Now we know who pays our trolls

[WeatherRusty]

I remain unconvinced that the warming between 1978 and 1997 was all generated by greenhouse gas increases. But if it was, it sets in motion the inevitable question, why did the rate of warming slow down in the past decade? Greenhouse gas levels are reportedly rising at the same rate, if not faster, so this requires that the theory be adjusted to account for interactions between greenhouse effect and natural variability. Yet this interaction is very poorly understood, if we take as our standard the only possible criterion, predictability. Until we get reliable predictions for years into the future, we just can't really say whether any of the theory is valid or not.

It makes me suspicious that the theory is not very well developed, whenever I read statements like "researchers believe the cooling in the years during and after the Second World War can be attributed to increased industrial activity" because this sounds like an effort to validate the anthropogenic paradigm for other periods besides the AGW period, which to me has almost no reliable scientific basis. The much more likely reason for the cooling would be natural variability.

We do not have the luxury of a control earth that could undergo natural variability without the added greenhouse gases, to determine what would have happened from 1940 to the present with no human population present. The variations that have actually occurred may well fit some AGW theory to some extent, but similar variations have happened in the past without humans present. I happened to read an article in a magazine entitled "The Skeptic" which takes climate skeptics (they call them deniers, I suppose in part since they don't want to confuse the validity of their chosen name for the publication). In that article, the claim was made that it was a false claim to suggest natural variability was the cause of the observed changes since 1940. However, there was no substantial reasoning presented to demonstrate how that is a false claim. They also stated that earlier warmings, the MWP and the Holocene, were not as dramatic as recent warming, and tried to pass them off as limited in regional scope. Yet this is known to be untrue, the MWP is generally thought to be about as strong as the recent warming, and certainly was known to be stronger in Greenland and eastern Canada. The Holocene warming is also known to be 1-2 deg warmer than even this past decade or two. The arbutus tree flourished in northwest Ireland in locations where it is unknown today. So, some of this "official debunking" of the climate-change-skeptic position is in itself contrived and not factual. I don't think we can have a fair debate or discussion if one side just defines itself to be right and then turns around and says, "see, you are wrong, because we have defined ourselves to be right."

Some of the debating points of the AGW lobby are perhaps better than others; the worst one is definitely the point that says all responsible scientists agree with the theory (because critics are defined to be irresponsible). That is a clear example of circular reasoning. Of course, science has seen this sort of exclusionary mentality before, for example, with glaciation and continental drift. Note that these were also earth science controversies. Hmm. Another weak argument that I noted in the article was that, without greenhouse gases, we were due to rush towards a glacial episode within a thousand years (because of Milankovitch cycle factors) -- but on the contrary, we are in a rather weak variability phase of these orbital factors and it would be more like ten to twenty thousand years before the next glacial was due. To be frank, I would have to ask AGW proponents, what exactly will be gained by moving back to a timetable that ensures a glacial episode in the near future? This would be far worse in social terms than even the worst impacts theorized under AGW. This would become apparent a long time before the glaciers pushed south into highly populated parts of Europe and North America, the climate shifts before that would be massive and presumably very harmful to our economies. It would seem valid to consider that the interplay between greenhouse effect and natural variability might actually be playing out in our favour. If the warming effects are as strong as the higher end of predictions, and natural cooling is similar to the Dalton minimum, then the outcome might actually be a steady-state climate (one would guess that it might be of higher variability than other near-average decades).

However, in social-political terms, the outcome of this situation will depend on what actually happens to the temperature trend over 20-40 years. If it continues to become more stable or if it unexpectedly starts to drop, then the AGW theory will have to be revised -- at some point there will be no way to sustain its major flaw, a lack of predictive ability. I don't claim absolute knowledge of this outcome. It is possible that the AGW theory is essentially correct and that warming will continue at rates that more or less validate the theory. For me, that will have to take this GISS index into the +1.0 to +1.5 range eventually, if it stays below that for most of the century, but above +0.6, then we will probably have a stalemate, and if it falls back, then we will see a strong push for a revised theory that favours natural variability factors.

Why do you feel the theory would need to be adjusted? Anticipated equilibrium climate sensitivity may be 'only' 2C on the lower end of what is considered most likely according to available evidence.. The climate always displays natural variability, why should it not during AGW? There will be times when the rate in temp rise will be enhanced and others diminished by things like solar variability, ENSO and aerosol pollution from industry and volcanoes etc.

There is actually no room for revision in the physics which says that for example, if CO2 concentration is doubled a 3.7W/m^2 forcing is induced. In order for the Sun to overcome that kind of forcing, solar output would have to decrease by 22W/m^2 as received at the top of Earth's atmosphere. That is not going to happen. No other radiative forcing mechanism is known to come anywhere near negating 3.7W/m^2. Clouds could, and that is why skeptics push the cosmic ray induced CCN theory so hard. They see the need to attribute an outside (Earth) cause to cloud variability.

Milankovitch cycling will not favor NH glaciation for several tens of thousand years, when 60 degrees north latitude insulation decreases by a few percent during summer so that the previous winter's snow does not fully melt away. Even so, glaciation requires many thousands of years to develop the thick ice sheets typical of ice ages.

[The_Global_Warmer]

This isn't all that unusual when you consider we are in the middle of the +AMO cycle and the AMO has shown to have a direct relationship to temps in Greenland. The warming rate in the 1930's was on par with today if not greater and shockingly enough they were in the middle of a +AMO regime. Yes there was glacier melt as well.

Yeeh, I dunno. Non-adjusted AMO tells us the lowest years during this positive cycle are near the peak of the highest years during the lst positive cycle. On top of that the negative cycle was very short lived compared to what appears to be stepping higher longer positive cycles.

If we extrapolated this cycle to only warm a bit more before leveling off and trending downward and projected a cold cycle like the last two, it would be near the 1930s amo or much higher.

The AMO may turn out to be a very real indicator of where the continuously warming Atlantic Waters move heat around.

There is nothing showing any stopping of the heat continuing to collect on Earth, water or land.

[TerryM]

Roger

I remain unconvinced that the warming between 1978 and 1997 was all generated by greenhouse gas increases. But if it was, it sets in motion the inevitable question, why did the rate of warming slow down in the past decade?

I'm not aware of anyone claiming that all the warming in any particular 2 decade span was due to any single source. My understanding is that a 30 year period is the minimum at which weather events become climate events. Decadal periods are, to the best of my knowledge, never viewed as having sufficient longevity to separate 'noise' (weather) from long term trends (climate).

I'm an amateur, so don't take the above as scripture, but I do believe it's the accepted view.

BTW - Have you read Rusty's post #540 above?

Terry

[WeatherRusty]

To Roger Smith,

Why would you prefer to gain your understanding of paleoclimatology from wherever you have rather than from a scientific institution such as NOAA?

SEE Paleoclimatology

[Roger Smith]

Well you can place the regression line wherever you want in the data 1997-2011 but the fact remains that the warming has become flat-line since 2002, as I showed in the five-year segments (0.55, 0.54 past two five-year segments) and this is not misrepresenting anything, it is simply the average of the data presented. I have never said that this is a cooling trend. Others may have, I would say they are also wrong. The recent ten year trend is steady-state, neither warming nor cooling. This has been a very warm year so far in the U.S. and perhaps we are about to see another step up in the global averages. Time will tell. I did mention that my own prediction is for warming to reach the range of 0.8 to 1.2 C at some point between now and 2040.

As to debunking the "myth" of the warming levels in the MWP, I have read some of that and find it to be debunking of statements that I did not make here, such as, the MWP was a lot warmer than the modern warming. I have seen evidence that it was similar to the modern warming period, the Holocene warming was warmer than current warming (and this is sometimes explained as a peak in insolation allowed by the Milankovitch cycles, which I would tend to accept). The NOAA paleo-climatology resource seems to show a peak in the MWP around 950-1050 AD that is slightly below modern levels. Yet it was accepted before the AGW debate began that temperatures had probably peaked above modern levels in Greenland and possibly in parts of Europe although I would be willing to accept from the cultural evidence that the situation was about on a level par with today. If somebody could prove the peak was 0.1 lower or whatever, that would hardly change the fact that natural variability can place us in a similar climate to today, without our modern civilization being present. I find that more enthusiastic AGW proponents take these presentations and spin them to say "it was nowhere near as warm then as it is now," and that just isn't what the data show -- it was very similar, and as far as my own statements about eastern Canada and Greenland, those remain unrefuted, since we have only a sketchy idea at best what climate the Norse explorers or settlers actually encountered. Anecdotally, it is thought that species of wild grapes could be found in the Newfoundland outpost, that do not flourish there in today's relatively mild climate. Also, the Norse settlements in Greenland suggest at the very least the equal of today's conditions. Obviously that all changed around 1350 to something much colder.

There is also a widely overlooked period of natural warming around 1730 in the CET record that suggests modern warming is not that unusual. That period was not sustained for very long, but some five and ten year averages come very close to the modern warming standard. My point is that natural variability is the big player, not greenhouse gas variation.

Where I actually stand, and I don't want to be misrepresented either, is that the modern warming could be explained mainly by natural variability, and human influence could be analyzed as mainly urban heat island effects which must be draining out into the larger climate periodically (when urban heat islands are dispersed by stronger winds), so that's a bit different from saying that we've seen 0.5 to 1.0 C of warming all due to human greenhouse gas emissions (and I understand people are saying feedback can then release methane from the subarctic). I'm not new to this discussion, just to this forum thread.

My closing position (there seems no point in continuing to beat a dead horse) is that natural variability can explain most of the recent variations in global climate and that the AGW theory remains unproven -- not the science that says the atmosphere should warm if carbon dioxide increases, I am not trying to deny that, but who knows what our natural climate would be doing without this factor? If we don't know that, we can't honestly say that we understand changes that we are seeing. There is also the factor that changes we are seeing could be cast in different paradigms. Some see an alarming increase in heat waves, drought, hurricanes, severe storms, etc. Others see more of a cyclical process that brings us back to extremes of the past. There again, I suspect the concern is more rhetorical than absolutely factual. The heat waves of 1911 and 1936 remain impressive despite anything we've seen recently. The tri-state tornado of 1925 remains the single worst event of its kind. The 1900 hurricane was worse than Katrina. Yet nobody would seriously entertain a theory that severe weather is reducing over time. Data points can be used to illustrate any theory you can imagine. Regression lines can be placed over data with a sort of coercive effect, but that sometimes requires a studied choice of end points to get the effect you want to show. It works both ways. But I am not confused about what is not known, and that is, where the trend lines go next. If we knew that for certain, we would understand the process better than we do. I know what seems most likely, a continued irregular increase, but the scale of that increase remains very much a mystery. And rational public policy decisions have to be made despite that vast uncertainty. I am concerned about this -- if natural variability could promote the same catastrophic melting, then should we not be planning for that eventuality, rather than trying to prevent it by technological change? And it is also prudent to ask, what are the political realities? If Asian countries don't want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and if albedo changes are also a big factor in ice reduction, then realistically, should we not be planning around inevitable climate change? It makes little sense to me to cling to a forlorn hope that carbon dioxide levels will stop rising. And it's hardly my personal fault if they do keep rising. I don't even own a car.

[dabize]

Well you can place the regression line wherever you want in the data 1997-2011 but the fact remains that the warming has become flat-line since 2002, as I showed in the five-year segments (0.55, 0.54 past two five-year segments) and this is not misrepresenting anything, it is simply the average of the data presented. I have never said that this is a cooling trend. Others may have, I would say they are also wrong. The recent ten year trend is steady-state, neither warming nor cooling. This has been a very warm year so far in the U.S. and perhaps we are about to see another step up in the global averages. Time will tell. I did mention that my own prediction is for warming to reach the range of 0.8 to 1.2 C at some point between now and 2040.

As to debunking the "myth" of the warming levels in the MWP, I have read some of that and find it to be debunking of statements that I did not make here, such as, the MWP was a lot warmer than the modern warming. I have seen evidence that it was similar to the modern warming period, the Holocene warming was warmer than current warming (and this is sometimes explained as a peak in insolation allowed by the Milankovitch cycles, which I would tend to accept). The NOAA paleo-climatology resource seems to show a peak in the MWP around 950-1050 AD that is slightly below modern levels. Yet it was accepted before the AGW debate began that temperatures had probably peaked above modern levels in Greenland and possibly in parts of Europe although I would be willing to accept from the cultural evidence that the situation was about on a level par with today. If somebody could prove the peak was 0.1 lower or whatever, that would hardly change the fact that natural variability can place us in a similar climate to today, without our modern civilization being present. I find that more enthusiastic AGW proponents take these presentations and spin them to say "it was nowhere near as warm then as it is now," and that just isn't what the data show -- it was very similar, and as far as my own statements about eastern Canada and Greenland, those remain unrefuted, since we have only a sketchy idea at best what climate the Norse explorers or settlers actually encountered. Anecdotally, it is thought that species of wild grapes could be found in the Newfoundland outpost, that do not flourish there in today's relatively mild climate. Also, the Norse settlements in Greenland suggest at the very least the equal of today's conditions. Obviously that all changed around 1350 to something much colder.

There is also a widely overlooked period of natural warming around 1730 in the CET record that suggests modern warming is not that unusual. That period was not sustained for very long, but some five and ten year averages come very close to the modern warming standard. My point is that natural variability is the big player, not greenhouse gas variation.

Where I actually stand, and I don't want to be misrepresented either, is that the modern warming could be explained mainly by natural variability, and human influence could be analyzed as mainly urban heat island effects which must be draining out into the larger climate periodically (when urban heat islands are dispersed by stronger winds), so that's a bit different from saying that we've seen 0.5 to 1.0 C of warming all due to human greenhouse gas emissions (and I understand people are saying feedback can then release methane from the subarctic). I'm not new to this discussion, just to this forum thread.

My closing position (there seems no point in continuing to beat a dead horse) is that natural variability can explain most of the recent variations in global climate and that the AGW theory remains unproven -- not the science that says the atmosphere should warm if carbon dioxide increases, I am not trying to deny that, but who knows what our natural climate would be doing without this factor? If we don't know that, we can't honestly say that we understand changes that we are seeing. There is also the factor that changes we are seeing could be cast in different paradigms. Some see an alarming increase in heat waves, drought, hurricanes, severe storms, etc. Others see more of a cyclical process that brings us back to extremes of the past. There again, I suspect the concern is more rhetorical than absolutely factual. The heat waves of 1911 and 1936 remain impressive despite anything we've seen recently. The tri-state tornado of 1925 remains the single worst event of its kind. The 1900 hurricane was worse than Katrina. Yet nobody would seriously entertain a theory that severe weather is reducing over time. Data points can be used to illustrate any theory you can imagine. Regression lines can be placed over data with a sort of coercive effect, but that sometimes requires a studied choice of end points to get the effect you want to show. It works both ways. But I am not confused about what is not known, and that is, where the trend lines go next. If we knew that for certain, we would understand the process better than we do. I know what seems most likely, a continued irregular increase, but the scale of that increase remains very much a mystery. And rational public policy decisions have to be made despite that vast uncertainty. I am concerned about this -- if natural variability could promote the same catastrophic melting, then should we not be planning for that eventuality, rather than trying to prevent it by technological change? And it is also prudent to ask, what are the political realities? If Asian countries don't want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and if albedo changes are also a big factor in ice reduction, then realistically, should we not be planning around inevitable climate change? It makes little sense to me to cling to a forlorn hope that carbon dioxide levels will stop rising. And it's hardly my personal fault if they do keep rising. I don't even own a car.

What a mixture of oft repeated and refuted claptrap (black, bolded), irrelevant and often dubious assertions (red), Rovian accusations that others use one's own most outrageous tactics (mauve) and finally, exculpatory appeals for inaction (green)!

Troll

[WeatherRusty]

The paleoclimate record clearly indicates natural variability as the proximate cause for the Earth's history of climate change. Most recently, the past 3.5 million years of NH glaciation has followed a pattern in sync with the Earth's orbital parameters in producing glacial and interglacial periods. The same can be said for the Holocene Thermal Maximum some 6,000 years ago. During this entire period atmospheric CO2 level have remained between 180ppm and 280ppm.

These Milankovitch cycles operate on time scales measured in thousands of years and can not be the proximate cause of our current warming which has occurred over the past 150 years. Thus, the known cause of large scale, global warming and climate change can be eliminated as a potential candidate of natural variability working on the current situation.

What about intrinsic solar variability? Evidence indicates solar output to vary by about 0.1% or 1.3W/m^2. This is sufficient to produce a temperature variation on Earth of about 0.1C over the globe as a whole before any climate feedback.

The global temperature has risen about 0.8C over the past 150 years or so. 0.1C due to increased solar radiation. What about the remainder. How is that accounted for if it is to be found in examples of natural variability?

The solar 0.1C should have been augmented somewhat by positive feedback, such as water vapor, ice albedo loss etc. So let's assign 0.2C as ultimately due to solar since the water vapor feedback about doubles the radiative forcing effect.

What about ocean cycles? These do not produce energy, therefore they can not raise the temperature of the surface. They can redistribute where the warmer and cooler waters reside and thus cause local variation in climate. They also cause a variation in terrestrial outgoing infrared radiation, mostly in the tropics, but this effect is near perfectly reversed over the course of a full cycle.

Volcanism? Yes, definitely. Aerosol pollution? Yes definitely.

The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Ages are best accounted for through a combination in solar variability and volcanism.

Black carbon deposition, soot (albedo change)? Yes

Deforestation? Yes

Urban Heat Island? NO, recognized and accounted for.

Poorly placed instrumentation? NO, also recognized and accounted for.

Instrument error? Yes and NO.......Assigned margin for error factored in producing uncertainty.

Cosmic Ray induced CCN (cloud condensation nuclei) ? Low cloud variability? Unknown effect if any.

Anything else?

Scientists have done these types of analysis and have concluded natural variability does not account for much of the 0.8C. Is it safe to say that approximately 75% of the warming incurred would not have happened without the contribution of mankind's activities? Fossil fuel burning, deforestation, the production of cement and agricultural practices (rice and cattle etc).

[PhillipS]

There is a new video posted at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media. It talks about Heartland's recent billboard fiasco and is well worth watching.

From the intro:

This month’s “This Is Not Cool” Yale Forum video explores a phrase popularized — or more likely made infamous — by the recent Heartland Institute Chicago highway poster featuring Unabomber Ted Kaczynski: “murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”

[dabize]

There is a new video posted at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media. It talks about Heartland's recent billboard fiasco and is well worth watching.

From the intro:

This month’s “This Is Not Cool” Yale Forum video explores a phrase popularized — or more likely made infamous — by the recent Heartland Institute Chicago highway poster featuring Unabomber Ted Kaczynski: “murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”

Interesting how Maggie's political bent (militaristic, anti social support net) don't keep her from seeing the truth when it comes to AGW.

I remember being surprised when MT came out forcefully in favor of stopping Milosevic's anti-Muslim/Croat slaughter at the time of the siege of Vukovar in 1991 - a time when action might really have saved a lot of lives, but a time when nobody else (including Bush 1) was willing to lift a finger to help - not even in Europe. It impressed me deeply - I had always been (justly) very anti-Thatcher until then, but I was forced to respect her a lot for that.

It just goes to show that both a deep sense of responsibility and deep callousness to human suffering can cohabit in the same individual.

So put me in on AGW with Ted Kaczynski and Uncle Joe........and Winston Churchill............and Mohandas P. Gandhi......... and Maggie.

[PhillipS]

**UPDATE** - Dr Peter Gleick cleared of forging Heartland document. There is an article in the Guardian on the results of the external investigation. From the article:

A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his expose of the rightwing Heartland Institute's strategy and finances, the Guardian has learned.

Gleick's sting on Heartland

brought unwelcome scrutiny to the organisation's efforts to block action on

climate change

, and

prompted a walk-out of corporate donors

that has created uncertainty about its financial future.

Gleick, founder of the

Pacific Institute

and a well-regarded water expert, admitted and apologised for using deception to obtain internal Heartland documents last February.

The news isn't very surprising because despite Heartland's strident allegations against Dr Gleick they never offered a viable motive for him to forge a document when he had the whole trove of actual Heartland documents which covered the same material.

It has been more than three months since Dr Gleick released the Heartland internal documents and there have been no criminal charges filed against him, nor has Heartland filed a civil suit against him. Hmmm. I guess impersonating a skeptic isn't that serious an offense.

[dabize]

I guess impersonating a skeptic isn't that serious an offense.

Think of it as like being seen in full clown costume in the Russian Tea Room or on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.

People may turn their heads or mutter under their breath, and proprietors may eject the perpetrator from private premises, but he can only really be held responsible socially for having bad bad taste...................

[PhillipS]

In the latest development in this long running soap opera, Dr Peter Gleick has been reinstated as the President of the Pacific Institute following an independent investigation into the episode. From the LA Times article:

Peter Gleick, an internationally known Bay Area scientist, has returned to his post as president of the Pacific Institute following a three-month leave of absence prompted by his admission that he had assumed a false identity to obtain documents from a conservative think tank.

In a

statement

released Wednesday, Pacific’s board of directors said outside counsel had conducted an independent investigation that “supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute. This independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.”

Gleick, a widely quoted expert in water and climate change issues, came under a cloud in February when he admitted that he had obtained internal board documents from Heartland by assuming a false identity and then leaked the papers to selected media.

He apologized at the time, saying his actions amounted to "a serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics" and were sparked by frustration with efforts by Heartland to undermine climate science.

I expect that Dr Gleick will continue to be villified in denialist blogs, but I find it interesting that in the months since this episode began no charges of any kind have been filed against Dr Gleick - so either his actions were unprofessional but not actually illegal, or the local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies are part of the International Climate Conspiracy. It is also interesting that Heartland hasn't filed any civil suit against Dr Gleick. That may be because thay are nice folks willing to let bygones be bygones or, ( and I hope you'll forgive my cynicism) they know that they would have their collective heinies handed to them if this ever went before a jury. Not to mention Bast and others having to testify under oath.

[dabize]

I find it interesting that in the months since this episode began no charges of any kind have been filed against Dr Gleick - so either his actions were unprofessional but not actually illegal, or the local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies are part of the International Climate Conspiracy. It is also interesting that Heartland hasn't filed any civil suit against Dr Gleick. That may be because thay are nice folks willing to let bygones be bygones or, ( and I hope you'll forgive my cynicism) they know that they would have their collective heinies handed to them if this ever went before a jury. Not to mention Bast and others having to testify under oath.

They're not poetic enough to handle the consequences of injudicious prosecution like this guy did

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

I must say that the idea of Murdoch, the Koch's et. al. dying destitute on the streets with tertiary syphilis the way Wilde did does rather appeal to me.......

[TerryM]

Bump

I think it's important for some of us to remember where the denial came from. We get so engaged with the deniers that we forget that Koch and Shell and others are laughing all the way to the well head.

Terry

[dabize]

Bump

I think it's important for some of us to remember where the denial came from. We get so engaged with the deniers that we forget that Koch and Shell and others are laughing all the way to the well head.

Terry

Quite

In a world in which even petty property crimes carry penalties ranging from years of incarceration to death, these b$st$rds deserve something really special.......

How about the classical English penalty for treason?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered

[TerryM]

(bump)

[Vergent]

Take your pick

http://www.holytaco.com/25-brutal-historical-methods-of-execution/

[dabize]

Take your pick

http://www.holytaco....s-of-execution/

Of course, if you are a W.S. Gilbert fan, there would be no problem...

<<Ko: Besides, I don't see how a man can cut off his own head.

POOH: A man might try.

PISH: Even if you only succeeded in cutting it half off, that would be something.

POOH: It would be taken as an earnest of your desire to comply with the Imperial will.

Ko: No. Pardon me, but there I am adamant. As official Headsman, my reputation is

at stake, and I can't consent to embark on a professional operation unless I see my way to

a successful result.

POOH: This professional conscientiousness is highly creditable to you, but it places us in a

very awkward position.

Ko: My good sir, the awkwardness of your position is grace itself compared with that of a

man engaged in the act of cutting off his own head. >>

[TerryM]

Q - I don't see how a man can cut off his own head.

A - With a cheap & chippy chopper on a big black block

​The Wandering Mistral

Terry

[dabize]

Q - I don't see how a man can cut off his own head.

A - With a cheap & chippy chopper on a big black block

​The Wandering Mistral

Terry

Say

"To sit in solemn silence in a pestilential prison while awaiting the sensation of a cheap and chippy chopper on a big black block"

10 times, fast.......

[dabize]

Upon consideration, I think that we'd better get back on topic. Mea culpa.

The gravity of this problem requires some seriousness, despite the inherently Red-baiting type nature of the subject.

Although, I suspect that Tony is going to have a tough time making his take on todays extent minimum RECORD fly very far.

I won't link to him - he says that the Arctic storm was a one off thing and that it is responsible for the record.

Predictable as a metronome..........

[TerryM]

Just a little reminder to thank the Koch Brothers and Big Oil for the gifts we are about to receive.

Terry

[dabize]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/pbs-newshour-climate-change_n_1894042.html?utm_hp_ref=climate-change#comments

I don't ever want to hear that PBS is "liberal" media again.

That changed years ago with the ascent of Mr Tomlinson, a Bush flunky, at PBS.

They're now treating Tony (Heartland) Watts as an authority on AGW and climate change

[TerryM]

Just a bump to remind us all of the good folk who started the controversy over global warming.

Terry

Who still smokes "The cigarettes preferred by most doctors"

[TerryM]

A bump for the good Dr. Roy

"maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing."

Dr. R. Spencer

Terry

[dabize]

A bump for the good Dr. Roy

"maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing."

Dr. R. Spencer

Terry

Damn - I was covering the limbic system in lecture today and mentioned how the connectivity favored the weighting of emotional context over the picture painted by facts and reason.

That Spencer quote would have been a perfect illustration of this!

[PhillipS]

There is a good post on Climate Denial Crock of the Week with videos on the denialist communities methods of undermining climate science and spreading doubt.

Video on the fake on-line identities being created to give the illusion that many people are uncertain.about AGW

And a video on organized training of conservative activists on how to corrupt on-line information sources

[Vergent]

There is a good post on Climate Denial Crock of the Weekwith videos on the denialist communities methods of undermining climate science and spreading doubt.

Video on the fake on-line identities being created to give the illusion that many people are uncertain.about AGW

And a video on organized training of conservative activists on how to corrupt on-line information sources

The only thing missing was specific instruction to troll any climate discussion onto the AMO.

[The_Global_Warmer]

A bump for the good Dr. Roy

"maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing."

Dr. R. Spencer

Terry

Right when he and Crook Christy dramatically lowered UAH for 2012.

Just because you do the right thing, doesn't mean 20 percent of it isn't fraudulent.

GRAY AREA.

[TerryM]

Larry Hamilton may be familiar to all as the masterful statistician who graphs the demise of Arctic ice over at Neven's site. in real life he's published a paper

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00008.1

and made the authors draft available.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~lch/Hamilton_Arctic_ice7e.pdf

I'd been privy to it previously but had hesitated to quote extensively since it was paywalled. Among other things it shows that Democrats with secondary schooling or less were more cognizant of actual scientifically verifiable facts about global warming than Republicans who had achieved masters degrees. The paid propagandists have done their work extremely well, so well that a college educated Republican is more likely to answer incorrectly than a Republican with less education. Disinformation apparently can be statistically linked to political persuasion, but not so clearly to educational achievement.

The paper is well worth the read & may go far in explaining why otherwise reasonable people are incapable of noticing things that are so evident to the unindoctrinated.

For those right wingers who have managed to see through smoke and mirrors - congratulations. For the Independents, stay in school - your education will remove the blind spots. For Democrats, keep up the fight - the facts are on your side.

Terry