What Do We Think About Climate Change

Two penguins had to leave Antarctica because their iceberg broke loose. They landed in Argentina and became separated. So one penguin walked into a bar. The bartender asked if he could serve him. The penguin asked,"Have you seen my brother?" The bartender replies, "I don't know. What does he look like?"

 

May we please get back to the climate?


....Crazed Sex Poodle!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0624101gore1.html

I am saddened and dismayed. First, that Bush has caused this. Second, that the one person in which we can hold undying love and admiration (well, he and Jesus - but we havn't seen Jesus in some time) has been besmirched in this manner. What is wrong with the Oregon Tribune for not holding the story, not for another two years, but forever?

Note to Obama: "Scratch their bailout".

 

Press Release from WEF in Davos:

Forum Report Identifies Policy Mechanisms to Bridge Funding Gap For Clean Economy

Complete and absolute denial that anything has changed they are still going for one world socialist government and wealth distribution, still Aardvark did warn you that the Copenhagen snake oil salesman were in town.
http://www.weforum.org/en/media/Latest Press Releases/FPR_AM10greeninvesting

 

More Church of Climatology business as usual from Democratic Congressman Edward Markey:

Business as usual for the warming alarmists.

 

Enery policy in Spain is under a deep revision at this moment. Unexpectedly the two main parties, PSOE (govenrment) and PP (opposition), are negotiating a commitment to redefine the energy policy in Spain. Green alternatives (solar, eolic, etc) are to be evaluated from an economics point of view and programs will be redefined, as such energies are of little efficiency and quite expensive.

For those of you able to read spanish, here the news:
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/econ.../PP/energia/elpepieco/20100625elpepieco_2/Tes

 

Sorry but I found something infinitely more stimulating than you.
http://lab.andre-michelle.com/tonematrix

 

Back to some basics, as much as I would love to argue with a brain dead socialist...........

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/ho...ves-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/

 

The past six months has seen a series of unprecedented setbacks for the cause of catastrophic man-made climate change: the collapse of the Kyoto process; the release of incriminating Climategate emails; the discovery of the shoddy standards of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the mounting evidence that a job-creating green industrial revolution is a fantasy; and the growing suspicion by the public that it has been sold a bill of goods.

The British Royal Society recently released a statement that “Any public perception that the science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect,” thus contradicting its own former president, and true believer, Lord May. And if the science isn’t settled, there can hardly ever have been “consensus” on the issue.

A forthcoming paper by Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, from which the Climategate emails emerged, admits that the actual group involved in the “consensus” that “human activities are having a significant influence on the climate” was in fact “only a few dozen,” rather than the thousands invoked by the IPCC.

Last week, economist Richard Tol, one of the IPCC’s own lead authors, suggested that the whole IPCC process should be suspended until the selection of authors has been fixed. This week, the *IPCC’s head, Rajendra Pachauri, who has previously accused skeptics of flat Earthism and “voodoo science,” suddenly had a Damascene conversion as to the validity of dissent. “I am not deaf,” he wrote, “to those who do not agree with the scientific consensus on man-made climate change. Nor, indeed, to those who do not agree with the findings — or, in some cases, the existence — of the IPCC.”

Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/20...week-climate-junk-hard-to-dump/#ixzz0rxGlQhon

 

The entire AGW hoax and its related social agenda would have been easier to impose and accomplish if the economies that the IPCC agenda sought to steal the money from had not imploded.

The concensus was always a joke and based on surveys taken by warmists among warmists and even then they didn't get more than a 30% response rate.

 

Again no solar experts in IPCC's AR5

IPCC assessed the solar activity development without asking the solar physics or astronomers. There was a single astrophisicist in AR4, Judith Lean, who validated her own work. And they seem to plan doing this in the Fifth Report (AR5, 2010-2015) again. In June 2010 they published the names of the staff for the next IPCC report and the solar chapter has only one solar physicist again, Blanca Mendoza.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/ipcc-wg1-ar5-authors.pdf

Judith Lean and Claus Fröhlich are responsible for scandalous rewriting of the solar activity graphs. The original satellite data showed, that TSI (measured in Watts) increased from 1986 to 1996 by cca one third... But then Judith and Clause "laundered" the graphs and voila... solar output increase was gone.

The people, who were in charge of the satellites and who created the original graphs (the best world astro-physicists: Doug Hoyt, Richard C.Willson) protested against this manipulation. In vain.

R.C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites): "Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments... He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance...The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean's TSI proxy model."

Douglas Hoyt (the famous inventor of GSN - Group Sunspot Number indicator) agrees with Willson. The graph tampering done by Judith and Claus was scientifically unjustified. Hoyt must know that. The questionable changes were done to the data from the Nimbus 7 satellite, where he used to be in charge.


And we may remember how the Norwegian government protested against only one astrophysicist being in the lead author team, without success:

"I urge IPCC to consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section hangs on one single paper in which Judith Lean is the co-author."

I also remember how astrophysicist Boris Komitov complained about IPCC not having solar astrophysicists in their teams. I posted about this in this thread a while ago....

Cheers

 

Petr Chylek: Open Letter to the Climate Research Community

Saturday, 05 December 2009.

I am sure that most of you are aware of the incident that took place recently at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The identity of the whistle-blower or hacker is still not known. The selected release of emails contains correspondence between CRU scientists and scientists at other climate research institutions. My own purely technical exchange of emails with CRU director Professor Phil Jones is, as far as I know, not included.

I published my first climate-related paper in 1974 (Chylek and Coakley, Aerosol and Climate, Science 183, 75-77). I was privileged to supervise Ph. D. theses of some exceptional scientists - people like J. Kiehl, V.Ramaswamy and J. Li among others. I have published well over 100 peer-reviewed papers, and I am a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the Optical Society of America, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. Within the last few years I was also honored to be included in Wikipedia’s (RC’s William Connelly’s) blacklist of “climate skeptics”.

For me, science is the search for truth, the never-ending path towards finding out how things are arranged in this world so that they can work as they do. That search is never finished.

It seems that the climate research community has betrayed that mighty goal in science. They have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view. It seems that some of the most prominent leaders of the climate research community, like prophets of Old Israel, believed that they could see the future of humankind and that the only remaining task was to convince or force all others to accept and follow. They have almost succeeded in that effort.

Yes, there have been cases of misbehavior and direct fraud committed by scientists in other fields: physics, medicine, and biology to name afew. However, it was misbehavior of individuals, not of a considerable part of the scientific community.

Climate research made significant advancements during the last few decades, thanks to your diligent work. This includes the construction of the HadCRUT and NASA GISS datasets documenting the rise of globally averaged temperature during the last century. I do not believe that this work can be affected in any way by the recent email revelations. Thus, the first of the three pillars supporting the hypothesis of man-made global warming seems to be solid. However, the two other pillars are much more controversial.

To blame the current warming on humans, there was a perceived need to “prove” that the current global average temperature is higher than it was at any other time in recent history (the last few thousand years). This task is one of the main topics of the released CRU emails.

Some people were so eager to prove this point that it became more important than scientific integrity.The next step was to show that this “unprecedented high current temperature” has to be a result of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

The fact that the Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models are not able to explain the post-1970 temperature increase by natural forcing was interpreted as proof that it was caused by humans. It is more logical to admit that the models are not yet good enough to capture natural climate variability (how much or how little do we understand aerosol and clouds,and ocean circulation?), even though we can all agree that part of theobserved post-1970 warming is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Thus, two of the three pillars of the global warming and carbon dioxide paradigm are open to reinvestigation.The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded. At least a part of the IPCC 2007 report has been put in question. We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility. Yes, there always will be a few deniers and obstructionists.

So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC. Let us get back to work.

Let us encourage students to think their own thoughts instead of forcing them to parrot the IPCC conclusions. Let us open the doors of universities, of NCAR, NASA and other research institutions (and funding agencies) to faculty members and researchers who might disagree with the current paradigm of carbon dioxide.

Only open discussion and intense searching of all possibilities will let us regain the public's trust and move forward.

Regards,

Petr Chylek


Taken from: http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros...letter-to-the-climate-research-community.html

 

oh you caught them

its was all just a big conspiracy and now you've blown there cover

I can just see the headlines now

"global warming conspiracy exposed on boatdesign forum"

Its not a conspiracy Guillermo its pretty simple what's happening. The number of people doing research on the issue has ballooned and they need a better system of collating all the data is all. There is no worldwide evil plan and there is no social agenda involved in the IPCC reports. The original panel members are simply overwhelmed by the complexity of the issue and are seeking to add some resources with which to compile a more detailed and more accurate report this time around.

you make it sound like they are suddenly caving in to some rare few malcontents which is hardly the case

I'm going to bet you are not aware of how many papers from how many scientific disciplines get submitted to the IPCC in the course of even one year let alone four

all they are doing is setting up a panel of people from each discipline to study the veracity and implications of each work so they can put out the best possible product

its been a desire of there's to broaden the scope of the team for a while and now they finally will get to make some improvements

 

You are wrong, Boston, and you know it is a conspiracy. Gaia is dead.

 

I'm going to bet you are not able to post here any paper from IPCC AR4 by solar physicists, other than Judith Lean's.

 

which might just be why they are finally getting the approval to increase there human resources so that they can look at the truckloads of reviewed work that gets sent to them every day of the year

if you were keeping up on the real climate site you would know this

what is kinda funny is that they are not doing this in response to any findings to the contrary they are doing this so that they can provide better science to the world community and they have been planing on increasing there staff for quite some time.

I know you would like to think its some big fraud but its called science and it works by constantly improving the process, which is exactly what they are doing.

hope all is well
B

ok Im off to the ren fest with my spectacular daughter
cheers