Shredding the Climate Consensus... Over 1000 scientists, Former IPCC...Rebel. Only 52 scientists Participated in 2007 UN IPCC report! Pathetic

[BethesdaWX]

Fomer IPCC scientists, and thousands of others, are rebelling against the sacred conensus that never was! How dare they!

ONLY 52 SCIENTISTS PARTICIPATED IN THE UN IPCC SUMMARY...what a discrase

So...consensus anyone?

http://wattsupwithth...e-un-ipcc-gore/

As some say..."there are almost no scientists who diagree with AGW"....That is laughable!

I'm going to predict skiers first comment: "Anyone who claims Climategate as a fraud is not even worth mentioning, they are not credible because they don't agree with my view that Climategate was Nothing surprising"

Yet, anyone who sees those emails as good science & the productivity of the SM & other procedures... doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[ORH_wxman]

While this is obviously a skeptic view and will focus on the most outspoken opinions supporting that view, it does capture quite a bit of what we already knew anyway about what is going on with IPCC and the disintegration of science as politics has gotten too involved...most notably the peer reviewed paper issue. They essentially have been black balling a lot of "skeptics" and their papers so they don't end up in journals.

Its a total embarrassment to the scientific community. Luckily the worm seems to be turning now, and more papers are starting to get into the system...slow process but its happening now.

[skierinvermont]

I have a degree in biology.. where can I sign this petition?

[BethesdaWX]

I have a degree in biology.. where can I sign this petition?

Don't ask me, go FOI and find out for yourself.

Wait.....sorry.........You don't count becuase you're not a climate scientist........Only IPCC funded scientists are to be accounted & lobbied for.

[skierinvermont]

Don't ask me, go FOI and find out for yourself.

Wait.....sorry.........You don't count becuase you're not a climate scientist........Only IPCC funded scientists are to be accounted & lobbied for.

How do you know? Maybe secretly I am. Watch out.

Also why would I need a freedom of information request in order to sign a petition? I think google should suffice.

[BethesdaWX]

How do you know? Maybe secretly I am. Watch out.

Jim Hansen! Good to have ya!

[skierinvermont]

Jim Hansen! Good to have ya!

Mwahahaha I want to enslave your children

[ORH_wxman]

You don't count becuase you're not a climate scientist........Only IPCC funded scientists are to be accounted & lobbied for.

The term "climate scientist" is actually pretty silly. At least the way its been presented in a lot of these arguments. A lot of it has to do with funding, and hopefully this is something that will become less of a problem since Climategate. They have essentially blackballed anyone who tries to oppose them, so of course the consensus among "climate scientists" is going to be heavily in favor of the IPCC view. The proof is int he pudding of the emails and many other first hand accounts from anyone who tries to get a "skeptic" paper published in a journal.

But it doesn't take a climate scientist to debunk a lot of the crap they have spewed out. That's really all that matters. IPCC still pretty much doesn't acknowledge ocean cycles as having any real influence on temps...and we have the countless errors by GISS that dummies like McIntyer had to point out to them.

[skierinvermont]

While this is obviously a skeptic view and will focus on the most outspoken opinions supporting that view, it does capture quite a bit of what we already knew anyway about what is going on with IPCC and the disintegration of science as politics has gotten too involved...most notably the peer reviewed paper issue. They essentially have been black balling a lot of "skeptics" and their papers so they don't end up in journals.

Its a total embarrassment to the scientific community. Luckily the worm seems to be turning now, and more papers are starting to get into the system...slow process but its happening now.

I don't see much evidence of papers being shot down. If anything the problem has been shoddy papers making their way into the journals and then subsequently being proven to have contained errors.

[BethesdaWX]

The term "climate scientist" is actually pretty silly. At least the way its been presented in a lot of these arguments. A lot of it has to do with funding, and hopefully this is something that will become less of a problem since Climategate. They have essentially blackballed anyone who tries to oppose them, so of course the consensus among "climate scientists" is going to be heavily in favor of the IPCC view. The proof is int he pudding of the emails and many other first hand accounts from anyone who tries to get a "skeptic" paper published in a journal.

But it doesn't take a climate scientist to debunk a lot of the crap they have spewed out. That's really all that matters. IPCC still pretty much doesn't acknowledge ocean cycles as having any real influence on temps...and we have the countless errors by GISS that dummies like McIntyer had to point out to them.

Agree, and thats what bugs me. My main question is......why? If the science is so sound, why do they need to do this to barely keep their nose out of the water?

[BethesdaWX]

I don't see much evidence of papers being shot down. If anything the problem has been shoddy papers making their way into the journals and then subsequently being proven to have contained errors.

Well I do. Not that it matters what we "non climate scientists" think eh?

[Hambone]

Hey, I have a BA in Political Science from a prestigious university located in Boston. I should get two votes because I'm doubly qualified as this is clearly the merger of politics AND science.

[Hambone]

I attended a talk on AGW by a noted Harvard physicist who spent an hour telling us about the science of carbon and how it proves that AGW is real and an unfolding catastrophe for mankind.

The guy is obviously very bright, but he's a freaking physicist. They live in a world of math and proofs, not the real world. It suddenly dawned on me that "of course he's convinced, there's an equation and proof that on paper shows that carbon traps heat."

That's his science, his life, his world. He can't accept that his formula isn't what drives climate.

How many of these disciplinarians are there involved in the "science"?

He was totally locked into "This is what carbon does, man generates carbon, carbon is rising in the atmosphere, therefore man is responsible for global warming."

I tried to engage him in a couple of diversionary conversations, but he wouldn't leave the carbon train. I even tried the irrefutible Pirate vs Warming correlation:

But he wouldn't budge.

[skierinvermont]

I attended a talk on AGW by a noted Harvard physicist who spent an hour telling us about the science of carbon and how it proves that AGW is real and an unfolding catastrophe for mankind.

The guy is obviously very bright, but he's a freaking physicist. They live in a world of math and proofs, not the real world. It suddenly dawned on me that "of course he's convinced, there's an equation and proof that on paper shows that carbon traps heat."

That's his science, his life, his world. He can't accept that his formula isn't what drives climate.

How many of these disciplinarians are there involved in the "science"?

He was totally locked into "This is what carbon does, man generates carbon, carbon is rising in the atmosphere, therefore man is responsible for global warming."

I tried to engage him in a couple of diversionary conversations, but he wouldn't leave the carbon train. I even tried the irrefutible Pirate vs Warming correlation:

But he wouldn't budge.

I am shocked!

At least you are making an effort to educate yourself though. Try paying attention next time instead of asking dumbass questions about pirates.

[Hambone]

I am shocked!

At least you are making an effort to educate yourself though. Try paying attention next time instead of asking dumbass questions about pirates.

Yes, unlike you and most AGWers I do research both sides of the issue. But you have completely missed the moral of my story.

The Harvard guy is a physicist. His only tool in dealing with climate is carbon and the math behind it. That is his hammer. The problem is alledged to be a warming planet.

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail. Get it? Of course his solution as a physicist is reducing carbon.... that's what he knows. It's mathematical. Duh!

The whole pirate thing was humor...which you obviously lack.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, unlike you and most AGWers I do research both sides of the issue. But you have completely missed the moral of my story.

The Harvard guy is a physicist. His only tool in dealing with climate is carbon and the math behind it. That is his hammer. The problem is alledged to be a warming planet.

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail. Get it? Of course his solution as a physicist is reducing carbon.... that's what he knows. It's mathematical. Duh!

The whole pirate thing was humor...which you obviously lack.

So what exactly don't you understand.

CO2 traps heat. The earth is getting warmer. Reducing carbon would stop this.

[BethesdaWX]

So what exactly don't you understand.

CO2 traps heat. The earth is getting warmer. Reducing carbon would stop this.

OMG.

you realize it don't work that way, right?

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF8/817.html

[needbiggerboat]

OMG.

you realize it don't work that way, right?

http://www.gi.alaska...m/ASF8/817.html

Correct Bethesda....reducing carbon now would not stop global temps from increasing anytime soon, since the C02 forcing from recent emissions will continue to heat the Earth per physics.

[Guest someguy]

I don't see much evidence of papers being shot down. If anything the problem has been shoddy papers making their way into the journals and then subsequently being proven to have contained errors.

It is hard to believe you are this arrogant.

This comes from the UK review of the so called climate gate and CRU with DR Jones

“From: Phil Jones

To: "Michael E. Mann"

Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,

... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Cheers

Phil

Date: Wed Mar 31 09:09:04 2004

Mike,

... Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia.

Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

Cheers

Phil

May 29, 2008-

Phil Jones, director of East Anglia's CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line "IPCC & FOI," "

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise . .”

In this email Dr. Michael Mann points out to their conspiring peer group where the names of editors of the Climate Research Journal are located. Why? So all the conspiring scientists Drs. Mann and Jones and cronies can reject any papers co-authored by editors of Climate Research they receive for review.

Dr. Mann to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003

"I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal [Climate Research] at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute.".........The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose'). Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors: [1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html

[Guest someguy]

SKI VERMONT

I am a GW believer. BUT for you say to day that None of the AGW crowd has or is going out of theior way to STOP legit research simply because THEY-- the pro AGW folks-- dont like their ideas

is well asburd.

It has been clearly going on ..

Frankly it has been attitudes like yours which is why the deniers are winning the day

[skierinvermont]

It is hard to believe you are this arrogant.

This comes from the UK review of the so called climate gate and CRU with DR Jones

“From: Phil Jones

To: "Michael E. Mann"

Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,

... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Cheers

Phil

Date: Wed Mar 31 09:09:04 2004

Mike,

... Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia.

Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

Cheers

Phil

May 29, 2008-

Phil Jones, director of East Anglia's CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line "IPCC & FOI," "

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise . .”

In this email Dr. Michael Mann points out to their conspiring peer group where the names of editors of the Climate Research Journal are located. Why? So all the conspiring scientists Drs. Mann and Jones and cronies can reject any papers co-authored by editors of Climate Research they receive for review.

Dr. Mann to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003

"I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal [Climate Research] at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute.".........The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose'). Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors: [1]http://www.int-res.c.../crEditors.html

SKI VERMONT

I am a GW believer. BUT for you say to day that None of the AGW crowd has or is going out of theior way to STOP legit research simply because THEY-- the pro AGW folks-- dont like their ideas

is well asburd.

It has been clearly going on ..

Frankly it has been attitudes like yours which is why the deniers are winning the day

It appears that in the cases you pointed out the scientists involved believed that the studies were flawed and should not have passed the peer review process. In one quote you give they are simply saying that the study in question is so bad that it likely would not pass the peer review process of GRL even though they have fairly low standards.

In another they are complaining about the obvious bias of a journal. The journal in question was extremely biased (publishing oil industry funded 'science') and doesn't meet even a basic level of scrutiny.. I am not surprised in the slightest that they are discussing ways to marginalize this 'journal'

I was actually duped by the seeming sinister nature of many of these emails at first too. Then I learned the context.. there is still some questionable scientific behavior but by and large I am not surprised or concerned by the content of the emails.

[BethesdaWX]

It appears that in the cases you pointed out the scientists involved believed that the studies were flawed and should not have passed the peer review process. In one quote you give they are simply saying that the study in question is so bad that it likely would not pass the peer review process of GRL even though they have fairly low standards.

In another they are complaining about the obvious bias of a journal. The journal in question was extremely biased and doesn't meet even a basic level of scrutiny..

Denial run rampid

[skierinvermont]

OMG.

you realize it don't work that way, right?

http://www.gi.alaska...m/ASF8/817.html

Yes it is. CO2 tramps heat as I said because it allows shortwave radiation from the sun to pass through it towards earth but prevents longwave radiation (heat) emitted by the earth to pass through it.. essentially trapping this heat in the earth's atmosphere.

This is in fact what the link you posted also says. Maybe you should have read your own link.

carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor and other such gasses in the atmosphere let the solar radiation pass to the earth's surface but impede the reradiation of thermal infrared wavelengths back to space.

[BethesdaWX]

Actually, I take back my post on "denial", because one could infer what they want from the emails. It could be inferred either way, but its still not the right way of handling things either way.

I apologize for that post.

[skierinvermont]

Denial run rampid

The journal in question (The Climate Research Journal) published articles funded by the Oil Industry which contained blatant errors. I am not surprised at all that actual scientists wanted nothing to do with the journal. If I were a scientist, I would do the exact same thing. Resign from the journal, stop submitting to it for publication, and no longer consider it a peer reviewed journal.

[skierinvermont]

Actually, I take back my post on "denial", because one could infer what they want from the emails. It could be inferred either way, but its still not the right way of handling things either way.

I apologize for that post.

Ok well I am glad you can at least see it both ways. There may have been a better way of handling it.. but honestly what are scientists supposed to do when a journal starts publishing Oil Industry funded articles which contain blatant errors?

[BethesdaWX]

Yes it is. CO2 tramps heat as I said because it allows shortwave radiation from the sun to pass through it towards earth but prevents longwave radiation (heat) emitted by the earth to pass through it.. essentially trapping this heat in the earth's atmosphere.

This is in fact what the link you posted also says. Maybe you should have read your own link.

carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor and other such gasses in the atmosphere let the solar radiation pass to the earth's surface but impede the reradiation of thermal infrared wavelengths back to space.

I did, but you obviously didn't read it thoroghly. Because earths atmosphere cannot be compared with a "glass greenhouse".

The more energy there is, the more has to be released. CO2 does not act like a "shield" or "film". CO2 is only 3% of the atmosphere, only 0.28% of all GHG is due to human activities.

Water Vapor, which controls 95% of the GHG effect, will not be affected by slight changes in 3% of a trace gas, by a fraction 0f 0.3%

[BethesdaWX]

Dammit I need sleep, talk to ya later

[skierinvermont]

I did, but you obviously didn't read it thoroghly. Because earths atmosphere cannot be compared with a "glass greenhouse".

The more energy there is, the more has to be released. CO2 does not act like a "shield" or "film". CO2 is only 3% of the atmosphere, only 0.28% of all GHG is due to human activities.

Water Vapor, which controls 95% of the GHG effect, will not be affected by slight changes in 3% of a trace gas, by a fraction 0f 0.3%

You are right about the statistics you cited. We should talk about those another time.

One thing though.. the link you posted actually says the GHG effect from CO2 is more akin to a glass greenhouse than to a polyethelene one.

As usual.. I read every word of what you posted.

Ironically, the notorious "greenhouse effect" really does work the way a gardener's greenhouse was (inaccurately) thought to operate

It's saying the GHG effect really is like a glass greenhouse.

It's sort of a confusing link because it seems more concerned with explaining how polyethelene greenhouses work than the GHG effect which it says is like a glass greenhouse. The polyethelene greenhouse explanation is sort of an irrelevant tangent since it ends up saying the GHG effect is actually more like the glass greenhouse.

[skierinvermont]

Ok guess you went to bed.. hopefully you see my last two posts when you get up.