Congessional Republicans push back against the climate witch-hunt

Senate EPW Republicans Take a Stand for Academic Freedom

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OKla.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), today led all EPW Republicans in a letter promoting scientific discovery and academic freedom. The letter was sent to the same 107 recipients of letters sent earlier this week by Congressional Democrats to universities, private companies, trade groups, and non-profit organizations, asking for detailed information on funding climate science. As explained in the EPW Republican letter sent today, there is a real concern the Democrats inquiry may impose a chilling effect on scientific inquiry and free speech.

“Rather than empower scientists and researchers to expand the public discourse on climate science and other environmental topics, the [Democrats] letter could be viewed as an attempt to silence legitimate intellectual and scientific inquiry,” said the Senators in today’s letter.

There has been a public outcry in response to the Democrats letters. Noted climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann spoke of the letters calling them “heavy handed and overly aggressive.” Earlier today the American Meteorological Society warned that the letters sent by Congressional Democrats send a “chilling message to all academic researchers.”

At the end of the day, those disagreeing with certain scientific findings should judge them based on whether or not they are sound and transparent,” said Chairman Inhofe.

The full text of the letter is as follows:

February 27, 2014

Dear _______,

We write in regards to the recent request for information on your support of scientific research initiated by several of our colleagues in the United States Congress. At the outset, we are deeply concerned the letter calls into question the importance of scientific discovery and academic freedom. Rather than empower scientists and researchers to expand the public discourse on climate science and other environmental topics, the letter could be viewed as an attempt to silence legitimate intellectual and scientific inquiry.

Federal government-sponsored research is good and necessary, but such funding has limits. The federal government does not have a monopoly on funding high-quality scientific research, and many of the nation’s environmental laws require decisions be based on the best scientific information available—not just federally funded research. At the core of American ingenuity are those researchers who challenge the status quo whether in matters of climate, economics, medicine, or any field of study. Institutions of higher-learning and non-governmental funding are vital to facilitating such research and scientific inquiry. Limiting research and science to only those who receive federal government resources would undermine and slow American education, economic prosperity, and technological advancement.

The credibility of a scientific finding, research paper, report, or advancement should be weighed on its compliance with the scientific method and ability to meet the principles of sound science; in short, it should be weighed on its merits. The scientific method is a process marked by skepticism and testing, rather than dogma. If the work can be reproduced and independent experts have a fair chance to validate the findings then it is sound, irrespective of funding sources. Science the federal government uses to support regulatory decisions should also comply with the integrity, quality, and transparency requirements under the Information Quality Act and Office of Management and Budget Guidelines.

Indeed, science is only one criterion we must take into consideration when developing laws and regulations. Credible deliberation requires thoughtful analysis and an understanding of the economy, policy, and legal framework in which we function. Dissenting opinions fostered through the encouragement of all ideas is what truly facilitates intellectual prosperity and political discourse.

The letter you received from our colleagues is a wholly inappropriate effort to challenge these well-accepted truths. We ask you to not be afraid of political repercussions or public attacks regardless of how you respond. Above all, we ask that you continue to support scientific inquiry and discovery, and protect academic freedom despite efforts to chill free speech.

Sincerely,

Sen. Jim Inhofe, Chairman

Sen. David Vitter

Sen. John Barrasso

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito

Sen. Mike Crapo

Sen. John Boozman

Sen. Jeff Sessions

Sen. Rodger F. Wicker

Sen. Deb Fischer

Sen. Mike Rounds

Sen. Dan Sullivan

###

Original press release as PDF:

2-27-15_LTE from EPW Republicans to API

Advertisements

357 thoughts on “Congessional Republicans push back against the climate witch-hunt

    • Surely we can now look forward to science ethicist Chris Mooney’s expose titled, “The Democratian War on Science”?

      • It all depends. Republicans are pro-Science on certain topics and anti-Science on others. Take the Republican War On Plants. They suppressed research into a plant that might be effective against cancer in the Reagan administration. No Federal funds were to be spent on such studies.
        Neither party is consistent on Science or free inquiry. It all depends on who or what they have declared their private wars on. It is never policy follows data. It is data follows policy. Always. Look up ” Heath monkey asphyxiation ” for a typical example.

    • The Republican majority is just barely getting a head of steam, since their terms started ~January 4th.

      • Obama, unlike the Republicans congress, has learned that power is useless unless it is used. So far the Republicans have been a dissappointment and I don’t see that changing in the foreseeable future.

      • Mark W: The Republicans have had a majority in the House, as you say since 2010, but the former Senate Majority leader in the Senate [Harry Reid (D-NV)] blocked all Republican authored bills either originating in the Senate or coming from the House (unless it suited his agenda). So they couldn’t really do much in the Senate until the start of this session of Congress.

      • Mark W, these are Senators not Representatives. The Republicans only attained a majority in the Senate to begin the session this year.

      • Doesn’t matter, as soon as they see an opportunity to sell out their voters, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will. McConnell and Boehner are the masters of Capitulation

    • If fair disclosure of sources of funding is so all-important, why does the focus seem to be solely on the skeptics? If this is all the warmists can offer then they truly are getting desperate. The Senate letter brings up a point that I’ve wondered about for quite a while. If the data given in the committee testimony is unimpeachable, what difference does the source of funding make? If Grijalva is unable to recognize the difference between valid data and an attempt to further the cause of some funding provider’s agenda, he doesn’t belong on any committee. He has even less right to impugn the integrity of highly qualified credentialed scientists.

      • Scientists that receive government funding reveal their sources- why shouldn’t those that receive private funding? Given the history of strong biases associated with private funding of research (smoking and cancer, acid rain and effects on watersheds) it makes sense to reveal sources of funding.

    • So they sent a letter; whoopee !
      Don’t count on the Republican controlled Congress to pass into law any rational behavior legislation. With these Eunuchs in power we likely would have been better off with the Democrats. At least we would then be sure that we were entirely on our own to take care of ourselves.
      It still falls to the TEA Party to actually follow the voter’s directives.
      But yes I do Hope that Senator Inhofe can slap some sense into that body of woosies.

  1. Shame on the Democrats for playing the McCarthy game. I hope the Congressman who represents my old neighborhood which was next to the University of Arizona, is investigated.

    • @ emsnews February 27, 2015 at 1:52 pm
      As a resident of Arizona, I hope he is somehow investigated and sanctioned too. I immediately wrote to all Univnersites he sent the letter to and asked them protect the work and reputation of each professor that Congressman had the nerve to investigate. I am ashamed.

    • Senator Joe McCarthy has been unfairly slandered . His stance was Communists had no right to work for the federal government and should be weeded out.
      It was Representative J. Parnell Thomas, chairman of “HUAC” who was involved in the Hollywood witchhunt in 1947.
      Ronald Reagan was one of those who testified before “HUAC”
      “In opposing those people, the best
      thing to do is make democracy work. in the Screen
      Actors Guild we make it work by insuring everyone a
      vote and by keeping everyone informed. I believe that,
      as Thomas Jefferson put it, if all the American people
      know all of the facts they will never make a mistake…..
      As a citizen, I would
      hesitate to see any political party outlawed on the basis
      of its political ideology. We have spent a hundred and
      seventy years in this country on the basis that
      democracy is strong enough to stand up and fight
      against the inroads of any ideology.”

      • McCarthy didn’t even want them fired once found. He understood that freedom of belief was important and only wanted them moved to jobs where they had no access to sensitive information and no influence on policy.

      • M Simon-
        Please read the letter again, esp the part about funding other than Federal. Regardless of what leftists think, Federal funds are not unlimited. A likely cure for cancer should have Big Pharma chomping at the bit.

      • The AMS is under the mistaken impression that the Democrat party is somehow interested in science in the matter the global climate. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the Dems had any interest at all in science they’d have no need to be interested in witch hunts. The witch hunts exist because the science has successfully shown they cannot use the science to validate those policies they desperately want and need as part of their march to one-party rule and ultimately, one global government.

    • One mustn’t be vindictive. If ever there was a time when a high moral ground is required, it is now.
      As Reagan once put it — Don’t just do something. Stand There!

      • evanmjones February 27, 2015 at 4:48 pm says
        If ever there was a time when a high moral ground is required, it is now.
        Yes, it sure is.

      • The reformers have merely changed the world. The point, however, is to improve it.”
        With no apologies whatever to Karl Marx.

      • High moral ground? In an effort to continue a war on his political enemies Reagan suppressed all Federal research into a plant that might cure cancer. Following in Nixon’s foot steps:
        “Look, we understood we couldn’t make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. ” – John Ehrlichman, White House counsel to President Nixon

    • Not investigated, but at least called out on his bad behavior. I had you pegged as a troll, I was wrong. Apologies.
      TB

  2. “If the work can be reproduced and independent experts have a fair chance to validate the findings then it is sound, irrespective of funding sources.”
    yet despite overwhelming evidence, Sen. Inhofe seems to think snow in winter is ‘very unseasonable’?
    https://vine.co/v/O2J1F0lYIeY
    (face palm)

    • If you can’t even report the even accurately, or quote him specifically, why would anyone listen to you? Snow of a depth to actually make a snowball in Washington DC in late February IS NOT the norm. And he didn’t say that SNOW was unseasonable. He said that “it is very, very cold out….unseasonably cold.” Which is the truth.

    • Just a few short years ago, the planet was predicted to overheat and snow was going to disappear. Yet there is Senator Inhofe, with a snowball made from the tears of David Viner and Michael Oppenheimer.

    • You idiot. Nowhere does the senator say snow is very unseasonable. You are playing a game of putting words in another’s mouth. Typical of those who don’t like using facts.
      For your elucidation the snowball is what is called a prop. He is using it to help him make a point about the weather being very cold out. Yes, weather. People in the AGW crowd used to say snow was going to become a thing of the past. I think using a snowball was a great prop.

      • Nonsense. We don’t need a Senator to throw a snowball on the floor of the Senate.
        What has he done on this issue? Give us the facts. We are not paying him to throw snowballs.

      • rd50
        February 27, 2015 at 3:28 pm
        “Nonsense. We don’t need a Senator to throw a snowball on the floor of the Senate.
        What has he done on this issue? Give us the facts. We are not paying him to throw snowballs.”
        But the USA taxpayer pays NASA 1.2 billion USD a year to spread climate alarmism.

      • rd50
        You ask of Senator Inhoffe

        What has he done on this issue?

        I answer.
        For years Senator Inhoffe has been obtaining information from scientists around the world whose published papers cover the entire spectrum of scientific opinion on climate change, and he has been informing the US senate of information he has obtained from them.
        I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of his reports to the US Senate, and his Statements made to the Senate that concern both my science and my political views were accurate and true.
        Please note that if I had a ;prejudice concerning Senator Inhoffe then it would encourage me to oppose him: he is a right-wing American Republican and I am a left-wing British socialist.
        From my interaction with Senator Inhoffe I can say that I wish we in the UK had many politicians with his integrity and honesty.
        I hope this answer has clearly addressed the question concerning Senator Inhoffe and it is not intended to affect US politics in any way.
        Richard

      • Roy…using more than one name to post here? Why is that?
        He’s proving that global warming isn’t a “serious” issue, and I’m sure it’s fairly embarrassing for CAGW proponents.

      • Yes I agree, Senator Inhofe turned out to be quite embarrassing.
        We don’t pay him to throw a snowball on the floor of the Senate to tell us about the weather.
        What has he done about this issue. A big zero.

      • Before its over with, rd50, you will be saying much worse things about Inhofe than “embarrassing”. I promise.

      • rd50
        You are very wrong about Senator Inhoffe. Unfortunately, my rebuttal of your comment is in the wrong place: it is here.
        Richard

    • Shame on you for mindlessly giving support to such a Stalinist activity as the investigation requested by Grijalva. Think about the end game if this type of stuff was allowed to expand and think about the 70+year experiment in the 20th century of this kind that arbitrarily killed about 50million people in one country along with other grievous harm done to its citizens. Mark well, too how it ended as it had to.
      Do something for yourself. Transcend the brainwashing you got in school under a politically engineered “how and what to think” agenda. Every sceptic under 50 got the same education as you but they saw through it and rose above it and you are a beneficiary of the free thinking of this minority. You are the crocodile trying to bite the leg off a conservation biologist trying to save you.
      Big, big kudos to Dr. Michael Mann for being one of the so few who came out against this kind of bullying. Let’s hope we see more of this kind of rare bravery from academia. There is a point reached when you can’t accept a type of threat that fundamentally changes the way a free society operates even though you are a beneficiary of the funding system and risk blackballing yourself.
      On Republican senators standing up to this, I was despairing of hearing from any of you. You have let the present government shred the constitution and even have the temerity to start questioning some of its most important clauses and amendments, like “do we really need all this free speech stuff – people saying things we don’t like?” The only amendment that needs some beefing up is the first one. I think freedom of the press should be amended to ensure that reporters are allowed to have a properly researched opinion on issues and where they don’t, should just report the news. We have a tyranny of the press at the moment on civilizationwide societal issues that need a lot of scrutiny and pushback – more scepticism, more resistance.
      Oh and regarding the snowball. Don’t forget that a Dr. Viner of the UK Met/CRU said about 10 years ago that children would only now snow from christmas cards and photographs in a few years!! At least catch up to Imhofe’s knowledge of CAGW recent history.

      • It all depends on the topic. Americans have a very large gulag for those smoking unfavored weeds. And the Republicans (mostly) approve. No need to invoke Stalin. When it comes to prisons we out do him.
        We of course don’t kill so many. So there is that.

    • Senator was simply emulating Cato the Elder who used a Libyan fig to make his point (about the proximity of Carthage) to the Roman Senate, an allusion which seems to have escaped many:
      “Cato contrived to drop a Libyan fig in the Senate, as he shook out the folds of his toga, and then, as the senators admired its size and beauty, said that the country where it grew was only three days’ sail from Rome” (Plutarch,The Life of Cato the Elder).

      • Trolls, being a silicon-based lifeform, are of course, more intelligent as the ambient temperature goes down. (See Pratchett, Terry i.e., Night Watch, Thud, Men at Arms, Fifth Element, Guards! Guards!, etc for various cooling mechanisms for trolls, results when trolls are super-cooled, and troll beverages and the results of feeding trolls with various anthracite coals and metals. Also Hobbits (Trapped above a fire at night) and Gandolf (Solutions Thereof.) )
        This explains the typical trollish hysteria as (future) temperatures (are threatened) to rise by a little bit. They do, truly and with reason, fear for their intelligence as temperatures rise.
        Trollops, on the other hand, are obviously female trolls. (See Nye, Jody Lynn and Aspirin, Robert; all sorts of Myths and Myschiefs… for more details.) Trollops appear to get hotter as temperatures rise and more trollop/average trollop area rises. It makes one wonder how the two ever meet.

    • He can throw around that snowball to make a symbolic statement. The other side of the debate is just as guilty, pulling tricks like the infamous James Hansen trick of turning off the air conditioning on the hottest day of Summer before testifying about the dangers of global warming…

  3. We are heading to a new Dark Ages with the Science is Settled group. I believe these bastards of the Democrat Party will suffer the most.during this.sunspot minimum.
    Let them freeze to death in their coal burning plants shutdown and let them freeze to death due to their stupid thinking about Man Made Global Warming.
    Let them freeze until my house in Florida is worth the Obamacare tax level when they buy me out with Grandma’s money.
    Let the bastards freeze out.
    I have had enough of their crap.
    Payback is a Mother. Denier? Deny this
    Paul Pierett

  4. My company was copied with this letter, even though we are officially agnostic when it comes to the whole topic of CAGW and have never financed research in this arena. When I saw the letter, I looked for the duct tape to keep my head from exploding. I found the whole tone of the letter insulting and it was filled with erroneous assumptions. Sens. Markey and Whitehouse’s arrogance is tangible.

  5. I’m all for having total financial transparency,…lets start with ‘ranking member’ (always thought that was a hobby ), Raúl Grijalva, shake him down & see what issues.
    I have better than 95% confidence that 97% of politicians have had murky dealings in the past, so throw out every one who’s done a dodgy deal in the last 25yrs

    • From a payola standpoint I’d bet he’s clean, but He’s always just had a chip on his shoulder.

      • I’ll bet he’s not !!! few of them are. Dig deep enough & you’ll find the ‘favors’, high expenses claims, tax fiddles…..
        If he wants to play hard ball …People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones

      • None of them is clean, except possibly those who are rich or married wealth, but not including Kerry. They have to be unclean, since running for office means begging for money, which comes with strings attached.
        Grijalva is dirty, but hasn’t had the opportunities for graft and corruption of his neighbor Dirty Harry Reid. Dirty has been a “public servant” his whole miserable, worthless existence, but somehow is worth tens of millions of dollars. How did that happen?

  6. I know most of you are familiar with this but I feel it is timely to read President Eisenhower’s comments on this matter.
    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
    In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
    Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
    Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. “

  7. Here’s hoping these senators will try to enforce Information Quality Act and Office of Management and Budget Guidelines that were ignored in the endangerment findings of the EPA that have been used to try to control CO2 emissions from existing power plants.

  8. It’s great to see some Republicans fighting back, but shouldn’t they have done this a long time ago? Freedom and the scientific method is worth fighting for surely?
    BTW the OZ BOM is taking the heat in the “Australian” this morning over the infilling and homogenisation etc of the OZ temp record. And Jo Nova is on the ball.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/australian-bom-under-fire-questions-about-adjusted-temperatures-exploding-around-the-world/

    • The Republicans didn’t have a majority in the US Senate until January, Neville. The Senate is the more powerful body.

      • I live in Australia and have no idea what the “Bradman analogy” is nor even heard of it until today. Can you elaborate?

      • For Americans, Bradman played Cricket in the 1930/s to 1948. He set batting records that have never been challenged. A top class batsman in Test cricket averages 50+ runs per turn at bat. The absolute best in the world average 60. Bradman, even as a man in his 40’s averaged 99.9. As a matter of fact he met Babe Ruth in New York and had a few swings at bat. His teammate Bill Woodful, who averaged around the 50 mark faced the Yankee pitchers and hit 9 out of 10 out of the stadium ( from memory).
        The Bradman analogy is that if you dropped a few innings here or there, you could drop Bradman’s average to 75 and similarly dropped some lesser innings from other batsmen, you could find someone who was better than him. The analogy is to BoM’s tampering with data that has turned cooling trends into warming trends and BoM starting records in 1910, deliberately leaving out the 1880 to 1910 records which covered the 1900 to 1910 drought which were hotter years.
        [Thank you for the details. .mod]

    • The scientific method worth fighting for? By Republicans any more than Democrats? Surely you are joking.
      “Can’t study it; it’s illegal…can’t make it legal, hasn’t been studied enough!”

  9. Here’s a repeat of some very interesting information on Raúl Grijalva that I read on another site…
    Figured if I searched for various ties to big oil, I’d find something on Democratic Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva who is behind the Witch Hunt against Climate Skeptics…
    Right away found that he invested in Royal Dutch Shell and other energy companies in 2013…
    http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/grijalva-buy.pdf
    Plus, I found that he has a conflict of interest when he opposes the Keystone Pipeline. Like Democrat Tom Steyer, his wife has invested in a competing pipeline. Not just a pipeline, but a ‘TAR SANDS PIPELINE’. See Enbridge Energy Partners. Snort!
    “These are all the top Democrats that Tucson produces. We are proud when Raul Grijalva leads the charge to stop the Canadian oil pipeline, but why must he make money off of this also? It turns out he has his own conflicts of interest by profiting off of his actions when his wife bought stock in the competing oil pipeline company.”
    http://threesonorans.com/2014/07/30/tucson-activists-call-divestment-raul-grijalva-invests-wells-fargo-caterpillar/
    SECOND CANADIAN COMPANY COMPLETING TAR-SANDS PIPELINE INTO THE U.S.
    State Department agrees to 800,000 barrels per day
    “Barring litigation, or action by the State Department, Enbridge will achieve what has eluded TransCanada. And it will have done so with scant attention from the media and without the public debate generated by campaigns against the Keystone XL.
    Enbridge will be transporting the same tar sands described by former NASA climate scientist James Hansen as one of the “dirtiest most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet.” Mining and burning Alberta’s tar-sands oil alone, University of Saint Thomas (Minnesota) engineering professor John Abraham warned in Scientific American, will result in a global temperature increase that’s equivalent to “half of what we’ve already seen.”
    “It’s a complicated story,” an environmental lawyer said of Enbridge’s pipeline, “so it’s not getting much media coverage.” Also lacking media attention is Enbridge’s role in the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history, the result of a ruptured pipe in 2010.”
    http://washingtonspectator.org/2nd-canadian-company-completing-tar-sands-pipeline-u-s/
    With All Eyes on Keystone, Another Tar Sands Pipeline Just Crossed the Border
    “The Keystone XL pipeline may be in political limbo, but that hasn’t stopped another Canadian company from quietly pressing ahead on a pipeline project that will ramp up the volume of tar sands oil transported through the U.S. What’s more, the company, Enbridge, is making those changes without a permit, and environmental groups say it is flouting the law.
    Calgary, Alberta-based Enbridge is the same company that spilled more than 1 million gallons of thick, sticky tar sands crude into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010. The spill was the largest of its kind in the U.S. and took four years to clean up.
    Enbridge applied for a State Department permit two years ago for its latest project: a bid to increase the capacity of its “Alberta Clipper” pipeline from 450,000 to 800,000 barrels of tar sands crude per day. The Clipper crosses the border from Canada into the U.S. in North Dakota, so a presidential permit from the department would be required by law.”
    http://www.newsweek.com/2014/12/05/all-eyes-keystone-another-tar-sands-pipeline-just-crossed-border-286685.html
    Keystone critic decried conflict of interest as wife backed competitor
    “The wife of a leading House Democrat owned stock in a top competitor to the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline while he raised red flags about potential conflicts of interest in the government’s review of the project, documents show.
    Rep. Raul Grijalva (D., Ariz.) was very concerned about the potential financial benefits of approving the pipeline for the federal contractor that conducted an environmental review of the project last year.”…
    “However, Grijalva may have faced his own financial conflict even as he warned of the potentially compromised positions of those supporting the case for the pipeline’s construction.
    According to disclosure forms filed last year, Grijalva’s wife bought between $1,000 and $15,000 in stock in a major Canadian oil pipeline company just months before the congressman penned his letter to Obama.
    The company, Enbridge Energy Partners, is Canada’s largest transporter of crude oil and is a direct competitor to TransCanada.
    Enbridge is expected to benefit as Keystone continues to languish in bureaucratic limbo awaiting a go-ahead from the Obama administration for its southern leg, which would carry Canadian “oil sands” crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast.”
    http://soaznewsx.com/USA/ID/5554/Keystone-critic-decried-conflict-of-interest-as-wife-backed-competitor

      • RACookPE1978
        ..
        The problem with your rant about union and Alberta tar sands is that currently, none of the bitumen is shipped to the USA via rail.

    • “Oil Sands” is the correct term. Tar is what they have in California at La Brea. Not that anyone is paying attention of course. Part of the demonisation of oil from Alberta is to say it comes from ‘tar’ because ‘oil’ is legitimate.
      I don’t give a hoot about selling it to or through the US. Send it to China instead. Fine by me. Oil to the US can continue to go by train. What? You thought oil had to go by pipeline? Live and learn.

      • Crispin in Waterloo

        I don’t give a hoot about selling it to or through the US. Send it to China instead. Fine by me. Oil to the US can continue to go by train. What? You thought oil had to go by pipeline? Live and learn

        .
        Ah, but the oil now goes by train (democrat donor and supporter-owned trains, driven by union engineers on union tracks from union jobshops and depots). Then is pumped to storage tanks (union jobs in a democrat district), then pumped to barges piloted by union crews to union-crewed transshipment depots (democrts donors and supporters all), then pumped (unions jobs) to ships (union jobs) to be pumped (unions jobs) into depots where it can be used (some unions, some actual workers) ….
        See any reason for unions (er, democrats) oppose the pipeline?
        Oh, by the way, ANY oil coming from the US and Canada hurts Russia’s ONLY major foreign earnings, and so the Euro communists (Putin wrote his thesis on oil production and price controls back in the mid-90’s!) and thus the Obola administration oppose it.

      • So too the correct term to use to decribe the chemical composition of CO2 is carbon dioxide. But the term used to create fear and spread misinformation is carbon pollution. When people are too lazy to find out what is what, they appeal to authority, that 97% scientific consensus.

    • I got “shot down” in another thread when I posted that freebeacon.com link. Politicians are in the CAGW and renewable energy BS right up to their necks. The British PMs’ father in-law is involved in renewable energies, the British Royal family too stand to make billions out of renewables on “their” land.

    • Well I have for a long time had a very high regard for Professor John Christy.
      This piece just magnifies him in my esteem.
      Dr. Roy is Keeping excellent company.

      • Dr. Roy is a Yooper, if you agree or disagree with a Yooper you will find them to be the most tolerant and generous people, because up there “it’s too cold to have enemies.”

    • The NY Times is a leftist propaganda mill suitable for the bottom of my budgie’s cage and little else (though its average quality is much improved after Mungo’s little annotations.)

  10. Perhaps the witch hunters should take a break and read this.
    It seems as though the Antarctic sea ice minimum has likely been reached on February 16th and is now on the increase.
    If this turns out to be final, it will also be the earliest turn over and also the greatest amount of sea ice at the minimum; 2.473675 million sq. km versus 2.473050 on March 1st 2003.
    Data acquired from this website.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008

    • Nice, but the new Antarctic “minimum” isn’t that different from the old one, the growth being 4 decimal places out. We can’t measure the ice extent that closely, imho. Earliest turnaround is interesting though, if it holds up.

  11. I’m becoming very suspicious of this whole debate. Aside from it possibly being a false flag to take the heat off the disgraced ex-head of the IPCC, it could be a set up to get the skeptics, GOP, and conservatives to take a stance that they can’t walk back from.
    Oh, you say the funding doesn’t matter? Well when Russia funds US science papers you can’t say anything about the source. If I’m making any sense.
    In other words: It’s a trap!

      • Read the comments of Kilty and Jeff, since you don’t have the capacity to respond to a question of “what’s your point” to a pointless comment. FYI: this year Barrow has been pretty close to it’s January-February average daytime low of -8F

      • best comment going!

        Dumb**s. People like you are confused and amazed by pretty colors. That map is an anomaly map and by Mark I eyeball, Barrow appears to be (being generous) about 20 °F above normal. if you go to the Barrow, AK site right now, their current temp. is 3 °F. I’ll bet the people in Barrow appreciate the warm spell, since normal would be -17 °F. Also, I live in southeastern Virginia and this morning it was warmer (by about 3 °F) in Barrow than here. But 25 vs 28 °F is still cold.

      • Mark from the Midwest
        FYI: this year Barrow has been pretty close to it’s January-February average daytime low of -8F
        MftMw,
        Posted before I saw your comment, but basically I think the same message/response. Whether it’s -8 °F or 2°F, it’s still cold.

      • Hi, Aphan
        here’s the TAVG for the past 180 years for Alaska from BEST (http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/alaska).
        There’s a long term warming trend (1.02±0.34) (which represents a change in climate), superimposed on which are considerable short-term fluctuations (the weather).
        I thought Barry’s map was on point because it shows how often people confuse ‘weather’ with ‘climate’
        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TAVG/Figures/alaska-TAVG-Trend.png

      • >> dbstealey “How’s that runaway global warming, eh boys?”
        Based on available evidence, the mean rate of change of temperature ( °C / Century ) in Wisconsin over the last 24 years (1990-present) is nearly twice that for the period 1960-present and 10 times that for the period 1760 to present (http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/wisconsin).
        1760-present (0.49± 0.25)
        1810-present (0.88± 0.26)
        1860-present (1.25± 0.18)
        1910-present (1.09± 0.16)
        1960-present (2.71± 0.23)
        1990-present (4.58± 0.55)
        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TAVG/Figures/wisconsin-TAVG-Trend.png

      • that’s a shame dbstealy, the work actually argues that there has been a pause but also why there has been a pause and what is likely to happen in the next 30 years…I honestly thought you would have found it of interest.

      • @Bevan:
        I clicked on your link long enough to see “Projection” at the top of the first page.
        I am uninterested in projections. They have been so wrong that it’s a waste of time looking at someone else’s rank speculation.
        Show me real world data. Show me a measurement of AGW, if you can. I would be very interested in that. But someone’s opinion?
        Nah. They’re usually about 97% wrong.

      • @dbstealey that’s a shame, the ‘projections’ component of that presentations is just one small part of a much larger body of work that I had thought would be of interest to you.
        “Show me real world data. Show me a measurement of AGW, if you can. I would be very interested in that. But someone’s opinion?”
        this recent paper from Nature (Feldman et al., 2015: Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010) immediately comes to mind http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html
        there’s a useful summary of the key findings from Feldman et al. (2015) at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

      • @Bevan:
        There are NO meausurements of AGW. Not a single one.
        If anyone could produce a verifiable, testable measurement of AGW, then for one thing, it would have decisively settled the question of the climate sensitivity number. But after almost a century of investigating, the sensitivity number is still all over the map, with opinions ranging from a preposterous 6º+ for a doubling of CO2, to 0.00. No one has ever produced a reliable measurement of man-made global warming [AGW]. That is one of the glaring holes in the AGW conjecture. I think it is THE glaring hole.
        If any comment you ever made showed your total ignorance of this subject, that one did. There are NO verifiable measurements of AGW. NONE. Despite many decades of looking, by thousands of very well paid scientists, NO ONE has produced a single testable measurement of AGW. The IPCC certainly hasn’t; they are constantly ratcheting down their sensitivity estimates. I have asked readers here and elsewhere for even one measurement of AGW for the past 4 – 5 years, but no one has ever produced any such measurements. Not a single one! They can’t, because there are none.
        The speculation about AGW concerns the fact that if AGW were known via a testable measurement, it would conclusively show the fraction of global warming that is measurably attributable to human CO2 emissions. But there is nothing known about the extent, if any, of AGW [I happen to think AGW exists. But there are still no verifiable, testable measurements of AGW].
        Science is all about measurements. It is nothing without testable measurements. Without measurements, everything is merely a conjecture; it is speculation. It is an opinion, but nothing more. The reason foer the incessant, non-stop arguments about MMGW is specifically because there are no measurements of AGW.
        If there were any verifiable, testable measurements of AGW, then everyone would be in agreement about what the fraction of AGW/MMGW is, out of total global warming: Is AGW 50% of the total — including all natural global warming?
        No one knows.
        Is it 5%?
        No one knows.
        Is it 0.03%?
        No one knows!
        Is it 0.0%?
        NO ONE KNOWS!
        Your links are meaningless pablum. Try using your head for once: if AGW were known to be a measurable fraction of total global warming, then the entire debate would be over. But as any fool can see, the debate is still raging, as much as ever. That’s due directly to the fact that no verifiable, agreed-upon measurements of AGW exist.
        You have way overstepped — and you fell right into my trap when you assumed that there are measurements of AGW. There are none. At all.
        So it’s best if you just lurk, while reading the WUWT archives for a few months. Because you are clearly a noob, with a lot to learn.

      • @dbstealey Did you get a chance to read the paper? or even the abstract? Feldman et al. (2014): “These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions”

        • Bevan

          “These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions”

          Of course. Those conclusions is what they were paid to reproduce. Now, what is the measured evidence since 1996? Temperatures have been flat. CO2 has risen. A lot.
          1910 – 1945. CO2 rose a little bit. Temperatures rose the same amount as between 1976 and 1996.
          1945 – 1976. CO2 rose a lot. Temperatures fell.
          Your models – the theoretical (not-evidence) projections of their assumed calculations fail.

      • Bevan, WAKE UP!
        There are NO verifiable, testable, empirical measurements of AGW. NONE at all.
        On second thought: just go away. Try to sell your pseudo-science to the IPCC. They know there are no measurements of AGW. It seems you are the only one who Believes that there are.
        Stop bothering the grownups here with your anti-science nonsense. If you had a verifiable, testable measurement quantifying the fraction of total global warming attributable to AGW, then you would be the first — and on the short list to win the next Nobel Prize.
        Go for that, and leave the rational folks alone. We don’t need your nonsense.

      • Bevan,
        Listen to RACook. He’s trying to educate you.
        Look at this chart, and you will clearly see that it flatly contradicts the rent-seeking papers you linked to. Where did you get them, anyway? From SkS, or some other thinly-trafficked alarmist blog with zero credibility? If they were credible we would see them trumpeted from one end of the blogosphere to the other, not dug up from some obscure misinformation site.
        The fact remains that there is no agreement as to the sensitivity number. Therefore, there are no measurements of AGW. QED
        If you can’t understand that, then you are unteachable.

        • Nope.
          The Curry and Lewis paper in your link claims 1.64 (1.33) degree C change:

          Using 1859–1882 for the base period and 1995–2011 for the final period, thus avoiding major volcanic activity, median estimates are derived for ECS of 1.64 K and for TCR of 1.33 K. ECS 17–83 and 5–95 % uncertainty ranges are 1.25–2.45 and 1.05–4.05 K; the corresponding TCR ranges are 1.05–1.80 and 0.90–2.50 K.

          That’s a loooooooooooooong way from the 4 – 8 degree C temperature change used in the “catastrophic” futures forecast by the 10,997 papers always cited.
          See, there is at least a 7% chance the global average temperature in 2100 will be cooler. (After all, temperatures since 2001 have decreased.)
          There is a 20% chance that global average temperatures in 2100 will be 0.0 C to 1.0 deg C higher.
          No harm to anyone, only benefits to all.
          There is a 20% chance that global average temperatures in 2100 will be 1.0 C to 2.0 deg C higher.
          No harm to anyone, only benefits to all.
          There is a 20% chance that global average temperatures in 2100 will be 2.0 C to 3.0 deg C higher.
          No harm to anyone, only benefits to all.
          There is a 20% chance that global average temperatures in 2100 will be 3.0 C to 4.0 deg C higher.
          A very small potential harm to a few islanders (but ONLY if sea levels rise more than 1/2 meter), but that can be mitigated at low cost. Everybody else worldwide benefits.
          There is “maybe” a 10% chance that global average temperatures in 2100 will be 4.0 C to 5.0 deg C higher.
          Great benefits to many billions, a few problems for a few that can be prevented.
          There is “maybe” a 3% chance that global average temperatures in 2100 will rise more than 5.0 deg C higher.
          If. The catastrophic future problems you so fear begin by assuming temperature rises of 5, 6, 7, or 8 degrees C.
          And restricting today’s CO2 output will not change those temperature increases. But will assuredly kill billions in the 85 years between 2015 and 2100.
          A few people may have problems, almost everybody benefits from a warmer climate and greater food growth.

      • “The Curry and Lewis paper in your link claims 1.64 (1.33) degree C change”
        with uncertainity ranges of 1.05–4.05 K….

      • Bevan says:
        There is actually considerable evidence that climate sensitivity lies within the range of 1.5 to 4.5ºC increase per CO2 doubling.
        You have self-debunked, Bevan. That isn’t “evidence” of anything. That is a preposterously large range, which negates your false claim that there is ‘agreement’ about the sensitivity number. There isn’t. Wake me when you have it to within ≈ ±0.5ºC. Then we can talk.
        A range of 1.5º – 4.5º is completely meaningless in this discussion. You could walk an elephant through a super wide range like that. Furthermore, your low-end “guesstimate” of 1.5º has already been debunked by the only Authority that matters: Planet Earth.
        There is NO agreement on a climate sensitivity number for 2xCO2. Stop being someone who doesn’t listen, and try to learn for a change. Now please sit up straight, and pay attention:
        IF there was any agreement about any putative AGW measurement, then the question of the sensitivity number would be decisively answered. But as we see, there is widespread disagreement about that, from more than six degrees for 2xCO2, to ZERO degrees [Ferenc Miskolczi, et al.]. There are physicists who state that CO2 has a cooling effect. So much for your “agreement”.
        So please stop cluttering up the threads with your baseless assertions. If there was an agreed-upon sensitivity number, the issue would be moot. But instead, the argument just keeps going round and round, and you are not helping at all.
        You can argue until you’re blue in the face. But all you are doing is emitting another baseless opinion. You are just hand-waving. We have enough of that without adding your 2¢. There are simply no agreed-upon measurements of AGW. That puts the MMGW claim in the realm of conjecture, nothing more.
        Sorry about your “theory”. But AGW was never that; not even close.

    • Do you have a tiny understanding of winter weather? When arctic air breaks out and heads into the center of North America, warmer air from the south moves northward to take its place. It is not uncommon for places in Wyoming to be colder than Fairbanks for short periods. This seesaw motion takes place most winters, except when the flow is exceptionally zonal some winters, and has been clear since the inception of modern weather observation.

      • I think that’s his problem. He has a TINY understanding of winter weather. And he won’t let facts get in the way of a “good” argument with a “pretty” picture…
        Somehow the caption “ClimateReanalyzer” gives it all away. (John)Cooking the books again…

    • So when they say “Temperature departure from Average, do they mean departure from the average for that position and on that particular calendar day.
      I see nothing special with the temperature being 20 deg.C different from what it is at all global points at all times on average.
      But if we are talking about say the March first at Point Barrow long temr average, then that is different. @0m deg C anomaly.would be quite rare.

      • The high today in Waterloo will be 20 degrees F below normal. For about the 15th day in a row. Is that part of “Arctic amplification” or “global warming” or “climate disruption”?
        They all look so much the same to me as I chisel the ice off my truck. Environment Canada has warned of another month of far below normal temperatures.
        Stick that in your pipe and ‘normalise it’!

    • The average daily daytime high in January for Marquette, MI is 3-4 degrees F lower than the average daily daytime high in Anchorage. What’s your point?

      • Sen. Inhofe is arguing that because its cold outside in Washington DC (10-15C below average), global warming is not happening……..but following that same logic, you could argue that Barrow, AK is 20C above average so global warming is clearly happening (based on the temperature anomaly map above from Barry)……….however, what you need to consider is not these short term fluctuations, which represent ‘weather’ but the long term trend, which represents ‘climate’, and which shows a continuing warming…
        https://i0.wp.com/www.skepticalscience.com//pics/there-is-no-pause.gif

        • Best you got is a graphic that stops at 2000? Global average surface temps haven’t changed in any statistically significant way since 1998ish-
          http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf
          (taken from the pdf….grammatical errors/typos included)
          “The global surface temperature average (land and sea) for 2014 was nominally the warmest since the global instrumental record began in 1850; however,within the margin of error, it is tied with 2005 and 2010 and so we can’t be certain it set a new record.”
          “The margin of’ uncertainty we achieved was remarkably small (0.05C with’95% confidence). This was achieved this, in part, by the inclusion of data from over 30,000 temperature stations, and by the use of’
          optiized statistical methods. Even so, the highest year could not be distinguished. That is, of course, an indication that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little. “

      • From above, I think I’ve got it now. Above average in Barrow is still f**king cold, and below average in SE is sill f**king cold. So (s)he is confirming that it’s f**king cold.

      • Bevan, I see Tamino says that the trend is the same. But at the same time CO2 has increased dramatically. He doesn’t seem to have taken increased CO2 into account. The meme says temperatures should be skyrocketing, not increasing with trend.

      • Yo, Bevan:
        Let’s take a look at your graph with actual global temperatures from 1970 through 2014.
        Tamina’s trend line stops at year 2000 — just when your imaginary and fabricated ‘NASA’ trend line was conveniently inserted.
        Lying with charts can be done as easily as lying with statistics, Bevan — as you have shown with tamina’s phony ‘NASA’ chart above. If it were not for the constant alarmist misinformation, the carbon scare would be a thing of the past.
        Go away. We don’t need people like you and tamina to invent ‘reality’. There’s way too much of that already going on. We don’t need you two to add your 2¢ to the misinformation.
        Yes, ‘it’s the trend, stupid’. And the trend shows that global warming has stopped. Deal with it, and quit lying about it.

      • “actual global temperatures”. nope.
        AMSU (which RSS and UAH derive their data sets from) does not measure temperature directly but measure radiances in various wavelength bands and infers estimates of lower troposphere temperatures from these measurements.
        In addition, recent research (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1958-7 also discussed at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/07/new-study-disputes-satellite-temperature-estimates) suggests that estimates of long term temperature change reported by RSS and UAH could be biased low (cool) by as much as 20-30% due to effects of the radiation from clouds and precipitation on AMSU-A derived atmospheric temperatures.

      • Bevan says:
        “I disagree…” …that global warming has stopped. Then bevan posts a very LONG term chart going back to the 1880’s. But on a chart that long, it is hard at first glance to see if global warming is continuing.
        Here is a short term chart beginning at year 2000. We see that there has been no global warming.
        Once again, Bevan’s claims are deconstructed by reality.
        So why does Bevan keep digging his hole? It is because CAGW is Bevan’s religion, and nothing can penetrate religious faith and dogma.

      • You do your own cherry-picking. UAH is currently being re-adjusted to conform more closely to RSS. But really, I’m surprised you didn’t pick GISS. It is by far the most alarmist.
        Note also that even the IPCC now admits that global warming has stopped. [They call it a “pause”, but same-same].

      • Aphan
        February 27, 2015 at 4:40 pm
        You don’t lower the uncertainty by the method claimed. If your thermometers have an uncertainty of 1degC you put 400 calibrated thermometers at the point in question to lower the uncertainty to .05C. You don’t RMS average different measurements from different points.
        By the method claimed the uncertainties should add. So you will be worse than 1degC.

        • You don’t have the authority, credentials, or even basic logical skills to be included in any record of substance, much less set one here straight. You cite ONE wacko study done on monkeys decades ago, and ignore all of the other studies that have been done on humans since then, as your primary argument that cannibis cures cancer! Loosen the tin foil hat dude, it appears to be restricting oxygen flow to your brain. Just like the monkeys ironically enough.
          Your posts are YOUR personal opinions and interpretations. Nothing more or less.

    • Come on Barry, the amount of snow and cold, this late in February, in the North East down along the coast, is unusually intense.
      Rarely this late in the winter season has there been that much sustained cold and snow. A phenomenon, that is supposed to be increasingly rare, according the global warming meme. But instead there is an INCREASE of such cold and snow over the last 20 years occurring.
      Your selective complaint about a warm area, does not support the warmist position, as it is the deep snow and record cold frequency, is what the IPCC said would be less frequent.

  12. Some nearly 30 years ago there was a long running controversy over research done by associates of David Baltimore. Eventually it degenerated into an effort to discredit and hound Baltimore himself. Then as now it was Democrats leading the charge — John Dingel most specifically, but it was a big pack. Hearings in both the Senate and House and so forth. Eventually Baltimore turned the tables on Dingel, and gave him quite a public thrashing.
    Science magazine, itself, admitted after the controversy blew over that it was Republicans who exhibited a better understanding of the process of science throughout the affair.

  13. “The scientific method is a process marked by skepticism and testing, rather than dogma. If the work can be reproduced and independent experts have a fair chance to validate the findings then it is sound, irrespective of funding sources.”
    I can hear the radical left howling … from my house!

    • Me too. That is not the scientific method being practiced by “climate scientists” that support CAGW either.

    • And if the work seems likely to go in the wrong direction it is not funded. We have an agency (widely approved by the majority of Republicans) whose mission it is to show only harms from the use of a plant. Occasionally data contrary to their mission slips through. Look up ” Donald Tashkin lung cancer ” for one such study. The agency in question no longer funds hm since he no longer supports their mission.
      This corruption of science is NOT a one party deal. Sadly.

      • And that is the point of the comment. The funding source does not matter. Be it the NSF whose funding priorities shift with the whims of whomever is in office, or large corporations with hopes of promoting their own agenda, the research either will or won’t stand. This is especially true in the physical sciences. You can fool most of the people some of the time, some of the people most of the time, but fundamental physical laws are rarely fooled.

  14. Is it appropriate for we, non-US subjects to comment on this?
    I have an interest in academic freedom. I have things I would like to say.
    But this is looking very party political. And it’s not right for foreigners to try to interfere in the politics of other sovereign states.

    • Heck, we meddle outside our borders all the time! Sauce for the gander, and all that. An outside perspective can be very useful.

      • For now it is a free blog, but dictator obama just collectivised the internet. WUWT and other websites displaying “Information Not Suitable for Publication in Open Sources” will likely be shut down by obama’s webpolice.

      • Say them because you can.
        Say them because you must.
        Say them in defiance of those who would muzzle you.
        Say them because it is your most fundamental right.
        Speak freely, as our 1st Amendment provides for all!

    • It is party (ideological) political. But that’s the point. It’s not the science being hounded. It’s the “inconvenient” scientist.

      • The Republicans do that when it comes to a certain plant. It is not just Democrats who are party (ideological) political. We are in fact lucky to have an Israeli (Raphael Mechoulam) and a Spaniard (Manuel Guzman) who are outside the orbit of the US government.
        And just like CAGW good research is destroying a different political faction.
        As you may have noticed on this thread I’m mightily annoyed by those who think American Republicans are pure on matters of science. It just depends on the area of science. They are good in some areas and as horrible as any in others.

      • M Simon,
        Are you really attempting to equate smoking pot…. with the megalomaniac socialist agenda to control the world via the AGW meme?
        You’re mightily miffed, maybe even headed for a snit or a huff, about your personal views on smoking pot, but it does not rise to equivalence with the Trillion dollar industry that is AGW fear mongering serving the socialist agenda to limit capitalism, industry, and private enterprise world wide.
        Roll a fat one, scarf some brownies, and chill out, ‘Dude’!
        Mac

      • M Simon,
        I don’t know how what I said has any connection to what I said. I meant my comment in reply to MCourtney to mean “comment away!”
        Yes, I am a registered Republican. Why? Years ago I always registered as an Independent. Then I’d complain about the choices offered during the election. It finally dawned on me that to have a say in who was running, I’d have to declare a party. 3rd party candidates had little chance. Back in the 70’s the Democrats were being overtaken by the extreme left. That left the Republicans. (I AM talking about being able to vote for a party’s candidate in the primaries.)
        Personally, I’d like to see runoff elections between the top 2 vote getters if the winner had less than 50% of the vote. Strong 3rd parties couldn’t be ignored then. Until that day, Republicans, for the most part, seem more interested in returning this mess back to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
        But both parties are made up of people, We know what stinkers they can be.

      • TYPO!
        “I don’t know how what I said has any connection to what I said.”
        Should be:
        “I don’t know how what you said has any connection to what I said.”

    • Ya got something to say ?, well say it !!
      This is after all, the World Wide Web.
      Any disrespect intended or unintended, will be dealt with post-haste.

    • MCourtney
      You always have thoughtful an interesting comments and, I think, try to keep politics out of it. Having said that, I don’t think commenting on a this or another blog constitutes “interfer[ing] in the politics of other sovereign states.” I agree with D.J. Hawkins:

      Heck, we meddle outside our borders all the time! Sauce for the gander, and all that. An outside perspective can be very useful.

      It’s Friday night (at least where I am). Comment away.
      And I hope my edit to your comment dose not constitute changing the meaning. 🙂

    • OK.
      My thoughts are that this a bad move because of the collateral damage. It isn’t just climate science that will be caught up in this party political tit-for-tat.
      All academic freedom will be affected if politicians interfere on funding or character as and when it suits them.
      But we didn’t start it!
      Grow up. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And the costs to the West of politicising the physical sciences is immense. We already have history, geography and sociology. We don’t need to make social constructs the basis of the physical sciences too. We will just be losing something.
      We will be losing something that made the West rich and so enabled freedom – beginning in the UK, spreading to France, then the USA, the Commonwealth and Germany, then Japan, S Korea – now beginning in China… and it has been a good thing.
      You just don’t like Republicans because you’re a Socialist.
      That shouldn’t affect the logic of the argument.
      Indeed, if anyone did make that case it would – sadly – endorse it.

      • The Republicans are horrible when it comes to biological sciences. They refuse to allow human trials with a certain plant for fear the trials might show the plant has medical value.
        “Can’t study it; it’s illegal…can’t make it legal, hasn’t been studied enough!”
        You just don’t like Republicans because you’re a Socialist.
        Well no. I’m a libertarian. And an engineer. I follow the data. It is my job.
        The trouble with America is politicized science. And it is NOT limited to one party. Sadly.

      • OK, I’m very confused. We have Republicans urging institutions to NOT purge their ranks of the non-conformists (skeptics), urging respect for the scientific method and free debate, and this is a worrisome tit-for-tat? Have we read the same letter??

  15. “We ask you to not be afraid of political repercussions or public attacks regardless of how you respond.”
    ——-
    You’ve got that completely backwards, it is you that should be afraid.

  16. Suggested template for response regarding the 107 recipients of the “Dear Joe McCarthy
    Letters”
    Dear _________,
    Before responding to your inquiry/inquisition, we wanted to more fully understand your meaning and hence to facilitate a comprehensive response to your inquiry/inquisition. Please clarify the following points:
    (1) we have attempted time travel (just like you). Do we need to account for how many visits to Salem, Mass. we have logged?
    (2) do we need to account for how many times we have weighed a duck?
    (3) do we need to account for flying houses dropping from the sky and the incidence of ruby slippers?
    (4) do we need to account for the brooms we purchased from the Lion’s Club last year?
    (5) do we need to account for the number of newts, toes of frog and wool of bat we have on hand?
    Thank you,
    2015 Spanish Inquisition Participant

  17. The analysis at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com demonstrates that CO2 has no significant effect on average global temperature (AGT).
    It and the peer reviewed paper at Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471 disclose the two natural factors that do explain average global temperatures (95% correlation since 1895) and credible trend back to the depths of the Little Ice Age (around 1700).
    This work proves that ‘climate sensitivity’, the effect on AGT of doubling CO2, is not significantly different from zero.

  18. We need more snow balls!
    My frozen mountain has 4 feet of solid ice that I can hack into snowballs that will really sting if thrown at warmists.

  19. From the letter by Senate EPW Republicans,
    “Federal government-sponsored research is good and necessary, but such funding has limits. The federal government does not have a monopoly on funding high-quality scientific research, and many of the nation’s environmental laws require decisions be based on the best scientific information available—not just federally funded research. At the core of American ingenuity are those researchers who challenge the status quo whether in matters of climate, economics, medicine, or any field of study. Institutions of higher-learning and non-governmental funding are vital to facilitating such research and scientific inquiry. Limiting research and science to only those who receive federal government resources would undermine and slow American education, economic prosperity, and technological advancement.”

    That is the most important issue addressed by the letter.
    The best research is needed for a completely public and entirely open debate on climate / environment and the government is not the arbiter of the best research nor of the what is the correct debate; the free and open scientific marketplace of research theories and of observational data is where the comparison of theories to reality is demarcated with the best chance of self-correction without political interference. Alternate funding to government funding is absolutely essential to keep the government’s involvement in science honest. Any monopoly (or very near monopoly) of data sources that are within government science bodies or gov’t research institutes requires they must be viewed critically and heavily audited by non-government scientific consortiums.
    Please audit NASA-GISS by a very broadly balanced consortium of private science community members as a token of good faith toward open and public debate on climate.
    John

    • John, for the climastrologists and federal government it is not about the science anymore, despite the pretense. It’s about getting the programs and laws in place before their shabby science is exposed. The 18 year surface temperature standstill lead to utter panic [within] their ranks. I have often heard warmists say words to the effect of:
      “even if AGW is overblown surely it’s better we develop alternative energy because oil will run out”
      “even if AGW is overblown surely it’s better to fight pollution”

      • Jimbo, when I listen to our Australian parliament proceedings and I hear our dumb##s politicians call co2 a ‘pollutant’, I just yell at the radio, go nuts. We pay these monkeys 200,00 grand a year?

    • Jimbo on February 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm

      Jimbo,
      I tend to agree with you to a significant extent and to me it is all the more reason for the kind of audit of NASA GISS that I suggested.
      John

  20. @ Aphan February 27, 2015 at 2:53 pm

    Roy…using more than one name to post here? Why is that?

    I only used one other name here ( Sandi ) when I was logged into the wrong account.

  21. Dr. Michael Mann spoke of the letters calling them “heavy handed and overly aggressive.”
    Considering that Dr Mann has himself been challenged by a congressional committee, that he is actively using the legal system to prevent his correspondence from being seen by the public, that’s one helluva statement. Democrats should take note. One of your poster boys for CAGW has stood up and said you’ve gone too far.
    Doesn’t change my opinion of his work, but I’ll view him personally in a different light going forward. He’s probably the very last of the CAGW cabal that I would have expected to stand up and say something.

    • I suspect that Nobel Laureate Mann is worried about opening this can of worms. The Republicans could indulge the Democrats and have hearings on this subject, at which point all of the elite warmists who have undisclosed conflicts will be fair game. Lets not forget the $1.4 million of “prize” money that James Hansen allegedly received and failed to disclose.

    • When you have rather large skeletons in your closet you don’t want anyone setting precedence that might unlock those skeletons.

    • davidmhoffer,
      I think your last paragraph is a little too optimistic. I think he’s just covering his *ss. I think he realizes that, with a republican-contolled congress, if a democrat loose cannon can target skeptics, he can see the laser sight pointed at himself. And he certainly has a background (both scientific and activist) that can be controversial, to say the least.

    • Dr. Mann is probably mad that somebody on the team made a mistake and trying to use congress to further the propaganda rather than the usual media outlets. Congress has some legal oversight and there are possible repercussions if you parade out information haphazardly, in the press you can do it with impunity.

  22. Mann’s tweet said,
    “It does come across as sort of heavy handed and overly aggressive” – @MichaelEMann on Grijalva climate probe nationaljournal.com/energy/democra…”

    I think we should always watch the intellectual pea very very carefully when there is an intellectual trickster is in the building.
    Note that Mann does not in principle disagree with what Grijalva (or Boxer or Markey Whitehouse) did. He is just worried the way it was handled negatively influences how it is perceived.
    John

    • Good spot.
      “Comes across as …” For the mannequins, PR is everything.
      (PS Is Mann going to disclose who funds all his lawsuits? And who funds them?)

  23. The Dems are now the party of anti-science and anti-democratic principles. Not a good resume for the upcoming election.

    • As an outsider I have always been surprised at the apparent lack of knowledge of history shown by many Americans. For example, how many Americans can name the political party that was formed with the avowed aim of ending slavery in the U.S. ? Which party fought against the end of slavery? Which party continued racial discrimination in the U.S. in opposition to the U.S. constitution?
      The answers might surprise many people of higher melanin content skin and even of those of low melanin content.

      • Richard of NZ:
        Read up on the American civil rights struggle, Nixon and the Southern Strategy. That should clear things up for you.
        By the way, New Zealand is a beautiful country. I must get back there one day.

      • Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” came long after blacks started voting Democratic, during FDR’s administration

        • Alan McIntire

          Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” came long after blacks started voting Democratic, during FDR’s administration

          Roosevelt’s seduction of the (newly immigrant northern) black communities and culture only continued the fundamental transformation that started with the “forced” resettlement of many tens of thousands of southern blacks by the catastrophic 1927 Mississippi River flood. That flood destroyed the farms and homes which had supported the rural (stable, but very poor!) black and poor white mid-Mississippi populations. Forced to move because their homes were destroyed by months of water, almost all went north (before the Depression note!) and got low-paying but better jobs in the easy-to-train assembly lines of the northern central cities. Became union “targets” as new members, became “organized” targets for patronage and as voter blocks for the local inner city politicians to maintain control after Roosevelt’s uber-socialist organizers and fellow travelers came to power in 1932.
          See Rising Tide by John M. Barry.
          Also from his book, an observation he innocently made about the Indian Mounds of the Mississippi River plains went right by without his making the archeological conclusion: Barry wrote that the rural (black and white) southerners of 1927 found their only refuge from the floods on the ancient Indian mounds. But he didn’t make the connection that these terribly expensive mounds were built by the stone age Indians using wicker baskets and wooden shovels because they were regularly needed as refugee shelters from the frequent pre-Columbian floods on the Mississippi River, but also the Tennessee, Missouri, Red, Arkansas, Etowa, etc, not just elaborate “temples” for some priestly class of fellow Stone Age primitives.

  24. This is a bit off topic. I have to find a paper by a “credible” scientist that refutes global warming. In discussion with someone, I was told that everything I base my skepticism on is sourced from … you guessed it, “non credible” scientists. This particular individual doesn’t want to actually read the paper to form their own opinions, they honestly believe that no such thing actually exists. They tell me that they believe in science and “science will work it out.” They say they can’t review what scientists say because their opinion of science doesn’t matter. The guy is an engineer, so it is frustrating to me. he could surely understand that models don’t prove anything, or a study starting and ending at certain times will show a warming or cooling signal. He won’t though. He is stuck on what mainstream media says science is. The debate is over, blah blah blah. I said I don’t really know about a paper that widely discredits global warming, most papers are about very specific topics. He wouldn’t pick a topic. I don’t want to grab something that is just blog text because that won’t work with this individual. I think I just need a paper from a scientist at a well known university that says anything in the title against AGW. I read this blog hourly and I know that you all have links galore to interesting papers. Thanks!

    • Might as well get them to switch sports teams, because that’s what this is about.
      Blessed few people will actually consider their positions.

    • There is no paper you can give him to read because he has already decided that any paper that disagrees with his beliefs is by definition not credible. In other words, what he asked you for doesn’t exist by definition.
      Change the game. Ask HIM to explain the science to YOU. Ask him if it is true that CO2 is logarithmic, and what does that mean? Ask him what Stefan-Boltzmann Law is and how do you use it? Ask him to show you the temperature difference 3.7 w/m2 would make to average temperatures given that the IPCC says that’s the effect of CO2 doubling. When he calculates 0.7 degrees, ask him why the IPCC says it is 1 degree? When he figures out the answer to that (they use the Effective Black Body temperature of Earth instead of the surface temperature which yields a different number) ask, based on current CO2 concentrations (400 ppm) and current CO2 increases (2 ppm/yr) how long it would take to get that extra 0.7 degrees? Then ask him if he thinks an extra 0.7 degrees would be tripled by water vapour and why?
      An actual engineer either refuses to think it through, or will wind up convincing themselves there’s a problem with the alarmist claims.
      Another toute I have used is to ask if they think the satellites that measure global temps are accurate. Invariably the answer is yes. Then I ask if they think the guy who designed the satellites would know an awful lot about atmospheric physics. Again, the answer is invariably yes. Then ask, that being the case, why does Dr Roy Spencer, the guy who designed those satellites and actually runs them for NASA think there’s more hype than science in CAGW?
      Lots of variations on the above, but you get the idea. There’s no one size fits all answer to this or the debate would have long since been over.

      • Dr Roy Spencer might be a good one since he is a scientist and works at NASA. All that matters is that he can trust the source. I have had no luck maneuvering him to even discuss what facts make him believe. He is convinced that if the source is a reputable scientist then the science is true. I don’t get it.

      • Dr Roy Spencer might be a good one since he is a scientist and works at NASA.
        To clarify, Dr Spencer doesn’t work at NASA. He works at University of Alabama Hunstsville. But he does work on contract for NASA, and produces the UAH satellite temperature record, one of two official satellite records in use world wide (the other being RSS).

      • Then ask, that being the case, why does Dr Roy Spencer, the guy who designed those satellites and actually runs them for NASA think there’s more hype than science in CAGW?

        EXCELLENT! You should call this the Roy Spencer opening (after the classic Ruy Lopez opening in chess…)

    • The onus is on him to provide proof to support the theory, not you to discredit it . Tell him to show you a paper, model, prediction or projection that predicted the “pause” in global temperature over the last 18 years. He can’t. There are none.
      Tell him to put up or shut up.
      Ask him to show you one model that has been accurate in predicting the climate in the last 35 years with an degree of accuracy. Ask him if understands the Scientific Method.

      • His proof is that the debate is over and 97% of all scientists agree. These are not things you can argue with. He does not seem to believe in the possibility of a credible scientist being wrong. We see that scientific scientific studies are produced by humans and contain from a few mistakes all the way to completely wrong. It is the process of questioning and churning the results that moves us forward, and as we move forward almost all currently accepted science is is proved wrong in one way or another to some degree. He also thinks that there has to be a big conspiracy for skeptics to be correct and he correctly points out that is impossible. He doesn’t understand that anecdotal science can be frought with math errors and confirmation bias that the author is unaware of. He doesn’t understand the pressure scientists are under to gain funding and how that means they need to figure in global warming one way or another if they want to keep working on cool science stuff. He doesn’t understand that the marketing demographics of mainstream media align more with “scare the shit out of everyone” and less with “tell the truth” so this might filter the science he is getting exposed to. Etc Etc Etc.

      • His proof is that the debate is over and 97% of all scientists agree.
        The immediate comeback to that question is to ask which 97% study he is talking about. The Oreskes one or the Cook one? Research both well (lotsa articles on this site) BEFORE you ask that question. Then, suppose he cites Oreskes. Your comeback is to ask if that’s the one where thousands of earth scientists were asked two questions and the answers from all except a handful not even counted? See the idea? If he’s going to cite things like the 97%, make sure that YOU know where those numbers come from, and then ask leading questions until he has to research the thing for himself…

      • @JohnnyCrash
        Challenge him to put up or shut up. Challenge him to bet you $1000 (say) that next year’s global temperature will diverge further from the IPCC’s latest projection than this year’s. (You should specify what that means in terms of GISS anomalies, so that he’s comfy regarding that source of data.)
        And challenge him to make that bet in perpetuity, so that it applies to every subsequent year as well.
        It’s too bad Intrade is no more, because it had numerous climate bets available there. There are probably bets available to Britons from their betting establishments.

    • Try to get him to read the paper on the irreducibly simple computer model and ask him if it can be further simplified. He may eventually understand.

    • John,
      Your friend is right. There are no scientific papers that refute Global Warming or say that human-kind has no effect on climate. All scientists, sceptic or not, agree on these things. The only question is the degree to which human activities change the climate.
      There is, however, some pseudo-scientific hogwash available on the internet which claims otherwise. Wickedwenchfan links to some of this nonsense which is spewed out by a group calling themselves ‘the dragon slayers’. It’s garbage and serves only to give genuine sceptics a bad name.

      • On the other hand, there are no scientific papers showing what effect we are having on climate. It is in theory only. Suffice it to say that if it can’t be shown, then it is miniscule and not worth wetting our pants over.

      • You need to get up to speed Bruce. There are 1000s of papers showing the effect of CO2 on climate, dating from the latest IPCC compilations back to the time of Fourier, Tyndal and Arrhenius.
        These are not just theory either. You should try to read one. How about starting near the beginning….
        On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
        Svante Arrhenius
        Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science
        Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896

        http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

      • Wrong again Mikey. You need to get a better grasp on logic. The human effect on climate can not be shown in the real world. Your “1000’s of papers” means nothing. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one, simply that it is too small to ferret out of the noise of natural climate.

      • Dear, dear. You can take horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
        Same with the ignorati, you can’t make them read.
        So remain ignorant Bruce, just deny everything.

      • You cite Arrhenius 1896: have you read it?
        “Langley (…) showed that the full moon (…) has a mean effective temperature of 45C.”
        “Now the temperature of the Moon is nearly the same as that of the Earth (…).”

      • MikeB says:
        There are 1000s of papers showing the effect of CO2 on climate, dating from the latest IPCC compilations back to the time of Fourier, Tyndal and Arrhenius. These are not just theory either.
        Mike, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
        To date, there are no measurements of AGW [man-made global warming; MMGW].
        It’s not that there are only a few measurements. There are NONE.
        Theory is one thing. Empirical observation is another. Arrhenius proposed a theory, however, it has not been borne out in practicce outside of a greenhouse environment. The atmosphere is not a greenhouse. It is not confined.
        Furthermore, Arrhenius revised his excessive effect from CO2 down to an almost current ≈1.5ºC [the planet shows that the effect is about one-third smaller than that].
        Finally, it is you who needs to get up to speed. Despite a rather large rise in CO2, global warming has stopped. And it didn’t just stop recently. It stopped many years ago. The alarmist cult is going through fits of consternation trying to square those opposing facts. But they refuse to admit to the simplest explanation: CO2 just does not have the claimed effect.
        Once you accept that conclusion, everything falls neatly into place. So unless MMGW has become your religion [like it has for thousands of climate lemmings], you will accede to the simple and reasonable conclusion that those believing in the ‘carbon’ scare are flat wrong.
        Observation, me boy. If the ‘theory’ doesn’t fit observations, then the ‘theory’ is wrong.

  25. Even Mann objects? What does that say about elected Democrats? Good Lord! Could it possibly be true that all the intelligent people are homeless and all the dumb people are now in political office?

    • I believe I have discovered the issue here. Somehow people thought that those who have, must be smart, and those who struggle for a bread crumb must be dumb. Oops.

  26. Maybe climate science ought to be funded by the National Endowment for the Arts or Humanities. You know, the ones who funded the Maplethorpe homoerotic pornography and the blasphemous “Piss Christ”. (Andrew Serrano?). They fund those who go against the status quo, the current thinking, or zeitgeist.
    Right now, in science (climatology, vaccines, the high-carb food pyramid) I’m forced to pay for an “Amen corner” that enforces the orthodoxy, while in the arts, I’m equally forced to fund offensive and ugly heterodoxy.

    • Maybe climate science ought to be funded by the National Endowment for the Arts or Humanities.
      It is my long held opinion that government funded research cannot be untangled from government politics. Never has been, never will be.
      The right way to do it is to fund results. Put up a prize of $1 Billion for whoever produces the best climate model as measured by its ability to predict results on a strict set of metrics over a ten year period. Give the private sector 36 months to produce their models, then measure them against the metrics for the next ten years. Who ever wins gets a cool $1 Billion. All code becomes open source.
      That’s less than the 15 years Obama gave China to start doing something about their emissions, so plenty of timeline there. And I’m betting the result would be some very good models produced by some very clever people that work in completely different ways from the current set of trash.

  27. If you believe that you are entitled to your opinion, not obligated to follow the beliefs of others….and your in a room full of machete armed people who think your belief is the most ridiculous thing they’ve ever heard….
    Nice knowing you.

  28. The opportunity is fantastic.
    The Republicans can first investigate the way recorded history from weather stations changed into political gospel, then slide gently into an investigation of the quality of climate science.
    What do we really know ?
    What can be replicated,duplicated or validated?
    Using the scientific method what climate change “science” holds up?
    Then what climate change federal regulations are actually supported by science?
    Where is, what is, the science upon which policies have been imposed?
    Could get real embarrassing on all fronts.

  29. unbelievable hypocrisy…or CAGW business-as-usual?
    26 Feb: Reuters: Timothy Gardner: Green groups DIVIDED on Hillary Clinton’s oil interest ties
    Hillary Clinton’s connections to oil and gas interests has created a DILEMMA for some environmental groups, TROUBLING activists for whom she would be the natural candidate to support for president.
    The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate’s environmental record has come under renewed scrutiny after the Wall Street Journal reported that the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative have accepted large donations from major energy companies Exxon Mobil and Chevron.
    The groups also got money from foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter, and from an office of the Canadian government in charge of promoting the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline…opposed by environmentalists…
    “It’s hard to believe that they don’t think they are getting something for their contributions,” said Ben Schreiber, head of climate and energy at Friends of the Earth…
    The foundation’s connections to the oil industry POTENTIALLY complicate Clinton’s relationship with environmental groups, whose supporters form an important part of the Democratic base…
    Any SIGN OF AMBIVALENCE on climate change policies COULD hurt Clinton’s support among progressive voters, said Jamie Henn, a spokesman for 350 Action…
    “This isn’t an election where we can get some fancy rhetoric but no real commitments, said Henn, warning that 350 Action COULD target Clinton with rallies…if she fails to take a strong stand on climate.
    Uncharacteristically, many green groups normally quick to attack politicians linked to oil and gas companies SHIED AWAY from commenting on the Clinton Foundation’s relationship with these donors…
    The Environmental Defense Action Fund had NO COMMENT because it ***does not have anyone with knowledge of the subject***, a spokesman said. Another business friendly green group, the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund also DECLINED, saying it would discuss the issues “when we have declared candidates.” The World Wildlife Fund had NO COMMENT…
    Many activists remain LEERY of her apparent support for building Keystone…
    Exxon has given about $2 million to the Clinton Global Initiative starting in 2009, while Chevron donated $250,000 in 2013 to the Clinton Foundation, the Wall Street Journal article said…
    (BLAME RUSSIA)Clinton’s defenders in the environmental movement say U.S. strategic interests drove her support for the expansion of fracking into other countries…
    “Introducing fracking to produce natural gas in Eastern Europe was an element of national security, the less dependence those nations have on Russian gas, the better off they are,” said Daniel Weiss, the League of Conservation Voters’ senior vice president for campaigns.
    (HYPOCRITES)NextGen Climate, an advocacy group run by hedge fund manager-turned environmentalist Tom Steyer who has poured millions of dollars into Democratic party campaigns, said in a statement that Clinton had “made clear the primary importance of addressing this critical issue” of climate change.
    Yet a recent NextGen blog accused oil companies of using their financial power to influence climate and energy policies in California, declaring: “We can’t allow the fossil fuel industry to override what’s best for our families, for our communities and for our economy.”
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/26/us-usa-election-clinton-oil-idUSKBN0LU18O20150226

  30. The Leftists’ (never call them “liberals”) witch hunt is thankfully backfiring on them in the manner of, “Methinks she doth protest too much.”
    As the CAGW hypothesis collapses with each passing month, where reality continues to disconfirm the alarmists’ projections with ever-widening disparity, the protests from the alarmists will become more shrill, desperate and inconsequential.
    CAGW is becoming a joke.

  31. This is a good thing to do from the Republican in the Congress.
    What strikes me a ODD, is why a little know, inconspicuous Democratic Rep. From Arizona, half-breed Mexican and Caucasian how takes money from “Unions”, interesting the dollar amounts vis -a- vie the “Union” [do these Union People co-plan their contributions strategy!!!!] take ups such a “Cause” and libeling US citizens about “Climate Faith” … blah blah blah … Its this AzMex just masturbating in his water closet or what.
    Some financials here: http://ballotpedia.org/Raul_Grijalva
    Although, Capone kept a set of “books” for himself and gave away another “set” to the G-Men of the Treasury Dept. of the day.
    Well well, back in those days, the Postal Service, was in “service” to Capone in distributing illegal Canadian Whiskey!
    Ha ha (Hoy Hoy)

  32. Where can be found a list of the 107 recipients of the Democrats’ letter? Is there a list of the various signatory Democrats?

  33. “Congressional Republicans push back against the climate witch-hunt”
    Well…. it’s a small but significant start……
    Let’s hope (and push them…) that it becomes a strengthening trend!

  34. If only Republicans were as supportive of dissenting enquiry into foreign policy as they were on matters of science, the world’s relations with the USA would be infinitely warmer…….

    • Not surprising that the vast majority of Egyptians detest our current president. And that goes for any country that is being overrun by ISIS, too.

    • In response to

      rtj1211
      February 27, 2015 at 10:33 pm
      If only Republicans were as supportive of dissenting enquiry into foreign policy as they were on matters of science, the world’s relations with the USA would be infinitely warmer…….

      Infinitely ‘friendly’ how?
      Do you understand what a caliphate is? Which countries would be united as a caliphate? What comes next when the countries are united under a caliphate? Infinitely friendlier? Are you following the doted unpopulated island grab of the Chinese? What are your thoughts if the Chinese take Taiwan by force or the China sea oil reserves by force? What would happen if and when Iran develops nuclear weapons? Is it peace and love in Africa? Any problems? What will happen if and when the US stops paying for the armed force protection of world?
      The point is there is only a limited amount tax payer money to spend on everything. Extrapolating current known health care costs to treat elderly obese people (see PBS news segment Thursday, Feb 27 for a discussion of the number of people, illness related to diet, and costs) and the current number (percentage) of obese people in the US. Health care costs will grow to consume all of the US budget. Now add unfunded liability for government pensions. Now add forced spending of trillions of dollars on green scams. Something will and must give.

  35. We can start by thanking each of the Senators for stepping up!
    Please! Take a moment to send each of these Senators a personal note of ‘Thank You!’.
    Let’s build on this fragile support….
    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
    Sen. Jim Inhofe, Chairman
    Sen. David Vitter
    Sen. John Barrasso
    Sen. Shelley Moore Capito
    Sen. Mike Crapo
    Sen. John Boozman
    Sen. Jeff Sessions
    Sen. Rodger F. Wicker
    Sen. Deb Fischer
    Sen. Mike Rounds
    Sen. Dan Sullivan

  36. Friends:
    I don’t interfere in the politics of other countries so I am not writing to interfere in US party politics.
    The letter from the Republican Senators contains a paragraph that I hope all people of good will would support and applaud whatever their nationalities and/or political ideologies. It is

    Indeed, science is only one criterion we must take into consideration when developing laws and regulations. Credible deliberation requires thoughtful analysis and an understanding of the economy, policy, and legal framework in which we function. Dissenting opinions fostered through the encouragement of all ideas is what truly facilitates intellectual prosperity and political discourse.

    I repeat for emphasis
    Dissenting opinions fostered through the encouragement of all ideas is what truly facilitates intellectual prosperity and political discourse.
    Amen! And it needs to be proclaimed loudly and often.
    Richard

  37. If any proponent of the IPCC’s fake Enhanced GHE fizzicks can prove to me that the most direct and convincing experimental proof it exists, I will bow down to the Great God Sagan and admit that scientific poseur wuz right.
    The proof would be that the mean temperature of the ~30 m atmosphere adjacent the Earth’s surface for 157.5 W/m^2 ‘Clear Sky Atmospheric Greenhouse Factor’ is about 0 deg C. You get this from a simple Stefan-Boltzmann equation 4th root (238.5 W/m^2/0.75/5.6704.10^-8) (assumes 396 W/m^2 surface Emittance).
    0 deg C ‘Surface Air temperature’ would be lower than at any time in the past 444 million years. In 2005, Hansen admitted that NASA had set out to measure it, but had discontinued the research, preferring to model it instead! http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
    In 1977 Houghton showed that the convection maintaining lapse rate keeps near zero such temperature difference, therefore the Enhanced GHE cannot exist.

  38. The witch hunt, is the end of the end, of the ‘denier’ phase of the climate wars. The next phase in the climate wars will be (the warmist will need to come with a new name) the political response (there will be calls for firings and there will most definitely be a discussion of the ‘new’ climate science) to the public panic concerning the magnitude and rapidity of global cooling. Great just in time for the US presidential election.
    Snow for all 50 States Forecast in Next 7 Days
    Record cold February for Northeast US and Canada. Highest amount of Great Lake sea ice for this week in 40 years.
    http://iceweb1.cis.ec.gc.ca/Prod20/page3.xhtml
    Record sea ice in the Antarctic.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
    Recovery of the sea ice in the Arctic.
    Record increase in snowfall on Greenland ice sheet. Temperatures are dropping on Greenland Ice sheet.
    http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
    You ain’t seen nothing yet, buba.

  39. If you trust this current crop of Republicans with their leadership to have your back, then I have the deed to a bridge in Brooklyn that you may be interested in purchasing.

    • In my more cynical moments, I see the political parties as “Red Team vs Blue Team.” There is scarcely any principle that they would not cast aside to gain a temporary advantage over the other team.

      • You don’t think there is actually a principle involved? You are another of the willing throng happy to remain captive to your politically engineered education.

      • Gary P:

        You are another of the willing throng happy to remain captive to your politically engineered education.

        And you are even further off the mark than climate models.

    • Pardon my ignorance of (presumably) American celebrities , but who is that Mad Hatter?
      Whoever he is , he has lovely teeth and nice hair but I would myself not have the courage to wear ear rings in public.
      But then : “different folks , different strokes ” as they say .

  40. “Dr. Michael Mann spoke of the letters calling them “heavy handed and overly aggressive.” ”
    This is like Dr. Frankenstein describing his monster as “heavy handed and overly aggressive.” I suspect he likes the idea of politicians attacking his scientific adversaries, but wishes they were more subtle about it.

    • He is probably smart enough to realize that Congress demanding to see Climate Scientists’ emails might set up a dangerous precedent.

  41. Since the early 1980’s, the Australian Government has strongly encourage its main scientific group – the CSIRO aka the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization – to enter into collaborative agreements with industry in order to defray some expenditures from the public purse. The tainting of research by corporate sponsors was rarely, if ever, an issue.

  42. It seems that when the Democrats are loosing the science argument for global warming , they now seem to resort to smearing scientists who are only trying to get the facts out in front of the American public . There is little global warming in North America as the data below shows , so why all these investigations about people rather than debating the facts .
    TREND OF US ANNUAL TEMPERATURES
    The trend of United States annual and seasonal temperature anomalies has been declining for 17 years or since 1998. The only exception is the summer and more particularly, the month of June and regionally , the WEST or California.
    Seasonal trend of US temperatures since 1998
    3 out of 4 seasons and the annual temperature anomaly show a cooling trend .
    WINTER (-1.79 F/DECADE) COOLING
    FALL (-0.50 F/DECADE) COOLING
    SPRING (-0.06 F/DECADE) COOLING
    SUMMER (+0.23 F/DECADE) WARMING
    ANNUAL (-0.48 F/DECADE) COOLING
    Regional trend of US Annual temperatures since 1998
    8 out of 9 climate regions show a cooling trend
    OHIO VALLEY -0.9 F
    UPPER MIDWEST -1.5 F
    NORTH EAST -0.1F
    NORTHWEST -0.1 F
    SOUTH -0.5 F
    SOUTHEAST -.03 F
    SOUTHWEST -0.1 F
    WEST +0.7 F
    NORTHERN ROCKIES & PLAINS -0.1 F
    All climate data above is from NOAA Climate at a Glance web page
    NORTH AMERICA IS FREEZING
    There is a big difference to what is happening in North America and what is happening Globally . There is no “global wide” warming or record temperatures in 2014, but. only regional warming like the extra warming of North Pacific ocean SST which was the prime reason for the extra warmth last year . 2014 was the only the 4th warmest with respect to all or global and Northern Hemisphere land areas . North America has been cooling for almost 2 decades. US was the 34 th warmest and Canada was the 25 th warmest on an annual basis. The Great Lakes and St . Lawrence Valley were 61 warmest or 7 th coldest in 67 years .
    Based on winter basis the 2013/14 winter was the 24 the coldest in 67 years for Canada. Some regions like Northern Ontario and Quebec and Great Lakes and St Lawrence valley were 6th coldest and 8th coldest respectively in 67 years. For US, the 2013/14 winter was the 33 rd coldest in 119 years and 2 nd coldest in the last 17 years. US and Canadian annual and seasonal temperatures have been trending colder for 17 years now since 1998. Winters have been trending colder in Northern Hemisphere since 1995 or 20 years . The 2014/2015 winter will even break these records
    There is little global warming in North America to speak of . If anything the government should be debating about how to help the public who are freezing their butt off all winter . So why all these investigations ? total waste of public money.

  43. Here is the comparable trend data for Canada to illustrate why there is little global warming in NORTH AMERICA
    Trend of Canadian regional ANNUAL TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES from 1961-1990 AVERAGES for the last 17 years or since 1998
    The trend of Canadian annual temperature is declining in 7 out of 11 climate regions. It is also declining on a country wide basis.
    REGIONAL PATTERN FOR ANNUAL TEMPERATURE TREND SINCE 1998
    ATLANTIC CANADA – FLAT
    GREAT LAKES & ST LAWRENCE -DECLINING
    NORTHEASTERN FOREST –DECLINING
    NORTHWESTERN FOREST –DECLINING
    PRAIRIES – DECLINING
    SOUTH BC MOUNTAINS – DECLINING
    PACIFIC COAST- RISING ( RISING DUE TO EXTRA WARM NORTH PACIFIC LAST FEW YEARS)
    YUKON/NORTH BC MOUNTAINS – DECLINING
    MACKENZIE DISTRICT- DECLINING
    ARCTIC TUNDRA-RISING ( ANOMALIES HAVE DROPPED 3 DEGREES SINCE 2010
    ARCTIC MOUNTAINS & FIORDS -RISING ( ANOMALIES HAVE DROPPED 3 DEGREES SINCE 2010)
    TOTAL ANNUAL CANADA – DECLINING
    SEASONAL PATTERN FOR CANADA AS A WHOLE SINCE 1998
    Winter trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE DECLINING
    Spring trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE DECLINING
    Summer trend RISE IN TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES
    Fall trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE FLAT
    All temperature data comes from the Environment Canada web page .

      • For Sir Harry Flashman and the jetstream:
        I think there are a lot of things at play – some open water in the arctic may have and effect, or it could be heat transport from the tropics, or it could be a shift in the Aleutian low, or any combination of 100 things. If you read a little more on the Jetstream, Stadium Waves, Rossby waves I think you will find that no one really has developed much in the way of predictive skills on what the jet stream will do. We can look at low and high level atmospheric pressures and say where it is going, maybe for a week (Weather forecasting). But why it goes where it goes and guessing at long term locations No one KNOWS (Climate Forecasting).
        This is from another post on this blog:
        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        What causes the change in the jet stream and or Rossby waves, Stationary wave – is of great debate. I may be confusing terms here but I think people get the idea.
        (someone) said … a warming eastern Pacific may influence the current configuration of the jet stream causing it to go up into Alaska before turning south on the eastern side of the Rockies.
        Below is an article that suggest the EXACT OPPOSITE based on a review of data and North American Temperatures over the last 46 years. It suggests that recent COOLING of the eastern Pacific is causing the drop in temperature in central and eastern North America.
        It seems that under current conditions, the jet stream is going north through Alaska, turning east across the Canadian Arctic north of the Rocky Mountains, then streaming down through Saskatchewan and Manitoba into the high plains of the US before turning North East up the eastern seaboard of the continent.
        Now, this article is from November 10, 2014. What is really interesting, is that NOAA predicted a warmer than usual winter for the Central and Eastern US. AccuWeather, on the other hand, hit the nail on the head.
        I think this is a very good link, written in understandable language. It has a few good points though I am sure people here will disagree with some items (especially the part from Trenbeth) but at least it does show people thinking about what is going on and trying to figure it out. I give them all kudos for that, even with the known biases.
        http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/perspective/13043/burning-questions-about-winter-cold
        Now as for the science of Rossby Waves and Hadley Cells and all the rest – I think if you read the conclusions of the articles below, the best we can say is: ” We don’t know.”
        But maybe some of you do.
        http://www.public.iastate.edu/%7Etmchen/PDF/JAS_2005_winter_stationary_wave.pdf
        http://montereybay.noaa.gov/sitechar/clim1.html
        Gobbedlygook – choose whatever answer you want:
        http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2012/980816/
        Uh – ok – we just don’t know:
        http://people.su.se/~rcaba/publications/pdf/caballero.anderson.2009.hadley.eddy.enso.pdf
        More paywalled papers:
        http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/showciting?cid=1510703

        • Wayne – your civility is refreshing, and the first article you linked very interesting. I’m in agreement that there is a great deal we don’t know about the jet stream, and indeed climate in general, and we should exercise caution before jumping to conclusions. My current view is that this complexity is why the trend of overall warming is very consistent with localized cooling.We’re a long way from understanding what a warming world means to us, however given that we’ve optimized a technologically dependent society of 7 billion people to a relatively stable climate, I’d be wary of any major changes.

  44. I think this will play both ways.
    The bigger conflict of interest is the Government funding scientists who perpetuate the belief in CAGW. Get rid of all scientists who have received funding from Green groups or Govts. that believe in CAGW, and then we’ll talk.

  45. This is what makes me laugh. On the one side of the AGW “debate” you’ve got all climate scientists, except for a handful that could be counted on the fingers of both hands, along with grassroots environmental organizations and some noisy hippies. On the other you’ve got the richest most powerful lobby in the world, the oligarchs of the fossil fuel industry, and their bought politicians who control the legislatures of the English-speaking countries (US, UK, Canada, Australia),as well as the energy-hungry BRICs. Even politicos who pay lip service to combating climate change, like the current US President, are careful not to follow up with meaningful action, which is why we’re not so much as suppressing our farts to stop it, let alone contemplating draconian or economy-killing action.
    In spite of this rather self-evident state of affairs, the folks at WUWT bleat about the Great Green Conspiracy as if it were about to storm into their driveways and confiscate their Hummers.So for God’s sake stop whining like a bunch of toddlers who don’t want to go down for naptime – you’ve won, and the next 20 years will determine whether you’re right or not. Good luck to all of us,

    • SHF,
      Have you been talking with warrenlb again? Let’s just forget about the Appeal to Authority fallacy. It’s nothing but a version of “My dad can beat up your dad!”
      Stick to facts. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site — not the internet’s “Best fallacy” blog.
      ‘K? Thx bye.

      • Sir Harry Flashman, what is wrong is the idea that Big Oil is pro-coal.
        Coal is the cheapest form of energy generation. Newsworthy AGW is very damaging to coal and less so to oil and gas (you know the chemical composition of the fossil fuels).
        So Big Oil funds the UEA CRU. Does Big Oil also fund politicians too? Well, they need favourable tax systems and planning permissions to operate so, of course they do.
        But does that mean they also put pressure on Governments to back their dogs in the science fight?
        Well, it seems logical, doesn’t it?

      • Sir Harry,
        It’s pointless to try and get an answer out of dbstealey once you’ve painted him into a corner. He will evade and obfuscate until the thread dies out.

      • @Chris:
        What is it that you cannot understand about a FALLACY? A fallacy is a failed argument. SHF posted a fallacy as his argument.
        You have all the makings of a troll; a content-free post: no facts, no evidence, no thought.
        Just another comment by someone motivated by impotent hatred.

      • @dbstealey,
        Impotent hatred? You give yourself far too much credit.
        Do you really think anyone is fooled when you trot out phrases such as logical fallacy without bothering to explain why that is the case? Take SHF’s comments above. He was pointing out that there is a substantial amount of money, influence and media which takes a skeptical position on AGW. Take media, for all the talk about how the mainstream media is rabidly pro-AGW, look at the largest media outlets. Largest newspaper by circulation? The WSJ.Biggest cable news network? Fox. #1 radio station? Rush Limbaugh. For influence, the $140M per year the oil and gas industry spends on lobbying dwarfs that spent by any green group.

    • I’m not sure which is sadder. Sir Flashman’s belief that the majority of scientists believe in CAGW or his belief that the politicians of the entire free world, both left and right, are in the back pockets of a single industry.

    • One thing you left out on the AGW side is that they pretty much have the media and US Federal Government on their side. This combination dwarfs the influence of the “the richest most powerful lobby in the world” you mention.

    • How powerful? Maybe back in the day, when Senator Kerr of OK was a big wheel defending the oil depletion allowance.
      Since then that allowance has been cut back, IIRC.
      Govt. regulations on auto MPG levels have cut demand for petroleum
      So did the 55 MPH speed limit.
      The alcohol percentage required in gasoline has risen to 10% and a recent ruling has allowed up to 15% to be sold. This also cut demand for petroleum.
      Lead was banned from gasoline over industry protests.
      Bans on off-shore drilling remain in place.
      Drilling restrictions on federal land have gotten stricter. No fracking there, or very little, has been allowed.
      Expensive new standards for railroad tank cars are in the pipeline.
      Drilling rights in the Gulf were curtailed in the wake of the BP disaster. I doubt if they’ve been lifted much.
      Obama foolishly listened to a utopian advisor (since departed) and encouraged the development of electric cars instead of natural gas vehicles.
      That’s off the top of my head–I know little about the industry. So there must be more evidence of the industry’s failure to command the government to dance to its tune.

    • Gentle People of WUWT,
      Don’t attempt to wrestle logic or reason with a pig. The pig will never understand….. and you will achieve nothing of lasting value. The pig oinks and grunts the same piggish message that it has oinked and grunted all it’s life. It knows no better and never will. It is a pig. Reason and logic are beyond it’s ken.
      Don’t deny it food and water and humane treatment…. but realize, it is just a pig.

    • Chris
      I suggest you again read the reply to you from dbstealey. Contrary to your assertion, it gives himself no “credit” of any kind: it only – rightly – reviles you.
      Richard

      • Why do you need to “revile” someone for posting a view different from your own? Chris’ point and my own is that there is no logical fallacy in my post. The “appeal to authority” is only a fallacy when the authority referenced is wrong. Otherwise every single post here referencing work by Curry or Christie, would also be prima facie fallacies.

      • SHF says:
        The “appeal to authority” is only a fallacy when the authority referenced is wrong.
        They are wrong. They are wrong because they have been corrupted. Do you really believe that each and every professional organization — including those that really have nothing to do with the question of MMGW — have just by chance all come to exactly the same conclusion? Really? If so, you are beyond being naive and credulous. They all have a diversity of opinion on many things — EXCEPT on something for which there is no verifiable measurements at all! What are the chances of that??
        Yes, it’s true that an appeal to authority might not be a fallacy. But in the case of professional organizations all jumping on the same bandwagon, it is a fallacy. Prof. Richard Lindzen shows this, chapter and verse. He names names. Therefore, your appeal to corrupt authorities is a fallacy. Further: the ultimate Authority — Planet Earth — is busy debunking your ‘authorities’. Which one is right? The planet? Or a small committee of un-named ‘authorities’ who won’t allow their membership to vote on their position?
        So why not argue with scientific facts, and empirical observations, and verifiable evidence? Because if you confined your comments to those, the debate would be over: there is NO verifiable evidence quantifying the fraction of global warming attributable to human emissions. With no evidence, MMGW is only a conjecture. And conjectures are opinions, which makes for very weak tea when allocating funding or changing national Policy.
        So because the alarmist crowd has no verifiable facts or evidence, they use the propaganda technique of appealing to corrupt authorities. Because it’s all they’ve got.

      • Sir Harry Flashman
        You ask and say

        Why do you need to “revile” someone for posting a view different from your own? Chris’ point and my own is that there is no logical fallacy in my post. The “appeal to authority” is only a fallacy when the authority referenced is wrong. Otherwise every single post here referencing work by Curry or Christie, would also be prima facie fallacies.

        Promoters of logical fallacies need to be “reviled” whether or not their views differ from one’s own.
        And “appeal to authority” is a fallacy whether or not the authority referenced is wrong.
        The fallacy is that a statement is given credence because of its source (i.e. the authority), but a statement should only be given the credence warranted by its supporting evidence because anybody can be wrong.
        You attempt to justify the “appeal to authority” fallacy by use of a variant of that fallacy; i.e. the fallacy that information should be rejected on the basis of its source.
        Richard

        • Richard – I don’t understand you. Appeal to pro-Agw science (the overwhelming majority of the literature) is a fallacy, but to anti-AGW science (a tiny minority) is not? Wow, you really aren’t worried about wearing your bias on your sleeve, are you?

      • Sir Harry Flashman
        You write this offensive and untrue nonsense to me.

        Richard – I don’t understand you. Appeal to pro-Agw science (the overwhelming majority of the literature) is a fallacy, but to anti-AGW science (a tiny minority) is not? Wow, you really aren’t worried about wearing your bias on your sleeve, are you?

        It is not me you “don’t understand”: you fail to understand what logical fallacies are and why any statement based on a logical fallacy is false. Logical fallacies have been studied for thousands of years, and I suggest you study this before you dig your hole deeper.
        My “bias” is in favour of science and trust in the scientific method: I proclaim it.
        I don’t appeal to any authority be it literature or anything else: I assess evidence and information from as many sources as I can.
        You rely on – and assert – logical fallacies including in this case attack against the person. And that is why your posts are a laughing stock.
        Richard

    • You just gave yourself away. It’s called fascism. Allow me to quote “which is why we’re not so much as suppressing our farts to stop it”. Amazing it’s even considered.
      A Libertarian on the other hand, might say “I don’t mind if you suppress yours, but don’t even think about suppressing mine.
      Oh, and if you explode, do it where nobody else gets hurt!

      • I don’t think you understand Fascism or Libertarianism any better than you understand climate science.
        Presumably your fictional Libertarian would also say, “Please go ahead and continue to dump cyanide in our shared well, while I will choose not to.” And the technical definition of Fascist isn’t actually “people who say things Glenn999 (or insert name of commenter here) doesn’t like”, although it’s often used that way as a means of shutting down debate. In the way that Fascists do.
        In fact, a human being and a grownup might say “I suggest we cooperate to our mutual benefit – it won’t be easy but will produce the best results for all of us.” Sort of like them Founding Father dudes.

    • Now that is a case of The Pot calling the kettle ‘black’.
      As a screen play… or movie, it would be of little more redeeming value than ‘Up In Smoke’.

  46. It’s pretty far fetched to portray the Republican party as being on the side of “supporting scientific inquiry and discovery, and protect academic freedom despite efforts to chill free speech.”
    For example, the House of Representatives floated a bill that would eliminate the peer review process for determining which grants were funded by the NSF, and replace that with Congress deciding which grants to fund: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/dear-congress-why-are-you-so-anti-science

    • Chris,
      The climate peer review process is a corrupt mess. Haven’t you read any of the Climategate I, II, or III emails? They have almost nothing to do with science — and everything to do with protecting their gravy train. YOU just don’t like it because now your pals are in the minority.
      It would be best if Congress stopped ALL ‘climate studies’ grants. Fine with me. Then political partisans like you wouldn’t have much to say.

      • dbstealy,
        My pals? I’m an American living in Asia, I don’t know any of these guys. I’m a believer in fundamental research. Regarding Climategate, the AP reviewed 1,073 emails – and while they found pettiness, there was no fraud. Or is the AP in on this gravy train as well? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/#.VPMwDPmUeuk
        It’s interesting how the accusations of junk science and corrupt scientists do not apply when a paper is published that has conclusions that do not support AGW. Those papers are immediately highlighted here for their accuracy and integrity: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/yet-another-significicant-paper-finds-low-climate-sensitivity-to-co2-suggesting-there-is-no-global-warming-crisis-at-hand/

        • You having fun yet?With db, any facts which don’t support his worldview are wrong, Any incontrovertible facts are due to the overarching conspiracy.

      • @Chris:
        You are correct. The AP is not credible.
        The Ass. Press has been losing money hand over fist, and there are continuous rumors that George Soros keeps it afloat.
        The AP has been accused by its own journalists of biased reporting, with one author stating that he was told that all stories about the Middle East must show the Arabs and Palestinians as being “without fault”.
        You can believe the Ass. Press if you want. I prefer a much less biased news source.

      • dbstealey,
        What is your reply to my point about scientific papers that do not support AGW being welcomed here with open arms, whereas those that support AGW are immediately criticized?

        • Chris

          What is your reply to my point about scientific papers that do not support AGW being welcomed here with open arms, whereas those that support AGW are immediately criticized?

          Why should the pages and threads here amplify and repeat what Obola’s complete ABCNNBCBS press corpse and the combined printing presses of very newspaper and magazine worldwide already propagandize?
          Should the realists demand “newspaper equality” and force the world’s printing presses to spend 1 column inch per column inch and TV minute they spend propagandizing for their religion now? The Obola administration has now taken control over the distribution of the web – for the specific reason that they cannot afford competition in propaganda. Oh wait. Obola’s feudal lords have refused to publish the very 900 pages of rules the democrats voted themselves ruling the internet with, didn’t they?

      • @Chris:
        My reply is the same as usual: the climate pal-review system has been thoroughly corrupted, as anyone who has read the Climategate emails knows.
        This site is the internet’s “Best Science” site, therefore it sets the standard for what papers are good, and which ones are NFG.
        Sorry you don’t like the fact that papers trying to argue that AGW means anything significant are no good. But… they’re no good.
        Why not?
        Because there are no measurements of AGW! There is not a single measurement of AGW that is generally agreed to by mainstream scientists. Thus, AGW is ALL speculation. It is a conjecture [ie: an opinion]. There may be something to it. But no one knows if, or how much, AGW matters.
        If science progresses to the pount that AGW can be quantified as a percentage of total global warming, then the question of the climate sensitivity number will be answered, and we can see if there is any need to take action.
        But after many decades of searching, by many thousands of scientists, they still cannot quantify AGW — thus, it must be pretty damn minuscule. That’s Logic 1A, and QED.
        The climate pal-review setup is simply cashing in on the man-made global warming HOAX. Because although there might be someting to AGW, nothing justifies the enormous misallocation of resources into ‘climate studies’. Thus, it is a hoax on the taxpaying public.
        Finally: it is the DUTY of scientific skeptics to try and deconstruct any conjecture presented. I understand that you don’t like it. But that is the Scientific Method — whether you like it or not.
        Any more questions?

        • “This site is the internet’s “Best Science” site, therefore it sets the standard for what papers are good, and which ones are NFG.” Based on an open internet poll that was so gamed by “skeptic” sites begging for votes that the category had to be discontinued. Yes, that is totally how science works; it’s basically American Idol for crazy people.

      • SHF says:
        Based on an open internet poll that was so gamed by “skeptic” sites begging for votes that the category had to be discontinued.
        The ^words of a loser.^
        Nothing was ‘gamed’. Everyone had exactly the same opportunity to vote, and as pointed out above, several alarmist blogs advised their readers to CHEAT by voting multiple times…
        …while Anthony insisted that his readers must NOT cheat, but only vote once. You could look it up.
        The fact is this: skeptics far outnumber the pathetically small alarmist clique. The traffic numbers prove that. But the Flasherman cannot even admit that to himself. A search of the archives shows that is what happened: cheating was advocated by alarmist blogs, and repeatedly discouraged by Anthony Watts in no uncertain terms.
        So the alarmist cult cheated as much as possible. But they lost anyway! WUWT readers played fair and square, and they repeatedly won the “Best Science” category. And the fact that the name was changed after WUWT won it twice does not matter, because WUWT won it again after the category name was changed.
        Also, in 2008 WUWT won the internet award [Climate Audit — another skeptic site — had won the previous award], which anyone can see here. Realclimate did extremely poorly, and they have done even worse since: in the past couple of contests they couldn’t even make the playoffs! [But Greg Laden did even worse; he got a measly 300-odd votes, out of a half-million cast.]
        So keep arguing, Flasherman. I am enjoying shoving this one up your fundament.☺ 
        Your side lost because the alarmist cult is composed of a bunch of losers, who couldn’t even win by cheating. That really sucks, doesn’t it? But it is indicative of everything about the climate alarmist clique. They have no ethics; they lie about the “consensus”, and as time goes by, more and more readers see what pathetic losers they are.

      • dbstealey,
        I’ll repeat my point again. You say the peer review process is corrupt – yet when papers are published that do not support AGW, those papers are highlighted on WUWT as proof that the AGW premise is flawed – even though those papers arose out of the SAME peer reviewed process as the papers you call junk science. Here is one example: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/yet-another-significicant-paper-finds-low-climate-sensitivity-to-co2-suggesting-there-is-no-global-warming-crisis-at-hand/
        If all climate science is corrupted, why are papers such as the above not questioned on this site?
        To your point about WUWT being the best science site on the internet, that is incorrect from an awards standpoint. WUWT has won several awards as the best web blog. That is not the same as a web site – you do understand the difference between a web site and a blog, don’t you? The weblog awards, also known as bloggies, are reader voted awards for blog sites. The awards for web sites are called the Webby awards – for example, some of the winners in 2013 were JPL and National Geographic. The Webbys have both judge selected and reader selected winners in various categories, including Science.

      • Chris says:
        You say the peer review process is corrupt…
        I do. I say that frequently, because I have read the Climategate emails. It appears you haven’t. I would also reccommend reading Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion [available on the right sidebar]. It is very well sourced, and it will open your eyes. No one who reads that and the Climategate emails would ever again argue that the climate peer review process is honest and aboveboard.
        Next, you say:
        To your point about WUWT being the best science site on the internet, that is incorrect from an awards standpoint.
        It is interesting that the alarmist crowd tries to denigrate awards that they have been unable to win. We can be absolutely certain that if an alarmist blog had won, there would be non-stop crowing by the same people. But when WUWT wins fair and square — multiple times — then the nitpickers come out of the woodwork trying to split hairs and badmouth the winner. You still don’t get it: People don’t like sore losers.
        Next:
        WUWT has won several awards as the best web blog. That is not the same as a web site – you do understand the difference between a web site and a blog, don’t you?
        Yes, of course I do: it’s a ‘blog’ when WUWT wins, but it’s a ‘site’ when one of your pals wins. That’s about it, isn’t it? And I note that WUWT was never in competition in the categories you carefully selected. For one thing, WUWT is not a pop culture magazine’s blog. But I suspect that if WUWT was competing, NatGeo would have a damn hard time of it, and JPL would do even worse. WUWT has gone from nothing, to way more than one million reader comments in only 8 years, and there are more than 222 Million unique reader clicks! That’s a lot of votes, no? Anyway, nice try with your apple/orange nitpicking. It didn’t work, that’s all.

      • dbstealey,
        I made a specific point about the peer review process you criticize, and yet the apparent acceptance of peer reviewed papers that do not support AGW. Are you going to answer that very specific question, or continue to ignore it?
        Regarding awards, you stated: It is interesting that the alarmist crowd tries to denigrate awards that they have been unable to win. and Yes, of course I do: it’s a ‘blog’ when WUWT wins, but it’s a ‘site’ when one of your pals wins.
        Point out where I denigrated the award. I did not such thing. The bloggies are a perfectly fine award, as the title suggests, they are for blogs. Included in that would include blogs such as Judith Curry’s, Real Climate, Jo Nova, PopSci, etc. Web sites such as the ones I mentioned are not eligible for the bloggies, and vice versa. That’s not a plot to eliminate competition, as you imply, it’s simple categorization. You can flap your arms all you want, it won’t turn a blog into a web site. And regarding the 222M unique visitors, that’s false, the site claims 222M page views over its existence.

  47. Well, Bevan, above (Bevan February 27, 2015 at 3:29 pm ) sure does reference top notch websites. I followed his link to crooksandliars.com and read some of the comments. Real top-notch stuff, Bevan.
    A commenter (Virginia Liberal) had this nugget: “global warming is occurring at 400% higher than the level that the earth can use”. Followed by her appeal to check the science: ” It might be useless to remind you to check the science if you can find your way to”.
    Her antagonist, “Nanaknows2” had just made this awful remark: “Try driving your car or taking a bus with no fossil fuels – also how to heat your house in winter – do you have your own wood lot and wont that pollute the earth. CO2 is needed by all plants and trees on earth!”, leading “Virginia Liberal” to respond “What a nut bagger you are Nanaknows2! You’d better go turn your TV back on and tune in Fox News so you can eat more lies.”, and the above “400% higher” comment.
    Having never heard that global warming is occurring 400% higher than Earth can use before, I wondered if “Virginia Liberal” had conflated that with 400 ppm somehow… Two posts later: “Now we are at about 400% part per million in the atmosphere which is far over what the planet can process.”
    And these people vote.
    With some minor edits for space, here are the posts:
    Nanaknows2
    Try driving your car or taking a bus with no fossil fuels – also how to heat your house in winter – do you have your own wood lot and wont that pollute the earth. CO2 is needed by all plants and trees on earth!
    Virginia Liberal
    What a nut bagger you are Nanaknows2! You’d better go turn your TV back on and tune in Fox News so you can eat more lies. For one thing CO2 in normal levels is not bad. The planet processes it just fine up to a certain limit. Any idiot knows that. What you can’t get though you empty head is that global warming is occurring at 400% higher than the level that the earth can use. It might be useless to remind you to check the science if you can find your way to.
    Nanaknows2
    You should broaden your horizons a little and listen to someone besides the Democrats – there are more and more scientists speaking out against global warming – I choose to use my common sense which unfortunately is in short supply in the public these days.
    Virginia Liberal
    I do listen to a whole lot a people besides Democrats. I’d like to know where you seem to be finding scientists who are speaking out against global warming. The don’t live on this planet. …… Of course global changes are normal to some extent. But how do you explain the rapid global warming that is happening over the whole world at such a fast rate? Just look at the records from over the past 150 years. Ever since combustible engines were invented to use coal and oil, there has been a marked increase in the carbon emissions in the air. Now we are at about 400% part per million in the atmosphere which is far over what the planet can process. It’s no different than only being able to put just so much water into one glass. It over flows after capacity is reached. This is not a complicated process to understand. The signs are everywhere. Just open your eyes.

  48. Richard Courtney: ‘Logical fallacies have been studied for thousands of years, and I suggest you study this before you dig your hole deeper.’
    Thank you for supplying the link to the web page of logical fallacies, Richard. However, while the page provides a number of examples of logical fallacies, I can’t see any mention of the argument from authority.
    But if the page is to be regarded as authoritative – and you seem to be implying that – then your claim that the argument from authority is a fallacy does not seem to be supported by the authority you cite.

    • Brendan H
      Please try to not be disingenuous.
      You write to me

      Thank you for supplying the link to the web page of logical fallacies, Richard. However, while the page provides a number of examples of logical fallacies, I can’t see any mention of the argument from authority.
      But if the page is to be regarded as authoritative – and you seem to be implying that – then your claim that the argument from authority is a fallacy does not seem to be supported by the authority you cite.

      Firstly, you respond to my comment in a new sub-thread so I only saw it by accident. Such tricks are not nice but are understandable from trolls who know their arguments are easily refuted.
      Secondly, I explained why ‘argument from authority’ is a logical fallacy when I wrote

      And “appeal to authority” is a fallacy whether or not the authority referenced is wrong.
      The fallacy is that a statement is given credence because of its source (i.e. the authority), but a statement should only be given the credence warranted by its supporting evidence because anybody can be wrong.

      I suggested that SHF should study this link before digging his hole deeper. The link provides examples of logical fallacies. I did NOT say the link provides a comprehensive list, and the link does not claim its examples are a comprehensive list.
      Another site that deals with logical fallacies provides this page on ‘Appeal to Authority’ and includes this statement which concurs with my explanation

      Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

      Thirdly, neither of my links was cited by me as being an authority. My first link was a suggestion for initial study of logical fallacies, and my second is provided as evidence that my explanation of ‘argument from authority’ (i.e. “Appeals to authority”) is not unique to me but is generally accepted.
      In conclusion, your entire post consists of the logical fallacy known as ‘red herring’.
      Richard

      • Richard Courtney: ‘Firstly, you respond to my comment in a new sub-thread so I only saw it by accident. Such tricks are not nice but are understandable from trolls who know their arguments are easily refuted.’
        Check the nesting, Richard. It only goes down to a certain level. Facts, please, before jumping to conclusions and invective.
        ‘Another site that deals with logical fallacies provides this page on ‘Appeal to Authority’ and includes this statement which concurs with my explanation…’
        Oh dear, Richard, you’ve done it again. Keep reading on that same page:
        ‘However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited.’
        So, as long as the authority is genuine, and the authority is speaking on his area on expertise, no fallacy occurs. The proviso, of course, is that it is only reasonable to accept the authority’s view, since the argument is an informal one.

    • Brendan H
      Your attempt at an excuse for not using the original sub-thread is a falsehood.
      And you cannot read.
      I quoted the page as saying

      Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

      Do you see the word “always”, Brendan H? Do you know what it means?
      It means that every use of “appeal to authority” is fallacious because it fails in deductive reasoning.

      But as you quote, the article additionally explains that in some circumstances “appeal to authority” can also be fallacious because it can also be an informal fallacy although this is not always true. You claim this means I can’t read and the word “always” has no meaning. No, Brendan H, it actually means you are either an idiot or you are pretending to be an idiot.
      Richard

      • Richard Courtney: ‘Do you see the word “always”, Brendan H? Do you know what it means? It means that every use of “appeal to authority” is fallacious because it fails in deductive reasoning.’
        I know what ‘always’ means Richard. And guess what? I also know what ‘deductive reasoning’ means. Put them together and it means that, ‘Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious’, just like your link says.
        But the key, of course, is ‘deductively’. An informal, or inductive argument from authority need not be fallacious, again just as your link says: ‘However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited’.
        BTW, I see you have responded to my comment in a new sub-thread. And yet, about such behaviour you say: ‘Such tricks are not nice but are understandable from trolls who know their arguments are easily refuted.’

      • Brendan H
        You are fooling nobody except perhaps yourself.
        Admit that you are wrong and you know you are wrong then discussion can continue. There is no purpose in further attempt at dialogue with you while your posts consist solely of falsehoods and misrepresentations.
        Richard

  49. dbstealey: ‘So keep arguing, Flasherman. I am enjoying shoving this one up your fundament.☺’
    db, may I offer some feedback? Your post not only reads somewhat tired and emotional, but leaves you open to misinterpretation.
    When I am in that frame of mind, I often find it best to set aside my words and allow things to settle before engaging further.
    You may find a similar exercise beneficial, to both your state of mind and your text.

  50. BrendanH,
    Don’t go all insufferable on me. You’re copying my post from another thread. And you write:
    Your post… leaves you open to misinterpretation.
    You’re kidding. Right? You can say a lot of things, but when you say I’m open to ‘misinterpretation’, I would like to know how, exactly?
    Was I not clear enough in my answer? Or in my examples? Or my links? Or my PO’d attitude? I fully intended to put the flasher where he belonged, when he tried to claim that WUWT had gamed the voting.
    He’s just a poor loser who was trying to lie his way out of the fact that WUWT won fair and square. He is typical, and emblematic of the scurvy reprobates who populate the alarmist contingent. They cannot win the debate based on science. They can’t win on logic. They can’t win on superior numbers. And they are, by and large, sore losers. The worst of the worst, really. Many are so despicable that it was a pleasure to set one of them straight.
    SHF was completely wrong: WUWT easily won the “Best Science” category without having to cheat, and it is true that blogs like SkS told their readers to engage in multiple voting. Anthony won it by playing by the rules. He deserves congratulations: the loser should jump over the net and shake hands. But instead, we get the flasher accusing him of doing exactly what the alarmist clique did.
    So instead of your haughty and misinformed comment, maybe you could try to answer the points I made. The fact that you didn’t tells me you’re just trying to give the flasher some support. Admirable, but futile. He’s a loser who will not man up and accept the voting results, and worse, he accuses the winner of dirty tricks with not an iota of evidence.

    • dbstealey: ‘You’re kidding. Right? You can say a lot of things, but when you say I’m open to ‘misinterpretation’, I would like to know how, exactly?’
      db, this is a family blog which demands seemly language, so I don’t think we should pursue this matter further.
      ‘Was I not clear enough in my answer? Or in my examples? Or my links? Or my PO’d attitude?’
      Your substantive claim would require some time to confirm, but your attitude was certainly clear. And that was my point: the tone of your comments.
      In fact, of late, your posts have displayed an unfortunate undertone of irritation and peevishness, and that’s not the db we know. So my feedback was aimed at helping you to regain your usual equanimity and good humour. I still want to offer that help.
      Your concerned friend.

      • I propose we initiate a Kickstarter and purchase db a lovely gift basket to improve his mood.

      • SHF,
        Great idea! But the money can be used more effectively by sending it to Anthony Watts.
        Please do. I’m OK, I don’t need it. But thanx for your generous offer.

        • Nah. If Mr. Watts is getting 2 million + hits on this site every month he’s doing ok without my help.

      • OK then, send me the loot.
        Because as a member of the climate alarmist clique, I know your word is your bond.
        [Zero need for “/sarc”, is there?]

Comments are closed.