Good video to check out of Christopher Horner on Fox a few days ago where he took apart some of the Environazi’s and their beliefs. Who is Christopher Horner? He wrote the book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism” and is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Anyways, check out the video:
Replay video | Share video | Watch more videos |
Via Newsbusters we have some of the transcript of the show:
Obviously, they’re the ones overreacting because it’s very simple. We admit climate change, and that’s what they deny. Climate changes – it always has, it always will. The Vikings used to farm Greenland, and if we get two degrees Celsius warmer they may again
And:
Brian: The glaciers are melting. You saw Al Gore just talk about that.
Horner: Yes, glaciers are melting all over the world. Glaciers are growing all over the world. The problem is…and also glaciers are receding by growing which is in Al Gore’s movie. When they grow too far – grow is the key word — they break off. That’s not melting he shows, that’s called calving. But what happens is they say melting glaciers is proof of global warming. By that logic, for lack of a better word, receding glaciers is proof of global cooling. They can’t both be true and in fact neither are.
Check out my earlier post on the glacier idiocy.
Then we have this new report done by Dr. David Bromwich in which he reveals the temp’s have not really increased like Gore and company have screeched about:
A new report on climate over the world’s southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth’s climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.
It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.
David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.
"It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It’s very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."
Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.
"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .
"We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
Which means what? It means there the debate is NOT over, and those of us who continue to believe that the global warming hysteria is a myth are NOT holocaust deniers also.
UPDATE
Roger Pielke highlights some of the factual errors in the earlier IPCC summary:
1. The IPCC SPM writes on page 7
“… snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres.”
The Rutgers University Global Snow Lab Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies plot through January 2007, however, shows that the areal coverage in the Northern Hemisphere has actually slightly increased since the later 1980s!
Since the inference from the IPCC SPM is that global warming is the reason for these changes, this is at best a clear example of selecting a time period that conforms to their conclusion rather than presenting an up-to-date description of snow cover trends.
2. The IPCC SPM writes on page 7
“Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system.”
It is correct that the ocean is where most of the heat changes occur, but the finding conveniently neglected to report on the significant loss of heat in the period from 2003 to at least 2005;
Lyman, J. M., J. K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson (2006), Recent cooling of the upper ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033.
As stated in that paper,
“The decrease represents a substantial loss of heat over a 2-year period, amounting to about one fifth of the long-term upper-ocean heat gain between 1955 and 2003 reported by Levitus et al. [2005].”
In addition, even with the earlier ocean warming, this is what was found in the paper
Willis, J. K., D. Roemmich, and B. Cornuelle (2004), Interannual variability in upper ocean heat content, temperature, and thermosteric expansion on global scales, J. Geophys. Res., 109, C12036, doi:10.1029/2003JC002260.
” Maps of yearly heat content anomaly show patterns of warming commensurate with ENSO variability in the tropics, but also show that a large part of the trend in global, oceanic heat content is caused by regional warming at midlatitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. ”
They report that,
“……a strong, fairly linear warming trend is visible in the Southern Hemisphere, centered on 40°S. This region accounts for a large portion of the warming in the global average.”
Also,
“……..the warming around 40°S appears to be much steadier over the course of the time series, as seen in Figure 7. In addition, this warming extends deeper and is more uniform over the water column than the signal in the tropics. ”
Thus the actual global ocean warming reported in the IPCC SPM over the last several decades occured in just a relatively limited portion of the oceans and through depth such that the heat was not as readily avaiable to the atmosphere as it would be if the warming was more spatially uniform.
He gives two more examples of misinterpreting or downright cherry picking of data in that IPCC report and ends with this:
These four examples illustrate the apparent selection of papers and data to promote a particular conclusion on climate change. The science community, and even more importantly, the policy community is ill-served by such cherry picking.
The science community is ill-served but the political jugernaut I call "the global warming nuts" is most definitely well served. They continue to scare people who then give them cash which keeps them in business.
See author page
I would have thought this post would have gotten quite a loud reaction from the flat earth/global warming zealots.
All I hear are crickets chirping.
Nearly all their scaremongering program has centered on this wild idea, as popularized by Al Bore, that the Antacrctic ice is melting and everyone living along the coasts is going to be underwater.
But there is just NO good science to support such a wild claim as your David Bromwich piece points out.
It’s a shame the environnazis, global warming fascists and other assorted left wing witch burners didn’t come out to raise a ruckus.
But I guess I can understand why.
Silliness? You’re quoting a non-scientist who works for the Exxon-supported CEI ($2.5m over the last few years) and this is the evidence you hold up against the vast majority of the world’s climatologists who believe that man-induced climate change is a reality? 99.9%^ of the world’s climatologists say one thing, and they MUST be politically motivated (because so much of science is political, after all, with all that evolution and geology and big-bang stuff which is clearly political), while this guy and a small handful of brave others still say this increasingly obvious fact of global warming is false? Where is the silliness here?
BTW, the glaciers discussed as receding are largely land-locked and aren’t calvging into the ocean. They’re receding, period.
It’s funny how global warming is so incedibly threatening to the wingbats. The very suspicion that the environmental movement might be right that man might have a negative effect on the environment is very threatening, and the fact that we may have to rein in our ways is hugely threatening.
For a bunch of guys who have always talked about accepting responsibility, I have one suggestion. Grow up and acknowledge that your behaviour affects the environment. Sticking your head in the sand is no policy.
Didn’t take long for a lefty to bring up the oil companies. Funny how the roles are reversed, leftist political groups fund scientists for their research you are your ilk say nothing. I mean that won’t skew their findings right? But the oil companies will….pathetic argument.
Your 99.9% number is silly also, where did you get that? Out of thin air I would say.
The glaciers are receding, and some are growing. Get used to it. Global warming is a myth, get used to that.
Man, you are one gullible fool.
No, I am not. Why shouldn’t I bring up the oil companies? They funded your “expert’s” work. Kind of relevant, don’t you think?
The big mad liberal science funding infrastructure (really, there is one?) must be awfully big to fund all that science in all those countries by all those institutues, all somehow coordinated together in a VAST conspiracy to keep coming up with the SAME answer each time. And those gullible world leaders, all of them, so eager to impose costs on their own people because they’re duped by their scientists, believing in this bad science.. Or in collusion. Or whatever your theory is. But not George Bush, the CEI and literally a dozen climatologists world-wide (most funding by shell groups like the CEI). They know better than everyone else, all those liberal scientists, whose science somehow all double-checks each other.
You don’t know anything about how science is done. And neither does your man, Horner, who’s a, hey, a professional debunker who last penned a book against evolution. Now there’s a real researcher whose science I trust.
Nice authorities you pull up in defense of your position. Who’s next? Michael Crichton? Laughable.
Peter: From my years of experience at the US Environmental Protection Agency I can say with absolute certainty that your absolute statements regarding the scientific understanding of this issue is pure bunk.
Perhaps you can enlighten me by sharing your environmental expertise?
What are YOU afraid of here? Why does the scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation, reproducibility and discovery bother you so much?
Climate Scientists are the first to admit that they do not know a great deal about the complex processes involved in the ever changing climate of our planet. Why is it that you insist we make drastic changes to our lifestyle on the basis of incomplete, politically motivated science presented so far?
Why is it that those studying solar physics as it relates to warming have such a hard time getting grants or getting their papers published?
Why is it that meteorologists and climatologists who fail to endorse the global disaster catchecism find themselves at risk of losing their jobs?
How can you possibly defend a computer modeling process which has been shown to be wildly inaccurate in the short term and insist that we must take it’s forecasts 20,30 or 100 years out as gospel?
If CO2 really is the bogeyman, then why endorse an international agreement that allows China to increase CO2 emissions at an alarmingly higher rate than other Western economies?
How many credible scientists in this field would I have to list to cause you to reconsider your wild and irresponsible statements above?
Climate modeling is indeed complex. Enough variables are in play that you can’t quite be certain how a 200% increase in one gas or a drop in cloud cover of 10% or an decrease in ice cover of 20% is likely to specifically affect the environment. (numbers are thrown out for sake of argument, not actually indicative of anything).
However, science also heads toward a truth in iterative steps and tends to do so carefully. Somebody might come out with a startling discovery (cold fusion), a bunch of others go off and check on it, and it is either confirmed or denied. You’re a smart guy. You don’t need to be told this either.
The UN report did NOT say global warming is 100% certainly caused by human action. They did NOT report that we all had to wear hair shirts and suffer as a result. They DID report that they were now more than 90% certain based on the data gathered and models made that global warming was caused by human activity. We, as individuals, make all sorts of decisions based on certainties far lower than 90%. I spend $1200 a year on term life insurance that would cover an incident less than 1% likely.
We now have an externality that as close to a scientific consensus as we are able to come by (and it is a consensus that does involve the vast majority of climate scientists) endangers our future in a way that we should consider grave. Ignoring it is irresponsible. If we are ninety percent certain that there is a vehicle that is headed toward a crowd of a thousand and is likely to kill dozens or hundred, but we don’t know who exactly, and we can spend resources to twist the wheel and kill less, we should do so.
The right question is what degree of resources is responsible to spend as a planet to grab that wheel? Certainly trillions is out of the question. But there is something reasonable to spend given the gravity of the threat. Shrugging and saying “its too late, the vehicle can’t be stopped” is wrong. Shrugging and saying that it may not be 90% certain it will hit and how do you know and what if it doesn’t is also wrong, because if there is a general consensus around that 90%, you have to factor it in.
I am saying that the amount of people arrayed against global warming are miniscule compared to those who believe it is real. I am saying that Horner and Chrichton and anyone funded by CEI is either ill-qualified or compromised to use as a source to rebut a theory that is very broadly accepted. Not 100%. But 90. Good enough for me, and good enough for most rational world leaders.
As for China, well, that’s a completely different issue and a bit of a red herring on your end. I happen to agree that any treaty that doesn’t cover China is not going to be as effective as one that would. But its not like you would have agreed with it ANYWAY even if China was included, because you don’t even buy the basic premise. Ergo, the red herring.
Peter:
Put aside for the moment the laughable idea that these climate models, which have yet to produce a correct forecast, can do so now in predictions 20,30 or 100 years.
There is a 100 percent certainty that you are going to die at some point. So if you feel the need to be covered by life insurance, that’s probably a wise choice.
However, there is no one, scientist or otherwise, who can credibly assert that if we radically restructure ONLY the western economies (and principally the United States since the Europeans are already cheating on Kyoto and likely to continue) that it will make the slighest difference.
You may be familiar with Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist.” He holds an annual “Copenhagen Consensus” program where world leaders and economists are forced to prioritize among top priority global problems.
In last year’s exercise, this body determined that our money would be better spent in this priority: “better health care, cleaner water, more schools and improved nutrition. At the bottom was . . . global warming.”
With the $Trillions that would be required to address CO2 emissions in the West (the U.S.) we could cure aids, cancer, poverty, illiteracy and world hunger. There would likely be enough money left over to buy everyone in the coastal plains possibly affected by sea level rise at some date WAAAAYYYYY in the future a mountain retreat.
P.S. Since you failed to address the majority of questions I raised, I will give you another opportunity before I repeat them.
The glaciers are receding, and some are growing. Get used to it. Global warming is a myth, get used to that.Man, you are one gullible fool.
Curt, you’ve said “glaciers are receding, and some are growing.” a number of times. Yet, you have never actually referred to any facts regarding your point. Why? It’s pretty obvious isn’t it?
While it is is very true that “glaciers are receding, and some are growing”, such a statement in no way actually supports your conclusion that global warming is a myth. First, you’re simply parroting Horner’s statement, without supporting it with any facts. Why is this a problem? Because the statement “glaciers are receding, and some are growing” , while true, is incomplete. It’s a half truth. It’s missing a very important and cogent little fact which when presented, shows a very different conclusion:
The majority of the Earth’s glaciers are retreating. A small minority, around 15%, are growing. In specific places actually. So, going on and on as you have stating that “glaciers are receding, and some are growing” as if if proves that global warming is a myth is incorrect and misleading.
And, who’s research states that a majority of glaciers are melting and a small minority are growing?
The Environazis at the United States Geological Survey and NASA’s Global Land Ince Measurements from Space Project, that’s who.
If you bother to read their research, (and read about it) you’ll see that not only is it chock full of facts, (lots of pictures too!) but the scientists who comprise the project are also the best at what they do. They offer facts.
Not rhetoric and half truths.
And, Mike, for someone who works for/with the EPA, you can understand that the USGS and the GLMS project are pretty much the gold standard for geological observation and research, no?
These are smart people. Do they disagree on the model scenarios? Of course. Predictions are only tools.
But, the facts as known by the best research institute in the world in regard to glacier retreat and growth is, as Jeff Kargel, the project leader of of USGS/GLIMS project states:
So, please, cease and desist with the obnoxious half truths.
Worldwide, a majority of glaciers are in retreat, a much smaller number is in growth.
Wow….Mr. Leftist reads a post and then comments that I offer no proof before he bothered to do a bit of research. You see those links to your right, click on Environment and you will see many of my previous posts on the matter. Take a look at this one specifically and you will see where I cite my sources.
Wrong
Man, the Global Warming crowd really has got you hooked.
Do I pretend to be a scientist, no. But I am not a gullible fool and can see the scaremongering going on with the help of people like you. People who say with a certainty that Manhatten is going to be 2 feet deep in water if we don’t spend a gazillion dollars. I, and other skeptics, recognize that the science of climate change is way more complex and uncertain then you global warming types will let on. Most scientists have a hard time understanding the present climate without having to understand the futures climate.
So please, take your cease and desist demands to KOS or something. I have a feeling you will be a bit more welcome there.
Half truths David?
The polar ice caps on Mars are retreating too. Do we need a Kyoto for Mars?
“Do they [climate scientists] disagree on the model scenarios? Of course. Predictions are only tools.”
Well at least that made it through the greenhouse gases David.
How many times do I have to say that because we do not know enough about climate change the first thing we should do is study the problem more widely, and without the political intimidation that has so recently reared it’s ugly head.
You’ll never have a true consensus on this issue, let alone an agreed plan to address any manmade component as long as you permit the flat earth, global warming zealots to dictate the direction as well as conclusions of climate research.
Oh and let me add that if David accepts US Government statistics and information without question, I would just mention that Chris Horner’s chart on Kyoto performance is based on US Energy Information Administration Data.
So it must be true.
Wow….Mr. Leftist reads a post and then comments that I offer no proof before he bothered to do a bit of research.
Actually, Curt, I’ve read your posts in detail. For some reason you seem to think that Pielke’s analysis of the data on the Northern Antarctic Peninsula (accumulated and analyzed by The GLIMS Glacier Inventory) pertains to ALL glaciers worldwide. It does not. Sorry.
Glaciers retract and grow, depending upon a myriad of conditions. Focusing upon ONE tract of glaciers on Antarctica and assuming that the data on that tract applies to ALL glaciers is your mistake. Again, to be clear, Pielke is dealing with only the Northern Antarctic Peninsula, not the entire Antarctic glacier map and not the entire planet, in the quote and article you cite.
Pielke hits it on the head in many ways, just not the way you think, and is on the record at his own blog as stating the following:
That is what happens when you cherry pick Curt. You end up quoting a scientist who is on the record stating one of the things you are so against.
Man, the Global Warming crowd really has got you hooked.
Hardly. I’ve been following this issue for decades, but from the science end. The science, if you care to actually deal with it, is well documented. And, who IS the “global warming crowd” exactly?
It’s rather telling you don’t deal with the USGS/ GLIMS information, nor were you likely aware that Pielke is on the record as supporting the supposition that the human fingerprint in regard to climate change is, in his words “clearly incontrovertible”. Care to explain why? Let me try. Because it doesn’t jibe with your ideology. This is obviously a partisan and political issue for you before it’s an actual science issue. That much is painfully obvious. Hence, statements so blindingly partisan as to be oddly funny:
(It’s spelled Manhattan. For the record.)
So, by your logic, it’s too complicated to understand anyway? So, if it’s too complicated, by your logic, to come to a conclusion supporting global warming, how can you come to a conclusion not supporting global warming? You can’t.
Scaremongering? Not on my part. But, I do know where the science lands. And, many reputable and smart people are concerned. Is there scaremongering coming from the USGS/GLIMS? Hardly. But, when the media gets a hold of a dramatic story and it gets put through the works, yes, it becomes larger than reality. It’s not something I party to myself.
But, is this any reason to ignore the science? Hardly. But, for some reason, you do exactly that.
And, I’ve never said that Manhattan is going to be under two feet of water, nor do I necessarily propose that it is going to occur. But, I’m a Leftist, so you feel comfortable telling me exactly what I think. The fact that you feel comfortable making rash generalizations such as that speaks volumes Curt.
Again, for you, it’s obviously a political partisan issue, and not a science issue. I’m a “Leftist” so certain assumptions must be true of me, right? That’s your mistake, amongst many: you perceive global warming as a leftist issue, so it MUST be wrong, right? (Even though a good number of the good and reputable scientists at USGS, and elsewhere are neither leftists nor care a whit about the politics of the issue.) Obviously, for you, it’s become “us versus them”. Damn the science. You’ll bend it to your liking. Stupid tree hugger leftist moonbats.
Your truly deep lack of knowledge of the real stance of scientists you cherry pick data from is testament to that fact.
IMHO, the model scenario is always flawed. It’s only a tool. Again, from a scientific perspective, it’s a discussion. It’s ongoing. But, some things we know with a good amount of scientific certainty. One of them is that only between 10 and 20 percent of the glaciers worldwide are growing. (The USGS data, which you ignore, because it doesn’t suit your stance, is considered strong and solid. Keep in mind, this is the information and office that reports directly to the White House. Watch how the official line there is changing.)
There is much debate on a number of issues- is it part of the natural warming after the Little Ice Age? How much is natural and how much is due to human assistance? How much is due to other altering forces- the moon moving away from the Earth, magnetic flux, global shift, etc. But, we do know with a good amount of scientific certainty that there is indeed human assistance in regard to climate change and thus, the data we currently have suggests, the accelarated retreat of glaciers worldwide in comparison to the geological research and data.
Even Pielke states that man’s role in the alteration of the climate is incontrovertible. And, the USGS/GLIMS data shows that the glaciers are in retreat. It’s simply a matter of HOW MUCH and what effect it will have. The rapid decline in the past four decades in comparison to the geological retreat is what has scientists like Pielke making such statements. The science is solid.
And, the data is still coming in and subject to debate. But, again, certain things have been settled. The recent rapid decline in glacier growth is one of them.
The concern is that rapidly retreating glaciers will affect the thermohaline circulation as it is suspected occurred in the late 1880’s. A large scale dump of fresh water into the oceans currents introduces a large number of factors that we simply do not know what is going to occur.
And, the glaciers are indeed retreating at a geologically accelerated pace. The best data we have, from the USGS/GLIMS, shows this to be the case.
If you have any links to studies that contradict the USGS/GLIMS studies, I’d be interested in that. Is such data what you are using to come to your strong opinion on this matter or is it really and truly primarly a political issue for you as it would appear?
I’ll answer your questions, rhetorical or otherwise:
Perhaps you can enlighten me by sharing your environmental expertise?
About as great as Horner’s, and I think evolution is a fact, which rates me a little higher on the science ladder than Horner and I’m not funded by Exxon, which pushes me higher still.
What are YOU afraid of here? Why does the scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation, reproducibility and discovery bother you so much?
Who ever said it did? Odd question.
Climate Scientists are the first to admit that they do not know a great deal about the complex processes involved in the ever changing climate of our planet. Why is it that you insist we make drastic changes to our lifestyle on the basis of incomplete, politically motivated science presented so far?
I never did. I said we need to deal with it. That’s the third question based on words you put in my mouth. The science is not complete, but it points overwhelmingly in one direction, and the logic of that direction seems obvious to most who have studied it now for twenty years.
Why is it that those studying solar physics as it relates to warming have such a hard time getting grants or getting their papers published?
No idea. Kind of a red herring that I am sure is related to some rant involving how the sun is causing global warming. (*actually, yes, I know there is some serious questions around solar variability* and if there are poor, underfunded scientists working on this, they should be funded.)
Why is it that meteorologists and climatologists who fail to endorse the global disaster catchecism find themselves at risk of losing their jobs?
I wonder how true this is. Again, these are all rhetorical questions, or loaded. I’m sure you have great facts at your disposal about the handful of scientists who have run into problems over this.
How can you possibly defend a computer modeling process which has been shown to be wildly inaccurate in the short term and insist that we must take it’s forecasts 20,30 or 100 years out as gospel?
Because there’s ample empirical evidence backing up the models. Massive quantities of empirical evidence.
If CO2 really is the bogeyman, then why endorse an international agreement that allows China to increase CO2 emissions at an alarmingly higher rate than other Western economies?
Because we still remain the biggest polluters. And I answered this already. It’s a red herring. Even if China jumped aboard, you would still think global warming is a myth.
How many credible scientists in this field would I have to list to cause you to reconsider your wild and irresponsible statements above?
Well, why don’t you start quoting them instead of Horner, a oil company-funded hack who wouldn’t know science if he woke up in a lab? For crying out loud, Mike, you ask me to answer your questions, and frankly, about one of them is any good. They’re all rhetorical or red herrings or based on words put in my mouth. If 99% of all climate scientists think that the evidence is 90% good enough, and you’re throwing Horner at me, well, my friend, you got an issue with your sources. And if you think I am suggesting you give up YOUR SUV, well, I’m not. But I am suggesting that the evidence is good enough to merit action – unspecified, but real – action. Signing Kyoto is a start. Quoting Horner as an authority is not.
Talk about misreading something so that you could come to a conclusion you prefer. I did not say it was just soooo complicated I couldn’t come to a conclusion. I said that it is so complicated that scientists disagree, some agree with your scaremongering, some don’t. So I should believe your sources but not those who do not agree?
I have come to a conclusion, and I think you know what that is.
I’ve also come to the conclusion that your the typical arrogant leftist who during a debate will correct people’s spelling to make themselves look that much smarter. You do that again, to any commenter, and your out of here…..first and last warning.
And many reputable and smart people are not.
Yup
Hey, we agree on something. Just how much is due other altering forces? How much due to humans? Is it really bad? We don’t know. But the holier then tho “the debate is over” leftists continue as if the debate IS really over, and it is not.
Hey, guess what, this is a political blog. Guess you didn’t figure that one out yet huh? It becomes an issue for me when leftists, such as the example I cited above, continue on and on that the debate is over and MANHATTEN will be under two feet of water…cough Al Gore cough.
As I said, I am no climate scientists, don’t pretend to be. I feel the whole scaremongering by the left is a bunch of crock and have posted as much.
Oh, btw David, why did you ignore Mike’s comments? Just curious.
I did not say it was just soooo complicated I couldn’t come to a conclusion. I said that it is so complicated that scientists disagree, some agree with your scaremongering, some don’t. So I should believe your sources but not those who do not agree?
It’s not my scaremongering. Another generalization. You just simply have your mind made up, and refuse to engage certain data. Have you even read it? I do wonder. It doesn’t appear to be the case. Because, if you had read it, you’d know that the essential element of the information is pretty clear: there is a warming trend and some of it is man made. And, so far, the information that you’ve cited from scientists who “don’t agree” is cherry picking data analysis that is part of the process. Pielke for example. His opinion of climate change is clear. Yet, somehow, you paint him as anti-climate change by misrepresenting his analysis and placing it within your agenda. You’ve done this over and over Curt.
I’ve also come to the conclusion that your the typical arrogant leftist who during a debate will correct people’s spelling to make themselves look that much smarter. You do that again, to any commenter, and your out of here…..first and last warning.
I corrected you because it’s a common spelling mistake. That’s all. My aren’t we touchy. Banning someone for correcting spelling? Sheesh. Any port in a storm?
But the holier then tho “the debate is over” leftists continue as if the debate IS really over, and it is not.
Again, a generalization. How about the “holier than thou righties”? Seems to me that by not dealing with some very real issues here, you are shutting down the debate.
Oh, btw David, why did you ignore Mike’s comments? Just curious.
I’ll tell you what, you answer the points I make above about misrepresenting Pielke, and I’ll answer your question about Mike.
Peter from New York wrote:
Neither is sticking your head up your ass and being selectively, willful, and woefully ignorant. Yet, that doesn’t seem to be stopping you.
And where in the IPCC report does it state global warming is accelerating? The recent report is a retreat from claims made in the 2001 report. Its estimates appear to have been lowered on the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming.
I lost track of whether it was Peter or David (maybe both) who charged that global warming is a political issue only with us here at Flopping Aces. The UN is political.
One scientist, Chris Landsea accused the IPCC of being “subverted, its neutrality lost”, and subsequently resigned. Landsea also wrote: “It is beyond me why my [IPCC] colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science”.
You are out of your mind if you believe that scientists are somehow impartial observers, above political and ideological agendas; and that only those scientists who find funding from oil companies are to be held suspect of having hidden agendas.
The global warming issue is a political one. The scientific debate is being stifled. Skeptics routinely maligned and slandered. Do you honestly believe the Al Gore camp would want to fund the likes of Richard Lindzen, William Gray, Claude Allegre, Fred Singer, Sloane, because they are honestly seeking the truth? Truth-finding necessitates having the skeptics on board, to keep the research honest. Otherwise, all you end up with, is agenda-driven scientific research and echo-chambers.
Do you approve of it when leading scientific journals take strong editorial stances on the side of global warming? The debate’s not over; it’s being suppressed.
What do you make of Mike Hulme, a British leading climatologist and director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research? He says, “I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric. It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the skeptics.”
In other words, you global warming alarmists and true believers want to believe in it even as you feign (to yourselves and to others) impartiality; that you are just looking at the science, and not politically invested. You cherry-pick the research as much as any of us. It’s human nature. We do it, and scientists are not above doing it either.
And where in the IPCC report does it state global warming is accelerating?
Wordsmith, have you even read the report? Because, your question indicates that perhaps you have not. Perhaps you are confident in your opinion because you read others who have read the report?
The IPCC Fourth Assessment (AR4) states quite clearly that
the rise in the global temperature of 1 degree Fahrenheit was caused by human beings. The data that supports this assertion is quite specific:
The amount of carbon that is being emitted into the atmosphere is increasing at a rate not seen previously.
Definition of accelerate:
ac·cel·er·ate Pronunciation (k-sl-rt)
v. ac·cel·er·at·ed, ac·cel·er·at·ing, ac·cel·er·ates
v.tr.
1. To increase the speed of.
2. To cause to occur sooner than expected.
3. To cause to develop or progress more quickly: a substance used to accelerate a fire.
There are literally dozens of instances in the IPCC report (AR4) that refer to global warming increasing/accelerating… The most important being, IMHO, the concluding statement:
Landsea resigned from the IPCC for a very specific reason: He felt that his position that global warming was having an effect upon storms (about 1%) was blown up to mean warming was effecting hurricane and storm strength by a much larger more ambiguous amount. He stridently objected to others going for the “dramatic” rather than the facts. Of course, Landsea is also on the record as stating that global warming (a 1 degree rise in the global temp)is real:
The recent report is a retreat from claims made in the 2001 report.
Really? In what way? From a political perspective, it was widely considered a “conservative” approach, considering the data over the past two decades, and at least since Hansen’s 1988 report.
You are out of your mind if you believe that scientists are somehow impartial observers, above political and ideological agendas; and that only those scientists who find funding from oil companies are to be held suspect of having hidden agendas.
By your logic then, everyone is suspect? The data speaks for itself. Does it support one side of the agenda? Clearly. Does it make sense as science. Clearly.
If you can present comparable research, funded by oil even, that shows that global warming is bunk, then present it. As it goes, lone dissenters are always around. But, where’s the research? Interpretations of standing research are easy and expected. Where’s the comparable and contrasting research data?
It doesn’t exist. If you examine the geological record of ice flow and retreat, the evidence that there has been a massive retreat in the past fifty years in comparison to the longer geological record and an increase in the global temp is rock solid. (No pun intended.)
Yes, what effect this will have in the future is up for grabs. No one can predict that. But, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or does it?) to see that a rise in temperature on a global scale will have ramifications. Of what magnitude? Again, we do not know. But, the theories and debate continue. What is clear is something is amiss. Things are changing.
The global warming issue is a political one. The scientific debate is being stifled. Skeptics routinely maligned and slandered. Do you honestly believe the Al Gore camp would want to fund the likes of Richard Lindzen, William Gray, Claude Allegre, Fred Singer, Sloane, because they are honestly seeking the truth? Truth-finding necessitates having the skeptics on board, to keep the research honest. Otherwise, all you end up with, is agenda-driven scientific research and echo-chambers.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and the data supported no change in the climate or a retreat in glacier balance and a negligible effect by man, I’d support that. But it does not. If it does, then show me the data.
And, there is a great difference between scientists such as those at the USGS and GLIMS getting funding for their programs from the government and NASA and scientists such as Lindzen who gets money from the oil industry. Surely you have to see how the latter is compromised to a much larger degree?
And, as it goes, yes…Lindzen is on the record as stating that global warming is indeed occurring, although he disputes the idea that it is in part man made and feels more data is needed.
Personally, I’ve always felt that certain complaints regarding the process, ostracizing of dissenting members of the IPCC and academics, was inappropriate. But, that said, I know that it occurs from both sides.
My question to you is: If the “consensus” supported the anti-global warming perspective and it was pro-global warming scientists and academics who were being shut out of the debate, would you feel the same way?
I would support what the data states, no matter how it falls. But, again, I have read the science. I’m not one to jump on the “anti” or “pro” bandwagon.
Once again, I will state: The USGS / GLIMS data is quite clear. It’s the reason even Lindzen states that global warming and glacier retreat is quite real.
No one here has touched this data at all. Why?
Mike Hulme became controversial because he was loathe to jump on the “catastrophe” boat. And, I don’t blame him. But, it’s clear that like a number of other disputes in the climate community, the fight has become personal.
And, once again… yes folks…. Mike Hume is on the record as stating that climate change is indeed a real and important issue. Global warming is real. He objects to the “sky is falling” presentation that surrounds it.
Which I fully understand and agree with…
In other words, you global warming alarmists and true believers want to believe in it even as you feign (to yourselves and to others) impartiality; that you are just looking at the science, and not politically invested. You cherry-pick the research as much as any of us. It’s human nature. We do it, and scientists are not above doing it either.
Again with the over generalizations. “You global warming alarmists…”
I love how everyone here is so black and white about everything. “You disagree with me, thus you are A) B) C) and D).”
Yes, cherry picking occurs, as your not realizing above that the AR4 contains numerous mentions of an acceleration or increase in both the global temperature and the reasons for it.
What is most interesting is that every single scientist you mention is on the record as stating that global warming is a fact. They quibble over the causes… and how it will unfold in the future.
William Gray for example feels that we are in the middle of a natural warming trend. Who is right, who is wrong? That’s what we are trying to find out. Studies such as done by USGS move us towards knowing what is going on. Some dissenting scientists offer strong methods of check and balances. Others are simply dissenting for political reasons. But, that is the process.
The trick is to separate the science from the politics. Which many seem to have an issue with…
But, of course, if we allow politics to alter the scientific process too much… the facts become suspect. No matter what side of the issue you fall on.
What we do know: Global warming is occurring.
What we need to find out: What causes it? Can it be stopped? How can it be stopped? Should it be stopped? And, the list goes on… and on…
David: I have MY mind made up?
Oh please. Look at what you are typing.
And are you know denouncing the scaremongering and outrageoud predictions of the environazis?
Do you know renounce the threats to fire anyone in a climate related job who fails to accept the catechism of global disaster?
You can ignore my questions all you want, but it won’t make your arguments more convincing and nor will you be adding anything to this much needed debate if you simply choose to duck that which you find inconvenient.
I might actually agree with this statement: “essential element of the information is pretty clear: there is a warming trend and some of it is man made.”
But mounds of research show that despite this warming trend the manmade component is small, perhaps neglible. The agreement that CO2 is the greenhouse gas forcing the change is even less certain.
Clearly there is something else going on here which has a political component unrelated to the science of climatology.
And until you and others are willing to be honest about that, you won’t find many of us receptive to unnecessary measures designed to correct a problem that may not exist.
Here’s another little tidbit. I’ll take your ten scientists and raise you fifty:
Open Letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, April 2006 As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government’s climate-change plans.
…
the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.
…
Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada’s climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant.
…
While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational
headlines, they are no basis for mature policy
formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an “emerging science,” one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no “consensus” among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
“Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural “noise.” The new Canadian government’s commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to “stopping climate change” would be irrational.
…
Sincerely,
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
They can’t all be in the pocket of Exxon Mobil now can they?
And here’s a nugget from the European Space Agency, with results from their ERS satellite showing the glaciers on Greenland are GROWING:
http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMILF638FE_planet_0.html
And here’s an interesting excerpt: “A paper published in Science in June this year detailed the results of a similar analysis of the Antarctic Ice Sheet based on ERS radar altimeter data, carried out by a team led by Professor Curt Davis of the University of Missouri-Columbia.
The results showed thickening in East Antarctica on the order of 1.8 cm per year, but thinning across a substantial part of West Antarctica. Data were unavailable for much of the Antarctic Peninsula, subject to recent ice sheet thinning due to regional climate warming, again because of limitations in current radar altimeter performance. ”
Still want to stand by those absolute statements of fact David and Peter?
Mike, I’ll take your 60 scientists and raise you 90.
Here is another Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada
on Climate Change Science, which states:
It has been signed by 90 Canadian climate scientists.
They can’t all be in the pocket of Exxon Mobil now can they?
Maybe not ALL, a good enough number of them.
The major player in the Open Letter you cite is none other than Dr. Tim Ball “former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant”.
Sourcewatch:
While I’ve no intention of going into the background of all 60 scientists you cite from the letter, I selected four at random, and it’s interesting what popped up.
Next:
And yet another, with strong connections to the petroleum industry. (Imagine that.)
And, I hit the jackpot with this one:
2 out of 4 ain’t too bad for a random sample. (Even though one is in coal combustion, I’ll give you that one. On the house.)
Your 60 was a bluff Mike. Shame that.
Alright David: I see you’re more interested in playing games here than acknowledging the realities of the climate change debate.
You cherry pick a few connections to a tiny fraction of the 60 who signed the letter and extrapolate that to the entire bunch.
Shameful David. And worse than the “half truths” who decry above.
Oh, and what about the “90 Canadian climate scientists” cited in the letter you linked? Who are they? Which environmental lobbying organizations do they work for?
The letter you link does not say. It only has a bunch of yellow highlighted bold type with the usual scaremongering crapola like “PS: This letter doesn’t state strongly enough that if our political leaders fail to act NOW we will pass a point of no return in less than 10 years.
I also note that you failed to address any of the points raised in the letter which I excerpted.
I also note that you failed to respond to the European Space Agency findings of increased ice in Greenland which also references the report about similar findings in the Antarctic.
I’m sorry David, but I do not run a free tutorial for environmental zealots. If you are unable to demonstrate at least a modicum of intellectual integrity and ability to engage in an honest discussion of this important issue I can only conclude that any attempt to break through the fog with which you wrap yourself is a waste of time.
David, if I am boxing you in with a generality, you did the same with me by your insistence about “climate change is happening”. I didn’t deny it wasn’t. So I’m baffled when you write
Because that’s in alignment with how I feel.
The bulk of my post was in questioning political motives, since the motives of those skeptics who find funding with Exxon is questioned, but never those who seek grant funding- funding that is denied someone like a Lindzen, who hasn’t bought into the alarmist camp.
What I question is how much of the current warming trend is influenced by man; and why we even need to have reason for alarm. Climate change will always occur, with or without man’s influence. So what? Why should I care? Why should a half degree to .7 degree difference in temperature matter? How do we know that some parts of the earth won’t benefit from global warming?
Well, exactly! That’s why I resent Al Gore and the mass media proclaiming “the debate’s over”, when there is so much that is not understood. And it is dishonest to feign that we have all the answers and that global warming is a bigger threat to humanity than terrorists.
By evidence of “acceleration”, it’s my fault in lack of clarification. I meant to refer to rising sea levels. The experts in the IPCC acknowledged that there is no strong evidence of an abnormal rise in sea levels, although its been rising since the end of the last ice age.
I see you’re more interested in playing games here than acknowledging the realities of the climate change debate.
“Realities of the climate change debate”? Somehow, I get the impression that this translates to: “You don’t agree with me, so you are full of it.” For, if you read above, I do acknowledge the realities of the climate change debate.
I also note that you failed to address any of the points raised in the letter which I excerpted.
Where is the science to discuss in the letter Mike? There is none. It’s a lot of rhetoric that is not backed up with data.
You cherry pick a few connections to a tiny fraction of the 60 who signed the letter and extrapolate that to the entire bunch.
Actually, I made no judgment beyond the facts as stated, which is a random sampling revealed not only that some of the 60 scientists who signed the letter have strong financial and political reasons to not engage the science and that the self described leader and writer of the letter is a well paid consultant for the oil industry. And, of course, the only reason I did that was because you felt so strongly that not ALL of the 60 could be bought and sold. And, perhaps not, but then, you set the rule in the first place. I’m sure you understand that, right? Sure you do.
Oh, and what about the “90 Canadian climate scientists” cited in the letter you linked? Who are they? Which environmental lobbying organizations do they work for? […] The letter you link does not say.>/i>
The link was in error. It should have been to the original PDF file of the open letter, which includes the list of 90 scientists. My error.
Feel free to look into who is on the list, what companies and lobbying concerns they work for.
I also note that you failed to respond to the European Space Agency findings of increased ice in Greenland which also references the report about similar findings in the Antarctic.
Actually, it’s taking almost a day for my posts to be posted to the site.
I also note that an earlier post I wrote was not posted to the site at all yet. Odd that. Taking liberties with the moderating? Who’s to know.
Your use of the ESA findings is the very definition of cherry picking Mike. It’s entirely fascinating that you continually blame others for doing exactly what you do over and over again. Here’s the proof:
The ESA study of the growth of the interior ice sheet does not preclude or exclude retreat of glacier tracts elsewhere on Greenland or around the world. As I’ve noted earlier, it is very true that a certain amount of ice and glacier growth is evident in very specific places around the world, the interior sheets of Greenland and the North Peninsula of Antarctica being the more commonly referred to. If you actually read the ESA study, and not cherry pick from it, or even the article you link to yourself, you’d note the following and a comment by the study leader:
And, of course, if you understood the science, you’d understand that it is in the lower elevations of Greenland, particularly near the coast lines (as in Antarctica as well) where the largest amount of retreating glacier activity is occurring.
I’m sorry David, but I do not run a free tutorial for environmental zealots.
I’d say you are not running any type of tutorial at all. But, if it makes you feel better…
If you are unable to demonstrate at least a modicum of intellectual integrity and ability to engage in an honest discussion of this important issue I can only conclude that any attempt to break through the fog with which you wrap yourself is a waste of time.
Ah yes, the “if you aren’t going to play by MY rules in the sandbox, then I’m not going to play at all” line. I was wondering when that was going to happen.
Back to the actual science which you give lip service to, but ignore:
Here’s some comments on the study you wanted me to comment upon, the ESA study of Greenland from Real Climate:
And a bit further on:
And in conclusion:
The scientists doing the work, NOT the cherry picking, state that the point you make above is “not terribly important.”
Politics doesn’t trump science. Just because you WANT it to be so, doesn’t make it so.
Sorry.
You always know you have a liberal snagged when they start spouting conspiracy theories.
You two blow alot of hot air but only spout the evidence you agree with. The stuff you don’t agree with you sputter about oil company connections, and speculating their motives. It’s all the same, shout down those who don’t agree with the global warming religion, get them fired or demoted or their title taken away.
Due to the reasons stated above I would say its a waste of time talking to either of you.
Oh, btw, every single one of your comments was approved and you will notice I put you and the other blowhard on the trusted list so your comments will show immediately, as this latest one of yours did. So take off the tin hat for a bit will ya!
Mike, the debate is not over. That’s rhetoric that is occurring to get people motivated to the very real possibilities that the science may present us with a great hardship in the future. We just don’t know.
You can resent Gore and others for doing this, but the anti-everything-Liberal-or looks-Left stuff is just too much.
One thing I know is that good ideas come from all sides. As a nation we need to get over the two-sided stuff. It’s killing us.
There’s common ground to be found.
The experts in the IPCC acknowledged that there is no strong evidence of an abnormal rise in sea levels, although its been rising since the end of the last ice age.
Well, we know that the sea level is rising around the world. The question is, how much and how much of it is due to glacier retreat? We don’t know. We do know that the moon is moving away from the Earth about an inch a year, and this affects the magnetic field of the planet, adding to and complicating a myriad of conditions including tidal flow and core balance and axial balance and putting it all more in play. So, if the core heats up, and increased magma displacement occurs due to a natural shift in the poles, a warming trend occurs. It’s natural, and it is suspected that certain man made elements are adding to the problem.
The IPCC doesn’t want to go on the record as saying the sea level is rising for a very specific reason: Panic. They don’t want to start it. So, it’s kept in the realm of conjecture.
If you try to pin down Pielke or anyone associated very publicly with the IPCC, they will state that the sea level is rising, (supported by USGS and a number of other studies) but they won’t say by how much. “We need more data.”
The same with the glacier balance. What’s the percentage? No one will go on the record with anything more than “most” are in retreat. What’s “most”, right?
My problem is that in your zeal here to be so anti-Left, your throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
And, the goal posts keep moving farther and farther away…
You always know you have a liberal snagged when they start spouting conspiracy theories.
Your definition of “conspiracy theory” is pretty broad. And, uhhh… it was a joke. As in “I am aware that you moderate and have a life too…”
You know you have a Conservative snagged when they stop talking about the topic at hand and focus on name calling and attacking the messenger.
You two blow alot of hot air but only spout the evidence you agree with.
Actually, no. I’ve been well aware of all of the evidence you and others have put forth. I do notice you haven’t replied to any of it and are doing the tired rope a dope and going for the attack. Oh well.
The stuff you don’t agree with you sputter about oil company connections, and speculating their motives. It’s all the same, shout down those who don’t agree with the global warming religion, get them fired or demoted or their title taken away.
You mean like right wingers like David Horowitz goes after Liberal teachers at Universities around the country? Like that? But, this is all just fluff, isn’t it Curt? Beside the point at hand, isn’t it? A diversion from the science…?
Interesting how it’s become about ME rather than the science. Nuff said.
Due to the reasons stated above I would say its a waste of time talking to either of you.
Yes, because I’m a LIBERAL piece of ++++ and don’t deserve any better. That much is clear. At least from your perspective…
You never did answer my points about Pielke, did you? No you didn’t.
Oh, btw, every single one of your comments was approved and you will notice I put you and the other blowhard on the trusted list so your comments will show immediately, as this latest one of yours did. So take off the tin hat for a bit will ya!
More silly attacks, name calling as it were “tin hat” Heh. I think I’ve heard that one before. Yes. I’m almost sure of it. (Pffft.)
It took a day for the posts to appear. And, it’s not uncommon on a number of rightie blogs for comments to be shut down when the moderator doesn’t like what is being said. My apologies if that is not something you practice. But, it’s a real concern at some sites.
I expect you know this, but it’s more fun to start throwing down the insults and the insinuations when you can’t win the argument.
Too bad.
David: You’re beginning to sputter and it ain’t pretty.
You accuse ME of cherry picking and yet, you excerpt and bold only portions of documents that support your case.
Do we need a new definition of cherry picking that only applies to conservatives?
You continue to ignore the political motivation of those pushing your brand of scaremongering and socialist remedy.
The “science” here was pushed aside by folks like you long ago. And you continue to use every effort to discredit and deny those in the scientific community with a dissenting view the opportunity to be heard. And some of your ilk go so far as to suggest “Nuremberg” style war crimes trials for those who dare dissent.
Environazis seems a most appropriate label.
Unfortunately, as much as you would like to claim some moral ground based on science, which I find a very unusual technique, you are simply confirming that the leftist position on this issue is rigidly ideological.
If you are unable or unwilling to deal with the political dimension of this problem then you are not serious about solving the problem and all your blustering above is nothing more than an ego trip.
Too bad.
P.S. I’ve got my EPA ID right here. Show me yours, I’ll show you mine.
What is missing is a good meta analysis of the literature. I’m sure the AGW crowd would avoid that like the plague. However, it is a useful tool in coming to an informed decision about global climate changes.