Inhofe Exposes Global Warming Hoax

[MaggieMae]

Why is subsidizing green energy any different than subsidizing the oil and gas industry? T. Boone Pickens was ready to invest $1.5 billion of his own money in windmill technology, but has since decided to scale it down because he can't afford it. Maybe the Koch Brothers can help out.

T. Boone Pickens was prepared to invest his money because he figured the governement would help him by regulation. They didn't so he tried it on his own the problem is he's a realist and figured for wind power to be viable the price of natural gas had to be around 9 dollars per million BTU's(wind costs around 7 to 8 bucks per MBTU). With government regulation he was hoping to push the price up to 11 dollars per MBTU thus netting a nice profit.

Unfortunately for T. Boone Pickens, the government didn't regulate like he wanted and the price of gas dropped to 4 bucks per MBTU. In fact today it is 3.43 dollars per MBTU and analysts see that level being maintained for the next 17 years. So now T.Boone is foisting off his very expensive wind turbines on the Canadians who have to take them.

As far as any corporate subsidy, there shouldn't be any. The oil companies don't get as much as you think they do but they shouldn't rcieve even that.

This is a classical example of the worst sides of free market and government intervention: Using the system to force a false market and protect profits by unfair laws. That's what T. Boone was after. Unfair profits.

I have to agree, but the energy industry didn't nearly bankrupt the country with its "false market," the banks that promised big payouts on investments when they had no assets sure did, though. Oddly, a large part of that resulted from regulations that already existed being ignored and given a pass by the government.

 

[MaggieMae]

I also find it funny how fast the chicken littles are running away from both my request to provide a SINGLE free market solution to the threat of global warming, AND the math showing the insignificance of CO2 and our input to it.

I think it would be great if the free market took up producing energy all on its own. The question is can they and will they? It's certainly not up to me to decide. Why don't big money Wall Street investors put more energy (pun intended) into what WILL become the industry of the future, employing millions of people? Isn't that a better question? Why?

Well, how about we drop the out of control regulation through the EPA, over the top taxation, silly leasing system for petrochem and all subsidies in one fell swoop?

Used to be that way... maybe it's time to return to tried and true methods of generating energy by getting government out of the way.

As I've said, that would be wonderful. But I don't think they can do it without government funding. Otherwise, they would be already doing it. I can think of no other venture where there would be a never-ending payoff, can you? And that fact is what attracts entrepreneurs and investors.

So, once more...why haven't they? And I already anticipate the answer will be that they ar stifled by regulations. Obviously some kind of rules need to be applied to nuclear plants and the like or we could have been blown up long ago by some yahoo taking risks and a lot of finger-crossing (BP comes to mind). So I really don't think regulations applied to such potentially catastrophic endeavors such as producing energy should be tossed in the garbage and just allow anyone to become producers willy-nilly just because they've got some money to invest in a project.

 

[MaggieMae]

OMG...you can't be serious...
The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.

Here goes:

May 27, 2008
Global warming ‘consensus’: 31,000 scientists disagreeFiled under: energy, life, media, news, politics, religion, science — tadcronn @ 12:50 am
Tags: Al Gore, fraud, global warming, scam, scientific consensus
Ads by Google
Global Warming Facts
Are you worried about climate change? Get the facts.
Get Energy Active - Value of Electricity - Supply and Demand - Climate Change - Use Electricity Wisely - Diverse Fuel - Ways to Save Energy Costs - Smart Energy Use




"Al Gore and global warm-mongers have won many converts with their claim that 2,500 scientific reviewers of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report constitutes a “consensus” among scientists that man-made warming is destroying Earth.
Not only have many of those reviewers made it known that they disagree with the U.N. conclusions, but now there is a petition circulated Dr. Arthur Robinson, director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, signed by more than 31,000 scientists who dispute the theory of man-made global warming. The petition states, in part:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The 31,000 signers all hold scientific credentials; approximately 9,000 of them hold scientific Ph.D.s.

Robinson held a press conference earlier this month. Although members of the media and Congress were invited, attendance was light.

Robinson points out that over the past 150 years, scientists have found that global temperatures have been predicted with 79 percent accuracy by the sunspot index, which precedes climate changes by about 10 years. CO2, by comparison, has been only 22 percent accurate, and that number has rapidly declined in the past decade as temperatures have dipped and CO2 has continued to rise.

In fact, 70 percent of the Earth’s warming in the past hundred years occurred before 1940, while nearly all of humanity’s industrial emissions have occurred after that date. Since 1940, the climate has only risen 0.2 Celsius.
Robinson notes that the U.N. has never produced any direct evidence that mankind is causing warming, but that the IPCC report is only a summary, written by a handful of authors, of discussions among scientists invited to a U.N. conference."
Global warming ‘consensus’: 31,000 scientists disagree « Tad Cronn

"Why do you prefer to look dumb?"

I've looked at Tad Cronn's "reports" based on the petition by Professor Robinson, found the list of categories and some of the names, but I'm wondering if that data was ever collected in a single volume, because your links to that blogsite have no such animal. I did find it interesting in the second link, in the comments section, that Tad Cronn "defends" Robinson as follows:

[Q]Source Watch has a particularly negative view of the list. Who the heck to believe!

[A]Well, OK, let me put it in starkest possible terms for you:

Arthur Robinson, who started the petition project, is a right-wing crank who wanted to throw a wrench in the spokes of the global warming bicycle (really a corn-fueled private jet at this point, but metaphor, metaphor …). He has never pretended to be otherwise, and his methods are all spelled out on his web site for the world to see. His project was simply to gather names of people with scientific training who agree with him that man-made global warming is bunk.

Got any better evidence than that flimsy stuff? You've got a list of 31,000 who may or may not have any "scientific" background in climatology, trying to "prove" that just because they say so that 2,500 members of the IPCC plus thousands of experts who are not members must be wrong. Got it.

And we get the standard Chicken Little response: That's not credible!

I'd just like to see some solid proof that it is. The irony is that if this entire situation were reversed, and some liberal demagogue had put out "information" like that trying to sell it as a counterpoint, you people would be all over it. Glenn Beck would be yammering nonstop for weeks, and...well you get my gist.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm still waiting for one 'solution' that isn't government based.

Not to mention someone to be able give me data as to why mankind's contribution of less than 0.6% of 0.039% of atmospheric composition is threat to all life on this planet?

I think most everyone is waiting for answers to those questions. But I don't think the debate should center around who or what is causing it, but why the KNOWN facts aren't being taken seriously. Even if the warming trend is only a cyclical phenomenon, shouldn't we be better prepared? That's my only concern. And I don't mean tomorrow, or even next year. But if there's the possibility that coastline cities below sea level might be completely flooded, for example, shouldn't we be prepared for a mass exodus to other parts of the country by those residents?

 

[Big Fitz]

T. Boone Pickens was prepared to invest his money because he figured the governement would help him by regulation. They didn't so he tried it on his own the problem is he's a realist and figured for wind power to be viable the price of natural gas had to be around 9 dollars per million BTU's(wind costs around 7 to 8 bucks per MBTU). With government regulation he was hoping to push the price up to 11 dollars per MBTU thus netting a nice profit.

Unfortunately for T. Boone Pickens, the government didn't regulate like he wanted and the price of gas dropped to 4 bucks per MBTU. In fact today it is 3.43 dollars per MBTU and analysts see that level being maintained for the next 17 years. So now T.Boone is foisting off his very expensive wind turbines on the Canadians who have to take them.

As far as any corporate subsidy, there shouldn't be any. The oil companies don't get as much as you think they do but they shouldn't rcieve even that.

This is a classical example of the worst sides of free market and government intervention: Using the system to force a false market and protect profits by unfair laws. That's what T. Boone was after. Unfair profits.

I have to agree, but the energy industry didn't nearly bankrupt the country with its "false market," the banks that promised big payouts on investments when they had no assets sure did, though. Oddly, a large part of that resulted from regulations that already existed being ignored and given a pass by the government.

Different crisis. Good point but not germane.

 

[westwall]

Okay then, to discount climate change/global warming as being a hoax, what if not computer models do those folks use?

As far as dismissing computer models, I don't think we'd have space exploration or hundreds of satellites above us without computer models, so that argument is silly.

Human Space Flight (HSF) - Realtime Data

Computer models come in many varieties. Some are fantastically good (think computational fluid dynamics used by supercomputers to determine aerodynamic effects of race cars or aircraft). Some are average. None of the climate models rate better than poor. They ignore vast amounts of information in the pursuit of vilifying CO2 which is one of the few variables they use.

For a computer model to be effective it has to be able to recreate what is observed (CFD for example uses wind tunnel data to confirm its findings) to date no climate CM has ever even tried to determine a base line of reliability or reality. None. It's as if they are afraid to find out what they don't know. That is not science, that is hand waving.

So to that, I'll again ask what "models" are used by those who pooh-pooh the unconfirmed evidence in order to arrive at their opinions/conclusions??

All I'm suggesting is that with reports that CAN be confirmed like the following, there's cause to worry and to be proactive.

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010
Global Highlights

For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.

The 2010 Northern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest year on record, at 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century average. The 2010 Southern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest year on record, at 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average.

The global land surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the second warmest on record, at 0.96°C (1.73°F) above the 20th century average. The warmest such period on record occurred in 2007, at 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average.

The global ocean surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.49°C (0.88°F) above the 20th century average.

In 2010 there was a dramatic shift in the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which influences temperature and precipitation patterns around the world. A moderate-to-strong El Niño at the beginning of the year transitioned to La Niña conditions by July. At the end of November, La Niña was moderate-to-strong.

Trying to figure out what caused the dramatic el Niño shouldn't be discounted as a bunch of "liberal" scientists who are making stuff up just to maintain government funding.

All climatologists prognostications are based on computer models and not empirical data. When the computer models are checked vs empirical observation they are allways wrong. For 30 years they have been wrong. Hansens predictions are 300% off and there is more CO2 in the atmosphere then even he predicted.

Until climatologists abandon the use of computer models as their sole means of prediction they will never get anywhere and will continue to be the laughing stock of the science world.

It's not about liberal or conservative scientists, it's about good science vs bad science. Climatologists are the poster children for horribly bad science, which is why they have had to venture into political activism and hyperbole.

GISS regularly falsifies data to further Hansens aims. That is the antithesis of science, that is scientific fraud.

Data Corruption At GISS | Real Science

 

[westwall]

I'm still waiting for one 'solution' that isn't government based.

Not to mention someone to be able give me data as to why mankind's contribution of less than 0.6% of 0.039% of atmospheric composition is threat to all life on this planet?

I think most everyone is waiting for answers to those questions. But I don't think the debate should center around who or what is causing it, but why the KNOWN facts aren't being taken seriously. Even if the warming trend is only a cyclical phenomenon, shouldn't we be better prepared? That's my only concern. And I don't mean tomorrow, or even next year. But if there's the possibility that coastline cities below sea level might be completely flooded, for example, shouldn't we be prepared for a mass exodus to other parts of the country by those residents?

The problem is your definition of known facts. There has been so much poor and fraudulent science that it is very hard to know what is true anymore. New Zealand abandoned their official temperature record for 9 months when the activist scientists got caught falsifyin the the data to make New Zealand warmer than it actually was. Parliament had hearings and the scientists were eventually censured and ALL of their modifications thrown out when they could not provide even the slightest reason for their altering of the record.

As far as being prepared, of course it is prudent to be prepared. Wouldn't it be nice to have 20 or 30 billion dollars in a emercency slush fund to help mitigate disasters rather than give it to an organisation that is manufacturing data and producing nothing but papers telling us that mammoth farts helped cause global warming?

Mammoth farts kept planet warm | Australian Climate Madness

 

[MaggieMae]

Computer models come in many varieties. Some are fantastically good (think computational fluid dynamics used by supercomputers to determine aerodynamic effects of race cars or aircraft). Some are average. None of the climate models rate better than poor. They ignore vast amounts of information in the pursuit of vilifying CO2 which is one of the few variables they use.

For a computer model to be effective it has to be able to recreate what is observed (CFD for example uses wind tunnel data to confirm its findings) to date no climate CM has ever even tried to determine a base line of reliability or reality. None. It's as if they are afraid to find out what they don't know. That is not science, that is hand waving.

So to that, I'll again ask what "models" are used by those who pooh-pooh the unconfirmed evidence in order to arrive at their opinions/conclusions??

All I'm suggesting is that with reports that CAN be confirmed like the following, there's cause to worry and to be proactive.

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010
Global Highlights

For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.

The 2010 Northern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest year on record, at 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century average. The 2010 Southern Hemisphere combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest year on record, at 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average.

The global land surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the second warmest on record, at 0.96°C (1.73°F) above the 20th century average. The warmest such period on record occurred in 2007, at 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average.

The global ocean surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.49°C (0.88°F) above the 20th century average.

In 2010 there was a dramatic shift in the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which influences temperature and precipitation patterns around the world. A moderate-to-strong El Niño at the beginning of the year transitioned to La Niña conditions by July. At the end of November, La Niña was moderate-to-strong.

Trying to figure out what caused the dramatic el Niño shouldn't be discounted as a bunch of "liberal" scientists who are making stuff up just to maintain government funding.

All climatologists prognostications are based on computer models and not empirical data. When the computer models are checked vs empirical observation they are allways wrong. For 30 years they have been wrong. Hansens predictions are 300% off and there is more CO2 in the atmosphere then even he predicted.

Until climatologists abandon the use of computer models as their sole means of prediction they will never get anywhere and will continue to be the laughing stock of the science world.

It's not about liberal or conservative scientists, it's about good science vs bad science. Climatologists are the poster children for horribly bad science, which is why they have had to venture into political activism and hyperbole.

GISS regularly falsifies data to further Hansens aims. That is the antithesis of science, that is scientific fraud.

Data Corruption At GISS | Real Science

So what was your point? There are other similar graphs, and if you or anyone else thinks they've been corrupted, they can find others. (I think I posted one myself.) The reality is that Hansen, and of course many others, have determined (since 1999?) that the warming cycle is accelerating faster than originally thought. Hansen has been with NASA for over 30 years, studying earth science almost exclusively. Why would he lie?

Actually, I liked this page from your link, which forewarns something much more formidable.

Arctic Melt Continues | Real Science

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm still waiting for one 'solution' that isn't government based.

Not to mention someone to be able give me data as to why mankind's contribution of less than 0.6% of 0.039% of atmospheric composition is threat to all life on this planet?

I think most everyone is waiting for answers to those questions. But I don't think the debate should center around who or what is causing it, but why the KNOWN facts aren't being taken seriously. Even if the warming trend is only a cyclical phenomenon, shouldn't we be better prepared? That's my only concern. And I don't mean tomorrow, or even next year. But if there's the possibility that coastline cities below sea level might be completely flooded, for example, shouldn't we be prepared for a mass exodus to other parts of the country by those residents?

The problem is your definition of known facts. There has been so much poor and fraudulent science that it is very hard to know what is true anymore. New Zealand abandoned their official temperature record for 9 months when the activist scientists got caught falsifyin the the data to make New Zealand warmer than it actually was. Parliament had hearings and the scientists were eventually censured and ALL of their modifications thrown out when they could not provide even the slightest reason for their altering of the record.

As far as being prepared, of course it is prudent to be prepared. Wouldn't it be nice to have 20 or 30 billion dollars in a emercency slush fund to help mitigate disasters rather than give it to an organisation that is manufacturing data and producing nothing but papers telling us that mammoth farts helped cause global warming?

Mammoth farts kept planet warm | Australian Climate Madness

I guess it all comes down to who do you trust? For me, I put much more faith in the accuracy of NOAA and NASA reporting than single instances of data falsification from other parts of the world.

 

[westwall]

So to that, I'll again ask what "models" are used by those who pooh-pooh the unconfirmed evidence in order to arrive at their opinions/conclusions??

All I'm suggesting is that with reports that CAN be confirmed like the following, there's cause to worry and to be proactive.

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010
Global Highlights



Trying to figure out what caused the dramatic el Niño shouldn't be discounted as a bunch of "liberal" scientists who are making stuff up just to maintain government funding.

All climatologists prognostications are based on computer models and not empirical data. When the computer models are checked vs empirical observation they are allways wrong. For 30 years they have been wrong. Hansens predictions are 300% off and there is more CO2 in the atmosphere then even he predicted.

Until climatologists abandon the use of computer models as their sole means of prediction they will never get anywhere and will continue to be the laughing stock of the science world.

It's not about liberal or conservative scientists, it's about good science vs bad science. Climatologists are the poster children for horribly bad science, which is why they have had to venture into political activism and hyperbole.

GISS regularly falsifies data to further Hansens aims. That is the antithesis of science, that is scientific fraud.

Data Corruption At GISS | Real Science

So what was your point? There are other similar graphs, and if you or anyone else thinks they've been corrupted, they can find others. (I think I posted one myself.) The reality is that Hansen, and of course many others, have determined (since 1999?) that the warming cycle is accelerating faster than originally thought. Hansen has been with NASA for over 30 years, studying earth science almost exclusively. Why would he lie?

Actually, I liked this page from your link, which forewarns something much more formidable.

Arctic Melt Continues | Real Science

No, Maggie the reality is that Hansen was WRONG! That's why he's falsifying the temperature record dear. Hansen predicted in 1988 that we would be 1.6 degrees warmer now than we are. Since 2002 there has been no appreciable warming (any warming is within the error +/- thus it is statistically meaningless) there has been no accelerating warming anyplace on the planet. That is an illusion based on Hansens falsifications.

 

[westwall]

I think most everyone is waiting for answers to those questions. But I don't think the debate should center around who or what is causing it, but why the KNOWN facts aren't being taken seriously. Even if the warming trend is only a cyclical phenomenon, shouldn't we be better prepared? That's my only concern. And I don't mean tomorrow, or even next year. But if there's the possibility that coastline cities below sea level might be completely flooded, for example, shouldn't we be prepared for a mass exodus to other parts of the country by those residents?

The problem is your definition of known facts. There has been so much poor and fraudulent science that it is very hard to know what is true anymore. New Zealand abandoned their official temperature record for 9 months when the activist scientists got caught falsifyin the the data to make New Zealand warmer than it actually was. Parliament had hearings and the scientists were eventually censured and ALL of their modifications thrown out when they could not provide even the slightest reason for their altering of the record.

As far as being prepared, of course it is prudent to be prepared. Wouldn't it be nice to have 20 or 30 billion dollars in a emercency slush fund to help mitigate disasters rather than give it to an organisation that is manufacturing data and producing nothing but papers telling us that mammoth farts helped cause global warming?

Mammoth farts kept planet warm | Australian Climate Madness

I guess it all comes down to who do you trust? For me, I put much more faith in the accuracy of NOAA and NASA reporting than single instances of data falsification from other parts of the world.

All the agency's are doing it. HADCRU, GISS, NIWA, the Australians have all been caught falsifying the temperature records, so far only the New Zealand government has done anything about it. As for Hansens motives well he gets to play with a billion dollars a year, hows that for motivation.

 

[Big Fitz]

All climatologists prognostications are based on computer models and not empirical data. When the computer models are checked vs empirical observation they are allways wrong. For 30 years they have been wrong. Hansens predictions are 300% off and there is more CO2 in the atmosphere then even he predicted.

Until climatologists abandon the use of computer models as their sole means of prediction they will never get anywhere and will continue to be the laughing stock of the science world.

It's not about liberal or conservative scientists, it's about good science vs bad science. Climatologists are the poster children for horribly bad science, which is why they have had to venture into political activism and hyperbole.

GISS regularly falsifies data to further Hansens aims. That is the antithesis of science, that is scientific fraud.

Data Corruption At GISS | Real Science

So what was your point? There are other similar graphs, and if you or anyone else thinks they've been corrupted, they can find others. (I think I posted one myself.) The reality is that Hansen, and of course many others, have determined (since 1999?) that the warming cycle is accelerating faster than originally thought. Hansen has been with NASA for over 30 years, studying earth science almost exclusively. Why would he lie?

Actually, I liked this page from your link, which forewarns something much more formidable.

Arctic Melt Continues | Real Science

No, Maggie the reality is that Hansen was WRONG! That's why he's falsifying the temperature record dear. Hansen predicted in 1988 that we would be 1.6 degrees warmer now than we are. Since 2002 there has been no appreciable warming (any warming is within the error +/- thus it is statistically meaningless) there has been no accelerating warming anyplace on the planet. That is an illusion based on Hansens falsifications.

Don't forget, lots of NASA's data came from East Anglia and the fraudulant data networks. Home, chronicles and documents temperature stations feeding false and corrupted data into the system constantly.

This is why you cannot trust the predictions and conclusions they have come up with. Not to mention, they now have their budget intrinsically tied in many ways to perpetuating the fraud of Anthropogenic Climate effects.

The truth of the matter is that regardless of what the climate does, warms, cools or stays the same, it is not mankind's fault. Poisoning the environment with toxic chemicals that kill life, yes, we can do that. Change the climate? No. Never.

And this is also what makes it political in the end. Blame people for a crisis, then create sociological change on a global scale. It's only a delivery system for a sociopolitical system that has been trying to be legitimized for a century.

 

[edthecynic]

Since 2002 there has been no appreciable warming (any warming is within the error +/- thus it is statistically meaningless) there has been no accelerating warming anyplace on the planet. That is an illusion based on Hansens falsifications.

Gee you went from 30 years of the same temperature to less than 10 years (with an escape clause) in a matter of a few posts.
Thank you.

 

[westwall]

Since 2002 there has been no appreciable warming (any warming is within the error +/- thus it is statistically meaningless) there has been no accelerating warming anyplace on the planet. That is an illusion based on Hansens falsifications.

Gee you went from 30 years of the same temperature to less than 10 years (with an escape clause) in a matter of a few posts.
Thank you.

No, I'm just reporting what is in the general media and agreed to by Jones, it's not my fault if you're so blinded by ideology that you ignore basic science in the seaking of your goal. Your just doing what uneducated idealogues do.

 

[Old Rocks]

All climatologists prognostications are based on computer models and not empirical data. When the computer models are checked vs empirical observation they are allways wrong. For 30 years they have been wrong. Hansens predictions are 300% off and there is more CO2 in the atmosphere then even he predicted.

Until climatologists abandon the use of computer models as their sole means of prediction they will never get anywhere and will continue to be the laughing stock of the science world.

It's not about liberal or conservative scientists, it's about good science vs bad science. Climatologists are the poster children for horribly bad science, which is why they have had to venture into political activism and hyperbole.

GISS regularly falsifies data to further Hansens aims. That is the antithesis of science, that is scientific fraud.

Data Corruption At GISS | Real Science

So what was your point? There are other similar graphs, and if you or anyone else thinks they've been corrupted, they can find others. (I think I posted one myself.) The reality is that Hansen, and of course many others, have determined (since 1999?) that the warming cycle is accelerating faster than originally thought. Hansen has been with NASA for over 30 years, studying earth science almost exclusively. Why would he lie?

Actually, I liked this page from your link, which forewarns something much more formidable.

Arctic Melt Continues | Real Science

No, Maggie the reality is that Hansen was WRONG! That's why he's falsifying the temperature record dear. Hansen predicted in 1988 that we would be 1.6 degrees warmer now than we are. Since 2002 there has been no appreciable warming (any warming is within the error +/- thus it is statistically meaningless) there has been no accelerating warming anyplace on the planet. That is an illusion based on Hansens falsifications.

Really, Walleyes, you have proven yourself to be a liar repeatedly on this board. So, let's look at a record from someone other than Dr. Hansen. Say, Dr. Spencer.

UAH Update for January 2011: Global Temperatures in Freefall « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Now if you look at the 2002 running mean, it is higher than at any period since 1979, save the super El Nino year of 1998. But the mean was higher than that in 2005. And the mean of 2010 equaled that of 1998. On a mediocare El Nino. In fact, half the year was in a La Nina. Now how does that differ from the record at GISS?

 

[westwall]

So what was your point? There are other similar graphs, and if you or anyone else thinks they've been corrupted, they can find others. (I think I posted one myself.) The reality is that Hansen, and of course many others, have determined (since 1999?) that the warming cycle is accelerating faster than originally thought. Hansen has been with NASA for over 30 years, studying earth science almost exclusively. Why would he lie?

Actually, I liked this page from your link, which forewarns something much more formidable.

Arctic Melt Continues | Real Science

No, Maggie the reality is that Hansen was WRONG! That's why he's falsifying the temperature record dear. Hansen predicted in 1988 that we would be 1.6 degrees warmer now than we are. Since 2002 there has been no appreciable warming (any warming is within the error +/- thus it is statistically meaningless) there has been no accelerating warming anyplace on the planet. That is an illusion based on Hansens falsifications.

Really, Walleyes, you have proven yourself to be a liar repeatedly on this board. So, let's look at a record from someone other than Dr. Hansen. Say, Dr. Spencer.

UAH Update for January 2011: Global Temperatures in Freefall « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Now if you look at the 2002 running mean, it is higher than at any period since 1979, save the super El Nino year of 1998. But the mean was higher than that in 2005. And the mean of 2010 equaled that of 1998. On a mediocare El Nino. In fact, half the year was in a La Nina. Now how does that differ from the record at GISS?

Oh just piss off, you really are just a useless troll aren't you....The second is a presentation from Dr. Arvid Pasto, former Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) High Temperature Materials Laboratory and he rips Hansen apart...enjoy.
Well if you read it you won't like it but anyone else enjoy.



Data Corruption At GISS | Real Science

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/aiche/presentations/AGW_AIChE.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Really, Walleyes. Steven Goddard? The man lies more than you do.

Göddardämmerung: Skeptical Science debunks climate cherry picking on sea level rise « Climate Progress

October 9, 2010
As the widely discredited WattsUpWithThat has relied more on outside writers who can’t even meet his minimum standards for anti-science disinformation, his Wikio ranking have collapsed. Coincidence? You be the judge.

Certainly WattsUpWithThat is exemplary anti-scientific blogging (see for instance, Wattergate: Tamino debunks “just plain wrong” Anthony Watts). Bizarrely, Watts continued to allow Steve Goddard to post even after he set the record for the fastest disinformer retraction: Watts says Goddard’s “Arctic ice increasing by 50000 km2 per year” post is “an example of what not to do when graphing trends.”

Physicist John Cook of the always insightful website, Skeptical Science, shows how a recent by post Goddard on his own website is the very definition of cherry picking:

 

[westwall]

Really, Walleyes. Steven Goddard? The man lies more than you do.

Göddardämmerung: Skeptical Science debunks climate cherry picking on sea level rise « Climate Progress

October 9, 2010
As the widely discredited WattsUpWithThat has relied more on outside writers who can’t even meet his minimum standards for anti-science disinformation, his Wikio ranking have collapsed. Coincidence? You be the judge.

Certainly WattsUpWithThat is exemplary anti-scientific blogging (see for instance, Wattergate: Tamino debunks “just plain wrong” Anthony Watts). Bizarrely, Watts continued to allow Steve Goddard to post even after he set the record for the fastest disinformer retraction: Watts says Goddard’s “Arctic ice increasing by 50000 km2 per year” post is “an example of what not to do when graphing trends.”

Physicist John Cook of the always insightful website, Skeptical Science, shows how a recent by post Goddard on his own website is the very definition of cherry picking:

Then read the other one nimrod. You don't like my biased source then choose the one that isn't biased, I would assume the former director of Oak Ridge is credentialed enough for you and if not who cares.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL That clown on your second site is even battier. On page 32 of the site

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/aiche/presentations/AGW_AIChE.pdf

It show Dr. Spencer's graph, and in spite of the obvious differance in temperatures from 1979 to 2010, states at the top of the page, "No Change in 30 Years". Whom are we to believe, Arvid Pasto, or our eyes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really, Walleyes. Steven Goddard? The man lies more than you do.

Göddardämmerung: Skeptical Science debunks climate cherry picking on sea level rise « Climate Progress

October 9, 2010
As the widely discredited WattsUpWithThat has relied more on outside writers who can’t even meet his minimum standards for anti-science disinformation, his Wikio ranking have collapsed. Coincidence? You be the judge.

Certainly WattsUpWithThat is exemplary anti-scientific blogging (see for instance, Wattergate: Tamino debunks “just plain wrong” Anthony Watts). Bizarrely, Watts continued to allow Steve Goddard to post even after he set the record for the fastest disinformer retraction: Watts says Goddard’s “Arctic ice increasing by 50000 km2 per year” post is “an example of what not to do when graphing trends.”

Physicist John Cook of the always insightful website, Skeptical Science, shows how a recent by post Goddard on his own website is the very definition of cherry picking:

Then read the other one nimrod. You don't like my biased source then choose the one that isn't biased, I would assume the former director of Oak Ridge is credentialed enough for you and if not who cares.

I don't care who he is, when even Anthony Watt disavows his methods, you know the fellow is completely around the bend. Someone to keep you company.