Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

The faster we put ourselves out of the picture the happier and more peaceful the rest of the universe will be.

 

And I am gonna stop listening to the news.

 

While that is a response to the title of this thread, it hardly seems adequate (or likely|). :D

 

Perhaps exerting our natural rights and, as devised for our governments, our control over our legislators might be a better start to changing the profligate nature of our presence? Certainly stopping the financial excesses and extreme taxation methods couldn't hurt...

[Al_U_Card]

From our friends in the land down-under (where even Carbon has a "price"). A nice round-up of all of the ways that global-warming "science" (read model projections) has been refuted by actual data.

 

antipodal results

[PassedOut]

Global warming not caused by increased solar activity

 

A new NASA study has confirmed that it's greenhouse gases - not changes in solar activity - that are the main cause of global warming.

 

The study involves an updated calculation of the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth's surface and the amount returned to space as heat - and show that, despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010, the planet continued to absorb more energy than it returned to space.

But of course no amount of evidence will change the positions of some folks.

[Al_U_Card]

Global warming not caused by increased solar activity

 

 

But of course no amount of evidence will change the positions of some folks.

 

 

And so the "settled science" continues to advance.

 

It is interesting to note that since the global temperatures (as well as global climate) continue to refuse to go along with the climate model projections, there has now been a switch (3 card monte, anyone) to the heat content of the planet, to explain the continued belief that [CO2] rules the roost. It is the only climate "factor" that the warmist groups can hope to convince the taxpayers to shell out for. As if.

 

OTOH, belief, like guns and religion are hard to let go of...

[Al_U_Card]

An interesting side note. The statistical interpretation of data.

 

Briggs vs. Plait

 

http://wmbriggs.com/pics/skepticalscience_globalwarming1.jpg

[onoway]

I found this quite a refreshing video..whether climate change is caused by people or not it's a terrific approach.

[Al_U_Card]

I found this quite a refreshing video..whether climate change is caused by people or not it's a terrific approach.

 

Certainly possible, if somewhat idealistic. Sustainable as in "revenue-neutral"....in all senses of the word. This must include associated costs for subsidies, maintenance, replacement etc. All too many alternatives have way too many hidden costs that must remain hidden to make them seem desirable. Altruism, at least in the design sense, is a start. Exploitation, however, runs both ways. Vigilance is the price we must and will all have to pay.

[PassedOut]

Scientists melt mystery over icecaps and sea levels

 

John Wahr of the University of Colorado in Boulder and colleagues, in a study published on Thursday, found that thinning glaciers and icecaps were pushing up sea levels by 1.5 millimeters (0.06 inches) a year, in line with a 1.2 to 1.8 mm range from other studies, some of which forecast sea levels could rise as much as 2 meters (2.2 yards) by 2100.

 

Sea levels have already risen on average about 18 centimeters since 1900 and rapid global warming will accelerate the pace of the increase, scientists say, threatening coastlines from Vietnam to Florida and forcing low-lying megacities to build costly sea defenses.

No doubt some childless people see no reason to accept inconvenience now to lessen a catastrophe decades from now. But it is surely time for those of us with children and/or morals to push hard for reductions in CO2 emissions.

[Al_U_Card]

Scientists melt mystery over icecaps and sea levels

 

 

No doubt some childless people see no reason to accept inconvenience now to lessen a catastrophe decades from now. But it is surely time for those of us with children and/or morals to push hard for reductions in CO2 emissions.

 

 

Indeed, we need to address serious problems in clean energy sufficiency, for the sake of all humanity.

 

in a study published on Thursday, found that thinning glaciers and icecaps were pushing up sea levels by 1.5 millimeters (0.06 inches) a year,

 

meanwhile, in much the same vein

 

The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows. The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

 

First, replacing the agenda-driven pseudo-science of [CO2] climatology with real concerns and problems, would be a fine start...

[Al_U_Card]

And, in case you are wondering about the origins and support for where that agenda came from, here is an excerpt from Andrew Montford's latest exposé on how the Royal Society became an advocacy group:

 

2001: Working with environmentalists

 

On the Royal Society website, it is still possible to see details of a meeting

organised by the Royal Society in the wake of the IPCC’s Third Assessment

Report. Entitled Climate Change: What We Know and What We Need to Know, it was held at the Society on 12 and 13 Decmber 2001.

 

These records give a strong flavour of the new direction that the Society was taking under

May’s leadership. The meeting was opened by Sir John Houghton, a former

head of the Meteorological Office (Met Office), a fellow of the Society and

the head of the IPCC’s scientific panel. Houghton has been a key figure in the

pushing of global warming as a major policy issue, and is believed to have

been responsible for what was widely perceived as the hyping of the science

in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. The meeting was closed with a speech

by May himself, perhaps an indication of the importance that was attached

to the occasion.

Many of the attendees were prominent scientists involved in research

into climate change and its impact, their names familiar to anyone who

has followed the campaign to keep global warming at the top of the

news agenda: Brian Hoskins, Myles Allen, John Mitchell, Julia Slingo, Martin

Parry, Bob Watson, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, Sir David King and Mike

Hulme. But this was not a scientific meeting. As well as the scientists, there

were representatives from a variety of environmental NGOs, including the

Worldwide Fund for Nature and Greenpeace, civil servants, representatives

from the nuclear and energy-efficiency industries and an environmentally

minded oil executive in the shape of Mark Moody-Stuart.

 

Also on hand was the BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin, who was to speak on the

difficulties of communicating climate change science. Harrabin has been one

of the most frequently criticised environmental journalists in the UK, accused

of being too close to environmentalists and of failing to question scientists

closely enough. He has also been instrumental in attempts to have sceptic

voices sidelined at the BBC, organising a seminar of NGO staff and BBC

decision-makers to address what some perceived as a ‘false balance’ in the

corporation’s output.

 

Some time after the meeting took place, Houghton issued a report outlining

its conclusions.

 

Although details are somewhat sparse, it is possible to get a

sense of the mood of the participants. For example, the conclusions of the

‘Communicating Climate Science’ section were as follows:

Efforts to manage climate change will not succeed until we are able

to convey the idea that individual behaviour can make a difference.

Education and communication will have a key role to play and it was

suggested that the media continues to be an effective way for scientists

to reach the general public. Other stakeholders such as local authorities

and environmental pressure groups also have an important role in

communicating climate change science.

…the science can provide compelling arguments that the public can accept once they have reached a threshold of engagement. Scientists

and communicators were urged to avoid claiming certainty where there is

none. The point was made that communication will only succeed by telling

the story clearly, correctly and repeatedly in different ways and regularly

arguing for the need to reduce emissions…

28.The overwhelming impression is not of a meeting struggling with the

science, but with an advocacy movement struggling to get a grip on the

political agenda. The meeting was a strange one to be found under the roof

of the Royal Society.

 

2005: a Guide to Facts and Fictions about Climate Change

 

29.In 2005, the Royal Society issued another position paper on climate change

that was very much a low point in the Society’s history. It was remarkable for its

aggressive stance towards those who questioned any aspect of the officially

sanctioned IPCC view of climate science. The document was written by Sir

John Houghton, who had been in charge of writing the IPCC’s scientific report

in 2001, and Sir David Wallace, a physicist and the Society’s treasurer. Entitled

A Guide to Facts and Fictions About Climate Change, the document took

issue with claims that evidence in support of the global warming hypothesis

was exaggerated and that scientists were underplaying the uncertainties in

their understanding of the climate.

 

It presented what it said were twelve misleading arguments put forward by sceptics, although it did not provide any citations to allow readers to assess these arguments on their own terms or indeed to determine if they really formed part of the sceptic case.

30.The tenor of the document is of swatting away unscientific criticism from

politically motivated attackers, but many of the counterarguments it outlined

were rather tenuous. For example, one of the allegedly misleading claims

by sceptics concerned the reliability of climate models, arguments which

Houghton and Wallace paraphrased as follows:

There is no reliable way of predicting how temperatures will change in

the future. The climate is so complex that it is hard to predict what might

happen. The IPCC’s climate scenarios are developed by economists not

scientists and are often misleadingly presented as predictions or forecasts,

when they are actually just scenarios – the most extreme of which are

totally unrealistic. The IPCC’s findings are dependent on models that are

badly flawed. No climate model has been scientifically validated. The IPCC

2001 predictions showed a wider uncertainty range than that in earlier

reports.

 

31.Far from demonstrating that these claims were misleading, however,

the authors actually went on to support them: the very first sentence of the Society’s response was in full agreement with the sceptic critique, noting that

‘Climate change is complex and not easy to predict…’.

 

The rest of Houghton and Wallace’s piece had little to say by way of disputing the difficulties of modelling the Earth’s climate and failed to touch on the other criticisms made.

The story was the same for what Houghton and Wallace called ‘Misleading

arguments - the claims that scientists had been exaggerating the dangers

of climate change by linking individual extreme weather events to climate

change and that the impression of increasing weather damage was due

to social and economic change rather than any difference in the climate.

A close reading of the Royal Society’s alleged rebuttal reveals that they

actually had no disagreement with what sceptics were saying, noting that

individual weather events could not be ascribed to global warming and that

socioeconomic factors were indeed a factor.

The picture that emerges from the analysis above is clear. By presenting

their response as a rebuttal of misleading claims rather than seeking areas

of agreement, the Society managed to sow discord where there was in

fact a measure of harmony. This approach might have been useful for the

purpose of maintaining political pressure, but did little to advance the public

understanding of the science or to enhance the reputation of the Royal

Society or of British science.

[Al_U_Card]

Uh oh, looks like the jig is up. Those evil Heartland Institute deniers actually raise funds and have a budget that they are hoping will hit 7 million next year to help fund sites like WUWT. Imagine, providing 90k for improved weather instruments and siting study.

 

Oh the humanity...

 

Read all about it

 

Now, I wonder how much they spent on Cop 15 or Cancun or Durban, to say nothing of the carbon footprint of all those jet flights. The Heartland boys better aim a bit higher, like maybe 7 billion...

[hrothgar]

Uh oh, looks like the jig is up. Those evil Heartland Institute deniers actually raise funds and have a budget that they are hoping will hit 7 million next year to help fund sites like WUWT. Imagine, providing 90k for improved weather instruments and siting study.

 

Oh the humanity...

 

Read all about it

 

Now, I wonder how much they spent on Cop 15 or Cancun or Durban, to say nothing of the carbon footprint of all those jet flights. The Heartland boys better aim a bit higher, like maybe 7 billion...

 

From the turnabout is fair play department, looks like a whole bunch of documents from the Heartland Institute have just been linked onto the interwebs:

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/15/breaking-news-a-look-behind-the-curtain-of-the-heartland-institutes-climate-change-spin/

[hrothgar]

From the turnabout is fair play department, looks like a whole bunch of documents from the Heartland Institute have just been linked onto the interwebs:

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/15/breaking-news-a-look-behind-the-curtain-of-the-heartland-institutes-climate-change-spin/

 

I can't emphasize how amusing it is to see quotes like the following from Al_U_Tard's corporate masters

 

Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists

(such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own.

This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.

[Al_U_Card]

I trust, and am sure, that full scrutiny will be made of any and all documents released into the public record. So, should any illegal or fraudulent activities be found, that an impartial, judicial investigation can be conducted and the guilty parties be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

Just because battle lines have been drawn, it does not mean that unacceptable practices can or should be tolerated no matter what the intention of the combatants.

[PassedOut]

From the turnabout is fair play department, looks like a whole bunch of documents from the Heartland Institute have just been linked onto the interwebs:

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/15/breaking-news-a-look-behind-the-curtain-of-the-heartland-institutes-climate-change-spin/

Thanks for the link. Not surprised though.

B-)

[hrothgar]

I trust, and am sure, that full scrutiny will be made of any and all documents released into the public record. So, should any illegal or fraudulent activities be found, that an impartial, judicial investigation can be conducted and the guilty parties be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

Just because battle lines have been drawn, it does not mean that unacceptable practices can or should be tolerated no matter what the intention of the combatants.

 

Here's the thing...

 

You've spewed countless posts about Climategate and the like...

We have a 16 page long circle-jerk which consists largely of you and Lukewarm gratifying each other.

 

Throughout this, you claim that your true motivation is exposing a grand conspiracy to deceive the public...

 

I'm just curious whether this new relevant will elicit any change in your behavior?

Should we expect to see dozen's of threads over the next few months excoriating the Heartland institute for trying to suppress open discourse?

 

If its good for the goose, it must be good for the gander...

[Al_U_Card]

The only really controversial document has not only shown clear signs of forgery and the hiding of origin, it has been traced to the region where Desmogblog (the first recipient of the documents) is located and not the same origin as the "authentic" documents originated from the Heartland Inst.

 

Looks like the spin-meisters are afraid of the current trend away from the climate scam giveaway and decided to take matters into their own hands.

 

Watch for the whiplash, as it is coming soon to a warmist near you.

 

p.s. No attempt to validate or authenticate was made before the criticisms were levelled. That was a BIG mistake but not surprising considering the generally shoddy nature of the science and approach of the IPCC gang that despite the huge sums of money thrown their way, still can't get it right.

[Al_U_Card]

No need for a series of threads to excoriate the Heartland Inst. There are plenty out there looking at the situation with a critical eye.

 

one

 

another

 

yet another

 

still another

 

But just looking at the real Heartland documents is revelatory enough. Not a lot of resources can go a very long way...for some if not for all.

 

Just another massive fail for the CAGW cargo-cult. Thankfully, their time appears to be nigh. :P

[Winstonm]

The Heartland Institute disputes the authenticity of one document, but elements discussed in that document are covered in the others, too. The documents show that the Chicago-based group derives its funding from several sources and enjoys substantial support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation and Murray Energy Company. These groups represent the largest private oil and coal interests in the United States, respectively.

 

Can it really be a shock that anti-warmist are sponsored by fossil fuel billionaires?

[Al_U_Card]

Can it really be a shock that anti-warmist are sponsored by fossil fuel billionaires?

 

According the the Koch foundation's own records and statement, they gave once to the Heartland Inst. (in 10 years) and that wasn't even for anything to do with climate, as well as being a rather paltry amount ($25K).

 

The fact that fossil fuel billionaires gave millions (Shell, Exxon) to the CRU and others makes even less sense, but there you go, climate alarmism like religion, nothing sensible there, at all.

 

$ is green $

[Al_U_Card]

Interesting development, Peter Gleick has confessed to fraudulently obtaining the real documents from the Heartland Inst. as well as having received the "fake" document separately and previously.

 

All in a good cause, no doubt...

[Al_U_Card]

Climate Audit has the skinny on the whole sordid affair.

 

Oh what a tangled web...

 

 

The Littlemore article at Desmog was observed by David Appell to have been published only one minute after Demelle’s article (see print version . It had a separate archive of the articles on the Desmog server – compare the names: Littlemore’s versions have later names. Littlemore’s article attributed the documents to an “anonymous donor” self-styled as “Heartland Insider”:

 

An anonymous donor calling him (or her)self “Heartland Insider” has released the Heartland Institute’s budget, fundraising plan, its Climate Strategy for 2012 and sundry other documents (all attached) that prove all of the worst allegations that have been levelled against the organization.

 

It is clear from the documents that Heartland advocates against responsible climate mitigation and then uses that advocacy to raise money from oil companies and “other corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.” Heartland particularly celebrates the funding that it receives from the fossil fuel fortune being the Charles G. Koch Foundation.

 

Oh those Crazy Climatologists...when will they ever learn???

[luke warm]

Thanks for the link. Not surprised though. B-)

by those who falsify documents? me either

[Al_U_Card]

by those who falsify documents? me either

 

Methinks a rethink is in order...

 

 

EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 92, NO. 47, PAGE 433, 2011

doi:10.1029/2011EO470009

 

ABOUT AGU

 

AGU's new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work

 

Peter Gleick

Pacific Institute, Oakland, Calif., USA

 

Randy Townsend

American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C., USA

 

In support of the new strategic plan, AGU has established a new task force to review, evaluate, and update the Union's policies on scientific misconduct and the process for investigating and responding to allegations of possible misconduct by AGU members. As noted by AGU president Michael McPhaden, “AGU can only realize its vision of ‘collaboratively advancing and communicating science and its power to ensure a sustainable future’ if we have the trust of the public and policy makers. That trust is earned by maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity in all that we do. The work of the Task Force on Scientific Ethics is essential for defining norms of professional conduct that all our members can aspire to and that demonstrate AGU's unwavering commitment to excellence in Earth and space science.”

 

Published 22 November 2011.

 

Citation: Gleick, P. and R. Townsend (2011), AGU's new task force on scientific ethics and integrity begins work, Eos Trans. AGU, 92(47), 433, doi:10.1029/2011EO470009.

 

Unless, of course, they intend to pillory Dr. Gleick and use him as the poster-boy for what is wrong with climatological ethics...

 

and couldn't have anything to do with the repeated failures of the climate models to predict anything other than hyperbole and inaccuracy:

 

http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/wsj-16-scientist-response-graph.jpg?w=500&h=273

[Al_U_Card]

And, on a lighter note...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tIjEsj-Dng