Manmade Global Warming - Fact or Fraud?

Publication of such obvious lists will help turn public opinion eventually. That tipping point must be reached before a bigger one comes.

Sometimes I wonder, Gerry. The "public" seems so willing to believe what the denialists say and not notice that they are all non-science or free market or trade lobbyists and their front groups.

You forgot to list Al Gore under the "Fact" column. Then again he probably started every group in both columns.

Well, I know he didn't invent the Department of Agriculture, because that was established in 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln! And a year later Lincoln signed the Act that created the US National Academy of Sciences. And another Republican President, Richard Nixon, created the US EPA.

Maybe someone should tell Inhofe that Republicans are supposed to believe in science. Seems he has forgotten.

Nah, Al Gore invented a time machine so that he could go back and invent everything else starting with the wheel.

Oh right. Forgot about that. He got Fourier to discover that whole CO2 and greenhouse effect thing just so he (Gore, not Fourier) could become rich 180 years later. Oh wait, Gore was already rich. Duh.

Thanks for the information David. Have a great day. : )

Same to you, Jennifer.

What Jennifer said! :^)

David--

Excellent, just excellent!

And the Right Wing are in bed with all organizations that are, very likely, listed in the right-hand column above.

I wrote the following, to a prominent climatologist, after he published an opinion piece, about Global Warming, in a well-known city newspaper:

"As a writer and not a scientist, I, like many others, often operate on assumptions that what climatologists present, as supporting evidence for global warming, is compelling.

Regardless of what sounds convincing in an OpEd piece, ultimately, the reader comes away with conclusions, wherein he must still operate on a certain amount of faith, that what you say is true.

Unfortunately, if my comments, above, carry, with them, any sort of notable veracity, then I am afraid that we, as advocates of Global Warming, have an arduous challenge ahead of us.

My own commitment, as a self-styled analyst of media culture and media influence, inform me of the following:

that despite all of your competent research, the Right-Wing Media, in this country, is equipped with persuasive demagoguery--most vociferously, through AM Talk Radio, but via other information outlets, as well--that is designed to eviscerate your claims.

Now, you are, very likely, eminently aware of this problem; you may well understand, too, that an infectious meme--which can spread via angry rhetoric through media--can consciously, semi-consciously, and unconsciously influence public opinion, adversely.

And Public Opinion will ultimately dictate political action or political inaction...."

Unfortunately, all one has to do is look at how opinion polls go up and down to see that public opinion is based on emotion and not a dispassionate analysis of the facts.

The denialist industry is well versed in manipulating public opinion. After all, they are lobbyists, that's what they do. And have no compunction about disinforming as a tactic to stop any kind of regulation. Again, that's what they do.

It's kind of a "Swift Boat" strategy, via the Media, too, don't you think?

Although in the case of Global Warming, the onslaught of attacks and misinformation is not as frenzied, because the adversaries don't have a definitive deadline, as it were.....

The media are worse than worthless. They "get the other side's view" even when the "other side" has no legitimate scientific view. The attempt to "balance" the story creates an artificial imbalance.

Can you imagine? I've seen "news stories" where they have a prominent climate scientist relaying the scientific viewpoint versus someone like Marc Morano, the ex-Inhofe, ex-Limbaugh aide with zero scientific background who just tosses in every ridiculous and already many times debunked garbage. The scientist tries to be exact in his language, the denialist doesn't care and knows that nothing he says has any validity. But to the viewer/listener it looks like a "debate."

I really wish the media would learn enough of the science and have the guts to just tell the denialists to go away and come back with some actual science. Which of course will never happen.

Scientists need to learn how to speak up for their science.

Impressive list!

If only the World could see this material with an open mind and heart!

I'll second that Johnice. :)

So many knuckle-heads so little time!

Pretty simple, right? Science says we have a problem, oil and coal industry says we don't.

Go figure.

Actually, I was surprised NOT to see the recycling industry on the list, they abuse our water resources, the plastics and tire industry are big polluters.

Well, now. This is an eye opener!

I thought so.

I don't think that really proves much. Of course that would be the list compiled. None of them would say anything else. But it's not about who says what. It's about evidense and facts.

*facepalm* Oh... my... achin'... Aunt... Fanny! Those on the FACT side of the chart are SCIENTIFIC organizations, not lobbying associations (as most of those on the FRAUD side are). They've seen, and more importantly, they've UNDERSTOOD the evidence and facts. And THEY say the EVIDENCE AND FACTS support the presumption of anthropogenic global warming.

I know what they are. That's why I say they WOULD be on the fact side. I'm not saying they are wrong either. ( I, for one, am indifferent, so that part doesn't matter to me.) My point is every argument I have heard for global warming I've heard one against it that makes just as much sense. It's fact to them because they believe it. But you can't dis-prove a fact.

Maybe it's like "innocent until proven guilty." It has to be beyond a shadow of a doubt. Maybe it's just a shawdow, but it's still there.

"...the planet is warming and that human activity is the primary cause of it."

I recently read a thread on another article debating this issue and searched an interesting article published in 2007 by Andrew Gavin Marshall entitled: "Global Warming: A Convenient Lie".

"Global Warming" target="_blank">http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086

The argument is based on facts found that support the Sun is responsible for global warming much more than "human activity". Even more, there are some scientists that argue that the entire solar system is involved in the effects of warming, including proof that Pluto is in fact experiencing "global warming".

Very interesting, too, is a report issued back in 2006 that connects global warming occurring on Jupiter with temperatures rising by 10 degrees as a result of investigating super storms.

NASA has been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet, as well.

"NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune’s largest moon, Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun’s temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up. "

And finally...

"Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena”. Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.”

I recently read a thread on another article debating this issue and searched an interesting article published in 2007 by Andrew Gavin Marshall entitled: "Global Warming: A Convenient Lie".

First off, perhaps you missed this byline:

Andrew Marshall is a 19 year old political science student at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia (BC).

So what you are suggesting is that we should take the word of a 19 year old student of political science instead of the entire body of actual science by actual scientists studying actual climate science?

You should also know that the blog cited is a globalization blog, not a science outlet. Oh, and everything the teenager writes in his article is just dusty old debunked talking points off the denialist shelf. All have been addressed over and over again.

You might want to read this and this.

Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist,

I always like when someones credentials are made to seem like their word means more than all the other scientists, or even any one other scientist. Claude Allegre is actually a politician who is also a geologist (geochemist). In fact, he hasn't really done any climate science research but simply made a statement 20 years ago that "By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century". That statement is backed up by huge amounts of evidence and just basic geochemistry, of which he is qualified to speak. But his more recent statements that you mention are not backed up by data, he simply didn't want the policy options that were being discussed to be enacted so as a politician he changed his tune.

Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said,

Klaus is a politician along the lines of Senator Inhofe. He is an economist with a political agenda. Why on earth would you think that quoting him on any scientific issue would be persuasive or even valid.

Doesn't it make more sense when determining the state-of-the-science to go to the science that has been developed over more than 50 years of climate research by thousands of scientists worldwide publishing tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers? Versus, politicians and 19-year old political science students?

FUN! LOL...(as to Claude Allegre)...

The name of Claude Jean Allègre is returning regularly in the discussions about the new minister of environment in the reshuffled French government led by Fillon. He would become either the minister of the environment or the minister for research.

See also Google News (French). By the way, if your browser doesn't have a button to instantly translate foreign web pages to English, drag-and-move this blue "English" button among your bookmarks (preferably in the toolbar).

These rumors are fascinating because Claude Allègre, an achieved geochemist, is an outspoken newborn global warming skeptic: see Lawrence Solomon's story and Allègre's article, The Snows of Kilimanjaro.

Via Marc Morano's Climate Depot, the website of the new superpower that will defeat climate alarmism on this planet ;-)

Catlin Ice Survey shows that global warming predictions were wrong

Pen Hadow et al. went to the Arctic to measure ice. Most of their scientific gadgets froze and broke down - but they're still doing manual drilling.

One of the predictions by the people who believe that there is a global warming worth talking about that the explorers were expected to confirm was the proposition, widely published in the media, there would be no first-year ice on the place of their current location (relatively close to the North Pole) in the middle of April 2009. That's roughly because such ice would have been created last Fall which was "warm" in the Arctic and ice can't be created in such conditions, those people's (sloppy) reasoning goes. So Pen Hadow et al. "didn't expect first-year ice".

In reality, they found something else: there is first-year ice, after all. The scaremongers also think that thick ice can't be created within a few months, so various melting changes are permanent.

Well, this new ice is actually 1.77 meters thick in average which is, technically, very thick first-year ice. You may remember lots of articles being released almost every day during the last half a year or so that despite the sea ice area's being above the normal, the "volume" is surely smaller because the ice area is composed out of first-year ice which "must" be thin: see, for example, Ocean Conserve from April 6th, 2009 (also in The Guardian). Believe Hadow or not, it's not thin and all the newspaper articles were bunk.

In other words, ice comes and goes all the time - lots of it and very quickly - get used to it, chaps with as overheated brains as Sprite is frozen. The main threat for Pen Hadow et al. is no longer the harsh weather (or antiseptic creams pretending to be toothpastes) but the possible decision of their orthodox base that by releasing the inconvenient truths from the Arctic, the explorers have become heretics who no longer deserve an airplane. ;-)

The name of Claude Jean Allègre is returning regularly in the discussions about the new minister of environment in the reshuffled French government led by Fillon. He would become either the minister of the environment or the minister for research.

So what's your point? The guy is a politician. Politicians get to be ministers of environment or whatever based on politics. In Europe they just reshuffle the deck once in a while.

These rumors are fascinating because Claude Allègre, an achieved geochemist, is an outspoken newborn global warming skeptic: see Lawrence Solomon's story and Allègre's article, The Snows of Kilimanjaro.

Again, what is your point. He may be an "achieved" geochemist, but he hasn't done climate research. Anyone can write an article about anything they want whether they have the relevant expertise or not. His article is four paragraphs long in a French newspaper. Are you suggesting that some guys 4 paragraph long rambling is somehow more persuasive than 50 years of scientific research? It's not even as persuasive as the 19-year old students article. You can't be serious.

Via Marc Morano's Climate Depot, the website of the new superpower that will defeat climate alarmism on this planet ;-)

Well, nuff said. Morano is a non-scientist, non-intelligent, attack dog who worked for uber-denialist (when he isn't being simply cranky) Senator James Inhofe. Before that he was Rush Limbaugh's attack dog. Frankly, Morano is a moronic ass, and I don't use those terms lightly. To rely on him as a source of information is like asking OJ Simpson if he did it or not.

Wow.

"Anyone can write an article about anything they want whether they have the relevant expertise or not."

Kind of like the IPCC! ROTFLMAO

As you should know, but perhaps do not given your lack of any visible sign of intellectual integrity, the IPCC report summarizes tens of thousands of studies done by thousands of researchers.

Marc Morano tells lies. That's what his job is. He is paid by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which is a right wing lobbying group. Before that he was Inhofe's right wing hit man and before that he was Limbaugh's right wing hit man. Nothing Morano has ever said has turned out to be true. Nothing.

But I love the way you simply hop to the next ridiculous bumper sticker rather than try to defend a four paragraph long newspaper article as a valid source of climate science. Really a window into someone's character, don't you think?

Even more current and alarming, all arguments aside as to the "reason" (human activity vs. rising Sun temps/Solar) is this article presented by Washington's Blog:

"Leading Global Warming Crusader: Cap and Trade May INCREASE CO2 Emissions"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16785

Scary stuff...

Scary stuff...

Indeed, but not relevant to the science. Cap-and-trade is a policy option. Not science. It is an attempt by policy-makers to deal with the science. While the science is overwhelming and requires that we act, the details of how we act can be legitimately debated. If you prefer something other than cap-and-trade, say a carbon tax or feebates, then you may voice your opinion (preferably based on facts rather than irrational fear of anything govenment). You may decide you prefer this medicine to that medicine, but you can't deny you have the disease just because you don't want to take any medicine.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL>>>>>>>CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL.....and anyone who doesn't believe it is a dumb ass.

Great post....I love seeing graphics that actually tell the whole story.

Alas, even the oil industry's own scientists told them long ago that global warming was real and they were one of the major causes of it.

They know. They just think the huge profits are worth protecting.

Awesome! I have wanted to see a list like that for a while. It should be on the frontpage of every newspaper across America and England. Factual reporting by scientific research and observation. The battle continues...

I'm the devil's advocate on this issue and as any thinking person knows, this is NOT an issue that can be cut in stone. It's science for god's sake and apparently, it has turned into a "religion", as you and many "followers" refute, defend, without considering anything else but Al Gore's/IPCC gospel truth.

Sad.

But, I have to thank you for turning me in a direction that breaks away from the moldy mold that you and many have found themselves in. Kind of like a rock that doesn't roll. Just stays and grows moss.

In researching more, and I will keep doing so, as the IPCC has and is coming under fire;

"The latest breaking news development was the sudden resignation of Yvo de Boer, the Dutch diplomat who had failed in four years in office and two international conferences to get the nations of the world to reach a formal global warming agreement. The failure of the 192 nations attending the major meeting in Copenhagen in December was a huge setback for De Boer. The crumbling of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since through a series of revelations about unacceptable scientific practices in compiling its reports has substantially weakened its credibility. "It is not surprising to see the diplomats jumping ship," commented John Coleman, the host of he KUSI special report scheduled to hit the air at 9 PM this evening. "It is better to get off now that go down with the sinking Climate Change Cruise Ship that seems to have found icy waters", Coleman continues.

De Boer's departure takes effect July 1, five months before 193 nations are due to reconvene in Mexico for another attempt to reach a binding worldwide accord on controlling greenhouse gases. De Boer's resignation adds to the uncertainty that a full treaty can be finalized there. Meanwhile, observers are waiting for the head of IPPC Rajendra Pachauri, who has been charged with fraud in connection with obtaining research funding to investigate melting of the Himalayan glaciers, to step down from his post.


Again, ..."These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” Why? To make MONEY!

As for lists, that make it easier for the "glancer's" to stop by and shout and cheer, in complete team fashion, I found this list, rah, rah!, taken from John Colman's (Founder of the Weather Channel) http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/...


If you Google each of these people and read their blogs, website, papers and bios, you will get a whale of an education:

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., U of Colorado
Dr. William Gray, Colorado State University
Dr. Fred Singer, SEPP
Dr. Pat Michaels, CATO
Dr. William Cotton, University of Colorado
Dr. Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg
Dr. Tim Patterson, Carleton University
Dr. David Legates, University of Delaware
Dr. Ben Herman, University of Arizona
Dr. Robert Balling, Arizona State University
Dr. Neil Frank, former director of NHC
Drs. Craig, Sherwood and Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Dr. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
Dr. John Christy, University of Alabama
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, IPCC Reviewer
Dr. Bob Carter, James Cook University
Dr. Chris Landsea, NOAA
Dr. Will Happer, Princeton University
Dr. Ross McKitrick, University of Guelph
Dr. Will Alexander, University of Pretoria in South Africa
Dr. William Kininmonth, formerly head Australia's National Climate Centre
Dr. Christopher Essex, University of Western Ontario
Dr. Willie Soon, Harvard Astrophysics
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Harvard Astrophysics
Dr. Tom Segaldstad, University of Oslo
Dr. Henrik Svensmark, physicist at the Danish National Space Center
Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of the Danish National Space Center
Dr. Chris De Freitas, climate scientist, the University of Auckland
Dr. David Deming, Associate Professor of Arts and Science at the University of Oklahoma
Dr. Vincent Gray, IPCC Reviewer
Dr. Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University
Dr. Doug Hoyt, formerly senior scientist Raytheon
Dr. A.A. Lyubushin, Institute of the Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences
Dr. Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Dr. L.B. Klyashtorin, Russian Federal Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography
Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chair, Poland Scientific Council
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, IARC Founding Director of the International Arctic Research
Dr. James O'Brien, Florida State University
Dr. Richard Courtney, IPCC Reviewer and UK Parliament advisor
Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator, NASA ACRIM Experiments
Dr. Ian Plimer, University of Adelaide
Dr. Marcel Leroux, French climatologist, a former Professor of Climatology at Jean Moulin University
George Taylor, CCM, former Oregon State Climatologist
Joseph D'Aleo, AMS Fellow, CCM, ICECAP
Anthony Watts, Watts Up with That
Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit
Dr. Jay Lehr, Senior Fellow, Science Director, Heartland Institute
John Theon, Ph.D., former NASA project manager, atmospheric physicist
Mike Mogil, CCM, Weatherworks

But instead of vomiting all over the thread with any more debate info, that will always be ridiculed and denounced by the AGW Funda"mental"ists, I'll just quietly go away and keep an open mind on the this issue - much like the "open system" of earth's atmosphere.

"There are four kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, statistics, and computer models" - kps

It's rather entertaining to read comments, coming from passionate people, claiming that this is the word and it can and will not be changed. Are we that important?

It's science for god's sake and apparently, it has turned into a "religion", as you and many "followers" refute, defend, without considering anything else but Al Gore's/IPCC gospel truth.

What a ridiculous statement. Climate change science is based on more than 50 years of scientific research, tens of thousands of publications, by thousands of scientists worldwide (including any publications by skeptics). Versus Heartland Institute funded non-scientist blogs and a very small handful of actual climate researchers who all agree the planet is warming but argue over the extent of the human cause.

But, I have to thank you for turning me in a direction that breaks away from the moldy mold that you and many have found themselves in. Kind of like a rock that doesn't roll. Just stays and grows moss.

Rather long for a bumper sticker. What was it supposed to mean?

"The latest breaking news development was the sudden resignation of Yvo de Boer, the Dutch diplomat who had failed in four years in office and two international conferences to get the nations of the world to reach a formal global warming agreement.

And? People move on all the time. His term was up and he chose to do something else. Not surprised given the harassment from denialists.

As for lists, that make it easier for the "glancer's" to stop by and shout and cheer, in complete team fashion, I found this list, rah, rah!, taken from John Colman's (Founder of the Weather Channel)

You're getting silly. Are you the denialist of the week? Seems there is always one coming out of the woodwork to comment on my posts. It's like they take turns, or change Gather names.

Nope, David, in fact, we've shared similar opinions on other subjects, but to be quite frank with you, you're in a box man, when it comes to Global Warming.

Seriously, you are a very intelligent gather member but when it comes to this subject your mind closes up like some unknown galaxy getting sucked into a black hole, never to return.

Lighten up, dude! The sun is always going to shine!

If you Google each of these people and read their blogs, website, papers and bios, you will get a whale of an education:

Perhaps you should, because it seems you need an education. My comments for each below are from memory.

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., U of Colorado=Believes global warming is occuring and is largely due to human activity

Dr. William Gray, Colorado State University=Most of his peers think he should stick to hurricanes because his "climate" work is subpar

Dr. Fred Singer, SEPP="smoking doesn't cause cancer, people who smoke cause cancer" (i.e., contrarian for hire); btw, also thinks Mars' moon is hollow (not right there either)

Dr. Pat Michaels, CATO=you do know CATO is a right wing conservative lobbying shop, right? But even Pat says the planet is warming

Dr. William Cotton, University of Colorado=cloud guy

Dr. Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg=even lies about his affiliation; lied about his credentials; works for free market lobbyists; never did any climate science research

Dr. Tim Patterson, Carleton University=geologist; associated with Canadian free market organizations

Dr. David Legates, University of Delaware=associated with various free market groups

Dr. Ben Herman, University of Arizona=aerosol guy; retired (in fact, a lot of old retired guys say they are skeptics, which is odd given that their research work - if they had any - was mostly decades ago)

Dr. Robert Balling, Arizona State University=should spend less time with free market lobbyists and more with scientists

Dr. Neil Frank, former director of NHC=another hurricane guy; you do know that weather is not the same as climate, right?

Drs. Craig, Sherwood and Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change=ah, the Idsos; nice family of denialists; mostly set up front groups for Heartland Institute, then close it down when they get caught and set up another

Dr. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama=ooh, a climate scientist; loves to be called "Dr."; he and Christy's paper was found to be fatally flawed and yet the denialist industry still cites it as if it was valid; likes free markets too

Dr. John Christy, University of Alabama=probably the most honest guy in the bunch, though see Spencer; btw, he also agrees that the planet is warming

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, IPCC Reviewer=can we say "Friends of Science?" funny when you name your anti-science organization FOS, kind of like you are lying, eh?; another retired guy making extra bucks shilling for the free market groups

Dr. Bob Carter, James Cook University=geologist that seems to inflate his credentials; Australian free marketer; big into ocean drilling, which I guess is why the oil and gas industry likes him

Dr. Chris Landsea, NOAA=his main complaint is that some folks overstate the climate/hurricane link

Dr. Will Happer, Princeton University=another of the "ancient"; really an atomic physicist with no climate research background

Dr. Ross McKitrick, University of Guelph=an economist that never did any climate research; hooked in big with Heartland and the other "Mc"

Dr. Will Alexander, University of Pretoria in South Africa=another economist who never did a lick of climate research but works for the big South African industry association

Dr. William Kininmonth, formerly head Australia's National Climate Centre=weather guy with no climate research ever; hooked in with Australian free marketers and basically just mimes Lord Monckton (who I'm sure is in this list somewhere)

Dr. Christopher Essex, University of Western Ontario=math guy with no climate research ever; his one attempt to do climate math was so flawed that he no longer bothers (though he does spout his views)

Dr. Willie Soon, Harvard Astrophysics
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Harvard Astrophysics=I kept Soon and Baliunas together because they work together and write together and shill together; Baliunas has been dormant recently (retired?) but Soon still writes bogus fake articles for OISM; their seminal paper was found to be totally unsupportable by data

Dr. Tom Segaldstad, University of Oslo=geologist who has done no climate research ever

Dr. Henrik Svensmark, physicist at the Danish National Space Center=nut case; his views have been thoroughly debunked over and over but he keeps repeating them anyway

Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of the Danish National Space Center=space guy; did some early work that was interesting; his paper with Svensmark was so flawed it is given as an example to students for what not to do

Dr. Chris De Freitas, climate scientist, the University of Auckland=some good stuff, some not so good stuff

I'm falling asleep here. I see more of the same = politicians, old retired guys, lots of people who never did climate research, TV weather guys, etc. Maybe I'll come back, maybe not.

The point here is that most of the people who have actually done climate research agree that the planet is warming. Some disagree on how much or why. Most are associated with non-science free market lobbying organizations. But the science is not based on what any one or two guys say, it is based on ALL of the science, which includes any science that guys in your list have done. And when you look at ALL of the science it tells you that the planet is warming and human activity is causing it (with 90% certainty). And that was in 2007. All of the data since then has shown that the predictions UNDERestimated the problem and the rate of it happening.

That is the science.

I said I was going to go away quietly, but I just keep finding more and more, and I am having fun learning about this issue...from the "other side" - here goes...(at least you're getting gather points for all of this - that's a good thing)

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

Fold this column up and lay it next to your napkin the next time you have Al Gore or his ilk to dine. It should make interesting after-dinner conversation.

DenialGate - When denialists cherry pick any little thing they can find, spin it like a dervish, and call it "SomethingGate" so they can shorthand some nefarious innuendo.

Sad, really.

Your blind faith to the IPCC is sad, really.

Candace: ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

Now THAT's a truly inane statement. Should read, "When fewer than two dozen comments contained within over three thousand stolen e-mails and attachments created over a period of ten years showed differences of opinion among scientists, and in some cases puerile "dissing" of other scientists."

In point of fact, virtually ALL of the "Climategate" nonsense has been built on comments contained in three (count 'em, THREE) of those couple of dozen e-mails.

Oh, and that "discarding of temperature data" thingy? Um-m-m-m... no! What was discarded was TREE RING data, because it no longer reflected the OBSERVED temperature data., so they could no longer use temperature data CALCULATED FROM the tree-ring data.

Enough...

NYT reports today of the possible fuel tax increase, that's not good, stating we may be looking at $7.00 per gallon!

Stay on the train, it's rollin' down the tracks, and making the rich richer at the expense of the middleman.

It's all about the benijamins = TRILLIONS of $$


To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

Manmade Global warming - Fact of Fraud? - $7.00 per gallon of gasoline to ebb greenhouse gas emissions?

I'd call that fraud.

I'd call it damifino. That's a guess as to the cost on ONE part of our economy if ONE policy is implemented in response to Global Warming. It has nothing to do with the science. Call it outrageous, call it fraud, call it Gordo's Fat Cat... it's POLICY - NOT SCIENCE.

Example:

Mildred, "George! Tornado's comin'!"
George: "Can't be, Mildred. We don't have homeowner's insurance."

Umm, the price of oil and gas will continue to go up as more and more Chinese suck up the supplies and the petro-states get more and more unstable.

But just out of curiosity, what does the policy discussion have to do with the science?

Here, I'll help.

Nothing.

The science is the science. How we deal with it, or don't deal with it, is our problem. The science won't care what the denialists say, it will still keep getting warmer, sea level rise will start to be noticeable, countries will start to go dry...or get wet, and wars will be fought over what to do about it.

Be sure to tell that to your grandkids.

"Mildred, 'George! Tornado's comin'!;
George: 'Can't be, Mildred. We don't have homeowner's insurance.'"

LOL - pretty well sums it up.

I'm so glad you posted this!!! Well done!

You're welcome, Morgan.

Great, David!!! Pretty damned clear, ain't it?

I promise to link to this article - often.

Here's another good source to cite, Steve. I've also highlighted it in a separate comment below.

Well, the media finally gets it right. On Tuesday the Chicago Tribune published a Q&A on the state of climate science, and actually reported it accurately.

See the Q&A here.

The Chamber of Commerce doesn't even say that manmade global warming was a fraud, it merely says it’s not opposed to tackling global warming but fears any legislation that could raise costs for business.

Note also the companies that no longer feel that the US Chamber of Commerce, or the National Association of Manufacturers, represents them. Microsoft recently distanced itself from the Chamber of Commerce. Last year, energy companies Exelon, Pacific Gas & Electric and PNM Resources left the Chamber of Commerce, while Duke Energy Corp. announced that it won’t be renewing its membership with the National Association of Manufacturers.

They have a right to lobby for businesses, but as you note by the companies that have left the Chamber, their reasons were that the Chamber (and others) were actually holding back innovation.

The irony is that the innovative companies, who have put a little ingenuity for exploring future markets, are leaving those companies who make a living off of the old technologies in the dust.

Thanks for the links, Sam.

Another journalist finally gets it right.