Cloudy
38°
Cloudy
Hi 40° | Lo 24°

Letter: Voice of reason

A breath of fresh air was Michael Sununu’s article “It’s time to take a hard look at climate hyperbole” (Monitor Forum, July 26). Finally, there is someone willing to challenge someone for spewing unsubstantiated exaggerations regarding global warming.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that students at NHTI are being indoctrinated on this topic in the classroom. After all, the environmental extremists have been brainwashing America on this topic ever since Al Gore won his Oscar.

The climate racketeers have not convinced me global warming exists.

More so, the NOAA/NCDC data indicates perhaps there may be cyclical changes on our planet over the last 200 years. We can do without the wind turbines, solar panels, electric cars and billions of taxpayer dollars wasted on failed green energy projects and concentrate on the natural gas, uranium and coal and oil deposits that are readily at hand right under our feet in this great country.

DAVID A. MERWIN

Salisbury

Legacy Comments242

CM Moderator/IT person; clicking on "full comment" from Talkback should valet one to the EXACT comment posted, not just to the general collection of posts. It's critical when a given thread receives a high number of posts, such as this one one (Letter: Voice of Reason), which is already well over 200 and counting. One shouldn't need to hire a private detective to find a commenter's post. Thank you.

Geeze, I never thought I would get to the end of it to make this comment. I just wonder how many people by now just skip over anything that is entitled, "Voice of Reason"?

This entire argument has been miscast with troubling results. I will quote the subtitle of an article in "The Week." The article was about evolution, that other ongoing debate of belief vs. nonbelief where neither belief nor nonbelief is appropriate. Here is the simple sentence that sums it up: "You don't believe in it — you either understand it or you don't."

Almost everything is always more complex the deeper you look at it. This is not simple.

Funny that you mentioned evolution. The theory of evolution has far more evidence for it than the global warming hypothesis. It has a substantial amount of real observations and real data. It is pretty solid- not almost perfect like a law of physics, but very strong. But, I am glad you mentioned evolution. There is a real debate within evolutionary theory - punctuated equilibria (or evolution) vs. gradual. Thing is, punctuated suggests very rapid changes in a species, even formation of a new species in response to rapid natural changes in the environment. This has bearing upon the global warming debate, and is something I am glad you mentioned. This is something that climate scientists don't appear to be aware of. They should go talk to some biologists, geologists and paleontologists- and the climate scientists should buy the beer. But the biologists, geologists and paleontologists should dispense the beer- I trust them more.

jdodson - 1 .... Brucie, WALTER & TILLIE - 0 CONGRATULATIONS JDODSON ON SLAYING THE SPOON FED BEASTS

I like what you said here, but I I think the beasts are just wounded and thrashing around. Needs more swords! Thanks!

jdodson...this comment will raise the number to 159 on this thread. About half of them are yours. This is my last. You can raise all the deniosphere issues you want, but all those you raised have been shown to be hollow, without substance. Maybe you should buy and read one of those books you listed to help you find a real, unrebutted issue. Good luck.

"all those (issues) you raised have been shown to be hollow", that is not at all completely accurate. Certainly, anyone coming to this discussion from your side would seek to defend your positions, but some you basically ducked and refused to confront. I will concede that this is in part due to constraints on your time, as they are for all of us. I ordered a used copy of The Hockey Stick Illusion by Montford a few days ago. If might be good for those of us who want to see the other side of the argument to suggest the library carries at least a few of the books with opposing views. This is not remotely "settled science".

Your latest post is further proof, if any was needed, that your claim of being a disinterested skeptic are nonsense. If you had the slightest interest in the facts, you'd turn to science sites to corroborate your claims.information. Once again, you're making claims that are inaccurate and untrue, and relying on sources--Montford, in his book, and McIntyre and McKitrick, that are inaccurate if not outright false. The claim of McIntyre and McKitrick--that the hockey stick shape was an artifact of the methodology and selective choice of data, has been shown repeatedly to be false. The hockey stick graph has been replicated by over a dozen different studies since the original Mann/Bradley paper of 1998. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are the ones who adjusted the data and methods in their paper (not published in a peer-reviewed journal, btw) to avoid replicating a hockey stick shape. They were called to task on this in subsequent papers in "Nature" and "Journal of Climate". Montford makes a hero of McIntyre when the evidence suggests otherwise. Montford also quotes at great length from the stolen HadCRU e-mails, taking them out of their proper context to put an invidious spin on them, when every investigation of the matter, while acknowledging mistakes and errors of judgement on the part of scientists, found NO effort to produce fraudulent science. Finally, you repeat the denier claim that there is "another side" to the science that is being hidden by climate scientists. Such a claim is baseless. The distortions, fraud, lies, omissions, and manipulation of data are being committed on behalf of the deniers' lobby. They provide just enough detail to produce a veneer of plausibility (as in the examples above); but a modicum of critical thinking on your part (that includes multiple checking of claims and sources) would go far to provide accurate answers to the questions you've raised.

I never said I was a "Disinterested skeptic". You cannot find that quote because I did not say it and because it does not exist. It is important to be cautious about stat. methods that are so new as these- they are only a couple decades old, at most, and they are almost exclusively used by climate scientists. The claim that there is no built-in biases needs to be shown, and needs to be demonstrated, and not just by in-house statisticians. I have very limited knowledge of statistics- a biostat course, and a course in experimental design, back in the late 1970s. There are real dangers in not looking at these methods very closely. The claim that homogenation of the numbers can correct problems with data site locations really needs examining further.. We are talking here about not just revolutions in climate science, but revolutions in statistics. There are variables that may not accounted for, and assumptions that are not proven. Who are the statisticians who developed the methodologies? Did they do thorough testing beforehand with raw data to check? Can you refer me to their papers?

If you were truly interested in biases and perversions of statistical data, then you'd be looking at the claims you've posted and the sources you've relied on far more critically than your posts indicate--at least as critically as you claim to treat the findings of climate science.And you'd be relying on multiple sources for your information. It may have escaped your notice that most of the claims emanating from the deniers often originate from a single source--often with funding from fossil fuel interests, that then spreads like a virus across the right wing blogosphere. Whereas the findings of climate scientists are (as with the Mann/Bradley hockey stick paper of 1998) supported by follow-up research and rigorous peer review that replicates and elaborates upon initial research before its findings are accepted. That's the nature of scientific research--if the work can't be replicated, then experimental error of some kind can be assumed. You ignore all the data, and all the research, that buttresses and confirms the scientific theory explaining our warming planet, in favor of the claims of people with ties to vested conomic interests who often aren't climate scientists, and sometimes aren't even scientists.

If I recall, the biggest promoter of the global warming hypothesis is Al Gore, who is not a scientist. I am not ignoring data, but doubtful about a lot of the data. Some of the supposedly "independent studies" aren't. The Wahl- Ammann paper, for instance. Ammann was a student of Mann's- is not independent. This is an echo chamber, not an independent confirmation of the work. Maurice Strong, the godfather of the IPCC is a walking fossil fuel interest all by himself. The energy interests WANT carbon trading markets and are lobbying for it, They are as against carbon rules as Brer Rabbit was against being thrown in the briar patch. Some of the strongest criticisms of the IPCC come from former lead authors- Von Storch, Tol, John Christy, Segalstad. How many do you need? Curry is credible. Mann and Jones are not. See Curry's" IPCC TAR and the hockey stick It is obvious that Mann purposefully omitted papers from the IPCC report that,disputed his hypothesis, including the omission of the Dahl-Jensson et al study, (Science 1998) in order to disappear the Medieval Warming Period. Christy noted this in testimony before Congress.

more hockey stick blather - What Brucie does not tell you is that even the IPCC has abandoned the hockey stick LIE

still sticking by the "hockey sick" even when the IPCC abandoned it. now there is a seriously delusional fella - but we knew that anyway

Untrue. This is one more of a long string of false claims by Sail/BPR on this thread. In this case, repeated in the SAME thread, posted one day apart. The most recent version of the "Hockey Stick can be found (on line) in Chapter 5, p. 27 of the IPCC's 2013 document, entitled “Information from Paelo-climate Archives”. "Based on multiple lines of evidence (using different statistical methods or different compilations of proxy records; see Appendix 5.A.1 for a description of reconstructions and selection criteria), published reconstructions and their uncertainty estimates indicate, with high confidence. that the mean NH temperature of the last 30 or 50 years very likely exceeded any previous 30- or 50-year mean during the past 800 years." BTW: the "hockey stick" is not a "theory", it's evidence, albeit just a very small part of the overwhelming documentation that the climate is warming at a rate and from a cause unprecedented in the planet's history.

HEADLINES PROVING BRUCIE IS WRONG...AGAIN...: 1) IPCC throws Mann’s Hockey Stick under the bus? 2) Images of ipcc abandoned the hockey stick 3)United Nations Pulls Hockey Stick from Climate Report ...4)Videos of ipcc abandoned the hockey stick 5)The IPCC removes the Hockey stick - YouTube ...... . Their evidence for dangerous, human-caused global warming, always slim, now lies exposed in tatters for all to see

This has actually been a great comment string, unlike most. Dodson raises some excellent points, among them Jones and Mann and the "investigation"...I sooooo wish The Monitor would devote something, anything to the litigation involving Mann and NH resident Mark Steyn. So far, not one word. Quite amazing really. NH resident involved in litigation with top climate poo bah, and not one solitary word about it in the local paper. I wonder why???

I think nearly every one of Dodson's "excellent points" has been met with substantive and factual responses showing that either Dodson's claims are based on headlines that distort the facts, or are baseless and false. As for NH resident Mark Steyn and his free speech case: he's shown himself to be an idiot with no filter on what he writes or says, and who think the First Amendment is absolute, and that it therefore gives him the right to say anything that comes into his little head-- even after being told by his (now former) lawyers to: STFU. I had a brief exchange with one of the charming Granite Groksters a while ago on this very topic, He also labors under the delusion that the First Amendment can be shortened to read "Say anything." Unfortunately for Steyn, the judge in the case doesn't see things quite the way he does: "Viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the court must on a motion to dismiss, a reasonable jury is likely to find the statement that Dr. Mann “molested and tortured data” was false, was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, and is actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm... Turning to the special motion of defendants National Review and Steyn to dismiss Count VII, when Mr. Steyn republished Mr. Simberg’s words, he stopped short of wholeheartedly endorsing the offensive Sandusky metaphor. Nevertheless, Mr. Steyn did not disavow the assertion of fact that Dr. Mann had 'molested and tortured data,' and he added insult to injury by describing Dr. Mann as 'the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph.' … In context, calling Dr. Mann’s work 'fraudulent' is itself defamatory…" It's worth remembering that the original Mann/Bradley paper on the hockey stick has been replicated, with increasing sophistication and better proxies, by some dozen later papers. Unfortunately for Steyn's claims, and the deniosphere in general, when science results are replicated by subsequent research, it usually means they're accurate. As a result, as Climate Crock puts it plainly: "It’s against the law to accuse someone, with malice, of scientific fraud, if the accusation won’t stand up in court (and not just to the satisfaction of the defendants and their support subculture). http://climatecrocks.com/2014/01/23/michael-mann-closing-in-on-deniers-in-court/ http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/12/six-things-michael-mann-wants-you-to-know-about-the-science-of-global-warming/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/23/deniers-disgust-and-defamation/#.U_JNA6PvZdg - See more at: http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/michael_mann_national_review_m.php?page=all#sthash.Cmy9wqIf.dpuf http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/michael_mann_national_review_m.php?page=all

Even if Mann did not personally molest and torture data, he certainly kidnapped it and worked hard to conceal it, along with statistical methodology. McIntyre, upon finally getting the method found that even random noise- random data would be turned into hockey sticks. I am not a statistician, but I know that there can be biases in some tests, and sometimes they are pretty subtle. It would help if more top statisticians and mathematicians were brought in to confirm the studies, and any related stat. methods, but climate scientists are renowned for clannishly concealing their work from any who are not in their tribe. Concealment of the work is not in itself proof of wrongdoing, but it is a very bad sign. McIntyre's analysis showing bias in the statistical methods has also been repeated.

Documentation for your claim that McIntyre's work has been validated? If you're referring to Wegman's paper, feel free to go there. Plagiarism by Wegman et al is the least of the problems with that effort.

Bruce_Currie, in an earlier post I think you may have misunderstood something I said about those seeking power and money- I was not referring to scientists, but those who will benefit from the policy changes implemented based on the scientific findings of climate scientists. This would certainly include any large energy corporations who want to profit from the carbon trading markets. It will make some big investors happy, and some investment bankers happy to be selling derivative "products"- things that have no production costs, except for some lobbying. The lobbyists for big energy- oil, nuclear, whatever- are the ones who regularly get to bend the ears of politicos, not us. We consumers will be offered some sorts of rebates that will not nearly offset the increasing energy costs. Again, please look a little at Enron's very early connections with this, and Maurice Strong, an oilman who helped start the IPCC. It stinks to high heaven.

Thanks! It would be good to see some coverage of Mann and Steyn in the Monitor.

For those who don't/can't do their own online research, here is a rebuttal to the deniosphere: "The evidence for global warming is being meticulously accumulated by scientists all over the world. This evidence includes the following independent observations that paint a consistent picture of global warming: Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009) The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release) Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006) The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006) There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release). A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009) Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008) Lake warming (Schneider & Hook 2010)"

Here is a response to the rebuttal above, directed to the alarmosphere and anyone else who has had the patience to follow this thread. The evidence for global warming, while sometimes meticulously accumulated by scientists, is sometimes rather sloppily accumulated by scientists, and the data often mixed together so that a lot of it looks pretty sloppy. Sometimes it is infill data, sometimes it is "value-added" data, sometimes "homogenized" data, sometimes it is proxy data, sometimes original raw data is tossed in the trash and filled in with computer model data. Sometimes it is completely fabricated data from dummy data stations that do not exist, as happened in Australia. Frequently, the same erroneous data is used again and again in redundant studies that pass peer review, a process that has been utterly corrupted by politics, which then accentuates errors. But almost always, the data will show a relentless recent swing upwards in temperature over time, even if reality and real raw data show otherwise. Many of the conclusions about the data are overstatements that are proven later to be false. As more truly independent work is done, the realities about climate are hopefully being revealed, but due to a complexity of variables, both human and natural, arriving at valid conclusions is exceedingly difficult, and it is critically important, as in all scientific endeavors, to recognize the real uncertainties that exist. It is important that scientists share data and welcome any who wish to examine their work and criticize it. It is equally important that scientists not elude questions about their work and even attempt to block Freedom of Information Act demands to reveal their work. Basing public policy upon uncertainties is nonsensical, wasteful of limited resources and destructive, as well as being a corrupting influence on science and society.

jdodson...what you have written (and I encourage you to read it again) is an attack on the honesty of your fellow man. It is such baloney. How can you trust anything your fellow man does?? To believe that tens of thousands of scientists do not recognize the problems you cite, and that peer-reviewing is not objective enough to discern any of them and show them as mistakes NOT to be published is ridiculous.

Can you personally vouch for any of these scientists? Do you actually know all of them or any of them personally? Why are scientists morally superior to other groups of human beings? Suppose instead of data we are dealing with money. I think this is an apt analogy here because we are also dealing with money. We are talking about policy changes that will cost the entire planet trillions. We are talking about policies that will put the entire planet on an essentially wartime footing. We are talking about policies that will enrich some corporations royally. The whole approach to this war on carbon has been one that, like war, seems to require obedience and sacrifice.. To question it is unpatriotic. In war, there are some who profit mightily, and a lot who suffer mightily. There are enormous costs. The same goes with the war on carbon. Also in war, you may have heard the first casualty of war is the truth. That is happening here. Heavy sigh. There are huge corporate banking interests involved with wars, and they are becoming involved in the war on carbon. Since we have already seen some players- notably Enron, Shell and BP readily jumping in, ( and over time, most of the rest) we have to ask ourselves why. Because they stand to gain enormously from the policies being considered. This is big money, and it is money that will have some of the very same problems associated with it as the derivatives markets. Again, I sigh. In science, data is a lot like money. You need to work for it. You need to accumulate it to be able to attain certain goals. You carefully protect it from loss. Data is valuable. Again, I beg you to look at what our trustworthy pal Phil Jones did. It is a lot like an investment banker telling you "Well, I took your money, converted it into various abstract sums, and now, this is your investment. Yes, it is very different than, and quite a bit lower than the initial sum. I cannot tell you what was done exactly with your money, because I deleted all my notes concerning all the various ways your investments were altered. But, of course, you are way out of line even asking me about this, you brute!!" It is not "attacking" when you ask someone what they did with data. It is not honesty when someone who handles it destroys the value of data. I do not believe you are getting the significance of this, Walter. You seem like a person very comfortable with abstractions- You say this is "an attack on the honesty of your fellow man." Please show me how what Phil Jones did by deleting is notes was honest. For if it was not an act of dishonesty, it is an act of such supreme incompetence that it makes you wonder about any of the rest of the "science" he has ever been involved with. Further, Walter, I am not attacking all men, I am focusing on those who have demonstrated either dishonesty or incompetence that is nearly beyond the realm of belief. It has to be one or the other. If you can posit a third possibility, I would like to see it. Further, you have not for one second dealt with this crucial question at all. It appears to be something that you are in massive (sorry Walter) denial about. Please confront the question, if you possibly can.

Sorry, but you are a lot like some others who post on CM letters: you go ballistic when someone challenges you and retort with LONG meaningless salvos. I'm not going to respond because the CM doesn't have digital space for another of your salvos.

You mean like Bruce Currie?

Walter - what a total loser statement..... liberals .....sheeeesh

Your obsession with Phil Jones seems a bit odd for one who claims objectivity. The data from Hadley/CRU is similar to that of the other surface temperature collections--if anything it understates the warming due to a relatively smaller number of Arctic temp. sites compared to GISS. From the Parliamentary review: "Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified." "We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced. Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work." BTW: the raw data was readily available from other sources than Hadley/CRU, which those making the requests could have/should have/would have known were they sincerely interested in the data. Another report investigating the CRU, headed by Lord Oxburg of Liverpool found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it." .

I guess my "obsession" with Jones is about equal to your obliviousness concerning this incident. Deleting the methodology is so wildly sloppy as to be be reason to be banished from science entirely. Example: a graduate student at his master's thesis defense is asked about the absence of the methodology for his data, and he says he deleted it. To be kind- and they would have to be kind here, they might say, "If it is deleted and unable to be recovered, you have presented us with work that is unpublishable, and it is impossible to verify it. Also, why did'n't you inform the head of your thesis committee in advance of this?" The graduate student then might say "But my work shows the same thing as other published work!" "That may be true, but that is unverified and unverifiable. Though the results of your work apparently confirm the work of others, we are talking about your work, and not theirs. If you wish to remain in this department, you will need to do your work over, and this time, with your methodology." It is likely that the graduate student's professor, his mentor, would be livid, and probably no longer wish to head his thesis committee, for the simple fact that this was a personal betrayal of trust. since the student had not been honest, had not owned up to this until forced. This is not just a matter of sloppiness, it is a matter of integrity. It is obvious to any who are awake, conscious and paying attention, that this is a moral as well as a scientific breach of colossal proportions. Because Jones is not a simple graduate student- he is head of the most prestigious climate research group in the world. A fish rots from the head, as the Russians say. That he was "exonerated" repeatedly, with several more asterisks I could add, is without question. The institutions affected by this calamity were many, and their response was damage control to avoid embarrassment to themselves. Again, this is exactly what you see when the police internal affairs dept. investigates itself...or when the Catholic Church investigates itself. They did very cursory and brief investigations, and that was it. The devil is in the details and you are ignoring the details because you are personally very fond of the narrative. Is there any evidence you can even conceive of that would change your mind? I think it would be good to continue this.

Two points: 1) What is it that you don't get that while Jones and the CRU did not respond to FOI requests in a timely fashion, each and every investigation (each of which you label as 'cursory'--without any evidence or corroboration from ANY source other than those with a vested interest in perpetuating the controversy) exonerate the scientists of any fraudulent behavior. The fact that the CRU data set is little different from those of other major data sets, speaks to the fact their data is solid. There is also no question that many of the FOI requests were frivolous and intentionally designed to harass the center and Jones, taking time away from their research. 2) There are multiple lines of evidence in support of the fact the planet has warmed, and continues to warm. The Hadley/CRU record is only one of them. As the Muir Russell inquiry stated: "In any case, all this must be considered in context. Generally, the inquiry [Muir Russell inquiry] criticized CRU’s openness but concluded that 'their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt' and 'we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments'. Indeed, it is very unlikely that the conclusions of the scientific community could have been influenced by the behaviour of these few individuals — because the entire work of CRU comprises only a small part of the large body of evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Global warming has been observed not just on land but also over the oceans and in the troposphere, as well as being confirmed by indicators including Arctic sea ice, glaciers, sea level, humidity, ocean heat content, and many others. And we don’t need a hockey stick to know that humans are causing global warming. The pattern of warming we observe is the same as that long predicted for greenhouse warming: the stratosphere is cooling, nights have warmed faster than days, and winters faster than summers. Climategate has not even invalidated CRU’s results, let alone the conclusions of the entire climate science community." http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-freedom-of-information.html Lastly, feel free to develop your own temperature record using the data. You can find out more here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1680 You can also visit the "WoodforTrees site to play with the data using different statistical techniques.

As I said above, a fish rots from the head .The head of this particular IPCC fish is Maurice Strong, an interesting individual. We will perhaps continue later. But this is a beautiful day.

Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/

You didn't tell us what the journal's name was. Please do. And try to explain the relevance of your link to this thread.

another LIDV too consumed in his own mind to read the link - Walter claimed the total innocence and infallibility of scientists - this is AGAIN proof you and he always lie down with dogs and you wonder why you get fleas

I read the link. I'm just waiting for the tortured logic of your explanation for posting it--other than to implicitly smear all scientists and all science journal for the sins of one highly specialized journal far from climate science. It's another case on your part of flinging poo wherever and whenever you can, and hoping some of it sticks to anyone or anything else.

Still waiting for the name of that journal, and its connection to climate science.

This is about potential corruptibility of peer review, something that really happens. BPR does not "smear all scientists and all science journal(s)" by bringing this up. You are overstating things here. Anyway, it is important to examine things critically, even if they are things you really want to trust. The point is that peer review does not always work, and that is a valid point. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/busted-120-gibberish-science-papers-withdrawn-so-much-for-peer-review/

No one has claimed the process is flawless. But the science, and the scientific processes by which research is carried up, reviewed, published, and then validated or found wanting by follow-up research works pretty well. At every turn, you've tried to impugn the integrity of the science and the scientists. Each of your claims have been shown to be weak to baseless, yet you persist. You go to absurd lengths to find any reason at all to avoid the obvious: that the accumulation of facts regarding the reality of climate change is overwhelming. To think the way you, and Sail/BPR and the other Carp Per Diems do, requires one or more of the following: 1) an implausible belief in a huge, world-wide conspiracy, 2) the rejections of facts when those facts conflict with beliefs--in this case the belief that the "free market" will solve all problems; 3) a hugely smug ego that enables one to think he or she is so much smarter than others, and so "knows better" than to follow the "sheeple", and anyway, it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as society anyway, and besides, "I've got mine."

ANOTHER LIDV THROUGH AND THROUGH

As far as the overwhelming thousands of climate scientists supposedly on board with human consumption of fossil fuels as the primary cause of climate change (Cook et al 2013), this is addressed in the paper "97% Study Falsely Classified Scientists' Papers, According To The Scientists That Published Them" www.populartechnology.net May 21, 2013. David Friedman also gives a very helpful analysis of Cook, as well with"A Climate Falsehood You Can Check Yourself" davidfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html ( Feb. 26, 2014)

I think the CM has a cut off point in how many posts you can do in a month, I think you have used your year's quota.

Ahh yes...just shut up.

ANOTHER LIBERAL DEMOCRAT wants TO END FREEDOM OF SPEECH - way to go tillie

are you trying to stifle debate? - liberals ....sheeeeeesh

Here are the findings of 5 separate surveys of climate scientists, each slightly different in methodology. ALL FIVE found a high degree of consensus on the topic of global warming and its causes. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts by Naomi Oreskes on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf A survey by John Cook of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013).  The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article William Andereegg (2010) used “an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.” http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased.  http://poll.visionprize.com

100% of priests believe in GOD - so what is your point?

Another questionable claim from the global warming community was the unsupported claim that the Himalayan glaciers would all disappear by 2035. reported in the Daily Mail UK- "Glacier Scientist: I Knew Data Hadn't Been Verified" January 23, 2010. "The scientist....admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders".

Another problem is the placement of data gathering stations- some are well placed, others are not. This could skew results toward warmer very easily, particularly with stations with urban buildup over time. Stations on or near asphalt pavement, near air conditioning heat exhaust vents, near large metal storage containers, or sandwiched between airport runways have been noted repeatedly, and will skew temperatures.

Okay- maybe this is a small point, Even given that there has been a slight warming trend over the last century, it seems to me a bit deceptive how the data is presented in the now iconic hockey stick, which shows temperatures increasing sharply at the later half of the 20th century. The actual amount is about 1.3 to about 1.6 degrees Celsius. Note that the y-axis is stretched. Yes it is only about a degree and a half, but they really want to make the most of it. In statistics this is called a gee-whiz graph. If the time frame along the x-axis was extended for several thousands of years and the y-axis shortened, the graph would give more information over a longer period, and show some warmer periods in the past. It is obvious that this graph was designed for impact. Also, the original 1990 graph from the IPCC shows the Medieval Warming Period, a time hotter than today when no one was burning fossil fuels. That was, well, disappeared by later work that is also questionable. God, I need some sleep. Anyway, one of the reasons I am putting in so much work on this is pure selfishness- last year's heating bills was a killer.for my family. The carbon mania is on track to bankrupt some countries,I was floored to find that the European Union nations are now devoting 20% of their budget to climate change. Oy vey.

JD...I'm sorry for your high heating bills and lack of sleep. However, you need to put a bridle on your posts. Go back and read the last few. They have very poor adherence to the discussion and put forth parts of deniosphere blogs that have been proved incorrect. You regurgitate the original blog issues, but ignore the follow-up information which shows the blogs were...shall we say: baloney. East Anglia, ClimateGate, 17 year pause...they have all been discussed by credible climate blogs and dismissed. By real scientists. Watt and Curry are leading deniosphere blogs. Go read some of Climate,Etc articles AND the following comments. The typical article is some skimpy data rebuttal and the comments have a few rebuttals with references showing how skimpy (and inconsequential) the whole issue was. So, if you find a 'vital piece of denial' on either of those blogs, go to skepticalscience.com and find their responses-usually with links so you can substantiate the rebuttal.

IPCC HEAD PACHAURI ACKNOWLEDGES GLOBAL WARMING STANDSTILL Date: 21/02/13 Graham Lloyd, The Australian The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.

You've been corrected on this one before. The journalist in question has a history of misquoting public figures. Lloyd also refused to release a transcript of the interview. And Pachauri denied having said what the journalist claimed he said.

quote " Head of the UN Climate Panel Pachauri admits purpose of the UN IPCC report it to make the case that 'action is needed on climate change' ….. Pachauri admits the IPCC science reports are tailored to meet the political needs of governments: 'We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.' BRUCIE AND HIS ALARMIST RELIGION ARE A HOAX

Again: it's Whack-A-Climate-Denier/Liar time: Once more, you're taking a quote out of context, and making claims that aren't justified by any stretch of the imagination--not even yours. Every single post you make on climate change is either seriously distorted or outright false.

Please cite specifics. Thanks.

You're wrong on the hockey stick.The basic outline of the hockey stick has been confirmed by a number of subsequent studies--as many as 13 separate ones, I believe. Here are the findings of the National Academy of Science study on temperature reconstructions of the past. "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. " http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=4

BASELESS BRUCIE AGAIN - even the IPCC reports have abandoned the hockey stick "theory"

Really? Try Chapter 5, p. 27 of the IPCC's 2013 document, entitled “Information from Paelo-climate Archives” for the latest iteration of the graph. "Based on multiple lines of evidence (using different statistical methods or different compilations of proxy records; see Appendix 5.A.1 for a description of reconstructions and selection criteria), published reconstructions and their uncertainty estimates indicate, with high confidence. that the mean NH temperature of the last 30 or 50 years very likely exceeded any previous 30- or 50-year mean during the past 800 years." BTW: the "hockey stick" is not a "theory", it's evidence, albeit just a very small part of the overwhelming documentation that the climate is warming at a rate and from a cause unprecedented in the planet's history. You might want to look up the scientific definition of "theory" as well.

Where do you get your information? Your claim regarding the MWP is not supported by the science. Current research indicates the MWP was a regional, not a hemisphere-wide phenomenon.

The BEST study and others have debunked your claim regarding the effects of poor placement of temp. stations. Anthony Watts, whose one claim to fame is that he brought up the issue of poor siting, is himself a co-author of a study that found there was no problem with the data. Your claim--derived from WUWT-- regarding the siting protocols for temperature stations, is a red herring. It fails to note that all readings are corrected for heat island effect. Urban sites are compared with nearby rural sites, and corrected if necessary. In fact, what is often found is that the urban sites are often the same or cooler than rural sites. The urban heat island effect (UHI) is real, but has been long been accounted for. Surface temperature trends in the U.S. are matched by similar increases in boreholes, satellite records, and international temp. data sets. Watts "has been riding this one trick pony for years"--it's his only claim to fame, but has been found both irrelevant and inaccurate, most recently by the BEST study, which reviewed the data, expecting to find a discrepancy. Guess what? They found none. In other words, the surface temp. record is accurate and reliable. Watts in a paper he co-authored that looked at the UHI effect confirms a warming trend for both 115 year and 30 year trends in the U.S., and “all groups of stations showing warming trends over those periods.” http://www.surfacestations.org/Fall_etal_2011/fall_etal_media_resource_may08.pdf

I've seen some of the claims that the data can be corrected by the proper homogenization of the numbers. But this still introduces more variables. If the data homogenization is so effective, then why the heck do they even have siting protocols at all?

I admit you make a good point here, Bruce-Currie, and maybe I am being a little picky about site selection. At NOAA site www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html they say this in response to a question: Q. Could stations located in potentially warmer locations near buildings and cities influence temperature readings? Yes. That is one reason why NOAA created the Climate Reference Network. These stations adhere to all of the established monitoring principles and are located in unpopulated areas. They are closely monitored and are subject to rigorous calibration procedures. It is a network designed specifically for assessing climate change.

Please cite studies. Thanks.

BEST study was debunked by its own co-auther - Judith Curry -

No, she didn't. You're making things up again.

BRUCIE FALSEHOODS DEBUNKED- AGAIN AND AGAIN - 1) Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry reverses belief in AGW – Climategate ‘triggered a massive re-examination of my support of the IPCC, and made me look at the science much more skeptically’ 2) Climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry has recently posted a number of sharply worded essays .... QUOTE: “With regards to climate science, the biggest concern that I have is the insistence on ‘the facts.’ This came up during my recent ‘debate’ with Kevin Trenberth. I argued that there are very few facts in all this, and that most of what passes for facts in the public debate on climate change is: inference from incomplete, inadequate and ambiguous observations; climate models that have been demonstrated not to be useful..." BRUCIE PROVED WRONG AGAIN

Curry did not "debunk" the BEST study. She has said in her blog and elsewhere that she disagrees with some of the findings. Some of her statements are controversial and contradict her own research. The BEST study stands on its own as a scientific effort, whether Curry approves of everything in it or not.

NOAA has already closed 600 HOT stations - in addition NOAA has sighted 117 new stations for reliable data and they have shown cooling....... your religious zealotry has clouded your vision - seek help

The most amazing admission I have ever read from any scientist from anywhere or any time is that of Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit, who, after an awful lot of evasion, finally, through a FOIA demand, finally admitted that he had deleted his notes concerning alterations he made to his data. This admission was published in Der Spiegel in 2010 in the piece titled "Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research" by Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter. Well, it would have been a superstorm , but, thanks to the mainstream media in the U.S., it was not reported. Anyway, the Der Spiegel article is real. Please read it. The deletion of notes made by Jones makes the data worthless, and any statements made based on the data worthless and empty. A vacuum.

So, let me see if I've got this right: ALL scientists AND their peer-reviewed and journal-published work is shoddy BECAUSE one paper published an article about ONE scientist supposedly trashing data (it was actually emails) and because NO OTHER news media considered it worth publishing !! There must be collusion among the mainstream media-how dare they not publish articles (and in extra large print) because NOT publishing means ALL scientists MUST be hiding....something...right?? Oh, by the way, Jones did his most evil of deeds FOUR years ago and was exonerated by the British investigators AND his peers. But, don't let that little fact keep you from your beliefs-you have a right to them (and it is guaranteed by the US Constitution).

Here is a small piece of the article I cited earlier, which you apparently did not read, and it is a different incident related here than the deleting of emails. This separate incident involves the repeated ignoring by Phil Jones of FOIA demands to see the raw data by Steve McIntyre. Real scientists share data. This separate incident involves deletion of the methodology itself by Jones. This is a different issue entirely Walter. Here is a qute fronm the Der Spiegel article I mentioned earlier " Under the pressure of McIntyre's attacks, Jones had to admit something incredible: He had deleted his notes on how he performed the homogenization. This means that it is not possible to reconstruct how the raw data turned into his temperature curve. 'One of the Biggest Sins' For Peter Webster, a meteorologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, this course of events is "one of the biggest sins" a scientist can commit. "It's as if a chef was no longer able to cook his dishes because he lost the recipes."...... "To be honest, I'm shocked by the sloppy documentation," Webster told SPIEGEL." Please see and read the entire article in Der Spiegel at www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-687259.html I never claimed that all scientists and their peer-reviewed and journal-published work is shoddy, and you know it. That is a transparent straw man argument, and you know that, too. What I said was any work based upon the same invalid data is also invalid, and that really should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention. You have made very broad overstatements of my position here. Since you seem so utterly unfamiliar with this critically important piece of information, information that you are confusing with the deleted emails, it leads me to think that you had not heard of it before- maybe because the media here did not mention it Again, this is not about deleted emails, this is about a deleted methodology. You are just not getting this at all.

The Der Spiegel series is riddled with errors. No wonder you are misinformed. Many of the errors are corrected here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/climate-scientist-bashing/

Hi Walter- I am JDodson, not JDobson, but it's not a big deal, everybody gets my name wrong-or at least 97%, so it is therefore a consensus, and a consensus is always right! I am OK with that, and - sigh- if you like to use the term deniosphere, go ahead. Following is a list of books that, except for two that are sort of borderline, are "denier" books. I have read reviews and summaries, but have not read any of the following books. Yes, the Concord Public Library likely has few or none of these books, which sort of speaks volumes- pardon the pun. These all appear to be available from Amazon. In no particular order, some books from the "deniosphere" 1. The Whole Story of Climate Change: What Science Reveals About the Nature of Endless Change by E. Kirsten Peters This book appears to take a stance near the border between the questioners and the believers. Therefore a suburb of the"deniosphere" 2. Climate: The Counter Consensus: A Palaeoclimatologist Speaks by Prof. Robert M. Carter 3. The Deniers (Fully Revised): The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria.... by Lawrence Solomon 4. The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled The World's Top Climate Scientists by Roy W. Spencer 5. Landscapes And Cycles: An Environmentalist's Journey To Climate Skepticism by Jim Steele 6. Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions As the Primary Source of Global Warming by Don Easterbrook. 7. The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science by Tim Ball 8. Global Warming: Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers: A Geoscientist Looks At the Science of Climate Change by G. Dedrick Robinson 9. Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam by Brian Sussman 10. A Cold Look At Global Warming by David Ipperciel 11. The Hockey Stick Illusion by A. W. Montford 12. Hiding The Decline by A. W. Montford 13. Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change by Harold Ambler 14. Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels 15. Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg 16. The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania by Steve Goreham 17. Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads To Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies by Roy W Spencer 18. Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick 19. Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher Horner 20. Roosters of the Apocalypse- How the Junk Science of Global Warming Is Bankrupting the Western World by Rael Jean Isaac 21. Global Warming False Alarm, 2nd ed.: The Bad Science Behind the United Nations Assertion That Mad-Made CO2 Causes Global Warming by Ralph B. Alexander 22. Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science by Ian Plimer 23. The Discovery of Global Warming Revised and Expanded by Spencer R. Weart This also is not strictly a "denier" book, but something in between and rather comprehensive, according to reviews. There are also several books written or co-authored by climatologist Judith Curry, who has shifted, rather courageously into the questioning camp, but her books are about atmospheric science, but not the global warming issue directly. They include: Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans V.5 International Geophysics by Judith Curry and Peter J. Webster, Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Vitaly I. Khvorostyanov and Judith A. Curry, and The Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences by John A. Pyle, James R. Holton and Judith A. Curry. Among the climatologists questioning global warming, she may well be the most formidable.

Sorry about the repeated submissions below- is there some way I can delete a couple?

no reason to delete...none of the people you are conversing with will read it the first time,...let alone the 3rd.

I am sure you are right about that, sadly.

One question, are you involved in any way with the fossil fuel industry?

Jdodson, I repeat, are you a shill for the fossil fuel industry? Do you get paid to go web sites and write multiple propaganda pieces to refuel climate change?

I am not, in any way, shape or form a shill of the fossil fuel industry. I am not an employee of the fossil fuel industry. I am not an officer, shareholder or official of any kind of the fossil fuel industry. I am a person who all my life , I have questioned authority. I do, along with my spouse, own one automobile. We buy gasoline. Thank you for your question.

Hmm, so the only reason you don't believe in climate change is because you question authority and drive a car. And you obviously have a lot of time on your hands.

For what it is worth, I am currently partially unemployed. I have always been a questioner. I guess questioning is now considered a character flaw by some. We are supposed to not question. Accept! Believe! Is science about belief? No- it's about starting with some questions, observing the world, forming some guesses called hypotheses, gathering information or evidence, which, if quantifiable can be called data. You may then organize the data, maybe do some sort of statistical test, see if it is significant, and then form some conclusion that is supported by your data and earlier analyses. Then, if you want to be more certain, invite others to look at your work, the more critical, the better. You want to know reality, and not just have your prejudices validated. Well, this is exactly NOT what is happening with "climate science" It has been under strong political influences from the start.

So you accept everything told you by the fossil fuel industry and their cronies just because you automatically won't believe anything told you by the government. You and your wife just keep driving your gasoline cars and evidentially you will be a genius.

No, I do not accept everything told me by anyone. We do not have "cars" plural, we have one vehicle. I know I have a lot to learn, and I want to do my best to learn what I can. I think that it is sad that this topic is so heated that at times people seem to show little respect for others. It is OK to disagree, and if fact, we learn nothing if we all agree all of the time.

Your self-proclaimed stance as a "skeptic" is dubious. You seem willing to repeat with a great deal of eagerness almost anything the deniers have claimed about the email theft at Hadley/CRU, for instance. At the same time, you blithely reject the decades-long research that has linked the enhanced greenhouse effect and a warming planet to the burning of fossil fuels, claiming it to be "tainted" by funding sources.. Yet you accept at face value the claims of those "disinterested" individuals largely financed and supported by the fossil fuels industry who quote out of context, distort the findings of research, and, when all else fails, lie about the science. Here is a partial list of scientific organizations, all of whom, must be deluded, lacking in skepticism, corrupt, unscientific, and in on the conspiracy to steal our freedoms. http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Australian Academy of Sciences
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
National Research Council USA
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
French Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
US Geological Survey (USGS)
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
World Meteorological Organization
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (UK)
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil
Académie des Sciences, France
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Indian National Science Academy, India
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
International Council on Science 
The Petition - 11,885 individual scientists listed by name

A petition signed by 52 Nobel Laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, 195 members of the National Academies, and over 11,885 other scientists criticizing the misuse and politicization of science in Washington. The list is continually growing so these are minimum numbers.

Do you have the figures for the contributions by fossil fuel companies to "skeptics" and their organizations? I think there is a paper by Brulle- I may have the name wrong. There's about a half billion spread over several years, and it isn't clear about whether some of the groups are also spending on other issues as well as the warming debate . Anyway, in doing some really rough and incomplete math, it looks like the top 14 fossil fuel companies make about 3 trillion 700 billion in a single year, gross. If they are only spending a half billion- and that spread over several years, it truly appears like they don't care to fight it, but instead want to be a part of the huge business involved, and are lobbying very strongly to get rules that favor them. I think they see it as a big windfall very much like the derivatives market that hurt a lot of small investors a few years ago and enriched a few big ones. The fact that Enron was involved- and the remnants of the company are still involved in global warming- looks very troubling to me. As far as what is really going on, it appears there is some warming, but it is not nearly as much as many models' projections, which are generally high, indicating an inbuilt bias. Also, carbon dioxide levels are up, without a doubt. But the warming effect has clearly been shown to plateau. This is very important- something I only found out fairly recently. Also, the amount of carbon dioxide from natural sources versus human sources still looks like it needs looking at. It is at this point in the debate that proponents of global warming say- Well, it really doesn't hurt to implement all these policy changes, anyway. But, yes it does. See some of the comments by Prof. of Economics Richard Tol, who dropped from the team writing the latest IPCC report due to that and other real problems he was seeing. Sometimes a remedy can be more destructive than the disease.

Increasingly, the money from the right to contest climate change is hidden and secret. Many of the funding sources are documented in the links below. From the Guardian piece: "...opposition hardened over the years, especially from the mid-2000s where the Greenpeace record shows a sharp spike in funds to the anti-climate cause. In effect, the Donors Trust was bankrolling a movement, said Robert Brulle, a Drexel University sociologist who has extensively researched the networks of ultra-conservative donors. "This is what I call the counter-movement, a large-scale effort that is an organised effort and that is part and parcel of the conservative movement in the United States " Brulle said. "We don't know where a lot of the money is coming from, but we do know that Donors Trust is just one example of the dark money flowing into this effort." In his view, Brulle said: "Donors Trust is just the tip of a very big iceberg." The rise of that movement is evident in the funding stream. In 2002, the two trusts raised less than $900,000 for the anti-climate cause. That was a fraction of what Exxon Mobil or the conservative oil billionaire Koch brothers donated to climate sceptic groups that year. By 2010, the two Donor Trusts between them were channelling just under $30m to a host of conservative organisations opposing climate action or science. That accounted to 46% of all their grants to conservative causes, according to the Greenpeace analysis. The funding stream far outstripped the support from more visible opponents of climate action such as the oil industry or the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, the records show. When it came to blocking action on the climate crisis, the obscure charity in the suburbs was outspending the Koch brothers by a factor of six to one. "There is plenty of money coming from elsewhere," said John Mashey, a retired computer executive who has researched funding for climate contrarians. "Focusing on the Kochs gets things confused. You can not ignore the Kochs. They have their fingers in too many things, but they are not the only ones." . http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network . http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/ . http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/Dealing%20in%20Doubt%202013%20-%20Greenpeace%20report%20on%20Climate%20Change%20Denial%20Machine.pdf . http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545 . http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/ . http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2012/04/02/koch-brothers-exposed-fueling-climate-denial-and-privatizing-democracy/ . http://takvera.blogspot.com/2013/12/dark-money-who-funds-climate-change.html . http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html . http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-denier-funding-where-exxon-left-off-coal-and-others-take-over/

Thank you for going to the trouble. How does the funding for global warming advocacy compare?

"Global warming advocacy"? Seriously?

You are like a fish in the ocean, Bruce_Currie. "Water? What water?"Yes. An enormous amount of money from governments at all levels is going towards "climate change", whether for research grants or other responses. For goodness' sake, Bruce-Currie, the E.U. is allocating 20% of its budget.

You wanted the amount spent on what you call "global warming advocacy," suggesting that's what climate scientists spend their time doing. Your statement shows there's nothing skeptical about your stance--instead it's cynical and destructive of any rational discussion of the facts. You've been repeating stuff that is often a deliberate distortion of the truth regarding the findings of the scientists, and that is irrelevant to the findings of climate science, as I think any fair reading of the responses to your claims shows. In any human endeavor, there will be errors of judgement, and character flaws revealed. In one of your posts, you referred to the Himalayan glaciers, and a faulty prediction regarding the timeline for their rate of melting. The IPCC report is in several volumes, and contains thousands of pages, is largely a volunteer effort, and yet you focus on one error as though it must discredit the entire document. Get real. Perhaps you should spend some time looking at the serial lies and behavior of Lord Monckton, or the contradictory statements of Judith Curry, or the shoddy journalistic tactics of Graham Lloyd, or James Delingpole. You can keep raising objections all day long, but what you're really doing is finding excuses to avoid the inconvenient facts regarding the changing climate--exactly what the deniers lobby intends Most climate scientists, and scientists in general, are not advocates for anything. What they discover in their research they describe and try to explain, while enlarging their (and our) understanding of the world. What we make of that information may unfortunately depend on how that information gets filtered by those who are not disinterested, but have deeply vested interests in the status-quo.

Actually you do. You give no reason for your belief, except that you don't trust authority. Therefore in a Kafta world, if the Koch brothers, Shell, Exxon, BP et, any fossil fuel company told you that there were signs of man made climate change, you would believe it just because they are not an "authority'? And of course you drive a car that uses gasoline. Tell me again, why the world's scientists want people to believe in climate change? I understand why oil companies don't want people to believe in it. But just why do you think there is this world wide conspiracy to push climate change? What is the point of it?

Again, scientific questions do not demand belief- they demand reason. If they fail with that, then they are no longer science. When they are no longer science, then they demand belief- faith even. But it is no longer science. The reason that the global warming hypothesis is invalid is because the data is faulty. It is faulty when you cannot repeat, step by step, every action in repeating experiments. You cannot because, as Phil Jones of the CRU explained in an extraordinary admission forced out of him by his total inability to respond to an FOIA demand, he deleted the notes he used in doing some alterations to the data. Why he performed these alterations? Well, he has given some explanations that may or may not hold up so well. But the topper is the deleting of notes that connected these now abstract numbers to reality. That connection was admittedly broken by Phil Jones. Under any other circumstances, in any laboratory or scientific establishment anywhere in this world, and you delete such notes, the work you have done is worthless. Forget it. Drop it in the trash. But no. This is Phil Jones of the CRU! Publish!! Generally, if you are doing experiments that involve temperatures, you measure in degrees Celsius, or degrees Kelvin or in degrees Fahrenheit. Then, you keep them that way. I am not a statistician, but I do know that whenever you do such manipulations, you better have the go-ahead of a good statistician or several statisticians to make sure what you are doing makes sense. But, after doing those manipulations then you had better keep those notes. Make multiple copies of those notes. Put them on paper. Put them on disks Make sure everyone involved with the project has copies of the notes. Because these notes are the basis of experiments that will be repeated, again and again, the same data used again and again, the results published and trumpeted throughout not just academia, but the mass media. Yes, you keep those notes. Well, you keep those notes if they really support your work- an indispensable pillar to your work. If the notes are an embarrassment, well.... maybe deep six them and hope nobody asks.Well, some people did ask. I will continue in a bit- thanks for your patience.

jdodson...again you are acting like Itsa, BPR, Rabbit...you have found info that has been discredited and you restate it as if it were correct.. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia (which is not in Australia) was thoroughly investigated and thoroughly exonerated in 2010. You really need to find GOOD information to base your opinion on. BTW-have you read any of the books I suggested (or even checked them out)?

thoroughly exonerated ...nope...anyone following the Steyn knows ..not true..btw..the Steyn case is quite interesting. No one mentions it here...as a NH citizen..you'd think the Monitor would show an interest

No, not thoroughly exonerated. But not guilty of any of the unethical or criminal acts the deniosphere alleged, either. As ever, what deniers leave out of their posts, by way of innuendo and implication, are toxic falsehoods--as any fair reading of this thread demonstrates.

Phil Jones was never adequately investigated. But There was only a single all-too brief evidenciary hearing with the committee from the House of Commons, and most of the pertinent points were never addressed. The one crucial point that I have brought forth here was never addressed. The deletion of vital notes concerning the alteration of data was never addressed by that committee. It was a whitewash. The actions of Phil Jones in destroying those notes, as well as numerous emails, and encouraging colleagues to delete emails is exactly what it remains- an attempt to hide deceptive practices. If it was a banking establishment with your money, and such actions were performed, and you lost money, you would be livid. Data, and any connection the data had with reality was lost. You did make a valid point along the way (I think it is a comment you made further down this thread) about "Politics will, of course, severely confuse what that action should be." in relation to policies, which could also be applied to how this investigation- actually a non-investigation- a whitewash- was conducted.

And you know ALL this about Phil Jones-how?? What is your source, and how thoroughly has it been confirmed??

This was from the mouth of Phil Jones that he deleted his own notes. It was published in Der Spiegel in 2010. Do you require an exact citation? I will get it for you. It took FOIA demands to get that from him. He has not been forthcoming with answering questions about his data.

The title of the piece is "Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research" by Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter. Published in Der Spiegel in 2010. It is telling that the mass media in U.S. ignored this completely. As they ignoref one-time IPCC author Richard Tol. As they ignore a 17 year pause in temperature that was not predicted by the models.

Richard Tol? Here are some quotes by Richard Tol: “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans." " I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct." "Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role." "The consensus is of course in the high nineties" http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/05/contrarians-accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus And be sure to read the comment thread, as well as the blog post, on this site: http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/richard-tol-and-the-97-consensus-again/#comment-21162

A recent, broken up quote- sorry about that- from the Financial Times March 31, 2014: "The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable." Even if one accepts WG2′s estimate that a: “further warming of 2°C could cause loses equivalent to 0.2-2 per cent of world gross domestic product,” that is “about as bad as losing one year of economic growth” in half a century, Tol notes. In contrast, since the start of the Eurozone financial crisis, the income of the average Greek has fallen more than 20%. “Climate change is not, then, the biggest problem facing humankind.”

Tol's views on the subject are suspect, and are not shared by most who regard themselves as environmental economists. His opinion is contradicted by the Stern Report, which says that the longer we delay, the more costly and damaging climate change becomes to the world's economies. BTW, 2 degrees C. is on the low end of what is predicted for future warming, in fact it's already in the pipeline. More likely we're going to see 3 to 4 degrees C. And that's an average--there will be greater warming at the poles, less at the equator. And no one really knows whether some climate tipping point--such as a large methane release from the Arctic, might occur as warming progresses. http://mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf

Not true. There were seven different investigations into the Hadley/CRU emails. Every one of them exonerated the emailers, which the thieves/deniers quote-mined to put as invidious a spin on as possible. All the "money-quotes" were distortions that when placed into context did not say what those who published the stolen emails claimed they said. http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html

According to The Times of London 27 January 2010: The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt. The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach.

Not discredited. Ignored. The various governmental and academic bodies that "investigated" Phil Jones, CRU, etc. are supposed to be some outside unbiased entities, but they are not . For instance when universities "investigate" university staff, there is only the pretense of objectivity. To find guilt against their own staff will bring dishonor to their institution. They are loathe to see it. So they simply don't. Those investigated are still their baby, those who preside generally have had lots of dealings with the people they are investigating, sometimes they are colleagues of some sort, or may have been along the way. It is not objective. It is like the internal affairs department of a police force- it almost always exonerates.

Now you're acting like a denier. When the results of a study don't confirm the claims of deniers--in fact disprove them--then make unsubstantiated claims that each and every study is "biased", a "whitewash". What rubbish. It's denying reality--hence the terms "denies" and "deniosphere" with which you took exception up above. The simple truth is that almost every one of your claims on this thread is bogus, and does not comport with the facts when ALL the facts are laid out.

another false statement from Walter - care to tell us who did the investigation?

Your post ignores the fact there are multiple lines of evidence in support of the fact of global warming. You can disregard entirely the CRU data set, if you want, and it won't alter the fact of those multiple lines of data and research, all of which document the extent of the warming.

I think you are again correct on a point here, Tillie. Yes, we do learn even if we all agree all the time. What we learn is exactly the same as everyone else. That is not a problem if you a beaver or a honeybee. It is a problem if you are a human being.

Please I won't rebut you any more, let your poor wife get back on the computer.

Thank you.

ya havent rebutted anything - move along tillie you are out of your comfort circle.

Well Mr. jdodson, what I have learned about you is you just don't believe in climate change for no particular reason, can't type but can write long posts without any errors, may or may not have been in prison and just moved here to stay out of prison, Something not quite right about you.

LOL...whoa there now, Minnie. I was just horsing around with jdodson on the prison thing. Will admit that his typing is most impeckerable, but he can't be indicted on that alone. ................ Sorry, Howard Sprague, that's 'Minnie Pearl on acid'. Haven't heard from her in a good while. Hitting the yard sales, I spoz.

Hey, wait a sec there DirtyLarry- weren't you the fourth cell on the left? Yeah!! You were the guy with the trained rats! I still can't believe how you got 'em to do "Swan Lake" !

Do I need to leave a disclaimer here, or otherwise explain more for Tillie?

Ouch, that was awkward...and painful. jdodson, I'm sure you are blessed with many gifts, but humor & wit are clearly not amongst them. Stay away from comedy. It's not your gift, and it can't be acquired (as I have proven in this space, many times over). I'm beginning to understand why your former state, Maryland, has yet to put out a "Dodson Alert".

Thank you for your keen insights and your intense sensitivity. You are a blessing all by yourself. When you walk by, the sunflowers all turn away from the sun and towards you. Radiant, like Wilbur.

Like Wilbur? That must make you "Mr Ed"...lol.

Wilbur in Charlotte's Web.

"Mister Ed" seems more appropriate in this case, jdodson, since you already had the back half of the horse in your possession.

I have never been in prison. I have never been in jail either. Sorry for the confusion. Thank you for your personal attacks upon my character based upon, well your desire to attack me personally. Yes, anyone who writes too well probably is a very bad, bad person, maybe every bit as bad as Jerry Seinfeld, for instance. A bad, bad man. I think you should direct at least a tiny portion of your ire at the grand theft world that global warming is but that is up to you. As further evidence of my badness, I will now proceed to ramble on shamelessly, no doubt to give you the false impression that I am human and not the many-tentacled muckmonster from outer space that I really am. The reason I can devote some time to writing this is I am out of work, as you already know. I used to have a book and comic store, which I recently closed. There is still Gibson's and BAM, which are both fine stores for new books, and Goodwill and the Salvation Army have OK selections of used books, thankfully. I am missing having access to a lot of books, and I can't really afford to buy many now. Also, the people were great. I respect good writing and writers, and I like to think that reading can help your writing. I try to read a mix of books. Among the many authors I like: Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Mark Twain, H. L. Mencken, Peter McWilliams (Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do is a favorite of mine) and recently, Judith Curry, a very good writer as well as a courageous climatologist. I have not read her books, which look way to technical (and expensive) for me, but I have read a lot of her essays online. Lately, I've read online some of the work by psychiatrists who are resisting the mainstream- Peter Breggin, Grace E. Jackson and Joanna Moncrieff. I have the feeling you will make a lot of hay with that last sentence, Tillie, and be my guest. Anyway, what Breggin, Jackson and Moncrieff are saying rings true. At a glance, it looks like psychiatry has some similar problems as climate science, in some ways. I probably read too much. I like Steven King, Larry McMurtry, Dorothy Parker, Shirley Jackson, Edgar Allan Poe, Ray Bradbury, Robert Heinlein, James Thurber, Ogden Nash and big books full of quotations. I think Vonnegut in one of his books mentions that if he could only have one book it would be Bartlett's Quotations, and I think I have to agree. There are so many voices, from so many times and places in that book. As far as writing okay in spite of me being unable to type- I proofread my work, which I think others do as well, or so I have heard. Well, it is now time to fold up my great leathery wings and retract my eye stalks. Good night.

Please ramble on, have you considered getting your own blog site, maybe you and JHaas and BPR can contribute once in a while.

when you cant keep up with the debate - ridicule and demean - right out of the liberal playbook

jdodson/Howard Sprague; For the record, nobody has accused you of being a good WRITER. Not at all. It's your TYPING that has some of us amused. You claim to be a "hunt & pecker", yet post errorless 1000-word essay, after essay, in rapid succession. Forgive us if that doesn't add up. Btw, I haven't gotten thru a one of them, and won't anytime in the near future. I find them arrogant by design. You and BlosephSHaas would make interesting cellmates.

how do you know they are error less...without..you know...reading them?

They are not errorless- I have reread them and found lots. I have to try not to break the keyboard by typing too hard, because this topic really gets my blood pressure going. I am not sure any of us posting can ever know whether or not we add up.

sorry for you - bet you read brucies screeds

Tillie, that the climate changes is indisputable. Of course climate changes, as it has over many hundreds of millions of years of geological time. Carbon dioxide levels have fluctuated widely over time. That humans have an influence is very likely. That natural influences are present is a certainty. The big question is how much change is human caused and how much by a variety of natural forces. Dr. Judith Curry does a very able job of summarizing the debate at her blog under "What exactly are we debating" dated June 1, 2013.

It is very apparent that the oligarchic power structures of nearly every government in the world love the concept of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, because it brings a lot of power and money their way. They are not averse to priming the pump by waving grant money in front of eager scientists. And the oil companies very much want you to "believe" in global warming. Energy companies have diversified, are already getting subsidies, and will benefit from carbon markets. In fact they are helping create carbon markets. We, the consumer, will not benefit, and will in fact be victimized. That Enron, an obviously wicked corporation, would be lobbying for carbon markets, and we are talking about lobbying during the first Bush administration- says a lot. It is a clue. Please follow that clue.

Ha, I think the real you is coming through. "Oligarchic power structures of nearly every government in the world" You are a free stater, libertarian,, the United Nations is taking over the world kind of guy. All the world governments are in on this plan but a little hazy on why yet. You would have been a John Bircher in the old days, or a Joe McCarthy seeing communists under every bed. Sorry I wasted any time on you. I should have known when you compared yourself to Seinfeld. He is a WRITER and can make his point in a few short sentences.

Burn down them straw men!!!

Those aren't straw men. Tillie was making a comparison. Itsa constructs straw men. Refer to his posts for a how-to demonstration.

Bruce, your entire posting history is a copy and paste extravaganza, most of the time it feeds your ideology. Your IKE attitude is amazing. The name calling "denier", etc. continues. You should relax on your next vacation and stop worrying like a ninny about things you can't control....yes we know the long term goal, control over behavior of others so that they meet your self appointed high ground. But stop attacking others who are not even posting and haven't for over a week. Take Miriam out to watch the sunset or volunteer at the landfill. Do something constructive rather than posting propaganda.

Once more with a demonstration of how you spend your time: snooping into the personal lives of those with whom you disagree. Get a life.

Bruce, I find it best to know the enemy. The enemy of our way of life, our form of governance and the enemy of liberty and individual freedom. To know your enemy is to understand their insidious agenda. I say live and Led live..........Be constructive, not destructive, Bruce. Tune up the gas guzzling Toyota and pimp out the Prius it needs new low profile tires so it can appear to be "green", are you aware that the components in a Prius have more negative effect on the environment than a regular car? , all of that will be constructive and help reduce Glo"BULL" warming.

Just to add o my post. You will soon have the opportunity to allow your ideology to spill over into young minds of mush. I am sure that you live for that. Those poor folks in Boscawen.

The fact you have to resort to personal attacks that are McCarthy-like, and have nothing better to do than snoop into the private lives of others when you aren't posting, is telling and revelatory. It demonstrates yet again how woefully inadequate you feel in this forum, because your "facts" are often shown to be inaccurate, and your opinions are shown to be small-minded and often hateful. How one behaves while hiding behind a screen name speaks volumes about one's true character, as you demonstrate anew with these 3 posts.

Right, Tillie, power and money mean nothing to those who have spent their lives seeking power and money. No comparison with Seinfeld, just a mention about the reference. It is helpful to be open to new information. I gave some reasons that make sense to me and no sense to you. You perhaps think you are the opposite of libertarian. The opposite of libertarian is authoritarian. Think hard before you go with that.

Because God knows there's no middle ground between Libertarian & Authoritarian, Howard Sprague. Well, you're at least true to your allegiance; "My way or the highway!".

. So everyone who is not a libertarian is a authoritarian? Give me a break. Are you sure you want to go with that, because it is such a ridiculous statement it really does show up everything else you are trying to push. Not so nice and polite anymore, are you. Sounds like you are getting a little touchy.

There is a "perhaps" there. I'm not making any accusations here, although I sometimes expect cries of "Are you now or have you ever been" or something like that to be directed my way. Somebody apparently suggested re-education camps for us denier folk on TV recently. Anyway, I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and yes, the climate does change, and yes humans may be the cause of some of it., so I can at least skip the nursery school and kindergarten part and move right on to first grade at re-education school.

Money quote: "those who have spent their lives seeking power and money." That doesn't fit any scientists I'm aware of, most of whom could have chosen far more lucrative careers than science. Nor does it describe most who work at the state or federal level. Other than certain high-profile politicians of both political parties, the phrase "spent their lives seeking money and power" most accurately describes Ayn Rand's ideal, John Galt, and the one drooling Libertarians might pin up on their bedroom wall the way others put up sports stars. And also the one often described by psychiatry as fitting a sociopathic profile. Charles and David Koch, Donald Trump, Sheldon Adelson, Steve Jobs, or any number of Wall St. banksters who've joined the ranks of the Billionaire Boys Club in the last 2 decades, are all icons of the free market right and by definition of being rich, are all "superior men" in the economic game of life that libertarians view as the be-all and end-end reason of existence.

What nations of the world are opposed to the global warming hype? Australia may be the only one at this time. There is no haziness in the minds of those wanting to implement CAGW plans, just images of dollar signs, or pounds sterling, marks, yen, whatever. If you agree with the CAGW schemes and the carbon markets and the subsidies to big oil that are already being formulated, you are agreeing to being robbed by those controlling carbon markets, who are some of the same highly politically connected people controlling the derivatives markets that were used to fleece people a few years ago. It will make the very rich much richer, and will make the rest of us poorer. A peripheral effect that nobody mentions is that the mining unions all over the world will be made pretty much powerless. This apparently made Margaret Thatcher pretty happy: to see political foes supported by the British mining union lowered several notches in such an indirect way. Anyway, I know that you probably think what I am saying here is horrible. But I can come to no other conclusion than I have. It does not make me happy. It makes me feel like someone who apparently is worthy, in their minds, of being hated for what I think.. A while age, I read some of the comments people posted about Michael Crichton after he had died. They are gleeful about his death, and so viscerally hateful it makes you wonder how far they would take this. This is more than a little warped. What the CAGW supporters most remind me of is the House UnAmerican Activites Committee. "Are you now or have you ever been..." Or witch trials. Or the Spanish Inquisition.. It has nothing to do with science. It is an approach that is not in science. I do not hate the people who believe the CAGW line, but I really do not like those who are using them and who stand to profit from this at the expense of all of us. It sounds like everybody on the pro side of this has already voluntarily given up using petroleum. Is that true?

Reading this diatribe gives me the impression that you really don't have much knowledge about AGW, but that you relate to underdogs and perceive the deniosphere as underdogs. What you have written is all over the landscape with nothing real except the Der Spiegel article to rely upon. Quite frankly, unless you read some of the books you have mentioned, you really don't have anything concrete to state. If Itsa or BPR were to write as you have, I would call it a rant...another rant.

I am not a "shill" for the fossil fuel industry. Period. Thank you for your question.

Run for your life, Jack "Howard Sprague" Dodson! You have somehow managed to rouse the ire of 'Bette Davis on crack' (aka, tillie). Your odds of survival would be better if attacked by a pack of pitbulls.

Thank you, Dirty Larry! I am happy people are communicating. As they say- its all good.

This thread is headed for 100 posts, and 85 of them will belong to jdodson, CM Talkback's latest typing sensation. Howard Sprague, where the hell did you come from? I'm thinking you were recently let out of prison, or just got in there.

I wish that I really knew how to type. I just hunt and peck, like a blue jay. An overstuffed greying blue jay. I moved here from Maryland with my family. But the guess about prison is pretty good. I hope I can keep on avoiding prison. It is tougher to keep out of prison in MD.

Well, Howard Sprague...either you are dictating to Miss Buxley, have some sort of voice recognition program doing the typing for you, or are the fastest hunt n' pecker this side of the Mississippi.

I am rereading the above, and can see how Tillie could get the wrong impression. Let me rephrase that: The guess about prison is funny, but it is not true at all.

No, I am not in any way associated with the fossil fuel industry.

jdodson...sorry for misspelling your name. And thank you for the list of climate change skeptic books. Amazon also has dozens of book about CAGW, some written quite recently. In fact, they have a list of the ten most popular. And Wikipedia has a list of scientists who oppose the mainstream assessment of global warming. BTW-Judith Curry (Climate, etc) while questioning global warming is a consultant (for hire) as, I suppose most college professors are for hire. Anyway, I'm curious about which of the AGW books or denier books you have read??

jdodson...I should also point out that skepticism among true scientists is an absolute requirement. The 'scientific method' results from a scientist question a cause for some phenomenon and hypothesizing about that cause; then studying it, proposing a specific cause, then publishing his results for all to read, think about, and question. This process leads to further investigation and refinement of analytical methods, further hypothesis and testing, etc. All scientific papers go through a peer review process before being accepted for publishing, where more skeptical scientists read, analyze, and question. Skepticism is a good thing among scientists. It improves analytical methods and equipment. Analytical tools not thought about twenty years are commonplace now, such as apps for cellphones to report heart conditions. However, while there are (and should continue to be) skeptical scientists, there is, as clearly shown by the international concern about AGW, an overwhelming agreement that continued warming of our home planet cannot be tolerated by our burgeoning population. AR5 from IPCC was written not to scare people, but to severely jog the average population into action. Politics will, of course, severely confuse what that action should be. IMHO, action should be taken ASAP to severely curtail CO2 generation. Whether you agree, or not, do you believe that allowing MORE CO2 generation is acceptable?? Popular Science magazine had several articles on AGW in a recent issue; it hinted at Canadian winters in a few decades to have weather now experienced on south sea islands (which would be gone because of sea level rise-due to expansion with increasing temps, as well as melted glaciers). Can our world afford to continue arguing about CO2 generation, or should elimination be undertaken ASAP?? And, because reducing atmospheric CO2 may take centuries, can we afford to wait??

The devil is in the details, Walter. To critique a scientific paper, you need to have access to the whole process, and that has repeatedly been stymied by climate scientists. You should not require FOIA demands to get data. And when a lead scientist- like Phil Jones- admits he deleted critically important notes on data alterations, you have to wonder. Nobody on the pro alarmist side says a peep about that.

I am glad you see the value of skepticism in science. The climategate emails show the climate scientists involved to be hateful, petty and vindictive to the point they were willing to game the peer review system against them, block requests for data, and basically ostracize any and all who disagree with them. This is anti-science. From what I see looking back on this thread, unless I am mistaken, and it would not be the first time, but, Walter, have you or any other of those communicating on this thread done the following: have you checked and confirmed what I mentioned about the Phil Jones admission, and what are your thoughts on that? Also, did you check on Enron and its promotion of Kyoto and carbon regulations? As an aside- I wrote this to Tillie below, but you may have missed it: The situation is more complicated. Please look at the connection of Enron,with the Kyoto Protcols. Enron, a certifiably evil energy company, went to great lengths lobbying for cap-and-trade programs, (and this goes way back to the early 1990s) and lobbying for EPA regulatory control over carbon dioxide. Enron promoted hype about global warming because they knew they could make a killing with it. Please note that Enron was a big promoter of Kyoto, and the remnants of Enron still are pushing for global warming and carbon markets and carbon control regulations- they are lobbying to profit themselves at our expense. Enron is not the only fossil fuel company doing this. They are seeing an opportunity to score big at the expense of the consumer. The amount of money spent by the fossil fuel industry is remarkably small in their false fight against regulation, and it is more of a feint or deceptive move rather than their real intent. I did a little homework- 14 of the top 30 biggest corporations on the planet are fossil fuel companies. These 14 between them have revenues of about 3 trillion 787 billion dollars- that is 3,787,000,000,000 dollars in a recent year, according to the wiki "List of Largest Companies by Revenue". It is difficult to see exactly how much they give to "denier" (i really don't like that term) organizations, but it is probably about a half billion, and that spread out over several years.and has been falling steadily over the last decade or so. The deception has worked, impression they wanted to create has taken, so why spend more? If you do the math, you will see that what these corporations have spent to ostensibly fight against global warming adherents is almost nothing compared to their gross revenues. If it really was a concern they would certainly spend something, maybe 1 or 2 % of their revenues on fighting it, but they are not.. What they spent was about, and this is unmistakably an approximation , but it looks like the half billion is 0.000132 of total revenues of those 14 companies, if you lump them all together.- and this is spread over several years, which would lower the figure even further. Again, this is a crude guess, but even if only that, it reflects no real interest in blocking the carbon dioxide regulatory schemes. The same mentalities behind the derivatives scandal of several years ago are behind this. Please check this out. Anyway, it has been good communicating with you and the others on this thread.

I have read none of the books questioning CAGW, or any of the hysterical panicky apoplectic apocalypse pro CAGW books either, except when I can find portions offered free online. I have read quite a few portions online. Since the library thoughtfully offers only the hysterical panicky apoplectic apocalypse pro CAGW books, I plan to buy some of the ones that question it.

jdodson...With your mind already made up about the 'hystical panicky apoplectic apocalypse pro CAGW books', I strongly suggest that you would be wasting your time reading them. And, for the same reason, why bother reading an anti CAGW book? Save yourself some time and read a good book. Robert Hazen's The Story of Earth, if you are curious about our planet. C.J. Box's Blood Trail, if you like Wyoming mountains. IF, however, you would like to read a non-technical book about future climate possibilities, by an economist/attorney, try Andrew Guzman's Overheated. Or maybe Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Fail or Succeed. IF you want to check on deniosphere websites, try Climate, Etc or WUWT. Or science supporters: try SkepticalScience or ClimateScienceWatch. My guess is that you won't do any of these things I have suggested. Why would you want to have any facts interfere with your opinion??

"My guess is that you won't do any of these things I have suggested". You are probably partly right about that. It is hard to find the time. No, it is not a waste of time to read something that you disagree with. Sometimes people change their minds. Sometimes reading something you disagree with can give you a different perspective, even if it is a perspective you do not wish to adopt. Sometimes, we probably need to take a wrecking ball to some area of our own thought that fails to coincide with reality.

I like Judith Curry's site quite a bit- she is very thoughtful and amazingly courageous- academia can be... vicious at times.

I wouldn't describe her as thoughtful or courageous. What Curry says in her blog and has said in her congressional testimony is not always what the science says. Curry has been called to task and corrected on inaccuracies in her statements a number of times. The same is true for Spencer and Christy--both have made a number of misleading claims in public that are not supported by the science--including their own research. Spencer and Christy are also (in)famous for their math error in their satellite temperature data for UAH.

At this point, yes, my mind is made up as far as the data not being valid. If some other data is presented that is not so tainted, I might change my mind It is a little like finding out a stockbroker has been convicted in a court of law of defrauding his customers. You wisely do not use the services of that stockbroker. Well, in my example, the stockbroker would no longer be able to operate, being jailed and his license pulled, etc. Unfortunately, with Phil Jones, he still is operating. Michael Mann is still operating. I am not certain what sort of burden of proof you require to accept a scientific hypothesis, but apparently, for you and many who "believe" in or accept as valid global warming, it just may not be a question you worry about.. No doubt you think I am exhibiting terrible judgment in rejecting the hypothesis. If you have the time-what are the several most important reasons that convinced you? I am okay with facts that run counter to what I think, and if they look OK , I might look further. By the way, are you going to check out some of the books on the list I made for you, or is your mind made up, or do you just want to gather some more information to strengthen your own position?

jdodson...so, now I realize that you are a spokeman for the deniosphere. Pretending to be thoughtful and impartial while you regurgitate misinformation about Phil Jones (see above) and rely on Climate, etc. for accurate information is ridiculous. Of course, you could quote skepticalscience.com if you could find some misinformation in it-and show how badly real scientist's research is !!

Please do not label me something I am not. I am definitely not a spokesman for the deniosphere. I am sorry I kept repeating the Der Spiegel article, but it was apparent you were not getting what I was saying, and probably still don't.

economist/attorney is a source for liberal spoon fed people only

Curry’s recent testimony before a Congressional committee is problematic, to say the least. She contradicted her own research findings when she claimed that increasing Antarctic sea ice extent was evidence that climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 was lower than previously thought: “…several key elements of the AR5 WGI report point to a weakening of the case for attributing most of the warming to human influences…[including] Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent.” Her own research paper clearly states: . ‘The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century. Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades through the reduced upward ocean heat transport and increased snowfall..." Both claims can't be true. Will the real Judith Curry please stand up? . http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=07472bb4-3eeb-42da-a49d-964165860275 http://www.pnas.org/content/107/34/14987.full.pdf

JDobson...you seem to have responded to alot of posts on this thread. Apparently, you disapprove of the term 'deniosphere'. Too bad-it a moniker used by those who tire of the useless banter of those who deny CAGW. I didn't make it up, I found it on blogs like Judity Currie's, Watt's, and a few others who champion (and make a buck or two in advertisements) the possibility that there MAY be a possibility, however small, that CAGW is: a) hoax, b) a source of funding, c) a scare tactic. The deniosphere belittles non-technical sources of information, such as Popular Science Magazine, Smithsonian, National Geographic, to name the ones I read recently. And, as I have pointed out in other comments on this blog, there are books in Concord Public Library which explore CAGW and, my visit there today (in the rain) found NOT ONE denying it. Surely, with all your research into CAGW, you can tell me of ONE book written by the deniosphere (just one, so I can learn where the 97% have gone astray !! Anyway, you can read my assessment of Sununu's diatribe here: http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/12919832-95/climate-change-column-stirs-up-a-storm-of-reaction-from-readers

Oh, and here is another rebuttal to the deniosphere: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/aug/13/global-warming-moistening-the-atmosphere

Hi Walter- I am JDodson, not JDobson, but it's not a big deal, everybody gets my name wrong-or at least 97%, so it is therefore a consensus, and a consensus is always right! I am OK with that, and - sigh- if you like to use the term deniosphere, go ahead. Following is a list of books that, except for two that are sort of borderline, are "denier" books. I have read reviews and summaries, but have not read any of the following books. Yes, the Concord Public Library likely has few or none of these books, which sort of speaks volumes- pardon the pun. These all appear to be available from Amazon. In no particular order, some books from the "deniosphere" 1. The Whole Story of Climate Change: What Science Reveals About the Nature of Endless Change by E. Kirsten Peters This book appears to take a stance near the border between the questioners and the believers. Therefore a suburb of the"deniosphere" 2. Climate: The Counter Consensus: A Palaeoclimatologist Speaks by Prof. Robert M. Carter 3. The Deniers (Fully Revised): The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria.... by Lawrence Solomon 4. The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled The World's Top Climate Scientists by Roy W. Spencer 5. Landscapes And Cycles: An Environmentalist's Journey To Climate Skepticism by Jim Steele 6. Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions As the Primary Source of Global Warming by Don Easterbrook. 7. The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science by Tim Ball 8. Global Warming: Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers: A Geoscientist Looks At the Science of Climate Change by G. Dedrick Robinson 9. Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam by Brian Sussman 10. A Cold Look At Global Warming by David Ipperciel 11. The Hockey Stick Illusion by A. W. Montford 12. Hiding The Decline by A. W. Montford 13. Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change by Harold Ambler 14. Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels 15. Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg 16. The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania by Steve Goreham 17. Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads To Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies by Roy W Spencer 18. Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick 19. Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher Horner 20. Roosters of the Apocalypse- How the Junk Science of Global Warming Is Bankrupting the Western World by Rael Jean Isaac 21. Global Warming False Alarm, 2nd ed.: The Bad Science Behind the United Nations Assertion That Mad-Made CO2 Causes Global Warming by Ralph B. Alexander 22. Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science by Ian Plimer 23. The Discovery of Global Warming Revised and Expanded by Spencer R. Weart This also is not strictly a "denier" book, but something in between and rather comprehensive, according to reviews. There are also several books written or co-authored by climatologist Judith Curry, who has shifted, rather courageously into the questioning camp, but her books are about atmospheric science, but not the global warming issue directly. They include: Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans V.5 International Geophysics by Judith Curry and Peter J. Webster, Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Vitaly I. Khvorostyanov and Judith A. Curry, and The Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences by John A. Pyle, James R. Holton and Judith A. Curry. Among the climatologists questioning global warming, she may well be the most formidable.

Hi Walter- I am JDodson, not JDobson, but it's not a big deal, everybody gets my name wrong-or at least 97%, so it is therefore a consensus, and a consensus is always right! I am OK with that, and - sigh- if you like to use the term deniosphere, go ahead. Following is a list of books that, except for two that are sort of borderline, are "denier" books. I have read reviews and summaries, but have not read any of the following books. Yes, the Concord Public Library likely has few or none of these books, which sort of speaks volumes- pardon the pun. These all appear to be available from Amazon. In no particular order, some books from the "deniosphere" 1. The Whole Story of Climate Change: What Science Reveals About the Nature of Endless Change by E. Kirsten Peters This book appears to take a stance near the border between the questioners and the believers. Therefore a suburb of the"deniosphere" 2. Climate: The Counter Consensus: A Palaeoclimatologist Speaks by Prof. Robert M. Carter 3. The Deniers (Fully Revised): The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria.... by Lawrence Solomon 4. The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled The World's Top Climate Scientists by Roy W. Spencer 5. Landscapes And Cycles: An Environmentalist's Journey To Climate Skepticism by Jim Steele 6. Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions As the Primary Source of Global Warming by Don Easterbrook. 7. The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science by Tim Ball 8. Global Warming: Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers: A Geoscientist Looks At the Science of Climate Change by G. Dedrick Robinson 9. Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam by Brian Sussman 10. A Cold Look At Global Warming by David Ipperciel 11. The Hockey Stick Illusion by A. W. Montford 12. Hiding The Decline by A. W. Montford 13. Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change by Harold Ambler 14. Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels 15. Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg 16. The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania by Steve Goreham 17. Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads To Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies by Roy W Spencer 18. Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick 19. Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher Horner 20. Roosters of the Apocalypse- How the Junk Science of Global Warming Is Bankrupting the Western World by Rael Jean Isaac 21. Global Warming False Alarm, 2nd ed.: The Bad Science Behind the United Nations Assertion That Mad-Made CO2 Causes Global Warming by Ralph B. Alexander 22. Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science by Ian Plimer 23. The Discovery of Global Warming Revised and Expanded by Spencer R. Weart This also is not strictly a "denier" book, but something in between and rather comprehensive, according to reviews. There are also several books written or co-authored by climatologist Judith Curry, who has shifted, rather courageously into the questioning camp, but her books are about atmospheric science, but not the global warming issue directly. They include: Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans V.5 International Geophysics by Judith Curry and Peter J. Webster, Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Vitaly I. Khvorostyanov and Judith A. Curry, and The Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences by John A. Pyle, James R. Holton and Judith A. Curry. Among the climatologists questioning global warming, she may well be the most formidable.

Hi Walter- I am JDodson, not JDobson, but it's not a big deal, everybody gets my name wrong-or at least 97%, so it is therefore a consensus, and a consensus is always right! I am OK with that, and - sigh- if you like to use the term deniosphere, go ahead. Following is a list of books that, except for two that are sort of borderline, are "denier" books. I have read reviews and summaries, but have not read any of the following books. Yes, the Concord Public Library likely has few or none of these books, which sort of speaks volumes- pardon the pun. These all appear to be available from Amazon. In no particular order, some books from the "deniosphere" 1. The Whole Story of Climate Change: What Science Reveals About the Nature of Endless Change by E. Kirsten Peters This book appears to take a stance near the border between the questioners and the believers. Therefore a suburb of the"deniosphere" 2. Climate: The Counter Consensus: A Palaeoclimatologist Speaks by Prof. Robert M. Carter 3. The Deniers (Fully Revised): The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria.... by Lawrence Solomon 4. The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled The World's Top Climate Scientists by Roy W. Spencer 5. Landscapes And Cycles: An Environmentalist's Journey To Climate Skepticism by Jim Steele 6. Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions As the Primary Source of Global Warming by Don Easterbrook. 7. The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science by Tim Ball 8. Global Warming: Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers: A Geoscientist Looks At the Science of Climate Change by G. Dedrick Robinson 9. Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam by Brian Sussman 10. A Cold Look At Global Warming by David Ipperciel 11. The Hockey Stick Illusion by A. W. Montford 12. Hiding The Decline by A. W. Montford 13. Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change by Harold Ambler 14. Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels 15. Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg 16. The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania by Steve Goreham 17. Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads To Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies by Roy W Spencer 18. Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick 19. Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher Horner 20. Roosters of the Apocalypse- How the Junk Science of Global Warming Is Bankrupting the Western World by Rael Jean Isaac 21. Global Warming False Alarm, 2nd ed.: The Bad Science Behind the United Nations Assertion That Mad-Made CO2 Causes Global Warming by Ralph B. Alexander 22. Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science by Ian Plimer 23. The Discovery of Global Warming Revised and Expanded by Spencer R. Weart This also is not strictly a "denier" book, but something in between and rather comprehensive, according to reviews. There are also several books written or co-authored by climatologist Judith Curry, who has shifted, rather courageously into the questioning camp, but her books are about atmospheric science, but not the global warming issue directly. They include: Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans V.5 International Geophysics by Judith Curry and Peter J. Webster, Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Vitaly I. Khvorostyanov and Judith A. Curry, and The Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences by John A. Pyle, James R. Holton and Judith A. Curry. Among the climatologists questioning global warming, she may well be the most formidable.

Above is a list of "denier" books that the Concord Public Library probably does not have. Amazon has them.

I see why people want to deny climate change because to accept it means something would have to be done and almost all the climate deniers make money somehow out of fossil fuels. But why would scientists all over the world make up this stuff about climate change? What is in it for them? Just a simple question.

Please see the analysis by David Friedman regarding the 97% consensus on climate. it is a false consensus arrived at by lumping categories. Though I am a questioner (I am not a scientist- I just took a barge load of science at the University of Maryland years ago) of global warming, according to Cook et al., I am a happy member of the 97%!! The Cook paper and others derived from it appear to be intentionally misleading. There are substantial numbers of scientists questioning global warming, though it appears a fair number of questioners are intimidated into silence. A climatologist named Judith Curry discusses this in depth. What is in it for scientists? A lot of grant money, a lot of prestige, a lot of tours on lecture circuits, book deals. A bigger question is: how embarrassing would it be if many years of work turns out to be based on faulty data? Well, then you would want to hide the data, and hide any data alterations. That is what we are seeing. The scientists involved with CAGW are frequently refusing to release data, and then being required to by Freedom of Information Act demands. Then, as in the case of Phil Jones (reported in Der Spiegel in 2010), the notes on the data transformations are missing- deleted. Please look as deeply as you can at all sides of this issue. It is a doozy.

Let's simplify, if we can. Do you, Mr./Ms. Dodson, deny that the planet is warming? If yes, we have nothing more to discuss. If no, do you deny that human activity is a contributing factor. I agree it is difficult to determine how much warming is directly or indirectly due to human activity, or is the Dodson position that human contributions are nil / negligible? I think we have gone far enough down the warming path to be very concerned about our indirect effects. For example, if we have any responsibility for Arctic ice disappearance, then are we not at least partially responsible for the potential subsea methane releases (about which at least one scientist says, "We're fu%&ed"). Does it matter whether the climatologists' consensus is 97% or 70%, as I'm sure the number varies depending on the SPECIFIC question asked.

Dare you to cite a reliable publication that cites exactly what the human contribution is to co2 - while you are at it what % of the GHG are co2. When he does not answer all the readers will know his shtick

You did not specify a time frame. It appears the planet has warmed slightly over the past century. How much is caused by human activity is uncertain. The climate scientists at CRU etc. are far more certain than they have any reason to be. It is important to entertain a healthy amount of doubt- the data sets, particularly the surface data is shaky. The satellite data is better, but even NOAA has been clamming up about that since the pause. Consensus has little meaning- it is possible for a whole lot of people- scientists are not an exception- to be wrong en mass. Minority views sometimes turn out to be correct. I think the climate cabal is due for some embarrassment, particularly since Nature has been so uncooperative over the last decade and a half and may continue to be. Even so, I think those committed to the global warming narrative are pretty much duct taped and hermetically sealed into their positions and are unlikely their minds to change under any circumstances.

I think Mr./Ms. Dodson torpedoed his/her argument by citing "the pause." The much-cited pause in warming refers only to land temperatures while the evidence shows marked sea surface and now subsurface warming during this period. The warming is irrefutable (wanted to use "undeniable" but better to avoid all use of "deny"). What is debatable is the level of human contribution, and even that is now really academic. Unless we do something to reverse warming, or at least slow it, we will surely suffer the consequences. Which city would you like to see submerged first - New York, Miami, another? As you your epistemological argument: yes, it is possible for their to be near unanimity even among experts for an incorrect "fact." But that does not make, as you seem to imply, the near unanimity evidence of error.

The largest body on the planet, the Pacific Ocean, is bounded by something called "the Ring of Fire" due to the amount of volcanic activity. There is deep trench volcanic flutes and rather large volcanoes, lots of natural sources of heat. I know ARGO shows some heating, but the natural sources of heat are enormous, particularly in the Pacific. Also, in the Antarctic, there was certainly geothermal heat causing ice melt. I think your claim- and I see it over and over- do something. I think conserving resources and looking for alternatives is good. But I think replacing coal with fission reactors- as Hansen and other anti CO2 types suggest- is just plain nuts. There is no adequate waste disposal system for radioactive isotopes with multi-million year half lives. From what I am seeing- fission reactors are one of the big winners from anti-carbon hysteria.

At least on one point we are in total agreement. Replacing anything with fission reactors is at best a sideways step and is, in many ways, a great leap backward. In what remains of our lifetime Fukushima may end up doing more harm than all the increase in greenhouse gasses, naturally occurring or human-caused. Since you appear to have a functioning brain, unlike some "usual suspects" here, I ask: Have you ever considered the entire greenhouse gas / warming argument in the context of Pascal's wager?

Thank you, regarding fission and Fukushima, for recognizing the dangers. Regarding Pascal's Wager- I think it would apply if there were no costs to following the IPCC and U.N. policies. The Pascal's Wager involves no cost, so why not? But there are costs- enormous costs with the carbon policies. Unless I am mistaken, the European Union is devoting about 20% of its budget to address carbon dioxide. When you throw that much money at something, you would hope for something substantial back. But you can't. It may or may not reduce the carbon dioxide, which may or may not reduce temperatures, and we are talking tiny fractions of a degree. And I do not think you can discount natural forces ever. There are a lot of unproven assumptions. In any case, this discussion is fun, and I thank you for for you time and words. My wife needs the computer for now.

Your change to the ocean warming is another hoax a barely measurable 0,04 degree is simply not scientifically distinguishable from ZERO. Lets do an experiment. take your hand and put it into your 200 degree oven to pull out a pizza. with the other hand reach into a pot of 200 degree water and pull out a hotdog. come back and tell us the result and how it makes your ocean heat sink claim pure hogwash

There will not be an ounce of valid ocean data for another decade at a minimum but alarmists believe in a hypothesis as truth. Did you know the date set you refer to was originally created by guys throwing buckets over the side of ocean going ships - your data is embarrassing. PS there has been ZERO acceleration of the rate of ocean levels - it is on the 10,000 year historic tract

I think your statement "almost all the climate deniers make money somehow out of fossil fuels" is questionable. No- it is not so. I see similar statements often, but I think, like everything, it bears examining. That there are some is no doubt true. Almost all? definitely not. A significant number are retired scientists with A LOT of experience in their lives who deserve to be heard. Many are not funded at all except by their pensions and from individual contributions. The big elephant in the room is the funding for the pro side, which has received enormous expenditures of taxpayer money at state, national and international levels, along with the largesse from a few billionaires. Forget the Koch brothers- they are insects in comparison. Threr have been prolific sources of grants to all who are looking for sources of global warming that might be attributed to human use of fossil fuels. It is notable to any that look that Enron, a veritable black hole of financial corruption, was one of the earliest players in support of "carbon markets" . Please look into that, because it really stinks.

"Forget the Koch brothers- they are insects in comparison." $82 Billion according to Forbes, $100 Billion by Bloomberg's reckoning - hardly insects. Remember, this whole discussion is reaction to a letter which concluded with: "We can do without the wind turbines, solar panels, electric cars and billions of taxpayer dollars wasted on failed green energy projects and concentrate on the natural gas, uranium and coal and oil deposits that are readily at hand right under our feet in this great country." This is clearly a mindset whose time has passed. The difference between science and ideology is that when new facts present themselves, science adjusts (corrects). Ideology, which I see as how most "deniers" operate, say the entire construction is wrong. Relativity didn't abolish Newtonian mechanics, nor did genetics overturn Darwin. On the other hand, every (and I mean every) inconsistent data point brings out a choir of "We told you so. There is no warming. It's all a hoax." On a personal note, I never claimed: "...almost all the climate deniers make money somehow out of fossil fuels[.]" Please don't tar me with other people's brushes.

I am the one who made that statement and I definitely stand by it. Investments now days are so tangled it might be hard to follow the money trail. Believe me when it comes to anti climate politicians, and lobbyists it is always about the money.

I agree with you on something, - I think- with politicians in general, and lobbyists in general, it is about the money, or power, or influence.

I mistakenly replied to Gracchus with the following that I had meant to reply to you with- sorry about that- anyway, here it is: I think your statement "almost all the climate deniers make money somehow out of fossil fuels" is questionable. No- it is not so. I see similar statements often, but I think, like everything, it bears examining. That there are some is no doubt true. Almost all? definitely not. A significant number are retired scientists with A LOT of experience in their lives who deserve to be heard. Many are not funded at all except by their pensions and from individual contributions. The big elephant in the room is the funding for the pro side, which has received enormous expenditures of taxpayer money at state, national and international levels, along with the largesse from a few billionaires. Forget the Koch brothers- they are insects in comparison. Threr have been prolific sources of grants to all who are looking for sources of global warming that might be attributed to human use of fossil fuels. It is notable to any that look that Enron, a veritable black hole of financial corruption, was one of the earliest players in support of "carbon markets" . Please look into that, because it really stinks.

The situation is more complicated. Please look at the connection of Enron,with the Kyoto Protcols. Enron, a certifiably evil energy company, went to great lengths lobbying for cap-and-trade programs, and lobbying for EPA regulatory control over carbon dioxide. Enron promoted hype about global warming because they knew they could make a killing with it. Please note that Enron was a big promoter of Kyoto, and the remnants of Enron still are pushing for global warming and carbon markets and carbon control regulations- they are lobbying to profit themselves at our expense. Enron is not the only fossil fuel company doing this. They are seeing an opportunity to score big at the expense of the consumer The amount of money spent by the fossil fuel industry is remarkably small in their false fight against regulation, and it is more of a feint or deceptive move rather than their real intent. I did a little homework- 14 of the top 30 biggest corporations on the planet are fossil fuel companies. These 14 between them have revenues of about 3 trillion 787 billion dollars- that is 3,787,000,000,000 dollars in a recent year, according to the wiki "List of Largest Companies by Revenue". It is difficult to see exactly how much they give to "denier" (i really don't like that term) organizations, but it is probably about a half billion, and that spread out over several years.and has been falling steadily over the last decade or so. The deception has worked, impression they wanted to create has taken, so why spend more? If yoy do the math, you will see that what these corporations have spent to ostensibly fight against global warming adherents is almost nothing compared to their gross revenues. If it really was a concern they would certainly spend something, maybe 1 or 2 % of their revenues on fighting it, but they are not.. What they spent was about, and this is unmistakably an approximation , but it looks like the halh billion is 0.000132 of total revenues of those 14 companies, if you lump them all together.- and this is spread over several years, which would lower the figure even further. Again, this is a crude guess, but even if only that, it reflects no real interest in blocking the carbon dioxide regulatory schemes. The same mentalities behind the derivatives scandal of several years ago are behind this. Please check this out.

I certainly do not wish to tar you with other people's brushes, since I do not like it when done to me. My apologies over any confusion by me on that point. As far as other points, I am glad we can agree on the reactors - they are no good. The Koch dollar figures look accurate as far as their net worth- yeah, not insects, I guess. I agree that solar has a lot of promise. Hydroelectric also has proven itself, but I would not want to see the Merrimack dammed. Apparently there are turbines that can be set set up alongside rivers, and dams are not needed. I am glad we can agree on some things.

I certainly do not wish to tar you with other people's brushes, since I do not like it when done to me. My apologies over any confusion by me on that point. As far as other points, I am glad we can agree on the reactors - they are no good. The Koch dollar figures look accurate as far as their net worth- yeah, not insects, I guess. I agree that solar has a lot of promise. Hydroelectric also has proven itself, but I would not want to see the Merrimack dammed. Apparently there are turbines that can be set set up alongside rivers, and dams are not needed. I am glad we can agree on some things.

Walter- you can do better than this-. First- ho hum- obligatory ad hominem argument- yes- thank you for the name calling. "Deniosphere" is more clever than "deniers" but it is still a propagandizing ad hominem. Why use it?" As far as basic science courses, I don't think you can ever take enough. I took, way back in the 70's a course at the Univ. of Maryland called "Experimental Design", a seminar course that you take after taking statistics and calculus. The design course mostly involved reviewing and critiquing scientific papers. There is an amazing amount of crap in scientific papers that seems to slip by whatever peer review in in place. Too small a sample size, variables not accounted for, incorrect statistical tests, overstatements that go beyond what the data shows. I also took, along the way, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry (two classes) and a lot of other botany, zoology and entomology. Anyway, I think it is an invalid assumption on your part to categorize all who question CAGW as uninformed. I think a lot of those in academia are intimidated into silence on the global warming issue. There is far more government grant money on the pro side of this argument. Natural influences on climate do not command the grants. Anyway, there is something called the "false consensus effect", and I think it is operative in the CAGW question. Also, there is plenty of motivation for scientists- as humans- they ARE human, after all- to wish to avoid embarrassment. There are a substantial number who have built their careers on CAGW. If substantial portions of the data sets are invalid, then there is some embarrassment due. As for the "tens of thousands" who you refer to- is it the 97%? Again? Cook lumped categories to get that. There are numerous references- David Friedman does a very clear analysis of the 97% claim. Please give it a look.

Cook's study is only one of at least six studies done looking at the consensus issue. All six come to the same conclusion: the overwhelming majority (90 %) of climate scientists active in the field accept two basic tenets: 1) CO2's role as a major ghg and climate "thermostat"; 2) the burning of fossil fuels is contributing significantly to enhance the ghg effect. The amount of data on these two is from multiple sources. Nothing else works to explain the warming shown by the data than CO2--not changes in solar output, not cosmic rays, not ocean circulation currents, not "natural changes". "Deniosphere" is accurately descriptive of those who spend an inordinate amount of time distorting the science, when they could be funding research demonstrating the power of alternative hypotheses to AGW. They don't; the industry's own scientists told them over a decade ago that climate change was real, and that fossil fuels use was contributing to the warming.

Deniosphere versus Hoaxers, I will side with the so called deniosphere.

Amen to that.

don't you love it when alarmists simply exclude NATURE as part of the discussion

There is no lack of hubris.

Ah... ignorance is bliss.... Science does not "exclude nature". Your nonsensical and non-scientific posts are the ones not taking nature into account. Climate scientists carefully account for the energy balance (really an imbalance currently, since we're absorbing more heat than we radiate back into space)--using basic physics and the measuring tools available--including surface data, satellites, solar observatories, etc. The amount of energy striking the planet is a known quantity. The amount being re-radiated back is known.The sun's output--slightly variable over time, is also measured and known. And so on. Nothing else works to explain the present warming than the enhanced greenhouse effect.

another checkmate moment - Bruce loses again... HEADLINE "BOMBSHELL: Study shows greenhouse gas induced warming dropped for the past 14 years" Journal of Climate finds from 800,000 observations a significant decrease in longwave infrared radiation from increasing greenhouse gases over the 14 year period 1996-2010 . CO2 levels increased ~7% over this period and according to AGW theory, downwelling IR should have instead increased over this period.

As usual, your headline makes implicit claims that aren't supported by the actual science paper, or its authors.

Please cite the scientific papers. Better, email abstracts. I know that David Friedman's analysis of the 97% was damning. Anyway, please give me your sources. Thank you.

Enron jumped onto the carbon market idea long ago. Also, Shell and BP. They saw the gravy train before the others. Yes. That speaks well of the CAGW- don't forget the C for Catastrophic. Please forgive my sarcasm. You appear to be repeating the IPCC line here. The IPCC largely dismissed natural causes early on. The big government grant money is directed almost entirely to human causes, therefore there has always been a built-in bias. Scientists are as fallible as other humans. While there certainly are human heating factors- yes, burning fossil fuels, paving large amounts of Earth's surface, using over 400 fission reactors that heat enormous amounts of water (Hansen likes fission), etc. the quantitative work is lacking, and fails to account for the multitude of variables, both natural and human, that are something other than carbon dioxide. The effect of carbon dioxide in warming decreases, is not linear but logarithmic, and it is leveling off, as one would expect. The IPCC overstates everything, and with reality catching up, it just gets more shrill. There is a 17 year "pause" in warming shown by the RSS remote sensing data. The models do not account for it. There is no good explanation (or 30 bad ones) for this except one- the models are faulty and the hypothesis is a shambles.

Please look at these studies with care- there is a lot of built in bias in them. The Cook study is intentionally designed to mislead.

Consider, please, the very excellent reasons for getting away from reliance upon fossil fuels, whether Global Warming is or is not quite properly understood. Development, successful marketing, and widespread usage of fossil fuels is messy and prone to pollution and otherwise objectionable in so many ways. Should we mention, oh just for example, the strategic blackmail and outright warfare in the Middle East -- the colossal loss of human life involved in that. Tremendous strides have been made in very recent years in the development of solar power. Any sane reasons to slow down such efforts?

Thank you, RMG, for not using the term "denier" or "denialist" or any other permutation of this inherently pejorative term. Whenever I see the "d" words used, I know that the writer or speaker is resorting to the fallacious name-calling argument, and they are partially invalidating their own views. Solar power appears to be a good avenue, though it is best not to subsidize through taxpayers- we saw the problems with ethanol. Uranium- and fission reactors in general, with radioactive isotopes that remain toxic for millions of years, are far more troublesome than carbon dioxide. Yes, burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide, and yes, the atmospheric levels are up

Thank you, RMG, for your respectful reply to David A. Merwin's letter. Like Merwin, I see lots of reasons to question the global warming hypothesis- in brief, that human production of carbon dioxide has, over the past century, become the primary driver of climate, and that the Earth is relentlessly, catastrophically heating up, and heating up at an unprecedented rate. Though tons of computer models show this, most of these models are faulty. A lot of odd data manipulations have been performed, manipulations that even a master's thesis committee would have to question. Much of the data is "proxy" data (which can be understandable, but may introduce a lot of additional variables) "infill" data, "homogenized" data, ""value-added" data, and other data transformations. Also, even NOAA has sometimes replaced raw data with data from computer models. Data from some large areas- notably, Australia, have been found to have been fabricated- much of the Australian data was from dummy stations. Anyway, there is lots to question. At the same time, I see a lot of merit to solar energy, though (like ethanol), I think subsidizing it is a mistake. Hydroelectric seems good, particularly if you have big rivers, as NH does. Atomic- fission reactors have always seemed a bad idea to me- the wastes are far more toxic than carbon dioxide. It is amazing to me to see so many global warming adherents like Hansen, point to nuclear power, with very real dangers, posed as a way to save us from the largely fabricated dangers of carbon dioxide.

You are correct, Climate Hoaxers are after an agenda, an ideology which is basically control of the behavior of the population which means what we use, eat, drink, drive and how we live. I can put in any statistics and come up with a computer model of how something would run or work. Garbage in and garbage out.

Very true. And since they have done a number of redundant studies using the same dubious data, they magnify the garbage in- garbage out.

This letter has it exactly backward: the unsubstantiated claims--such as the ones the letter writer makes--are made repeatedly by the Deniers' Lobby, and are part and parcel of their decades-long strategy of sowing confusion and disinformation about global warming. It's the same strategy, and many of the same players, who performed the same act for the tobacco lobby. Much of this letter could have been copied word for word from Heartland Institute's or any of a dozen other well-funded denier sites. Their claims are not supported by the science; they are deliberate distortions of the truth when they aren't outright lies.

Whenever I read pronouncements by global warming adherents, I can generally count on them applying the "d" word at least once. When they don't- like RMG above, they deserve some thanks. "Denier" or "denialist"- these are terms that unintentionally discredit the user. Ad hominem arguments always discredit the user. I am sure you know that. If you are trying to win over those who question global warming, it doesn't help. Suggesting that those who question global warming must be liars is also, well, the same thing. I am sure you know that, too. If you are so certain of your views, why do you have to salt in name-calling? Also, you say "many" from the tobacco lobby are questioning global warming? How many, and who are they? I'm coming up with- Seitz? Who else? Anyway, in rereading Merwin's letter, I see only some very general claims, and your response is also pretty general. When I look at what is offered as data by the adherents of global warming, I cannot help but question. It is bothersome that it has required FOIA requests to get data, then, to find that, at least according to Phil Jones (reported in Der Spiegel in 2010) that notes on how some data were transformed were deleted. This is astoundingly sloppy. It has also come to light that some original raw data has been replaced by data from computer models by NOAA. The data is shaky.

Here are some names of men and institutions active in both the tobacco lobby and in climate science denial: Steve Milloy, Cong.Joe Barton, Matt Kibbe, Dick Armey, Patrick Michaels, Tom Borelli, Fred Singer. Groups include: Heartland Institute, Competitive Enterprise Inst., George C. Marshall Inst., Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Inst. Both Walter and I have posted numerous factual rebuttals to the nonsense posted here by BPR/Sail and Itsa, among others. The term "denier" is accurately descriptive of their behavior and the content of their posts.

So, do you use the same "d" word only for these named individuals or for all who question global warming? To blithely use a term derived from Holocaust denial is stepping way out of bounds, whether the user recognizes it or not. It predisposes the more thoughfuf fence sitters against you. So be it. What are your thoughts about about the Phil Jones admission?

brucies excusies #3948567- his rebuttal is what is known as reprinting somebodys juvenile science best guesses that are then proven wrong every day. Their newest hoax is the ocean ate my warming - as opposed to last weeks there is an increase in land warming it is just 0.04 degrees

you have NOT posted 1 single valid rebuttal - all you do is post hockum hypothesis crap from hand picked alarmist sites - 100% of priests also recommend the bible for reading - liberals .......sheeeeesh

ROTFLMAO.....Where did these uninformed members of the deniosphere hide during their basic science courses?? To them 'global warming' is a hoax; it must be ! Because they either: a) don't understand basic science, or b) their political heroes told them it is a hoax [wink,wink], or c) everyone 'knows' it the only way that tens of thousands of climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, geologists, glaciologists, oceanographers, etc. have to assure their funding.

Yes, it is a HOAX, ROTFLMAOAWCAH, by the way, meteorologists in general do no agree with the theories.

More hot topics for this letter writer: The Earth is Flat, The Sun Revolves Around It, Evolution is a Hoax, So Was the Moon Landing, Evil Spirits Cause Disease, Storks Bring Babies.....

Thank you, gracchus, for expressing "straw man" arguments. They are logical fallacies. Thank you for helping to further discredit the dying global warming hypothesis.

David, you are welcome to your opinion, but in voicing it, you show the whole world your ignorance.

Not very nice barrister.

And by voicing yours you have done the same.

This must be BPR/SAIL's other nom de plume.

It's PBR, and even he seems sane compared to this one. With all the big words, he must have worn out his spell checker. I know the whole personal attack thing, but he attacked my intelligence first.

Intelligence? One can be intelligent and allow emotion and certain ideology to eclipse their ability to use that intelligence. He attacked those things and you mistake that for intelligence.

what intelligence did I attack? - 100% of nothing is still nothing

Great Letter. the alarmist change their story as often as the weather. Being unable to explain the 17 year 10 month period we are in where there has been no globill warming statistically significant from ZERO they all now glum onto their newest HOAX....Its in the oceans. However. we extinguish easily their current alarmism like the rest of their guesses - QUOTE:“Two of the world’s premiere ocean scientists from Harvard and MIT have addressed the data limitations that currently prevent the oceanographic community from resolving the differences among various estimates of changing ocean heat content.”

As usual, your quote distorts the actual research--what a surprise! And no attribution for your claim either--another surprise!. The authors of the paper take issue with the headline and with slanted news coverage of their research when it makes claims they don't make. "Wunsch and Heimbach's research is very clear on an important point - that overall, the planet's oceans are warming. The letter to the editor says:" 'We never assert that global warming and warming of the oceans are not occurring - we do find an ocean warming, particularly in the upper regions.'

a silly boy Brucie stuck on stupid - El Ninos and La Ninas are always changing the ocean temps. For you to claim that a 0.04 degree increase in ocean temperatures is scientifically statistically significant again proves you are an alarmist spoon fed beast . For Brucie to try an make an factual claim on an issue in which all statisticians unequivocally state are indefensible conclusions is the hallmark of the Brucie Hoax

For you to pretend that ocean warming--found in all the oceans, not just in the eastern Pacific where El Nino/ La Nina effects are most pronounced, isn't happening, or is not important, flies in the face of reality. Given the enormous heat sink that the world's oceans represent, the warming is measurable and real. The National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that the average ocean temperature was 62.56 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.06 degrees above the 20th-century average. The ocean surfaces also reached that temperature in July 2009. It’s the third straight month this year that ocean surface temperatures set a record. "Much warmer than average and record warm temperatures were prevalent in every major ocean basin, particularly notable across parts of the Arctic Seas between Greenland and northern Europe, the southern Indian Ocean, and the western equatorial Pacific Ocean. "

There are a lot of significant natural sources of heat in the oceans, particularly the Pacific. That the margins of the Pacific are called "The Ring of Fire" is meaningful. This is some information from the Oregon State University site. It is apparent they didn't ghet the memo that it is the extra 100 ppm of CO2 causing all the heat in the oceans.. They make an extrapolation about the numbers of undersea volcanoes that I find hard to believe: here it is: Submarine Volcanoes General features of the ocean basins. Map courtesy of NASA and the Smithsonian Institution. The most productive volcanic systems on Earth are hidden under an average of 8,500 feet (2,600 m) of water. Beneath the oceans a global system of mid-ocean ridges produces an estimated 75% of the annual output of magma. An estimated 0.7 cubic miles (3 cubic kilometers) of lava is erupted. The magma and lava create the edges of new oceanic plates and supply heat and chemicals to some of the Earth's most unusual and rare ecosystems. If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans than there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes. Perhaps as many as 75,000 of these volcanoes rise over half a mile (1 kilometer) above the ocean floor. Technology and hard work by a group of tenacious explorers/geologists have allowed us our first detailed glimpses of submarine volcanoes.

Has the effect of active undersea volcanoes been ruled out?

Short answer: yes. Look it up. Do your homework.

Been looking it up. Been doing homework. Please see my posts below.

Your claims on geothermal heat any real effect on ocean warming are nonsense. The amount of heat incoming from the Sun is over 340 Watts/m squared. The amount of heat derived from the added greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution is about 1.6 W/meter squared.Compare this to the heat from our planet's interior--0.09 W/meter squared. How do scientists know this last figure? By measuring the heat flow deep inside bore holes--of which there have thousands all over the planet. Your claim is yet another red herring by the deniosphere foisted on those who want to believe anything other than the unpleasant truth about the climate, and an economic system that, at this point, seems hell bent on catastrophe.

You may have gotten figures above from http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html The 0.09 W/meter squared looks like the steady flow through the crust. It may only include boreholes through steady crust, probably on a continental plate, and may not include ocean floor borehole data at all, and probably no event data at all- no vents, no fissures, no volcanoes. Again, I am not disputing the figure regarding the Sun. What I am concerned about is artifacts in the data- heat plumes from deep ocean sources that are mis-attributed to atmospheric heat. Again, the thermodynamics of pushing atmospheric heat deep into the ocean, and maintaining itself there?? This is a really bad hypothesis being used to support a shaky hypothesis.

Here is some information about megaplumes, enormous volumes of hot water containing particulate matter, ,originating from vents in the ocean floor. which are a very recent discovery- from about the 1980s or so. Megaplumes can contain enormous volumes of hot water- millions of cubic meters, and they can spread over broad expanses of ocean- sometimes 40 miles or so. http://discovermagazine.com/1999/mar/megaplumes http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_megaplume.html http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/eoi/PlumeStudies/FirstMegaplume.html

Bruce_Currie- I think the back and forth on this thread has been positive and has some importance. I know that my saying thank you to Gracchus, Walter, Tillie, Dirty Larry and you- Bruce_Currie, may seem weird. But it's a real thanks- you are at least talking, even debating points. As far as I know, nearly all of the CAGW researchers refuse to debate, avoid debate, run like bunnies from debate. There may be some exceptions. Running from debate is kind of endemic to climate science, and it ought to be shameful. Thank you for stepping up and talking.

Good talking to you, RMG.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.