Interesting read re. Global warming

[Moviefan-2]

The letter was sign by over 250 scientist, found at the above link but is too long to post in one post.

Another letter backing the IPCC that was sent before the Phil Jones testimony that crushed the IPCC's credibility.

I'm just saying....

 

[blackrock13]

It's worth noting that the letter quoted above supporting the IPCC's work was sent two years before Phil Jones testified that the IPCC doesn't practice scientific principles such as peer review.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry

So all the scientist who are connected with the IPCC are to be discredited or just the 300+ or so that were exposed and found to be wanting.

 

[blackrock13]

Another letter backing the IPCC that was sent before the Phil Jones testimony that crushed the IPCC's credibility.

I'm just saying....

I'm not aware that the 250 signees are members of the IPCC, are you?

 

[groggy]

Then show me a list with a few hundred or so.

I bet you still cant. And I'll prove why later tonight

Here, I did the 15 seconds of working the 'google' for you.
You should try it some time, quite effective.
I suggest entering 'ipcc' and 'contributors'.
First page comes up with a list that is way, way too long to post here, so I'll give you the link instead.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annexessannex-ii.html

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

How about ~1800 in the USA alone,

from http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/THE_STATE_OF_CLIMATE_SCIENCE.pdf

followed by 30 pages of signatures

Rockie, anyone can add their signature to that list when asked.

Here's the bombshell, you wanna how many scientists are actually working on climate change science fulltime, and who've had their work peer-reviewed??! The answer is 75. Yes, thats no typo!! Its seventy-five!!

Read here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

I'll quote the relevant parts:

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”

there really are many of those “global warming skeptics” still remaining. In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can.As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes

“While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal that this is an illusion. Climate skeptics…receive much smaller shares of university research funds, foundation funds and government grants and they are not plugged into the well-heeled environmental special interest lobby.”

The National Research Council (NRC), a branch of the NAS, produced a recent report titledAmerica’s Climate Choices, claiming that humans are responsible for causing recent climate change, posing significant risk to human welfare and the environment. Of the 23 people who served on the panel that wrote it, only five have a Ph.D. in a field closely related to climate science, and another five are staffers of environmental activist organizations

As Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, observed, NAS President Ralph Cicerone is really saying that “…regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide.”

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Here's another interesting part:

While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views.

Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

And another:

A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

And finally:

98% climate consensus is 100% baloney

 

[groggy]

Following up on my post from this morning, it has been confirmed by the Nobel committee that hockey-stick guy Michael Mann was never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

See post 17: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...s-suit-against-Mark-Steyn-and-National-Review

Given that Mann is one of the IPCC`s leading alarmists, this is a serious blow to the credibility of the alarmists.

Mann wasn`t just padding his online resume with this Nobel Prize nonsense. It was also a central point in a document he filed with the courts this week.

I expect this one will clear up in a day or so, not surprising it came out on a friday night so it can run amok for the weekend before the nobel committee can respond next week.
In the meantime do you doubt:
The nobel was awarded to the IPCC for their work on climate change?
That Michael Mann was amongst the scientists whose work is included in the award?

Here`s what I found from Michael Mann`s facebook page.

How we know that Marc Morano will lie about anything for his funders (the Koch Brothers and Scaife Foundations: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano ).

Morano has issued the following lie about me through his "Climate Depot" site: "He [Mann] did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to IPCC (& to Al Gore) & made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma".

Both statements are lies (i.e. not only are they untrue, but Morano must certainly--or should--know that they are untrue). Morano must know that (1) the certificate on display at my facebook page (and is available here for anyone to see) is the precise certificate that was sent to me and *ALL IPCC LEAD AUTHORS* signed by IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri, formally acknowledging my "contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC". It is an actionable lie to claim either that (1) I did not receive such a certificate or (2) that I in any way modified the text in any conceivable way.
These are ugly lies from someone who is *known* for ugly lies.

The only thing I did at all was to put the certificate in a frame, and display it in my office where anyone can see it. This certificate is identical to every other certificate sent to every other IPCC lead author by the IPCC (w/ the exception of the name specified, which is different of course for each individual).

We now know that Marc Morano and his ilk will lie about literally anything to smear climate scientists and climate science, just as he lied about Senator John Kerry when he helped manufacture the "Swift Boat" smear back in 2004.

I thought I had seen the lowest of the low from professional climate change deniers, but this is indeed a new low for them.

http://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist?ref=stream


What I find reprehensible is that given the total failure to make a scientific case all that the deniers are left to concentrate on is character defamation.
Critique the work, if you have issues withe science make them heard.
But attacking the nobel committee, the IPCC and Michael Mann over this nonsense is childish.

 

[blackrock13]

Rockie, anyone can add their signature to that list when asked.

Here's the bombshell, you wanna how many scientists are actually working on climate change science fulltime, and who've had their work peer-reviewed??! The answer is 75. Yes, thats no typo!! Its seventy-five!!

Read here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

I'll quote the relevant parts:

Instead of breaking it into individual quotes, why not post the whole column, although it is 3 pages. I read it when it first came out. Your point is not quite what the three page column said.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

You sure do read things differently than I, but we already knew that.

The 98% refers to a much larger sampling. The 75/77 only refers to those who bothered to response to an overly simplistic survey. Less than 30% bothered to respond. That's less than 10% of the US scientist involved in climate research. Not what I would call an in-depth survey.

No bomb shell here Donald.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I expect this one will clear up in a day or so, not surprising it came out on a friday night so it can run amok for the weekend before the Nobel committee can respond next week.

The Nobel committee has been unequivocally clear on this point.

As I mentioned in the other thread, here's what Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, of The Norwegian Nobel Institute said in an e-mail reply:

1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.

3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.

http://www.examiner.com/article/pro...n-nobel-prize-nobel-committee-says-he-has-not

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331738/michael-manns-false-nobel-claim-charles-c-w-cooke

It was Mann's decision to launch a lawsuit that is specific to his credibility and his reputation. And it was Mann who included the false information about the Nobel Peace Prize in the document submitted to the court.

I think it's relevant that one of the leading champions on the global warming issue has been making false statements about his credentials. It's very damning, no matter how much you try to pretend it doesn't matter.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Oh, whats this??!!

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/...lobal-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal -- which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists -- detonated upon on the international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a "worthless carcass" and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace". He also explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed." Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. "'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded...There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!" See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! 'Climate change - RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence...Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives' [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: "The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency."

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Thats 600 more then the previous 400 who objected (from the US govt website)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

 

[blackrock13]

And another:

A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

And finally:

I believe if you look at the question it was asked if it was significantly due to human activity. As pointed out in an earlier post, it more complicated than that, as CO2 production and coal burning only plays a part in the problem, ~30%. Remember the list 12+ I supplied out of a known 20+.

No clear consensus could basically mean not 100%, no shit. Or is it 50%+1?

Another view on the same survey. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

The full questions being;

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a 'significant' contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

 

[blackrock13]

Thats 600 more then the previous 400 who objected (from the US govt website)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

So, you felt I couldn't find a 100. It's also a 1000 worldwide, not just in the US. I'm not going to go worldwide country to country.

 

[groggy]

Oh, whats this??!!

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/...lobal-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

More nonsense.
Found a blog that took the time to find some info out about these 'scientists'.

This week Marc Morano (you know–the guy who gives out the e-mail addresses of mainstream climate scientists so his hordes of slack-jawed minions can send them hate mail) released a SPECIAL REPORT for the benefit of the delegates at the climate conference in Cancun. Yes, “More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”!!!

My first reaction to this bombshell was that 1000 scientists is kind of a yawner, since the organizers of the Oregon Petition got over 34,000 “scientists” to sign their statement. Of course, it turned out that less than 1% of those signers had a PhD in anything related to climatology, and they allowed anyone to sign who claimed to have a bachelor’s degree in ANY science or engineering field, including veterinarians, entomologists (people who study insects), metallurgists, and electrical engineers. Since about 40% of the signers only had bachelor’s degrees, it was probably more likely that a given signer was a urine sample lab tech than a working climate scientist.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/another-red-herring-survey/

Just for fun, every time you mention this stupid (and it is really stupid) list, I'm going to highlight a name and we can discuss that persons merits as a climatologist.
Sound fair?

Lets start with this one:

6. Geraldo Luís Lino. Lino is a Brazilian geologist who wrote a book called The Global Warming Fraud. Some geologists study past climates, so I wondered what Lino’s research specialty is, and looked him up on the Web of Science. Guess what? Lino didn’t show up. In other words, he has never published anything, about any scientific topic, unless it was in some obscure Portuguese journal, or something. As far as I can tell, Lino doesn’t have a PhD, either.

Do you want to argue the merits of this character?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

More nonsense.
Found a blog that took the time to find some info out about these 'scientists'.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/another-red-herring-survey/

Just for fun, every time you mention this stupid (and it is really stupid) list, I'm going to highlight a name and we can discuss that persons merits as a climatologist.
Sound fair?

Lets start with this one:


Do you want to argue the merits of this character?

LOL...you found a blog and you wanna use that as evidence to discredit these scientists??!!

Are you for real, groggy??! Wait, you better not answer that

 

[Moviefan-2]

Do you want to argue the merits of this character?

Hmm. So I guess "character defamation" is OK when you're the one doing it.

By the way, Al Gore doesn't have a PhD and Dr. David Suzuki's PhD is in zoology.

 

[groggy]

LOL...you found a blog and you wanna use that as evidence to discredit these scientists??!!

Are you for real, groggy??! Wait, you better not answer that

And you're getting your information from .......?
Exxon funded 'research'?

Nice one.
Tell you what, if you can disprove all of these character descriptions, I'll retract them.
Each and every one.

1. Tom Tripp. Yes, Tom Tripp, the very first dissenter listed in the highlights, was a “lead author” for part of the last IPCC report! Impressive, right? Well, I dunno, which part did he work on? As I reported way back in March, he worked on the section about greenhouse gas emissions from magnesium production operations. Since Tripp is a metallurgist working for U.S. Magnesium, he is presumably well qualified to comment on the chemistry of magnesium production. Unfortunately, it also means that he is likely to be quite unqualified to make comments about the state of climate science.

 

[blackrock13]

Hmm. So I guess "character defamation" is OK when you're the one doing it.

By the way, Al Gore doesn't have a PhD and Dr. David Suzuki's PhD is in zoology.

and what field has Suzuki been working in for 40+ years?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

The full questions being;

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a 'significant' contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

I didnt know Gilbert Gottfried had a Terb handle. Do you have to write in these tiny fonts??

1. The IPCC claims temps have risen somewhat. But we dont know if thats a natural rise or if manmade CO2's are partially to blame. And I dont trust the IPCC anymore, they are proven liars to keep their multi-million dollar funding going

2. I dont know how much influence humans have on global temperatures. But neither do you and groggy, even though you both pretend to be know-it-alls. I'm leaning towards the fact that the whole global warming thing is highly overblown