Re: Global warming?

On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:27:56 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>
>"Michael A. Terrell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >No damn way!
>>> >
>>> >It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are
>>> >forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold
>>> >spells on record with another cold front headed this way.
>>>
>>> It's all about money:
>>>
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ious-ways.html
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There's one born every minute: A gullible fool who believes whatever
>> the media tells them. They never catch on to a scam, till it's way too
>> late. Then they scream about being hoodwinked. What really gets me are
>> the supposedly intelligent people on the science newsgroups, who fell
>> for AGW.
>>
>
>Ah, it is good that iconoclasts like you are around to help us poor saps
>out!
>
>So, what is your evidence that global warming doesn't exist? Do you done any
>research to back this up? If you have evidence, it would be great to pass it
>along to the rest of the world so they don't start interpreting those
>melting glaciers and polar caps as the start of a worldwide catastrophe.
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
>Regards,
> Bob Monsen
>
>PS: http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482
>

The IPCC has been caught telling lies about so much that it is
difficult to know where to start.

And so many of their vaunted "peer reviewed" reports have been
unreviewed WWF and Greenpeace polemic that little the IPCC say can be
trusted.

They have lied about glacier melt.

They have lied about hurricanes.

And today's revealtion is they have lied about Africa

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7017907.ece

/quote

he most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed
north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short
time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches
by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN
secretary-general.

This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s
climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing
in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s
retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by
2035.

The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC
because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts
but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis
Report.

/end quote

Not to mention that the chairman of the IPCC is as bent as a nine bob
note. And a lot of the media are no better:

For example BBC biias explained.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/156703

/quote

The £8billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over
its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to
reverse an estimated £2billion deficit.

/end quote

"Bob Monsen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus, which
>mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field
>believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human activity.
>Could they all really be wrong?

Polling scientists in the field of climate change? A bit like polling
turkeys about Christmas.

>So, if you have any real evidence against global warming, or an alternate
>theory that fits the evidence, please post it.

The global climate is controlled by brain waves emitted by a giant green
jellyfish which hides behind the moon. If we all pray to the jellyfish it
will make the climate nicer for us (except we don't actually know if a bit
warmer or a bit colder would be nicer).

My theory could be wrong, but, can we afford to take the risk? We really
need to invest millions writing green jellyfish computer models and
simulations to determine the correct level of prayer to avoid destruction
of the entire planet. Once that is done we can hold many expensive global
summits to allocate prayer between the nations and we can set up prayer
trading schemes so developed countries can pay undeveloped countries to
pray for them......

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:09:54 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>Having just read 'Peddling Prosperity' by Krugman, I'm currently sensitized
>to the problem of policy being driven by idiots (supply siders on the right
>and 'strategic traders' on the left). However, I don't think that is
>happening here. There appears to be a broad consensus amongst climate
>scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus, which
>mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field
>believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human activity.

But from the CRU leaked emails we know that every effort was made to
block publication of non alarmist views. Since the alarmists
controlled publication then a poll of publihing scientists is
unrelaible to say the least.

>Could they all really be wrong? I know the history of science is full of
>situations where most scientists believed something that was shown to be
>false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). However, unless
>you are willing to just chuck science and base policy on faith, you need to
>at least give them the benefit of the doubt, or come up with an alternate
>theory that fits the facts as well.
>
>So, if you have any real evidence against global warming, or an alternate
>theory that fits the evidence, please post it.
>
>Regards,
> Bob Monsen

Climate has always changed. The Sahara used to be pasture land for
example.

The onus is on the alarmists to explain pre-industrial climate change.
Once that is nailed then we can look at the residual of current change
not explained already.

What caused the MWP? The LIA? The Roman climate optimum?

Since you like wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

/quote

Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for
warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites.

/end quote

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:05:32 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:09:54 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Having just read 'Peddling Prosperity' by Krugman, I'm currently
>>>sensitized
>>>to the problem of policy being driven by idiots (supply siders on the
>>>right
>>>and 'strategic traders' on the left). However, I don't think that is
>>>happening here. There appears to be a broad consensus amongst climate
>>>scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus,
>>>which
>>>mentions that 97% of a set of polled, publishing scientists in the field
>>>believe that it is occurring, and that it is being caused by human
>>>activity.
>>
>> But from the CRU leaked emails we know that every effort was made to
>> block publication of non alarmist views. Since the alarmists
>> controlled publication then a poll of publihing scientists is
>> unrelaible to say the least.
>>
>
>Ah, so it is a conspiracy theory. Interesting. I thought it was based on
>something more substantive.

I haven't suggested a conspiracy theory.

I have pointed out that a key group of alarmists have interfered with
the peer review process and the publication of articles even to the
extent of having a journal editor removed.

Since this alarmist group control one of the surface temperature
records, HADCRUT and their US mates control GISS it is fair to say
there is some doubt over the accuracy of these records. Particularly
as they are tied in with Mann and his hockey stick.

This bunch also, to use their own words, "hid the decline". This
reflects on the historical temperature reconstruction based on tree
rings. To summarize they had to fudge the post 1960 tree ring record
which showed a temperature decline because this did not agree with
their instrumental record. Despite post 1960 tree ring data being
useless we are meant to believe the pre 1960 reconstruction is valid.

On top of that the IPCC 2007 report is looking pretty dodgy at the
moment. There is plenty about that in the British papers.

If you feel this amounts to a conspiracy then that's your theory not
mine. I'm just pointing out some of the facts.

>
>Do you have any idea how many journals there are? Do you know how most
>journal articles are refereed? Saying there is a global conspiracy about
>this is like saying that Jews run the world. How do they do it?
>
>Larken mentioned that they could all be using the same fudged data set. I
>guess that could be true, but how likely is it? I'll agree that it is more
>likely that somebody will get funding if they are not a crank. However,
>tenured professors like to be iconoclasts, and harbor grudges. Seems like
>they could use that to expose a conspiracy of this scale. So, why isn't that
>happening on a much larger scale?

There is plenty of evidence of fudged data in the 2 main surface
temperature records. I only trust the satellite records which
unfortunately only goes back to 1979.

>
>>>Could they all really be wrong? I know the history of science is full of
>>>situations where most scientists believed something that was shown to be
>>>false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). However, unless
>>>you are willing to just chuck science and base policy on faith, you need
>>>to
>>>at least give them the benefit of the doubt, or come up with an alternate
>>>theory that fits the facts as well.
>>>
>>>So, if you have any real evidence against global warming, or an alternate
>>>theory that fits the evidence, please post it.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>> Bob Monsen
>>
>> Climate has always changed. The Sahara used to be pasture land for
>> example.
>>
>> The onus is on the alarmists to explain pre-industrial climate change.
>> Once that is nailed then we can look at the residual of current change
>> not explained already.
>>
>> What caused the MWP? The LIA? The Roman climate optimum?
>>
>> Since you like wikipedia:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
>>
>> /quote
>>
>> Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for
>> warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites.
>>
>> /end quote
>
>Well, it is clear that we are in a very cold spell, geologically. On the
>other hand, the earth was covered in ice for a while:
>http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...asComplet.html. So,
>technically, the entire earth has been subject to global warming since
>then...
>

Exactly. Climate changes. With or without our help.

>Being an iconoclast is often useful and fun, but taking it to extremes makes
>you a crank.
>
>Regards,
> Bob Monsen
>

John Larkin wrote:

[...]

> How come nobody is worked up over a real - and fixable - problem,
> man-made particulates?
>

Because they can't easily be taxed?

--
SCNR, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

"Bob Monsen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> How come nobody is worked up over a real - and fixable - problem,
>> man-made particulates?
>
> I don't know. There is such a partisan attitude in Washington that
> lawmakers fight for things because the other side is opposed to it. Too
> bad, all they seem to do is bicker and boast.

Too bad? It's too bad they don't spend *all* their time bickering -- then
nothing would get done and government wouldn't keep getting bigger!

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"Bob Monsen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Do you also believe that the 97% of publishing climate scientists that
>believe in global warming are either stupid, duped, or scamming the public?

I believe the AWG machine is as good at cherry picking scientists to
support itself as it is at cherry picking data.

Interesting piece here

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02...ord_interview/

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:43:25 +0000, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid>wrote:

>
>>Larken mentioned that they could all be using the same fudged data set.I
>>guess that could be true, but how likely is it? I'll agree that it is more
>>likely that somebody will get funding if they are not a crank. However,
>>tenured professors like to be iconoclasts, and harbor grudges. Seems like
>>they could use that to expose a conspiracy of this scale. So, why isn'tthat
>>happening on a much larger scale?
>
>There is plenty of evidence of fudged data in the 2 main surface
>temperature records. I only trust the satellite records which
>unfortunately only goes back to 1979.
>
>

Unfortunately i dare not trust even them since Hanson started "adjusting"them.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, JosephKK wrote:
>On 8 Feb 2010 17:43:25 +0, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
>
>>>Larken mentioned that they could all be using the same fudged data
>>>set. I guess that could be true, but how likely is it? I'll agree that
>>>it is more likely that somebody will get funding if they are not a
>>>crank. However, tenured professors like to be iconoclasts, and harbor
>>>grudges. Seems like they could use that to expose a conspiracy of this
>>>scale. So, why isn't that happening on a much larger scale?
>>
>>There is plenty of evidence of fudged data in the 2 main surface
>>temperature records. I only trust the satellite records which
>>unfortunately only goes back to 1979.
>
>Unfortunately i dare not trust even them since Hanson started
>"adjusting" them.

Can you cite how Hansen or "Hansen et al" or the like adjusted either of
the two satellite-based records?

For one thing, the UAH one is disclaimed from calibration to surface
records (in my words) by Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the two PhD professors at
UAH in charge of the UAH lower troposphere temperature record. Dr. Roy
Spencer is also, at least appearing to me, to be notably on the skeptic
side for AGW.

Dr. Roy Spencer even has a personal website with what he would say there
about AGW:

http://www.drroyspencer.com

He reports the UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly and a graph
thereof in:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

The UAH index for the globe as well as several latitude zones and
contiguous "48-states" USA is available at:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

The other satallite-based one, best-known as RSS, is at:

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/
rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_an d_ocean_v03_2.txt

Graph and degrees/decade trend including map of the world (at 4
different levels of the atmosphere, not only lower troposphere) are shown
at:

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_de..._trend_map_tlt

- Don Klipstein ((E-Mail Removed))

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 19:08:44 -0800, "Bob Monsen" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:


>
>Galileo has been blamed by historians of science for overstating his case,
>belittling his competition, etc. This sort of behavior isn't anything new to
>science. However, if you throw out all the data here due to a few uncensored
>emails, you are you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
>
>When you say IPCC 2007 is looking 'dodgy', you mean there are some errors.
>The report is FOUR VOLUMES... it was written by literally hundreds of
>scientists, and reviewed by hundreds more. However, errors are inevitable,
>and are eagerly pounced on by such denizens as the politically motivated
>Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment.
>
>The real question is how do you know what _you_ hear is the truth? See
>http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/page/1 for more information on the politics
>behind this. There has been a program by the various affected industries to
>'spin' this in such ways as to slow down any action. Their motive has been
>to try to show that there is a divisive dispute in the scientific community
>where none exists. I'm not surprised that scientists who have been working
>tirelessly on this issue, because they believe it is a huge looming danger,
>think they have a moral imperative to fight 'fire with fire'. That was
>clearly a mistake, both ethically and politically, but one can sympathize
>with them. When you fight with liars and cheaters, taking the high road
>isn't always easy. The real irony is that the stupid, misguided political
>effort to derail any action and to dupe the public has actually induced the
>scientific community to ignore data instead of considering any anomalies as
>new data to explain.
>
>Regards,
> Bob Monsen
>

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/bl...chapter-9.html

/quote

While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC's Fourth
Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a
colleague of James Hansen's at GISS. Lacis's is not a name I've come
across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the
IPCC's report is simply breathtaking.

Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report
- it's the one where they decide that global warming is manmade. This
is the one where the headlines are made.

Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to
remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his
comment on the executive summary of the chapter:

There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary.
The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace
activists and their legal department. The points being made are made
arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any
foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a
political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse
skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a
scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate
science community - instead of forcing many climate scientists into
having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed
a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can
not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the
facts of climate change have been established and understood,
attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as
it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.

I'm speechless. The chapter authors, however weren't. This was their
reply (all of it):

Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on
the peer reviewed literature.

Simply astonishing. This is a consensus?

/end quote