They should release their methodology–you know, like real scientists do–if they want this petititon taken seriously outside the deniersphere. The burden of proof is on them.
2) The Oregon Institute admitted that many fake names were submitted and initially approved. It was only later, after critics had called them out, that they went through and purged many of the names. They now claim to have verified the identities of 95% of signatories, but again, have offered no proof of that claim. The initial shoddiness of the petititon certainly counts as at least a :shred of negating evidence” for the merits of this petititon.
3) Only 39 of the signatories even claim to be climate scientists. That is less than a percent of alll signatories. That alone is enough to discredit the petition. The opinions of scientists who have not studied climate in depth are irrelevant.
Thank you Janice Moore. Very helpful. I was recently faced with the following propaganda when debating with someone about the “consensus”. It seems NASA are no longer using the study that led to the 97% claim to back up the number, but listing organisations that agree with it. If you, or anyone in here, has something that can specifically address this page on NASA’s website, I would appreciate it.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Sorry, forgot to press “paste” before the “post” button on my reply to Janice Moore
Impressive list of organizations. Are you actually claiming that they are all part of a conspiracy to defraud the public and attack the fossil fuel industry?
““God’s Law is the mediator between people if they are to get along well and are mutually beneficial to one another. It is up to you to learn to take the Bible seriously (no more discounting of God’s instructions about life that we find in the first 5 books of the Scriptures), study it, and make it part of your genetic makeup. Evolution is no more true of God’s standards of right and wrong than it is of creation. Community has been lost in our largely apostate age because we have forgotten God’s Law.” –Arthur Robinson, initiator of the Oregon Petition
Yes, I am sure this completely sane and rational man conducted the verification process for this petition with nothing but the most stringent standards.
Oh dear Chris, we’ve reached the bottom of your barrel and there’s some pretty mucky stuff there.
‘I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei of Florence, being 70 years old… swear that I have always believed, believe now and, with God’s help, will in the future believe all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church doth hold, preach and teach. But since, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the Universe and immovable, and that the Earth is not the center of the same and that it moves.’
It would be tempting to show you the rack too but we’ll rely on the slower method (and more painful probably to some in the end) of sticking to science and truth.
‘If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties,…’
The Oregon petition has nothing to do with this thread. The issue is Google. What is it about Google that you are trying to hide via distraction? Could it be $539 million in taxpayer money?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/08/world-largest-solar-plant-applying-for-federal-grant-to-pay-off-its-federal/
wickedwenchfan,
Who are you asking? And, what exactly are you asking?
The OISM has about 33,000 names. A few might be fake names, put in by ethics-free alarmists. But they are weeded out as soon as they are found, and IIRC, there have never been more than a handful opf names that are not real. Out of 33,000 co-signers, even if 90% are accurate, that is still far more than ten times the number of signatures from the entire alarmist side.
Probably more than 99% of the OISM signatures are legitimate. But instead of worrying about that, why not discuss what they all co-signed?
The OISM Petition says, in essence, that CO2 is harmless, and that it is beneficial to the biosphere. That view is in contradiction to the alarmist view.
Alarmists promote the “carbon” scare. You will have to decide for yourself which view is more accurate.
@chris:
All you are doing is emitting bluster. No names named. And “many” can mean a dozen names… out of about 33,000 names.
Once more: where is your alarmist petition? You don’t have one. All you have is Cook’s bogus “77 of 79” nonsense.
Face reality: the ‘consensus’ is very heavily on the side of scientific skeptics. The false claim that your alarmist clique is the so-called ‘consensus’ is BS. It just isn’t true.
If I am wrong… post the names of your alarmist scientists. If you can. I say you can’t. So put up or shut up.
I already have. Regardless of what scientist have or have not agreed or disagreed with the global warming claim, I have determined for myself that CO2 is not responsible or dangerous for temperature changes.
I would however like to have a link that officially responds to the claims of the warmists about the [Oregon] Petition.
Mr. WWF,
The claims are completely unsupported. Thus, there is no response.
That is, the Oregon Petition’s detractors have not even presented enough of a case to shift the burden of proof to the other side. In a court of law, the Oregon Petition Defendants would win on a Motion to Dismiss because the Plaintiff AGWers have presented NO evidence that would make it in the least likely that they could prevail on the merits.
Your persevering WUWT pal,
Janice
You can see a list of the 31,487 signers at the following link provided earlier by davidmhoffer:
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=H
The FAQ responds to some of the warmists’ claims. Take a look at #5, in particular, at this link:
http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php
It should also be noted that this petition was only open to scientists from the United States. Since it was a petition addressed to the government of the United States, it is reasonable for it to only be signed by U.S. citizens. But when one considers that despite that limitation, they STILL got over 30,000 signatures, it truly is an impressive feat.
The one criticism that “Chris” levels about only 1% being “climate scientists” comes from this page where there is a breakdown of what the number of signatures are by degree type.
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
Indeed, only 39 listed themselves as “climatologists” or about 1%. That’s quite immaterial however. If one examines the training of people like Briffa, Hanson, Mann, and many other “climate scientists” they are not “climatologists” either. They are people with expertise in physics or astronomy or biology who have sub-specialized by focusing their learned science on climate. When a “climate scientist” calculates the effective black body temperature of earth, she used Stefan-Boltzmann Law to do it. When an electrical engineer wants to understand how much a component will heat up under load, she uses Stefan-Boltzmann Law to do it. The notion that climate science is some priesthood that nobody but a climate scientist can enter is simply willful deceit.
Wicked,
There are a number of links within this wiki that you can follow to find supplemental information. Not sure if this will lead to what you seek, but there may be a lead to follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
@Danny thomas,
Wikipedia is completely biased in anything climate related. By now you should know that.
So why the propaganda? I had your number from the get-go, didn’t I?
Happy Holidays DB,
I’ve missed ya! So what number is that?
The person requested information about the OP, I provided a Wiki with numerous links so that person can research for themselves, and DB who has decided for any and all that providing a Wiki with links therefore means …………………………….
Can anyone help me understand the linkage? DB & I have a hard time communicating?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F . I suppose this is completely biased too?
Db, as your lesser, I’m asking for your help. Please, please got thru in detail the wiki I provided about the OP and provide specific indications of bias so I can understand as I’m obviously incapable of doing so for myself. Since my entire world revolves around the need for your acceptance I probably won’t sleep for a week if I don’t get it. When I look at the OP website and the wiki side by side the correlate fairly well, but then again, I’m not a reputable source for that evaluation as DB has me neatly boxed in to some kind of number……………
@Danny Thomas:
Do I have to hold your hand?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=connolley
Ooooo! Just the thought made me all tingly. Unless your palms sweat.
So your link to a WUWT post on Connolly therefore makes the wiki on the OP as biased an inaccurate?
Therefore, then, if I post a link that to a post that WUWT has a bias (and I think we can agree that it just might) therefore any and all references on WUWT are invalidated? Db, the education you provide is once again top notch and indisputable? Thank you for that as always.
Oh, and I noticed you didn’t address the wiki directly. Nice deflection. So what on the wiki was inaccurate? I missed that part.
No, try google, or better (given the topic) Bing – http://www.bing.com/search?q=william+connolley+wiki+scandal&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=william+connolley+wiki+scandal&sc=0-23&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=e5d8e735e19e40f4a4722ffade6c247d
The facts are not in dispute. Your integrity is.
Phil,
I can see how one can get angry with Connolly and not wish to use his product, just as folks are expressing anger with google and talking of making a change, but if those who chose to do so do not take the time and effort to compare the data then what is the point?
When I compare the wiki with the OP website I get reasonable use. Phil, be honest with me (DB won’t as he seems to not know how) did you check for yourself?
@Danny Thomas – you make a classic mistake. The evidence of the tampering of Wiki by Connolley is incontrovertible. So ALL data sourced from there must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. If you find the same information, at an untainted site, that merely shows that Connolley is not omnipotent. But Wiki cannot be used as a primary source. Period. Even beyond Connolley, any second grade teacher will tell you that.
But just because it is on Wiki, does not make it false. It makes it suspect. And anyone with even a modicum of ingenuity can find a primary source to either validate, or invalidate the wiki information.
Period.
I have checked. I have found enough errors, and not only in Climate Science, on Wiki (e.g. See Sally Hemmings myth) that I use it as a starting point if that. I never use it as an authority.
Neither should you.
Phil,
Rest assured I’d never cite it as a “source”, but also would not toss out the associated data w/o first checking (as I have done) to compare for myself. The OP site and the wiki match quite well. There is no mistake as I’m not offering it as a reference to substantiate anything, but instead as a resource for one requesting more information about the OP. I chose to do so as the wiki has numerous links. Please make note, that I made ZERO representation and only provided the link. My good buddy DB took issue with that choice and if he or anyone doesn’t care for where the information was acquired and doesn’t bother to check the information then that’s just being lazy on their part.
Tossing at all wiki’s due to WUWT having an issue with Connolly is absurd. Tossing out all data found on Google due to WUWT having an issue with Schmidt is absurd. As with any encyclopedia, it’s not a source but instead is a resource.
Just like Willis shares. It’s not about ME, it IS about the data. Some are just to lazy or closed minded to check for themselves. I appreciate that you have chosen to do the checking, but not all do.
The wiki for the OP has numerous links embedded that the person who wished more information about the OP might find helpful. So if you followed the thread, and took a look at the application to meet the other posters request, would this not be about as good of a use of a wiki?
I could have posted the OP site, and 40 others (the embedded links), or used “the right tool for the right job” and post the wiki instead. No integrity in question. Agreed? You offered that you use it as a “starting point” and that’s exactly why I chose to offer it to the other poster as I see that as an appropriate use.
@Danny Thomas – again you make a critical mistake. WUWT did not create the scandal, nor did they make it so. They REPORTED it. Your insistence that it is somehow a “WUWT” issue brands you as a den1er of facts. Frankly I do not care where you get your facts, as I always search to the source. But you seem to take offense, that since you used Wiki as your PRIMARY source, and were called on it, you have to somehow create a narrative to defend your faux pas.
As I am sure you are not in second grade, you are free to use Wiki as your primary source. But then no one is going to follow that white rabbit down its hole.
I merely tried to educate you. As I said, I have no dog in the fight. But you are welcome to continue with your quest. And ignore the education.
Phil,
Please. I did not cite it as a source, I offered a resource and I once again go back to Willis’ point of view. You (and DB) can continue to wish to paint me as “making mistakes” as I don’t have a dog in the fight as you say between Wiki and WUWT. What I chose to do was compare the data from the wiki with the OP website, and found a good match. With the additional benefit of the backstory of issues which I do not evaluate for validity but felt the poster requesting information might find useful, instead of only providing the OP point of view I chose the wiki for a broader view. The wiki links to the OP site and Heartland, and many others.
Some may wish to provide the information that only supports one side. Some may wish to provide more substantial and alternative data w/o offering any commentary whatsoever allowing the consumer of the data to analyse for themselves. You may chose the former, but I dare say the if one from the AGW side of the CC discussion did this they would be run thru the ringer here. I chose the latter and still get resistance.
My hope is Wicked finds the summary useful, the links more rounding, and that they find that which they seek. I’ve offered no guidance other than the resource.
Did not cite it as a source?
Strange, is your account being hijacked while you sleep?
Phil,
Seriously? There is a big difference between suggesting someone read this article, and a citation of an article but you know that already and are just trying to damn all of the wiki because of Connolly.
Did you compare the OP site data with that of the wiki? Specifically, what about the wiki is inaccurate? Not interested in generalities as my point is that it’s about the data and the the package in which the data is contained.
Geeeez. Person asks for information on a topic, and I suggest an encyclopedia for them to read w/o any commentary and I’m told that was inappropriate? Really?
I look forward to the analysis between the two. Sans that, can we not just agree that this is much ado about nothing? Lacking the analysis, I see zero problem with offering the wiki. That is done by others, on numerous topics on this very blog. Where is the uproar on those?
I understand that the wiki discusses things that some with a particular agenda may find unhelpful for their arguments, but that in no way makes the information invalid does it?
No one has hijacked my access, and I stand fully behind the choice. I sure hope you’ve never suggested a book to someone to read unless you take full responsibility for all the content therein.
@Danny Thomas – LOL- Straw man much? I stated clearly, up front, that Wiki should not be used as a primary source. I offered the example of C0nn0lley. But he was not the only basis for my claim. I also offered additional resources for you to check (which you have ignored). Then you want to come back and try to wrap yourself around your own mistake and claim it was “just visiting”??? LOL
Please, you were given some friendly advice. But no one ordered you to do anything, so you are free to ignore it. And of course be shown wrong more often than not when others use real sources to refute your contentions.
Phil,
I call your strawman, and raise you a deflection.
I notice you once again address me, and not the data. Address the data, please! Show me how this specific link contains inaccurate data to a substantial level and I will defer to your request. Lacking that, I still stand by the data all the while ignoring the package in which that data is contained (and you should too). If the data is accurate, the package matters not. If the data is INaccurate, the package still does not matter. What matters is the data. Why is this so hard?
According to you, if Connolly is involved the data is bad or at the very least suspect? And you say what I offered was a strawman (a sham argument set up to be defeated?). I checked the data, and I ask you once again (please address it directly and specifically) did you compare the two?
Once again, and to be clear, I offered zero commentary on the content but only offered the poster who requested information a place to start their search. In case it’s helpful, here’s a handy definition of citation: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/citation
You are not wasting your time. I followed the link you provided (via google just for the entertainment value) and it led me to (surprise!) a WUWT post which discussed Connolly’s inappropriate behavior. Having said that, please “educate” me as to how that 2009 post applies to the specific link I provided.
I’m open to reasonable refutation, but do not find it reasonable that because WUWT did a post almost 5 years ago about a single person impacts the validity of the data in the OP wiki. Address the data, not the person. Effectively that’s an ad hom.
@Danny Thomas – Oops! There go the goal posts again! You are deflecting. My discussion with you has NEVER mentioned the accuracy of the data, only the integrity of the source! You then sought to dismiss the criticism of the source by saying “looky what it says about WUWT”, which is totally irrelevant (even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while).
So after schooling you in at least presenting a reputable source, you are now demanding (not asking as you have yet to resolve the original challenge) that I prove to you that Wiki is a bad source! Which I already have several times (and tire of repeating myself).
Here’s a suggestion. If you want some scare crow to dance to your straw men and deflections, pay some idiot to do that for you. As I have seen no compensation coming from you, I will select my own subjects to discuss and my own issues to debate. And since I have only done that, I have not joined your scare crow club nor will I assist you in moving the goal posts once again.
Phil, Phil, Phil,
What goal posts did I move? I state again, (and again, and again), that the content of the wiki is good and it was provided as it contains links for supplemental information that the OP site does not offer. I apologize to you for this method as I should only provide the data that supports what you wish to have supported and not any other information which another might find informative.
You didn’t strike me as the guy who chooses to buy the Oreos brand due to the packaging. All I care about are the cookies inside. You have a problem with the wiki, and I do not. But I don’t arrive here with preconceptions especially based on a 5 year old post discussion Wm. Connolly and zero discussion about the wiki of topic.
Okay, you’ve devastated and destroyed my argument. Feel good about that do ya? The package is more important than the content according to you. Me, I care about the content and care not from where the information comes.
Please do point me to where you’ve detailed this specific wiki and how the content is inaccurate. Being the strawman player that I must be (as that’s the crown you’ve given to me) I’m totally incapable and missed it the first time (and the second, and third………….) that I asked you. Please provide the link! I’ll be waiting with baited (and probably bad) breath. Looking forward to it! Just so you don’t have to work too hard uncompensated by me, here’s the wiki link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
(crickets?)
@Danny Thomas – Oops! There go those goal posts again. Since you appear to have the memory of a goldfish, let me refresh your memory:
Can you read that? How about this:
No big words there.
So I have to ask, why would you go to Wiki, which has an admitted bias and error rate, about the OISM when it is ONLINE? Why? Do you understand what a PRIMARY source is? Apparently not.
Let me help you – http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Primary source! Shazaam! Now you do not have to find it. Can you follow a link?
Phil,
You are absolutely and completely correct. I should use a primary source if I am citing. I wasn’t citing.
Here’s my perspective. If one asks for information about a topic, I can offer a finite source, or a broad source. I chose broad. There was one very simple reason. Links. So, yes, I can follow them and think that others can too. So why not make them available? I presume most folks here are reasonably capable. They can read, do their own research as far as they chose, and then make whatever determinations based on that research.
Phil, I just don’t care that WUWT has an issue with Connolly. If you provide me with a source about pretty much anything since you took your time to do so I feel it’s only right that I invest some time in looking at it. But if you tell me something, no matter how much I luv ya, I prefer to check the sources and information myself and I just work under the assumption that others do too. As I stated before, I could have listed 40 primary sources or one with links to the others. I chose, since I found good comparison, to go with the latter.
“The evidence of the tampering of Wiki by Connolley is incontrovertible. So ALL data sourced from there must be viewed with a jaundiced eye.” You see this as me providing some sort of citation. I did not. I provided a door thru which one could enter to seek that which they desired. I have no idea what wicked wanted, nor does it matter much. They asked for info. and I provided a “door”. And to go further, should not all data at all times be looked at “with a jaundiced eye” until some sort of confirmation occurs? Does this very site not look at EVERYTHING from the AGW side with a “jaundiced eye”? Should we not do the same with things from the “skeptic” side, or do we just accept those as valid as the come from the WUWT blog? (nope, not for me).
Not my words, but from another poster on another WUWT. Reg Nelson December 29, 2014 at 3:26 pm
Excellent point. Climate Scientists never seem to be concerned about the quality, quantity, accuracy or precision of the past data they spout as gospel — a telling sign that the data matters far less than their preconceived foregone conclusions.
From this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/29/a-few-comments-on-the-new-paper-by-gavin-schmidt-and-steven-sherwood/
I believe this applies quite well. To me, the data matters. I care not about yours or anyone elses preconceived forgone conclusions. Especially, if those that criticize me for this choice do not bother to check. That’s lazy. But if others chose to conduct themselves that way, I will still listen to them the next time and check what they say against other resources.
Based on what you’re presenting, if Wiley publishing puts out a book they edited, and within that book is found to be biased inaccurate content then every other publication of Wiley’s is invalid. That’s your choice if you like, but I chose otherwise.
Either way, as always I respect your view, if not your approach and I wish you all the best in the New Year and beyond.
Oops there go the goal posts again. Must be that gremlin that uses your account when you are sleeping.
Ah well, at least no one has to read your posts. Lying and deceit seem to be the only excuses you give. But not very well.
Phil,
Yep. Every word I said was a lie.
Suggested New Years Resolution for you is to learn how to read. Moving the words you already have in your mind out of the way so you could read mine must have worn you out so you stopped doing so. Either way I wish you the best for the New Year!
Sorry Danny, I know how to read, and that is your problem. You cite a source, and then deny you cited it. You claim that if one article is correct, the source must be correct on everything. You want us to believe that if you only lie once in a while, we should always believe you.
Yes, I know how to read. Your problem is you do not remember what you did, so you think you can fool everyone by denying what you do after a day or so.
Such dementia.
I was ready to let this go, but this:”You claim that if one article is correct, the source must be correct on everything.” Is not what I said. The words you have in your own mind you once again forgot to move and once again you thought your words were mine.
NOw there is another lie. When I said WC, you said “see this one”. I guess that is more dementia than a lie. But I guess either will do.
Darn it! Yet another lie. Gotta work on that in the new year!
Don’t worry, you will forget it by then.
@Danny T:
DT says: So your link to a WUWT post on Connolly therefore makes the wiki on the OP as biased an inaccurate?
Read the very first hit. It ties together Wikipedia, Connolley, and anything global warming-related under the same umbrella: demonizing ‘carbon’, promoting windmills and other alternative energies, and howling about the Koch Brothers™.
It’s amusing when we observe some folks here being mind-controlled by the Narrative. Not naming names, of course…
Db,
I agree completely! “It’s amusing when we observe some folks being mind-controlled by the Narrative” when the narrative is that Connolly = bad = all wiki data = bad.
Now the fact that the data on the wiki matches the OP site must therefore mean the OP site data just has to be bad also. Now that would only be an assumption so would not one expect a critical thinker to check for themselves?
Db, straight up, did you check for yourself or are you being further controlled by the narrative, (although one shouldn’t name names, eh?)
33,000 is not a very large number.
..
There are 10,600,000 people in the USA qualified to sign the OISM petition.
..
33,000 signed it, and 10,567,000 did not
…
Barely 0.3%
..
Why have 99.7% not signed ??
D. Socrates is still going down his illogical road. You do not compare the population of a subset with everyone else in the world: you compare one subset with a competing subset. so compare the number of alarmist scientists with the number of scientific skeptics. Of course, if you do that skeptics win hands down. Socks knows that, so he prevaricates and dissembles.
I keep challenging these jamokes to produce their alarmist petition, to compare it with OISM. But they tuck tail and run, or they go off on completely illogical tangents like socks does here.
The fact is that the “consensus” is completely on the side of skeptics. But the relatively tiny alarmist clique cannot admit to the truth, so socks and chris emit their bogus arguments.
No wonder the alarmist crowd never debates skeptics any more. With fake arguments like socks makes, they would get slaughtered.
“so compare the number of alarmist scientists with the number of scientific skeptics. Of course, if you do that skeptics win hands down.”
Wait, I thought the argument was that the consensus doesn’t matter, and skeptic scientists are a persecuted minority in the scientific community? Now it’s that skeptic scientists dwarf scientists who accept AGW? How can that possibly be true, given that nearly every major scientific organization in the world endorses AGW theory? How can that be true when papers disputing AGW are almost never published in peer reviewed journals? How can that be true when Pew found that 84% of scientists say that the earth is warming due to human activity?
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/do-americans-know-where-scientists-stand-on-global-warming/
Where is this silent majority of scientists? Are they all in hiding? Certainly the Oregon Petition, which has no way of verifying the identities of every signatory, cannot itself be used as evidence that the consensus is on the skeptics’ side?
NOTE: None of this proves the existence or non-existence of AGW, I am just interested in debunking bad arguments.
The bigger question is why 99.997% have not signed on to CAGW. Please address the larger number.
there were 10,600.000 in the USA qualified to sign on with mann et al, why have they not done so?
stupid answer to a stupid question.
Chris says:
Where is this silent majority of scientists? Are they all in hiding? Certainly the Oregon Petition, which has no way of verifying the identities of every signatory
See what he’s doing? By [falsely] claiming that the OISM’s names cannot be vetted [wrong], he then extrapolates to every possible skeptical scientist, claiming they are ‘all in hiding’.
Rhetorical games like that are all these people have left. The plain facts are that the OISM petition has more than 31,000 co-signatures, all by professionals with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s. Every name has been vetted.
Those are the facts. So in order to hold the coveted [to them] title of “the consensus”, they must show their own named list of scientists who dispute the OISM’s statement that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
But they can’t produce a list with even one-tenth the number of OISM names.
So they disemble, and try to make a false comparison, between the number of OISM scientists, and the total number of scientists over all. But the real comparison is between OISM skeptics, and any list the alarmist clique can come up with.
So the “consensus” crown is solidly on the heads of climate skeptics. Not that they much care. “Consensus” is only really important to the alarmist cult. But they don’t get those bragging rights any more.
“See what he’s doing? By [falsely] claiming that the OISM’s names cannot be vetted [wrong], he then extrapolates to every possible skeptical scientist, claiming they are ‘all in hiding’.”
I made no such claim; your reading comprehension is not very good.
“Every name has been vetted.”
How? Defenders of the petition have had multiple opportunities here to explain the exact process by which the Oregon Institute vetted the identities of the signatories, and have utterly failed to do so. Please explain your assertion.
No one needs a similar petition to prove that the number of scientists who accept AGW theory are the majority. This has been proven by multiple polls and surveys, such as the Pew poll I already linked to. It’s proven by the fact that papers rejecting AGW are almost never published in peer review journals (note that I am NOT saying this proves AGW is true, I’m saying it proves that the majority of scientists accept it). It’s proven by the fact that nearly every single major scientific body in the world accepts the theory.
Please, go back to arguing that the consensus doesn’t matter and that the majority of scientists are part of an elaborate conspiracy–it’s much more convincing than this out of nowhere argument that skeptical scientists outnumber those who accept AGW, which is an argument even most of the people on your side do not actually believe.
In 2008 only ~33% of voters voted for Obama.
see my comment upthread reply to Chris, it was in mderation until now, all the links are there for you to verify the authenticity yourself.
Yes! Dear WWF, see davidmhoffer’s EXCELLENT response (out of moderation, now) here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/26/google-goes-off-the-climate-change-deep-end/#comment-1822392
Well put, davidmhoffer!
Cheers
Oh brother…
ALARMISTS: “Climate Change is real and happening. Sceptics are deniers of Climate Change.”
SCEPTICS: “We don’t deny that climate is changing yada yada
ME: Can any of you point to ANY climatic region on this planet that has changed its characteristic in the last hundred years or so? A small change in temperature alone DOES NOT equate to climate change.
Desert climates of the 19th century are still desert climates. Tropical climates of….are still……..Polar climates….are still etc
Prominent sceptics keep playing this game by the alarmists rules. No wonder there’s no end in sight to this UN sponsored scam.
They have this stuff up in the Arctic called “permafrost”
..
They call it that because it was permanently frozen……up to about 50 years ago
..
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/12937255
So it was frozen 300 million years ago when dinosaurs appeared? Really? Evidence please.
Yes, the permafrost in Greenland is melting now, exposaing Viking settlements that froze after the Medieval Warming [MWP].
Thus, the MWP was warmer than now. QED
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said his company “has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts. And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. We should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.” — Even after IPCC toned down its earlier versions relating global warming and yet, some powerful people without understanding the basics of climate & climate change make statements. They must first understand the difference between global warming and climate change.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
IPCC report says more than 50% [half] the global average temperature raise after 1951 was contributed by global warming. Here, they are not sure the exact percentage!!! Very recently American Academy of Sciences jointly with British Royal Meteorological Society published a report in which they presented a graph showing global temperature time series along with 10, 30 & 60 year moving average pattern. From the 60-year moving average pattern it is clear that after removing 60-year cyclic pattern that the trend showed less than 0.5 oC — 60-year cycle varies between -0.3 to +0.3 oC. That means global warming component is less than 0.25 oC from 1951 to date. However, here the 0.5 oC is an over estimation of global temperature raise as the urban heat-island effect is overemphasized with dense met network in urban areas and underemphasized the rural-cold-island effect with sparse met network. This is clearly evident from satellite data. That means global warming component [if it exists] far less than 0.25 oC and by 2100 it may reach less than 0.5 oC. Under this scenario, the impact of global warming will be negligible.
Unfortunately, we use climate change synonymous to global warming, which is not true. Climate change includes both the natural variations, which play prominent role in precipitation; and man induced variations in which ecological changes plays vital role. Global warming is one part of man induced variations. So far the component of global warming in global temperature raise is less than 0.25 oC. This will not have any impact on agriculture or health. Extremes in the climate parameters are part of natural variations. The precipitation cyclic variations do influence agriculture but they are different over different parts of the globe based on cyclic variation periods. There is no need to panic with global warming.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
you are correct in your analysis. do you have a link for the 60 year moving average?
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
A MUST READ …
The climate is changing and we must act THEN!
For another example, Samuel Pepys, the famous diarist, wrote for January 1660/61-the year the Royal Society was established “It is strange what weather we have had all this winter; no cold at all; but the ways are dusty, and the flyes fly up and down, and the rose-bushes are full of leaves, such a time of the year as was never known in this world before here.” http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1661/01/21/
…and before that, John King, an Elizabethan preacher from Britain wrote in 1595;
“Our years are turned upside down; our summers are no summers; our harvests are no harvests!”
http://www.thegwpf.com/the-global-little-ice-age/
I think we’ve been well warned about Google’s agenda.