'Just what do you say to

EDITED FOR PERSONAL INSULTS -- TYEE MODERATOR

Let me phrase it diffrently to avoid editing

Even those who support Gordon Campbell know he is a bold faced liar and law breaker.

What is reasoned debate?

Thank you for the compliments, Stump, but I consider them somewhat backhanded, since I've written a number of posts concerning climate change that have not involved characterizing Warmists as "victims of a con-job"

As I recall, these were when I was trying to explain the Malenkovich Cycle. Perhaps that theory is just too outre for it not to have seemed confrontational.

I make absolutely no apologies for having slagged others when commenting on GW. I entered into the debate on this issue only after witnessing the kindergarten-style pillorying of Mopled as you kind folks ganged up on him, and continued to do.

Although some of the sites Mopled offered cater to loony-toon conspiracy theorists, much of his material was credible, esp that from Russian geophysical scientists. Those who are interested in "truth" do not automatically discount unwelcome sources.

And re the use of terms like "Warmers" being seen as derogatory, please note that it arose as a response to "Denier" - which obviously capitalised upon the opprobrium attached to "Holocaust Denier" as just another kind of ill-willed loony.

Since my attack upon "Warmers" has focused upon their unwillingness to entertain contrary opinion, esp their mounting ad hominem attacks upon all "opponents" - legitimate professionals or not, I sincerely hope you are correct in stating that "Intelligent discussion" is now sought and is in the offing.

I have never been in the committed ranks of the Deniers, though I've never been ashamed to be seen as so. Similarly, I'm not convinced that my hobby-horse, the Malenkovitch Cycle is the answer eiher, though it looks increasingly so to me.

All I know for sure is that expending immense resources into controlling CO2 without a reasoned debate concerning the efficacy or need for having taken place, is sheer lunacy. And PLEASE note that the logic for applying the Precautionary Principle is incredibly flawed re CO2 and is used ONLY to avoid addressing the issue of very weak science.

It is long past time, for example, that the IPCC be forced to defend its findings - which have been under concerted attack ever since they were made, esp by original contributors.

Hmm.

So one should 'ignore' this kind of thing?

http://scienceblogs.com/integrityofscience/2007/02/aei_offering_cash_for_ipcc_cri_1.php

Or this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020401213.html

And this:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/McCainLetterAttachment.pdf

AAAAARGH

Where to begin?

How about.. it hasn't warmed in 10 years, started cooling in 2002-3 and CO2 levels continued to climb by 6% during that period.

There is no longer even a weak correlation between CO2 and temperature.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/tc02vsIPCC.jpg

but there is with sunspots.
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html

There actually is little correlation between temperature and CO2 over the last 600 million years.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Any which way you look at it, AGW/CC is a scam which pretends to save us from ourselves.

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring about?
Maurice Strong

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…The real enemy, then, is humanity itself….Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one INVENTED for the purpose…”

- The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of Rome

I just found this

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic
Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’ Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NAS,retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon,

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! - See: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom - Get the Facts on James Hansen - UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.
continues
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

Something fishy

Theon appears to have graduated from the University of Tennessee in 1989...

“I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results..."

This sounds highly suspicious - not one is 'in effect' someone else's supervisor. They either are or the aren't.

Hansen got his PhD in Physics in 1967 - I doubt Theon supervised 'anything' that Hansen did mopled....

And here's a little something about warm years too:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090113_Temperature.pdf

erratum

3rd para needs work - should read:

This sounds highly suspicious - no one is 'in effect' someone else's supervisor. They either are or they aren't.

I could be wrong, but I think Theon is a dissembler - something like that other famous climate scientist Timmy Ball.

GWest

Brian, you forgot to mention that CO2 also causes hangnails and pimples on the penis.

Garth, the first two links you provided are very old news, and can be countered by noting that many "Denier" scientists have been hounded by peer, agency and departmental pressures, and have publicly complained of such. Today's politicization and commercialization of science and scientists makes taking ANY paper at stand-alone face value a fools game.

I note that the third, the report, is undated, and the oldest reference is for 2003. Six years ago is ancient history in a still breaking science story these days.

I'll leave it up to you battle it out with Mopled in Googling for papers. Like Luke and Frank with polls, you could go on for years :-)

Even so, my hat is off to you, Mopled. Keep the faith, their game is far from being won.

When a credible, unbiased committee revisits the IPCC work on anthropogenic CO2 driving GW, and doesn't rely upon o'all GW for its main body of "proof", then I'll either gain or cede my ground.

And re your Timmy Ball, I'll raise you with a Campbell.

ME2

What are YOU talking about?

If memory serves, you're the one who said peak oil was dreamed up last summer to scare people - remember?

The only place global warming denial is hot news is on the websites of the 'scientific' equivalent of the Rush Limbaugh radio network.

Surely you're not convinced by Mopled's quotes from a guy like Theon.

As for the suggestion that testimony before American government committees has any kind a reputation for veracity and truth (especially of a scientific nature) I'll see your Campbell and raise you the McCarthy hearings.

Ad hominem by stealth?

"A guy like Theon'? Really West, that's the best you can do?

What a sleazy attempt at a smear.

I don't know what you think you found, but here is Theon's cv right on the Senate page
and a link to his publications. What will you stoop to next with your amazingly slimy tactics directed at any scientist who has the guts to buck the outright scam that is AGW/CC, like the unjustly maligned Tim Ball.

"Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained. [Note: Here are the results a Google Scholar search on Theon. - Theon's complete written correspondence to EPW reprinted at the end of this report. ]'

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="author%3AJS+author%3ATheon"

There are 8 pages of his publications beginning in 1965.

Your tricks are pretty transparent.

James Hansen has been caught fiddling and faking data at least 3x. He has also received money in the form or "prizes" and "awards" amounting to at least $1.3 million. Match that on the skeptic side!

No tricks

If he got his degree at the University of Tennessee in 1989 my conclusion was perfectly valid.

I still don't believe you've presented any evidence that he was Hansen's 'superior'.

And unjustly maligning Tim Ball?

Why would I have to - his 'record' and the guys who fund him - speak for him - quite loudly.

I'll check your link to Theon - and I'll speak to a close friend of mine who is a PhD candidate in Physics - to see what his opinion is of the gentleman.

Cheers.

I checked your search results

I'm not convinced.

He may well have been nothing more than a grad student on the early publications...

I'd appreciate if you can post an independent link to his CV.

I'll be happy to change my conclusion if you can provide any proof that Hansen actually reported and answered to him at NASA.

That's insanity

Wow...talk about "denial" His cv is there for all to see. Cheap tricks like you are trying to pull just show how how desperate the Warmists are. In 1965...44 years ago, yes, he was probably a grad student...your point is?

If Theon wasn't who he says he is in relationship to Hansen, it would be all over the Warmist blogs by now.

Wow...and you are going to check with a buddy who is working on his PHD to see if Theon is.... what?

Like your buddy is some kind of authority.

Curioser and curioser.
\
I guess the cognitive dissonance has finally exploded your head.

Here's something that may help clear it up.

No Scientific Forecasts to Support Global Warming
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/no-scientific-forecasts-to-support-global-warming/

You know something

If you can't prove that Theon was Hansen's boss just say so...

I can't find any information that indictes he was - other than his own words which, as I pointed out to you are far from unequivocal.

As for the rest of your offensive and highly personal remarks I've notified the editors.

Look back at what I wrote and tell me that your response was either fair or appropriate.

As for my friend, I've emailed him your assertions and he will get back to me - which is a far more mature and responsible response than the one you've provided above.

Cheers.

By the way

A list of publications is NOT A CV.

CV is short for Curriculum Vitae: a document that contains a summary of education and job experience....

That's what I was looking for - not a short list of articles that appeared over the name of any particular individual.

Which was what you provided.

I'll provide a random sample of one for your information:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/cv.html

Indeed! So you object to "sleazy"?

Pretending that the reference below doesn't count is "slippery". Pretending that the man isn't who or what he is presented to be is a "diversion" at any cost.
Pretending your buddy holds some magic knowledge is also "interesting."

His cv is right there on the page...I guess you missed it. I guess it just "slipped" your notice.

"Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained."
From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon@XXXXXX]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:50 PM
To: Morano, Marc (EPW)

Subject: Re: Nice seeing you

Marc, Indeed, it was a pleasure to see you again. I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that Global Warming is man made. A brief bio follows. Use as much or as little of it as you wish.

John S. Theon Education: B.S. Aero. Engr. (1953-57); Aerodynamicist, Douglas Aircraft Co. (1957-58); As USAF Reserve Officer (1958-60),B.S. Meteorology (1959); Served as Weather Officer 1959-60; M.S, Meteorology (1960-62); NASA Research Scientist, Goddard Space Flight Ctr. (1962-74); Head Meteorology Branch, GSFC (1974-76); Asst. Chief, Lab. for Atmos. Sciences, GSFC (1977-78); Program Scientist, NASA Global Weather Research Program, NASA Hq. (1978-82); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch NASA Hq., (1982-91); Ph.D., Engr. Science & Mech.: course of study and dissertation in atmos. science (1983-85); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & Hydrology Branch, NASA Hq. (1991-93); Chief, Climate Processes Research Program, NASA Hq. (1993-94); Senior Scientist, Mission to Planet Earth Office, NASA Hq. (1994-95); Science Consultant, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (1995-99); Science Consultant Orbital Sciences Corp. (1996-97) and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., (1997-99).

As Chief of several NASA Hq. Programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research. This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles. I hope that this is helpful.

Best wishes, John

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

Thanks mopled

I'll list the things I found objectionable:
(1)"That's insanity";
(2)"Cheap tricks";
(3)"..you are trying to pull just show how how desperate"
(4)"exploded your head".
(5)"cognitive dissonance".

All direct quotes from YOU and in response to my polite, but polite request for Theon's C.V.

The inquiries I made indicated he was an expert in remote sensing and not climate science and I expect further investigation will confirm this.

However, since I'm not interested in scoring cheap points I'll follow up, politely, when I have something more concrete. In the interim, I'd ask you to check Source Watch:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

for Theon. Perhaps you'll appreciate why I think he's a little more obscure than you might have thought.

Further, I still have no reference to an Org Chart which confirms that he was responsible for supervising Hansen's work even if he held the positions he describes as: Chief of several NASA Hq. Programs (1982-94).

That may not be the answer you expected, I'll await the research of someone who is independent and non-aligned.

Thank you very much.

And I'll await your apology for the offensive and rude remarks.

Cheers.

Explanation

As for not seeing the CV in your original post, that's easily explainable.

I don't read blogs - especially ones posted by guys like Marc Morano...he did get a reference on Source Watch.

I'll post a little bit of his entry...just to make clear why I'm still pretty skeptical about J. S. Theon:

Now, we'll let Tyee Readers decide for themselves who is pulling what over whose eyes.

OK with you?

No wonder your POV is so narrow

Given the number of things you won't read.

I find Rush Limbaugh as objectionable as you do, but when all avenues are closed to skeptics, should they just let information sit unknown...or do they use the only tools
left to them because of the way this scientific topic has been politicized. Dragging in Limbagh to discredit through Morano is what? Ad hominem ad absurdem?

There is no listing for Theon as of 5:37pm at sourcewatch...so why did you even mention it? The smear by innuendo perhaps?

Richard Lindzen used to be a Democrat, but after the outrageous way he was treated by the Democratic Climate Cabal, he no longer considers himself one.

While we are on the topic of credentials, I think it might be instructive to compare the Warmists with some of the Skeptics.

Academic Credentials for some of the best-known spokespersons for global warming
http://climatebet.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/warmers2.pdf
Please notice only one person has a PhD in "climate science"

Now compare that with the contributors and supporters of one of the best skeptical sites.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts

This is all totally silly because there is no longer even a correlation between Earth's temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and there really hasn't been one over 600 million years. As I pointed out in my first post(with links to graphs,)CO2 is irrelevant to climate.

Or did you not bother to look at them either? Perhaps some squeamishness about seeing something that might jar your convictions?

Well mopled

I find that really hard to believe especially when the guy you go to, Morano, is involved in everything scurrilous lie that the Bush White House and their neo con supporters have been telling for the last 8 years.

I intend to check out Theon but I won't be a bit surprised to find out he's just another guy that bunch - Limbaugh et al - have trucked out to spout lies for them.

I read the science my friend - the stuff that's actually science and not propaganda.

As I've told you at least two dozen times, I'm not a climate scientist but I agree with the position that I've articulated here - that the science is pretty much decided and, even if it turns out to be inaccurate in some respects, the alternative of doing nothing is wrong headed.

I think you'd have an easier time making your own case if you didn't accept 'evidence' posted by people who so obviously have an axe to grind.

As for myself on this subject, you know perfectly well I'm a critic of the Campbell Tax and, for the most part, I'm not out proselytizing for CO2 either.

I almost never post anything on the subject but, whenever I've looked (like today) at the case deniers try to make for their beliefs, I find it's pretty much childplay to poke holes in their 'theories.

Today was just another example of that.

I understand from what you say that you're not a scientist either. But you're far more of a believer than I am..

cheers.

BTW, if Theon got his first degree in 1957 I'd suggest that makes him around 75 years old, give or take, I wonder if he's non compos mentis.

Furthermore

Read Theon's 'submission(s)' again. He never did testify before the Senate - he sent Morano a couple of emails - after screwing up trying to get the email address right several time.

There's no science in them at all - just a lot of conjecture and, when Morano quotes him - using double quotation marks - he's not being accurate.

It's also very interesting that Morano is blogging for Jim Inhofe isn't it.

Maybe you know this about the Senator, but I think other readers would like to know too:

Oil and Coal Money in Politics

James M. Inhofe has accepted $312,050 in oil contributions during the 110th congress. In total, Inhofe has received $662,506 from oil companies since from 2000 to 2008, which makes him a top recipient of oil money. In addition to oil, Inhofe has received $157,300 in coal contributions during the 110th Congress. $94,500 of those dollars were from industry PACS. See above for oil and energy voting record.

sources:
http://oilmoney.priceofoil.org/federalRaceGraph.php?type=congress

http://coalmoney.priceofoil.org/federalRaceGraph.php?type=congress

ME2 Not CO2 in your case, see a doctor

ME2
17 hours ago "Brian, you forgot to mention that CO2 also causes hangnails and pimples on the penis".
I mentioned a few things that CO2 causes other than global warming. I think they are very relevent. People point out that the dinosaurs lived with something like 1700 ppm of CO2. But the epa says 1000 is the daily max for healthy humans. Surely that is relevent? Indeed, mammals were there all along with the dinosaurs. At no point did it look like mammals could compete in that atmosphere.
1000 ppm is not too many years away.

B.W. CO2 recycling time 5-12 years

And the level in the average office is 600-800 ppm. We tend to get sleepy at around 1200 ppm.

West, you do have a talent for misinterpreting, smearing by association and bringing in irrelevancies.Theon dropped a bomb and warmists would like to be able to find anything on him, but there is nothing, so you hint he's senile. He wanted to be included on the list of over 650 eminent skeptics that Morano has gathered. The tight control over this issue means there are few places for skeptics to make their views known, so complaining about the company Theon keeps is a bit much under the circumstances. Huffington said that a skeptical piece that appeared on Huffpo would not have if she had known about it before hand...and I've never seen an interview with a skeptical scientist appear on The Tyee.

Given that CO2 is actually beneficial, why would the oil and coal interests not defend themselves from so outrageous attack.

The Green Agenda is not benevolent and it is being used as a vehicle for global governance and depopulation.

"A total population of 250-300 million people,a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
- Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major funder of the IPCC

What bomb?

He's an old guy who hasn't published a scientific paper for 20 years - can't handle email to save his soul AND, he says in his letter - let me quote it for you -
...I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation,

Some supervisor. And the whole inhofe disinformation exercise is funded by the oil and coal industries.

You and Rushbo are clutching at straws and Inhofe is an obvious flake.

You're going to have to do a lot better.

If the 650

If the 650 come up to the level of Theon I'd say Global Warming denial is in some serious trouble.

Still no apology for the offensive remarks either!

You do understand peer review don't you?

Cause I don't think there's been much peer review of Theon's papers either! The ones about 'remote sensing' for example.

Anyway

Here, check his papers for NASA yourself:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?No=0&N=4294952498

Now have a look at Hansen's papers

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?No=0&N=4294920496

Many of them written AFTER Theon retired.

He'd really be in a great position to comment on those now wouldn't he?

G'nite mopled

I've got some 'real' work to do.

Gettin' yerself all bloody, Mopled

Listening to all this back and forth, I get the impression that GWest doesn't really care if Theon is for or against GW, he just wants to be sure the science is right. Listening to you, I get the impression you don't really care if the science is right, you just want to be sure that somebody's wrong.

I wish you could step back and see yourself as others see you. You quote an interesting collection of skeptics, but mostly without the convincing authority of scholarship and professionalism.

I'm not going to pat GWest's ass with a powderpuff, but I generally hear real and honest questions in his voice, the same ones I sometimes ask myself.

So many of your questions and statements are post hoc ergo propter hoc - there's too much rant and not enough balance in them. Just like Tim Ball. He wore out his welcome in 1998, and all that's happened since then is he's taken the same speaking lessons that made Preston Manning more palatable to Central Canada.

I'm just speaking as one who's still trying to sort out the difference between climate and weather.... something damned few of my acquaintances or anybody else on TV or in the media seems to know. Beats me how you can be so sure.

Maybe, but unbowed

All I see from GW is character assasination instead of refutation. I suggest the reason you are so muddled is because it has been a deliberate tactic of the Big Green Machine to confuse people...like the switch from "Global Warming" once it stopped warming to "Climate Change". that way no matter what happens, it is all our fault anyway.

Why drag in Dr. Ball? I haven't. He is only one of many scientists who have pointed out how shoddy the basis is for the whole AGW/CC scam is.

"Real Climate Suffers from Foggy Perception by Henk Tennekes

Roger Pielke Sr. has graciously invited me to add my perspective to his discussion with Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate. If this were not such a serious matter, I would have been amused by Gavin’s lack of knowledge of the differences between weather models and climate models. As it stands, I am appalled. Back to graduate school, Gavin!

A weather model deals with the atmosphere. Slow processes in the oceans, the biosphere, and human activities can be ignored or crudely parameterized. This strategy has been very successful. The dominant fraternity in the meteorological modeling community has appropriated this advantage, and made itself the lead community for climate modeling. Backed by an observational system much more advanced than those in oceanography or other parts of the climate system, they have exploited their lead position for all they can. For them, it is a fortunate coincidence that the dominant synoptic systems in the atmosphere have scales on the order of many hundreds of kilometers, so that the shortcomings of the parameterizations and the observation network, including weather satellite coverage, do not prevent skillful predictions several days ahead. "

Read the rest at http://www.icecap.us/
It might help to read what real scientists have to say to clear up your confusion.

Ummm

Another unsubstantiated observation... no character assassination in any of that Mopled..just a closer reading of the material and a little attention to detail.

Have you been following what's going on in Australia?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24478392-11949,00.html

And I believe yesterday the temperature reached its highest ever nightime level....

More

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/specials/vertical/0,25402,11949,00.html

Balances what's happening here

Cruise ship trapped in St. Lawrence ice
Icebreaker also trapped

27 Jan 09 -Also see Video of ships trapped in ice
Photo of trapped cruise ship, and finally,
Ice-enclosed ship in Canada freed.Video: Ice storm devastation

28 Jan 09 - Live in Paducah, KY, where heavy snow is falling on top of ice. Thousands of trees have already come down due to ice.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid823425597/bclid877032950/bctid8548943001Northeast next to be hit by ice and snow - 27 Jan 09..

Winter storms from Texas to New England - 27 Jan 09dat009-01-27_18:15
Low temperature record “shattered” in Key West - 23 Jan 09
See Record Low Temperatures across the US
http://www.iceagenow.com/

We aren't responsible for any of it.

Glad you're sure of it mopled

http://www.ecology.com/features/vanishing-artic-ice-cap/vanishing-artic-ice-cap.html

I'm much less sanguine but at least happy that the decision makers will be looking (I hope) to real science and not Limbaugh light characters like Inhofe and Marc Morano.

With Obama in the White House and Pee Wee doing the dirty dance with Ignatieff I think we may have reached a point where some actual progress can be made on finding a prescription for AGW before it's too late.

Over and out.

Don't worry.

Be Happy.

That was 2007

The Arctic ice has since returned.

"the Arctic sea ice extent was now 27% GREATER than last year as of October 15, 2008.

"The recent enhanced warm season melting of the Arctic ice has precious little to do with greenhouse gases but is a cyclical phenomena related to multidecadal cycles in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. The Atlantic appears to be the most important. The Atlantic has been in its warm mode since 1995 with a peak around 2004 and 2005. Warm water from the Atlantic makes its way into the arctic through the Barents Sea and the Pacific through the Bering Strait.

Last year before the alarmists took control, the University of Colorado’s National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) summarized the role of the ocean cycles very well in October 2007 in this way:

“One prominent researcher, Igor Polyakov at the University of Fairbanks, Alaska, points out that pulses of unusually warm water have been entering the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, which several years later are seen in the ocean north of Siberia. These pulses of water are helping to heat the upper Arctic Ocean, contributing to summer ice melt and helping to reduce winter ice growth. Another scientist, Koji Shimada of the Japan Agency for Marine–Earth Science and Technology, reports evidence of changes in ocean circulation in the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean. Through a complex interaction with declining sea ice, warm water entering the Arctic Ocean through Bering Strait in summer is being shunted from the Alaskan coast into the Arctic Ocean, where it fosters further ice loss. Many questions still remain to be answered, but these changes in ocean circulation may be important keys for understanding the observed loss of Arctic sea ice.” "With a cooling of the Pacific and a less warm North Atlantic and a long, deep solar minimum, the ice should continue to rebound in the next few years"
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/arctic_ice_increasing_rapidly/

The Polar bears were never in danger, given that they have lived through periods of warming before. It is a cycle (the warming of 1922 as reported in the Washington Post for instance) and AGW has nothing to do with it...or anything else, for that matter.

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years AgoScienceDaily
(Oct. 20, 2008) — Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm

If you are going to gatekeep, you'd better be up-to-date with the material.

Ummm

The smallest extent ever recorded of the Arctic ice cap was in the summer of 2007 at 1.6 million square miles. This is down from three million square miles in 1980, a 47.1 percent loss of sea ice. The previous record low was set in the summer of 2005 when the ice extent dropped to 2.05 million square miles.

I doubt the measurements are even concluded for 2008 yet...

And I guess your 'scientists' missed this.

http://www.france24.com/en/20081017-arctic-temperatures-climb-record-high-climate-north-pole-global-warming-melting-ice-cap

Let me quote a few lines for you:

Friday 17 October 2008
By AFP
Autumn temperatures in the Arctic region are a record 5.0 degree Celsius (9.0 Fahrenheit) higher than normal due to the melting of the ice cap, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report said Friday.

"Changes in the Arctic show a domino effect from multiple causes more clearly than in other regions," said NOAA oceanographer James Overland, lead author of the report titled 'The Arctic Report Card 2008' published on NOAA's website.

"It's a sensitive system and often reflects changes in relatively fast and dramatic ways," the scientist said.

As the ice cap over the Arctic melts due to global warming, more ocean water is exposed and heated by the sun's rays, the report said.

The warmer air and ocean water affect animal and plant life in the region and melt the permanent ice shelf, which in recent years has shrunk by some 38 cubic kilometers (9.1 cubic miles) and is the leading cause of the global rise of sea levels.

2007 was the warmest year on record in the Arctic region, followed closely by 2008. This continues a general Arctic-wide warming trend that began in the mid-1960s.

Gatekeeping isn't really necessary my friend - one just has to keep abreast of events and stay away from Rushbo

And this

“The large area of the Arctic Ocean promises to become much warmer,” said Igor Polyakov, NABOS principal investigator and a research professor at IARC.

The readings come from observational moorings, which are instrument-bearing buoys that are anchored to the ocean floor and float below the surface of the ocean. These instruments first detected a surge of anomalous warm water, at mid-ocean depths of about 150 to 800 meters below the surface, in February of 2004 on the continental slope of the Laptev Sea, Polyakov said. “What we found this year was one of our eastern moorings also showed a warming signal.”

That finding indicates that the warm water is moving further and further into the Arctic, he said, which could increase the overall temperature of the Arctic Ocean. While the causes of the influx of warm water will require further study, the observations from the NABOS project suggest that the Arctic Ocean is moving toward a warmer state, a change that could have global implications.

Ocean temperature in the Arctic is important because it may affect the amount of sea ice in the region. Scientists believe that arctic sea ice cover plays a major role in the global climate, as ice reflects more of the sun’s heat than open water.

The NABOS project is funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation and is a collaboration among six nations. It is one of many UAF projects that will contribute to the international efforts of the upcoming International Polar Year. IPY is a two-year event, slated to begin in March 2007, which will focus research efforts and public attention on the Earth’s polar regions. UAF is among a handful of institutions worldwide that is ideally situated to participate in IPY research, education and outreach.

Hello, the water is coming UP

If CO2 were warming the water, wouldn't it originate on the surface? And again, the last story is 2 years old. Since then:

Boiling Hot Water Found in Frigid Arctic Sea

24 Jul 08 – “Many miles inside the Arctic Circle, scientists have found vents of scalding liquid rising out of the seafloor at temperatures that are more than twice the boiling point of water.

“The vents, one of which towers four stories high, are located on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge between Greenland and Norway, more than 120 miles farther north than other known vents.

“The newfound vent field is one of the most massive such deposits ever found on the seafloor, said expedition member Marvin Lilley, a University of Washington oceanographer.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080724-black-smokers.html
3 more stories

Geothermal heat may be melting the Greenland glaciers

Ocean Floor Geysers Warming The Seas
(And we wonder why the oceans are warming)

Global warming may be caused by underwater volcanoes
http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm

Rushbo? You can't do better than that?

Anytime you want to compare ice levels at either pole try this.http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh

It opened to today compared to the same date in 1980. Looks pretty icy today!

Sorry Mopled

The researchers haven't actually concluded what complex mechanisms are causing the heating.

Had you actually read the papers in question you'd have noticed that sentence.

I didn't bother to post it because I figured you hadn't...thanks for proving it.

As with your posting of Marc Morano's stuff yesterday, it really is necessary to look beyond the sales pitches.

You're the one quoting stuff from Rushbo's buddies, not me.

So silly...Rushbo indeed

Since you can't refute anything I post, you stoop to name calling by proxy.

Some of my sources of information are:

http://www.icecap.us/
http://whatreallyhappened.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
http://motls.blogspot.com/
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
Today's story
Facts debunk global warming alarmism

THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures.

Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism. Yet individual weather events or spells, whether warmings or coolings, tell us nothing necessarily about true climate change.

Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's disproved projections of warming, seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it. But why?

There are two fundamentally different ways in which computers can be used to project climate. The first is used by the modelling groups that provide climate projections to the IPCC. These groups deploy general circulation models, which use complex partial differential equations to describe the ocean-atmosphere climate system mathematically. When fed with appropriate initial data, these models can calculate possible future climate states. The models presume (wrongly) that we have a complete understanding of the climate system.

GCMs are subject to the well-known computer phenomenon of GIGO, which translates as "garbage in, God's-truth out".
Please read the rest http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24934655-7583,00.html

Yep Really convincing

Bob Carter is pretty much on a par with the former submariner Graham Whitmarsh who, until recently, chaired the Climate Secretariat here in BC.

Professor Robert (Bob) Carter, is "a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University", Australia. In a byline with an op-ed published in the Sydney Morning Herald in September 2005 he was described as an "experienced environmental scientist", but a March 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald noted that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." He is a well known climate change skeptic.

What would YOU say your batting average is Mopled?

By the way, did YOU NOT reas the material posted from the Australian News about the heat in the world's driest continent - the links are posted just above here if you're actually interested.

A little MORE on Bob Carter

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bobcarter.html

Sounds like the Canadian version of Timmy the Ball

And there's lots more available

A quick, friendly question for you: Do you ever check any of these guys out before you start passing them off as authorities?

What is your point? Mopled

mopled
21 hours ago

And the level in the average office is 600-800 ppm. We tend to get sleepy at around 1200 ppm.
I thought you were "for" keeping burning fuel from below the biosphere.
But if burning that fuel will eventually put us all to sleep, is that not bad?
At the exponential rate that we are increasing the rate of burning, when do you calculate that we will start passing out regularly due to too much CO2 in the indoor air?

Erratum

That should be 'Australian version of Timmy the Ball'.

"Climate Science Community"?

You mean the people who have grown fat catering to an international cabal by faking data like Michael Mann and James Hansen? Who seldom understand the techniques they employ, again, like Michael Mann et al.

Denegrating serious scientists like Ball and Carter with absolutely nothing to back it up except inuendo and BS is just the usual warmist nonsense. Yes, there was a fierce bad El Nino in 1998, but it still cooled off after 2002 and temperatures are still dropping even though CO2 is high.

Explain that away....and no ...warming is not being "masked" or "hiding" for the simple reason there is nowhere to hide and cold is the absence of heat.

You pick at skeptics and don't notice the skullduggery afoot.

"In the United States the only operating carbon emissions trading market is the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). Coincidentally, or not, Al Gore’s hedge fund, Generation Investment Management, is the largest shareholder in CCX. Now that’s what I call a conflict of interest! The most vocal Global Warming alarmist is the largest shareholder in the USA’s only operating ‘carbon market.’ On the board of CCX we find our old friend Maurice Strong."http://www.green-agenda.com/neweconomy.html

The Montreal Climate Exchange will actually be run by...CCX. http://www.m-x.ca/f_comm_press_en/011-06_en.pdf

Why doesn't the tyee do a story on that?

Brian, I can't tell whether your tongue was in your cheek, but here's info on CO2 anyway.

Atmospheric CO2 is recycled in 5-12 years. Our puny 3% addition to the atmosphere means little over the long haul. CO2is only 0.000387% of the atmosphere now, or 387 parts per million. I was talking about the effects indoors.
http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm

WWCSSC

Dear M & M, et al:
The best kept secret? Climate is static. Static Climate is Gaia's miracle. Understanding SC avoids reductionist, dogmatic, exclusive, ad hominen attacks & explains every single period throughout climate history. No Medieval Warming period. No Maunder Minimum. No Mini Ice Ages. No hobgoblin CO2. Neither warming nor cooling exist outside the collective public imagination. Each exists only inside secular minds of those imprisoned behind science’s gulag wall of tenure funded, imaginary hellfire, armchair climate intellectuals hermetically sealed inside binary thinking & linear, deductive, circular logic. Climate itself has been static forever. Yet we, as humans, have always survived. This has been true ever since Gaia gave notice to the first couple, who moved from a lush, CO2 fed garden of Eden into the equally hospitable icebox of igloos on ice floes, indispensable to the eternal human need to find meaning through hardship & struggle. Ignore those who insist Greenland was once green & prosperous. Nonsense. So what if 97% of all CO2 issues from forest fires, volcanoes, rotting vegetation, & mammals or the other 3% from nearly 7 billion humans who exhale carbon to grow trees? Sure, exhaled deadly CO2 toxin by rights should permanently poison upper lips & chins. Nevertheless, circular arguments are only a distraction from the truth of Static Climate. CO2 caused sooty chins aside, SC (Static Climate) is Gaia’s answer, a tolerable temperature suited to non tolerance for fluctuations in temperature - or ideas. The WCSC (World Wide Church of Static Climate) has faith Gaia is permanently set at the perfect thermostat level, neither cooling nor warming. Have the Maritimes reported rising sea levels? Is Georgian Bay lower now than it was in 1965/66? Are there fewer polar bears? No, No & No. The last census of numbers showed an increase in bears. Arguments recycled from the greens in Nazi Germany only divide what is far too two-sided a debate. Once you accept that earth's climate has always been static, things get much easier. Ego based arguments simultaneously fall into disuse. M & M, your key opponent is not only illusory but may well also be the unofficial editor/comptroller of these threads. So if he warns he may contact authorities, fear not. He only means himself. As for M & M’s stances, such arguments seem a tad secularor maybe reactive. The error lies in opposing sides mirroring a mistaken believe in change, for better or worse. This successfully divided, two headed, Hegelian dialectic misses the point. The error is secular belief itself. Underlying each side’s mistaken premise is the belief that CLIMATE IS DYNAMIC. How poignantly naive. Yet resolution is possible. Accept that climate is always at precisely the correct temperature needed for continued survival. Every argument is then resolved. Why not simply trust in faith in static climate, lie back on a tax bed of nails, & think of the Queen as Gaia?

GWest

Sleazy trick GWest. I quite clearly wrote that that in my posts re The Malenkovitch Cycle, my objective was to explain it, not to slag Warmists, and I don't recall doing so.

But I freely admitted to slagging Warmists on CO2 etc, and re Peak Oil I've been right. Moreover, I'll continue to poke fun at PO'ers and Warmists for their doctrinal gullibilities.

And concerning your above series of posts, anyone who now takes anything you write at face value without first looking for the weasel-words and red herrings, needs his / her head read.

You may think you're dazzling the believers with your McCarthyist tactic of painting Warmism as the true orthodoxy and Deniers as being tainted by unsavoury motives, but IMO, you lose converts when they see what you're doing.

Finally, how come you can't explain how CO2 causes GW, and produce the science to prove it?

I haven't slagged anyone - least of all you

Did you actually read what Theon wrote in that famous email?

He was, in my view, being taken advantage of by Rush Limbaugh's wingman to try and make a case for Jim Inhofe whose record of taking money from both the coal and the oil industry is absolutely clear.

As for the rest of it, it's not my issue but I'm entirely confident in writing that, if it were, I would have absolutely NO difficulty supporting my arguments with all kinds of REAL empirical and scientific evidence.

Let me finish with this. Did you notice that friend mopled never once deals with the holes in his arguments? Never actually contends with the flaws in his avatars.
Some quick examples:

He starts out saying Theon was Hansen's supervisor and claims that his email (it's up there for your inspection) proves anything..have a look, it doesn't.

Instead of reacting to the fact that Inhofe is a Republican creature of the oil and coal lobby and Morano is a shill of the Rush Limbaugh school he turns around and claims that a real scientist like Hansen is on the take.

Instead of reading the material about Carter and understanding that he couldn't care less about peer review he moves on to shore up his crumbling case with a dozen other false claims of a similar nature.

Have a look.

And while you're at it, have a look a who is calling whom names and using offensive language.

It's not me my friend and that fact alone says a lot about what's going on here.

Cheers, as always.

Roy Spencer sums up the tactics

The methods used by global warming alarmists to convince you that more carbon dioxide is going to ruin the Earth are increasingly laced with insults and attacks directed toward anyone who might disagree with them. For instance, one of the many intellectually lazy (& false) claims is that I am paid by Big Oil.

Mr. Gore’s tactics have been a little more subtle, and reminiscent of propaganda methods which have proved to be effective throughout history at influencing public opinion. One should keep in mind that his main scientific adviser, NASA’s James Hansen, has the most extreme views of any climate researcher when it comes to predicting a global warming induced Armageddon.

Listed below are ten propaganda techniques I have excerpted from Wikipedia. Beneath each are one or more examples of Mr. Gore’s rhetoric as he has attempted to goad the rest of us into reducing our CO2 emissions. Except where indicated, most quotes are from his testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, March 21, 2007.
Read the rest at:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/al-gores-propaganda/

Limbaugh light...or heavy

Al Gore is a failed politician - he's not a scientist.

Attacking him instead of confronting the actual science is about on a par with folks who use wikipedia as the source of their 'definition' of propaganda.

DR Roy Spencer is now doing both.

Again as in the case of the mysterious emails to Limbaugh shill Marc Morano, the idea that anyone's testimony before the US House or Senate amounts to anything more relevant on one side of this issue OR the other is a given.

Of course Gore's a propagandist - what would you have expected?

As for the good Dr Spencer, if I don’t miss my guess he’s the fella Limbaugh calls the ‘official climatologist of the EIB Network’…that’s the Excellence in Broadcasting Network if you’re ‘really’ not an avid and regular listener to the Old Rushbo.

You really do need to check your sources a little more closely. This is just too easy.

Exposed !

It took me a while to get what Mia said. Sometimes irony escapes me. I'm so stuck on the facts that I fail to see the whole picture of what is done in conversations with Warmists. Of course it is done with such elegance here that ernest old me falls into the trap time and again.

I particularly liked this part:
"Arguments recycled from the greens in Nazi Germany only divide what is far too two-sided a debate. Once you accept that earth's climate has always been static, things get much easier. Ego based arguments simultaneously fall into disuse. M & M, your key opponent is not only illusory but may well also be the unofficial editor/comptroller of these threads. So if he warns he may contact authorities, fear not. He only means himself. As for M & M’s stances, such arguments seem a tad secular
or maybe reactive. The error lies in opposing sides mirroring a mistaken believe in change, for better or worse. This successfully divided, two headed, Hegelian dialectic misses the point. The error is secular belief itself. Underlying each side’s mistaken premise is the belief that CLIMATE IS DYNAMIC. How poignantly naive. Yet resolution is possible. Accept that climate is always at precisely the correct temperature needed for continued survival. Every argument is then resolved. Why not simply trust in faith in static climate, lie back on a tax bed of nails, & think of the Queen as Gaia?"

I think I'll just let James Lovelock deal with Gaia

After all, he 'invented' the concept.

http://news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2742781

Idiotic Ideology

This is really about is who "owns" this debate. Male hierarchists try to relegate those deemed lesser to the bottom of the debate pecking order. Watch who casts himself as tolerant, patient, self possessed, unruffled. Who acts like some benign saint (Bernard) saviour of the planet, only mildly disdainful of the tactics of those he seeks to portray as little Chihuahuas skeptics nipping at his high & mighty apocalyptic heels? Who leaves the reader with the impression that his position is somehow inherently worthy of interest?” Who plays the long suffering martyr, the target of slings & arrows of indignant skepticism? Who focuses on style over content of the skeptic's debate? By implication who tries to draw the reader's attention to the supposed unworthiness of the skeptic's style? At one & the same time who dismisses the skeptic's sources by making an end run around addressing content at all, instead bear baiting any sincere sceptic in order to reduce their impact in what? the public eye? Who plays to what he imagines is his rapt audience, while his opponents often only play to him? Who baits, then waits for skeptics to lose patience w/ his unchanging stance, building up his own importance at their expense, only partly by ever so politely pointing out that those who differ are "rude"? Who baits & switches? Smart move, at least for any control freak. Reminds me of a Sunday School teacher, tweed jacket w/ elbow patches & a pipe, playing at being in charge of a few quislings in his classroom. IMHO, this is not the point of this or any debate. To let these types get in the way defeats the purpose, particularly by allowing use of unchanging arguments which only mirror each other’s stance, with or without supporting links to higher authorities. This may not be a very effective way to subvert a rigid position on its own inherent lack of merit. So far, I have not seen M & M address one another, which makes it that much easier for GW to hold the floor. Reacting to obdurateness strengthens any rigid stance. Why alienate the few readers who have not lost interest? The risk is ping pong fatigue. Tit for tat circularity achieves little. All dogmatists need exposure as such, regardless of where they stand on this or any issue. Few readers enjoy blood scent for long. It tends to wear off, leaving a few squabblers trapped in a battle of righter-than-thou righteousness. The egos of debaters are not the issue, since the real target is mental rigidity itself. It’s a fatal error to get sucked into ego clashes, at which point the difference between the rigidities of the realist & the rigidities of the alarmist evaporate. BTW, any one can see that “senile” is the port-of-last-resort adjective used by anyone who sees climate as fixed, (SC satire aside). This is NOT a reference to Hansen's boss who is only one of many McCarthyesque red herrings in any ideology driven position, as ME2 so aptly notes.

Mia

When I see some content, I'll respond to it. As for claiming righteousness, you can't be serious - your own post is the only one I've see that has taken, inherently, that approach.

As I said above, this is not my issue - never has been. I believe in the precautionary principle, I accept that there is an existing consensus on the science - with lots of room for debate and development.

When I see my interlocutor(s) advance something firm and empirical I'm more than prepared to address it. So far they’ve advanced nothing but second hand information from compromised and unreliable (all in my view and in the examples discussed above supported with evidence) sources.

They don’t marshal a credible case and prefer to throw brickbats instead; which is, as I've also written before, perfectly fine with me.

As for your own contribution, I'm surprised it took so long for someone to tie one side or the other of this debate to the Nazis.

Where were you?

As for the continuity of the earth as a system, I don't disagree. The question is not the existence of the platform - the Gaia if you wish - it's simply whether or not the human species will continue to play the role in the future that they've usurped for themselves to this point. From an historical point of view I see that as largely unimportant – from a human and a societal viewpoint it is quite another matter.

One other mild addendum. There is a set of rules about posting here and I have in my files an extensive collection of cautions from the editors here for remarks they considered 'offensive'.

For the record, I disagree with those incursions (and those conclusions) into healthy and animated debate; however, the fact that I am subject to them (as mopled has been in the past as well) may create the impression that I'm unwilling to - as it were - 'mix it up'.

That would be an unfortunate conclusion - so please don't assign to me any of the characteristics you've listed in your initial sentences (the ones ending with a reference to St Bernard).

Cheers.

Gaia Mockery Misses Mark

GW, I rest my case. Seems someone with elbow patches may have missed the thrust of any subversive humor re the absurdity of ANY rigid, static, unchanging position on climate issues. Maybe someone misunderstood the satirical content about the true nature of rigidity itself, not to mention appearing seemingly unable to enjoy a laugh. Meanwhile, seems Mopled recognized the intent! So who appears to be more ideologically myopic and/or humorless? And who seems to prefer to pontificate and/or resort to blind siding any attempts at balanced debate or rationality?
I suppose in this new era of post rationalism & the warmism's desperation of postulating the concept of "post normal science", (Google it) in a time when one cult after another is now going mainstream at extraordinary speed, this is to be expected.
Still, inability to laugh at one's own posturing tells a tale in itself, which in turn is just too funny for WORDS!

Mia - the answer - it's not much of a case.

As for funny, I agree, you're too funny for words. And, you could give lessons in posturing.

But then, I'm still waiting for the content which I suppose has been subsumed by your fascination with your own preconceptions about an anonymous poster.

When you're ready for a rational debate I assume you'll let me know...as for being humourous, this written format is notoriously bad for that.

Making an argument with simple declarative sentences would get your point across much more effectively in the end.

Furthermore, I wasn't mocking Gaia which should have been obvious - you were!

There either is a case to be made against the scientific evidence for AGW or there isn't. I do sympathize with the difficulties inherent in proving a negative though.

When you, or mopled, or ME2 are ready to make it I'm sure someone will take up the challenge. In the interim, as I pointed out to mopled and Me2 earlier – the weakness of any case is not enhanced by the way one chooses to present it.

Cheers.

And...he wrote, laughing....

The suggestion that G West has anything whatever to do with the management of this place or the way the commenting 'code' is enforced is actually pretty funny.

You clearly haven' been paying attention!

If you care for more information then you won't hesitate to reply to this invitation:

LAUGHING ALL THE WAY.....

Nearly four inches of snow blanketed the United Arab Emirates' Jebel Jais region- 2nd time in recorded history on January 24. Citizens were speechless. Local dialect has no word for snowfall. Dutchmen on ice skates sped past windmills as canals in Holland froze in mid-Jan., first time since 1997. Defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop, who inhabits a renovated 17th Century windmill, stumbled on ice & fractured his wrist. January saw northern Minnesota's temperatures plunge to 38 below zero, forcing ski-resort closures. A Frazee, Minnesota dog-sled race was cancelled, due to excessive snow. Snow whitened Surf City, North Carolina's beaches. Days ago, ice glazed Florida's citrus groves. As Earth faces global cooling, both troglodyte Right-wingers & lachrymose Left-wingers find Gore's simmering-planet hypothesis increasingly hilarious: "In terms of GW’s capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10," Dr. Robert Giegengack, former chairman, University of Penn's Earth & Environmental Sciences Department, told Pennsylvania Gazette. Commentator Harold Ambler declared Jan. 3 on HuffPost that he voted for Barack Obama "for a thousand times a thousand reasons." He added Gore "owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming." He called Gore's assertion that "the science is in" on this issue "the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of mankind." "Not only is it false that human activity has any significant effect on global warming or the weather in general, but for the record, global warming is over," retired Navy meteorologist Dr. Martin Hertzberg wrote on carbon-sense.com. The physical chemist & self-described "scientist & life-long liberal Dem" added: "The average temperature of Earth's atmosphere has declined over the last 10 years. From the El Nino Year of 1998 until Jan. 2007, it dropped a quarter of a degree Celsius (0.45 Fahrenheit). From Jan 2007 to spring 2008, it dropped a whopping three-quarters of a degree Celsius (1.35 degrees Fahrenheit). Data further proves that the fear-mongering hysteria about human-caused global warming is completely unjustified & is totally counterproductive to our Nation's essential needs & security.

....TO THE BANK

"It is a tribute to the scientific ignorance of politicians & journalists that they keep regurgitating nonsense about AGW," veteran Left-wing commentator & Nation magazine columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote. "The greenhouse fear mongers rely on unverified -crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind's sinful contribution-carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences- is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism, & greed." Some Leftists believe the collective hallucination of warmism distracts from what they consider urgent progressive priorities: "The most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers & profit-driven corporations & their cartels backed by military might," University of Ottawa physics professor Dr. Denis Rancourt wrote. "The GW myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth."
-- Social historian Dr. David Noble of Canada's York University concurs. He laments that warmism is "diverting attention from radical challenges of the global justice movements."Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, previously Education Minister in France's late 1990s Socialist government, denounced "prophets of doom of global warming." He sounded amused in a September 2006 L'Express article. "The ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people. "The so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming is not holding up," Senator James Inhofe (R -- Oklahoma) told his colleagues Jan. 8. "It is becoming increasingly clear skepticism about man-made global warming fear is not a partisan left vs. right issue." So-called "global warming" has accomplished the impossible: It has united liberals & conservatives in laughter.

I am definitely ROTFL

My weeks is complete. Too much snow for dog sled races, snow in Dubai,and then Mia.

Mia, you know you have scored points when he offers you his hotmail address. He's especially touchy about being perceived as having some special status here.

Patches on the elbows, eh? Not the image that comes to my mind, but then I was never forced to hang around those types.

Still no science

Still lots of journalistic and personal 'opinion'. And still, from you mopled, the same offensive personal remarks.

Is this about scoring facile and irrelevant points or serving the truth and actually having a reasonable discussion?

Let me know when one or the other of you actually wants to discuss the scientific evidence. If you think posting the opinions of a few leftists who are the 'scientific' equivalent of Rush Limbaugh is a reasonable response to the peer-reviewed work of thousands of legitimate researchers over the past two decades and more then I don't expect it will be much of a discussion.

Can we start, perhaps, with James Hansen's 1988 presentation, the three possible outcomes he presented at that time and the subsequent real world data which, I think you’ll find, achieves a remarkable rightness of fit to his option B.

As for snow in the Arabian Peninsula, I’ll raise you rain in Iqualuit in February: And I’ll suggest they’re both little more than artifacts….Why bring such things up at all?

Horsefeathers

Hansen's three scenarios was like Goldilocks ...and one was "just right"

You know that Tim Wirth, proudly acknowledged turning off the air-conditioning and opening the windows in the hearing room the night before Hansen made his prognostications?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth,
President of Ted Turner's UN Foundation which funds the IPCC.

Where did you get "thousands of legitimate researchers" peer reviewing what?

“2500 scientists can’t be wrong,” the press always says, explicitly or implicitly. Without that number, it would have no basis for the claim that they repeat over and over again — that there’s a consensus on climate change.
2500 is an impressive number of scientists. To find out who, exactly, they were, I contacted the Secretariat of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and asked for their names. The Secretariat replied that the names were not public, so I couldn’t have them. And I learned that the 2500 scientists were reviewers, not endorsers.
Those scientists hadn’t endorsed anything. They had merely reviewed one or more of the literally hundreds of background studies, some important and some not, that were part of this immense United Nations bureaucratic process. They did not review the final report or endorse it.
Their reviews weren’t even all favorable. I know that from many sources, including from among some of the scientists that I profiled — several of the deniers in my book are among those 2500. And those deniers, and others, generally consider the UN’s work a travesty.
There is no endorsement by 2500 top UN scientists. The press has been taken. And so the public has been taken.
The extent to which the public has been taken may surprise you. Not only is there no consensus, the scientists who are skeptics — the deniers — have extraordinary credentials, people at the very top echelons of the scientific establishment. They are the Who’s Who of Science.
Not only do they disagree with the UN conclusions, they often value CO2 for the benefits it provides the planet — satellite data shows the planet is now the greenest it has been in decades. Until recently, after all, CO2 was universally viewed as Nature’s fertilizer."
Excerpt from
Lawrence Solomon: What I told the Petroleum Club

Next, I suppose you're going to say Solomon and Limbaugh trade pills.

One thing at a time, if you please

Can I take it that you agree that Hansen's scenario B actually comports with the measurements taken in the intervening years?

If so, simply admit it. If not, then what exactly is your point?

The fact of the matter is that the whole denial scenario rests on that kind of thing because there is no credible peer-reviewed evidence of the alternative.

Either deal with the evidence or ignore it.

It's all the same to me Mopled since there are rogues and rescals selling everything from jeans to jujubes purporting to do practically anything.

The simple fact is that there is a plethora of peer reviewed scholarship on one side of this issue and, sadly for you, it happens not to be 'YOUR' side. I know that's a tough row to hoe but that's the way it is.

If you could present real evidence that is not a facile anecdote or something so compromised by the actions and involvement of a certain type of well-funded fellow traveller like James Inhofe then you might have an argument.

You haven't, and you don't.

You've got to be joking.

That's like small, medium and large.

One of them is bound to fit.

You ask for science...ok...show me some.

It's your hypothesis and not only has it still not been proven, it been shown to be backwards by 7 different research papers.

Warming is the CAUSE and higher CO2 is the EFFECT.

Ante up or fold!

Where's your science?

Still no science, no peer review and lots of as hominem

Does Lawrence Solomon, before he talks to the Petroleum Club, get his text vetted by Maggie Wente or Andrew Coyne?

Famous scientists at respected institutions that they are!

Please, let's get serious:

Let's see some real science from real scientists and some actual argument mopled.

So far I've seen none of it.

Have you actually read Hansen's work, looked at the graphs and 'tried' to understand them?

Cause it certainly doesn't seem so.

You dodge the real question

Where is "the science" that proves CO2 is responsible for "Climate Change" or "Global Warming"? As I said, it's your hypothesis, so prove it!

You complain about ad hominem attacks and then go on to dismiss Laurence Solomon with a comparison to two other irrelevant people.

You can't wriggle out of it that way.

Cough up the proof and stop dancing around.

Sorry, won't work

Guess you missed this:

Now who's actually wiggling? The peer reviewed science is there - the data is extant and all you can do is snipe at it using ammunition supplied by half-baked journalists and sleazy politicians.

I say it's not a hypothesis at all, it is empirical science. All you've got is a scatter gun and you're shooting blanks - along with Larry Solomon and the Petroleum Club.

I have presented evidence in spades

First, there is the present cooling in spite of higher levels of CO2 that supposedly caused the warming of the 1990s.
Here's Hansen's fakery compared with other data bases.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2003/plot/rss/from:2003/plot/gistemp/from:2003/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend

How about the divergence from IPCC predictions and reality:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/UAHTROPICS.jpg

Then there are the numerous papers showing the history of warming PRECEEDING a rise in CO2
"The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been correlated - see e.g. Petit et al., Nature 1999
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399429a0.html - but we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the concentration was its consequence, not the other way around.'
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791v1Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and
Antarctic Temperature Changes
Across Termination III
Nicolas Caillon,1,2* Jeffrey P. Severinghaus,2 Jean Jouzel,1
Jean-Marc Barnola,3 Jiancheng Kang,4 Volodya Y. Lipenkov5

The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases
with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon
in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (
240,000 years before the
present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change,
although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination
III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by
800  200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

The only place that CO2 is causing temperature change is in the IPCC models

This is an exercise in futility because no matter what I present, it is dismissed by you with some irrelevancy or an ad hominem.

Where's your proof? Let's see your next jig as you dance around the fact that there is nothing to support the CO2 hypothesis and plenty to falsify it.
http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf

Several of your links don't work

Others link to a graph floating in space and still others contain phrases like this one:

...the explanation for the strong link between atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic air temperature is still unclear. One reason for this uncertainty is that the relative timing of temperature and CO2 changes is not accurately known

The reason you're having so much trouble is that you're pushing an ideologically driven agenda - not a scientific one.

The closer and closer coordination between observed and modeled data is clear - to virtually everyone in the real (as opposed to pseudo) scientific community AND, increasingly to the man and woman on the street.

I just love the reversals you pull

You nit pick, accuse skeptics of what is true about the AGW/CC scam and have avoided presenting any evidence in support the CO2 scam. You act like an accomplice.

The ideology is all on the Dark Green side:
”Many individuals, including a large portion of environmentalists, believe that a purely technological approach to stablizing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could lead to social apathy towards climate change.

Ted Parsons, a professor at the School of National Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, writes that the promises of air capture could carry a ‘moral hazard’ because political pressure for near-term efforts to curtail climate change may be reduced.

Air capture also addresses one of many factors adversely affecting the environment. The climate crisis is a powerful tool to motivate change - like checking the ever-expanding global population and excessive resource consumption - and if the urgency of climate change is compromised, other environmental projects may fall by the wayside.”

Thus we have the reasoning as to why the science issues on Climate Science have been mostly ignored - the issue is not about climate science. The goal is to use the term “global warming” (with “climate change” used to make the concept cover all aspects of climate) not to ”motivate” change, but to force the public and policymakers to adopt specific policy and political actions that promotes particular agendas.

Clearly, this narrow approach is doomed to produce poor policy decisions. Unless the media starts to recognize this inappropriate use of climate science, we will continue down the road to many actions that will have unanticipated and undesirable consequences."

http://climatesci.org/2008/03/10/the-political-issue-of-global-warming/
I don't think it could be any plainer that the ideology is all Warmist, especially when the Club of Rome statement is taken into account.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…The real enemy, then, is humanity itself….Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one INVENTED for the purpose…”

- The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of Rome

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation."
- Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies

Here's a working link for the last item.
You'll find some nonsensical way of dismissing it.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

Even M. Mead was in on it.

1975 ‘Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference
Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born
Excerpt:
"The North Carolina conference, which
took place Oct. 26-29, 1975, was cosponsored
by two agencies of the U.S.
National Institutes of Health: the John E.
Fogarty International Center for Advanced
Study in the Health Sciences and the
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences. (Mead had been a Scholar in
Residence at the Fogarty Center
in 1973.)
It was at this governmentsponsored
conference, 32 years
ago, that virtually every scare
scenario in today’s climate hoax
took root. Scientists were
charged with coming up with the
“science” to back up the scares,
so that definitive action could be
taken by policy-makers.
Global cooling—the coming
of an ice age—had been in the
headlines in the 1970s, but it
could not easily be used to sell
genocide by getting the citizens
of industrial nations to cut back
on consumption. Something
more drastic and more personal
was needed.
Eugenics and
The Paradigm Shift
Mead’s population-control
policy was firmly based in the
post-Hitler eugenics movement,
which took on the more palatable
names of “conservation”
and “environmentalism” in the
post-World War II period. As
Julian Huxley, the vice president
of Britain’s Eugenics
Society" (1937-1944), had announced in
1946, “even though it is quite
true that radical eugenic policy
will be for many years politically
and psychologically impossible,
it will be important for
UNESCO to see that the eugenic
problem is examined with the.....
continues at
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf

It's a fascinating read and it's only 5 pages long. It's a lovely day. I'm out of here.

Reversals...hardly

My position has always been that I'm open to persuasion - provide me some intelligent and on-point evidence and I'll change my mind.

SO far - nada