P
pixelsmith
Guest
LMAO!!! Now that is funny!
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Free episodes:
One name. Naomi Oreskes. Look her up, look at her talks, listen to some common sense. David, I know now why you refuse to get caught up in all this. Sense has left the building, and her weird drunkard sister is sitting on the couch and refusing to leave. I'm waiting for pixelsmith to say 'Goddamned Commies' at some stage.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
You are not serious... really? She got debunked several years ago.... are you a goddamned commie or what?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
This article in Harpers pretty much explains the driving force behind the AGW scam.
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/Conning-the-Climate.pdf
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/Conning-the-Climate.pdf
Just a side note...
I find the injection of Adolf Hitler into this thread, whether used for satirical purposes or not, extremely inappropriate and quite lame. That said, it doesn't surprise that my opposition finds it "funny".
My sympathies to those of the Jewish persuasion who may find themselves sensitive to such behavior.
~J
I find the injection of Adolf Hitler into this thread, whether used for satirical purposes or not, extremely inappropriate and quite lame. That said, it doesn't surprise that my opposition finds it "funny".
My sympathies to those of the Jewish persuasion who may find themselves sensitive to such behavior.
~J
Bent Faith
Says you...
Geezus what an opportunistic panderer you are.
Not a commie, sympathetic to social democracy, you should look it up sometime. So, tell, exactly how and by whom was she debunked? Lets start there shall we, a critical look into the claims of and counter claims against Ms. Oreskes, and lets see where we can go from there, shall we?
Lets try rational debate, shall we?
I'm not surprised you think so. However, attempting to associate those who recognize the reality of Climate Change, which includes many of the Jewish faith, with the views of Adolf Hitler (even as parody) is something I find to be done in extremely poor taste and IMO, quite ignorant to the sensitivities of others.
And I said so.
If you find that to be "opportunistic pandering", then that is your prerogative I suppose.
Schuyler
Misanthrope
There is just so much out there it's hard to know where to start. If you still are a believer in AGW after the vast amount of evidence I have presented to the contrary in this thread alone, I would maintain that you are nucking futs. You've been had; you've been mislead. You've hitched your wagon to the wrong pony that turned out to be an ass.
By Alan Caruba
As the massive global warming fraud implodes, the one aspect of it that has not been explored in depth is the equally massive waste of billions of dollars spent by the United States and nations around the world, we were told, to avoid global warming.
Whole industries such as automobile manufacture had demands and limits put on them. Some states required utilities to buy “carbon credits” to offset their use of “fossil fuels.” The list of things attributed to global warming expanded to the point of total absurdity.
The codification of the fraud into law began with the Kyoto Protocol, an element of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change whose purpose was to fight a global warming that we now know was not happening.
The data to support the fraud came out of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that specialized in distorting climate data in every way possible to emphasize a normal warming cycle and then to minimize any indication of a new cooling cycle dating to around 1998 or earlier.
The IPCC data, released periodically in reports purporting to be the work of some 2,500 scientists from around the world, were actually based the handiwork of a few academic centers such as the Climate Research Center (CRU) at East Anglia University in England, Penn State University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and climate modeling from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
Other participants in the fraud were NASA’s Goddard Institute and NOAA, both of whom produced claims, predictions, and questionable data to support “global warming.”
In the U.S. alone, I have heard figures in the area of $50 billion that have been spent on “climate change” over the course of administrations dating back to Clinton. In England, between 2006 and 2008, the government spent the equivalent of nearly $14 million (U.S.) on publicity stunts to convince Brits that global warming was real.
It is legitimate to ask if global warming has not in effect been a criminal enterprise.
The Kyoto Protocol required the nation states that signed onto it to commit to a reduction of four “greenhouse” gas, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, and two groups of gases, hydrofluorocarbons and perflourocarbons. These gases occur in minimal amounts in the Earth’s atmosphere which is composed primarily of 95% to 97% water vapor!
The cost of accepting this commitment is measured in several ways, not the least of which was the sale of “carbon credits” to utilities and to industrial enterprises that would permit them to function outside the limits imposed. The exchanges created for this purpose prospered but it increased the cost of providing electrical energy and the manufacture of all manner of products.
The limitations, however, did not apply to either China or India, both of which were exempted, as were undeveloped Third World nations.
The climate change fraud also affected major U.S. corporations, none of whom wanted to appear to be opposed to it. However, on Tuesday, February 16th, BP America, Conoco Phillips, and Caterpillar all announced they were dropping out of the Climate Action Partnership that advocated energy-rationing. Some of the millions squandered on various global warming and “environmental” projects and groups came from the bottom line of corporations across the nation.
At this point, any corporation that speaks of “climate change” in its advertising and other public statements is part of the global fraud that originated in the United Nations Environmental Program.
The carbon emissions limitations also served to justify huge public subsidies for U.S. producers of wind and solar energy, called “clean” energy. Several nations, such as Spain, Germany and Great Britain, invested heavily in these alternative energy sources only to discover that they were massively inefficient and unreliable.
At the same time, the global warming fraud in the United States limited the building of coal-fired plants to generate electricity when, in fact, coal provides 50% of the nation’s electricity needs. Combined with fears of nuclear energy dating back to the 1970s, the United States has essentially starved itself of the energy it needs.
According to a recently released study by the National Association of Utility Regulatory Commissioners, the U.S. gross domestic product would lose $2.36 trillion and American consumers will pay an additional $2.35 trillion for energy if the oil and gas on federal lands remain off-limits through 2030. This constitutes a form of energy and economic suicide!
A British newspaper, the Daily Mail in a recent interview with CRU Prof. Phil Jones, revealed he knew there had been no “statistically significant” warming for the past fifteen years. Little wonder Prof. Jones and the CRU refused to honor UK Freedom of Information requests for the data on which the IPCC claims were based. He and others who provided IPCC data are under investigation.
In essence, the IPCC reports were all fraudulent and all were used to advance the global warming fraud. That is why President Obama’s claim of “overwhelming evidence” of climate change, i.e., global warming is particularly troubling.
It is essential to understand that the “Cap-and-Trade” legislation passed by the House and waiting for a vote in the Senate is based on the IPCC reports and the threat by the Environmental Protection Agency to begin regulating carbon dioxide emissions throughout the nation have no legitimate basis in science.
There are still billions at stake if global warming-related laws, projects such as wind farms or the requirement that ethanol be added to every gallon of gas purchased are permitted to proceed or continue.
Global warming as an issue or basis for any law or expenditure of public funding no longer exists.
It’s long passed the time when the nation’s news media should stop referring to it as anything other than a fraud perpetrated on the people of the world.
As the massive global warming fraud implodes, the one aspect of it that has not been explored in depth is the equally massive waste of billions of dollars spent by the United States and nations around the world, we were told, to avoid global warming.
Whole industries such as automobile manufacture had demands and limits put on them. Some states required utilities to buy “carbon credits” to offset their use of “fossil fuels.” The list of things attributed to global warming expanded to the point of total absurdity.
The codification of the fraud into law began with the Kyoto Protocol, an element of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change whose purpose was to fight a global warming that we now know was not happening.
The data to support the fraud came out of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that specialized in distorting climate data in every way possible to emphasize a normal warming cycle and then to minimize any indication of a new cooling cycle dating to around 1998 or earlier.
The IPCC data, released periodically in reports purporting to be the work of some 2,500 scientists from around the world, were actually based the handiwork of a few academic centers such as the Climate Research Center (CRU) at East Anglia University in England, Penn State University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and climate modeling from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
Other participants in the fraud were NASA’s Goddard Institute and NOAA, both of whom produced claims, predictions, and questionable data to support “global warming.”
In the U.S. alone, I have heard figures in the area of $50 billion that have been spent on “climate change” over the course of administrations dating back to Clinton. In England, between 2006 and 2008, the government spent the equivalent of nearly $14 million (U.S.) on publicity stunts to convince Brits that global warming was real.
It is legitimate to ask if global warming has not in effect been a criminal enterprise.
The Kyoto Protocol required the nation states that signed onto it to commit to a reduction of four “greenhouse” gas, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, and two groups of gases, hydrofluorocarbons and perflourocarbons. These gases occur in minimal amounts in the Earth’s atmosphere which is composed primarily of 95% to 97% water vapor!
The cost of accepting this commitment is measured in several ways, not the least of which was the sale of “carbon credits” to utilities and to industrial enterprises that would permit them to function outside the limits imposed. The exchanges created for this purpose prospered but it increased the cost of providing electrical energy and the manufacture of all manner of products.
The limitations, however, did not apply to either China or India, both of which were exempted, as were undeveloped Third World nations.
The climate change fraud also affected major U.S. corporations, none of whom wanted to appear to be opposed to it. However, on Tuesday, February 16th, BP America, Conoco Phillips, and Caterpillar all announced they were dropping out of the Climate Action Partnership that advocated energy-rationing. Some of the millions squandered on various global warming and “environmental” projects and groups came from the bottom line of corporations across the nation.
At this point, any corporation that speaks of “climate change” in its advertising and other public statements is part of the global fraud that originated in the United Nations Environmental Program.
The carbon emissions limitations also served to justify huge public subsidies for U.S. producers of wind and solar energy, called “clean” energy. Several nations, such as Spain, Germany and Great Britain, invested heavily in these alternative energy sources only to discover that they were massively inefficient and unreliable.
At the same time, the global warming fraud in the United States limited the building of coal-fired plants to generate electricity when, in fact, coal provides 50% of the nation’s electricity needs. Combined with fears of nuclear energy dating back to the 1970s, the United States has essentially starved itself of the energy it needs.
According to a recently released study by the National Association of Utility Regulatory Commissioners, the U.S. gross domestic product would lose $2.36 trillion and American consumers will pay an additional $2.35 trillion for energy if the oil and gas on federal lands remain off-limits through 2030. This constitutes a form of energy and economic suicide!
A British newspaper, the Daily Mail in a recent interview with CRU Prof. Phil Jones, revealed he knew there had been no “statistically significant” warming for the past fifteen years. Little wonder Prof. Jones and the CRU refused to honor UK Freedom of Information requests for the data on which the IPCC claims were based. He and others who provided IPCC data are under investigation.
In essence, the IPCC reports were all fraudulent and all were used to advance the global warming fraud. That is why President Obama’s claim of “overwhelming evidence” of climate change, i.e., global warming is particularly troubling.
It is essential to understand that the “Cap-and-Trade” legislation passed by the House and waiting for a vote in the Senate is based on the IPCC reports and the threat by the Environmental Protection Agency to begin regulating carbon dioxide emissions throughout the nation have no legitimate basis in science.
There are still billions at stake if global warming-related laws, projects such as wind farms or the requirement that ethanol be added to every gallon of gas purchased are permitted to proceed or continue.
Global warming as an issue or basis for any law or expenditure of public funding no longer exists.
It’s long passed the time when the nation’s news media should stop referring to it as anything other than a fraud perpetrated on the people of the world.
DamnDirtyApe
Skilled Investigator
LMAO.. "He didn't mean that about Starbucks" .. "maybe we can go back to global cooling" ha ha ha
bobheck
Disco still sucks.
And I would say the exact same thing to you. Congrtulations. You are now in the same category as Dick Cheney, the entire Fox News team and Glenn Beck, all highly trustworthy sources of information with absolutley no ulterior motives.
You have also fallen prey to a tink tank in Washington called the George Marshall institute. Their founder was involved in the denial of the fact that tobacco causes cancer. Their methods are to cause doubt, and they're the people who made sure that big Tobacco companies ddn't have to pay out a cent until the evidence was so great that they had no choice. They produce papers claiming that the science is bad, force the media to have experts from the other side of the debate on TV shows in for a more balanced debate, making it seem as if there is a debate within the scientific community over Global warming. None of their so-called scientific papers are submitted for peer review.
This is not a debate about science, this is a debate about ideology. These men are what is known as free market fundamentalists, and their hatred of all those things that they consider 'communist' has become a kind of paranoia.
I think that most people in America are pro-market. That's fine. Let's have a reasonable debate about ideology and which approach we should take to tackling this problem (and yes, there is a problem). Their deception is making America the laughing stock of the world. You sir have been duped, well and truly.
DamnDirtyApe
Skilled Investigator
You have it backwards. The global warming true believers are the fools in this situation.
Using the supposed 'scientific consensus' as evidence to support global warming is particularity ironic on a PARANORMAL message board. Guess what - pretty much every scientist who argues both for and against global warming can all agree that 100 percent of the paranormal topics on this board are bullshit. There's your consensus for ya.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
The debate is indeed about science. We have shown you the science. You have literally lost yours and rely on faith. Period.
Schuyler
Misanthrope
I've been showing anomolies to 'the science' here for days. 'The science' is flawed. You actually have to look at the fucking data to see this, look at the computer code, look at the trend lines, look at how they fudged the data. If you rely on news reports you can't possibly know anything about 'the science.' These guys have been hiding behind their status as 'scientists' and covering up flawed research.
Originally from Anthony Watts Watts Up With That?
Good example of the urban heat island issue.
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I got to thinking about the (non) adjustment of the GISS temperature data for the Urban Heat Island effect, and it reminded me that I had once looked briefly at Anchorage, Alaska in that regard. So I thought I’d take a fresh look. I used the GISS (NASA) temperature data available here.
Given my experience with the Darwin, Australia records, I looked at the “homogenization adjustment”. According to GISS:
Figure 1. Homogenization adjustments made by GISS to the Anchorage, Alaska urban temperature record (red stepped line, left scale) and Anchorage population (orange curve, right scale)
Now, I suppose that this is vaguely reasonable. At least it is in the right direction, reducing the apparent warming. I say “vaguely reasonable” because this adjustment is supposed to take care of “UHI”, the Urban Heat Island effect. As most everyone has experienced driving into any city, the city is usually warmer than the surrounding countryside. UHI is the result of increasing population, with the accompanying changes around the temperature station. More buildings, more roads, more cars, more parking lots, all of these raise the temperature, forming a heat “island” around the city. The larger the population of the city, the greater the UHI.
But here’s the problem. As Fig. 1 shows, until World War II, Anchorage was a very sleepy village of a few thousand. Since then the population has skyrocketed. But the homogeneity adjustment does not match this in any sense. The homogeneity adjustment is a straight line (albeit one with steps …why steps? … but I digress). The adjustment starts way back in 1926 … why would the 1926 Anchorage temperature need any adjustment at all? And how does this adjust for UHI?
Intrigued by this oddity, I looked at the nearest rural station, which is Matanuska. It is only about 35 miles (60 km) from Anchorage, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Anchorage (urban) and Matanuska (rural) temperature stations.
Matanuska is clearly in the same climatological zone as Anchorage. This is verified by the correlation between the two records, which is about 0.9. So it would be one of the nearby rural stations used to homogenize Anchorage.
Now, according to GISS the homogeneity adjustments are designed to adjust the urban stations like Anchorage so that they more closely match the rural stations like Matanuska. Imagine my surprise when I calculated the homogeneity adjustment to Matanuska, shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Homogenization adjustments made by GISS to the Matanuska, Alaska rural temperature record.
Say what? What could possibly justify that kind of adjustment, seven tenths of a degree? The early part of the record is adjusted to show less warming. Then from 1973 to 1989, Matanuska is adjusted to warm at a feverish rate of 4.4 degrees per century … but Matanuska is a RURAL station. Since GISS says that the homogenization effort is designed to change the ”long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbors”, why is Matanuska being adjusted at all?
Not sure what I can say about that, except that I don’t understand it in the slightest. My guess is that what has happened is that a faulty computer program has been applied to fudge the record of every temperature station on the planet. The results have then been used without the slightest attempt at quality control.
Yes, I know it’s a big job to look at thousands of stations to see what the computer program has done to each and every one of them … but if you are not willing to make sure that your hotrod whizbang computer program actually works for each and every station, you should not be in charge of homogenizing milk, much less temperatures.
The justification that is always given for these adjustments is that they must be right because the global average of the GISS adjusted dataset (roughly) matches the GHCN adjusted dataset, which (roughly) matches the CRU adjusted dataset.
Sorry, I don’t find that convincing in the slightest. All three have been shown to have errors. All that shows is that their errors roughly match, which is meaningless. We need to throw all of these “adjusted datasets” in the trash can and start over.
As the Romans used to say “falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus”, which means “false in one thing, false in everything”. Do we know that everything is false? Absolutely not … but given egregious oddities like this one, we have absolutely no reason to believe that they are true either.
Since people are asking us to bet billions on this dataset, we need more than a “well, it’s kinda like the other datasets that contain known errors” to justify their calculations. NASA is not doing the job we are paying them to do. Why should citizen scientists like myself have to dig out these oddities? The adjustments for each station should be published and graphed. Every single change in the data should be explained and justified. The computer code should be published and verified.
Until they get off their dead … … armchairs and do the work they are paid to do, we can place no credence in their claims of temperature changes. They may be right … but given their egregious errors, we have no reason to believe that, and certainly no reason to spend billions of dollars based on their claims.
Originally from Anthony Watts Watts Up With That?
Good example of the urban heat island issue.
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I got to thinking about the (non) adjustment of the GISS temperature data for the Urban Heat Island effect, and it reminded me that I had once looked briefly at Anchorage, Alaska in that regard. So I thought I’d take a fresh look. I used the GISS (NASA) temperature data available here.
Given my experience with the Darwin, Australia records, I looked at the “homogenization adjustment”. According to GISS:
The goal of the homogenization effort is to avoid any impact (warming or cooling) of the changing environment that some stations experienced by changing the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbors, while retaining the short term monthly and annual variations.
Here’s how the Anchorage data has been homogenized. Figure 1 shows the difference between the Anchorage data before and after homogenization:
Figure 1. Homogenization adjustments made by GISS to the Anchorage, Alaska urban temperature record (red stepped line, left scale) and Anchorage population (orange curve, right scale)
Now, I suppose that this is vaguely reasonable. At least it is in the right direction, reducing the apparent warming. I say “vaguely reasonable” because this adjustment is supposed to take care of “UHI”, the Urban Heat Island effect. As most everyone has experienced driving into any city, the city is usually warmer than the surrounding countryside. UHI is the result of increasing population, with the accompanying changes around the temperature station. More buildings, more roads, more cars, more parking lots, all of these raise the temperature, forming a heat “island” around the city. The larger the population of the city, the greater the UHI.
But here’s the problem. As Fig. 1 shows, until World War II, Anchorage was a very sleepy village of a few thousand. Since then the population has skyrocketed. But the homogeneity adjustment does not match this in any sense. The homogeneity adjustment is a straight line (albeit one with steps …why steps? … but I digress). The adjustment starts way back in 1926 … why would the 1926 Anchorage temperature need any adjustment at all? And how does this adjust for UHI?
Intrigued by this oddity, I looked at the nearest rural station, which is Matanuska. It is only about 35 miles (60 km) from Anchorage, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Anchorage (urban) and Matanuska (rural) temperature stations.
Matanuska is clearly in the same climatological zone as Anchorage. This is verified by the correlation between the two records, which is about 0.9. So it would be one of the nearby rural stations used to homogenize Anchorage.
Now, according to GISS the homogeneity adjustments are designed to adjust the urban stations like Anchorage so that they more closely match the rural stations like Matanuska. Imagine my surprise when I calculated the homogeneity adjustment to Matanuska, shown in Figure 3.
Say what? What could possibly justify that kind of adjustment, seven tenths of a degree? The early part of the record is adjusted to show less warming. Then from 1973 to 1989, Matanuska is adjusted to warm at a feverish rate of 4.4 degrees per century … but Matanuska is a RURAL station. Since GISS says that the homogenization effort is designed to change the ”long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbors”, why is Matanuska being adjusted at all?
Not sure what I can say about that, except that I don’t understand it in the slightest. My guess is that what has happened is that a faulty computer program has been applied to fudge the record of every temperature station on the planet. The results have then been used without the slightest attempt at quality control.
Yes, I know it’s a big job to look at thousands of stations to see what the computer program has done to each and every one of them … but if you are not willing to make sure that your hotrod whizbang computer program actually works for each and every station, you should not be in charge of homogenizing milk, much less temperatures.
The justification that is always given for these adjustments is that they must be right because the global average of the GISS adjusted dataset (roughly) matches the GHCN adjusted dataset, which (roughly) matches the CRU adjusted dataset.
Sorry, I don’t find that convincing in the slightest. All three have been shown to have errors. All that shows is that their errors roughly match, which is meaningless. We need to throw all of these “adjusted datasets” in the trash can and start over.
As the Romans used to say “falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus”, which means “false in one thing, false in everything”. Do we know that everything is false? Absolutely not … but given egregious oddities like this one, we have absolutely no reason to believe that they are true either.
Since people are asking us to bet billions on this dataset, we need more than a “well, it’s kinda like the other datasets that contain known errors” to justify their calculations. NASA is not doing the job we are paying them to do. Why should citizen scientists like myself have to dig out these oddities? The adjustments for each station should be published and graphed. Every single change in the data should be explained and justified. The computer code should be published and verified.
Until they get off their dead … … armchairs and do the work they are paid to do, we can place no credence in their claims of temperature changes. They may be right … but given their egregious errors, we have no reason to believe that, and certainly no reason to spend billions of dollars based on their claims.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Schuyler you are posting science stuff again. These AGW guys do not understand such gibberish.
The above presentation by Schuyler of a "Watts Up With That" blog post is exactly the kind of "science" (as he and Pixelsmith call it) one should avoid at all cost. For starters, if you follow the link to GISS surface station temperature data sets provided, and then search both the links provided on that page ( For a list of stations actually used click here, for the full list (copied from GHCN's website and augmented from SCAR) click here.), you'll not find a reference to a Matanuska surface temp station in either link, nor does a simple Google search turn up any reference to Matanuska and surface temps, GISS or otherwise. And yet we see that the author of the "Science" infers a relationship with his misleading graph of "Imagine my surprise when I calculated the homogeneity adjustment to Matanuska, shown in Figure 3." while presenting a image that titles the graph as being GISS calculations rather than his own. The whole post is nothing but misleading pseudo science gobblydygook. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time for Mr. Eschenbach. From Deltoid...
Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: December 9, 2009 2:21 PM, by Tim Lambert
Remember how the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition made the warming trend in New Zealand go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site? Well, Willis Eschenbach has followed in their foot steps by using the same scam on Australian data. He claims that for Darwin "the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling".
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
And another instance of Eschenbach's "Science".
Climate Fraudit
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: August 29, 2006 1:20 PM, by Tim Lambert
The graph below shows the predictions of James Hansen's 1988 climate model overlaid (in blue) with observed temperatures. Hansen's scenarios B and C have turned out to be very good predictions of what actually happened. Of course, it is an article of faith amongst the global warming skeptics that the models are wrong, so what do they do?
Well, there are only two things you can do to make Hansen look bad -- you can misrepresent the results of his model, or you can misrepresent the instrumental record. The first approach is the one taken by Pat Michaels, who dishonestly erased scenarios B and C from Hansen's graph. The second approach is the one taken by Willis Eschenbach over at Climate Audit. If you move your mouse over the figure above, you can see Eschenbach's version. By doctoring the instrumental measurements so that they were all lower, he makes it look like Hansen's model predicted more warming that what was actually observed.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate_fraudit.php
This is the kind of "science" AGW denialist would have you believe discredits AGW theory. This is the kind "science" that somehow proves that those who see through the charade are "nucking futs". This is the kind of propagandist cherry picking, misrepresentation and outright manipulation of true science those who deny AGW would have you put your faith in.
I'll let the reader make the call....
Hi Bob.
Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: December 9, 2009 2:21 PM, by Tim Lambert
Remember how the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition made the warming trend in New Zealand go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site? Well, Willis Eschenbach has followed in their foot steps by using the same scam on Australian data. He claims that for Darwin "the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling".
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
And another instance of Eschenbach's "Science".
Climate Fraudit
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: August 29, 2006 1:20 PM, by Tim Lambert
The graph below shows the predictions of James Hansen's 1988 climate model overlaid (in blue) with observed temperatures. Hansen's scenarios B and C have turned out to be very good predictions of what actually happened. Of course, it is an article of faith amongst the global warming skeptics that the models are wrong, so what do they do?
Well, there are only two things you can do to make Hansen look bad -- you can misrepresent the results of his model, or you can misrepresent the instrumental record. The first approach is the one taken by Pat Michaels, who dishonestly erased scenarios B and C from Hansen's graph. The second approach is the one taken by Willis Eschenbach over at Climate Audit. If you move your mouse over the figure above, you can see Eschenbach's version. By doctoring the instrumental measurements so that they were all lower, he makes it look like Hansen's model predicted more warming that what was actually observed.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate_fraudit.php
This is the kind of "science" AGW denialist would have you believe discredits AGW theory. This is the kind "science" that somehow proves that those who see through the charade are "nucking futs". This is the kind of propagandist cherry picking, misrepresentation and outright manipulation of true science those who deny AGW would have you put your faith in.
I'll let the reader make the call....
Hi Bob.
bobheck
Disco still sucks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
My my, how you must feel now, Jonah -- oh wait, I have it...
My my, how you must feel now, Jonah -- oh wait, I have it...
Isn't it ironic Bob, that the two scientist given credit for finding errors in Siddalls paper, Vermeer and Rahnsdorf, actually predict potential sea level rise (1.9m) that more than doubles the IPCC's original high-end estimate (59cm) and almost doubles Siddall's prediction of 82cm.
Global sea level linked to global temperature - PNAS .pdf ` Martin Vermeera,1 and Stefan Rahmstorf, Department of Surveying, Helsinki University of Technology, P.O. Box 1200, FI-02150, Espoo, Finland; and bPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Telegrafenberg A62, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved October 26, 2009 (received for review July 15, 2009)
We propose a simple relationship linking global sea-level variations on time scales of decades to centuries to global mean temperature. This relationship is tested on synthetic data from a global climate model for the past millennium and the next century. When applied to observed data of sea level and temperature for 1880–2000, and taking into account known anthropogenic hydrologic contributions to sea level, the correlation is >0.99, explaining 98% of the variance. For future global temperature scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, the relationship projects a sea-level rise ranging from 75 to 190 cm for the period 1990–2100.
From your article...
"At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher. Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100."
"In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".
Thanks for the lead, Bob. Keep up the good work.
Global sea level linked to global temperature - PNAS .pdf ` Martin Vermeera,1 and Stefan Rahmstorf, Department of Surveying, Helsinki University of Technology, P.O. Box 1200, FI-02150, Espoo, Finland; and bPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Telegrafenberg A62, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved October 26, 2009 (received for review July 15, 2009)
We propose a simple relationship linking global sea-level variations on time scales of decades to centuries to global mean temperature. This relationship is tested on synthetic data from a global climate model for the past millennium and the next century. When applied to observed data of sea level and temperature for 1880–2000, and taking into account known anthropogenic hydrologic contributions to sea level, the correlation is >0.99, explaining 98% of the variance. For future global temperature scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, the relationship projects a sea-level rise ranging from 75 to 190 cm for the period 1990–2100.
From your article...
"At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher. Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100."
"In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".
Thanks for the lead, Bob. Keep up the good work.