iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

Richard2's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
next
1 - 25
huffingtonpost entry

Why Do Meteorologists Dismiss Climate Change Science?

Commented Feb 22, 2012 at 21:16:51 in Science

“If there are any meteorologists reading this article, how about responding to it? As a meteorologist, what are the lines of reasoning you have developed that cause you to not be receptive to the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming?”

maxwells on Mar 15, 2012 at 11:34:00

“Hmm...no postings from Richard2 since Feb. 22nd.

What happened? We almost miss you (not really). But

a) Did you finally get banned for incessant shilling?

b) Did Heartland pull your account because they've had to reallocate resources in the wake of their internal document leak, showing conclusively that they're just another perennially lying PR firm for the fossil fuel industry?

c) Did they put you out to pasture again because they've got younger, more vigorous shills who've invaded HP space?

d) Did the fact that you've been associating with PR people and "scientists for hire" who pushed the "tobacco isn't a carcinogen" lie for 30 years and are now denying anthropogenic global warming finally get to you (very doubtful, I know) ?”

maxwells on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:35:26

“How's your Cascade Policy Institute doppelganger doing?

http://connect.mlive.com/user/Korova_Milkbar/index.html

Oh, and I happen to be a PhD meteorologist.

With Keeling's rising CO2 paper and the infrared spectra of CO2 and H2O, I'd figured by the late 1960's that the man-made global warming signal would rise above background noise (volcanoes, El Nino/La Nina cycles, etc.) in maybe 30 years.

Unfortunately, I guessed right.

Yet, back then I was clueless that there'd still be pros like you here in 2012, denying the obvious - that global warming is real and continuing.

Human social ecology seems to have a place for retirees from the R J Reynolds, Brown and Williamson, P. Lorillard-funded "tobacco ain't a carcinogen" PR campaigns.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

People like you kept that battle going for 30 years.

And knee-jerk contrarians you've cited, MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen, or Fred Singer, who besides being global warming denier pros, still also claim there's only a weak link between smoking and cancer.

1st sentence of this link:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2001/07/22/the-truth-about-global-warming.html

Lindzen and Singer are featured at those Heartland Institute global warming denier conferences.

Great group you have.”

realpolitic on Feb 23, 2012 at 00:24:50

“Is their opinion as important if they are, say, sociology majors because, as said, half of practicing meteorologists do not even have college degrees in meteorology?”
Climate Denial Bombshell (Update)

Climate Denial Bombshell (Update)

Commented Feb 22, 2012 at 10:10:22 in Science

“"Gleick “impersonated a board member of the Heartland Institute, stole his identity by creating a fake email address, and proceeded to use that fake email address to steal documents that were prepared for a board meeting. He read those documents, concluded that there was no smoking gun in them, and then forged a two-page memo” " - Joe Bast, of the HI

Time to buy some popcorn.”

DocSkull on Feb 24, 2012 at 09:26:30

“If you believe Joe Bast's denial of the document, you should check out this rather through review of its contents. It makes a pretty convincing argument that it's contents are supported by Heartland's undisputed documents and statements by employees.

http://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authentic

Then review this HuPo discussion of an analysis which finds the likely author to be Heartland's president and CEO, Joe Bast.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/joe-bast-fake-document_b_1297042.html?ref=climate-change

DocSkull on Feb 22, 2012 at 22:45:28

“I love the denial. It's the lie which gives the story wings.”

Publicola on Feb 22, 2012 at 15:31:43

“Joe Bast, President of the Heartland Institute, also threatens 71-year-old veteran with legal action for alleged "threat" against Heartland with respect to Denialgate documents:

--------------------------

Heartland Institute Threatens 71-Year-Old Veteran
 
By Gary Wamsley
Colonel, USAF, Retired

When I read the original articles on the release of confidential documents from the Heartland Institute board meeting... I was infuriated.

I reacted by sending a strongly worded email to the president and all the board members of the Heartland Institute.

Surprisingly, one board member and institute president Joseph Bast responded to my email.

Bast’s response is one that I would consider threatening. He said he was turning the email over to their legal department, the forensic staff and the FBI. He also warned me not to delete any emails.

Apparently, I was supposed to be frightened by the specter of this multimillion dollar non-profit (?) spending resources on an old veteran. The whole idea seems ludicrous and they know it. Still, I am not afraid of the battle if it comes. This is a tactic that big money often used to suppress free speech...

I decided to publish these emails so that you can judge the exchange for yourself.

http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-threatens-71-year-old-veteran/

SallyMaclennane on Feb 22, 2012 at 14:33:08

“What do you think he does with his scientific data when it doesn't give him the outcome he wants?”

Robco1 on Feb 22, 2012 at 11:10:21

“What, upset that an enterprising whistle-blower is exposing your gravy train for the fraud that it is? I'm all broken up about it.

--How about if we focus on the content of the leaked documents instead? They do reveal a deep truth: that the Heartland Institute is a propaganda organization with great support from right-wing political organizations and individuals, and that their mission is to parcel out money to disinformation agents like Anthony Watts and Fred Singer, who sow unfounded doubt and confusion about real science. And they plan to poison American education.--

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/no_sympathy_for_the_devil.php

I'm sure all your hand-waving couldn't have anything to do with trying to distract people from that.”
huffingtonpost entry

Heartland Republicans: Investigate Heartland

Commented Feb 22, 2012 at 09:53:01 in Green

“As part of NCSE's expansion to defend the teaching of climate science, Gleick had agreed to join NCSE's board of directors. On the same day as he posted his statement, however, he apologized to NCSE for his behavior with regard to the Heartland Institute documents and offered to withdraw from the board, on which he was scheduled to begin serving as of February 25, 2012. His offer was accepted.- NCSE statement”

Publicola on Feb 23, 2012 at 18:43:09

“Richard2: {{{ ... crickets ... }}}”

Publicola on Feb 22, 2012 at 16:08:44

“Dear Richard2,

Do you support the Heartland Institute's threatening a 71-year-old Veteren with legal action for exercising his right to free speech?

http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-threatens-71-year-old-veteran/
huffingtonpost entry

Heartland Republicans: Investigate Heartland

Commented Feb 21, 2012 at 20:22:58 in Green

““AGU is disappointed that Dr. Gleick acted in a way that is inconsistent with our organization’s values. AGU expects its members to adhere to the highest standards of scientific integrity in their research and in their interactions with colleagues and the public. Among the core values articulated in AGU’s Strategic Plan are ‘excellence and integrity in everything we do.’ The vast majority of scientists share and live by these values.”

hp blogger A. Siegel on Feb 21, 2012 at 22:57:31

“And, this post is about a Republican organization's call for the media (and others) to focus on and report on the substance within the documents -- and not get distracted onto sideshows, including how the sunshine of daylight was brought on them.”
The Origin of the Heartland Documents

The Origin of the Heartland Documents

Commented Feb 21, 2012 at 17:19:06 in Green

“So Mr. Gleick worked at the Heartland Institute, not at the Pacific Institute? Is this your claim?”

dim on Feb 21, 2012 at 17:53:46

“Ok, assistant whistleblower. Happy?”

Publicola on Feb 21, 2012 at 17:48:59

“The source of the information in the original, now alledgedly forged Denialgate document evidently had access to internal Hearland Institute information.”
The Origin of the Heartland Documents

The Origin of the Heartland Documents

Commented Feb 21, 2012 at 16:20:41 in Green

“Peter H. Gleick has written for years about the danger of catastrophic sea level rise to the state of California. He has advised and assisted the State Government of California on this issue.

During that time, he has repeatedly ignored opportunities to discuss the reality of tide station data along the California coast, from locations such as San Francisco, Monterrey and La Jolla (Scripps Pier), which indicate only minor increases and minor decreases in sea level over the past 130 years, with no evidence for any extraordinary acceleration of increases in sea level.

As a scientist he may interprete the this data differently than others, but he certainly should have acknowledged the existence of that data, and its possible significance to Californians.”

Publicola on Feb 21, 2012 at 16:33:47

“R2: "As a scientist he may interprete the this data differentl­y than others, but he certainly should have acknowledg­ed the existence of that data"

What make you think he hasn't?

You appear to be laboring under the miscconception that what Gleick has been saying is in disagreement with the data. You also seem to have difficulty acknowledging that sea level is increasing worldwide due to the warming earth and melting glaciers.

Speaking of refusing to acknowledge reality:

Do you R2 still insist that evolution science denial doesn't exist?”

chrisd3 on Feb 21, 2012 at 16:32:11

“As a scientist, he surely knows that local sea level rises are not meaningful. I'm not really surprised that you don't.”
Climate Denial Bombshell (Update)

Climate Denial Bombshell (Update)

Commented Feb 21, 2012 at 11:24:57 in Science

“You're right. Mr. Gleick did not directly address the separate question of who wrote the fake document. However, he should know who did, if it was not himself. He must be considered suspect number one. Perhaps his lawyer will convince him to publically explain the complete history of the fake document.”

Robco1 on Feb 21, 2012 at 21:36:39

“You and your, um, friends at Heartland claim it is fake, and it looks suspect to a few others, but low and behold! The substance of the document is all confirmed.

BTW, why don't you read the 1994 TASSC memo, the 1998 API memo, the 2006 IREA memo, the 2002 Luntz memo and tell us all with a straight face why anyone should believe anything you say?

Maybe you can tell me what the business model is behind this org chart from Heartland's 2010 Prospectus. Looks like they are soliciting "donors" for issues and talking points that serve said donor's interests, then reporting the results. That would make them a PR firm, wouldn't it?
http://ijish.livejournal.com/29235.html

chrisd3 on Feb 21, 2012 at 12:27:21

“[Mr. Gleick did not directly address the separate question of who wrote the fake document.]

He most certainly did. He explicitly stated that he received it anonymously and that he does not know who wrote it.

[He must be considered suspect number one. ]

You can "suspect" all you want, but you CANNOT state it as fact.”
Climate Denial Bombshell (Update)

Climate Denial Bombshell (Update)

Commented Feb 20, 2012 at 22:53:48 in Science

“Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post, speaks for itself. - Andrew Revkin, N.Y. Times.”

Robco1 on Feb 21, 2012 at 21:42:59

“Gleick will now take on a new role, that of whistle-blower exposing the corruption of one of the worst denial front groups to ooze up in recent years. He is a hero who should be proud of the sacrifice he has made to unmask this cabal of shills for what they truly are.

http://www.desmogblog.com/climategate-victims-chide-heartland-double-standard

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/fake.pdf

maxwells on Feb 21, 2012 at 15:10:45

“Hey Richard2. If your income's in limbo, just a heads up for ya.

Besides Cascade Policy and Heartland there's more such "Institutes" like:

Hoover
Cato
Marshall
Competitive Enterprise
American Enterprise
Cascade Policy
Manhattan
American Petroleum
Frontiers of Freedom
Fraser

And "coalitions" like:

Cooler Heads
Advancement of Sound Science
Global Climate

And "foundations" like:

Frontiers of Freedom
Atlantic Legal
Heritage

And "centers" like:

National Center for Policy Analysis
Study of CO2 and Global Change
Annapolis
Weidenbaum
New Europe

And "councils" like:

American Legislative
American Council on Science and Health

Also, the

Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy
Science and Environmental Policy Project

and many others

Lotsa places where you can apply, should your current employment disappear over this brouHAHA.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php
Climate Denial Bombshell (Update)

Climate Denial Bombshell (Update)

Commented Feb 20, 2012 at 22:49:12 in Science

“Peter Gleick has now confessed to his role in this farce. He wrote the fake document. The world now understands what really happened. The only bombshell is the one that has hit Peter Gleick's reputation.”

El Justiciero on Feb 23, 2012 at 13:35:15

“Richard, if that is your name. . . . you are flat out lying and you know it. What's the point? Do you think you're persuading someone here?”

Publicola on Feb 22, 2012 at 20:31:58

“Richard2: "He wrote the fake document."

R2 is one-person disinformation machine.

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/

gallon on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:25:41

“Heartlands relentless campaigning against science still exists. Gleick is a hero for publicizing this.

Why are you defending Heartland, R2?”

chrisd3 on Feb 21, 2012 at 07:00:04

“"He wrote the fake document"

He says he didn't. He says that he received the fake document and then obtained the others in an attempt to confirm it.

That, of course, doesn't stop you from simply asserting something you don't know as being fact, because that's what you "skeptics" do.”
Climate Denial Bombshell (Update)

Climate Denial Bombshell (Update)

Commented Feb 16, 2012 at 10:43:30 in Science

“"One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

We respectfully ask all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, especially the fake “climate strategy” memo and any quotations from the same, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions." -The Heartland Institute

The tone of the Heartland response is impressive in contrast with the emotional ranting of some commenters.”

Publicola on Feb 16, 2012 at 22:45:36

“Richard2: "The tone of the Heartland response is impressive in contrast with the emotional ranting of some commenters."

You seem to have missed this part of Heartland's 'DenialGate' response R2 - funny how their emotional indignation and threats of prosecution about stolen private Heartland documents is in complete contrast to their response to stolen private CRU documents in so-called 'ClimateGate'.

--------------
The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.

How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes.

http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

chrisd3 on Feb 16, 2012 at 15:27:05

“It is certainly possible that the one document is a fake.

However, essentially all of the CONTENT of that document is confirmed either by the other documents, which Heartland doesn't dispute, or by the individuals involved.

If the one document is a fake, that is very unfortunate because that will make it easier for people like you to bluster about, feign righteous indignation, and make smoke to obscure the content of the real ones.

Which, of course, is precisely what you did in this comment.”
huffingtonpost entry

Why Is There so Much Political Energy Behind Solar Power?

Commented Feb 15, 2012 at 13:15:04 in Green

“Kevin Myers, The Independent (Ireland) .Russia's main gas-company, Gazprom, was unable to meet demand last weekend as blizzards swept across Europe, and over three hundred people died. Did anyone even think of deploying our wind turbines to make good the energy shortfall from Russia? Of course not. We all know that windmills are a self-indulgent and sanctimonious luxury whose purpose is to make us feel good.

Had Europe genuinely depended on green energy on Friday, by Sunday thousands would be dead from frostbite and exposure, and the EU would have suffered an economic body blow to match that of Japan's tsunami a year ago. No electricity means no water, no trams, no trains, no airports, no traffic lights, no phone systems, no sewerage, no factories, no service stations, no office lifts, no central heating and even no hospitals, once their generators run out of fuel.”

sheila on Feb 15, 2012 at 16:21:40

“huh? you don't really understand how the grid works, do ya? here's a hint - our grid ain't linked to Russia's and there is no power we could have generated to export to them except in a boatload of batteries or something equally ridiculous. not even your beloved coal power.

when france (nuke central) suffered a similar failure to meet demand last month it was the Germans and their ROOFTOP SOLAR who saved the day and exported lots of electricity to France, even as Germany shut down their own nuke plants. Germany is proving it can be done - quickly, affordably and FAIRLY because the people, not stalinist central-station energy conglomerates, own the generation and are paid well for producing the power that is needed, where it is needed.

PV is modular, portable, extremely clean and quiet, affordable and likes the cold. don't lump Big Wind in with nimble, clean local solar...”
Climate Denial Bombshell (Update)

Climate Denial Bombshell (Update)

Commented Feb 15, 2012 at 13:02:39 in Science

“What the Heartland document show is how badly warmists have been beaten by those with a fraction of the resources they’ve enjoyed.

Al Gore spent $300 million advertising the global warming hoax. Greenpeace, the WWF, the Sierra Club, The Natural Resources Defense Council, NASA, NOAA, the UN and nation states have collectively poured billions into climate research, alternative energies and propaganda, supported along the way by most of the broadcast and print media.

Yet they’ve been thwarted by a few honest scientists, a number of blogs and a small pile of cash from Heartland.

Here’s a clue for DeSmog, Joe Romm and other warmists enjoying a little schadenfreude today. It’s not the money that’s beating you, it’s the message.--Tom Nelson”

gallon on Feb 15, 2012 at 19:02:56

“Denier Richard2 attempts to distract: "Al Gore this Al Gore that Greenpeace Sierra Club"

Pitiful R2, just pitiful. You come on here actually defending Heartland. Perhaps your livelihood is being threatened here? Not much future in denying?”

AnthropologistAmongApes on Feb 15, 2012 at 16:03:21

“That crow is tasting pretty foul eh?”

jb68 on Feb 15, 2012 at 15:17:29

“Honest scientists? Heh. This is the same sort of "science" the tobacco industry used to claim that cigarette smoking wasn't harmful.”

Publicola on Feb 15, 2012 at 14:40:13

“Heartland Institute Shill Bob Carter Hides the Global Warming Incline

Dear Richard2,

Isn't prominent global warming "skeptic" Dr. Bob Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?**

Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax, a blatant and indefensible lie?

If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter's gross misrepresentation of scientific data.

Please answer question R2 instead of continuing to run away from it - thank you.

Bob Carter is a leader of and/or major contributo­r to several of the most prominent organizati­ons that are "skeptical­­" of man-made global warming, including:

------------------
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php

Capncuster on Feb 15, 2012 at 14:25:08

“"It's hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding."
-- Mark Twain”
Mild Winter in U.S., but Devastating Winter in Eastern Europe

Mild Winter in U.S., but Devastating Winter in Eastern Europe

Commented Feb 14, 2012 at 19:18:13 in Green

“Russia's main gas-company, Gazprom, was unable to meet demand last weekend as blizzards swept across Europe, and over three hundred people died. Did anyone even think of deploying our wind turbines to make good the energy shortfall from Russia?

Of course not. We all know that windmills are a self-indulgent and sanctimonious luxury whose purpose is to make us feel good. Had Europe genuinely depended on green energy on Friday, by Sunday thousands would be dead from frostbite and exposure, and the EU would have suffered an economic body blow to match that of Japan's tsunami a year ago. No electricity means no water, no trams, no trains, no airports, no traffic lights, no phone systems, no sewerage, no factories, no service stations, no office lifts, no central heating and even no hospitals, once their generators run out of fuel. - Kevin Myers, in Independent (Ireland).”

ubrew12 on Feb 14, 2012 at 22:16:21

http://www.wind-works.org/FeedLaws/France/ RenewablesHelpedFranceAvoidFreezingintheDark.html
Subtitle: "French & German Wind Likely Made the Difference during Arctic Cold Spell"

R2: "EU would have suffered an economic body blow to match that of Japan's tsunami"
Please call me an 'alarmist'. It's become a compliment, coming from you.”
The Smoking Gun: Plot by Fossil Fuel Giant to Further Corrupt Aussie Media Exposed

The Smoking Gun: Plot by Fossil Fuel Giant to Further Corrupt Aussie Media Exposed

Commented Feb 13, 2012 at 14:16:21 in Media

“Russia's main gas-company, Gazprom, was unable to meet demand last weekend as blizzards swept across Europe, and over three hundred people died. Did anyone even think of deploying our wind turbines to make good the energy shortfall from Russia?

Of course not. We all know that windmills are a self-indulgent and sanctimonious luxury whose purpose is to make us feel good. Had Europe genuinely depended on green energy on Friday, by Sunday thousands would be dead from frostbite and exposure, and the EU would have suffered an economic body blow to match that of Japan's tsunami a year ago. No electricity means no water, no trams, no trains, no airports, no traffic lights, no phone systems, no sewerage, no factories, no service stations, no office lifts, no central heating and even no hospitals, once their generators run out of fuel. -Kevin Myers, independent.ie”

gallon on Feb 13, 2012 at 15:54:40

“Reprehensible attempt to somehow connect windmills to deaths from extreme weather. R2 sometimes you are a blithering idgit.”
Climate Change for Dummies: Go Boil Water

Climate Change for Dummies: Go Boil Water

Commented Feb 9, 2012 at 11:34:23 in Green

“SPIEGEL: You are an electric utility executive by profession. What prompted you to get involved in climatology?

Vahrenholt: In my experience as an energy expert, I learned that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more of a political than a scientific body. As a rapporteur on renewable energy, I witnessed how thin the factual basis is for predictions that are made at the IPCC. In one case, a Greenpeace activist's absurd claim that 80 percent of the world's energy supply could soon be coming from renewable sources was assumed without scrutiny. This prompted me to examine the IPCC report more carefully.

SPIEGEL: And what was your conclusion?

Vahrenholt: The long version of the IPCC report does mention natural causes of climate change, like the sun and oscillating ocean currents. But they no longer appear in the summary for politicians. They were simply edited out. To this day, many decision-makers don't know that new studies have seriously questioned the dominance of CO2. CO2 alone will never cause a warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. Only with the help of supposed amplification effects, especially water vapor, do the computers arrive at a drastic temperature increase. I say that global warming will remain below two degrees by the end of the century. This is an eminently political message, but it's also good news.- Der Spiegel”

Publicola on Feb 10, 2012 at 17:10:16

“Fritz Vahrenholt served for years on Shell Oil's Board of Directors.

Vahrenholt is not a climate scientist, and neither is he a real scientific skeptic.

Real climate scientist Hans von Storch reviews the new so-called global warming "skeptic" book that Vahrenholt is peddling:

----------------------
A skeptic lacking skepticism: Fritz Vahrenholt ...

On the web-page of the present book Klimazwiebel and myself are falsely listed as supporters of an explanation by natural variations...

What Vahrenholt presents is a complete explanation of the climate variations, referring to handful of scientists. This explanation is highly complex, with many challenging details, which can hardly be verified by a single person, scientist or lay-person. The interesting detail is that Fritz Vahrenholt is really certain about this “explanation”. Not a bit skeptical... when he comes closer to areas, which I personally have studied, errors emerge, and when I speak to other scientists they say the same for their fields of competence. It seems that Fritz Vahrenholt and his coauthor Sebastian Lüning have simply cherry-picked – what is what they criticize their opponents for.

http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2012/02/skeptic-lacking-skepticism-fritz.html
huffingtonpost entry

The Great Carbon Bubble

Commented Feb 8, 2012 at 18:01:40 in Green

“The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data.- The Guardian”

Climate Lurker on Feb 9, 2012 at 11:30:19

“Not true. It's lost LESS ice than expected, but it has still lost ice.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-036

Robco1 on Feb 8, 2012 at 22:47:35

“3 levels of cherry picking in a single argument:
Cherry Pick #1: Select one particular temperature record
Cherry Pick #2: ignore what's happening to the rest of the climate
Cherry Pick #3: Comparing single years rather than statistical trends

http://www.skepticalscience.com/3-levels-of-cherry-picking-in-a-single-argument.html

--If you are actually practicing public relations, take a close look at your clients and at your own performance. There has to be a point where principle trumps short-term economic gain, a point where you admit to yourself that it’s not worth the money to put the planet at risk.--
http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam
Whacking 16 Moles

Whacking 16 Moles

Commented Feb 8, 2012 at 09:01:00 in Green

“As for Mr. Trenberth’s heart-surgeon analogy: You might be better off consulting an intelligent generalist, probably not a dentist, but a primary-care physician who could recommend exercise and diet change before undergoing unnecessary and potentially dangerous surgery. Heart surgeons tend to recommend surgery more often than nonsurgeons because specialists are easily biased by their specialization. When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.- WSJ letters”

Publicola on Feb 8, 2012 at 18:17:53

“Richard2: "Heart surgeons tend to recommend surgery more often than nonsurgeon­s because specialist­s are easily biased by their specializa­tion."

I've read that 95% of all unsupported claims made on the internet are false. Is that true?

Hey R2,

Speaking of your relentless science denial do you still deny that not only climate science deniers exist but also that evolution science deniers exist too?”
Climate Change for Dummies: Go Boil Water

Climate Change for Dummies: Go Boil Water

Commented Feb 7, 2012 at 23:10:34 in Green

“Perhaps the simplest first step is to put aside the arguments and get back to the data. Is it really true that global temperatures have not risen since 1997?

The simple answer is: they have risen, but not by very much. “Our records for the past 15 years suggest the world has warmed by about 0.051C over that period,” said the Met Office. In layman’s terms that is 51 thousandths of a degree.- Jonathan Leake, The Sunday Times

So over the past 15 years the earth has warmed by an average of 3.4 thousandths of a degree!

This reminds one of the Times Atlas story, where it was first claimed that a significant part of Greenlands icecap had melted away. Then, when challenged to prove this, the Times Atlas admitted that the melting was some entirely insignificant amount.

So if there has been no warming for 15 years, doesn't this falsify all the stories about global warming causing numerous horrible things over the past 15 years, stories which were covered unquestioningly by the popular media?”

Publicola on Feb 7, 2012 at 23:57:30

“Richard2: "So over the past 15 years the earth has warmed by an average of 3.4 thousandth­s of a degree!"

Your rhetoric is misleading as usual, Richard2:

1) You cherry-picked the global surface temperature dataset that shows the least warming - other surface datasets show considerably more warming:

http://tinyurl.com/7s9kamc

2) Time interval you cherry-picked includes 1998, which is the year of the strongest El Niño on record.

3) Due to the influence of known external factors including El Ninos and volcanic activity, the time interval you cherry-picked is too short to control for the influence of that "noise" without removing it via standard statistical analysis.

4) When that "noise" is removed via standard standard statistical analysis, "all five [global land and sea] data sets show statistically significant warming even for the time span from 2000 to the present... There is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming, beyond the variability induced by these known natural factors."

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/

Given that you post regularly and almost exclusively on this topic, how is it that you Rchard2 are not aware of these basic climate science facts?”

gallon on Feb 7, 2012 at 23:41:15

“All innuendo, all the time by R2.

The trend has been there all along, with noise from natural variations imposed on the steady trend.
see the paper by Foster and Rahmsdorf. They filtered out the known natural variations and voila, the original trend line continues right through the past decade.

Foster and Rahmstorf 2011
http://bit.ly/u2CIdp

Foster, Grant, and Stefan Rahmstorf, Global Temperature Evolution 1979–2010, Environ.
Res. Lett., vol. 6, p. 044022, October-December 2011.”
huffingtonpost entry

The Great Carbon Bubble

Commented Feb 7, 2012 at 19:48:27 in Green

“In Blaming Mankind For Causing Snow Across Europe, Greens Sound Eerily Like 16th-Century Witch-Hunters

Whenever it snows these days, there will always be an eco-miserabilist at hand to tell us it is our fault – that freakish wintery weather is as much "manmade" as is hot weather and droughts. And so the Independent, having told us in March 2000 that, as a result of climate change, "snow is starting to disappear from our lives", now tells us that, as a result of climate change, snow will become a more regular feature in our lives. Under the headline "Science behind the big freeze: is climate change bringing the Arctic to Europe?", the Indie says the reason we're all freezing is because manmade global warming caused "a dramatic loss of sea ice" in the Arctic, generating "a chill Arctic wind [which] has engulfed much of Europe and killed 221 people over the past week".

In short, it is your fault and my fault and everybody's fault that it has become so chilly recently. Our wicked antics, our carbon-emitting lifestyles, brought this Siberian winter upon Europe and killed all those homeless and old people. I wonder if environmentalists ever stop to think how much they sound like the witch-hunters of yesteryear? Brendan ONeill- The Daily Telegraph”

gallon on Feb 8, 2012 at 18:04:12

“Such drama R2. Mankind continues to emit copious quantities of CO2. That CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmosphere. And that atmosphere continues to warm, as predicted by the greenhouse theory of Arrhenious back in 1896. We were warned Rw. Yes, now it is our fault, including yours. Sorry that you just don't want to hear about it. Funny thing, your complaint sounds exactly like something the fossil fuel propaganda machine might say.

Since you didn't provide a reference R2, here goes for the complete article.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/science-behind-the-big-freeze-is-climate-change-bringing-the-arctic-to-europe-6358928.html

Digging further we come up with additional material. In particular, open water in the Arctic leads to shifting wind patterns which in turn drive arctic conditions further southward.

Barnett, A.G., S. Hajat, A. Gasparrini, and J. Rocklov, Cold and Heat Waves in the
United States, Environmental Research, vol. 112, no. 1, pp. 218–224, January 2012.

Jaiser, R., K. Detloff, D. Handorf, A. Rinke, and J. Cohen, Impact of Sea Ice Cover
Changes on the Northern Hemisphere Atmospheric Winter Circulation, Tellus A,
vol. 64, pp.11595, 2012. DOI: 10.3402/tellusa.v64i0.11595

In summary R2, yes it is us. Inconvenient for you I know.”

Enliberate on Feb 8, 2012 at 03:00:44

“Think about this. I've heard it argued that the counter-clockwise Atlantic current that brings warm air up from Africa to the European coast lines is slowing down. This is due to the change in water temperature. The current's strength requires the right contrast of cold and warm water, and the warming of the oceans in general serves to defeat this contrast, or interaction just like with cold and warm air. The acidification of the oceans may also have some connection, all of this in the context of a spinning globe in rotational motion. In addition, there's more moisture in the air with which to make precipitation when the temperature of the planet increases.
No. This is real, and it ain't about hunting no witches. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but the sooner you face it, the better.”
Climate Scientists: Calling Out the Cranks

Climate Scientists: Calling Out the Cranks

Commented Feb 7, 2012 at 09:48:02 in Science

“How can anyone be "responsible for the climate a century ahead." Has any human being ever been able to credibly predict anything 100 years in advance? Can you name even one? Fantasy is not reality.

Meteorologists make short term forecasts which can be reviewed and evaluated on a monthly basis. They have credibility in their area of expertise. Climatologists have no credibility in forecasting 100 years in advance. They only make long term forecasts that will never to evaluated by anyone living today.

Therefore the public has more confidence in the meteorologists than the so-called climatologists.”

gallon on Feb 7, 2012 at 18:16:38

“And the supporting citations are here.

Arrhenius, S.A., On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the
Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine, vol 41, pp. 237-276, 1896.

Sherwood, S.C., J.R. Lanzante and C.L. Meyer, Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming, Science, vol. 309, pp. 1556-1559, 2005.

Balling, R.C. et al., Analysis of Winter and Summer Warming Rates in Gridded
Temperature Time Series, Climate Research, vol. 9, pp. 175-181, 1998.

Volodin, E.M. and V.Ya. Galin, Interpretation of Winter Warming on Northern
Hemisphere Continents in 1977–94, Journal of Climate, vol. 12, pp. 2947-2955,
1999.

Crozier, L., Winter Warming Facilitates Range Expansion: Cold Tolerance of the
Butterfly Atalopedes Campestris, Oecologia, vol. 125, pp. 648-656, 2003.

Polyakov, I.V., G.V. Alekseev, R.V. Bekryaev, U. Bhatt, R.L. Colony, M.A. Johnson,
V.P. Karklin, A.P. Makshtas, D. Walsh, and A.V. Yulin, Observationally Based
Assessment of Polar Amplification of Global Warming, Geophysical Research
Letters, vol. 29, p. 1878, 2001.

Holland, M.M. and C.M. Bitz, Polar Amplification of Climate Change in Coupled
Models, Climate Dynamics, vol. 21, pp.221-232, 2003.

Comiso, J.C., Warming Trends in the Arctic from Clear Sky Satellite Observations,
Journal of Climate, vol. 16, pp. 3498-3510, 2003.

Turner, J., J.E. Overland, and J.E. Walsh, An Arctic and Antarctic Perspective on Recent Climate Change, Internat. Journal of Climate, vol. 27, pp. 277-293, 2007.

This post was also rejected earlier this morning, many hours ago.”

gallon on Feb 7, 2012 at 18:14:31

“R2 made the incredulous claim: " How can anyone be "responsible for the climate a century ahead." Has any human being ever been able to credibly predict anything 100 years in advance? Can you name even one? Fantasy is not reality."

Sheesh R2. You have made hundreds of posts around here, each full of innuendo and doubt about global warming. Question: if one is going to bash global warming, shouldn't that one first understand a thing or two about it?

It is ridiculously easy to refute your suggestion with hard evidence.

1896 Arrhenius prediction of global warming.
evidence: numerous modern measurements

1896 Arrhenius prediction that nights warm more than days
evidence: Sherwood 2005

1896 Arrhenius prediction that Winter would warm more than summer
evidence: Balling 1998
Volodin 1999
Crozier 2003

1896 Arrhenius prediction of polar amplification of warming
evidence: Polyakov 2001
Holland 2003

1896 Arrhenius prediction that Arctic warms more than Antarctic
evidence: Comiso 2003
Turner 2007

Sheesh R2. Spend more time with the science and less time campaigning against it. This post was rejected earlier today.”

Rob Dekker on Feb 7, 2012 at 17:16:41

“Richard, "Has any human being ever been able to credibly predict anything 100 years in advance?"
Of course we have. We do this all the time in science. We can say with great accuracy when and where the next Solar Eclipse will occur, when comet Halley will reappear and where it will be in the sky, and predict that Betelgeuse is likely to nova in the next few millennia, and we can predict the approximate surface temperature of planets around distant stars, even though we can't even see the planet itself. And we can predict the IR emission spectrum of a planet with great accuracy, if we know the composition of the atmosphere.
Are such predictions "not credible" either ?

Why then is it that the moment scientists make model projections on how much this planet will warm over the next 100 years as a result of fossil fuel burning that you find that "not credible" ?”

BlackbirdHighway on Feb 7, 2012 at 11:55:55

“"Has any human being ever been able to credibly predict anything 100 years in advance? Can you name even one?"

"If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°." - Svante Arrhenius, Världarnas utveckling (1906)”
Climate Scientists: Calling Out the Cranks

Climate Scientists: Calling Out the Cranks

Commented Feb 6, 2012 at 20:41:59 in Science

“Most U.S. meteorologists -- 82 percent in a 2011 survey -- are convinced that climate is changing, but many say it's changing because of natural causes, or human and natural causes combined.

That contrasts with about 95 percent of climate scientists who are convinced that climate change is occurring and that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are a key driver of it. This tallies with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which reported with 90 percent certainty in 2007 on the causes and effects of climate change.

To Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, that split shows that efforts like Forecast the Facts are misguided.

"It presumes that AMS is part of the problem, and I actually think the AMS is doing really, really solid work to help their weathercaster members expand the way they currently define their day job to include climate education as part of their role," Maibach said.

Maibach, who tracks meteorologists' attitudes on climate change, said skeptics in the group believe their concerns are being ignored.

"They feel their views and their concerns about the science are not being taken seriously," Maibach said. "It's pretty easy to understand how one gets to a place of anger when they feel dismissed and disrespected." - Reuters”

Rob Dekker on Feb 7, 2012 at 03:49:42

“Richard2 said Maibach, who tracks meteorolog­ists' attitudes on climate change, said skeptics in the group believe their concerns are being ignored.

"They feel their views and their concerns about the science are not being taken seriously,­" Maibach said. "It's pretty easy to understand how one gets to a place of anger when they feel dismissed and disrespect­ed."

We all feel disrespected in our opinions.

But as scientists (meteorologists as well), especially if you venture out of your area of specialty, what matters is if you have your facts straight or not.

I have not seen the argument of the 'skeptical' meteorolog­ists that you mention here, but I sure hope it will be better than Happer and his friends, who are verifiably incorrect when they state that "there has been no warming since 2000" and by stating that "climate models have overestimated the global warming trend" display either a deliberately misleading political statement, or are simply blatently ignorant of statistics.”

maxwells on Feb 6, 2012 at 23:00:54

“Then there's the American Meteorolog­­ical Society's climate change statement:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

"Carbon dioxide concentrat­­ion is rising mostly as a result of fossil-fue­­l burning and partly from clearing of vegetation­­; about 50% of the enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere­­, while the rest of the Earth system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years atmospheri­­c CO2 concentrat­­ion has been increasing at a rate much faster than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several thousand years. Global annual-mea­­n surface temperatur­­es are rising at a rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere­­, carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming."

".. there is adequate evidence from observatio­­ns and interpreta­­tions of climate simulation­­s to conclude that the atmosphere­­, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significan­­tly contribute­­d to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems­­, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond."

Climatology is an unrequired elective for AMS certification as a broadcast meteorologist. So, many broadcast meteorologists are essentially clueless about climate science.

http://www.ametsoc.org/amscert/cbmrequirements.html

ubrew12 on Feb 6, 2012 at 22:00:37

“R2: "meteorolog­ists [think] climate is changing... because of natural causes" Did they say what those causes are? Even natural causes should be identifiable. Sunlight (which has varied by an 'astonishing' 0.04% over the last 130 years)? Cosmic Rays (essentially unchanged over the last 40 years)? Volcanic activity? ENSO? What? If the meteorologists don't know, how do they know the cause is natural? How do they explain how the climate could NOT be changing given a 40% change in a potent greenhouse gases concentration over the last 130 years? 40% is like ONE THOUSAND TIMES more of a change than 0.04%.

But, if it IS due to CO2, than its manmade, cuz that one's a 'slam dunk'. If meteorologists really are as clueless as you paint them, I have to wonder about them. Truly, once you admit the climate is changing, you HAVE to give it up to the guys who have been saying it would be changing for the past 60 years. The onus of proof is now on the meteorologists, on HOW they could say the planet is changing due to natural causes, be incapable of identifying those causes, and be unable to explain how a potent greenhouse gas could rise in concentration by 40% WITHOUT being a cause of that change.”

gallon on Feb 6, 2012 at 20:53:52

“I think I see the problem here. Meteorologists are responsible for the weather this week. Climatologists are responsible for the climate a century ahead. Entirely different problems. Entirely different disciplines.

R2, it would be equally valid (or not) to claim a place at the table for almanac writers.”
huffingtonpost entry

Antarctic Glaciers and the Global Water Crisis

Commented Feb 6, 2012 at 15:09:43 in Green

“When you visit a polar region during the Summer Season, the ice will be melting! Duh.

Also, the Antarctic Sea Ice is today at a level greater for this date, than the average of the 1979-2000 period.

Antarctica is evidence that climate change is a natural event. Despite the ever increasing levels of man-made CO2 being released each year, the Antarctic sea ice just keeps reforming each year during the Antarctic Winter period.”

gunnerfan5 on Feb 10, 2012 at 05:47:05

“"When you visit a polar region during the Summer Season, the ice will be melting! Duh"

Do some research Dicky. Antarctica is losing ice mass overall from it's ice sheets. Those are the parts of the ice which are resting on land so loss of ice from them will raise sea levels.

"Antarctica is evidence that climate change is a natural event"

Have you deniers thought about having that line set to music? The way you keep chanting the same old mantra it might work better as a song.”

Fang1944 on Feb 7, 2012 at 10:38:39

“Yes, it should be melting but not to the point that it is now. Now the shipping lines are running freighters through the Arctic during the summer time. That used to be impossible all year round.”

vakh on Feb 7, 2012 at 10:30:43

“Thats why they dont go in the winter”

jimboy71 on Feb 6, 2012 at 21:20:35

“Sea ice may be higher, but land ice is WAY down.

Hmm.

Could it be that the land ice is now in the sea?”

gallon on Feb 6, 2012 at 16:15:52

“Richard2: "When you visit a polar region during the Summer Season, the ice will be melting! Duh."

Thanks for clearing that up R2.”

qwert1234 on Feb 6, 2012 at 15:52:49

“"Also, the Antarctic Sea Ice is today at a level greater for this date, than the average of the 1979-2000 period."

but the loss in the arctic outweighs the gain in the antarctic, so the net effect is a decline.

"Antarctica is evidence that climate change is a natural event."

no, it isn't, at all.

"Despite the ever increasing levels of man-made CO2 being released each year, the Antarctic sea ice just keeps reforming each year during the Antarctic Winter period."

and what's happening to land ice? declining.”

lbsaltzman on Feb 6, 2012 at 15:40:02

huffingtonpost entry

Global Warming Very Real to Baby Seals, Baby

Commented Feb 2, 2012 at 11:00:00 in Green

“Meanwhile, back in the world of reality:


Officials reported 20 more deaths from the cold in Ukraine and nine more in Poland, bringing the overall toll from a week of frigid weather in Eastern Europe to 112.

Emergency crews were working overtime across the region as temperatures sank to minus 26.5 F.

Polish government spokeswoman Malgorzata Wozniak says the victims are primarily homeless people under the influence of alcohol who seek shelter in unheated buildings. Officials on Thursday appealed for the public to quickly help anyone in need.- Associated Press”

Publicola on Feb 2, 2012 at 23:46:32

“Heartland Institute "Skeptic" Hides The Global Warming Incline

Dear Richard2,

Isn't prominent global warming "skeptic" Bob Carter committing de facto fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature data as flat? *

Isn't that like a global warming scam, a climate science hoax, an indefensible lie? 

If you disagree again please provide a valid scientific rational to support Bob Carter's deeply misleading misrepresentation of global warming temperature data over recent decades - thank you.

Please answer the question, Richard2, instead of continuing to run away from it - thank you.

-------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php

hp blogger Neil Wagner on Feb 2, 2012 at 23:27:04

“"...back in the world of reality." By that I assume you are implying that the measurements of sea ice — decades of measurements from numerous disciplines — are wrong. As are the statistics of seals drowning and getting crushed by increasingly thin, broken ice. Is my assumption correct?”
huffingtonpost entry

Wall Street Journal's Portrait of the Young Climate Scientist

Commented Feb 1, 2012 at 20:22:48 in Green

“Anyone who reads through the Climategate e-mails will understand that many climate scientists have behaved poorly. The fact that they haven't apologized for their revealed behavior is telling. The public's trust, once lost, is not easily regained. Being in denial about the contents of the Climategate e-mails doesn't gain any trust from the public.”

palindrom on Feb 8, 2012 at 22:55:45

“"Anyone who reads through the Climategat­e e-mails will understand that many climate scientists have behaved poorly. "

No. Anyone who understands the science who reads through climategate will understand that honest working scientists have been slandered by out-of-context, cherry-picking criminals. Yes, criminals. Those emails were stolen.”

maxwells on Feb 3, 2012 at 19:46:40

“15. And Muller's BEST study, funded by the Koch brothers (sole owners of America's largest fossil fuels company) is the 14th confirmation of Michael Mann's original hockey stick graph of this generation's temperature spike that you keep trying to deny.

Seems the Kochs funded BEST because it was led not just by Muller, but also by Georgia Tech's Judith Curry, who like Muller, was openly skeptical of prior temperature studies.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/

Result?

Muller to the Congressional House Science and Technology Committee,

“We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.” “Global warming is real.”

From:

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011.pdf

Two page BEST summary:

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary_20_Oct.pdf

First four papers from BEST:

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Averaging_Process.pdf

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_UHI.pdf

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Station_Quality.pdf

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Vaiations.pdf

What says Curry NOW?

"I had a 90 minute meeting with Richard Muller this evening. I have to say that there isn’t much that we disagree on." "So all in all, I am ok with what is going on in the BEST project."

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/

maxwells on Feb 3, 2012 at 19:46:07

“9."On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming". J.Geophys.Res.,111(D3),2006
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006352.shtml

10."The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years".Science311(5762):841–844,2006
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5762/841.abstract

11. “Proxy-Based Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstructions”, J.Clim,18, 2308-2329,2005
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3351.1

12."A Bayesian Algorithm for Reconstructing Climate Anomalies in Space and Time. Part I: Development and Applications to Paleoclimate Reconstruction Problems"; Part II: Comparison with the Regularized Expectation–Maximization Algorithm". J.Clim.23(10):2759–2800,2010

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI3015.1
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI3016.1

13. “Borehole climate reconstructions: Spatial structure and hemispheric averages”
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/smerdon/Pollack_and_Smerdon_Journal.pdf

14. “Climate of the last millennium: a sensitivity study”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0870.2002.00287.x/full

maxwells on Feb 3, 2012 at 19:45:31

“And while you're on your broomstick, try to chase away Michael Mann's “hockey stick graph” confirmed by at least

15 MORE "hockey sticks"

1.Science,Jan2011,331,6016,450-453 "Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/450.short

2.Jan2011,Science Express Index "2500 Years of European Climate Variability and Human Susceptibility"
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/oerlemans2005/oerlemans2005.html

3."Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records",Science308,5722,675-677,Apr2005 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/ipcc2007.html

4.Ch6:Palaeoclimate,IPCC 4th Assessment Report
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html

5."Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low/high-resolution proxy data", Nature,433,7026,613-617,Feb2005
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/wilson2007/wilson2007.html

6."A matter of divergence:Tracking recent warming at hemispheric scales using tree ring data", J.Geophys.Res.,112,D17103,Sept2007
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD008318.shtml

7."Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years",Science
317,5839,793-797,Aug2007.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jouzel2007/jouzel2007.html

8."NRC(2006).Surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years".National Academies Press,113–115
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309102251&page=2

maxwells on Feb 3, 2012 at 19:43:32

“So, then Mr. Shill, how do you explain 11 independent formal reviews, all exonerations?

1.Feb2010,RA-10 Inquiry Report:
http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf

2.March2010,House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

3.April2010,Lord Oxburgh Scientific Assessment Panel
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf

4.May2010,Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency:
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/500216002.pdf

5.June2010 RA-10 Final Investigation Report
http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf

6.July2010,Sir Muir Russell/Independent Climate Change Emails Review
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

7.July2010,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html

8.Sept2010,Deutsche Bank Report:
http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/investment-research/investment_research_2355.jsp

9.Sept2010,U.K. Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf

10.Feb2011,U.S.Dept. of Commerce Inspector General's Review:
http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/OIGSearchResults.aspx?k=Michael%20Mann&cs=This%20Site&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oig.doc.gov

11.Aug2011,National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf

Publicola on Feb 3, 2012 at 01:15:19

“Q. Why do climate science deniers obsess and distort the truth about a fake scandal known as 'Climategate'?

A. Because they can't refute the science, of course.”

RickW44 on Feb 1, 2012 at 23:48:12

“The stolen e-mails have actually vindicated the scientists after an independent investigation concluded that there was no wrong doing!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/quirks-quarks-blog/2011/10/new-study-shows-climategate-scientists-were-right.html

Dallas Dunlap on Feb 1, 2012 at 23:38:15

“Richard2 - What's it been, 3 years since those emails were stolen, re-edited, and posted on denier sites? In the meantime there have been no fewer than eleven investigations that cleared the researchers of all wrongdoing.
In the meantime, science moves on and you deniers have nothing but bafflegab, slander, and picking through other peoples' mail.”
Whacking 16 Moles

Whacking 16 Moles

Commented Feb 1, 2012 at 20:18:29 in Green

“Hopefully the Wall Street Journal will also publish serious responses to the editorial by the 16 scientists, from persons with other points of view. It is unfortunate that most Main Stream Media don't provide access to varying points of view on topics as timely as the man-made global warming hypothesis. Let the public hear both sides of the issue, and let the public make up its own mind on this issue.”

ThinkCreeps on Feb 2, 2012 at 04:36:19

“By not publishing the National Academies' reply, the WSJ has demonstrated that it will not do that.

Although, on issues of fact, letting the public decide at its current education level could be a dangerous step. Before you could turn round, we'd be facing a theocracy that views the Flintstones as a documentary and thought that vaccination causes disease.”

Publicola on Feb 2, 2012 at 01:23:21

“The Wall Street Journal previously refused to publish an article with another point of view -- the consensus point of view -- as Dr. Peter Gleick explains:

------------------------------------------------

But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s preeminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter, from more than 15 times as many top scientists. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because some so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it...

Science magazine – perhaps the nation’s most important journal on scientific issues – published the letter from the NAS members after the Journal turned it down.

Do you have an open mind? Read both, side by side. And understand that every national academy of sciences on the planet agrees with the reality and seriousness of human caused climate change.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full.pd

------------------------------------------------

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/
next
1 - 25