Global Warming

More evidence of sidelining of critics:

EPA emails released show that scientists critical of the sweeping legislation were reprimanded for their analyses of the data:

Sample: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision... I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/24/the-climate-change-e-mails-epa-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

Brian
Reality Talk: http://reality.ohio.newintellectuals.org

If the GOP would stop blowing so much hot air, the world would begin to cool.

Just goes to show the fundamentalist, almost religious, undertones surrounding the global warming hysteria. "Denier"? Come on. How dare these people equate critics with those who deny the holocaust?

I prefer "skeptic", thank you very much.

Environmentalists and their political enablers (Al Gore) should feel the sting of blowback from trying to shout down legitimate scientific dissent; They have contributed to a growing rank of skeptics.

As soon as you see it called Global Warming, you know you're not talking to someone who knows anything about the science. It has been called Climate Change for over 20 years now, hence the IPCC not IPGW.

Null hypothesis: Adverse climate change is a result of human activity.

Alternative hypothesis: Adverse climate change is not a result of human activity.

A null hypothesis can not be proved or disproved but an alternative hypothesis can be proved through scientific testing (which then leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis).

NASA launches and loses Carbon-Measuring Satellite ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101102724 ) earlier this year. ( I say the mission was sabotaged to protect the null hypothesis from the possibility that the research would have proved the alternative hypothesis)

Obama calls CO2 "pollution" several times in many different speeches (enough said).

Water-vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases meaning that if all other greenhouse gases except water-vapor were removed from earth's atmosphere, there would still be 95% of the greenhouse gas effect.

U.S. Department of Energy leaves out water-vapor in its Oct. 2000 report on Greenhouse gases to make man-made CO2 contributions look more significant. Here is a look at the numbers ( http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html )

Thank you 20/20 for exposing the ( gray ) lies.

As a physicist, I am totally dismayed by the lack of science in the anthropomorphic claims by the "consensus scientists" led by the famous Nobel Prize recipient, Al Gore. Since the process of "proof" now consists of personally bashing the skeptics, I am convinced that we are on the verge of the world's greatest Ponzi Scheme making Madoff look like an amateur.

As Japan's prime minister of science and technology said at the Global warming conference in Brussels, "Everybody knows man-made global warming doesn't exist but it doesn't pay to say so".

We need the facts without partisan politics entering into it. Only then will we have any chance of tackling the real issues. Looks like I'd better write to Santa for that.

Some scientists say the current warming trend is actually keeping us from going into another mini-ice age like Europe had to endure.

Part of our research where I work monitors the thickness of the ice in the Arctic in addition to visible coverage. I haven't heard any discussion about that and it may turn out to be a bigger problem as relates to the Atlantic Gulf stream "conveyor"

Fact: during the last interglacial period (we are currently in one now), the sea level was 4-6 meters higher than it is today. That was about 120,000 years ago. The climate change Chicken Littles are squawking about a possible sea level rise on the order of a few centimeters at worst.

Fact: Ice ages have been occurring about every 100,000 years. We are about 20,000 years late for the next one.

Fact: latest NASA satellite measurements show the Earth getting cooler for the past eight years.

Fact: Climate change is occurring simultaneously on all the planets in the solar system. See: sun.

Fact: overall, the Earth has been significantly warmer than it is today for many millions of years.

Fact: the current brouhaha about climate change is political, not climatic.

Fact: Al Gore got C's and D's in the few science courses he took in college.

See learned retorts by Lord Moncton:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/docs/20070214a.html

Google plenty more!

-a proud climatic infidel

WHERE WAS AL GORE WHEN THE LAST ICE AGE ENDED,AND THE WORLD WARMED UP?THAT MELTING OF THE ICE MADE OUR LAKES IN MINNESOTA AND THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.I KNOW WHERE HE WAS,HE WAS INVENTING THE INTERNET.

jhw539, your comment suggests that you are both well-informed and resolute in your persuasion, but you are wrong, sir. Both terms, Global Warming and Climate Change are still being used by "real" scientists. This is from NASA's website: "Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect." To read more and become better informed, the URL is:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

In the continuing debate over what extent human activities are responsible for both aspects of these global phenomena, spreading disinformation is not helpful.

Frank, if the available data were not so compelling, a reasonable person might be comfortable with the skeptic moniker. However, the scientifically collected and ordered climate data do confirm a general warming of the planet. The debate among “real” scientists is over. Those remaining in denial are, therefore, deniers. Further, “real” scientists well understand the cause: human activities. To educate yourself, see the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center data site.

http://gcmd.nasa.gov/KeywordSearch/Keywords.do?Portal=GCMD&KeywordPath=Parameters|CLIMATE+INDICATORS&MetadataType=0&homepg=dif

Mr. Pierce, we all know that Al Gore misspoke when he claimed more than justified credit for "inventing" the Internet. He has admitted as much. But this fact negates neither the work of "real" climate scientists nor the important work he has done to heighten world concern about the dangers we face because of climate change. Your comment is a crude appeal to ridicule which is a fallacy or faulty logic in which mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." Shame on you.

Please, Mr. Dimsdale, admit that the "facts" you present are unsubstantiated and, at best, outdated. The URL you have given us leads to an undated letter from Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, to an unidentified editorialist named Ms. Goodman. Readers should know that “Lord” Monckton is no scientist, although he has indeed waxed loudly and eloquently against those who are. Lord Monckton was a British politician, having run unsuccessfully for a seat in the House of Lords and serving as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Prior to this, and subsequently, he was a journalist. His greatest claim to fame has been to champion the argument against "main stream" scientists on what was once a climate change issue. Readers can learn more about him at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

Thank you, sir, but I prefer scientific arguments/discourse made by "real" scientists.

Congress proposes to spend m(b)illions to reduce the man-made CO2 in greenhouse gases.

But 95% of greenhouse gases is water vapor. 4.85% is CO2, but 97% of that comes from trees and vegetation, oceans, and land surfaces. 3% of 4.85% is 0.15%. It is that small component of greenhouse gases that Congress will spend money on.

Okay, Kent. Here are a few:

The rise in skeptical scientists are responding not only to an increase in dire “predictions” of climate change, but also a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data, and inconvenient developments have further cast doubts on the claims of man-made global warming fear activists. The latest peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters is being touted as a development that “could turn the climate change world upside down.” The study finds that the “Earth is undergoing natural climate shift.” The March 15, 2009 article in WISN.com details the research of Dr. Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “We realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said. “I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing,” he added.

Tsonis further added: “The temperature has flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift towards cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.” [ See also: Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 ]

Climate ‘primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms’

Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, also declared natural factors are dominating climate, not CO2. “The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms,” Douglas, who is releasing a major new paper she authored that will be presented at a UNESCO conference in Ghent, Belgium on March 20, 2009, told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 10, 2009.

Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author of more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers, also now points to natural causes of recent climate changes. “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities,” Vaughan told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on February 6, 2009.

Geology Professor Uberto Crescenti of the University G.d'Annunzio in Italy, the past president of the Society of Italian Geologists also agrees that nature, not mankind is ruling the climate. “I think that climatic changes have natural causes according to geological data…I am very glad to sign the U.S. Senate’s report of scientists against the theory of man-made global warming,” Crescenti told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009.

UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions, challenged the IPCC’s climate claims.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!” Japar told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 7, 2009.

Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, professor at Tulane University who has authored 58 peer-reviewed publications and five books, ridiculed man-made climate claims. “Whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens --- the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology," Tipler wrote on December 22, 2008.

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University, and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, says the international promotion of man-made global warming fears are nearing their end. (Note: Bellamy was in the original 2007 U.S. Senate report.] “The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science,” Bellamy, who used to believe in man-made warming, declared on November 5, 2008.

‘Journalistic malpractice’

Chemist Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the American Chemical Society on topics such as methane, squarely blames the media for promoting unfounded climate fears. “The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice…the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical,” Chapman wrote on January 13, 2009.

“Scientists across the globe are catching on -- global warming is not real science. There is a sucker born every minute who believes in it, and Al Gore is playing the role of P.T. Barnum,” Chemist Max S. Strozier declared on December 22, 2009 in an email to the minority staff of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Strozier spent 26 years specializing in chemical laboratory analysis, served as a U.S. Department of Defense aerospace chemist and is a former lecturer at San Jose State University and the University of Texas.

Monckton himself published the following:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Note that the political disclaimer placed at the top of this article is disputed as such: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2IyMDE3NDMzYzgxMGM1ODMxNzU2N2U2ZjM0NjQyMWU=

If you need some refs for the rest of my "facts," I am sure I can please.

I am just a piddling Ph.D (Neuroscience) with a minor in Oceanography/Paleogeology) though...

Okay “Dr.” Dimsdale, clearly you were well prepared to respond to my comment with media reports citing various individual “real” scientists’ claims that the majority view on climate change is wrong. Obviously I walked into a trap. But when I read recent articles published by NASA and NOAA on accelerating levels of carbon dioxide and methane (both greenhouse gases generated by or a consequence of human activities on earth), the IPCC’s climate conclusions seem reasonable and resonate loudly with me.

According to NOAA’s site at

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090421_carbon.html

“Researchers measured an additional 16.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2)a byproduct of fossil fuel burning — and 12.2 million tons of methane in the atmosphere in the year ending December 2008. This increase and the rate of increase is despite the global economic downturn, with its decrease in a wide range of activities that depend on fossil fuel use.” This tells me that we are at or near a tipping point.

Whom should be believe, sir, the few scientists who are skeptical about the human causes of climate change, which is measurable and has been measured, or the majority of scientists who say that we should be concerned and that we should be taking actions to minimize consequences? Not being a scientist myself, I tend to trust the majority.

According to Pieter Tans, a scientist with NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, CO, “Only by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and increasing energy production from renewable resources will we start to see improvements and begin to lessen the effects of climate change,” said scientist. “At NOAA we have monitored carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouses gases for decades and will continue to do so to help assess the situation and advise decision makers.”

I know not why you, sir, are such a vocal critic of the IPCC’s findings and recommendations. But fostering doubt, in what may be mankind’s eleventh hour for political and/or business reasons, if that is what motivates you, is wrong.

Excuse me, Robert, but a null hypothesis, according to Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

formally describes some aspect of the statistical behavior of a set of data. This description is treated as valid unless the actual behavior of the data contradicts this assumption. Thus, the null hypothesis is contrasted against another hypothesis, an alternative. Statistical hypothesis testing is used to make a decision about whether data supporting the alternative hypothesis contradicts the null hypothesis. This is called significance testing. Therefore, an appropriate alternative hypothesis would never be stated as you suggest, i.e., that the null hypothesis is not true. A better example of competing hypotheses would be: 1) Climate change is caused by human activity vs. 2) Climate change is caused by variations in the orbit around the sun.